And here we go.

The Flamening is at hand.

I disagree. I think once 0bama's reign of error is over, things will return to normal. Herman Cain said last night on BOR that there is going to be the sufficient pain in the country to really turn people off.

Plus, the GOP has the rising stars (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, and Scott Walker).

That's actually very liberating, and very useful. If you've got lemons, make lemonade, after all.

What if I have potatoes?

"I think they are going to destroy the country this time. "

And we'll all just sit here and watch it happen.  We will be party to our own extinction because it's the gentlemanly thing to do.

It's time like these when I take a break from being  sad that my wife and I couldn't have kids and simply thank God for sparing them the impending darkness.

The Democrats have created a perfect storm: find a way to create problems or issues, argue against said problems, and blame the party that controls the one part of government that has nothing to do with it in an effort to win it back.

The sequester is Obama's baby

The budget starts with Obama/Senate

solution: blame the GOP Congress for not "doing anything" about it, get us fighting with ourselves about not doing anything instead of explaining it harsh and cruelly for fear we'll be seen as mean.

Ted Cruz is a poopyhead because he's direct.  Everyone should take his lead instead of run from that.

OK, so this whole thing was basically an excuse to wig on social conservatives.

Please. 

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (LCRYB)

The GOP establishment make big bucks playing footsie with democrats. They have an incentive to betray the base.

Fuck Ace.  He doesn't know what it takes to get through my day.

I'm sitting here, fighting, about to just give in and chug some cock and get it over with, but then I dig down and find the strength to fuckin power through it.  You don't read about the quiet heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock.  It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.

Posted by: bjjfiter at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (8z3Pa)

I said the same thing last November. I along with many here said it would be a wave election. I said that a can of Wolf brand chili would beat TFG

I was fucking wrong.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (CJjw5)

I WISH THESE DAMN OTTERS WOULD STOP TOUCHING MY COCK

I'm sick of it. I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of making excuses for it. I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Except that's not how I see it.  Of course some people are attracted to the same sex (and Penthouse Forum breathes a sigh of relief every day that it is so, especially concerning hot lesbians), but to shrug off the deconstruction of the family structure underlying much of the "gay marriage" agenda is to abandon the field to bigots intent on reconstructing the language in order to criminalize wrong-think.

And I'm sorry, Ace, but my ass there isn't a "political" agenda.  When the owner of a cake shop or flower shop or wedding photographer can be sued because they won't compromise their values to cater to a gay couple, then we ought to be right there punching back twice as hard

Here's one: I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

Not sure why you think that's limited to OUR side, ace.    You want to talk about a socially acceptable basis for judging    and scolding?    I give you the Democratic Party.

I think it's the things which    are perceived as being judged that are    at the    heart     of your complaint, not the judging and scolding itself.  

Que?

Is there an admonishment from Ewok-6 I missed?

No no.  Not at all.  I just seem to recall a couple of occasions  where things were taking a turn this way and the ensuing interactions caused some embannenings.

Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (pZDxu)

----

Thread brawl carry over.   Stay low in your foxhole.... try not to get shot.

If  I  may  be  a  contrarian   ready  to  feel  the  heat  from  the  AOSHQ  doomsayers  (realists?),  with  all  due  respect,  the  GOP  is  arguably  stronger  than  it  has  been   since  2004-2005, and  I'm  sure  many  would  argue  that  it  wasn't  that  strong  to  begin  with  then. 

The  current  battles  are  going  to  be  at the  state  level, and  it  seems  like  we  finally  have  GOP  leaders  who  are actually  willing  to  fight  for the states.   The  Dems  got  decimated  in  2010,  that  decimation  will  rear  its  head.

We  still  have  the  House  (yes  I know  what  good  is  having  it if  you  don't  try to thwart  Obama),  and  we  will  keep  it  in  2014.   If  the Dems  couldn't  take it back  dureing 2012, they won't  reclaim  it  in  2014. 

The  Dems  have  Obama  that  is  it.   After  that,  they  may  have  Hillary.   But  her popularity  is largely  the  result  of  not  having  to  take  any  hard  positions   in  the past  few  years.   If  Hillary  doesn't  run  in  2016,  who  wins  for the Dems.  If  she  does  run,  the  American  people  will  start  expecting  some  results  after  3  terms  of  Dem  presidents.  And  if  she  is  like  Bill  she'll  compromise  with the GOP.  

Anyway,  I agree  with  Ace  that  at  the  federal  level,  we  are in  kind of  wandering  period.  But  no  so  at  the state level,  where  GOP  govenors  are  taking  bold  actions   (or bolder  than  the  norm).  I'm  more  optimistic.   Often,  it  ts  when  things  look  the worst   that  they  are  actually   starting  to turn  around.  It  may be  another  6-8  years  before  we  reclaim  the  Presidency,  but  I  don't  think  the wilderness period  will be  that long.

The  worst  thing  is  the  Supreme  Court  appointments.   The  biggest  failure  of  the Reagan/Bush  years  were   not  taking  advantage  of  that  12 year  period  to  claim  a  clear  conservative  majority  on the  court.  I'm  certain  Obama  will  get  at  least  one  more   appointment,  as  Ginsberg  will  retire.  I'm  not  sure  Scalia  or  Kennedy  can  hold  out  for the  next  GOP  Pres.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (KwMW2)

That's hardly a skirmish. We should be winning by margins immune from effects of fraud.

Socons suck.  There.  I've said it.

I think they're big govt nanny-staters.  The only difference between your average socon and someone like Mike Bloomberg is that Bloomberg isn't trying to control who you have sex with and/or who you can marry.  Last time I checked, he doesn't put an embryo's well-being over that of its sentient adult mother, either.

I also think the War on Drugs is a colossal waste of resources, especially given most people seem perfectly OK with the tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths every year, and it annoys the hell out of me when socons get on their high horses about porn, strippers, hookers, and any number of other vices someone might want to enjoy in private homes or businesses.

I believe in maximum individual liberty.  If I'm not stepping on your toes, leave me alone.  And that goes for making me pay for things like abortion and contraception, too.  You want to do stuff like that, it's fine by me - but don't make me pay for it.

I guess I'm a small "L" libertarian, really.  Fuck the socons.  I think pandering to them drives away more voters than they're worth.

I'm sitting here, fighting, about to just give in and chug some cock and get it over with, but then I dig down and find the strength to fuckin power through it. You don't read about the quiet heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock. It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.

You sir, are a great American.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (CJjw5)

Oh please, you know you're taking it up the ass to get through the day.

and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality

---

I've  got  to  admit,  I'm not  sure  who  in  the  party  is  pushing  this  agenda.  But  then  again,  I  don't  get  out  much  to the  GOP  precint  meetings.

Great post.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (gtTDa)

THIS

I try to be the hero but sometimes i fail...

Don't worry, Ace.   I read somewhere on the internet that you aren't gay until  you suck the 8th cock.

Poor Ted Cruz

Step out of line, the man come and take you away

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (8sCoq)

No. Unless he's decided to switch it up.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (yCvxi)

You and EoJ had your own little Moron Meetup didn't you?

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (LCRYB)

Yeah, but ace, come on.   Is that the mainstream conservative view?     I do know conservatives, and none of us hate gay people.   You're using an awfully big brush    to   paint our side like that.      It's like saying all black people        want   to        kill whitey.         Yeah there are plenty who do, and some of them are in pretty dominant positions, but they    don't hold the mainstream view.

At least not yet.   Who knows what four more years of this bullshit regime will do.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (zpqa2)

-

I think you underestimate the amount of fraud.  Think back to the VP debate.

Does Ace have a ponytail?

No.  But his favorite butt plug does.

Posted by: BSR

***

Little problem there, even Stalin wasn't selling out the Brits. The GOP establishment has been doing this to us for some time now.

It would be like Stalin teaming up with the nazis against the Brits from time to time.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (b2D8X)

She managed to weasel out of any responsibility for the blood on her hands in Benghazi.

She will probably govern better than Obama! Think positive!

And we don't need it to fine small businesses for choosing not to cater their receptions. Maybe that's Ace's example? The part where we think photographers and bakers should be free to not accept work they find abhorrent?

You think so, Heather?  Because I couldn't tell.  I'm thinking Ace is saying we have gay-haters in the party and need to run them out.  Which I might agree with, if the pro-gay side (for lack of a better term) wasn't so hell-bent on aggressively mainstreaming homosexuality; in the words of blogger Mark Shea, "Tolerance is not enough.  You.  MUST.  Approve."

The author of this blog post should be deported. 

There are plenty of people on this blog who constantly refer to gays in vulgar fashion. To say its just about government policy for that lot is ridiculous.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (CBCxo)

And I point you again to any   left-leaning blog or hangout.   If you'd like to hear vulgarity,   we're not a patch on them

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (052zE)

You're welcome, cocksucker.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (bcLhD)

--- Fuck that, I'm cheer leading for that bitch to assume room temperature.

It will not matter who they run we will lose. It is time for that divorce to happen in this country.

Judging  and Scolding.

I left the R party in   2007.

I just watch in disgust now.

When enough   people see the light, good things will start happening.

We aren't there yet.

c'mon. pull the other one.

By the way, I liked your previous post, the long one.

---

Ace if you  think  there  are  gay  haters,  ok,  if you  think  being  pro  gay  marriage  is the way  to  go, ok,  but  to  say  some  people  want  government  programs  to change  them  ... come  on.   I  could  find  a  minority  who  want  the goverment  to  do  anything,  but  that  doesn't  really  make  them  a  problem  for a  party.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (da5Wo):::

Dude, if you want some of this prime beef, just ASK, okay?

The answer will be "No" but I'm not gonna fuss at you for asking, because... look at me.  I'd fuck me. 

And in this corner, Mitch McConnell.......

I can't stop laughing.  Or crying. 

I think a lot of this navel gazing is way off base.

1. The economy is in a recession again - we have to wait until the end of the quarter to officially declare it, but it is.

2.  The economy is going to stay down as long as democrats hold the executive or the senate.

3. The democrats cannot win the presidency unless they run a black candidate, so Hillary is out.

4. The reason the GOP lost in 2012 was not    demographics,   the candidate or the message, it was due to vote fraud.

The democratic war i'm waiting for is between hispanic and blacks for position as most-favored-interest-group. There doesn't seem like enough market space for both of them.

Hard to see hispanics winning that one which could leave them disaffected and looking for an alternative.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (B/VB5)

First she has to dry out.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (CJjw5)

Dude, I wouldn't fuck you with your dick.

Maybe I'm the one out of touch...

I know a few conservatives.  Out of everyone I know, I don't know one person who would outlaw abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother.  I don't know one person who would limit or outlaw contraception.  Not one.  Not one even close.

However, according to the liberal media, there are hoards of people out there that make up the bulk of the republican party that think that way.

As for gays, from what I can gather from conversations with those in my circle, no one gives a shit what they do.  On principle, they're against creating a new class of oppressed minority with special rights, but aside from that and an adversion to seeing people with feathers up their ass in public, they don't care.

dude I'm not fucking saying EVERYONE is like that, especially on THIS site.

But it happens HERE, even.

But WHO?   I'm being serious, ace.   I don't know anyone here    or    in general around the conservative blogosphere who says "We have to make homosexuality illegal."      What I DO hear is people saying     they don't want    the homosexual    lobby   (to borrow from    Chuckie Hagel)     invading their lives and forcing them not only to accept but to ENDORSE that lifestyle.   There's a big difference between saying, "Ban homosexuality!" and saying, "Stop telling my children that gender is a social construct!"

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (Hx5uv)

You should see my popcorn bill the past few weeks. Booyah!

Funny that you think people are wigging out that people of the same sex are attracted to each other.  Why don't you just call us Homophobes. You know you want to.

The fact is, people are wigging out because a 2% at most minority is changing the definitions of long established words and culture.  Sound almost Orwellian doesn't it?

  "If they cram their Gheyness down my throat, I won't like them."

I have a public fb page due to business. 1666 friends. I have gay friends. They never post anything about the gay agenda.

It's the straight liberals that post all the hate crap against straights for "being against and hating  gays".

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (da5Wo) :::

I would.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (bcLhD)

-

Libertarians gave over 3 million votes to the dopehead governor.  You want to put gay marriage and abortion rights into the GOP platform, go ahead - you just killed the party permanently.  I will vote green party before I vote for a republican who supports either.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (xmcEQ)

Uhhh, what?  Where do you live, in a gay bar?

224I still think Hillary's worst enemy in 2016 is going
to be her face. I mean, she aged about 50 visible years since 2008,
and the shitty botox job made it worse. By 2015 they'll have to use
special shatterproof camera lenses to hold the primary debates.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (B/VB5)

First she has to dry out.

----

I'd make a small wager that by 2016 pantsuits will be the hot new fashion trend. The important people will decide so

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM

Ace, I think we've gone beyond tolerance.  Gays now want their "situations" *celebrated.* 

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (LRFds)

___   ____  ____  _ ____   ___  _

Maybe there's a geographic componet. I'm in the Rocky Mountain  West.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (LCRYB)

I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit. I've never seen anything like that. Not at this blog and not with any of the people I deal with. If you're seeing that, get better friends and acquaintances.

Here's a reality: socons are the anchor which is dragging conservatism and the Republican Party down. It ain't the fiscalcons, it ain't the libertarians.
Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (bcLhD)

You have a fucked up reality.

Posted by: taylork at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (ppNDn)

Apparently not.

I tell ya, this day has not    gotten much better from this morning.    Where the hell is the straight razor when you need it.

Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty

----

Ace,   are  you  saying  this  doesn't  exist?   I  doubt  you  believe  that.  Just  say  what  you   want.   You  see  no  reason  to  think  that  gays  shouldn't  have  the  right  to  marry.  And  if  you  oppose  that  you are  being  intolerant.   Hence  the  endorsement  agrument   mentioned.  

"So my question is where does it end? Is there a final straw that keeps a free people free or do we all become serfs"

They'll steal every last penny out of every 401k and IRA and we *still* will simply lie back and think of England.   It would be  unacceptable to do the smart thing like shit/piss  ourselves, vomit, blow a rape whistle, or try to run to a SafeZone(tm).

We've been asking for it.  We deserve  to be found in a dumpster, strangled with our own pantyhose.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (CJjw5)

That's cause you're a fag.

Oh SHIT. I wasn't supposed to say that out loud. Dammit.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (aT8Zk)

Where did you hear me asking for a government solution to the social consequences problem, jackhole?  I don't give a fuck what anybody does in the bedroom - if you had some of my fetishes, you wouldn't either.

I am about freedom of association.  If a flower shop owner is a Catholic or Protestant or Muslim who does not wish to cater to homosexual couples, then they should be allowed to do that.  The gay couple should not be able to hijack the power of the state to force the shopowner to violate his moral precepts.

But if you think they should, then let's really let it rip and submit a bill requiring Catholic churches to perform gay weddings.

No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty.


Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM

Yes, ace.  I know that.   But they don't WANT mere acceptance and tolerance.   They want endorsement.   You can argue against that all you want, but I'm sorry, you're wrong.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (/kI1Q)

---------------

And we don't need the government telling pastors and chaplains who they must marry.  And we don't need the government telling pastors and chaplains what they must and must not preach.  And we don't need the government telling churches who they must rent reception halls to. 

But it is coming.  

Because some people's freedoms are lesser than others.

"But WHO? I'm being serious, ace. I don't know anyone here or in general around the conservative blogosphere who says "We have to make homosexuality illegal.""

Ace has a bad habit of believing the liberal media narrative about conservatives, Tea Party people and certain politicians.  Once he gets the picture in his head, it's impossible to change.

I'm certain he wishes we would stop lynching blacks and making them ride in the back of the bus. 

I think the ammo shortage describes how conservatives view our future poilitical fates.

8-16 years seems reasonable. I have been telling liberals since Obama's re-election that they are not thinkers, that they are experiential learners. I mean we can tell that their policies won't work and have never worked, we can point to Detroit and Chicago, Illinois and Califonia as examples of the failure of Democrat governance, we can point to any state in Africa and Asia as evidence that class warfare always leads to..well, warfare.

We can tell them the stove is hot. They won't believe us. They have to touch the stove.

The problem with Democrats, though, is that as long as someone, anyone has money to confisicate to prop up their lofty ideals, they will keep burning their hands. It will take all of 16 years for them to get to the elbow. Maybe then.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM

-

You say that as a joke, yet I see it coming - soon.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (KwMW2)

----------

Absolutely it is coming.  Anyone who does not see that is fooling themselves.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (wbmaj)

  For reals?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (0q2P7)

I've said this repeatedly.  If you think you can win on the "fiscal" issues, you will discover your error when the media turn their big guns on you. 

Social issues have been under attack by liberals since the 60s.  The vast majority of the Nation used to side with us on them, but the constant media onslaught has peeled off enough to hurt us politically.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (Y5I9o)

Tell me about it.

:::And I'm so old, I remember when suggesting gays should settle down in pairs like *HORROR!* straight people do was SO HOMOPHOBIC, gays being better than "breeders" because they were sufficiently evolved to have relationships without a government stamp of approval. Ho-hum.:::

Well, the lexicon has certainly changed.  It used to be a "Lifestyle Choice."  Then it was an "Alternative Lifestyle."  Now you don't hear it described in those terms anymore.  The *consensus* is now that it's genetic, while providing zero proof.

Here's the thing - the aberrant sexual behavior part doesn't bother me.  You'd be surprised if you knew what I did with your telephone handset when you're not around.  It's the making a "Lifestyle" out of a sexual behavior and setting it up in competition with "straight" lifestyle that bothers me on an intellectual level.  And I AM an intellectual.

Question:  What other genetic abnormality has a lifestyle built around it?  Lepers do, I suppose, having their own colonies, but I don't recall ever seeing Leper cable TV channels, magazines, PACs or nightclubs. Or festivals like the Fulton Street Fair or Southern Decadence where lepers get together to touch dicks in public. 

It's a constantly evolving and contradictory mess of a shitpile.  And I find it annoying. 

What was the last fiscal conservative win?

I mean, if you want me to roll over on socon stuff, what do I get in return? Are the Rs gonna refuse to fund OCare? Will they refuse to raise the debt limit? Will they shut .gov down unless they get a budget? What?

Posted by: at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (xmcEQ)

Well, shit who doesn't?

Oh that was mean.

....but no homo.

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (GGCsk)

I argue that they are a threat to society in general.  Their lifestyle is incompatible with civil society, and i've got plenty of examples throughout history with which to demonstrate this.  The problem I always face is that I can't educate people quickly enough.  There is just too much to learn for someone starting at average knowledge.

Homosexuals are, in general,  people with serious psychological problems.  The number one cause of death among them is suicide.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (b2D8X)

You're equating    "anti  gay marriage"    with   "homophobic."           That's a leftwing tactic, and it's utterly false.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (ZPrif)

Amen to this.  And their ideas don't work either.  I've got examples throughout history of where Libertarian ideas were tried, and failed miserably.

Ace, the gays don't get a free pass on the political end either.

I know some gays who say, "Why the hell do I want to participate in a ceremony that started out as a religious sacrament? Just give me a civil union."

Gays aren't monolithic about gay marriage. I don't care myself, gays show much less ability to keep relationships together than straights, and we are pretty bad at that ourselves.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (LRFds)

I always knew you had taste.

JeffB  and  others  against  SoCons.   I  consider  myself  a  social  conservative,  though  not  of  the  religious  right.   The  only  thing  I want  at the  federal  government  with  respect  to  abortion  is  the  only  thing  the  federal  government  can  do  under  the  Constitution.   Defend  public  provided  abortions, and  planned  parenthood,  and  I want  the  anti Roe  v  Wade  justices.   Because  if  they  are  not  anti  Roe  v.  Wade,  I  can  guaranty  you   they  probalby   have a  pretty  broad  interpretation of  the  Commerce  Clause.  I  think  the  states  ought  to  decide,  and  I  would  want  my  state  to be  pro-life.

Now,  getting  that out of the way,  you  say   the  socons  are the problem.  And it is  tempting  to  say, and  sometimes  I believe  it myself  (even  as  someone who  considers  himself  part of that wing).   But  here is  why   I don't  think  it  matters.   Every time  I talk to someone  who  says  they  are  fiscally  conservative and  socially  liberal,  they  can  never  name  one  program  they  would  cut.  I  just  have  this  sneaky  suspicion  they  are  socially  liberal  and fiscally   liberal,  but  hide  behind  the  social  issues.  

Now  I have  no  proof  of that  just  as  you  have  no  proof  that  jettisoning  the  socons  will  bring  the  GOP  back  to the promise  land. 

I'd  say  let's  all  get  behind  a cultural  issue  that  we can  ally  rally  around  --- GUNS. 

 shaping the party to express my own true preferences

And therein lies the problem.  We all have different prepferences.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (BrQrN)

You called for a banhammer???

If the government stops discouraging homosexual behavior, then what should we do when it promotes heterosexual behavior?  For example, should we keep dependent tax breaks?  I agree with Plato that a strong heterosexual family unit builds a strong nation/culture, thus incentivising it makes sense.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (V3kRK)

-

Even in this hellhole of a post, I found some optimism.

>>>The game is fixed against us. We cannot win in the current environment. The public has become too stupid, and too easily stampeded by the enemy's media weapon.

The answer here: Rename the GOP the Socialist Party. The MFM will not know how to talk about us. The retodded public will vote in droves for us. The GOP Party stalwarts will find the honesty refreshing. Foriegn nations will beat a path to our door and lavish funding on us. The Dems will gnash their teeth in anger because we seized on their branding.

Then we just do what the fuck we want. Lying is A-OK

Bush to head Department of Gay Affairs? 

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (I2LwF)

Well, out of 400 posts, you find a least one that makes some sense.

I agree.

Dismantle big govt to its constitutionally ennumerated powers, and most of these bullshit debates and arguments over social issues go away.

It's way, way past time for our side to start explaining and educating people about the role of govt, its proper limits, and how less govt benefits them, and not just the evil rich.  And it's time for the politicians on our side to mean it.

Posted by: Vic at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (53z96)

People bring it up and we get distracted.  As I am firmly in the camp of our number one problem being the lopsided advantage Liberals possess through owning all the media outlets, I really don't see much point in debating other causes of our losses.

Liberal media is 90% of our problem.  The other ten percent is just polishing a wrecked car.

Ace, I'd be interested to hear more about your views regarding 'blaming' and 'shaming' to establish moral or intellectual superiority.  I have long thought that our biggest sins as a society are probably envy and hubris.  If envy didn't work, there would be no class warfare.  And if we were all secure with ourselves, why do we need to judge anyone else about anything?

:::And I AM an intellectual.


Yep. All the dick jokes gave it away!

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (GQ8sn) :::

The internet said so, EC.

THE INTERNET.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:05 PM (xmcEQ)

Holy shit this thread moves fast, I can't even get my comeback in in a reasonable amount of time.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (CJjw5)

The only reason you don't see Lepers do this is because their dicks would fall off.

Okay, seriously, I need to walk away for a bit.  There's too much bullshit and backbiting on this thread.   If I stay,   David Carradine is going to have a dinner guest.

Later, all.

One other thing - the reason I call socons big govt nanny-staters is because these kinds of issues should be taught at home and in church/synagogue/whatever, not enforced or promoted by govt.

And, yeah...I get that the other side is using big govt to promote their gay rights and abortion agendas.  And that's why it's all about limited govt - or at least it should be.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (m2CN7)

Lepers are Sea Slugs??!?!???

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (QupBk)

Tell that to the doberman.

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (H8fz7)

But this would pre-empt Honey Boo Boo!

Defend public provided abortions

----

Jeez,  first  i  said  I  wanted  styrofoam  to  keep  my  coffee  cold  and  now  I  said  defend  when  I meant  defund.

I  need  to hire  a  proofreader.

I want to know a couple of things

1) Why is it imperitive that we socons accept a late-Victorian paradigm of "gayness" instead of treating a tendency towards homosexual behavior the same way we treat tendencies towards any other type of behavior?

2) Why is it wrong to be against a position (gay marriage) that was considered homophobic and heterocentric 20 years ago?

3) In the vast range of possible human sexual behavior, why is it imperitive that monogamous marriage between two men and two women and only that be given the same treatment as between one man and one woman? Why single out monogamous gay relationships for special treatment?

4) Why is it that while the Marxists are bright enough to realize that in order to raise the state to ultimate power they have to break down societal mores, so many libertarians are unable to grasp that in order to be free of government control, the mass of people have to control themselves in a mutually satisfactry manner, which means in practice a shared sense of morality?

:::So your argument boils down to "tu quoque". Great.:::

More like...   TWO COCKS!!!

What.  Is.  UP?!!!!

***raises hand for high-five***

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (b2D8X)

No, it is time for this cartoon of a national government to die a sad, painful death.   It's broken, and nothing we can do will fix it. 

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (H8fz7)

-

That is the actual answer.  The federal government has no business deciding what a marriage is, when a child becomes a human, how much money I make, or giving cash to poor people.  Eliminate two-thirds of the federal government, and we eliminate the problem.  We can do this through elections, or just wait until reality does it for us in a more painful fashion.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (wR+pz)

Colorado is living the herbal life.

Wait- what?

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (8sCoq)

It's what they do.  And when they get into positions of power it gets worse.  Astute bloggers has an article regarding this.  Apparently they were some of the most brutal camp guards in the Nazi concentration camps.

How about manning up? How about realizing that the gay rights movement is just another cog in the wheel of Progressivism like feminism and the environmental movement? They're all smoke screens being used to destroy civil society from within. Like every other liberal cause that starts out with a valid grievance, it soon gets co-opted by Marxists who use it to pound another nail into the coffin of American Exceptionalism. The idea that we are born with natural rights that no man, no monarch, no government can take away. Hell, I'm an atheist and I get the notion of God given rights.

Be a man, Ace.  I know that will be tough for you. But give it a try. You might surprise yourself. I don't think you have it in you but I would love  for you to prove me wrong. Listen to Mark Levin everyday. Maybe that would help. Go to YouTube and watch old videos of Andrew. He knew. FU #WAR

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (CJjw5)

No. Just...no.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (QupBk)

This is just the airing of the greivences.  We've got the feats of strength yet to go.

let's get this straight. We need a Department of Gay Affairs....

----

ISWYDT

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (V3kRK)

This is my current working theory.  The dollar is going to drag down everything we have through hyperinflation.

Maybe you could do us all a favor and quote the bible sections that require the government to enforce the moral code of the Christian bible.

I expect them to enforce the no murder or stealing stuff. I also expect them to enforce the sexual rules on rape, bestiality, and paederasty. Those are usually considered moral issues. Is that wrong of me?

Ace  -  To  the  extent  that  some  in  the  party  think  it should  only  be  about  socons,  or  fiscons,  I agree with you.  We  need a  broad  coalition.   Frankly,  I have no idea why  you  can't  be  in  all three camps  of the  GOP  and  even  in  the  libertarian  section,  if  that is a  separate  camp.  And at  certain  times,  some  are  more  important  than  others.   I  certainly   think  that  fiscal  issues  are  more  pressing  than  social  issues  and  defense  issues.   However,   I  don't  think   they   move  voters  as  much  as  the  other  two. 

I  also  suspect  that  many  are  strong  pro-life  but  really  don't  have  any  issue  with  gay  marriage.   There  is  no  reason  the  two  should  be  linked.  

Anyway,  I'm  with  you  in  that  I think  the  current  (or  is  it  coming)  war  between  the  establishment  v.  grassroots (tea party?)  is  good.   In  the end,  we  will  need  to come  together  and  have  respect  for  each  other.   We  should  all be  on  the same  team  at the end of the day.  However,  there is  a grassroats  sense   that  the establishment doesn't  even  want  us  to play.   We  can  debate  the  reality, but  the perception  exists.

Like  I  said, let's  just  alll get  behind  the  one  thing  we  can  agree  on -  at  least on this  board -  GUNS.  The  DEMS  are  coming  for your  GUNS.

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)

Lot of venting going on, and I am about to open my second bottle of wine.

Guess the thread mill will have to wait till tomorrow.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (zpqa2)

Agreed.  It's time to break the rules which have been protecting them from us all these years.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (bcLhD):::

You may understand politics.  At least you say you do.  But to me, it seems you understand very little about people beyond your immediate circle. 

When you understand both, you may actually make some money at getting people elected.  So far, I see a lot of bad advice based on what your ideal of the party would look like, and it is a recipe for political irrelevance. 

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (b2D8X)

Same problem as always.  We have to take over, or at least match, the Liberal Media Weapon.

It *IS* a weapon, and until we get one of our own, we cannot win on any issue.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (2PWuT)

If they weren't a Federal issue, abortion would still be illegal in most states.  Possibly all.

The establishment pols have decided that since THEY cannot win then the PARTY cannot win.

And you, being a good apparatchik, acquiesce.

Noted.  But no real surprise.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (2PWuT)

When the media turn their guns on the FiCons, they will be destroyed just like the SoCons.  You really need to understand what is happening.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (CJjw5)

That was a well thought out, intelligent, cogent comment. Who the fuck are you and where's Jeff?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (SY2Kh)

As much as I believe Hollowpoint hasn't been right about anything in this century, amazingly, somehow, out of the fucking blue, he hits this on the head.

These issues that have Ace's panties in a wad are simply a product of how the media have crafted the narrative to make the GOP/Tea Party/conservatives/right wing as mean, bigoted, murdering, raping bastards who shouldn't be voted for.

:::That was a well thought out, intelligent, cogent comment. Who the fuck are you and where's Jeff?:::

You ever pull your sack over your junkpile?  I call it "The Blister."

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (H8fz7)

I happen to think this 'socon/ficon' business is largely a false construct, but here's the big question: Would you classify a slavery-era Republican opposed to slavery as a social conservative? My point is that there must be a moral foundation to any political movement. You're unlikely to find a others willing to fight and die so you can keep your stuff. You will, however, find those willing to go the limit for a higher cause like, say, oh I don't know, freedom. 

To Ace's point: we haven't lost yet. The Marxist socialist weasels currently running the Democratic Party and the federal government are bound to overreach. They can't help themselves. It's in their nature. Giving up at this point seems premature, at least to me. And you folks in the Let It Burn crowd? Who's to say you won't burn up with it? But hey, if you get through it intact, you can always tell your grandchildren, as you gather shivering around the cooking fire in the ruins of the wasteland, that you saw what was coming and did absolutely nothing to prevent it.

Youmay understand politics. At least you say you do. But to me, it seems you understand very little about people beyond your immediate circle.

I'd like to see Jeff B. explain Operation Orca in light of his constant praise of Romney's executive abilities. Until he does that is name is mud, as far as I am concerned.

****wanders in****

you know, this might not be the best time for the blog's resident democrat to post

have fun

Until recently, every ballot for gay marriage was defeated handily.  At that time these same people were saying it was a losing political issue.

They were going to say it whether it was true or not.  Same holds true today.  

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (GGCsk)

I think your scope of view is too short.  I could go into detail, but I figure the thread will end before I can get very far. 

Know this.  The largest repository of sexually transmitted diseases is the "gay" community.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (CJjw5)

There we go.

I think people in the party have resigned themselves to being a minority party for 8-16 years

8-16 years? Imagine a bad economy in 2016. Now replace St. Obama at the top with Generic White Democrat. Do we lose again? I don't think so.

Karl  Rove is milking his Bush years until the last drop. Players will emerge by 2016 that we've never heard of. Just like Rove in 2000 and Axlerod in 2008.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (CJjw5)

use a flaslight to create the sack o lantern

For  better  or  worse,  the  socons  and  fiscons  are  going  to  have  to  learn  to  get  along.   The  party  needs  both  to  get a  big  enough  coalition.  Now,  I'm  willing  to  put  socon  issues  on  the  back  burner  in  order  to  push  a  more  ficon  message.   I  think  they  go  hand  and  hand  frankly.  

I  agree with an earlier  poster,  that  all of this  can  be  solved  by  going  back  to the  Constitutional  limits  of  the  federal  government.   I  just  don't  see how  that  moves  voters?

Give us 25-30 years.  There won't be any more Democrats by then because they refuse to marry and reproduce.  Those 50 million abortions were all future Democratic voters that will never vote.  There will be more Duggars than Democrats in Arkansas.  And the Mitch McConnells and John Boehners will all be dead or put out to pasture.

I refuse to believe a party that controls 2/3 of the states and the House of Representatives is dead or even irrelevant.  We surived Watergate and Jimmy Carter, we sure as hell can survuive Barack Fucking Obama.

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (EI3K0)

What's your point? Is it your contention that Romney doesn't have superior executive abilities?  His entire executive career success was just a sham or pure luck?  This is why we lose, becuase of this type of bullshit.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (QupBk)

heh, I'll party with you brother if our platform only includes 3 things:

1. No Gun Control for anybody that is not in prison.

2. Flat tax across the board for everybody.

3. Govt spending at the most can be 98% of the previous year revenue.

I want nothing else.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (Y5I9o)

Exactly right.  Beliefs which were standard in the 1960s, are now considered extreme.  

The beliefs didn't move, the population did, and as a result of constant media pressure.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (aT8Zk)

You see black Christian helicopters where none exist.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (b2D8X)

Too late to fix.  Has to collapse now.  From the ashes it will begin again.

Speaking of idiocy, unproven conspiracy theories and people who indict an entire religion based on one person...YEAH! JUST ONE. Only one kiddie diddler in the Catholic Church. What are they doing, some sort of timed release, like a diet pill?  The collapse cannot happen soon enough.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (Y5I9o)

Excellent rebuttal.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (xmcEQ)

How do you feel about people torturing animals?   Same sort of psychological problem.   40% of gays were molested as children according to one JAMA study I have read.

Yeah, they really are fucked up people.  Look at Chas Bono, molested for years by a lesbian babysitter.  Go figure that she would turn out "gay."

If the GOP could fight for *something* then I think alot of the rampant dissatisfaction that has plagued us from our feelings of impotence would subside and we could become a functional coalition again.

----

MtM  -  This  is  a  good  comment.   Right  now  its  as  if we  can't  win  any  battle.  This is  why  I think  the Hagel  battle  is  so  important.  For  me,  defeating  him  is  almost  as  important  for the  message  it  sends  than  the  practicality  of  not having  him  at  top  of  defense.  I  liken it  to the Doolittle Raid.

I promise not to give a fuck what you are, if you promise to STOP TELLING ME ABOUT IT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Atheists are the same way....all they want to talk about is God.

And going OT here....there's a Bra Fitting Salon in Alexandria! I wonder if they give tours? I wonder if I could get a job there? "Hi, I'm Sticky, and I'll be fondling your boobs today".

That just rolls off the tongue.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (p/cQy)

Yup.

661 Ace, are you gay?
Posted by: Andrew  Well, there was that one blog, ways back where he was wearing George Takei's star trek boots.  My mind was made up right there.

"So Ace, are you gay? Is that why your identity must be kept such a secret? It would explain why you like Perry so much. GOProud baby! "

Hey, let's not get personal here.  If Ace was gay, that wouldn't make any difference to us, the commenters. 

Anyway, I'm certain that any guys we may have fucked or may fuck in the future would be done in a manly, viking way.  As a goof, or perhaps to demonstrate our dominance. 

Something like that.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 04:00 PM (kdS6q)

The GOP trashed the house. They can keep it.

#649 The problem with your POV is that everyone under the age of 30 has come up through schools where there is a Gay-Straight Alliance and an Anti-Bullying Week and they watch 27 different TV shows that depict gays and lesbians as ordinary, cool people.  There are "out" gay kids in almost every public high school and university in the country now, and the straight kids don't see a thing wrong with them.  They Do. Not. Get. the social-cons' fear and loathing of gays, and because of that they become easily turned away from anything else conservatives have to offer them, including economic freedom.

I have two teenagers that are as fiscally and Constitutionally-conservative as anyone here, and both are pro-life, but they are super-super-super offended by anyone speaking ill of gay people.  My son voted for Mitt Romney, but there is no way in Hell he would ever vote for a Rick Santorum. 

These views are not going to change.  Acceptance of gays has become a threshold issue for tons of younger voters --and franky, for many of their parents now as well-- and if we keep turning them off, we really will be a minority party forever. 

The comment that SoCons aren't willing to accept a compromise makes me laugh. Someone, I think it was Ramesh Ponnuru, talked about this idea of the immovable SoCons, saying that if you're an abortion opponent, you've already had to accomodate to the law, which allows unfettered abortion. Yes, I know final trimester abortions must be under a doctor's judgement, but the whole idea is that conversation, which to opponents is a life or death sentence on a human life, is conducted in private. Abortion opponents wake up every day in a country where living with the legal regime is an accomodation, and one that goes against their moral and ethical beliefs, because the accomodation means that human lives are ending.

Abortion opponents fight small and large battles every day. There's always talk about a GOP President finding Justices that will reverse Roe v. Wade (and the first Rep. nominee that adopts that as a central effort will be the first in my lifetime), but every day there are people across the country, legislators and activists, trying to find ways to not only restrict access, but to change hearts and minds, including- and I've witnessed this with my own eyes and know it occurs in every state of this country- direct financial and emotional support for women who choose not to abort,both during their pregnancies and after their delivery.

So there you have it. I'm pro-life, and I'm not interested in compromising.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (NzBQO)

I am a SoCon, and I agree.  I really think Akin and Murdock swung the election to the Dems, and at the very least cost us two Senate seats.

I blame the media 90%, but their 10% didn't help.

Posted by: ace

I'm an adult not just as part of some kinda deal where I only have to act like an adult as long as everybody else does too.  I'm an adult because I'm grown-up.  I'm an adult because being a child  mentally sucks.

Be an adult.

>>>> Ridiculous. Is the government "endorsing" gambling by requiring gamblers to account for the gambling income?

I see that Ace never purchases lottery tickets when he buys his Val-U-Rite.

Ace,

Is this your pre-coming out post? Call me <3

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (w+Dvf)

And thus opens the door to polygamy and closes the door on marriage.

It's anecdotal, but a lot of socons are pretty close to washing their hands of the GOP, self definitely included.

There's only so much of being blamed for every electoral fuck-up made by the party that one can reasonably be expected to stand.

and this is why the rethugicant party is dead

enjoy your john mccains and your other democrats with an R after their names

and pls tell me again why its so bad being a democrat?

126   I get what you're saying -- but if you're saying you don't know anyone on the right who just does not like gays, and sort of does in fact h8 them, I'm going to call bullshit on you.

Ace, I actually know more dems that are vocally anti gay than conservatives by a long shot.  I think you're taking this a bit personally.

When did you come out of the closet?

I knew who Axelturf was in '96 and Rove in '88.....

That makes you and five other political junkies outside of Illinois and Texas sven.

the problem ain't our idiots in charge of campaigns the problem is the US media...

They've hated us all my voting life. But we managed to win. That said, I am damn ready for a SECOND non-liberal TV  news outlet. A Fox News in which the personalities don't wear clown noses. There's got to be money in that still-untapped market.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (m/bYW)

Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not only contemporaries and countrymen, but they were good friends as well.  One's Monetary philosophy exactly dovetails with the others Social philosophy. 

If you think you can have one without the other, you are mistaken. 

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (ZDsRL)

Helllooooo?    This is pretty much becoming a Chant for me.   The MEDIA is the problem.  We have to get one of our own.

Posted by: Dante at February 20, 2013 03:40 PM (NWLVJ)

The Media is the problem.  The Media is the problem.  The Media is the problem.

<i>Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not only contemporaries and countrymen, but they were good friends as well. One's Monetary philosophy exactly dovetails with the others Social philosophy.

If you think you can have one without the other, you are mistaken.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:17 PM (bb5+k)</i>

Or, put another way, the fiscally-conservative/socially-liberal dream candidate remains as elusive as Bigfoot.

I'd be fine with a truce on social issues, frankly. Unfortunately, from all the lead flying around, the progressives don't seem all that interested in one.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (Y5I9o)

On ABC News this morning they had Robin Roberts (Lesbian) and Sam Champion. (Homosexual)   The series "Glee" is nothing but an unending stream of gay normalization propaganda,  and the stuff has become ubiqutuous because the Media people keep pushing it in a favorable light.

The reality is closer to "silence of the lambs" but they don't show that stuff any more. 

The Media are controlling where the public goes, and it is leading them down this path.

Posted by: palooka at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (QxnUA)

The same likelihood that the Atheists will stop the Muslims in Europe. 

They've hated us all my votinglife. But we managed to win. That said, I am damn ready for a SECOND non-liberal TV news outlet. A Fox News in which the personalities don't wear clown noses. There's got to be money in that still-untapped market.

+1000. When I heard that AlGore refused to sell to The Blaze, I got it immediately, because he knew, too. The market's there. A new tv outlet without a lot of Fox's hangups would do gangbusters for a while, and I doubt Fox's ratings would suffer much as a result.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:47 PM (bcLhD)

Unfortunately, you are bringing a knife to a gunfight.  The sort of debate we have with the opposition party is not intellectual, it is "binders full of women."

Ace,

I am ready for good felching.

-B

Ace gets all emotional and throws in the towel on gay marriage, capitulating to the nastiest group of bullies in politics (who, btw, very much have a "political" agenda.) 

It's anti-depressant time for Ace. 

He's right though.  The GOP, at a party level, just doesn't want to win.  Or, rather, they've acquiesced to the idea that they're not going to win and they've stopped trying.   All they're content to be is a milder version of the Democratic party.  They loathe conservatism.  And people don't vote for Sugar-Free when they can have the real thing.  So it's gonna be Democratic governance for a long time to come.

Funny thing is I really don't care much anymore.  Talking about politics really isn't fun like it used to be.  If people want to turn America into a $hithole, fine.  I'll at least have the shadenfreude of seeing what they do to themselves, even if they do it to me too.

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (60GaT)

The middle voters are all swung by the media.  That 5% of the middle costs us every election, and they are 100% swung by the media.

You tell me.  If 100% of the losses are the result of the Media screwing us, what else should we be working on to correct it?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (SY2Kh)

Like Slavery?   Yeah, they couldn't do jack shit about that moral issue.

Posted by: John Adams at February 20, 2013 04:30 PM (qXy1H)"

Foul. In both senses of the word. And I'm one of the "here's your hat, what's your hurry?" state-loving, hate-in-my-heart social conservatives, too. Comments like that don't do much to dispel the stereotype.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:58 PM (QxSug)

The left detested him because he was the prosecutor in the Alger Hiss trial.

Don't accept the leftist triumphalism, least of all when Republicans are not in fact in the minority, not when they hold a big majority in the House, 30 of the 50 governorships, and the bigger share of the state legislatures.

@

At this point eight years ago, the Democrats were shut out of the House as well as the Senate and presidency, and had nothing like the state presence that Republicans do today, and yet in two years they had captured the House and Senate both, and two years after that they'd elected the leftwardmost president in American history.

If this next two and four years go anything like the analysts in what may be called the ZeroHedge School have in mind, then Obama and Obama-ism will be anathema, and Republicans and conservatives and libertarians will be last man standing, and might run and win on a platform of "we told you so", though preferably not in so many words and with an affirmative program as well.

And I'm as conservative as they come, socially as well as in the more polite ways, from a Bible-believing family, and I suppose there must be such people in the world as Ace describes, but I expect I'd have met one if there were very many, and the Bible-believing, fire-breathing, devout Evangelical Christians I've known are kindly, generous, and loving folks -- complete teddybears.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 04:40 PM (P6QsQ)"

Don't you watch any of the iterations of "Law and Order"?

[Ducks.]

The creators of those bits of agitprop lost me forever when they turned a homeschooling family into a murderous freakshow.

Though I was pleasantly surprised by a crumb from a recent Castle episode, in which the murderer of the creator of a "Girls Gone Wild" porn empire didn't turn out to be the anti-porn crusader. Probably was a twist ending for the lefty viewers...

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 04:01 PM (SY2Kh)

When they are the only ones with guns, it isn't going to make any difference whether you give them ammo or not.  You certainly can't use it.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:43 PM (bb5+k)

When talking about Richard Nixon, his role in the Hiss case should never be forgotten. Nixon was the driving force behind nailing that highly placed commie traitor to the wall in the face of very powerful opposition. It should be remembered that Hiss was being groomed for higher appointed office and was predicted as a possible future pick for Secretary of State. Scary stuff.

#766 I watch "Glee" every week with my teenage daughter.  It tries to "normalize" everything...except Christianity.  First it was the disabled kid, then the gay boys, then the lesbians, now it's the tranny, always portrayed in the best possible light and shown fighting off prejudice and bigotry at every turn.  Message: being "different" is OK, whether you're in a wheelchair or having buttsex or you're a guy who wants to be a girl in the school play.  All the same.

The overt Christians, on the other hand, are ALWAYS portrayed as judgmental, prudish assholes, the characters we're supposed to hate.  Nobody is ever scolded for criticizing the Christians.  Message: Christians are h8ers, and we don't like h8ers.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 04:58 PM (NYnoe)

----------------

Which, by the way, drives the gays and lesbians in my Evangelical church nuts.

What, you say?  Evangelical Christian Gays and Lesbians ?   You betcha.  Smashing stereotypes to bits since 33 AD.