Ace of Spades HQ

February 19, 2014

On Maximalist Demands
— Ace

I had an exchange with Emperor of Icecream. Because this idea is central, in my opinion, to the mechanism by which we lose elections we could and should win, I'm popping it out as a main post.

Below, the exchange. Emperor's comments signaled by my ">>>" idiosyncratic quotations. >>>OK, fine, but what's your solution? I'm willing to let you do whatever the hell if it doesn't affect my kids. But I won't accept that my kids welfare and well-being is secondary to you getting your rocks off. Let's be frank. A country made up of Aces is doomed. No kids, no future.

Indeed, s'true.

>>>So why should you getting what you want trump me getting what I want?

Because you will not get what you want. You will continue making outsized demands on the public that they consider completely unreasonable and they will not only tune you out, but outright reject you as "extreme."

By making outsized demands you are poisoning the well for achievable goals.

This is part and parcel of this madness that has taken over the party that "We get more of what we want by having a starting position that is not only maximalist, but, according to public opinion polls, extremist, and outside the overton window."

This theory makes no sense. I have been in negotiations in contracts where the opposite party demanded what I thought were unreasonable things. This did not result in my "giving them more."

What it resulted in was my walking away from the contract entirely.

You know why? because they had telegraphed their desire to make unreasonable demands on me. I saw into the future, and I saw a future in which my counter-party would routinely invoke contractual clauses to control me, despite the fact I was specifically rejecting the specific controls sought.

And yet every day I sit here and read that the way to "win" is to make Big Huge Demands on the public. And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," and every single day I hear people reject this and just insist, again and again, despite all available evidence and personal experience and logic, that we "win" by making the demands we actually seek ten or 20 years down the road, upfront, as our *starting offer,* our opening bid.

>>>If that's your bottom line, all that happens is that you are building up an interest group of parents who are gonna hate libertarianism. As the pornification of the very young becomes more and more apparent, the pressure to do something about it will also grow. So if your bottom line is that in practice sexual libertarianism is opposed to children's welfare, you are making it inevitable that sexual libertarianism will be deeply curtailed.

Yeah well it's not happened yet, has it? Your entire argument is that this gets worse and worse by the day. Ergo, there is no evidence for this Uprising you speak of, and quite a bit of evidence against it.

>>>But most parents are OK with adults doing their thing, so long as the experience of growing up isn't cheapened and sexualized by it. So you should try to appeal to them by trying to find a way to make that work.

That is what I am trying to do. And I am trying to tell you that while most adults will find it quite reasonable to agitate agaisnt the sexualization of children, they will vote against you, with hostility, for extending that reasonable impulse into an unreasonable one -- patrolling their own sexual choices.

Added Thought: One of the ways in which we lose on a perfectly reasonable position is this: The public hears us talking about children, but, as with Hillary Clinton, they strongly suspect that "children" are simply the most attractive faces for this policy, and that what is really meant, and ultimately sought, is laws and controls on adults.

And then they say: No thank you.

And I cannot say that the public's suspicion about this is invalid, given that many people do in fact make the case that it's "all connected," and that adult behavior does in fact influence children's behavior, and that, therefore, adult behavior needs to be restrained "for the children."

You can't sell this argument -- this is only about the children -- because it's not true. And you can't get angry at the public or "LIVs" for realizing it's not true, when in fact it's not true. The LIVs are right. The "children" are but the opening bid, the tip of the icebreaker's blade, for a much more extensive agenda that ultimately reaches adults.

On the other hand: What if the argument actually were true, and people internalized the idea that they ought not push for political/legal restraints on adults, but only on children?

In that case the argument could work -- because, you know, it would have the benefit of being true from the outset, rather than false.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (430)
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Repostting from the soon to be dead thread. 380 I think that what you mean, ace, is that culture matters. Our culture is coarser than it was. Children are exposed to the culture more than ever. For example - kids watch Big Bang Theory which is funny. It is on during what we used to call the Family Hour. But quite a few episodes are mostly about sex. Culture matters, and it is impossible to deny. One sees the story of a twelve year old girl who feels pressured to be sexually available and is mortified. But the price of sex is not merely because of our laws about children - the law is actually pretty protective. The price of sex is going down because of grownups. Definitely a desirable place for single men. But for married men, with daughters - it scares the shit out of us. Because the wages of that price are being taken out on our daughters. I am not a prude or a moral scold, but I am a Christian and a father with 2 girls. So there is the rub when people like you going on a jihad against Cuccinelli. You claim - along with the Left - that he was trying to ban blowjobs. But what he had done was to fight - as the AG - the overturning of the State law that had been used to jail a pedophile. So, feel bad for Winnifred? Think about why.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (4+AaH)

2 Actually some on the Left have always made Big, Huge Demands. That's pretty much the job description of left-wing activists -- push, push, push.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (ZPrif)

3 blaster, pedophilila remains firmly illegal in VA, I assure you. You want to claim that people were being held in jail not for the serious pedophilia charge, but on the relatively trivial "sodomy" charge; this is absurd, as day after day the people who support these laws vow to me they're not even enforced (which is why we shouldn't worry about keeping them on the books). I do not believe you, or Cuccinelli, that this is about keeping a pedophile in jail. I believe it is what it is: Many people here INSIST that we keep sodomy laws on the books, and they insist that because they want a legal chit on the books regarding homosexuality. This is explicitly said, sometimes, as people note that Scalia, in his Lawrence V. Texas dissent, predicted that without such a legal ban on homosexual acts, the doors would be open to gay marriage as a "right." I do not agree with the left that gay marriage is a "right," but let's not jerk each other off about the actual reason the cultural right continues agitating to re-criminalize sodomy.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (/FnUH)

4 What blaster just posted is spot on.

Feel bad about how a kid feels she needs to be sexualized? Blame the fucking grownups pushing this shit. You don't want to do that? Fine, but then you, yourself are part of the fucking problem.

Posted by: GMan at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (sxq57)

5 Ace, this is a *much* better presentation of your core views than your movie-review-length rants. Very well put. Also, it's why we're doomed.

Posted by: LGW at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (+BmfA)

6 The left has succeeded in taking us over by taking over the culture and the narrative. Everything they like is championed. Everything they hate demonized. They do this loudly, boldly and in broad strokes until the rest of us give in.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (olDqf)

7 Who pays to see hardcore porn? Who demands it be available to anyone online at any time? Who objectifies men and women, to the point where humanity is reduced to genitalia?

These are the folks who have brought you to Sodom and Gomorrah, and I'm not just talking about homosexuality becoming mainstream. Once objectification is the norm, personhood dies a horrible death.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:41 AM (3kDQa)

8 so the left and rinos in the gop shoving their big gov't agenda down our throats isn't supposed to upset us....we aren't supposed to fight back or have an opposing opinion....because that would be extreme......good to know....

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl 8 days (1wk 1days) until spring training at February 19, 2014 09:41 AM (u8GsB)

9 I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding here.

How many people are bemoaning culture, and want it changed, but don't want to use the law to ban beejers or anal sex?

And, how many people here have the opinion that ace thinks you have that the law should be used to press people into your cultural preference?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:41 AM (IoTdl)

10 My maximalist positions ... sorry DEMANDS!.. !!!

1) Leave me alone
2) No government subsidies for abortions and contraceptives
3) Constitutional government
4) Free pickup trucks for those who vote the "right" way (winkwinknodnod)!!!

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 09:42 AM (JBggj)

11 I'd say the San Fran gay pride parades were for decades making Big Huge Demands. Pussy Riot in Russia is in the process of making a Big Huge Demand as we speak. That left-wing anti-gun article in Rolling Stone that called for the confiscation of all guns -- that's a pretty Big Huge Demand. That Communism is Awesome article in Rolling Stone that called for the abolition of private property is a Big Huge Demand. The fringe pushes the Overton Window, right? The hard Left makes Big Huge Demands so the Democrats can make incremental leftward moves. Some parts of the activist Right should make Big Huge Demands, while the professional politicians engage in incrementalism. Different groups have different roles to play. Most will be incremental since you have to be a little crazy to embrace a fringe position.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:43 AM (ZPrif)

12 While fiscal leftism is going to be the likely proximal cause of this nation's ruin, the prevalence of social leftism is why we deserve it. Do not expect me to vilate my conscience as the price of maybe buying some time on the fiscal front.

Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: Methos at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (hO9ad)

13 I just want my flying car my Japanese sexbot and this lamp.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (KXm42)

14 'You can destroy freedom as much by abusing it, as you can by taking it away'
- Prince Phillip

Posted by: Comrade J at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (6kkPP)

15 ace - The argument that the Left made (and you jumped on board with) about Cuccinelli and oral sex was because as AG he defended a case for the State, which was his job. There was an online predator who had been convicted on the sodomy charge. The online predator wanted his conviction overturned based on the sodomy law being unconstitutional. It is the duty of the AG to argue that the State was correct, and that its laws are Constitutional (unless you are a Democrat, you can do want you want then.) Now, you can claim that you have some superior psychic knowledge of what Cuccinelli (and myself) actually want, but the practical effect of your position is that it is okay for online predators to take advantage of 16 year olds and get them to come blow them.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (4+AaH)

16 Ok, I responded in the last thread to this comment, but I'll respond here too. 393 I don't know what you're talking about regarding the right being against incrementalism, ace. We're 40 years post Roe and the entirety of the pro-life movement during those past 40 years has been about passing incremental legislation. Waiting periods here, ultrasound law there, making sure the doctor is actually a doctor and not an LVN here...ect. 40 years later and we're having to fight about banning killing perfectly healthy viable babies...IN TEXAS. That's not exactly an all in loony bin position against Women's Freedom tm.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 09:45 AM (CNua6)

17 I just want my flying car my Japanese sexbot and this lamp.

Navigating the parking lot at my gym has convinced me that flying cars are an awful idea. Until the computer flies the thing for you, yer grounded.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:45 AM (IoTdl)

18 I too have been in negotiations many times with another party and decided that, based on their initial demands and general attitude I would be miserable having them in my future. I no longer hesitate to walk away. You know what I've been told? That I have a reputation as being difficult to work with. Not true at all but the aggressive bullies scream the loudest when they don't get their way. I'm painted as extreme. I guess I'd better take those lousy deals so people will hear I'm a nice and reasonable sucker. When people see how I'm getting screwed they'll really flock to my side because who doesn't want that?

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 09:45 AM (Dx7B2)

19 Period 3, coming up!

Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (OOhXw)

20 The Right Wing Media machismo is killing us.

Posted by: Shoot Me at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (qiXMt)

21 Yes. The center of morality is the family. Enshrining morality into law makes it a political issue rather than a family issue. PARENTS must exercise moral suasion over their children because they have psychological sway over them. I don't want the state to have that kind of sway because they will misuse it or somebody hostile to my morality will hijack it.

Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (RD7QR)

22 This theory makes no sense. I have been in negotiations in contracts where the opposite party demanded what I thought were unreasonable things. This did not result in my "giving them more." What it resulted in was my walking away from the contract entirely. Well, there is a millennia old business tradition of seller starting high and buyer starting low and haggling to meet in between. Your point about walking away is key though - the power always belongs to the party that can walk away. I admit this doesn't have much to do with the sexualization of young girls but I just wanted to point it out.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (GSIDW)

23 I demand everything.

Posted by: O'Bumbles at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (zllbf)

24 Actually some on the Left have always made Big, Huge Demands. That's pretty much the job description of left-wing activists -- push, push, push. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 01:37 PM

What's more, they often GET what they're whining for.

Those on our side tend toward the Poppin' Fresh mode: they use the voice of sweet reason, and always, always make sure to throw in plenty of "fairness," and/or a quote from the Federalist Papers or some other gabbling pundit. Whatever, we make sure to fill up the hours with lots of high-minded discussion. If/when that doesn't work, we talk some more.

Guess who wins most often?

Either we adopt the ugly, demanding tactics that have worked since at least the FDR days or we wait for Reality to raise its ugly head and the issue is forced on all of us. Or we lose again; there's always that.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (ff7/5)

25
In the end, the message needs to be coherent. Saying out of one side of your mouth that people should be responsible for their own actions, while saying out of the other that we need laws to enforce societal norms, is incoherent.

A line from an old song says, "Teach your children well..."

It doesn't say, "Let the gov't teach your children..."

And not because it's difficult to rhyme either.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (BZAd3)

26 @21 - problem is that the state will actively work to undermine you.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 09:48 AM (4+AaH)

27 Stop saying "we" then. Many of us are NOT looking to maintain the system for 20 years until the moment of our triumph is ripe. What good will that do Winnfred, for instance? Why would she have any interest as a 32-year-old to overthrow a system you were the first to declare was necessary, tolerable and usual? If the difference between you and Ted Kennedy, on policy, is that you are sad and frustrated that you have to have the same policies as Ted Kennedy for the forseeable future, you're a liberal. Your sadness and reluctance makes you a moderate liberal. But you're on that side. I'm a maximalist on deportation. Throw them out. Hire a million men for a month, give them armbands and a shotgun, haul folks on trucks, give them a same-day hearing in a parking lot, and ship them over the border. Is that extremist? Sure. Do most people support it? Nope. Do I care? Nope. Know why? Cause I can lose every year for 10 years, but if my side wins in 2024, then that one year will make up for the other 10. I will SOLVE that problem.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 09:48 AM (5xmd7)

28 I guess it's fair game to project all sorts of malicious concepts on seemingly blank libertarian blackboards. This is the problem by allowing full-throttle open-society libertarians to drive all policy debate.

2014 (neo) Libertarianism is the nuclear option, it's the bulwark shielding us against federal tyranny. I'd rather not be Libertarian but the GoP simply can't -or won't- react to Democratic Party authoritarianism.

Posted by: 13times at February 19, 2014 09:48 AM (fGPLK)

29 Ace, you keep insisting you know the "real reasons" behind people's beliefs. Even when they deny that. Even when they say, no, Reason X is actually my reason, not the secret Reason Y that you keep saying is my "real reason". That's a good way to demonize people, but not a good way to convince them since there's literally nothing they can say to convince you.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:48 AM (ZPrif)

30 I'm done with the Rovians.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:48 AM (6bMeY)

31 Oh...

And keep your damned kids off my lawn!

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (BZAd3)

Ace, I'd like you to explain to me how homosexual rights are not the hill to fight on. If the homosexual movement was not 100% about undermining religion, there would be no question that civil unions would be acceptable as a compromise. I can guarantee you that in a very short time, pressure will be exerted to try and force churches to endorse it, followed by the polygamist rights push.

You can say 'stay out of my bedroom', but how about the rights of the people who don't want the government forcing immoral viewpoints on them? The people who are under attack aren't the 'persecuted minority' of homosexuals - it is the Christians, and those who agree with their morality.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (AskuI)

33 Again, it comes down to what your goal is: to win elections, or to do what is right.
If you shape your campaign and policies based on what you'll be portrayed like in the media, thus affecting your chances on winning, you will always, increasingly, kneel to the left's demands and never lead.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (zfY+H)

34 I equate the differences to unions. The unions say, "we just want demands for our employees. We just are demanding what they deserve and since you are the employer and make money, we are just demanding you share." I am sure that in the beginning the employers said "why should I pay for your insurance as I already pay you a wage" . As much as anything unions have been made part of our culture. I tend to agree with Blaster. My right to object to what is being forced upon us is as credible as your right to force it.

Posted by: Chilling the most at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (gxtMZ)

35 5 -1 USA!

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (bCEmE)

36 How many people are bemoaning culture, and want it changed, but don't want to use the law to ban beejers or anal sex? Beejers or Anal? I don't see this as a binary issue. US Scores #5!!!

Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (OOhXw)

37 repeated as well And yet every day I sit here and read that the way to "win" is to make Big Huge Demands on the public. And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," and every single day I hear people reject this and just insist, again and again, despite all available evidence and personal experience and logic, that we "win" by making the demands we actually seek ten or 20 years down the road, upfront, as our *starting offer,* our opening bid. Part of the reason for this is that many Americans did not want to see America "changed" the way the left did/does. There were no incremental changes to be made over decades as the left, in parallel time did. Now, we are in this pickle, because we weren't paying attention. The incrementalism of the left has made an impact, and some, out of fear, believe they have to do something big, now. The thought of baby steps, once we were hit slap in the face with a 2x4 (because, again, we weren't paying attention and living our lives), is frightening because it would take so long to reverse the damage made. Patience is needed. And, a long term plan. The Aiken thing, I cannot explain. The guy is so f**ked up imo. For anyone to support him is crazy. (and, woot, 5-1. Canada/Latvis is still at 1-1)

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (IXrOn)

38 And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," and every single day I hear people reject this

We/I don't reject it.

We just observe that the GOP never, ever turns the ratchet the other way.

Never.

The GOP owned all three branches 2001-2003 and again in 2004-2006.

Any ratcheting? Nope. Quite the opposite. They went whole hog enlarging and buttressing the Federal government.

The current GOP has yet to demonstrate anything but an interest in self-serving maintenance as a minority party.

I'm at a total loss as to how the base is supposed to change that without being aggressive towards the 'leadership.'

Do you believe that if the GOP wins back the 3 branches again through a concerted campaign of Dem-Lite that they will suddenly become interested in turning the ratchet back?

If you do, there's not much to discuss.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (xrX4n)

39 Ace, Let's engage on the paradox that many of us alluded to in the previous thread: 1. The kind of "adult choices" that you prefer are readily accepted by a sizable majority. 2. Our culture oversexualizes everything. 3. Leftists and feminists want women to have equal choices from that adult menu. 4. BUT, they want those choices to have no consequences since society and the state should protect them from negative consequences. All these things cannot exist together without an eventual rupture. We're unable to come terms on the incrementalism/radical divide becasue we are not making the necessary disctinction between tactics and strategy. What do we want the world to look like? That is a strategic state. How do we get there? Tactically. Like some others, I would say that we have been engaged tactically, but you and some others don't see it because you haven't come to terms with the really severe cultural whiplash from numbers one to four above.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (659DL)

40 The fact is most of the movement on the right is simply people yelling "STOP!!!!" while the left shoves harder and harder. And for doing so, we're called all manner of incredibly hateful and despicable things.
And the reaction of too many on the right? "Shhh you're only making them angry."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (zfY+H)

41 I was getting ready to comment not to pull ace's chain because we won't get any content. I was wrong.

Posted by: Golfman in NC at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (G7zbY)

42 Anybody heard from the preference cascade lately?

Posted by: tsj017 at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (4YUWF)

43 Just the tip. I promise.

Posted by: Incrementalism, Defined at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (2oU2+)

44 Think about this. A girl cannot go get a tattoo of a butterfly on her ankle if she is under 18 without parental permission. But she can go get an abortion at 15 without any parental notification at all. We should be using moral suasion on our children, yes. But the state is actively impeding that.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (4+AaH)

45 Turning to the government to legislate morality is a move of desperation, anyway. When the majority of the country has lost all concern with morality, it's too late, and not even the law can (or even should) fix that.

Protect your own as well as you can, and prepare for the burning times.

Posted by: red sweater at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (oATMN)

46 " There were no incremental changes to be made over decades as the left, in parallel time did. Now, we are in this pickle, because we weren't paying attention. "
People were paying attention, but the ones who complained were shouted down as causing problems for everybody and 'you can't get elected that way.'

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (zfY+H)

47 19 Period 3, coming up! Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2014 01:46 PM (OOhXw) ******* And it is --AWESOME!!!

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (RJMhd)

48 I think one of the problems is that social conservatives, (of which I am one) have failed to articulate the connection between personal liberty and the social restraints--both legal and cultural--which existed 70 years ago. Our culture and the law supported the institutions of traditional marriage and the family. Divorce was difficult to obtain. Sexual behaviors outside of marriage were shamed and, in many cases, illegal even if not prosecuted. These things made marriage and the family the foundation of our society because they were supported. As a result, the family superseded the State in caring for one's personal needs. The entire Progressive agenda is based upon the destruction of those two things: Marriage and Family. That agenda has many fronts, from no-fault divorce to paternity suits, the sexualization of culture, Social Security, AFDC--all of it. And it's no coincidence that as marriage and family have been eroded, the Nanny State has increased in power. It's all about incentives and the State has a vested interest in policies which create disincentives for stable marriages and families. I shall now hide behind the couch to await the slings and arrows.

Posted by: RS at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (YAGV/)

49 But really, I'm an optimist.

Posted by: red sweater at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (oATMN)

50 11

< Pussy Riot in Russia is in the process of making a Big Huge Demand as we speak.

Pussy Riot(rus) is mainstream EU morality. That ain't pushing the limit, it's reaffirming continental status quo.

Posted by: 13times at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (fGPLK)

51 Ace, I'll say briefly what I said in the last thread you can go over to #416 and read the whole thing. Why is it that because this country cannot simply understand the difference between "this is how I think good people should live" and "We should pass a law to ensure people live my way" that I have to shut up. Cannot I not simultaneously argue for a think morality to power a thus limited government (e.g. a modus vivendi) while insisting that communities (again in a MacIntyrian sense) be allowed to promulgate thick moralities? Apparently, according to the current conception of the world the answer is "no." If I argue that something is morally unacceptable, I apparently HAVE to argue for a law against such thing as well.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (GaqMa)

52 First, you will blow me.

Posted by: Maximalist Mel at February 19, 2014 09:52 AM (OOhXw)

53 42 Anybody heard from the preference cascade lately?

Posted by: tsj017 at February 19, 2014 01:50 PM (4YUWF)

A day late and a dollar short.

Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 09:52 AM (RD7QR)

54 >>> Your point about walking away is key though - the power always belongs to the party that can walk away. it's key because the public CAN walk away. They are listening to each side make their opening bids. It is not true we "gain more" by making our opening bids as maximalist as possible. What usually happens is that the swing voters tune out whatever party seems more ideological as "too ideological, too extreme." Your average swing voter *prides* himself on not being particularly ideological. You signal yourself as intensely ideological at your peril. Persuasion comes down to affiliation -- is this guy like me? Oh, he is like me? Okay, then probably what he says is true. A determination to appear as *unlike* a swing voter as possible starts you in a huge hole as far as emotional connection.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:52 AM (/FnUH)

55 Ok, here I go. Remember the Hitler youth. It took a while but it worked

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 19, 2014 09:52 AM (nTgAI)

56 and every single day I hear people reject this and just insist, again and again, despite all available evidence and personal experience and logic, that we "win" by making the demands we actually seek ten or 20 years down the road, upfront, as our *starting offer,* our opening bid. Hail Mary pass. For decades and decades and decades the response to the opposition of incrementalist approaches by the Left has been "Well, it's not that big of a deal and c'mon, what's wrong with you, everyone knows that the horrible thing that you say is going to happen will never happen because it's obviously horrible. Of course no one would ever go that far!" And then, and then, and then. Thus, the urge is to push back and push back hard and attempt to go for everything at once since attempting to hold the line at all has failed. Why not set out the maximalist position? Why not? After all, any incremental push back is deemed as ceding territory already won and attempting to haul society back into the Stone Age. So if incrementalism hasn't worked and attempting to be reasonable hasn't worked, you might as well go full bore for what you want. It is a very understandable psychological reaction. Then there's the time frame view. Let's say I'm a parent with two little girls. Let's say those girls are early grade school, like 7 and 5. I don't have 15 or 20 years to push back against the culture. I've barely got 5. There's no time. There's just not. I have to shove back as hard as I can now, right the hell NOW, in attempt to keep the barbarians at bay. Sure, intellectually I may comprehend the need to step slowly. Emotionally? The wolves are at the door right now about to haul my children away. Oh hell to the no. So what's the solution? Hell if I know. Hell if I know.* *spoiler alert - it's SMOD. I've never ever been joking that is consummation which I most devoutly wish.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 09:53 AM (VtjlW)

57 Canada/Latvis is still at 1-1) Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 01:50 PM (IXrOn) ****** Holy shit, vraiment? Thanks!

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:53 AM (RJMhd)

58 "53 42
Anybody heard from the preference cascade lately?

Posted by: tsj017 at February 19, 2014 01:50 PM (4YUWF)

A day late and a dollar short."

1) Story of my life.
2) It was a rhetorical question.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 19, 2014 09:53 AM (4YUWF)

59 5-1 USA Guess we can put this one to bed. On to the next round!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (7ObY1)

60 That is what I am trying to do. And I am trying to tell you that while most adults will find it quite reasonable to agitate agaisnt the sexualization of children, they will vote against you, with hostility, for extending that reasonable impulse into an unreasonable one -- patrolling their own sexual choices. yep it's amazing it's such a simple thing to fix, really the left stays on point, and stay clear of particular topics how hard is that?

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (IXrOn)

61 This is part and parcel of this madness that has taken over the party that "We get more of what we want by having a starting position that is not only maximalist, but, according to public opinion polls, extremist, and outside the overton window." THIS. The Chorus of Perpetual Outrage might play well on the Internet, but in the real world- not so much. Conservativism may be well in line with Constitutional principles and traditions, but in the court of public opinion- which matters greatly- it's also an extremist position. We are extremists already. The answer is to help shape opinion in our direction- and that doesn't happen by becoming even more extreme. The message of fiscal sanity is going to resonate a hell of a lot better when our default position is not to scream "SHUT IT ALL DOWN".&

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (SY2Kh)

OK, I realize that we all are covering so much (sometimes different) ground here that, in general, there will be chaos.

But ace - which elections have "we" lost because (if it's even true) some "extreme" personal sexual lifestyle regulation was being pushed by someone?

Huh? Presidential? Senate? House? State level? Is there a single item in your data set? Maybe, but I'm not aware of any. (and I exclude IN and MO and the idiotic votes of their electorates to endorse national degradation and decline and corruption because the GOP candidates said something weird - when asked, not unprompted - when they were running against unpopular, even loathed, incumbent Dems).

But it is beginning to appear that I indeed inhabit a different universe. Not long ago JackStraw, a smart and redoubtable regular here, off-handedly commented something about the GOP losing elections ("getting killed") by the failure to promote at least some kind of head-fake towards amnesty (paraphrasing here). Again - huh?

Cannot think of a single important election where any kind of social/cultural "extreme" demands were actually advanced by the GOP candidate.

And as for losing on these non-issue "issues" - let's not forget that redifining marriage lost almost everywhere when put to vote of voters. And amnesty is below 5% on the priority lists of the electorate when polled.

I fear that many here are grasping at straws to avoid confronting the devastating reality that, in fact, the country is pretty much gone, a working majority does in fact either support or tolerate Third World governance and atmospherics, non-stop histrionic race-baiting, lawlessness, envy and illiteracy and rent-seeking as the building blocks of an economy, international fecklessness, and general decline.

Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (afQnV)

63 Some A-Hole just left the Yellow Pages on my doorstep. Why not install some Telegraph Cable while you're at it?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (6bMeY)

64 Ace, I understand the point you're making, but it only follows if the opposition is willing to walk away from the table.

Look at the compromise in Washington that we complain about regularly: Leftists come with a ridiculous proposal, we meet them halfway. I get why they can get away with it, the ability to control public messaging, but to imply that this strategy is a complete dead end seems incorrect.

That said, I agree with you in the sense that the standard strategy of the Left will not produce the same results if we adopt it. But I think the counterpoint is true too: When we have ridiculous demands placed upon us, we have to be willing to walk away too.

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (Bx1Dc)

65 52 First, you will blow me. -------- But just the tip.

Posted by: Incrementalist Mel at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (Aif/5)

66 Ace your timing is ewokily eerie (yes, ewokily is a word, because I said so). *story time* My last hour started with me firing up the T9 clown car of doom (CCOD) and heading off to the local stop-n-rob because I was out of Skoal. Anyone who's served in the military knows that being out of Skoal is DEFCON-1. On my way home, slushie in hand with a wee bit of brain freeze, I see a car on the side of the road. Two women. Kid in the car. Flat tire. Like any self-respecting Moron, I stop and we begin changing said offending rubbery circular failure. You have no idea how thankful mom + mother in law were that I stopped. I thought to myself "self." "WHAT?" "No one would have stopped." "Shut up and quit patting yourself on the back and just change the bleeding tire." The take away is this: This is how you win elections. Not by being a dick and driving by, but by stopping and giving a shit about other people.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (x3YFz)

67 the message will ALWAYS be described as extreme no matter what it is the media will make it so

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 09:54 AM (zOTsN)

68 But I agree with Red Sweater: either way, we're doomed. This nation is over, there's no going back. We cannot fix it, because culturally, philosophically, educationally, and politically we're too far gone. It would take an astonishing act of God that would revolutionize the entire culture and mindset of Americans to turn this thing around.
We're not speeding toward the cliff, we're Wiley E Coyote already over the edge, looking down, and pulling a sign out from behind him.
There's only one way through this and its straight ahead through the wreckage. Nobody we elect is going to fix this, not even a lot of nobodies.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (zfY+H)

69 Atheists don't want 'morality' legislated but they want the benefits that arise out of them being legislated.

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (3aj5/)

70 Thanks for the reminder artisanal.

Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (OOhXw)

71 Guess we can put this one to bed.[[/i]

Oh no you di int.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (KXm42)

72 Peer pressure isn't enough, you need something to back it up. Look at Ukraine.

Peer pressure to enable young people to engage in sexual activity is backed up by Hollywood and Television while parents seem oblivious to what their children are learning. (Some parents, some kids. It was a constant thing when I was 8 when I said, "They are doing it, why can't I". You know the answer if you grew up in the fifties.)

So we need laws on the books for that incremental bit of deterrence. It's why the left wants those laws repealed, look at pot. Parents have the added leverage to say to their kids, 'you are not going to do that. It is bad for you, dangerous, and illegal'.

So the left rejoins with 'kids will do it anyway'.
Yes, some kids will, and they risk ruining their lives, not because it is illegal or immoral behavior, but because they are failing to learn or were never taught the need for self control over self indulgence.

That's where were are now as a culture, glorifying self indulgence over otherwise normal adult behavior. Redefining self indulgence, self gratification and immoral behavior as 'normal', and redefining moral behavior as extreme.

Posted by: Joe Henry II at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (Ueq3O)

73 The U.S. should save a little something for the fourth quarter.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (6bMeY)

74 Have the Broncos scored yet?

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:56 AM (KXm42)

75 One of the ways in which we lose on a perfectly reasonable position is this: the left can find a needle in a haystack and vomit it all over the MSM we have to be even more vigilant in consistency, yeah, it sucks, but, we have to that, and not choosing psycho's as candidates

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:56 AM (IXrOn)

76 As to Cucc, I think Ace's position is delusional. It's just not what happened. It's a smear by the Left. I know nothing I say will convince Ace of this, though. I think Cucc used an obscure law to try to burnish his image as a tough-on-crime bad-ass who will throw the book at child molesters. He thought it was a cheap political win cause, hey, everybody hates child molesters. He thought it was an easy issue that would win support from both Repubs and Dems, the tough AG protecting Virginia's children! To Cucc's surprise and detriment, the Left used it as a way to smear Cucc as an icky socon who secretly wants to jail people for buttsex. Cucc denied it a billion times, but the Left said, oh, we know his "real reasons". It's a delusional fantasy but it sold well. Good political demonization by the Left.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:56 AM (ZPrif)

77 Thomas Sowell made a very similar point today in an article on NRO about Ted Cruz and the fact he is willing to take the maximalist demands and destroy the party until it relents.

That's never worked anywhere. In fact it is demonstrably disastrous.

Sowell used the example of Nazi Germany. I took it further and noted Philip V and Theodoisus I. But there are plenty of others.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 09:56 AM (GGCsk)

78 "67 the message will ALWAYS be described as extreme no matter what it is

the media will make it so"

BINGO

Remember, John McCain and Mitt Romney were crazy right-wing extremists.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 19, 2014 09:56 AM (4YUWF)

But I agree with Red Sweater: either way, we're doomed. This nation is over, there's no going back. We cannot fix it, because culturally, philosophically, educationally, and politically we're too far gone. It would take an astonishing act of God that would revolutionize the entire culture and mindset of Americans to turn this thing around.

Frankly, all it would take is the credit card running out. Once the welfare state collapses, people will take a much more realistic view of interpersonal relationships.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 09:57 AM (AskuI)

80 It must always be noted that with the MFM in enemy hands, all conservative demands are extreeeeme demands, and all progressive demands are of course reasonable and mainstream. LiFB.

Posted by: toby928© at February 19, 2014 09:57 AM (QupBk)

81 The take away is this: This is how you win elections. Not by being a dick and driving by, but by stopping and giving a shit about other people.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 01:54 PM (x3YFz)

Good Man

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 19, 2014 09:57 AM (nTgAI)

82 >>>But ace - which elections have "we" lost because (if it's even true) some "extreme" personal sexual lifestyle regulation was being pushed by someone? Todd Aiken pushed no-abortions-even-in-cases-of-actual rape. Christine O'Donnell had long been on record as having a real problem with masturbation and her public record was something of a crusade against it. I don't mean to be a dick about this, but I'm going to be a dick about this: I told you this would not fly in Delaware. In fact, I doubt it would fly in Texas. I do not think she could win a primary in Texas; Texans would look at her anti-masturbation crusade as flighty, strange, idiosyncratic, trivial, and controlling. You may agree with these people (I don't know if you do or you don't). I cannot fault you for your beliefs. But where I can fault you is for being willfully blind to what public opinion actually is.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:58 AM (/FnUH)

83 Good political demonization by the Left. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 01:56 PM (ZPrif) ---- Heh.... you shoulda seen the Hucakabee thread. **shudder**

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 09:58 AM (nELVU)

84 Hollowpoint, I defy you to find one instance where anyone suggested seriously, not snarkily to shut it all down. The shut down was not a shut down. The sequester cuts were not cuts. The non-sequester cuts are not cuts. You are engaging in exactly the same kind of rhetorical disingenuousness that the left uses. The other side is the extreme argument: "Hey, we can keep spending like this forever."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (659DL)

85 About Battleground Texas illegally saving personal data during their 'voter registration' drives: A calm, measured and moderate response is what is called for.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (x/17G)

86 Frankly, all it would take is the credit card running out. Once the welfare state collapses, people will take a much more realistic view of interpersonal relationships.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 01:57 PM (AskuI)

yep..but it will still be someone else's fault

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (nTgAI)

87 76 As to Cucc, I think Ace's position is delusional. It's just not what happened. It's a smear by the Left. I know nothing I say will convince Ace of this, though. I think Cucc used an obscure law to try to burnish his image as a tough-on-crime bad-ass who will throw the book at child molesters. He thought it was a cheap political win cause, hey, everybody hates child molesters. He thought it was an easy issue that would win support from both Repubs and Dems, the tough AG protecting Virginia's children! To Cucc's surprise and detriment, the Left used it as a way to smear Cucc as an icky socon who secretly wants to jail people for buttsex. Cucc denied it a billion times, but the Left said, oh, we know his "real reasons". It's a delusional fantasy but it sold well. Good political demonization by the Left. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 01:56 PM (ZPrif) ********* I have to admit--I did not follow it closely but this was my impression also. I don't live in Virginia--and I might not know or remember all of the details.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (RJMhd)

88 "the left stays on point, and stay clear of particular topics how hard is that?" Because they are never, ever pressed on anything, Wendy Davis filibusters a bill protecting healthy, viable babies from abortion, and the media chooses to talk about her fucking shoes. No dem politician is ever asked about their support for partial birth abortion or their support for giving 12 year olds the morning after pill without parental knowledge. They are able to "stay on topic" because the media covers for them. And, let's just be frank here, it's not just about social issues. The mushy middle isn't exactly buying what we're selling regarding fiscal responsibility either, largely because the media frames that issue as well. Democrats are "reasonable". Republicans are "extreme." Always.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (CNua6)

89 "As to Cucc, I think Ace's position is delusional. It's just not what happened. It's a smear by the Left. I know nothing I say will convince Ace of this, though. "
Same thing happened with Akin. The right is all to ready to jump on the side of the left to show good faith and that they're not like those crazies, without stopping to even find out.
"Frankly, all it would take is the credit card running out."
If you don't think that would result in an incredible disastrous collapse, I don't know how to explain things to you.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (zfY+H)

90 The Left doesn't "stay on point". The Left says crazy shit all the time. Every day. 24/7. The media just doesn't amplify that when it could hurt the Left. Which party do you think gets most of the NAMBLA vote? I've known eco-activists (that voted for Obama twice) that openly talk about reducing the human population on Earth to only 1 Billion. As in, they want 6B people to die or vanish somehow. They make Hitler look like a boy scout. And they have tenure and are rich and successful. The Left does not in any way, shape or form "stay on point".

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:00 AM (ZPrif)

91 >Cannot I not simultaneously argue for a think morality to power a thus limited government (e.g. a modus vivendi) while insisting that communities (again in a MacIntyrian sense) be allowed to promulgate thick moralities? Apparently, according to the current conception of the world the answer is "no." If I argue that something is morally unacceptable, I apparently HAVE to argue for a law against such thing as well< No. Because it is coupled with pampered bourgeoise, Marshall-Fields foofarah. Somebody has to sell it you, for a decent price, with guaranteed quality, from an appropriate number of locations. Or, theocracy!!

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:00 AM (5xmd7)

92 The right has the same problem that the left has; when a pol or a pundit on our side says "for the good of the country," or "for the hard working people...", or "the hard working middle class," or any other empty political pap, we believe them. We believe them since they claim to ascribe to an ideology that we believe in.

If whenever a pundit or pol from either side spouts bullshit cliches like that we would substitute what they are saying for something like, "because it's good for me, my friends and it keeps me wallowing in tax paid largess," we'd be a lot better off.

And a lot less pissed off, I might add.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 10:00 AM (BZAd3)

93 2 Actually some on the Left have always made Big, Huge Demands. That's pretty much the job description of left-wing activists -- push, push, push. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 01:37 PM (ZPrif) But thanks to the media (it's always about the media, ultimately) those "activists" are divorced from the party or even progressivism. They're just kooks, even if they are in Congress and in leadership positions. The Left uses their vanguard quite well for this purpose. Sandra Fluke: Despite the fact that "free birth control" is horrible public policy (the pill doesn't protect against STDs), it's quite clearly a maximalist position.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (T0NGe)

94 "the left stays on point, and stay clear of particular topics how hard is that?"
Like Laura said, they aren't pressed on things, but its a falsehood to say they stay clear of topics. They're just not held to account for them.
They say crazy and radical stuff all the time, they push for insanely over the top lunacy on a regular basis. They just aren't framed as radical lunatics for it in the popular media.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (zfY+H)

If you don't think that would result in an incredible disastrous collapse, I don't know how to explain things to you.

I'm sure it would. And in the long run, it would be a wonderful thing.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (AskuI)

96 >>The public hears us talking about children, but, as with Hillary Clinton, they strongly suspect that "children" are simply the most attractive faces for this policy, and that what is really meant, and ultimately sought, is laws and controls on adults.<<

Nonsense. Some will perhaps make that argument. But liberals have done the converse.

That is, they've taken the view that it is OK for children to engage in what was previously "adult " behavior.

Children are not a protected class anymore according to most liberals (and argumentatively to some libertarians). They deem that inability of "children" to particpate in these behaviors as some type of restriction to individual liberty.

Which, is where I part with these people.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (GGCsk)

97 Can I call a penalty flag on the use of Todd Aiken and Christine O'Donnell? They are the Republican complements to Anthony Weiner and Wendy Davis.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (659DL)

98 Ken Cuccinelli engaged in a quixotic crusade to re-criminalize sodomy, too. I keep being told these things aren't unpopular, and that the public is hungry for this kind of morally-straight leadership, and then I keep seeing losses in elections we should have easily won.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (/FnUH)

99 "Frankly, all it would take is the credit card running out." If you don't think that would result in an incredible disastrous collapse, I don't know how to explain things to you. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 01:59 PM (zfY+H) I keep giving you guys the stock tip: VXX. There's worthless money to be made there.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (x3YFz)

100 The Horde needs to stop being interesting now so I can just get some work done. Okay? Can we agree on that?

Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 10:01 AM (RD7QR)

101 It must always be noted that with the MFM in enemy hands, all conservative demands are extreeeeme demands, and all progressive demands are of course reasonable and mainstream. And we make it easy by providing them unlimited ammo.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (SY2Kh)

102 What usually happens is that the swing voters tune out whatever party seems more ideological as "too ideological, too extreme." -- On the contrary, I think people are attracted to stories, to emotions, to passionate intensity. For some reason, the GOP has had that beaten out of them. They won't do stories, they don't speak with passion, they shy away from leaders with charisma.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (GSIDW)

103 the cultural right continues agitating to re-criminalize sodomy So this is the wrong way to go about fighting back against the Left's "gay marriage" normalization push via lawfare on offense. You are saying that Cuccinelli did what was necessary to get elected and then went incrementally to the right via his blowjob ban or whatever. It wasn't legislation that YOU liked (or if true, something that I agree with) but it was arguably a rightward shift. But yet you are agitating for EXACTLY that behavior in order to get Conservative Wins! So what is the solution? I am really confused.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (5ikDv)

104 Obamacare was a pretty huge demand and it's the law of the land and Republicans talk as much about fixing it as repealing it.
As to social conservatives, it appears some people want them expunged from the party or to shut up, but as this has happened and as they are continually attacked we have lost the presidency twice and a filibuster proof Senate, thank God for the House. These people are an important part of our coalition and it disturbs me when they're treated like shit within their own party.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (P1WNR)

105 Oh, wait, This is a morality debate?

Shit. I'll sit this one out.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (xrX4n)

106 Another thing the Left benefits from is that while people recognize that the Democratic Party is full of cranks and idiots, and that the left is radical and frothing... they think the Republicans are worse.
The left has been so successful at framing the narrative that no matter how crazy they get or how crappy a campaign they run, people figure "well its them or the monster demon woman hating warmongering super-religious idiots in the GOP."
Plus: its who counts the votes that matter, not the votes themselves.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (zfY+H)

107 100 The Horde needs to stop being interesting now so I can just get some work done. Okay? Can we agree on that? Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 02:01 PM (RD7QR) If we all took of our pants, would that help?

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:03 AM (x3YFz)

108 America (and civilization) will not be saved by any politician or any election. America will only be saved by a change of heart. Now, WHO is in the business of changing hearts? Hmm.

Posted by: Erowmero at February 19, 2014 10:03 AM (OONaw)

109 We should be using moral suasion on our children, yes. But the state is actively impeding that.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 01:51 PM (4+AaH)

This, x1,000,000. As a Catholic parent, I teach my son to respect girls, and to know that he may NEVER force a girl to do anything. He must also respect life, and not do anything to impede the creation inherent in a true relationship. Meanwhile, culture and the kids at the public school tell him how to put a condom on a cucumber, where to get an abortion and how to get the state to pay for it, and that women are just the sum of their lady bits, on display in movies and on the internet.

I can do a lot, but in the long run, society is nothing but harmful to my son. He lives steeped in poison. I can only do so much.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:03 AM (3kDQa)

110 The left knows their clientele and wants to keep them dependent. What better way than to do anything that works against the nuclear family, which IMHO is a cruical building block of a civil, self supporting society.

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 19, 2014 10:03 AM (nTgAI)

111 Ken Cuccinelli engaged in a quixotic crusade to re-criminalize sodomy ---- No, ace! That happened in your head! Or the Supreme Court. One of the two...

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (dgZpy)

112 How many people are bemoaning culture, and want it changed, but don't want to use the law to ban beejers or anal sex? And, how many people here have the opinion that ace thinks you have that the law should be used to press people into your cultural preference? *hand raised*

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (5ikDv)

113 Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 01:54 PM (x3YFz) Great job Tangonine!! You made those ladies day, and they will be telling people about it for weeks. Very nice!

Posted by: Chilling the most at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (gxtMZ)

114 Oh, wait, This is a morality debate?

Shit. I'll sit this one out.

Yeah....I tossed in some one liners but I'll see you in the nexty.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (KXm42)

115 Farakhan campaigned hard for Obama. Did he stay on point? Openly racist, black nationalist crazy man. Ranting about religious mysticism and UFOs and how evil a whole race is (ie white people). You can get none more crazy than Farakhan. Not to mention Jeremiah Wright. The idea that the Left is careful and controlled with their language is simply false. The media filters out most of the craziness from the Left. Or "contextualizes" it. The media amplifies and highlights any craziness from the Right.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (ZPrif)

116 98 Ken Cuccinelli engaged in a quixotic crusade to re-criminalize sodomy, too. I keep being told these things aren't unpopular, and that the public is hungry for this kind of morally-straight leadership, and then I keep seeing losses in elections we should have easily won. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 02:01 PM (/FnUH) *********** Ya--I can't figure him the hell out. Now he is participating in a Libertarian case with Rand Paul--unless that was dropped. Plus--how do feel about Rand Pauls' pursuit of the Monica Lewinsky topic lately?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (RJMhd)

117 The take away is this: This is how you win elections. Not by being a dick and driving by, but by stopping and giving a shit about other people. Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 01:54 PM (x3YFz) only works if you stuck a nobama or don'ttreadonme bumper sticker, slyly, on the car while they weren't looking

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (IXrOn)

118 Are the Canadians gone?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (6bMeY)

119 If we all took of our pants, would that help?

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 02:03 PM (x3YFz)

If ever there was a time to keep it in your pants, this is it.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (3kDQa)

120 I've known eco-activists (that voted for Obama twice) that openly talk about reducing the human population on Earth to only 1 Billion. As in, they want 6B people to die or vanish somehow. They make Hitler look like a boy scout. And they have tenure and are rich and successful. Tell them, "Pistols at dawn. Let's see if you'll put your money where your mouth is. If you fail to show, I'll start hunting you."

Posted by: rickb223 at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (p9JxP)

121 "This theory makes no sense. I have been in negotiations in contracts where the opposite party demanded what I thought were unreasonable things. This did not result in my "giving them more." "

______________________

It's like buying a car or house. If a seller makes an offer 40% below asking price, the buyer will say fuck you and not even bother giving a counter offer. It's not going to make the seller think...hmmm...he's offering 40% below asking, I guess I should give in and sell for 35%.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (0LHZx)

122 >>>Obamacare was a pretty huge demand and it's the law of the land and Republicans talk as much about fixing it as repealing it. yeah and what happened in 2010? Good Lord. let's just double down on failure

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 10:05 AM (/FnUH)

123 Can I call a penalty flag on the use of Todd Aiken and Christine O'Donnell? They are the Republican complements to Anthony Weiner and Wendy Davis. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 19, 2014 02:01 PM (659DL) No.... because Weiner and Davis are "outliers" Aiken and ODonnell are a typical representation of those socon teapartiers...... .... or something.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 10:05 AM (nELVU)

124

What were the "maximalist" demands involving "policing others' sexual preferences" that had Romney losing Reagan Democrats in the midwest? How do incumbent Dems presiding over economic situations worse than the Depression in CA districts all get re-elected (easily)? How did Harry Reid get re-elected (easily) when his numbers were, in a fairly recent universe, below those ever seen for an incumbent being re-elected?

Hint: "maximalist demands" of any sort, much less social/sexual, had nothing to do with these outcomes.

I get that urban types are immersed in a marinade that makes anything less than sputtering hostility towards any social mores insufficient for acceptance in polite company. But where are there any "maximalist demands" being made? Shit, the GOP's national appeal in 2012 was a mashed potato sandwich (sticking strictly to the admittedly awful economic situation - though managing to avoid mentioning energy prices, inflation in general, etc.).

What actual, real-life situations are we talking about? Not speculative generalization and "should", but actual electoral outcomes? I'm baffled.

Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 10:05 AM (afQnV)

125 Choosing right from wrong isn't hard. ...Unless your right from wrong filter is broken (liberals).

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:05 AM (x3YFz)

126 107 100 The Horde needs to stop being interesting now so I can just get some work done. Okay? Can we agree on that?

Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 02:01 PM (RD7QR)

If we all took of our pants, would that help?

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 02:03 PM (x3YFz)

Sounds like a minimalist position to me.

Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (RD7QR)

127 118 Are the Canadians gone?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 02:04 PM (6bMeY)

They're allowing Canadians? Why didn't you say something!

Damn.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (BZAd3)

128 The lesson is that the leftist control of the media has to be destroyed -- not that every right-winger in America has to use careful, poll-tested language 24/7.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (ZPrif)

129 "the cultural right continues agitating to re-criminalize sodomy."
I'm not... where are you seeing this? Anywhere. I'm serious, and don't bring up Virginia, because even if that was the purpose of the law, ONE DUDE IN A STATE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT A MOVEMENT MAKE.
One of my least favorite tendencies on the internet is the logical fallacy of "this crazy extremist equates an entire movement."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (zfY+H)

130 The country is too big and too legalistic now. In my youth, a lot of bad behavior was just settled with an extralegal ass beating. The polity enforced it's own norms.

Posted by: toby928© at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (QupBk)

131 104 Obamacare was a pretty huge demand and it's the law of the land and Republicans talk as much about fixing it as repealing it. As to social conservatives, it appears some people want them expunged from the party or to shut up, but as this has happened and as they are continually attacked we have lost the presidency twice and a filibuster proof Senate, thank God for the House. These people are an important part of our coalition and it disturbs me when they're treated like shit within their own party. Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:02 PM (P1WNR) ********** I agree. I'm not a so-con, but I get the feeling I am next--or I already was jettisoned. National security freak--so whatever.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (RJMhd)

132 5-2, stupid Czechs.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (fwARV)

133 @109:

Homeschool?

Posted by: Jabari at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (gyNYk)

134 The Horde needs to stop being interesting now so I can just get some work done. Okay? Can we agree on that? Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 02:01 PM (RD7QR) RINO!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (VtjlW)

135 They're allowing Canadians? Why didn't you say something! Damn. As long as the Italics stay the hell out of it, I can deal with Les Canadiens.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (7ObY1)

136 TARP, again.

Posted by: nip at February 19, 2014 10:06 AM (SxlUl)

137 Sounds like a minimalist position to me. Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 02:06 PM (RD7QR) Hey hey... I've been compare to a mosquito. a 700 lb mosquito!

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:07 AM (x3YFz)

138 132 5-2, stupid Czechs. Hemsky again. At least Jagr has been kept quiet.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:07 AM (7ObY1)

139 5-2 in the third. C'mon lads. FINISH THEM!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (/o+xv)

140 Canuckistan just scored. 2-1

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (RJMhd)

141 "It's like buying a car or house. If a seller makes an offer 40% below asking price, the buyer will say fuck you and not even bother giving a counter offer. It's not going to make the seller think...hmmm...he's offering 40% below asking, I guess I should give in and sell for 35%"

It's nothing like this at all...Take Obamacare for example, that's a massive Biden-esque Big Fuckin Deal. Passed into law and at the stroke of midnight turned back into a pile of shit.

Now we talk about 'fixing' and 'repairing' Obamacare. That huge leap on the part of the Left will leave us with some Obamacare. Kind of like being only slightly pregnant.

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (Bx1Dc)

142 No.... because Weiner and Davis are "outliers"

Aiken and ODonnell are a typical representation of those socon teapartiers......

.... or something.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 02:05 PM (nELVU)

________

Joke all you want. But in the MSM your statement is correct. We're playing with two sets of rules, and you know this. A fringe Republican says something stupid the headlines next day say "GOP SAID SOMETHING EVIL AND AWFUL". A Democrat says it and the headlines next day (even IF there is a headline) say "SOME POLITICIAN THAT'S TOTALLY NOT IMPORTANT SAID SOMETHING ODD".

It's unfair, but it's the way the world is. The Akins of the world are 100X worse for the GOP than the craziest Dem is for the Democrats.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (0LHZx)

143 ot bleh canada 2 latvia 1 I really didn't want the US v Canada (although, I know most ppl do)

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (IXrOn)

144 Japanese Minimalism is where you don't have very much furniture?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (6bMeY)

145 We ought to be making demands that clip the edges of the Overton window. . Politics, like its' slightly daft sister Diplomacy, is the art of the possible .. and it is not possible to demand something that the general public don't support - whether or not they *should* support it. . It definitely is possible to make demands that a majority of the public support *and* that move the edge of the window so that, in the future, the "unthinkable" (to the leftist "mind") becomes inside the window. . Put another way, the establishment assholes keep trying to shoot barely to the right of the Dems and clearly inside the window. The Tea Partiers etc. etc. keep shooting well to the right of the window. . Clip the right edge, or shoot slightly outside it, and we may get the asshole establishment types to move toward us as they see the window move. . Why do I "know this will work"? How the fuck do you think the window got this far to the left in the first place? . Mew

Posted by: acat at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (4UkCP)

146 What usually happens is that the swing voters tune out whatever party seems more ideological as "too ideological, too extreme." Is that definition made on the facts, or because one side has voices screaming and whispering "They're so extreme"? Your premise would only fit a truly clean playing field. That's not what we have and not likely to be in play for the next generation. I've never been coy about stating three things: (a) averting disaster will require major changes on all levels; (b) as things stand, those changes aren't happening; (c) make ready for disaster and concentrate on what comes after. Libertarianism does not work in a culture of overgrown adolescents. Nothing works in that culture--even totalitarianism requires some grownups to be in charge, or it comes apart quickly. I'll sit over here with Jeremiah. It's cold comfort, but all considered, at least I can say to my Creator, "I tried."

Posted by: Brother Cavil has wormsign at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (naUcP)

147 One of the substantive functions of government was to protect the society. That's why we have laws against things such as murder.

As government has grown it's reach into areas such as health care or where public money is used to subsidize peoples destructive personal behaviors, liberals have doubled-down by making pathos arguments which expand the boundaries of unhealthy behaviors and practices.

I would like to see the argument and proof that "sodomy" is a "healthy" practice. OR gratuitous sex with multiple partners. Or something simple such as smoking.

You can't have it both ways. Don't tell me you should be able to do what you want then expand the role of government to steal from me and pay for the ill effects.

You want to engage in unhealthy practices. Your right I suppose. But it is mine not to suffer the ill effects of your bad behavior.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (GGCsk)

148 "We're doomed"

Every generation has people that say "We're doomed". I'm old enough to remember the '68 Democratic Convention in Chicago. "We're doomed". I'm not old enough to remember the 1860 national election(s). "We're doomed". Or the Hartford Convention of 1814. "We're doomed". FDR's bank holidays "We're doomed". Ronald Reagan's 1980 election "We're doomed.' okay, I was alive for that one. Lots of reasons for doom and gloom in our country's history ... and yet, here we are.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (JBggj)

149 ace is way too quick to accept the Leftist characterization on anyone on the Right. This is OT but remember Issa was in some hearing and said "shall" instead of "should" or some such. And ace was in full burn the evil socons mode, this is why Republicans lose etc and so on. Then it turned out that Issa had said should, some Leftist publication had lied about what he said. Damage done. Same with Cuccinelli. He wants to believe the Left's narrative on him. I don't have his super secret psychic knowledge machine so I can't tell his "real" reason for that. But here is a useful explanation of the world: Imagine a world in which all the rules were dictated by what you presumed were the beliefs of Cuccinelli - no restrictions at all on his power to control. Imagine the same thing about a world ruled by McAuliffe. Which world would you rather live in? As a single guy? As the parent of daughters?

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (4+AaH)

150 It's BlueStateRebel's fault.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (KXm42)

151 O'Donnell and Akin are NOT Davis and Wiener. Whoever the Dems put up for TX gov, Abbott is winning. Davis is just a loony sacrificial lamb and money-waster. O'Donnell, on the other hand, lost a seat that Castle could've won.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (dgZpy)

152 >>>So this is the wrong way to go about fighting back against the Left's "gay marriage" normalization push via lawfare on offense. You are saying that Cuccinelli did what was necessary to get elected and then went incrementally to the right via his blowjob ban or whatever. ... no i'm not saying this. I dont' think what he did was incremental. Look, i don't know how else to say this: You have lost on the topic of homosexuality, period. It's lost. It's gone. There was a chance that gay marriage could be staved off IF and ONLY IF it was not linked to a general agitation against homosexuality per se. This was not done; the two were in fact linked. Because the public has resolved its mind on the Gay Question, they did the easy thing and now are sort of leaning towards the same way on the Gay Marriage Question. ... >>>It wasn't legislation that YOU liked (or if true, something that I agree with) but it was arguably a rightward shift. Not every "Rightward shift" is advisable. Todd Aiken's "rightward shift" was ill-advised. When you lose Ann Coulter, you are losing not an LIV, or an swing voter. You are losing part of your base (and YES, other people besides socons make up the base). If you can't even hold your BASE, WTF, dude?

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (/FnUH)

153 I really didn't want the US v Canada (although, I know most ppl do) Oh HELLS yes! (rubs hands together gleefully)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (7ObY1)

154 The right wins nothing until it defeats the media.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (GSIDW)

155 I really didn't want the US v Canada (although, I know most ppl do) Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 02:08 PM (IXrOn) ********* Ya--it is going to get really ugly around here. More Canadians here than you might immediately think.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (RJMhd)

156 If we all took of our pants, would that help?

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 02:03 PM (x3YFz)

You have pants on to begin with?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (fwARV)

157 Hollowpoint, I defy you to find one instance where anyone suggested seriously, not snarkily to shut it all down. Every single person- which is most of you- who cheered Ted Cruz trying to derail the debt ceiling vote. That enough instances for you? Yes, I know- the result wasn't to shut it ALL down, but the point remains the same. If the public believes (rightly or not) that our side represents a neo-anarchist viewpoint, they're not going to listen to our otherwise reasonable arguments about limited government.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (SY2Kh)

158 150 It's BlueStateRebel's fault. Aw, they can hang on for 7 more minutes. Shut-down hockey. Go get 'em, boys!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (7ObY1)

159 Ace, I'd like you to explain to me how homosexual rights are not the hill to fight on. If the homosexual movement was not 100% about undermining religion, there would be no question that civil unions would be acceptable as a compromise.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 01:49 PM (AskuI)

As annoying as some of the proponents of gay "rights" can be, I don't see it as they started out by trying to undermine religion. Bear in mind, that it is not unheard of for the most vocal and belligerent opponents to their lifestyle to use religion and images of burning in hell to make their point. Then gay activists find they have some monolithic enemy in religion. It seems to be very much an escelation by both sides, in my opinion.

Posted by: Heralder at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (/Mxso)

160 God for the House. These people are an important part of our coalition and it disturbs me when they're treated like shit within their own party. Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:02 PM (P1WNR) I think the shit-treating is 180 degrees from your statement.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (x3YFz)

161 It's great for cads and very successful men. Sucks for shortish betas and other Greek letters who don't have ambitions beyond "being a decent programmer". We're getting the ladies who got pumped, dumped and often pre-impregnated / pre-infected. If we bother at all (which I quit doing years ago).

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (m5+rk)

162 I believe it is what it is: Many people here INSIST that we keep sodomy laws on the books, and they insist that because they want a legal chit on the books regarding homosexuality. I must say I'm blind to those that want this, or supported Aiken, here, etc. Guess I miss those comments. It cannot be that many.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (IXrOn)

163 Homeschool?

Posted by: Jabari at February 19, 2014 02:06 PM (gyNYk)

Ya think?

But there's hockey practice, and baseball, and football, and soccer.....

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (3kDQa)

164 The center cannot hold.

Posted by: toby928© at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (QupBk)

165 "What actual, real-life situations are we talking about? Not speculative generalization and "should", but actual electoral outcomes? I'm baffled. "
I think it mostly comes from a combination of culturally leaning left and a frustration with not winning power when you ultimately believe that's how you fix everything.
Its a symptom, I believe, of how being left leaning in any area (socially, fiscally, whatever) infects the other aspects of your ideology and starts you on the path to the left without being aware of it.
The answer isn't the government. Its in culture. But if you are inclined in your worldview to see things as most Americans do in terms of top-down government solutions, that's hard to see.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (zfY+H)

166 You're wearing pants? Is it Wednesday again already?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 10:10 AM (6bMeY)

167 Pardon my typos and wonky formatting.

Posted by: Heralder at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (/Mxso)

168 Davis is making the dems money and they are using her to perpetuate the war on womyn it may not bear fruit in this election, or for her, but it will bear fruit

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (zOTsN)

169 164 The center cannot hold. Posted by: toby928Â© at February 19, 2014 02:10 PM (QupBk) ******** The Latvian?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (RJMhd)

170 You have pants on to begin with? Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 02:09 PM (fwARV) Only for weddings and funerals.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (x3YFz)

171 16 Ok, I responded in the last thread to this comment, but I'll respond here too. 393 I don't know what you're talking about regarding the right being against incrementalism, ace. We're 40 years post Roe and the entirety of the pro-life movement during those past 40 years has been about passing incremental legislation. Waiting periods here, ultrasound law there, making sure the doctor is actually a doctor and not an LVN here...ect. 40 years later and we're having to fight about banning killing perfectly healthy viable babies...IN TEXAS. That's not exactly an all in loony bin position against Women's Freedom tm. Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 01:45 PM (CNua6) Yet, in the past 10-15 years when we have stopped pressing for the 100% pro-life position, and gone incremental have we seen results. Getting abortion mills designated as medical facilities? That has closed down a shitload of the mills. The American public wants restrictions on abortion, but not an outright ban on all abortions. Thus, when one side is going for the all out ban, and the other for no restrictions, most Americans support the side with no restrictions. Once the side wanting to restrict moves incrementally to the "default" position and starts saying "what about this?", the American electorate says "yeah, that works".

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (HxSXm)

172

What is a maximalist demand, seriously, they are burning the house down, and we think a seltzer bottle solves the problem. We are dealing with people who put up a dye jobbed nazgul like Wendy Davis, as a serious candidate, even House of Cards couldn't imagine such a thing in their darkest musings although Claire Underwood comes close.

Posted by: coriolianus snow at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (YTxkO)

173 >>yeah and what happened in 2010?

Obamacare still on the books, that's what happened.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (P1WNR)

174 "Clip the right edge, or shoot slightly outside it, and we may get the asshole establishment types to move toward us as they see the window move"

This would be the way to go. However, the problem with this is that ANY shift rightwards is described as radical, extremist. What we get from the current clowns in DC is shifting less left.

And I don't know what we can do to change that direction.

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 10:11 AM (Bx1Dc)

175 I like how the 5% Libertarian (who sometimes vote Republican, maybe) want to purge the 30-50% of the Party that is socon (who reliably vote Republican) -- all in the name of winning elections. Can these people count?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:12 AM (ZPrif)

176 122 >>>Obamacare was a pretty huge demand and it's the law of the land and Republicans talk as much about fixing it as repealing it.

yeah and what happened in 2010?

Good Lord.

let's just double down on failure

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 02:05 PM (/FnUH)

2010 was a failure? I mean, I know we didn't get the Senate because some awful candidates, but that was with a third of the seats up. The House was pretty good pickings, though, and has been great at slowing the leftward lurching.

Do you think that if the Senate had to be fully reelected every two years like that House we would have gotten both chambers, or no? Was attacking Obamacare not a winning message?

Posted by: red sweater at February 19, 2014 10:12 AM (oATMN)

177 >>>Is that definition made on the facts, or because one side has voices screaming and whispering "They're so extreme"? it's a fact that the public is something like 80-10 AGAINST, for example, the proposition that there should be some kind of limits on birth control. Only 20% of the public agrees that abortion should be illegal in ALL circumstances, including rape: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx If you don't care about that, or you think the poll is "skewed," then... I don't know, you're dismissing evidence and facts in order to cling to the position you favor.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 10:12 AM (/FnUH)

178 "I believe it is what it is: Many people here INSIST that we keep sodomy laws on the books, and they insist that because they want a legal chit on the books regarding homosexuality. "
I don't know ANYONE here who wants that, or anywhere else for that matter. And I attend a very conservative Christian church. You're getting straw everywhere.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:12 AM (zfY+H)

179 Japanese Minimalism is where you don't have very much furniture. Scandi Minimalism is where you return half of everything you just bought back to Ikea.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 19, 2014 10:13 AM (p9JxP)

180 You want to engage in unhealthy practices. Your right I suppose. But it is mine not to suffer the ill effects of your bad behavior.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 02:08 PM (GGCsk)

Didn't you get the memo? If you are not actively having buttsecks, you must at least stand up and cheer any time anyone else does. Otherwise, you are oppressive and bigoted.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:13 AM (3kDQa)

181

And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," and every single day I hear people reject this.

And what happens when the frog does realize it's boiling? A polite "hey, would you mind turning down that flame?" won't work. How much further are you willing to let the left go in mainstreaming deviancy because the so-cons make you feel icky?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 10:13 AM (zF6Iw)

182 And when a Republican says something that Mr. Moo Moo and ace think is 'radical' , it doesn't help that they are the first to jump on the Left's bandwagon to condemn them. That's how you lose elections. A house divided and all that .

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 10:14 AM (drXjQ)

183 The Right-wing coalition is only getting 48% of the vote. Clearly the only way we can win is to purge and shit on one third to one half of our coalition. Onward to Victory!

Posted by: Purging Libertarian at February 19, 2014 10:14 AM (ZPrif)

184 We socons are a mellow-harshing people. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: toby928© at February 19, 2014 10:14 AM (QupBk)

185 Here is what we need:
Emulate the Demos. We need hard right leadership, with squishy's who vote the party line. This works for the Demos, why not us? Instead, we have the opposite and lose...is it any wonder?

Posted by: BIC at February 19, 2014 10:15 AM (cTQC8)

186 147 Aaaah! No. Murder is not outlawed because it's bad for society; it's outlawed because we have a fundamental, inalienable right to live, to remain un-murdered. Furthermore, demanding that sodomy be proven healthy is like demanding that soda be proven healthy. TThey're not healthy, they never were or will be. But it should still be up to the individual to decide whether they are going to do something unhealthy.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 10:15 AM (dgZpy)

187 "O'Donnell, on the other hand, lost a seat that Castle could've won."
Which would have accomplished what, exactly? Left us with another annoying 'moderate' Republican in the Senate without any affect on anything that took place. And would Castle have won? Who knows, but it doesn't look good: he sucked so bad he couldn't even beat the candidate you are certain has no chance of winning anything.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:15 AM (zfY+H)

188 I believe I heard the chicken dance a while ago.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 10:15 AM (6bMeY)

189 Access, variety, quality... We are in a Golden Age of Porn. And now, some people want to fuck it up. What can they be thinking?

Posted by: jwest at February 19, 2014 10:15 AM (u2a4R)

190 "The Right-wing coalition is only getting 48% of the vote.

Clearly the only way we can win is to purge and shit on one third to one half of our coalition."

PURGE ALL THE RINOS!

Posted by: Shoot Me at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (qiXMt)

191 The left doesn't just incrementally get their way, they also flat out lie. See: 'You can keep your insurance' And it seems during budget negotiations they offer to spend 50, and we counter with 49 instead of 25.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (9Bdcz)

192 >>For example - kids watch Big Bang Theory which is funny. It is on during what we used to call the Family Hour. But quite a few episodes are mostly about sex. I just don't get that. I'm not saying that my kids are shielded from everything, all the time, but that is not the kind of thing we watch together. I just have no desire to hold stuff like that up and say "this is good".

Posted by: Mama AJ at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (SUKHu)

193 Can these people count?

Math is racist.

Ace might want to read that Redstate post Ben linked this morning about people incapable of distinguishing "other people should not be expected to pay 100% of your birth control costs" from "WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL YOUR BIRTH CONTROLZ!!!"

Posted by: HR at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (ZKzrr)

194 Do you think that if the Senate had to be fully reelected every two years like that House we would have gotten both chambers, or no? Was attacking Obamacare not a winning message? Posted by: red sweater at February 19, 2014 02:12 PM (oATMN) And.... this is why the 17th Amendment needs repealing.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (x3YFz)

195 >>And what happens when the frog does realize it's boiling? A polite "hey, would you mind turning down that flame?" won't work. How much further are you willing to let the left go in mainstreaming deviancy because the so-cons make you feel icky?<<

You perform the equivalent of a social throat punch.

You teach your kids the right way and to fight back against liberal attempts to corrupt them. Teach them to find like-minded people to associate with. That's how counter-revolutions work.

I can't tell you how many kids walk in her after four years of college as liberals and after a year of working change their tune.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (GGCsk)

196 Well, we should undue all those anti-birth control laws being passed by Republicans around the country. Oh wait. That didn't actually happen.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:16 AM (ZPrif)

197 175 I like how the 5% Libertarian (who sometimes vote Republican, maybe) want to purge the 30-50% of the Party that is socon (who reliably vote Republican) -- all in the name of winning elections.

Can these people count?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 02:12 PM (ZPrif)

______________

Most Republicans are Republican because of economics. And yes I'd cast away every so-con from the party. Yeah we'd lose some votes, but the amount of independents that would be gained would more than make up for your loss. There are tens of millions of voters out there who like the idea of limited govt, lower taxes, less regulations, etc. But they see the Akins of the world and think, fuck no I won't vote Republican. And I can't really blame them.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:17 AM (0LHZx)

198 USA WINS!

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 19, 2014 10:17 AM (bCEmE)

199 175 I like how the 5% Libertarian (who sometimes vote Republican, maybe) want to purge the 30-50% of the Party that is socon (who reliably vote Republican) -- all in the name of winning elections. Can these people count? Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 02:12 PM (ZPrif) ************* I think that is a problem. Libertarians get 1% of the vote in national elections and I think the youth vote that Rand Paul tries to court is not going to be with him on -- illegal immigration. You can promise them pot but in the end you lose the So Cons and they vote Democrat because of that issue and the only thing this generation might get to be FIRST! on--given the crap Obamanomics is voting for the first female President- Hillary!! That might be their one chance at a generational accomplishment.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:17 AM (RJMhd)

200 No matter who the Republicans nominate or run, and no matter what those people may or may not say, the Dems/progs/forces of chaos will immediately take up the cry as one: CRAZY EXTREMIST!!! ELEVENTY!!!

And that cry will then be taken up and spread far and wide by the media, including a whole lot of the internet.

And then that cry becomes accepted fact by a large number of people, including many on our side who wring their hands and wonder "How can we get rid of this crazy extremism?" Believing that if only we can appear more reasonable and rational, we'll do better, and they'll stop calling us crazy extremists.

Which, of course, they won't. Ever. Repeat cycle ad infinitum.

It's all about the media. Destroy it as it currently exists, and we might have a chance. Keep playing the game and allowing them to define reality, and we have no chance.

It's that simple.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 19, 2014 10:17 AM (4YUWF)

201 5-2 US over the Czechs! Nice win. The Czechs are a good team.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 10:17 AM (/o+xv)

202 I can do a lot, but in the long run, society is nothing but harmful to my son. He lives steeped in poison. I can only do so much. Posted by: tcn Which is why the message should be vote for us because the individual is who matters and the government should leave them the Hell alone.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (Ti8/O)

203

Thomas Sowell made a very similar point today in an article on NRO about Ted Cruz and the fact he is willing to take the maximalist demands and destroy the party until it relents.

Oh, bullshit. Fiscal sanity is now a maximalist demand? The fucking GOP needs to be destroyed, because it is nothing more than the Reginald Van Voorhees IV wing of the Democrat Socialist party.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (zF6Iw)

204 Every poll for the past 10 years has shown 20% of the population wants to ban abortion in all cases. And yet for some idiotic reason, the GOP keeps wanting to ban abortion.

You were saying something about math.....

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (0LHZx)

205

it's a fact that the public is something like 80-10 AGAINST, for example, the proposition that there should be some kind of limits on birth control.

Only 20% of the public agrees that abortion should be illegal in ALL circumstances, including rape:

Does anyone have the link to the 1858 Pew poll on slavery handy? I seem to recall similar numbers.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (AskuI)

206 >>Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 02:15 PM (zfY+H) <<

Look at what the senate has done in the intervening period under Harry Reid. I am going to postulate that's much worse than what may have happened with a guy like Castle.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (GGCsk)

207 If you don't care about that, or you think the poll is "skewed," then... I don't know, you're dismissing evidence and facts in order to cling to the position you favor. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 02:12 PM (/FnUH) You are always going on about what the public "thinks" but you don't devote nearly enough attention to the question of how they came to think it. You seem to argue that the public mindset generates spontaneously out of a vacuum and that we must respect their civilization destroying opinions. Once again, my same old song. The reason the public believes stupid shit is because all the means of communicating with them are in the hands of Hedonistic Liberal fucks. The problem comes down to WE DON'T HAVE A VOICE, while the forces of social degradation do. You are talking tactics, and I am pointing out the larger strategic picture.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (bb5+k)

208 Socons, such as myself, are of the belief that some things SHOULD cause shame, else all is lost. This is not something that can happen by making something illegal, but by making clear the cost of deviance, i.e. natural law. One might evade the law, but not the natural law.

Of course, this sort of persuasion relies upon about 6,000 years of history, most of which is dismissed by a generation that thinks it knows more than its parents ever have.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:19 AM (3kDQa)

209 Aren't they going to play the fourth quarter?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 10:19 AM (6bMeY)

210 "If you don't care about that, or you think the poll is "skewed," then... I don't know, you're dismissing evidence and facts in order to cling to the position you favor."

I think part of the problem with this is that no matter the degree of what is said, whether it's treating abortion clinics like we treat other outpatient facilities or The Akin Position, conservatives are attacked in the same manner. There's no difference in response to one or the other.

I believe that causes the more moderate voices to self-silence or to take a position of greater degree. In for a dime, in for a dollar. It's a corrosive situation, but if you're getting called a anti-women wacko bird for suggesting that a child born alive after a botched abortion should not be killed, well, it doesn't lend itself to healthy debate

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 10:19 AM (Bx1Dc)

211 185 Here is what we need: Emulate the Demos. We need hard right leadership, with squishy's who vote the party line. This works for the Demos, why not us? Instead, we have the opposite and lose...is it any wonder? Posted by: BIC at February 19, 2014 02:15 PM (cTQC

******** Interesting. Yesterday someone made the observation that Democrats back in the 70's after LBJ were a lot like Republicans are today.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:19 AM (RJMhd)

212 201 5-2 US over the Czechs! Nice win. The Czechs are a good team. Mostly NHL guys on the Czech team. But the good guys won, hell yeah!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:19 AM (7ObY1)

213

Abandoning principles in order to win elections only ensures that you have politicians with no priciples.

If I am getting nothing out of voting for your team, then why the fuck should I care if you win an election?

If upholding a set of core priciples means losing elections, then so be it. Some things are not worth "winning".

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (v6cwT)

214 182 And when a Republican says something that Mr. Moo Moo and ace think is 'radical' , it doesn't help that they are the first to jump on the Left's bandwagon to condemn them. That's how you lose elections. A house divided and all that . Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 02:14 PM (drXjQ) I wouldn't put Ace a cowperson in the same box. Well, unless I was wanting to witness a homicide, which I'm not. Today. Two very different critters.

Posted by: tangonine at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (x3YFz)

215

Yes, Fiorini and McMahon and some other candidates were disappointing, oh that's not what was intended, the left follow a strategy undermine every institution, or convert them, come to think of it, that's how the Necromongers think, Now Biden had been returned to office, six times, twice after Mo Dowd, (yes her) revealed his plagiarism, but it was only this last time that mattered.

Posted by: coriolianus snow at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (YTxkO)

216 it's a fact that the public is something like 80-10 AGAINST, for example, the proposition that there should be some kind of limits on birth control.

Only 20% of the public agrees that abortion should be illegal in ALL circumstances, including rape:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

If you don't care about that, or you think the poll is "skewed," then... I don't know, you're dismissing evidence and facts in order to cling to the position you favor.

Posted by: ace

If you believe life begins at conception, and it does, then on principle some people are going to be against abortion in all circumstances and birth control in certain instances, that's a fact.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (P1WNR)

217

No comment on substance of "issue". But redefining marriage lost in almost every electoral outing (incl. in the worst moonbat states). Lost. Didn't win. Didn't cost any GOP candidates their seats.

Democrats in CA - among the stupidest people, effectively, in the country - opposed redefining marriage by good margins.

However much space "recriminalizing sodomy" takes up on these pages, from either side of the debate, it takes up no political space and has determined no electoral outcomes. I just think, ace, your premise on that particular aspect is false.

Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (afQnV)

218 A thought. Doesn't an incrementalist philosophy only work if the politicians, et al, act as if they were bound by the law? And if that is the case, don't we have to insist on rule-of-law arguments in order to enable incrementalism?

Posted by: Piercello at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (jJ97i)

219 Lots of reasons for doom and gloom in our country's history ... and yet, here we are.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 02:09 PM (JBggj)

Agreed - to a point. The holes weren't nearly as deep, I don't think and the country was actively fighting against the ideology that is trying to be actively implemented. $18 trillion is such a big number. $100 trillion is such a big number. It doesn't seem possible within the limits of mediocre human capacities to overcome such a deficit.

The left has an advantage here, imo, in that they realize that one of the only logical antidote is a new paradigm. One that implies that there are no limits to the debt a society can endure.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (BZAd3)

220 209 Aren't they going to play the fourth quarter? We call after-game drinking "The Fourth Period"

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (7ObY1)

221 Aren't they going to play the fourth quarter?

If you're up by three runs after 3 you don't have to play the 4th.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (KXm42)

222 Mostly NHL guys on the Czech team. But the good guys won, hell yeah! Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 02:19 PM .......Yep!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 10:21 AM (/o+xv)

223

Wendy Davis filibusters a bill protecting healthy, viable babies from abortion, and the media chooses to talk about her fucking shoes.

The goddamn President of the United States calls babies "punishments" and supported a bill to let them die in waste bins. But we're supposed to ignore that because of some mushy-headed "independent" voter whose only criteria is "hey, this guy doesn't make me feel like a loser, so I'll vote for him!"

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 10:21 AM (zF6Iw)

224 >>Look at what the senate has done in the intervening period under Harry Reid. I am going to postulate that's much worse than what may have happened with a guy like Castle. Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 02:18 PM (GGCsk) I won't. Look how often John McCain has voted with Harry Reid. Was Senator Mike Castle going to take McCain on?

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:21 AM (5xmd7)

225 The Right is NOT trying to outlaw birth control. And if you want to take the Leftist position that they are, that is fine.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 10:21 AM (4+AaH)

226

You have pants on to begin with?

Permissible for the Skoal run, but the dude has been back long enough to get comfortable.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 19, 2014 10:21 AM (A0sHn)

227 Many chiefs, few indians

Posted by: work americans won't do at February 19, 2014 10:21 AM (FbMva)

228 We may be able to beat the Czechs in hockey, but we've got a long way to go to catch up to their amateur porn.

Posted by: jwest at February 19, 2014 10:22 AM (u2a4R)

229 Brought this over from the other thread. Guess I am late to the party... 455 445 "the number one predictable result of that behavior is legitimately on the decline. " they're all on birth control. Posted by: DCPensFan at February 19, 2014 02:00 PM (ma/2m) I am sure many of them are, but these are extremely immature and irresponsible kids. Do you think they will choose abstinence if they have no condom on hand? Do you think the girls actually remember to take their birth control pills with regularity? Below is a clip of Carol Everett talking about the abortion industry's game: the sexualization of our kids for profit. 35 minutes, but worth it. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf6aBvEm9wA Posted by: Sambo at February 19, 2014 02:17 PM (TvIko)

Posted by: Sambo at February 19, 2014 10:22 AM (TvIko)

230 Most Republicans are Republican because of economics. And yes I'd cast away every so-con from the party. Yeah we'd lose some votes, but the amount of independents that would be gained would more than make up for your loss. There are tens of millions of voters out there who like the idea of limited govt, lower taxes, less regulations, etc. But they see the Akins of the world and think, fuck no I won't vote Republican. And I can't really blame them. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:17 PM (0LHZx) I would urge all the Socons to vote Democrat just to fuck you up. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much my policy. I'd rather have a Democrat than a traitor Republican.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:22 AM (bb5+k)

231 I have been watching Hell on Wheels the last three days. One season per day. http://stream-tv.me/watch-hell-on-wheels-online/

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (6bMeY)

232 Canada ekes out the win.

Dr. Doom hardest-hit.

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (t8ySh)

233 If you believe life begins at conception, and it does, then on principle some people are going to be against abortion in all circumstances and birth control in certain instances, that's a fact.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:20 PM (P1WNR)

______________

Fine. But when your party supports something that only 20% of the public supports, your party will lose more elections than it wins.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (0LHZx)

234 We may be able to beat the Czechs in hockey, but we've got a long way to go to catch up to their amateur porn.

And that should concern all of us.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (KXm42)

235 "Price will say he was never worried. So will Crosby. And then they will go back to the athletes' village and have a three-hour panic attack."

Twitter live feed from Canada v. Latvia. (2-1 Canuckistan, final)

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (fwARV)

236 228 We may be able to beat the Czechs in hockey, but we've got a long way to go to catch up to their amateur porn. We have many Czechoslovakian sex machines that you may enjoy with your big American breasts.

Posted by: 2 Wild and Crazy Guys at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (7ObY1)

237 >>Oh, bullshit. Fiscal sanity is now a maximalist demand? The fucking GOP needs to be destroyed, because it is nothing more than the Reginald Van Voorhees IV wing of the Democrat Socialist party.<<

Cruz isn't the only one making fiscal sanity arguments. Let's be realistic. Some of his actions are also self-serving. He's a senator after all.

The problem is he is willing to destroy the only opposition we have to this government overreach with the idea he'll build a new party from the ashes. That's not only foolish, but guarantees our collective destruction.

It goes back to the incremental vs.maximalist approach. Maximalists fail every time.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:23 AM (GGCsk)

238 I thought Miley Cyrus was fucked up until I saw her daddy doing the achy breaky twerk video with a clutch of little whores that look just like his daughter.

There's some serious banjo-picking going on in that family treee.

Posted by: Fritz at February 19, 2014 10:24 AM (UzPAd)

239 I'd support a two-year term for the Senate before I'd support repealing the 17th. Half those buzzards aren't up to that pace of electioneering.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:24 AM (5xmd7)

240 I'm not a socon. But I'll happily partner with them on shared issues. And I won't spend my free time shitting on them where we disagree and demonizing them as horrible people. I don't get it. Socons are, literally, our largest, most reliable constituency. They are shrinking as a % of the nation and party and, broadly speaking, the conservative movement. But they still are larger, and more cohesive, than any other group on the Right. Almost all the socons I personally know are really good people. Stable, good families, reliable, trustworthy. I lean more libertarian. About 1/3rd of the libertarians I know are actually assholes. Just kind of abrasive, socially retarded jerks. Not very good breeding or keeping women around them, either. Possibly due to the abrasive jerkiness. Really not clear how purging any decent-sized group on the Right leads to victory.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:24 AM (ZPrif)

241 I'll sit over here with Jeremiah. It's cold comfort, but all considered, at least I can say to my Creator, "I tried."

Posted by: Brother Cavil has wormsign at February 19, 2014 02:08 PM (naUcP)

Posted by: Methos at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (hO9ad)

242 I would urge all the Socons to vote Democrat just to fuck you up.

As a matter of fact, that's pretty much my policy. I'd rather have a Democrat than a traitor Republican.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 02:22 PM (bb5+k)

_____________

So you will vote to hurt yourself just to spite me? Have fun with that.

You're missing my point as usual. Your views are in the minority. You are a VERY SMALL minority. You can have your views. It's a free country, believe whatever you want. But when your minority view leads to electoral losses that could otherwise be won, then I step up and say STFU, leave the party, you are not welcome anymore.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (0LHZx)

243 Really not clear how purging any decent-sized group on the Right leads to victory.

Underpants gnomes.

Posted by: HR at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (ZKzrr)

244 If you believe life begins at conception, and it does, then on principle some people are going to be against abortion in all circumstances and birth control in certain instances, that's a fact.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:20 PM (P1WNR)

**waves hand**

That would be me.

When else would life begin?

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (3kDQa)

245 However much space "recriminalizing sodomy" takes up on these pages, from either side of the debate, it takes up no political space and has determined no electoral outcomes. I just think, ace, your premise on that particular aspect is false. Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 02:20 PM (afQnV) He does love him some strawman.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (bb5+k)

246

"And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," "

There was nothing incremental about The New Deal or The Great Society. And even though its smaller in comparison, I wouldnt file Obamacare away under "incrementalism". The left owes it successes to boldness, not nibbling around the edges.

Posted by: The Awkward-Turtle at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (UJ3GJ)

247 Fine. But when your party supports something that only 20% of the public supports, your party will lose more elections than it wins.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo

I note you say it's not your party, good to know, as far as not having any principles I defer to your expertise.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (P1WNR)

248 >>The problem is he is willing to destroy the only opposition we have to this government overreach with the idea he'll build a new party from the ashes. That's not only foolish, but guarantees our collective destruction. No more foolish than the idea that this is as good as it can get, it can't get no better, so, shut up and sheeple.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (5xmd7)

249 Really not clear how purging any decent-sized group on the Right leads to victory.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 02:24 PM (ZPrif)

It actually leads to total victory.
.
.
.
For the Dems.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (fwARV)

250 The problem is he is willing to destroy the only opposition we have to this government overreach with the idea he'll build a new party from the ashes. Ask the Conservatives in Canada what happened. Yeah, they lost and lost big and then rose again. There is a reckoning coming whether on our terms or on the Left's.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (659DL)

251 235 "Price will say he was never worried. So will Crosby. And then they will go back to the athletes' village and have a three-hour panic attack." Twitter live feed from Canada v. Latvia. (2-1 Canuckistan, final) Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 02:23 PM (fwARV) *********** Ha! Holy shit I am a Pens fan but I wanna see Sid get slapped and checked like a school girl in figure skates--or somethin'.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (RJMhd)

252 nood up

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (7ObY1)

253 76 As to Cucc, I think Ace's position is delusional. It's just not what happened. It's a smear by the Left. I know nothing I say will convince Ace of this, though. I think Cucc used an obscure law to try to burnish his image as a tough-on-crime bad-ass who will throw the book at child molesters. He thought it was a cheap political win cause, hey, everybody hates child molesters. He thought it was an easy issue that would win support from both Repubs and Dems, the tough AG protecting Virginia's children! To Cucc's surprise and detriment, the Left used it as a way to smear Cucc as an icky socon who secretly wants to jail people for buttsex. Cucc denied it a billion times, but the Left said, oh, we know his "real reasons". It's a delusional fantasy but it sold well. Good political demonization by the Left. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 01:56 PM (ZPrif) Cuccinelli sucked, absolutely sucked as a candidate. He won in 2009 on McDonnell's coattails, period. He spent his time in office publicly positioning himself for his future. Those are the reasons he lost. Before everyone says "the Establishment didn't support him", he raised and spent the same amount of money that McDonnell did, it's just that McAuliffe raised twice as much as he did. Plus, he had E.W. Jackson hanging around his neck like an albatross, which also led to Mark Obenshain losing the AG race.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at February 19, 2014 10:27 AM (HxSXm)

254 >The Right is NOT trying to outlaw birth control. And if you want to take the Leftist position that they are, that is fine. ... Rick Santorum: Â“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, thatÂ’s okay, contraception is okay. ItÂ’s not okay. ItÂ’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.Â” You can say Rick is arguing for moral suasion on the point (which he probably is), and I suppose that's a fair point as far as the claim he's "coming to take your birth control away." However, again, the public is 80-10 on this issue, against him? So like, what? What is the point here? Ken Cuccinelli cosponsored a bill establishing life starting at fertilization. When it was objected that some birth control can cause a fertilized egg to not implant and thus be "aborted," he refused to include a caveat or limitation on his bill. And you can't claim that this idea that birth control MAY cause a spontaneous abortion is daffy, because that's the argument the Sisters of the Poor makes in attempting to be free of Obamacare's mandate to provide birth control. So what does this mean, guys? I can't take this. You're claiming things that OBVIOUSLY mean what they OBVIOUSLY mean don't mean that at all, and that it's just a "smear by the left." Ken Cuccinelli could have added a minor caveat in his bill. He chose not to. He rode the dragon. the dragon killed him. People are rewarding politicians who excite them with no thought at all -- in fact, there is a thought, a dismissive sneer -- as to how this plays in the general election. People are now *proud* to not give a shit what public opinion actually is. This is dangerous. In fact it's deadly.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 10:27 AM (/FnUH)

255 Everything that must fail for fundamental reasons has a time-frame and also overshoots both ways. Gay marriage will be crushed and gays will go back into their closets. It will happen because evolution favors those who procreate in large numbers. The exact time frame is unknown but probably less than 80 years. The fact that other people's money has run out will speed it along. There will be rue over repealing don't-ask-don't-tell.

Posted by: Huggy at February 19, 2014 10:27 AM (o00SF)

256 Good luck with your purge, Mook.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:27 AM (ZPrif)

257

I like how the 5% Libertarian (who sometimes vote Republican, maybe) want to purge the 30-50% of the Party that is socon (who reliably vote Republican) -- all in the name of winning elections.

Can these people count?

Neither 5% nor 30% is enough to win elections. (As a multi-decade libertarian, I know we will never with anything with the "L" in front of it; we try to persuade the general culture to shift toward our general path).

The problem is that if 30% of a 50% party keeps shouting "we hate fags" it will alienate the 85% of the population who don't, and that party will lose. (I said "the" problem with that, it's "a" problem. Fag hating is also stoopid).

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 19, 2014 10:27 AM (A0sHn)

258 >>Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 02:21 PM (5xmd7) <<

Care to guess on how the Debt Ceiling and Budget would have gone without Harry Reid? How about the filibuster now that Democrats are busy filling the bench with their acolytes.

We can go down the list.

Castle would have been forced to change based on contemporary events.

You never give up a guaranteed seat for hope. You beat up the candidates and force them to change.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:27 AM (GGCsk)

259 I note you say it's not your party, good to know, as far as not having any principles I defer to your expertise.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:26 PM (P1WNR)

_______

So if I don't believe in what you believe, it means i have no principles? Got it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:28 AM (0LHZx)

260 245 However much space "recriminalizing sodomy" takes up on these pages, from either side of the debate, it takes up no political space and has determined no electoral outcomes. I just think, ace, your premise on that particular aspect is false. Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 02:20 PM (afQnV) He does love him some strawman. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 02:25 PM (bb5+k) ************ I think he snorts them now. The hell with smoking them.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:28 AM (RJMhd)

261 Permissible for the Skoal run, but the dude has been back long enough to get comfortable. Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 19, 2014 02:21 PM (A0sHn) I'm currently modeling a band aid and a navy watch cap, which is not necessarily on my skull. My personal mental instability aside: I like threads like these. We're all of similar mind. Fighting it out the details is "iron sharpens iron" imho. No one likes a suck ass and as long as we're tangling over details it means we give a shit. Continue. /adjusts watch cap

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:28 AM (x3YFz)

262 Yesterday someone made the observation that Democrats back in the 70's after LBJ were a lot like Republicans are today.

Posted by: tasker
===
I didn't see that but no, they weren't. For instance, Ron Dellums, Ted Kennedy, etc. The Pinks were there in the 70s, too. What you had a was a lot of foreign policy hawks and FDR domestic regulatory regime pols who believed in the Big Government solution for everything. Dixiecrats, too. In 1970, the top federal income tax bracket was 71.75% starting at $200,000.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 10:28 AM (JBggj)

263

In the societal (and internal, personal) argument between immediate and delayed gratification, immediate gratification usually wins. Because human nature.

Culture either holds a society together or tears it apart. A culture that promotes immediate gratification promotes irresponsibility, selfishness and lack of impulse control. Historically, a society/culture/civilization that promotes such selfish, self-centered, irresponsible traits in its citizens, with the majority of the people concerned only with the pursuit of pleasure and with no outlook towards the welfare of the greater polis (or any other longterm consequences), will fail. Always and usually catastrophically.

That's why there have historically been laws against certain behaviors and practices that erode public mores. Not that everyone stayed within established boundaries, mind you, but boundaries did exist and they existed for a reason. That's why marriage and the formation of families have been typically promoted and supported: because societies that promote marriage and family formation are usually stable, prosperous societies. In such societies, babies are treasured, not aborted. Old people are respected, cared for, and revered, not euthanized.

So yeah: libertarians. Stuck on the logic of 'It's nobody's business if nobody gets hurt'. Define 'nobody'. Define 'hurt'. Think outside the bong for once.

Posted by: troyriser at February 19, 2014 10:28 AM (V9ol4)

264 The problem isn't the presence of maximalist demands. They're fine, in their proper context, and can serve an important role in politics. Maximalism is best when it's asserted by someone whose JOB it is to be the firebrand, but a respectable firebrand is part of a well-rounded team.

The problem with conservatives is a TOTAL LACK of coherent message from its middle, from its mainstream. The Democrats do their usual incrementalist thing very well. Fabianism was invented in the late 1800s, and it fucking works. But the one thing they have (that we don't) is a well-crafted, central message: We Help The Little Guy.

That message is so direct and simple and powerful that they can routinely FUCK THE LITTLE GUY, and the Little Guy will thank them profusely for the fucking he just got.

Our core, central players are assholes. They are in bed with corporate assholes. They flack for insurers and banks and Agri-biz and all the rest. The Establishment GOP has no meaningful ideology, other than Fuck You.

The Libertarian Wing is the photo-negative opposite. They are all message and principle, and no political game. No Incrementalism.

What the GOP needs is to clearly announce libertarian economic principles (expressed in vague but inspiring ways), while in terms of actual proposals, go to Incrementalism.

Of course, this means jettisoning the people from the party who won't subscribe to libertarian economic principles.

Posted by: Phinn at February 19, 2014 10:29 AM (KOGmz)

265 Oh shit--he's in the thread--isn't he?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:29 AM (RJMhd)

266

People are now *proud* to not give a shit what public opinion actually is. This is dangerous. In fact it's deadly.

What was public opinion on slavery in 1858? Sorry, but abortion is not a socon issue - it is taking a life with the connivance of the state.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 10:29 AM (AskuI)

267 The GOP has a choice to make

Option 1: Embrace fiscal conservatism and never say the word abortion or gay again. And win elections

Option 2: Keep talking about gays and abortions and banning oral sex and embracing Rick Santorum, Todd Akin. And never win a national election again.

It's really that simple.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:29 AM (0LHZx)

268 People are now *proud* to not give a shit what public opinion actually is. This is dangerous. In fact it's deadly.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 02:27 PM (/FnUH)

And incoherent.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 10:30 AM (BZAd3)

269 "You may agree with these people (I don't know if you do or you don't). I cannot fault you for your beliefs. But where I can fault you is for being willfully blind to what public opinion actually is." - per Ace... What I see as being the reality of the country is that the morality we have is the morality that the majority wants. The Left is finely tuned to this. The Right never understands. SoCon all you want, people, but the majority is a different tribe than you. The country is gone, has been since the 60's, as far as Judeo-Christian mores go. The rest is just following along.

Posted by: tubal at February 19, 2014 10:30 AM (YEQ2h)

270 Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 1 Why do you feel it necessary to make up crap to make your point? Is it because you can't do it otherwise?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 10:30 AM (faahM)

271

233: "Fine. But when your party supports something that only 20% of the public supports, your party will lose more elections than it wins."

Just because 80% of a population worships at the altar of Moloch, that does not motivate me to pay homage as well.

The murderers and the wicked may outnumber me. And I may get out-voted. But my giving in to just a liiiiittle murder would not be a virtue.

Dying on ones feet, even if only figuratively and in the political sense, is better than living on your knees.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (Kh+vp)

272 In 1970, the federal effective capital gains tax rate was 15.2%

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (JBggj)

273 Which is it Ace, he lost because of anal sodomy or he lost because of abortifacients?

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (5xmd7)

274 @163:
<i>Ya think?
But there's hockey practice, and baseball, and football, and soccer.....</i>

And? Nothing about homeschooling prevents any of the rest of that.

More generally, the two largest contributors to the current decline of society are the media and the schools. Cut the cable, get your kids out of the indoctrination factories.

It's a sacrifice, but what, really, is more important than the children?

Posted by: Jabari at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (gyNYk)

275 You tell em I'm coming,
and Hell's coming with me.

Posted by: Math (with Black Hat and Mustache) at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (DL2i+)

276 >>People are now *proud* to not give a shit what public opinion actually is. This is dangerous. In fact it's deadly. <<

This^.

If you ignore public opinion- exactly what have you become?

There is a wise way to lead people towards your opinion. For a party that allegedly prides itself on crafting logical and factual arguments, there seems to be a healthy amount of empty pathos arguments floating around.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (GGCsk)

277 Fine. But when your party supports something that only 20% of the public supports, your party will lose more elections than it wins.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:23 PM (0LHZx)

Paging Mr. Abraham Lincoln to the white courtesy phone. . .

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (zF6Iw)

278 Sorry, but abortion is not a socon issue - it is taking a life with the connivance of the state.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 02:29 PM (AskuI)

_____

That is your opinion. An opinion shared by 20% of the public. Why is it so hard for you to understand that your beliefs on this issue are at the outer edges of society?

Do you really think you can win elections when 80% of the public disagrees with your opinions?

It's fucking insanity.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:31 AM (0LHZx)

279 Why do you guys continue to ignore the actual electoral results on gay issues?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 10:32 AM (faahM)

280 So you will vote to hurt yourself just to spite me? Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:25 PM (0LHZx) Not JUST to spite you, but to hasten the burn. It is my opinion that Democrat, and Democrat -lite policies make the danger we are facing less noticeable. If I cannot stop them, I must make them WORSE, so as to make them more noticeable to the public. If you recall my position on the implementation of Obamacare, I was vehemently against any delay, against any amelioration. This is my larger philosophy as well. If you can't repair the damage, make it much worse, and much faster.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:32 AM (bb5+k)

281 People are now *proud* to not give a shit what public opinion actually is. This is dangerous. In fact it's deadly.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 02:27 PM (/FnUH)

Politically, perhaps, in the short run, but that photo of the Orthodox priest trying to make peace between the Ukraine govt and the protesters shows that some things are worth standing up for, even in the face of societal madness.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:32 AM (3kDQa)

282

237: "It goes back to the incremental vs.maximalist approach. Maximalists fail every time."

When has this legislative incrementalism actually gone our direction?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 19, 2014 10:33 AM (f6ZLT)

283 That is your opinion. An opinion shared by 20% of the public. Why is it so hard for you to understand that your beliefs on this issue are at the outer edges of society?
Do you really think you can win elections when 80% of the public disagrees with your opinions?
It's fucking insanity.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:31 PM (0LHZx)

Science is not an opinion. When, pray tell, does life begin?

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 10:33 AM (3kDQa)

284 Two quick points, relevant: 1) quote from Justified: "If you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you're the asshole." 2) Popular != right

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:34 AM (x3YFz)

285 Republican politicians have been advocating the incremental approach my entire lifetime.
During that entire period, they rarely (if ever) incrementally moved policy in a direction I favor.
They *did* surrender an awful lot of ground in a direction that I find appalling, and then asked for my vote as the lesser of evils.

An incremental approach can only work if there is trust.
There is no trust, and no grounds for trust, when it comes to the Republican party advancing the principle of limited government.
Anybody who trusts the Republican party to work incrementally is a fool. They'll surrender. Just like they always have.

No more.
I'm done.
If a politician cannot point to a single thing they've done to shrink the size and scope of the federal government, I will not even consider voting for them.

Posted by: Luke at February 19, 2014 10:34 AM (32FX2)

286

That is your opinion. An opinion shared by 20% of the public. Why is it so hard for you to understand that your beliefs on this issue are at the outer edges of society?
Do you really think you can win elections when 80% of the public disagrees with your opinions?

I don't change my principles to match the current opinion polls.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 10:34 AM (AskuI)

287 So if I don't believe in what you believe, it means i have no principles? Got it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo

Attacking people with principles i.e.people supporting policies that rest on the fact that life begins at conception, is why I criticized you and your ignorant beliefs. You actually think cutting lose 20% of the party will result in more political victories? That's astounding even for you.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 10:34 AM (P1WNR)

288 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:31 PM (0LHZx) 20% is the figure for being against abortion in all cases. Why don't you quote the 99% that are against Partial birth abortion?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 10:34 AM (faahM)

289 279 Why do you guys continue to ignore the actual electoral results on gay issues?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 02:32 PM (faahM)

______

You mean like the results in Washington, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota from 2012 where all 4 states voted to allow SSM?

Those results?

Oregon has a measure on the ballot this year too which will win easily.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:34 AM (0LHZx)

290 Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 1

Why do you feel it necessary to make up crap to make your point? Is it because you can't do it otherwise?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 02:30 PM (faahM)

I was refuting a post which I quoted, and then used math. Or is "hating fags is stoopid" the part you think I made up?

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 19, 2014 10:35 AM (A0sHn)

291 Mr. Moo Moo By your theory, you will lose if we even open our mouths. So, you're a loser.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:35 AM (5xmd7)

292 You actually think cutting lose 20% of the party will result in more political victories? That's astounding even for you.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:34 PM (P1WNR)

________

Yes. Cutting that 20% of dead wood will be more than made up by center-right people fiscally who abhor Republicans for their so-con values.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:35 AM (0LHZx)

293 So I see ace begins with the demonstrably false claim that the left doesn't start off with maximalist positions, then I scroll from the bottom up to see he's still riding that Cuccinelli thing without factoring in any other context. Glad I missed this one. I'm sure a few platoons of strawmen were harmed in the making of this thread.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 10:35 AM (YbyjT)

294

242: "you are not welcome anymore."

Ok. Consider me gone.

Just remember that when you come looking for shelter and food.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 19, 2014 10:35 AM (LJpVo)

295 So yeah: libertarians.Stuck on the logic of 'It's nobody's business if nobody gets hurt'. Define 'nobody'. Define 'hurt'. Think outside the bong for once. Posted by: troyriser at February 19, 2014 02:28 PM (V9ol4) Excellent comment. Especially this last part.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:36 AM (bb5+k)

296 Science is not an opinion. When, pray tell, does life begin?

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 02:33 PM (3kDQa)

__________

It's irrelevant for the discussion at hand. 80% disagree with your view. You are a small minority. You cannot win elections.

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. But 80% of the public wants that right.

It's really not that hard.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (0LHZx)

297 Because the public has resolved its mind on the Gay Question Then please explain the Prop 8 vote results in conservative hotbed California? when you've lost the BASE Ann " Chris Christie is My Boyfriend" Coulter is the base? sheesh. No wonder I'm confused.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (5ikDv)

298 You mean like the results in Washington, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota from 2012 where all 4 states voted to allow SSM? Those results? Oregon has a measure on the ballot this year too which will win easily. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:34 PM (0LHZx) People vote for gay marriage because they're conditioned to think that if they vote against it, they're "evil." No more or less than that. It's really quite simple.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (x3YFz)

299 >>When has this legislative incrementalism actually gone our direction?<<

I would look at the converse. Look how Democrats have used it to take over our society and how Obama finally slammed the door shut.

Now they want to protect those gains as our electoral situation has the potential for change.

Other than that, incrementalism can be seen by something like the Contract with America.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (GGCsk)

300 280 So you will vote to hurt yourself just to spite me? Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:25 PM (0LHZx) Not JUST to spite you, but to hasten the burn. It is my opinion that Democrat, and Democrat -lite policies make the danger we are facing less noticeable. If I cannot stop them, I must make them WORSE, so as to make them more noticeable to the public. If you recall my position on the implementation of Obamacare, I was vehemently against any delay, against any amelioration. This is my larger philosophy as well. If you can't repair the damage, make it much worse, and much faster. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 02:32 PM (bb5+k) ******** I think fundamentally you cannot risk the turmoil that comes with that.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (RJMhd)

301 Oregon has a measure on the ballot this year too which will win easily.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:34 PM (0LHZx)

===

Oregon's 2014 elections should be interesting.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (JBggj)

302 Hey, Mook, have you ever been welcome anywhere in your entire life? Serious question.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:37 AM (ZPrif)

303 Yes. Cutting that 20% of dead wood will be more than made up by center-right people fiscally who abhor Republicans for their so-con values.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:35 PM (0LHZx)

You don't know how much I want the so-con base to sit out the next election, just to jam it down your throat - we don't need you, but you sure as hell need us.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 10:38 AM (zF6Iw)

304 What was public opinion on slavery in 1858? Sorry, but abortion is not a socon issue - it is taking a life with the connivance of the state. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 02:29 PM (AskuI) And this is exactly how many of us see it. It's a human rights issue.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:38 AM (bb5+k)

305 Sorry, but abortion is not a socon issue - it is taking a life with the connivance of the state. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 02:29 PM (AskuI) _____ That is your opinion. An opinion shared by 20% of the public. It's not an opinion. It's a fact - abortion is legal killing. There are lots of kinds of legal killings in our society. (Self-defense, for one) The fact that pro-abortion people pretend it's not killing shows that they know most people are squishy about it. The fact is more people are becoming pro-life, helped in fact by better ultrasound technology.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 10:38 AM (GSIDW)

306 20% is the figure for being against abortion in all cases. Why don't you quote the 99% that are against Partial birth abortion?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 02:34 PM (faahM)

________

Fine. So have the GOP be against partial birth abortions.

I think you're starting to understand how electoral politics work.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:38 AM (0LHZx)

307

If the GOP would also stop with the incessant, inescapable propagandizing against chlorination of urban water supplies and the demand that all left-handed people under 6 feet be interned in work camps in southern Utah, they could again win elections.

What? Is there a problem with my premise?

FFS, folks, if you're going to have a pointless tactical dispute, at least have it over something relevant to the real world.

Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 10:39 AM (afQnV)

308 It's really that simple. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:29 PM (0LHZx) Excuse me if I doubt your credentials as the arbiter of reality.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:39 AM (bb5+k)

309 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 Want me to list the 30 states where it was defeated?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 10:39 AM (faahM)

310 I like how the Purgers basically are saying that all conservative Christians are no different from the Westboro Church. I like the subtlety.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:39 AM (ZPrif)

311 Your views are in the minority. You are a VERY SMALL minority. Raise your hands if you subscribe to Moo Moo's "Abortion = Tax Savings"philosophy.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 10:39 AM (5ikDv)

312 Yes. Cutting that 20% of dead wood will be more than made up by center-right people fiscally who abhor Republicans for their so-con values.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo

Still the stupidest thing I've read on the internets this year.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 10:40 AM (P1WNR)

313 224 >>Look at what the senate has done in the intervening period under Harry Reid. I am going to postulate that's much worse than what may have happened with a guy like Castle. Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 02:18 PM (GGCsk) I won't. Look how often John McCain has voted with Harry Reid. Was Senator Mike Castle going to take McCain on? Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 02:21 PM (5xmd7) Being in the majority matters. The Majority Leader decides what comes up for a vote, and what does not. McConnell in charge would be able to bring up the repeal of Obamacare and force the Dems to filibuster or vote against it. He could also bring up the House passed budget and do the same thing. If those pass, then Obama has to veto them, putting HIM in the unpopular political position leading up to the 2012 elections.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at February 19, 2014 10:40 AM (HxSXm)

314 "Fine. So have the GOP be against partial birth abortions.I think you're starting to understand how electoral politics work."

You do understand that even when candidates state this widely agreed upon belief they're tarred w/ the same brush as extremist candidates....

Like every other "discussion" the Left wishes to have, it's a lecture in disguise.

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 10:40 AM (Bx1Dc)

315 It is useful to notice how often Ace and Mook agree, though.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (ZPrif)

316 People are now *proud* to not give a shit what public opinion actually is. This is dangerous. In fact it's deadly. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 02:27 PM (/FnUH) Ace, catering to the stupid opinions of the public is also deadly.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (bb5+k)

317 It's not an opinion. It's a fact - abortion is legal killing.
There are lots of kinds of legal killings in our society. (Self-defense, for one)
The fact that pro-abortion people pretend it's not killing shows that they know most people are squishy about it.
The fact is more people are becoming pro-life, helped in fact by better ultrasound technology.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 02:38 PM (GSIDW)

_____________

1. Nope, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. In fact, SCOTUS has said your opinion is legally wrong.

2. More people are becoming pro-life? Not according to polling data over the past 40 years. 20% wanted it banned in all circumstances 40 years ago and 20% want it banned in all circumstances today.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (0LHZx)

318 What demands have I made on the public? I haven't made any demands that I can see.

Any demands at all.

But the mere fact that I have an opinion that something has gone wrong when 12-year old girls are being sexualized is too extreme for you. To the point where I get called out in a main-page post and blamed for the Republicans losing elections.

So what do you have to offer me in exchange for suppressing my own opinions and preemptively renouncing any policy designed to help my kids?

The success of the GOP.

I could give a shit about the success of the GOP. This country is racing towards disaster on multiple fronts. All the the GOP offers is racing just a little less fast. That will be true whether we pretend that Miley Cyrus is a Brave Role Model or not.

So I will continue to publicly express my opinion that something has gone seriously wrong with our family and sex culture in this country and I will continue to ignore libertarians, since they just shout 'shut up' without engaging with my concerns or offering any constructive proposals.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (ZMzpb)

319 "Keep talking about gays and abortions and banning oral sex and embracing Rick Santorum, Todd Akin. And never win a national election again. It's really that simple." Right because the GOP clearly embraced Santorum and Akin. And because the GOP was clearly winning national elections before this figment of your imagination about them embracing Santorum and Akin. Is this seriously the fucking argument going on here?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (YbyjT)

320 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:38 PM (0LHZx How about the 55% that agree no abortion after 22 weeks?

Posted by: Milk Toast at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (faahM)

321 302 Hey, Mook, have you ever been welcome anywhere in your entire life? Serious question. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 02:37 PM (ZPrif) cowman and I have crossed paths a few times. Yet, Ephesians: "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. " Life is a mfr. Being not a douche is worth more than 100 douches.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:41 AM (x3YFz)

322 287 So if I don't believe in what you believe, it means i have no principles? Got it. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo Attacking people with principles i.e.people supporting policies that rest on the fact that life begins at conception, is why I criticized you and your ignorant beliefs. You actually think cutting lose 20% of the party will result in more political victories? That's astounding even for you. Posted by: Dr Spank at February 19, 2014 02:34 PM (P1WNR) ************* Right. What is being proposed? That we cut SoCons--essentially loyal customers and supporters in interest of closing the sale with people that have been the loyal opposition. *If* people could look at it as a simple business proposition maybe they would realize that it is a risky endeavor.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:42 AM (RJMhd)

323 The rest is just following along. Posted by: tubal at February 19, 2014 02:30 PM (YEQ2h) And Death is the destination. You can follow too if you like, but math says there is coming a reckoning.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:42 AM (bb5+k)

324
You do understand that even when candidates state this widely agreed upon belief they're tarred w/ the same brush as extremist candidates....

Like every other "discussion" the Left wishes to have, it's a lecture in disguise.

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 02:40 PM (Bx1Dc)

__________

Find me an example of a Republican who said I suppose abortion in general, but I oppose partial birth abortion, who was then criticized by the MSM.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:42 AM (0LHZx)

325 "Nope, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. In fact, SCOTUS has said your opinion is legally wrong."

Bzzt....wrong.

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" - Roe v Wade

Posted by: Moebius at February 19, 2014 10:42 AM (Bx1Dc)

326 That is your opinion. An opinion shared by 20% of the public. Why is it so hard for you to understand that your beliefs on this issue are at the outer edges of society? Do you really think you can win elections when 80% of the public disagrees with your opinions? It's fucking insanity. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:31 PM (0LHZx) That's not what 80/20 represents and you know it.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 19, 2014 10:43 AM (bCEmE)

327 300 tasker quoth "I think fundamentally you cannot risk the turmoil that comes with that"

I think, fundamentally, we can no longer avoid it.
The day of reckoning is coming, and the more desperate ploys there are to push it back, the worse it will be.

Let it burn.

Posted by: Luke at February 19, 2014 10:43 AM (32FX2)

328 Mook, the Purging Paultard.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:43 AM (ZPrif)

329 More generally, the two largest contributors to the current decline of society are the media and the schools. Cut the cable, get your kids out of the indoctrination factories. Posted by: Jabari at February 19, 2014 02:31 PM (gyNYk) DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:43 AM (bb5+k)

330 Fine. So have the GOP be against partial birth abortions.I think you're starting to understand how electoral politics work.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:38 PM (0LHZx)
===

Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and other Dem senators going down in flames for ObamaCare are in desperate need of your services, Moo Moo.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 10:43 AM (JBggj)

331 Imo, this thread is basically evidence that the SoCon base needs to ditch the GOP and just go full Tea Party.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 10:44 AM (GSIDW)

332 Find me an example of a Republican who said I suppose abortion in general, but I oppose partial birth abortion, who was then criticized by the MSM. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo Mitt Romney, John McCain, any and all Bushes all said Roe was the law of the land all opposed partial birth abortion

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 10:44 AM (zOTsN)

333 There is a wise way to lead people towards your opinion. For a party that allegedly prides itself on crafting logical and factual arguments, there seems to be a healthy amount of empty pathos arguments floating around. Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 02:31 PM (GGCsk) Morelike a recognition that logical and factual arguments carry little weight with a stupid public. BINDERS!!!!!! FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!!!! ELEVENTY!!!!!!

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:45 AM (bb5+k)

334 331 Imo, this thread is basically evidence that the SoCon base needs to ditch the GOP and just go full Tea Party. Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 02:44 PM (GSIDW) Pretty much. GOP is dead. Someone get a tractor and drag the corpse out, please?

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:45 AM (x3YFz)

335 "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" - Roe v Wade -- Yup. Roe was based on privacy rights. What a laugh in the age of NSA everywhere.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 10:45 AM (GSIDW)

336 remember, the war on womyn started with the very mild mannered Mitt Romney so this is all BS

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (zOTsN)

337 What is being proposed?

That we cut SoCons--essentially loyal customers and supporters in interest of closing the sale with people that have been the loyal opposition.

*If* people could look at it as a simple business proposition maybe they would realize that it is a risky endeavor.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 02:42 PM (RJMhd)

____________

You're mis-stating what I'm saying. I'm essentially saying we're selling Chevys. A small but loyal % of our buyers love V8 gas guzzling cars. Ford and Chrysler don't sell V8s they only sell 4 cylinders and a few V6 models. People love V6s according to polls but hate V8s.

What I want to do is stop selling V8s and concentrate on V6s, while leaving Ford/Chrysler to make 4 cylinder cars.

Sure I will piss off my V8 customers, but there is a huge untapped market of Ford/Chrysler V6 buyers that I will not have access to, who before wouldn't even dream of entering a Chevy showroom.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (0LHZx)

338 "Then there's the time frame view. Let's say I'm a parent with two little girls. Let's say those girls are early grade school, like 7 and 5. I don't have 15 or 20 years to push back against the culture. I've barely got 5. There's no time. There's just not. I have to shove back as hard as I can now, right the hell NOW, in attempt to keep the barbarians at bay. Sure, intellectually I may comprehend the need to step slowly. Emotionally? The wolves are at the door right now about to haul my children away. Oh hell to the no. " *********** Thank you, alexthechick. This describes me. Well, it did a few years ago. I have a seven-year-old son and a four-year-old daughter. Society, now with the backing of the force that is our government, is doing everything it can to tell my kids that everything our family believes and practices is hateful, repressive bigotry. And I'm apparently not supposed to push back against that. Whatever. As I said, this was me a few years ago. I'm at the point now where I think Western Civilization has hit the tipping point on decadence scale and we are on the inevitable slide into chaos and tyranny. It's not reversing or coming back, y'all. People are such delicate flowers that everything now has to have a "trigger warning" on it just in case someone gets a sad from what you say. And it is apparently of the utmost importance for me to identify myself as a "cis" something or other because the women who don't like being women or who don't feel like women or who are women but used to be men might feel unhappy about my claiming to be just a woman. WTF. These are considered serious social problems. Our culture is dead. There is no coming back from this shit. We have an actual borderline dictator with his pen and his phone just doing whatever the hell he wants and no one bats an eye. But Lord forbid you commit some "micro aggression" by failing to affirm someone in their "life choices." We are so fucking doomed. And my job right now is to insulate my family from what's coming as much as humanly possible.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (qFpRI)

339 328 Mook, the Purging Paultard. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 02:43 PM (ZPrif) ********** Is Moo Moo a Paul--person? Mr. Moo Moo What is your opinion of Rand Paul rehashing the Monica Lewinsky history? Who is your ideal candidate --that has a real chance at winning--or legitimate chance at winning the Presidency?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (RJMhd)

340 The fact that pro-abortion people pretend it's not killing shows that they know most people are squishy about it.
The fact is more people are becoming pro-life, helped in fact by better ultrasound technology.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 02:38 PM (GSIDW)

And they need to win the argument. They haven't - yet. The vote is to take tax dollars away from abortion providers. That logically should be the winnable political argument. Let them keep abortion legal, just not free.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (BZAd3)

341

OK, I don't know whether abortion is murder, or whether redefining marriage is a "right". I DO know that these difficult questions have not materially altered the electoral outcomes in recent times in favor of one party or another.

And the very idea of the words "maximalist demands" and "GOP" appearing in the same sentence ..... now THAT'S kind of funny.

I'm fairly certain things are as bad as they seem. No amount of escapism - attributing GOP losses to make-believe maximalist socon campaigns - alters the very dark fact that a working majority of voting Americans now are fine with economic and social decline, institutional rot, race-obsession, lawlessness, and global chaos. And theft, coercion, and regimentation as opposed to freedom and individual rights (apart from guns, pot, and porn). That they are in many perhaps most cases simply too ignorant, lazy, or misinformed to understand that is what they are supporting, it doesn't change the basic point.

Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (afQnV)

342 334 331 Imo, this thread is basically evidence that the SoCon base needs to ditch the GOP and just go full Tea Party.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 02:44 PM (GSIDW)

________

Yes because the TEA party was formed for fight against abortion, not as a fiscal movement.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:47 AM (0LHZx)

343 1. Nope, it is not a fact. You keep using that word, it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means. You are aware that life was conceived long before our Supreme Court came into being and will hopefully continue long after it is gone. Yo do understand that basic biological processes are not dependent on legal opinion, right?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 10:48 AM (YbyjT)

344 Yes. Cutting that 20% of dead wood will be more than made up by center-right people fiscally who abhor Republicans for their so-con values. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:35 PM (0LHZx) You do suffer greatly from confirmation bias. On the other hand, perhaps "Suffer" is the wrong word. More like you wallow in it.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:48 AM (bb5+k)

345 Mr. Moo Moo tell me then....HOW does human life begin? I don't need the WHEN...tell me HOW.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 19, 2014 10:49 AM (bCEmE)

346 Is Moo Moo a Paul--person?

Mr. Moo Moo

What is your opinion of Rand Paul rehashing the Monica Lewinsky history?

Who is your ideal candidate --that has a real chance at winning--or legitimate chance at winning the Presidency?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 02:46 PM (RJMhd)

___________

I like Rand Paul. Is his attack on Hillary legit? Sure.

Ideal candidate: theoretically a Hispanic woman fiscal conservative (Gov. Martinez of NM comes to mind).

I'd be happy with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal as president.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:49 AM (0LHZx)

347 It's irrelevant for the discussion at hand. 80% disagree with your view. You are a small minority. You cannot win elections.If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. But 80% of the public wants that right. It's really not that hard. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:37 PM (0LHZx) And your position works just as well to justify slavery. Some of us believe in bigger things than political expediency.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:49 AM (bb5+k)

348 You're mis-stating what I'm saying. I'm essentially saying we're selling Chevys. A small but loyal % of our buyers love V8 gas guzzling cars. Ford and Chrysler don't sell V8s they only sell 4 cylinders and a few V6 models. People love V6s according to polls but hate V8s. What I want to do is stop selling V8s and concentrate on V6s, while leaving Ford/Chrysler to make 4 cylinder cars. Sure I will piss off my V8 customers, but there is a huge untapped market of Ford/Chrysler V6 buyers that I will not have access to, who before wouldn't even dream of entering a Chevy showroom. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:46 PM (0LHZx) Wost analogy. Ever. I knew what your point was like 200 posts back, but wow. My fingers went numb just reading that. (or maybe it was the double bacon cheeseburger? anyway...) You're sacrificing character for a win. No one here is willing to do that. Simple. Integrity is worth more than victory.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:49 AM (x3YFz)

349 D-Lamp, for the record, I have no intention of "following along" as you put it, and I resent the fact that you said it. My point was that the fucking country has gone over the edge, and social conservatives are not the majority. I -DO NOT- think that is a good thing. I think disaster is looming. From what I observe, incidentally, many many of our Christian brethren are very Liberal, socially.

Posted by: tubal at February 19, 2014 10:50 AM (YEQ2h)

350 You do suffer greatly from confirmation bias. On the other hand, perhaps "Suffer" is the wrong word. More like you wallow in it.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 02:48 PM (bb5+k)

________

I look at 40 years of polling data and for 40 years 20% of the public has wanted to ban abortions. I may not have been a math major in college, but I know enough math to know 20% < 80%.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:50 AM (0LHZx)

351
You're sacrificing character for a win.

No one here is willing to do that.

Simple. Integrity is worth more than victory.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 02:49 PM (x3YFz)

________

And you're willing to lose perpetually just so you can feel righteous. This is exactly why I want the so-cons exiled from the party. Thanks for making my point.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 10:51 AM (0LHZx)

352 Oddly enough the Constitution and BoRs as written allows for States to have different Cultures and Societal norms with a weak central government having no business at all promoting anything other than equal justice under the law.National defense and individual freedom. If only there were a Party that promoted that. If only someone could articulate a platform or a political voice. I'll bet a lot of people, kids especially, would get behind that ideal. Of course, that is an extreme position.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 10:51 AM (Jsh2r)

353 People vote for gay marriage because they're conditioned to think that if they vote against it, they're "evil." No more or less than that. It's really quite simple. Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 02:37 PM (x3YFz) And they got that conditioning from the propaganda agents in California who produce "Entertainment" such as "Glee", the homosexual normalization show. If they could see a few "Gay Pride" parades, they might have a different perspective, but the gatekeepers of the public microphones and cameras make certain that no hint of their true behavior ever reaches the public to unsettle them.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:51 AM (bb5+k)

354 I like how the thread on the futility of Maximalist Demands has descended into this sad retard trying to purge 40%+ of the Republican Party. Don't worry, though. He has People Skills!!!

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 10:52 AM (ZPrif)

355 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:35 PM (0LHZx)

Added to my list of "Why I look forward to the burning times"

Posted by: Methos at February 19, 2014 10:52 AM (hO9ad)

356 Annnnd he skipped right over it. Why am I not surprised.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 19, 2014 10:52 AM (bCEmE)

357 I think fundamentally you cannot risk the turmoil that comes with that. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 02:37 PM (RJMhd) I think fundamentally, you cannot avoid it. Better it happen now while I can still fight to help my children survive.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:53 AM (bb5+k)

358 "Yes because the TEA party was formed for fight against abortion, not as a fiscal movement. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:47 PM (0LHZx)" How well has the GOP fared on that front as they've headed back toward center? You keep asking other people for evidence and they gladly oblige, it's about time you offer some evidence for your assertions.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 10:53 AM (YbyjT)

359 Yes because the TEA party was formed for fight against abortion, not as a fiscal movement. --- Started that way, but the Tea Party & the SoCons have an important unifying trait - they are attracted to people who fight for principles. That's why they fit well together.

Posted by: Votermom at February 19, 2014 10:54 AM (GSIDW)

360 ____________ You're mis-stating what I'm saying. I'm essentially saying we're selling Chevys. A small but loyal % of our buyers love V8 gas guzzling cars. Ford and Chrysler don't sell V8s they only sell 4 cylinders and a few V6 models. People love V6s according to polls but hate V8s. What I want to do is stop selling V8s and concentrate on V6s, while leaving Ford/Chrysler to make 4 cylinder cars. Sure I will piss off my V8 customers, but there is a huge untapped market of Ford/Chrysler V6 buyers that I will not have access to, who before wouldn't even dream of entering a Chevy showroom. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:46 PM (0LHZx) **************** Okay I am reading your comment..but I am having a hard time translating it. I'm not sure your analogy holds. I can only go back to a more generic analogy. We have a SoCon customer--we have had that customer for decades. Then there is the single white female who will dance on over to our party if we simply drop abortion. And we are going to win this customer when her hero is about to be the President--Hillary.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:54 AM (RJMhd)

361 >Of course, that is an extreme position. Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 02:51 PM (Jsh2r) It broke down over the universal guarantee of private property.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:55 AM (5xmd7)

362 No, the country is not doomed. We are not alone. We will rally, and organize, and vote. Everything that's being thrown at us since the O-Care roll out debacle has been for one reason: To demoralize the American voters who are sick of this mess. To intimidate, harass, divert, obfuscate, and deceive voters from understanding the problems facing the people of this country, and to prevent them from arriving at the fundamental conclusion that the political and economic elite are out of touch, out of control, and out of time. If we keep our heads and focus on the job in front of us, in January, 2015, they will be out of a job.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 10:55 AM (JBggj)

363 So I will continue to publicly express my opinion that something has gone seriously wrong with our family and sex culture in this country and I will continue to ignore libertarians, since they just shout 'shut up' without engaging with my concerns or offering any constructive proposals. Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 02:41 PM (ZMzpb) Or even recognizing the Fiscal cost of their policy preferences.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:56 AM (bb5+k)

364 "And you're willing to lose perpetually just so you can feel righteous. This is exactly why I want the so-cons exiled from the party. Thanks for making my point." And this is different from you wanting to lose perpetually because you exiled 20% of your base? And you said you understood math. You should try making sense.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 10:56 AM (YbyjT)

365 And you're willing to lose perpetually just so you can feel righteous. This is exactly why I want the so-cons exiled from the party. Thanks for making my point. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:51 PM (0LHZx) I do feel sorry for you. To have no conviction and just go wherever the wind takes you. Me? I'm founded in principles. Honesty, Integrity, I'd like to think Courage, but I get scared sometimes. But when I hold a line? I hold the fucking line. And I'm dependable. And I'm the kind of guy who will drop my life in order to defend anyone in my care. So tread lightly, momo. You want me on your side and not as your enemy.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 10:56 AM (x3YFz)

366 This is exactly why I want the so-cons exiled from the party. They can do that? I would like to request an island , please. Patmos, Elba, uninhabited rock, whatever you have is fine

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 10:57 AM (5ikDv)

367 357 I think fundamentally you cannot risk the turmoil that comes with that. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 02:37 PM (RJMhd) I think fundamentally, you cannot avoid it. Better it happen now while I can still fight to help my children survive. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 02:53 PM (bb5+k) ********** I'm going to have to disagree on the simple hunch that I think--historically it hasn't worked in the past. That's my belief--I could be wrong. I think chaos leads to the equal and opposite reaction of totalitarianism. It also leaves a state vulnerable to other enemies. The foreign and domestic .

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 10:57 AM (RJMhd)

368

351: "And you're willing to lose perpetually just so you can feel righteous. This is exactly why I want the so-cons exiled from the party. Thanks for making my point."

And if winning requires that you suck a dick, will you do it?

If winning requires that you shoot your mother in the head, will you do that too?

Yeah. What will you have actually "won" after doing such?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 19, 2014 10:57 AM (Kh+vp)

369 Here's what I don't get about the Purge the SoCons guys: Did you seriously think "Leaving the Party" means "Shut Up"?

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 10:59 AM (5xmd7)

370 I -DO NOT- think that is a good thing. I think disaster is looming. From what I observe, incidentally, many many of our Christian brethren are very Liberal, socially. Posted by: tubal at February 19, 2014 02:50 PM (YEQ2h) Sorry. Not terribly familiar with your positions on the various topics, and my tendency is to think whenever someone is responding to me on an issue such as this, they are doing so from the Libertarian position.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 11:01 AM (bb5+k)

371 " ... recriminalizing sodomy ... " I think that the combination of AIDS, Hepatitis, butt-stink (maybe a good, strong fish-curry?) and having to get pap smears on your butt, will handle this issue. Give it time. "Birth control" Is mentioning Gosnell a good choice? Instead, how about playing the tape of Sandra Fluck demanding an extra $300.00 per month (of PUBLIC money), with an overlaid map of local drug stores carrying Trojans ... yeah, she can't slum on birth control, she needs YOU to pay HER an extra $300.00 per month. Unfortunately, the only Sure-Fire way to defeat the Left is to give them what they want (Common Core, etc.), then let it blow up in their faces (VENEZUELA). Give them the easy things, then do an O'Keefe. BTW, the O'Keefe video over at Hot Air indicates that the Libs in Texas are extensively training their drones to watch for "O'Keefers". It's massively massive paranoia, on a massive scale.

Posted by: Arbalest at February 19, 2014 11:01 AM (FlRtG)

372 **One of the ways in which we lose on a perfectly reasonable position is this: The public hears us talking about children, but, as with Hillary Clinton, they strongly suspect that "children" are simply the most attractive faces for this policy, and that what is really meant, and ultimately sought, is laws and controls on adults.

And then they say: No thank you.

etc.**

Turn this around and apply it to yourself. Can you wonder that I'm not willing to accept your political advice on what's best for the GOP when it just happens to mean advocating the policies that you personally favor and that most benefit you personally?

Your position may be perfectly reasonable. But you aren't convincing, because its blatantly, transparently your self-interest that you're advocating.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:02 AM (ZMzpb)

373 Social conservative, but on Ace's side on this one. The response the next Akin or O'Donnell should give on the gotcha question is: Mr./Ms. reporter, I'm not going to play that game. I will answer your question after your news organization questions my opponent about their extreme support for late-term abortion. Their position is opposed by 80% of the population, but your organization won't mention it.

Posted by: late to the party at February 19, 2014 11:02 AM (d3clc)

374 I look at 40 years of polling data and for 40 years 20% of the public has wanted to ban abortions. I may not have been a math major in college, but I know enough math to know 20% < 80%. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 02:50 PM (0LHZx) You are applying it too simplistically. The equations are far more complex than you realize. I try to explain how interrelated everything is, but before I get very far, everyone has pretty much moved to the new thread. The Public opinion is pretty much whatever the Media and Entertainment industry steer it to be nowadays.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 11:03 AM (bb5+k)

375 One last thing.

Your fisking format sucks. Blockquote or something.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:03 AM (ZMzpb)

376 The Public opinion is pretty much whatever the Media and Entertainment industry steer it to be nowadays. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 03:03 PM (bb5+k) ahhh... the glories of social "science."

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:04 AM (x3YFz)

377 You are always going on about what the public "thinks" but you don't devote nearly enough attention to the question of how they came to think it. The problem comes down to WE DON'T HAVE A VOICE, while the forces of social degradation do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AND.... again, what is the point ? I entirely agree that we don't have a voice. And your point is ? To be remedied by.... ? I see a lot of lamenting and complaining and not a lot (aka NONE) of solutions. The fact of the matter is that there is not direct, moral solution to these problems. And the fact is that with the culture and the media on the other side of the issue, there is effectively zero margin for error. Lament Ace referring to the witch and Todd Aiken all you like, but those are the issues that sunk Republicans in 2012. The manufactured war on women and gays. Here's a hint: There is no winning on those issues. The fact that someone in these comments suggests fighting homosexuality is THE hill to fight on in is HYSTERICAL. Gay marriage polls at 50-50. And you think outlawing icky gay sex is the answer ? Are you fucking shitting me ? Earth to reality, come in please. You're batshit insane.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 11:05 AM (b2D8X)

378 I think chaos leads to the equal and opposite reaction of totalitarianism. It also leaves a state vulnerable to other enemies. The foreign and domestic . Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 02:57 PM (RJMhd) As I have said many times in the past: "That's because we haven't played Cowboys and Communists yet."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 11:06 AM (bb5+k)

379 One last thing.

Your fisking format sucks. Blockquote or something.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 03:03 PM
======

hahahahahahahaha, etc.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 11:06 AM (JBggj)

380 375 One last thing. Your fisking format sucks. Blockquote or something. Posted by: Emperor of Icecream Fuck you. Don't come here with that sort of pissant criticism. Fuck you.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 11:06 AM (U4mUk)

381 ... and the Big One: Asymmetry ObamaCare is Democratic Kryptonite. Use it. Leave everything else alone. Paste Teh JEF and his idiotic policies all over each Democrat. People are losing health care ... and some are dying because of ObamaCare. ObamaCare: The Democrat Plan. Throw in an occasional "UNEMPLOYMENT HIGH", "THE FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT" and "WHO PAYS FOR FOODSTAMPS????".

Posted by: Arbalest at February 19, 2014 11:07 AM (FlRtG)

382 Problem with all the 'STFU so-con so we can win' theory is the GOP won't even do the one thing that supposedly unifies the party. Reduce spending. Bush had house and senate and still gave us a new entitlement and more spending. Cruz isn't being attacked for talking about social stuff, he's trying to take the extreme view of 'live within your means.'

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at February 19, 2014 11:08 AM (9Bdcz)

383 California Proposition 8 Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Results Yes or no Votes Percentage Yes check.svg Yes 7,001,084 52.24% X mark.svg No 6,401,482 47.76% Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52% Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48% Total votes 13,743,177 100.00% Voter turnout 79.42% Electorate 17,304,42

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 11:08 AM (5ikDv)

384 245 However much space "recriminalizing sodomy" takes up on these pages, from either side of the debate, it takes up no political space and has determined no electoral outcomes. I just think, ace, your premise on that particular aspect is false. Posted by: non-purist at February 19, 2014 02:20 PM (afQnV) He does love him some strawman. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 02:25 PM (bb5+k) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In your dreams. That argument is absolute electoral kryptonite. The only falsity being perpetrated here is that even mentioning "sodomy" in the context of a political campaign isn't a virtual death sentence. Do you people even KNOW someone that would be considered a LIV or, god forbid, a liberal voter ? I do. They take the war on women and gays very, very seriously. Even as ridiculous as it may seem, to them, it is serious.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 11:09 AM (b2D8X)

385 The fact that someone in these comments suggests fighting homosexuality is THE hill to fight on in is HYSTERICAL. Gay marriage polls at 50-50. And you think outlawing icky gay sex is the answer ? Are you fucking shitting me ? Earth to reality, come in please. You're batshit insane. Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 03:05 PM (b2D8X) I'm going to try to say this in the least offensive way possible. What you just typed is 6th grade, everyone else is working on their PhD. I'd explain why, but I just don't have the time to write the book. Slow. Down.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:09 AM (x3YFz)

386 I can do a lot, but in the long run, society is nothing but harmful to my son. He lives steeped in poison. I can only do so much. Posted by: tcn I understand how you feel.. I have a son. I did what I could to protect him and instill our values. We taught him right from wrong, personal responsibility, the importance of integrity and honor, and to stand on his own beliefs rather than follow a herd, any herd. He is 19 yrs old now and just graduated from basic training as a CavScout in the U.S. Army. We went down for graduation and stayed for a few days. We had one of those wide ranging conversations that covered topics from great guitarists to the mess in Afghanistan. On the topic of abortion, he simply does not agree that it is ever necessary unless the mothers life is in danger. Otherwise it is just a matter of being inconvenient to selfish people. In those cases, adoption should be the option. This young man is very smart, very conservative, and completely unimpressed with the poison of society "norms". You will probably find that your guidance is more solid influence on your son than the poison of the world.

Posted by: madamemayhem at February 19, 2014 11:10 AM (S2RnE)

387 I apologize for being condescending.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:10 AM (x3YFz)

388 Earth to reality, come in please. You're batshit insane. Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 03:05 PM (b2D8X) I'm pointing out that after the media finishes coming for the Socons, they will come for the Ficons too. If you don't stop the Media Dreadnought, nothing else you do will amount to anything.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 11:11 AM (bb5+k)

389 AlextheChick,

you get it.
Thanks.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable. I wasn't cheering on Aikin and I thought O'Donnell was an idiot. I didn't see any point in recriminalizing sodomy in VA either.

But if all the GOP and libertarians like Ace have to offer me is platitudes and pious hopes, that doesn't cut it. I need to see the strategy for actual improvement for me to get on board.

Otherwise, hoist the black flag.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:11 AM (ZMzpb)

390 Posted by: madamemayhem at February 19, 2014 03:10 PM (S2RnE) Out. Standing. well done.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:12 AM (x3YFz)

391 Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 03:09 PM (b2D8X) Really have no more time to respond, especially when it takes more than a sentence to make my point.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 11:13 AM (bb5+k)

392 I'll name one group who is as mean as hell, gets abused by the press, isn't a majority, and no sane politician takes them on...gun owners. They demand absolute adherence to the 2nd Amendment. What makes them a force to be reckoned with? The application of crushing consequences for any politician that gets in their way. They don't have to every fight. But scalp a few politicos and suddenly people tread softly around your issue.

Posted by: Chris at February 19, 2014 11:14 AM (WVeiZ)

393 I'm pointing out that after the media finishes coming for the Socons, they will come for the Ficons too. The GOP leadership has already come for both.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 11:14 AM (hH/34)

394 375 One last thing.

Your fisking format sucks. Blockquote or something.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream

Fuck you. Don't come here with that sort of pissant criticism.
Fuck you. Posted by: Daybrother

Such my schlong like a Viking, Daywad.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:16 AM (ZMzpb)

395 392 I'll name one group who is as mean as hell, gets abused by the press, isn't a majority, and no sane politician takes them on...gun owners. They demand absolute adherence to the 2nd Amendment. What makes them a force to be reckoned with? The application of crushing consequences for any politician that gets in their way. They don't have to every fight. But scalp a few politicos and suddenly people tread softly around your issue. Posted by: Chris at February 19, 2014 03:14 PM (WVeiZ) And they BURN fucking Republicans (who back stab them) by VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRATS. Conservatives should emulate this tactic. "You will hold the line, or we will END YOU."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 11:16 AM (bb5+k)

396 394 375 One last thing. Your fisking format sucks. Blockquote or something. Posted by: Emperor of Icecream Fuck you. Don't come here with that sort of pissant criticism. Fuck you. Posted by: Daybrother Such my schlong like a Viking, Daywad. Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 03:16 PM (ZMzpb) Nice to see everyone getting along. Ice cream?

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:17 AM (x3YFz)

397 "You will hold the line, or we will END YOU." Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 03:16 PM (bb5+k) You've been paying attention! Well done, D.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:18 AM (x3YFz)

398 I'm pointing out that after the media finishes coming for the Socons, they will come for the Ficons too.

If you don't stop the Media Dreadnought, nothing else you do will amount to anything.

Posted by: D-Lamp

What do you mean, after? Mitt Romney went down for being a rich guy. The GOP routinely loses for being heartless accountants even though they are basically the party of big government Part II. Ace's anti-SoCon whining is basically a beta attempt to get the big bads to like you a little bit by pointing them at another target. It won't work. It never does.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:19 AM (ZMzpb)

399 Can't use HTML iceboy? No throw away complaints about the page format? What a petty asshole.

Posted by: Daybrother at February 19, 2014 11:19 AM (0GMdV)

400 Do you people even KNOW someone that would be considered a LIV or, god forbid, a liberal voter ? I do. They take the war on women and gays very, very seriously. Even as ridiculous as it may seem, to them, it is serious.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 03:09 PM (b2D8X)

Oh, of course. Let's take our electoral strategy from the stupid and easily-manipulated who were dumb enough to believe Romney was going to ban tampons and re-institute slavery.

Here's a thought. Call them dumbf*cks and laugh at them for the fact that they consider gay sex more important than jobs. Humiliate them. Bash them as idiots at every opportunity, pointing out how they don't have the brainpower to distinguish between right and wrong. Point them out to other people as fools.

Don't waste rationality or humanity on the stupid and animalistic.

Posted by: northdallasthirty at February 19, 2014 11:19 AM (VcVIw)

401 But remember, even though the GOP's shift leftward has achieved only electoral and legislative defeats, you must trust the GOP that future results will be more positive for the right because they need to shift more toward the left.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 11:20 AM (YbyjT)

402 401 But remember, even though the GOP's shift leftward has achieved only electoral and legislative defeats, you must trust the GOP that future results will be more positive for the right because they need to shift more toward the left. Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 19, 2014 03:20 PM (YbyjT) You so stole that from the R talking points.

Posted by: tangonine (Squirrel Combat Tracker) at February 19, 2014 11:22 AM (x3YFz)

403 Oh, of course. Let's take our electoral strategy from the stupid and easily-manipulated who were dumb enough to believe Romney was going to ban tampons and re-institute slavery. Get your hands off my junk!

Posted by: LIV #4679671 'Clevon' at February 19, 2014 11:22 AM (5ikDv)

404 And while we're at it, let's blame DC for higher food prices, too.

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 11:23 AM (JBggj)

405 If you want to join a winning coalition that appeals to dimbulbs by using Dem talking points, may I suggest the Dems?

Accept no substitutes.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:35 AM (ZMzpb)

406 What a petty asshole.

I understand your asshole is no longer petty, IFKWIMAITYD.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 11:36 AM (ZMzpb)

407 If you want to join a winning coalition that appeals to dimbulbs by using Dem talking points, may I suggest the Dems?

Accept no substitutes.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 03:35 PM (ZMzpb)

Mindblowing, isn't it?

When people are presented with a choice between a Dem and a Republican trying to act like a Dem, they overwhelmingly choose the Dem.

And the Republican Party's solution? MOAR DEM.

Posted by: northdallasthirty at February 19, 2014 11:36 AM (VcVIw)

408 From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered the the blood of parents who don't want their kids to be tween porn starlets. Fucking losers, those parents.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson Said at February 19, 2014 11:38 AM (ZMzpb)

409 'Here's what I don't get about the Purge the SoCons guys:

Did you seriously think "Leaving the Party" means "Shut Up"?'

Yes and No. No because I know how stubborn keyboard warriors are, but yes because if you leave the party, that makes you a RINO and therefore you should be purged.

I do find it amusing when the "Purge all the RINOS" crowd find out that they're the RINOs. Or would, if they were capable of self-reflection.

Posted by: Shoot Me at February 19, 2014 11:42 AM (qiXMt)

410

It's all pretty simple, actually.

The Obama Party promises to sanction sex with whatever you want, take away all the consquences or responsibilities, and give you spending money from someone else.

Social conservativism says that sex carries consequences and responsibilities, and that you should pay your own way.

Ace's answer is that Republicans should sanction sex with whatever you want, take away all the consequences or responsibilities, and require you to pay your own way.

Socons are responsible and intelligent adults. Obama supporters are irresponsible and stupid adolescents. Ace's pathway is that responsible and intelligent adults should act like irresponsible and stupid adolescents.

Posted by: northdallasthirty at February 19, 2014 11:44 AM (VcVIw)

411 "Ace's answer is that Republicans should sanction sex with whatever you want, take away all the consequences or responsibilities, and require you to pay your own way."

_________________________________

All the calories, now with none or the flavor!

We'll make millions!

Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 19, 2014 11:50 AM (nnkXw)

412 It is impossible to NOT legislate morality. Libertarianism merely acknowledges our cultural decline by admitting none of us have any morals anymore. The pendulum will swing to the other extreme before it comes back to a fascist leftist model. Our civilization is dead and dead things swing.

Posted by: StubbleSpark at February 19, 2014 11:55 AM (Wdf6W)

413 This is exactly why I want the so-cons exiled from the party.

I ignore user this cow turd but offer a mental pic of a midget tossig Steve Austin out of the ring as comedic relief.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 19, 2014 11:57 AM (DL2i+)

414 I don't accept Ace's premise that the GOP is losing because it's not as incrementalist as the left. I believe recent losses have been the result of a unique confluence of forces comprising an arrogant incumbent GOP congress, a slick blank-slate candidate, offering hopeychangey dreams to a tired electorate ripe for the plucking, a criminally efficient election campaign machine, a sycophantic and collaborative media and a perfectly-timed economic meltdown. Add in blocking interference from the IRS, DOJ et al and it gets even worse for Liberty. Now that the country sees what a horrible mess has ensued, people want big change in the right direction, i.e. smaller government and more loyalty to the Constitution. In particular I don't buy the claim that the right is making "maximalist demands" on the public. If anything like that IS happening, it's that the public is demanding massive change from the governing elites, which is completely different. What does Ace think the massively successful Tea Party-fuelled 2010 midterm results were all about? And don't say they weren't: that was huge. Keeping your head down will keep it from being shot off, I suppose - until the shooter is finally standing right over you and fixing to empty the chamber one last time. I believe the public is a lot less willing now to take baby steps than Ace thinks. Shit's happening too fast to take baby steps; it's time to stand up, fight and show these bastards we mean business. The Founders certainly knew that.

Posted by: YFS at February 19, 2014 11:58 AM (evUpK)

415 Didn't they get Capone on a tax evasion charge?

Posted by: aka.john at February 19, 2014 11:58 AM (zPa3K)

416 Demands... Read portions from a time capsule dated 1908-1909. http://tinyurl.com/lfprcpf "THE PEOPLE MUST THINK " By GROVER CLEVELAND (1837-190

(POTUS 1893-1897, Democrat Party) How does it happen that a few persons of no extraordinary intellect can so easily influence millions of sane people? The great American public is plastic ma- terial in the hands of any man who has the daring and address to seize upon it and mold it to his purpose. When we look at the men who are accomplishing these things, we see that they are not gifted with intellect greatly superior to their fellows. But they have initiative Â— the faculty of in- dependent thought and independent action. Therein, rather than in any mental eleva- tion, lies the secret of their success. It is not that they are strong but that the people are weak. It is less difficult today than it was one hundred years ago for a man to lift himself out of the ruck and dominate his fellows. And that be- cause the average American of the twen- tieth century has less independence of thought and action than had his grand- father. With the spread of systematization in our affairs, individualism is necessarily de- clining. Its suppression in the industrial field proceeds without protest or opposi- tion. The merchant surrenders to the trust without a struggle and without con- sideration of the advantages that he might enjoy in continuing his business independ- ently. The tendency of the times is against such action and he has not sufficient self- assertiveness to combat it. Again, the suppression of individuality is marked in the legislative restrictions up- on the freedom of the citizen. We have long ceased to question the right or wis- dom of the paternalism that threatens to become a tyranny. We court it, for we have learned to look upon legal enactment as the panacea for all evils. We have pro- hibition against gambling, against the use of liquor, against cigarette smoking, and against a hundred other things that our fathers would have deemed distinctly private matters. We seek justification in the "good of the community" without tak- ing any account of the effect in weakening the character of the individual and crip- pling his self-reliance. A people compelled by legal measures to refrain from this and that vice or indulgence are placed in the situation of the inmates of a penitentiary, who lead moral and regular lives because they are forced to do so and who, in time, become dependent upon the restraining in- fluences for good behavior. The obliquity of our vision and the fal- lacy of our attitude were clearly displayed during the recent period of disturbance that we fondly refer to as a "wave of re- form." For two years, or more, our mag- azines and daily press devoted generous proportions of their space to discussion of abuses in our commercial system. The President directed eloquent tirades against various corporate offenders. Special com- missions investigated and legislatures enacted laws. The machinery of the courts was put into motion with, in a few in- stances, punitive effect. Meanwhile the voice of the people has been raised in in- dignant and hysterical protest against the evils exposed and indiscriminately against corporate wealth in all its forms. We have made a great noise and a brave show of reform. ... It would seem, then, that we must con- fess our great reform movement to be a failure. But why? Because, whilst we have unearthed the evils, we have failed to discover where the fault lies and so have no idea of the true remedy. Great abuses, illegal practices, dishonest methods are dis- closed in connection with some great in- dustry or financial institution and the pub- lic at once sets up an outcry. It is shocked at the revelations, it denounces the offend- ers and plaintively demands protective leg- islation. It displays a childish readiness to avoid the onus of blame or responsi- bility and a childish eagerness to seek help outside of itself. It never stops to consider Â— for, indeed, it considers nothing but what is presented to it in the most obvious form Â— it never stops to consider that it Â— the public, as represented by the masses, made up of consumers and taxpayers, Â— is the chief offender. But this is surely true, for the conduct of large bodies in any nation is a certain index to the moral standards of the people. The crying evils in our industrial and social economies would not be possible without the tacit permission of the people. And, as a mat- ter of fact, they have in many cases grown out of the active cooperation of the very persons who are now inveighing against them. In life insurance, as in the railroad business, the worst and most widespread abuse has been the giving and taking of illegal rebates. The practice flourished because of the readiness of individuals to take part in it. In like manner we may- trace almost all the similar troubles of which we complain so loudly, back to our- selves Â— not in mass but as individuals. ... In a stirring appeal to a generation less deserving of his strictures than this, the sage Emerson called attention to the urgent need for courageous independent action and thought. "The sinew and heart of man seem to be drawn out," declared the virile philosopher, "and we have be- come timorous, desponding whimperers. We are afraid of truth, afraid of fortune, afraid of death, and afraid of each other. We want men and women, who shall reno- vate life and our social state; but we see that most natures are insolvent, cannot satisfy their own wants, have an ambition out of all proportion to their practical force, and so do lean and beg day and night continually. Our housekeeping is mendicant, our arts, our occupations, our marriages, our religion we have not chosen, but society has chosen for us." With the loss of individuality, naturally goes the faculty of initiative. The indi- vidual American is falling into the mental attitude of the Chinaman who is taught to consider himself merely as a passive and inert part of the body politic. Our news- papers publish the details of some great abuse, some flagrant public wrong. The average American reads the account with righteous indignation. "Shocking!" he cries, "Such a state of things should be suppressed at once." His sense of injury and of justice is aroused but he contents himself with the reflection that there must be some person, organization, or agency that ought to and surely will attend to the matter. That he should individually assert himself as a cit- izen and an interested party never enters his head. And yet that is just what the average [self respecting] Englishman would be apt to do ... because he is ever ready to exert him- self in self-protection, Â— and not on account of superior laws, Â— that such abuses as are common with us of corporate power and many a threatened encroachment on public rights has been nipped in the bud first by a letter to The Times, followed by an action at law instituted by a private citizen. = Grover Cleveland's final address to Americans, posthumously published in "The Craftsman" VOLUME XV. OCTOBER, 1908Â— MARCH, 1909

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 12:08 PM (MhA4j)

417 Individuality, Initiative and Accountability Ayn Rand would have enjoyed knowing Grover Cleveland.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 12:13 PM (MhA4j)

418 I read that Hollywood talent agent Michael Ovitz said his negotiating strategy was to offer a reasonable deal for both sides and stick to it. That sounds like a pretty good approach if both parties are dealing in good faith. If the other party isn't dealing in good faith, walk away.

Posted by: Tantor at February 19, 2014 12:13 PM (659DL)

419 You can have my porn when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

BTW, there is NOTHING incrementalist about the left. Not a blessed thing. They commit every offense against decency, break every law, push every button, tell every lie, demand every concession and then mock you to your face.

The problem the right has is Republicans who sell them out at every opportunity and a lack of courage in their own convictions. There isn't a man jack in Congress who believes the endgame is to repeal Social Security for instance. The isn't a single person on the left anywhere in the Capitol, let alone in Congress, who doesn't know the endgame isn't socialized medicine. That is why when they gull some substandard intellect like Judge Roberts into ratcheting the wheel of tyranny in their favor they know they will NEVER have to give anything back.

There is no hope and the proof of it is in posts like the one Ace just made where someone who is supposed to be a stalwart for our side isn't.

Think of the demands the right is making and tell me how the hell it can be thought of as radical to want to return the US to as it was just 5 years ago before the most tyrannical president we have ever seen took office?

Posted by: Thatch at February 19, 2014 12:14 PM (qYvEa)

420 "And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them... Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny." Plato, describing how democracy falls into tyranny.

Posted by: JohnJ at February 19, 2014 12:21 PM (TF/YA)

421 187 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 02:15 PM (zfY+H) Exactly.

Posted by: YFS at February 19, 2014 12:34 PM (evUpK)

422 STOP with the "80%" of the country agrees with me garbage. Getting abortion out of the Federal govt is not BANNING all abortions. You want a poll? 80+ percent disagree with Leftist darling Wendy Davis and her "no ban on abortions ever" stance. France bans it at 16 weeks. And another point is that when you have schools pumping out colossal idiots like Obama who have been also taught they are mega-intelligent only ruin can follow.

Posted by: DavidM at February 19, 2014 12:37 PM (R/e5b)

423 The easiest and quickest way to fix this country in general is to fix the fucking media.

And by fix, I mean root out all the leftist fucktard assholes and beat the fucking shit out of them for what they've done, which is wreck our home.

They wrecked our home!

Dirty Fuckers!!!

Posted by: Hi Sweetie! It's Grandma at February 19, 2014 12:40 PM (jjaLl)

424 Another thing that troubles me is the comparison between a contractual negotiation and the political realm. They're not the same. If two parties to a negotiation can't come to terms, there is no deal. But if two political entities can't come to terms, one of them (Democrats or Progs, whatever you want to call tyrants) will eventually force their agenda on the other, "the other" always being the one who disengages from the process. He's the one who gets called "the obstructionist" and demonized. Acquiescing and walking away from the table in politics doesn't take you out of the negotiation. You are still subject to what others who haven't left the table decide for you. That will get you screwed every time unless you fight back. There is nothing "maximalist" about defending the Constitution. It has been taken down in increments over the last hundred years and it needs to be restored, dammit. And now is the time to demand it back from the governing elites. If defending what's yours by birthright is by default off the table, that's the kind of attitude that gets your ass beat in the schoolyard as a kid and later allows the laws and your freedoms to go down the drain while wringing your hands all day because Ted Cruz is too something or other. It's an end game, one we must win.

Posted by: YFS at February 19, 2014 12:59 PM (evUpK)

425 >>>You can't have it both ways. Don't tell me you should be able to do what you want then expand the role of government to steal from me and pay for the ill effects. You want to engage in unhealthy practices. Your right I suppose. But it is mine not to suffer the ill effects of your bad behavior. Posted by: Marcus T this is why I didn't want Obamacare. I knew even people on the right would turn into big government nanny state assholes assimilated by the big government nanny state assholes on the left and want to tell me what to do. quit trying to make it work.

Posted by: X at February 19, 2014 01:04 PM (KHo8t)

426 303 Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 02:38 PM (zF6Iw) "- we don't need you, but you sure as hell need us." That's the simple truth of the matter, yes. But I don't agree with sitting out *any* election, ever.

Posted by: YFS at February 19, 2014 01:13 PM (evUpK)

427 362 No, the country is not doomed. We are not alone. We will rally, and organize, and vote. Everything that's being thrown at us since the O-Care roll out debacle has been for one reason: To demoralize the American voters who are sick of this mess. To intimidate, harass, divert, obfuscate, and deceive voters from understanding the problems facing the people of this country, and to prevent them from arriving at the fundamental conclusion that the political and economic elite are out of touch, out of control, and out of time. If we keep our heads and focus on the job in front of us, in January, 2015, they will be out of a job. Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2014 02:55 PM (JBggj) I'm with mrp. All the rest is crap, especially this "let's dump the socons" bullshit. You'd swear that's a Dem talking.

Posted by: YFS at February 19, 2014 01:24 PM (evUpK)

428 "if you leave the party, that makes you a RINO and therefore you should be purged."
Wait... so if you leave the Republican Party, you're a Republican In Name Only and should be ... throw out of... the Republican Party ... that you already left?
My brain hurts.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 02:16 PM (zfY+H)

429 "Wait... so if you leave the Republican Party, you're a Republican In Name Only and should be ... throw out of... the Republican Party ... that you already left?"

It would be so much easier if the Right would use Conservative In Name Only instead of RINO. But anyway, RINOS! are always accused of being giant cowards, so they must be purged from the party and even discussions about what to do, yes.

"let's dump the socons"

How about we dump the Righties who can't meet a single criticism without flipping the heck out and accusing everybody of ganging up on them. So, so tired of this constant victimhood crap. The paranoia isn't helping the party.

And no, it's not how a Dem talks. Dems are openly hostile to Socons. Ace is trying to explain what's wrong with the movement. Dems would call you a Christofacist or Jesusfreak or something equally dumb.

"If defending what's yours by birthright is by default off the table, that's the kind of attitude that gets your ass beat in the schoolyard as a kid and later allows the laws and your freedoms to go down the drain while wringing your hands all day because Ted Cruz is too something or other. "

Cruz lost. But I guess blaming others is the closest thing Cruz has to an accomplishment so far.

Posted by: Shoot Me at February 19, 2014 08:28 PM (qiXMt)

430 The SoCons Shutup movement is another manifestation of the same idiocy as the Amnesty movement.

Poor Mexican migrants and bitter single women/fatherless children are both heavy Democratic constituencies and will continue to be no matter how much the Pubs pander to them.

Posted by: Obamacare is an abortion at February 20, 2014 04:27 AM (qo8gP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

374kb generated in CPU 0.2325, elapsed 0.4092 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3453 seconds, 558 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.