1
it'll be amazing if we ever win another election

2
speaking of Pence...

Why isn't he running for Senate in IN?

If Pence thinks he has a shot at the GOP nomination in 2012 he's sadly mistaken. He'd make a good Veep on the ticket, though.

3

BWahahaha!

Hawk's parade... everybody's cheering...

They introduce Mayor Daley.

Boooo! Booo! Booo!

4 >>speaking of Pence... >>Why isn't he running for Senate in IN? A leader in the House is just as powerful as a Senator. You're asking "Why doesn't he fight hard for a lateral move to another company?" It's not a promotion.

5
And Carly friggin Fiorina...

what a fickin amateur. How in the year 2010 are candidates still finding themselves in the trap of the open mic?

6 Generally speaking the people that want to push social conservative to the side are exactly the same people that will compromise on EVERY part of the conservative agenda when push comes to shove.

7 Why am I seeing "Dish Latino" ads??

8
It's not a promotion.

It is if you have presidential aspirations. Besides, we need someone in IN who can snatch Bayh's seat.

9 I'm in the comments over at RedState defending Daniels right now. As soon as the word abortion is mentioned over there it's like an announcement of a meteor headed towards Earth has been made -  people lose their fucking minds. 

10 He is staying on message - economy uber alles , no red herrings, no distractions. Get focused on November -- economy, jobs, debt, - nothing else. On questions on war and terrorism -- just let the professionals do their job.

11 Oh, and traditionally social conservatism has been MUCH more popular then economic conservativism, at least outside of tax cuts. That might be changing with Obamanomics, but it is hard to argue that conservatives would pick up more support if they compromised on issue of Life for example.

Or to put it another way, did the Republicans do better in 2004 when they ran as (but did not govern) as full fledged conservatives, or in 2008 when they ran as social moderates who supported tax cuts?

12

I'm missing the controversy here.

He's right.

The deficit and hijacking of the Constitution trumps all the other bullshit that divides the party.

I look at this way, if I'm a possible candidate and the first person I piss off is Huckabee, I'm doin' it right!

13

He's also said that he doesn't know whether or not Obamacare is constitutional.   Hint: if you want MY vote or anyone who thinks like me, you better figure that out real quick!  Don't just try to hand me some mealymouthed version of what Steny Hoyer would say. 

I was one who had been hoping he would turn out to be something, but if this is the kind of pablum he's going to spew - put a fork in him, he's done.  Nothing more to see here, move along.

14

Generally speaking, 18-1, can you fucking point out someone as an example, or did you preface that statement with "generally speaking" to relieve yourself of actually having to provide support for that statement.

15 It's ALL or NOTHING.

16 And Carly friggin Fiorina...

what a fickin amateur. How in the year 2010 are candidates still finding themselves in the trap of the open mic?

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:13 PM (uFokq)

YEAH! IT'S A BIG FUCKING DEAL.

17 6 -- maybe, but I get annoyed when I feel that social cons are pushing their agenda to the very front of the list, too. I mean, it's not my agenda, so of course I feel that way. But still the annoyance is there. I don't like being instructed by Instapundit that I have to embrace decriminalization to fight the War on Terror, and I also don't like being instructed by social cons that I have to embrace social conservatism fully to boot Obama out of office and return America to a more sensible economics. It's this whole leveraging the big issue we all agree on into support of some other issue thing that I don't like.

18 What does it mean?  It means he's a pussy, not a Chris Christie.

Next.

19 As long has we continue to have a Welfare state, I'm opposed to legalization (despite personal history).  I am, however, becoming more and more opposed to the War on Drugs.

20 right, "next." I heard a lot of "nexts" from people in 2008 as everyone was disqualified and we wound up with John McCain.

21

Agree about Pence.  He's been outspoken and strong in the last year or so.  Love to see him on a ticket as VP. 

Thune--competes with Mittens for Best Hair&Boobs; that's about it.

Daniels--meh.  He'd better figure out pronto that the stool has 3 legs.  I agree that the fiscal part has priority now, but the other two don't go the back burner.

22 My feeling on funding of abortions is that the federal government should not be funding ANY medical procedures at all.

And yes, the war on drugs was lost 40 years ago. We need to surrender and eliminate the DEA. That would solve a lot of economic problems.

23 This a Fact of Life that every Republican and conservative since the late 1960s must be intensely aware of:  Nearly every media flunky / hack is constantly and relentlessly out to ruin or destroy you.  This is how they 'make their bones'.

It really is that simple:  Repubs and cons are targets; Demos and libs are protected species.  So, every word and gesture and actual act will be subjected to hyper-scrutiny.  THE MIKE IS NEVER 'OFF'

Reagan know how to deal with this reality, and was good at turning it around for his own benefit.  McCain didn't ( understatement of the year )

Gradually, the Old MFM will die out:  Newsweek is on life support and won't last long; CNN and the NYTimes are funded by Deep Leftie Pockets and not read or watched by normal people. 

But for a while longer, this Sonderkommando of media scum is out there, with cameras and mikes, alert and hoping to bag another Repub or con.  Their Holy Grail is the resignation of Nixon, and every one of these shit-stains wants to re-do that Moment of Glory

24 I can sort of always tell the Palin supporters.

25 General Petraeus? Damn, yeah! He'd make a great Vice President! Or maybe he can run in 2020, or something!!!

26 Myself, not being a Godless Pagan still wish,  Fuckabee and his Bible thumping Evangelicals would go fuck themselves.

27 Oh, and one last point, the notion that we can only focus on one thing at once is counterproductive.

Bush feel into this trap after 2004 - we can't pursue conservative domestic policy because we need to win the war. Well, his "truce" saw the Democrats respond by focusing on trying to make us lose the war.  So we didn't advance on domestic issues, and we instead let them frame all of politics on one issue that they could easily demagogue.

By comparison, Reagan fought in multiple theaters at once - the Cold War, tax cuts, enviro-policy, etc.

Let's use the Reagan model and take the fight to everywhere the Democrat agenda is unpopular, which currently is almost all of it.

Hit them on abortion, spending, taxes, corruption, unions, etc. Don't let up, don't ever let up.

28

It means he's a pussy, not a Chris Christie.

Umm, the same Chris Christie that is no friend to the the 2nd Amendment?

Okey dokey, then! You go with that!

29 It's not a promotion.

It is if you have presidential aspirations. Besides, we need someone in IN who can snatch Bayh's seat.


Does anyone in America think after 2008, what we really need is another Senator in the White House?  I'm not sure anyone is getting a lot of brownie points for being part of the most hated Congress in living memory, unless they're distinguishing themselves in opposition.  Which Pence can do as one of the few "somebodies" in the House.  In the Senate he'd be just another Republican going through the motions of opposition, no different from McCain or the Maine twins.

30 Whoops, Chris Christie is disqualified too -- NEXT!!!

31

I look at this way, if I'm a possible candidate and the first person I piss off is Huckabee, I'm doin' it right!

+1

Huckabee is a shameless and slimey politician who advances his own interests by posturing as the secular savior of put-upon "values voters" and socons.  NOBODY of any real consequence in the GOP adamantly opposes the policy prescriptions that Huckabee positions himself as the sole defender.  But so long as Huckabee and his ilk can make socons think that the GOP is this close to caving on abortion or gay marriage, he can gin up support.

And we're going to have to get a hold of our current economic/fiscal/monetary mess or Roe v. Wade is gonna be the least of our effing concerns.  Daniels is right.  Priorities, people.  Priorities.*

 

 

*Although I agree with Ace, Daniels will have to walk back the Mexico City policy comment, since a president can impact that right away with an EO.

32

^{*sniff* *sniff*}

I smell a Purity^® thread.

33 o/t: has anybody checked the london bookmakers on the odds van der sloot will survive prison in peru?

34
Our wonderful governmetn is in the process of giving Gaza 400 billion dollars.

Yeah.

35 >>>but with the same ultimate message: social conservatives should shut up or it's their fault. Speaking as a RINO on social issues: I feel that I'm often told that my input is neither sought nor welcome. Welcome to the club.

36 How in the year 2010 are candidates still finding themselves in the trap of the open mic?

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:13 PM (uFokq)

Calling Boxer's hair "So yesterday!" is not the Hymie Town moment you're looking for. I think it was deliberate and clever.

37 33 Yep.

38
I just don't understand, for the life of me, why the stupid Republicans don't simply follow the Scott Brown model.

Scott is not as socially liberal as some of you think, (he said so, incidentally, today, as a matter of fact).

Anyway, Scott was a perfect candidate. He was focused, focused, and focused. He never once allowed the media to sidetrack him or trap him. Scott was masterful at defelcting the silly and irrelevant questions and use his answers to repeat his honed message.

Scott Brown is the model on how to win...ANYWHERE. Use it, stupid GOP.

39 OT/Holy Crap - I just looked up and saw Megyn Kelly on Fox.  She's wearing a skin tone colored sweater, and for a second it looked like she was topless!

But just with no discernible boobs. 

40

Generally speaking, 18-1, can you fucking point out someone as an example, or did you preface that statement with "generally speaking" to relieve yourself of actually having to provide support for that statement.

Posted by: ATaLien at June 11, 2010 01:16 PM (SkRi5)

Specter, Whitehouse, Jeffords, Weld, Whitman (NJ), should I go on?

Social conservatism* draws the most ire from the State Media. So, if you want someone that will fight for conservativism, pick something who has already shown a willingness to take on the Media Party. 

*Huckabee being the odd exception.

41 But he has made a fire here, and he does need to stamp it out before it consumes him. That particular statement where he did, in fact, get unwisely particular -- that he didn't know if he'd re-reverse the Mexico City policy (something every president who takes over for a president from the other party does in the first hour of office; it's automatic, man) -- has to be repudiated.

I am pro-life.  Hard-core, no exceptions pro-life. 

I lived in Indiana during part of Daniels' term and found him to be a good, not great, governor.  He was certainly better than the guy who preceded him.  So Daniels is by no means someone I'm pushing for POTUS this early in the stage.

Having said that, I was not bothered in the least by him saying that he was not sure if he'd overturn the Mexico City ruling in the first hour of his presidency. 

He properly prioritize economic issues as the most pressing issues we face.  The things a president does in his first hour as president are largely symbolic.  I think it is infinitely reasonable to suppose that there might be some other things that Daniels would do first to signal what his presidency was going to be about. 

Geezus, people (and by "people" I mean the mindless Huckabee supporters), get a grip. 

42

Use it, stupid GOP.

Hey, what up?

43 Time for a good ol' social-con freakout.

44 This officially marks my substantive dislike of Mitch Daniels.

45

Speaking as a RINO on social issues: I feel that I'm often told that my input is neither sought nor welcome.

We are indeed the red-headed step-children. And I look *awful* in red. It's no fun.

46

Have you heard of "hands-only" CPR?  The American Heart Association now says that you should NOT do the mouth-to-mouth part of CPR, but should only press hard and fast in the center of the victim's chest.

We of course only do CPR on people who are not breathing and whose heart has (apparently, from external signs) stopped.  Now, both breathing and heartbeat are really, REALLY important to continued survival, but the AHA says that in a true crisis, you have to pick assisting with heart function and ignore simulating breathing.

However, when the paramedics arrive, they have the additional resources and skill necessary to do more things than just chest compressions.  They can assist breathing with a bag while doing compressions or applying a defibrillator or injecting heart stimulants.  And if there are other injuries, like major bleeding, they can deal with that as well.

The question is, do we have the resources to address the multiple problems that the USA is facing, or are we really so resource-poor and skill-deficient that we can't deal with more than one critical issue at a time?

47 "As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?" He didn't really know what that meant, either -- but he meant it just the same."

I wonder what Alvin Greene thinks about all this this...

48 If I had that inchoate thought and then faced the second question on the mexico city policy, I would have said "yes, we can't afford it just like we can't afford many other things in the budget", but then again I have had time to think about the answer.

It is just impossible to be "on" all the time.  Gov. Daniels appears to have done a pretty good job at the day to day executive level.

49
This is the Republicans problem: they automatically go into the 'pander' mode when social issues or Israel comes up.

Just say what you believe and move on. Enough with this "Israel has no better friend than I" bullshit or "The unborn are sacred to me" pandering pabulum.

50 Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:13 PM (uFokq)

Actually, Fiorina is a real live human being.  real live human beings can and do make mistakes.  Besides, it's funny....Boxer's hair is outdated and she has had enough time to mess up the state, it's fiorina's chance to fix it now.

51 "He is staying on message - economy uber alles , no red herrings, no distractions."

Except he created the distraction by singling out social cons and saying they need to lighten up about abortion. It's none of his damn business.

52 Save the Goddam republic? Shit, we're so damn far down the socialist road the fucking "republic" is pretty much a damn rumor, or an urban legend. I'm about ready to say fuck it, tear up the remnants, and start the fuck over. The road to Republic goes through revolution at this point.

53 Social conservative issues should not be the focus of the GOP (unlike Huckabee seems to want it to be), but neither should there be a "truce" offer.  Libs will never relent in their social agenda.  It's too much wrapped up in their over all goal.

Balance is key, but the laser-like focus has to be on the economy AND a strong national defense, with scaling back the size and scope of government accompanying it.

54 I think the discussion is a little off in intended theory. I think he feels and knows that political capital, the buzz words of a generation, is a depletable item, and he is just prioritizing how it will be spent, putting some realistic limits on where he will likely run out.

I see his point. The boilers are down, ship service hydraulics offline, we are essentially drifting, and that's bad, but what's more important is that we are also sinking, fast. And with only so much shoring, time, and people, fixing the flooding problem ought to be the focus of our attention, acknowledging that those other issues need to be addressed in the future.

This is where I disagree, in fact, reject the above principal. The lefties have been trying to sink this ship for years. If all we can do is basic damage control and keep this country from sinking this time they will simply be back next time, and the time after that, and eventually they will succeed.

Many conservatives are getting tired of saving the nation from economic and social oblivion while government just slides more and more to the left. Many, including myself are to the point where we say, either we really change course, like more than Reagan change course, or, we just let her go and let the chips fall where they may; conservatives being confident of their resourcefulness in dire circumstances, believe they will emerge on top when we reach the other side. It just seems the Constitution is less and less protection from government and the two and a half centuries of law is less and less worthy of saving.

So no. Nothing is off the table, either lead a conservative charge and save this nation, or step aside and let her go.

55

You know, yesterday I watched a video of supposedly conservative evangical ministers pressing to approve amnisty for illegals. At a time when we are going deeper in debt by leaps and bounds these guys want to put 12 Million more people on the government subsidised health care roles.

Sorry but they are losing any support for other issues from me with this kind of nonsense.

56 How do you mean "lighten up about abortion?"

57 Speaking as a RINO on social issues: I feel that I'm often told that my input is neither sought nor welcome.

I'm always perplexed by this honestly. Considering the leftward arc of American politics over the last 50 years, being a *moderate* means rolling back a decade or two of leftwing policy on every front, instead of four or five. How one can support the status quo, or even further leftwing abuses, anywhere and yet agree with the philosophical basis of conservativism is surprising.

58 2
speaking of Pence...

Why isn't he running for Senate in IN?

If Pence thinks he has a shot at the GOP nomination in 2012 he's sadly mistaken. He'd make a good Veep on the ticket, though.

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:10 PM (uFokq)

Rumor is here (I am from Indiana).. he is going to run for Governor of Indiana.  Daniels can only serve 2 terms and its up in 2012.

59
With that said, I just gotta say to all the non-social-cons in the GOP: you're fucking dumb.

You never cede ground to your political enemies. If the Left is for it, it's bad for you and bad for the country. This is their mission. Don't help them.

60 So no. Nothing is off the table, either lead a conservative charge and save this nation, or step aside and let her go.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 11, 2010 01:32 PM (0q2P7)

Well said. We will never "win" if we play the game the left wants us to...

61 Sonderkommando of media scum I am SO stealing that. (BTW -- the stepson is moving to the Santa Rosa area to be with his GF. How's the job situation there?)

62 Scott Brown is the model on how to win...ANYWHERE. Use it, stupid GOP.

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:26 PM (uFokq)

DON'T YOU FUCKING TELL ME TO PUNCH DOWN, MOTHERFUCKER!

63 >>>but with the same ultimate message: social conservatives should shut up or it's their fault.

Speaking as a RINO on social issues: I feel that I'm often told that my input is neither sought nor welcome.

Welcome to the club.

Posted by: ace at June 11, 2010 01:24 PM (66DVY)

Nobody wants to be told that they're wrong.  Unfortunately, most social issues are framed as a zero-sum game, where I can't be right unless you're wrong and vice versa.  And most social issues don't admit of a compromise on principle, even when individuals sometimes can't bring themselves to choose definitively between opposing principles (abortion is a prime example, where some people simultaneously deeply believe that abortion is murder and that exceptions ought to be made based on the circumstances of conception).

The solution is to look for common goals on RESULTS and focus on those.  Again, in the instance of abortion, social conservatives and social liberals can GENERALLY agree that a good goal is to reduce the number of actual abortions and look for policies that do that without requiring policymakers to take sides on the principles involved.

64

Rumor is here (I am from Indiana).. he is going to run for Governor of Indiana. 

---

Are there any rumors about who's running on the Dem side?  At one point Dr. Jischke, past president of Purdue, was rumored to be considering it (or was going to be drafted to run).  I believe he's a moderate (or at least not flaming lefty) Democrat. 

65 CNBS reporting that BP will defer their dividend.  wonder how that will affect the stock and the market?

66 ... i checked it out. so far, the london book is steering clear on van der sloot (sentence, what prison, years of survival, etc.) ok, back to topic.

67
Sell that bullshit somewhere else.

What are you talking about? He's against repealing DADT. That counts for something, no?

No one here at AoS has been a bigger critic of Scott Brown than I. But I'm not gonna embellish and paint the guy as a liberal sellout. His record speaks for itself. He votes the 'right way' 85-90% of the time. That's as good or better than most Republicans in the Senate.

68 Whoops, Chris Christie is disqualified too -- NEXT!!!

Have you figured out a title yet for the post a year and a half from now when the process of elimination leaves Ron Paul?

On a more serious note, why is it fiscal cons and the strong defense types are supposed to be guaranteed what they want, but social cons are expected to show up at the polls and get none of their priorities?  How does that make sense to any of you?  I mean what exactly is it we ever get-judges who maybe are familiar with the basic concept of the rule of law?  Or a vote on marriage or abortion some random Tuesday morning that everyone knows has no chance of passing and is forgotten by the evening news?

In particular, why is it social RINOs think it's good politics to say to the one group of people who trust God to take care of them independently of the nation "We don't care if you vote with us or not, but our #1 priority is that you are not represented."

69 Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 11, 2010 01:32 PM (0q2P7)

Bravo, Mr. TheMoose.

70 I'm still on the job.

71 the problem isn't that he's wrong.

We're in a existential crisis with our nation's finances.  We really do need to drop everything and get this one thing fixed.

The problem is that this is pathetically naive about how such a 'truce' would work.  It would, of course, eliminate chips on our side of the table for negotiating with the democrats who will abide no truce because they pretend everything on their side is an absolute moral imperative.

72 Posted by: gomm at June 11, 2010 01:38 PM (7JES6)

maybe once he goes home to aruba all bets are off?

73 This is who these people become once they are inside the Beltway.
This is why there is a Tea Party if anybody's askin'
They have already spent this Republic into destruction
They have already abdicated enough power to bureaucrats that liberty is soon dead.

74 Let's replace Mitch with Stormy.

75 61
With that said, I just gotta say to all the non-social-cons in the GOP: you're fucking dumb.

You never cede ground to your political enemies. If the Left is for it, it's bad for you and bad for the country. This is their mission. Don't help them.

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:34 PM (uFokq)

So we should oppose the left on everything, because they're "The Left", the great boogeyman. Wait, what ?

76 ok, what's up with people in the comments on all kinds of comment sections, lib, dem regular papers...making allusions to something going wrong with wiki leaks?

77 >>>With that said, I just gotta say to all the non-social-cons in the GOP: you're fucking dumb. What if I don't have the courage of your convictions? That is to say: What if I actually am, in fact, fairly pro-choice (with the typical Northeaster Republican exceptions)? I can support the pro-life cause for tactical reasons and goodwill among conservatives. You can't really expect me to be on your side with a social con's fire, though. You guys keep casting this as a situation in which "we all know what's right" but some of us are just sell-outs and cowards. How about this -- how about I *know* you're *wrong* on several points? In other words: Stop assuming we RINOs are cowards and sell-outs who compromise our principles to make nice with the left and start considering the very real possiblity we're cowards and sell outs who compromise our principles to make nice with YOU.

78 The GOP should realize that America is becoming more and more pro life and less and less pro abortion.

79 Whether you're socially conservative or not, how can you make a remark about being undecided re funding foreigners' abortions when the main topic was how freakin' broke the US is?

80 75 This is who these people become once they are inside the Beltway.

You might want to look at a map.  Indy is a long way from D.C. 

81 In particular, why is it social RINOs think it's good politics to say to the one group of people who trust God to take care of them independently of the nation "We don't care if you vote with us or not, but our #1 priority is that you are not represented."

Posted by: Methos at June 11, 2010 01:38 PM (Xsi7M)

What exactly is it that social cons want? What laws do you want changed and how do you want them changed?

82
Well, CyclopsJack, name one thing the Left is right about.

Just one.

83 The Republican party platform:

Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals We support the PresidentÂ’s strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.

Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th AmendmentÂ’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.

Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th AmendmentÂ’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

84 Hitler made a famous comment that he acted with 'the certainty of a sleepwalker'.  He didn't have doubts like a non-insane person does, and could march towards his objectives without distractions like morality or reasonable doubt.

Daniels, like most non-lunatics, sometimes wonders if his ideas and policies are the best, or could be improved, or need re-examination, etc.  So, he's human and mortal and normal.   What a scoop............

He needs to learn the Mother of All Hard Lessons:  Don't air your doubts on air ( and every word, via email or phone or letter or actual speech is always 'on air' ). 

Look what they did to Sarah in 08:  She was insulted by a question about, 'what magazines do you read?' because of the clear implication that she didn't read 'serious' magazines.  She hesitates, and flubs the accusation-question--and the result is that she's a lowbrow dummy who can't actually read good .

No, I'm not a Sarah-ista, but she is an Object Lesson on how the media can damage someone who's unprepared.  The MFM intends to do to every Republican what they did to her. 

85 He's also said that he doesn't know whether or not Obamacare is constitutional.

What he meant was that he didn't know whether or not our lawyer overlords have enough written in their law review articles so that even the most liberal judge will declare it to be unconstitutional.

You see, Mitch Daniels is a lawyer.  So to him, being unconstitutional does not mean "violating the Constitution" it means "whatever SCOTUS wants to declare unconstitutional."

86 I think we should all fight amoungst ourselves, wounding as many of us as possible, giving the dems talking points, and making sure we don't have anybody to run for president except a cardboard figure of Ronald Reagan (but his wife is squishy).

We should definately beat the shit out of Chris Christie or anybody else on some point just to show how tough we are. That's the ticket. Maybe then after we've  totally fucking jumped on every syllable or thought anyone of them have said, even if they vote correctly, then the one left standing--the cardboard cut-out, can run against Obama? Sound good?

87 "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's difficult to remember the objective was to drain the swamp."

88 So no. Nothing is off the table, either lead a conservative charge and save this nation, or step aside and let her go.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 11, 2010 01:32 PM (0q2P7)

From 1861 - 1865 I thought we settled this. Apparently not.

89 MikeTheMoose got there before me but it bears repeating: there's only so much political oxygen in any given room. Do you use it all up talking about a matter that most people are ambiguous or even indifferent about or do you address the issue that will put more oxygen in the room and let you move around normally? Questions like abortion polarize people. We need everybody we can get to reverse Obamaism because the DemonRats will resist tooth and nail. Set abortion aside. Guarantee the oxygen, then move along.

90
but the laser-like focus has to be on the economy

Hey, we've been focusing like LAZARS on jobs for the last year, now!  Look how much good we've done!

91 I would vote for Daniels.   3 billion dollar surplus in a rust belt state....seriously, check out our neighboring states..why do they suck and we are doing alright?
Daniels won overwhelmingly when the state went for Obummer...

I think he just mispoke and was trying to make the point that its the economy stupid. He's conservative. ...he isnt a Rino.

92 @70 - my problem with SoCons is that they aren't flexible like me.  I don't care if my candidate is a bible thumper as long as he's solid on foreign policy, fiscally conservative, and likes to punch hippies.  I have a problem with SoCons because if a candidate doesn't think what Mexicans are doing with their unborn children is his highest priority, they write him off completely.  It's a fucking joke.

93 Let's replace Mitch with Stormy.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at June 11, 2010 01:40 PM (d6AjV)

I'm recommending this comment for THREADWINNER.

94 Regular people are going to be like Sarah Palin.  they are going to answer honestly.  so I guess you can only run for office if you make a good "package" in front of the media?  So, if you are as dumb as a rock, it's ok, cause you look good to everyone?  Is that where we have gone?

95

What exactly is it that social cons want?

Everything. Including the kitchen sink. And only if it's a Kohler. Otherwise >>> pass.

 

96

You know, yesterday I watched a video of supposedly conservative evangical ministers pressing to approve amnisty for illegals.

Posted by: robtr at June 11, 2010 01:32 PM (fwSHf)

Gahhh!  I hate that buffoonery with a passion.  The Lord does not teach us much in particular about immigration policy - and certainly does not require us to throw open the border and subsidize them.  He does teach us to deal justly with the alien, which is not something we have a problem with.  Indeed, one of the first things He said that springs to mind is along the lines of "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 

Pushing Christianity as a means to any kind of social engineering is evil, no matter how noble the goals (or in this case, how despicable the goal).  If faith is only a means to some other thing, it is defeated in terms of its real purpose.  People like this so-called minister forget that the moral responsibilities of an individual Christian are NOT the same as the moral responsibilities of a GOVERNMENT.  The government carries the sword - punishes crime, secures the nation.  It is not only not required to be charitable and forgiving and kind - but is really enjoined AGAINST those things, in so far as they would endanger the well being of the nation.  It certainly isn't called upon to turn the other cheek.  Charity is for individuals - it is never collective.  Once charity becomes everyone's responsibility, suddenly it is no ones.  Like Europe - where people give the least to charity because they expect their taxes to take care of all that.

97 The ministers want the illegals cause they go to church and contribute a lot of money.  And that is so sad, ministers with ulterior motives.

98  I have a problem with SoCons because if a candidate doesn't think what Mexicans are doing with their unborn children is his highest priority, they write him off completely.  It's a fucking joke.

Posted by: ATaLien at June 11, 2010 01:44 PM (SkRi5)

That's an exaggeration bred and fed by the Left.  There are a handful of kooks out there like what you describe, but that is far from typical.  SoCons are going to push for what they want.  But in the end the great bulk will do what we all do - vote for the Lesser Evil.

 

99 86
Well, CyclopsJack, name one thing the Left is right about.

Just one.

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 01:41 PM (uFokq)

They're right about being moderately pro-choice. They're right about police heavy-handedness(sometimes). They're right about legalizing medical MJ.

However, you may strongly disagree.

100 I think it was an idle thought, of the kind that I have often had, without really knowing what he meant.

He meant "Stop supporting socialists with glowing crosses behind them, you retard fucks." That's not a message a careerist can send openly, but it was sent, as the Huckarage attests.

"Social cons" as a bloc are a de facto leftist bloc. With the exception of abortion (a fundamentally unideological issue), they're big-p Progressives—until proven otherwise, by, say, backing the "con" half of their name for once, as small a gesture of non-hostility, at this critical juncture for "con"-ness.

A "truce," one might say.

101 Some truce.

102 (BTW -- the stepson is moving to the Santa Rosa area to be with his GF. How's the job situation there?)

Posted by: joncelli at June 11, 2010 01:34 PM (RD7QR)

flaccid; uninspiring; not propitious

But praise God, the weather is near-perfect and the scenery is better than That

103 It is my belief that in the end, the national debt will be so consuming that the govt paying for abortions here or elsewhere will be an afterthought.  Social programs of all kinds will face massive funding cuts, there is no other way.  The longer it goes on, the bigger the ax will be.

104 So, what does a "truce" mean to Mitch Daniels?

It means "stop trying to save civilization, you nasty conservatives".

105 What exactly is it that social cons want? What laws do you want changed and how do you want them changed?

I think I addressed that.  Abortions reduced and ultimately ended (an argument were winning among real people, but need rule of law judges to protect and that government not use money it takes from us to kill babies wherever they are), and status quo on marriage (same solution).  Which doesn't seem like much.  Which is why I get concerned when the RINOs start whining about how even that's too much.

106 Why am I seeing "Dish Latino" ads?? Posted by: Mama AJ

Because Ace followed you home one day last week and came back the following morning after you had left. He then proceeded to seduce your neighbor, and while she wasn't looking, took the key that you left with her for emergencies.

He later entered your premises with said key, and, while watching your TV, he noticed that your cable provider lacked in the number of Spanish channels.

At this point he immediately telephoned Dish Latino and informed them of the situation. Dish Latino engaged the services of a crack team of Montenegro hackers who designed an insidious ad tracking virus programmed only to deploy when you logged on to Ace of Spades.

... or it's an automated ad service.  Either one. I'm not sure which. Total toss up here.

107 @ 95

It's a moral issue for so cons. You're either pregnant or you're not. Life begins at conception. That conviction is what makes them reliable party votes, and it is the height of idiocy to take shots at them before an election.

108 "Social cons" as a bloc are a de facto leftist bloc. With the exception of abortion (a fundamentally unideological issue), they're big-p Progressives—until proven otherwise, by, say, backing the "con" half of their name for once, as small a gesture of non-hostility, at this critical juncture for "con"-ness.

If the third of the country that consistently votes conservative are really closet leftists, we are without a doubt doomed. Fortuantely, this is not true.

109 Garbonzo at 109 - your conspiracy theory fu is strong.  Or you're Tom Clancy.

110 @92 joncelli

No offense, but I think you misread MikeTheMoose's comment.

111 The GOP should realize that America is becoming more and more pro life and less and less pro abortion.

Posted by: curious at June 11, 2010 01:41 PM (p302b)

This is the cue for the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

112 ...and for you history buffs / uber-nerds who insist on Total Accuracy, I meant to characterize the media as 'SS-Sonderkommando' rather than the other use of the term--( sonderkommando ), which was applied to Jews who were allowed to live if they helped the Nazis in the camps

SS-Sonderkommando units were formed from the local population as the Germans conquered territory in WWII, and used to help the SS in various ways.  They were 'ad hoc', disorganized, often frenzied in killing and beating up anyone they had a grudge against--and only a few were punished after the war.

113 The solution to this is simple. Have a nominee in 2012 who does not HAVE TO talk about the social issues non stop because SHE already has the credibility on them so base voters will not be suspicous and will not need to be reassured. That way she can focus on economic and national security issues.

114
The fact that some of you have 'problems' with conservatives who hold traditional values tells me none of you have actually considered how the Left is using these issues destroy our society.

I'm going to assume none of you like abortion. Those of us who think abortion is killing an unborn baby are trying to battle those who do like abortions and want to promote more abortions to undermine our tradiotional values and Western culture that sets us apart from other nations.

So then you guys come along and say hey what's the biggie? It's just a fetus and probably better off not being born.

You're not helping.

115 They're right about legalizing medical MJ.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at June 11, 2010 01:48 PM (a4o2p)

When was the last time any Liberal politician actually advanced that view?  Those pukes make a huge killing by participating in the drug-war complex.  If the Libs want to clear jail space and spike consumer spending on cheetos, and probably rake in a huge consumption tax, then they need to start floating bills to legalize it so that the Feds will no longer waste time on it.  Yet where is the effort to do that? 

On the few things they are "right" about, if any, they take no real action.  For example, they are never "moderately" pro choice.  I think if we turned the battle over to the individual states so they could fight it out, we could see a de-escallation of the conflict.  But no - they must have total unrestricted access to infanticide, mandated by the federal government, and they aren't going to stop with kids in the womb.  "Reproductive Choice" is going to keep pushing forward.

116 81 The GOP should realize that America is becoming more and more pro life and less and less pro abortion.

Posted by: curious at June 11, 2010 01:41 PM (p302b)

Just to harsh your mellow, I will say that this is probably a reaction to Obama. Lets see if it swings the other way when we get a GOP president.

117 @101 - really?  You've got Ramesh, Allah, and now idiot Erick Erickson, saying this guy's campaign is a non-starter because of a non-committal statement about abortion two years before the election.  I guess I need to check by definition of "an exaggeration bred and fed by the Left."

118

O/T but does anyone speak 'Mexican gang-banger'?

I do not. So I'm not sure I fully comprehend this. I mean, I get the gist and all....

119 This is the same old argument about social cons. First in order to be a "social con" you have to be a conservative first.

I view being anti-abortion as a religious thing in the end. If you believe in big government with tax and spend and other types of liberal attributes you are not a conservative just because you think abortion is murder.

What we should be doing is removing all aspects of abortion from the lexicon of "conservatism" other than as a discussion of how the liberals have screwed up the Supreme Court with bad decisions.

The Republican Party can still have an anti-abortion plank without couching it in religious terms.

120 114 @92 joncelli No offense, but I think you misread MikeTheMoose's comment. Posted by: MikeO at June 11, 2010 01:53 PM (lBmZl) Shit. You're right. Next time I'll read the whole thing. Let's say that I love the metaphor in the first half of MTM's comment and don't agree with the second half that we need to talk revolution.

121

Ace, #80, writing "What if I don't have the courage of your convictions? "

I think you missed poster's point completely.  (although admittedly he didn't say it very well)  Oh, and if this isn't the point he was trying to make, it's the point he SHOULD have been trying to make.

The point is that *even* if you are pro-choice with some restrictions, as you say, when dealing with the Democrats it STILL makes far better sense for you to start off from a completely opposed position - you then have room to compromise and end up where you wanted to be in the beginning.    (Note this involves a somewhat devious strategy, but one common in negotiations)  If you start out from a position that is nothing more than you want, and are negotiating with people who are far to the left of you, then you are almost certainly going to end up to the left of where you wanted to be. 

It is in the best interest of YOUR views to begin from a position that is farther to the right than you really intend to end up at - that is what's meant by saying you shouldn't cede ground to your enemies, make them fight for it.  Don't always give them the ball on your own 30 yard line, it just frees them up to make a stronger fight everywhere else.

122 9 I'm in the comments over at RedState defending Daniels right now. As soon as the word abortion is mentioned over there it's like an announcement of a meteor headed towards Earth has been made -  people lose their fucking minds.  Posted by: ATaLien


I got banned from RedState twice for such talk.. you better watch it.. lol!

They're fucking nuts over there.. and you would think a site that gets the same 12 people posting all the time would not ban people so readily... oh well.. it's their little purity club.

123 And some actual good news today.

124 >>>The GOP should realize that America is becoming more and more pro life and less and less pro abortion. I don't believe this is true. The numbers are always more or less the same. And pro-life numbers are inflated by people who are gesturally pro-life -- you get 55% saying they're pro-life, but then 55% saying that abortion should be legal in the first two trimesters. That 10% (or whatever the exact figure is) is gestural support only -- where the rubber meets the road, they're pro-choice in policy.

125 When science identifies the leftard gene, I will be happy to reevaluate my views on abortion.

126 The only thing I'm REALLY concerned with for the next couple of elections is removing the barriers to prosperity that have been erected recently. That means repealing Obamacare, restoring the Bush tax cuts, cutting taxes generally, and reducing regulation generally. It seems to me that this is CRITICAL at the moment.

If and when we've got the economy working again, then we can start to address the less immediate concerns.

127 I think I addressed that.  Abortions reduced and ultimately ended (an argument were winning among real people, but need rule of law judges to protect and that government not use money it takes from us to kill babies wherever they are), and status quo on marriage (same solution).  Which doesn't seem like much.  Which is why I get concerned when the RINOs start whining about how even that's too much.

Posted by: Methos at June 11, 2010 01:49 PM (Xsi7M)

Yeah, well I wish that was true but i don't see it. I have seen candidates here in Washington have to say they are anti abortion (any kind of abortion for any reason) to win the primary running for a county posistion which has nothing to do with abortion. Same with their stance on gay marriage.

Needless to say that position in Washington makes them automatic losers in the general election so we end up not only with elected officials that pro all types of abortion and pro gay marriage. We also end up with union owned tax and spenders who are spending us into oblivion.

Same with congressmen, senators and presidents. Does anyone really believe that a law to outlaw abortion would surivive a philibuster so a president would be able to sign it even if he wanted to? No. Even if that happened the law would be unconstitutional as it stands now. So I guess while I might agree with you to a point what exactly does it accomplish to charge that hill?

128 You've got Ramesh, Allah, and now idiot Erick Erickson, saying this guy's campaign is a non-starter...

Posted by: ATaLien at June 11, 2010 01:55 PM (SkRi5)

So those are the designated banner carriers for SoCons in general?  Alas - I had not been informed.  I'd never even heard of E. Erickson before today.  One thing I do know - people who make their living by commenting on things need to make those things seem worth commenting on.  Exaggeration is a part of their job. 

129 the next president shouldn't push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a "genuine national emergency" regarding the budget


The next president needs to push issues like repealing the fuck out of Obamacare, whether there are abortions in it or not.

And then cut all the taxpayer dollars to other countries' do-gooder funds. You don't even have to mention abortion.  Something like "people who wish to fund do-gooders are free to give away their own post-tax dollars to the causes they find worthy, but the government is broke."  If the "more abortions crowd" doesn't believe in more abortions enough to toss a $20 in the hat...well, that's their own tough shit. 

130
oh, and to answer the question of what we social cons want:

How about we start with elementary school officials to cease handing out condoms to any student, no matter the age, who asks for them, even if their parents forbid it?

That's what a school in Massachusetts is doing now. This is what we get for being 'modern' and going along with progressives. Who can blame them? We gave them this power by not nipping this socially progressive agenda in the bud a long time ago.

131 all my friends are so jealous of europe.  They want to be european.  I look at europe and to me it looks like a total disaster.  It boggles the mind. 

132 One question:  What are the facets of "Social Conservatism"?  Is it predominantly anti-abortion?  Anti gay marriage?   What else? 

Also, is a SoCon someone who puts the social values portion of the conservative position on the front burner?  Or can they just count the social values position as part and parcel of their stance, but not really make it first priority?

133 with no discernible boobs. 

Posted by: Intrepid at June 11, 2010 01:26 PM (92zkk)

please clarify / define this term, with photos

134
One more thing about abortion. I really thought you apathetic pro-choicers would wake up when the Left tried to legalize partial-birth abortion in this country.

They will never stop. Progressives will keep on pushing  and pushing until their social utopia is complete. And guess what? You're not invited, either. When will you guys learn this?

135 Yikes, I was interested in Daniels but this is just crazy.

I'm not a social-con but I don't want to abandon the field to the liberals either. Libs always want to declare things 'settled forever' the second they win. I don't see why we should accept that.

More to the point, it just shows either a level of stupidity or naivete I didn't expect from a guy like Daniels. The world in general and politics in particular just don't work this way.

This is why primaries are important...weed stuff like this out. It's not fatal but Daniels is going to need to up his game if he wants to run and be taken seriously.

Right now...he's not ready for prime time. Fortunately, it's not even time for the early evening news. But it's coming fast.

136 I heard this somewhere before. Let's see if you recognize it:
If you will not stand for principle, you'll stand for anything.

Daniels is done. That executive order was a litmus test question and he bombed. No quibbling. No well I woulda. Total bomb.

If that's what we're going to put up against ObowMao next year, our republic is gone for good. We will have failed to keep it.

137 Ace? 130 on previous Post should be looked at .

138 It seems to me that a social con is somebody who believes that social issues are critical to a conservative viewpoint and to the health of a society. That, anyway, is the definition I work with. (To self-identify, I'm a small-government-except-for-defense conservative with a Northeastern view of abortion.)

139 Let's say that I love the metaphor in the first half of MTM's comment and don't agree with the second half that we need to talk revolution.

I don't agree with your characterization of the second half.

The cold hard fact is that the revolution is and has been waged tirelessly by the left.  The right is counter-revolutionary in the sense that it tries to hold things together and does so by ceding ground little by little and pushing back on minor skirmishes as the opportunities arise because the alternative is too horrible to consider.

What Obama is doing is forcing people to evaluate whether the alternative really is worse than where this reality is headed.  That's not starting a revolution.  That's simply allowing the lefties to start the one they've been pushing so hard for so that it can be met with a response in kind.

140 ...The numbers are always more or less the same. And pro-life numbers are inflated by people who are gesturally pro-life -- you get 55% saying they're pro-life, but then 55% saying that abortion should be legal in the first two trimesters.

Posted by: ace at June 11, 2010 02:00 PM (66DVY)

This is largely due to a failure of education.  Which is how the Left likes it, of course, and why they use lawsuits and threats to prevent any honest documentary showing the reality of the abortion industry to air on TV.  I've met plenty of folks who are soft on abortion and claimed to support it up through the first 2 trimesters, as you mention here (or with other various provisions).  Then they see what that really means - they see what is actually removed from the woman - and suddenly there is an immediate downward revision in their window of OK-ness for abortion.  They may not become ban supporters, but they quite often become quite keen on greater restrictions.

141 How about we start with elementary school officials to cease handing out condoms to any student, no matter the age, who asks for them, even if their parents forbid it?

"People who believe elementary school children should get free condoms are free to use their post-tax dollars to do so; the government is broke."

Bonus fun: parents who don't want their elementary school children receiving condoms from adults can press charges.

142 "please clarify / define this term, with photos"

See Fox News - she's on now.

143
That 10% (or whatever the exact figure is) is gestural support only -- where the rubber meets the road, they're pro-choice in policy.

Posted by: ace at June 11, 2010 02:00 PM (66DVY)

polls on abortion support / opposition depend almost entirely on HOW you ask the question--so you need to read the polling material VERY carefully

Do you support killing babies?  Do you support putting women / doctors in prison? Do you support privacy?  and so it goes............

144

all my friends are so jealous of europe.  They want to be european.  I look at europe and to me it looks like a total disaster.  It boggles the mind. 

For what it's worth Europe is in many ways more socially conservative on many issues then we are.

We have more liberal abortion laws than ANY european country. All Euro countries (to varying degrees) have stricter abortion laws and prohibitions than we do.

And while the public sphere is large 'post-religious' there is no seperation of church or state, states have official religions (and sometimes official churches) and state money is given to church organizations.

145 Social Conservatism is against trying to destroy the traditional family but adjudicating or legislating pretend rights for the purpose of socializing and punishing america.

146 >>>The point is that *even* if you are pro-choice with some restrictions, as you say, when dealing with the Democrats it STILL makes far better sense for you to start off from a completely opposed position - you then have room to compromise and end up where you wanted to be in the beginning. (Note this involves a somewhat devious strategy, but one common in negotiations) You're wrong, because you assume from the outset this is actually important to me. It's not very important to me, which is why I have less of a problem than I otherwise might in subverting my own policy preferences to agree more with the social cons. At least in gestural terms. You are discussing this as if the key thing is to get an abortion policy I want. It's not, at least not to me. The key thing is to have a candidate supported by 52% of the public, so that my much, much, MUCH stronger policy preferences on national security, spending, crime, immigration, etc., can be implmented. I am not willing at all to support a very strong anti-abortion policy when it appears to me it will lose me the policies I care strongly about. And this, I put it to you, is the guiding principle of almost all RINOs on social policy. We accept and endorse the social con position on this stuff, mostly, superficially, and don't argue much about it, because we know our position would never carry the day (and furthermore -- would probably result in us losing election after election if we did carry the day; I am aware that social cons are a critical part of our bloc). However, where we get antsy and bitchy is where we think you guys are now pushing an agenda too hardcore to attract 52% of the vote. Note -- it's not that you're alienating us (we've already made our peace on this issue; we'll vote R no matter how hardcore a candidate might be). Instead, we start to get a little freaked-out when it appears that you're set on going for the whole loaf on something we think is secondary at best and risk even part of the loaf for the stuff that actually animates *us.* "Social RINOs" have one thing in common -- we don't care very much about abortion. If we did, we'd be Democrats. So we don't mind bending. Until it comes to that point where all the stuff we do care about is jeopardized. Then we stiffen up. And this talk about how the pro-life position is soooo popular... a fiction. It's not. You know what we call popular positions? We call them settled law. Because popular positions win out.

147 None of which is to imply the place isn't a hellhole.

148 Willow, #130 on that thread is one frightening post....

149 See Fox News - she's on now.

Posted by: Intrepid at June 11, 2010 02:06 PM (92zkk)

hubba-hubba.  I can see the Promised Land on my hi-def TV  !

150 >>>This is largely due to a failure of education. Which is how the Left likes it, of course, and why they use lawsuits and threats to prevent any honest documentary showing the reality of the abortion industry to air on TV. I've met plenty of folks who are soft on abortion and claimed to support it up through the first 2 trimesters, as you mention here (or with other various provisions). Then they see what that really means - they see what is actually removed from the woman - and suddenly there is an immediate downward revision in their window of OK-ness for abortion. They may not become ban supporters, but they quite often become quite keen on greater restrictions. I don't care WHY it is this way. The important thing is that it IS this way, for whatever reason. I always hear that the way to advance the cause is simply to convince people so that we're in the majority on all these issues. Fine, do so, and then, when circumstances have changed, get back to me. Until then, you're basically saying, "If I had some ham, I could have ham and cheese, if I had some cheese."

151 all my friends are so jealous of europe.  They want to be european.  I look at europe and to me it looks like a total disaster.  It boggles the mind. 

Posted by: curious at June 11, 2010 02:02 PM (p302b)

They are jealous of the IDEA of Europe, not Europe itself.  They don't want to be over run with muzzies, have $9 per gallon gas, etc.  They want to sit in front of quaint ancient buildings sipping good coffee and listening to lovely languages they don't understand or only admire for their novelty.  They also like the idea of being thought urbane and sophisticated by others.  It's all a sham.  I hope you call them on it. 

152 153 Willow, #130 on that thread is one frightening post.... Posted by: curious at June 11, 2010 02:09 PM (p302b) The mods need to jump on that -- he's calling for a presidential assassination. Wrong and bad.

153 And this talk about how the pro-life position is soooo popular... a fiction.

really ace?  really?   Talk to women.  Heck talk to some libs.  they are coming to their conclusion from a different perspective for a different reason but they are still coming to that conclusion.   I wish someone would do a poll about abortion in this country and I think those who deny what is happening in this country will be shocked.

154 138
One more thing about abortion. I really thought you apathetic pro-choicers would wake up when the Left tried to legalize partial-birth abortion in this country.

They will never stop. Progressives will keep on pushing  and pushing until their social utopia is complete. And guess what? You're not invited, either. When will you guys learn this?

Posted by: fishdicks at June 11, 2010 02:03 PM (uFokq)

You don't seem to get it. There are pro-choice people voting R, and opposing the Progressives. Why would you expect that to turn them pro-life ?

155 If you have people who want to hold up the constitution you don't have to worry about the social issues. They take care of themselves.

156 "Until then, you're basically saying, "If I had some ham, I could have ham and cheese, if I had some cheese.""

*Goes downstairs and makes bologna sammich for lunch.

157

Do they have Hooter's in Europe?

Just wonderin'.

158 OT/Holy Crap - I just looked up and saw Megyn Kelly on Fox.  She's wearing a skin tone colored sweater, and for a second it looked like she was topless!

Translates to:

blah blah blah blah Megyn Kelly blah blah wearing blah blah blah blah topless!

Know your audience!

159

(we've already made our peace on this issue; we'll vote R no matter how hardcore a candidate might be).

Stop trying to speak for more people than yourself + the persons/mice residing in your pocket.

You can try to speak for "RINO's" and say "we" but Charlie Crist doesn't seem to be hip to your game plan.

And there are many other examples.

160 Ace, #80, writing "What if I don't have the courage of your convictions? "

I think you missed poster's point completely.  (although admittedly he didn't say it very well)  Oh, and if this isn't the point he was trying to make, it's the point he SHOULD have been trying to make.

The point is that *even* if you are pro-choice with some restrictions, as you say, when dealing with the Democrats it STILL makes far better sense for you to start off from a completely opposed position - you then have room to compromise and end up where you wanted to be in the beginning.    (Note this involves a somewhat devious strategy, but one common in negotiations)  If you start out from a position that is nothing more than you want, and are negotiating with people who are far to the left of you, then you are almost certainly going to end up to the left of where you wanted to be. 

It is in the best interest of YOUR views to begin from a position that is farther to the right than you really intend to end up at - that is what's meant by saying you shouldn't cede ground to your enemies, make them fight for it.  Don't always give them the ball on your own 30 yard line, it just frees them up to make a stronger fight everywhere else.

---------

No.. ya wanna know why?  Because then I have to pretend to agree with the really hard core pro-life folks (some of who are really nutballs about it).  And that empowers them.

I do not want religious zealots running what I believe should be a purely secular (although conservative) political party.  And I do not want to encourage that.

My views:  (And I DO have courage of conviction about it)  It is none of my business what a woman and her doctor decide to do about a medical condition.  And, if there is a God, it is between that woman and her God.

I just don't think the government should be paying for abortions if that is what a woman decides.

In a way, Daniels is right.. let's concentrate on fiscal matters.. abortion is a settle issue.  Why do we have to keep fighting that fight?

161 Posted by: Entropy at June 11, 2010 02:07 PM (IsLT6)

In Britain the NHS provides abortion on demand, for virtually no fee.  How is that 'more conservative' than the USA?  Abortion is not provided in Northern Ireland, but in England, Scotland and Wales is it not a 'health right'?

162 The biggest mistake we're making is attempting to separate real social issues from the fiscal issues they cause.

Medical costs are sky-rocketing in large part because of the refusal of people to take responsibility for their own health, coupled with the trial-lawyer lottery game driving medical insurance rates through the roof. You'll never solve the fiscal issue without addressing the cultural issues that are driving it.

Government pensions costs will bankrupt us because "civil servants" have become the latest wing of organized crime. They run a protection racket, threatening to stop essential services like police, fire, trash, and water unless their demands are met. If we never confront the corruption -- a social issue -- we'll never be able to deal with the fiscal issue.

Public schools are little more than daycare centers because we've allowed the crackpot theories of the farthest left lunatics to drive education while simultaneously accepting union-driven feather-bedding and (again) protectionism. We pay more and get less out of the education system than we ever have before. You cannot solve this without addressing the culture/class/race war lurking behind the "education" policies of today.

The systems we instituted to provide a minimal social safety net -- Medicaid, unemployment, Social Security -- have been turned into a hammock by people more interested in "getting what's coming to them" than in supporting themselves. The reestablishment of the idea that being on the dole is shameful is a social issue, but without it, we cannot expect the safety nets to survive.

We have established a culture in which fathers are not expected to provide for their children, and a parallel culture in which mothers are expected to punish their ex-husbands. The result is an out-of-control "family services" system that subsidizes fatherless homes while simultaneously attempting to chase fathers out of their childrens' lives. Restoring the shame of having out-of-wedlock children, restoring a culture that values fathers -- those are social issues, and the fiscal issues of a permanent welfare class are insolvable without them.

The monetary costs of illegal immigration are well-known. But there are social costs as well -- the damage to the rule of law, the increasing atomization of society as more-and-more people find no reason to even learn English, the importation of large populations that have no connection to American traditions of self-governance, liberty, self-reliance, and civil culture. There's also the underlying culture war aspect -- the left accepts the damage illegals do to the environment, to labor laws, to civil rights because they see the illegals as "deserving" and the native-born Americans as the "oppressors". We cannot address the fiscal costs unless we also deal with the social issues and the culture war motivations.

There are certainly areas we can compromise -- drug policy is likely one of them. But we should be seeking compromise with our own side, not with the left. If marijuana is decriminalized, the left will move on to demanding cocaine be decriminalized.

(Doubt me? When crack first appeared, various "civil rights leaders" demanded that Something Be Done. So laws were passed that imposed harsher punishment for possessing crack. Then the same "civil rights leaders" turned around and screamed about the "discrimination" when blacks were receiving harsher punishments for equivalent crimes. That crack was more common among blacks, and the very laws they demanded were the reason for the harsher punishments was immaterial. That their own efforts were behind the sentences was unmentionable. Their goal was not to either clean up the drug problem or address actual problems in sentencing, but to do whatever they could to breed resentment and hatred. They'll keep doing the same so long as they can.)

163 >>>really ace? really? Talk to women. Heck talk to some libs. they are coming to their conclusion from a different perspective for a different reason but they are still coming to that conclusion. I wish someone would do a poll about abortion in this country and I think those who deny what is happening in this country will be shocked. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The polls say pretty much the same thing: 55% is "pro-life," but look closer, and at least 10% of that 55% is actually pro-choice, but they like calling themselves "pro-life." Because it DOES bother them that babies are being killed -- but it also bothers them to think that young girls will have to carry babies to term if they don't want them. As for the "I wish there were a poll," etc., again, If I had some ham, I could have some ham and cheese, if I had some cheese.

164 Nor are you a conservative if you want low taxes and think abortion is okay.

Well, if it is more than just "low taxes" you certainly can. As I said "the abortion is murder thing" is a religious attribute.

165 Are there any rumors about who's running on the Dem side?  At one point Dr. Jischke, past president of Purdue, was rumored to be considering it (or was going to be drafted to run).  I believe he's a moderate (or at least not flaming lefty) Democrat.

Martin Jischke, past president of Iowa State University. He was known for his record breaking efforts in fund raising (shocker, a dem good at fund raising), but not much else. Can't imagine him being electric enough to generate support for governor. 

166 The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Bullshit.

167 It's this whole leveraging the big issue we all agree on into support of some other issue thing that I don't like.

Posted by: ace at June 11, 2010 01:17 PM (66DVY)

Because pragmatism is a two way street. You should not just expect the social cons to be the ones that have to compromise all the time.

168 What Obama is doing is forcing people to evaluate whether the alternative really is worse than where this reality is headed. That's not starting a revolution. That's simply allowing the lefties to start the one they've been pushing so hard for so that it can be met with a response in kind. MikeO, it sounds to me like you're saying "the worse the better." I say we're not there yet. We CAN resist the leftist onslaught by constitutional means if we're willing to fight. When people say "Texas should secede" or "we're just going to prepare for the counter-revolution" we just make it that much harder to stave off the wars by the means the founders gave us. People talk too idly about revolution--they are bloody, hideous things and not to be taken lightly.

169 The Founders said that the Constitution would only work for a "just and moral" people.  They prayed before they debated/made any laws.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they prayed for guidance for an entire day before embarking on the Constitution.  That's how we made the 5,000 Year Leap in about 200.  I don't think the Founders would be down with the dem platform -- at. all.  We've got to get back to the just and moral part. 

170

my candidate is a bible thumper as long as he's solid on foreign policy, fiscally conservative, and likes to punch hippies.


ATL,

How about he's great on foreign policy, for small government, and wants to ban all guns for civilians?

There are some things that are non-negotiable to people, and if you want to ally with those folks, you have to accept that.  If you can't, then don't side with them, but then, they won't side with you.

171

I just don't think the government should be paying for abortions if that is what a woman decides.

Too bad. The left will brand you as determined to see women barefoot-and-pregnant, barred from school, and subject to beating at the whim of either her husband or father. Nothing less than free abortion anywhere between conception and high school graduation is acceptable to them.

172

Really, this is where the Tea Party rubber meets the road.  What is the Tea Party position on abortion (or on gay marriage, for that matter)?  The answer is that it does not, and should not, have a position on such issues.  The movement is about fiscal responsibility and the freedom to keep more of what you earn, not about social issues.  To the extent that you want to ride the Tea Party express into the next elections, you'll need to accept that social conservative issues are going to be soft-pedaled for a while.  That's just the way it is.

Once democratic strategists remove their heads from their hindquarters and look at reality instead of their fever dreams, they will recognize this seam, and start pressing on it as a means to fracture the movement.  And it might very well work.

 

173 I always hear that the way to advance the cause is simply to convince people so that we're in the majority on all these issues.

Fine, do so, and then, when circumstances have changed, get back to me.

Posted by: ace at June 11, 2010 02:10 PM (66DVY)

Actually that was intended more as an observation of how the pro-life side has failed in this area, where it should be successful, prior to the election struggle itself.  Election tactics can then be modified once that is accomplished.

However, I would also say that the Left doesn't wait to convince anyone.  They bash people in the face with propaganda, usually devoid of any truth, and once elected plow ahead whether anyone likes it or not.  And nobody fights back effectively.  This is a tactic that is worth adopting in a less cynical form.  De-emphasize abortion issues during the election, then ram through what is best afterward.  People will come around, or will at least submit.  Most people have no stomach for the fight anyway.  At least then you make the enemy fight against the status quo, and have to come up with reasons why it must be undone.

174 Don't expect me to de-emphasize social issues in order to focus on saving the republic. I just wish Republicans would stop supporting popular ideas.

175 This thread is a great example of why a truce would be a good thing.

It's also a perfect example of why there won't be one.

Politics is involves things people care about often very passionately. Our system is designed to set these various interests against each other and ultimately force a compromise into some sort of large but fragile coalition.

There's no way around it, it's a feature, not a bug.

176 Posted by: RushBabe at June 11, 2010 02:17 PM (W8m8i)

Alas, there's a prayer before each day's business in both the House and Senate. A lot depends on what you are praying for and what answer you think you've gotten.

177 off topic: interesting article at the nytimes on the administration's heavy handed prosecution of nsa whistle-blower thomas drake (and others). another loss of credibility on the "most transparent adm. ever". on topic: look, after the triumph of reagan in rolling back 60's liberal govt. policies and deregulating the economy, etc., what did reps have? social conservatism? for ten years they forgot the point of reagan who, incidentally, gaev little more than lip[ service to "soc con" (abortion) issues. the reps in congress were profligate and bush II wouldn't veto anything. the reps abjured the economy (why not, they succeeded). now what?

178 What Daniels really meant was that he wanted the ball dipping in pudding to stop temporarily. And, that's what really set Ace off.

179 Megyn Kelly on Fox is talking about decriminalizing drugs now with John Stossel.  Stossel is for decriminalizing it, and believes it will eventually mean less abuse and addiction.

I can see that for pot, but crack?  Dunno about that.

180 Daniels is done.

Really?  One question when maybe he was thinking of a larger picture.  I suspect you will never find a candidate that is good enough, unless you run yourself.

I am radically pro-life but if I had a candidate that agreed with me 100% on everything but that question, guess what, I would vote for them.

He will "correct" his answer soon, I suspect.

The answer to all of these questions from a social con side is "we can't afford it".  It is true and ends the debate.

181 He should say that he meant Democrats should de-emphasize social issues and work with Republicans on the more important stuff.

182

In Britain the NHS provides abortion on demand, for virtually no fee.  How is that 'more conservative' than the USA?

As you've pointed out, in some parts of Britian (Ireland) it's banned outright.

In the rest of the UK abortion is banned at 24 weeks. In the US there isn't a hard fast limit.

Yes, they subsidize it.. they're socialists... don't get me wrong. They have free healthcare. But UK law is comparable to ours and most other countries are even more strict.

From Wiki:

In comparison to other developed countries, the procedure is more available in the United States in terms of how late the abortion can legally be performed. However, in terms of other aspects such as government funding, privacy for non-adults, or geographical access, some U.S. states are far more restrictive. In Europe, abortion is usually only allowed up to 12 weeks (18 weeks in Sweden, 21 weeks in the Netherlands, 24 weeks in Great Britain). In France, unless the fetus is severely deformed or the mother's health is directly at risk, any abortion after the first twelve weeks is illegal. In Canada it varies by province (12 weeks in Saskatchewan and later in Alberta) and is covered by health care, while Australia places heavier restrictions on the procedure.

183 The problem with social liberalism is that it always comes with a pricetag.

How many "fiscal conservatives" voted for TARP (OK, I'll give the original TARP a pass), TARP II, Obamacare, spendulus, etc.?

Especially those "fiscal conservatives" of a Democrat persuasion.

Ultimately, social liberalism has consequences and they cost money, whether it be illegal immigration, abortion (gotsta have taxpayers pay for that "right"), legalizing drugs (methadone clinics, rehab, addiction being a "disease").

184

Drew, the divergence of political thought is probably getting close to the earlier 1930's zenith.  The stain of progressivism (abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, perfectability) is what is tearing the Republican party apart.  It is also what is forcing rank and file "conservative" dems to come to grips with the absence of support in their party.

185

@ 175 - different situation.  That particular candidate would have a platform that 1) was contrary to overwhelmingly popular public opinion, and 2) would change the status quo.

Neither of those things apply to abortion.

186
hahahaha, asking someone who is against killing unborn babies to compromise is like asking and Israeli to compromise with those who want to wipe them out in the Middle East.

What would be the compromise, wipe out just half of Israel?

There's still right and wrong in this crazy world we live in, whether we think so or not.

187 I also don't like being instructed by social cons that I have to embrace social conservatism fully to boot Obama out of office and return America to a more sensible economics.

It's this whole leveraging the big issue we all agree on into support of some other issue thing that I don't like.

Posted by: ace

 

There were some who didn't like being told that they had to give up on the abolition of slavery to save the Union. Others didn't like the idea of abolition being tied to saving the Union.

It's this sick nominating process where I'm told what I must consider to be 'big' or 'small'. The deficit is 'big'. Exterminating infants for the sake of convenience is 'small' and a nuisance that prevents the grown ups from dealing with the big issues.

188

I don't like that word "inchoate".  It sounds sexually deviant.   Like your gagging on something.

189 What exactly is it that social cons want? What laws do you want changed and how do you want them changed?

I think the problem with morality is like this? Why is murder such a horrible crime? Well you would say it is the killing and all, but moreover what is taken away? The immediate response is "life", but in fact why is that so bad? The answer is that the thing that is really taken by the action of murder is a persons future. It might have only been a day, it might have been years, but regardless that time belonged to the victim and that precious time worth so much was stolen in a violent manner. This presents a number of questions, why, the unborn's future, though on average considerably longer than an adults, worth so much less, simply because we haven't met that person yet and they cannot plea on their knees for that future yet to come the way you and I would if placed in a similar situation? We rationalize, they have no mind yet, they cannot feel, etc. etc. As if a benevolent murderer who would sneek into a home killing those in slumber without violence, without pain, without the victims even knowing, is not any sort of crime at all?  Upon careful reflection, not wanting to admit that we have made what would otherwise be considered a terrible crime socially acceptable by shrouding it behind a curtain we call privacy; we finally rationalize the suffering "real" murder causes not only to the victims but to those that knew and loved them as being the deciding difference, and here we secretly make ourselves into progressives. We have just defined the value of human life, not on intrinsic worth, but worth to community and family, or the collective if you will.

If human life is sovereign, and your tomorrows, your precious possession and no one else; not societies to define the worth of for you. If someone taking those tomorrows from you is a heinous crime. When do they become yours? When you can get on your knees and beg for them? I would argue, when your parents consent to sexual activity, those tomorrows become yours. And as such the privacy accorded to conduct your medical affairs in peace should not be used as shield to commit such injury to another. As such our law's and according rights should change.

In short.
Consenual sex. No abortion. Except in cases where pregnancy causes a substantial threat to the mothers life.

Forced sexual activity. 6 Weeks.

190 Megyn Kelly on Fox is talking about decriminalizing drugs now with John Stossel.  Stossel is for decriminalizing it, and believes it will eventually mean less abuse and addiction.

I can see that for pot, but crack?  Dunno about that.

Posted by: Intrepid at June 11, 2010 02:22 PM (92zkk)

Meh, Stossel is full of crap on this. If you regulate hard drugs you will still have criminals selling it to get around the regulations. The only thing that changes is that some of it would be taxed.

191 the reps, however much they are the lesser of two evils, are having a hard time reclaiming fiscal conservatism. prominent reps are even pleading "atonement", a "wake up call" from the tea party and a intention to return to the narrow way. i have no sympathy.

192

184 Megyn Kelly on Fox is talking about decriminalizing drugs now with John Stossel.  Stossel is for decriminalizing it, and believes it will eventually mean less abuse and addiction.

 

Decriminalize dope and there will be less of it? Brilliant. Now lets decriminalize murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. so's we can live crime free.

193

They're right about being moderately pro-choice. They're right about police heavy-handedness(sometimes). They're right about legalizing medical MJ.

Except that to a lefty, "moderately pro-choice" means you don't force women to have abortions.

When a lefty screams about "police heavy-handedness" it means they mouthed off to a cop and it didn't turn out well. Or they're a race-hustler intent on stirring up a riot so as to increase their ability to pull in danegeld/graft from the government. Or they're flat out terrorists upset that the police don't let them run amok and destroy centuries of wealth accumulated by working people.

Look at Cincinnati -- the left will undoubtedly tell you how "racist" the police are here, how they pull people over for "driving while black"; those moderately "informed" will cite "twenty murdered young black men". Except it's crap. The numbers bear out that the police pull people over pretty close to the proportions of the population in the area they're patrolling. Of the "twenty murdered young black men", seventeen were attempting to harm officers or other people, two died because of the drugs in their systems, and one died because he was too chicken-shit to take care of a handful of traffic warrants and put an officer in a situation he thought his life was in danger.

As for legalizing marijuana -- end the welfare state, first.

194 If you regulate hard drugs you will still have criminals selling it to get around the regulations.

See: Contin, Oxy.

195 Inchoate? What, are you trying to get my job, you popinjay?

196
MikeO, it sounds to me like you're saying "the worse the better."

No.  That is not what I'm saying.

There is a group pushing this country toward chaos. 

There is a group pushing back that shouldn't have to be because none of us should want chaos.

In the long run, the playing field is tilted toward chaos.

I say we're not there yet. We CAN resist the leftist onslaught by constitutional means if we're willing to fight.

Maybe.  It sure would be nice if the lefties were constrained to constitutional means, too.

When people say "Texas should secede" or "we're just going to prepare for the counter-revolution" we just make it that much harder to stave off the wars by the means the founders gave us.

Leftists are not fully human.  They are animals.  They don't let petty rules constrain their actions.  They don't care whether the means they use fit within any constitutional framework.  Maybe fear is the only way to control them.

People talk too idly about revolution--they are bloody, hideous things and not to be taken lightly.

Whatever you are willing to concede to the left's constant threat of revolution is your business.  What I'm willing to concede is my business.

197 Meh, Stossel is full of crap on this. If you regulate hard drugs you will still have criminals selling it to get around the regulations. The only thing that changes is that some of it would be taxed.

Because no one ever breaks the law to get around taxes!

198 Especially those "fiscal conservatives" of a Democrat persuasion.

I don't believe I know any Democrats that are "fiscal conservatives". In the end they are all socialists or communists.

199 "Because no one ever breaks the law to get around taxes!"

Damned straight!  We never went to jail, now did we?

200 "I can sort of always tell the Palin supporters."

That's funny.  I can sort of always tell the Northeastern weenie squishes.

201 It is none of my business what a woman and her doctor decide to do about a medical condition.  And, if there is a God, it is between that woman and her God.

Your body, your choice, your wallet.  You want to involve my wallet, you've invited me to have some input into your "choice."

I have no idea why the "more abortions" crowd can't figure that out.

202 Posted by: Entropy at June 11, 2010 02:23 PM (IsLT6)

Okay, but Wiki is not a reliable source and Ireland ( the Six Counties or Eire ) is not part of Britain.  Abortion is not available in any of the 32 counties unless the life of the mother is at risk or she is the victim or rape or incest.

In Britain,  abortion is available for almost six months, and that's based on doctor's objections to aborting a viable fetus.  I don't think that most doctors in the USA who perform abortions are willing to abort after 24 weeks

The policy on abortion seems to be consistent most of Europe:  It is available for little or no cost ( a public expense ) until the point at which most doctors agree the fetus could live outside the womb.

So there's no substantive difference between Us and Them

203 In your opinion.  You're redefining conservatism so it matches what you believe.  Anybody who disagrees with you is not a conservative.

Doesn't work that way.

That is the original conservative view point from the man who virtually wrote the book, Barry Goldwater.

But yes, it is my opinion and a whole lot of other people's just like it is your opinion evidently that if you don't believe abortion is murder that you can not be a conservative.

Right now, contrary to how this thread is running, Ace is right.  That opinion is really in the minority.

As far as I am concerned it should have been left to the States to decide. Roe was bad law and should be overturned.

204

Let's look at the issues:

Social Conservative: life issues (primarily abortion), traditional sexual morality, illegal immigration, crime

Fiscal Conservative: budget deficit, national debt, economy, jobs, free trade

Military/Foreign Policy Conservative: strong military, defeat enemies, strengthen alliances

First off we need to realize that social, fiscal and miltary/fp issues are intertwined. You just can't call a "truce" in one area without affecting the other areas. The Mexico city policy is the perfect example. Repealing that policy is a win-win-win. Ideally one would run in such a manner as to appeal to all three groups. Its the slow mind that can't find how these things intertwine and develop positions to reinforce each other. If one says we need a "truce" then I cry B.S.

205 The problem with decriminalizing an addictive substance is that people who would never try it in the first place because of the criminality decide they can give it a try, get hooked and at that point they lose their will.

And taxpayers apparently have to pay for their rehab, the economy pays for their loss of productivity, etc.

206 They don't let petty rules constrain their actions.

They simply don't believe in the validity of any society not structured to their standard. Therefore the societal rules that might restrain them are circumvented without malice or thought, for in their mind those rules are arbitrary, immoral, and unfair anyway, and the ends justify any means used to get there.

207 ... and ya know what? the blame is not just on the reps (congress & bush II; there was post-9/11 & iraq) for their lack of discipline on fiscal matters. in some good measure, blame resides in the electorate, who love the prosperity & good roll and don't much like being reminded of the cost. and by electorate, i mesan the american people, rep or dem.

208 Statists are a multi-headed hydra, they push on every front to expand government power at the expense of the individual.  They are proud of incrementalism. No, don't back down on any issue. 

Speaking of the war on drugs, the answer isn't that hard.  Break DOE and the teacher's union, then break the prison union.  Kids that are home-schooled or sent to private school don't get mixed up in drugs. 

Replace petty time-in-jail with corporal punishment: locking somebody up is expensive and destroys their ties to civil society (e.g. family falls apart, lose their job, can't get another job).  We have the technology to make corporal punishment effective without causing permanent physical harm.   For context - many people brush and floss because they hate the dentist.  The dentist is doing everything he can not to make the experience horrible. 

209

Social Conservative: life issues (primarily abortion), traditional sexual morality, illegal immigration, crime

Posted by: Prof. Venkman at June 11, 2010 02:37 PM (4JpPD)

Yesterday there were just 5 or 6 evangical conservative ministers that came out for amnesty for illegals and less stringent immigration laws.

I think you should take illegal immigration off your list. One of the reasons they were for amnesty was that they claimed that republicans were driving away alot of mexicans that would be So Cons. Maybe that's true but they are fucking marxists on everything else so in order to get more So Con votes they were willing to through phiscal conservatives under the bus. 

210 medical condition

I don't consider pregnancy a simple "medical condition" any more than I see adult life as a 'sustained but easily interruptable chemical reaction'

What someone does with one of those chemical reactions he happens to find on the street, why should I care right?

211

My views:  (And I DO have courage of conviction about it)  It is none of my business what a woman and her doctor decide to do about a medical condition.  And, if there is a God, it is between that woman and her God.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 11, 2010 02:12 PM (f9c2L)

The question is whether and when a third person becomes involved in this medical condition.  Conception?  Quickening?  Viability outside the womb?  Birth?  Or completion of graduate school?

I actually don't believe that "personhood" is, in fact, a religious concept.  If it were, then atheists would not have any basis to oppose murder or child abuse or any other crime against persons, since their lack of religious faith would give them no standing to regard any organism as a human person.

So if it's possible for a secular-minded individual to believe that a live infant has the rights of a person, including the right not to be killed at the whim of its parents, then working backward, where does the unborn fetus lose those rights?  A millisecond before the last part of his body leaves the womb?  A week before reaching full term?  End of the second trimester?  The first?  Where is the bright line between a medical condition and a person-in-waiting?

212 Social Conservative: life issues (primarily abortion), traditional sexual morality, illegal immigration, crime

Out of that list crime is not a social conservative thing and neither is illegal immigration.

213 "Yesterday there were just 5 or 6 evangical conservative ministers that came out for amnesty for illegals and less stringent immigration laws."

Yeah, but not all social conservatism, even anti-abortion social conservatism, is religion based, so what difference does it makes if some mush-headed evangelical ministers get stuck on stupid over illegal immigration?

They don't define social conservatism (or, as I like to call it, "conservatism.")

214 Like Vic said,Roe is bad law,and set a terrible precedent that harms America in many areas.I happen to be against virtually all abortions but would be comfortable leaving it to the States,and individuals consciences.Of course that means no tax payer funding for it.

215 BTW, I believe Daniel's wasn't speaking a well thought out platform. There really is no way around social issues. The President has to appoint judges, which is the leading edge of the culture wars. If a candidate is asked what he looks for in judges "I called a truce on that" is not a answer.

216 I think what Daniels meant by truce is don't talk about shit like this that makes us fight amongst ourselves,until we are in power.

217 Consenual sex. No abortion. Except in cases where pregnancy causes a substantial threat to the mothers life.

Forced sexual activity. 6 Weeks.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 11, 2010 02:27 PM (0q2P7)

I find it fascinating that the same US Supreme Court that found it un-Constitutional to execute a man for the crime of rape has also found it Constitutionally mandatory that the rapist's victim be allowed to kill the rapist's offspring.

218

The policy on abortion seems to be consistent most of Europe:  It is available for little or no cost ( a public expense ) until the point at which most doctors agree the fetus could live outside the womb.

So there's no substantive difference between Us and Them

No, that's not true.

Britian's policy is like that - and it's the most liberal in Europe.

France - 12 weeks.

Most of Europe - 12 weeks.

A few countries more (none more than the UK's 24), a few less (Ireland's 0).

Their fiscal and health policies are MUCH more pinko socialist... so yes, like most medical services in general, abortions are subsidized in much of europe. But there actual policies vis-a-vis abortion are often less liberal than ours.

Dig this:

Italy - no later than 12 weeks except in health circumstances, mandatory 1 week waiting period before the procedure, no abortions for minors under 18 without parental consent or a court order.

219

I'm Catholic, and the definition of 'social conservative' within the church is also negative, but not for the reasons stated here. They are also seen as being a hindrance to be be downplayed and muzzled. But they are seen as preventing the Church leadership from moving closer to leftist positions espoused by Obama and his ilk. During and after the election, Obama was portrayed in a flaterring light in Catholic 'news' organs, both here and around the world, particularly in Rome. They even announced that he wasn't truly "a pro-abortion candidate". Anecdotes were lovingly played out smearing pro-life activists and Catholics as being ruled  by 'anger', and cherry picking elements of Catholic social justice'. And guess what? Now articles are being run in the same outlets attacking Tea partiers. Guess what tack they're taking? ANother tack being taken is condecending articels demanding to know why 'soc-cons' aren't helping them fight the death penalty.

 

Further: Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, have already been running the crap line about "of course leaders such as Obama and Biden are earger to reduce the amount of abortions performed".

220

Posted by: Will Folks at June 11, 2010 02:56 PM

begone foul sock.

221 I think what Daniels meant by truce is don't talk about shit like this that makes us fight amongst ourselves,until we are in power.

Posted by: steevy at June 11, 2010 02:50 PM (mG4Xb)

Mitch Daniels was compelled by his honor to talk about something nobody asked him about. He's a douchebag.

222
For me, the right to be left alone trumps all other issues. All things proceed from the "right to be left alone" concept.

Yeah, I'm a social con. But I don't think social conservative issues are amenable to political solutions. I.e., I don't think you can use politics to implement the social conservative agenda. Social conservatism is mostly a culture issue and the argument for it or against it should mostly take place in the realm of culture not politics.

Mostly, I just want government to leave me alone. I want everyone to leave me alone and stop taking my money and telling me what's wrong and what's right.

223

Out of that list crime is not a social conservative thing and neither is illegal immigration

Yeah it is because, believe it or not, stealing, killing, raping, are all moral issues and have to do with "social" problems. The liberal answer is "social justice" which means rebuilding society so that people don't feel compelled to commit crimes. The conservative answer is to hold people accountable for their actions.

Illegal immigration is a social conservative issue too. It deals with the integration of people into society many of whom feel no compulsion to obey that society's laws in the first place.

224 Yes, they are.

No they are not, nanananana

LOL

225 Mitch is right and he shouldn't back down.  A truce is two-sided:  not only must the right lay down arms temporarily, but the left too.  Focusing on debt, our economy, and restoring confidence in the government to do both is the top priority right now.  Foreign affairs matter, social issues matter, but they all mean nothing if the nation is falling apart.

Get the leaking ocean liner back to shore.  Fix it.  Then start to discuss the food, entertainment, and everything else that goes on in the boat.

226

A couple of thoughts:

In a theoretical sense I would be for a “truce” as to social issues while we tackled the major economic issues.  And, to me, that doesnÂ’t mean not nominating conservative judges, or not instituting the Mexico City policy.  Instead, it would mean not pursuing any new, big time agenda items – like say passing Obamacare.

However, the problems with this are manifold.  Even if the politicians were to stop pursuing the social agendas in congress, the left would continue to agitate in the courts, so the right would basically be giving the left 4 years of free reign while the right basically unilaterally disarmed itself.  Also, I would never in a million years believe that the left would actually adhere to a truce in congress.  And finally, since the left has been so radical for the past 2 years, and likely will be for the next 2, we canÂ’t simply take a 4 year break from the fight.  We need to work on repealing and rolling back from the get-go, particularly with things like Obamacare.

Finally, what constitutes “social issues” and what constitutes breaking the truce would be a political weapon the left/msm would continually use against the right.  For instance, is Obamacare a “social issue” or a fiscal issue?  My guess is that the left would say that we have to keep our hands off it b/c of the truce.  I can see many more issues that fall into that grey area.

227

The question is whether and when a third person becomes involved in this medical condition.  Conception?  Quickening?  Viability outside the womb?  Birth?  Or completion of graduate school?

.....

where does the unborn fetus lose those rights?  A millisecond before the last part of his body leaves the womb?  A week before reaching full term?  End of the second trimester?  The first?  Where is the bright line between a medical condition and a person-in-waiting?

------------
It is an unanswerable question.  So we compromise.  We say the third trimester the infant is viable and we do not allow abortions past that point.

I grew up Catholic, and was taught an embryo was endowed with a soul at the moment of conception.  And that is why life from the first moments must be considered sacred.

But if I no longer believe in that "soul", then that gets thrown out the window.  And I can only rely on common sense which tells me the fetus is not a person until it is viable outside the womb.  Until then, it is part of the mother who has control over it.

You may fervently believe a fetus is a "person", but you don't know for sure... or you cannot prove it to me.

So, at some point we must agree to go on.. agree that abortions are terrible and something to be discouraged and do as much as we can to educate young women and provide support to women that choose to carry to term.

And then we get on with running this country, which should not be about abortions.

228

Yesterday there were just 5 or 6 evangical conservative ministers that came out for amnesty for illegals and less stringent immigration laws.

I think you should take illegal immigration off your list. One of the reasons they were for amnesty was that they claimed that republicans were driving away alot of mexicans that would be So Cons. Maybe that's true but they are fucking marxists on everything else so in order to get more So Con votes they were willing to through phiscal conservatives under the bus. 

Wow 5 or 6 conservative ministers does not the social conservative movement make. Their claim that Mexicans are SoCon is the same you hear from time to time that blacks are naturally SoCon. Its BS.

229 Yeah it is because, believe it or not, stealing, killing, raping, are all moral issues and have to do with "social" problems.

That is such a tired and meaningless argument. All those crimes involve harming a living person. When a person becomes a "living person" lies in the religious realm.

Traditionally by law here in this country that was at birth, but the varying degrees of interpretation were left to the States to decide because it was such a sensitive issue.

What we have now is dictate by 5 black-robed idiots. If it were not for Roe we would not be having this argument. That is where the problem lies.

230

Because the left persues most of it's social agenda through the courts, it does not at the moment matter what your focus is on. (At least not for extremist libertarians like me).

We need to appoint judges who favor judicial review, throw out bad precedents, and acknowledge the 10th ammendment and apply the 14th evenly.

We need these judges to properly fix the wackjob interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the meaning of 'public use', and these judges can find no right to homosexual marriage under due process (sexual preferance is not a protected class) and no right to abortion.

Then it gets tossed into the proper legislative arenas where your opinions might actually matter.

231

When a person becomes a "living person" lies in the religious realm.

So you refute the school of Biology.

Praytell, geological age of the earth: Religious realm?

232

All those crimes involve harming a living person.

And that is not a moral issue? A social issue?

Please prove harming a living person is somehow wrong using only a micrometer, a slide ruler, and algebra.

233

Again, these issues are intertwined. Illegal immigration is bad socially, bad economically, and bad security policy (security = military/foreign policy).

Does anyone think the Repubs are going to win by calling a truce on illegal immigration? I would bet Mitch Daniels does.

234

 Until then, it is part of the mother who has control over it.

That's factual incorrect viewpoint. The way you state that is empirically wrong.

You may fervently believe a fetus is a "person", but you don't know for sure... or you cannot prove it to me.

Ahh... another flat-earth biology denier.

Perhaps the rock is alive and the tree is inanimate... we cannot know for sure.

235
With respect to moral issues, politics, at best, can only ratify what is culturally normative. You get into all sorts of trouble when you use politics to create and establish cultural norms.

236

With respect to moral issues, politics, at best, can only ratify what is culturally normative. You get into all sorts of trouble when you use politics to create and establish cultural norms.

I agree with this.

Though I'd add that all issues are moral issues.

The tax rate is a moral issue.

237 I don't know what's so controversial about not being a pussy. Ultimately this isn't a big deal, but if he's going to hem and haw wtf is the point in supporting him? No there isn't a litmus test but if you are going to be a bitch you aren't qualified to to lead. So yes, NEXT.

238 So, at some point we must agree to go on.. agree that abortions are terrible and something to be discouraged and do as much as we can to educate young women and provide support to women that choose to carry to term.

Who is this we? Leftists? If it were possible to get one to agree, then there would be no debate on partial birth abortions. And yet, there is a debate. And there would be no reports of kids being born during botched abortions and then being stuffed into closets until they died. And we wouldn't see jursidictions telling women, " I don't care what your choice is; since you were attacked and miscarried at 7 weeks, you don't get to call 'it' human, and the attacker walks away with assault."

Good luck getting anyone from NARAL or NOW to say that "abortions should be discouraged".

And then we get on with running this country, which should not be about abortions.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

That's right, because the running of this country has nothing to do with decisions on who is derserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..

239

That is such a tired and meaningless argument. All those crimes involve harming a living person. When a person becomes a "living person" lies in the religious realm.

Remember the Peterson case? That guy was convicted of double murder because he killed his wife and the fetus his wife was carrying. Sounds like the criminal code does make a distinction.

Traditionally by law here in this country that was at birth, but the varying degrees of interpretation were left to the States to decide because it was such a sensitive issue.

What we have now is dictate by 5 black-robed idiots. If it were not for Roe we would not be having this argument. That is where the problem lies.

And how does Daniels truce comment fit with that? A President has to appoint judges. You can't take a pass on social issues.

 

240 With respect to moral issues, politics, at best, can only ratify what is culturally normative. You get into all sorts of trouble when you use politics to create and establish cultural norms.

Posted by: Steve (aka Ed Snate)

 

Cause, meet effect. Cultural norms are often defined and propogated via government. These influences can be positive (institution of  marriage is recognized by government to promote families) or negative (kill someone and we'll put you in jail).

241

Cause, meet effect. Cultural norms are often defined and propogated via government.

Mind you the 'often'.

Culture predates government.

242
Though I'd add that all issues are moral issues.

Hmm. In effect this entails the moralization of politics. A very dangerous course, I think. Akin to the left's notion that the personal is political. The road to extremism. Here there be dragons.

Anyway I was being descriptive not prescriptive with what I said.

243

 

That is such a tired and meaningless argument. All those crimes involve harming a living person. When a person becomes a "living person" lies in the religious realm.

OK, Vic, I love reading your comments all the time. Please think through your comment above. (Hint: combine the last two sentences).

244 When a person becomes a "living person" lies in the religious realm.

Just for the record, um, Jews never become living persons.

245 But if I no longer believe in that "soul", then that gets thrown out the window.  And I can only rely on common sense which tells me the fetus is not a person until it is viable outside the womb.  Until then, it is part of the mother who has control over it.

This is where you've ignored my initial argument. The one thing of value you have that murder removes, a future, is the same thing that a conceived embryo has. The fact you "control" that future in the case of an embryo does not mean that taking it and destroying it should be either morally or legally acceptable.

246

A very dangerous course, I think.

Dangerous or not, it is so.

Gravity can be dangerous too.

And the personal is somewhat political. It's a matter of degrees. Where do you draw the line? It's arbitrary any place you put it- because it's all life. It's all social interaction of one sort or another.

247
Cultural norms are often defined and propogated via government.

But not ratified. If the people (i.e., the culture) doesn't like the norms defined and propagated by government, those norms will not become, uh, normative.

But, again, to re-state: Concerning what I said, I was being descriptive not prescriptive.

248

Cause, meet effect. Cultural norms are often defined and propogated via government.

Mind you the 'often'.

Culture predates government.

Posted by: Entropy

 

Government in it more modern form perhaps. It can be argued that a tribal/clan leader and his peers represents a government. So too religious leaders exert such influence, and promote norms (laws dictating purity, inter-familial marriage). Which would bring 'social cons' roaring back into the picture.

 

Social conservatives. Do they fight the gorvernment? No, they were here bfore there was such a thing as a government.

249

It's funny, people who oppose "legislating morality".

I use to agree with them, when I was younger and stupider. But it's an oxymoron.

Point me to one piece of legislation that isn't rooted in a moral assumption. The government ban on homicide is legislated morality.

250
Martin Jischke, past president of Iowa State University. He was known for his record breaking efforts in fund raising (shocker, a dem good at fund raising), but not much else. Can't imagine him being electric enough to generate support for governor. 

Posted by: Jay in Ames at June 11, 2010 02:15 PM (UEEex)

---

Your data is old.  He was single-handedly responsible for transforming Purdue from an ivory "silo" (instead of "tower", get it?) institution and the ugly stepsister to IU into the engine for economic development in Indiana.  People at IU made up "WWJD" bracelets, where "J" stood for Jischke.  The fact that IU made a terrible selection for their University President certainly contributed to that.  While I was in Indiana, his name was regularly floated as a prospective gubernatorial candidate. 

251
It's a matter of degrees.

Well, yes, of course.

Where do you draw the line?

My starting point is the premise that I have the right to be left alone. Then I make decisions.

252 OK, Vic, I love reading your comments all the time. Please think through your comment above. (Hint: combine the last two sentences).

I should have just left it at "when a person becomes a person".  The intent there is that a clump of cells in the past was not defined as a "person".

But this is my last post on this thread. I learned a long long time ago that you can not argue religion because by its very nature religion is not logical.

Goodbye all. 

253

It can be argued that a tribal/clan leader and his peers represents a government.

Yes. Fairly so. Even so, culture predates government.

The aggregate of people's views about how to live amongst each other existed before the method by which people control each other and enforce certain views of the same.

One simply existed the moment two people existed, and came within the vicinity of each other.

The other, only once one of those dominated the other.

254

the premise that I have the right to be left alone.

A moral premise I agree with. But still, a moral premise.

255

The intent there is that a clump of cells in the past was not defined as a "person".

Because in the past people didn't know what cells were.

But this is my last post on this thread. I learned a long long time ago that you can not argue religion because by its very nature religion is not logical.

You're the one arguing that it is religion.

256

I meanI mean, shit - you're factually wrong.

Ancients knew about ending pregnancies before babies popped out.

And historical societies had laws about that.

But this, apparently, is a 'religious argument'. 2 + 2 = eleventy; religious argument.

257 The more I hear from the SoCons, both here and over at Little Red Footballs, the more convinced I am that Mitch Daniels would be a great fucking Presidential candidate.

I'm getting pretty fucking annoyed at self-styled conservatives who openly advocate (as some have, further up the thread) sinking the country altogether rather than supporting a a promising candidate who doesn't meet their litmus test on what, in these times, is a third-or-fourth-tier issue at best.

Reagan would never make it in today's conservative movement.

Bring Daniels on; I'll take him.  He seems to be an actual fucking adult.

258 This question is much more important philosophically. If we can allow the idea that under the guise of privacy and dependence that a life be summarily ended, we give up the concept of the sovereignty of life by defining its worth in social terms to recognized persons. Once this has been done in any case, it will be used as rationalization in other cases. This falls into the category of socially authorizing execution by a political majority because they are not the ones affected.

In Abortion,
The justifications for taking another humans future.
They would inconvenience me and make my future more difficult.
They are dependent on me for the next few months and would die anyway.
It's a private matter and none of your business.

Pardon me, but none of these justify, making the entire future of a human being subject to debasement, definition, and unilateral control, of another person.

259 Concerning the moralization of  politics, check out essays by James  Bowman on the subject at his web site. Search using "moralization."

Excerpt:
The increased pace with which debate is being cut off by the moralization of political differences is, as I have mentioned before, one of the features of our time and is helped along by both left and right — but especially left. Coincidentally with the big climate-change debate at the end of 2009, the Obama administration and its willing helpers in the media were at the same time assuring us that we were wrong to hold on to the common sense notion that having the government subsidize health insurance for millions of the uninsured, so massively increasing the demand for health care without doing anything to increase the supply, might have the effect of making health care costs go up. Oh, no! Once again, na ve common sense just didn’t cut it, and we were called upon to trust people who, it must be admitted, are much cleverer than we are and who tell us that the laws of economics do not apply in this case. Well, of course, if the New York Times says so.

Excerpt:
Politically correct politics, it might be objected, is a contradiction in terms. Political correctness is in fact the death of politics — politics, that is, of the democratic sort — which by definition presupposes difference, division and partisanship. If only one side of the political debate is "correct," the other therefore being axiomatically incorrect, then there is no more debate. And, indeed, cutting off debate is precisely the aim of the politically correct in seeking wherever possible to moralize political matters — such as health-care reform, global warming or the war on terrorism — that are very ill-served by such treatment, at least from the point of view of civil society. When ... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid characterized the Democrats’ health care reform bill as being "on the right side of history," the end of debate so far as the majority was concerned was signaled in a sense much broader than that of the cloture he was forced by the Republicans to invoke in order to get the bill passed.

260

I think Vic is right, a clump of cells is not a person. However, there is a point during pregnancy where there is a person, in my experience about the second trimester or so. I took part in the paternal role for two pregnancies, in both cases about half-way through (that's week 20) there were obvious signs of a person being in there -- each with a personality. I'm only vehement about late term abortion, which I don't see as different from infanticide. I'm abivilent with first trimester abortions, which are not infaticide in my opinion.

261 Probably not.  Reagan would never say we should put abortion on the back burner.

Reagan wouldn't advocate letting the country die rather than compromise.  And you'd better believe that he'd put abortion on the furthest-back burner possible if that's what it took to put together a coalition capable of dealing with an existential threat to the nation such as that we are facing.

262
Entropy,

RE:  legislating morality

It goes beyond even what you said.  What is the ostensible basis for any given item of social spending?  If it's not spent to "do good" according to somebody's version of morality, then why is it being spent?

263

The increased pace with which debate is being cut off by the moralization of political differences is, as I have mentioned before, one of the features of our time and is helped along by both left and right — but especially left.

I would say that the increasing pace by which our disrupted debates are recognized to be moral differences is due to the fact that we no longer have a single shared "American" culture and moral framework.

 And, indeed, cutting off debate is precisely the aim of the politically correct in seeking wherever possible to moralize political matters

No... they do not truly seek to "moralize political matters". It seems that they are moralizing political matters, because our moral framework is no longer shared, and they are seen suddenly trying to bring the policies in line with a morality contrary to that held by those viewing them.

The view that climate change is NOT a moral issue itself a moral viewpoint. It is a moral issue to them. As is political correctness.

264 Reagan wouldn't advocate letting the country die rather than compromise.

Abortion issue aside, we are rapidly approaching the point where further compromise is the same as "letting the country die."

I do not see a clear cause/effect relationship between abortion policy and the economic woes.  I do, however, see a blindingly obvious relationship between compromise with democrats/collectivists and the high levels of unemployment and the crazy scary economic uncertainty.

265

What is the ostensible basis for any given item of social spending?  If it's not spent to "do good" according to somebody's version of morality, then why is it being spent?

Oh yes. As I said, taxes are a moral issue.

Point me to one piece of legislation that isn't rooted in a moral assumption.

266 Perhaps all of the 'responsible, consenting adults' can explain why it is that I have to pay a hefty NYC Tax, NY State Tax and Fucking hefty Federal Tax to pay for your methadone addiction, your alcoholism, your condoms, your abortions, the food and housing for your children you beat to shit, for cops to protect me from you robbing mr when you keep telling me how fucking awesomely responsible you are and that I should stay out of your fucking business?

Why is it okay for you to loot, pillage, plunder me so you can get high, fuck 24-7, beat and starve your child yet I'm not given the right to say NO?

267 I'm getting pretty fucking annoyed at self-styled conservatives who openly advocate (as some have, further up the thread) sinking the country altogether rather than supporting a a promising candidate who doesn't meet their litmus test on what, in these times, is a third-or-fourth-tier issue at best.

Reagan would never make it in today's conservative movement.

Bring Daniels on; I'll take him.  He seems to be an actual fucking adult.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 11, 2010 03:52 PM (T8sGf)

Then nominate Mitch Daniels and lose. Join the Democrats. Nobody cares. There is a Republican party platform. Mitch Daniels is asking voters who believe life begins at conception to compromise their principles and support candidates like himself who deviate from the party line. Why do you people do this? Why do you feel anyone owes you a vote? As far as the so cons are concerned, if you cave on that issue, you'll be weak on national security and spending, as well. In other words, you can rationalize anything and are the same as a Democrat. How are they wrong? Especially now that Daniels has called open season on the people you need to win an election.

268 278 BRAVO!

269 What I heard was the same bullshit social libs always fling around:  abortion is going to lose us everything, let's not talk about it.  It's a backdoor way of trying to jettison the pro-life movement from the Republican party.

No, it was an acknowledgment of the reality that other problems are more important.  The looming financial collapse, the consuming swarm of illegal immigration, the possibility of WMDs being used against American cities.  These are existential threats to the nation.  Abortion isn't.  If we are dead and gone as a country then it isn't really going to matter what our abortion policy is.

If the pro-life movement is not willing to recognize this, and is going to be represented and controlled by people who would throw away all candidates capable of winning office and tackling the existential problems because they didn't say the right things on a fourth-tier pet issue, then it does not deserve to be taken seriously and is in fact a threat to the conservative movement.

That simple.

270 Mitch Daniels is asking voters who believe life begins at conception to compromise their principles and support candidates like himself who deviate from the party line.

Yes, Heaven forbid anyone should ever have to do that.

271 By the way; if sticking a tube in the nape of a neck of a head stuck halfway in the birth canal while the body is dangling outside the birth canal just so doctors can suck out the brain then it cannot be said that that activity is NOT murdering a human being.

I'll make this easy for you boys-instead of making me pay for your slap-fucking-happy lives send your pregnant women over to Manhattan's Upper East Side where so many bitches and witches have plenty of sea-weed sticks to shove up your chick's cunts who will do the procedure for FREE!

Bonus part is that the bitches and witches provide comfy Martha Stewart decor to help your chicks feel right at home.

272 The many problems facing us are good reasons why you SHOULDN'T GO PICKING A FIGHT ABOUT ABORTION.

Glad to see we can agree.  So, SoCons, stop picking one.

273

No, it was an acknowledgment of the reality that other problems are more important.

Although I would probably agree with you... says WHO?

Says you?

Well we got a problem boss. Some other people are saying some other things, says THEM.

Perhaps you are a threat to what they see as the conservatative movement.

So it seems all you can do is assemble in a circle and kill each other.

Howsabout we do this instead:

I shall take a rusty saw and cut the conservative movement in half, and give you each an equal sized piece of the corpse.

Do you both consent?

274 That fourth-tier pet issue almost stopped the Health Care bill.

Oh and by the way, in case you weren't paying attention, it was never really a factor.

275 No, it was an acknowledgment of the reality that other problems are more important.  The looming financial collapse, the consuming swarm of illegal immigration, the possibility of WMDs being used against American cities.  These are existential threats to the nation.  Abortion isn't.  If we are dead and gone as a country then it isn't really going to matter what our abortion policy is.

Over sixty million people cast votes to make POTUS of a fucking monster who twice voted as an Illinois State Senator to make it legal to neglect infants born alive until they die.

Is what we have become really worth saving?

276 "Social cons" as a bloc are a de facto leftist bloc. With the exception of abortion (a fundamentally unideological issue), they're big-p Progressives—until proven otherwise, by, say, backing the "con" half of their name for once, as small a gesture of non-hostility, at this critical juncture for "con"-ness.<<<<<

This might be the biggest load of ass-backwards horseshit I've ever read on here.  And that's saying something.

277 a clump of cells is not a person.

That "clump of cells" a phrase which BTW could be used to describe any person, has what is valuable about life that you do, a future. You just don't want to recognize that until it has developed enough to beg you for life.

278
If the pro-life movement is not willing to recognize this, and is going to be represented and controlled by people who would throw away all candidates capable of winning office and tackling the existential problems because they didn't say the right things on a fourth-tier pet issue, then it does not deserve to be taken seriously and is in fact a threat to the conservative movement.

That simple.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States

 

This was already covered above. Who let you decide for us that abortion is a 'fourth tier pet issue'? People should not be taken seriously for committing the capital offense of disagreeing with you?  And can you prove that the dreaded social cons are 'throwing away' all candidates?

 

.

279 Is what we have become really worth saving?

Fine, then kill yourself.  But don't tell me I have to go down with you just because you don't think we're worth saving anymore.

280 Which is why you came out strongly saying it was stupid it was even involved, right?  That abortion was settled law and so forth?

Now you're just being stupid.  This kind of crap is why I take SoCons less seriously all the time.

281 Way to build a coalition!  In no time you'll have enough votes to beat the Dems.

Buddy, with your kind of take-the-ball-and-go-home "purity" bullshit, you're the last person I ever want to hear bitching about the Dems.

282

http://tinyurl.com/yjlx4nv

283

As I said above, and as demonstrated many times in these comments - once DNC strategists and the MSM get past their "OMG they have guns" conniptions about those horrible Teabaggers, they might well realize that abortion is just the right issue to split that loose coalition of fiscal cons, social cons and libertarians.  Frankly, if they follow any of the reactions to what Daniels said, it will smack 'em right in the face.

And Tattoo, I don't think anyone thinks you "owe" them a vote.  But if you really are willing to sit on that vote while the economy and our national security crumble around us, for whatever reason, you and I are really aren't on the same team.  I suspect you'd agree.

 

284 Fine, then kill yourself.  But don't tell me I have to go down with you just because you don't think we're worth saving anymore.

A question for you with no heat intended:  If there were a  GOP presidential primary candidate of your dreams who pegs the dials at 110% on the fiscal and defense legs of the conservative stool but is all right with the idea of letting infants die after being born if their mothers wanted to abort them, would you vote for him?

285

Buddy, with your kind of take-the-ball-and-go-home "purity" bullshit

 

Several people have already noted that they have upon occasion voted for pro-abortion candidates. I worked for one. The irony here is that instead of a social conservative litmus test that "throws away all candidate", social cons are repeatedly proving that they ARE willing to compromise. In a way, the divisive purist here is you

286 But don't tell me I have to go down with you just because you don't think we're worth saving anymore.

As I stated in my opener. I am *this* close to saying, "It is inevitable; we'll never get it." and taking up the alternate hobby of prepping for the an undead scourge to rise and attack mankind.

Look at your numbers, really look at them, and ask yourself. Can you do anything without the support of that segment of conservatism that still believes in non-relativistic right and wrong?

Let me put it to you this way, I believe, that even if God does not exist and is simply a human fabrication, it does not change the universal truth, THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH! And if we allow moral relativism to rule, especially in regards to sovereignty human life, our society will die.

287 If there were a  GOP presidential primary candidate of your dreams who pegs the dials at 110% on the fiscal and defense legs of the conservative stool but is all right with the idea of letting infants die after being born if their mothers wanted to abort them, would you vote for him?

No, not in the primary.  But if he were the nominee, you bet I would.

288 The irony here is that instead of a social conservative litmus test that "throws away all candidate", social cons are repeatedly proving that they ARE willing to compromise.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.  If that were true Mike Huckabee wouldn't have successfully been able to run interference for John McCain in 2008, and we might not currently be in this entire mess.

289

If there were a  GOP presidential primary candidate of your dreams who pegs the dials at 110% on the fiscal and defense legs of the conservative stool but is all right with the idea of abolishing or severly restricting the right to bear arms, would you vote for him?

If there were a  GOP presidential primary candidate of your dreams who pegs the dials at 110% on the fiscal and defense legs of the conservative stool but is all right with the idea of ending our alliance with Israel, would you vote for him?

If there were a  GOP presidential primary candidate of your dreams who pegs the dials at 110% on the fiscal and defense legs of the conservative stool but is all right with the idea of NAMBLA members teaching pro-NAMBLA messages in schools, would you vote for him?

If there were a  GOP presidential primary candidate of your dreams who pegs the dials at 110% on the fiscal and defense legs of the conservative stool but is all right with the idea of abolishing or severly restricting the right to free speech, the press, peaceful assembly or to practice religion, would you vote for him?

 

290 Buddy, with your kind of take-the-ball-and-go-home "purity" bullshit, you're the last person I ever want to hear bitching about the Dems.

So your answer to So-Cons is. F-You, you'll take the candidates we give you and like it? When we honestly believe that putting someone who is simply Fi-Con in office that we only at most delay the inevitable.

291 The irony here is that instead of a social conservative litmus test that "throws away all candidate", social cons are repeatedly proving that they ARE willing to compromise.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.  If that were true Mike Huckabee wouldn't have successfully been able to run interference for John McCain in 2008, and we might not currently be in this entire mess.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States

 

It's convenient to be able to ignore the posts that don't agree with your view. Several of us have said repeatedly that we have varied our votes, and do NOT use this as the sole arbitor. But it's easier for you to say that the only ones being inflexible is everyone who disagrees with you.

292

If that were true Mike Huckabee wouldn't have successfully been able to run interference for John McCain in 2008.

Mitt Romney wasn't going to win.  He didn't lose because mean Evangelicals torpedoed him.  He lost because he was a walking gaffe machine whose favorite novel was Battlefield Earth.

 

Wait one. All of this  anguish is because the author of Romneycare isn't our current President!?!

293 Posted by: Blue Hen at June 11, 2010 04:45 PM (R2fpr)

Another classic example of why I don't take SoCons seriously.

294 So your SoCons' answer to So-Cons everyone else is. F-You, you'll take the candidates we give you and like it?

FIFY

295 Nope never said that. It was more like, put something on the table for us (I'm actually a big C all around conservative) or don't expect us to turn it up to 11 come election time. We cannot vote for someone who's not a Fi-con and survive. Period. Our point if our candidate is just a fi-con, we do what we have done for about 50 years, and simply take the quick collapse that is occurring and change it back to the gradual collapse we've been doing for about 80 years. I'm not interested in supporting the latter strategy any longer.

296 Posted by: Blue Hen at June 11, 2010 04:45 PM (R2fpr)

Another classic example of why I don't take SoCons seriously.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States

You refuse to take seriously anyone who dares disagree with you. No reason was every given or explained by you. You want what you want and you have no intention of forming or maintaining a concensus. You have stated that you get to decide what issues have primacy; no one else. And then you whine that the dreaded social cons fail to support you.

297 Daniels isn't running for President, so this is much ado about nothing.

Also, there ought to be a point in one's thinking on policy issues wherein truth matters as much as tactics. If the drug war is wasting billions of dollars that could be put to defense--and eroding privacy rights in the process--why shouldn't that be discussed?

I just honestly don't think that any President is in a position to reduce abortion in this country, either. And it's clear that Daniels--were he in that position--would kill Federal funding of abortion as much out of cheapness as out of pro-lifeness. So the issue is truly moot.

298 AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Emphasis added.

299 Also, there ought to be a point in one's thinking on policy issues wherein truth matters as much as tactics. If the drug war is wasting billions of dollars that could be put to defense--and eroding privacy rights in the process--why shouldn't that be discussed?

I just honestly don't think that any President is in a position to reduce abortion in this country, either. And it's clear that Daniels--were he in that position--would kill Federal funding of abortion as much out of cheapness as out of pro-lifeness. So the issue is truly moot.

Posted by: Little Miss Attila

When one considers how and where the Roe decision was spawned, and in how the participants get in the position of spawning it, I fail to see how it can be argued that the office of the President is not in a position to reduce abortion. Unfortunately, that decision has elevated the issue, due to the way it was spawned. Avoiding that is similiar to dodging the question on when a human being gets the esteemed honor of being grudgingly deemed human by other humans.

300 Later folks; I'm off to go get drunk and knock up some whore.  What she decides to do with it afterward, I'll leave up to her.

301 Here's an idea.  Since everyone who supports abortion, supposedly does so because it's "the right thing", bla,bla,bla; then the doctors who perform them should do them for free.  See?  No financial problems there.

302

Question is, the point that Ace is trying to get across, is what are the terms of the truce? "Truce" needs to be better defined.

I mean every truce has its terms. Daniels says the social conservative Republican and the social liberal Republican need to have a truce do to the fiscal emergency. Let's hear the terms.

Also social conservatives probably make up 70% of Republicans, social liberals the remainder. So it seems to me the truce terms better be favorable to the conservatives.

303 First term is that anything that will advance the social conservative agenda by cutting in the budget, should be cut. IOW, if spending needs to be cut and the social conservatives want it cut, it should be cut.

304

Posted by: Reactionary at June 11, 2010 01:55 PM (xUM1Q)

I agree that the dems pay no more that lip service to these things, if that.

305

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 11, 2010 02:29 PM (ZJ/un)

Nevertheless, police heavy-handedness does happen with some regularity. We keep hearing about those SWAT raids gone wrong ...

306 Nevertheless, police heavy-handedness does happen with some regularity. We keep hearing about those SWAT raids gone wrong ...

Availability Heuristic

We are also addicted to irony because we like it in our entertainment. 

307 It's cocktail time.. on a Friday..

Let me just say this before I go..

I greatly respect you pro-life conservatives. But that cannot be the defining point of a political party.

If you make it one, we are doomed to letting liberals turn this country into a Socialist hell.

We need to get back to core principles.. small government.. less intrusive government.. bringing power back to the states.  If we do not work together on this, we are, quite frankly, fucked.  If we cannot properly prioritize, we fail.  That does not mean giving up one's personal principles.. it means making other principles the main goal of the party.

Good evening to all!

308

I grew up Catholic, and was taught an embryo was endowed with a soul at the moment of conception.  And that is why life from the first moments must be considered sacred.

But if I no longer believe in that "soul", then that gets thrown out the window.  And I can only rely on common sense which tells me the fetus is not a person until it is viable outside the womb.  Until then, it is part of the mother who has control over it

Jerry. a fetus is still not viable. a baby also needs  a human  to nuture it for it's survival. as do small children, some until they re well into teens

309

when we allow the left to rope-a-dope us. we have these arguments

the left is NOT sincere,

"a womans rights to her body?

while we saw all the left women say they want the state to help with their bodies.

lies upon lies.

310 Ace, you're probly long gone, but I just saw this from Newsweak's cover story on Palin, just out.  It's by Jonathan Alter.   Abortion, the cause around which the religious right was built two generations ago, seems to be reemerging as a potent political issue as well (though the oil spill, terrorism, and the global economy may still overshadow it in the voting booth). Eleven states have passed anti-abortion laws since the beginning of the year, and 370 bills have been introduced in state legislatures, according to the Guttmacher Institute. American women are more likely to call themselves “pro-life” (48 percent, up from 42 percent in 2001, according to Gallup), and while young white evangelicals are more accepting than their parents of gay marriage, theyÂ’re less open-minded on abortion. Seventy percent want more restrictions, compared with compared with 55 percent of those in the older generation, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

So,  according to Mr. Alter, opinions on abortion are changing.

 

311

"But if I no longer believe in that "soul", then that gets thrown out the window.  And I can only rely on common sense which tells me the fetus is not a person until it is viable outside the womb.  Until then, it is part of the mother who has control over it"

You don't need to believe in a soul to know that any given fetus at 20 weeks acts differently from another fetus at 20 weeks. They respond to stimuli differently. They have a functioning mind by that point, and are capable of learning, and the differences in how they respond to things shows they already have personalities. There's little similarity between a fetus at 10 weeks and 20 weeks. That seventy days is incredible, really, if you think about it. Aside from size and lung function, though, there's not much different between 20 weeks and a newborn.

I think after the first trimester, the choice has been made.

312 "Daniels isn't running for President, so this is much ado about nothing."

The fuck he isn't. It's the only reason I've heard of him.

313 Glad to see we can agree.  So, SoCons, stop picking one.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 11, 2010 04:22 PM (WeKGF)

It's part of the Republican party platform. Nominate a candidate with a liberal background and feel the wrath, or stick to the issues and make nice with the so cons. Otherwise, don't bitch when they stay home.

314 Social conservatives can kiss my ass.

I don't care about dead babies and I don't care about other people's knickers.

I care about small government, low taxes, personal freedom and economic freedom. 

If some ignorant jackass decides to put her baby through the garbage disposal I figure the kid was probably as genetically deficient as his mother.

A woman who is intelligent and responsible wouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place.  Winners have babies, only losers have abortions.  Losers beget losers and there are already too many of them stumbling around as it is.

315 Mitch  just what we need another idiot.  If Palin would have made this type of gaffe she would be finished in ;politics.  Mitch is just not ready for the big league

316 I care about small government, low taxes, personal freedom and economic freedom. 

Apparently, government can be as big and expensive as it likes, if it funds abortions for people you look down on. Real conservatives believe human beings can do out of charity what the government would do ineptly. You're just some asshole spouting a bunch of vague slogans and misogyny without any thought about how those principles would be applied in life.

Again, go ahead and try winning without social conservatives. They're one of the few groups who showed up to vote for John McCain. The full of shit fiscal conservatives will swallow anything, because their decision-making is really prompted by bigotry. Go join the Democrats like you did in 2008.

317 its very useful and amazing information..thanks for sharing great information about of  tax Policy..