December 09, 2011
— Gabriel Malor Friday! Wooooooo!
There was news late yesteday in the endorsement battle between the second-tier candidates. Rick Santorum picked up the Iowa Secretary of State, which I guess is maybe a thing for Iowans. Rick Perry got Dakota Meyer. Advantage: ?
Oh, and Santorum labels the other candidates "hypocrites" for declining to appear on Trump's Very Special Episode of the Apprentice.
And in pre-DOOM DOOMiness, Ron Paul's gathering strength in Iowa will help Mitt Romney. Thanks, Ronulans; now please DIAF. For the record, like some of the other cobs, I will not be voting for Paul even if he is the Republican candidate. Not that I expect Paul's campaign to get that far, but lines must be drawn: I have no tolerance for racist conspiracy theorists, and that includes racist conspiracy theorists with disastrous foreign policy and economic views.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:50 AM
| Comments (575)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
Challenge word - SCoaMF
Password - fuck the corporate media
Posted by: jc at December 09, 2011 02:53 AM (ufJKx)
Posted by: jc at December 09, 2011 06:53 AM (ufJKx)
Is that a valid word for my game?
Posted by: Alec Baldwin at December 09, 2011 02:54 AM (smit2)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 09, 2011 02:55 AM (UTq/I)
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 02:55 AM (ndqJC)
Posted by: Zakn (goes back to lurking) at December 09, 2011 02:57 AM (q/891)
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 03:00 AM (ndqJC)
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 06:55 AM (ndqJC)
More fraud and deceit?..never heard of it.
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at December 09, 2011 03:02 AM (smit2)
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 03:08 AM (ndqJC)
Remind me again why Ron Paul shouldn't run Third Party?
Posted by: Joe Momma at December 09, 2011 03:09 AM (B3RUT)
Straight from the American liberal handbook comes this ditty:
Psychopaths are just misunderstood....and can be cured.
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 03:11 AM (ndqJC)
I even gave you a pump Perry in the Hot Gas poll -- no longer. It looks like the amphibian. I'm not too happy about but there it is.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 09, 2011 03:11 AM (ENKCw)
Ohhhh! Ohhhh! I'm in the top 10 today. Wish I had something pertinent to provide besides "SCOAMF". But then again, it does require reapeating.
SCOAMF!
SCOAMF!
SCOAMF!
Posted by: Lurkin'no'mo at December 09, 2011 03:13 AM (6zvrq)
OOOPs. There goes that Top Ten. Oh well. If I could type faster without making mistakes I'd have nailed it.
Posted by: Lurkin'no'mo at December 09, 2011 03:15 AM (6zvrq)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 03:15 AM (YiE0S)
Herr Doktor already said that he wouldn't -- probably to blunt suspicions that he'd hold the election hostage to his own whims. Kinda like you just suggested, actually.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 03:16 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 09, 2011 03:16 AM (ENKCw)
I too would not vote for Paul. Obviously, I wouldn't vote for Obama, so in that scenario I vote for the Constitution Party candidate.
I like Perry, Santorum and Bachmann. But if my choices come down to Gingrich and Romney, I have to say, I must go with Romney. How Gingrich has come to be seen as Mr. Conservative is beyond me.
My only guess is people just assume he must be more conservative than Romney. He is not. Everything to both calls for a big government solution(I find this reminiscent of 2008 when Romney was "the conservative option" to McCain. How quickly we forget.)
I would vote for either if he wins the nomination, but Romney v. Gingrich is just a choice of uptight v. erratic, and I'll take uptight if those are my choices.
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 03:17 AM (mdwWR)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 09, 2011 03:17 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at December 09, 2011 03:20 AM (Xq7/L)
Which ad? The "Strong" ad is the one that offends me, for the reason happyfeet gives here:
no it was really bigoty to juxtapose gay soldiers – people what are serving their country – with children not being able to celebrate christmas I think – that being one of the rights those gay soldiers Rick Perry scorns are fighting for
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 03:21 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at December 09, 2011 03:21 AM (Xq7/L)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at December 09, 2011 03:23 AM (Xq7/L)
THE Iowa Sec of State??? Where is the flaming skull for cryin out loud?
Wow. I'm sold. And off the Buddy Roemer Train.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 09, 2011 03:28 AM (dV45O)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 03:29 AM (XVaFd)
Posted by: Andrew at December 09, 2011 03:31 AM (WSj9U)
I'm a libertarian, but not a Ron Paul libertarian. I'm suspicious of his racial and Semetic views based on his newsletter and other actions (although I also think he may have genuinely reformed by now). His foreign policy is ludicrous and dangerous. That utterly disqualifies him for President right there, full stop.
However, like me, he's a pro-life libertarian. I strongly agree with that. Indeed, I can't think of a good religious reason not to abort children en masse, since they could hardly have sinned in the womb and, if the worldview is correct, I don't see how this doesn't send them straight to heaven. Or something. So while I'm glad religious people join me, I've never quite understood why (unless, deep down, most people don't really, actually, literally believe their faith, which, wrongly or rightly, I suspect is so).
But secularly, with but one life to live, I think it should be up to an individual whether to end their life or not (and they should have that right, by the way). Babies should have the right to life.
Anyway, whatever you think of Ron Paul, you have to admit he's presented his libertarian views within the Republican party since joining, and hasn't run third party. He's kept his word on that. I respect him for that.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 03:31 AM (YiE0S)
Head north a few miles, I got the ammo part covered.
Anybody but obama is still better than obama.
Posted by: Artruen at December 09, 2011 03:31 AM (fDGF1)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 09, 2011 03:31 AM (dV45O)
Posted by: mike at December 09, 2011 03:34 AM (0hdwM)
Yes, because having Brian Williams ask Rick Perry, "How do you sleep at night?" is so much more desirable for a debate.
Betcha Trump will talk about what everyone complains that the MFM debates don't.
Posted by: Dave C at December 09, 2011 03:34 AM (SXe2c)
Purist..
Posted by: Dave C at December 09, 2011 03:35 AM (SXe2c)
Posted by: Pooter Hound at December 09, 2011 03:35 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 09, 2011 03:36 AM (U8jRK)
Yeah, hopefully Vic is just sleeping in.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, working towards full Curmudgeonhood at December 09, 2011 03:37 AM (d0Tfm)
I have it from a reliable source that Michele Bachman, when/if she drops out of the race has told Gov. Romney that she will endorse him. I also heard from this same source close to the Romney campaign that Christie, Rubio, Pawlenty and Bachman are all on the list of possible VP picks.
If you've been watching it seems to me that a few other people might have some knowledge of this information as well; such as Ann Coulter and Chris Christie himself, they have both been going full press for Mitt.
Posted by: spypeach at December 09, 2011 03:37 AM (hyUyU)
The GOP has some pretty good leverage over Ron Paul to prevent a 3d-party run: his son.
A run by Ron Paul would kill any meaningful position for Rand in the Senate, if not his seat.
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 03:37 AM (mdwWR)
I'm your resident Aussie lurker and I want to know what you've done with Vic????
My little thing before I hop into bed is read Vic's news headlines from over there - now I can't go to bed and I'll have to stay up all night......
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 03:37 AM (PMAH2)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, working towards full Curmudgeonhood at December 09, 2011 03:38 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Nash Rambler at December 09, 2011 03:38 AM (C7ATr)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at December 09, 2011 03:38 AM (Xq7/L)
Muslim Clerics Warning: Cucumbers Too Sexy For Women
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 07:08 AM (ndqJC)
Remind me why it is that we tolerate those scum? They should be rounded up wholesale and, at the very least, deported.
Posted by: Reactionary at December 09, 2011 03:39 AM (xUM1Q)
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian for president in 1988. This was after his first stint as a Republican Congressman when he left the party.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 03:39 AM (FkKjr)
Bachmann endorsing Romney? uh oh, now he'll get two extra voters!
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 09, 2011 03:40 AM (U8jRK)
23 Perry's latest ad is the end for me.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:21 AM (YiE0S)
I agree 100%. ItÂ’s not that I care what his views are on social issues, but I do care that someone could be stupid enough to run an ad like this. What the fuck could he possibly be thinking?
Luckily, it will help the cause by pulling primary votes away from Newt insuring no one gains an insurmountable momentum early on. Keep spreading those delegates around so a brokered convention gets us the candidate we deserve.
Posted by: jwest at December 09, 2011 03:40 AM (8moZm)
And Santorum. He hasn't been given much of a shot in this contest, and while I disagree with some of his (and Newt's, for that matter) social views, I think he's a serious, levelheaded guy, who obviously loves his family and his country. He deserves a forum.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 03:41 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at December 09, 2011 03:41 AM (Xq7/L)
Our SCOAMF is handing the handling of the air war in the Afghanistan - Pakistan border region over to Hillary.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 09, 2011 03:42 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Truman North at December 09, 2011 03:42 AM (I2LwF)
Hey Dr Fish!!! Glad to see you in sunny SAT! Lunch at 12:30 at the Rim, Stone Werks. Me and another Moronette will be toasting you. (Not literally of course)
Yes, chilly in SAT but great to be back. Sorry you have lunch plans as I was thinking about the Blanco Cafe today. Dropping mom off at the store at 11:30 where she will attend a birthday party for 90-year old twins. Mom is 99. Maybe we can make the Mexican food gig another day.
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 03:43 AM (ndqJC)
I was quoting GnuBreed when I said that, but I'm glad at least a few people agree with me. I went on at length how this is bad politics on a previous thread, and offered several better alternatives he could have done.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 03:43 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Rick Perry at December 09, 2011 03:43 AM (niZvt)
And I wish Perry would use the economy.
Have you seen Perry's policy vids? He's been laying out his stance on many issues (like a Flat Tax and a Balanced Budget Amendment), which the MFM dutifully ignores. His observation about gays and Christmas is pretty accurate: one is being promoted over the other by the Left and has been for a while now. For a party that proclaims to be all for inclusion, they're pretty exclusive of traditional American values, even to the point of outright hostility.
And name me one thing that prayer harms.
Anyone?
Bueller?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, working towards full Curmudgeonhood at December 09, 2011 03:44 AM (d0Tfm)
I understand why the perpetually-outraged hyper-emos on the Left would be aplopectic about Perry's ad, but not why anybody on the Right would be.
You might think it was a bad ad, but I don't know why it would elicit such emotion.
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 03:46 AM (mdwWR)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 09, 2011 03:48 AM (Gc/Qi)
The Ghost of Christmas Past
On this date in 1975 President Ford signed a $2.3 billion seasonal loan-authorization that officials of New York City and State said would prevent a city default.
Posted by: Nash Rambler at December 09, 2011 03:49 AM (C7ATr)
You might think it was a bad ad, but I don't know why it would elicit such emotion.
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 07:46 AM (mdwWR)
For one, Iowa is democrat state. They will go for Obama in 2012. For him not to go on tv and talk about economics is just stupid. When you're low in the polls, your best option is to be seen talking about stuff that matters,
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 09, 2011 03:49 AM (U8jRK)
Yeah, the Constitution never gave me a boner past 1797 or so...
Posted by: nickless at December 09, 2011 03:49 AM (MMC8r)
52 Yes - it's just not the same without Vic leading off with all the news of the day from the US
Oh well, I'll just have another glass of wine and wait for Vic!
Anyway it's almost Saturday here - a few minutes before midnight...
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 03:52 AM (PMAH2)
Posted by: Jimbo at December 09, 2011 03:52 AM (O3R/2)
Well good.
I'm glad someone's fucking working on it.
(Obviously psychopathy, by the way, is just another evolutionary survival and replication strategy tried by our genes. There are different personalities that, if everyone had one, would be bad for our survival, but a mixed representation increases our chances as a social species. Most psychopaths aren't hard core criminals, and many aren't criminals at all, although many, many hard core criminals are psychopaths. There is increasingly strong evidence from science that robust moral responsibility, free will, is an illusion anyway. Right or wrong on that, if there are things we can do on the "nurture" side of the "genes, environment, and stochasticism" equation to reduce vicious behavior, I don't have a problem with that, and you shouldn't either.)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 03:54 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: jwest
...............
That's about what I am hoping for at this point.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 09, 2011 03:55 AM (UTq/I)
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 03:55 AM (mdwWR)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 03:55 AM (niZvt)
Anyway it's almost Saturday here - a few minutes before midnight...
Posted by: aussie..............
Where in Aussieland you from?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 09, 2011 03:56 AM (UTq/I)
I favored Perry once but you gottta get over it when your candidate is done for.
Unfortunately, that leaves me with Newt because I cannot, ever, under any circumstance vote for Romney.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 09, 2011 03:57 AM (7+pP9)
Ron Paul - disastrous economic views?
Yes. Riddle me how to run a 14 trillion dollar economy on a couple of hundred billion in gold reserves, gold bug.
And generally ignoring the security of the world because one doesn't like the Joooos is not a basis for a stable economic system. Linkages--Paulbots draw them everywhere except where they actually exist.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 09, 2011 03:58 AM (B+qrE)
Perhaps over time, the agenda of such an agency would get exposed on occasion. Maybe here, maybe in Waco, maybe along an international border. Who knows.
It may not be a grand conspiracy, it may just be what nearly unlimited power looks like. It may be what having no advocate for constitutional constraint looks like.
Posted by: Artruen at December 09, 2011 03:59 AM (fDGF1)
Anyway it's almost Saturday here - a few minutes before midnight...
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 07:52 AM (PMAH2)
Well mate, while waiting for Vic, how about Bar-B-Q'ing that annoying little Australian GEICO lizard that's on the telly every few minutes.
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at December 09, 2011 03:59 AM (ndqJC)
You might think it was a bad ad, but I don't know why it would elicit such emotion.
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 07:46 AM (mdwWR)
Because at this moment the country isnÂ’t too worried about gays in the military and prayer in schools. The ad is ridiculous pander to bible thumpers in Iowa that shows people across the country that Perry would waste time and effort on social issues instead of focusing on the economy.
Like I said, I don’t care what his views are on social issues. My objection is that he lacks the political instincts to know what to say to win a national election. Just like his bungled attack on Romney in one of the debates, he doesn’t seem to realize how his “strategy” will play out across the country.
Posted by: jwest at December 09, 2011 04:00 AM (8moZm)
Either of two reasons: Love of people under arms protecting us. And respect for our fellow human beings who are homosexual.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:03 AM (YiE0S)
From the official White House transcript:
So while it is not yet Hanukkah, letÂ’s give thanks for our blessings, for being together to celebrate this wonderful holiday season. And we never need an excuse for a good party. (Cue: Laughter.)
SCOAMF
Posted by: We never need an excuse to make fun at your expense. at December 09, 2011 04:04 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 04:05 AM (p7SSh)
My Firefox UURL shortener ad-on seems to give some people 404s, so here's the story using TinyUrl:
Our SCOAMF is handing the handling of the air war in the Afghanistan - Pakistan border region over to Hillary.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 09, 2011 04:06 AM (7+pP9)
You can't count on this. Unlike the Democratic Party, GOP rules make this method of selecting a candidate nearly impossible (multiple votes aren't impossible, but a brokered convention essentially is).
Full disclosure: I support Newt.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:07 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: GEICO Lizard at December 09, 2011 04:08 AM (niZvt)
I cannot tell you how offensive I found that statement. It is a damned lie, as anyone who watched the coverage of President Bush, VP Cheney, and others in the administration would know. I don't think I could vote for Paul, either. Plus I don't want that crank on my TV for the next 4 years.
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 09, 2011 04:09 AM (GoIUi)
Circa isn't the only one who feels better.
Posted by: Never need an excuse to lie in order to justify your own malice. at December 09, 2011 04:09 AM (lpWVn)
"And name me one thing that prayer harms."
Nothing really, however:"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
- Anon.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:11 AM (YiE0S)
Most psychopaths aren't hard core criminals, and many aren't criminals at all, although many, many hard core criminals are psychopaths.
Those that aren't hard core criminals become politicians.
And the difference is, what, again?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, working towards full Curmudgeonhood at December 09, 2011 04:11 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Flo the Progressive Insurance Girl at December 09, 2011 04:12 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 04:12 AM (XE2Oo)
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 04:14 AM (PMAH2)
- Anon.
Does a strawman get stronger when wrapped in an aphorism?
Posted by: toby928© at December 09, 2011 04:14 AM (GTbGH)
“Unlike the Democratic Party, GOP rules make this method of selecting a candidate nearly impossible”
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 08:07 AM (YiE0S)
Actually, recent changes in the GOP rules make it far more likely than before. Salon and Politico have run articles in the past week outlining the changes and how they could leave candidates without enough votes to take the nomination on the first ballot. After that, anything can happen.
Also, where is it written that we need to follow the rules? When the democrats knew they needed to dump Bob Torricelli in New Jersey after he had the nomination, they just said “fuck it, we’re running someone else”. Doesn’t anyone here ever get tired of getting screwed when we follow the rules to the letter and the other side plays to win?
Posted by: jwest at December 09, 2011 04:14 AM (8moZm)
Posted by: sTevo at December 09, 2011 08:09 AM (VMcEw)
No thanks. She's a f*cking Progressive by her own words in the 2008 debate; we'd be getting the same shit in a different bottle.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 09, 2011 04:15 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Chuckit at December 09, 2011 04:15 AM (1kr1a)
Posted by: real joe at December 09, 2011 04:15 AM (w7Lv+)
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 04:17 AM (PMAH2)
Oh. If it's not too much trouble, can you kindly post a link to one of those articles? It sounds interesting.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:17 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 04:19 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: eman at December 09, 2011 04:19 AM (HUEsn)
a reporter twitter post?
gotta be true, especially if it substantiates a bias.
I cannot tell you how offensive I found that statement.
As would I.
Be more interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth.
Ron Paul isn't alone in finding revised accounts predictably boorish.
Posted by: Never need an excuse to swallow a camel in order to justify preconceptions. at December 09, 2011 04:20 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at December 09, 2011 04:21 AM (j5CHE)
Posted by: Hans Schnicklegruber at December 09, 2011 04:21 AM (qs9G3)
Posted by: ParisParamus at December 09, 2011 04:21 AM (m4nvO)
Why didn't he move the date of the Eid feast for his convenience?
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 09, 2011 04:22 AM (GoIUi)
.........
Still sounds nice.. always wanted to visit Sydney..
I awoke to our first snowfall this morning.. just a dusting really, but there will be loads more to come before spring.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 09, 2011 04:23 AM (UTq/I)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 09, 2011 04:23 AM (U8jRK)
Posted by: blaster at December 09, 2011 04:24 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 09, 2011 04:25 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: nickless at December 09, 2011 04:25 AM (MMC8r)
Who, in full disclosure, states progressive love and then tosses out some fuckin quote about a thousand hands in prayer? Ask a Roman about that shit.
And fuck hilary, the alinsky understudy. Have a crappy day. I am going to work.
Posted by: Artruen at December 09, 2011 04:26 AM (fDGF1)
Au contraire. Obama is a vacation addict SCOAMF. There isn't a single holiday he wouldn't use as reason to skip work or insult someone for the hell of it.
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to SCOAMF at December 09, 2011 04:27 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 04:28 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Minuteman at December 09, 2011 04:28 AM (qs9G3)
Posted by: Retread at December 09, 2011 04:32 AM (ALZZ7)
113
Not so, Miss Marple. But it's the nature of propagandists to do such, and the nature of the public to be swayed by their own bias. Reporters are salesmen who frequently fabricate stories according to their own designs, by mutating a kernel to produce the desired affect.
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to SCOAMF at December 09, 2011 04:33 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: eman at December 09, 2011 04:33 AM (HUEsn)
None of this election stuff matters because the CIA has already thrown a coup according to Paul.
Also, that whole save the union Civil War thing? Lincoln should not have done it, don't you know.
Hey look, HEROIN!!!!
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 09, 2011 04:33 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 04:34 AM (vzFJV)
Then explain it. What happens to children who die too young to accept Jesus?
If Christianity is true, and if aborted and otherwise too young to accept Jesus children go to heaven, then abortion may be evil for the perpetrator, a violation of "Divine Command" morality theory and Godly prohibition against murder, but it's a sweet, sweet deal for the aborted child. And it's actually one hell of a noble sacrifice to go to Hell personally to bring so many more children to Heaven than otherwise would have been the case (as life has a corrupting effect, to say the least, reducing odds people will make it there).
If, on the other hand, aborted and innocent young children get denied even an opportunity for Heaven because someone killed them, or there was an accident, well that kind of sucks.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:35 AM (YiE0S)
Morning, all!
Just got to read the "love letter" Ace posted about last night. Oh dear Lord. Oh. Dear. Lord.
Who said romance is dead?
In other news, it's Friday! What will be this week's massive document drop from our corrupt administration? Something related to F&F? Or will another Solyndra rear its ugly head in time to be completely eclipsed by the weekend? Questions, questions...
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 04:35 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Some Dope at December 09, 2011 04:37 AM (nNa9k)
It's a gratuitously offensive and unnecessarily bad target ad. They could have made a good one instead, and I outlined several ways how on a previous thread.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:39 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 04:40 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 04:40 AM (lpWVn)
Oh that was about the funniest thing ever. I think I'm going to send that to every woman I know, just for the hell of it, to get a few LOLs,
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:41 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Minuteman at December 09, 2011 04:41 AM (qs9G3)
109 Snow! How lovely - my daughter and her husband will be moving to the US soon ( their business customers are all there) so I'm looking forward to seeing snow - we do have snow here in the Aussie Alps (hills) but as we're not skiers we never go there
It's a bit expensive to have a holiday here - after visiting Europe last year, it was a shock to compare the cost of living with here - we are truly being ripped off - you would be shocked at the prices we pay for things here - eg petrol is double the price that you pay
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 04:41 AM (PMAH2)
Dude? It's quite evident you have no concept of free will, or indeed, of the Judeo-Christian belief in the primacy of life. That's a grotesque and offensive mischaracterization.
Posted by: Kerry at December 09, 2011 04:42 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 08:39 AM (YiE0S)
All hail Random....we are in the presence of perfection.
Posted by: Tami at December 09, 2011 04:42 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Jason at December 09, 2011 04:43 AM (t5Cuh)
Perry is a fool for doing that ad but he is also right.
Open homosexuality in the military is crazy.
Forcing kids to be silent about faith while in school is crazy.
Both are happening.
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 04:43 AM (SrCor)
I realized the silliness of my comment the moment I hit enter.
Really though, Romney aught to primary the JEF in his real party.
Posted by: sTevo at December 09, 2011 04:43 AM (VMcEw)
Give him marks for trying. I respect that. He's a serious governor with a good record whom I initially supported (and am on record here as doing so, if I could be bothered googling for however long to find it), but he just does not understand how to campaign outside of Texas.
Texas is a unique beast: it's own semi-Republic. Bush, Lyndon Johnson, etc., were just better politicians. And the GOP needs a good politician in order to defeat Obama.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:44 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 04:45 AM (p7SSh)
And this is a completely ludicrous argument anyway; one could also argue that we should kill babies right after birth, because they go to heaven, anyway.
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 09, 2011 04:45 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Random Idiot. at December 09, 2011 04:45 AM (qs9G3)
No, I had to think about it for a while and other people on that thread contributed to my ideas. But juxtapositioning disapproval of serving military members with children wasn't the best way it could have been done.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:46 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Random Idiot. at December 09, 2011 04:46 AM (qs9G3)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 04:47 AM (elbGQ)
This is proof positive Government Motors is circling the drain again.
The cuts are focused on engineering, product development and corporate operations at General Motors' headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center. But the company stressed that no mass layoffs are planned.When they are dropping their Engineering dept. It is all over but the admission of same.
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 04:48 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: A Random Concerned Conservative at December 09, 2011 04:48 AM (vzFJV)
Posted by: Random Idiot. at December 09, 2011 04:50 AM (qs9G3)
Posted by: the Charlie Daniels of the torque wrench at December 09, 2011 04:51 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:51 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Roy at December 09, 2011 04:51 AM (tCLC5)
Posted by: blaster at December 09, 2011 04:52 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 04:52 AM (elbGQ)
150 Jean
When my daughter finally does the big move to the US, I'm hoping to see more of the US than the big touristy cities - loved them all but I've never had the chance to see everywhere in between (except from the plane travelling from NYC to LA)
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 04:53 AM (PMAH2)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 08:51 AM (YiE0S)
what are you doing your best impression of the old troll christoph?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Becks Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 04:55 AM (yAor6)
Then explain it. What happens to children who die too young to accept Jesus?
At best, that's a trick question.
Suffer the little children to come unto me, do not hinder them, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. And unless we become as a little child, we can not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ultimately, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 04:55 AM (lpWVn)
I'm noticing a lack of people answering this question: "Then explain it. What happens to children who die too young to accept Jesus?"
Through the grace of the Savior they are welcomed into the embrace of the Father. Next.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 09, 2011 04:55 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Roy at December 09, 2011 08:51 AM (tCLC5)
I have to agree on all those points, Ive always said of Paul, he'd have the economy booming and the debt falling but just as we're starting to enjoy the fruits of it, we'll be blown up by an Iranian Nuke
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Becks Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 04:56 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 04:57 AM (l9zgN)
Well, at least you answered the question, Miss Marple.
In that case, what I said:
If Christianity is true, and if aborted and otherwise too young to accept Jesus children go to heaven, then abortion may be evil for the perpetrator, a violation of "Divine Command" morality theory and Godly prohibition against murder, but it's a sweet, sweet deal for the aborted child. And it's actually one hell of a noble sacrifice to go to Hell personally to bring so many more children to Heaven than otherwise would have been the case (as life has a corrupting effect, to say the least, reducing odds people will make it there).
... is true. It's an evil thing to do, because it's murder and violates God's will. But it's a mega-sweet deal for the aborted children, so we can stop mourning for them right about now.
I'll continue mourning and fighting against abortion, however, because I don't believe in God or Heaven, and I think there's no good evidence that we have more than one life. And that is why abortion is wrong.
I'm not making a pro-choice argument. I'm trying to understand on what rational basis Christians and Muslims have been my ally in this fight. I guess I'll just accept their leadership and support on this gratefully, but I still don't understand it.
The Charlie Daniels [wonderful music, especially The Devil Went Back to Georgia] of the torque wrench probably put it best:
"Don't make teh faithful crazy with logic, that's why it's called Faith."
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 04:58 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Becks Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 04:59 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: John Calvin at December 09, 2011 05:00 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: SAT Verbal Section Question Number 47. at December 09, 2011 05:00 AM (qs9G3)
Got it.
Posted by: nickless at December 09, 2011 05:00 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: UGrev at December 09, 2011 05:00 AM (yBuLL)
Posted by: John Calvin at December 09, 2011 09:00 AM (niZvt)
lol John Calvin.Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:01 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 09, 2011 05:01 AM (Ho2rs)
Ding, ding. It took a few minutes but I remember you from some months back telling us about your daughter's impending move. Did she pick California or Texas?
As for seeing more than the touristy cities, I suggest getting a few old fashioned hard-copy maps, renting a car and just start driving, any where but the Interstate highways. Despite the press, Americans enjoy meeting People From Other Places.
Posted by: Retread at December 09, 2011 05:01 AM (ALZZ7)
Posted by: blaster at December 09, 2011 05:02 AM (Fw2Gg)
After Super Tuesday we will be left with Newt and Rick.
Rick will eventually defeat Newt.
Rick clobbers Ebola.
This is the best "eman drinks alcohol to tolerate 2012" outcome I can foresee.
Pour me some of what you're having.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 05:02 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: blaster at December 09, 2011 09:02 AM (Fw2Gg)
my brother's not gonna be happy to hear this...
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Becks Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:02 AM (yAor6)
After Super Tuesday we will be left with Newt and Rick.
Rick will eventually defeat Newt.
Rick clobbers Ebola.
This is the best "eman drinks alcohol to tolerate 2012" outcome I can foresee.
Pour me some of what you're having.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 09:02 AM (VtjlW)
me too, and some of what your smoking as well
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Becks Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:03 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 05:03 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: blaster at December 09, 2011 05:04 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 05:06 AM (p7SSh)
Close! I've always thought Russian, myself.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:07 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Lyle Lanley at December 09, 2011 05:08 AM (qs9G3)
Posted by: eman at December 09, 2011 05:08 AM (HUEsn)
After Super Tuesday we will be left with Newt and Rick.
Rick will eventually defeat Newt.
Rick clobbers Ebola.
This is the best "eman drinks alcohol to tolerate 2012" outcome I can foresee.
Pour me some of what you're having.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 09:02 AM (VtjlW)
Damn, you often make me laugh!Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:09 AM (YiE0S)
But it's a mega-sweet deal for the aborted children, so we can stop mourning for them right about now.
Ass.
We mourn for inocent lost lives, their lost potential, and the hubris of those who cast them aside in the name of simple expediency.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 09, 2011 05:09 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 05:09 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 09, 2011 05:11 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 09:09 AM (OlN4e)
hey fucker tell us how Cheney started a war so you assclowns could make money rebuilding Iraq
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Channeling The 04 Dem Strategy at December 09, 2011 05:11 AM (yAor6)
Halliburton as in Earl P. One of the pioneers of oil well cementing. I've done that for Halliburton too.
Gaia rapist.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 09, 2011 05:11 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Deety at December 09, 2011 05:12 AM (Pm8ax)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:12 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Dr. Gaius Baltar at December 09, 2011 05:13 AM (HUEsn)
Okay maybe not, maybe I'll just skip that vote instead.
Also, re the Perry "Strong" ad - relax, y'all. He's pandering to the Iowa caucus voters. They care about that stuff more than most. (Remember Bachmann *did* win the straw poll largely based on social issues!) I don't like that ad either, but it pissed off all the trolls who wouldn't vote for him anyway, and I kinda like that even if pissing people off isn't really my favorite campaign strategery. (I like honey, not vinegar, but whatever.)
Just roll with it. Perry isn't going to make the campaign about social issues.
Posted by: Beth at December 09, 2011 05:14 AM (kBxk7)
Posted by: MDH3 at December 09, 2011 05:14 AM (GKyUC)
purgatory.
Posted by: GMan at December 09, 2011 05:15 AM (sxq57)
Posted by: Fritz at December 09, 2011 05:16 AM (/ZZCn)
On Newt,
You sure you want to look at him and his nine chins everyday for the next four years...You sure you want to hear that professorial monotone everyday for the next four years. And, the man does not look healthy. Being retired military, I can tell you that Newt and persons like him would not achieve high rank because he could not stand the physical demands of the job. He would get destroyed by the 24/7 tempo of being POTUS. Executive leadership truly requires some traits above and beyond a decent command of the english language, or being a master-debater ala Newt. Apropos of nothing this morning...Just putting it out there...
Posted by: Survey sez at December 09, 2011 05:16 AM (6jBlD)
In total I guess I worked for Halliburton about 5 years. First as a driver, then as a Cementer, then, after Engineering school, as a Field Engineer in Training where I learned fracturing and down hole tooling, both of which Halliburton is a leader in. They got involved it things like contracting in Afghanistan through the purchase of Brown and Root and International Harvester.
Tough to call Halliburton the incarnation of evil, I always got the impression they were just a company trying to make a profit.
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 05:16 AM (OlN4e)
Also, re the Perry "Strong" ad - relax, y'all. He's pandering to the Iowa caucus voters. They care about that stuff more than most. (Remember Bachmann *did* win the straw poll largely based on social issues!) I don't like that ad either, but it pissed off all the trolls who wouldn't vote for him anyway, and I kinda like that even if pissing people off isn't really my favorite campaign strategery. (I like honey, not vinegar, but whatever.)
exactly, look im not for Perry right now, i'm FOR gay marriage, I was FOR the repeal of DADT but im not offended in any way by that ad.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:16 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:18 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:18 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Honey Badger at December 09, 2011 05:19 AM (GvYeG)
State of Grace.
Posted by: nickless at December 09, 2011 05:19 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: eman at December 09, 2011 05:20 AM (HUEsn)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 05:21 AM (WkuV6)
So Obama lit ALL the menorah candles at once, huh?
He didn't think that was a monumental cock-up, eh?
What an ignorant assclown. Apparently he just doesn't know the whole frigging story of Hannukah? You think someone may have possibly wanted to clue him in? "Um, Mr. President? I understand that you despise Jews and the whole concept of Judaism, but you do realize that the point of the menorah is to commemorate the lamp oil that lasted eight days, against all reason? And that the candles are supposed to be lit across eight days, not all at once? Because lighting them all at once is a sure sign that you are a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure? Just so you know."
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 05:21 AM (4df7R)
I think you mean Limbo, but I thought the Catholics pulled the plug on that.
No, Catholics did not pull the plug on Purgatory. See CCC 1030-32. http://is.gd/R5ilqo
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 05:21 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at December 09, 2011 05:21 AM (niZvt)
Tough to call Halliburton the incarnation of evil, I always got the impression they were just a company trying to make a profit.
That six percent profit margin in Iraq was just over the top, man.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 09, 2011 05:22 AM (B+qrE)
Fireworks broke out in Congress today, as Rep. Rep Darrell Issa, R-Calif., warned Attorney General Eric Holder that he could be held in contempt of Congress for his failure to cooperate with an investigation into the Fast and Furious program, in which the Obama administration allowed guns to "walk" into Mexico, where they ended up in the hands of Mexican drug lords.
The exchange, which occurred at the end of a House Judiciary committee hearing that lasted nearly seven hours including recesses, exploded as Issa compared Holder's stonewalling to the Nixon era and Holder responded by comparing Issa's tactics to Sen. Joe McCarthy's.
Eric realizing that he's a lying sack of shit referred to the Cliche Handbook and went with option #2 of McCarthy since Hitler probably wouldn't have fit this scenario.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 09, 2011 05:22 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:23 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 05:24 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 05:24 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Honey Badger at December 09, 2011 09:19 AM (GvYeG)
Cucumbers? Next you'll have women fondling bananas! Filthy infidels!
Posted by: Some crazy Imam who apparently doesn't have enough wives at December 09, 2011 05:24 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:24 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 09, 2011 05:25 AM (Ho2rs)
a) Per the Bible, this world is hopelessly flawed, and we were driven into it out of the Garden of Eden as PUNISHMENT, remember? To bear pain and toil to survive?
b) So, I don't see the Genesis described a world that God wants newborns to "enjoy."
c) More fundamentalist Christians tend to look at this world as some sort of "test" to determine if we are worthy of heavens... you run the gauntlet of all the hurts and temptations the world can hit you with, and, presumably, if you kept your faith intact the whole time you get to go to heaven (though, again, the Calvinists would say even THAT was predetermined, which IMO makes a mockery of the very core of Christian theology, but that is another matter... ) SO: if a kid dies and automatically collects $200, and gets an automatic Go Directly to Heaven card... yes, he indeed did "luck out," in that sense.
d) When it comes to the whole scenario of us meeting up on Cloud 9 one day wearing white sheets and playing a golden harp... if we really, TRULY, believe that... why indeed do we think death should be a time of mourning at all? What, indeed, makes anyone "poor" or to be pitied for dying young or dying at all? Under such a scenario, isn't death really the best possible thing to happen to any of us?
I'm just thinking out loud here; my personal view of the whole thing is that Jesus was much more concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven being established in the Here and Now than what happens to us after death - about which in the oldest Gospel, Mark, he says almost next to nothing.
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 09:12 AM (niZvt)
Thank you for your serious and thoughtful reply CoolCzech.While I don't have the same understanding of Jesus the man as you do, what you say is quite possible and does make sense.
I don't have anything to add over and above your realistic and good comment, but I genuinely appreciated it.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:26 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 05:26 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: eman at December 09, 2011 05:26 AM (HUEsn)
He had it this week and lit all of the candles at once so he wouldn't have to interrupt his Hawaii vacation.
Hanukkah begins at sunset on Dec. 20. Obama joked that everyone needs to be "careful that your kids don't start thinking Hanukkah lasts 20 nights instead of eight."
What? Does that make any sense? Or is it just the idiot off of the teleprompter babbling nonsense
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 09, 2011 05:26 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 09:24 AM (niZvt)
that's what I thought
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:26 AM (yAor6)
Eric realizing that he's a lying sack of shit referred to the Cliche Handbook and went with option #2 of McCarthy since Hitler probably wouldn't have fit this scenario.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 09, 2011 09:22 AM (1Jaio)
Of course, the fact that McCarthy was, you know, RIGHT and stuff clearly escapes Holder's childish grasp of reality.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 05:26 AM (4df7R)
Tough to call Halliburton the incarnation of evil, I always got the impression they were just a company trying to make a profit.
Well... scoording to SCOAMF.... that IS evil incarnate.
Posted by: fixerupper at December 09, 2011 05:27 AM (C8hzL)
After years of hearing the left yell that and having the morons jokingly yell that, it's funny to just see their trucks all over the place here. You can't actually see the evil dripping off the trucks.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 09, 2011 05:27 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 09:26 AM (WkuV6)
lol my brother gets in a hiffy when I mention he was right
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:27 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Jehu at December 09, 2011 05:28 AM (wXl2T)
Posted by: eman at December 09, 2011 09:26 AM (HUEsn)
FILTHY! FILTHY! Mentioning "woman" and "carpet" in one sentence! NEXT YOU'LL BE ASKING IF WOMEN CAN DRIVE A STICK SHIFT! We don't allow them to drive AT ALL, the dirty whores!
Posted by: Some crazy imam who apparently doesn't have enough wives at December 09, 2011 05:30 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Jehu at December 09, 2011 09:28 AM (wXl2T)
Ive never seen you on here before but my God do I agree w/ a lot of what you said
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:30 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 05:30 AM (XE2Oo)
Tammy Bruce has been saying for months that Bachmann is a stalking horse for Mittens.
Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2011 05:31 AM (UJYQt)
you're still betting on this huh?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 09:18 AM (yAor6)
Not betting on it in the sense that itÂ’s the most likely possibility, but opening people to the possibility that it can happen. There are Mitt forces that are not going to give in to Newt or Perry. There are anti-Mitt forces that simply wonÂ’t give the votes he needs to lock up the nomination. On top of that, there are Paul nuts out there that are getting sick of being ignored and laughed at.
My main point is that we donÂ’t need to settle on a flawed candidate that doesnÂ’t generate the level of enthusiasm we want next year. GOP rules are not codified in law. The rules for nominating a presidential candidate are anything that the GOP rules committee agrees to over a 15 minute phone conference. Individual state GOP committees can be pressured into doing whatever it takes.
Personally, I think it would be a great way to take 45 states if the current crop of candidates go until the convention and Marco Rubio comes out as the fresh, new nominee. Obama and the democrats would be apoplectic.
Also, don’t for one minute think that the democrats wouldn’t pull the same stunt. If 30 days before the democrat convention it’s obvious that Obama is going to lose big, I would predict he would drop out to save his ego and Hillary would be the surprise candidate for the next “historic” election.
Posted by: jwest at December 09, 2011 05:32 AM (8moZm)
Posted by: Captain Ahab at December 09, 2011 05:33 AM (GCoBv)
I have it from a reliable source that Michele Bachman, when/if she drops out of the race has told Gov. Romney that she will endorse him.
no! you don't say, I neversaw that coming/sarc
the woman is Romney's political whore, Ive said this many times. Since Perry knocked her off the top tier and her Gardasil comments blew up in her face, she has been protecting Mittens and slamming flavors of the month ever since.
Tammy Bruce has been saying for months that Bachmann is a stalking horse for Mittens.
well I kinda agree with Tammy but she might just be jeleous her gal Palin aint the woman in the race
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:33 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 05:33 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Jehu at December 09, 2011 05:34 AM (wXl2T)
Posted by: clayton endicott at December 09, 2011 05:35 AM (AH8RI)
I'm pretty sure that they, and the Russians and/or Chinese, are looking at it.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:36 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 05:36 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: jwest at December 09, 2011 09:32 AM (8moZm)
I agree with the possibility and I hope it happens myself as only 1 of my 5 dream candidates ran and he ended up not being able to say the name of a blog right.
I just think it ain't happening.
as for your Dem Convention theory, I think that's much more possible then a brokered GOP convention.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:37 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:37 AM (i6RpT)
I think I lasted a couple days before asking a question of the big bicycling lizard.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:37 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 09, 2011 09:25 AM (Ho2rs)
I'll tell you this; they WORK! If you work for Halliburton, you work. The first week I worked for them, fresh out of college (my first degree) I put in 160 hours, then we got busy. I think the oil patch term was "workhouse sumbitch".
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 05:37 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 05:39 AM (0yt4x)
What exactly are his disastrous economic views? I mean, he's opposed to the TARP and all that, and the Fed, but sensible conservatives are moving that way anyway. His economic views are vastly more mainstream than they were a decade ago, and deservedly so. You may think that theoretically we're better off with the Fed, and you may be right, but since our political classes will drive us from crisis to crisis and eventually to catastrophic bankruptcy if they are given the means, I don't really care about the theory.
On the other hand, I would be interested in the details/evidence about Ron Paul's racist conspiracy-mongering. I know some of his supporters fall into that unsavory class, but I didn't know he himself bought into that stuff. I would appreciate the details.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 05:39 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Deety is very dissapointed in Rick at December 09, 2011 05:40 AM (Pm8ax)
Smells kinda like cat piss with a different hash stench.
Posted by: ontherocks at December 09, 2011 09:38 AM (HBqDo)
I have to say as someone annoyed by Random's sem trolling on this thread I doubt he/she is cat piss.
cat piss has random links in 99% of her comments and claims to be very religious.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:40 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: runningrn at December 09, 2011 05:40 AM (u/RSM)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:41 AM (niZvt)
Perry's latest ad is the end for me. He wants to reopen all the social stuff, like prayer in school. We're drowning in debt and red tape and he thinks school prayers are the solution.
Uhm, no. What he thinks is that his campaign is floundering and needs to take some desperate measures. Does he really give a rat's ass about school prayer? Well, probably, but its priority #94 of the Perry administration.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 05:41 AM (epBek)
Thanks, Jean and Random!
I still want me one of those American flags with skulls for stars that the Iranians were waving around yesterday. That would be one kickass statement to hang out by my front door: "Stars and Stripes forever, baby! Or we will kill you and let the sun bleach your worthless bones, you lousy mofos."
At least, that's how I'd interpret it. *le cough*
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 05:41 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: aussie at December 09, 2011 05:41 AM (PMAH2)
Posted by: Lojack at December 09, 2011 05:42 AM (9CHrJ)
Posted by: Jehu at December 09, 2011 05:42 AM (wXl2T)
More fundamentalist Christians tend to look at this world as some sort of "test" to determine if we are worthy of heavens... you run the gauntlet of all the hurts and temptations the world can hit you with, and, presumably, if you kept your faith intact the whole time you get to go to heaven (though, again, the Calvinists would say even THAT was predetermined, which IMO makes a mockery of the very core of Christian theology, but that is another matter... ) SO: if a kid dies and automatically collects $200, and gets an automatic Go Directly to Heaven card... yes, he indeed did "luck out," in that sense.
Umm, I don't know what kind of fundamentalist Christianity you are discussing since a cornerstone of fundamentalism is that you cannot be saved by works and are saved by faith in the redemming blood of Christ alone.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 05:42 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:43 AM (niZvt)
It's a sad, sad day when Micky D's is now considered a fine dining experience world wide.
well a lot of folks cant spend $40 just for a dinner for two that they can make cheaper at home
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:43 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:43 AM (i6RpT)
associations with the likes of Kerry, Pelosi, and Sharpton, that would have been
embarassing,
Posted by: clayton endicott at December 09, 2011 05:44 AM (AH8RI)
Doesn't matter if he was right: He was MEAN.
The end
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 05:44 AM (SrCor)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:44 AM (i6RpT)
well I kinda agree with Tammy but she might just be jeleous her gal Palin aint the woman in the race
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 09:33 AM (yAor6)
That was precisely her point, that by being a conservative woman in place she kept Palin on the sidelines.
Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2011 05:44 AM (UJYQt)
Posted by: Errol at December 09, 2011 05:44 AM (vewos)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 09:41 AM (niZvt)
Let's hope when they replicate it, that they also replicate its computer. /sarc (but not really)Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:45 AM (YiE0S)
McCarthy was a hero.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:45 AM (YiE0S)
associations with the likes of Kerry, Pelosi, and Sharpton, that would have been
embarassing,
Posted by: clayton endicott at December 09, 2011 09:44 AM (AH8RI)
a little more coherence please
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:45 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:46 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:46 AM (i6RpT)
That was precisely her point, that by being a conservative woman in place she kept Palin on the sidelines.
Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2011 09:44 AM (UJYQt)
oh then I disagree with her, Palin wasnt going to run.
I'd agree though that Bachmann is Romney's political whore.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:47 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:47 AM (i6RpT)
I'll tell you this; they WORK! If you work for Halliburton, you work. The first week I worked for them, fresh out of college (my first degree) I put in 160 hours, then we got busy. I think the oil patch term was "workhouse sumbitch".
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 09:37 AM (OlN4e)
Ah, so they actually expect you to DO something for your paycheck. Clearly not a place the OWS crowd would ever fit in (though they'd probably rather slit their wrists and/or get raped by an elephant seal rather than work for THE EVIL HALLIBURTON anyway).
Speaking of OWS, any of our Mass morons here yet? I'd like to know what y'all think the over/under is on whether or not Mumbles will actually enforce his eviction notice against OWS Boston. I'm thinking... 15% odds?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 05:47 AM (4df7R)
Apologies if you saw this last night, but remember that story from a few weeks ago about our Predator drones being infected with some computer virus?
Our Military Is THIS Stupid?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 09, 2011 05:47 AM (9hSKh)
Shhhh...........as a Cubs fan, please, this is like the best day of my life so far.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 09, 2011 09:46 AM (OWjjx)
at least your team gets some kind of legacy as lovable losers, my team gets ESPN cheering against them and insulting the fanbase
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:48 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 05:48 AM (niZvt)
On the other hand, I would be interested in the details/evidence about Ron Paul's racist conspiracy-mongering. I know some of his supporters fall into that unsavory class, but I didn't know he himself bought into that stuff. I would appreciate the details.
There was some very disturbing stuff in his newsletters, iirc.
I am fascinated that Santorum isn't doing better. I know, I know, couldn't win his own seat but I swear there were a ton of people thinking they were voting for Casey, Sr.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 05:48 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: GMan at December 09, 2011 09:15 AM (sxq57)
I think you mean Limbo, but I thought the Catholics pulled the plug on that. Besides, Protestants accept neither Purgatory nor Limbo - I'm not sure about the Orthodox.
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 09:18 AM (niZvt)
FWIW- Aborted children are Martyrs. As such they go directly to Heaven.
Posted by: Nighthawk at December 09, 2011 05:48 AM (OtQXp)
Not a fuckin peep about Holder's hearings.
This is how they do it.
Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at December 09, 2011 05:48 AM (Car1w)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 09:47 AM (i6RpT)
me too or New York
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:48 AM (yAor6)
I can't think of a better way to clarify for Washingtonians the voter disgust with their deaf political establishment. Particularly, public disgust with the current brand of Republican Leadership that has no intention of limiting grotesque governmental exploits in any way. Oh, they'll preach the pretty words with warm tones of voice and proper patriotic sanctimony. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. A thousand points of light, a kinder-gentler nation, to win the hearts and minds of our enemies through interventionist wars and nation building, reaching across the aisle, bi-partisan common values, stay the course, rules of engagement, export war so we won't import it, bail-out the too big to fail failures and Ponzi schemes, typecast concerned US citizens in states sharing the border with Mexico as "vigilantes" for demanding border security, facilitate NAFTA at the expense of domestic business employment and community revenue, augment NATO obligations to the demise of any sovereign entity (person, state or nation, and monetary unit), forfeit Liberty and Constitutional Governance for authoritarian effect in the guise of "security". Whose security when the Dollar fails? Only the insulated elites'.
These days, all government is socialist. Degree matters more today than ever. The only "good" government is a limited government respecting balanced powers (hardly an original thought, hardly untried). Currently, each branch of our govt. has overreached, each acting as if being the other branches as well, assimilating power illegitimately (ex: activist judges legislating from the bench), topped off with the DHS that acts unconstrained.
As far as what "news"/propaganda is produced, never fail to reference the original source being quoted, disqualifying an opponent's revision of an original statement and disqualifying "unnamed sources" as an ultimate authority of the original. The SCOAMF provides a good case in point, incredibly producing constantly changing accounts of one specific incident.
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 05:49 AM (lpWVn)
>>cat piss has random links in 99% of her comments and claims to be very religious.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 09:40 AM (yAor6)
It was a comparison not a lineup ID.
Random is a disingenuous troll name. This thing gets too busy for "random" comments, and is at a minimum the same variety of attention whore with nothing to peddle but misdirected misdirection.
But as with curious people are wising up.
Posted by: ontherocks at December 09, 2011 05:49 AM (HBqDo)
I simply do not understand the objection to Perry's 'Christmas' ad. I've watched it several times and even from my perspective (a person who wants a secular government) I find nothing wrong with it. It doesn't 'speak' to me, but it doesn't upset me either.
Since we know that Perry would weaken, not strengthen, the Dept of Education, I am wondering how anyone could interpret that ad as a sign Perry would push for prayer in schools from the federal level. He might (let's face it, would) appoint judges who would be more open to that at a local level, but where's the problem in that?
And since when is objecting to how this administration pushed for the repeal of DADT some sort of disqualifier in the GOP primary?
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 05:50 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Deety is very dissapointed in Rick at December 09, 2011 05:51 AM (Pm8ax)
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 05:52 AM (OlN4e)
...I said "keep your faith intact," remember? As in, Salvation by Faith alone? That was the only work I was describing, if maintaining faith can be considered a work.
Ahh, okay I misunderstood.
You know, it's so soothing being a Cubs fan. The Cubs do things to pretend they want to win but I know, with certainty, that all they'll do is break my heart.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 05:52 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:52 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: clayton endicott at December 09, 2011 05:52 AM (AH8RI)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 09:41 AM (niZvt)
Well, if the Chinese have it we can expect that any attempts they make to replicate it will be fraught with shoddy workmanship. They can't even build a fricking alarm clock that doesn't break within a year of purchase, let alone a high tech military drone.
Not to mention all the corruption and bribery at all levels of the Chinese military establishment, particularly around R&D.
As for the Russians... maybe they'll trade it back to us for a year's supply of Grey Goose and several ocean liners packed with Pall Malls?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 05:53 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Errol at December 09, 2011 05:53 AM (vewos)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 05:54 AM (i6RpT)
The only possible equitable* way for God to handle the whole aborted/innocent-young-couldn't-decide-yet-about-Jesus dead children thing that I can think of is this:
Young child dies --> soul is reborn as a new human being (but the abortionist or murderer is still evil for both their intention and for trying to thwart God's plan for that child).
That actually makes sense! ... and, of course, very few Christians believe anything like it.
*That said, I don't God's much about equitability.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 05:54 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 09, 2011 09:52 AM (OWjjx)
hey now, Heat all the way this year. Bring on the hate
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 05:54 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 05:55 AM (OlN4e)
I agree with everything Gabe wrote until he got to that last 'and'. Searched the comments but couldn't find Gabe supporting his opinion of the head Ronulan's economic views, which are pure awesomeness wrapped in bacon.
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at December 09, 2011 05:57 AM (dBvlk)
How could anyone interpret that ad in such a way as to twist it? More to the point, why would anyone?
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 05:57 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Errol at December 09, 2011 05:57 AM (vewos)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 05:58 AM (0yt4x)
Posted by: Honey Badger at December 09, 2011 05:58 AM (GvYeG)
Good luck to her. The little bit of California I've seen is beautiful. I rented a car in Santa Clara and drove the coast highway south. Such a contrast to the east coast!
I wandered away, too, and found this tidbit I'd forgotten: while president W spent Christmas at Camp David each year so his staff could spend time at home with their families.Compare and contrast to SCOAMF.
Posted by: Retread at December 09, 2011 05:59 AM (ALZZ7)
If you're on this thread, could you opine about whether or not you found the Perry ad to be over some line in terms of offensiveness? IIRC you had been supporting Perry but were also firmly for repeal of DADT.
I think the intent of the ad was to highlight that 'tolerance' is applied in a very specific way by Obama, to the exclusion of tolerance toward Christian ideals. It is not how I would have framed that argument, but I didn't see it as some sort of anti-gay dog whistle. Certainly didn't rise to the level of dropping him as my top candidate.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:00 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Rjs3 at December 09, 2011 06:00 AM (sropX)
I understand why the perpetually-outraged hyper-emos on the Left would be apoplectic about Perry's ad, but not why anybody on the Right would be.
You might think it was a bad ad, but I don't know why it would elicit such emotion.
Posted by: Jingo at December 09, 2011 07:46 AM (mdwWR)
Exactly. In this day and age, I guess saying anything less than "gays are the awesome and the best" is a grievous insult. Can't possibly allow anyone to have any lesser opinion.
So, Perry, who has been accused of being gay repeatedly by the left (including their gay allies) is now suddenly being slurred as anti-gay? Gee, wonder why he doesn't have the warm-fuzzy feelings for the gay left?
Posted by: Jimmuy at December 09, 2011 06:02 AM (KLVyl)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 09:54 AM (YiE0S)
I don't much about your opinion.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:02 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 10:00 AM (5H6zj)
I cant speak for my least fav co-blogger on the blog but I have to say as someone who is a Newt guy (for now), FOR gay marriage, and FOR the repeal of DADT I was not offended by the ad in any way, shape, or form. It's Iowa.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:03 AM (yAor6)
"I think the intent of the ad was to highlight that 'tolerance' is applied in a very specific way by Obama, to the exclusion of tolerance toward Christian ideals. It is not how I would have framed that argument, but I didn't see it as some sort of anti-gay dog whistle. Certainly didn't rise to the level of dropping him as my top candidate. ..."
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 10:00 AM (5H6zj)
Also note approving vs. disapproving gestures during reading of script.Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:03 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:04 AM (Xm1aB)
I strongly agree with that. Indeed, I can't think of a good religious reason not to abort children en masse, since they could hardly have sinned in the womb and, if the worldview is correct, I don't see how this doesn't send them straight to heaven. Or something. So while I'm glad religious people join me, I've never quite understood why (unless, deep down, most people don't really, actually, literally believe their faith, which, wrongly or rightly, I suspect is so).
You're a moron. Also an idiot. I mean, its possible that all religious people everywhere are really just hypocrites, but its also possible that they just have a different viewpoint than you. Like, maybe, they literally believe in the part of their faith that says you have to keep the commandments. Thou shalt not kill, anyone?
To put it more philosophically, one of the fundamental divides between personality types is whether they are mainly consequentialist in their instincts (actions are good or bad only based on their consequences) or whether they also have ontological instincts (actions can be good or bad in themselves). Your criticism only makes sense if religious people are mainly consequentialist. But in fact the personality types that have some ontological instincts are more likely to be religious. The personality types that are more likely to be consequentialist/autistic are more likely to be non-religious.
So you are calling religious people hypocrites for not having an atheist world view. Um, no, I think we're pretty open about that.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 06:04 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 10:03 AM (YiE0S)
--
Yeah, you're the ass who's voting based on body language. We get it.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:05 AM (5H6zj)
Personally, I think that if Greece et al are expecting the Germans to prop them up they better be prepared to slap "Property of Deutschland" stickers on everything. Maybe it's time for the Spaniards and Italians to start hopping in boats and sailing off to Africa, maybe the Chinese will hire them to work the mines.
Posted by: JEM at December 09, 2011 06:05 AM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:05 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 06:07 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Barney Frank at December 09, 2011 06:08 AM (niZvt)
I don't follow baseball, but allow me a moment to say:
What the HELL were the Marlins thinking, giving Pujols a 10 year, $254 million contract!??!?! Do they actually think he'll be productive for that long? Does ANYONE believe that? Christmas on a bicycle!
I will not turn it on again until the NBA season is over. Sorry, but I find it repulsive to watch Micheal Wilbon suck Labron's cock on television.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 09, 2011 09:52 AM (OWjjx)
I have said before, and I will say it again: if the NBA lockout had forced the league to cancel the whole season, I would have thrown a party and celebrated like I will the night Obama is tossed out of office. I was actually close to heartbroken when I learned the lockout had ended. I really, truly despise the NBA. Once upon a time it may have been a skills based game, but these days it's all about the personalities, and 95% of the personalities are pieces of narcissistic shit. And if you know shit, you know it has no reason to be narcissistic. Because it is shit.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 06:08 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:09 AM (Xm1aB)
Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
Hey, TGIF! Anyone have plans for the weekend? Mr Y-not and I are going to see the Blue Man Group.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:09 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 09:50 AM (5H6zj)
OK, near as I can figure it, people who are "pro-gay rights" actually view gays as children who need psychological validation. What is gay marriage all about? Psychological validation. In every jurisdiction around the world where it's been tried, there's very little participation among gays (after the initial flurry of 60-year old lesbians making a statement) and actual marriage rates plummet.
When it comes to the repeal of DADT, it's claiming that homosexuality is not a genuine sexual desire, but some sort of fetish. You can't barrack homosexuals together without creating some sexual tension. We sex segregate for a reason. But why repeal it? Even the so-called rights arguments are nothing more than psychological validation.
It's also why nobody says boo about civilian employees of the DoD and never has. It's not, a priori, a barrier to a security clearance.
But what makes the ad crude is that it dares to mention gays in the military as an attempt to draw attention to himself. The Perry camp has made the calculation that nobody talks about him, and this is an attempt to do that.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 06:09 AM (T0NGe)
XKCD presents, the Boomers' middle finger to Christmas music.
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez! at December 09, 2011 06:10 AM (GBXon)
I wasn't, when I heard that they had to dissolve the union to do it.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 06:10 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 06:10 AM (l9zgN)
Posted by: Nighthawk at December 09, 2011 09:48 AM (OtQXp)
And that makes it a round trip.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at December 09, 2011 06:11 AM (mFxQX)
Wow, I marvel at your amazing powers to judge billions of people worldwide and actually be able to discern what they really think, how strongly they think it and whether or not and to what degree they believe what their faith tells them.
Posted by: Lady in Black at December 09, 2011 06:11 AM (ycuSb)
I have said before, and I will say it again: if the NBA lockout had forced the league to cancel the whole season, I would have thrown a party and celebrated like I will the night Obama is tossed out of office. I was actually close to heartbroken when I learned the lockout had ended. I really, truly despise the NBA.
oh come on the NBA is my saving grace for my sports life right now. My Baseball team ain't playing, my Football team has lost 6 straight after a 4-2 start w/ an amateur as a coach, and my Hockey team after coming 1 goal and 1 guy not being suspended though he should have from a Stanley Cup appearance, my last hope is another Heat championship run.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:11 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: rightlysouthern(aim low boys, they`re ridin` shetland ponies) at December 09, 2011 06:11 AM (QCs3j)
So is one bad ad a reason to drop a candidate?
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:11 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Barney Frank at December 09, 2011 06:12 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at December 09, 2011 06:12 AM (g9neE)
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 10:09 AM (5H6zj)
*shrugs*
Christmas shopping, maybe more
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:12 AM (yAor6)
While I'm unaware of any theological authority for this idea, doesn't it neatly solve the problem?
It would allow one to maintain that it's evil to murder children and to still give the child's soul the same Earth-bound life-test of worthiness by acceptance of Jesus that Christian doctrine maintains is essential to get into Heaven.
It solves the problem completely, even from a religious standpoint.
I'm not saying that IS God's reasoning, but it should be.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:13 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 06:13 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 10:13 AM (YiE0S)
I repeat...we are in the presence of perfection.
Posted by: Tami at December 09, 2011 06:14 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:14 AM (Xm1aB)
This could not happen with a protien pilot in control and sitting in the vehicle.
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 09:52 AM (OlN4e)
I know you meant "protein pilot," but I keep reading that as "protean pilot." I now have this unshakeable image of a large, jelly-like amoeba poured into a flight suit trying to pilot a multimillion dollar plane.
Which is ridiculous, of course. Michael Moore would never fit in a flight suit.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 06:14 AM (4df7R)
oh come on the NBA is my saving grace for my sports life right now. My Baseball team ain't playing, my Football team has lost 6 straight after a 4-2 start w/ an amateur as a coach, and my Hockey team after coming 1 goal and 1 guy not being suspended though he should have from a Stanley Cup appearance sucks this year, my last hope is another Heat championship run.
Fixed
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:15 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:15 AM (zLeKL)
Maybe not, but polling in the doldrums, blowing debates, being at best so/so in interviews, and then running a bad ad that is offensive to both gays and active serving military members during wartime ....
I did start out excited by Perry's entry, but you know, he just hasn't come close to meeting expectations. I wanted him to, but want ain't a plan.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:16 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 10:15 AM (zLeKL)
the real question is why does the field suck so bad?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:17 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:17 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:17 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 10:09 AM (5H6zj)
*shrugs*
Christmas shopping, maybe more
Christmas cookie baking at my house. And I'm the chief taste tester
.
Posted by: Retread at December 09, 2011 06:18 AM (ALZZ7)
It's not like they're his natural constituency anyway.
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 10:17 AM (Xm1aB)
ha! THIS
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:18 AM (yAor6)
Wouldn't aborting the Cubs next season be the best possible outcome for Cubs fans? Then they could go instantly into 'wait till nest year' mode without enduring the passion play that is the Cubs regular season.
Or,
The Catholic Church didn't get rid of Limo. They renamed it 'Wrigley field'.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 06:19 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:20 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 06:21 AM (vzFJV)
How do you bridge the gap in your mind? How do you convince yourself that you're not a hypocrite? Because I am having trouble believing that if you were so opposed to Obamacare nearly two years ago, you would be so willing to support a candidate that thinks the mandate is a great idea.
I think the key is to remember that willing in this case means more oh look I'm lying (laying?) here thinking of England whilst pulling the lever. See also feeling like The Chicken.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 06:21 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Errol at December 09, 2011 06:21 AM (vewos)
Why do people knowingly post random BS about things they don't know - do they enjoy being exposed as ignoramuses?
Posted by: Chuckit at December 09, 2011 06:21 AM (1kr1a)
Perry is a pretty great candidate and his views are pretty consistent. He has the best executive experience out of everyone.
well except that he can't articulate those views w/o stuttering and mumbling his way and can't even get the name of a blog he cites right. just saying.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:22 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: JEM at December 09, 2011 10:05 AM (o+SC1)
HAH! The Chinese would never take them because Mediterranean Europeans are too lazy, and the Africans don't want them because their continent has enough problems with venereal disease already and doesn't need any more.
I do wonder what will happen to pissant little countries like Greece, and pissant big countries like Spain, when they fall. And they WILL fall. Will they just be absorbed into one of their neighboring countries? Will they band together to form some kind of sprawling proto-country of monumental suck? Will they sink into the ocean, never to be heard from again and hardly missed?
You know, back in the day failing nations were taken over by stronger nations. It was called "being conquered." Too bad that's taboo these days.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 09, 2011 06:22 AM (4df7R)
Random, God actually has the trait you think you possess - he knows everything.
So his judgements on things are a bit better than ours. Wherever he sends a newborn who dies without being baptized, that's where it belongs. We can design all manner of complicated bureaucracies to handle the afterlife and they aren't as good as what God does.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:23 AM (FkKjr)
...and when the populace as a whole determines that the government is no longer acting in it's defense, ordinary men and women will rise up and correct the perceived injustices.
Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at December 09, 2011 06:24 AM (Car1w)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:24 AM (zLeKL)
Anyone who tells you that there is no gay agenda to force acceptance and approval of their sexual proclivities on society is a lying piece of shit.
meh, kinda agree and kinda dont. Look im for gay marriage but I do believe its abnormal, sinful, and that there is an agenda to force folks to accept it. However my entire approach to being for it has nothing to do w/ making people accept their behavior.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:25 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:25 AM (Xm1aB)
Gabe,
If you're on this thread, could you opine about whether or not you found the Perry ad to be over some line in terms of offensiveness? IIRC you had been supporting Perry but were also firmly for repeal of DADT.
I think the intent of the ad was to highlight that 'tolerance' is applied in a very specific way by Obama, to the exclusion of tolerance toward Christian ideals. It is not how I would have framed that argument, but I didn't see it as some sort of anti-gay dog whistle. Certainly didn't rise to the level of dropping him as my top candidate.
Do I think it was "OMG, what a bigot"-levels of offensive? No, I do not. As others noted above, this was Perry targeting a specific group of Iowans in the hopes that it will boost him. I think he will find that this approach will bring him as much success as the other Rick that tried it. (Read: none.) Particularly since even among the GOP a plurality were in favor of DADT repeal.
And while I do not find it bigot-level offensive, it certainly is distasteful. Suggesting troops who place themselves in harm's way are part of "something wrong in this country" was a very bad move, and you don't have to be gay or a liberal to see that. Framing is everything. Perry said: "but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."
What he should have said, if he really believed this was a road he wanted to go down: "If this great country can tolerate gays openly in the military, it can tolerate kids openly celebrating Christmas and praying in school." This alternative would have preserved his dog-whistle to the Iowans who still get het up over out gays in the military and also his plea for Christians, which enjoys much broader support. And it would have dropped his exceptionally negative "something wrong in this country" language that provoked such a backlash.
The bottom line: Perry's ad was so bad that it can't even be said to have resulted in a wash: no gain or loss. Instead, Perry's ad was so bad---and the enormous media and blog coverage it has now received has been so negative (seriously, has any blog defended it?)---that it probably will have cost him votes and not just in Iowa. This was a stupid move, and he should have listened to the advisors telling him not to make it.
If Perry were smart, he'd axe one or more of the folks who told him this was a good idea, "the way to get back in it." But I don't expect that. He has been constently loyal to his Old Guard and he's consistently performed poorly because of it.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 06:26 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:27 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Errol at December 09, 2011 06:27 AM (vewos)
Well someone give Perry a gold star.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:27 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 10:09 AM (T0NGe)
My take as well.
And possible miscalculation aside, that wouldn't be a bad thing, since Newt and Mitt are the same thing politically in different wardrobes.
Posted by: ontherocks at December 09, 2011 06:27 AM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 10:05 AM (WkuV6)
If your pilots are escaping a totalitarian, soul crushing regime, drones may be the only answer. That is one of the problems with human pilots.
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 06:28 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:28 AM (Xm1aB)
But Gabe, it isn't a matter of toleration, it's a matter of barracking.
This is why nobody says anything about civilian employees of the DoD.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 06:28 AM (T0NGe)
Oh, those Austrian Economists! Those Jews whom Keynesians* hate!
As if every Keynesian must therefore be antisemitic. As if one "Jewish" economic school must be antisemitic for being different from another "Jewish" economic school of thought. As if all Jews are of one ideology. As if any ideology is totally monopolized by one specific genetic race. As if to believe in limited governance is to be antisemitic. As if Ron Paul hasn't already been endorsed by an Israeli Zionist in Israeli mainstream news as the best Zionist choice to become the next US President. As if Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't substantiated by Arutz Sheva, and by Meir Dagan. As if any different approach than neoconservatism (or whatever else being touted) is antisemitic. As if any who disagree with the economics, politics or military designs of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are antisemitic. As if any who politically align with Ron Paul must be antisemitic despite being Israeli, a Zionist, or not.
But then, you'd have to bother researching.
As far as Ron Paul's alliances? Murray Rothbard and so many others associated with the Mises Institute are counted as Ron Paul's strong friends.
Go figure. If you're going to trust a source, take the trouble of verifying. Ignorance is not bliss. Case in point, Obama '08.
Posted by: Obama never needs an excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 06:29 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:30 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 06:31 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: Deety is very dissapointed in Rick at December 09, 2011 06:31 AM (Pm8ax)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:31 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:31 AM (zLeKL)
he truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, adultery, etc.
agreed.
We should not be disparaging marriage and encouraging deviant behaviour by legalizing so-called gay marriage.
then why is adulterey and lying not illegal as well? I mean I dont want to encourage adulterey but I dont want it to be illegal either
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:32 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:32 AM (i6RpT)
I disagree. Yes, it was clearly the result of advisers, but the ad was Perry's attempt to wave his arms and say, "look at me."
But his advisers picked the wrong issue. Iowa is the state in which same-sex marriage was imposed by judicial fiat and 3 judges were tossed out in retention elections. He could have reminded Iowans of that and made it an anti-judicial-supremacy (and, sub rosa, anti-lawyer) argument to boot.
One of the smaller problems Perry has is that too much of his team are Texans.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 06:32 AM (T0NGe)
The attacks on Newt Gingrich from the Romney campaign and it supporters in the Beltway political and media echelons have become quite personal.
The fervor reminds me not so much of a heated argument on the merits, but of a child custody proceeding in which Romney seeks to have Newt not only lose custody of his putative nomination but also be declared an unfit parent due to mental illness.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 09, 2011 06:33 AM (XdlcF)
Cool Czech,
my quick orthodox answer is that (1) death and murder are wrong in themselves, not just because of their consequences and (2) Christians are supposed to value what God values: (a) God values obedience, and we have been commanded not to kill, (b) God values justice, and killing the innocent is unjust, (c) God values the free choice to embrace him even at the risk that some people won't, which babies don't have.
Because of the above, my highly heterodox answer is that babies are probably reincarnated or resurrected into a mortal existence like Lazarus:
http://tinyurl.com/77z4vjq
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 06:33 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Lojack at December 09, 2011 06:33 AM (9CHrJ)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 06:34 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: moki at December 09, 2011 06:34 AM (dZmFh)
The Israelis, Brits, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders manage. The Spartans did alright.
You know what? I go to public swimming pools. Guess what happens. I see a lot of dick, balls, and ass. Some of those are gay. And you know what, I pretty much ignore them.
But when I get into that swimming pool, all that sweet fine lady flesh in wet swimming suits can grab my attention in about a quarter second.
I don't think your average soldier is much different.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:34 AM (YiE0S)
Who cares if Perry offends gays?
It's not like they're his natural constituency anyway.
If you were talking about any other candidate, I would facetiously encourage you to push that argument. But, since I like Perry, let me just say that Perry didn't just offend gays. He offended everyone who doesn't view gay servicemembers with horror, that is a majority of the voters in this country.
Saying things that a majority of voters disagree with is not a smart path to the White House.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 06:35 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:35 AM (zLeKL)
US Pilots never landed in enemy territory. Ask McCain.
Posted by: McCain overuses his excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 06:35 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: willow channels Mike, at December 09, 2011 06:35 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:36 AM (Xm1aB)
Thanks, Gabe. So you're dropping him, I take it. In favor of whom?
Re DADT: I checked the polling a couple of days ago and the December PEW had GOP voters 40-44 (for repeal vs against repeal) with an over 2:1 majority of conservatives opposing repeal.
Re defending the ad:
"We all know about the report of the Obama Administration saying it will check to see what countries are doing on the gay rights front to make sure gays are not being persecuted. But at the same time the Obama Administration has decided to not reauthorize the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The Commission investigates religious liberty issues around the world and informs the State Department about nations persecuting people because of religion, including Christians.
In other words, weÂ’re going to start checking up on how countries treat gays and lesbians, but Obama wants to shut down the Commission that investigates how countries treat citizens who believe in God."
To me, I did not see it as an attack on gays, certainly not on gays serving in the military. I do not believe for one second that Rick Perry, a veteran who clearly holds the military in high regard, had any intention of doing that. It was an attack on the policy, something I think is a very defensible position.
The over-reaction to this ad reminds me of the Prop 8 battle. Very much based on emotion and trying to demonize people who hold a traditional view.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:36 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 10:31 AM (i6RpT)
Yeah, but part of that was that they couldn't serve openly, so there were no JAG complaints by sexual predators. The bad actors could be immediately dismissed based on the activity alone.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 06:36 AM (T0NGe)
Okay, so why do gays get to shower alongside your all-knowing ass, but you can't shower with women?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:36 AM (FkKjr)
US Pilots never landed in enemy territory. Ask McCain.
So getting shot down is now the same as defection?
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 06:37 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 10:35 AM (zLeKL)
my head is that I want to win and Perry stumbling around and Romney flip-flopping aint gonna help
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:37 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:37 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 06:37 AM (niZvt)
Ask the divorce lawyers about that assumption.
Posted by: McCain overuses his excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 06:37 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:38 AM (zLeKL)
No one needs an alarm like that. And smoke fills the house much quicker than I expected. That was the scary part.
moki, did you and yours get checked out for smoke inhalation and possible CO exposure? That's nothing to muck about with. Glad you're safe.
Random thought of the moment: I wonder if sticking with the Old Guard is a Texan thing. I know there was a lot of criticism of Bush for doing the same.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 06:38 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:39 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:40 AM (zLeKL)
Oh, yuck, moki. Glad you are okay. We, uh, tested our smoke detectors the other day when the flue closed by itself in the middle of a nice fire. The one in the hallway actually went off before I noticed the smoke and I was only about 8 ft from the fire.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 09, 2011 06:40 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:40 AM (WkuV6)
On the other hand, I would be interested in the details/evidence about Ron Paul's racist conspiracy-mongering. I know some of his supporters fall into that unsavory class, but I didn't know he himself bought into that stuff. I would appreciate the details.
There was some very disturbing stuff in his newsletters, iirc
I thought he'd disavowed that?
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 06:41 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 06:42 AM (0yt4x)
Perry's non-apologetic apology promised to repeat the mistake.
"I'll always err on the side of life" alongside BigPharma which incidentally is working to require a doctor's prescription for all things currently available off the counter.
And in referencing McCain's recent legislation, how's the water between Perry and McCain on endorsements?
Posted by: McCain overuses his excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 06:43 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 10:40 AM (zLeKL)
I suppose theyll do whats right for the country w/ a conservative House and more right leaning Senate. If you want to run a guy who cant articulate even the name of a blog who's commenters are fovarable to him you go on ahead, that's what primaries are for.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:43 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:43 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Nighthawk at December 09, 2011 09:48 AM (OtQXp)
How are they martyrs? Are the babykiller docs sending ultrasound pings in Morse Code giving the infants a chance to renounce the Christ before the docs fire up the cuisinart vacuum?
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 06:44 AM (epBek)
This.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:44 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 06:45 AM (OlN4e)
Impossible. Gays would never force themselves on someone they were attracted to. Only heterosexual males do that. Otherwise having openly gay people in same-sex barracks would be a bad idea...
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:45 AM (FkKjr)
There was some very disturbing stuff in his newsletters, iirc
I thought he'd disavowed that?
Paul never thought, advanced or wrote anything antisemitic.
There are uncouth people in all quarters of society, regardless of ideology. As if every comment posted here @AoShq is endorsed by Ace himself.
Posted by: McCain overuses his excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 06:45 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:45 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:45 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Cajun Carrot at December 09, 2011 06:45 AM (zHl9z)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:46 AM (i6RpT)
I think that's an unfair statement and extremely unhelpful to your position.
And this type of rhetoric - which is what was used during the Prop 8 battle - is why I went from being an agnostic on gay marriage to being firmly against it.
It is not in the conservative movement's best interests to demonize or otherwise ascribe emotional motivations to people on opposing sides of hot button issues like gay marriage or DADT. I certainly avoid using inflammatory language of that type when talking about abortion and that's a much more serious issue involving life and death. If we cannot talk openly with each other about these things and accept that reasonable people disagree, we're going to get nowhere.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:46 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Chuckit at December 09, 2011 06:47 AM (1kr1a)
Let's see....Ron Paul vs. An America-hating, constitution-breaking, dictator-wannabe, law-breaking, gun-running, economy-killing, narcissist, smug, pedantic, racist, lying marxist.
I'll take my chances with Ron Paul if it comes to that.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 09, 2011 06:48 AM (JYheX)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 10:45 AM (zLeKL)
Romney has a record of caving, not so sure w/ Newt. as for perry he probably wouldnt but he wont win the White House if he keeps the way he's up right now. You cant be President unless you actually win an election.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:48 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:48 AM (Xm1aB)
It is not in the conservative movement's best interests to demonize or otherwise ascribe emotional motivations to people on opposing sides of hot button issues like gay marriage or DADT.
well ive seen plenty of it on this thread but i'll agree it's a minority
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:49 AM (yAor6)
Random thought of the moment: I wonder if sticking with the Old Guard is a Texan thing. I know there was a lot of criticism of Bush for doing the same.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 10:38 AM (VtjlW)
I think it's a governor thing. If you serve a few years as governor, you have a team that you've been through a lot with and, at some point, you say that these are my guys, for better or worse.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2011 06:50 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:50 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 10:46 AM (i6RpT)
I won't argue that point. The point is that there are soldiers, good soldiers who do strenuously object to the new policy, and they are protesting with their feet.
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 06:51 AM (OlN4e)
'Horror'. Nice strawman. I see that you once again dodged the point that several of us have made. Homosexual women and men are allowed to billet with one another and with heterosexual personnel. But heterosexual men and women are not allowed to billet together.
Posted by: Random stupidity
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was obligated to reply to random stupidity. (SWIDT?)
The repeal of DADT changed nothing with respect to whether gay and straight servicemembers are billetting together. They were required to billet together before DADT repeal. And they are required to billet together after repeal. The difference between me and you is that I believe (and the utter lack of disruption confirms that belief) that our servicemembers can handle it without freaking out.
BTW, did you see that the Senate version of the defense authorization bill repeals the criminalization of sodomy in the UCMJ?
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 06:51 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:51 AM (Xm1aB)
If I remember, poles of combat arms disapproved while overall military approved.
Well there is a hell of a lot of difference between Air Force and Marine Corps barracks.
So different in fact that the Air Force calls theirs "Dorms". Two to a large room ain't bad when compared to 4 to a small room in Marine Barracks.
But I'm sure there would be no conflict between two heterosexuals and two active homosexuals forced to live in the same 100 or so square feet.
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 06:51 AM (SrCor)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:52 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:52 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Deety doesn't WANT to like NEWT! at December 09, 2011 06:52 AM (Pm8ax)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 06:52 AM (Xm1aB)
I think it's a governor thing. If you serve a few years as governor, you have a team that you've been through a lot with and, at some point, you say that these are my guys, for better or worse.
That does make sense. Obama surrounding himself with Chicago people was a given considering the very, shall we say, distinct nature of Chicago and Illinois politics. But it does seem that governors are more prone to that when reaching the White House. Then again, it may appear that way because it's governors who generally reach the White House.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 09, 2011 06:53 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Truman North at December 09, 2011 06:53 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: moki at December 09, 2011 06:53 AM (dZmFh)
Well, didn't Perry avoid losing an election for decades with this team?
If so, I can see why Perry sticks with them.
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 10:51 AM (Xm1aB)
well they better do something quick, 4th place behind Ron Paul is not a winning strategy
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:53 AM (yAor6)
Why can't they handle men and women billeting together again?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:53 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 06:54 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:54 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:54 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 10:32 AM (yAor6)
Adultery *should* be illegal, IMHO. At least revive the torts of alienation of affection and make adultery a near dispositive factor in who gets the kids/pays alimony in a divorce.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 06:54 AM (epBek)
Because only an unreasonable hater would be discomfited by the gay sex in the bunk above him.
And DADT at still made that criminal and actionable, Gabe.
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 06:54 AM (SrCor)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 10:52 AM (i6RpT)
He's been offered a job as a consultant in the sandbox making 3 times his Army pay, so I don't think he is worried about that.
Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2011 06:55 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Catherine the Great at December 09, 2011 06:55 AM (niZvt)
He holds the military in high regard, not gays.
It seemed pretty obvious to me that he sees gays serving openly in the military as part of what's wrong with America (because he said that: "thereÂ’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids canÂ’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."). His voice tone and hand gesture indicatedhe didn't approve of gays, or at least, at a minimum, gays in the military.
I believe you're either being disingenuous or aren't allowing yourself to see what is right in front of you, Y-Not.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 06:55 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:56 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:56 AM (WkuV6)
At least revive the torts of alienation of affection and make adultery a near dispositive factor in who gets the kids/pays alimony in a divorce.
Id agree with the idea of punishing it that way but not making it outright illegal
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 06:56 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 06:56 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 06:56 AM (niZvt)
I call bullshit. No one I served with would have been comfortable bunking with a gay roommate. The one soldier I know of who found out his roommate was gay was very uncomfortable with it. Especially as he found out by waking up to his roommate molesting him as he slept after a night of drinking.
There were obvious poofters that no one was comfortable showering around, getting undressed around, having as a cold-weather buddy or any other situation that required close physical intimacy.
Where the fuck are all these combat arms soldiers that are clamoring to spoon a gay squad-mate for warmth in a freezing Korean bunker while at a patrol base?
I keep hearing all manner of shit that flies in the face of my experience.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December
What I recall from my time in the military is that going against PC was a career-killer. Most people had very un-PC opinions but knew enough to keep their heads down. Granted, that was over a decade ago, but I doubt the military has got that much more tolerant of us troglodytes in the interim.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 06:56 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 10:56 AM (WkuV6)
Damn, if only contraceptives existed.
And thank God homosexual sex doesn't carry any risks whatsoever.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:57 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 06:58 AM (WkuV6)
“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat. That’s exactly what they’re doing now with Iran.”
He might as well say that 9/11 was an inside job.
Posted by: Miss'80s at December 09, 2011 06:58 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 10:56 AM (i6RpT)
No, not really. Are you saying homosexual sex is more acceptable than heterosexual sex in a military setting, or are you claiming that homosexuals can show more restraint than heterosexuals?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 06:59 AM (FkKjr)
The fact that you've been relying on body language for your interpretation - and have been trolling about this with so much "concern" on various sites since it came out - tells me what I need to know about you.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 06:59 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 06:59 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 06:59 AM (niZvt)
I don't know if you realize this or not, but homosexuals have served forever, and have been allowed to serve, in secret, since Clinton. Openly allowing gays to serve gives the chain of command better ability to arrange quarters assignments.
It isn't as if 50% of the military is homosexual.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:00 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Miss'80s at December 09, 2011 10:58 AM (d6QMz)
seriously why is Paul running for the GOP nomination? he dissed Reagan at the guys own library in front of his wife, and then goes of on 9/11 truther rants. Paul has no reason to be running for the Republican nomination. sorry Drudge.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 07:00 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 10:59 AM (zLeKL)
*facepalm*
and Hot Gas polls say that right?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 07:02 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 07:02 AM (l9zgN)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 07:02 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 07:02 AM (i6RpT)
Wow. I'm sold. And off the Buddy Roemer Train.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 09, 2011 07:28 AM (dV45O)
Thats not a train. Thats a skateboard.
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 09, 2011 07:02 AM (97AKa)
Posted by: Jimmah at December 09, 2011 07:03 AM (TMeYE)
While that may be true, openly gay is something else entirely, and the results of this unnecessary bit Leftist social engineering are incomplete as are the political, social, and most importantly national defense ramifications.
...arright I could have chosen a better word
Posted by: ontherocks at December 09, 2011 07:04 AM (HBqDo)
Feds have no constitutional authority to sanction any mariage between anyone.
Marriage licenses aren't issued by the federal government.
I have never heard Ron Paul object to civil marriage licenses. Can you provide a citation?
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 07:04 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 09, 2011 11:02 AM (i6RpT)
I'm sure the repeal will cause such incidents to go down markedly. And that the gay soldier won't claim discrimination.
Yes, I'm sure a military afraid to say Nidal Hussein is a crazy Muslim will be even-handed here.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 07:04 AM (FkKjr)
Id agree with the idea of punishing it that way but not making it outright illegal
Agreed, because it makes honeytrap/blackmail schemes more viable and because it makes it more difficult for families to fix the infidelity and patch up the marriage and keep going on.
That said, one advantage of technically criminalizing adultery would be the ability to go after panderers like that disgusting adultery website, whatever it was called.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 07:04 AM (epBek)
Please let him not be the nominee.
Posted by: auscolpyr at December 09, 2011 07:04 AM (+KmL5)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 07:04 AM (niZvt)
Really? I had no idea!
I don't know if you know this or not but there is a slight difference between the obedient troop who does not make his preference known under military discipline and the empowered troop who has the military teaching tolerance of his proclivities to his comrades
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 07:05 AM (SrCor)
Even the stuff that's below his pay grade is above his pay grade.
Posted by: Greg Q at December 09, 2011 07:05 AM (/0a60)
The fact you can't tell how and why that is offensive (to gay military personnel AND to those, in and out of the service, who don't have a problem with gay military personnel serving their country during war) tells me what I need to know about you.
Gays are people, and often good people.
The culture is changing in this respect, and not in the way you and most other people here like. Frankly it's changing to a more humane and rational posture that suits me fine.
And the military's cool. It'll adapt. It will do the country proud, like when it accepted racial desegregation in advance of much of the rest of the country. This time it's a bit behind, but nothing's perfect.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:05 AM (YiE0S)
How exactly does this make things better? Quartering homosexuals with other homosexuals strikes me as a very bad idea. Actually there doesn't seem to be any kind of ideal quarter arrangement. Sometimes we really are better off not knowing.
Posted by: Christina Hendricks's Mighty Jugs Supports Rick Perry's Hair for President at December 09, 2011 07:06 AM (TCyyS)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 07:07 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 09, 2011 07:07 AM (niZvt)
How exactly does this make things better? Quartering homosexuals with other homosexuals strikes me as a very bad idea.
1 homo to a room could help
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 07:07 AM (yAor6)
508@505
Feds have no constitutional authority to sanction any mariage between anyone.
Marriage licenses aren't issued by the federal government.
I have never heard Ron Paul object to civil marriage licenses. Can you provide a citation?
---
Easy:
Posted by: Jimmah at December 09, 2011 07:08 AM (TMeYE)
And this type of rhetoric - which is what was used during the Prop 8 battle - is why I went from being an agnostic on gay marriage to being firmly against it.
Wait a minute. You think my use of the word "horror" is over-the-top rhetoric? Get real. I didn't see you complaining about folks up there talking about gay rape in the barracks.
My question is,
Where are all those masses and masses of gays and lesbians that were going to storm recruiting stations around the country the MOMENT being openly gay was allowed?
I must have missed CBS's breathless coverage of the gay multitudes surrounding the local recruiting station.
What the heck are you talking about? DADT repeal wasn't about some untapped "masses and masses" of gays wanting to enlist. It was about the thousands of gays who are already enlisted and don't want to lose their jobs by being outted. And, since you apparently did miss it, a bunch of those folks who had been discharged, including some good men and women that I know personally, went back and reenlisted.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 07:08 AM (IkTb7)
/s
Hey, don't mock retarded autistics. It's not a choice, he was born that way.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 09, 2011 07:08 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Cajun Carrot at December 09, 2011 07:09 AM (zHl9z)
Way to look at candidates with clear eyes.
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 11:07 AM (zLeKL)
it's not because of the fact he got the name of a blog wrong it's because of many other things. he cant even remember the very Dept he wants to get rid of for Gods sake. Or that you dont have to wait to be 21 to vote anymore.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is On The Newt Train Whether Beck Likes It Or Not at December 09, 2011 07:09 AM (yAor6)
I hope Vic is okay.
Moki....sorry to hear you had such a fright. Glad to hear that you and yours are all okay.
Posted by: wheatie.....aka ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at December 09, 2011 07:10 AM (HvKWW)
So are you saying that Bill Clinton hates homosexuals?
DADT's existence and repeal should have been arrived at because of a need identified by the military commanders, not because of outside political pressure. That's my objection to it. It has nothing to do with 'feelings' about homosexuality or a lack of regard for homosexuals. For you - and Gabe - to assert otherwise is pretty damned low.
Gabe is a blogger here so I'd like to try to come to some sort of understanding with him. It would be nice to not be accused of bigotry by him and, frankly, I think him doing so hurts the site. But whatever.
You - I don't care about. You're not a conservative, that's perfectly clear, nor are you tolerant of traditionalists. In my book, you're a troll.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 07:10 AM (5H6zj)
You those homophobic, hillbilly, redneck, gun clinging, religious hicks?
The make of the bulk of you combat arms. It is not a good idea to make them think twice about enlisting.
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 07:10 AM (SrCor)
It would seem that random refers to recorded brain activity, but this may be incorrect.
At any rate, the stench of troll is overwhelming.
Posted by: irongrampa at December 09, 2011 07:10 AM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 07:10 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Heterosexual soldiers suddenly keen on the idea of getting a bunk to themselves at December 09, 2011 07:10 AM (TCyyS)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 07:12 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 07:13 AM (WkuV6)
And thank God, because making you feel all tingly inside is what the military is there for.
It would be just a shame if they refused to let anything, including social engineering get in the way of their secondary mission- warfare.
Posted by: kdny at December 09, 2011 07:14 AM (SrCor)
Posted by: Todd 3465 at December 09, 2011 07:14 AM (spa4d)
I don't know anything about the facts of that story. Do you?
Nor did I see that as an attack on you. And, since you were in the comments, I figured you could defend yourself.
What you wrote was a sweeping generalization about the motivations of anyone opposed to the repeal of DADT. It is patently untrue, particularly given that many of us had the position of being for DADT. Obviously, if we were horrified by homosexuals, we would not want them in the military.
I understand that you feel under attack in the comments, but that's not an excuse for you to accuse fellow conservatives with whom you happen to disagree on a couple of issues of bigotry.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 07:14 AM (5H6zj)
521Feds have no constitutional authority to sanction any mariage between anyone.
Actually, quite a few conservatives, me included, think perhaps the best way to sidestep the gay push for gay "marriage" is to leave the Sacrament of Marriage up to the churches, and have the government offer only Civil Unions to everyone.
That would be pretty much the way it happened when I married my wife: we signed a document saying we were married in Seoul Town Hall, and had our wedding in a little country church in the middle of a rice paddy.
---
If memory serves, that isn't the ultimate goal of the gay marriage movement. I don't disagree with that point though.
They want it to be a "right", meaning they can sashay into any church and demand to be married.
Posted by: Jimmah at December 09, 2011 07:14 AM (TMeYE)
Gabe is a blogger here so I'd like to try to come to some sort of understanding with him. It would be nice to not be accused of bigotry by him and, frankly, I think him doing so hurts the site.
Bigotry? When did I accuse you of bigotry?
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 07:15 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: poljunkie at December 09, 2011 07:15 AM (XuiJf)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 07:15 AM (p7SSh)
It's fun to mock Trump and his debate but we're silly-asses for doing so.
We have a lot bigger things to worry about than Trump's antics and how undignified some debate might be.
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 09, 2011 07:15 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: McCain overuses his excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 07:16 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 07:17 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 07:17 AM (l9zgN)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 10:31 AM (p7SSh)
Same here... that thing is just WAY too intact. Maybe we are hoping we track down where they bring it for study and then activate the Self destruct.
Wishful thinking, I know... but fuck wouldn't that be sweet?
Wishful thinking put Fast and Furious into practice.
Posted by: McCain overuses his excuse to be wrong. at December 09, 2011 07:17 AM (lpWVn)
So if male soldiers were barracked with female soldiers, the word 'rape' wouldn't ever be mentioned as an argument against that?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 07:17 AM (FkKjr)
When same sex couples establish that their pairings actually benefit society the same way that real marriages do, then, and only then can they push for getting the same rewards.
We pay doctors more than we pay plumbers because individual doctors create more benefit for society than do individual plumbers. The childish and juvenile way that the same sex "marriage" crowd goes about pushing their agenda ("wah, wah, wah! We want this! You're big meanies for not giving us what we want!") is one of the strongest arguments for not giving it to them, because such sad, pathetic emotional children clearly aren't capable of engaging in an adult relationship like marriage.
Homosexuals have been coming out of the closet for the last 30 - 40 years. Where are the studies on their relationships, and whether those relationships create better, more functional people? We reward marriage because it's consistently proven to lead to better children (you know, our future), and more functional adults.
Where's the evidence that long term homosexual relationships provide society the same benefits? Until that evidence appears, and is validated, homosexuals deserve, as a simple matter of fairness, to be treated differently.
Posted by: Greg Q at December 09, 2011 07:18 AM (/0a60)
Remember the plane that "accidentally" crashed into an aircraft carrier? - it wasn't an argument over supply-side economics, Gabby.
Posted by: Chuckit at December 09, 2011 07:18 AM (1kr1a)
The problem I have with the repeal of DADT is that our military folk are expected to be "winning the hearts & minds" of Muslims in predominately Islamic countries.
It's no secret now that our military has gays openly serving. And the Muslim attitude towards homosexuality is no secret. .....So, this will be used against our troops, by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, as a way to alienate locals against our people. This puts our military at even greater risk.
It seems selfish to me, that gays/lesbians would put their own sexual orientation as a priority above the safety of our troops.
Posted by: wheatie.....aka ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at December 09, 2011 07:18 AM (HvKWW)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 07:18 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: elizabethe at December 09, 2011 07:18 AM (6SJCK)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 07:19 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Zakn (goes back to lurking) at December 09, 2011 06:57 AM (q/891)
Fixed dat!
Posted by: Concealed Kerry or submit at December 09, 2011 07:19 AM (vXqv3)
He offended everyone who doesn't view gay servicemembers with horror, that is a majority of the voters in this country.
------
I do not view gays - inside or outside of the military - with horror. I objected to the repeal DADT, particularly the way it was done.
And I still think you're incorrect in asserting that the majority of Republicans were for repealing DADT.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 07:19 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 07:20 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 07:21 AM (zLeKL)
The Jews have a religious tradition as strong as America's, what with Leviticus, etc., being in their much smaller core religious text, and with being surrounded by dedicated, larger armies who've routinely tried to slaughter them, while they deal with constant inside and no-man's-land threats of terrorism.
And yet, they kick ass -- and saw fit to allow gays openly in their military. Perhaps this just isn't as important a national defense issue as people seem to think it is.
This is from Wiki, and it's sound (again, see Sparta) :
Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”[25]
Uncloseted gays in the Jewish state are treated no differently than straights. Mandatory service draws every 18-year-old man and woman into the national service, with the exception of certain Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects.
In a comprehensive review of interviews with all known experts on homosexuality in the IDF in 2004,[28] researchers were not able to find any data suggesting that IsraelÂ’s decision to lift its gay ban undermined operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion or morale. In this security-conscious country where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness. In addition, while no official statistics are available for harassment rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials and representatives of gay organizations alike assert that vicious harassment is rare.
Israel takes the position that gays in the closet (those who, for example, may have informed their superiors of their sexual orientation, but on a confidential basis) cannot get security-sensitive jobs while those who are out can work anywhere.--
We're not likely to convince each other today on why people are homosexual, if it's bad of good, if it's OK to have homosexuals in the military, if it's a well-thought-out idea to have the military's homosexuals declare their sexual orientation, whether that does or doesn't erode or enhance combat performance and ease or worsen manpower difficulties, etc., and etc.
But to those who think Rick Perry's "Strong" ad was good politics? You're smoking pungent holy green vegetation.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:21 AM (YiE0S)
Punching a hippy does wonders for that.
If you wish to lower your BP, then don't read this story:
Red Cross considers crackdown on videogame “war crimes”
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 09, 2011 07:22 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 11:20 AM (5H6zj)
Y-not whatever you do, don't believe anything that those Blue Men say, just take a look at their cities.
Posted by: ontherocks at December 09, 2011 07:25 AM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Todd 3465 at December 09, 2011 07:26 AM (spa4d)
Posted by: Deety doesn't WANT to like NEWT! at December 09, 2011 07:26 AM (Pm8ax)
So Gabriel exaggerated for rhetorical effect. The point is, it offended a lot more than just gays. Perry could have made a similar point a better way. And once again, he revealed his inability to connect with the electorate outside of Texas.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:26 AM (YiE0S)
Spartans (and Greeks) engaged in pederasty. You may want to look that term up and see if you think that's something we should say that is acceptable practice for modern soldiers.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 07:27 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2011 07:27 AM (WkuV6)
Ok, reading this thread and some of the links it's obviuos that the drone was going down in enemy territory and it or it's remains would end up in enemy hands for analisys. WHY wasn't it self destructed or after it landed why wasn't a cruise missle sent in to eliminate the debris for analisys? Losing control of it is one thing. Having it's controls hacked and stolen: It's war and shit happens. ALLOWING the technology to remain intact in foreign hands for their edification after it was hacked and stolen is another and from a military standpoint laughably unacceptable. That amounts to the compromise of billions of dollars of steath and aviation technology accumulated over decades. So WHY was a drone that we no longer had control of, not destroyed (either remotely or with one of our own hellfires) as it was flown away and landed??? There was nobody on board. Destroying it in flight was our own right even if it had been flown across enemy borders by hackers. The photos shown don't look like it was a highly populated area so collateral damage was never an issue. WTF? Who made the decision to let all that money and technology fly away unchallenged?
Even the military can't function right under the lack of leadership from the SCOAMF administration.
Posted by: MrObvious at December 09, 2011 07:27 AM (t4++D)
Posted by: mike at December 09, 2011 07:28 AM (0hdwM)
January 3rd will test this proposition. 3rd or better will show Perry chose wisely. I'll wait and see.
Posted by: toby928© at December 09, 2011 07:31 AM (evdj2)
Traitor Manning = "lack of disruption" according to Gabby
Way to change the goal posts, pal. Manning committed his treason before DADT repeal. I was referring to the disruption that all these wiseguys up here claimed would happen as a result of DADT repeal and that we're still waiting for. Remember that? All the threats of disruption the commenters made, the talk of civilians refusing to enlist, and troop refusals to reenlist? Yeah, still waiting.
Y-not, there's a lot of folks who just looooove to play the Victim with a capital "V". I didn't call you a bigot, and if you're so keen on being a Victim anyway, that's your problem. I'm not going to hold your fucking hand and play nicey-nice when we're having a policy argument just because you get uncomfortable with your ideological comrades. Butch up, Nancy. This is AOSHQ, not your highschool debate club.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 07:33 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: mike at December 09, 2011 07:33 AM (0hdwM)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 09, 2011 07:35 AM (p7SSh)
Gabe said a plurality, not a majority. [ignore the grammatically stupid headline at the link]
The survey also found a plurality of Republicans favor repeal.
Forty-eight percent of Republicans surveyed said they favor “strongly” or “somewhat” the open service of gay troops in the military,while 41 percent remain opposed. Only 12 percent [of those] of Republicans “strongly” oppose gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.
This will be my last comment on this thread. Have fun, everyone: whether gay, straight, or other.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:35 AM (YiE0S)
Y-not, there's a lot of folks who just looooove to play the Victim with a capital "V". I didn't call you a bigot, and if you're so keen on being a Victim anyway, that's your problem. I'm not going to hold your fucking hand and play nicey-nice when we're having a policy argument just because you get uncomfortable with your ideological comrades. Butch up, Nancy. This is AOSHQ, not your highschool debate club.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 11:33 AM (IkTb7)
---
It's not about being a victim - 'not sure where you got that.
I said it was unhelpful to your position and to the conservative movement to demonize people on this issue based on emotional arguments, just as it is unhelpful to call people who are for legal abortions baby-killers.
Butch up was a nice touch.
Posted by: Y-not at December 09, 2011 07:40 AM (5H6zj)
Could it, pretty please, be your last comment on the blog?
Posted by: GMan at December 09, 2011 07:40 AM (sxq57)
It's suppose to be by gays honestly portraying gays.
Oh, brother, this is what you're reduced to? Suggesting that Queer as Folk is a realistic portrayal of gays? Uh, no. That was a Showtime series. It was intentionally salacious, just as most Showtime series are. I suppose you think Californication is an "honest portrayal" of straight single fathers in California?
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 07:41 AM (IkTb7)
Butch up was a nice touch.
Thank you. A little bit of rhetoric to spice up debate. Keep it interesting, y'know?
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 09, 2011 07:41 AM (IkTb7)
Not that I expect Paul's campaign to get that far, but lines must be drawn: I have no tolerance for racist conspiracy theorists, and that includes racist conspiracy theorists with disastrous foreign policy and economic views.
If Paul's not going anywhere for awhile, it might be time to go over again what it is that he and his supporters have done to be deemed unelectable and not vote-worthy. I'm not a Paul supporter and seriously don't remember it all. I recall he had Truthers among his supporters and he thinks we do too much for Israel.
He's the most fiscally conservative, and the assumption is that everyone knows why he's toxic. A recap would be useful.
Posted by: CJ at December 09, 2011 07:42 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 11:27 AM (FkKjr)
OK, real last comment.Nope. But you could still maintain an effective combat force.
You're making my point, actually. It's that whether gays should or shouldn't be in the military, openly or not, are social questions, or even moral questions, but they are not significantly important combat power questions (with the exception that more talent available during recruiting and operations is good).
Cheers.
Posted by: Random at December 09, 2011 07:42 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Joffen at December 09, 2011 07:43 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 07:44 AM (l9zgN)
Posted by: Deety doesn't WANT to like NEWT! at December 09, 2011 07:44 AM (Pm8ax)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 09, 2011 07:44 AM (l9zgN)
Like I've been saying for a while, Mittens would model his campaign on McCain's '08 failure, endorse his opponent Obama, and flame out spectacularly.
Posted by: Entropy at December 09, 2011 07:47 AM (UmXRO)
Posted by: Dave at December 09, 2011 07:47 AM (Xm1aB)
But not of men and boys. Spartans didn't practice man-on-man homosexuality. In fact, that was illegal. They screwed boys in a warped ritualistic tutelage.
they are not significantly important combat power questions
Sexuality in warfare among soldiers has long been judged to be a bad thing. That wasn't some arbitrary decision.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 09, 2011 07:50 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Chuckit at December 09, 2011 07:55 AM (1kr1a)
During Clinton, pre-DADT, one gay guy in our unit was caught in a "sting" by CID in which they videotaped gay guys giving each other blowjobs through a hole in a Men's room stall wall at the base Burger King. (First of all, I was fucking disgusted that they let it go on long enough that they could catch them in the act in a fucking RESTAURANT, but I digress...).
He immediately got his own room and became "house mouse" for the six or so months it took for him to be Chapetered out. After an initial extra-duty bid, those were probably the happiest months of the guy's life. He didn't have to show up at formations, never pulled overnight watches, etc. His roommate got the shit end of the stick, being forced to move into a three-man room. By the end of Private Blowjob's stint he was walking down the hall with bouquets of PX flowers from his also-busted boyfriends (I shit you not) and swishing around like Richard Simmons.
That kind of shit absolutely affects morale, readiness, esprit de corps, etc. That there aren't major disruptions is a product of the discipline instilled in soldiers as well as the rules that bind them. They don't hold protest marches or scream stupid slogans, they just go to work at a job that gets more difficult every time a politician tries out a new social experiment.
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 09, 2011 07:56 AM (Qjh0I)
So funny how the anti-purists become purists when faced with the possibility of voting for Ron Paul.
But hey, VOTE FOR MIKE CASTLE YOU PURIST NITWITS!!LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY!!!
Posted by: Rich at December 09, 2011 07:58 AM (ldOlo)
Posted by: A Ronulan at December 09, 2011 08:04 AM (kPT11)
It's when he gets on his Blame America for Islamic Jihad jag that he loses it.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at December 09, 2011 08:08 AM (kPT11)
Police confirmed Monday a 15-year-old boy had been charged with assault with a weapon for allegedly using a lighter to burn the hair of a Jewish classmate while uttering anti-Semitic remarks in the halls of Oak Park High School.
But while police said it was still being determined whether the boy will be charged with hate crimes, the boy had a message of his own — a picture of himself on his Facebook page wearing a shirt with a slogan relating that he loves “haters.”
---
One of the boyÂ’s friends, a young woman, posted her support for him on his Facebook page.
“What you did should have been applauded. But s-happens,” she wrote, drawing an immediate response from some of his other Facebook friends.
While two people supported her views, two others responded negatively. One called the boy a “skinhead,” while another insisted what he did should “not be applauded.”
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at December 09, 2011 08:34 AM (KOQBP)
Posted by: Chuckit at December 09, 2011 09:48 AM (1kr1a)
Posted by: rechill at December 09, 2011 09:51 AM (bycxi)
Posted by: steevy at December 09, 2011 11:32 AM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 09, 2011 11:50 AM (r4wIV)
Obama has made a freakin' mess.
Posted by: workingclass artist at December 09, 2011 02:05 PM (tBMfq)
Posted by: The Sojourn ePub at December 09, 2011 04:47 PM (sDk1i)
Posted by: Locked On iBooks at December 09, 2011 05:14 PM (B8WDu)
Posted by: Who Fears Death ePub at December 09, 2011 05:30 PM (XwRTS)
Posted by: The Talk Show Murders AudioBook at December 09, 2011 05:46 PM (S8UYb)
Posted by: The Fiery Trial ePub at December 09, 2011 11:34 PM (lkCSV)
Yeah, I've been saying for a while now that Ron Paul should drop out, so that his supporters can vote for a more realistic candidate who stands an actual chance of winning a general election. See my post at:
Posted by: A Conservative Teacher at December 10, 2011 05:12 AM (9PcHL)
Posted by: william johns at December 16, 2011 02:15 AM (9wtqw)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.414 seconds, 703 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Pick, picky.
Posted by: nickless at December 09, 2011 02:52 AM (MMC8r)