Ace of Spades HQ

February 25, 2014

If It's February, It Must Be Time For CPAC Controversy
— Ace

American Atheists -- a fairly obnoxious atheist organization (I don't say all atheists are obnoxious, being something of an atheist myself, but some are obnoxious) -- requested a booth at CPAC.

CPAC, out of, in my mind, a good impulse towards tolerance of dissent and appreciation for the idea that a man possessed of the truth need fear no rivals, agreed to let them buy a booth at CPAC.

Well, apparently CPAC either got spooked by convention-goer outrage or realized, belatedly, just how obnoxious American Atheists were. And also, how partisan: you'll notice their billboards targeting political figures include no Democrats. As they wished to snark about people who believed in God, or claimed to, they could have noted Bill Clinton leaving church shortly after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

CPAC rescinded permission to have a booth at the convention, and refunded American Atheists' money.

Now, here's my take. You are of course free to disagree with it.

Let's get the obvious things out of the way first: Of course CPAC has the legal right to deny this group a booth.

Furthermore, beyond the mere legal right to exclude them, they also have a perfectly acceptable justification for exercising this right: American Atheists is a fairly rudely atheist organization, and furthermore a politicized one, zealously attacking Republican figures but no Democratic ones.

So, just based on CPAC's name -- the Conservative Political Action Conference -- they're perfectly within both right and reason to exclude American Atheists.

Nevertheless, I don't think there's any harm in -- and often a great benefit to -- being more tolerant of dissent (even obnoxious dissent) than you actually need to be.

So while I don't fault CPAC for rescinding its permission, I do think the better thing to do would have been to just let American Atheists take their booth.

What would have happened? Honestly, let's game this out. How many Christians at CPAC (or other believers) would have been, even for a moment, thrown into doubt by the obnoxious, juvenile, We Don't Believe In God But We're Going To Make An Ersatz Church Out Of Atheism tribalistic chanting?

You all know the number: Zero. Point. Zero.

American Atheists were trolling CPAC. CPAC has the right to eject the troll -- I eject trolls -- but I can't help thinking the better play would have been to let the troll come, and then be ignored, and basically waste his time and money manning a booth that people either ignore, or come towards in order to argue with them, or just gawk at. Like zoo animals.

In other words: Let the asshole take the rap of being the asshole, you know?

In general, I do think it's 100% true that a man possessed of the truth need fear no rival. So this type of thing, to me, reads as "scared."

I know CPAC isn't actually scared. I know most Christians are not scared by these goofs. But whenever someone endeavors to keep someone from getting his words out, there is the natural suspicion that accrues that someone, somewhere, is afraid of those words getting out. Like he fears that a great and insightful point will be made.

If you're not scared, act like you're not scared. If you think these guys are dopes -- which, again, even I do, and I don't even believe in God -- they act like you think they're dopes.

Don't act like you think you have something to fear from them.

Now here's what I think is going on. I may be wrong. This is my guess. I don't know, because no one's exactly clear about motives in situations like this.

I think the idea which is wrongly in play, on the right and left but mostly the left, is that anyone, anywhere, who represents a point of view contrary to one's own, essentially "represents" one, in some way, and that's how his errant thought somehow reflects on oneself, and that's why so many people get upset by this sort of thing.

There's are two Emo Jagoffs from American Atheists at CPAC? Well, that besmirches CPAC; in some way, just by being there, they "represent" the other CPAC attendees, and therefore they must be excluded, so that they are not taken as "representing" the values of CPAC.

Note that of all the reasons to claim that someone else's speech or someone else's beliefs or someone else's actions are one's own personal concern, this argument that that other person "reflects" on one is both the weakest sort of claim, and also the broadest.

It is the argument of last resort of someone who just wants someone to Shut Up but can't think of any better reason to argue he should shut up.

When, for example, those idiots at the Science Fiction Writers of America drove out a couple of old hands in the filed on trumped up, silly claims of "sexism," what was their thought process?

Almost certainly something like this: "If I permit those Sexists in my organization, they 'reflect' on me, and they besmirch my values with their own Sexism. Therefore, it is definitely My Business what these men say, and the only way I can keep their Sexism from directly harming my life is to purge them from the organization."

You can always trot out this "someone else thinking something wrong reflects on me, so I must purge him or batter him into silence" argument, but it's obviously the weakest of all possible arguments in terms or arguing the case for being directly affected by someone else's speech or thoughts.

I hate this argument, myself. It essentially makes everyone else's business, in all ways, my business. It permits virtually no zone of tolerance or social freedom to anyone at all, because someone else can always claim that you, just by possessing a thought they don't like, "reflect" on them, and they don't want to live in that kind of society, so Bang!, observant Christians must be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages.

After all, such bakers "reflect" on the average busybody, don't they?

Now CPAC is a private political organization and is of course orders of magnitude away from "society." Nevertheless, this faulty reasoning -- someone else's errant thoughts or speech reflects on me, so I must do my utmost to exclude those thoughts or silence that speech -- is certainly lurking in the background here.

In fact, other people's speech tends to reflect on no one at all except the speaker.

This seems to be the opposite of "Guilt by association," in which people cast blame on others for their fellow-traveller's guilt. Except in this case, people do it to themselves -- willingly -- assuming responsibility for the transgressions of others, and thus the duty to Do Something about those transgressions.

So, once again: I don't think CPAC can be faulted here, but I think the smartest, and best, and most tolerant play would have just to let the imbeciles have their little Troll Booth.

Take their money, wish them as sardonic a "God bless your heart" as you can manage, and know that your organization is in little danger of being infiltrated by a Steven Hawking-level mind.

On the other hand, I would like to criticize this bit over-the-top rhetoric from Brent Bozell:

The invitation extended by the ACU, Al Cardenas and CPAC to American Atheists to have a booth is more than an attack on conservative principles. It is an attack on God Himself. American Atheists is an organization devoted to the hatred of God. How on earth could CPAC, or the ACU and its board of directors, and Al Cardenas condone such an atrocity?
It makes absolutely no difference to me that CPAC and ACU have backed down and removed the booth. I am sick and tired of these games.
I will continue to denounce CPAC, ACU and Cardenas. No conservative should have anything to do with this conference. If you do, you are giving oxygen to an organization destroying the conservative movement.

1. Atrocity? I think CPAC's initial notion -- let the idiots come if they want -- was correct. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's an atrocity?

2. "The invitation extended by the ACU, Al Cardenas and CPAC to American Atheists to have a booth is more than an attack on conservative principles. It is an attack on God Himself. " As people know I'm not one of those who calls the GOP a "theocratic" party. But I have to disagree sharply here that the conservative movement is definitionally a movement that can only contain religious people.

Does Bozell disagree? Or have I been misled all these years?

As a minority in the party in terms of religious faith, I do understand, here, which is the tail, and which is the dog that wags it. I understand, of course, that the religious make up the great bulk of the party (as they make up a clear majority of Americans).

But is it now being argued that only a policy of complete exclusion of the irreligious is acceptable inside the movement?

I think that's dangerous. I don't think it's dangerous because I think that idea will prevail, and I'll be kicked out. I think it's dangerous because that idea will strike an awful lot of people as noxious and they will exclude themselves from a movement taking a hard position on the requirement of religious belief.

CPAC apparently had it mind, originally, that a political movement is not necessarily a religious one.

Was it an atrocity to think that?

3. "I will continue to denounce CPAC, ACU and Cardenas. No conservative should have anything to do with this conference. If you do, you are giving oxygen to an organization destroying the conservative movement."

That's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. But I hardly think CPAC's error here (if it was an error at all) is what's "destroying the movement."

I can think of other things.

I agree with him, by the way, that atheism is generally an "attack on God" as a fundamental matter, and that American Atheists seem to be more anti-theists (or maltheists) than atheists. As I said, they're particularly obnoxious about it.

But an atrocity? An atrocity for letting People Who Are Wrong man a booth?

Posted by: Ace at 01:33 PM | Comments (510)
Post contains 1743 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Weird, opened in a New Tab for me... In before MUMR?

Posted by: garrett at February 25, 2014 01:36 PM (Ggxte)

2 Give them the booth right in front of the bathrooms. Maybe they will get the message

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 01:36 PM (t3UFN)

3 I agree with CPAC. By allowing them a both they were legitimizing them. They have an ongoing effort to become "mainstream" when they are actually crazy as a bed bug.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 25, 2014 01:37 PM (T2V/1)

4 National Policy Institute also have a booth there, last I heard. They're basically the think-tank on American Renaissance / VDare. Be interesting to see if CPAC let's them keep it.

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 25, 2014 01:37 PM (WaedO)

5 They may fear what some folks (faux conservatives, perhaps; any CPAC goer) might do -- which will hit the news cycles for weeks.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 25, 2014 01:38 PM (IXrOn)

6 I think social issues are important BUTÂ… can all sides agree to table them and just focus on Obamacare and the destruction of our economy and foreign policy until after 2016? United fronts and all that stuff.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 01:39 PM (olDqf)

7 >>>I agree with CPAC. By allowing them a both they were legitimizing them. They have an ongoing effort to become "mainstream" when they are actually crazy as a bed bug. that's what I'm talking about in the middle of the piece, this idea that makes everyone else's thoughts YOUR duty to patrol. By even permitting them on the campus, you "legitimize" them, and so now you're "on the hook for that" so that of course gives you both the right and reason to exclude them. Do we have to dream up new ways of conceiving of other people's business as our own?

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 01:40 PM (/FnUH)

8 Give them the Handicapped Booth in the Bathroom.

Posted by: garrett at February 25, 2014 01:41 PM (Ggxte)

9 Having a pretty good idea what kind of people they are, I have no problem denying them a booth. They're the type that would make something up to smear the convention with.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 01:41 PM (0HooB)

10 You overthought this one, Ace. Actually, it's pretty simple. CPAC is one of the few gatherings that acknowledge and celebrate conservatives in a public forum, are you really going to invite some party spoiling assholes into the tent, so they can be party spoiling assholes? Nope. Just like you wouldn't invite some methed-up hobo to your kid's birthday party, you're a having the party to celebrate your kid's birthday, not to prove how inclusive you can be by invited a guaranteed trouble-starter.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 25, 2014 01:42 PM (0cMkb)

11 This idea that even better than disagreeing with an idea is carrying a zero-tolerance attitude towards that idea is popular on the left, and increasingly popular on the right, too. In other words: People seem to think that if you REALLY want to register your disapproval, mere disapproval is for sissies; showing genuine disapproval means taking concrete steps to exclude and silence the people saying the Untrue Things. Terrible idea. It's an idea from which so many beastly things flow.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 01:42 PM (/FnUH)

12 Evangelistic atheists have no valid point to make. They're simply trolls.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 25, 2014 01:42 PM (8ZskC)

13 If you are a conservative and believe in rights that come from God, how does one square that with atheism?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 01:42 PM (HVff2)

14 Fuck these douchebags and the horse they rode in on.

Would the Netroots Nations pricks from Daily Kos give a booth to a pro-life group? A pro-capitalist group?

Of course not. Denying these idiots a booth is simply common sense.

Next!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 25, 2014 01:43 PM (b/lt+)

15 Should CPAC allow the KKK or the American Nazi party a booth if they asked for it.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 25, 2014 01:44 PM (T2V/1)

16 If you are a conservative and believe in rights that come from God These are not necessarily inclusive.

Posted by: garrett at February 25, 2014 01:44 PM (Ggxte)

17 Give 'em a booth between CAIR and the New Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church.

Let 'em throw their hate of God in the face of Muslims and blacks.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 25, 2014 01:44 PM (VjL9S)

18 How about going with the "let's try not to annoy the people who come here and spend their hard-earned money" theory? I mean, once they discovered that the majority of the participants would be irritated by having these asshats in attendance, might it not have behooved them to give them the heave-ho?

Could even be so clear as "why let the fox into the hen house?" Not that they are remotely sly enough to be foxes, but they can act like idiot predators when let loose among the faithful.

Might as well have invited the Westboro Baptists. Honestly.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (fwcEs)

19 Yeah, let's keep our eyes on the priz.......oooooo squirrel!!!!

Posted by: lindafell at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (PGO8C)

20 Whenever I see an outspoken atheist peddling leftoid mush online, I ask if he has ever thought that the idea that atheists must adhere to liberal Democrat politics has ever seemed a little . . . dogmatic?

Posted by: logprof at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (X3GkB)

21 I think it went beyond trolling. I think they were looking for some sort of physical confrontation. Militant assholes like that aren't there to engage but to disrupt.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (/o+xv)

22 If you want true conservatism, come by our booth. Also, free personality tests!

Posted by: The Church of Scientology at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (8ZskC)

23

Yeah, sounds to me like they should have let them stay. They could have done 2 things:

1) Eject them if they become disruptive.
2) Make fun of them in speeches for their obvious and lame attempt at trolling. ("For some reason, American Atheists bought a booth from us. We were happy to take their money, but feel free to ignore the trolls if you would like.")

This would have completely diffused the situation it seems.

But, still, this controversy is kind of "meh".

Posted by: dan-O at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (D0bIN)

24 I seem to recall Dems excluding God from their platform at the last convention.

Posted by: navybrat at February 25, 2014 01:45 PM (AW7Gr)

25 Thanks for the info on the background of the group, Ace. I heard about the story but didn't know the group in question is an assholish trolling organization. That makes it a lot easier to kick them out.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (oFCZn)

26 Militant assholes like that aren't there to engage but to disrupt. Anyone seen a police cruiser around here? I need to take a dump.

Posted by: Some OccuTard [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (yz6yg)

27 So ... what is the fucking point of America when nobody agrees on anything? When there aren't any foundational ideas or values that most Americans share? Why should anyone care what happens to America, if America doesn't mean anything?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (ZPrif)

28 'Give agnosticism a chance?'

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (spmY9)

29 Wednesday in February in Connecticut.

Posted by: eleven at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (fsLdt)

30 Isn't CPAC that thing you put on your face for sleep acne?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (olDqf)

31 In fact, other people's speech tends to reflect on no one at all except the speaker. ace, that's the mature, thoughtful, reasonable position. Of course there's no room for such horribleness in public discourse. You know for what I think CPAC should be humiliated? Being unable to work the google on the internet machine to determine prior to letting the Emo Jagoffs (so bitterly jealous you came up with that before I did, so bitterly jealous) have a booth.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (VtjlW)

32 I disagree Garrett. If you are an atheist, you do not believe in god. If you do not believe in god where do your rights come from? Not trying to argue, trying to,understand

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (HVff2)

33 This idea that even better than disagreeing with an idea is carrying a zero-tolerance attitude towards that idea is popular on the left, and increasingly popular on the right, too.

In other words: People seem to think that if you REALLY want to register your disapproval, mere disapproval is for sissies; showing genuine disapproval means taking concrete steps to exclude and silence the people saying the Untrue Things.

Terrible idea. It's an idea from which so many beastly things flow.

Posted by: ace
................
Disagreeing with an idea is one thing. Giving the dopes a forum on your party time is simply stupid. It does not silence those people. They still have multitudes of forums to express their ideas.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 25, 2014 01:46 PM (b/lt+)

If you are a conservative and believe in rights that come from God, how does one square that with atheism?

You don't. You believe that rights are inherent in individual humans, that the individual is self-sovereign, and you don't need to argue over whether they derive from God, the Creator, or Nature.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 01:47 PM (A0sHn)

35 I'm just curious-how many people who are members of American Atheists are conservatives, and if their ads target political figures why are their no Democrats being targeted on billboards?. No doubt there are Atheists who are conservatives, There are some here. However, I wonder why they'd want to have a booth at CPAC? To jeer and snicker at Theists or to spy of the conservatives or to get turned down and then whine about how intolerant CPAC is? Would American Atheists allow a booth for a conservative religious organization at their conventions for the sake of diversity? I somehow doubt it.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein's brother at February 25, 2014 01:47 PM (XyM/Y)

36 showing genuine disapproval means taking concrete steps to exclude and silence the people saying the Untrue Things. I don't see any effort to silence AA. Especially not compared to what this administration has done to the Tea Party through the IRS. AA can still speak, just not at a conservative convention.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 01:47 PM (0HooB)

37 People have become addicted to scandal and outrage. That's scandalous and outrageous.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:47 PM (spmY9)

38 I know there are a lot of conservatives that profess no faith. I myself am agnostic. Having an atheist organization at CPAC wouldn't be bad per se, but if it's a group of dickheads it's best to just not allow them to come.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 25, 2014 01:47 PM (oFCZn)

39 Answer: No Michelle Malkin ‏@michellemalkin Crickets. Chirp. RT @TwitchyTeam If a Dem makes offensive immigration remarks, do the media make a sound? [video] http://bit.ly/NvkAGp

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (ZPrif)

40 So while I don't fault CPAC for rescinding its permission, I do think the better thing to do would have been to just let American Atheists take their booth.

Because what's a punchbowl without a turd?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (8ZskC)

41 So while I don't fault CPAC for rescinding its permission, I do think the better thing to do would have been to just let American Atheists take their booth.
What would have happened?

I think it might have involved petroleum products and avian byproducts. Regardless, let them come and be mocked. You can't get better entertainment value for your dollar than watching the idiots being driven before you.

Posted by: pep at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (6TB1Z)

42 atheists aren't very interesting.

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (KgN8K)

43 Sorry; Sock fail. Forgot to change. Mary Cloggenstein's brother is one of the American Atheists who wanted to go to CPAC. ;^)

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (XyM/Y)

44 Isn't CPAC that thing you put on your face for sleep acne?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 05:46 PM (olDqf)

Most people who have acne put a creme on to get rid of it.

Sorry couldn't resit, especially after you gigged me this morning.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (T2V/1)

Doesn't someone from CPAC do a little research before they take someone's cash? Didn't this same thing happen last year?

Brent Bozell sounds like someone from CPAC stabbed him where it hurts, in his wallet.

Posted by: rd at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (D+lxs)

46 naturalflake people are very very good at coming up with reasons as for why people who say Untrue Things shouldn't be allowed to say them. I don't think it's "overthinking" anything to occasionally pipe up for the virtues of NOT falling into this easy, pleasing pattern of thought. By the way, a "booth" at CPAC is just a little stall among a hundred others. It's not a prestigious post. People occasionally walk around the booths but it's not much of an attraction.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (/FnUH)

47 I disagree You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: garrett at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (Ggxte)

48 Bah. Tolerance is overrated. Should we have allowed a pro-abortion booth too?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 25, 2014 01:48 PM (bb5+k)

atheists aren't very interesting.

Pure sophistry. Why should anyone have to suffer a fool?

I axe ya.

Posted by: eleven at February 25, 2014 01:49 PM (fsLdt)

50 If these guys are atheists who promote conservative ideas, fine. Sounds like they are left-wing atheists who promote left-wing atheism. So fuck em.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 01:50 PM (ZPrif)

51 Disagreeing with an idea is one thing. Giving the dopes a forum on your party time is simply stupid. It does not silence those people. They still have multitudes of forums to express their ideas. Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 25, 2014 05:46 PM ...........Ding Ding Ding. Would it be wise for GLADD to let the Westboro Baptist freaks have a booth at their next convention?

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 25, 2014 01:50 PM (/o+xv)

52 There's are two Emo Jagoffs from American Atheists at CPAC? Well, that besmirches CPAC; in some way, just by being there, they "represent" the other CPAC attendees, and therefore they must be excluded, so that they are not taken as "representing" the values of CPAC. The problem is that you know and I know that any MSM "reporting" from or on CPAC is going to feature these clowns behaving like assholes. Even then I'd say let them do it if CPAC can get a spokesperson with the sang froid to respond in the media with "Yea, they're idiots, but we support the right of idiots to shoot off their mouths". Problem is I doubt they'd get the chance. NBC will do a CPAC "story" featuring the American Atheists and nothing else. AA will become the media face of CPAC.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 25, 2014 01:50 PM (N/cFh)

53 Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 05:40 PM (/FnUH) Should the Neo-Nazis get a booth? I'm just trying to understand your advocacy for a group who's values are in conflict with the larger organization.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 25, 2014 01:50 PM (bb5+k)

54 Their intent might very well have been to get kicked out so as to be able to whine about it afterward.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:50 PM (spmY9)

55 omg--steevy That "No Shelter" song sucks Godzilla's balls.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 01:51 PM (RJMhd)

56 >>>If you are a conservative and believe in rights that come from God, how does one square that with atheism? here's the funny thing: You don't have to "square" it at all. People believe all sorts of things. I'm a conservative not because of religion, but because I think socialism is failure and evil. If you want to exclude me, that's your choice.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 01:51 PM (/FnUH)

57 How many pro-life groups are allowed to have booths at a liberal conference? For that matter, how many pro-life people are allowed to even speak at a democrat convention?

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 25, 2014 01:51 PM (0Jb7F)

58 44 Sorry couldn't resit, especially after you gigged me this morning. Posted by: Vic at February 25, 2014 05:48 PM (T2V/1) Me?! I love's ya!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 01:51 PM (olDqf)

59 Wasn't there a problem with a John Birch Society booth one year?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 25, 2014 01:51 PM (oFCZn)

60
Ya know how there is always a stinky corner in those convention places?, I would have let them have their booth in the stinky corner. Alone.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 25, 2014 01:51 PM (n0DEs)

61 I think comments 10 and 15 pretty much sum up my POV on this. Why do you ban trolls ace? Because they're not arguing in good faith. It's the same with AA, they're not going to be there to argue in good faith (NPI), they're going to be there to troll. That's not a productive environment.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (gBnkX)

62 So if we let them come will it win us the election? /

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (t3UFN)

63 Does Code Pink get a booth so they can throw glitter on every speaker, make a scene, get thrown out, film it, put it on youtube, and fundraise off of it?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (ZPrif)

64 I don't have to invite a Stormfront reader into my home to know he's gonna piss off everyone.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (CnA98)

65 Has anyone asked Anal Aperture Atheists to prove their conservative bona fides?

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (GAlP7)

66 Do we have to dream up new ways of conceiving of other people's business as our own?

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 05:40 PM (/FnUH)

In this case I agree completely with Ace.

There is no harm, no damage to anyone to allow the atheists screech and squawk and irritate people with their proselytizing. In fact, this could have done real damage to their image if, as Ace suggested, they were simply ignored.

They don't believe in God, and simultaneously hate Him.

So?

Let 'em.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (QFxY5)

67 Atheists don't like God and God doesn't like Atheists.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (spmY9)

68 "10 You overthought this one, Ace." Posted by: naturalfake at February 25, 2014 05:42 PM (0cMkb) Yeah, that's my take as well. Sometimes the right move is to just cut the fucking Gordian knot.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 25, 2014 01:52 PM (bb5+k)

69 Ya know how there is always a stinky corner in those convention places?, I would have let them have their booth in the stinky corner. Alone. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 25, 2014 05:51 PM (n0DEs) Or put them in the middle of religious booths. *snicker*

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (oFCZn)

70 So if we let them come will it win us the election?

It would make Hispanics flock to our Big Tent or something.

Posted by: Karl Rove at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (8ZskC)

71 Give God a chance?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (spmY9)

72 "an attack on God himself" Ten bucks on the Creator of the Universe.

Posted by: Beagle at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (sOtz/)

73 Give Christianity a chance?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (spmY9)

74 If you want to exclude me, that's your choice.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 05:51 PM (/FnUH)

I don't think he's trying to do that--it is genuinely difficult to argue certain aspects of morality without recourse to God, once you believe in Him and understand the God-oriented view of the universe. I think he really wants to know whence cometh your beliefs.

I know most atheists wonder how Christians can believe, and you may believe me that the opposite is also true. Been on both sides of that parade.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (fwcEs)

75 >>>I don't have to invite a Stormfront reader into my home to know he's gonna piss off everyone. no but last time I checked, religious belief was not a requirement for party membership, whereas, I think, Nazi affiliation is in fact a disqualification. Are you arguing these two are on the same plane?

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 01:53 PM (/FnUH)

76 A couple of questions:

1. Does having a booth allow a group any special access?

For example, is CPAC generally closed to visitors, but a booth allows you to invite attendees?

2. Does having a booth grant people special privileges?

This goes hand in glove with the first, but for example, if you're a booth member, are you afforded more latitude to be a loud obnoxious person who is harder to eject?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 01:54 PM (4QSOR)

77 47 just looking for your explanation, as our Declaration of Independence says otherwise As I said not looking for a fight.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 01:54 PM (HVff2)

78 Has anyone asked Anal Aperture Atheists to prove their conservative bona fides? Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 05:52 PM (GAlP7) I saw Anal Aperture Atheists open... You know what? No I didn't.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 25, 2014 01:54 PM (oFCZn)

79
I don't really agree with what Bozell says, but it does seem to me that whoever runs CPAC is obsessed with trying to be cool and hip. The problem is that what is "cool and hip" in political circles is usually anti-conservative. So they seem to step all over themselves every year.

Posted by: dan-O at February 25, 2014 01:54 PM (D0bIN)

80 Wasn't it CPAC, or something similar where there was a plant/cry of racism, which became a media frenzy for a while? (too lazy to look up) I think they are really just trying to avoid major controversy. I wouldn't have invited them in the first place. They would just be there to stir trouble. There will be plenty of room outside where the rest of the trouble makers will be.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 25, 2014 01:54 PM (IXrOn)

But is it now being argued that only a policy of complete exclusion of the irreligious is acceptable inside the movement?

I'm not buying that logic. Irrelegious people who are targeting GOP figures in their ads are excluded.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (0Jb7F)

82 CPAC does this sort of thing every year in order to gin up ratings.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (2x+V2)

83 What I mean is, did anyone ask them So, Why Do You Want A Booth At A Conservative Convention?

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (GAlP7)

it is genuinely difficult to argue certain aspects of morality without recourse to God..

Examples? Which aspects of morality require recourse to God?

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (A0sHn)

85 17 Give 'em a booth between CAIR and the New Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church. Let 'em throw their hate of God in the face of Muslims and blacks. Posted by: RoyalOil at February 25, 2014 05:44 PM (VjL9S) That's the funny part. These guys don't even realize that they only exist because the Jewish/Christian Yahweh supporters are tolerant. The Islamists will simply kill them.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (bb5+k)

86 49 cmon they're boring and unimaginative. you can look at religion in so many ways, few having anything to do with belief in a God. take the tribal angle - Christianity demands one depart from one's former tribe to embrace a new one, a new identity. that's interesting. shitting on it really isn't

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (bWJk8)

87 Atheists don't like God and God doesn't like Atheists.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 05:52 PM (spmY9)

Actually, not so. God still loves 'em, but they don't love Him back.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (fwcEs)

88 Just try this on - We Eject Bigots. Next F'n Question. That's all that is needed.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (uoGv/)

89 If these are Atheists Fighting EPA's Unfunded Mandates or Atheists For Home-Schooling or Atheists For a Strong Military or some conservative cause, then fine. Are they just Atheists For Atheism or Atheists For Purging The Icky Socons or Atheists For Shitting on Jesus? If so then to hell with them.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (ZPrif)

90 The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has turned to YouTube to explain proposed cuts to military compensation that are part of the Defense DepartmentÂ’s strategy to pay for advanced weaponry. DoDÂ’s proposed fiscal 2015 budget calls for raising Tricare fees for active-duty family members, rolling back service membersÂ’ Basic Allowance for Housing and slashing commissary subsidies. In a video posted to YouTube on Monday, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey sought to reassure service members who may be worried about how the cuts will affect them. Â“This discussion and this budget debate is just beginning, and I know that one of the things that will weigh heavily on your mind is that weÂ’re proposing some changes to pay, compensation and health care Â— not retirement, thatÂ’s been deferred to a review board,Â” Dempsey says in the video. Â“If there are any changes to retirement, those will be grandfathered for those that are already serving.Â” The changes to compensation are necessary to ensure the military has enough money to modernize, train and deploy, Dempsey said. Â“Our commitment is: As we do this, weÂ’ll stay in touch with you and listen to what you have to say,Â” Dempsey said. Â“I know what my view is: You always accept change, but you rebel against unpredictability, and thatÂ’s what weÂ’re trying to do. WeÂ’re trying to do this once, get it right and then move out.Â” ??? WeÂ’re trying to do this once, get it right and then move out.Â” And your buying obama's promise that they will not go after more next year. What are you a fuckin idiot?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (t3UFN)

91 >>>1. Does having a booth allow a group any special access? For example, is CPAC generally closed to visitors, but a booth allows you to invite attendees? 2. Does having a booth grant people special privileges? ... no, having a booth gives you the right to have two or three people to man the booth, distribute literature, talk to people who come by the booth, etc.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (/FnUH)

92 Would allowing the atheist to have a booth attract more atheists to Conservatism or chase away more conservatives of faith ?

Posted by: seamrog at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (nskub)

93 F all leftists. Civilized revolution, elections, instead of proper Kiev treatment, is giving them beyond the pale. Invite them into your house? You are kidding, right?

Posted by: ExPat Patriot at February 25, 2014 01:55 PM (mdKJ3)

94 Atheism has murdered a lot of people. And Atheists never apologize for it. Nor do they feel any need to be absolved of their collective sins.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 01:56 PM (spmY9)

95 Give Christianity a chance? Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 05:53 PM (spmY9) "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." G.K. Chesterton

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 01:56 PM (yz6yg)

96 I agree to a point, but obviously there is a line somewhere. If some sharia loving quasi terrorist anti-Israel group wanted to set up shop, would we be taking the high road by letting them?

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 01:56 PM (hFL/3)

97
Doesn't someone from CPAC do a little research before they take someone's cash?
Posted by: rd

Naturellement.

But it tres amusant to pretend you somehow overlooked letting yet another liberal group into a nominally conservative convention for the Nth time.

Al "Big Tent" Cardenas strikes again.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 25, 2014 01:56 PM (kdS6q)

98 I'm agnostic myself but I like Christian and Jews. If I could just choose to believe, I would. The thing about the atheists is that they are similar to the gay Nazis, they demand applause, not tolerance.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 25, 2014 01:57 PM (Hx5uv)

99 Ace, Let me put it this way. Log Cabin Republicans or GOProud are included this year at CPAC. I think that's fine because they actually agree with a large chunk of conservatism and I have no problem with having differing groups with most of the same goals get together to hash these things out. This group shares NONE of the goals of the organization. I think they wanted to be there to merely to troll and not engage.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 25, 2014 01:57 PM (/o+xv)

100 I have a brother and a fairly close ally who are atheist and very mainline conservative. I am actually surprised that there are not more atheist conservatives, than leftist ones. That atheists tend to drift leftward actually alarms me, a bit, because that is a sign that the left is not about the betterment of all Man, but that there are niches in there where someone who is self-interested above all else (as hardcore atheists tend to be, and rightfully so) can prosper at the expense of many people who are not as important, after all, as the self-interested one.

If the left were truly a party of social justice, I would expect Christians (who, worldwide, tend to be socialist-leaning) to drift that way, and if Conservatism were truly self-centered, I would expect the atheists to drift right. What we see instead, is the converse.

For myself (fairly conservative trying-to-be-Christian, whose own failings loom larger to me than anyone else's), I find the company of converts most interesting: the atheists who have become Christians, or Christians who have become atheists, or leftists now conservative, etc. Those people seem to know both sides -- good and bad -- the best.

Posted by: Wry Mouth at February 25, 2014 01:57 PM (GMFsH)

101

OT from the Mike Rowe thread - sorry do not want to hijack this thread

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

I am late to this thread and I bet this will not get read but I am confused and I just want the TRUTH. This quote comes from a Blaze article written BEFORE the CBS article and in fact is linked to in the CBS article

from here

http://tinyurl.com/klawrka

Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Well, not according to some people who reached out to Rowe. And in what weÂ’ve come to expect from the former Â“Dirty JobsÂ” host and hard-work heralder, he didnÂ’t sit back and take it. He took to his Facebook page Sunday with a lengthy, Q&A-style response.

Â“Honestly Kevin, who gives a crap about your feelings toward Walmart?Â” Rowe asked one man who questioned RoweÂ’s decision to partner with Walmart, often a major target of those who like to demonize business

So it looks like CBS was correct.

ace can you respond?

Posted by: anon at February 25, 2014 01:57 PM (DEsFp)

102 And your buying obama's promise that they will not go after more next year. What are you a fuckin idiot? Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 05:55 PM (t3UFN) He accepted the job as Chairman, JCS under Obama. That answers your question right there.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 01:57 PM (yz6yg)

103 Examples? Which aspects of morality require recourse to God?

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 05:55 PM (A0sHn)

Why should you not commit murder? How about stealing? In both cases, an argument can be made that these acts could be in your best interest, unless, God.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (fwcEs)

104

They're just doing this to gin up.....

Gin.

Later ...

Posted by: eleven at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (fsLdt)

105 Ought implies Can. That's all you need.

Posted by: iKant at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (Ggxte)

106 90 Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 05:55 PM (t3UFN) Hey, Painless. SCOAMF has removed anyone in the Dod/JCS/flag officer corps who is not in line with his program. There will be no Operation Valkyrie. Sadly.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (olDqf)

107 Atheism has murdered a lot of people. And Atheists never apologize for it. Nor do they feel any need to be absolved of their collective sins. - Since they don't believe in sins.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (Hx5uv)

108 Pelting them with tomatoes might remove the stigma for their presence.

Posted by: toby928© at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (QupBk)

109

While I agree in premise with Ace, I think a bigger problem could arise.

I can just imagine these clowns running their mouth and getting someone pissed enough to kick the shit out of them. Then how would CPAC look ?

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (nTgAI)

110 here's the funny thing: You don't have to "square" it at all.

People believe all sorts of things. I'm a conservative not because of religion, but because I think socialism is failure and evil.

If you want to exclude me, that's your choice.

Whence come human rights? Consensus? Power?

What leads you to believe in American exceptionalism, if at all?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 01:58 PM (4QSOR)

111 >>>It is an attack on God Himself.

Oh my. I hope someone does something soon. I would hate to see God get harmed.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (IN7k+)

112 "DoDÂ’s proposed fiscal 2015 budget calls for raising Tricare fees for active-duty family members, rolling back service membersÂ’ Basic Allowance for Housing and slashing commissary subsidies. " Oh great, our military families get to experience the wonder of Obamacare just like the rest of us.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (hFL/3)

113 56. Ace I'm not trying to exclude you or Garrett or anyone. I'm just curious is all. I believe that some of the founding fathers were agnostic not necessarily atheists

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (HVff2)

114 Isn't this the point at which American Atheists are supposed to sue CPAC to let them have a booth because Religious Freedom!!!! #LiberalPlaybook At some point they are going to sue to force Churches to give Communion to Satanists in full get-up, goats heads and all.

Posted by: Votermom at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (GSIDW)

115 What cause are they promoting other than atheism and mocking Christians? Do they want lower taxes? Repeal Obamacare? Stronger defense? Fewer regulations? What do they have in common with anyone at CPAC? Why do they want to be there if it's not to disrupt?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (ZPrif)

116 I'll support evangelical asshole democrat atheists for pogroms camping at CPAC right around the time Empire of Jeff or MP4 is guest of honor at RedFest or whatever.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (TE35l)

117 Would allowing the atheist to have a booth attract more atheists to Conservatism or chase away more conservatives of faith ? Posted by: seamrog at February 25, 2014 05:55 PM ..If it was a conservative atheist organization I could see it. But this organization shares NOTHING in common with anyone at CPAC.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (/o+xv)

118 American Atheists didn't want a booth. They wanted to be kicked out. Or protested. Or whatever. And there is no one more puritanical, dogmatic and obnoxious as an evangelical atheist. Because they subscribe to the same false consciousness as Marx -- that the world would be a better place if everyone were atheists.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (T0NGe)

119

Maybe CPAC did it...to cut out the potential for disruptions?

The atheist group might not have been content to be ignored.

So the potential for ongoing provocations and the resulting disruptions...would be a good reason to deny them a booth there.

These guys are likely not just atheists...but Activist atheists.

And as such, would love to engineer some photo-opportunities to make conservatives look bad.

Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2014 01:59 PM (DEUoo)

120 Atheism actually caused the Armenian genicide. The Ottomans didn't really murder that many Christians until Atheism made them collectivistic.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 02:00 PM (spmY9)

121 "As they wished to snark about people who believed in God, or claimed to, they could have noted Bill Clinton leaving church shortly after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke."

Yep.

They could also, inter alia, have put up a billboard with the following quote:

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me as a Christian -- it is also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage."

(Grossly violative of separation of church and state, I'm sure we can all agree. A politician foolishly allowing his personal religious beliefs to inappropriately intrude upon public policy.)

And that inflammatory quote would run right along with a photo of the person who originally said it: Barack H. Obama.

But yeah, I figure ace is right, that it's going to be a long long long long long time before American Atheists gets around to publicly mocking anyone other than a Republican. Funny, that.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 25, 2014 02:00 PM (gqT4g)

122 57 How many pro-life groups are allowed to have booths at a liberal conference? For that matter, how many pro-life people are allowed to even speak at a democrat convention? Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 25, 2014 05:51 PM (0Jb7F) I was the last.

Posted by: Zombie Bob Casey at February 25, 2014 02:00 PM (X3GkB)

123 or take the chosen people angle. one can posit that the Europeans wanted that status for themselves and conducted pogroms in an effort to wrest it from the Jews. that kind of psychological wrangling can only occur within the context of a religion. and hey lets move on to Muslims

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at February 25, 2014 02:00 PM (KgN8K)

124 "6 I think social issues are important BUTÂ… can all sides agree to table them and just focus on Obamacare and the destruction of our economy and foreign policy until after 2016? United fronts and all that stuff. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 05:39 PM (olDqf) " Exactly what I've been thinking (and saying) for a long time now. What we need is a candidate who will run on only those issues (well I'd add "destruction of the Constitution" to your list) and resolutely refuse to answer questions about any other topic, from abortion to legalizing dope, with a stock response of "my personal views on that are not relevant to what I want to accomplish as President" and return to one of the 3 subjects. I think this would sell like hotcakes over most of the spectrum of voters.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at February 25, 2014 02:00 PM (3X3ZR)

125 112 Lauren, Our healthcare has been slow bled his whole glorious reign. 2017, this gun's retired one way or another.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (TE35l)

126 You don't. You believe that rights are inherent in individual humans, that the individual is self-sovereign, and you don't need to argue over whether they derive from God, the Creator, or Nature. Yea, that's completely arbitrary. If I reject that and think I'm smart enough to avoid getting nabbed by the cops, there is absolutely no reason for me not to stick a knife in your neck. So sorry. "But Dave," you say, "I have self sovereignty". "Why?" I reply. "Uh, I just do". Sorry, still arbitrary. Without some higher power there is no such thing as a right, there's only conceit.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (N/cFh)

127 The Islamists will simply kill them. - Oh I imagine if it weren't for those nasty Christians and Jews, the atheists would see the light pretty damn quick an start banging the heads on the floor five times a day while facing Mecca.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (Hx5uv)

128 CPAC needs a "liberal row" of booths. If you are new to the conference or have proven yourself to be a dick, you get the table next to the kitchen.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (T0NGe)

129 I also agree with the poster above who said they want to be there to provoke a confrontation-to get some aggressive conservative Theist idiot who wants to get in their face and start throwing punches and then plaster that all over the internet.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (XyM/Y)

130 Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 05:48 PM (/FnUH) Meh. My comment isn't about blocking "Untrue Things". Short of being jihadist muslims, I don't much care what someone's religious beliefs are. The party analogy holds, even more so since these are people paying good, hard-earned money for what should be a good time. (not my idea of a good time but YMMV) It has more to do with being a good host, especially since these clowns are known as assholes. Now if this was advertised as the Confrontational Politics Steelcage PAC, awesome, invite them, invite NAMBLA. Go to town. Or if they were a good faith conservative atheist organization, cool. But, you've just overthought this one. A swing and a miss. It's okay, it happens.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (0cMkb)

131 To me it's not about silencing anyone.CPAC is for conservatives,if you aren't conservative you shouldn't be there.If there was a truly conservative atheist group they could go to CPAC.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (zqvg6)

132 Ace, If you're still on, think you should know that Bradley University unveiled a new mascot named Kaboom, and Keith Olbermann hates it, and mocked it on his show. You can thank me for the big scoop later.

Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2014 02:01 PM (SFZtG)

133 But no one really cares about the Armenians. Subhuman mongrels/Christians. Later, all. God bless. :-)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2014 02:02 PM (spmY9)

134 I'm not seeing anything suggesting this group is a group of conservative Atheists. I'm fine with teaming conservative Atheists on shared goals. Just as I'm fine with teaming with conservative Baptists on shared goals. Being conservative seems like a reasonable criteria for joining CPAC -- since that's the whole point of CPAC.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 25, 2014 02:02 PM (ZPrif)

135
I really do think conservatives should take money away from liberals to let them make fools of themselves as often as possible.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 25, 2014 02:02 PM (n0DEs)

136 I've never had anyone of any Religion so bent on converting me as the Atheists. It's an outlet for aggression against Society for many, not a well-thought out philosophical position.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2014 02:03 PM (ZshNr)

137 11 Ace, Not a fun idea anyway. Thing is to break up the nation we need to actively stop pretending we're *a* nation. We're not, and I am move on dot orging as it were.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:03 PM (TE35l)

138 A pity CPAC did not have a policy of doing more research on a group before giving the initial booth slots. Canceling gives this Atheists group more publicity. Oh well stuff happens. In 2010 the Colorado GOP stupidly thought the MFM would help in vetting primary candidates and neglected to consider that people had no trust left in either party and would be susceptible to 'outsider.' I recommended at a later caucus that the state GOP require a substantial fee for folks considering statewide office and hire a PI to run a background check so they didn't get burned by a con man again.

Posted by: palerider at February 25, 2014 02:03 PM (dkExz)

139

Examples? Which aspects of morality require recourse to God?

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 05:55 PM (A0sHn)

Why should you not commit murder? How about stealing? In both cases, an argument can be made that these acts could be in your best interest, unless, God.

Does "unless, God" mean that you act morally out of fear of punishment? Or that there would be no morality unless desert people had written it down 2,000 years ago?

I'm an ag not an ath, but I don't get why we need God to have morality. Some things are self-evident. Murder and theft are bad in and of themselves.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 02:03 PM (A0sHn)

140 124 Posted by: sock_rat_eez at February 25, 2014 06:00 PM (3X3ZR) If more candidates, politicians, reps on our side did what Newt did to Juan Williams at the Florida primary debate 2 years ago - and did it every time the MFM tried to corner them - then we'd be in pretty good shape. Just a thought.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 02:03 PM (olDqf)

141 134 Yep,I'm all for the proverbial " big tent" as long as they are conservative.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:04 PM (zqvg6)

142 If you ask an endless succession of "Why?" questions to any moral proposition, at some point, usually less than five questions, you will have to accept something on faith. God or not, logic leads to a faith-based belief system sooner than later. Is "That is moral or good" more, less, or equally reasonable than "That is moral or good because God said so"? Not rhetorical.

Posted by: Beagle at February 25, 2014 02:04 PM (sOtz/)

143 Murder and theft are bad in and of themselves.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 06:03 PM (A0sHn)

To whom? Probably not the murderer or thief, unless there is some retribution attached. Seems to me if you eliminate your rivals and take all their stuff, you are better off objectively that if you don't, unless, as I said, God.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 02:04 PM (fwcEs)

144 I can just imagine these clowns running their mouth and getting someone pissed enough to kick the shit out of them. Then how would CPAC look ? Posted by: The Jackhole at February 25, 2014 05:58 PM (nTgAI) exactly. Who needs it. You cannot control everyone. And, radicals will push the buttons until someone blows up. You're mixing oil and vinegar, here.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 25, 2014 02:04 PM (IXrOn)

145 So what I'm getting from this is that no one at CPAC does any research whatsoever before selling orgs - orgs with whom CPAC has no history - a booth, and thus access to attendees. Go CPAC.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (GmTxn)

146 More info on this hot Kaboom story, with Olbermann video included... http://tinyurl.com/k2hdddu

Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (SFZtG)

147 I think the BEST thing about American conservatism is that it is not exclusive, nor is it interested in cohort-ID. Conservatism, at least the type I subscribe to, is anti-group-identification because that crap is not conservative. Black conservatives, homo conservatives, Jew conservatives, Christian conservatives. None of these should have a booth at a conservative convention. That's what the Left does. I hate that shit.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (GAlP7)

148 98 I'm agnostic myself but I like Christian and Jews. If I could just choose to believe, I would. The thing about the atheists is that they are similar to the gay Nazis, they demand applause, not tolerance. Posted by: WalrusRex at February 25, 2014 05:57 PM (Hx5uv) Ditto. Same position here.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (bb5+k)

149 Dear NRA. We Would like to inquire about a booth this year at your national convention. Please find our enclosed entrance fee. See you there!

Posted by: PETA at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (/o+xv)

150 Yea, that's completely arbitrary. If I reject that and think I'm smart enough to avoid getting nabbed by the cops, there is absolutely no reason for me not to stick a knife in your neck. So sorry. "But Dave," you say, "I have self sovereignty". "Why?" I reply. "Uh, I just do". Sorry, still arbitrary. Without some higher power there is no such thing as a right, there's only conceit.

How about the Justice Black three generations of morons argument? It's a moral good to rid the world of disease, stupidity, drunkardness, etc. Without appealing to God, what exactly is wrong with the argument?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (4QSOR)

151 CPAC only exists so weirdos like GOPlanned Parenthood can try to hijack what conservatism is.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 02:05 PM (uhAkr)

152 Just got an update, long line at the drive-thru of the hate chicken joint. I'm literally salivating at the thought of the Chix deluxe.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2014 02:06 PM (ZshNr)

153 For those who say they would like to choose to believe, what is stopping you? Love is a decision, not an emotion. Else, nobody would be married for more than a few months.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 02:06 PM (fwcEs)

154 16 If you are a conservative and believe in rights that come from God These are not necessarily inclusive. An otherwise nondescript radio host from Pittsburgh said, "God is a legal concept". In the context of rights, God is simply an immutable force and so man is not capable of taking rights. The state cannot infringe on things that we (secularly) deem sacred. But the notion of God-given rights isn't really explicitly Christian (although it is implicitly Christian).

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:06 PM (T0NGe)

155 They could fix this by invited a different, less toxic atheist group to take their place. (no clue what Bozell is thinking)

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 25, 2014 02:07 PM (IXrOn)

156 Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2014 06:05 PM Sorry. I can't even watch or listen to that asshole. I was flipping channels the other night and had to listen to 2 seconds of him before the remote kicked in. My BP went up instantly. I hate that bastard.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 25, 2014 02:07 PM (/o+xv)

157 I'm an ag not an ath, but I don't get why we need God to have morality. Some things are self-evident. Murder and theft are bad in and of themselves. - I think that Barky and the progressives are trying to build a secular stairway to Heaven via Obamacare and all of the other progressive utopias similar to the builders of the Tower of Babble. They are doomed to failure but they will kill the multitude before they will admits it. It may be that theism allows sin but the bigger problem is that atheism requires sin in the efforts to build the tower.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 25, 2014 02:07 PM (Hx5uv)

158
BTW -- here's the list of booths at this year's CPAC. A nominal 200 slots. See if you think a booth of fedora sporting neckbeards might stand out a tad amid the throng:

http://tinyurl.com/n3qfnnr

And if we're picking folks to kick out, these guys:

Motion Picture Association of America SUPPORTING SPONSOR Booth: 543

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 25, 2014 02:07 PM (kdS6q)

159 That's what the Left does. I hate that shit.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 06:05 PM (GAlP7)

Amen. Same thing with [hyphen] Americans. When did we start dividing everyone up? When the liberals got hold of the reins.

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 02:08 PM (fwcEs)

160 "'This discussion and this budget debate is just beginning, and I know that one of the things that will weigh heavily on your mind is that weÂ’re proposing some changes to pay, compensation and health care Â— not retirement, thatÂ’s been deferred to a review board,' Dempsey says in the video."

Have never had even the smallest iota of respect for Dempsey to begin with, but I would have lost any that there were based on that one utterly obtuse sentence.

The elephant in the room issue is that what Obama and Hagel are pushing, and what Dempsey is meekly acceding to, are huge cuts to U.S. military headcount. Tens of thousands of service members being abruptly shoved out the door midcareer (into the shittiest civilian economy since the Depression).

"Pay, compensation and health care" are issues of moment, but service members who have been crudely and forcibly RIF-fed out of their billets aren't going to be collecting any pay at all.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 25, 2014 02:08 PM (gqT4g)

161 I think CPAC should screen the movie "The Next Voice You Will Hear." As an added bonus, the co-star is future first lady Nancy Davis.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 02:08 PM (olDqf)

162 The most simple explanation is that they probably would like people to continue to show up at CPAC, therefore they want to avoid as much annoying disruption as possible. Things that may keep people from returning. They probably wised up to the fact that American Athiests wanted to be there for one reason only, and it wasn't to support conservative prinicples, it was to cause trouble. Seriously, if you run a restaurant, do you want some bozo standing inside your door yelling about how bad your food is, or are you going to kick his ass out?

Posted by: DangerGirl at February 25, 2014 02:08 PM (GrtrJ)

163 150 Bonhomme, Nothing, I know I have to face the scorekeeper. I struggle with morality...evangelical atheists have no scorekeeper but man.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:09 PM (TE35l)

164
They could fix this by invited a different, less toxic atheist group to take their place. (no clue what Bozell is thinking)
Posted by: artisanal '

Rick Lowery to host a God Haters breakout room in 3, 2, 1.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 25, 2014 02:09 PM (kdS6q)

165 I like to imagine CPAC as a conservative comicon. And like all comicons, there is always going to be DRAAAMA!

Glad to hear GOProud is invited this year. All conservative voices should be allowed...but they need to be actual conservatives. So I don't mind a not-conservative-at-all group getting booted.

Posted by: LizLem at February 25, 2014 02:09 PM (BF+2f)

166 >>>They could fix this by invited a different, less toxic atheist group to take their place. (no clue what Bozell is thinking) ... true, this argument is confused by two things: This group is Atheist, and it's also a group of partisan-leaning assholes. In our various arguments, we might be emphasizing one aspect and not the other without being clear about it. What CPAC would have done with a hypothetical NONpartisan, nonobnoxious group, who knows. I take the position that having taken their money, and now having this in the news, it is best to let the idiots in. I think we look better that way, and do not look like we're so eager to insist upon a particular point of view on religion.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:10 PM (/FnUH)

167

True, but people do it all the time. That is why buisnessess always say drop controvesial ads or fans, they do not want them associated with their brand by their enemies.

Posted by: anon at February 25, 2014 02:10 PM (DEsFp)

168 it is genuinely difficult to argue certain aspects of morality without recourse to God.. Examples? Which aspects of morality require recourse to God? Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 25, 2014 05:55 PM (A0sHn) --I despise that line of argument. Pro-life people who are Christian should avoid that argument especially, since so much opposition to the pro-life movement is rooted in hatred of all religions (but especially theirs), and abortion can be perfectly criticized on the basis of logic and reason without having to fall back on "My god says abortion is wrong."

Posted by: logprof at February 25, 2014 02:10 PM (X3GkB)

169 There is a convention of people interested in running commercials promoting Ford products--and they have a small group who wants a booth but they only run anti Ford advertising---it's quite possible that it is fair to question their motives and dis-invite them.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:11 PM (RJMhd)

170 Does "unless, God" mean that you act morally out of fear of punishment? Or that there would be no morality unless desert people had written it down 2,000 years ago? Yes. People don't like this, but it's true. It's irrational to be moral. To restrain your behavior when not doing so would give you an advantage? That's monumentally moronic. Reason (and Machiavelli, pbuh) says that you should act in your own interest at all times. Sometimes, that means appearing to be moral but only when it is to your advantage. You may think of yourself as moral, but (a) morality is not universal, shame cultures are very different and we are so inured to this guilt culture, we can't see that we're swimming in it. Also, (b) at some point, you are faced with a dilemma in which you say, "aw fuck it, who cares about my universal morality, I can bend it in this one important case." And then it ceases to be morality at all.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:11 PM (T0NGe)

171 CPAC must bake us a cake or be sued!!!

Posted by: u.s. atheists at February 25, 2014 02:11 PM (Eiwo7)

172
Also boothed:

Xbox PARTICIPATING SPONSOR

Rather surprised Microsoft decided to step on the third rail of appearing at a nominally conservative convention.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 25, 2014 02:11 PM (kdS6q)

173 Any talk of making gay bakers male cales for CPAC?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 02:11 PM (uhAkr)

174 >>>162 The most simple explanation is that they probably would like people to continue to show up at CPAC, therefore they want to avoid as much annoying disruption as possible. Things that may keep people from returning. They probably wised up to the fact that American Athiests wanted to be there for one reason only, and it wasn't to support conservative prinicples, it was to cause trouble. yeah but their capacity to cause trouble is restricted, you know. Just because you have a booth does not entitle you to be disruptive. it entitles you to man a booth -- if you do something untoward, you can be kicked out. What I think would have happened is that the booth would have been mobbed by Christians looking to argue with them. I don't know how much they'd have been able to do apart from that.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:12 PM (/FnUH)

175 Make cakes*

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 02:12 PM (uhAkr)

176 In other words: Let the asshole take the rap of being the asshole, you know?

In general, I do think it's 100% true that a man possessed of the truth need fear no rival. So this type of thing, to me, reads as "scared."

Then the story is CPAC ejects assholes when they inevitably act up. eg code pinkos at every W thing they could get their soiled panties into.

In the internet age that old saw about the lie going around the world twice while the truth puts its pants on is about 20 planet laps slow.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:13 PM (DL2i+)

177 Wow, sounds like Ace is having a crisis of faith.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 25, 2014 02:13 PM (ghOWn)

178 Bozell is wrong also.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:13 PM (DL2i+)

179 171 CPAC must bake us a cake or be sued!!! Posted by: u.s. atheists at February 25, 2014 06:11 PM (Eiwo7)

OR make them spaghetti, in honor of flying spaghetti monster? While wearing colanders on their heads.

Posted by: LizLem at February 25, 2014 02:13 PM (BF+2f)

180 Why doesnt the CPAC act conservative - let them in, but charge them an enormous amount.

Posted by: Jean at February 25, 2014 02:13 PM (9qtuj)

181 I'm an ag not an ath, but I don't get why we need God to have morality. Some things are self-evident. Murder and theft are bad in and of themselves. Posted by: WalrusRex at February 25, 2014 06:07 PM (Hx5uv) No they are not. Murder and theft are often very very good to those who perpetrate them. This "Rights of man" shit people advocate nowadays was not always a major part of societal philosophy. We evolved to get here, and now a lot of people think "Here" is an inherent position obvious to anyone. No, it is not.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 25, 2014 02:13 PM (bb5+k)

182 If I were attending CPAC and American Atheists were there I would have absolutely NO interest in arguing with them.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (XyM/Y)

183 >>>Note that of all the reasons to claim that someone else's speech or someone else's beliefs or someone else's actions are one's own personal concern, this argument that that other person "reflects" on one is both the weakest sort of claim, and also the broadest. True, but people do it all the time. That is why buisnessess always say drop controvesial ads or fans, they do not want them associated with their brand by their enemies. ... yes and they will continue doing so unless people braver than they step up and being saying "this is nonsense; Phil Robertson's beliefs do not implicate you, nor does Alec Baldwin's, nor does Justine Sacco's, nor does any other Outrage of the Week have a damned thing to do with you."

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (/FnUH)

184 no but last time I checked, religious belief was not a requirement for party membership, whereas, I think, Nazi affiliation is in fact a disqualification. Are you arguing these two are on the same plane? I don't think the Stormfront reader is 'just' a Nazi, anymore then I think someone proselytizing for atheism at an event largely populated by religious folks is 'just' a non-believer in a higher power. I think they are both shit-stirrers.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (CnA98)

185 Let me precede this by saying I am sick to eath of hearing about these CPAC controversies. I don't understand why this is a Thing - on either side (thinking especially of the gay group controversy thing). It's not like it's an official GOP Party event. As I understand it, it's purely private, self-identified conservatives. So, in answer to your question: >What would have happened? Honestly, let's game this out. That said, the potential damage is basically having not just a dissenting group - these aren't Conservative Atheists - but an actual enemy (in the political sense) group embedded in your conference of conservatives. Why give them ammo in the form of unguarded comments by CPAC attendees, some of whom may get their Outrage on about the atheist group. Plus, isn't it CPAC where there's a certain amount of sexual shenanigans that goes on? Again, why give a hostile group access to that? But I don't care. I just want it all off my timeline.

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (zDsvJ)

186

CPAC. Meh.

Religion, atheists. Meh.

Freedom of consicence, religion. Now that is important. Or, well, was, when the US was a serious country, populated by Americans, with rule of law.

I'm old enough to remember when the US stood for something, and in fact freedom of conscience, and our recognized sincere support thereof, constituted a powerful weapon for good and US interests world-wide.

Sit down, I'll tell you about how of all the obvious evil flaws of the Soviet system, suppressing freedom of conscience created more enduring threats to the system, and more erosion of the system, and fear among its apparatchiks, than almost anything else.

Or the exquisite sensitivity of Iran's despicable fanatical gangsters, delusional in their anti-Americanism, to American charges of intolerance and injustice, and how pushing on that astonishingly responsive nerve saved lives and produced results in the real world.

Or one letter dropped off to the top advisor of a MidEast potentate at his Washington hotel sprung prisoners of conscience almost overnight.

Yes, my children, a magical, fantastical world in which US power and US righteousness reinforced and empowered each other - don't laugh, such a country did exist once, in my dreams .....

Posted by: non-purist at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (afQnV)

187 I have no problem with atheists in general. The problem seems to be that much of conservatism and traditional American values are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. I don't know how you reconcile those two things but if atheists want to come to CPAC, what's the problem? Unless an atheist group uses it to stir up trouble and then the MFM will be feeding on that shit for the next 2 years. If you want to be a conservative, then you have to respect what conservatism is all about. If you're going to bitch and moan and yell "intolerance!" your presence is counterproductive.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (olDqf)

188 It's not too illogical to think people that only run "anti-Ford" commercials are mal-intended and looking to hijack your vehicle--or blow your tent down.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (RJMhd)

189 Glad to hear GOProud is invited this year. Well, especially since that dick Chris Barron is out of the group.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:15 PM (T0NGe)

190 Will this impact me and Barak getting lubed and freaky?

Posted by: Reggie Love at February 25, 2014 02:15 PM (VrVBw)

191 I guess I'd like to add that I do not think of either the GOP (may it rest in peace) or the conservative movement as being for or about God. Atheists are fine in my book.

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 02:16 PM (zDsvJ)

192 Trolls don't get put under bridges to hold the piers. It's where they belong.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:16 PM (DL2i+)

193 but I think the smartest, and best, and most tolerant play would have just to let the imbeciles have their little Troll Booth.

You gotta pay the Troll Toll to get into CPAC's hole.

Posted by: Frank Reynolds at February 25, 2014 02:16 PM (3a584)

194 160 torquewrench, The Genetals have taught me I believed in a lie. The hippies run America and we're fucked. They decode they need my wife for "Operation Aid Jihadi Jim XIII" they can look for us on the commune. Fuck the Army.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:16 PM (TE35l)

195 183 Nor do Ted Nugent's.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:16 PM (zqvg6)

196 Well, especially since that dick Chris Barron is out of the group. He was the founder and only real member. GOPlanned Parenthood sucks.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 02:17 PM (uhAkr)

197 are the atheists also sub-human mongrels?

Posted by: Rocky Racoon at February 25, 2014 02:17 PM (omBWL)

198 Sven, sorry, but WTF?

Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 02:17 PM (fwcEs)

199 If I thought they were there to speak their piece and ad to the conservative cause then no problem. But given their history I don't. So I'm not sure how this would have been a net plus for CPAC. I could care less if someone is an atheist or not. But this is a pretty activist group that seems to like to target religious conservatives. Do the outreach somewhere else.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 02:18 PM (g1DWB)

200 The problem isn't that they're atheists, it's that they're liberal Democrats. I don't imagine they'd let the DNC have a booth either.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 25, 2014 02:18 PM (102Hx)

201 192 Trolls don't get put under bridges to hold the piers. It's where they belong. Especially trolls named "Piers".

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:18 PM (T0NGe)

202 >>>f you're still on, think you should know that Bradley University unveiled a new mascot named Kaboom, and Keith Olbermann hates it, and mocked it on his show. You can thank me for the big scoop later. you had me until "Keith Olbermann"

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:18 PM (/FnUH)

203 Sven, I hope you're okay. Praying for you. Your posts are kind of freaking me out.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 02:18 PM (YFUoc)

204 you had me until "Keith Olbermann" You and every ESPN viewer.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:19 PM (T0NGe)

205 @168 Sure. But your faith-based belief will be something like killing is wrong or causing pain is wrong. "Why?" starts to get ridiculous after that. If they believe in a "surplus population" like Scrooge eco-greenies they come to the opposite position.

Posted by: Beagle at February 25, 2014 02:20 PM (sOtz/)

206 Without some form of dissent at these conferences it's simply a matter of preaching to the choir. How are we ever to change hearts and minds when we refuse to even breathe the same air as those with whom we disagree? Wanna bet the atheists run with a message of how intolerance and a lack of Christian principles were shown in disinviting them?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 25, 2014 02:20 PM (DmNpO)

207 I'm sorry if I don't think we should speak ill of a religious group that hangs people like me.

Posted by: Chris Barron at February 25, 2014 02:20 PM (Aif/5)

208 >>>If I thought they were there to speak their piece and ad to the conservative cause then no problem. But given their history I don't. So I'm not sure how this would have been a net plus for CPAC. I could care less if someone is an atheist or not. But this is a pretty activist group that seems to like to target religious conservatives. Do the outreach somewhere else. ... True, and this discussion, as I said, is a bit confused, as people may be objecting to the "atheist" part or the "asshole and partisan" part without being precisely clear about it. We don't know what CPAC would have done with a *hypothetical* atheist group which was center-right (or at least center) and not trollish. Here's the thing, though: Based on Brent Bozell's fulminations, I think I can guess. Atrocity. Insult to God Himself.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:20 PM (/FnUH)

209 Seriously, if you run a restaurant, do you want some bozo standing inside your door yelling about how bad your food is, or are you going to kick his ass out? Or, to put it in Moronese, would you give a bunch of Valu-Rite to some asshole whom you know will just start a fight and trash your bar? "We refuse the right to serve anybody." There are good reasons for those signs to exist.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:20 PM (0HooB)

210 203 Jenny Hates Her Phone, I'm better. I get an ultrasound Friday to map what I famaged. I'm letting go of a lot.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:20 PM (TE35l)

211 Seems to me if you eliminate your rivals and take all their stuff, you are better off objectively that if you don't, unless, as I said, God. Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 06:04 PM (fwcEs) Or you can get a god who's cool with all that stuff, because god.

Posted by: Timur the Lame at February 25, 2014 02:21 PM (X3GkB)

212 Here's my view on the morality of atheists, non theists, ect... Romans 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV) 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges peopleÂ’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:14-16 And this will be the only time you'll ever see me quoting scripture on here.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 02:21 PM (hFL/3)

213
BTW -- a 10 x 10 booth is $4000 and only 132 booths were sold. There's no way the atheist's application wasn't scrutinized before they were sold a slot.

This did not just slip thru, any protestations to the contrary. Someone just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 25, 2014 02:21 PM (kdS6q)

214 yeah but their capacity to cause trouble is restricted, you know. Just because you have a booth does not entitle you to be disruptive. it entitles you to man a booth -- if you do something untoward, you can be kicked out. What I think would have happened is that the booth would have been mobbed by Christians looking to argue with them. I don't know how much they'd have been able to do apart from that. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:12 PM (/FnUH) And then the newsmeme becomes some horrible thing about CPAC violently kicking out someone who had a booth. I think you have to look at not just the fact that the group wanted a booth, but WHY they wanted a booth. Are they known for causing trouble/being rowdy/starting fights? If yes, then why invite that trouble. I think it's a case of not hating the message (this is where I differ from Bozell) but the messenger.

Posted by: DangerGirl at February 25, 2014 02:21 PM (GrtrJ)

215 Ace ... you're still stuck on the notion that, at some point, everyone's going to come to their senses and knock this silly shit off. They ain't. You can split-screen this Atheist Group shagging Camels on the left half ... and Conservatives handing out Free Cookies to the Homeless on the right half ... and the amount of minds changed won't even move the needle.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 02:22 PM (q4b1Z)

216 I can't fault CPAC for rescinding the invitation. I doubt that Brent Bozell would be the only one hyperventilating about their presence. CPAC has an obligation to please their attendees and supporters, and I suspect the majority of attendees would be offended (rightly or wrongly) about the atheists getting a booth. CPAC isn't a debating club.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 25, 2014 02:22 PM (SY2Kh)

217 I'm a conservative atheist. I agree with CPAC that they should not allow AA to have a booth. The reason is simple. Forget about your theories. The fact is, liberals in an analogous situation would not allow a conservative group a presence at their conference, and liberal strategies are winning. That's all you need to know.

Posted by: Bob at February 25, 2014 02:22 PM (xkSSa)

218 >>>That said, the potential damage is basically having not just a dissenting group - these aren't Conservative Atheists - but an actual enemy (in the political sense) group embedded in your conference of conservatives. Why give them ammo in the form of unguarded comments by CPAC attendees, some of whom may get their Outrage on about the atheist group. Plus, isn't it CPAC where there's a certain amount of sexual shenanigans that goes on? Again, why give a hostile group access to that? this is the best argument I can make in favor of keeping them away, but there will be moles there anyway. There are always are. everyone's gonna know who the goofs running the atheist booth are.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:22 PM (/FnUH)

219 >>Here's the thing, though: Based on Brent Bozell's fulminations, I think I can guess. >>Atrocity. Insult to God Himself. Yea well I find that position the polar opposite of AA and equally repugnant not to mention politically stupid. Purity is as dumb as a complete back stage pass to all groups.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 02:22 PM (g1DWB)

220 191 I guess I'd like to add that I do not think of either the GOP (may it rest in peace) or the conservative movement as being for or about God. Atheists are fine in my book. Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 06:16 PM (zDsvJ) ----- Not directly. There is a type of athiest that has no faith or belief in God, nor has any in government. Seems there are more that have no believe in God, but fervently believe in government as the vessel that will cure all of societies ills, if only we put enough faith and trust in them. The left preys on these people. Many think the common prole only has so much of a reservoir of trust and faith in them. Any trust or connection a person has with their family and God, that's less power for them. So you find they actively attack what they see as their competition.

Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2014 02:23 PM (BfZ1r)

221 And let me continue by saying that I may be completely wrong. CPAC may have decided to boot 'em just for their message and I disagree with that plan of action. Just to clarify and all.

Posted by: DangerGirl at February 25, 2014 02:24 PM (GrtrJ)

222 I'm objecting to the ass*** and partisan part, not the Atheist part.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:24 PM (XyM/Y)

223 Tortured Sports Metaphor=On The Left is not interesting in winning the intellectual war; they're interested in winning. Therefore they play offense, all the time. And they're winning. This is just the latest in a long list of the Left playing offense. They don't give a shit about the truth as long as they keep the ball on our side of the field. And this is a classic case of the Right thinking they can just stick to their old playbook and at some point, they'll start winning again. A great defense is fine, but you've got to start taking some shots on goal. There's no need to give them freebies here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 25, 2014 02:24 PM (gBnkX)

224 >>> can't fault CPAC for rescinding the invitation. I doubt that Brent Bozell would be the only one hyperventilating about their presence. No he wouldn't be the only one, but why pretend that this attitude is the best attitude to have? Like, why should I or anyone else knuckle under Brent Bozell's sympathies? >>>CPAC has an obligation to please their attendees and supporters, and I suspect the majority of attendees would be offended (rightly or wrongly) about the atheists getting a booth. CPAC isn't a debating club. "Rightly or wrongly." You say the words together as if it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I think it's important to drill down to which is right and which is wrong.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:24 PM (/FnUH)

225 198 tcn, In a fruedian typo I made "generals" read almost genitals. I am accepting there is no Staff level officer willing to attack these cuts. I'm letting go of the military life, and preparing to join my moral betters on the left in hatred for the system. When in Rome right? Nobody on "our" side in power is bothered enough to point out the insanity of these cuts with the civil service getting a total pass. Fuck it, I am focusing on small ball from here on out. La Raza 2016 Viva La Hillary! I want a new nation or six.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:25 PM (TE35l)

226 I would have absolutely NO interest in arguing with them.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 06:14 PM (XyM/Y)

Ah...the truth comes out.

They're just boring and irritating and have nothing new to say, and that is the biggest crime around...at least around here.

That's why we abuse trolls. Not because they are full of shit, but because they are full of shit and can't argue their way out of a paper bag.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (QFxY5)

227 Glenn Beck said on his radio show not that long ago that either the "Restoring ___" event or the Man in the Moon event he did last summer had higher attendance than CPAC's. That really surprised me, I always perceived CPAC as this huge thing. But maybe entrepreneurial conservatives would be better off trying to get a booth over at a Beck event than CPAC, hah, if they have products/groups to advertise.

Posted by: LizLem at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (BF+2f)

228

>>>>yes and they will continue doing so unless people braver than they step up and being saying "this is nonsense; Phil Robertson's beliefs do not implicate you, nor does Alec Baldwin's, nor does Justine Sacco's, nor does any other Outrage of the Week have a damned thing to do with you

---------

Actually I would love to see that, but that takes guts, something in very short supply these days.

Posted by: anon at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (DEsFp)

229 We don't know what CPAC would have done with a *hypothetical* atheist group which was center-right (or at least center) and not trollish. Then they wouldn't be an atheist group. Hell, is there an anti-astrology group? Do people even bother? Here's the thing, though: Based on Brent Bozell's fulminations, I think I can guess. Yeah, he's going full purity brigade. But that's the problem, this is lose-lose. One self-righteous humorless troll against another.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (T0NGe)

230 Ace ... is there ever a point, ever, where you just quit fucking examining WHY somebody is kicking you in the balls - and get down to the nasty business of HOW to encourage them to stop ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (q4b1Z)

231 I think the real worry is the Gonzo protesting and disruption OWS style I think that's why CPAC changed their minds

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (zOTsN)

232 Ugh, I worked for CPAC as a volunteer last year. I'm not working again this year, if that means anything. I wouldn't mind going as an attendee, but I didn't enjoy the experience i had. The managment seemed too...DC. I'm both surprised and not suprised that they didn't handle this well. I would think spin and appearance would be what they were good at, and also not shocked they screwed up something simple.

Posted by: .87c at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (u2I8p)

233 In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony godÂ’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

Posted by: Aalewis at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (KVnkf)

234 Plus, isn't it CPAC where there's a certain amount of sexual shenanigans that goes on? ******** Ugh. Gross. Somehow CPACers getting jiggy with it --yuck.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:26 PM (RJMhd)

235 >>>I'm objecting to the ass*** and partisan part, not the Atheist part. noted, but Brent Bozell's statement leads me to believe that a nonpartisan atheist group would also be unacceptable -- after all, denying God would still be an "atrocity" and an "insult to God Himself," even if said in a nice, easy manner.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:27 PM (/FnUH)

236 223 Burn the Witch, I favor a new game ad well. I figure the Assholes Against Christ would make nice targets for softballs.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:27 PM (TE35l)

237 I'd note ace that CPAC is also just generally trying to avoid a scene. This is a deliberately charged up event. You pretty much know how your attendees are going to react. Better to not give them the chance to make everyone look stupid and have it pinned on CPAC. Frankly that's what AA is counting on and CPAC was stupid to play into it.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 25, 2014 02:27 PM (hq5sb)

238 "...but there will be moles there anyway. There are always are." Doesn't matter, here the Left is looking for the press image here. Yeah there will be moles, but why hand the Left the tools to create a story on a golden platter?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 25, 2014 02:28 PM (gBnkX)

239 Seems to me if you eliminate your rivals and take all their stuff, you are better off objectively that if you don't, unless, as I said, God. Posted by: tcn at February 25, 2014 06:04 PM (fwcEs) Or you can get a god who's cool with all that stuff, because god. Posted by: Timur the Lame at February 25, 2014 06:21 PM (X3GkB) Yoo-hoo! Over here, sailor.

Posted by: Mohammed at February 25, 2014 02:29 PM (0cMkb)

240 Restated Ace: "I eject trolls -- but I can't help thinking the better play would be to let the trolls post, and then be ignored, and basically waste their time and money posting comments that people either ignore, or come towards in order to argue with them, or just gawk at. Like zoo animals." Ace, the bottom line is that CPAC did the same thing that you do with commenters you label trolls. How you label people trolls is obvious: it's completely subjective. If you don't like what someone is posting, they're a troll. And you ban them. Maybe the better thing to do would be to be tolerant of opinions you disagree with, and let those you consider "trolls" to post, and be ignored, or argued with, persuaded, convinced of the rightness of your position, than to simply eject them.

Posted by: someguy at February 25, 2014 02:29 PM (8XRrT)

241 233 In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony godÂ’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence. Posted by: Aalewis at February 25, 2014 06:26 PM (KVnkf) I've got some really depressing news for you, bud.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:29 PM (T0NGe)

242 CPAC horndog story was invented by prog fabulist Steven Glass It was all fiction not to say there isn't some nooky going on but the story that created the legend was totally fabricated by Steven Glass at a leftist rag The New Republic

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:29 PM (zOTsN)

243

Kaboom! is a Gargoyle. At least it is not a creepy clown!

During pre-game festivities for the Bradley menÂ’s basketball game against Loyola University, Chicago on February 22, the University introduced its new gargoyle mascot Â—Kaboom! Â— with an elaborate pyrotechnics display featuring flashing lights, loud sounds and smoke.

Modeled after The Thinker Â— one of the four gargoyles sitting atop the Hayden-Clark Alumni Center and watching over campus Â— Kaboom! fills a vacancy that has existed since BradleyÂ’s previous mascot, the bobcat, disappeared in 2000.

Posted by: rd at February 25, 2014 02:30 PM (D+lxs)

244 Blastednook. My typing is horrid. I apologize if I post anymore I'll fire up the pc, use the droid, or hire mimes.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:30 PM (TE35l)

245 >>>Ace ... is there ever a point, ever, where you just quit fucking examining WHY somebody is kicking you in the balls - and get down to the nasty business of HOW to encourage them to stop ? well because I'm not being kicked in the balls by this and neither, really, are you. This determination to find, and counter, offense everywhere is a f***ing drag, man. You know, we often say we're not like the left in this way or that. But we really do (as a group) seem to have a strange longing for the ways of the left. Group Consciences, Political Votes as to whether to permit any f***ing thing anyone says, etc., etc. I would sort of like to be more like those Rugged Individualists we pretend to be and less like this soft, doughy mass of undifferentiated and useless humanity that is the left.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:30 PM (/FnUH)

246 The recent atheist "religious" activism (snotty billboards, bus stop ads, etc) and in your face nonsense, may play a part in my reluctance to include atheist GROUPS in anything. I feel differently about individuals.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 02:30 PM (A98Xu)

247 Not because of any phony godÂ’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

And a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle.

Posted by: Stuff someone once said at February 25, 2014 02:30 PM (Dwehj)

248 Ace let's people who disagree with him post all the time.Trolls are different.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:30 PM (zqvg6)

249 234 Plus, isn't it CPAC where there's a certain amount of sexual shenanigans that goes on? Meh, every professional organization, conference or meeting is about hooking up. Except math. Goddam sausage fest.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:31 PM (T0NGe)

250 Ace, excluding them is not silencing them. They're still free to spew their idiocy, just not in your place of business. And, it seems to me they were making "their business" "CPAC's business" when they asked to have a booth at CPAC's convention. Just my two pesos. On another note, the writing on the Rubio post just below, especially towards the end, nicely done.

Posted by: teej at February 25, 2014 02:31 PM (QbKVX)

251 Uh, no. Dissenting opinion does not usually result in a banning. It is the behavior that results in someone being banned.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 25, 2014 02:31 PM (DmNpO)

252 In the section quoted from Bozell I don't see any indication that he'd oppose a conservative Atheist group.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:32 PM (XyM/Y)

253 It's natural for Christians to congregate. Why do atheists want to? Adds fuel to the "atheist religion" fire.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 02:32 PM (A98Xu)

254 243 I wonder what was wrong with the Bobcat?It offended the animal rights people?

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:32 PM (zqvg6)

255 The bottom line is CPAC is a shabbily-run organization that goes out of its way to please the Wrong people -- just like the Republicans. And like the Republicans, CPAC needs to learn the hard way a lesson long overdue. Fuck. Them. Both.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:32 PM (GAlP7)

256 If you let in everyone, it's no longer a conservative event. Pretty soon it's a generic politics event. And then they start voting christians out for their hate speech.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 02:33 PM (uhAkr)

257 In May 1997, Joe Galli of the College Republican National Committee wrote a letter to the editor accusing Glass of fabrications in "Spring Breakdown", his lurid tale of drinking and debauchery at the 1997 Conservative Political Action Conference. its a lie Its one of the things Glass got fired for yet its now truth

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:33 PM (zOTsN)

258 If Steven Hawking rolled into CPAC talking all kinds of trash about "there being no G_d" and aliens, I'd slap him down like the little cyborg that he is.

Posted by: Fritz at February 25, 2014 02:33 PM (PnMCP)

259 >>>CPAC horndog story was invented by prog fabulist Steven Glass It was all fiction not to say there isn't some nooky going on ... first cpac I ever went to, I was in an elevator going back to my room (in a cheaper hotel away from the main site), and two guys -- attendees; they had lanyards -- casually asked each other if they wanted to get some hookers, and then asked me, a complete stranger, if I wanted to go three-sies. Seriously. Young guys too. There's always gonna be that sort of stuff going down at any convention. but yeah, Steven Glass' story was made up. Glass' story was not about sex, per se: It was a story about sexual humiliation of girls, about a "Pig Contest" where everyone tried to pick up the most unattractive girl possible, and then, of course, *exposed* this to them at the end of the night. Like, just doing it wasn't enough; they had to confront them with this sick game. All made up. If he'd wanted to discuss sex, it would have been easy, but who would have cared?

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:33 PM (/FnUH)

260 Somehow CPACers getting jiggy with it --yuck. M K Ham Michelle Malkin Ann Coulter Laura Ingraham And a whole bunch from last year whose name escapes me right now. I rest my case.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:33 PM (0HooB)

261 OK, ace. Enough of this foolishness. What everyone here REALLY wants to know isÂ… Are we going to be award-winning commenters two years in a row? I smell dynasty!!!

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:33 PM (yz6yg)

262 being something of an atheist myself I NO RITE?

Posted by: a little bit pregnant at February 25, 2014 02:34 PM (5ikDv)

263 "Rightly or wrongly." You say the words together as if it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I think it's important to drill down to which is right and which is wrong. You can argue all day and night that people- be they conservatives or liberals- should be more tolerant towards dissenting views, including those they personally find offensive. The reality is that we (as human beings) are not. If Brent Bozell was a fringe outlier- a lonely voice in the crowd- it wouldn't be a controversy now would it? Why should CPAC be expected to try and impose the principle of tolerance towards groups like American Atheists? How many attendees should they be expected to anger in a failed attempt to make that point?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 25, 2014 02:34 PM (SY2Kh)

264 In May 1997, Joe Galli of the College Republican National Committee wrote a letter to the editor accusing Glass of fabrications in "Spring Breakdown", his lurid tale of drinking and debauchery at the 1997 Conservative Political Action Conference. Glass is such a liar that the NY Bar Assn would not admit him ponder that

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:34 PM (zOTsN)

265 259 And you went in on the hookers didn't you?

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:34 PM (zqvg6)

266 And like the Republicans, CPAC needs to learn the hard way a lesson long overdue. Fuck. Them. Both.

Do you have a news letter?

Posted by: CPAC WeElcome Committee at February 25, 2014 02:34 PM (Cs2tJ)

267 245 well because I'm not being kicked in the balls by this and neither, really, are you. If I lose my job ... I can't buy private health insurance anymore. I can reasonably assume my email and all other online correspondence are monitored by the state. My kids are asked if their Daddy owns guns by their pediatrician. Bullshit Ace. Bull Fucking Shit. My balls are getting kicked constantly by the progressives - and so are yours. But your biggest worry of the day is CAC banning their ideological opposition from attending.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 02:34 PM (q4b1Z)

268 I don't have an issue with the 'big tent' concept. I believe that people lacking in faith in a higher power can restrain themselves from breaking each and every one of the 10 commandments every day. Most probably do. It's when some group decides that 'giving the heavens above more then just a passing glance' is an idea that they must band together and actively fight I doubt it is a conservative 'big tent' they belong under. Four thousand dollars is how many pieces of silver in today's dollars?

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (CnA98)

269 >>there will be moles there anyway You can recognize them from their fezzes.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (zDsvJ)

270 Here's what the booth would look like: /giant poster of that stupid Darwin fish And that poster (as Ace points out) would serve as bait. These people are trolls. But unlike Ace, I do not suffer fools. (Not in real life, anyway, so save the jokes.)

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (GAlP7)

271 It's natural for Christians to congregate. Why do atheists want to? ---- It's kind of natural for everyone to want to congregate with others like themselves.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (YFUoc)

272 In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony godÂ’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence. Congratulations. I don't believe in phony Gods either.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (XyM/Y)

273 " Why do atheists want to? " I went to a Unitarian Church for a bit as a teenager. I stopped after a hilarious "Christmas" service that scrubbed any mention of Jesus from the carols. Why would anyone go to a Christmas Eve service and then get squeamish about saying "Jesus"? Then again, why would anyone go to "church" to avoid God? I think the answer is smug superiority.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (hFL/3)

274 I see no evidence anywhere that indicates that this group is interested in anything other than non-productive, trolling agitation. Pretending that there's an opportunity for an intellectual victory here is naive.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 25, 2014 02:35 PM (gBnkX)

275 I do not think this comes down to a God or not God thing. I think it is a Conservative or not Conservative thing. Here is an idea: would CPAC allow a Moveon.org booth at CPAC? If the answer is yes, then you have to allow these atheists as well. If the answer is no, then you can exclude them. It would be different if this were an atheist Conservative group, then there would be no drama. Let them come and we can all hug it out. Or just ignore one another (the more likely course.) As Ace mentioned in the article, they seem to be a pretty blatantly Liberal Atheist group by whom they choose to go after in their ads. Personally, I would take their money and let them yap and scamper around and ignore them. The same thing if they were any other liberal group. Now if it is a question of space, I think you have to consider that as well. If you have a choice in allowing this group, or a explicitly conservative group (even an atheist one) then you have to go with the more conservative one. I have not seen anyone mention space issues, so I assume there is not one.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 25, 2014 02:36 PM (TGgNi)

276 >>first cpac I ever went to, I was in an elevator going back to my room (in a cheaper hotel away from the main site), and two guys -- attendees; they had lanyards -- casually asked each other if they wanted to get some hookers, and then asked me, a complete stranger, if I wanted to go three-sies. >>Seriously. And? You can't just toss that out there and leave us hanging.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 02:36 PM (g1DWB)

277 Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 06:31 PM (T0NGe) Heh, I don't think I've seen anyone at the bioethics conference I'd want to hook up with. Too much crazy. There's something to be said about being in a field of leftists, my wife has nothing to worry about while I'm away

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 25, 2014 02:36 PM (hq5sb)

278 252 In the section quoted from Bozell I don't see any indication that he'd oppose a conservative Atheist group. Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 06:32 PM (XyM/Y) How would you even form such a thing? Your animating principle is a lack of belief in something? The whole point of an atheist group is to troll.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:36 PM (T0NGe)

279 at the time Ace wasn't looking for hookers he was trying to find Rubio's room

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:36 PM (zOTsN)

280 In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony godÂ’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence. Have I got a wager for you

Posted by: Blaise Pascal [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:37 PM (yz6yg)

281 Their name is the Braves. The PC crowd and the NCAA shut that game down a while ago, so they have been awkwardly sputtering along for quite some time. They weren't giving up their team name they have had for forever, but any Indian imagery is out. So they went with something connected to their campus, Gargoyle's, and named him Kaboom(!)

Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2014 02:37 PM (BfZ1r)

282 >>>Bullshit Ace. Bull Fucking Shit. My balls are getting kicked constantly by the progressives - and so are yours. But your biggest worry of the day is CAC banning their ideological opposition from attending. ummm... I said I wasn't being kicked in the balls by THIS, the actual topic under discussion. I'm really tired of the trollish, dumb argument that because I bring up a controversy you don't like I'm making it the "BIGGEST WORRY." I'm not. It's just fucking news, dude. But once again, another reason offered why I shouldn't offer my opinion. Once again, people are very, very good about making up reasons people shouldn't say things they don't agree with. Perhaps people should spend a little time pondering this tendency and wondering why it exists and whether it would be better to restrain it than to indulge it.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:37 PM (/FnUH)

283 But your biggest worry of the day is CAC banning their ideological opposition from attending. Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 06:34 PM (q4b1Z) Wait what am I hosting?

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 02:37 PM (6kusz)

284 No they are not. Murder and theft are often very very good to those who perpetrate them.

Moses 5:31
"And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:38 PM (4QSOR)

285 Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 06:35 PM (XyM/Y) ^5. I love you.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:38 PM (yz6yg)

286 - casually asked each other if they wanted to get some hookers, and then asked me, a complete stranger, if I wanted to go three-sies. ************ Oh GROSS!!! gawd.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:38 PM (RJMhd)

287 >>>You can't just toss that out there and leave us hanging. no hookers. I went over to that Hog Party I heard about from Steven Glass and did some coke and gay sex.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:38 PM (/FnUH)

288 CAC is a bigot against CPAC love

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:38 PM (zOTsN)

289 Sorry, was responding to steevy on #253

Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2014 02:39 PM (BfZ1r)

290 I'm an ag not an ath, but I don't get why we need God to have morality. Some things are self-evident. Murder and theft are bad in and of themselves. For who? For the murderee? Sure, I'll buy that. But the murderer would get someone who bothers him removed from his life. Or the person who would have gotten his promotion. Or the guy fucking his wife. That's good for him. If he can do it and not get caught, why not?

Posted by: Weirddave at February 25, 2014 02:39 PM (N/cFh)

291 Anyway sorry if I seemed less lucid than I've ben this year. I was talking to spouse while typing on a bad tablet interface and I am in pain. I am doing my best to be calm to keep my pulse low and heal up. The US military cares about its service members almost as much as Cindy Sheehan does I'd wager. The troops are a prop, a "too expensive prop." I look forward to watching those F-35s and drones act like boots on the ground. The Amercan people and the GOP want THIS? Have fn and you can't spell UN without the FU or the UN

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:39 PM (TE35l)

292 Let them in and then the Christians and observant Jews should gather and pray for them. Let them know about the event first, of course.

Posted by: Charles at February 25, 2014 02:39 PM (bRW5o)

293 no hookers. I went over to that Hog Party I heard about from Steven Glass and did some coke and gay sex. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:38 PM (/FnUH) You were the hog?

Posted by: CAC, meatballin' at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (6kusz)

294 no hookers. I went over to that Hog Party I heard about from Steven Glass and did some coke and gay sex. Posted by: ace wearing the beard or in your female persona?

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (zOTsN)

295 2 more things: i) Earlier toby used the expression "fat chance." People ought to use this more often; I like it. ii) Druthers. When's the last time you had yours up, or whatever it is one does with druthers? And what are druthers, anyways?

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (GAlP7)

296 if they wanted to get some hookers, and then asked me, a complete stranger, if I wanted to go three-sies. ******* And this is just bad math--it would be "foursies" at the least--unless they were talking about the bill...

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (RJMhd)

297 no hookers. I went over to that Hog Party I heard about from Steven Glass and did some coke and gay sex. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:38 PM (/FnUH) There were Ewoks there too. Right? I'm askingÂ….for a friend.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (yz6yg)

298 242 CPAC horndog story was invented by prog fabulist Steven Glass It was all fiction not to say there isn't some nooky going on -- OK, thunderb. But wasn't it last year or the year before that some conservatives got into it with one another over how (some of) the gals were dressing and the general fraternity house atmosphere by the younger set? Or maybe I'm hallucinating that. But the whole air around CPAC seems cliquish. I'd like to go to the un-CPAC that exjon is having: "@exjon I would like to announce ExPAC, March 6-8, here in sunny Phoenix, AZ. Everyone welcome. #BYOB"

Posted by: Secret Squirrel at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (zDsvJ)

299 It's kind of natural for everyone to want to congregate with others like themselves. Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 06:35 PM Ah, what? To talk about what they don't believe?

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (A98Xu)

300 "There's something to be said about being in a field of leftists, my wife has nothing to worry about while I'm away " Wait, isn't your wife a lefty?

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (hFL/3)

301 Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 06:38 PM (yz6yg)

I laughed when I read it.

A quiet wit....and a cutting one!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (QFxY5)

302 *takes off hat and trenchcoat*

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 02:40 PM (zDsvJ)

303

I think there's a pretty big difference in being a conservative athiest and being a member of this group. In fact, I believe MKH is an athiest.

Their whole reason for being is much like the organized militant gehy movement: they have a severe psychological need for self-validation and achieve this by trying to obliterate christianity (no Jews or Muslims, apparently) from the planet.

From their website:

Since 1963, American Atheists has been taking the principled and uncompromising position that our government should give no special treatment or preference to religious belief. Through lawsuits, innovative public relations campaigns, and education, we are working to normalize atheism and allow more and more people to set aside religious belief and superstition.

American Atheists was founded in 1963 by Madalyn Murray OÂ’Hair.

Posted by: joanne at February 25, 2014 02:41 PM (s/quq)

304 weirdly, the song Muskrat Love is now going through my head

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:41 PM (zOTsN)

305 Posted by: someguy at February 25, 2014 06:29 PM (8XRrT)

Trolling about trolling. How meta of you.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 25, 2014 02:41 PM (IN7k+)

306 293 no hookers. I went over to that Hog Party I heard about from Steven Glass and did some coke and gay sex. Posted by: ace wearing the beard or in your female persona? Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 06:40 PM (zOTsN) *********** Man was that a mind f***. You could feel people being blown away.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:41 PM (RJMhd)

307 281 ... Bullshit called again Ace. Nobody said the Atheists should be banned from speaking. But they ARE banned from speaking at my house. And apparently at CAC as well. That's the bitch about free speech Ace. The rest of us are also entitled to yell "Shut Up". The Left thrives ... absolutely THRIVES ... on Speech without Pushback. And they succeed - in no small part because of people like you.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 02:41 PM (q4b1Z)

308 And what are druthers, anyways?

Mashmouth of I'd rather or would rather.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:42 PM (4QSOR)

309 Heh, I don't think I've seen anyone at the bioethics conference I'd want to hook up with. Too much crazy. Yeah, she's all into free love and no consequences and by the time the morning comes around she's set up a joint bank account and picked out a china pattern. There's something to be said about being in a field of leftists, my wife has nothing to worry about while I'm away I've been in my field too long, I couldn't stand to listen to somebody talk about something I can understand myself. What are you telling me I don't already know?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:42 PM (T0NGe)

310 Yes but they would have brought their iPhones and did the whole "get in their faces" for a buzzfeed clip of 'Atheists Slam CPAC'

Posted by: Chris M at February 25, 2014 02:42 PM (+7Usq)

311 Your animating principle is a lack of belief in something? The whole point of an atheist group is to troll/ I agree with you on this particular group. I was just taking issue with Ace's comment that Brent Bozell was over the top in labeling this group as insulting God. I think they probably do (insult God) regularly. not that God is so easily insulted but that they want to thumb their nose at a God they don't think exists.. Are they the same group that want to be up a "kid friendly" statue of Satan next to the ten commandments? It's probably quite possible to have a conservative organization that doesn't believe in God. You just don't mention God in your founding principles. AA obviously isn't one of those.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:42 PM (XyM/Y)

312 "Ah, what? To talk about what they don't believe?" Yep. And to talk about how not believing makes them better, more open minded people. They're rational questioners and free thinkers, don't you know?

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 02:43 PM (hFL/3)

313 I believe a muskrat is a form of weasel

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:43 PM (zOTsN)

314 You could feel people being blown away. Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 06:41 PM (RJMhd) Literally!

Posted by: Joe Biden [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:43 PM (yz6yg)

315 But they ARE banned from speaking at my house. And apparently at CAC as well. Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 06:41 PM (q4b1Z) Wait now I'm banning people?

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 02:43 PM (6kusz)

316 There are children starving in Africa. Where's the pizza?

Posted by: Sally Druthers at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (Dwehj)

317 302 joanne, Ms O'hairy was beaten to death by one of her morally superior to me followers. God giggles a lot I'd wager at the evangelical atheist "The Book it was not for MY benefit you bald apes." //God

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (TE35l)

318 druthers are druid truthers

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (zOTsN)

319 Ace, what cobloggers will be attending CPAC this year? If you win another award, not sure how you will top the acceptance speech from last year, hah, unless you have Kate Upton read it.

Posted by: LizLem at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (BF+2f)

320 Mashmouth of I'd rather or would rather. For real? For the life of me, I would never have guessed that.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (GAlP7)

321 Dissenting opinion does not usually result in a banning. I think Ace enjoys the dissenting opinion, I know I do. But there's a mile wide difference between someone who honestly holds a conviction and a shit-stirrer. Ace bans shit-stirrers imho. CPAC keeps them off the premises.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (CnA98)

322 OT Remngton moving 2000 jobs from Ilion, NY to Alabama.

Posted by: EC at February 25, 2014 02:44 PM (doBIb)

323 Remington

Posted by: EC at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (doBIb)

324 There are children starving in Africa. Where's the pizza?
Posted by: Sally Druthers

Ahem, it's Sally's Truthers.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (4QSOR)

325 I think Bozell's got bigger problems with CPAC then just this.
Here's the thing, why doesn't CPAC just come out and be honest with why they were giving them a booth. If it was money say it was money, if it was tonedeafness say it was tonedeafness, it was something else spill it. Same with Bozell, if you got a problem with CPAC, spill it.
All this shit leads to speculation, arguments and division. All for what?

Posted by: lowandslow at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (IV4od)

326 Atheism has a very strong history of opposing murder and theft. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin in Hell at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (sOtz/)

327 >>>It's probably quite possible to have a conservative organization that doesn't believe in God. You just don't mention God in your founding principles. AA obviously isn't one of those. that's very cramped, isn't it? Someone can not believe in God, and be part of the movement, so long as he never says he doesn't believe in God?

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (/FnUH)

328 Your animating principle is a lack of belief in something? Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 06:42 PM (XyM/Y) You know what atheists can't explain? The origin of the universe. NowÂ…they might call my explanation a fairy tale, naive, simplistic, or stupid. But what does it say that they don't even have one?

Posted by: Joe Biden [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (yz6yg)

329 CAC is a hard man. Don't cross him. What with the random bannings and not allowing people to speak and all

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (zOTsN)

330 Hog Party, where is navycopjoe I think they have those in Hawaii --they call 'em luaus.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (RJMhd)

331 Wait now I'm banning people? Posted by: CAC ----- We told you to stop smoking them funny cigarettes before they started messing with your mind...

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 02:45 PM (YFUoc)

332 that's very cramped, isn't it? Someone can not believe in God, and be part of the movement, so long as he never says he doesn't believe in God? Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:45 PM (/FnUH) No. That's not true. A use can be made for the sick, lame and lazy. Kidding! I'm kidding! (Seriously, I'm kidding)

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:46 PM (yz6yg)

333 Totes serious you guys, we've got a new story about how hookers flock to CPAC every year to make big bucks.

Posted by: New Republic at February 25, 2014 02:46 PM (Aif/5)

334 You know what atheists can't explain?

The origin of the universe.

Dawkins says life on this Earth is because of aliens.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:47 PM (4QSOR)

335 Dang it CAC! Would you kindly stop whatever it is you are doing to CPAC?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 25, 2014 02:47 PM (DmNpO)

336 anyway I am to engage in supper and watch Jason Statham Action Movie-XVII Homefront Happy hunting y'all. Something beats nothing every time. The left is a rage cult we're uh "the good guys". Good luck

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:47 PM (TE35l)

337 >>>That's the bitch about free speech Ace. The rest of us are also entitled to yell "Shut Up". The Left thrives ... absolutely THRIVES ... on Speech without Pushback. And they succeed - in no small part because of people like you. ... SHUT UP, he yelled, while claiming to have no interest in shutting people up. You know, you could simply disprove what I say by offering an argument. Instead, you keep going to the Easy Bake Oven argument of "You should shut up because you're hurting the cause, and also, Shut Up."

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:47 PM (/FnUH)

338 if conservatives want to get screwed they just have to join the tea party enjoy the veal

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:48 PM (zOTsN)

339 As I mentioned earlier, Hitler was neither a Christian (as the Left would like people to believe) nor an atheist. Hitler was into the occult.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:48 PM (GAlP7)

340

sven, I'll do just this one cross-talk with you OT to this thread and then depart, but I think you are right if you feel we have finally come to a decision point - the defense cuts in themselves but also how the GOP reacts to them are, in a sense, "it burning" from "let it burn".

It's obviously an unserious country - that has arguably been evident since at least 2006 - but now we are entering territory where the idiotic and frivolous approach to world affairs championed by the Dems, many GOP, and most of the electorate will be producing serious increased risks.

First the Ryan (spit) cut to retirees, now this - it's become hackneyed to observe, but it's like 100 years have transpired in the last 10, in terms of the politics of national security and support for the military. Unrecognizable landscape.

But don't give up hope - we have an opposition party that has surveyed the terrifyingly bad situation the country finds itself in on so many fronts and decided to focus on ..... amnesty (also, not getting any bad, er, worse "press" from the ruling party's media wing prior to November). So there's hope.

Posted by: non-purist at February 25, 2014 02:48 PM (afQnV)

341 that's very cramped, isn't it? Someone can not believe in God, and be part of the movement, so long as he never says he doesn't believe in God? You can start whatever Atheist conservative organization you like Ace. :^)

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:48 PM (XyM/Y)

342 332 Totes serious you guys, we've got a new story about how hookers flock to CPAC every year to make big bucks. Posted by: New Republic at February 25, 2014 06:46 PM (Aif/5)

Tinder is cheaper. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Virile Athletes at Olympic Village at February 25, 2014 02:48 PM (BF+2f)

343
It's natural for Christians to congregate. Why do atheists want to?

Combination Yif/Lan Party.

But mostly yif.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 25, 2014 02:48 PM (kdS6q)

344 I think druthers are an ingredient in certain old drinks. 4 measures barley beer 2 measures rum 1 splash vanilla 1 scoop powdered pumpkin Plunge in hot iron and add druthers, serve warm.

Posted by: .87c at February 25, 2014 02:49 PM (u2I8p)

345 >>Yep. And to talk about how not believing makes them better, more open minded people. >>They're rational questioners and free thinkers, don't you know? You could remove the word not from that first sentence and that statement would be equally true for the other side.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 02:49 PM (g1DWB)

346 sven, you'll like Homefront, I think.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:49 PM (GAlP7)

347 There wouldn't be any fighting in a Godzilla thread.Just sayin'.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 02:50 PM (zqvg6)

348 Dawkins says life on this Earth is because of aliens. Posted by: bonhomme at February 25, 2014 06:47 PM (4QSOR) Ah, yes. Dawkins. He explains much without explaining anything. Where did the aliens come from?

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:50 PM (yz6yg)

349 "For real? For the life of me, I would never have guessed that." Think about it like this. "Rather" is pronounced "R-uh-ther" in a lot of places so I'd ruhther -> "druther" Which becomes "if I had my druthers" meaning if "I had what I'd rather want, it would be X"

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 02:50 PM (hFL/3)

350 humans like to aggregate some humans love to agitate others long to congregate why can't they just mediate

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:50 PM (zOTsN)

351 So Ace, if you discover your kitchen overrun with big greasy cockroaches, does your tolerant side come out?

Posted by: maddogg at February 25, 2014 02:50 PM (xWW96)

352 Since 1963, American Atheists has been taking the principled and uncompromising position that our government should give no special treatment or preference to religious belief. Which is, itself, a religious belief. Sorry, I don't cotton to the idea that religions have to have a diety (or have to be Christianity, which is what a lot of the militants mean by "religion"). Any firmly-held dogmatic belief that has no falsifiable test is a religion -- or acts as one for all practical purposes. American Atheists was founded in 1963 by Madalyn Murray OÂ’Hair. I'll bet the organizers of CPAC are too young to know of her.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:51 PM (T0NGe)

353 I just don't see any actual benefit to not kicking them out. If CPAC wanted to look magnanimous to the non-conservatives I suppose they could invite Nancy Pelosi to speak, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the event.

Posted by: Kerry at February 25, 2014 02:51 PM (AYfPj)

354 And people can SAY whatever they like with an organization that doesn't believe in God, I assume. A conservative organization that just ignored the whole idea of God would be quite different from a conservative organizations that requires that you're an Atheist.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 02:51 PM (XyM/Y)

355 @327 Branes colliding in eleven-dimensional 'space' or something. Where did the branes come from?

Posted by: Beagle at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (sOtz/)

356 --btw I don't give a crap about what The Guardian decides is wise-- I get a time machine --I'm killing Hitler. ' Bite me.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (RJMhd)

357 TIME OUT!

Posted by: Andy Reid at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (jucos)

358 Well, at least the incident with the atheist group provided a nice squirrel to distract from the invitation to the GAAAAYS! I'm serious. I'd bet there are members who object to that as well.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (DmNpO)

359 As Sven said, Ms OHare is dead. Murdered by an excon she hired who embezzled all her money and killed her and her son the end

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (zOTsN)

360 Dawkins says life on this Earth is because of aliens.

Please have him call my West of the Rockies Hotline.

Posted by: George Snoory at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (Dwehj)

361 Where did the aliens come from?

Abiogenesis! On the back of crystal formations!

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 02:52 PM (IoTdl)

362 I don't believe in the SHUT UP approach. I do believe in the I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN approach. a) let lefty's talk they make fun twitter feed fodder and excellent sound bites. b) it's anti-American 1) Andrew Klavan has a youtube deal on the lefts' use of the SHUT UP argument. Pretty silly.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 02:53 PM (A98Xu)

363 I do think you're overthinking this. I work at fandom conventions, so I see this kind of thing all the time.

Forget about the politics for a moment and pretend CPAC is an anime convention, and AA is 4chan. Con staff generally just want attendees to have a good time, but when a known troll group's idea of a good time is making sure other people aren't, the con has a potential problem on its hands. Sure, they can always kick them out if they cross a line, (and some groups like the Goon Squad are very good at riding the envelope edge) but by then the damage is done. Attendees soured on the experience don't always come back, especially if they think it's because you're being lax on security.

Much as I love to speak disparagingly about CPAC, I see where they're probably coming from. Personally, I'd let them stay on and give them a really bad table location among other things, but that's just because I can be very creative when it comes to making people miserable.

Posted by: Saber Alter at February 25, 2014 02:53 PM (DNu5Y)

364 This:

10 You overthought this one, Ace.

Actually, it's pretty simple.

CPAC is one of the few gatherings that acknowledge and celebrate conservatives in a public forum,

are you really going to invite some party spoiling assholes into the tent, so they can be party spoiling assholes?

Nope.

Just like you wouldn't invite some methed-up hobo to your kid's birthday party,

you're a having the party to celebrate your kid's birthday,

not to prove how inclusive you can be by invited a guaranteed trouble-starter.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 25, 2014 05:42 PM (0cMkb)

And this:

You know for what I think CPAC should be humiliated? Being unable to work the google on the internet machine to determine prior to letting the Emo Jagoffs (so bitterly jealous you came up with that before I did, so bitterly jealous) have a booth.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 25, 2014 05:46 PM (VtjlW)

Personally, I would love to see a video of, say, Allen West with an atheist in each hand and causing them to head-butt each other after they provoked him into it by calling him an Uncle Tom or something worse. That the sort of thing Mobies do.

But it's probably better to avoid such a potentially fun situation. Probably.

Posted by: baldilocks at February 25, 2014 02:53 PM (36Rjy)

365 It's probably quite possible to have a conservative organization that doesn't believe in God. Quite easily. I just can't conceive of a conservative group that is explicitly atheist. In fact, I can't conceive of a non-trollish group that is specifically atheist.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 02:53 PM (T0NGe)

366 345 soothsayer, Thnks I enjoyed the novel... Dolph Lundgren almost played Jason Statham.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 02:53 PM (TE35l)

367 "You could remove the word not from that first sentence and that statement would be equally true for the other side." No, you really couldn't. Despite popular characterization, Christians really don't sit around in circles congratulating themselves on their superiority to the dirty heathens. While self-righteous Christians certainly exist, they are looked upon poorly by their congregations. No on wants to be pharisees. UUers and other congregational atheists/agnostics really do sit around and circlejerk over their superiority.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 02:54 PM (hFL/3)

368 The Guardian is OK with the murder of millions of Jews

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 02:54 PM (zOTsN)

369 I'm STILL waiting for an answer as to why that giant alien-john-malkovich-thing in Prometheus was so damned pissed at the humans when they woke him. It was like they woke up Frankenstein and he was like Must. Kill. You! Why??

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:55 PM (GAlP7)

370 While self-righteous Christians certainly exist, they are looked upon poorly by their congregations. No on wants to be pharisees. THIS. THIS. THIS. And EPIC THIS. Every groups has itsÂ…what was that term? Emo jagoffs? (love thatÂ…) But Holier-than-thou Christians are shunned by people with more than 3 brain cells the world over.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 02:56 PM (yz6yg)

371 367 The Guardian is OK with the murder of millions of Jews Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 06:54 PM (zOTsN) *********** That little 'thought experiment" was illustrative.

Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 02:56 PM (RJMhd)

372 The Guardian is OK with the murder of millions of Jews Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 06:54 PM (zOTsN) So is 80% of the World.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 02:56 PM (t3UFN)

373

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 06:44 PM (TE35l)

Ah yes, I do recall that. Wasn't she accompanied by some family members as well? Weren't they dismembered, found in garbage bags? How long did it take for the authorities to find them? Years later, as I recall. Appropriate ending, no?

Posted by: joanne at February 25, 2014 02:56 PM (s/quq)

374 >>>You can start whatever Atheist conservative organization you like Ace. :^) yeah I don't really care enough about it. Besides, I'm not exactly an atheist. I'm an agnostic who wavers between atheism and some kind of vague Deism.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:57 PM (/FnUH)

375 Holier-than-thou-Christians, aren't practicing Christians.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 02:57 PM (A98Xu)

376 True, and this discussion, as I said, is a bit confused, as people may be objecting to the "atheist" part or the "asshole and partisan" part without being precisely clear about it. ---------------------------------- So, like, don't hold all atheists responsible for the actions of this fringe group? Okay. I'm on it.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 25, 2014 02:58 PM (/S7+m)

377 Dawkins says life on this Earth is because of aliens.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 25, 2014 06:47 PM (4QSOR)

From his paste-eating days.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 02:58 PM (QFxY5)

378 >>No, you really couldn't. Despite popular characterization, Christians really don't sit around in circles congratulating themselves on their superiority to the dirty heathens. Clearly, you haven't read the comment in this thread or in many on this blog for that matter. That is exactly what a good many of them do. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 02:58 PM (g1DWB)

379 >>>No, you really couldn't. Despite popular characterization, Christians really don't sit around in circles congratulating themselves on their superiority to the dirty heathens. You say "Christians really don't" when you mean "most Christians really don't." If you're really claiming to not know this type at all, well, I don't know what to say. The type exists.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 02:58 PM (/FnUH)

380 That little 'thought experiment" was illustrative. Posted by: tasker at February 25, 2014 06:56 PM (RJMhd) Not to mention the American men who died fighting. I'd kill Hitler too.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 02:59 PM (A98Xu)

381 Weren't they dismembered, found in garbage bags? lulz! Reminds me of Anne Hutchison. She is famous for "challenging" the puritanical Christians in the New World and for being an outspoken proponent of indians. She and most of her family were burned alive...by indians.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 25, 2014 02:59 PM (GAlP7)

382 Sidwell Friends School: Home of the obama kids Tuition for 2013-2014 Lower School $34,288 (includes hot lunch and textbooks) Middle and Upper Schools $35,288 (includes hot lunch) Additional annual fees are: Parents Association Fee $80 Middle School Textbooks and Laptop Fee (Grades 5 through

$365 Upper School Textbooks $500 - $700 Bus Transportation (Optional) Daily trips between Washington, DC and Bethesda, MD campuses $800 one way $1,150 round trip Lower School Aftercare (Optional) 1 to 5 days per week $1,500 to $5,750 Middle School Aftercare (Optional) $925 per trimester obama/hagel to shit can the Commissary System

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 02:59 PM (t3UFN)

383 There is no god. If there was, he wouldn't have given me a face made for radio. Sigh.

Posted by: George Snoory at February 25, 2014 02:59 PM (Dwehj)

384 Besides, I'm not exactly an atheist. I'm an agnostic who wavers between atheism and some kind of vague Deism. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:57 PM (/FnUH) That's really the first time I've ever seen you pin it down. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. Thanks to Aquinas' Argument from Contingency, I've convinced God exists - as do Deists. Everything else surrounding organized religion is just extra sauceÂ….for most people. Not for me.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 03:00 PM (yz6yg)

385 Maybe the better thing to do would be to be tolerant of opinions you disagree with, and let those you consider "trolls" to post, and be ignored, or argued with, persuaded, convinced of the rightness of your position, than to simply eject them.

Posted by: someguy

Dont' punch down~!!!! DDont' PUnCh Down@!!1! dOn'T punCh Down`11!!@&

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 25, 2014 03:00 PM (xrX4n)

386 I know plenty of self-congratulatory, holier-than-thou religious folks. There are good atheists. There are good agnostics. There are good religious people. And there are plenty of bad ones.

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 03:00 PM (zDsvJ)

387 372 Joanne, Yup and adopted family was involved IIRC. I'd have no book with atheists were they not evangelical and exclusionary in their demands. They tend to a self-correcting mechanism unless they get power in totality. Good seeing you.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:00 PM (TE35l)

388 Besides, I'm not exactly an atheist. I'm an agnostic who wavers between atheism and some kind of vague Deism. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:57 PM (/FnUH) I'm am American and that is all anyone has a right to ask me

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:01 PM (t3UFN)

389 ace, the position you take in this post is exactly the opposite of the position you take on the blog. You do not allow any "racist" comments to appear here, for various reasons - you don't like them; you think it reflects badly on you and on the blog; you don't want to offend friends; you don't want to lose advertisers; you don't want to legitimize the ideas. Whatever your reasons, you have that right. You want this blog to be a certain thing. CPAC wants to be a certain thing. The attendees want it to be that same thing, and allowing AA to be there goes against the spirit of what they want CPAC to be. I would no more expect them to have American Atheists there than I would expect the American Association for the Advancement of Science to grant space to young-earth Creationists. It just isn't what they are. Allowing AA in was a major foobar that goes against everything ACU believes.

Posted by: whoever at February 25, 2014 03:01 PM (kGSN0)

390 In fact, I can't conceive of a non-trollish group that is specifically atheist.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 06:53 PM (T0NGe)

And that is puzzling. Why is the absence of belief in God a guarantee that the holder of that (lack of) belief is a preachy asshole (our gracious host excepted)?

It doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:01 PM (QFxY5)

391 The Guardian is OK with the murder of millions of Jews

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 06:54 PM (zOTsN)

So is 80% of the World.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 06:56 PM (t3UFN)

_____________________

Watched my Father in Laws Holocaust Museum interview tape last night. The world has ALWAYS been fine with Pograms against Jews. Poland was virulently anti-semetic before Hitler showed up. Hitler just made it easier for the locals to round up the Jews.... and Poland had 3 million Jews.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at February 25, 2014 03:01 PM (jucos)

392

You know what I'm going to do ... for now on ?

Bitch, moan, and complain for the rights of those who want to utterly destroy me to do so. At any place and any time. Including all private gatherings. Including any social group.

To do anything else just wouldn't be right.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (7LKmg)

393 *sings* Agnostics of the world united and ~~take over~~ do nothing. Who cares?

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (hFL/3)

394 So ace sounds like he's sort of where Krauthammer is. From last December: "There was once a philosopher who said, Â“I donÂ’t believe in God, but I fear him greatly.Â” ThatÂ’s about where I am."

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (zDsvJ)

395 ace, the position you take in this post is exactly the opposite of the position you take on the blog. You do not allow any "racist" comments to appear here, for various reasons - you don't like them; you think it reflects badly on you and on the blog; you don't want to offend friends; you don't want to lose advertisers; you don't want to legitimize the ideas. Posted by: whoever at February 25, 2014 07:01 PM (kGSN0) That argument would make sense if CPAC were a blog. Wholly owned by one person. It's not.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (yz6yg)

396 I know plenty of self-congratulatory, holier-than-thou religious folks.

Antonym of "holier than thou" is humble. Humility takes a lifetime to develop, if at all.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (IoTdl)

397 Dang it, my strike didn't work. Oh well.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (hFL/3)

398 I'm an agnostic who wavers between atheism and some kind of vague Deism. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 06:57 PM (/FnUH) I was there for a while. Oddly, my hobby pushed me into one of the two nebulous camps.

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 03:02 PM (6kusz)

399 Oh for pity's sake. Yes, some Christians do sit around - in their churches/study groups and elsewhere - and denigrate atheists, or agnostics or Unitarians (or more likely, other types of Christians). It's a human impulse to elevate oneself by bringing down others. And, yes, atheists congregate to do more than talk about how much smarter than the Christians they are---again, it's a human, natural impulse to seek out fellowship with those who share your worldview.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 03:03 PM (YFUoc)

400 Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 07:00 PM (yz6yg)

It's an argument specifically designed to make atheists feel stupid.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:03 PM (QFxY5)

401 Â“I donÂ’t believe in God, but I fear him greatly.Â” ThatÂ’s about where I am." Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 07:02 PM (zDsvJ) Yeah that was the mafia guy from " A Bronx Tale". It's the same as "Would you rather be feared or respected"

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:03 PM (t3UFN)

402 Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 07:02 PM (6kusz)

Uh...which hobby?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:04 PM (QFxY5)

403 ACE: "But we really do (as a group) seem to have a strange longing for the ways of the left. Group Consciences, Political Votes as to whether to permit any f***ing thing anyone says, etc., etc." You know, Ace, I've been meaning to have a chat with you about this exact topic. You see, the difference between the left and the right is that the left actually stands for something. They stand for a boot on your neck. Everything they do is towards that goal. They might not get a boot on your neck this week, but they'll buy shoelaces this week. They might not get that boot on your neck the week after, but they'll be shining those boots. The left has a plan. Republicans have no fucking plan. Their claimed plan is bullshit. Smaller government? That's bullshit. You know it, and I know it. The right isn't for smaller government. The right is for Republican Big Government. That's the difference between the left and the right. The left wants to enslave the world, even if it takes a thousand years and everything they do, everything they stand for, every action they take, is in the service of that plan. The right could have a plan: Eliminate the left. Once you set a goal, amazing things happen. But the right doesn't want to eliminate the left. The right has no end goal in mind at all. And that's why you reject the tactics of the left, when seen on the right. The left use tactics in the furtherance of a strategy and they do it very, very effectively. Now, you might not agree with their goal, their strategy, or their tactics. But they know something you do not know. And that is that you have to have a goal. Then you develop strategies to achieve that goal. And you use tactics in furtherance of those strategies. The right doesn't stand for ANYTHING. It has no goals, therefore it has no strategies and any tactics they deploy are really pointless. I'd suggest that you start writing about what the end game should be for Republicans, conservatives or the right (however you want to put it). Once we know the end goal, then we can develop strategies. From there, we can initiate tactics that further those strategies. Until that happens, I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept defeat. Because as Sun Tsu said: The battle is won before it is even fought. Democrats understand this.

Posted by: someguy at February 25, 2014 03:04 PM (8XRrT)

404 @398 Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 07:03 PM Exactly.

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 03:04 PM (zDsvJ)

405 Uh...which hobby? Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 07:04 PM (QFxY5) The one that opens your eyes to the incomprehensible, the indescribable, and the truly awesome.

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 03:05 PM (6kusz)

406 >>>ace, the position you take in this post is exactly the opposite of the position you take on the blog. You do not allow any "racist" comments to appear here, for various reasons - you don't like them; you think it reflects badly on you and on the blog; you don't want to offend friends; you don't want to lose advertisers; you don't want to legitimize the ideas. Whatever your reasons, you have that right. True. >>>You want this blog to be a certain thing. CPAC wants to be a certain thing. The attendees want it to be that same thing, and allowing AA to be there goes against the spirit of what they want CPAC to be. But in this case, the conservative movement is not explicitly a religious movement, and if it is, they should say so, and if it is, they will lose, forever. The conservative movement, frankly, seems confused on this point, and talks out of both sides of its mouth about it at different times. No, they're not *explictly* a religious organization, but you have to know, if you're not religious, you're not really a member. I do actually think there are people who want the movement to be *officially* a religious movement, but understand it's impolitic to say so, so we have these border skirmishes where people won't quite say "You're damn right, this is a Christian movement, PERIOD," and they'll even object to that characterization, but then when people ask "so why can't atheists come?," they get the schtick that "this is just what most people want." Clarity of thought and expression would be helpful. This sort of hidden thing, where conservatism is supposedly not a religious movement but OH YES IT IS when we want it to be, is a deliberate muddle to have the best of both worlds.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 03:05 PM (/FnUH)

407 The one that opens your eyes to the incomprehensible, the indescribable, and the truly awesome.

Paint huffing?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 03:06 PM (IoTdl)

408

Since when does "conservative" = anti-atheist?

"So, just based on CPAC's name -- the Conservative Political Action Conference -- they're perfectly within both right and reason to exclude American Atheists." --Ace

I'm an almost 100% atheist, as is Ace, yet we're both ultra-conservative (as in Constitutionalists). I've pledged my life to protect our nation's religious freedoms and others ingrained in the Bill of Rights.

Clearly CPAC is also a Tea Party attended event, and unless I missed it, the Tea Party is mostly secular in its raison d'etre. We (conservatives writ large) tried evangelicalism, and it gets us the anti-abortion plank... and the anti-abortion plank only... and/or Creationism as an equal to evolution, and that always makes conservatives look intelligent.

@peeteysdee

Posted by: Peter S. Dee at February 25, 2014 03:06 PM (M1pME)

409 Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 07:05 PM (6kusz)

Oh. That one!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:06 PM (QFxY5)

410 >>>I was there for a while. Oddly, my hobby pushed me into one of the two nebulous camps. i know, i saw you mention that. I have little interest in "The Big Picture" but pondering anything of an epic scale (space, or history) does put one into the frame of mind of appreciating, if not "God" per se, the existence of the awesome and unfathomable.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 03:06 PM (/FnUH)

411 I wonder if Raymond Felton is an Atheist or if he is praying his ass of to G-D right now?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:07 PM (t3UFN)

412 I can see just wanting to have an event without listening to leftist drivel as being a perfectly good reason to kick them out. We have to hear that crap day in and day out as it is. It's nice every once in a while to tell Pajama Boy he has to sit this one out.

Posted by: Zoomie at February 25, 2014 03:07 PM (X+iyv)

413 I don't want to kick atheists out of conservatism. I just think that atheists don't have the core belief in American exceptionalism or the divine immutable nature of human rights.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 03:07 PM (IoTdl)

414 Someone in the military now being silenced and excluded too.

Posted by: u.s. atheists at February 25, 2014 03:08 PM (Eiwo7)

415 "The type exists. " But not as an organized group. Unless you think that WBC is in any way representative of Christianity, which it is most certainly not. When Christians get together we talk about our own failings, and how we can walk more closely with God. We don't talk about how we're all super awesome and have it all figured out. We also don't talk about how much better we are than non-Christians. "Who saved a wretch like me...." That's the Christian's view of himself.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 03:08 PM (hFL/3)

416 Sock off.

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at February 25, 2014 03:08 PM (Eiwo7)

417 I believe in G-d. The universe is just too perfect for there not to be a G-d. Ponder the human body for a minute. There is not one part of the body that isn't amazing in its form or function.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at February 25, 2014 03:09 PM (jucos)

418 339 non-purist, Pretty much my read. I was told all during the Cold War that not aiding the government in policies you loathe was a matter of conscience and the highest form of patriotism. I am slowly becoming a "better patriot". The reason I support break-up is the US has too much wealth and power to be ran by retards in perpetuity. The GOP is not serius about being anything but a shock absorber for the left keeping 5true conservatism from having the wheel of "loyal opposition." This gun's retired.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:10 PM (TE35l)

419 Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 07:06 PM (/FnUH)

Interesting.

I see the existence of God in smaller things. Music. Poetry.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:10 PM (QFxY5)

420 There is not one part of the body that isn't amazing in its form or function. Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at February 25, 2014 07:09 PM (jucos) Well yeah but not after you turn 50

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:10 PM (t3UFN)

421 I do actually think there are people who want the movement to be *officially* a religious movement, but understand it's impolitic to say so, so we have these border skirmishes where people won't quite say "You're damn right, this is a Christian movement, PERIOD," --- Man, I gotta tell you, I agree with this. And it irritates the shit out of me. I believe in God. (And I fear Him.) And I want a country that is welcoming to people of Faith -- and people who do not believe in God. No one in this country should have to feel ashamed of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or have them dragged into the public square.

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 03:10 PM (zDsvJ)

422 No, they're not *explictly* a religious organization, but you have to know, if you're not religious, you're not really a member. I don't buy that. You're a member if you oppose people who fancy themselves your "moral betters" from running your life. A lot of the intellectual underpinning (but not all) for that attitude comes from religion - specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition. So it's helpful if you can speak the lingo. But whether or not you believe in a deityÂ….all you really have to believe in is that some sociopath doesn't have the right to run your life because they think that's really the ultimate high.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 03:11 PM (yz6yg)

423 >>>I believe in G-d. The universe is just too perfect for there not to be a G-d. Ponder the human body for a minute. eesh, I gotta tell you, it's not perfect. People in perfect health may think so, but they don't have the experience of those millions who are diseased, or blind, or lame, or dying.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 03:11 PM (/FnUH)

424 How come I never see Jane D'Oh around here anymore?

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 03:11 PM (zqvg6)

425 I see the existence of God in smaller things. Music. Poetry.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 07:10 PM (QFxY5)

__________________

Mozart.... Chopin ... Kenny Loggins

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at February 25, 2014 03:11 PM (jucos)

426 knock wood

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 03:11 PM (/FnUH)

427 Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 07:07 PM (t3UFN)

I'll bet you a whiskey and a beer that his soon-to-be-ex wife (the law student) brought that pistol up from NC where it is legal.

The bitch set him up!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:12 PM (QFxY5)

428 No one in this country should have to feel ashamed of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or have them dragged into the public square. Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2014 07:10 PM (zDsvJ) AMEN!!!

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl 2 days until spring training at February 25, 2014 03:12 PM (u8GsB)

429 There is not one part of the body that isn't amazing in its form or function. Back Hair.

Posted by: garrett at February 25, 2014 03:12 PM (Ggxte)

430 The problem is not that Conservatives are religious or not. It's that Democrats and progressives HATE Religion

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:12 PM (t3UFN)

431 Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2014 07:08 PM Amen, sister. And I do worry about the souls of others.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 03:12 PM (HVff2)

432 I'll bet you a whiskey and a beer that his soon-to-be-ex wife (the law student) brought that pistol up from NC where it is legal. The bitch set him up! Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 07:12 PM (QFxY5) Your on

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:13 PM (t3UFN)

433 But in this case, the conservative movement is not explicitly a religious movement, and if it is, they should say so, and if it is, they will lose, forever. I think you're conflating CPAC's decision with Bozell's whining about it. We don't know specifically what about AA caused CPAC to realize they didn't want to give them a booth. It may just easily have been that they're super-trollish and partisan Democrats (and frankly that's more likely than the CPAC organizers deciding to impose God on the movement).

Posted by: Ian S. at February 25, 2014 03:13 PM (102Hx)

434 No one in this country should have to feel ashamed of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or have them dragged into the public square.
Posted by: Y-not

Absolutely, nor should the religious be made to feel ashamed of their beliefs. (I'm pretty sure that way implied but added for completeness.)

Posted by: dogfish at February 25, 2014 03:13 PM (nsOJa)

435 Back Hair. Posted by: garrett at February 25, 2014 07:12 PM (Ggxte) You had to frickin' go there, didn't you? Look! It's vestigial. OK?!?!?

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 03:13 PM (yz6yg)

436 I'll bet you a whiskey and a beer that his soon-to-be-ex wife (the law student) brought that pistol up from NC where it is legal. The bitch set him up! Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 07:12 PM (QFxY5) Your on Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 07:13 PM (t3UFN) Oh are we talkin J. Walker Blue?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 03:13 PM (t3UFN)

437 I love Kenny Loggins!

Posted by: Archer at February 25, 2014 03:15 PM (Aif/5)

438 Corgi on a spit?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 03:16 PM (HVff2)

439 Uhhh, I said the same thing as Y-not. Sorry, I'll shut up now.

Posted by: dogfish at February 25, 2014 03:16 PM (nsOJa)

440 eesh, I gotta tell you, it's not perfect. People in perfect health may think so, but they don't have the experience of those millions who are diseased, or blind, or lame, or dying.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 07:11 PM (/FnUH)

_________________

Fair enough.... But think of the blind man being able to walk, or hear, or sing. Everyone can complain about what is not perfect or what doesn't work. That being said, everyone also must realize there are other areas of their bodies that work (at times very well), and are amazing. Ever watch George Shearing play the Piano? I could never do that and I can see. That's what I am saying.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at February 25, 2014 03:16 PM (jucos)

441 I agree with your comment, Y-not. However, I likelihood of people's lack of religious belief being dragged into the public square is less likely than people religious belief being dragged into the public square. It already is as evidenced by Obamacare coming up against nuns and others who don't want to pay for abortions or abortion inducing drugs. It already is by Holder hounding religious Homeschoolers. This adminstration is no fan of conservative Christianity and I don't expect they like any conservative non Christans either except maybe Muslims.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 03:18 PM (XyM/Y)

442 but pondering anything of an epic scale (space, or history) does put one into the frame of mind of appreciating, if not "God" per se, the existence of the awesome and unfathomable. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 07:06 PM (/FnUH) Studying the epic has the benefit of never satisfying you, which is a great thing- I "know" what a lot of the objects I'm looking at are through a scope. But that very knowledge of the tiny smudged spiral in front of me just makes the effect more profound.

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2014 03:20 PM (6kusz)

443 J. Walker Blue?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 07:13 PM (t3UFN)

Nope, but something good.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 03:21 PM (QFxY5)

444 441 And to believe it all just " happened" is as incredible as the idea of a Creator.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2014 03:21 PM (zqvg6)

445 421 Sean Bannion, Well said. The Masons don't require belief in Yaweh or Jehovah they require belief in a higher power and liberty. You can't be an atheist Mason... This evangelical atheist and glee mafia zainess is like trying to force them to do so to me. Anyway interesting thoughts as always on the issue Bannion. Pity I am downstairs on the droid and wife ad Lad are on the Xbox on my PC's 3dTV or I could be lucid.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:22 PM (TE35l)

446 Bozell's viewpoint seems so skewed. Shouldn't it be celebrated that Conservative principles are so convincing that they reach across religious boundaries? Doesn't it make Conservatism an even more impressive worldview if you can remove strong axiomatic beliefs (like "God exists") and still have a coherent, persuasive system of thought?

Posted by: CliveStaples at February 25, 2014 03:22 PM (xxHsq)

447 I mean when you want the State to be God, beliefs in other Gods are not acceptable unless your faith in Gods aligns with the views of communism/ Marxism and Radical Islam work well together because they both want to bring down Western Civilzation

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 03:22 PM (XyM/Y)

448 This is, the Madalyn Murray O'Hair group? Used to watch them on Public Access (Out of NY?). As I recall, they were as strident as any televangelist I might have happened across on TV. In fact, in many ways, I noticed they were more so, because, after all their truths were 'scientific' and therefor unquestionable. Scientism...

Posted by: Rodney C. Johnson at February 25, 2014 03:22 PM (nL5y5)

449 yeeesh, I don't like religious arguments because they get bent. "People in perfect health may think so, but they don't have the experience of those millions who are diseased, or blind, or lame, or dying." However, I've known several over my lifetime, I'm much older than you Ace, who see the world as beautiful and awe inspiring and breathtaking even though they were diseased, blind, lame and dying. I know you know that, I think that sometimes life is a slog for you and it makes you question. We all do.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 25, 2014 03:25 PM (A98Xu)

450 Okay, sooo Brent Bozell is a not to bright, crazy person? Good to have that confirmed. (I'd had my suspicions.) I get that there is some history with the Bozell family and National Review but the idea that Brent Bozell could read Ace or I or anyone else for that matter either into or out of "the conservative movement" is ridiculous.

Posted by: Deety at February 25, 2014 03:25 PM (D8ONs)

451 440 FenlonSpoke, The fact is the "I am a smart non Fundi Xian" GOP is gonna sell us out Fenlon. The coalitions are gonna be redrawn. It's why I am actively not donating to the GOP and may in fact start backing La Raza. America has convinced me the US Republic is dead. Time to focus on what comes next.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:25 PM (TE35l)

452 About "perfect" and hair, why more hair on the ears but less on the head? I get nose hair I think, helps keep out volcanic dust.

Posted by: Beagle at February 25, 2014 03:26 PM (sOtz/)

453 And to believe it all just " happened" is as incredible as the idea of a Creator. When I was younger I had no heroes. Not a one. I specifically taught my son and daughter not to have heroes. Be your own hero, was what I would say. But I'm older now and I do have a couple of heroes. They are a rare breed, not many of them to be found. But they are humble scientists who have spent their entire lives attempting to discover the origins of our universe and simply say, "I don't know." Because somehow, cooked into the books, it will always be impossible for us to know. We humans are about half a billion years too late. We can look back in time, billions of years, with the greatest technology and optics ever, but we can only see about half a billion years after the Big Bang. And guess.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 25, 2014 03:27 PM (CnA98)

454 >>I don't want to kick atheists out of conservatism. I just think that atheists don't have the core belief in American exceptionalism or the divine immutable nature of human rights. One of the interesting things about living in New England is discovering the history of how different religious groups splintered and formed new colonies and ultimately states because they also didn't believe the dominate religious faction in their previous home understood the immutable nature of human rights. Roger Williams, the founder of what is now Rhode Island, left the MA colony for religious freedom. He started life as a member of the Church of England and became a Baptist and one of the most outspoken abolitionists in the new world. He had a far different view from other religious leaders of his time so I don't think its fair to say only religious people understand basic human rights, many expressly did not in the past. Hard to argue that most religion has been a net positive for the world. But I don't agree that only religious people understand human rights when it has never been the case. Many people believe that human rights come from nature and that is no less valid than saying they come from God.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 03:28 PM (g1DWB)

455 Why do I think that they were probably harassing the members? Isn't that what they do? "Hey you!! Yeah, you! Your God is dead and you are a fool for believing."

Posted by: TimothyJ at February 25, 2014 03:29 PM (ep2io)

456 447 Rodney C Johnson, Quite I hear her ugly ass echoes in the AGW cult. When they invoke seperation of Church and State I notice it means Christianity and State. AGW cult and Islam are totes ok.....

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:29 PM (TE35l)

457 >>> I think you're conflating CPAC's decision with Bozell's whining about it. I take Bozell to be proof that the type does exist and tends to be loud about proclaiming his denunciation of any who do not follow the One True Faith. I.e., either Bozell spooked CPAC, or people like Bozell spooked CPAC.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2014 03:32 PM (/FnUH)

458 423 steevy, I miss Ms. D'oh...I also miss Marple. But hey Chit-town Jerry is still here.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:33 PM (TE35l)

459 If you're still on, think you should know that Bradley University unveiled a new mascot named Kaboom, and Keith Olbermann hates it, and mocked it on his show. You can thank me for the big scoop later. == This is shocking news. Keith Olbermann has a show?

Posted by: whoever at February 25, 2014 03:36 PM (kGSN0)

460 457 Ace, The type does exist. I had always thought fear of the Ascot Priest Coterie like Michael Mann wanting to tax you into oblivion would trump the Church lady cult. I was wrong. I've been reflecting a lot on how ugly I must be that Watermelon Communists seem more pretty and worthy to MY OWN POLITICIAN'S deference vis a vis Juan McCain. I'll work that out...either in a semi or in the "AGW deniers camp." God is likely punishing us, of course our faith is at its best when tyrants do their worst.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:37 PM (TE35l)

461 Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 25, 2014 07:03 PM (YFUoc)

The other thing to keep in mind is that with many religions, (Buddhism is also pretty humble, remember) humility and modesty are considered virtues. Our own human inclination towards sanctimony is pretty well documented by each religion which does, and one of those "oppressive" things that religions do is ingrain in believers' minds that hubris and sanctimony are bad things. They generally self-correct, since you have various punishments (shunning, etc.) built into the system.

But atheism by design has no such universal rules. You could take two different atheists and the only thing they have in common is their mutual disbelief in God (and even that can vary). It's why atheist organizations don't really make much sense; as one atheist I know put it, "It's stupid. If you're going to act like atheism isn't a religion because it's like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, maybe you shouldn't form ENTIRE ORGANIZATIONS dedicated to not collecting stamps?"

Like New Age religions, it can be whatever you want it to be (New Age attracts a very different crowd -- the polar opposite of skeptics -- but the reasons are almost the same). For a lot of smug people who aren't really all that intelligent, atheism (like leftism) is an instant way for them to pretend as if they suddenly got an IQ boost a la magical thinking. (As Ace described earlier regarding leftists; it's "intelligence by association")

This definitely isn't to say that all atheists are this way, and there are many humble atheists (as my aforementioned friend). But when you don't have the framework that other religions have, (New Age religions aside) you have something with is very appealing to the kinds of people who refuse any kind of correction. And like with leftism, its the permissiveness which is attractive to a wide number of people who merely suffer from a cocktail of Cluster B disorders and have that human need for some kind of "religion" rather than people who are genuine free thinkers and skeptics. What atheists consider their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness.

Posted by: Saber Alter at February 25, 2014 03:39 PM (DNu5Y)

462 What is a "Watermelon Communist"?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 03:42 PM (XyM/Y)

463 >>Hard to argue that most religion has been a net positive for the world. >>Hard to argue that most religion has not ... My bad.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 25, 2014 03:43 PM (g1DWB)

464 If mans rights do not come from God but man, then they are subject to mans capricious nature and can be taken away on a whim

Posted by: thunderb at February 25, 2014 03:45 PM (kPCtX)

465 I doubt they were worried about converts so much as worried that they'd harass people and stop them from having a good time.

Posted by: JohnJ at February 25, 2014 03:45 PM (Z1Bf6)

466 One thing I've never quite understood is the nature of the alarm a phrase like "an attack on God Himself!" is intended to stir in the hearts of true believers. Because it is clearly directed at fellow believers and intended to cause alarm. So...what do "true Christians" do when there is an "attack on God Himself!"? Do you try to evaluate the threat level or just spring into action and just trust that Justin & Shane have Jesus sufficiently covered whilst you aggressively clear the immediate forward areas of any potential threats? Eh, Brent Bozell kind of answered my question, didn't he?

Posted by: Deety at February 25, 2014 03:47 PM (D8ONs)

467 402 The right doesn't stand for ANYTHING. Posted by: someguy at February 25, 2014 07:04 PM (8XRrT) Good comment, someguy, but I think you're conflating "the right" (conservatives & libertarians) with the Republican Party. "The Right" does indeed stand for limited constitutional government and free-market capitalism. It's the Republican Party that doesn't stand for anything other than having a seat at the table of power. So I would agree with your comment more if you substituted "The GOP" for "The Right" throughout. The Right increasingly has no representation in our political system.

Posted by: rickl at February 25, 2014 03:47 PM (sdi6R)

468 462 FenlonSpoke, Sorry was not firing up my gibberish genny. Watermelon Communist is a Red Covered in Gren Commie AGW cultist. They bitch endlssly about the environment making idotic obviously doctored claims using all data as affirmation. Oddly EVERY crisis they fear and they fear them all has the same solution. Ismantle economic fredom and have the UN control global energy. Communists. The fucking average American prefers THIS to me. I must be the worst person in the world to lose THIS argument. Obama is unilaterally taxing America for probably a 12-15% defacto tax with a pen flourish and nobody gives a shit. It's part of why I am quiting. Enjoy America you wanted this.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:49 PM (TE35l)

469 462 What is a "Watermelon Communist"? Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 07:42 PM (XyM/Y) Environmentalists. They're Green on the outside and Red on the inside. In other words, they are basically anti-capitalist.

Posted by: rickl at February 25, 2014 03:49 PM (sdi6R)

470 Madalyn Murray OHair - She is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. Because "freedom". Or something.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 25, 2014 03:49 PM (5ikDv)

471 469 Rickl, Hapily enthused on by gorbachev by 1993. He was in awe that the tools for deestroying the west had been there all along. Trust me, I have ben reflecting a LOT in my absence here and healing up. That America prefers Al Gore to me means I have a duty to let them fel the idiocy of the Gaia Watermelon Cult's genius. I am not stepping on the breaks anymore. Hold their feet to the floor.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:54 PM (TE35l)

472 I don't know that I'm qualify as a "true believer" because i don't know what that means. I'm not so worried on attacks on God because God is more than able to handle Himself. What worries me more is the state as God working against religious freedom and saying nothing when their pals the radical Muslims slaughter Christians daily. As I don't know the complete context in which Bozell spoke so I don't know if was really upset about Atheists in general or that particular group.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 03:55 PM (XyM/Y)

473 Pardon my stupidity who who are Justin and Shane?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 03:56 PM (XyM/Y)

474 472 FenlonSpoke, Godcan take care of his own ego business MHO. I am no fan of Brit Bosely or whomever, but it is charming that my faith is so invasive when the last Theocracy in Americaended when Utah joined the Union IIRC.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 03:59 PM (TE35l)

475 OT:

Last nights The Blacklist had the listee, a Pink Pantherette character shown hob-nobbing with bigwigs in the briefing exposition. Pix with Allan West and Ted Cruz.

Trust TVland.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 04:00 PM (DL2i+)

476 We will not have a theocracy in this country unless radical Islam completely takes over.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 04:01 PM (XyM/Y)

477 The one that opens your eyes to the incomprehensible, the indescribable, and the truly awesome.

Trixie the hooker or a largemouth bass?

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 04:06 PM (DL2i+)

478 Last nights The Blacklist had the listee, a Pink Pantherette character shown hob-nobbing with bigwigs in the briefing exposition. Pix with Allan West and Ted Cruz.

Trust TVland.

Posted by: DaveA at February 25, 2014 08:00 PM (DL2i+)

Yeah I caught that, too. Irritated me. Love that show, though - love Spader.

Posted by: tdpwells at February 25, 2014 04:07 PM (01otU)

479 I believe in God. (And I fear Him.)

What the hell good would a God you fear be. Tremble in awe yes but fear. Any God that needs me afraid isn't God.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 04:10 PM (DL2i+)

480 What the hell good would a God you fear be. Tremble in awe yes but fear. Any God that needs me afraid isn't God.

Posted by: DaveA at February 25, 2014 08:10 PM (DL2i+)

Butting in here - I think it's more fear of His judgment should you choose the wrong path. I always likened it to the fear I felt of my parents when I was younger. If I do X, I will get into trouble and be punished by my parents. Highly simplistic way to look at it, but yes. Some fear is healthy. Old Testament had it in spades. Not so much the New Testament.

Posted by: tdpwells at February 25, 2014 04:13 PM (01otU)

481 476 FenlonSpoke, Respectfully disagree. We've been in a theocracy for 5 years last month ma'am. They believe in a disgraced economic model and a "science" cult. With more zeal than I have in God. I work to feel fervor they have in their Starbuck's latte. No part of my faith that I had forgotten is to know God doesn't care if I am happy with Ceasar. I am letting go of my duty to Caesar, he is due that which is his and to God His in His case all is His. The hidden meaning of the willfully misread passage. "Caesar YOU are MINE" as it were.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 04:17 PM (TE35l)

482 love Spader.

He does the have fun being a killer thing well.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 25, 2014 04:17 PM (DL2i+)

483 @rickl "The Right" does indeed stand for limited constitutional government and free-market capitalism." No, it doesn't. If it did, then it's strategy would be to ELIMINATE THE LEFT. You can't have limited constitutional government and free market-capitalism without FIRST eliminating the left. With extreme prejudice. And the right doesn't want to eliminate the left. Has no concept of it. How do you eliminate the left? You end public-employee unions. You buy up newspapers and fire all their reporters - publicly, viciously. You eliminate civil service laws and fire the fucking government. You outlaw their speech. You crush their protests. You cut off their fucking funding, even if it means a bullshit "default." You eviscerate them. You imprison them. You hound them out of public life by making their children suffer and forcing them to do anything they don't want to do. You make illegal anything they care about even if the Supreme Court will eventually slap you down. You sue them even if you'll lose. Especially if you'll lose. You take their children from them and put them in conservative foster homes. You make foster parents pass litmus tests and those who refuse you out as child molesters. You have no line you won't cross to fucking crush them and hound them entirely outside our borders. The left understands this. That's what they do. Their goal is the complete and total elimination of the right. Because then they have free reign to accomplish their aims. The right must adopt the very same strategy.

Posted by: someguy at February 25, 2014 04:19 PM (8XRrT)

484 Pardon my stupidity who who are Justin and Shane? Just the two guys who were nearest Him at the time when this shit jumped off! Man, I don't know! When I heard that there was an attack on God Himself I just shouted, "Somebody, cover Jesus!" and went into action. It could have been you, or me or Tom (the poor bastard)at breakfast! Communication's all kinds of f****d up out here since the attack and I can't get ANY solid read on what's going on back there but you and I both better pray that Shane and Justin are still with Jesus!

Posted by: Deety at February 25, 2014 04:20 PM (D8ONs)

485 TL;dr You hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats. Too bad that's just a logo here.

Posted by: someguy at February 25, 2014 04:27 PM (8XRrT)

486 A possible explanation for this could be that the CPAC booths are in such high demand, providing one to a trollish asshole group is the equivalent of denying a space to a group who wishes to make a legitimate point.

It's not the difference between American Athiests or Nothing, but between American Atheists and "Someone who actually desires to support CPAC"

Posted by: Moebius at February 25, 2014 04:27 PM (EyWI5)

487 484 SomeGuy, You get it and you know why I despair. This nation was good enough the right didn't need to become what it beheld for a long time. 2000 and 2004 were the dying gasp of that good. A nation of good people would not tolerate this an would have punished the left. There is no defense of the Republic so I am letting go and preparing to survive the "People's Republic" "The peoples" don't get wugu beef white castle sliders like the COAMF in this glorious paradise. It sucks but here we are.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 04:28 PM (TE35l)

488 Don't know if it's a new episode or not but NCIS sucks tonight. Evil guns, Gun shows and a greedy body armor manufacturer. Must be why I quit watching it a couple years ago.

Posted by: The Hickster at February 25, 2014 04:29 PM (TI3xG)

489 TL;DR

Posted by: exsanguine at February 25, 2014 04:32 PM (WiAcn)

490 I support not allowing American Atheists into CPAC, myself.

CPAC is a big gathering of conservatives, and if I paid good money to go to such a gathering, I'd want to mingle and socialize and discuss ideas with mostly like-minded people in a fun, comfortable setting, not get hectored by a bunch of leftists looking for a fight.

If I want to hear what American Atheists and similar groups have to say on any subject, I can do that anytime I want. For free. All I'd have to do is open a discussion with some of my more left-leaning acquaintances.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 25, 2014 04:42 PM (/96QU)

491 In a game of chess, American Athiests advanced their pawn, then CPAC advanced their pawn, and then, in a daring move, American Athiests exchanged one of their boogers for a CPAC Kleenex.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at February 25, 2014 05:07 PM (F3nFt)

492

FenlonSpoke, I've been enjoying your contributions on this thread. You've summed up the way I feel about this better than I could.

I don't quite agree with ace on this one, but he said something earlier about wanting to be individuals and not part of some collective right-wing group mind that made me think of the Dineesh D'Sousa - Shithead Ayers debate I watched the other night.

Some gay kid asked D'Sousa about LGBT rights and Ayers, thinking he really had a "gotcha" there, jumped on that like white on rice. He demanded that D'Sousa come out in support of gay rights that second. D'Sousa said, "No, because I don't believe in gay rights.I don't believe in group rights. I believe in individual rights, which are covered by the Constitution."

Ayers was completely incredulous, as if D'Sousa had said, "I don't believe the sun rose this morning." He kept repeating, "You don't believe in group rights? You don't believe in group rights." And D'Sousa said, again, "No."

I thought D'Sousa handled that beautifully. It was quite a glimpse in the wasteland between Billy's ears. In his case, the Collective, the Borg has taken the place of God, and D'Sousa had blasphemed against the Holy.

Posted by: Donna and V. (no ampersand) at February 25, 2014 05:23 PM (R3gO3)

493 The question to me (and probably to CPAC) is, would the atheist group attend in order to present their viewpoint, or to disrupt the conference for their own publicity?

Posted by: Null at February 25, 2014 05:35 PM (xjpRj)

494

>>"So this type of thing, to me, reads as "scared." "

Because it is. The study of modern conservative politics is the study of fear. The first Republican/conservative candidate who isn't afraid is someone to be profoundly feared. By the Left.

Posted by: rrpjr at February 25, 2014 05:35 PM (s/yC1)

495 When they let the gays in they lost my respect. Since then they have done nothing to earn it back.
You can argue that it is ok and harmless to let dissent in all you want, but the fact remains that those who they have present at this conference as speakers and booth holders represents who they are as a group.
They can let the gays and atheists take over or they can represent conservatism, but they cannot represent conservatives with gay centric and atheist centric groups being representative of who they are.

Posted by: astonerii at February 25, 2014 05:38 PM (1qHDV)

496 Posted by: rrpjr at February 25, 2014 09:35 PM (s/yC1) ========= The title of Scott Walker's book is "Unintimidated".

Posted by: grammie winger at February 25, 2014 05:38 PM (oMKp3)

497 "But atheism by design has no such universal rules. You could take two different atheists and the only thing they have in common is their mutual disbelief in God (and even that can vary). It's why atheist organizations don't really make much sense; as one atheist I know put it, 'It's stupid. If you're going to act like atheism isn't a religion because it's like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, maybe you shouldn't form ENTIRE ORGANIZATIONS dedicated to not collecting stamps?'"

Saber, with all due respect, this lifelong Catholic disagrees with you and your friend. If I was convinced that religion was a delusion that was deepening the ignorance and misery of the world, of *course* I would want to associated with people of similar insight, to try to persuade the world to abandon this fraud. Maybe I'd be gracious about it, like your friend, or maybe I'd be a dick, or maybe both, depending on my mood that day; but I definitely would want to do something about it.

Conservatism is a similarly negative philosophy. Like atheism, it is predicated not on something that is *done* so much as on something that is *not done*. In our case, the thing *not done* is acquiring power over other people's lives based on one's notion of one's innate moral and intellectual superiority. There is no coherent political philosophy of the right, not a positive one in any sense; that's why Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists can all call ourselves "conservative" and have these delightful conversations. (How dull it must be on the Left, where everybody knows The Truth: what can there be to talk about?) Rather, we are the coalition of the anti-Left: a negative, sure, but one to which I am proud to subscribe.

Posted by: Brown Line at February 25, 2014 05:48 PM (a5bF3)

498 If you could keep the dung-flinging monkeys locked in their cage for the people to gawk at from a safe distance, that would be one thing. But the monkeys would get out and do there best to disrupt the event and fling their dung everywhere.

Posted by: Steve C at February 25, 2014 06:09 PM (pOjxc)

499 Actually, Brown, I don't believe that negate my point. Not all atheists believe that religion in itself is a negative force in the world; some (Keith Burgess-Jackson, to name one) even acknowledge that Judeo-Christianity in particular is a positive, liberating force in the world. Most conservative atheists simply don't believe a being we call God exists, and that's the extent of their atheism. Adults don't correct children who believe in Santa Claus and it's considered the apotheosis of assholishness to do so. Adults in general believe that children will simply grow out of it eventually, and there are more that a few atheists who believe that mankind in general will do the same. (I happen to disagree, but there we go) Generally, conservatives who are atheists don't seem to care one way or the other what people believe, as long as their rights are respected, not any more harmful than having a pair of lucky socks.

On the other hand, leftist atheists are generally anti-theists, the atheists who feel the need to force their unbelief on everyone and who believe that religion (most of the time Christianity) is the source of everything bad on earth. But I'm of the opinion these people are less atheists in the genuine sense of the word and simply those suffering from all the Cluster B personality disorders and attempting to pass off their psychoses as "skepticism". Unlike true atheists, they most definitely have a god: it's themselves (not even the State: that's merely a vehicle for the world to recognize their greatness) They use "science" as merely a way to confirm their self-worship rather than explain the universe (which is why so many are likewise members of the Global Warming cult) and have simply elevated their mental illness to the status of a religion.

The only trait these two groups share is the fact that neither of them believe in a Judeo-Christian God. While it could be said that the only thing we on the Right have in common is our desire for Lewis's moral busybodies to leave us alone, that much can't even be said of atheists. That, at least, is something of an objective, and we can all commiserate about the antics of the totalitarians on the other side while arguing about what we should do to beat back the leftist tide.

Atheists don't even have that much. The conservative atheist typically has no such goals to force his unbelief down anyone else's throat (being conservative and not suffering from Narcissist and Histrionic Disorders) while the leftist one is the annoying crusader who believes in rubbish like "Fill-in-the-blank Justice", conspiracy theories like "whitecisheteronormativepatriarchy", and Marxism and has the goal of bringing the world to worship -- if not himself -- nothing. (Leftists are spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum: "If *I* can't have it, nobody should!") I don't believe that a lack of belief is enough to bring conservatives and leftists together (Or, in reality, make leftists tolerable to be around).

Posted by: Saber Alter at February 25, 2014 06:33 PM (DNu5Y)

500 A possible explanation for this could be that the CPAC booths are in such high demand, providing one to a trollish asshole group is the equivalent of denying a space to a group who wishes to make a legitimate point. A. You've obviously never rented a booth at a convention to get your organization's or business's message out there in front of the audience the convention is likely to attract. It's not free and neither is it some sort of Willie-Wonka, Golden Ticket bestowed upon the especially deserving. B. Glad to know that you've determined for me what sorts of ideas are legitimate or not, because who the hell would want to dare the kind of moral cesspool a large gathering of conservatives thinking for themselves, exchanging ideas, convincing and being convinced, might devolve into!

Posted by: Deety at February 25, 2014 06:36 PM (D8ONs)

501 Sven, I was using theocracy in the sense that people generally use it. I would say we have been under a growing fascism, which of course usually has a strong central cult like figure. We will not have a theocracy because Obama won't use the Bible as the basis for his form of government, much less acknowledging the divinity of Christ. The church won't rule the government.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2014 07:32 PM (XyM/Y)

502 Why would Atheists target democrats? Why would you wonder why that is?

democrats booed God.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at February 25, 2014 07:41 PM (LsJAk)

503 #501: Sorry, Deety, but I don't want to be hectored by leftists at a conservative convention. A conservative convention should be about conservatives hanging out and having fun and discussing possible directions for the conservative movement, not about leftists "helping" us in shaping that direction.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 25, 2014 08:48 PM (/96QU)

504 Ace, the atheist group would have had cameras, and they would have been trolling the Christian conservatives, and when they got an embarrassing response, they would have posted it to YouTube, and then it would have aired on The Daily Show and MSNBC, and then the low information crowd would think the average CPAC attendee is an idiot. And then the atheist group would be banned. CPAC simply decided to boot the troll before it trolled.

Posted by: Daily Reminder Guy at February 25, 2014 09:00 PM (6j8ke)

505 I understand that you're a female, Deety, and that my points in comment #504 will hurt my chances of having sex with you. Much as that saddens me, I'm willing to accept it as the cost of having principles and living by them.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 25, 2014 09:15 PM (/96QU)

506 I apologize for that last comment, Deety. I'd had a little more to drink than I should've, and it seemed funny to me at the time. I've been trying to cut back on both drinking and mashing on the ladies here, and I screwed up on both counts, there. I'm sorry about that.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at February 26, 2014 03:19 AM (/96QU)

507 Well, what else would you expect from flaming retard Brent Bozell ? He is the WORST kind of "conservative" who absolutely gives the movement a bad name. Associating with Bozell is far more harmful than allowing atheists a booth at CPAC.

Posted by: deadrody at February 26, 2014 03:54 AM (aT8Zk)

508 Why should CPAC be expected to try and impose the principle of tolerance towards groups like American Atheists? How many attendees should they be expected to anger in a failed attempt to make that point? Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 25, 2014 06:34 PM (SY2Kh) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't understand why allowing a harmless atheist booth needs to "anger" the attendees. To me, that is exactly ace's point. And furthermore, to indulge that moron Bozell is just reinforcing that his idiocy is acceptable.

Posted by: deadrody at February 26, 2014 03:58 AM (aT8Zk)

509 Conservatives could "open the tent" to everyone on the planet and STILL be looked at as a group who excludes "minorities". They'll never be looked at any differently. They're only making their lives harder, by trying to convince the left that they're inclusive.

I'm one of the oddities - a pro-life, conservative, liberty-minded, religion-loving atheist.

Posted by: Ed Coyne at February 26, 2014 09:08 AM (T61ii)

510 Spot on. Christians always seem to be the ones who most fear dissent.

Posted by: Regular Right Guy at February 26, 2014 01:31 PM (+E05u)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

391kb generated in CPU 0.0689, elapsed 0.3146 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2595 seconds, 638 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.