January 23, 2014
The GOP Presidential Frontrunner Is... Rand Paul?
— Ace With Christie collapsing, the field's wide-open.
— Ace With Christie collapsing, the field's wide-open.
Except, this guy argues, it's not.
To understand the Kentucky senator’s hidden strength, it’s worth remembering this basic fact about the modern GOP: It almost never nominates first-time candidates. Since 1980, George W. Bush is the only first-timer to win a Republican nomination. And since Bush used the political network his father built, he enjoyed many of the benefits of someone who had run before. It’s the same with Paul. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he begins with an unparalleled infrastructure left over from his father Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.Start with Iowa. Last May, Rand Paul gave the keynote speech at the Iowa Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner. How did he secure this prize invitation? Because the chairman, co-chairman, and finance chairman of the Iowa Republican Party all supported his father. Rand Paul’s not the only potential 2012 candidate who will inherit a political infrastructure in the Hawkeye State. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee also have networks left over from prior runs. But their supporters don’t play as influential a role in the state GOP. “RPI no longer stands for the Republican Party of Iowa,” noted a recent article in Politico, “but for Rand Paul, Inc.”
And while Ron Paul scared the horses with his previous newsletters and outré positions on foreign policy and oddball bugaboos about precious metals, Rand Paul has avoided most of his father's most disqualifying positions, while the Party has simultaneously moved in a more libertarian direction.
The Meatball said in an email that he liked this article, but they misspelled Scott Walker. The Meatball loves him some Scott Walker.
I think Scott Walker's path is this: Pitching himself as an Establishment candidate (even though he's probably not quite that). When the Establishment is made to realize there are certain depths to which the base will not stoop (Jeb Bush, or a much-damaged Chris Christie, or even Marco Rubio), it will look for a candidate who is at least acceptable to them, if not quite preferable.
And Scott Walker would be acceptable to most of us (though many are questioning his positions on things like amnesty).
And, meanwhile, the Senate appears to be a lean-Republican toss up, per Larry Sabato.
Posted by: Ace at
03:36 PM
| Comments (930)
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.
3
Get ready for Aqua Buddha 24/7
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 03:39 PM (pginn)
7
I'm an early endorser of Rand Paul for both policy and political reasons. He's my man!
Posted by: WannabeAnglican at January 23, 2014 03:40 PM (iuieR)
8
I can't think about the next presidential election yet,I just can't.
Posted by: steevy at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (zqvg6)
10
An extremely extremist who is extremist in his extreme views.
Our work here is done
Posted by: MSM at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (XvrTA)
11
3
Get ready for Aqua Buddha 24/7
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 07:39 PM (pginn)
I only use it after I shave.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 07:39 PM (pginn)
I only use it after I shave.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (ZS1LI)
12
Remember that Reagan faced a hostile press, too, and went over their heads to get his message out to the public.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (pginn)
13
5 But aren't the sins of the father vested upon the son or something?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 07:40 PM (ZS1LI)
Don't be getting all SOCON!!! in here.
Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (bCEmE)
15
Until such time as we can overcome the MFM it's going to be a tough row to hoe. Plus he's got to carry his fathers' baggage. Although, I know of a number of young twenty/thirty somethings that thought Ron was the berries.
Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (SudzO)
16
Is there any Rand Paul v. Hillary polling yet?
I know PPP (D) is polling the hell out of--
Cruz v. Hillary.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (RJMhd)
17
Rand is hurt by the fact that he's kinda weird looking and he talks kinda funny.
And Ron Paul's newsletters will be thrown in his face, repeatedly, and he's gonna have to have some answer for that.
We'll see. Luckily, with Cankles the likely Dem nominee, the Repubs don't have a high bar to clear for physical attractiveness.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (ZPrif)
18
Yeah, the Aqua Buddha stuff will get a ton of play. Here in Kentucky they tried to run that into the ground but it did not really work. Nationwide? It will make the Romney-Mormon stuff seem tepid.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (TGgNi)
19
No. Just no. Give me Cruz, give me Perry, give me Walker. Not the guy who campaigned his ass off for silver dimes.
Posted by: Peaches at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (8lmkt)
20
But the hair, can Rand Paul get elected with that hair???
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (yz6yg)
21
going to run the son of the crazy?
President Hillary laughs
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (At8tV)
23
5
But aren't the sins of the father vested upon the son or something?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr
Yeah, it's not like Obama's dad was a socialist or something.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr
Yeah, it's not like Obama's dad was a socialist or something.
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 03:42 PM (P1WNR)
24
SO when can we expect a scandal/Holder indictment on this guy?
I'm sure he'll be audited by the IRS in 3..2..1...
I'm sure he'll be audited by the IRS in 3..2..1...
Posted by: Lizzy at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (POpqt)
25
Dear Lord, send us a true, Constitution loving, *thinking* conservative. Please no McCains, Santorums, Rubios, Huckabees, Doles, Boners, or McConnells.
Posted by: dogfish at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (nsOJa)
26
I saw Aqua Buddha open for Jethro Tull at the Coliseum in '75.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (yz6yg)
27
I predict that Rand will be denounced by the MBF for merely running against Our Historic First Woman President.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (pginn)
28
Winning a national primary is easy, once you have the Internet and talk radio behind you.
Posted by: Fred Thompson at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (pmsMR)
30
I am tanned, fit, and rested. Very tanned. Dessicated actually. In fact I'm pretty fucked up and useless. Don't even consider me in the primaries, or you'll be sorry.
Posted by: Mike Huckabee, Compulsively Honest at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (w41GQ)
31
19 No. Just no. Give me Cruz, give me Perry, give me Walker. Not the guy who campaigned his ass off for silver dimes.
Posted by: Peaches at January 23, 2014 07:42 PM (8lmkt)
********
Holy shit--did he do the silver dimes thing?
I thought that was Pops.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 03:44 PM (RJMhd)
32
Never mind Larry Sabato. What does CAC say?
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 03:44 PM (pginn)
33
Bring on The SARAH!!!!
she's the last hope to win
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 03:44 PM (At8tV)
34
Let's just get it out of the way.
"The back-stabbing Establishment will torpedo everyone but Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, because wusses"
There, I feel much better.
"The back-stabbing Establishment will torpedo everyone but Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, because wusses"
There, I feel much better.
Posted by: pep at January 23, 2014 03:44 PM (6TB1Z)
35
I can't think about the next presidential election yet,I just can't.
--
What I can't think about is the freaking media getting ahold of the next presidential election. I dread it.
--
What I can't think about is the freaking media getting ahold of the next presidential election. I dread it.
Posted by: Lady in Black at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (Oa7B2)
36
Christie's collapse is a bridge to the nomination for Paul.
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (P1WNR)
37
The GOP is missing the boat. Or, as they say in China, 你们都是傻瓜
Posted by: Jon Huntsman, Model Republican of the New Millenium at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (8ZskC)
38
I'm fine with Paul, but I prefer Cruz.
Posted by: Countrysquire at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (8FyP4)
40
That Hillary picture reminds me of a an old 1920's movie about man going to the moon. I liked the part where the rocket got stuck in its eye.
Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (SudzO)
41
31 Never mind Larry Sabato. What does CAC say?
CAC was spot on that last round, huh?
That's why he has lunch with President Romney twice a month now.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (yz6yg)
42
King Krispy Kreme/Jeb Bush 2016
The Winning Ticket!!!!!11111
McCain says so!
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (kCnae)
43
Let's get past the 2012 primaries first, eh?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (eHIJJ)
44
As for Ron Paul's newsletters - Rand has been backpedalling furiously, doing his best to disassociate himself from his dad.
Rand, if he wins the Presidency, will be an affirmative-action booster like Nixon. He will do ANYTHING not to be called a racist.
Walker would at least have the fortitude to say "I'm not a racist, FYNQ".
Rand, if he wins the Presidency, will be an affirmative-action booster like Nixon. He will do ANYTHING not to be called a racist.
Walker would at least have the fortitude to say "I'm not a racist, FYNQ".
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (30eLQ)
45
Holy shit--did he do the silver dimes thing?
I thought that was Pops.
I thought that was Pops.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 07:44 PM (RJMhd)
It was, and he was backed to the hair on his saggy old dessicated bawls by Rand.
Posted by: Peaches at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (8lmkt)
46
I think we'd have a fine candidate in Mitch McConnell. Because his turn.
Posted by: The GOP Establishment at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (pginn)
47
But the hair, can Rand Paul get elected with that hair???
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2014 07:42 PM (yz6yg)
Thanks for putting "Oh, where is my hairbrush?" on repeat in my head.
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 03:45 PM (MpP9p)
48
I think --off hand--IIRC--(see all those wiffy qualifiers?)
Rand Paul does for shit with one demographic--the one Ace has been fighting for lately--
The Womenz.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 03:46 PM (RJMhd)
49
>>Rand is hurt by the fact that he's kinda weird looking and he talks kinda funny.
After "Mr. Cool," slick Obama it's refreshing. Paul doesn't need styrofoam columns, fake president-elect seals, Shepard Fairey art posters.
After "Mr. Cool," slick Obama it's refreshing. Paul doesn't need styrofoam columns, fake president-elect seals, Shepard Fairey art posters.
Posted by: Lizzy at January 23, 2014 03:46 PM (POpqt)
50
But Rand Paul is one of those icky socon abortion extremists who believes life begins at conception (mainly cause it does) so we should probably just insult him a lot.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 03:46 PM (ZPrif)
52
ME is a safe R?
hahahajaja!
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 03:47 PM (4Tut9)
53
Thanks for putting "Oh, where is my hairbrush?" on repeat in my head.
Hey, at least it's better then "The Biscuit of Zazzamarandabo."
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:47 PM (yz6yg)
54
>>> I still want Perry to run.
perry would begin, obviously, with a huge disadvantage. While any other candidate needs to just avoid appearing stupid, Perry would have to go out of his way to prove that he is smart.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:47 PM (/FnUH)
55
If Larry Sabato and Frank Luntz were in the same room, would there be a chance that the toupees would leap from each of their heads and engage in hot, ass-thumping copulation? Because that would be cool.
Posted by: Countrysquire at January 23, 2014 03:47 PM (8FyP4)
56
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he begins with an unparalleled infrastructure left over from his father Ron PaulÂ’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.
--------------------------
Unparalleled Infrastructure = thousands of Paultard stoners, chemtrail sniffers and goldbugs who will freep the shit out of straw polls for $30.
Yay.
The adults are back in charge.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, SGT - Cotton Mather Purity Death Squad (M) at January 23, 2014 03:48 PM (JDIKC)
58
But Rand Paul has legs, so why is this funny?
Posted by: Wendy Davis at January 23, 2014 07:46 PM
..................Because it just is cuz I said so!
Posted by: Wendy Davis' Huge Mole at January 23, 2014 03:48 PM (C3Wjb)
59
and KY is a lesser "Safe" R?
what's this guy smoking?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 03:48 PM (4Tut9)
60
MATT DRUDGE @DRUDGE 6m
Holder dangling 'indictments' over News Corp's head too. Behavior modification... http://ind.pn/1dzu48O
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (ZPrif)
61
er, I meant "Likely" above
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (4Tut9)
62
If Larry Sabato and Frank Luntz were in the same room, would there be a
chance that the toupees would leap from each of their heads and engage
in hot, ass-thumping copulation? Because that would be cool.
I believe that was covered on Star Trek: The Trouble with Tribbles.
I believe that was covered on Star Trek: The Trouble with Tribbles.
Posted by: pep at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (6TB1Z)
63
While any other candidate needs to just avoid appearing stupid, Perry
would have to go out of his way to prove that he is smart.
It can be done. But just watch out for that Johnny Olla.
It can be done. But just watch out for that Johnny Olla.
Posted by: Fredo Corleone at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (8ZskC)
64
Yay.
The adults are back in charge.
Shhhhhh. We're only going to need them until South Carolina.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (yz6yg)
65
That's why he has lunch with President Romney twice a month now.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2014 07:45 PM (yz6yg)
CAC would've had it nailed except for the IRS, voter fraud, and a thousand other things we don't know about yet.
Posted by: The GOP Establishment at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (pginn)
67
I learned it from watching you Dad! O.K.! I learned it from watching you!
Posted by: Rand Paul PSA at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (C3Wjb)
68
>>>But Rand Paul is one of those icky socon abortion extremists who believes life begins at conception (mainly cause it does) so we should probably just insult him a lot.
You know when you think that minorities and women are a bit too knee-jerk about claiming they've been victimized by Hate or Disrespect just because someone has dared to say they disagree and will not support their particular political demands...?
Or when you think that gays are being unreasonable in claiming that "tolerance" means affirmatively supporting them in all their various goals...?
Yeah let's maybe universalize from that and see how it may apply to other situations.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (/FnUH)
69
Unparalleled Infrastructure = thousands of Paultard stoners, chemtrail sniffers and goldbugs who will freep the shit out of straw polls for $30.
Yay.
The adults are back in charge.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, SGT - Cotton Mather Purity Death Squad (M)
Wonder if they still got that blimp. The bitches love blimpz.
Posted by: Countrysquire at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (8FyP4)
70
King Krispy Kreme/Jeb Bush 2016
-Pro-Abortion
-Pro-Gun Control
-Pro-Gayz
-Pro-Illegals
You get the Big Gov't Statist -R without all the icky SoCon nuts. What could possibly go wrong!
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (kCnae)
72
Perry would have to go out of his way to prove that he is smart.
I really doubt that's possible. What is he going to do, take the SATs?
I really doubt that's possible. What is he going to do, take the SATs?
Posted by: pep at January 23, 2014 03:50 PM (6TB1Z)
73
I lie with Hillary!!
Posted by: Wendy Davis at January 23, 2014 07:49 PM
....This is my corner bitch!
Posted by: Huma at January 23, 2014 03:50 PM (C3Wjb)
75
Hey, at least it's better then "The Biscuit of Zazzamarandabo."
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2014 07:47 PM (yz6yg)
*Looks it up on YouTube*
I get your point.
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 03:50 PM (MpP9p)
76
I'd also have to disagree with Colorado being a "Safe D". Udall hasn't done squat except vote the party line and with the backlash against what the Dems did in the State House last year, I don't think his seat is as safe as most think.
Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at January 23, 2014 03:50 PM (SudzO)
77
Remember, there was a "racist" rock on a piece of property that was used to hammer me.
What's gonna be said when Rand runs, about having a -- well maybe not racist -- but at least anti-Semitic father?
What's gonna be said when Rand runs, about having a -- well maybe not racist -- but at least anti-Semitic father?
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 23, 2014 03:51 PM (VVa+w)
78
Scott Walker has 0 national appeal.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 03:51 PM (4Tut9)
79
CAC would've had it nailed except for the IRS, voter fraud, and a thousand other things we don't know about yet.
Posted by: The GOP Establishment at January 23, 2014 07:49 PM (pginn)
Here, have another martini.
Â…and your Thorazine. You know how cranky you get without your Thorazine.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:51 PM (yz6yg)
81
Ridicule is difficult to counter. You do it all the time, Ace. For that very reason.
And I'm not a socon.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 03:51 PM (ZPrif)
82
What's gonna be said when Rand runs, about having a -- well maybe not racist -- but at least anti-Semitic father?
The MSM will have a harder time working up a lather about anti-Semitism since most of them are anti-Semites themselves.
The MSM will have a harder time working up a lather about anti-Semitism since most of them are anti-Semites themselves.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 23, 2014 03:52 PM (8ZskC)
83
Whatever else about Rand Paul, elected executives first.
Posted by: blaster at January 23, 2014 03:52 PM (4+AaH)
84
Aw shit, here we go. And in this corner in the red trunks weighing in at 187 ....and in this corner in the really red trunks...ding ding
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 23, 2014 03:52 PM (C3Wjb)
85
New Mexico is such an embarrassment, and Louisiana you better shape up.
Posted by: Texas at January 23, 2014 03:52 PM (nsOJa)
86
Give me a governor or a recently retired governor from a red or purple state. I want them to be able to say "This is what we accomplished and why it is good."
Hint: "I worked with Dems and we passed bipartisan legislation" is not and accomplishment or good.
Further Hint: New Jersey is not a red or purple state.
Even Further Hint: Jeb Bush is not a recently retired governor.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 03:52 PM (LI48c)
87
Wasn't Frank Luntz so disillusioned with the last election that he gave up polling... as in literally selling his business?
Yeah, that's where I am. I have no idea who is going to win and I'm pretty sure it just doesn't matter. The Leviathan will proceed unabated until economic collapse which is the well demarcated and measured iceberg that will surprise no one except for those who deny icebergs.
Yeah, that's where I am. I have no idea who is going to win and I'm pretty sure it just doesn't matter. The Leviathan will proceed unabated until economic collapse which is the well demarcated and measured iceberg that will surprise no one except for those who deny icebergs.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 23, 2014 03:53 PM (eHIJJ)
88
Why don't we ever discuss the elephant shitting in the room: turnout?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 03:53 PM (4Tut9)
89
Hey, at least it's better then "The Biscuit of Zazzamarandabo."
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2014 07:47 PM (yz6yg)
Which Son naturally insisted on watching once you'd mentioned it.
Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at January 23, 2014 03:53 PM (GDulk)
90
>>>Whatever else about Rand Paul, elected executives first.
true... who else but Scott Walker?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:54 PM (/FnUH)
91
I predict that in this election, Guam will flip.
Posted by: Rep. Hank Johnson at January 23, 2014 03:54 PM (8ZskC)
92
The Meatball said in an email that he liked this article, but they misspelled Scott Walker. The Meatball loves him some Scott Walker.
******
Scott Walker is amazing when you look at his rational, logic, results--
unfortunately his oratory skill is--too calm.
Plus--the damn left will rip him to shreds because instead of wasting his time in one of their Liberal colleges learning crap--he went and worked and has a lot of experience and business sense.
Plus--Wisconsin.
Its like with Reince Priebus at the head of the GOP they get a weird blind spot about applying Wisconsin to everywhere else.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 03:54 PM (RJMhd)
93
Scott Walker has 0 national appeal.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 07:51 PM
...............................Wha?
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 23, 2014 03:54 PM (C3Wjb)
94
Your move, senator Cruz.
Hey, it's nice to do it without a sock.
Posted by: Countrysquire at January 23, 2014 03:54 PM (8FyP4)
96
Why don't we ever discuss the elephant shitting in the room: turnout?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 07:53 PM (4Tut9)
So true. The Ds get the vote out among the dead, the canines, everything. The Rs can't even get the living to show up.
Posted by: Peaches at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (8lmkt)
97
I'd rather Cruz or Perry, but Rand's fine by me. No more "Esablishment" no more RINOs!
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (KL49F)
98
I'm rubber, you're glue what you throw at me bounces back and sticks to YOU!!!!
(why do I feel like I'm back at recess in 3rd grade?)
(why do I feel like I'm back at recess in 3rd grade?)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (LSDdO)
99
HAHAHA you little serfs think that I will actually allow an election?
Off to the arugula collective farms with you!
Posted by: King Barracka the Magnificent at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (A1Dcl)
100
81
Well, there was that one recent thing about bacon-love being code for anti-Semitism.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (TGgNi)
101
Scott Walker would be a good president. I'm not sure Scott Walker would be a good campaigner.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (P6QsQ)
102
Rand has tried to be squishy on the abortion issue. And he'll be forced to harden up during the primaries, as will the rest of the nominees. And then they'll be WarOnWomenzed in the general.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 03:55 PM (ZPrif)
103
perry or cruz
Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl 35 days until spring training at January 23, 2014 03:56 PM (u8GsB)
104
Trying to predict the nominee in 2016 this far out is kind of silly. Particularly since there is no dreaded "next in line" that the establishment always seems to shove down our throats.
If Obamacare blows up, if Iran gets its nuke on, if a million things happen, who the hell knows who is going to be the nominee. Could be someone not even on the radar right now.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 03:56 PM (g1DWB)
106
Never mind Larry Sabato. What does CAC say?
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at January 23, 2014 07:44 PM (pginn)
Even IF we win the Senate, it's mostly for show, barring a very large win. Sean Trende has a great post up right now explaining why: we have six to seven vulnerable seats of our own up in just two years. We need a sizable win for comfort, particularly if we are facing President Hillary Planet, which is apparently massive enough to have a whole quasar orbiting her. Or the NYT is just really bad at science.
Oh and MI is a toss-up, not "lean Dem", and LA is lean Dem, not a toss-up. Otherwise I think Sabato is pretty much on the ball.
Posted by: CAC, who will ALWAYS be the Supreme Scott Walker Fan at January 23, 2014 03:56 PM (npTnN)
107
86The Leviathan will proceed unabated until economic collapse which is the well demarcated and measured iceberg that will surprise no one except for those who deny icebergs.Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 23, 2014 07:53 PM (eHIJJ)
Our new Titanic is truly indestructible and will pulverize the iceberg.
Our new Titanic is truly indestructible and will pulverize the iceberg.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 03:57 PM (ZS1LI)
108
Peaches, unless I see drastic changes (in deeds, not words) the R's won't even get ME out to vote for them.
And I'm not the only one. Conservstives have had it with the Republicans.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 03:57 PM (4Tut9)
109
[iScott Walker would be a good president. I'm not sure Scott Walker would be a good campaigner.[/i]
Agree. Also, he's an amnestia.
Agree. Also, he's an amnestia.
Posted by: pep at January 23, 2014 03:58 PM (6TB1Z)
110
Are socons disqualified now? Because Walker very much is one.
Don't know - just asking based on skimming earlier posts from today.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 03:58 PM (P6QsQ)
111
I also see Montana as more likely R than South Dakota right now. There's a libertarian running in South Dakota who will siphon off some votes, and a "Republican" running as an indie there.
Walsh isn't gaining shit from being appointed to the Senate. He's down 15 points as it is.
Posted by: CAC, who will ALWAYS be the Supreme Scott Walker Fan at January 23, 2014 03:58 PM (npTnN)
112
Oh and MI is a toss-up, not "lean Dem", and LA is lean Dem, not a toss-up. Otherwise I think Sabato is pretty much on the ball.
And ME is anything but Safe R.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 03:59 PM (yz6yg)
113
@108 pep
Although I see that bandied about, I have not found clear evidence of that.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 03:59 PM (P6QsQ)
115
Are socons disqualified now? Because Walker very much is one.
Don't know - just asking based on skimming earlier posts from today.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 07:58 PM (P6QsQ)
The man walks on sweet-smelling fog in my eyes, and I groaned quite loudly over Akin and Mourdock. He's golden, mama.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 04:00 PM (npTnN)
116
I'm guessing amnesty will already be law by 2016, unless Hillary convinces Obama to leave that for her to campaign on.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:00 PM (ZPrif)
117
96 I'd rather Cruz or Perry, but Rand's fine by me. No more "Esablishment" no more RINOs!
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 23, 2014 07:55 PM (KL49F)
--Oh just wait. We had McCain, Romney, and now you will get Krispy Kreme and Jeb. And if you don't vote, well then, you don't want PREZ PANTSUIT, *DO YOU*?
The Establishment is already gaming up for this.
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 04:00 PM (kCnae)
118
Who ever will take care of all family business.
Posted by: Michael Corleone at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (Pr6hk)
119
NC, LA and AK are toss ups? I don't believe that. Solid R pick ups. MN might even dump Stuart Smalley.
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (jucos)
120
Scott Walker has defeated the best the dems, the unions and the media could throw at him...twice. He just may be electable.
Posted by: Icedog at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (uZ6Ul)
121
And ME is anything but Safe R.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2014 07:59 PM (yz6yg)
Er...no.
Collins is not retiring, so that seat stays RepublicanINO.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (npTnN)
122
Are socons disqualified now? Because Walker very much is one.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just until Ace reads another life-changing book.
Posted by: Countrysquire at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (8FyP4)
123
there is only one way for the GOP to beat Hillary
a well known blogger sleeping with her and showing the 11th hour sex tape
THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY IS IN YOUR HANDS ACE!!
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (At8tV)
124
CAC, since you're here, are you familiar with a piece of art or sculpture that is a large sphere with lots of needle-type things sticking out of it. And when one 'needle' is touched, it will cause a chain reaction moving all the needles?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM (4Tut9)
125
>>>Are socons disqualified now? Because Walker very much is one.
Don't know - just asking based on skimming earlier posts from today.
...
this sort of snark is no different than a black guy saying, because you disagree with his platform, "Well, gee, are black men even allowed to RUN for president!??!"
You're welcome to engage in it but be aware of the pedigree.
Any pushback against Christian politics is suggested to be animus against Christians generally. Just like any pushback against the gay agenda is h8ing on gays, etc.
I disagree with you. That's it. You can contrive these slights and insults and emotional pitches, but at the end of the day, I disagree with you, and that's it.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:02 PM (/FnUH)
126
When you write ME and R together, it just makes me chuckle.
Posted by: dogfish at January 23, 2014 04:02 PM (nsOJa)
127
CAC
He is golden to me too. I adore him unequivocally . He has turned our state around, and faced down thugs and death threat all along the way. Without once - ONCE - breaking a sweat or returning evil for evil.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:02 PM (P6QsQ)
128
I predicted 6 senate gop net pickups a few months ago, looks like Sabato says 4, but when amnesty passes, I predict -2.
I predicted 6 senate gop net pickups a few months ago, looks like Sabato says 4, but when amnesty passes, I predict -2.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 04:02 PM (n0DEs)
129
In important news, Archer is back on the air and funny.
Also, Chozen is fucking retarded and not funny.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:02 PM (ZPrif)
130
This is the comedy hour dammit. No fighting!
Posted by: dogfish at January 23, 2014 04:03 PM (nsOJa)
131
JackStraw: "Trying to predict the nominee in 2016 this far out is kind of silly."
Exactly. Who could have predicted John Fckuing McPain would be the standard bearer in '08? I swore up and down I'd never vote for the guy and ended up voting for him (well, for Palin but McCain got the benefit), a shame from which I don't think I'll ever recover.
Sweet, sweet SMOD, why have thou forsaken me?!
Exactly. Who could have predicted John Fckuing McPain would be the standard bearer in '08? I swore up and down I'd never vote for the guy and ended up voting for him (well, for Palin but McCain got the benefit), a shame from which I don't think I'll ever recover.
Sweet, sweet SMOD, why have thou forsaken me?!
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 23, 2014 04:03 PM (eHIJJ)
132
Are socons disqualified now? Because Walker very much is one.
Don't know - just asking based on skimming earlier posts from today.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 07:58 PM
.......I hope not, as long as they are conservative on fiscal issues, immigration, and for small government etc. then YES! If they are socon's in the mold of Huckabee or a rino squish then no.
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 23, 2014 04:03 PM (C3Wjb)
135
>>>there is only one way for the GOP to beat Hillary
a well known blogger sleeping with her and showing the 11th hour sex tape
THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY IS IN YOUR HANDS ACE!!
...
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you then.
Posted by: ace's penis didn't sign up for this shit at January 23, 2014 04:03 PM (/FnUH)
136
oh snap, Ace just pulled the Race Card!
D)
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:04 PM (4Tut9)
137
pfft. i hope they do go for Christie or Jeb. drive that stake home
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 23, 2014 04:04 PM (KgN8K)
138
Joe, yeah, I watched Chosen...kept waiting for the funny parts...and then the credits came up.
Posted by: Icedog at January 23, 2014 04:04 PM (uZ6Ul)
139
"Georgia -- Leans R"
If ex-Sen Lugar and his Republi-Pals keep supporting La Femme Nuun it won't.
"Georgia -- Leans R"
If ex-Sen Lugar and his Republi-Pals keep supporting La Femme Nuun it won't.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:04 PM (kdS6q)
140
Ace
I wasn't snarking. I have only just gotten home, skimmed the comments, and wondered aloud what the consensus of the day was. When I'm snarking, it's pretty clear. This wasn't it.
Gee whiz.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:04 PM (P6QsQ)
141
when amnesty passes, I predict -2.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 08:02 PM (n0DEs)
And big losses in the House.
They just have no idea of how p!ssed people are out here at there fecklessness and lies.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 08:02 PM (n0DEs)
And big losses in the House.
They just have no idea of how p!ssed people are out here at there fecklessness and lies.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:05 PM (LSDdO)
142
What have you done with CAC, Ace? And where are you holding him? U of V Center For Politics a likely story, that one.
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:05 PM (vuh7l)
143
o'rly?
why would the base turnout for Collins?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:05 PM (4Tut9)
144
Newsflash : You don't have to be a Christian to be a socon.
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 04:05 PM (P1WNR)
145
>>>The MSM will have a harder time working up a lather about anti-Semitism since most of them are anti-Semites themselves.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 23, 2014 07:52 PM (8ZskC) <<<
So cute... *pats top Cicero's head* ... you think we'd ever be intellectually honest.
Posted by: the MSM at January 23, 2014 04:05 PM (VVa+w)
147
Ummm....wait a tick, Maine a "safe R"?? Bwahahah! Maine hasn't gone R since Reagan.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 04:06 PM (GmcMM)
148
Any pushback against Christian politics is suggested
to be animus against Christians generally. Just like any pushback
against the gay agenda is h8ing on gays, etc.
I disagree with you. That's it. You can contrive these slights and insults and emotional pitches, but at the end of the day, I disagree with you, and that's it.
I disagree with you. That's it. You can contrive these slights and insults and emotional pitches, but at the end of the day, I disagree with you, and that's it.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:02 PM (/FnUH)
---------------
Is this directed at me? Seriously?
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (P6QsQ)
149
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you then.
Posted by: ace's penis didn't sign up for this shit
I must break you.
Posted by: Hillary 'The Drago Cooter' Clinton at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (HgfyP)
150
143
o'rly?
why would the base turnout for Collins?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 08:05 PM (4Tut9)
*******
It's Maine.
Maine is weird.
William Cohen--remember him?
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (RJMhd)
151
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:02 PM .....O.K. Acem Serious question for you. If a candidate was a SoCon but also solid on most if not all issues could you back that candidate? Does a SoCon automatically get taken off your yes list due to that even if you agree with the rest? For me if a candidate is qualified on the core issues I would vote for them regardless if they are a SoCon or not.
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (C3Wjb)
152
Exactly. Who could have predicted John Fckuing McPain would be the standard bearer in '08?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel
Uh -- everybody? Mccain '08 wasn't really a surprise. Typical R pick the runner up/most moderate canidate that can lose.
Exactly. Who could have predicted John Fckuing McPain would be the standard bearer in '08?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel
Uh -- everybody? Mccain '08 wasn't really a surprise. Typical R pick the runner up/most moderate canidate that can lose.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (kdS6q)
153
146
Oh oh oh, Allen West!
Is "Oh oh oh, Allen West!" our version of "Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Obama."?
Posted by: andycanuck at January 23, 2014 08:06 PM (vuh7l)
Mah Mah Mah Mah Mitchell.
Is "Oh oh oh, Allen West!" our version of "Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Obama."?
Posted by: andycanuck at January 23, 2014 08:06 PM (vuh7l)
Mah Mah Mah Mah Mitchell.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (ZS1LI)
154
Although I see that bandied about, I have not found clear evidence of that.
Posted by: grammie winger
I should look up the exact quote, but of course he didn't say "I'm in favor of amnesty". What was also obvious was that he wasn't willing to say no. I've heard enough doublespeak from GOP pols on this topic to know what that means. It's a pity, because without that (for me) insurmountable problem, he's still one of the best candidates, even if he's dull as dishwater.
Also, he needs to pluck his monobrow.
I should look up the exact quote, but of course he didn't say "I'm in favor of amnesty". What was also obvious was that he wasn't willing to say no. I've heard enough doublespeak from GOP pols on this topic to know what that means. It's a pity, because without that (for me) insurmountable problem, he's still one of the best candidates, even if he's dull as dishwater.
Also, he needs to pluck his monobrow.
Posted by: pep at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (6TB1Z)
155
For the love of pete, I just walked in. Now I am apparently a target of whatever the latest buggaboo is about.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:08 PM (P6QsQ)
156
Maine has changed a lot.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:08 PM (4Tut9)
157
Ah, I see Bannion already took care of it for me. heh.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 04:08 PM (GmcMM)
158
What, we don't like Allen West anymore? What'd I miss?
Posted by: Peaches at January 23, 2014 04:08 PM (8lmkt)
160
quick, define thing!
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:09 PM (4Tut9)
161
Chozen is done in the same style as Archer. It's about a fat, white, gay gangster rapper. That's the joke. He's a fat, gay eminem determined to rise to the top of the rap game by spitting out lyrics about how awesome dicks are. I only saw the first episode. It was that joke over and over. And over.The fat white guy from SNL is the voice.
In case I wasn't clear , the funny part is supposed to be when he raps about man ass and dick. Cause that's the opposite of what rappers usually rap about, see. And that's what makes it funny. Cause opposites.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:09 PM (ZPrif)
162
Now I am apparently a target of whatever the latest buggaboo is about.
Posted by: grammie winger
I would say its because of your support of a certain team
H8rs everywhere
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:10 PM (At8tV)
163
Can we please just elect a white man? I'd really like to be free to criticize my president again.
Posted by: Icedog at January 23, 2014 04:10 PM (uZ6Ul)
164
Wow! This is like Homecoming Weekend. Even the lovely Peaches is here. 
What dirt are we dishin'?
What dirt are we dishin'?Posted by: Guido at January 23, 2014 04:10 PM (yICtd)
165
156
Maine has changed a lot.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 08:08 PM (4Tut9)
*********
Angus King Independent?
That's Maine to a "T".
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:10 PM (RJMhd)
166
No, I like Colonel West too, Peaches.
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:10 PM (vuh7l)
167
>>>I wasn't snarking. I have only just gotten home, skimmed the comments, and wondered aloud what the consensus of the day was. When I'm snarking, it's pretty clear. This wasn't it.
okay, apologies. It has become a sort of rote thing to say "well you just hate christians then" (or "you just have animus against socons or christians then").
In fact it's true: Cards on the table, no, I don't approve of the socon agenda. I mean that's pretty obvious, but in case it wasn't obvious, there's my confession.
I don't approve of it, will not support it, and will, to the extent possible, work to thwart it. I will only support it when I have to, due to circumstances (such as the fact that the party is majority socoon).
But i don't think much of it.
So cards on the table, yes, I disagree. I don't like the agenda. I don't agree with it, and, while I never was particularly a fan of it before, at least it wasn't hurting us politically, as there was a rough parity in these things.
I do not believe that latter condition exists anymore. There is no longer a rough parity between the socon right and the "Get over it" brigade of the left and center. The socon right is now being beaten like a drum on these things.
So this isn't just a position I disagree with; it's a position I disagree with that also happens to threaten most hope of getting the things I DO agree with made into law.
I do not support this sort of social policy adventurism, when a socon candidate takes a flier at an exciting new field of socon policy (birth control, rape abortion, etc.) that the rest of us have not been warned about, so we can at least predict the shitstorm that we'll be asked to defend.
We are losing on the MAIN lines of social conservatism. It is baffling to me then that, rather than hone the lines of communication on those crucial points, we're doing this thing where we're adding to the list of Loser Issues that must now be justified and defended, instead of concentrating on the three or four we already all know we have to fight for.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:11 PM (/FnUH)
168
Can we please just elect a white man? I'd really like to be free to criticize my president again.
-------
Can you imagine if they had a black woman competent enough to run? Eeesh.
Posted by: Adam at January 23, 2014 04:11 PM (Aif/5)
169
168 No, I like Colonel West too, Peaches.
same here
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:11 PM (At8tV)
171
@ 164 ncj
We didn't get the Japanese guy. Damn Yankees.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:11 PM (P6QsQ)
172
159 What, we don't like Allen West anymore? What'd I miss?
Posted by: Peaches at January 23, 2014 08:08 PM (8lmkt)
I don't think anyone is saying they don't like him. But come on, former Representative? I don't even like the idea of the Senators running, no matter how good they've been in the Senate.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 04:11 PM (LI48c)
173
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:02 PM (/FnUH)
You might want to keep in mind that others have similar opinions to yours re: SoCons but are less adept and more likely to be acerbic when commenting on it. That has made the topic more of a sensitive spot than you might have expected.
There was a recent thread mostly on abortion (sparked by Wendy Davis) where some very nasty and personal comments were made and bandied about (on both sides to be fair) that has rubbed raw an already sore spot with many of us in that spectrum.
Like it or not, alienating the SoCons is not a pathway to majorities in either of the 3 Houses. Some don't understand that and don't also realize how much sh!t SoCons have taken since McCain's loss.
None of this is your responsibility but you should be aware of it as it bears on the reactions you may see/hear.
You might want to keep in mind that others have similar opinions to yours re: SoCons but are less adept and more likely to be acerbic when commenting on it. That has made the topic more of a sensitive spot than you might have expected.
There was a recent thread mostly on abortion (sparked by Wendy Davis) where some very nasty and personal comments were made and bandied about (on both sides to be fair) that has rubbed raw an already sore spot with many of us in that spectrum.
Like it or not, alienating the SoCons is not a pathway to majorities in either of the 3 Houses. Some don't understand that and don't also realize how much sh!t SoCons have taken since McCain's loss.
None of this is your responsibility but you should be aware of it as it bears on the reactions you may see/hear.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:11 PM (LSDdO)
174
At least the window is moving right, Rand Paul and Scott Walker represent the lunatic fringe ten years ago.
Posted by: Jean at January 23, 2014 04:12 PM (+fNrM)
175
CAC, since you're here, are you familiar with a piece of art or sculpture that is a large sphere with lots of needle-type things sticking out of it. And when one 'needle' is touched, it will cause a chain reaction moving all the needles?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 08:01 PM (4Tut9)
I think I've heard of it. I'm racking my brain.
Is it actually needles or is it some sort of iron particles that are magnitized? I saw that at a gallery in Santa Monica where you could transform the shape of this undulating cone...
Do you remember the title, or where it is located?
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 04:12 PM (npTnN)
176
Come on, navycopjoe, we all know the Bears cost the GOP in 2012!!1!!
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:12 PM (vuh7l)
177
That is a map for the 2014 mid-term Senate races. Susan Collins is running for re-election. She will win. Maine folks love her for the reasons everyone here hates her.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 23, 2014 08:08 PM (OWjjx)
Ohhhhh, woops., I stand corrected then. Yeah, Collins is fine. Her and Snowe never have/had to worry about challengers.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 04:12 PM (GmcMM)
178
Laurie David's Cervix: "Uh -- everybody? Mccain '08 wasn't really a surprise. Typical R pick the runner up/most moderate canidate that can lose."
Really? Well it had me flummoxed. Of all the choices he was simply the worst, hands down. I understand the appeal of "moderation," but the man is and was a dishonest fossil with D.C. barnacles. Good god if you thought government had issues, why the hell would the Right pick John Fckuing McPain?
And that's why I'm not a Republican.
Really? Well it had me flummoxed. Of all the choices he was simply the worst, hands down. I understand the appeal of "moderation," but the man is and was a dishonest fossil with D.C. barnacles. Good god if you thought government had issues, why the hell would the Right pick John Fckuing McPain?
And that's why I'm not a Republican.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 23, 2014 04:12 PM (eHIJJ)
179
everybody go wash up, dinners almost ready...but someone needs to set the table!
Posted by: concrete girl at January 23, 2014 04:13 PM (LhAqq)
180
What the hell is the socon agenda??
You mean the agenda to resist or at least slow down the radical leftist social agenda?
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:13 PM (4Tut9)
182
when amnesty passes, I predict -2.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk
And big losses in the House.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger
Senate: R net +0
House: R net -20 and one or two winners flip to D. Democratic majority.
when amnesty passes, I predict -2.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk
And big losses in the House.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger
Senate: R net +0
House: R net -20 and one or two winners flip to D. Democratic majority.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:13 PM (kdS6q)
183
65 I lie with Hillary!!
Posted by: Wendy Davis at January 23, 2014 07:49 PM (P1WNR)
Womankind shall not lie with womankind!
Posted by: Insomniac at January 23, 2014 04:13 PM (UAMVq)
184
You might want to keep in mind that others have similar opinions to yours re: SoCons but are less adept and more likely to be acerbic when commenting on it.
-------
So con lie!!!
Posted by: Moooo at January 23, 2014 04:13 PM (Aif/5)
185
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 08:11 PM (LI48c)
Allen shoots from the lip a little too often. What he says is true but it is seen and seems to be a little over the top occasionally.
He could do better with his phrasing and the battles he picks.
That may have had something to do with him not remaining in the House.
Allen shoots from the lip a little too often. What he says is true but it is seen and seems to be a little over the top occasionally.
He could do better with his phrasing and the battles he picks.
That may have had something to do with him not remaining in the House.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:14 PM (LSDdO)
186
the way to win is to run a fiscal conservative who can clearly point out the key points to putting money in the voters pockets
and that's it, all there is to it
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:14 PM (At8tV)
187
Hersey's Special Dark Chocolate Syrup is the nectar of the gods.
That is all.
Posted by: toby928© at January 23, 2014 04:14 PM (QupBk)
189
@169 ace
Thanks for the apology ace. I apologize too for getting miffed at you and wanting to temporarily kick you in the shins.
It's all good.
It's all good.Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:14 PM (P6QsQ)
190
>>>Like it or not, alienating the SoCons is not a pathway to majorities in either of the 3 Houses. Some don't understand that and don't also realize how much sh!t SoCons have taken since McCain's loss.
unfortunately I think we're approaching a "can't win with them, can't win without them" state of affairs.
It would be one thing if the socons kept their rhetoric on the things the country is long used to hearing.
The problem is this New Shit that keeps popping up. New Shit always grabs the attention because it's new, whereas our Old Shit tends to bore.
And boredom is a good thing when we're talking about an electorate that the majority of disagrees with socon stuff on. You want to bore them so they just shrug and say, "Eh, Republicans always say that crap."
I'm very worried about this tendency now to think of new ways to upset the public.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:15 PM (/FnUH)
191
Since the Left doesn't just want a secular society, they want a morally upside-down secular society, yeah, I resist that shit.
You got us; that's the socon agenda.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:15 PM (4Tut9)
192
173 I know
on the bright side, the Yankees are trying to buy a championship again and will make so people laugh when they fail
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:15 PM (At8tV)
193
Ace>> Perry would have to go out of his way to prove that he is smart.
He could go on Letterman again!
Posted by: mindful webworker again at January 23, 2014 04:16 PM (U13jb)
194
I think I can tolerate Scott Walker. He had real achievements in dealing with the unions.
I'd prefer Rand Paul, though.
But She Who Must Not Be Named is still far and away my first choice.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 04:16 PM (sdi6R)
195
189 Hersey's Special Dark Chocolate Syrup is the nectar of the gods.
That is all.
Posted by: toby928© at January 23, 2014 08:14 PM (QupBk)
Where did you find it?
Posted by: Jean at January 23, 2014 04:17 PM (+fNrM)
197
Oh, shit. Dinesh D'Souza is being indicted for allegedly making illegal campaign contributions.
Well, who the hell is gonna take care of my medical expenses now?
Well, who the hell is gonna take care of my medical expenses now?
Posted by: Obama's brother in a hut at January 23, 2014 04:17 PM (VVa+w)
198
194 Palin/West 2016!!!!!
yes Yes YES!!!!!
No....not really
uggggh, teased again
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:17 PM (At8tV)
199
Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 23, 2014 04:17 PM (WdbF7)
200
Depending on who you listen to, it's either:
Trying to counteract or at least protest the ongoing leftist/gay/pervert agenda in Entertainment, Academe, k-12, and politics.
OR
We're trying to bring about a Theocracy that will include:
Witch burnings, the stocks and pillory, branding, mandatory church attendance, blue laws, the missionary position, cops in the bedroom (or anywhere else you dirty pigs decide to rut), exile and excommunication. (to Detroit)
Trying to counteract or at least protest the ongoing leftist/gay/pervert agenda in Entertainment, Academe, k-12, and politics.
OR
We're trying to bring about a Theocracy that will include:
Witch burnings, the stocks and pillory, branding, mandatory church attendance, blue laws, the missionary position, cops in the bedroom (or anywhere else you dirty pigs decide to rut), exile and excommunication. (to Detroit)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:18 PM (LSDdO)
201
Where did you find it?
It was on sale at Winn Dixie.
Posted by: toby928© at January 23, 2014 04:18 PM (QupBk)
203
Do you remember the title, or where it is located?
Negative. My 9th grade religion teacher mentioned it (1983) and I can't remember the name of it.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:18 PM (4Tut9)
204
That may have had something to do with him not remaining in the House.
Wasn't that the (state?) GOP gerrymandering him out of his original district?
Wasn't that the (state?) GOP gerrymandering him out of his original district?
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:18 PM (vuh7l)
205
Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (WdbF7)
CORN.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (WdbF7)
CORN.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:18 PM (LSDdO)
206
203 trust me, Iowa just doesn't make sense
to anyone
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:19 PM (At8tV)
207
I've never had an ill will towards Teh Jooos, but Sarah Silverman is making me rethink my position.
Posted by: Icedog at January 23, 2014 04:19 PM (uZ6Ul)
208
@197. Rickl
Not only the union thing. Lower taxes, both on income and property. 2nd amendment rights increased. School choice increased. Punative business dis-incentives stopped.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:19 PM (P6QsQ)
209
I like Cruz, too, and am thrilled he's my senator. But he's not as electable as Rand.
Posted by: WannabeAnglican at January 23, 2014 04:20 PM (iuieR)
210
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:15 PM (/FnUH)
Maybe if we get it out of our systems NOW, we'll be cool come '16?
A lot will depend on the amount of suicide the House has in it.
Maybe if we get it out of our systems NOW, we'll be cool come '16?
A lot will depend on the amount of suicide the House has in it.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:20 PM (LSDdO)
211
Oh, shit. Dinesh D'Souza is being indicted for allegedly making illegal campaign contributions.
*********
Holy shit.
Just lay down and accept The Hillary NOW!
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:20 PM (RJMhd)
212
Can Rand Paul win against Michelle Obama?
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at January 23, 2014 04:20 PM (tcK++)
213
203 Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (WdbF7)
It has magical baseball parks.
Other than that, I got nuthin'.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 04:20 PM (sdi6R)
215
2016 is going to be one hell of a let down for a lot of folks. Wonder if my bookie has an over/under on rightwing blogger suicides?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (nkPV9)
216
Jeff Sessions for President
Indeed. Every time I want to just shake the dust of the Republicans from my sandals, Judge Sessions gives a great speech. He's pretty much been as perfect a conservative Senator as you are going to get.
Posted by: toby928© at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (QupBk)
217
I'm [ace] very worried about this tendency now to think of new ways to upset the public.
-
How to calm us down?
Bread and Circuses.
Easy Peasy.
Posted by: The Public at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (NQyj0)
218
Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (WdbF7)
********
The Corruption Corn Caucuses.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (RJMhd)
219
216 Just lay down and accept The Hillary NOW!
Dinesh D'Souza is a libertarian and if he did it, to jail he goes
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (At8tV)
220
What did you all think was the reason for the Christie takedown???
The Democrats/MSM are DYING for the GOP to nominate Rand Paul.
By the time they get through with him, America will thin he is the son of David Duke and the grandson of Hitler.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (vE1mx)
221
I think I kinda like this Ace fella, I'll let you stick around a little while longer.
Posted by: Andrew Cuomo at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (3a584)
222
They are burning every institution, down to the foundation, what's the proper reaction 'think of England' btw, just in case, you were confused about what Fluke's message was, Lena Dunham, made the point clear,
Posted by: Jeffrey Pelt at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (Jsiw/)
223
Walker also refused to set up a state exchange for Obamacare and turned down the Medicaid money.
He also stopped high speed rail and turned down the federal money for that.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:22 PM (P6QsQ)
224
217 Can Rand Paul win against Michelle Obama?
-Good Lord, can you imagine. They get part 2 of the Obamination?
How would you even argue it? What would you even say? It would be the ultimate Race/Gender card of the Century, and you get to keep Mr. Pant Crease in the White House. The mind boggles...
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 04:22 PM (kCnae)
225
Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand
Yep. Having worked with people from the state, it's due to the ennui from staring out onto an endless corn-filled horizon, contemplating one's own insignificance before Nature.
And massive binge drinking.
Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand
Yep. Having worked with people from the state, it's due to the ennui from staring out onto an endless corn-filled horizon, contemplating one's own insignificance before Nature.
And massive binge drinking.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:22 PM (kdS6q)
226
Am I wrong or was the MFM pushing McCain when he won the nomination?
Am I wrong or was the MFM pushing Romney when he won the nomination?
If I'm right, we might as well figure out who the MFM is picking for you guys this time.
Me, I'm ready to get on with the collapse and rebuild, and the sooner the better. Which means I can vote for the MFM pick or Hillary. I'm covered.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:22 PM (jTKU5)
227
D'Souza story (and more) linked in my sock.
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:22 PM (vuh7l)
228
NC is not a toss up. Watching a Tillis ad against Hagan right now, on O'R.
We have the money, we have the votes, now if fucking Huck will stay out of the state we will have a candidate, not a preacher, to run.
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (0FSuD)
229
“After We Win This Election, It's Our Turn. Payback Time.”
- Valerie Jarrett
October 2012
obama's FBI, obama's IRS, obama's Justice Dept, ...
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (4Tut9)
230
228 i'm not sure but isn't walker one of the ban 30 round magazine folks?
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (At8tV)
231
215 Bitter Clinger,
They're gonna go full 'tard after the primary season closes thinking they will retain by rote mechanic voting patterns.
"Good luck"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (TE35l)
232
Socon agenda? For Christ sake at best the socons are trying to hold the line on slowing the advance of our cultural rot and are failing badly. You're coming at this the same way liberals do ace, you're starting on the premise that this country hasn't actually taken a sharp liberal shift in culture over the past fifty years. To hear you and liberals go at it you would think we socons are succeeding in enacting a Christian theocracy.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (IV4od)
233
Regarding that Senate map. Michigan is at least toss-up if not slightly reddish.
Land has been constantly polling ahead of the Dems, and Election Projection is nor projecting it to go red:
http://tinyurl.com/n6w9dcd
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (XvHmy)
234
162
In case I wasn't clear , the funny part is supposed to be when he raps about man ass and dick. Cause that's the opposite of what rappers usually rap about, see. And that's what makes it funny. Cause opposites. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 08:09 PM (ZPrif)
We've come a long way since the Flintstones.
We've come a long way since the Flintstones.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 04:24 PM (ZS1LI)
235
1 I still want Perry to run.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 07:39 PM (Wq5le)
Me too, for Senate. He's done, leave it alone.
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:24 PM (0FSuD)
237
224 216 Just lay down and accept The Hillary NOW!
Dinesh D'Souza is a libertarian and if he did it, to jail he goes
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 08:21 PM (At8tV)
********
Wait--I thought he dated Ann Coulter and that made him a......
touch swords with that other guy she dated--
Bill Mayer.
I could be getting it all mixed up with Laura Ingraham's suite of suitors.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:24 PM (RJMhd)
238
235 228 i'm not sure but isn't walker one of the ban 30 round magazine folks?
----------
and, here we go ....
Posted by: Purity Test at January 23, 2014 04:24 PM (NQyj0)
239
The R's need every wing of the party to win. SoCon's, Conservatives, Tea Party and yea, even the filthy RINO's. So the candidate needs to bring in most of them. The establishment can fuck off if they think I am voting RINO again, not happening. If they think oooh he's moderate and electable is a winning combo they can review the replay of 08 and 12 and suck it. I don't think the party would nominate a SoCon like Huckabee anyway. I will vote for an actual conservative whether or not they have some SoCon tendencies or not. If they are actually a conservative I'll pull the lever for them. While none are perfect I would vote for Walker, Cruz or Rand at this time. Jindahl should be in the mix. Rino's like Chrispy, Huck etc. can go fuck themselves. I don't care, I will NEVER vote for them, I don't care if it's Cankles, Fauxahontus or even SloJoe running against them. I will not.
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 23, 2014 04:24 PM (C3Wjb)
240
Icedog: "I've never had an ill will towards Teh Jooos, but Sarah Silverman is making me rethink my position."
Silverman is the Dr. Tim Whatley of comedians. She's "Jewish" in order to make offensive jokes.
Silverman is the Dr. Tim Whatley of comedians. She's "Jewish" in order to make offensive jokes.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 23, 2014 04:25 PM (eHIJJ)
241
Scott Walker's argument was the Tim Pawlenty argument. He was a lot of people's 2nd and 3rd choice. Walker has a more high profile fight that he won in glorious fashion, though. That could be a big difference, I guess.
Posted by: Dave S. at January 23, 2014 04:25 PM (UvR6d)
242
let's be clear
if I can't get Palin, you guys don't get Perry
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:25 PM (At8tV)
243
Can someone please explain Iowa to me, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (WdbF7)
Democrats are generally far-left progressive populists who still pine for William Jennings Bryan to come back from the dead. Republicans are either fervent evangelicals, white supremacists, or One World conspiracy nuts who believe the Federal Reserve is the creation of the Devil.
In other words, it's a state full of fruitcakes.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 04:25 PM (vE1mx)
244
Bitter Clinger and All That, you get it.
I'd campaign like hell for Rand. He's a little crazy and at least we could have some fun with that. It's too late to expect anything more.
Posted by: LadyS at January 23, 2014 04:25 PM (tMTsS)
245
Me, I'm ready to get on with the collapse and
rebuild, and the sooner the better. Which means I can vote for the MFM
pick or Hillary. I'm covered.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 08:22 PM (jTKU5)
But but but, you are destroying our country. You gotta slow down before you can stop, its not the right time, it's not the battle. This is not that hill to die on!!!
Beg pardon. I have a couple spare cans liquid schwartz to throw on the fire.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (nkPV9)
246
Posted by: andycanuck at January 23, 2014 08:18 PM (vuh7l)
Yeah but he did lose the election. He wasn't just kicked out.
Yeah but he did lose the election. He wasn't just kicked out.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (LSDdO)
247
What did you all think was the reason for the Christie takedown???
The Democrats/MSM are DYING for the GOP to nominate Rand Paul.
By the time they get through with him, America will thin he is the son of David Duke and the grandson of Hitler.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:21 PM (vE1mx)
They're gonna do that with anyone the GOP picks.
It's like MadLibs: They simply fill in the details to an already written script.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (XvHmy)
248
@235 ncj
Not that I know of. I believe he has a 100% rating from the NRA.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (P6QsQ)
250
Well, Repubs have the House and are teasing at re-taking the Senate. That's with the socons solidly within the Republican Party.
You get neither of those things after a purge. It's ludicrous to think otherwise. As in literally insane.
Here's the reality. Libertarians have grown as a % of the Repub base in the last decade.
Until recently, the Libertarian-Conservative wing was content to be minor faction of the Repub Party.
We're in the midst of a bit of Libertarian moment, and a Social Conservative retreat.
As a result, the Libertarian-Cons are feeling that maybe they should be in the driver's seat giving orders and maybe the Social-Cons should be the quiet ones in the back for once.
So the Libertarian-Cons are feeling a bit purgy.
Predictable coalition politics.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (ZPrif)
251
231 Meremortal,
The nice thing about voting for HILLARY! Is it may be a cheap way to buy wiggle room to get ready.
It seems the GOP has no problem with a weaponized civil service, so now I guess neither do I...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (TE35l)
252
I like Walker. Anyone that takes on the AFL-CIO and Teamsters by himself and kicks their ass is OK by me.
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:27 PM (vuh7l)
254
>>I like Scott Walker except for the fact that The Meatball likes Scott Walker.
I like him but I think he is about as exciting as drying paint. Not sure he has much of a national following.
But what I always find odd is how people determine one guy is totally conservative and another a RINO.
Walker has come out for amnesty. That used to be a deal breaker. And by used to I mean 2 minutes ago. Yes, he has gotten some stuff done that is good but its not like he doesn't have a allies in his legislature. The flee baggers left because they were in the minority not because they had any chance of stopping what he wanted.
He's ok but I want to see a lot more before I'm ready to get on the bandwagon.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 04:27 PM (g1DWB)
255
253 okay, wasn't sure
thanks
Posted by: navycopjoe now with 3X the hate at January 23, 2014 04:27 PM (At8tV)
256
Don't want someone dowdy.
Keep our country rowdy!
Gowdy! Gowdy! Gowdy!
Rawhide...
Posted by: mindful webworker said what now? at January 23, 2014 04:27 PM (U13jb)
257
"The R's need every wing of the party to win."
I stopped reading right there because if you are right I can ignore this election completely.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:28 PM (jTKU5)
258
Anybody have an answer for the fact that there are more Free Shitters who will vote D than any other coalition who will vote R?
F R E E
S H I T
How does any R candidate counter that message?
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, SGT - Cotton Mather Purity Death Squad (M) at January 23, 2014 04:28 PM (ErVd1)
259
Walker has come out for amnesty. That used to be a deal breaker. And by used to I mean 2 minutes ago.
*******
Hell I remember when it was port security.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:28 PM (RJMhd)
260
I prefer Cruz
plus Ron Paul is such an attention whore no doubt he will dick it up for Rand
its his nature
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 04:29 PM (zOTsN)
261
Anyone remember when the Obama campaign failed to stop itself from taking in illegal foreign donations?
Yeah. Neither do we?
Yeah. Neither do we?
Posted by: SCOAMF's Justice Dept. at January 23, 2014 04:29 PM (VVa+w)
262
Walker, cause the country is ready for a boring accountant.
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:29 PM (0FSuD)
263
255 Flatbush Joe,
No you have libertarians acting with libertines to mainstream indulgences looking powerful for the moment.
SoCon is being told to walk based on an illusion.
I am gonna walk b/c the GOP is useless.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:29 PM (TE35l)
264
Jack straw
Please provide a link where Walker has come out for amnesty.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:29 PM (P6QsQ)
265
For GOP it's go Libertarian-Right or go extinct.
The establishment GOP can either help or gtfo of the way.
They can easily push it from a populist angle - which is pretty much required in the Age of Social Media
The establishment GOP can either help or gtfo of the way.
They can easily push it from a populist angle - which is pretty much required in the Age of Social Media
Posted by: RichUncleSkeleton at January 23, 2014 04:29 PM (3eJXg)
266
are we fighting yet?
Posted by: thunderb
Nope. That will require a frontrunner.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:30 PM (jTKU5)
267
Good thing we killed that impending theocracy back in the 60s. That's why all schools have medal detectors now...to catch those damn kids sneaking in crucifixes.
Posted by: Icedog at January 23, 2014 04:30 PM (uZ6Ul)
268
Am I wrong or was the MFM pushing McCain when he won the nomination?
Am I wrong or was the MFM pushing Romney when he won the nomination?
If I'm right, we might as well figure out who the MFM is picking for you guys this time.
Me, I'm ready to get on with the collapse and rebuild, and the sooner the better. Which means I can vote for the MFM pick or Hillary. I'm covered.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 08:22 PM (jTKU5)
The MFM is picking either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. And they will beat the living shit our of either one of them. They want the conservative movement and the Tea Party DEAD. I mean, literally,m they want us all to die. But the next best thing is to give us "our" preferred candidate and then bury him in false accustaions of racism, neo-Confederacy, sexism, anti-sciencism, etc. etc.
Woe to us if we fall into the trap.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 04:30 PM (vE1mx)
269
Uncle Sugar just called and asked how his ass tastes.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:30 PM (4Tut9)
270
"I'm very worried about this tendency now to think of new ways to upset the public."
New ways? How about old ones?
Last cycle it was down to absolutely classic hot-button media questions for which any Republican needs to have a carefully prepped, rigorously drilled answer right at hand.
Except the party stood up a couple of overconfident amateur-hour candidates, with crummy campaign management, who figured they could wing it on answers to those kinds of questions, and ended up gaffeing horribly.
So maybe this new cycle, every campaign needs for its candidate and manager to sit down with the list of classic old gotcha questions, and be ready to field them before they get asked.
New ways? How about old ones?
Last cycle it was down to absolutely classic hot-button media questions for which any Republican needs to have a carefully prepped, rigorously drilled answer right at hand.
Except the party stood up a couple of overconfident amateur-hour candidates, with crummy campaign management, who figured they could wing it on answers to those kinds of questions, and ended up gaffeing horribly.
So maybe this new cycle, every campaign needs for its candidate and manager to sit down with the list of classic old gotcha questions, and be ready to field them before they get asked.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 23, 2014 04:30 PM (gqT4g)
272
267 Walker, cause the country is ready for a boring accountant.
----
He's the president we need, just not the one we deserve right now.
Posted by: Commissioner Gordon at January 23, 2014 04:31 PM (Aif/5)
273
241
Sarah's not Jewish. She's full on CVNT.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 08:24 PM (LSDdO)
Is that Roman numerals?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 08:24 PM (LSDdO)
Is that Roman numerals?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 04:31 PM (ZS1LI)
274
Ace- I think *some* SoCons have bought into the Huckabee approach that in order to advance anything politically, it must be done in the same way that progressives do it, i.e. that the battle must be waged and won in the courts and at the federal level. That's how I view Huckabee's worldview.
So, to Huckabee, it's not enough to be satisfied with winning hearts and minds on the local level because "that doesn't work," it all has to come from big government.
Just know that there are those out there (of which I'm one) who would probably be labeled a SoCon, but who have a much more libertarian outlook on how those policies could be advanced. I attend a Southern Baptist church. I married the daughter of a Southern Baptist pastor. Do I think gay marriage should be ruled on at the federal level? Nope. I hold Scalia's view that social questions can be handled at the state legislature level.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (GmcMM)
275
Anybody have an answer for the fact that there are more Free Shitters who will vote D than any other coalition who will vote R?
F R E E
S H I T
How does any R candidate counter that message?
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, SGT - Cotton Mather Purity Death Squad (M) at January 23, 2014 08:28 PM (ErVd1)
I suggest some totally misleading yet truthful campaign slogan. I'm thinking something like that line from PCU, "Tonight at The Pit, Everybody Gets Laid"
F R E E
S H I T
How does any R candidate counter that message?
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, SGT - Cotton Mather Purity Death Squad (M) at January 23, 2014 08:28 PM (ErVd1)
I suggest some totally misleading yet truthful campaign slogan. I'm thinking something like that line from PCU, "Tonight at The Pit, Everybody Gets Laid"
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (3a584)
276
Really don't see any New Shit coming from the so-cons. Pretty sure total opposition to abortion has been standard so-con belief for decades.
The most effective group on the Right in recent decades has been the NRA and gun groups. And they've consistently brought up New Shit. As soon as they win one battle they say, oh yeah, well here's some New Shit we want, too.
Relax gun laws and they say, fuck that, we want Concealed Carry, too. Give em that they say, now we want Open Carry.
Gay Marriage successfully rode the Constantly Demand New Shit strategy to victory, too.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (ZPrif)
277
Quite simply you need someone who can pull in Florida.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (RJMhd)
278
Rand Paul could actually win, though. The Dem bench is pathetically bad even with the MSM scrabbling along propping them up.
The real question is how much selling out of the base he'd do to get there.
Posted by: The Unreal Woman at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (ErWSc)
279
The R's need every wing of the party to win. SoCon's, Conservatives, Tea Party and yea, even the filthy RINO's.
Posted by: Minnfidel
At this point, the Right is exasperated by 30 years of spineless moderate Republican candidates who flip to supporting Dem policies the instant you take your eyes off them.
The Libertarians are constantly looking for a social issue, gay/drug/sex and such, to purity bolt on.
And the Rino/Business Wing has learned that working with the Dems is the smart approach, like paying off the mob to haul your garbage.
The R's need every wing of the party to win. SoCon's, Conservatives, Tea Party and yea, even the filthy RINO's.
Posted by: Minnfidel
At this point, the Right is exasperated by 30 years of spineless moderate Republican candidates who flip to supporting Dem policies the instant you take your eyes off them.
The Libertarians are constantly looking for a social issue, gay/drug/sex and such, to purity bolt on.
And the Rino/Business Wing has learned that working with the Dems is the smart approach, like paying off the mob to haul your garbage.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (kdS6q)
280
The MFM is picking either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. And they will beat the living shit our of either one of them. They want the conservative movement and the Tea Party DEAD. I mean, literally,m they want us all to die. But the next best thing is to give us "our" preferred candidate and then bury him in false accustaions of racism, neo-Confederacy, sexism, anti-sciencism, etc. etc.
Woe to us if we fall into the trap.
The MFM is picking either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. And they will beat the living shit our of either one of them. They want the conservative movement and the Tea Party DEAD. I mean, literally,m they want us all to die. But the next best thing is to give us "our" preferred candidate and then bury him in false accustaions of racism, neo-Confederacy, sexism, anti-sciencism, etc. etc.
Woe to us if we fall into the trap.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:30 PM (vE1mx)
I'm far more interested in getting political insights from someone that didn't think the traitor John Roberts ruling on Obamacare was going to result in a landside Romney victory.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (LI48c)
281
I wasn't joking. Can he win against Mooch?
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM (tcK++)
282
263 Sgt EoJ Cavalryman Cotton Mather SoCon Night Riders,
Evidenty with even moar free shit sarge...
Which means vote for the fucks who already have the guns and the machinery of state.
Hillary!
Let's ride
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM (TE35l)
283
They're gonna do that with anyone the GOP picks.
They can't do that to Ryan and expect anyone to take them seriously. They might try with Walker, but he'll shrug it off like Reagan shrugged it off.
With Rand Paul, the association would actually stick. And Paul knows it and that's why he panders and sweats.
Paul is damaged goods as a Presidential candidate. The moderates will be uneasy, and the hard-right will drop him the minute he wobbles (which Paul will).
They can't do that to Ryan and expect anyone to take them seriously. They might try with Walker, but he'll shrug it off like Reagan shrugged it off.
With Rand Paul, the association would actually stick. And Paul knows it and that's why he panders and sweats.
Paul is damaged goods as a Presidential candidate. The moderates will be uneasy, and the hard-right will drop him the minute he wobbles (which Paul will).
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM (30eLQ)
284
The now institutionalized union-hate for Scott Walker will probably serve to mobilize them for more voter intimidation and fraud related activity against his candidacy than for a Paul candidacy. Not really feeling Paul at this time, but that's a valid concern with respect to Walker IMHO.
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM (9eDbm)
285
>Jack straw
>Please provide a link where Walker has come out for amnesty.
Sure.
>>Republican Gov. Scott Walker said Tuesday he supported the immigration bill passed by the U.S. Senate last week, although he indicated it doesn't go far enough.
http://tinyurl.com/mafodl3
If this was a big enough heresy to kill Rubio's chances why is Walker getting a pass?
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM (g1DWB)
286
Can Cuban American Ted Cruz pull in FL?
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM (zOTsN)
287
The nice thing about voting for HILLARY! Is it may be a cheap way to buy wiggle room to get ready.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:26 PM (TE35l)
If you don't want to wait longer and lose another generation, Hillary is the best pick at this time. But, it's early!
Forget the Senate. Republicans won't get more than 50, and at least 5 of those will vote with the Democrats when pushed. So, still a minority in reality.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM (jTKU5)
288
273
The MFM is picking either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:30 PM (vE1mx)
I thought people complained that the MFM only picked folks like Dole, McCain and Romney?
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:30 PM (vE1mx)
I thought people complained that the MFM only picked folks like Dole, McCain and Romney?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 04:34 PM (ZS1LI)
289
Libertarian Right is laughably far from a governing majority. Yet they keep getting that crazy Purgey look in their eye.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:34 PM (ZPrif)
290
Do you see how tyrannical obama is becoming?
If this worries you, this is an obama still on his best behavior. After the '14 elections, obama will be unfettered.
As in without fet.
Fetterless, if you like.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:34 PM (4Tut9)
291
OOH! OOH! OOH! Rocket launch!
Atlas V launching a TDRS satellite in about 20 minutes.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.UuHC2ij0BGE
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 04:34 PM (sdi6R)
292
Quite simply you need someone who can pull in Florida.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew
Ponce de Leon / Frozen Walt Disney 2016
Quite simply you need someone who can pull in Florida.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew
Ponce de Leon / Frozen Walt Disney 2016
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:34 PM (kdS6q)
293
255
I agree with that.
Here is my take: Let's get power, enact the things we can all agree on, and THEN come apart like a jammed door at Chuck Norris' house.
To jump to step 3 first means you never get steps 1 and thus 2 completed.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at January 23, 2014 04:34 PM (TGgNi)
294
What have you done with CAC, Ace? And where are you holding him? U of V Center For Politics a likely story, that one.
Posted by: andycanuck at January 23, 2014 08:05 PM (vuh7l)
In case anyone is actually legitimately wondering why I don't post nearly as many election threads, poll threads, hypothetical threads, etc as I did in 2011 and 2012, here's the answer:
The general election, election night in particular, burned me to the core. I had spent months slowly networking a rag-tag group to do a live coverage thing for the blog intended to rival the AP's, much like what we did for the recall. John Ekdahl created a fabulously simple interactive map, did his computer magic so it would be easy for a hundred volunteers to update it live.
Then the results started trickling in.
And things got bad.
And things got worse.
And I lost my nerve and became a bit unravelled.
A lot of volunteers got very depressed, and I can't blame them.
So I started drinking, and as the numbers continued to grow nastier and nastier, and way from what I had foolishly bought into (that the polls were "skewed", a mistake I will NEVER, EVER repeat)... it just all fell apart.
This was an ambitious project I wanted to pull off- successfully- for Ace, because he gave me the chance to cob for him and I wanted to prove just how "big" I could play.
And in the pit of despair over the sour results, I feel like I failed.
Miserably.
I can't post a single thread here about elections without people reminding me how badly I botched the big one. Sure, I nailed Wisconsin like a big-breasted porn star who liked nailing, but that was just a warm up.
Then my gall bladder started fighting me, I underwent surgery, went a bit overboard on vicodin for a short time, and was licking my wounds. I watched my political party continue to unravel over the loss. The election cycle had consumed me so much in 2012, it alienated my from my wife. I had to break a bunch of exceptionally bad habits and refocus my life. I'm glad I did that. She has helped me tremendously to reset many of my priorities. She's been proofreading some of my submissions and notes, she actively helps me as I'm working to improve my election-calling methods, and I'm even getting back into my art, which, besides election numbers, is my true passion.
(This is an extremely long read, and I've never actually mentioned any of this to any of you, including Ace, before, so apologies as I'm typing it out. Really, my thoughts are just flying through my fingers onto the keyboard.)
Anyway, I passionately believe the GOP's electoral strategy needs work, and have reached out to people to spread that message. I really, really don't like the direction my country is going, and I feel my knowledge-bordering-on-slight-obsession with election data can be of some use to rectifying that. That takes up some of my time. Another bit of my time is taken up reviewing polling and fundraising data, along with various twitter and news feeds, so I can make up for the failure from Election Night 2012. Still more is focused on getting back into my art, which my wife has been encouraging, and, really, begging me to do (its the reason why we met). Lastly, call it a quest to fulfill some spiritual need, but my passion for the night sky also takes up a bit of my time these days. So juggling all of these things often means I can't make as many posts as I'd like. The failure I perceive from my bungling of the AOSHQDD-thingamajig sits like a vulture on my back, and I intend to knock that bald-faced fucker off. But that means really, really, really studying, refining, and then posting. I'm not here to post shit-work. I write for a guy whose work I've admired for years, and I was given an opportunity that has led to a few others. This place deserves top-notch stuff.
So, that's where I've been.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 04:35 PM (npTnN)
295
I'm an undeniable socon. I'm proud of that. I stand by traditional values. If I ever don't, just put me in the ground and call it a day.
That said, I don't know if my "agenda" is any different than any other patriotic conservative here.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:35 PM (P6QsQ)
296
The most effective group on the Right in recent decades has been the NRA
and gun groups. And they've consistently brought up New Shit. As soon
as they win one battle they say, oh yeah, well here's some New Shit we
want, too.
^^ This.
The Right needs to push its advantage, where it has an advantage.
^^ This.
The Right needs to push its advantage, where it has an advantage.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at January 23, 2014 04:35 PM (30eLQ)
297
Right now we're in the eye of the storm.
Just wait until Nov 2014..
What's coming will make today seem like the good ol' days.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 04:35 PM (4Tut9)
298
I don't want to be rude, but I was getting my hand operated on today and I come back to the HQ.
Not a word about the Canadian kid dropping $75K in a strip club, getting arrested and kicking a cops ass.
Where are the editors of this joint?
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:35 PM (0FSuD)
299
Yes combat the free-shitters the same way the current Pharoah got the moderates. Tell them what they want to hear; then do what you want when you're elected.
In a word: lie
Posted by: keena at January 23, 2014 04:36 PM (RiTnx)
300
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:29 PM (TE35l)
got my bags packed, my hand on the door knob.
If those kcufers in the House vote for Amnesty, I'm OUTTA HERE.
Gonna vote for anyone other than an incumbent in the primaries, gonna write in my own name for the House and Senate.
Anyone want to tell me how I'm screwing up the country by doing that?
1) talk to J. Boehner before you talk to me about that
2) talk to M. McConnell before you talk to me about that
3) talk to the hand
got my bags packed, my hand on the door knob.
If those kcufers in the House vote for Amnesty, I'm OUTTA HERE.
Gonna vote for anyone other than an incumbent in the primaries, gonna write in my own name for the House and Senate.
Anyone want to tell me how I'm screwing up the country by doing that?
1) talk to J. Boehner before you talk to me about that
2) talk to M. McConnell before you talk to me about that
3) talk to the hand
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:36 PM (LSDdO)
301
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:30 PM (vE1mx)
I don't think so rockmom. If your take was correct, they should have pushed a conservative last time. They probably realized that was no hope of one being nominated anyway.
I'm not worrying about Democrat/MFM strategy anymore. It's a useless game.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:36 PM (jTKU5)
302
"Anybody have an answer for the fact that there are more Free Shitters who will vote D than any other coalition who will vote R?
F R E E
S H I T
How does any R candidate counter that message?"
Freedom counters Free Shit every day and twice on Sunday.
As Breitbart once said, "If you can't sell Freedom? You Suck"
-Sell Freedom and Know It.
F R E E
S H I T
How does any R candidate counter that message?"
Freedom counters Free Shit every day and twice on Sunday.
As Breitbart once said, "If you can't sell Freedom? You Suck"
-Sell Freedom and Know It.
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 04:37 PM (lq3Ak)
303
273 you want out of the trap?
imho, it'll take a Preston Brooks moment, with solidarity and no apologies, then a crisis laid square at their feet.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 23, 2014 04:37 PM (KgN8K)
304
So, to Huckabee, it's not enough to be satisfied with winning hearts and minds on the local level because "that doesn't work," it all has to come from big government.
Just know that there are those out there (of which I'm one) who would probably be labeled a SoCon, but who have a much more libertarian outlook on how those policies could be advanced. I attend a Southern Baptist church. I married the daughter of a Southern Baptist pastor. Do I think gay marriage should be ruled on at the federal level? Nope. I hold Scalia's view that social questions can be handled at the state legislature level.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 08:32 PM (GmcMM)
*Fistbump*
Another Southern Baptist church attender here. I didn't support Huckabee in 2008 because he's a big government guy.
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 04:37 PM (MpP9p)
305
CAC--
Sorry to feel that. I felt the same way -- but of course my feeling the same way was not the same as your feeling, as you'd invested so much work and effort into tracking the results.
I just got to consume them... and they were horrible. It's worse, no doubt, to be producing them, reporting this horrible thing.
Thank you for doing that.
Didn't you stop when the horror became apparent? That's not a shot at you, I'm just trying to remember. I think at some point you said something like "I can't take it, I'm stopping."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:37 PM (/FnUH)
306
So, that's where I've been.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 08:35 PM (npTnN)
Have I talked to you about Herba Life?
Remember CAC after every disaster a new beginning, AKA 64 and Goldwater that got us Reagan.
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:38 PM (0FSuD)
307
No way the Clintons let another Obama bitch slap them again.
Posted by: Icedog at January 23, 2014 04:38 PM (uZ6Ul)
308
Sorry to hear about your gall bladder, CAC. That sucks.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 04:38 PM (ZPrif)
309
CAC
I love you. You are a good man. You do good work. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because I know better, and I'm older than you. Also a woman Which means I am right.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:38 PM (P6QsQ)
310
"Can Cuban American Ted Cruz pull in FL?"
The fundamental problem is that America, including Florida, is not so much getting more Hispanic as it is getting more Mexican.
And a Mexican won't bother to cross the street to piss on a burning Cuban.
There is not anywhere nearly as much intra-Hispanic solidarity as gringoes imagine that there must be. It's a very loose bloc of tribes which don't like one another much.
Jeez, even the various Mexican ethnicities and provincial loyalties are very standoffish with one another.
The fundamental problem is that America, including Florida, is not so much getting more Hispanic as it is getting more Mexican.
And a Mexican won't bother to cross the street to piss on a burning Cuban.
There is not anywhere nearly as much intra-Hispanic solidarity as gringoes imagine that there must be. It's a very loose bloc of tribes which don't like one another much.
Jeez, even the various Mexican ethnicities and provincial loyalties are very standoffish with one another.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 23, 2014 04:40 PM (gqT4g)
312
We have 2 years, Can't we just build a Terminator candidate?
Here is some media response programing to start with.
MSM: What is your stance on abortion?
T: It's a trap question so FYNQ
MSM: That's not an answer.
T: Bean bag round to reporters chest.
MSM2: What about the Republican war on women?
T: Phased plasma blast...
Here is some media response programing to start with.
MSM: What is your stance on abortion?
T: It's a trap question so FYNQ
MSM: That's not an answer.
T: Bean bag round to reporters chest.
MSM2: What about the Republican war on women?
T: Phased plasma blast...
Posted by: The Hickster at January 23, 2014 04:40 PM (TI3xG)
314
Gorebull warming floating down in Nac/Lufkin area of east Texas
Posted by: Ender at January 23, 2014 04:40 PM (iIKG8)
315
Forget the Senate. Republicans won't get more than 50, and at least 5 of those will vote with the Democrats when pushed. So, still a minority in reality.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 08:33 PM (jTKU5)
The only positive thing in that scenario is that the Republicans will control the committees. Therefore they can join the House (if it stays GOP) in investigating the Administration. They may not get far, but at least they can have hearings. Yes, it will be in the last two years of said Administration, but I guess you take what you can get.
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 04:40 PM (MpP9p)
316
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 08:35 PM (npTnN)
But, should we see the movie?
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2014 04:40 PM (clpuZ)
317
I'm going to spend next election nail-gunning my dick to a board. It's less painful.
Posted by: --- at January 23, 2014 04:41 PM (MMC8r)
318
292 Meremortal,
Yup...why put off 'til tomorrow the implosion you can elect today?
The GOP wins in '16 and then just like 94 does nothing with the power...
No NEA purge, no knocking the media off the plate, no attacking the EPA and weaponized civil service...
And webalance the checkbook and play a designated villain whose main villainy is being a 'possum?
Fuck it let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:41 PM (TE35l)
320
#299 Actually, CAC, that was a map-use joke aimed at Ace but thanks for the comment. And you didn't fail us, CAC; the Romney campaign failed us. And they probably know squat about astronomy too.
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:41 PM (vuh7l)
321
"The election cycle had consumed me so much in 2012, it alienated my from
my wife. I had to break a bunch of exceptionally bad habits and refocus
my life. I'm glad I did that."
Definitely don't blow up your marriage and lose a good spouse over this crap.
First things first.
Definitely don't blow up your marriage and lose a good spouse over this crap.
First things first.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 23, 2014 04:41 PM (gqT4g)
322
Scott Walker or Rick Perry would be acceptable. I cannot think of many others. Maybe Palin.
Posted by: Steve In Tulsa at January 23, 2014 04:42 PM (UnFIU)
323
I thought people complained that the MFM only picked folks like Dole, McCain and Romney?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 08:34 PM (ZS1LI)
I always thought that was a load of crap, but even if it were true then, the paradigm has changed.
The goal now is to get the nuttiest (in their view) GOP candidate possible. Or, double bonus, Rand Paul, who is not only nutty but racist (their view, not mine, I love the guy and am a Kentuckian) and second-generation nutty.
Hillary cannot win without Obama levels of black and Hispanic votes. She won't get that unless they can really scare the crap out of the minorities about the GIGANTIC HORROR RACIST CONSERVATIVE the Republicans are running.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 04:42 PM (vE1mx)
324
Jeez, even the various Mexican ethnicities and provincial loyalties are very standoffish with one another.
Well, yeah. Because the Maya have about as much linguistic, cultural, and genetic relationship to the Aztec as my English ass does to a Turk.
Mexico is a geographical expression, not a nation.
Well, yeah. Because the Maya have about as much linguistic, cultural, and genetic relationship to the Aztec as my English ass does to a Turk.
Mexico is a geographical expression, not a nation.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at January 23, 2014 04:42 PM (30eLQ)
325
Thanks for that post, CAC.
(that the polls were "skewed", a mistake I will NEVER, EVER repeat)
I fell for that again in 2012, after believing it in 2008. There was another website I was following at the time who said that.
So it's not just you.
And I don't think we can disregard outright vote fraud.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 04:42 PM (sdi6R)
326
This kind of conjecture I fun. I like it as much as anyone.
But at this rate - who the Hell knows what the Political Landscape will look like in two years.
Currency may be imploded. Second Housing Bubble may be in full swing. The Preezy may be implementing a new version of the SA (I kid not).
Anybody with that kind of prognostication skills is wasting their talent. Vegas awaits.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 04:43 PM (6/+vz)
327
The only positive thing in that scenario is that the Republicans will control the committees.
I'd actually say that breaking Harry Reid's destructive grip on power would be the only thing that might save this country. That odious worm has done more to harm this country than Tojo did.
Posted by: --- at January 23, 2014 04:43 PM (MMC8r)
328
CAC
what grammie winger said. Plus, you are brave putting it all out there
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 04:43 PM (zOTsN)
329
The most effective group on the Right in recent decades has been the NRA and gun groups. And they've consistently brought up New Shit. As soon as they win one battle they say, oh yeah, well here's some New Shit we want, too.
Relax gun laws and they say, fuck that, we want Concealed Carry, too. Give em that they say, now we want Open Carry.
Gay Marriage successfully rode the Constantly Demand New Shit strategy to victory, too.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 08:32 PM (ZPrif)
THIS x 1000
You gotta go slow, but still go steady.
Little bit by little bit, we must reclaim this country.
The NRA is pretty much the only really successful organization on the right. Perhaps we should start emulating them.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:43 PM (XvHmy)
330
CAC, I remember seeing your lovely wedding pics. Just by description your wife is a fantastic gal. All the best to you.
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 04:43 PM (MpP9p)
331
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (0FSuD)
yeah right.
It took 20 kcufing years after to get Reagan.
I don't think I'm gonna live that long thanks.
I'd like to see the country heading in a better direction before I go.
plus old people don't do too well during revolutions and social upset.
yeah right.
It took 20 kcufing years after to get Reagan.
I don't think I'm gonna live that long thanks.
I'd like to see the country heading in a better direction before I go.
plus old people don't do too well during revolutions and social upset.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:44 PM (LSDdO)
333
*Fistbump*
Another Southern Baptist church attender here. I didn't support Huckabee in 2008 because he's a big government guy.
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 08:37 PM (MpP9p)
Nice! Yep, me too!
I was just about to ask if you were still on. I've been talking with Bannion lately about job advice and he told me that your husband and I work at the same place. I'd love to talk with him sometime if he's willing! I'm waiting to see if I'll be contacted for an interview and it would be my third time around.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 04:45 PM (GmcMM)
334
CAC,
I enjoyed helping out with the AOSHQDD, but then that was in large part feeling happy that a Senate candidate I voted for actually winning for the first time in my lifeÂ…
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:46 PM (XvHmy)
335
I was just about to ask if you were still on. I've been talking with Bannion lately about job advice and he told me that your husband and I work at the same place. I'd love to talk with him sometime if he's willing! I'm waiting to see if I'll be contacted for an interview and it would be my third time around.
Posted by: Mainah at January 23, 2014 08:45 PM (GmcMM)
Email me at linseyziq at hotmail
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 04:46 PM (MpP9p)
336
I'd like to see the country heading in a better direction before I go.
plus old people don't do too well during revolutions and social upset.
Choose one: the country going in a noticeably better direction in the next 20 years, or (after SHTF) Generalissimo Franco on his horse forcing the issue in the next 10.
The former requires belief in unicorns. Franco, at least, had a horse.
plus old people don't do too well during revolutions and social upset.
Choose one: the country going in a noticeably better direction in the next 20 years, or (after SHTF) Generalissimo Franco on his horse forcing the issue in the next 10.
The former requires belief in unicorns. Franco, at least, had a horse.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at January 23, 2014 04:46 PM (30eLQ)
337
The failure I perceive from my bungling of the AOSHQDD-thingamajig
Posted by: CAC
Dude, few on the Repub side saw Obamamania Part II happening, and virtually no one called the across the board Republican collapse. Go back and read the awaking horror in the election night thread.
And compared to ORCA, the unpaid data-slingers you pulled together were Bletchley Park.
The failure I perceive from my bungling of the AOSHQDD-thingamajig
Posted by: CAC
Dude, few on the Repub side saw Obamamania Part II happening, and virtually no one called the across the board Republican collapse. Go back and read the awaking horror in the election night thread.
And compared to ORCA, the unpaid data-slingers you pulled together were Bletchley Park.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2014 04:47 PM (kdS6q)
338
323 292 Meremortal,
Yup...why put off 'til tomorrow the implosion you can elect today?
The GOP wins in '16 and then just like 94 does nothing with the power...
No NEA purge, no knocking the media off the plate, no attacking the EPA and weaponized civil service...
And webalance the checkbook and play a designated villain whose main villainy is being a 'possum?
Fuck it let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:41 PM (TE35l)
You're slacking sven. You didn't even mention them not even repealing Obamacare because of FILIBUSTER or some other such nonsense. Because when Republicans have control, it is just about running the system and growing Democrats power. When Democrats have it, it is all about growing their power.
Yup...why put off 'til tomorrow the implosion you can elect today?
The GOP wins in '16 and then just like 94 does nothing with the power...
No NEA purge, no knocking the media off the plate, no attacking the EPA and weaponized civil service...
And webalance the checkbook and play a designated villain whose main villainy is being a 'possum?
Fuck it let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:41 PM (TE35l)
You're slacking sven. You didn't even mention them not even repealing Obamacare because of FILIBUSTER or some other such nonsense. Because when Republicans have control, it is just about running the system and growing Democrats power. When Democrats have it, it is all about growing their power.
Posted by: NWConservative at January 23, 2014 04:47 PM (buZ/8)
339
So, that's where I've been.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 08:35 PM (npTnN)
*******
Whooooah Dude.
You are heaping waaaaaaaaay too much unto yourself.
Polls should be devalued--ripped apart.
They divide people demographically and in a way they devalue the polling that matters--the Election Day vote.
So what if you tried to debunk them.
Fell for the--*skew* argument.
People need to stop treating them like a science--they are not.
As soon as you try to predict human behavior--it is not a hard science--no matter how many numbers are deployed.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:47 PM (RJMhd)
340
328 RockMom,
Hillary has the spigot cities, the spigots vote 108% turnout for 100% for donkey.
She's a shoe-in and I may cut her a check based on the House's actions.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:47 PM (TE35l)
341
I would have loved CAC even more, but he made me cover Racine County.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:47 PM (P6QsQ)
342
BTW, the lib media (starting with Talking Points Memo) is all aflutter about this: Dinesh D'Souza INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW VIOLATIONS!!! *hair on fire*
3 of them nasty republications in trouble now, it's a pattern of corruption I tells ya!
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 23, 2014 04:47 PM (9eDbm)
343
Dude, few on the Repub side saw Obamamania Part II happening...
That's because it was hiding behind a fat Governor from NJ.
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2014 04:48 PM (clpuZ)
344
But aren't the sins of the father vested upon the son or something? Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 07:40 PM (ZS1LI)
Not if you're a Dem. My father was an anti-semitic asshole and all the Jews voted for me!
Posted by: JFK at January 23, 2014 04:49 PM (R3gO3)
345
Didn't you stop when the horror became apparent? That's not a shot at you, I'm just trying to remember. I think at some point you said something like "I can't take it, I'm stopping."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:37 PM (/FnUH)
I wanted to, but there were so many volunteers who were emailing me in a panic, I ... it just wasn't right to leave them all flailing. I finally advised them to just "do what their heart told them was right".
It got bad so fast, and never improved.
Really, the biggest thing was pulling the plug. I didn't forgive myself for a long time because I just felt like I had failed on an epic level.
BTW- when I mentioned above people love to remind me how wrong I was, that's not me lashing out against you: I failed. It sucks to know you did so publicly. The internet is forever, so if anyone wants to counter a post or tweet I make, they can (rightly) link up a prediction or chart or comment I made back in '12.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 04:49 PM (npTnN)
346
Was gonna vote Rand Paul anyway. Christie is a Lib and will suffer same fate as McCain and Romney. AND I'M SICK AND F'KING TIRED OF VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T REPRESENT MY VALUES FOR THE "GOOD" OF THE GOP!
Posted by: Pelosi Schmelosi at January 23, 2014 04:49 PM (5QDt1)
347
Go back and read the awaking horror in the election night thread.
********
Ya--PARTICULARLY over FLorida.
I think Romney paid good money for *experts* and they thought they had Florida in the bag.
Gawd--I was in that thread trying to tell people--
holy shit Florida does not look good.
The people --number nerds that I was watching with--we almost started throwing up.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 04:50 PM (RJMhd)
348
330
And I don't think we can disregard outright vote fraud.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 08:42 PM (sdi6R)
I forgot to mention that the more the Left controls the levers of power, the more likely it becomes the rule rather than the exception.
We may have already crossed the event horizon.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 04:50 PM (sdi6R)
349
Can't stand Christie but ... damn.
MOAR please!
Chris ChristieÂ’s Staff Blames Bridge Closing on Anti-Islam Video
http://tinyurl.com/nqjrabo
MOAR please!
Chris ChristieÂ’s Staff Blames Bridge Closing on Anti-Islam Video
http://tinyurl.com/nqjrabo
Posted by: Frank Costanza [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 04:50 PM (5ikDv)
350
Apologize for being off-topic, but the guy who produced "Obama's America 2016" is being charged by the FBI with campaign fraud. Is his name D'nesh Dsousa (sp).
We live in fucking frightening times. I kid you not.
We live in fucking frightening times. I kid you not.
Posted by: Mike at January 23, 2014 04:50 PM (Rk8LS)
351
"The GOP wins in '16 and then just like 94 does nothing with the power..."
Like '94?
In '94 there was a Democrat in the Oval Office who would have instantly vetoed any truly aggressive moves by the GOP.
What's unforgivable isn't the 1990s. What is unforgivable is January of 2003 to January of 2007, when the GOP had the House, the Senate, and the White House.
What did we get? Um, two horribly politically damaging clusterfucks of foreign wars, enormously expensive in blood and treasure, that poisoned the party brand for a generation of young voters. A massive new federal handout program in Medicare Part D. An education initiative coauthored by Ted Kennedy that doubled the DeptEd budget. Moar ethanol. Light bulb bans. Sarbanes-Oxley. McCain-Feingold. The TSA. Homeland Security.
And, virtually no rollback anywhere of any of the half-century of steady growth of the Leviathan state. All during which, conservatives had staunchly prayed that one day they would hold both houses of Congress and the White House just for a little while, enough to maybe undo some of the rot. Well, the GOP finally had those prayers answered for four years. And pissed it all away.
Like '94?
In '94 there was a Democrat in the Oval Office who would have instantly vetoed any truly aggressive moves by the GOP.
What's unforgivable isn't the 1990s. What is unforgivable is January of 2003 to January of 2007, when the GOP had the House, the Senate, and the White House.
What did we get? Um, two horribly politically damaging clusterfucks of foreign wars, enormously expensive in blood and treasure, that poisoned the party brand for a generation of young voters. A massive new federal handout program in Medicare Part D. An education initiative coauthored by Ted Kennedy that doubled the DeptEd budget. Moar ethanol. Light bulb bans. Sarbanes-Oxley. McCain-Feingold. The TSA. Homeland Security.
And, virtually no rollback anywhere of any of the half-century of steady growth of the Leviathan state. All during which, conservatives had staunchly prayed that one day they would hold both houses of Congress and the White House just for a little while, enough to maybe undo some of the rot. Well, the GOP finally had those prayers answered for four years. And pissed it all away.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 23, 2014 04:50 PM (gqT4g)
352
Yup...why put off 'til tomorrow the implosion you can elect today?
The GOP wins in '16 and then just like 94 does nothing with the power...
No NEA purge, no knocking the media off the plate, no attacking the EPA and weaponized civil service...
And webalance the checkbook and play a designated villain whose main villainy is being a 'possum?
Fuck it let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:41 PM (TE35l)
After '94, we did have some victories, though not enough due to Slick Willy.
The real disaster was Bush's Presidency. Admittedly the Dems getting back the Senate was kinda a problem, and 9/11 did lead to Bush ignoring everything else. But there was plenty of chances to roll back regulations and cut down on beaurocracyÂ… and the opportunity was ignored.
In the past 100 years, the GOP has taken full control from the Dems only three times: 1920, 1952, and 2000.
Only in 1920 was the government rolled back, though not as small as it was before Wilson and the Progressives took over, but still it was rolled back.
May 2014 be our "1918" and 2016 be our "1920"Â…
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (XvHmy)
353
The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds.
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (zOTsN)
354
343 NWConservative,
I skipped it on purpose the new SMART play by GOPe Inc. Sems to be "fix it don't end it"....
They are going to deep throat a 6 foot piece of shit.
I hate the gop about 1% less than I hate the Donkey party whom I consider barely closeted communists.
Hillary! 16-why not?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (TE35l)
355
>>> I'm an undeniable socon. I'm proud of that. I stand by traditional values. If I ever don't, just put me in the ground and call it a day.
That said, I don't know if my "agenda" is any different than any other patriotic conservative here.
...
it is.
As I was just saying to Monty in an email, there are two different ideas in play here, which socons tend to confuse as being the SAME idea. They're not. I assure you they're not the same idea, and can (and should) be distinguished.
The ideas are these:
1. Society will function better and people will be happier and more prosperous if they are morally virtuous (and let us, for these purposes, extend "moral virtue" to things such as self-discipline and work habits and thrift and other such non-sexual areas).
2. Society will function better if the Virtuous attempt to guide the less-virtuous into being virtuous by use of positive law or social tools of control, such as judgment and shaming.
There are few, apart from Aleistaire Crowley, who disagree with point one.
There are many who disagree with point two.
The reason I have become more Libertarian is not because I have become more sexual. The opposite, actually: As I'm getting older, my sex drive has declined.
I have become more libertarian because I have become DEEPLY suspicious of all authority. I have seen it abused, CONSTANTLY, by Obama. And before that, I saw the Bush Administration -- supposedly staffed with smart people who would use Sound Conservative Doctrine to make good decisions -- make one fuck up after another.
I believe this is a Libertarian Moment. I happen to believe socons are going to lose more and more ground, but it's only partly because of socon policy itself.
It's largely because people have become so skeptical that ANYONE should have authority over them, that ANYONE should be "deciding what's right."
Do I reject the general urging of Christ to be charitable, virtuous, and so forth? Of course not. (Oh and by the way: He also talks a lot about not being judgmental: Let who who is without sin...)
What I reject isn't Christ, because Christ is not here writing laws or administering governent.
What I reject is other HUMAN BEINGS proposing to me that they know better and they're going to take a vote to decide if I can do what is in *my* conscience or not.
The Christian right feels under siege at the moment, I know. But I don't think it's the actual Christianity which is under siege. It is the humans who would presume to rule others who are being challenged, and rejected.
And yes, I happen to think that people, left to their own consciences, will, as a rule, generally come to a conscientious decision.
I think MORE people will make better decisions under that rule than the one I see proposed to me from both the social left and social right: That we will pass laws to make your better people, to coerce you into acting the way we prefer, and if laws aren't available, we'll use the powerful social control tools of shaming, judging, firings, ridicule, and so forth to make sure you comply.
Christ did not say "We need laws to make sure people only have sex within the bounds of marriage." Christ sought to quicken the spirit inside and said that inner change would produce outer fruits.
Not the other way around: using tools of coercion to boss people into showing some fruits (which they only show because you'll punish them if they don't) in the hope that a coerced fruit on the outside would produce a well of virtue on the inside.
I reject Christians who think they know better for the same reason I reject everyone who thinks they know better. It's not a bias against Christians. It's a bias against all the people, and they are Legion, who think they are so possessed of the truth they can and should dictate it to others.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (/FnUH)
356
When is the last time a lefty got investigated for campaign law violations?
And who the fuck is Doodad Pro?
Posted by: --- at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (MMC8r)
357
CACÂ….thanks for that.
Appreciate the background.
Seriously.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (yz6yg)
358
T-4 minutes and going into a planned 10 minute hold.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (sdi6R)
359
I'm sitting here playing Fantasy Pantsuit 2016 (new game I installed on my iPhone). How about Hillary CLINTON/Michelle OBAMA 2016! Wouldn't that be the most pro-womynz ticket of the century? You get 2 ex-Presidents as the First Men, and you get to relive the wonders of the 90's PLUS, you get to hear Michelle's take on daily life as a struggling strong African American lady in this oppressive white man's society. Maybe we could have Lena Dunham in the Cabinet. Winning!!!
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (kCnae)
360
That Planet Hillary thing... is... is it laughing?
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 04:52 PM (/96QU)
361
365 That Planet Hillary thing... is... is it laughing?
*Cackling*
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 04:53 PM (kCnae)
362
Even though I'm closest politically with Rand Paul, please no more junior senators for the Presidency.
I'll gladly support a Scott Walker instead.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 04:53 PM (E8IHS)
363
As our prayers allow, may our collective thoughts and prayers be in the name of Our Lord toward CAC and his swift recovery.
As our love permeates the souls of those amongst us, may it also buoy the souls of those around us.
Dear Lord: Our Meatball has a Driven Soul. His humanity is exemplified in his studious giving for our simple edification.
May Your Love be driven by our collective souls on behalf of our over-the-internet friend.
In Jesus' name I pray,
-Amen
P.S.: I really like this guy. May his forty acres of weed remain undiscovered.
...'men
As our love permeates the souls of those amongst us, may it also buoy the souls of those around us.
Dear Lord: Our Meatball has a Driven Soul. His humanity is exemplified in his studious giving for our simple edification.
May Your Love be driven by our collective souls on behalf of our over-the-internet friend.
In Jesus' name I pray,
-Amen
P.S.: I really like this guy. May his forty acres of weed remain undiscovered.
...'men
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 04:53 PM (lq3Ak)
364
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 08:40 PM (MpP9p)
Vendette I love you.
I can't agree with you.
There is no evidence that Republicans will do anything useful about fiscal sanity or the border.
Without dealing strongly with those two issues we are lost anyway.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:53 PM (jTKU5)
365
I always thought that was a load of crap, but even if it were true then, the paradigm has changed.
The goal now is to get the nuttiest (in their view) GOP candidate possible. Or, double bonus, Rand Paul, who is not only nutty but racist (their view, not mine, I love the guy and am a Kentuckian) and second-generation nutty.
Hillary cannot win without Obama levels of black and Hispanic votes. She won't get that unless they can really scare the crap out of the minorities about the GIGANTIC HORROR RACIST CONSERVATIVE the Republicans are running.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:42 PM (vE1mx)
1. Democrats always get epic levels of blacks and hispanics.
2. The media will gin up all sorts of crap about WHOEVER the Republican candidate is. See milktoast whitebread Mitt Romney. They made him into a cancer causing, evil, rich, mormon who tortures dogs and kids. So cut the crap.
3. Run Christie, Jeb, or whatever the republican national committee and the corporate fascists at the Chamber of crony capitalism want.
The goal now is to get the nuttiest (in their view) GOP candidate possible. Or, double bonus, Rand Paul, who is not only nutty but racist (their view, not mine, I love the guy and am a Kentuckian) and second-generation nutty.
Hillary cannot win without Obama levels of black and Hispanic votes. She won't get that unless they can really scare the crap out of the minorities about the GIGANTIC HORROR RACIST CONSERVATIVE the Republicans are running.
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:42 PM (vE1mx)
1. Democrats always get epic levels of blacks and hispanics.
2. The media will gin up all sorts of crap about WHOEVER the Republican candidate is. See milktoast whitebread Mitt Romney. They made him into a cancer causing, evil, rich, mormon who tortures dogs and kids. So cut the crap.
3. Run Christie, Jeb, or whatever the republican national committee and the corporate fascists at the Chamber of crony capitalism want.
Posted by: NWConservative at January 23, 2014 04:53 PM (buZ/8)
366
#355 Yes, Mike, it's been mentioned here and there's a link for it in my sock.
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (vuh7l)
367
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:51 PM (/FnUH)
On the plus side for SoCons? America is probably more pro-life than it's been in a long time.
I'm a pro-life libertarian, so that's a win-win-win.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (E8IHS)
368
CAC this site has never been good on polling. So its not just you. that's been true since at least 2004
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (KgN8K)
369
I notice how all the lefty blogs are the only ones with details about the charges against Dnesh.
Is possible they were given a heads up before the arrest?
I couldn't find any conservative blogs with a post about it yet.
Is possible they were given a heads up before the arrest?
I couldn't find any conservative blogs with a post about it yet.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (LSDdO)
370
357 The Political Hat,
Yeah I know history Hat.
We were a better and more moral people with a work ethic.
It's time to quit being the grown-up party pooper.
To the moon!
Let the bodies hit the floor, I am intrigued by a combo of Mexicans and Marxists turning this into Lubyanka.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (TE35l)
371
I reject Christians who think they know better for the same reason I reject everyone who thinks they know better. It's not a bias against Christians. It's a bias against all the people, and they are Legion, who think they are so possessed of the truth they can and should dictate it to others.
ace, that might be what you believe, especially that first sentence there.
But what comes across is "I reject Christians who think they know better" Period. Full stop. End of sentence and thought.
You might not mean it that way, but that's the way it comes out.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (yz6yg)
372
BTW- when I mentioned above people love to remind me how wrong I was, that's not me lashing out against you: I failed. It sucks to know you did so publicly. The internet is forever, so if anyone wants to counter a post or tweet I make, they can (rightly) link up a prediction or chart or comment I made back in '12.
************
Damn it.
Sorry.
It was joking.
Hell I have followed PA for decades--so some of us older people--have been through what you have gone through--
over and over and over.
Gawd damn PA.
Sorry--I didn't know you took it so to heart.
You know how many people have fallen for the PA is going our way hope?
It's part of being an optimist.
Being an optimist USE to be part of the Republican psychology.
That use to be Reagan.
Hell I think it has died.
Anyways.
Super apologies from me CAC.
Really kind of miss the nuts and bolts of election coverage I am a huge nerd that way.
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (RJMhd)
373
Net +4 in 2014 is not good. Not even close to good.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 04:54 PM (0LHZx)
374
I think Romney paid good money for *experts* and they thought they had Florida in the bag.
Gawd--I was in that thread trying to tell people--
holy shit Florida does not look good.
The people --number nerds that I was watching with--we almost started throwing up.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 08:50 PM (RJMhd)
I knew that Nevada was lost when I read the B.S. that Romney's people were spouting regarding early voting numbers. They were claiming they could be behind and still win. I know this was total B.S. and even got relatively close on predicting the actual Nevada numbers (For President, Senate, and state legislature).
Perhaps it was Gell-Mann amnesia or simple denial, but I chalked that up to them just not getting Nevada, and only Nevada.
There is one thing that GOP campaign consultants do very well: Lie.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:56 PM (XvHmy)
375
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 08:51 PM (zOTsN)
that sounds all philosophical and stuff but it's hooey.
failing is failing and no it's not better than succeeding at nothing if doing nothing was the correct thing to do.
that sounds all philosophical and stuff but it's hooey.
failing is failing and no it's not better than succeeding at nothing if doing nothing was the correct thing to do.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:56 PM (LSDdO)
376
Scott Walker would be a good president. I'm not sure Scott Walker would be a good campaigner. Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 07:55 PM (P6QsQ)
Yep. I'm a cheesehead too, and like I said in the ONT yesterday, I think Walker's lack of charisma hurts him. Not with me, not with you, but with the dead-brained 53% who think charisma is more important than executive experience or results.
Posted by: JFK at January 23, 2014 04:56 PM (R3gO3)
377
Got a question for you Ace. If two homosexuals want to rent the small MIL house on my property should I have any say in that? Should I be able to not rent rent to them because they are homosexual?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 04:57 PM (nkPV9)
378
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:43 PM (XvHmy)
Yet somehow, here in CLownifornia... the NRA has not been effective.
Now they are talking about a law to make you get a background check to buy ammo... and YOU will have to pay for your own background check.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 23, 2014 04:57 PM (84gbM)
379
Point One
Society will function better if the Virtuous attempt to guide the less-virtuous into being virtuous by use of positive law
I agree
Point Two
or social tools of control, such as judgment and shaming.
I disagree. Its what parenting is all about in some respects. Societal pressure to encourage two parent households is a moral, and financial, good
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 04:57 PM (zOTsN)
380
Hillary! 16-why not?
Posted by: sven10077
I'll wait to see who the R nominee is out of courtesy.
None of the current crop looks to have a chance of beating her though.
Mooch will only be what, about 60 after two Hillary terms? She's the one who will finish up the destruction.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 04:57 PM (jTKU5)
381
plus old people don't do too well during revolutions and social upset.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 08:44 PM (LSDdO)
Hey, Stop it with the .......
http://tinyurl.com/b3cdol
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 04:58 PM (0FSuD)
383
>>>I disagree. Its what parenting is all about in some respects. Societal pressure to encourage two parent households is a moral, and financial, good
and you view other citizen-adults as your children, in need of your parental guidance?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:59 PM (/FnUH)
384
failing is failing and no it's not better than succeeding at nothing if doing nothing was the correct thing to do.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated
it was for CAC
and trying to do it was the right thing to do
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 04:59 PM (zOTsN)
385
I knew that Nevada was lost when I read the B.S.
that Romney's people were spouting regarding early voting numbers. They
were claiming they could be behind and still win. I know this was
total B.S. and even got relatively close on predicting the actual Nevada
numbers (For President, Senate, and state legislature).
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:56 PM (XvHmy)
_________
Same goes for Ohio when every Republican "expert" was saying that despite the fact Dems were turning out people at a faster clip than 2008, Romney was going to win because....uhm...because...in this one particular zip code Romney's people were seeing a lot of enthusiasm at the local Denny's or some bullshit like that.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 04:59 PM (0LHZx)
386
Let the bodies hit the floor, I am intrigued by a combo of Mexicans and Marxists turning this into Lubyanka.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (TE35l)
It'll be the Gulags, but with Zeks being denied refried beans instead of being denied borscht.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 04:59 PM (XvHmy)
387
Christ did not say "We need laws to make sure people
only have sex within the bounds of marriage." Christ sought to quicken
the spirit inside and said that inner change would produce outer
fruits.
Not the other way around: using tools of coercion to boss people into showing some fruits (which they only show because you'll punish them if they don't) in the hope that a coerced fruit on the outside would produce a well of virtue on the inside.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:51 PM (/FnUH)
=======================
Ace, I think you and I are much closer on this theme than you think.
I don't know how much of the comments you read here on a regular basis, but I pretty much voice your argument above on many occasions.
I believe just a day or so ago, I wrote that making laws and electing politicians is a sorry way to expect people's behavior to change. That the one hope - the only hope - is to change peoples' hearts and attitudes. And that this is NOT accomplished through passing laws and electing politicians. It is rather through teaching our children, strengthening our family units, loving our neighbors, and seeking to love God. THAT is where change occurs. Internally, not externally.
We really are not that different in our outlooks, so I think we should discuss from a point of agreement, rather than from an assumed disagreement.
You tend to assume some things about socons that aren't always there. I probably assume things about libertarians that aren't always there either.
Not the other way around: using tools of coercion to boss people into showing some fruits (which they only show because you'll punish them if they don't) in the hope that a coerced fruit on the outside would produce a well of virtue on the inside.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:51 PM (/FnUH)
=======================
Ace, I think you and I are much closer on this theme than you think.
I don't know how much of the comments you read here on a regular basis, but I pretty much voice your argument above on many occasions.
I believe just a day or so ago, I wrote that making laws and electing politicians is a sorry way to expect people's behavior to change. That the one hope - the only hope - is to change peoples' hearts and attitudes. And that this is NOT accomplished through passing laws and electing politicians. It is rather through teaching our children, strengthening our family units, loving our neighbors, and seeking to love God. THAT is where change occurs. Internally, not externally.
We really are not that different in our outlooks, so I think we should discuss from a point of agreement, rather than from an assumed disagreement.
You tend to assume some things about socons that aren't always there. I probably assume things about libertarians that aren't always there either.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 04:59 PM (P6QsQ)
388
on point 2, you assume that's what SoCons want because why?
What I see is that SoCons see that there has to be lines drawn
Good behavior
Bad Behavior
What we have now is a break down of those lines where there are no lines and anything goes.
All SoCons want is a return to clear and fast lines. Adherence to them will of course not be universal. It never was but at least the lines were there as a guideline.
I have heard any SoCon claim that NEW lines need to be drawn. I have heard them try to make the argument to reinstate or reinforce the OLD lines.
this is a major misapprehension of what a Social Conservative is all about.
What I see is that SoCons see that there has to be lines drawn
Good behavior
Bad Behavior
What we have now is a break down of those lines where there are no lines and anything goes.
All SoCons want is a return to clear and fast lines. Adherence to them will of course not be universal. It never was but at least the lines were there as a guideline.
I have heard any SoCon claim that NEW lines need to be drawn. I have heard them try to make the argument to reinstate or reinforce the OLD lines.
this is a major misapprehension of what a Social Conservative is all about.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 05:00 PM (LSDdO)
389
I don't want a return to Reaganism. I want zombie Calvin Coolidge!
Posted by: NWConservative at January 23, 2014 05:00 PM (buZ/8)
390
378 Mr. Moo Moo,
Thank you professor. Wizard.
They let the senate pass the Cholo D'Ocho I aim to make it a D+10 ideally.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:00 PM (TE35l)
391
I'm a pro-life libertarian, so that's a win-win-win.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (E8IHS)
Yup.... once you decide that the fetus is a Person... its very easy to be a Pro Life Libertarian...
Because IMO Libertarianism is ALL about not forcing others to live.... or NOT live... they way you want...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 23, 2014 05:00 PM (84gbM)
392
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Posted by: just saying [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:00 PM (5ikDv)
393
I don't approve of it, will not support it, and will, to the extent possible, work to thwart it Ace
But if we "tea partiers" say the same, then we are the ones giving the country to the infidel left.
Its ok if you don't support the SoCon cause, but don't expect me to buy any more FiCon lies about "lesser of two evils" or Libertarian lies about "expanded freedom" when you really mean "smole all the dope I want"
The double standard is vomit inducing
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 05:00 PM (rGepj)
394
382 Got a question for you Ace. If two homosexuals want to rent the small MIL house on my property should I have any say in that? Should I be able to not rent rent to them because they are homosexual?
--From a recent ruling concerning a bakery, if they want to rent your personal bedroom in *your* house, and you denied them, you probably have a problem. And, uh, according to the progs, no, you don't get a say so.
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 05:01 PM (kCnae)
395
Hey, CAC I think everyone at the HQ were amazed at your numbers and how quickly you saw shit.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
"Look to the stars" he he.
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 05:01 PM (0FSuD)
396
I could go for a Johnnie Walker, myself.
And his two brothers, Black and Red.
Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 05:01 PM (4Tut9)
397
Let's see where we are in 2016. If Obamacare is the massive clusterfuck it's predicted to be, I like our chances.
Posted by: Mike at January 23, 2014 05:01 PM (Rk8LS)
398
I can't agree with you.
There is no evidence that Republicans will do anything useful about fiscal sanity or the border.
Without dealing strongly with those two issues we are lost anyway.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 08:53 PM (jTKU5)
*HUGS*
Notice I just mentioned the committees. A slim-majority GOP Senate will not mean anything otherwise, beyond controlling the schedule. It was mentioned in a previous thread that there are enough GOP senators who vote with Democrats on a regular basis to make a slim GOP majority moot. The committees will investigate stuff, but on the Senate floor nothing will change from what you see today.
This only changes if the Democrats this year change the 60-vote threshold for cloture on legislation like they have for nominations (expect for SCOTUS).
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 05:01 PM (MpP9p)
399
Remember the Stupak 12 and the now extinct pro-life Christian Democrat? I get the feeling that ace considers all socons in their mold.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 05:02 PM (3a584)
400
But this post does mean everytime Obama oversteps the bounds of his office, and everytime the NSA is revealed to be even more destructive towards liberty, I will say: "You know who this benefits?"
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 05:02 PM (E8IHS)
401
>>>Got a question for you Ace. If two homosexuals want to rent the small MIL house on my property should I have any say in that? Should I be able to not rent rent to them because they are homosexual?
what's an MIL house?
Uh, it's a tough call. First of all, I don't think you should discriminate based on homosexuality. It would be one thing if you told me "And I know they're real partyboys..."
As if you should have the right... yeah, I don't really like the anti-gay animus, but yes you should have the right. As this is not an apartment building, but I guess some kind of guest house where you live, you have more right to insist on what sort of renter you'd accept. You'd be in close contact and you should not be required to live a less comfortable life so that someone else can live a more comfortable one.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:02 PM (/FnUH)
402
I disagree. Its what parenting is all about in some respects. Societal pressure to encourage two parent households is a moral, and financial, good
and you view other citizen-adults as your children, in need of your parental guidance?
Posted by: ace
no
I do not. I was talking about peoples actual children. Like mine. My children.
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 05:02 PM (zOTsN)
403
>>You might not mean it that way, but that's the way it comes out.
Not the way it came out to me at all. I also am moving more libertarian as the country moves more authoritarian from all sides.
But my idea of libertarian is just go back to limited government guided by constitutional principles and leave me the hell alone on all other issues.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 05:02 PM (g1DWB)
404
Uh oh. They didn't pick up the count for some reason.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 05:02 PM (sdi6R)
406
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:43 PM (XvHmy)
Yet somehow, here in CLownifornia... the NRA has not been effective.
Now they are talking about a law to make you get a background check to buy ammo... and YOU will have to pay for your own background check.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 23, 2014 08:57 PM (84gbM)
Demographics trumps all.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 05:03 PM (XvHmy)
407
376 Sean Bannion,
Nah Sean what we need is some more blue on blue..
I aim to help when the house goes full 'tard.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:03 PM (TE35l)
408
But my idea of libertarian is just go back to limited government guided by constitutional principles and leave me the hell alone on all other issues.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 09:02 PM (g1DWB)
In today's society rolling back the police/welfare state 50 years is EXTREMIST ANARCHISM!!!
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 05:04 PM (E8IHS)
409
Where are the editors of this joint?
Posted by: Nip Sip at January 23, 2014 08:35 PM (0FSuD)
Engaged in hand to hand flameout to the death combat in the socon thread.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 23, 2014 05:04 PM (oFCZn)
410
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 08:57 PM (nkPV9)
You can safely and legally discriminate based on criminal record, income, outstanding financial obligations and references.
Set the bar where it pleases you.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 05:04 PM (jTKU5)
411
I knew that Nevada was lost when I read the B.S. that Romney's people were spouting regarding early voting numbers. They were claiming they could be behind and still win. I know this was total B.S. and even got relatively close on predicting the actual Nevada numbers (For President, Senate, and state legislature).
Perhaps it was Gell-Mann amnesia or simple denial, but I chalked that up to them just not getting Nevada, and only Nevada.
There is one thing that GOP campaign consultants do very well: Lie.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:56 PM (XvHmy)
**********
Well...I think it could have been Pollyanna-sih or--
hell I don't know.
I actually have this damn thing about calling Florida early.
And they might have been trying to preserve the popular vote percentage and not depress voting in the Pacific Time Zone.
I was in the Florida Fucking Panhandle when they called Florida for Gore.
Those fucking bastards.
Then they challenged the votes of military sitting on the DMZ and voting absentee.
And they got lawyers from fucking Atlanta to do the dirty work because they couldn't get local lawyers todo the dirty work.
Paid 40,000 to charter an emergency flight into Valparaiso airport.
Those fuckers.
And minding the gap--
scrambling around to try to defend the MILITARY vote--
was--
Bud Day.
Look up Bud Day's wiki.
So you know when it comes to dirty fucking pool--
it's Liberals all the way who are the lowest scum on the damn planet.
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2014 05:04 PM (RJMhd)
412
Really kind of miss the nuts and bolts of election coverage I am a huge nerd that way.
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (RJMhd)
Oh, it will return.
Between The Federalist, twitter, and of course right here, you'll be getting more than you could want.
But after screwing up so badly, I want to get it right.
I'm still extremely proud of the Wisconsin recall work I did, and very proud of the morons and ettes who helped compile the data, and John's yeoman's work building the AOSHQDD. It got AOS shout outs from Real Clear Politics and the National Review. The map and page John put together got linked by dozens of outside sources.
I wanted to do that nationally. 470 congressional races and the Presidential race in 50 states seemed like a big task but I felt like it could be done.
I still think it can. In fact, I KNOW it can.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 05:04 PM (npTnN)
413
On the plus side for SoCons? America is probably more pro-life than it's been in a long time.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (E8IHS)
____________
Not really. The country is exactly where it was 10 years ago where many more people say it should be generally available than say it should never be available.
If you look at the # of people who say it should be illegal, period, the number has stayed in the low to mid 20s without any swings up or down. Every poll says the same thing....Gallup, CNN, Quinnipiac, you name it.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:05 PM (0LHZx)
414
Something about data dropouts. They're looking into it.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 05:05 PM (sdi6R)
415
God, what a depressing thread. Can we go back to talking about Latin declesions and the development of English?
Posted by: Donna V. at January 23, 2014 05:05 PM (R3gO3)
416
>>>What I see is that SoCons see that there has to be lines drawn
Good behavior
Bad Behavior
What we have now is a break down of those lines where there are no lines and anything goes.
...
again, as I said, the blindness to the fact that 1 and 2 are distinct propositions. To you they're the same. Not supporting you in your quest to establish "clear lines" for people will be the death of morality.
You are that "clear line." If it's not you, then it's anarchy.
Isn't this presumptuous?
There is a thing called the Holy Spirit, some of you have told me, in explaining how the nonreligious could nevertheless sometimes engage in altruism and virtuous behavior.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:05 PM (/FnUH)
417
"It is rather through teaching our children, strengthening our family units, loving our neighbors, and seeking to love God. THAT is where change occurs. Internally, not externally."
I completely agree with this but, at least in my view, the left has succeeded via politics to destroy these institutions and replace them with 'government'. And they've done it by "....making laws and electing politicians" to change people's behavior. And we're a poor nation for it.
Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 23, 2014 05:06 PM (bCEmE)
419
let's see -
Smoke an acre of dope due to personal moral beliefs = good.
Disapprove actively of homosexual behavior do to personal moral beliefs = bad.
*writing this down*
Smoke an acre of dope due to personal moral beliefs = good.
Disapprove actively of homosexual behavior do to personal moral beliefs = bad.
*writing this down*
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:06 PM (5ikDv)
420
Ace ... let's just get right down to it. I'm not trying to be funny.
Does State Authority have any right to regulate Sexual Practices ? Discuss.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:06 PM (6/+vz)
421
I'm still extremely proud of the Wisconsin recall work I did
-----------------
As you should be. And just think!! Walker has an election coming again this November!! We get to do this dance again.
-----------------
As you should be. And just think!! Walker has an election coming again this November!! We get to do this dance again.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 05:06 PM (P6QsQ)
422
Posted by: Vendette at January 23, 2014 09:01 PM (MpP9p)
Thanks for the hugs, I need some. And I send all the hugs you like back to you.
Gotta run, rehearsal at 7:30, two gigs this weekend.
See you around ONT, morons.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 23, 2014 05:07 PM (jTKU5)
424
So ya--maybe Mitt's crew lied a little to try to hang on.
Eh--small patates.
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2014 05:07 PM (RJMhd)
425
Zombieland. Funny, but how about rule number 1 being "carry enough firepower" (meaning, more than a double-barrel shotgun). Dork.
Oh...sorry, were we discussing something important here?
Oh...sorry, were we discussing something important here?
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at January 23, 2014 05:07 PM (yh0zB)
426
Not really. The country is exactly where it was 10 years ago where many more people say it should be generally available than say it should never be available.
If you look at the # of people who say it should be illegal, period, the number has stayed in the low to mid 20s without any swings up or down. Every poll says the same thing....Gallup, CNN, Quinnipiac, you name it.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 09:05 PM (0LHZx)
So, you're not refuting my point at all. 1) Add in clause for rape/incest 2) restrictions on later trimesters.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 05:07 PM (E8IHS)
427
MIL House is Mother in law house, typically a smaller house adjacent to a Main house in most Amish/Mennonite communties. Usually where older folks of the family live that don't wish to live inside the main houise.
The reason why I asked Ace is that if you wish us evil socons out of your life you are going to have to give something up. I dont see you doing this. It doesnt matter what anti animuis you dont like like, either you believe in freedom of association or you don't.
The reason why I asked Ace is that if you wish us evil socons out of your life you are going to have to give something up. I dont see you doing this. It doesnt matter what anti animuis you dont like like, either you believe in freedom of association or you don't.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:08 PM (nkPV9)
428
I'm not the clear line.
the clear lines were laid down long before I was born.
I don't claim to be the arbiter or enforcer of any of the lines.
You left that part off of what I said.
the clear lines were laid down long before I was born.
I don't claim to be the arbiter or enforcer of any of the lines.
You left that part off of what I said.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 05:08 PM (LSDdO)
429
Those questions are really vague. What is "most cases"?
Do you really think the man on the street knows what "most cases" mean? I bet they think plan B.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 05:08 PM (E8IHS)
430
399
382 Got a question for you Ace. If two homosexuals want to rent the
small MIL house on my property should I have any say in that? Should I
be able to not rent rent to them because they are homosexual?
--From a recent ruling concerning a bakery, if they want to rent your personal bedroom in *your* house, and you denied them, you probably have a problem. And, uh, according to the progs, no, you don't get a say so.
--From a recent ruling concerning a bakery, if they want to rent your personal bedroom in *your* house, and you denied them, you probably have a problem. And, uh, according to the progs, no, you don't get a say so.
Posted by: rightwingva at January 23, 2014 09:01 PM (kCnae)
__________
How's it any different than refusing to rent to two black people or two Jews, regardless of their sexual preference? Yeah it's your bedroom in *your* house, but tenant laws apply just as much as they do anywhere else. You don't want strangers in your house that make you feel icky, don't rent out the room.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:09 PM (0LHZx)
431
Between The Federalist, twitter, and of course right here, you'll be getting more than you could want.
But after screwing up so badly, I want to get it right.
I'm still extremely proud of the Wisconsin recall work I did, and very proud of the morons and ettes who helped compile the data, and John's yeoman's work building the AOSHQDD. It got AOS shout outs from Real Clear Politics and the National Review. The map and page John put together got linked by dozens of outside sources.
I wanted to do that nationally. 470 congressional races and the Presidential race in 50 states seemed like a big task but I felt like it could be done.
I still think it can. In fact, I KNOW it can.
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 09:04 PM (npTnN)
***********
Awesome CAC.
I'll be looking forward to it.
And thank you for doing it.
And also thanks for accepting my apology.
--btw I took Bio Psychology Lab--that involves stats and I bought into this damn stuff is skewed so--
there you go.
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2014 05:10 PM (RJMhd)
432
>>> Yeah it's your bedroom in *your* house, but tenant laws apply just as much as they do anywhere else. You don't want strangers in your house that make you feel icky, don't rent out the room.
i don't think that's the rule. I think you're allowed more latitude in situations where you are in close proximity to the renter.
If it's at arm's length (apartment building), then non-discrimination laws apply in full.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:10 PM (/FnUH)
433
"I'm still extremely proud of the Wisconsin recall work I did, and very proud of the morons and ettes who helped compile the data, and John's yeoman's work building the AOSHQDD."
You should be proud, CAC - you did fine work. I'm also proud of the cheeseheads who cast the votes that kept Walker in office. It allows me to feel superior to Califonians. It's 7 f'ing degrees out, my hands (in gloves) froze while I was driving my damn car to work today, and you're in balmy lala land, so I have to feel superior to Californians in some way :-)
Posted by: Donna V. at January 23, 2014 05:11 PM (R3gO3)
434
"And Ron Paul's newsletters will be thrown in his face, repeatedly, and he's gonna have to have some answer for that. "
It's been answered over and over and over again. Ron didn't write them. He didn't authorize them. He didn't know about them. Nobody can point to a single racist or anti Semitic or hateful thing he has said before or after than. Because he's none of them.
People who bring them up because they irrationally hate Ron because he's right and been right and he threatens the status quo. And because of his very correct foreign policy views- which are the same views as the founders and are just as correct today as the other views they espoused- like right to keep and bear arms.
Rand doesn't have the same baggage from the irrational haters because he's been smarter and actually cares about getting elected. He would be good and a great stab in the face of the irrational haters.
Posted by: Patrick Henry, the 2nd at January 23, 2014 05:11 PM (0bYqd)
436
>>>I'm not the clear line.
the clear lines were laid down long before I was born.
I don't claim to be the arbiter or enforcer of any of the lines.
You left that part off of what I said.
...
Oh please. Of course you ARE the clear line. You can't say it's God or Jesus, because they're not actually fighting for legislation and writing it and voting on it -- YOU ARE.
Don't put off on God what you're doing yourself.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:11 PM (/FnUH)
437
434
Those questions are really vague. What is "most cases"?
Do you really think the man on the street knows what "most cases" mean? I bet they think plan B.
Do you really think the man on the street knows what "most cases" mean? I bet they think plan B.
Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at January 23, 2014 09:08 PM (E8IHS)
________
Spin it however your want. The polling has been clear for a decade...only 20-25% of the public wants an outright ban on abortion. You guys are in a small minority. And pushing this view in an election is bad politics.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:11 PM (0LHZx)
438
" don't rent out the room."
Ahhhh I see here. If I don't like "your" rules I don't get to participate. Thanks Adolph.
Ahhhh I see here. If I don't like "your" rules I don't get to participate. Thanks Adolph.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:12 PM (nkPV9)
439
>>>It's been answered over and over and over again. Ron didn't write them. He didn't authorize them. He didn't know about them.
please
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:12 PM (/FnUH)
440
Not the way it came out to me at all. I also am moving more libertarian as the country moves more authoritarian from all sides.
So am I. But I also see across the spectrum people who disdain faith of any kind. We might believe the same thing, but since my belief is based in "faith," it is somehow less "real" than someone who thinks they got it from "reason." That criticism applies to those on the left and from the right.
I'm not a fan of Bible literalism. I'm also not a fan of Marxism.
I don't agree with ace's 2 principles above. I think people are perfectly capable of being left alone to screw up their own lives, that's their right. I might have some super seekrit knowledge that will save them the pain (faith) but hey, it's up to them to grab it. It's not up to me to mandate it.
Similarly, while they're screwing up their own lives, it's not fine to come back and tell me I have to pay for it because "fairness" (or some other equally abstract conceptÂ…). Me sitting back and watching the predicable human wreckage is not the same thing as me mandating their behavior. But that's how it's often portrayed here.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:12 PM (yz6yg)
441
>>You don't want strangers in your house that make you feel icky, don't rent out the room.
Property rights are absolute or they are nothing. Hell of a libertarian you are. If the gov't can make its enforcement of your property rights conditional without your (as in you personally) express consent you're a renter, at best.
Property rights are absolute or they are nothing. Hell of a libertarian you are. If the gov't can make its enforcement of your property rights conditional without your (as in you personally) express consent you're a renter, at best.
Posted by: kartoffel at January 23, 2014 05:12 PM (07vvi)
442
Still waiting Ace.
Should State Authority ever regulate Sexual Practices ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:12 PM (6/+vz)
443
You don't want strangers in your house that make you feel icky, don't rent out the room.
Libertarians my ass.
Libertarians my ass.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:13 PM (5ikDv)
444
Non discriminatory laws apply" So you have made a moral judgement there correct?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:13 PM (nkPV9)
445
>>> The reason why I asked Ace is that if you wish us evil socons out of your life you are going to have to give something up. I dont see you doing this. It doesnt matter what anti animuis you dont like like, either you believe in freedom of association or you don't.
well I passed the test then didn't I, as I said yes, you should have the right to not rent to people you have a bias against.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:13 PM (/FnUH)
446
CAC, rather than trying to compete with the resources of the AP and call every state/race, next time we need to specialize in tracking a single critical state/race.
I was one of those volunteers that got depressed and gave up and let the whole team down on election night.
Posted by: Jose at January 23, 2014 05:13 PM (zc/sw)
447
440
Black = born that way
Jews = born of a Jewish mother
Homosexual behavior = choice
Jews = born of a Jewish mother
Homosexual behavior = choice
Posted by: noone, really at January 23, 2014 09:11 PM (5ikDv)
_________
Putting aside the fact that sexual preference is not "chosen"....
What about a converted Jew? What about a Catholic? What about someone in a wheelchair? I guess anyone who wasn't born into their present condition is fair game in discrimination?
Lovely.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:14 PM (0LHZx)
448
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2014 09:12 PM (yz6yg)
On the other side however, is a group of SoCons who believe that there can be NO moral code, without Religion.
Heck... saw that here on a thread just a couple of weeks ago...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 23, 2014 05:14 PM (84gbM)
449
Hell I may out Hillary! HILLARY! & start pretending to be more pro-choice than her and Ogabe.
Combine their love of Kevorkian, abortion & "it takes a village" and advocate late term abortion to 312 months by simple majority vote of any group of 3 or more people.
HILLARY!16-WHY NOT?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:14 PM (TE35l)
450
"You don't want strangers in your house that make you feel icky, don't rent out the room."
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 09:09 PM (0LHZx)
Horseshit.
Your Cow-Sense must have "tingles" whether the renters be white or black or idiots or "suspicious"?
Have you not that "sense"?
...I'm no Spider Man, but I think you lack something.
Perhaps "Common" sense.
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 05:14 PM (lq3Ak)
451
>>>Does State Authority have any right to regulate Sexual Practices ? Discuss.
nope, not when it comes to consenting adults.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:14 PM (/FnUH)
452
As if you should have the right... yeah, I don't really like the anti-gay animus, but yes you should have the right. As this is not an apartment building, but I guess some kind of guest house where you live, you have more right to insist on what sort of renter you'd accept. You'd be in close contact and you should not be required to live a less comfortable life so that someone else can live a more comfortable one.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:02 PM (/FnUH)
Isn't libertarianism all about the free interaction of free individuals?
The thing about anti-discrimination laws is that they are asymetric. People can choose to patronize your business, but you have no choice on whether or not to offer those services to those same people.
Discrimination was so reviled that we put up with the government telling us who we can offer services to, without anything on the flip side.
Now, we have businesses being told what services they provide, even if it means chucking out the 1st Amendment to do so.
That isn't libertarian. It is the Left using the language of "tolerance" to push their morals on you.
Sure, gay couples are not "free to Marry" but on the flip side this means that everyone else is forced to recognize that by the direct force of law, or by the laws normative effect.
Once something is legal, it means that it takes on moral legitimacy. If you think that's fine, that's one thing, but the result we are seeing is that not thinking that is all spiffy is becoming morally illegitimate, and thus permissible to make illegal. We've seen in in Canada and the UK which outlaw "hate speech" and here in the U.S. where many Leftists want to push that same type of laws.
Before chalking something up as "libertarian" or a "libertarian win" you need to ask yourself if it is really allowing for freedom, or simply shifting taboos and morality from one belief system to another.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 05:15 PM (XvHmy)
453
I must have missed this part in the NT when Jesus went wall to wall about how much he hates gays
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:15 PM (/FnUH)
454
sexual preference is not "chosen".
Aberrant sexual behavior is.
I will answer your stupidity with a question , Moo-Mooby troll.
What is your source?
Mine is 8000 years of human history.
Aberrant sexual behavior is.
I will answer your stupidity with a question , Moo-Mooby troll.
What is your source?
Mine is 8000 years of human history.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:16 PM (5ikDv)
455
On the other side however, is a group of SoCons who believe that there can be NO moral code, without Religion.
Yup. They exist.
That doesn't mean they're right in calling for whatever the 21st Century equivalent of a state religion would be.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:16 PM (yz6yg)
456
CAC,
I really hope this doesn't continue to weigh on you. I think I've made a joke or 2, and it wasn't an attempt to get a real dig at you. It's more out of disappointing realization that this country isn't exactly all that "center-right", like you'll hear 100000 times every 4 years. I think I might have made some comments on your MO primary thread, because you wrote off Akin early, but you were following conventional wisdom....and this seems like a good time to say screw Mike Huckabee.
You do good work. I think people knew to put it all in the lens of an optimist, honestly. Just from reading your comment, you've got a great chance to do even better. 90% of people cannot say what you did about yourself. They can't admit any kind of error. So I read what you're saying, and I hope you come back at it hard the next go around rather than let it be a problem for you.
Everyone was disappointed.
People can blame ORCA. People can blame Romney. People can blame Dick Morris or whoever tells us we're going to win. It doesn't matter. None of it does. The real problem is that there is a sizable idiot faction that insists that they be told they can have it all at someone else's expense, and won't vote for anyone that tells them otherwise.
We can kick ass on off years, when these idiot voters can't be bothered to show up, but on the big ones...we're hosed. Or at least we are until we all have to endure so much pain that it breaks these idiots will to vote in any election. I'd like to think they've about had enough, but I know better.
I really hope this doesn't continue to weigh on you. I think I've made a joke or 2, and it wasn't an attempt to get a real dig at you. It's more out of disappointing realization that this country isn't exactly all that "center-right", like you'll hear 100000 times every 4 years. I think I might have made some comments on your MO primary thread, because you wrote off Akin early, but you were following conventional wisdom....and this seems like a good time to say screw Mike Huckabee.
You do good work. I think people knew to put it all in the lens of an optimist, honestly. Just from reading your comment, you've got a great chance to do even better. 90% of people cannot say what you did about yourself. They can't admit any kind of error. So I read what you're saying, and I hope you come back at it hard the next go around rather than let it be a problem for you.
Everyone was disappointed.
People can blame ORCA. People can blame Romney. People can blame Dick Morris or whoever tells us we're going to win. It doesn't matter. None of it does. The real problem is that there is a sizable idiot faction that insists that they be told they can have it all at someone else's expense, and won't vote for anyone that tells them otherwise.
We can kick ass on off years, when these idiot voters can't be bothered to show up, but on the big ones...we're hosed. Or at least we are until we all have to endure so much pain that it breaks these idiots will to vote in any election. I'd like to think they've about had enough, but I know better.
Posted by: Dave S. at January 23, 2014 05:16 PM (UvR6d)
457
>>>Isn't libertarianism all about the free interaction of free individuals?
The thing about anti-discrimination laws is that they are asymetric. People can choose to patronize your business, but you have no choice on whether or not to offer those services to those same people.
Discrimination was so reviled that we put up with the government telling us who we can offer services to, without anything on the flip side.
Now, we have businesses being told what services they provide, even if it means chucking out the 1st Amendment to do so.
That isn't libertarian. It is the Left using the language of "tolerance" to push their morals on you.
...
I just fucking said you had the right to not rent.
Oh wait-- you want me not just to tolerate your decision and say you have the right to do it, but to CELEBRATE IT too?
It's not enough for me to say "You may do this," but I have to go the extra mile and say "And good on you for taking a strong stance on the homos"?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:16 PM (/FnUH)
458
i don't think that's the rule. I think you're
allowed more latitude in situations where you are in close proximity to
the renter.
If it's at arm's length (apartment building), then non-discrimination laws apply in full.
If it's at arm's length (apartment building), then non-discrimination laws apply in full.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:10 PM (/FnUH)
_____________
Depends on the jurisdiction. But generally speaking, landlord/tenant law doesn't change based on what kind of dwelling it is. When it comes to discriminating, there's virtually no difference.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:17 PM (0LHZx)
459
Ace even being an evil SoCon, I would be more than willing to get out of eveyones morality.
What I want in return is for you money people to restore the freedom of asociation and keep my money out of the places you want me keep my nose out of.
Don't see your kind doing that though.
What I want in return is for you money people to restore the freedom of asociation and keep my money out of the places you want me keep my nose out of.
Don't see your kind doing that though.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:17 PM (nkPV9)
460
>>>Don't see your kind doing that though.
"my kind"
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:18 PM (/FnUH)
461
456 >>>Does State Authority have any right to regulate Sexual Practices ? Discuss.
nope, not when it comes to consenting adults.
That's a weasel answer Ace - and your weasel answer is disappointing but not surprising. Would you like to cede - for the sake of clear discussion - that Authority has some right to regulate Sexual Practice ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:18 PM (6/+vz)
462
458
I must have missed this part in the NT when Jesus went wall to wall about how much he hates gays
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:15 PM (/FnUH)
______
It's in the back...right next to the section where Jesus says home much he hates pot.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:18 PM (0LHZx)
463
And even ace swings the libtard "hate hammer"
Sheesh, lovely.
It has nothing to do with hate , ace. Aberrant behavior is aberrant behavior. I reject aberrant behavior. I have that right.
Or I did until some judge in New Mexico decided to push the Gay Mafia angle.
Sheesh, lovely.
It has nothing to do with hate , ace. Aberrant behavior is aberrant behavior. I reject aberrant behavior. I have that right.
Or I did until some judge in New Mexico decided to push the Gay Mafia angle.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:19 PM (5ikDv)
465
>>>That's a weasel answer Ace - and your weasel answer is disappointing but not surprising. Would you like to cede - for the sake of clear discussion - that Authority has some right to regulate Sexual Practice ?
um, no. The weasel answer was not a weasel answer. It was a straight answer. Apart from rape or child abuse (which is rape), no.
oh, you want to say because we outlaw rape we should also be able to outlaw putting p's in the b....
oohhhhhh
whateverrrrrr
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:19 PM (/FnUH)
466
"my kind"
Beg pardon Not meant as offensive. Try non social conservative in place of "my kind"
However I stand by my remark. As soon as all federal funds stop to places like PP I will change my opinion.
Beg pardon Not meant as offensive. Try non social conservative in place of "my kind"
However I stand by my remark. As soon as all federal funds stop to places like PP I will change my opinion.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:20 PM (nkPV9)
467
>>>Moo Moo and ace busting out the liberal "hate" card.
Interesting times.
...
someone just said he doesn't want to rent to gays because they're gay, I said that was "bias." What other word should I use?
Happy Loving Non-Liking Behavior?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:20 PM (/FnUH)
468
Anti-discrimination laws are a clear violation of property rights and freedom of association. Plenty of people warned about that at the time, and they were called "racists".
Once the government got a say in who you had to hire or rent to, it was a small step to banning smoking or salt in privately-owned restaurants.
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 05:21 PM (sdi6R)
469
I have nothing against So-Cons per se. I don't agree with your views, but I have no need to want to ban what it is you do. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to ban what others do simply because you don't like it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 23, 2014 05:21 PM (0LHZx)
470
I said that was "bias." What other word should I use?
Happy Loving Non-Liking Behavior?
Double Plus Ungood
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:22 PM (yz6yg)
471
460 Sean Bannion,
I don't see the dems lacking faith in god, I see them treating the SuperSyate embodied by Obama as god.
My scorekeeper is in heaven and doesn't sweat things like Obama 16...
Donk "god" is a little more petty.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:23 PM (TE35l)
472
That's projection Ace. I never said anything of the sort. Never would. I don't believe in that stance.
But if you wish to remain intellectually honest - you'll have to admit that at some point, Authority is perfectly empowered to regulate Sexual Practice at some level.
I'll give you an Example of the Absurd - just so you can agree with the point. Is Local Authority justly empowered to criminalize Bestiality ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:23 PM (6/+vz)
473
Happy Loving Non-Liking Behavior?
"It's A Free Country" comes to mind.
Also " Choice." and "Market".
Happy Loving Non-Liking Behavior?
"It's A Free Country" comes to mind.
Also " Choice." and "Market".
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:23 PM (5ikDv)
474
Well, we do regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults. For instance, you can't have sex in a public park. If you show sexual intercourse in a movie, that movie is (theoretically at least) not allowed to be shown to minors in a theater. Public prostitution is in most cases limited or against the law. So, regulations are there. I suppose they fall under the category "public decency".
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 05:23 PM (P6QsQ)
475
>>> And even ace swings the libtard "hate hammer"
Sheesh, lovely.
It has nothing to do with hate , ace. Aberrant behavior is aberrant behavior. I reject aberrant behavior. I have that right.
...
you have that right, but do I really have to pretend along with you that you don't intensely dislike gays?
Look, I put my cards on the table: No, I don't like socon policy.
Do you really expect me to pretend that this nonstop Gayz Are Pervertz Who Are Ruining Everything schtick is a positive, loving feeling?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:24 PM (/FnUH)
476
compelled to ban what others do simply because you don't like it.
More lying from the troll.
Be honest...it's all about weed isn't it?
Cryptofascist Christians Are Bannin Our Choom!!! eleventy!!11!!
More lying from the troll.
Be honest...it's all about weed isn't it?
Cryptofascist Christians Are Bannin Our Choom!!! eleventy!!11!!
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:25 PM (5ikDv)
477
"simply because you don't like it."
Uh no. Wrong answer.
You might find I would also not want to rent to unrepentant murderers, thieves, practicing prostitutes, and a few other types. I could point you one of the very first if not the first top ten list, would there be any point in it?
Uh no. Wrong answer.
You might find I would also not want to rent to unrepentant murderers, thieves, practicing prostitutes, and a few other types. I could point you one of the very first if not the first top ten list, would there be any point in it?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:25 PM (nkPV9)
478
>>>Does State Authority have any right to regulate Sexual Practices ?
Discuss.
nope, not when it comes to consenting adults.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:14 PM (/FnUH)
You're a SoCon h8r!
Discuss.
nope, not when it comes to consenting adults.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:14 PM (/FnUH)
You're a SoCon h8r!
Posted by: NAMBLA at January 23, 2014 05:26 PM (3a584)
479
>>>I'll give you an Example of the Absurd - just so you can agree with the point. Is Local Authority justly empowered to criminalize Bestiality ?
I don't think they should, actually, apart from cruelty to animal statues.
But does it have the right? Well... it has presumed to have the right thusfar. That's as far as I'll go.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:26 PM (/FnUH)
480
477
That's projection Ace. I never said anything of the sort. Never would. I don't believe in that stance.
But if you wish to remain intellectually honest - you'll have to admit that at some point, Authority is perfectly empowered to regulate Sexual Practice at some level.
I'll give you an Example of the Absurd - just so you can agree with the point. Is Local Authority justly empowered to criminalize Bestiality ?
But if you wish to remain intellectually honest - you'll have to admit that at some point, Authority is perfectly empowered to regulate Sexual Practice at some level.
I'll give you an Example of the Absurd - just so you can agree with the point. Is Local Authority justly empowered to criminalize Bestiality ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 09:23 PM (6/+vz)
Bestiality should be banned because animals don't have legal rights as they are not citizens/humans and cannot give consent. The same could be said for sexual relations between adults and children. Consenting adults need to have free association.
Posted by: NWConservative at January 23, 2014 05:26 PM (buZ/8)
482
>>>You might find I would also not want to rent to unrepentant murderers, thieves, practicing prostitutes, and a few other types
(and gays)
but don't say I hate gays. I just hold them in the same esteem as I do unrepentant murderers, that's all.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:27 PM (/FnUH)
483
"my kind"
Yes, "your kind" You have been making it clear all day that you are from a different tribe than many of us.
Nothing wrong with it, but don't place the blame for "your" actions onto other people.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 05:27 PM (rGepj)
484
Anti-discrimination laws overturned Jim Crow, which was a good thing. Government should serve all of the people, and not privilege one group over another. We should all be equal before the law.
But they went too far when they outlawed private discrimination. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It should be a matter of individual choice.
Ayn Rand said at the time, "Freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate."
Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 05:27 PM (sdi6R)
485
"Do you really expect me to pretend that this nonstop Gayz Are Pervertz
Who Are Ruining Everything schtick is a positive, loving feeling?
"
How is your pushing policy that says I have to accept homosexuality as normal any different than me pushing policy that says the opposite?
How is your pushing policy that says I have to accept homosexuality as normal any different than me pushing policy that says the opposite?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:27 PM (nkPV9)
486
*you have that right, but do I really have to pretend along with you that you don't intensely dislike gays?*
nope
*Do you really expect me to pretend that this nonstop Gayz Are Pervertz Who Are Ruining Everything schtick is a positive, loving feeling? *
nope
How many things in life do you disapprove of and disagree with yet still have a positive , loving feeling about?
nope
*Do you really expect me to pretend that this nonstop Gayz Are Pervertz Who Are Ruining Everything schtick is a positive, loving feeling? *
nope
How many things in life do you disapprove of and disagree with yet still have a positive , loving feeling about?
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:27 PM (5ikDv)
487
>>>How many things in life do you disapprove of and disagree with yet still have a positive , loving feeling about?
none, but I'm not pretending that I don't dislike socon policy, for example.
you would like me to pretend I don't notice that you dislike gays.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:28 PM (/FnUH)
488
and yeah, that was dishonest, I did apples to oranges.
So I'll be honest:
As you don't like gays, personally, because of gay sex, I don't like -- personally -- smug, intolerant people due to their smug intolerance.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:29 PM (/FnUH)
489
you feel compelled to ban what others do simply because you don't like it.
Please give me ONE fucking example of what we want to stop you from doing?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 05:29 PM (rGepj)
490
>>>Please give me ONE fucking example of what we want to stop you from doing?
i think if he wanted to put is p in some dude's b you'd have a problem, no?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:30 PM (/FnUH)
491
>>>How is your pushing policy that says I have to accept homosexuality as normal any different than me pushing policy that says the opposite?
what?
In MY Policy I was imposing no actual demands on what you could or could not do. I SAID you could exercise your bias all you liked.
You, on the other hand, do want to make it illegal for a gay dude to put his p in a dude's a.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:32 PM (/FnUH)
492
you would like me to pretend I don't notice that you dislike gays.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:28 PM (/FnUH)
===================
I believe there is a difference between "disliking gays" and opposition to the radical gay agenda.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 05:32 PM (P6QsQ)
493
Political Hat
Another good reason "for the keep hope alive" strategy from the Mitt Romney Team that night--
you have a responsibility to people who have sacrificed a lot of time and money--
the down ticket Republican candidates.
So--if you throw in the towel and the Republican vote gets literally--
DEPRESSED guess what happens?
You lose down ticket elections and offices because of that.
So you kind of a weird moral obligation to try to pull as many candidates in your party --
across the finish line.
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2014 05:32 PM (RJMhd)
494
457 the political hat,
Oh I'm certain Moo Moo trumps Locke.
I love the idea that everyone on God's green Earth is a victim but Hetero White Males who aren't ginger...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:33 PM (TE35l)
495
I couldn't care less what two homosexuals do to each other. What I do care about is that you seem to wish they should have that right on my property?
Correct assumption? It doesnt matter where my property is what kind it is, you would be ok with it?
Correct assumption? It doesnt matter where my property is what kind it is, you would be ok with it?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:33 PM (nkPV9)
496
You, on the other hand, do want to make it illegal for a gay dude to put his p in a dude's a.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:32 PM (/FnUH)
Provide the comment number where he said this please.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 05:34 PM (LI48c)
497
484 >>>But does it have the right? Well... it has presumed to have the right thusfar. That's as far as I'll go.
Fair enough ... but I know you're not an Anarchist. You believe in some manner of Social Structure - as do I. Fair statement ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:34 PM (6/+vz)
498
>>>I believe there is a difference between "disliking gays" and opposition to the radical gay agenda.
there may well be but there's also a lot of overlap.
Are you pretending otherwise? Guy's all on about how he can't have a gay living in a detached property. Can you contrive that as anything other than hostile?
Again, I support his right to do that. But I disapprove.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:34 PM (/FnUH)
499
also
These folks CONDUCT LAWFARE AGAINST me and those Americans who are forced not only to TOLERATE but to CELEBRATE and ENDORSE the behaviors that they participate in, despite the fact that their behavior directly oppose our morals and beliefs.
Pardon me if I am not reaching out a hand of kindness to those who would shove their perversion in my face and my kid's face via school curriculuum.
I have compromised enough.
Time for someone else to back off.
also
These folks CONDUCT LAWFARE AGAINST me and those Americans who are forced not only to TOLERATE but to CELEBRATE and ENDORSE the behaviors that they participate in, despite the fact that their behavior directly oppose our morals and beliefs.
Pardon me if I am not reaching out a hand of kindness to those who would shove their perversion in my face and my kid's face via school curriculuum.
I have compromised enough.
Time for someone else to back off.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:35 PM (5ikDv)
500
>>>I couldn't care less what two homosexuals do to each other. What I do care about is that you seem to wish they should have that right on my property?
Correct assumption? It doesnt matter where my property is what kind it is, you would be ok with it?
...
I don't know how many times I can fucking tell this guy I support his right to not rent to the Dreaded Homosexuals.
He's just determined to be a victim here.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:35 PM (/FnUH)
501
You, on the other hand, do want to make it illegal for a gay dude to put his p in a dude's a
Who here said any such thing. Opposition to gay marriage is NOT the same as saying homosexuality should be illegal. And you KNOW this.
You are as dishonest in your debate tactics as a freaking Democrat.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 05:36 PM (rGepj)
502
493 Ace,
so am I allowed to hate Dave Sirota or do I need a referee's ruling first?
Let me write this down...
Follow up was the Glee Dance Off shrill rage about prop 8 noble behavior we should emulate and embrace or "dad, but understandable"?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:37 PM (TE35l)
503
It's hard sometimes not to put people into little boxes.
SoCons think this. Gays think this. Libertarians think this.
Would it surprise you, Ace, that one of my (very evangelical) church's first pastors was a gay man? And that one of our biggest financial donors is a lesbian?
Think outside the boxes.
SoCons think this. Gays think this. Libertarians think this.
Would it surprise you, Ace, that one of my (very evangelical) church's first pastors was a gay man? And that one of our biggest financial donors is a lesbian?
Think outside the boxes.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 05:37 PM (P6QsQ)
504
Again, I support his right to do that. "" But I disapprove.""
That part of the remark is really the telling one. That is something that pure economic cons can't seem not to throw out there.
Why does your disapproval matter any more than my disapproval?
That part of the remark is really the telling one. That is something that pure economic cons can't seem not to throw out there.
Why does your disapproval matter any more than my disapproval?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:37 PM (nkPV9)
505
The State has no right to regulate sexual "practices", in my opinion.
Big-"S" State, especially; but small-"s" state as well.
This is why individual States must be laboratories for invention, law, rule, regulation, taxation etc....
I will vote against gay "marriage" each and every time it is brought upon a ballot, but should Ohio legalize the practice?
...it is not enough to make me "Vote With My Feet" and move away.
I shall abide the State Law andfind a suitable penis watch the stupid shit happen.
I am a Lover of the Constitution First and a Child of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord -simultaneously.
I CHOOSE to be happy, but I'll NEVER be ignorant.
(Dumb-Ass is a separate category altogether.)
As my definition of "whore" has changed and evolved, so have my friends' daughters. In my twenties? "Put Out" lit up a Scoreboard.
Now that my friends have had daughters?
...you get the picture.
Big-"S" State, especially; but small-"s" state as well.
This is why individual States must be laboratories for invention, law, rule, regulation, taxation etc....
I will vote against gay "marriage" each and every time it is brought upon a ballot, but should Ohio legalize the practice?
...it is not enough to make me "Vote With My Feet" and move away.
I shall abide the State Law and
I am a Lover of the Constitution First and a Child of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord -simultaneously.
I CHOOSE to be happy, but I'll NEVER be ignorant.
(Dumb-Ass is a separate category altogether.)
As my definition of "whore" has changed and evolved, so have my friends' daughters. In my twenties? "Put Out" lit up a Scoreboard.
Now that my friends have had daughters?
...you get the picture.
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 05:38 PM (lq3Ak)
506
Can you contrive that as anything other than hostile? Ace
I suppose you could see it is hostile. I unabashedly do NOT want that lifestyle being presented to my child as "normal" or "right" because it damn well isn't.
Doesn't mean I want to ban their right to do it.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 05:39 PM (rGepj)
507
"You, on the other hand, do want to make it illegal for a gay dude to put his p in a dude's a."
Again you're being disingenuous as hell. To pretend opposing the dissolution of traditional marriage or opposing the weakening of our armed forces by making combats units more of a dysfunctional experiment then an actual fighting force equates to people wanting to ban homosexuality is horseshit, and you know it.
Again you're being disingenuous as hell. To pretend opposing the dissolution of traditional marriage or opposing the weakening of our armed forces by making combats units more of a dysfunctional experiment then an actual fighting force equates to people wanting to ban homosexuality is horseshit, and you know it.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 05:39 PM (IV4od)
508
508 grammie winger,
Oh I am, trust me I am so far out of the box now I am in Hillary's box.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:40 PM (TE35l)
509
>>That part of the remark is really the telling one. That is something that pure economic cons can't seem not to throw out there.
>>Why does your disapproval matter any more than my disapproval?
I don't think you understand fiscal cons as much as you think you do.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 05:40 PM (g1DWB)
510
Oh I am, trust me I am so far out of the box now I am in Hillary's box.
ThatÂ….that's a visual I didn't need thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:41 PM (yz6yg)
511
"He's just determined to be a victim here."
Absolutely wrong there. I am trying to figure out what laws you will make me abide by and if you will work to repeal those laws which you believe should not apply.
If you have a personal bias towards something how will that not show up in the people and party you support?
Absolutely wrong there. I am trying to figure out what laws you will make me abide by and if you will work to repeal those laws which you believe should not apply.
If you have a personal bias towards something how will that not show up in the people and party you support?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:41 PM (nkPV9)
512
I just fucking said you had the right to not rent.
Oh wait-- you want me not just to tolerate your decision and say you have the right to do it, but to CELEBRATE IT too?
You do realize that that is what the Left themselves is not only pushing, but actually achieving in ways that the "SoCons" never could?
It's not enough for me to say "You may do this," but I have to go the extra mile and say "And good on you for taking a strong stance on the homos"?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:16 PM (/FnUH)
I don't give a rats ass if someone is gay or not. Heck, if people want to molest their pets, I don't even care if they don't bother me with it.
But the right to your own sex life has been packaged with measures that have reduced freedom, such as legally punishing someone for not baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
You've responded to me before as if I wanted to legally ban this, that, or the other. I don't. But neither do I want the legalization to be used to mask the taking of other people's freedom. It's the difference between John Stewart Mills and James FitzJames Stephens, perhaps.
It is the Left want us all to "go the extra mile and say 'And good on you for taking a strong stance on the homos'?" Abet a position that you are more inclined to support than certain bakers, florists, and photographers.
The Left does not care about freedom. The Left are all about fundamentally transforming society. Not actually transform as it is destroying and then rebuilding society - the social equivalent of Intelligent Design. They are simply allowing what they want. Don't confuse being able to do what they think is spiffy with true freedom.
Take that California transgender bill. Sure, a few transvestites have the "right" to use which ever bathroom they fancy, but the flip side is that other people are forced to use a bathroom with them. If it was just about letting businesses decide what they want to allow or not, perhaps that would be an acceptable bill. But when it is mandated, it most definitely is not. The problem is that the later example is what the Left wants, and the former is just a tool they use to shove the camel's nose inside the tent. Many SoCons, then, are not so much concerned about pushing their morality on others as it is making sure that the rabid Left can not push a Progressive agenda on them.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 05:41 PM (XvHmy)
514
To be clear.
I fully support the right of gays to do what ever they want to each other . No law of any kind should regulate their behavior. And it is a chosen behavior.
I fully support the right of gays to do what ever they want to each other . No law of any kind should regulate their behavior. And it is a chosen behavior.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:41 PM (5ikDv)
515
I used to be a supporter of gay marriage until it became nothing but moralizing against Christian h8. I'd rather listen to a Jesus freak moralizing scold, at least their bullshit has some reasoned thought behind it.
That said, I will be attending a gay wedding this summer. As I figure it, a wedding planned by two dudes can't be any gayer than a real wedding.
That said, I will be attending a gay wedding this summer. As I figure it, a wedding planned by two dudes can't be any gayer than a real wedding.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 05:41 PM (3a584)
516
>>>Why does your disapproval matter any more than my disapproval?
as to actual disapproval, there's little difference.
but I have repeatedly said that my disapproval shall have no weight of law, whereas you would seem to like some of that.
I've also rethought: I don't actually disapprove. In an intimate situation, living so closely, you are quite justified in deciding if you feel like seeing the guy bringing a dude home for the night, or to hear, as close neighbors do, the sound of sex, in this case, two dudes.
I wouldn't rent to a gay guy for that reason either, I don't think. There's a limit to how accepting I'm willing to make myself.
But I did say earlier that you are under no obligation to make yourself uncomfortable to make someone more comfortable.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:42 PM (/FnUH)
517
510 The State has no right to regulate sexual "practices", in my opinion.
Law's against Incest. That's pretty much agreed upon - I'm sure by you as well. Does not the State - or your individual State - have a Responsibility to Criminalize such behavior via the overwhelming insistence of the Citizenry ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:43 PM (6/+vz)
518
What I'm saying is this, and after this I am shutting up and going to bed.
Please don't pigeon hole me, and hang a label on me, and then extract from that what you think I think.
Because I might not think that at all.
Please don't pigeon hole me, and hang a label on me, and then extract from that what you think I think.
Because I might not think that at all.
Posted by: grammie winger at January 23, 2014 05:43 PM (P6QsQ)
519
514 JackStraw,
I think I understand FiCons pretty well.
You can't spell Con If without 'em.
18 trillion in debt empowered by The GOP from 2001-2006 mainstreaming wastrel govt to let Obama destroy the dollar.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:44 PM (TE35l)
520
>>>You do realize that that is what the Left themselves is not only pushing, but actually achieving in ways that the "SoCons" never could?
yes that's why I phrased it that way, so that the Irony would occur to people.
That it's not enough for me to tolerate socon beliefs, but apparently I also have to be johnny-on-the-spot praising those beliefs, or else I'm a H8r.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:44 PM (/FnUH)
521
>>Absolutely wrong there. I am trying to figure out what laws you will make me abide by and if you will work to repeal those laws which you believe should not apply.
>>If you have a personal bias towards something how will that not show up in the people and party you support?
Let me ask you a hypothetical, time for you to answer instead of asking all the questions.
Let's suppose you had a neighbor who had a house that was even closer to yours that your MIL. He decided to rent it out to a couple of gays. Should he be allowed to?
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 05:44 PM (g1DWB)
522
Show of hands ... who thinks the NOOD is Ace's way of bailing ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:47 PM (6/+vz)
523
515 Sean Bannion,
Amen, a sobering moral place to be.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:47 PM (TE35l)
524
gramma winger,
I can only say this so many times: If I'm not attacking things YOU believe, then stop saying I am attacking YOUR beliefs.
If your beliefs are not these, you have no dog in this hunt.
If on the other hand you are supporting these beleifs, then you do believe them.
You can't have it both ways.
I am actually having a live argument with people who DO hold these beliefs so for the Love of Mercy can I have one argument with socons without OTHER socons telling me "No socons believe that," when I"m sitting RIGHT F***ING HERE arguing with three that do believe this?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:47 PM (/FnUH)
525
apparently I also have to be johnny-on-the-spot praising those beliefs
You read newspapers and stuff , right ace?
Because I don't think that teh evil Soconzz are the ones demanding this endorsement.
You read newspapers and stuff , right ace?
Because I don't think that teh evil Soconzz are the ones demanding this endorsement.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:48 PM (5ikDv)
526
527 Show of hands ... who thinks the NOOD is Ace's way of bailing ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 09:47 PM (6/+vz)
He posted it an hour ago and is still commenting here. Don't be obtuse.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 05:48 PM (LI48c)
527
>>>Because I don't think that teh evil Soconzz are the ones demanding this endorsement.
dude just told me that if I supported his right to not rent to gays but also disapproved then I wasn't really supporting him
it's amazing how many socons will tell me "No socons do that" EVEN AS ONE OR MORE SOCONS ARE DOING THAT, RIGHT NOW, IN THE RECORD, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:49 PM (/FnUH)
528
the defensiveness is so tribal.
Whatever, apparently I'm not arguing with different individual human beings, I can only argue with the entire movement at once.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:50 PM (/FnUH)
529
"Law's against Incest. That's pretty much agreed
upon - I'm sure by you as well. Does not the State - or your individual
State - have a Responsibility to Criminalize such behavior via the
overwhelming insistence of the Citizenry ?"
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 09:43 PM (6/+vz)
No.
Law is Law, Rape is Rape. Cousins fucking cousins is up to you?
...how many cousins "separated" does it take. Are the children going to be retarded? Science says they won't.
Just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean that it can't happen in Alabama.
If this bothers you?
...move to Mississippi.
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 05:50 PM (lq3Ak)
530
Let's suppose you had a neighbor who had a house
that was even closer to yours that your MIL. He decided to rent it out
to a couple of gays. Should he be allowed to?
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 09:44 PM (g1DWB)
It's his house. Not mine. Good enough?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 05:50 PM (nkPV9)
531
526 Jack Straw,
It depends if they are closeted gay Xian h8ers no way...
If they're good subdued gays like Scott Thompson & Boy George you should just give them the House b/c "fairness"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:50 PM (TE35l)
532
Remember that time that the GLAAD guy screamed about how he thought rednecks were icky and Phil Robertson went on Fox News and talked about how offended and angry he was at those comments?
yeah.
yeah.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:51 PM (5ikDv)
533
529 gramma winger,
I can only say this so many times: If I'm not attacking things YOU believe, then stop saying I am attacking YOUR beliefs.
If your beliefs are not these, you have no dog in this hunt.
If on the other hand you are supporting these beleifs, then you do believe them.
You can't have it both ways.
I am actually having a live argument with people who DO hold these beliefs so for the Love of Mercy can I have one argument with socons without OTHER socons telling me "No socons believe that," when I"m sitting RIGHT F***ING HERE arguing with three that do believe this?
I can only say this so many times: If I'm not attacking things YOU believe, then stop saying I am attacking YOUR beliefs.
If your beliefs are not these, you have no dog in this hunt.
If on the other hand you are supporting these beleifs, then you do believe them.
You can't have it both ways.
I am actually having a live argument with people who DO hold these beliefs so for the Love of Mercy can I have one argument with socons without OTHER socons telling me "No socons believe that," when I"m sitting RIGHT F***ING HERE arguing with three that do believe this?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:47 PM (/FnUH)
Really? You're having an argument with someone that actually wants to make it illegal for two gay guys to have sex? You know why people think you're attacking their beliefs? Because someone makes a comment that is pretty clear and then you twist it into "You want to throw gay dudes in jail for teh butt secks!" when no such claim was made.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 05:51 PM (LI48c)
534
I can only argue with the entire movement at once.
That's because you generalize the entire SoCon movement with examples from the fringe (much like the Democrats do, might I add.
Didn't they teach you in school that generalizations and stereotypes are bad?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 05:53 PM (rGepj)
535
534 ... I guess that's a point for Ace, I guess.
So the Local Jurisdiction DOESN'T have the responsibility to Criminalize that behavior ? Or are we spontaneously supposed to grab the torches and pitchforks ?
What, exactly, is your point ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 05:53 PM (6/+vz)
536
buzzion, sure, except for all the support of the VA state rep who's trying to recriminalize sodomy
which most socons rushed in to defend
and endorse
or say it wasn't criminalizing sodomy when you criminalize sodomy
why do I keep making up these silly claims
bad ace
bad
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:54 PM (/FnUH)
537
530 noone really,
Yeah Hollywood, the courts, the political class, and the media are all brutally discriminating against gays these days.
Uh-oh I feel a random show tune coming on...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:54 PM (TE35l)
538
at some point you guys have to proclaim what your beliefs actually are.
I'm tired of the shilly-shally where everyone is permitted to both favor the recriminalization of sodomy, but simultaneously swear on a stack of bibles they support no such thing
how about some honesty
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:54 PM (/FnUH)
539
541 buzzion, sure, except for all the support of the VA state rep who's trying to recriminalize sodomy
which most socons rushed in to defend
and endorse
or say it wasn't criminalizing sodomy when you criminalize sodomy
why do I keep making up these silly claims
bad ace
bad
which most socons rushed in to defend
and endorse
or say it wasn't criminalizing sodomy when you criminalize sodomy
why do I keep making up these silly claims
bad ace
bad
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:54 PM (/FnUH)
Okay so you should easily be able to go back and provide a comment where GMB was in support of that.
Silly me for not making the leap from "I don't really want to rent my property to gay people" to "Sodomy should be illegal!"
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 05:56 PM (LI48c)
540
The Dems are going to turn the GOP nominee....whether it's Paul, Huckabee, Christie or even Huntsman....into a raging, intolerant bible-thumping maniac.
Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 05:56 PM (1j9qS)
541
dude just told me that if I supported his right to not rent to gays but also disapproved then I wasn't really supporting him
I think ( not sure ) that he was more concerned about how his property rights didn't seem to matter to you when the "protected class" was involved.
At the LEGAL level , I think that this is what every SoCon here is saying.
Certain rights such as property rights EXIST to create a buffer between groups that can NEVER coexist on a moral or religious level otherwise.
Ask a Palestinian.
I think ( not sure ) that he was more concerned about how his property rights didn't seem to matter to you when the "protected class" was involved.
At the LEGAL level , I think that this is what every SoCon here is saying.
Certain rights such as property rights EXIST to create a buffer between groups that can NEVER coexist on a moral or religious level otherwise.
Ask a Palestinian.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 05:56 PM (5ikDv)
542
>>It's his house. Not mine. Good enough?
So your objection is you don't want to be associated with supporting that behavior by renting your place to them? Is that correct? I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth just trying to get it right.
And if so then Fiscal Con, small government libertarian is the way to go.
You haven't removed the activity by having them live next door to you, your family isn't going to be any less exposed.
Starve government of money and they can't inflict laws on you. It's just that simple. The more money they have the more laws that restrict your freedom.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 05:56 PM (g1DWB)
543
535 GMB x15 ont,
No b/c when libs boycott or refuse service it is noble, so we should get in the habit of letting our democrat ward bosses make all property judgement calls.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 05:57 PM (TE35l)
544
I thought I said all sex outside of marriage was fornication, a sin?
I also indicated that divorce for any reason other than adultery is a sin as well.
Maybe you folks should lay off of gay marriage until SoCons enforce the divorce stances in me.
Posted by: New Testament at January 23, 2014 05:58 PM (VrVBw)
545
>>>I believe there is a difference between "disliking gays" and opposition to the radical gay agenda.
there may well be but there's also a lot of overlap.
And that is how the Left got away with punishing people for refusing to sanctify gay weddings, or recognize "queergenders," &c.
If there is so much "overlap," then opposing schools pushing transvestitism on kindergarteners and otherwise pushing the rabid Lefts desire to imprint their social values on society which are then pushed on you, is akin to wanting to see Gabe beaten by police in a theocratic police-state.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:00 PM (XvHmy)
546
except for all the support of the VA state rep who's trying to recriminalize sodomy
This DID NOT happen. You were chastised for (as usual) taking items out of context that advanced your agenda of hating the SoCons. You are worse than the media about, adding words, subtracting words, and assuming words that don't even fucking exist in order to advance your agenda.
No matter HOW people said, "you might want to get a little more info on this before you explode" you REFUSED, because you already had the story you wanted.
I may get blasted for this, but you are a dishonest hack who has NO intention of having a reasoned argument with anyone.
I hope you have enough Libertarians to replace all the SoCon votes you and "your kind" are driving out of the paty.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:00 PM (rGepj)
547
>>>Silly me for not making the leap from "I don't really want to rent my property to gay people" to "Sodomy should be illegal!"
whatever buzzion.
Okay let's put it on the table, then: What DO you believe?
Do you think sodomy should be criminal? Or at least illegal (misdemeanor, perhaps)?
You do support a broad social stigmatization of homosexuality, no doubt. So perhaps not jail, but a frequent social shaming to let them know they're not quite kosher?
Tell me, buzzion. You always have something to say about gays (though never quite announcing clearly what you would do about this), so here's your spotlight.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:00 PM (/FnUH)
548
"You haven't removed the activity by having them live next door to you, your family isn't going to be any less exposed.
"
The exposure level is not the point. It is the states ability to tell me how I must operate my own property. The state is telling who I must rent my property to and how it must be rented.
If you are in favor of state sponsored laws that say I must rent to homosexuals, I don't see how you could be not in favor of saying thae opposite.
Without being a hypocrite.
The exposure level is not the point. It is the states ability to tell me how I must operate my own property. The state is telling who I must rent my property to and how it must be rented.
If you are in favor of state sponsored laws that say I must rent to homosexuals, I don't see how you could be not in favor of saying thae opposite.
Without being a hypocrite.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 06:01 PM (nkPV9)
549
Incidentally, Ace, your position on the rentals to gays puts you in the "SoCon" category according to the rest of the world. To everyone else, there is no difference between "don't rent to gays because gays are perverts" and "support te right not to rent to gays because property rights".
They are going to call you a SoCon *anyway* for this position.
They are going to call you a SoCon *anyway* for this position.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 06:01 PM (9GG/0)
550
"how about some honesty."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:54 PM (/FnUH)
My case has been stated. I don't have all the facts, so it is a "preliminary result".
I think I agree with you, but amongst "Fire-Pit Friends", I might punch you because that's what happens.
I'd agree to a "No-Punch-Zone", should you leave my ancestry out of it.
...I'd even buy the beer. That's just "form".
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 06:03 PM (lq3Ak)
551
I suppose you could see it is hostile. I unabashedly do NOT want that lifestyle being presented to my child as "normal" or "right" because it damn well isn't.
Doesn't mean I want to ban their right to do it.
This is what I told you exactly. What is dishonest or straddling the fence about it?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:03 PM (rGepj)
552
>>>Incidentally, Ace, your position on the rentals to gays puts you in the "SoCon" category according to the rest of the world. To everyone else, there is no difference between "don't rent to gays because gays are perverts" and "support te right not to rent to gays because property rights".
They are going to call you a SoCon *anyway* for this position.
...
yup there is a lot of truth in that.
I suppose that's why I at first said, knee-jerkedly, but I don't approve of your decision to do this.
But actually I do, or at least I don't disapprove.
But whatever other people might say, what I'm trying to do is maximize social space, not restrict it. if this one guy doesn't want to rent to gays, fine; but if these gay guys want to be all gay on each other, also fine.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:04 PM (/FnUH)
553
Law's against Incest. That's pretty much agreed upon - I'm sure by you as well. Does not the State - or your individual State - have a Responsibility to Criminalize such behavior via the overwhelming insistence of the Citizenry ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 09:43 PM (6/+vz)
There is not argument that can be made against incest between consenting adults that can't be made against sex between individuals of the same sex, or to other perfectly legal behaviors.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:04 PM (XvHmy)
554
543 Ace,
When have most of us not been clear?
We posted the text of your tilting at an imaginary windmil law that as written existed only in your post.
I could give three shits about the wonders og the mechanics of gay copulation, staked my meager early political capital on arguing for civl unions, and fear the assaults on religion now taking place.
Speaking of "honesty" how's about the non socons just admit "fuck the Church" wanting faith exemptions?
That way we can dismantle the First Amendment overtly...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:05 PM (TE35l)
555
>>>There is not argument that can be made against incest between consenting adults that can't be made against sex between individuals of the same sex, or to other perfectly legal behaviors.
rolling eyes
except for babies born of incest often having grotesque genetic defects
something that can't happen with gays, for obvious reasons
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:05 PM (/FnUH)
556
>>The exposure level is not the point. It is the states ability to tell me how I must operate my own property. The state is telling who I must rent my property to and how it must be rented.
Thats exactly what I just said. The states ability to enforce laws you don't like as well as the ones I don't like is directly proportional to the amount of money they have. Starve them of income and they can make any law they want they just can't enforce them.
You may not like all the laws I like, doubt I will like all the ones you want, and thats exactly how it should be. The only ones that will be in effect are the ones we both agree on and they will be few and focused on the things the government was always intended to be.
And we can stop arguing about morality because while we can probably get a majority to agree that constitutional duties are worth funding social issues are much more problematic.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 06:06 PM (g1DWB)
557
these arguments are all the same: Gee, we have SOME laws about sex, so, I guess that means that ALL THE LAWS should be had.
it's ridiculous.
We have laws against machine guns, so I guess we should just grab all y'all's rifles and pistols, too, huh?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:06 PM (/FnUH)
558
I don't know Slappy ...
... given your strong stance regarding Cousins fucking Cousins, different State Laws regarding Marriage might drive you over the edge.
Hell, I'm from Indiana - and I certainly never touched a Cousin - but I'd hate for you to throw a Left Jab just because we'll let First Cousins older than 65 marry.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 06:07 PM (6/+vz)
559
554 ChemJeff,
It's the donks splintersplitting us...
No biggie I plan to join my retarded sister in law in being "another gop womyn for Hillary"...
Why not?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:08 PM (TE35l)
561
"My desire to impose a Maximalist Legal Code of Conduct is in no way different from your desire for a Minimalist one!!! they're exactly the same!! !!1111!!eleventy!!"
except for the maximalist/minimalist distinction: Sure. They're the same.
do you realize how absurd this claim is?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:09 PM (/FnUH)
562
"I reject Christians who think they know better for the same reason I reject everyone who thinks they know better. It's not a bias against Christians. It's a bias against all the people, and they are many, who think they are so possessed of the truth they can and should dictate it to others. ace"
Just my opinion: Maybe if gays had not had to hide in closets for most of the last century and faced persecution, legal and social, until the last few years, they would not be so "in your face" now. Bursting out of the closet tends to make one a bit louder and more boisterous than usual.
Abortion: how does anyone believe they have the right to dictate to a woman during that first trimester what she does or does not do concerning a pregnancy, unless you believe your freedom of opinion (that the fetus is a baby) is more important than the female's freedom over her own body.
That is why many women (not so-con) believe they cannot trust R males. So-cons believe in "freedom" for their bodies, but not for someone who does not echo their own religious beliefs.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 06:10 PM (dd5lM)
563
>>>There is not argument that can be made against incest between consenting adults that can't be made against sex between individuals of the same sex, or to other perfectly legal behaviors.
rolling eyes
except for babies born of incest often having grotesque genetic defects
something that can't happen with gays, for obvious reasons
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:05 PM (/FnUH)
Wrong.
An incestuous relationship is less likely to cause serious problems than a woman getting pregnant on her last ovulation before menopause.
Also, nothing prevents people who have genetic diseases from having children, or those with recessive genes from having children.
1 in 4 change of popping out a Harlequin Fetus? People are totally allowed to do that.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:10 PM (XvHmy)
564
All this discussion isn't worth spit. But real world numbers are.
What do you think the proportion is of "religious Socons" advocating fair treatment for and accepting gay people as fellow citizens " to "Gays wanting the Xtianists to DIAF!!"
What do you think the proportion is of "religious Socons" advocating fair treatment for and accepting gay people as fellow citizens " to "Gays wanting the Xtianists to DIAF!!"
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:11 PM (5ikDv)
565
562 Ace,
Sounds great to me!
//Barack Obama
P.S. what's a law?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:11 PM (TE35l)
566
562 it's ridiculous.
No ACE ... what's ridiculous is your stance that NO LAWS can be made regarding sexual relationships - and you're particular Panic Button seems to be the Butt Sex.
I tried to be nice - now I'll be real. EVERY FUCKING STATE regulates SEX - mostly with the overwhelming consent of their citizenry.
All states legislate a minimum age of consent regarding sex, minimum rules regarding genetic diversity, and minimum rules for marriage. Get this (pun intended) ... all these rules don't necessarily agree with each other. They do, however, largely please the residents of the particular jurisdiction.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 06:12 PM (6/+vz)
567
Political Hat,
You do know that most incestuous relationships are between Adult Father and Child Daughter, right?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:12 PM (/FnUH)
568
#360: Ace, it's not that I think there's one true path and everyone should be coerced into following it.
It's more that there are behaviors that aren't terrible in and of themselves; behaviors that don't really harm society (or any individual, except maybe the perpetrator himself) if there's a handful of people engaging in such behaviors, but that would be quite harmful to society if everyone did them.
Government has a vested interest in promoting beneficial lifestyles while discouraging the ones with the potential to harm society. And it does this through laws against those potentially harmful behaviors.
Absent a law against it, most people would be on the fence about, for example, smoking pot. It doesn't really hurt anything to have a few people here and there doing that, but you don't want most people doing it. So, you discourage it with a law, because that will tend to stop that mushy middle from doing it, at least on a regular basis.
That's the reason for "blue laws" and other mala prohibitum statutes. Generally, with the exception of illegal drug use, breaking those laws results in a slap on the wrist. The judge says a few stern words, you pay a small fine, and you go home.
I'm fine with that, generally speaking. I don't want people going to prison for smoking pot, but I do think it should remain illegal just so people who are otherwise ambivalent about it won't get into it. Also, if I found out someone of my acquaintance were smoking pot (or breaking some other mala prohibitum law), I wouldn't be the one diming him out for it. I may support mala prohibitum laws, but it's not my place to enforce them. Sure, I'd say something if I saw some dude lighting up a joint at a playground, and I don't want illegal activity occurring in my house, but those are special exceptions, and I would default to taking personal action in those cases, rather than getting police involved.
That said, I also believe that mala prohibitum laws should remain the strict province of municipal/county/state government. The federal government should not get a say in the matter, as a general principle. Mala per se laws are another matter; the federal government may very well need to get involved if a kidnapper takes his victim across state lines, for example.
It's more that there are behaviors that aren't terrible in and of themselves; behaviors that don't really harm society (or any individual, except maybe the perpetrator himself) if there's a handful of people engaging in such behaviors, but that would be quite harmful to society if everyone did them.
Government has a vested interest in promoting beneficial lifestyles while discouraging the ones with the potential to harm society. And it does this through laws against those potentially harmful behaviors.
Absent a law against it, most people would be on the fence about, for example, smoking pot. It doesn't really hurt anything to have a few people here and there doing that, but you don't want most people doing it. So, you discourage it with a law, because that will tend to stop that mushy middle from doing it, at least on a regular basis.
That's the reason for "blue laws" and other mala prohibitum statutes. Generally, with the exception of illegal drug use, breaking those laws results in a slap on the wrist. The judge says a few stern words, you pay a small fine, and you go home.
I'm fine with that, generally speaking. I don't want people going to prison for smoking pot, but I do think it should remain illegal just so people who are otherwise ambivalent about it won't get into it. Also, if I found out someone of my acquaintance were smoking pot (or breaking some other mala prohibitum law), I wouldn't be the one diming him out for it. I may support mala prohibitum laws, but it's not my place to enforce them. Sure, I'd say something if I saw some dude lighting up a joint at a playground, and I don't want illegal activity occurring in my house, but those are special exceptions, and I would default to taking personal action in those cases, rather than getting police involved.
That said, I also believe that mala prohibitum laws should remain the strict province of municipal/county/state government. The federal government should not get a say in the matter, as a general principle. Mala per se laws are another matter; the federal government may very well need to get involved if a kidnapper takes his victim across state lines, for example.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 06:13 PM (/96QU)
569
Us evil socons turned out for mccain in huge numbers. Even higher numbers for romney. Yet we are still the reason why the gop cant win.
2016 is going to so fun.
2016 is going to so fun.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 06:13 PM (nkPV9)
570
>>>I tried to be nice - now I'll be real. EVERY FUCKING STATE regulates SEX - mostly with the overwhelming consent of their citizenry.
well you were actually tedious with the silly ploy of "If you favor rape laws you must also concede the validity of every other crazy sex law I can dream up"
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:13 PM (/FnUH)
571
whatever buzzion.
Okay let's put it on the table, then: What DO you believe?
Do you think sodomy should be criminal? Or at least illegal (misdemeanor, perhaps)?
You do support a broad social stigmatization of homosexuality, no doubt. So perhaps not jail, but a frequent social shaming to let them know they're not quite kosher?
Tell me, buzzion. You always have something to say about gays (though never quite announcing clearly what you would do about this), so here's your spotlight.
Okay let's put it on the table, then: What DO you believe?
Do you think sodomy should be criminal? Or at least illegal (misdemeanor, perhaps)?
You do support a broad social stigmatization of homosexuality, no doubt. So perhaps not jail, but a frequent social shaming to let them know they're not quite kosher?
Tell me, buzzion. You always have something to say about gays (though never quite announcing clearly what you would do about this), so here's your spotlight.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:00 PM (/FnUH)
No I don't think Sodomy should be illegal. Not even a minor misdemeanor. What two dudes do in their bedroom is not my problem. Do I consider it to be a sin? Yes. So is lying, so is adultery, so are many other things.
Don't even have any real opinion on social stigmatization of homosexuals. Didn't give a damn about civil unions other than recognizing it wasn't going to be enough for them no matter how much they claimed otherwise. In fact I had said multiple times that the push should have been to push for all legal weddings to be called civil unions. Because that would have been the true equality they claim to want while not coming off as a threat to religious institutions.
So why do I never say what I would "do" about it? Because its obvious my solution which have said multiple times isn't going to happen.
So what do I usually say about homosexuals? That the "homosexual agenda" is actually the liberal agenda using it to attack traditional institutions. And that they have gone from demanding to get the government out of the bedroom to demanding that it be in the bedroom and that they force you in there as well and you're in trouble if you don't clap enough.
And just for clarity again, I don't care what two gay dudes do together and don't think it should be illegal. I also don't care what two lesbians do together unless they are hot and have a camera set up.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 06:14 PM (LI48c)
572
>>When has the opposition done that lately?
What does that have anything to do with what I said? I supported the only guy in the last election who actually cut spending, not the rate of growth actual spending, when he ran a state and I was called a RINO. In retrospect, I guess they were right. I'm not a Republican.
You find a 3rd party candidate who can actually win instead of running as a protest let me know.
Smaller government is the key. Everything else is just arguing over who gets to spend the money to limit freedom the way they want to.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 06:15 PM (g1DWB)
573
Bursting out of the closet tends to make one a bit louder and more boisterous than usual.
So hiring lawyers to attack everyone who does not for whatever reason heartily endorse EVERY thing with "GAY" in front of it and forcing the cheerleading of sodomy into classrooms and businesses is...
"boisterous".
Good to know.
So hiring lawyers to attack everyone who does not for whatever reason heartily endorse EVERY thing with "GAY" in front of it and forcing the cheerleading of sodomy into classrooms and businesses is...
"boisterous".
Good to know.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:15 PM (5ikDv)
574
565 GMB,
Never, once in the last 90 years.
See I agree with Jack, but know it's a con...the game is rigged so the GOP barely loses sometimes but the ratchet is ever left.
Stop using the ratcher and empower tyranny straight from the bottle, shot glasses are for pussies.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:16 PM (TE35l)
575
>>>#360: Ace, it's not that I think there's one true path and everyone should be coerced into following it.
It's more that there are behaviors that aren't terrible in and of themselves; behaviors that don't really harm society (or any individual, except maybe the perpetrator himself) if there's a handful of people engaging in such behaviors, but that would be quite harmful to society if everyone did them.
...
I am more concerned with individual people than "society," a thing so amorphous and inhuman. I am tired of people on the left and right presuming to say what "society" might need.
No one knows what "society" needs, not really. We guess.
On the other hand we know what individual humans want, because they tell us.
I know some individual humans want to smoke pot because they said so, and because they do smoke pot.
So I'm going to be less inclined to follow your hunches about what might be best for "society" and go with the much firmer evidence I have, from firsthand expert accounts (everyone is an expert in his own preferences), and favor those.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:16 PM (/FnUH)
576
No Ace ... you're tedious ... because you're stance is neither intellectually honest nor consistent.
You're an entertaining writer. You're not a coherent thinker.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 06:17 PM (6/+vz)
577
btw king of the nerds is on right now if you don't have it dvring.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 06:17 PM (LI48c)
578
"Smaller government is the key. Everything else is just arguing over who
gets to spend the money to limit freedom the way they want to."
Then this country as we know it is boned then. Is that what you are saying? If that is the case then it doesn't matter one efff who anyone votes for?
Then this country as we know it is boned then. Is that what you are saying? If that is the case then it doesn't matter one efff who anyone votes for?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 06:18 PM (nkPV9)
579
>>Don't even have any real opinion on social stigmatization of homosexuals. Didn't give a damn about civil unions other than recognizing it wasn't going to be enough for them no matter how much they claimed otherwise. In fact I had said multiple times that the push should have been to push for all legal weddings to be called civil unions. Because that would have been the true equality they claim to want while not coming off as a threat to religious institutions.
well then I guess we don't disagree too much so why are we fighting?
and don't say "Because you're setting up strawmen" please. Because whether you believe Proposition X or not, others do.
IF you say that *I* cannot speak as to what "all socons" think, then take the lesson yourself: Neither can you say what all socons think, or guarantee me that "no socons think that."
Which is what half of you just keep saying, over and over.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:19 PM (/FnUH)
580
except I'm more socon than you I guess because I'm not really a fan of civil unions, either.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:19 PM (/FnUH)
581
fuck on king of the nerds
oh well it will be repeated six times tonight.
thanks, buzzion. you're a good egg.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:20 PM (/FnUH)
582
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Posted by: d. [/i][/b]John Adams - SoCon A-hole presuming to say what "society" might nee at January 23, 2014 06:21 PM (5ikDv)
583
I don't get why ace, libertarians, the left, etc. get so angry about socons fighting back. It's you guys that are winning, in every possible way this country is rejecting our (socons) antiquated beliefs, yet you're still not happy.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 06:21 PM (IV4od)
584
Political Hat,
You do know that most incestuous relationships are between Adult Father and Child Daughter, right?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:12 PM (/FnUH)
I specifically referred to consenting adults.
But the pedophilia argument was one of the most commonly used against homosexuals and for the criminalization of homosexuality.
It just goes to show that there is not argument against incest between consenting adults that has not been made (and dismissed) against homosexuals, or other legal actions.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:22 PM (XvHmy)
585
And Ace ... what you're saying ... over and over again, is no better.
You cry like a rat eating onions when somebody like D-Lamp starts talking about moral codes. But you don't get you're own irony.
Stick to writing short posts to an adoring crowd.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 06:23 PM (6/+vz)
587
583 GMB 15x ONT,
Congrats you decoded the message.
It's a hard one to accept that we are not entitled to any exercise of political or civic influence, but it's liberating in a way.
Don't vote, the democrats will do it for you.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:24 PM (TE35l)
588
#580: Like I said earlier, I'm fine with individuals being willing to break such laws. I support the general trends encouraged by such laws, but it's not my place to enforce them.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 06:25 PM (/96QU)
589
well then I guess we don't disagree too much so why are we fighting?
and don't say "Because you're setting up strawmen" please. Because whether you believe Proposition X or not, others do.
IF you say that *I* cannot speak as to what "all socons" think, then take the lesson yourself: Neither can you say what all socons think, or guarantee me that "no socons think that."
Which is what half of you just keep saying, over and over.
and don't say "Because you're setting up strawmen" please. Because whether you believe Proposition X or not, others do.
IF you say that *I* cannot speak as to what "all socons" think, then take the lesson yourself: Neither can you say what all socons think, or guarantee me that "no socons think that."
Which is what half of you just keep saying, over and over.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:19 PM (/FnUH)
I'm arguing over the fact that you claimed GMB made a statement and he did no such thing.
And you are of course right. I cannot speak to what all socons think. But I can read what the socons here on this thread are saying. The socons you say you are having a LIVE argument with. But yet you are arguing with them about things that they did not say.
Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 06:25 PM (LI48c)
590
>>>I don't get why ace, libertarians, the left, etc. get so angry about socons fighting back. It's you guys that are winning, in every possible way this country is rejecting our (socons) antiquated beliefs, yet you're still not happy.
Well because I disagree.
And as far as "fighting back," it's because, end of the day, I do think we are losing very important elections over shit that strikes me as
1) Wrong
2) Trivial even if right
We're doing an awful lot of the Tribal Feathers and Shibboleths thing that I despise.
I do not hate socons. I do not hate Christians. I do not hate Christianity (which I have a great deal of respect for, actually -- and as I've said, if I had any religious inclination whatsoever, I'd try that one).
But I do hate this fucking idea that we have to basically Pet the Christian Dog to let it know that it's still our favorite.
It's so childish, I'm sorry. I'm just so tired of this fight. It's like there are two brothers, the Christian Brother and the Gay Brother, and they're fighting over who daddy loves best (society being daddy), and Jesus, I'm just so tired of the drama of it.
I am looking for rules where we can all kind of limp along. As they say, where we can be equally miserable.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:25 PM (/FnUH)
592
Then this country as we know it is boned then. Is that what you are
saying? If that is the case then it doesn't matter one efff who anyone
votes for?
It's a hard one to accept that we are not entitled to any exercise of political or civic influence, but it's liberating in a way.
Ah no rite?
ace keeps referring to tribalism as if it's a bad thing.
Most evil Socons are pretty much in the post-America stage at this point.
Tribes are all we have left.
It's a hard one to accept that we are not entitled to any exercise of political or civic influence, but it's liberating in a way.
Ah no rite?
ace keeps referring to tribalism as if it's a bad thing.
Most evil Socons are pretty much in the post-America stage at this point.
Tribes are all we have left.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:26 PM (5ikDv)
593
588 lowandslow,
Yup, hell I embrace LEGALIZE IT! harder than Ace and support giving drugs to users free if need be b/c "social justice" and it's not enough...
Maybe we all need to divorce and marry our best friends of our gender...
Then they'll accept their win?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:27 PM (TE35l)
594
"rolling eyes
except for babies born of incest often having grotesque genetic defects
something that can't happen with gays, for obvious reasons."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:05 PM (/FnUH)
Hah! I thought I was the "Last to Know" that the Fairy Tales were untrue.
...Damn, T.P.H. Beat me to the punch.
This is a Wives' Tale, lest you embarrass your Mother's sister and The Entire Family.
I'd imagine that Recessive Genes of Doom and Horror would have a greater chance of replicating and causing chaos, (given the familiar geneology), but as a "Non-Cousin-Fucking" individual without research?
..I cannot enumerate the percentages.
except for babies born of incest often having grotesque genetic defects
something that can't happen with gays, for obvious reasons."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:05 PM (/FnUH)
Hah! I thought I was the "Last to Know" that the Fairy Tales were untrue.
...Damn, T.P.H. Beat me to the punch.
This is a Wives' Tale, lest you embarrass your Mother's sister and The Entire Family.
I'd imagine that Recessive Genes of Doom and Horror would have a greater chance of replicating and causing chaos, (given the familiar geneology), but as a "Non-Cousin-Fucking" individual without research?
..I cannot enumerate the percentages.
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 06:27 PM (lq3Ak)
595
>>>I specifically referred to consenting adults.
you would have the "grooming problem" of incest-eyed daddy groomign the daughter until she turned legal.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:27 PM (/FnUH)
596
>>Then this country as we know it is boned then. Is that what you are saying? If that is the case then it doesn't matter one efff who anyone votes for?
I find this argument kind of boring. As who knows it? Depending on how old you are I may have known it in times you didn't and it is even more different.
The country is always changing, has always changed since day 1. People evolve and change, so does society, so does the country. We are never going back to Leave it to Beaver let alone the days of the founding fathers. So what? We actually have things like indoor plumbing and electricity now and we can argue on keyboards over thousands of miles instead of in town halls.
The defining idea of this country was always maximum personal freedom. We have strayed but we can reverse the trend. We just need to stop focusing small bore laws and run on the big issue. Reagan ran on it and won. It can happen again.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 06:27 PM (g1DWB)
597
Yuppers bohner, cantor, mcnosepuncher have been doing nothing but petting the "christian dog" since 2010.
aholes anyway.
aholes anyway.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 06:29 PM (nkPV9)
599
601 JackStraw,
Can I have some of your stash?
The country is about "personal freedom" heh good one Jack...
On everything but, political speech, energy choices, economic liberty, assembly, privacy, and property rights we're golden...
If Obama is the American people embracing liberty the Palestinians are pacifists.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:31 PM (TE35l)
600
But I do hate this fucking idea that we have to basically Pet the Christian Dog to let it know that it's still our favorite.
Seriously, when has this EVER happened in the last (2 at least) presidential elections or in house and Senate races other than platitudes and lies told by candidates.
You seem to think SoCons get a lot of goodies thrown their way. I can assure you if they did, they would not be staying home. This would be akin to saying "they do everything I want, but fuck em"
I think the FiCon lies have cost the party FAR more
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:31 PM (bZG85)
601
So I got a bit of a boner for three of the king of the nerds girls, and yeah, one of them is the kinda chubby girl who introduced herself as a brony. Don't judge me!
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 06:32 PM (3a584)
602
"I do think we are losing very important elections over shit that strikes me as"
Well there's your problem, quit fucking worrying about elections. You work yourself into a froth over what? The Governor of freak'n Virginia?
Well there's your problem, quit fucking worrying about elections. You work yourself into a froth over what? The Governor of freak'n Virginia?
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 06:33 PM (IV4od)
603
The defining idea of this country was always maximum personal freedom. We have strayed but we can reverse the trend. We just need to stop focusing small bore laws and run on the big issue. Reagan ran on it and won. It can happen again.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 10:27 PM (g1DWB)
It was the unique social mores that allowed that freedom to grow and prosper. Loose those mores, and you loose freedom. Such conditions can not be created from scratch, like the Left fancy they can do, so when they are lost, they are lost for good.
While lack of excessive government is necessary for liberty to exist, there is more to liberty than just a lack of government.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:33 PM (XvHmy)
604
"578 So hiring lawyers to attack everyone who does not for whatever reason heartily endorse EVERY thing with "GAY" in front of it and forcing the cheerleading of sodomy into classrooms and businesses is...
"boisterous"."
Think whatever you wish, but I don't believe the majority of gays are "cheerleading". However, there are probably a number of still emotionally fractured individuals who faced persecution from their own families and friends, who think it is important to show to young people that being gay is not shameful and evil. I know one woman that was sent to a psychiatric facility in her teens, when she told her parents she was a lesbian. IMO, being straight in this world is a blessing, but too many straight people still want to punish those that God made different.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 06:34 PM (dd5lM)
605
Posted by: d. John Adams - SoCon A-hole presuming to say what "society" might nee at January 23, 2014 10:21 PM (5ikDv)
John, you know as well as I do the growth of government is directly related to the death of personal responsibility, aka our socializing sense of guilt, aka morality. As others have said, even in this thread, allowing people to face the consequences of their actions will correct the "anything goes" crowd in a hurry. The method smells vaguely of social darwinism, but plunging back into very small government necessitates a return of morality. It's not something that just comes to people one day while they're sitting on the couch at home. It has to be re-learned, from the "why" stage up.
John, you know as well as I do the growth of government is directly related to the death of personal responsibility, aka our socializing sense of guilt, aka morality. As others have said, even in this thread, allowing people to face the consequences of their actions will correct the "anything goes" crowd in a hurry. The method smells vaguely of social darwinism, but plunging back into very small government necessitates a return of morality. It's not something that just comes to people one day while they're sitting on the couch at home. It has to be re-learned, from the "why" stage up.
Posted by: kartoffel at January 23, 2014 06:35 PM (07vvi)
606
being straight in this world is a blessing
Not a blessing.........."normal"
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:35 PM (bZG85)
607
IMO, being straight in this world is a blessing, but too many straight
people still want to punish those that God made different.
Nice strawman.
Nice strawman.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:37 PM (5ikDv)
608
>>> IMO, being straight in this world is a blessing, but too many straight
people still want to punish those that God made different.
stigmatization is punishment too.
And you know it, because the people on your side are always arguing, basically, that without these social *punishments* to keep people driving in the center of the road, they'll crash through the rails.
so stop with the claim that unless you're using jail as a dissuader you're not engaging in any form of coercion at all.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:39 PM (/FnUH)
609
this by the way is entirely about altruistic punishment, including on my side.
this is why I hate this fucking stuff.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:40 PM (/FnUH)
610
609 NeverEvermore,
Got it, I am ALSO personally guilty of oppressing gays on top of my mistreatment of slaves in the 1800s, subjugation of the Indians in the 1870s, holding down binders of wimminz for fuck knows how long and so on...
Post a fucking list for clarity and brevity plz.
K, thx, bye
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:41 PM (TE35l)
611
Not a blessing.........."normal"
Your perspective, but not God's, if He made us all.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 06:42 PM (dd5lM)
612
>>It was the unique social mores that allowed that freedom to grow and prosper. Loose those mores, and you loose freedom. Such conditions can not be created from scratch, like the Left fancy they can do, so when they are lost, they are lost for good.
And what social mores are you insisting that we institute so that we can maximize freedom, yours?
I live in a state that broke away from Massachusetts because they thought the original pilgrims were infringing on their rights. It always goes this way.
The idea that limited government means a complete breakdown of societal mores is a red herring. There have to be rules that agreed upon by the society that lives under them. But they should be few and done at the most local level. Federalism. It used to be a thing.
I don't want to live under a homogenous national set of laws save for the ones outlined in the constitution. Neither should you. That was the entire idea behind this country. The mistake we are making is not arguing over national gay marriage or national property rights its that we are arguing over them at all.
What flies in you town in your state should be up to you and the same for me. As long as the feds are taking care of national defense and a few other enumerated duties we shouldn't even be debating what they are doing, they shouldn't be doing it.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 06:42 PM (g1DWB)
613
@ 610
John Adams and his fellow patriots were prescient.
The current "modern geniuses who know better because SCIENCE" are above learning from history and are therefore doomed to repeat it's horrible lessons. They have chosen social engineering and will have to learn as you said "from the "why" stage up."
And because their numbers are growing (LIVs) we will have to suffer right along with them.
John Adams and his fellow patriots were prescient.
The current "modern geniuses who know better because SCIENCE" are above learning from history and are therefore doomed to repeat it's horrible lessons. They have chosen social engineering and will have to learn as you said "from the "why" stage up."
And because their numbers are growing (LIVs) we will have to suffer right along with them.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:42 PM (5ikDv)
614
614 Ace,
Yeah we in the Cotton Mather Night Riders sure are dishing out a lot of punishment on society Ace...
You NEED US ON THAT HORSE!
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:43 PM (TE35l)
617
so stop with the claim that unless you're using jail as a dissuader you're not engaging in any form of coercion at all.
I guess we have made a rule that I can't say SoCons don't say this so I'll say that I OR any SoCon I know have never said this.
Of Course stigmatization is coercion. Worked great for smoking, teen pregnancy (for years prior to the "sexual revolution) etc.
Hell, stigmatization is being used remarkably well against Christians right now.......I don't see you crying for them.
BUT stigmatization is NOT the same as using the force of law as you seem to think all SoCons want to do.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:45 PM (bZG85)
618
In my heart of hearts I wish this. I wish that what has become the modern Republican Party would just man up and tell Social Conservatives that they are not wanted nor needed.
Not our time, not our money, and mostly not our votes.
We could go our separate ways and everone would be happy right?
Not our time, not our money, and mostly not our votes.
We could go our separate ways and everone would be happy right?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 06:47 PM (nkPV9)
619
Your perspective, but not God's, if He made us all.
Not according to his book. Or the fucking definition of "normal"
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:47 PM (bZG85)
620
And what social mores are you insisting that we institute so that we can maximize freedom, yours?
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 10:42 PM (g1DWB)
I'm not advocating "instituting" mores via the government. I'm against it, which is why I'm against the Progressives when they try to do it with gay marriage and transvestitism for kindergarteners.
Social mores develop evolutionary. Beneficial ones get carried on and bad ones die away. This does not guarantee freedom or liberty, but it does create a sustainable society. Ours is one of the rare cases where we got both stability and liberty. As such, we should make sure that we are not destroying the very same mores which lead to such extensive liberty. If we destroy them, we can't just "institute" them back.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:48 PM (XvHmy)
621
618 noone really,
Since thr libertarians are deluding themselves into thinking the gaus are about a principled libertarian stand along with the druggies I say call 'em on it.
Vote for the democrats both support and let's see if there is more or less liberty as a result.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:48 PM (TE35l)
622
"stigmatization is punishment too.
And you know it, because the people on your side are always arguing, basically, that without these social *punishments* to keep people driving in the center of the road, they'll crash through the rails.
so stop with the claim that unless you're using jail as a dissuader you're not engaging in any form of coercion at all."
Huh? People on "your side"? I am straight, but emphasize with the stigmatization that a hell of a lot of gays, including people who were treated like pariahs by parents and siblings they LOVED. No one I know wants to do more than live their lives around people who understand they have the right to be "normal", which is apparently asking too much.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 06:49 PM (dd5lM)
623
Note that I did NOT say that homosexuality could not be forgiven....all sin can be.
Just that to call it "normal" is a bit of a stretch.
Of course God loves us all.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:49 PM (bZG85)
624
#622: To be fair, Ace doesn't support Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Bakery being forced by law to make a cake for a gay wedding. I remember him saying that's not cool.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 06:49 PM (/96QU)
625
SoCons should form a group called SALAG , Socons Against Lesbians and Gays and COUNTERSUE against every homosexuality related suit.
Then at least the lawyers would have jobs.
All of our preferences and beliefs MUST be litigated in order to be acceptable.
Right?
Then at least the lawyers would have jobs.
All of our preferences and beliefs MUST be litigated in order to be acceptable.
Right?
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:50 PM (5ikDv)
626
people who understand they have the right to be "normal", which is apparently asking too much.
In case nobody told you?
It's a mean old world. Not everyone will like you.
No matter how many Supreme Court decisions order them to.
You're welcome.
In case nobody told you?
It's a mean old world. Not everyone will like you.
No matter how many Supreme Court decisions order them to.
You're welcome.
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:52 PM (5ikDv)
627
#622: To be fair, Ace doesn't support Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Bakery being forced by law to make a cake for a gay wedding. I remember him saying that's not cool.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 10:49 PM (/96QU)
Correct. Ace has been intellectually consistent on this.
The problem is that the Left who shout "freedom" are hypocrites, and use the intellectually honest ones like Ace to sneak in such restrictions of liberty.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:52 PM (XvHmy)
628
>>>BUT stigmatization is NOT the same as using the force of law as you seem to think all SoCons want to do.
no it's not the same. It is, however, both hostile, controlling, and painful for the stigmatized.
You do realize that half of the complaints by Christians about contemporary America are about the marginalization, ridicule, and other techniques of shaming they feel from the larger non-Christian culture, right?
I would again invite people to generalize outwards from their own experience and draw some conclusions about general principles applicable to all.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 06:54 PM (/FnUH)
630
The next Repub. candidate is going to have to somehow be the anti-"Establishment" candidate without really alienating GOP leadership. That seems like a tall order to me before even getting out of the primaries.
Posted by: Shoot Me at January 23, 2014 06:54 PM (qiXMt)
631
Right so now "stigmitization is punishment"
Unless you are a smoker, watch nascare, are overweight, like guns, believe freespeech means asshats get to speak too, support voter id, favor lower taxes
Then it's "social justice"
Homosexual coupling is the ultimate expression of the human condition possible...
Now can we attack on the economy for fuck's sakes?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 06:54 PM (TE35l)
632
would again invite people to generalize outwards from their own experience and draw some conclusions about general principles applicable to all
I would invite you to do the same.
This has been the whole point
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:55 PM (bZG85)
633
Nyquil kicking in. What was this discussion about?
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 06:57 PM (nkPV9)
634
It is, however, both hostile, controlling, and painful for the stigmatized.
Which article of the constitution protects me from this?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 06:57 PM (bZG85)
635
Homosexual coupling is the ultimate expression of the human condition possible...
Now can we attack on the economy for fuck's sakes?
AFTER we get legal WEED!!!!
Pinky swear!!
/Fiscons
Homosexual coupling is the ultimate expression of the human condition possible...
Now can we attack on the economy for fuck's sakes?
AFTER we get legal WEED!!!!
Pinky swear!!
/Fiscons
Posted by: noone, really [/i][/b] at January 23, 2014 06:57 PM (5ikDv)
636
>>Social mores develop evolutionary. Beneficial ones get carried on and bad ones die away. This does not guarantee freedom or liberty, but it does create a sustainable society. Ours is one of the rare cases where we got both stability and liberty. As such, we should make sure that we are not destroying the very same mores which lead to such extensive liberty. If we destroy them, we can't just "institute" them back.
Think about what you are saying. Social mores are evolutionary, I agree. And they change as society changes. And it does constantly.
But you seem to want to keep the status quo of 40 years ago at the same time. Not gonna happen.
When I was a kid we all used to play in the neighborhood until we were yanked in for dinner. Kids today spend most of their time online or playing computer games. And consequently they know shit at 8 that we first heard when we had hair on our nuts. We had no idea what was going on in the next town until a couple days later, now we know what's going on in the Ukraine real time. Stuff changes.
And as the world keeps getting smaller our idea of local self-government is blurring.
I don't expect to go back to the good ol' days. Don't even want to. But I do want to have some of the personal freedom of those days and not be ruled by what a Nancy Pelosi or some politician and her constituency 3000 miles away thinks. My local society is nothing like that.
Smaller government. You do what you want, we'll do what we want. It actually works.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 06:59 PM (g1DWB)
637
no it's not the same. It is, however, both hostile, controlling, and painful for the stigmatized.
You do realize that half of the complaints by Christians about contemporary America are about the marginalization, ridicule, and other techniques of shaming they feel from the larger non-Christian culture, right?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:54 PM (/FnUH)
In other words, ostracism of the other still exists, it has just shifted from one group to another. This is why when a Leftist goes off against the "H8rs" they are just demonstrating that they are the greater haters.
Face it Ace, both the SoCons and true libertarians are being crushed by the rabid Left.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 06:59 PM (XvHmy)
638
623 GMB,
We've been held together to the point I donated to McCain by "coomie, commie" and moderates and capital R libertarians have been joining donks to get their cookies.
Once Amigo Grande! passes it's my turn, and all I want is for the mules to be who they are with no restrictions to force the implosion.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:00 PM (TE35l)
639
Scott Walker is not only "acceptable" but preferable to me, and many others, far more then any Senator.
There is only one Governor i'd support over Walker and that is Pence ( he's better on Foreign Policy and Immigration aka no amnesty)
Posted by: midwestconservative at January 23, 2014 07:00 PM (eFTkY)
640
>>>n other words, ostracism of the other still exists, it has just shifted from one group to another. This is why when a Leftist goes off against the "H8rs" they are just demonstrating that they are the greater haters.
Face it Ace, both the SoCons and true libertarians are being crushed by the rabid Left.
...
I imagined that would be the reply.
I cannot support something that is distasteful to me on the grounds of "Well you'd better ally with us because they're coming for you next."
In that case I'd prefer to have no allies and be a conscience objector.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:01 PM (/FnUH)
641
645 ace,
Good thing the left is known for their ethics and restraint Ace.
Hillary! 16- why not?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:03 PM (TE35l)
642
Politics at its basest form -- and also in its middle form and also at its second from the top form -- is the organized system of hatreds.
I don't wish to partake.
And I'm not going to dress up stuff that is plainly simply animus as something more noble just for the sake of blog traffic.
Yes, we all have our hatreds. Me just like anyone else. The fact that hatred is part of the human condition is no reason to engage in apologetics on hate's behalf.
And the constant tribal war dances are absurd.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:03 PM (/FnUH)
643
It will take something like a low order miracle for me ever to donate to the gop again. Individual candidates maybe, if they support what I support and have a history to back it up.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 07:04 PM (nkPV9)
644
#644: Walker's my #1 choice for 2016 right now. Then Perry, the Cruz, then Paul. I may have to change my preference list if there's word of Pence throwing his hat in the ring.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 07:04 PM (/96QU)
645
>>>Good thing the left is known for their ethics and restraint Ace.
Hillary! 16- why not?
...
shrug
this kind of argument that isn't going to work.
at the end of the day, yes, of course political choices boil down to "whom do I hate the least."
but it doesn't change the fact I hate this shit.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:05 PM (/FnUH)
646
In that case I'd prefer to have no allies and be a conscience objector.
Which is what many of us have been taking shit here for saying about ourselves. Somehow, if you refuse to lie with me in a political party you are principled. If I do it, I'm a nutjob who is throwing the election to the Dems by staying home.
I mean this seriously and sadly. I see no hope for either the R party or the USA. Too much division, I just don't see how it can stand.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:05 PM (bZG85)
647
"In that case I'd prefer to have no allies and be a conscience objector."
Funny that is. If a socon had said that they would be creamed. How the worm turns?
(6)
Funny that is. If a socon had said that they would be creamed. How the worm turns?
(6)
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 07:05 PM (nkPV9)
648
I don't envy you, ace.
I have to answer some questions that I love to answer about baseball during the baseball season. I also have to answer for my rules and regulations.
Some questions, (even as cloistered as baseball), are really, really good.
I answer for trades and "Keepers", stats and strategy, etc.
As a business owner, I answered for everything.
I've figured one thing after fifteen years of trials and tribulations:
...RARELY is the answer "yes" or "no".
Those correspond to an answer of : "easy". The rest is "evaluated explanation".
I'd rather go through life questioning everything I believe than "coming to a conclusion" at age forty-two.
-I have Faith.
-I Believe.
I expect no one else to come to my current settlement, lest their path take them that way -or- their desperation demands it.
I'm not good with desperation, however. I react poorly to those people.
-'Merica!
I have to answer some questions that I love to answer about baseball during the baseball season. I also have to answer for my rules and regulations.
Some questions, (even as cloistered as baseball), are really, really good.
I answer for trades and "Keepers", stats and strategy, etc.
As a business owner, I answered for everything.
I've figured one thing after fifteen years of trials and tribulations:
...RARELY is the answer "yes" or "no".
Those correspond to an answer of : "easy". The rest is "evaluated explanation".
I'd rather go through life questioning everything I believe than "coming to a conclusion" at age forty-two.
-I have Faith.
-I Believe.
I expect no one else to come to my current settlement, lest their path take them that way -or- their desperation demands it.
I'm not good with desperation, however. I react poorly to those people.
-'Merica!
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 07:05 PM (lq3Ak)
649
Think about what you are saying. Social mores are evolutionary, I agree. And they change as society changes. And it does constantly.
But you seem to want to keep the status quo of 40 years ago at the same time. Not gonna happen.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 10:59 PM (g1DWB)
Sure, society changes. We may even have a conscious effect on it. But what we are seeing isn't natural change. It is the destruction of society and its rebuilding, i.e. Intelligent Design.
Government shouldn't impose, but reflect and where it acts act non-injuriously towards those social mores. The Left wants the government to impose.
But you can't say that such imposition by the rabid Left is now fine, and that the rules are now different for the SoCons who now can't use the same methods to reverse that imposition!
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 07:05 PM (XvHmy)
650
>>>Which is what many of us have been taking shit here for saying about ourselves. Somehow, if you refuse to lie with me in a political party you are principled. If I do it, I'm a nutjob who is throwing the election to the Dems by staying home.
okay whatever.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:05 PM (/FnUH)
651
650 ace,
Hey it seems Luap Nor Kult was just ahead of the curve.
No skin off my back either.
25 years of holding my nose and accepting my party becoming this, when I could have been cool enough to not give a fuck?
I'm the dumbass not the Paulnuts.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:07 PM (TE35l)
652
Political Hat,
You are speaking of mores as being organic. But what is going on is not organic.
You claim only the left is engaging in non-organic methods to change mores. That's bullshit. All of these politicized efforts to force people do do other than what they would do by the light of their own consciences are non-organic. They are artificial, astroturf, whipping up our tribe to get all mad to prove it's stronger than the other tribe.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:08 PM (/FnUH)
653
I imagined that would be the reply.
I cannot support something that is distasteful to me on the grounds of "Well you'd better ally with us because they're coming for you next."
In that case I'd prefer to have no allies and be a conscience objector.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:01 PM (/FnUH)
You do have common ground with the SoCons, but you do not with the Progressives.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 07:09 PM (XvHmy)
654
>>>Funny that is. If a socon had said that they would be creamed. How the worm turns?
there are so many victims here I didn't know about
all I have to do is say "Then I'd prefer to not participate," and I have not one but two people telling me how they were Victimized for saying something similar.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:09 PM (/FnUH)
656
651 FITP,
It can't, and I am finally totally glad.
This nation has too much power to be allowed to be evil, God'll take care of it.
We're due, LONG OVERDUE a reckoning.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:12 PM (TE35l)
657
"Government shouldn't impose, but reflect and where it acts act non-injuriously towards those social mores. The Left wants the government to impose."
IOW, if Left=More Government, staying out of citizen's lives should be the mantra of Conservatism?
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 07:13 PM (dd5lM)
659
there are so many victims here I didn't know about
Yes, yes. That's me, whiny little bitch.
Look, I TOLD you before the last election that there were real fissures in the R party and that the GOP didn't even seem to know there was a problem. I also told you that these disaffected members had ample, provable reason to feel the way they do. I was dismissed as a concern troll and a moby..........NOW I am telling you that the GOP is in for a catastrophe in Nov if they don't figure it out
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:15 PM (bZG85)
660
659 Ace,
You declared being on team let it burn...
I have no problem with it, let's see if the purity brigade and IronGrampa castigate you as they do the rest of us?
Like I say to the glee mafia, ypu can't make me care...
Welcome aboard.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:15 PM (TE35l)
661
>>>You do have common ground with the SoCons, but you do not with the Progressives.
less and less.
You don't seem to take this as what it is. This is Canary in the Coalmine.
But if you want to just keep going down that dark tunnel with your torches blazing, thinking you won't lose still more canaries or until you have an actual explosion, you do that.
Political Hat, I don't think your politics are a winner and I furthermore oppose them. If I thought your politics were a winner I'd hold my nose and align with you in order to win.
But I do not think you will win. I think you will lose. So aligning with you is an electorally-losing proposition.
The Socon Right seems to care less and less about what people think -- you know, people -- and how to persuade them and more and more about simply popping off about their every preference and bias.
This is now considered something of a badge of honor, having the guts to say things that you know are going to to deeply upset the majority of the country. It proves you're "courageous."
Less and less do I see people capable of, or even much interested in, making social conservatism into a winning electoral thing. It seems people know it's not a winning thing, and can't be made one, so now's the time to just let it all hang out.
Today I got knocked for saying that huck shouldn't have suggested that women could either "control their libidos" or use birth control. Needed to be said, many people said. It's true, others said.
The same people who will gin up Twitter Campaigns over every slight directed at a Christian will, simultaneously, say "It's no big deal if the Huckster tells adult women they have to control their libidos. They need to hear it."
Apparently no concern whatsoever about whether women might feel, as Christians do, rather angry about slights and insults, both real and perceived.
No, it's all just Guns Blazing and Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead and just give 'em all a good piece of our mind.
So, whatever. Can't win with you, can't win without you. This is why I have checked out of politics. I don't care about it. We're going to lose, and badly, and we deserve too-- apparently we can't be bothered to be smart about things, or disciplined, or do Faggy RINO things like make lists of priorities and perform political triage.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:16 PM (/FnUH)
662
There are so many solutions, ironically, other than math.
Occam's Razor isn't just the closest shave you'll ever have!
Occam's Razor isn't just the closest shave you'll ever have!
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 07:17 PM (lq3Ak)
663
IOW, if Left=More Government, staying out of citizen's lives should be the mantra of Conservatism?
Heather has two mommies and transexual bathrooms for 6 yr olds.
Enjoy the government-mandated social petri dish, it's growing nicely.
Sorta greenish-blue.
Heather has two mommies and transexual bathrooms for 6 yr olds.
Enjoy the government-mandated social petri dish, it's growing nicely.
Sorta greenish-blue.
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 07:18 PM (5ikDv)
664
Political Hat,
You are speaking of mores as being organic. But what is going on is not organic.
You claim only the left is engaging in non-organic methods to change mores. That's bullshit. All of these politicized efforts to force people do do other than what they would do by the light of their own consciences are non-organic. They are artificial, astroturf, whipping up our tribe to get all mad to prove it's stronger than the other tribe.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:08 PM (/FnUH)
Mores against homosexuality, &c. are quite old ones and common for most civilizations throughout history. Certainly those mores can organically go away or even be consciously altered. The SoCons are not pushing ideas, mores, and social structures ex nihilo, regardless of whether you like them or not.
They develop evolutionarily: Beneficial ones survive and detrimental ones don't. In contrast the Left are playing at Intelligent Design.
This is where the Progressives are different. As de Tocqueville said of their intellectual ancestors the Jacobins, that they believe:
"Â…the function of the State was not merely one of the ruling the nation, but also that of recasting it in a given mold, of shaping the mentality of the population as a whole in accordance with a predetermined model and instilling the ideas and sentiments they though desirable in the minds of all."
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 07:19 PM (XvHmy)
665
664 FITP,
What strikes me as hilarious is this idea that rather than attack the corruption, Obama's dictatorial rhetoric, our foreign policy idiocy, the shit economy, the nanny state we just need amnesty, weed, and to outgay Liberace and we're golden...
"Ok"
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:19 PM (TE35l)
666
Basically what ace is saying is socons embarrass him.
Personally I don't give a shit if Ken and Keith live together as the typical stereotypical homosexual couple, but it makes me weep for my country when Ken and Keith dress up in assless chaps and are crowned prom queens in a gay pride parade. It's fucking embarrassing and disgusting.
I don't feel any discomfort socializing with blacks or hispanics, certainly don't hold any animosity to them cause of their race, but I feel nothing but disgust when I see a vast amount of their race living some glorified thug culture that perpetuates the destruction of family all on the states dime. It's fucking embarrassing for our country.
I could go on and on, so I don't really care if socons embarrass or make some people uncomfortable, we're the only ones at least trying to hold the line on some basic decency.
Personally I don't give a shit if Ken and Keith live together as the typical stereotypical homosexual couple, but it makes me weep for my country when Ken and Keith dress up in assless chaps and are crowned prom queens in a gay pride parade. It's fucking embarrassing and disgusting.
I don't feel any discomfort socializing with blacks or hispanics, certainly don't hold any animosity to them cause of their race, but I feel nothing but disgust when I see a vast amount of their race living some glorified thug culture that perpetuates the destruction of family all on the states dime. It's fucking embarrassing for our country.
I could go on and on, so I don't really care if socons embarrass or make some people uncomfortable, we're the only ones at least trying to hold the line on some basic decency.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 07:20 PM (IV4od)
667
Today I got knocked for saying that huck shouldn't have suggested that women could either "control their libidos" or use birth control
You got knocked because he DIDN"T fucking say it. I HATE Huckleberry, but you are making this shit up because you have a bee in your bonnet.
Bad thing is...you don't even see it, yet you'll preach to us about judging others as we do ourselves.
Have you ever, even once, considered that YOU might be wrong?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:21 PM (bZG85)
668
>>>This is where the Progressives are different. As de Tocqueville said of their intellectual ancestors the Jacobins, that they believe:
"Â…the function of the State was not merely one of the ruling the nation, but also that of recasting it in a given mold, of shaping the mentality of the population as a whole in accordance with a predetermined model and instilling the ideas and sentiments they though desirable in the minds of all."
...
this is different than your conception of the State in what way, apart from the particulars of which model you'd like to promote?
I've got news for you, Political Hat. People don't despise gays less because of "government." They despise gays less because they've seen more of them, and have deemed them relatively harmless, and have further deemed the screechy fear of gays to be silly and dumb.
That's organic. You might not like their decision on this score but it was organic.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:22 PM (/FnUH)
670
>>>Have you ever, even once, considered that YOU might be wrong?
I consider the possibility I may be wrong more than most. However, because most never entertain the possibility, this means I consider the possibility only rarely.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:24 PM (/FnUH)
671
#666: As a man, I had to learn to control my libido because for a long time no woman would sleep with me. I think I'm a better person now for it, and I think your average woman would agree. Once I learned to shun meaningless casual sex, I was the one turning them down.
I'd sure like to go beyond one or two dates before the woman says, "Okay, I guess you're sort of cool. Let's go back to your place!"
I'd sure like to go beyond one or two dates before the woman says, "Okay, I guess you're sort of cool. Let's go back to your place!"
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 07:24 PM (/96QU)
672
I HATE Huckleberry, but you are making this shit up because you have a bee in your bonnet.
Can't stand Huck. Don't care for Santorum either.
*gasp*
How could this be?
Can't stand Huck. Don't care for Santorum either.
*gasp*
How could this be?
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 07:24 PM (5ikDv)
673
They despise gays less because they've seen more of them, and have deemed them relatively harmless, and have further deemed the screechy fear of gays to be silly and dumb.
Or MAYBE they have been stigmatized in to saying so even though they still find the behavior repugnant.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:25 PM (bZG85)
674
>>>Personally I don't give a shit if Ken and Keith live together as the typical stereotypical homosexual couple, but it makes me weep for my country when Ken and Keith dress up in assless chaps and are crowned prom queens in a gay pride parade. It's fucking embarrassing and disgusting.
this is so tired. Here's the template:
Start with the ritual statement that "I don't care what two guys do together, at all," then proceed to dreaming up some Gay Nightmare that doesn't happening, and end it with "It's just a shame when this thing that doesn't happen literally happens every day, right in front of the preschool where I drop off my children."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:25 PM (/FnUH)
675
669 the political hat,
You mean Augustus bitched about this to the Patricians?
Nah couldn't be.
Ace is right the GOP sucks b/c "socons" and the media doubledutch swearsies won't turn Charlie Crist 2016 GOP nominee into Cotton Mather...
Whatever...
Join me in supporting medical Krokodil...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:26 PM (TE35l)
676
Gay Nightmare that doesn't happen
Gay Pride parade in every city, Gay Marriage float in Rose Bowl, Gays forcing others to accept them in Federal District Court and USSC , Gay agenda in the classroom....
what color is your sky?
Gay Pride parade in every city, Gay Marriage float in Rose Bowl, Gays forcing others to accept them in Federal District Court and USSC , Gay agenda in the classroom....
what color is your sky?
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 07:28 PM (5ikDv)
678
I have nothing against gays, and I don't care what they do in their own bedrooms, but I'm tired of being kidnapped, sexually bound, strapped to a gigantic Aztec Penis Statue, and then ritually raped by Gay Web Designers while they pray to their Gay Web Design Gods.
Happens every single day, and it's a shame. America didn't used to be this way, with the giant Aztec Penis Statues and constant gay abductions and rape.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:28 PM (/FnUH)
679
And by the way Ace. Its not fear of Gays....its DISGUST with gays.
If you are going to call me evil, let's at least make it for the right reasons.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:28 PM (bZG85)
680
'then proceed to dreaming up some Gay Nightmare that doesn't happening,'
Bullshit, and you fucking know it's bullshit.
Bullshit, and you fucking know it's bullshit.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 07:28 PM (IV4od)
682
678 They despise gays less because they've seen more of them, and have deemed them relatively harmless, and have further deemed the screechy fear of gays to be silly and dumb.
Or MAYBE they have been stigmatized in to saying so even though they still find the behavior repugnant.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:30 PM (bZG85)
683
Ace, Jack Phillips has been ordered by a court to celebrate a gay wedding. I know you disagree with the ruling. Why so pedantic?
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 07:30 PM (/96QU)
684
My biggest problem with the politics of homosexuality is the violence that is being done to our constitution by those that want homosexuality to be normalized by any means necessary. If you are talking about what the states have the power to do under the US Constitution, then of course, states have the right to criminalize homosexual behavior. But, Anthony Kennedy, our homosexual rights czar, decided in Lawrence that the organizing document of our country had magically sprouted a new clause prohibiting the states from criminalizing that behavior.
Personally, I would be in favor of amending our constitution to include a well defined right of privacy, that would, among other things, make most sexual behavior a civil right, and therefore beyond the reach of either federal or local government. But, I believe that the way to get their is through the political process, not by the edicts of some goddamn judge.
I would also like to see an amendment that restates our right to associate with who we please. Meaning that if someone decides they don't want to rent to gays, it would not matter whether we are talking about a guest house, a duplex, a 4 unit apartment house with the owner living on site, or a 500 unit apartment complex.
Personally, I would be in favor of amending our constitution to include a well defined right of privacy, that would, among other things, make most sexual behavior a civil right, and therefore beyond the reach of either federal or local government. But, I believe that the way to get their is through the political process, not by the edicts of some goddamn judge.
I would also like to see an amendment that restates our right to associate with who we please. Meaning that if someone decides they don't want to rent to gays, it would not matter whether we are talking about a guest house, a duplex, a 4 unit apartment house with the owner living on site, or a 500 unit apartment complex.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 23, 2014 07:31 PM (IN7k+)
685
>>>Or MAYBE they have been stigmatized in to saying so even though they still find the behavior repugnant.
that's quite possible. People are cowardly and herdlike and it's possible they've simply exchanged one master's whip for another's.
Maybe they were pressured into saying Gays Are Just So Terrible You Guys by one crowd, now another crowd is bigger and badder and is making them say Oh I've Always Loved the Gays, So Clean, and So Clever With the Cupcakes.
Shrug.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:31 PM (/FnUH)
686
668 "Enjoy the government-mandated social petri dish, it's growing nicely."
The "government-mandated petri-dish" is/was made possible by so-con candidates like Akin.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 07:32 PM (dd5lM)
687
Jesus fucking Christ, zombie made a blog career documenting the in your face debauchery of the gay movement in one city alone. So don't tell us it's all imagined.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 07:32 PM (IV4od)
688
679 Ace,
You're not going to grant me my requested release command and admit you don't give a fuck their activists are gonna undermine the 1st amendment are you Ace?
Not going to admit that they are dickwaving on Heather Has Two Mommies to Kindergarten either...
No biggie I get it, I can't demand equal time for "getting fucking married sticking with it and having kids past 21 is how you are successful" b/c "racist, sexist, homophobe"
Like I said let's just get the structural inequality formalized by law and out in the open so I can invoke legit refugee status somewhere.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:32 PM (TE35l)
689
>>>Ace, Jack Phillips has been ordered by a court to celebrate a gay wedding. I know you disagree with the ruling. Why so pedantic?
yup. as far as why so pedantic: Because it's possible to oppose both sorts of attempts to control simultaneously.
The template I described is accurate, though I parodized it. First, say you don't mind gays at all, swearsies, it's just that you can't take this constant predatory sociopathic gay behavior (or whatever).
You start mild, you finish big and dramatic.
I see this sort of comment ten times a week.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:33 PM (/FnUH)
690
689
My biggest problem with the politics of homosexuality is the violence
that is being done to our constitution by those that want homosexuality
to be normalized by any means necessary.
Big Gay Nightmare, Aztec Fake Penises (ii?), NEVER HAPPENED!!!!
Big Gay Nightmare, Aztec Fake Penises (ii?), NEVER HAPPENED!!!!
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 07:33 PM (5ikDv)
691
>>>Jesus fucking Christ, zombie made a blog career documenting the in your face debauchery of the gay movement in one city alone.
in gay mecca san francisco, yes.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:34 PM (/FnUH)
692
And what about all these Second Amendment freaks, right? Can I get an amen?
Posted by: Andrew Cuomo at January 23, 2014 07:34 PM (3a584)
693
so lowandslow is claiming this is now going on at his local mall, or...?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:34 PM (/FnUH)
694
>>>And by the way Ace. Its not fear of Gays....its DISGUST with gays.
If you are going to call me evil, let's at least make it for the right reasons.
...
no i got that, I've seen this fear/disgust thing clarified sixty three thousand times, thanks.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:35 PM (/FnUH)
695
People are cowardly and herdlike and it's possible they've simply exchanged one master's whip for another's.
Well, the gays sure don't seem to get much love when it comes to, you know, people getting to "vote" (quaint concept, I know) on their issues.
That might be a clue
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:35 PM (bZG85)
696
692 lowandslow,
That's just 2 or 3 people L&S and you and I forced them and the poor Dr. V into their bizarre behagior...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:36 PM (TE35l)
697
I'm not going to disparage actual gays and I'm not going further down this rabbit hole.
I'm going to bid myself a good night and say a prayer for The Horde.
This one?
...it is mine, alone.
*static*
I'm going to bid myself a good night and say a prayer for The Horde.
This one?
...it is mine, alone.
*static*
Posted by: Slapweasel at January 23, 2014 07:36 PM (lq3Ak)
699
@701
sven
That's just 2 or 3 people L&S and you and I forced them and the poor Dr. V into their bizarre behavior...
You didn't build that! Todd Akin (SO--KHAN!!11!! eleventy) built that !!!
That's just 2 or 3 people L&S and you and I forced them and the poor Dr. V into their bizarre behavior...
You didn't build that! Todd Akin (SO--KHAN!!11!! eleventy) built that !!!
Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 07:38 PM (5ikDv)
700
700 FITP,
It's ok they engage in lawfare so specious it should humiliate them b/c "justice" and again it is for the purest expression of human achievent single sex coupling...
That trumps things like popular will, the bill of rights etc etc.
Oh were it only that Antarctica was melting and temperate.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:40 PM (TE35l)
701
"I see this sort of comment ten times a week."
And everybody's lying, because deep down we really just hate the gays. Right? Cause we're all troglodytes and not as fucking enlightened as you.
Where's your evidence that your way's the right way? Cause I don't see nothing but ruin by following your path, the path we as a nation have been on for the last few decades.
Talk about living with blinders on.
And everybody's lying, because deep down we really just hate the gays. Right? Cause we're all troglodytes and not as fucking enlightened as you.
Where's your evidence that your way's the right way? Cause I don't see nothing but ruin by following your path, the path we as a nation have been on for the last few decades.
Talk about living with blinders on.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 07:40 PM (IV4od)
702
#694: But here we're saying it's being shoved in our faces. You're saying it's not. I bring up an example of it being shoved in our faces, and even though you agree that that's wrong, you still say we're just being silly.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 07:41 PM (/96QU)
703
678 "Or MAYBE they have been stigmatized in to saying so even though they still find the behavior repugnant."
UmmmÂ…have you been to your local Walmart lately? Imaging a LOT of those people in an erotic pose would nauseate most of us.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 07:42 PM (dd5lM)
704
Talk about living with blinders on.
But, But, Ace is all introspective and stuff and considers that he might be wrong more often than most people which is almost never. So, he can't possibly be wrong, can he?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:43 PM (bZG85)
705
UmmmÂ…have you been to your local Walmart lately? Imaging a LOT of those people in an erotic pose would nauseate most of us.
I'm not sure who "us" is, but there are certain WalMarts "we" would agree with........some (mine for example), stacked with hotties. "people of Wal-Mart" does not cover them all, you know.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:45 PM (bZG85)
706
"698
so lowandslow is claiming this is now going on at his local mall, or...?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:34 PM (/FnUH)"
You don't watch TV? Or are you going to claim it pretty much the fucking Huckstables twenty-four seven? I hate this fucking shit when you pretend that this movement and the left ain't pushing boundaries every chance they get. You know it and I know it.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:34 PM (/FnUH)"
You don't watch TV? Or are you going to claim it pretty much the fucking Huckstables twenty-four seven? I hate this fucking shit when you pretend that this movement and the left ain't pushing boundaries every chance they get. You know it and I know it.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 07:45 PM (IV4od)
707
#709: Ace is actually really good about admitting it when he knows he's wrong. I just wish he were better at realizing it when he disagrees with me.
That last part is a joke, by the way.
That last part is a joke, by the way.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 07:46 PM (/96QU)
708
FTTP,
Virginia used to be an automatic Republican state. Automatic. Red. Bright red.
It has now gone Blue two presidential elections in a row. Neither time was particularly close.
They just had a pro-gay marraige democrat run against an anti-gay marriage republican for Governor. The Democrat won. (He was also corrupt.)
Democrats swept all three statewide offices.
The AG today had previously expressed his support of gay marriage. He also won. Today he announced he would not be defending the state's ban on SSM against any court strike-down.
I do not support gay marriage, by the way. But you are living in a FANTASY world when you claim the gays aren't getting people to "vote for them."
Oh they are. And you seem to have no plan of how to counter this except doing more of the same.
I've said this before: the anti-gay-MARRIAGE issue could have won, but not when it was tied so tightly to the anti-GAYNESS issue. The latter was a loser for a long time. IT is now a huge loser.
So you tell me, FTTP, what exactly your plan is to get once-bright-red, absolutely-can't-win-it-back Virginia back into the R column, by simply doubling redoubling and redoubling again on positions that are not even close calls anymore, but straight up losers?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:46 PM (/FnUH)
709
Fuck it ace, go to sleep, I'll do the same.
Posted by: lowandslow at January 23, 2014 07:47 PM (IV4od)
710
Damnit. I missed a Rand thread and so I go to the ONT and learn that this thread is still going.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 07:48 PM (DmNpO)
711
>>> Cause I don't see nothing but ruin by following your path, the path we as a nation have been on for the last few decades.
gays, who make up, what, 2% of the population, are going to be the ruin of society?
And you're claiming I'm giving short-shrift to your position, and not treating it seriously enough?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 07:48 PM (/FnUH)
712
711 lowandslow,
Look I supersize with you but...tv has taught me that 30% of America is gay and we must stop punishing the always smarter, cuter, and wiser gay slave class we keep.
As seen on Disney...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:48 PM (TE35l)
713
That trumps things like popular will, the bill of rights etc etc.
I know Sven. This kind of shit enrages me. When we have judges and an executive ruling by fiat (and a legislative branch that would too if they weren't complete fucking morons), it makes my give a shit meter for "gay rights" and Ace's new found Libertarian toy peg right the fuck to zero.
The will of the people is time and again being overturned.....no good can come from this.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:50 PM (bZG85)
714
I'm not sure who "us" is, but there are certain WalMarts "we" would agree with........some (mine for example), stacked with hotties. "people of Wal-Mart" does not cover them all, you know.
Florida Panhandle, take your pick, Panama City to Tallahassee. Sad.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 07:50 PM (dd5lM)
715
I've said this before: the anti-gay-MARRIAGE issue could have won,
but not when it was tied so tightly to the anti-GAYNESS issue
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:46 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:46 PM (/FnUH)
LOL!
Posted by: The Judiciary at January 23, 2014 07:52 PM (3a584)
716
716 Ace,
The TV shows 30% if shows are to be believed, and uh their attacks on liberty are last time I checked precedent setting.
I get it "justice" eleventy!!
Let's just get this bullshit done and over with...
Any other millenia old mores we need to jettison?
Donkey hates idle hands, Bigamy legalized next or Corzinonomics...?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:52 PM (TE35l)
717
Political Hat, I don't think your politics are a winner and I furthermore oppose them. If I thought your politics were a winner I'd hold my nose and align with you in order to win.
The irony is that we probably agree on policy far, far more than we disagree. It is the basis for that where we disagree. I started out as a true libertarian and argued policy ex nihilo. But I realized as time went by that liberty is not just the absence of government. Conditions must be conducive towards that. Legal anal sex does not threaten that liberty, and that is why I donÂ’t advocate making it illegal. Punishing people for refusing to celebrate it does, which is why I oppose such laws. In that, I think we agree.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: The genius of America is that we have the freedom to do what we want but the wisdom to make wise choices.
My problem isnÂ’t with the freedom to do what we want, but the destruction of the wisdom to choose wisely.
But I do not think you will win. I think you will lose. So aligning with you is an electorally-losing proposition.
I probably have stronger libertarian tendencies when it comes to policy than most people, and that includes many so-called “libertarians” who are only in it for their one or two issues. Again, we probably agree more than we don’t. But then, any electorally winning proposition is likely to include free stuff from the government…
The Socon Right seems to care less and less about what people think -- you know, people -- and how to persuade them and more and more about simply popping off about their every preference and bias.
IÂ’d argue that they are more likely to be persuaded to tolerance than the Left. IÂ’d offer the Duck Dynasty brouhaha as an example of that. They have shared the basic values in that regard with others who share that American civic heritage.
The Progressives are antithetical to that.
Today I got knocked for saying that huck shouldn't have suggested that women could either "control their libidos" or use birth control. Needed to be said, many people said. It's true, others said.
ThatÂ’s not what he said. You even pointed that out, kind of: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346676.php
Again, we probably agree on most policies. We also probably agree on the danger of the Left.
Again it feels like Mills vs. Stephens.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 07:53 PM (XvHmy)
718
I've said this before: the anti-gay-MARRIAGE issue could have won, but not when it was tied so tightly to the anti-GAYNESS issue. The latter was a loser for a long time. IT is now a huge loser.
***
This, I believe, is an accurate statement.
I was talking politics with my hairdresser for two hours on Sunday and this was basically what he said.
He accepts that "marriage" is first and foremost a Biblical concept rather than a legal concept. He believes, as do I, that gays should be allowed civil unions. Further, he argues that point with other gays.
He did not, however, vote for Mitt Romney. He said he just couldn't pull the level for someone so adamantly against not just SSM, but homosexuality entirely.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 07:53 PM (DmNpO)
719
720 the Judiciary,
Yeah I love the oldest jokes the best eh?
Tell me what America has won with your newfound powers!
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 07:54 PM (TE35l)
720
I've said this before: the anti-gay-MARRIAGE issue could have won, but
not when it was tied so tightly to the anti-GAYNESS issue.
But who did the tying? The anti-SSM crowd or the pro-SSM crowd? I submit it was the pro-SSM crowd, who yelled and shouted that if you didn't agree with gay marriage, that means you hate gays. Look at how nuts they went after California's Prop 8.
But who did the tying? The anti-SSM crowd or the pro-SSM crowd? I submit it was the pro-SSM crowd, who yelled and shouted that if you didn't agree with gay marriage, that means you hate gays. Look at how nuts they went after California's Prop 8.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 07:55 PM (9GG/0)
721
But you are living in a FANTASY world when you claim the gays aren't getting people to "vote for them."
I believe in Federalism. IF they gays can get enough people in an individual state to vote with them I will say NOT WORD ONE.
I do have a problem with "judge shopping" etc to get you way. If there are so many people suddenly willing to side with gays, how come it is ALWAYS legal warfare or corrupt politicians refusing to enforce the law voted on by the people that gets the gay agenda advanced (with admitted exceptions in very blue states)?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:56 PM (bZG85)
722
I've said this before: the anti-gay-MARRIAGE issue could have won, but not when it was tied so tightly to the anti-GAYNESS issue
I don't necessarily disagree with this. But you know what? We were counting on our elected officials to take care of this for us. It is what we elected them to do, and as in all things, they fucked it up.
As far as getting Va back?
All I can say is"let this Mother Fucker Burn"
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 07:58 PM (bZG85)
723
He did not, however, vote for Mitt Romney. He said he just couldn't pull
the level for someone so adamantly against not just SSM, but
homosexuality entirely.
But Romney isn't "against" homosexuality. That was the illusion created by the left, that if you opposed gay marriage, then that means you hate gays.
But Romney isn't "against" homosexuality. That was the illusion created by the left, that if you opposed gay marriage, then that means you hate gays.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 07:59 PM (9GG/0)
724
@713
Gays are in fact getting people to vote for them: The elites, the people not so much.
With few exceptions, when gay marriage has been put to a vote of the citiznery, gay marriage has lost by pretty sizable margins, in liberal California, in liberal Colorado, etc.
I do not support gay marriage but if the country is to have gay marriage, I would like it decided by the people, not the elites.
Gays are in fact getting people to vote for them: The elites, the people not so much.
With few exceptions, when gay marriage has been put to a vote of the citiznery, gay marriage has lost by pretty sizable margins, in liberal California, in liberal Colorado, etc.
I do not support gay marriage but if the country is to have gay marriage, I would like it decided by the people, not the elites.
Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 07:59 PM (Xkr8I)
725
>>> But who did the tying? The anti-SSM crowd or the pro-SSM crowd? I submit it was the pro-SSM crowd, who yelled and shouted that if you didn't agree with gay marriage, that means you hate gays.
let's stop dicking each other around and admit there are a lot of people who -- I'll avoid "hate" as it's so contentious -- really strongly dislike gays. Or disapprove of them, their habits, their sexual acts, their culture, their persons.
The fact that we can find a large number of people who oppose gay marriage without really "hating" gays does not mean that there aren't also a lot of people who both oppose gay marriage and viscerally dislike gays.
So WE tie them together, too.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:00 PM (/FnUH)
726
Tell me what America has won with your newfound powers!
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:54 PM (TE35l)
How about... a brand new car! But you'll have to pay for it, or just pay a tax.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:54 PM (TE35l)
How about... a brand new car! But you'll have to pay for it, or just pay a tax.
Posted by: The Judiciary at January 23, 2014 08:00 PM (3a584)
727
The irony of a gay man not being able to vote for Romney because of his stance on gay marriage is that Romney was the first governor to sign gay marriage into law.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 08:00 PM (/96QU)
728
But Romney isn't "against" homosexuality. That was the illusion created by the left, that if you opposed gay marriage, then that means you hate gays.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 11:59 PM (9GG/0)
Exactly. If I disagree with you, I hate you. That's the narrative now. And apparently everyone is buying into it.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:01 PM (GEICT)
729
>>>
Gays are in fact getting people to vote for them: The elites, the people not so much.
A majority of Virginia voters, in 2008, 2012, and 2013, you're calling "the elites"?
Let's remember again this is VIRGINIA. A state of the old confederacy. Bright red for 20 years. Has highways named after Jefferson Davis.
This is now gone.
Is there going to be any kind of accommodation to the new political reality or are we going to just hope and pray that it somehow becomes 2004 again?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:01 PM (/FnUH)
730
really strongly dislike gays. Or disapprove of them, their habits, their sexual acts, their culture, their persons.
FFS. Those are two different things. I can disapprove of someone's behavior without hating/strongly disliking them as a person.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:02 PM (GEICT)
731
But Romney isn't "against" homosexuality. That was the illusion created by the left, that if you opposed gay marriage, then that means you hate gays.
****
We had this conversation only to a certain point. That point being only so far as I would not insinuate that the man placing toxic chemicals in my hair would think I was insulting his ability to discern fact from fiction.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:03 PM (DmNpO)
732
723 "He accepts that "marriage" is first and foremost a Biblical concept rather than a legal concept. He believes, as do I, that gays should be allowed civil unions. Further, he argues that point with other gays.
He did not, however, vote for Mitt Romney. He said he just couldn't pull the level for someone so adamantly against not just SSM, but homosexuality entirely. "
The problem, as I have had it explained to me, is that "marriage" has been so entwined in the legal system that even "civil unions" don't encompass the same benefits. Not sure if that is completely correct, but it seemed that "marriage" is unfortunately both religious and part of the legal framework.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 08:03 PM (dd5lM)
733
>>>But Romney isn't "against" homosexuality. That was the illusion created by the left, that if you opposed gay marriage, then that means you hate gays.
it's not an illusion when so many people are ready to pop off with little invitation to announce all the ways in which gays are abnormal and "in revolt against God."
People are not dumb. OR not dumb enough. When you see that many people on one side of the issue, they figure out that that's the more anti-gay side of things.
They decided they didn't want to be anti-gay.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:03 PM (/FnUH)
734
...he fact that we can find a large number of people who oppose gay
marriage without really "hating" gays does not mean that there aren't
also a lot of people who both oppose gay marriage and viscerally dislike
gays.
You can find (imagine) a lot of people hate just about any group you care to focus on.
You can find (imagine) a lot of people hate just about any group you care to focus on.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:03 PM (FtCW+)
735
A majority of Virginia voters, in 2008, 2012, and 2013, you're calling "the elites"?
Dude, Have you HEARD of Northern Virginia? Do you know which is one of the biggest growth sectors past five years?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:04 PM (bZG85)
736
this is different than your conception of the State in what way, apart from the particulars of which model you'd like to promote?
I've got news for you, Political Hat. People don't despise gays less because of "government." They despise gays less because they've seen more of them, and have deemed them relatively harmless, and have further deemed the screechy fear of gays to be silly and dumb.
That's organic. You might not like their decision on this score but it was organic.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:22 PM (/FnUH)
Yes it is. People accepted gay people because that was a natural possible path. As I have said, changing social mores can be organic, even if done consciously. People accepted it because the seed was already there to live and let live, and was part of what made America America.
But that is different than normalizing it and declaring that 80% of people are bisexual and that only 10% of people are straight, or declaring that the normative values of society are innately evil and must be replaced be enlightened Progressive thought.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:05 PM (XvHmy)
737
723 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse,
No offense it is a polite fiction in all likelihood. There was nothing antigay in wanting civil unions, Mitt Romney is not a gay hater and I am tired of the polite lies. The "sensible gays" and I am real life friends with several got buck fever and overreacted to Prop 8 which was driven by Ace's Gay Mecca's overreach.
It's okay. Their right to get what they want, just like pothead's stunts. Old as time.
When Boehner passes Amigo Grande! It'll be MY turn ans ALL I WANT is for donkey to be donkey.
Ban guns, free speech, private property, cars, electricity I don't care anymore.
*My* cookie will be the kindling and the match.
Fun game, it's almost like we don't have a party at all.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:05 PM (TE35l)
738
#734: Virginia has had a massive influx of liberals as Washington has grown. All those thousands of new federal employees have to live somewhere. If all those new federal sinecures weren't there, the state would still be red.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 08:05 PM (/96QU)
739
>>>FFS. Those are two different things. I can disapprove of someone's behavior without hating/strongly disliking them as a person.
FFS yourself.
Again, are we all just in Pretendistan where we're going to claim this doesn't exist?
Can I ask you what is the point of two fucking human beings talking to each other if they're going to do nothing but bullshit each other and talk in Politically Helpful Talking Points?
I don't need you for that. I Know what the bumper sticker slogans are. If you're going to offer me nothing but that then I decline to carry this discussion further.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:05 PM (/FnUH)
740
>>They decided they didn't want to be anti-gay.
Yes because being "judgy" is now the only sin.
Are gays not abnormal by definition? Doesn't that kinda color the debate?
Yes because being "judgy" is now the only sin.
Are gays not abnormal by definition? Doesn't that kinda color the debate?
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:06 PM (FtCW+)
741
Or disapprove of them, their habits, their sexual acts, their culture, their persons.
I do. Very strongly.
Is that a crime now in this country for me to say that? Or are my beliefs just being stigmatized by the Dems and a complicit media?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:06 PM (bZG85)
742
>>>#734: Virginia has had a massive influx of liberals as Washington has grown. All those thousands of new federal employees have to live somewhere. If all those new federal sinecures weren't there, the state would still be red.
well if wishes were fishes we'd all have a nice lunch.
IF a thousand different things. If religious devotion were growing instead of falling. If the white portion of the vote were groing instead of falling.
if if if if if if only the world were other than it really is.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:06 PM (/FnUH)
743
734 Ace,
It's amazing what a weaponized and growing immune to economic downturn civil service can do ain't it?
Watch as I encourage every Republican I can to further empower it.
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:08 PM (TE35l)
744
No offense it is a polite fiction in all likelihood.
***
Not polite fiction. His mother has been a pastor his entire life. He "gets it" with regard to how many feel about homosexuality but cannot support someone whom he believes, rightly or wrongly, would do harm to his own well-being.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:08 PM (DmNpO)
745
@734
I don't know what your talking about, Virginia voters enacted a ban on same sex marriage in 2006 as far as I know there has been no voting by the people of Virginia to repeal that law.
Now if your talking about the state trending Democrat then that's a whole other matter.
Bending to political reality seems to always have a leftward tilt, this country is bending so far left I am quite certain it's going to break.
I don't know what your talking about, Virginia voters enacted a ban on same sex marriage in 2006 as far as I know there has been no voting by the people of Virginia to repeal that law.
Now if your talking about the state trending Democrat then that's a whole other matter.
Bending to political reality seems to always have a leftward tilt, this country is bending so far left I am quite certain it's going to break.
Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 08:09 PM (Xkr8I)
746
BCochran,
I said:
Or disapprove of them, their habits, their sexual acts, their culture, their persons.
You said:
FFS.
FTTP said:
I do. Very strongly.
...
Got any more soft soap you want to serve me and call it cake?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:09 PM (/FnUH)
747
Again, are we all just in Pretendistan where we're going to claim this doesn't exist?
Can I ask you what is the point of two fucking human beings talking to each other if they're going to do nothing but bullshit each other and talk in Politically Helpful Talking Points?
I don't need you for that. I Know what the bumper sticker slogans are. If you're going to offer me nothing but that then I decline to carry this discussion further.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:05 AM (/FnUH)
Of course it fucking exists. Everything under the sun, every little possible hate exists. I don't need you for that. And you're the boss around here. No one's forcing you to stay in the thread.
But you seem to fall into the trap or whatever that so many others do. I disapprove of your behavior/choices so that must mean I don't like you in your entirety. It's fucking stupid and I'm sick of it.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:09 PM (GEICT)
748
FFS. Those are two different things. I can disapprove of someone's behavior without hating/strongly disliking them as a person.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 24, 2014 12:02 AM (GEICT)
We've gotten the the point of manichean absurdity: You either H8 gays and want to slap pink triangles on them before sending them to the camps, or you celebrate it and work to destroy the hereto-normative oppressors.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:10 PM (XvHmy)
749
Got any more soft soap you want to serve me and call it cake?
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:09 AM (/FnUH)
Wow. One person. Awesome job.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:10 PM (GEICT)
750
sven,
can you name one poll in one state in which support for gay marriage has fallen?
Did you know Utah now supports gay marriage, by a majority?
Please tell me if there any states, any at all, in which anti-gay positioning has grown more popular since 2008, rather than less.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:10 PM (/FnUH)
751
>>>Wow. One person. Awesome job.
Well sure but all you need is one when the constant claim is "No one thinks that way, nobody, nowhere."
Do you think he's all alone in the great big world, BCochran?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:11 PM (/FnUH)
752
741 the political hat,
Hat we live in an America that agrees with Ms PIV Avenger more than us.
Stop fighting it and futlrther empower it.
Show me this wonderful sane nation you are building Libertines.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:11 PM (TE35l)
753
Ace please name a political group no one disapproves of.
Your argument could be used to prop up the claim that all opposition to Obama is racist. After all there are some folks that just don't like black people.
Your argument could be used to prop up the claim that all opposition to Obama is racist. After all there are some folks that just don't like black people.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:12 PM (FtCW+)
754
#747: My point is, it's not that Americans are all of a sudden embracing teh ghey. It's that the culture of Virginia has been transformed by the growing federal behemoth.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 08:12 PM (/96QU)
755
Hat we live in an America that agrees with Ms PIV Avenger more than us.
Stop fighting it and futlrther empower it.
Show me this wonderful sane nation you are building Libertines.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 24, 2014 12:11 AM (TE35l)
Does hemp resin make good mortar?
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:13 PM (XvHmy)
756
Well sure but all you need is one when the constant claim is "No one thinks that way, nobody, nowhere."
Do you think he's all alone in the great big world, BCochran?
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:11 AM (/FnUH)
Did you even read what I wrote?
"Of course it fucking exists. Everything under the sun, every little possible hate exists. "
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:13 PM (GEICT)
757
@755
That's a poll put it to an actual vote.
The polls said the same thing in California and when the people voted they voted contrary to the polls.
Same thing happened in Colorado.
That's a poll put it to an actual vote.
The polls said the same thing in California and when the people voted they voted contrary to the polls.
Same thing happened in Colorado.
Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 08:13 PM (Xkr8I)
758
I said I strongly disapprove....NEVER said I hate gays. Here is a shocker for you....I've had gay room mates, gay friends. We just didn't share that kind of shit and our private lives were PRIVATE.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:13 PM (bZG85)
759
>>>Your argument could be used to prop up the claim that all opposition to Obama is racist.
i've never been the one making categorical claims. My claims have consistently been, "Sure some people aren't anti-gay, but others actually are."
It's you-all who have been making the categorical statements, swearing up and down that "no one thinks like this," and, in the other thread, "no socon anywhere holds that position."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:14 PM (/FnUH)
760
let's stop dicking each other around and admit there
are a lot of people who -- I'll avoid "hate" as it's so contentious --
really strongly dislike gays. Or disapprove of them, their habits, their
sexual acts, their culture, their persons.
The fact that we can find a large number of people who oppose gay marriage without really "hating" gays does not mean that there aren't also a lot of people who both oppose gay marriage and viscerally dislike gays.
So WE tie them together, too.
The fact that we can find a large number of people who oppose gay marriage without really "hating" gays does not mean that there aren't also a lot of people who both oppose gay marriage and viscerally dislike gays.
So WE tie them together, too.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:00 AM (/FnUH)
Yes, there are people who oppose gay marriage who "strongly dislike" gays.
There are also people who oppose gay marriage but do not "strongly dislike" gays, but perhaps only find their conduct disagreeable.
There are also people, by the way, who oppose gay marriage and are more or less neutral on the topic of homosexuality itself.
But it was the pro-gay-marirage crowd who so directly linked opposition to gay marriage as ONLY being attributable to that first group of people, that it was all just blind hatred.
With any issue, you will have a range of people supporting it for various different reasons, and a range of people opposing it for various different reasons. Some reasons are of course more justifiable than others. But what the supporters did in this case was a clever tactic, that they do again and again: magnify the LEAST justifiable reason to oppose gay marriage and blow it up much larger than all the other reasons.
They do the same thing with abortion, by the way: they take the LEAST justifiable reason to oppose abortion ("they hate women! they want to control their bodies!") and blow it up into the ONLY reason that pro-lifers oppose abortion.
(It's too bad our team can't learn to use some of these tactics on them.)
Sure I'm not going to defend people who just hate on the gays for irrational reasons. But I'm also not going to hold blameless the gay marriage crowd who falsely insinuated that everyone who opposed it were haters. I'm also not going to hold myself guilty by association with people who also opposed gay marriage but did so for reasons that I find loathsome.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 08:14 PM (9GG/0)
761
>>>"Of course it fucking exists. Everything under the sun, every little possible hate exists. "
will you concede the fraction of people in America with a real problem with gays is greater than 15%?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:14 PM (/FnUH)
762
will you concede the fraction of people in America with a real problem with gays is greater than 15%?
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:14 AM (/FnUH)
I have no fucking clue what the percentage is. So, no, I'm not just gonna make a WAG.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:16 PM (GEICT)
763
chemjeff,
perhaps I'm not making the point.
The point is:
THIS IS UNATTRACTIVE. WIthout expressly making a moral argument, I can say, as a matter of directionality, it repels people.
So the question is: What are we going to do about it?
Are we going to modify and police our messaging, or are we going to just go Gunz-a-Blazin', doin' the same old shit, and just hoping we have a different outcome?
For far too many the answer seems to be number 2.
Which is why we are doomed.
We are committed to a poisonous position, not one, but like eight of them.
And for the majority of the party, the only recommendation offered is, "Just be more FIRM about it."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (/FnUH)
764
will you concede the fraction of people in America with a real problem with gays is greater than 15%?
Will you concede that the fraction of Dems/Libertarians in America who have a problem with Christians is greater than 15%?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (bZG85)
765
We've gotten the the point of manichean absurdity: You either H8 gays and want to slap pink triangles on them before sending them to the camps, or you celebrate it and work to destroy the hereto-normative oppressors.
***
I may not care for the homosexual lifestyle, about which I've learned a few things from my hairdresser, but I would want to beat the hell out of anyone who sought to hurt him.
He has his own cross to bear and his sin is his sin. HE must answer to God for it and I must answer to God for my sin.
He has many fine qualities that one would desire in a friend and I cannot condemn him for being gay.
Condemnation is God's job and it does seem that some folks seem to forget that.
To your comment, I suppose I neither celebrate nor condemn one for being gay.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:17 PM (DmNpO)
766
>>>I have no fucking clue what the percentage is. So, no, I'm not just gonna make a WAG.
'kay. So the possibility continues to exist that this is just some teeny-tiny, inconsequential number that we can safely ignore and take as, essentially, not existing at all.
What I figured.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:18 PM (/FnUH)
767
755 Ace,
Nope, of course a federal govt refusing to defend the law, a weaponized judiciary, a passive-aggressive media on it 24/7...does wonders.
Two points.
One if it is so popular why the lawfare?
Two If the media is to be national decider and it is immune to one sides boycott you grasp it will be viewed as a mortal enemy yes?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:19 PM (TE35l)
768
>>>Condemnation is God's job and it does seem that some folks seem to forget that.
everyone's so eager to proclaim that judging is so crucial to the reinforcing bulwarks of civilization, and completely dictated by Christian belief, that they kind of forget Jesus' actual words on the subject.
Eh Jesus what did he know about Christianity.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:19 PM (/FnUH)
769
When your defense of "Christian belief" includes a large portion of human argumentation about why Christ's words, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," is inapplicable in any case where you feel like casting a stone, I can't credit you as acting out of Christian belief.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:21 PM (/FnUH)
770
>>>i've never been the one making categorical claims. My claims have
consistently been, "Sure some people aren't anti-gay, but others
actually are."
Well I've come late to the party but all I was responding to was the apparent idea that any cause is doomed if some haters agree with it.
And the thing to do to save your cause is to disavow the haters and make a principled case, no? I haven't heard anyone inviting the Westboro Bapists into the save traditional marriage movement.
Well I've come late to the party but all I was responding to was the apparent idea that any cause is doomed if some haters agree with it.
And the thing to do to save your cause is to disavow the haters and make a principled case, no? I haven't heard anyone inviting the Westboro Bapists into the save traditional marriage movement.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:22 PM (FtCW+)
771
What...exactly...is the endgame with Let it Burn?
I see it repeated ad naseum.
I see people actively rooting for it.
What are you specifically rooting for?
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2014 08:22 PM (slkfL)
772
So the possibility continues to exist that this is just some teeny-tiny, inconsequential number that we can safely ignore and take as, essentially, not existing at all.
What I figured.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:18 AM (/FnUH)
So what's your master plan? There are a group of people out there of indeterminate size and influence who are poisoning the Conservative movement through a loathsome motive.
What's the plan?
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:22 PM (GEICT)
773
Ace, I love the way you misrepresent, lie, and parse words to "win" your little victories.
In regards to your conversation with Cochran, I NEVER said I hate gays. I said I strongly disapprove of their lifestyles.
You are a fucking liar.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:23 PM (bZG85)
774
Can't we just leave the media to be the thought police for those horrible socons, and instead focus our energies on fracturing the Left's far more fragile coalition?
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 08:23 PM (3a584)
775
It's not like we can kick the people who genuinely hate gay people out of the party, right?
Oh, wait... Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are all Democrats, aren't they?
Oh, wait... Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are all Democrats, aren't they?
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 08:25 PM (/96QU)
776
770 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse,
Yeah not to worry they're protected by h8 crime laws even when their also gay boyfriend kills them ma'am.
I think all gays are pitchers now as far as that goes...
And GOOD for them...
I plan to help them in their pursuit of a single party America.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:25 PM (TE35l)
777
774 When your defense of "Christian belief" includes a large portion of human argumentation about why Christ's words, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," is inapplicable in any case where you feel like casting a stone, I can't credit you as acting out of Christian belief.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:21 AM (/FnUH)
You left out the entire rest of the story. As people typically do when quoting those words.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:25 PM (GEICT)
778
Are we going to modify and police our messaging,
What do you expect people to do, precisely?
People are free to express their views. And the left is very good at magnifying the most repellant of the views coming from "our team". The solution is to (a) call them out on their BS, and (b) use the same tactic on them.
If the repellant views of a few, magnified by the left as representative of the whole, weren't going to be about gay marriage, then they would be about something else. They use this tactic to gain power, not because "our team" really is full of a bunch of gay-haters.
Why is it that the entire country now knows that Todd Akin is an idiot, but only readers of conservative blogs know anything about the numerous idiotic gaffes made by Democrats? Because we suck at using this tactic. They are pros at it.
What do you expect people to do, precisely?
People are free to express their views. And the left is very good at magnifying the most repellant of the views coming from "our team". The solution is to (a) call them out on their BS, and (b) use the same tactic on them.
If the repellant views of a few, magnified by the left as representative of the whole, weren't going to be about gay marriage, then they would be about something else. They use this tactic to gain power, not because "our team" really is full of a bunch of gay-haters.
Why is it that the entire country now knows that Todd Akin is an idiot, but only readers of conservative blogs know anything about the numerous idiotic gaffes made by Democrats? Because we suck at using this tactic. They are pros at it.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 08:26 PM (9GG/0)
779
780 probationary warbler,
Shhh he's rolling.
Neat trick the donks are to the left and right of the GOP on everything.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:27 PM (TE35l)
780
Yeah not to worry they're protected by h8 crime laws even when their also gay boyfriend kills them ma'am.
I think all gays are pitchers now as far as that goes...
And GOOD for them...
I plan to help them in their pursuit of a single party America.
***
Simply put...
Huh?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:28 PM (DmNpO)
781
>>>You left out the entire rest of the story. As people typically do when quoting those words.
but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 bEarly in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and che sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now din the Law Moses commanded us eto stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said fto test him, gthat they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, h“Let him who is without sin among you ibe the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, j“Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on ksin no more.”
Can you reconcile Jesus' words? Or are they in contradiction?
Because I think I can reconcile them.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:28 PM (/FnUH)
782
>>>
veryone's so eager to proclaim that judging is so crucial to the reinforcing bulwarks of civilization, and completely dictated by Christian belief, that they kind of forget Jesus' actual words on the subject.
There is an entire book of the Bible entitled "Judges". We are called to judge and to use judgement. We are called to judge the state of another's soul.
veryone's so eager to proclaim that judging is so crucial to the reinforcing bulwarks of civilization, and completely dictated by Christian belief, that they kind of forget Jesus' actual words on the subject.
There is an entire book of the Bible entitled "Judges". We are called to judge and to use judgement. We are called to judge the state of another's soul.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:29 PM (FtCW+)
783
Meanwhile, Obama sleeps like a baby, while millions wonder how they are going to pay their sky-high fuel bill next month.
Posted by: NeverEvermore at January 23, 2014 08:29 PM (dd5lM)
784
782 BC1981,
Go forth and sin no more was "do whatever the fuck you want"...
Just like love the sinner hate the sin means you know celebrate sin and treat the siiner as a better being than Jesus...
Xianity for Dummies
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:30 PM (TE35l)
785
And since you brought up Christianity, we are told also not to ignore the sins of our brothers and allow risk their damnation.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:31 PM (FtCW+)
786
How could it be that Jesus could both tell YOU to not sin, but also tell YOU to not cast stones of judgment...?
Hmmm...
Could it be that his words about sin are internal directives to you yourself, to improve YOURself and YOURself live a more sinfree life, and not, as you seem to take them, a general license to go on patrol for OTHER PEOPLE's Sins...?
Could that be it? Could it possibly be that Jesus was primarily interested in an internal quickening of the spirt, and his words were directed to each individual wh o heard them to patrol HIMSELF, while leaving the patroling of others' sins to God in Judgment?
Or is it that he was being wishy-washy and was both saying "don't judge" and also "by the way, do all the judging you like"?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:31 PM (/FnUH)
787
Can you reconcile Jesus' words? Or are they in contradiction?
Because I think I can reconcile them.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:28 AM (/FnUH)
It's an admonition against hypocrisy. Supported by other teachings and writings in the Bible. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "See to the timber in your own eye before worrying about the mote in your brother's." etc.
Also, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. He confirms through his own words that her behavior was wrong and he tells her to stop it.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:32 PM (GEICT)
788
but let's ignore the "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" and "Let him without sin cast the first stone."
Let's just look at the passages about judging and sinning, and go nuts with those, and then say our morality is premised on "Biblical Literalism."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:33 PM (/FnUH)
790
He confirms through his own words that her behavior was wrong and he tells her to stop it.
Now, you stop it Cochran.....that doesn't fit the narrative.
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:34 PM (bZG85)
791
BCochran,
that's right, Jesus, Son of God, told her to go and sin no more.
I don't see any point in that passage where he pulls a guy out of the crowd and says, "But YOU can judge, too, because you're really extra special good."
He seems to reserve that power for himself and God.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:34 PM (/FnUH)
792
Bchochran-
It's almost like that quote about without sin was about not you know actually stoning people to death.
It's almost like that quote about without sin was about not you know actually stoning people to death.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:34 PM (FtCW+)
793
and not, as you seem to take them, a general license to go on patrol for OTHER PEOPLE's Sins...?
Helluva straw man.
So saying that a behavior is wrong is going on patrol for other people's sins?
What? Am I kicking in bedroom doors or massage parlor curtains?
No, I'm not.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:34 PM (GEICT)
794
What...exactly...is the endgame with Let it Burn?
I see it repeated ad naseum.
I see people actively rooting for it.
What are you specifically rooting for?
Posted by: CAC at January 24, 2014 12:22 AM (slkfL)
Because they think that if we return to a tabula rasa that the default will be liberty.
The conditions that allow Liberty to thrive is rare throughout history. If it is lost now, we may never get it back.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:35 PM (XvHmy)
795
so we're just going to assume the statement means nearly nothing?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:35 PM (/FnUH)
796
785 Niedermeyer's DeadHorse,
I was allaying your fears for your besieged gay hairdresser's physical safety ma'am.
I've learned a lot this last half decade.
I aim to add my vote to your hairdresser's on h8 ma'am...it's the only noble thing I can do, further I aim to vote for the Lieawatha wing so he can find he doesn't really color your hair...*we* let him do that.
If people want to vote their groinal choices over business I am all over joining them...
Let's see what a fully empowered left looks like.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:36 PM (TE35l)
797
>>>So saying that a behavior is wrong is going on patrol for other people's sins?
What? Am I kicking in bedroom doors or massage parlor curtains?
...
no but I see this from a lot of Christians: A fairly vigorous defense of judging and shaming and how important that is to society.
But then I look at the Bible and Jesus doesn't seem to say that at all.
Jesus does say not to sin: But he stands as teacher to each hearer. JESUS is telling each not to sin. Jesus is not telling people generally that they shall be empowered to act as he has, as Teacher, and also tell people not to sin, and sit in judgment of them, and so forth.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:37 PM (/FnUH)
798
800 so we're just going to assume the statement means nearly nothing?
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:35 AM (/FnUH)
Of course not. Who the hell said that?
It's exactly what I said, an admonition against hypocrisy. It's a warning that we'll be judged in the same manner that we judge others. That the spotlight can and will be turned back on us.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:37 PM (GEICT)
799
And this is the problem with the Biblical defense:
Even if I accept the complete wisdom and beauty of Jesus' words--
NONE OF YOU IS JESUS!
I might accept HIS advice, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to accept YOURS.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (/FnUH)
800
I am more concerned with individual people than "society," a thing so amorphous and inhuman. I am tired of people on the left and right presuming to say what "society" might need.
No one knows what "society" needs, not really. We guess.
On the other hand we know what individual humans want, because they tell us.
I know some individual humans want to smoke pot because they said so, and because they do smoke pot.
So I'm going to be less inclined to follow your hunches about what might be best for "society" and go with the much firmer evidence I have, from firsthand expert accounts (everyone is an expert in his own preferences), and favor those.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:16 PM (/FnUH)
***********
History can tell you what is good for a society.
The trajectory of civilizations can be a good indicator.
That's why a lot of law is based on precedent and a gained body of knowledge over time can be referred to as--
traditional.
To veer widely away from that is vanity of a sort.
And that's sort of the definition of Conservatism--to be humble to the traditions of a society and the acquired knowledge of generations of people that have learned by experience before us and have made an effort to pass that on.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (RJMhd)
801
799 the political hat,
Maybe, who cares?
The *only* liberty that matters is groinal and intoxicant...
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Medical Krokodil
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (TE35l)
802
>>>It's exactly what I said, an admonition against hypocrisy. It's a warning that we'll be judged in the same manner that we judge others. That the spotlight can and will be turned back on us.
um... so what then? So judge away, or what...?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (/FnUH)
803
#786: Had those people sinned by stoning the alduteress, Jesus would've also forgiven them, after making a teachable moment out of the event through some other means. After all, he was just doodling in the dirt during the proceedings. How big a deal could it have been to him what they decided?
And, at any rate, don't forget what happened after the fact. The crowd dispersed, and the confused woman walked up to Jesus and asked, "So, what's to become of me, then?"
Without looking up from his doodling, he said, "You? Yeah, you can go on home, now. Oh, and stop sinning."
Don't you think "stop sinning" sounds a little bit like a judgement?
And, at any rate, don't forget what happened after the fact. The crowd dispersed, and the confused woman walked up to Jesus and asked, "So, what's to become of me, then?"
Without looking up from his doodling, he said, "You? Yeah, you can go on home, now. Oh, and stop sinning."
Don't you think "stop sinning" sounds a little bit like a judgement?
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (/96QU)
804
I believe we are called upon to help spread the word of God and you cannot hope to do so, to help to save a soul, while simultaneously offending and alienating the sinner.
I am a sinner and I know for a fact that pissing me off and calling me names would in no way endear me to someone.
Judgement, in my mind, means using discernment.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:38 PM (DmNpO)
805
776 What...exactly...is the endgame with Let it Burn?
I see it repeated ad naseum.
I see people actively rooting for it.
What are you specifically rooting for?
Posted by: CAC at January 24, 2014 12:22 AM (slkfL)
-------------
Good question, CAC.
I think that some believe that it will take a total collapse of everything, for people to realize how bad the policies were that caused it.
What worries me about that scenario...is it ignores the possibility of foreign opportunism to enter into the equation.
Would China, Russia, just sit back and watch while we get our shit together? ...And not seize the opportunity to take control of this vast territory and it's resource riches?
That's a big unknown.
And CAC...don't be so hard on yourself about the election stuff.
I thought you did great.
And I appreciate all that you did.
It's the pundits like Rush who were saying "Anyone can beat Obama" that did us a disservice.
I said at the time "I don't think that's true"...but we ended up with a primary from hell as a result of it, with people thinking they had a shot because everyone was saying 'anyone can beat Obama'.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 08:39 PM (Wq5le)
806
I don't know, Cochran. Seems to me Jesus said that only he was without sin was entitled to cast stones, but I see an awful lot of stone-casting, and then I hear "well Jesus didn't really literally mean that" followed by "But my beliefs are based on a literal reading of the Bible."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:40 PM (/FnUH)
807
no but I see this from a lot of Christians: A fairly vigorous defense of judging and shaming and how important that is to society.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:37 AM (/FnUH)
You keep saying this. Where? I've mentioned around here before that I've spent most of my life in and around churches. I went to a private Christian school for 14 years. I'm a member, and I work for, the church associated with that school.
Are there people who take the attitude that you're describing? That look down their noses and sport holier than thou attitudes? Of course there are. But you act like that's Christianity as a whole. And, in my experience, it's not.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:40 PM (GEICT)
808
NONE OF YOU IS JESUS!
I might accept HIS advice,
So, now you can only be wrong if Jesus tells you you are?
Not through thoughtful introspection?
Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 08:40 PM (bZG85)
809
>>>Don't you think "stop sinning" sounds a little bit like a judgement?
yes. From the Son of God-- He who was in fact without sin.
Are you the Son of God? Are you, like He, without sin?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:40 PM (/FnUH)
810
811 I don't know, Cochran. Seems to me Jesus said that only he was without sin was entitled to cast stones, but I see an awful lot of stone-casting, and then I hear "well Jesus didn't really literally mean that" followed by "But my beliefs are based on a literal reading of the Bible."
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:40 AM (/FnUH)
So judging a behavior, a behavior that is expressly condemned in the Bible, as wrong is the same as those men about to stone that woman?
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:42 PM (GEICT)
811
Hell, I'm not even doing the judging. God is. Or rather, He did.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:43 PM (GEICT)
812
Ace- the disconnect with Judging and Christianity is where the "judge" interacts with the sinner. First the "Judge" being himself a sinner, must come from a place of humility and love. That is tough since we are human.
Look, when people hold interventions for addicts are they not making a judgement that the addiction is bad? Then the approach the addict out of love and try to get them to change their behavior. That is what Christian Judgement is supposed to be.
Look, when people hold interventions for addicts are they not making a judgement that the addiction is bad? Then the approach the addict out of love and try to get them to change their behavior. That is what Christian Judgement is supposed to be.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:43 PM (FtCW+)
813
Ace, methinks that most of us here agree with you more than this thread may lead on.
After all, if we didn't, we wouldn't be here all the time.
Night all.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 23, 2014 08:44 PM (XvHmy)
814
Ace,
The implicit assumption here is that, whether the number is 10% or 15% or whatever, this is a burden the right owns solely. That's what everybody assumes, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Would the black community be more or less tolerant toward gays than the national average, in your opinion? Hispanics? White working class union types?
Hispanics are about twice as likely to vote for Democrats, yet the D's manage to hold the majority of both groups. Union workers close to the same. Blacks are about 20 times more likely to vote D, and they hold both Blacks and gay majorities. Dems manage to talk to Hispanics about immigration, and union workers about high paying low skilled jobs, and they hold both coalitions together while telling both sides things that are in a near direct conflict with each other.
What I am getting at, I guess, is that we on the right debate all these things fiercely, and pretend it matters a great deal. The left is able to have all kinds of obvious disconnects, and it goes mostly unchallenged, and it honestly sounds like a wonderful little setup for them.
I conclude that the obvious truth is the more uncomfortable one. People like the goodies from government more than anything. It's nice to pretend if only we all coalesced around a platform on gays, drugs, and other social issues we can turn things around. Maybe it's true, for a cycle, but more important is the fact that they don't have to make these impossible efforts. They have as many people that loathe gays as the right does, or at least it isn't a wipeout.
The real problem is that, long term, we're losing the big stuff, or at least the big stuff as far as I am concerned.
The implicit assumption here is that, whether the number is 10% or 15% or whatever, this is a burden the right owns solely. That's what everybody assumes, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Would the black community be more or less tolerant toward gays than the national average, in your opinion? Hispanics? White working class union types?
Hispanics are about twice as likely to vote for Democrats, yet the D's manage to hold the majority of both groups. Union workers close to the same. Blacks are about 20 times more likely to vote D, and they hold both Blacks and gay majorities. Dems manage to talk to Hispanics about immigration, and union workers about high paying low skilled jobs, and they hold both coalitions together while telling both sides things that are in a near direct conflict with each other.
What I am getting at, I guess, is that we on the right debate all these things fiercely, and pretend it matters a great deal. The left is able to have all kinds of obvious disconnects, and it goes mostly unchallenged, and it honestly sounds like a wonderful little setup for them.
I conclude that the obvious truth is the more uncomfortable one. People like the goodies from government more than anything. It's nice to pretend if only we all coalesced around a platform on gays, drugs, and other social issues we can turn things around. Maybe it's true, for a cycle, but more important is the fact that they don't have to make these impossible efforts. They have as many people that loathe gays as the right does, or at least it isn't a wipeout.
The real problem is that, long term, we're losing the big stuff, or at least the big stuff as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: Dave S. at January 23, 2014 08:44 PM (UvR6d)
815
>>> But you act like that's Christianity as a whole. And, in my experience, it's not.
um, who is acting that way?
Again, if I criticize two or three Christians I'm currently arguing with, it is alway asserted "you're saying that about all Christians."
When the heck did I start making "All christians are this way" statements? Because I don't seem to remember doing so.
But yes I hear this a lot. All Christians? No. NDH isn't saying it (though she preserves some wiggle room on judgment which I don't think can be found in the text).
But yes, Christians keep telling me that it's their obligation as Christians to speak up for and enforce certain rules they find in the Bible. And sometimes these rules are best enforced with judging/shaming behavior (as regards behavior which they wish to discourage but not penalize with jail).
This is common. This is how all this heavy judging is justified.
You're denying this?
At what point do I get to talk to real person here? I know there is one; when do I get to meet him?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:44 PM (/FnUH)
816
I now find myself in tears because I realize that ace has been reading the Bible and is truly seeking to understand.
We all struggle and we all ask questions.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:45 PM (DmNpO)
817
776 CAC,
Why the fuck do any of us need to be the grown-up?
Chi-Jesus got elected on a PBS Kids Slogan...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:45 PM (TE35l)
818
Rand Paul is a freakin' idiot who has never run anything larger than his Senate office and is not qualified to be President by any stretch of imagination. Once the Republican base becomes familiar with his ostrich approach to foreign policy and his lack of concern about Iranian nukes, he won't win a single primary - although he might win the Iowa caucuses because they are a stupid waste of time (and have nothing to do with winning the nomination, or even a majority of the Iowa delegates).
Posted by: Adjoran at January 23, 2014 08:46 PM (473jB)
819
>>>So judging a behavior, a behavior that is expressly condemned in the Bible, as wrong is the same as those men about to stone that woman?
that's how I read it. But then again, I'm a Biblical literalist.
Unlike some Cafeteria Christians, I don't pick and choose which passages I choose to believe.
Sorry for the snark, I couldn't resist.
But the point is right on: You can't be a Biblical literalist and then rely on a bunch of human-invented argumentation and escape-clauses to ignore a fairly clear and direct statement by Christ himself.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:47 PM (/FnUH)
820
At what point do I get to talk to real person here? I know there is one; when do I get to meet him?
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 12:44 AM (/FnUH)
You know what, I'm all done here. I thought we had moved beyond petty bullshit into an actual debate and conversation. Guess I was wrong. Since I have to get up in 5 hours, there's no point in continuing this conversation.
Good night ace. Good luck and Godspeed.
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at January 23, 2014 08:47 PM (GEICT)
821
N>>>ONE OF YOU IS JESUS!
I might accept HIS advice, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to accept YOURS.
Did I miss the announcement that pot was now legal in New York?
You have dismissed the bible entirely outside of the few quotes you believe mean that no one can ever make anyone else feel bad.
I might accept HIS advice, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to accept YOURS.
Did I miss the announcement that pot was now legal in New York?
You have dismissed the bible entirely outside of the few quotes you believe mean that no one can ever make anyone else feel bad.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:48 PM (FtCW+)
822
#814: He still declared what she did a sin. Should we not follow his example?
Oh, and we may not be the Son of God the way he was, but we're all still God's children.
As others mentioned, "judge not, lest ye be judged" doesn't mean "don't judge, period." It means, "If you're going to judge someone, be prepared to be judged in a similar way yourself." In other words, don't be a hypocrite.
Also, you can both judge and forgive. At the same time, even!
Oh, and we may not be the Son of God the way he was, but we're all still God's children.
As others mentioned, "judge not, lest ye be judged" doesn't mean "don't judge, period." It means, "If you're going to judge someone, be prepared to be judged in a similar way yourself." In other words, don't be a hypocrite.
Also, you can both judge and forgive. At the same time, even!
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 08:48 PM (/96QU)
823
I conclude that the obvious truth is the more uncomfortable one. People like the goodies from government more than anything. It's nice to pretend if only we all coalesced around a platform on gays, drugs, and other social issues we can turn things around. Maybe it's true, for a cycle, but more important is the fact that they don't have to make these impossible efforts. They have as many people that loathe gays as the right does, or at least it isn't a wipeout.
*******
So you actually read the Prop 8 exit polls.
Ya--it wasn't all of those Mormons in California that passed it.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 08:49 PM (RJMhd)
824
"But my beliefs are based on a literal reading of the Bible."
Said the guy who mixed his metaphorical stones into his literal argument.
Said the guy who mixed his metaphorical stones into his literal argument.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 23, 2014 08:49 PM (FtCW+)
826
Ace, that passage in the Bible has been around for hundreds of years. I am quite certain there's a lot of theological writings and study on that passage that places it in context with the rest of the faith's teachings.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 23, 2014 08:53 PM (9GG/0)
827
821 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse,
Maybe, it's his business. I fail to see how civil union advocacy was stoning the sinner...
Maybe I misread my advocacy?
810 Wheatie,
I hope a culture willing to USE these fucking resources DOES take our plave the EPA/AGW cult is an attack on the world's poor and our nation is unworthy of our wealth.
If I am to live in a cocksucking Marxist Shithole at least let it be one that works us to death.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (TE35l)
828
But yes I hear this a lot. All Christians? No. NDH isn't saying it (though she preserves some wiggle room on judgment which I don't think can be found in the text).
***
It's because I cannot proclaim to know it all and after a lifetime of being a Christian, I confess to not being as well-read in Scripture as I should be.
As a human, it feels normal to pass judgement on those who are different from ourselves. It's probably some sort of defense mechanism. But, I believe it's harmful and destructive for the most part. It divides people instead of bringing them together.
One can judge another to be a sinner, but one cannot condemn the other for that sin.
This is the impression left on my heart by a childhood filled with Sunday services and of being raised in part by a Christian, Southern grandmother.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (DmNpO)
829
>>>I conclude that the obvious truth is the more uncomfortable one. People like the goodies from government more than anything. It's nice to pretend if only we all coalesced around a platform on gays, drugs, and other social issues we can turn things around. Maybe it's true, for a cycle, but more important is the fact that they don't have to make these impossible efforts.
also probably true. I never said we couldn't be doomed in three or four different ways.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:54 PM (/FnUH)
830
I'd like to see a definition of what it is to be a SoCon. I might be one, or maybe not, I can't tell. I am against the idea of most abortions, much more so the further along the pregnancy is. It is not because of what the bible (or the constitution, for that matter) says. I am also not someone who thinks I need to control women's bodies. But, I do not like the idea of killing babies. This is regardless of who comes out ahead politically. Just don't kill babies.
I am also not thrilled by being around openly homosexual people (especially homosexual men). But, I have no desire for them to be shunned or otherwise harmed. I just don't care to be around the behavior.
Does that make me a SoCon?
I am also not thrilled by being around openly homosexual people (especially homosexual men). But, I have no desire for them to be shunned or otherwise harmed. I just don't care to be around the behavior.
Does that make me a SoCon?
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 23, 2014 08:55 PM (IN7k+)
832
The last virtue of a decaying society is tolerance and oh how we've decayed.
Night all....
Have fun storming the castles.
Night all....
Have fun storming the castles.
Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 08:58 PM (Xkr8I)
833
823 adjoran,
Uh "yeah" Obama is givong Iran the time to get nukes while acting ad Islam's air wing and not getting punished by voters...
A sane America has sailed, get ypur SPF 1750.
We're eating a candle in the next 12-20years and it's what America wants I guess.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 08:58 PM (TE35l)
834
>>>As a human, it feels normal to pass judgement on those who are different from ourselves. It's probably some sort of defense mechanism. But, I believe it's harmful and destructive for the most part. It divides people instead of bringing them together.
dingdingding
>>>One can judge another to be a sinner, but one cannot condemn the other for that sin.
How about "observe that one is a sinner," rather than judge?
The dingdingding thing is because you're getting at what should be obvious to most people: Judging feels GOOD.
You said it feels "normal." No. It feels GOOD.
Why do I blog? I JUDGE people. I critique them. Why? Because it feels GOOD.
In fact, it feels SO good, that Christ is warning us away from it.
When we do things that feel pleasing to us (it's not a defense mechanism, by the way; it's an ego-boosting mechanism: He who would presume to judge another by necessity sits in a higher chair), we can make up all sorts of reasons to justify it.
Every time I have a cigarette I make up a little excuse why this cigarette is okay.
Christ is warning us away from judgment for the exact reason that people LIKE IT TOO MUCH, to the point of cruelty, to the point of making the world unlivable for other people.
And rather than ponder Christ's words, too many people are trying to explain them away and say "Nah, Christ didn't really mean that. He *wants* us to judge, even though he said exactly the opposite."
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 08:59 PM (/FnUH)
835
>>>I'd like to see a definition of what it is to be a SoCon. I might be one, or maybe not, I can't tell. I am against the idea of most abortions, much more so the further along the pregnancy is. It is not because of what the bible (or the constitution, for that matter) says. I am also not someone who thinks I need to control women's bodies. But, I do not like the idea of killing babies. This is regardless of who comes out ahead politically. Just don't kill babies.
I am also not thrilled by being around openly homosexual people (especially homosexual men). But, I have no desire for them to be shunned or otherwise harmed. I just don't care to be around the behavior.
Does that make me a SoCon?
...
yup. The truth is that I'm a socon too.
We are arguing here basically in D&D terms about a 7th level socon versus a 14th ("name") level socon.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:00 PM (/FnUH)
836
835...Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 24, 2014 12:55 AM (IN7k+)
I'm not sure if I'm a SoCon either.
I think I am...but then, I stop short at the idea of being a preachy control freak who wants to ban all things.
Let the Lefty progs be that.
I don't want to be that.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 09:02 PM (Wq5le)
837
yup. The truth is that I'm a socon too.
*****
And I'm not.
wtf?
I feel dizzy.
Think I'm going to go drink.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 09:03 PM (RJMhd)
838
>>>And I'm not.
i think most conservative-leaning people are probably at least 4th level socons.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:03 PM (/FnUH)
839
836 typo dynamofo,
I'm a clockwork Deist myself...
It's all good...we all need our woobies and as a Xian after a fashion how can I judge the Democrats?
They have Reverands like Jerry zwright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson....
Plus Reverend Barack Obama who prays to the Xian God really privately, and celebrates Muslim holidays with Presidentin' Proclamtions aplenty.
Happy Ramafan y'all
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:04 PM (TE35l)
840
Christ is warning us away from judgment for the exact reason that people LIKE IT TOO MUCH, to the point of cruelty, to the point of making the world unlivable for other people.
****
You're right. It does feel good. (ugh)
I admit it, though it feels awful to do so. Yet, if it didn't feel good, at least a little, I wouldn't have been on twitter slamming some football player about whom I know relatively little.
Ugh.
UGH!
Damn. I now judge myself.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:04 PM (DmNpO)
841
>>>
I admit it, though it feels awful to do so. Yet, if it didn't feel good, at least a little, I wouldn't have been on twitter slamming some football player about whom I know relatively little.
of course it feels good.
Read that book on altruistic punishment. it's all about this.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:05 PM (/FnUH)
842
people don't spend their off hours engaging in activity they don't find pleasurable.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:06 PM (/FnUH)
844
Damn! Before I can figure out how much of a SoCon I am, first I have to take up DD.
***
Me too!
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:07 PM (DmNpO)
845
I'm only a 3rd level socon, but my +8 Mace of Righteous Judgement puts me on par with any 6th level.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 09:08 PM (3a584)
846
Ace...
I think that Perry could rehabilitate his image, if he wants to.
He's got a lot of charisma and good looks going for him.
Which is no small thing in this current age of politics.
He needs to say things like:
"People say I'm not smart? I don't think that borrowing ourselves into bankruptcy is very smart...but what do I know."
"At least I know that a corpsman is not the same as a corpseman."
You know, stuff like that. Humor.
It could work.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 09:09 PM (Wq5le)
847
Despite the heated tempers I believe these are good and productive discussions and I am grateful to Ace for providing the forum for them, and more so for his participation in them.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:09 PM (DmNpO)
848
837 Kreplach,
Let the moonbats send their kids to aid Islam..
This gun's retired.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:09 PM (TE35l)
849
843 >>>And I'm not.
i think most conservative-leaning people are probably at least 4th level socons.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 01:03 AM (/FnUH)
*********
Hmmm... I think I have an extreme amount of empathy for their arguments and positions but--I might be a 10th level SoCon.
It's really damn low on my priority list.
I have a problem because I can see both sides of an argument most of the time.
It could be Frwanch thang.
Anyways--I'm kind of shocked.
Off to ponder.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 09:09 PM (RJMhd)
850
#839: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" doesn't mean just "Just not." It means, "Be careful about judging, because you may not want someone else to judge you by the same standards."
It means, don't be a hypocrite, and try to be forgiving while you're at it.
I'm not a murderer, myself, so I'm totally comfortable with the idea of sending a murderer to the electric chair. Not merely to punish him, but to grant closure to his victim's loved ones and to send a message to others who are sort of on the fence about murdering someone who annoys them.
Take a sin I have committed, though, or that I think I might commit under the right circumstances, and I'm much less inclined to push for a severe penalty.
It means, don't be a hypocrite, and try to be forgiving while you're at it.
I'm not a murderer, myself, so I'm totally comfortable with the idea of sending a murderer to the electric chair. Not merely to punish him, but to grant closure to his victim's loved ones and to send a message to others who are sort of on the fence about murdering someone who annoys them.
Take a sin I have committed, though, or that I think I might commit under the right circumstances, and I'm much less inclined to push for a severe penalty.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 09:10 PM (/96QU)
851
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2014 01:09 AM (Wq5le)
***
I think the perception of him as not very smart could actually be an advantage. The press will not focus as much on the candidate they deem the lesser threat.
The Dems may not see him coming.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:11 PM (DmNpO)
852
Oh I know what it is--
my first priority has me like Richard Gere in
An Officer and a gentleman--
I got no place else to go!!!
*cries in the mud puddle*
(And now I'm really off.)
Rand Paul wins I am the fuck out no joke.
Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 09:11 PM (RJMhd)
854
Take a sin I have committed, though, or that I think I might commit under the right circumstances, and I'm much less inclined to push for a severe penalty.
Take a sin I have committed, though, or that I think I might commit under the right circumstances, and I'm much less inclined to push for a severe penalty.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 24, 2014 01:10 AM (/96QU)
-----
To your point, I'm still chapped at Frist for pushing through the mechanism to ban online poker. It might have been a sin, but it was a profitable one.
Posted by: Dave S. at January 23, 2014 09:13 PM (UvR6d)
855
>>>#839: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" doesn't mean just "Just not." It means, "Be careful about judging, because you may not want someone else to judge you by the same standards."
what does "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" mean? Is it just about stoning? That's the extent of the message? Don't literally stone people?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:14 PM (/FnUH)
857
>>>Take a sin I have committed, though, or that I
think I might commit under the right circumstances, and I'm much less
inclined to push for a severe penalty.
so because you're (presumably) not gay and have no desire to commit a homosexual act, you're doubly empowered to judge people for sins you've never once been tempted by (and therefore have shown no virtue or self-restraint in avoiding)?
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:15 PM (/FnUH)
858
I think the problem that some have is what I like to call "Evangelist Asshole Syndrome." (I am not saying all those who evangelize are assholes, just a subset. Another term would be "Scold."
I am Roman Catholic. Have been all my life. I have never really gone in for evangelism because it just never seemed to be something that was necessary. My grandfather was the best man I have ever known. I learned a lot about being a man and a good Catholic from him. But he never told me anything about these things. He lived them and I tried to follow his example.
Now what is the point of evangelism? To save people from sin. What is sin? It is spiritual damage by the sinner which separates them from God. God does not damn people, they do it themselves. So evangelists try to save people by leading them to God and healing said damage.
However, where most people get lost in the weeds is they cross the line from evangelist to scold. No one likes a scold. No one likes to be told that god hates them or what they do. It taints the message. It taints what the evangelist is at least nominally trying to do- save people.
I have always found that the best thing one can do, is live by example. Do the right thing (and Yes, this includes Judgment.) If someone asks, try to explain why something is right or wrong. However, offering out of the blue often gets you nowhere. "The wise man listens while the fool talks endlessly."
Now Ace is right. We do need to tighten up our messaging. However, there will always be people who slip when asked a question when they should have had a response waiting (I am talking about guys like the guy in Indiana or even Palin.) These are the big leagues which means we have to choose carefully who we put forth as candidates.
If someone screws up like Ms. Palin on the newspaper question or the guy in Indiana on the abortion question, it does not make them bad people, it just means they are not ready for the big leagues.
Anyway, that is my two cents after waffling for a while on whether or not I wanted to put my two cents in.
We are all in this together. So everyone, cut each other some slack.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at January 23, 2014 09:16 PM (TGgNi)
859
852 Despite the heated tempers I believe these are good and productive discussions and I am grateful to Ace for providing the forum for them, and more so for his participation in them.
----------
This!
And hear, hear, NDH.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 09:16 PM (Wq5le)
860
#860: Some of the guys in that crowd had lain with the adulteress themselves. Others had lain with other adulteresses.
To throw stones at her for her sins, just because she was down on her luck right then, would've been the height of hypocrisy.
Jesus knew this, and told them so. Without even looking up from his doodling in the dirt. And they got what he was saying, so they just went home.
To throw stones at her for her sins, just because she was down on her luck right then, would've been the height of hypocrisy.
Jesus knew this, and told them so. Without even looking up from his doodling in the dirt. And they got what he was saying, so they just went home.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 09:18 PM (/96QU)
861
@860
You seem to be under the notion that Christs message was anything goes and that there was no judgement to be meeted out on the earthly plane.
If you believe that maybe you should just through away your bible as you seem to have stopped reading it at Matthew 7:1.
You seem to be under the notion that Christs message was anything goes and that there was no judgement to be meeted out on the earthly plane.
If you believe that maybe you should just through away your bible as you seem to have stopped reading it at Matthew 7:1.
Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 09:18 PM (Xkr8I)
862
>>> No one likes to be told that god hates them or what they do. It taints the message. It taints what the evangelist is at least nominally trying to do- save people.
I have no idea how the most important requirement of a Christian, to spread the word of Christ's salvation, is in any way compatible with an opening salvo of judgment.
People seem to be elevating a less important thing (which may not even be permitted at all!) over what seems to me to be clearly the most important part of the book.
And so I reject the defense that "I have to do this, I'm a Christian." Actually, if you were obeying the religion to the letter, your first obligation would be to a Fisher of Men, not a judge of them.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:19 PM (/FnUH)
863
>>>You seem to be under the notion that Christs message was anything goes and that there was no judgement to be meeted out on the earthly plane.
no what I seem to be saying is that Christ's message to each who would hear is not to sin, but that is not the same as YOU getting to tell people not to sin.
In that way "Go and sin no more" and "Let him who is without sin..." are harmonized, while both remain fully true.
Your method of harmonizing them is to simply say that the latter ("Let him...") isn't fully operative, and is sort of a mistake.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:20 PM (/FnUH)
864
#862: Did you see the couple of places where I said I don't think it's my place to enforce mala prohibitum laws, even though I approve of the general trends that they promote?
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 09:22 PM (/96QU)
865
852 Niedermeyer's dead horse,
Maybe, in the end I am not ill-tempered at Ace & I am accepting America is not bothered by Obama's tyranny.
Every victim has an excuse on why they can't vote GOP, well my excuse for voting Donk is contrition and a desire for absolution.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:23 PM (TE35l)
866
Kreplach, let me tell you something:
I don't know the Bible very well but I do know people.
And I know people will seize on any pretext they can use to justify vanity and self-elevation, and cruelty and denigration of others.
I know Christ is warning people away from judgment, and I know you are pushing for the idea that Christ didn't quite mean that.
And I do understand why.
Because judging is fun. Cruelty -- mark my words; I know about this -- cruelty is enjoyable.
That is the human condition. We do in fact delight in the downfall of others.
If you want to read Christ's words as not *restraining* a self-elevating, self-flattering, cruel act of vanity, but rather encouraging it, well, okay.
But it rather seems to me that someone who is either a Man who is a Great Philosopher or the literal Son of God and Sum of Creation would probably be saying something about self-restraint in areas of vanity and cruelty, not encouragement of such things.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:25 PM (/FnUH)
867
@868
But he also said cast out the beam from your own eye and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote of your brothers eye.
Which to me would suggest that first you stop sinning then tell your brother to knock it off as well.
Christ commands us to be judgey. Just don't be a hypocrite about it.
But he also said cast out the beam from your own eye and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote of your brothers eye.
Which to me would suggest that first you stop sinning then tell your brother to knock it off as well.
Christ commands us to be judgey. Just don't be a hypocrite about it.
Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 09:26 PM (Xkr8I)
868
the people who claim to be literalists seem to be pretty casual about their literal reading of the Bible, glibly discounting things like...
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
... in order to come back to what it is they enjoy doing, looking at the motes in their brothers' eyes.
The "literalists" keep telling me that Jesus' own words -- not Paul's or some other apostle's, but Jesus' own words -- can't quite be taken literally without a whole bunch of Human-Crafted Limitations and Escape Clauses.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:29 PM (/FnUH)
869
>>>>But he also said cast out the beam from your own eye and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote of your brothers eye.
and you've done that then, huh? Now you're all set?
>>>Christ commands us to be judgey. Just don't be a hypocrite about it.
Mm-hm. I guess this is the part where you need Human Explanations to explain to you that Christ didn't mean what Christ actually said.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:30 PM (/FnUH)
870
863 Aetius,
Heh.okay.
The media and some of "us" add or subtract words from "our" side as needed to Akinize them....the gop won't attack the bias or the corrupt carnivorous civil service.... forgive me for wanting absolved of my GOP sins....
,Hillarry! 2016-why not?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:31 PM (TE35l)
871
>> Did you see the couple of places where I said I don't think it's my place to enforce mala prohibitum laws, even though I approve of the general trends that they promote?
i did but it was a while ago.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:31 PM (/FnUH)
872
Which to me would suggest that first you stop sinning then tell your brother to knock it off as well.
Christ commands us to be judgey. Just don't be a hypocrite about it.
***
Except that we are, inherently, sinners at heart. We all sin, thus casting out our own beam before starting in on our brother might take a while.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:31 PM (DmNpO)
873
Damn Sven, I generally consider myself a somewhat intelligent person but, occasionally, your comments look like snark and I am left to wonder whether they are serious or not.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:33 PM (DmNpO)
874
>>>Christ commands us to be judgey. Just don't be a hypocrite about it.
so once again we seem to have an argument that as long as you're not indulging in a specific sin, you can gouge at the mote in thy brother's eye, if he's involved in that sin.
If your sin is straight porn, but not gay sex, you can get on gays about gay sex, because then you're not a hypocrite.
No one straights love talking about the sin of gay sex. It's the one sin they're not tempted by and don't indulge in. So they have free reins to judge on that score.
What a cramped, stupid way to read a great book.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:34 PM (/FnUH)
876
875
Yes, and they will always do so- that is who they are. All we can do is push back when they pull something shady.
By the same token, when someone like Akin says something boneheaded, we have to be able to shake our heads and say "He is a dumbass..." and not try to defend the indefensible.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at January 23, 2014 09:35 PM (TGgNi)
877
I meant:
No WONDER straights love talking about the sin of gay sex. It's the one sin they're not tempted by and don't indulge in. So they have free reins to judge on that score.
What a cramped, stupid way to read a great book.
...
It seems strange to me that a great work of philosophy would encourage a lot of easy behavior (like judging others) instead of tough things (like improving oneself, restraining from judgment (which is a fun thing, so restraint is the hard thing)), but I guess people will read any text and take from it what they want to take from it.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:36 PM (/FnUH)
878
877 Niedermeyer's dead horse,
Except the moneychangers. I guess they weren't on the "sin as often as you want &take your time working it out" calling plan?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:37 PM (TE35l)
879
Damn Sven, I generally consider myself a somewhat
intelligent person but, occasionally, your comments look like snark and I
am left to wonder whether they are serious or not.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2014 01:33 AM (DmNpO)
-----
Think he wants us to know he's going to vote democrat. If I'm struggling with a particular post, that is my default assumption.
I'm more of a lurker than poster usually, but this was good to read through. Good night all.
Posted by: Dave S. at January 23, 2014 09:37 PM (UvR6d)
880
>>>@874
Yeah, pretty much.
...
awesome. Good for you.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:37 PM (/FnUH)
881
871...That is the human condition. We do in fact delight in the downfall of others.
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2014 01:25 AM (/FnUH)
-------------
In the case of bullies and tyrants...yes...I confess that I delight in their downfall.
Or the prospect of it.
People who have done me no harm? ...No. I don't delight in their downfall.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 09:38 PM (Wq5le)
882
In the case of bullies and tyrants...yes...I confess that I delight in their downfall.
Or the prospect of it.
People who have done me no harm? ...No. I don't delight in their downfall.
***
You're a good person Wheatie and I, for the most part consider myself a good person too. (Don't we all?) but if I am willing to get really uncomfortable and think about it, yeah....
I mean, what harm has Justin Bieber done to me personally? What harm has Kim Kardashian done to me personally? Yet, for as little as I know about them, I poke at them regularly.
It's ugly, but it's the truth.
Sometimes I HATE the truth.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 09:42 PM (DmNpO)
883
#876: Well, there's your answer to that question, Ace. Law of God or law of man, I don't really care what other people do. But if you do actual harm to someone who isn't a "consenting adult" or a "willing victim," I'm all for severe punishment.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 09:45 PM (/96QU)
884
There was a great quote from TPOTC that Ace saying something about difficulty sparked a memory of:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your countryman and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward is there in that?"
Posted by: Aetius451AD at January 23, 2014 09:46 PM (TGgNi)
885
878 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse,
Which ones?
They pass amnesty I am stone cold serious I will do everything in my power to pay back every GOP rank-breaking cookie grab in spades.
25 years devotion to party with one political favor ever called in and that was to aid wife in deploying to Iraq NDH.
Obviously the GOP agrees I am a horrid oppressor, and to cleanse my sins I need amnesty and Donk holy water.
If Sandy Fluck wants Hillary! Who am I to get in the way? The only way to win the game of media is to be a democrat.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:47 PM (TE35l)
886
I'm no theologian, but even if ace is right on the no judgy stuff, the
Bible still does say that sodomy and whoring around and whatnot is
sinful behavior.
Even if all Christians were all to adopt a "hey man, Bible says its wrong but who am I to judge?" attitude, I just don't think it will be enough to placate the gay Left. I think they'd still push for social and legal censorship as in Canada, but maybe I'm just not trusting enough of their intentions.
Even if all Christians were all to adopt a "hey man, Bible says its wrong but who am I to judge?" attitude, I just don't think it will be enough to placate the gay Left. I think they'd still push for social and legal censorship as in Canada, but maybe I'm just not trusting enough of their intentions.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 09:48 PM (3a584)
887
>>> I'm no theologian, but even if ace is right on the no judgy stuff, the
Bible still does say that sodomy and whoring around and whatnot is
sinful behavior.
Well Christ doesn't say anything about either of those, though the Bible does.
Even so: Is the Bible a book setting you on a path on an INWARD journey, where you yourself are to purge yourself of sin and be more akin to Christ, or is primarily, as some seem to suggest, a book telling you to go OUTWARD and try to change other people's sinful behaviors?
I see Christ doing two things: Telling people not to judge or look for the mote in thy brother's eye, and to judge not, and then telling people, from his own mouth, "Go and sin no more."
I see Christ commanding people not to sin-- I do not see him giving them the go-ahead to begin judging or telling people that they should go and sin no more.
When he even suggests something like that, which he really doesn't, it's either "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (there are none without sin, and the crowd departs) or take care of your own beam first before looking at your brother's, hypocrite-- and since no one is ever without sin, I do not see how people believe they have attained the sin-free state entitling them to move on to part 2 of this passage. They seem to be in a rush to get on to the judging part.
Which is more fun.
Judging oneself is not fun.
Judging others is hellafun.
Are people really claiming that what is either, for a secularist, a work of great moral philosophy, or is, to a believer, the divinely inspired Holy Book, is telling them to go out and do the things that are FUN and not bother with the things that are not fun?
Incredible.
I would never have gotten there.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:54 PM (/FnUH)
888
>>>Even if all Christians were all to adopt a "hey man,
Bible says its wrong but who am I to judge?" attitude, I just don't think
it will be enough to placate the gay Left.
it's ultimately not really about them you know.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:56 PM (/FnUH)
889
>>>I mean, what harm has Justin Bieber done to me personally? What harm has Kim Kardashian done to me personally? Yet, for as little as I know about them, I poke at them regularly.
it's human nature. Vanity is built into us. It is part of our survival instinct. That which is without ego withers and dies.
Judging is built into us too. And judging actually has, apart from any divine provenance, a useful evolutionary function. (It permits human cooperation, if you can believe that -- this "altruistic punishment" thing is a really neat phenomenon. It has both an upside and a downside.)
But these things can be taken too far. No one can avoid vanity, and no one can avoid judging. But that's not license to indulge in them, either.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:58 PM (/FnUH)
890
881 aetius,,
No that's not all we can do.
Evidently we can break ranks and get our shiny whatever that is...
The clear lesson of the evening is "go the fuck away SoCons" and in being so liberated SoCons can now finally go to the "designated heroes" camp.
I vote for Barack Obama because "freedom."
Sure that is absolutely stone dead retarded, but the mutually exclusive coalition of the batfuck crazy seems happy with power for its own sake.
I can stay GOP and not get any of my personal preferences like the economy addressed, OR I can join the Democrats and not get my concerns addressed.
Looks to me like I am not getting my concerns addressed, BUT I can have a fawning cocksucker media one way versus being their target the other and empower the implosion's timeline to arrive more rapidly.
From a simple economy of vote standpoint why would I waste my vote on a supine butt thrust GOP other than 23 yrars of inertia?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 09:59 PM (TE35l)
893
I get what you mean on the judgement stuff ace, I don't disagree with you either. I'm agnostic, don't give a shit about gays as long as they aren't in my face about it. I just don't see how this can be reconciled with the actual words of the Bible. We'd have to jettison Christian ideology from the party or white out the parts of the Bible that make people uncomfortable.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 10:08 PM (3a584)
894
(It permits human cooperation, if you can believe that -- this "altruistic punishment" thing is a really neat phenomenon. It has both an upside and a downside.)
***
I really must ask what book you read.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 10:12 PM (DmNpO)
895
"Trial By Fury," it's an amazon short book, it's like $1.99.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:14 PM (/FnUH)
896
894 Ace,
Yup we have harmed Bieber and Kardasian and they have not injected themselves intoi our political lives with advocacy......
I've been on the nook or droid all day but today I tweet contrition to Bieber.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 10:15 PM (TE35l)
897
"Trial By Fury," it's an amazon short book, it's like $1.99.
***
Thanks. Do you remember the name of the author? I am seeing several books by that title on Amazon.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 10:18 PM (DmNpO)
898
898 mugiwara,
I think we're soaking in the answer.
Lawfare, and media warfare.
Nothing will be done by the GOP, so use your Arec Borwin, "but I'm a democrat! Get iff the hook free card...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 10:20 PM (TE35l)
899
>>>hanks. Do you remember the name of the author? I am seeing several books by that title on Amazon.
douglas preston.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:20 PM (/FnUH)
900
Yup we have harmed Bieber and Kardasian and they have not injected themselves intoi our political lives with advocacy......
I've been on the nook or droid all day but today I tweet contrition to Bieber.
***
the Bieber and Kardashian comment started with me.
They may be PITAs who are in our faces but I don't answer for that. I have to answer for how I react to them and, at present, my actions have been to mock and to judge.
Of course, I am weak, so the mocking is likely to continue.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 10:21 PM (DmNpO)
901
#901: Oddly, Bieber has previously jumped into the political debate... as a conservative.
He's a pro-life Catholic, and the last time he acted up he was making fun of Bill Clinton.
I can't support him in this recent DUI thing, though. That's really not cool.
He's a pro-life Catholic, and the last time he acted up he was making fun of Bill Clinton.
I can't support him in this recent DUI thing, though. That's really not cool.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at January 23, 2014 10:22 PM (/96QU)
902
I know what you mean sven. Party membership certainly has its perks in the single party state.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 23, 2014 10:23 PM (3a584)
903
Found it. I guess I'm going to have to unbox that Kindle in the closet.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 10:24 PM (DmNpO)
904
897 aetius,
No I'm pretty sure tonight's hairshirt was not a "yay SoCons" event prize.
The "right thing" requires the gop being a choice not an echo.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 10:29 PM (TE35l)
905
905 NDH
906 Prob Warbler,
Right Conservative Pro-Life Justin Bieber who uh...sucked Obama's putter two cycles last I checked.
It's all good I'll confess my sin and tell him I'ma gonna work on repealing the 22d Amendment and vote "d"...it'll all be good.
Remember *I* an the extremist on social issues...not "Closet Baby" Obama.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 10:38 PM (TE35l)
907
What an ONT!
Does anyone here agree on anything but not electing Hillary? Right now she's the top, let's work to knock her out, not other Reps.
Talk about a circular firing squad. I'm voting for the next candidate that best expresses my views.
MFers, stop shooting at each other!@
Posted by: The Farmer at January 23, 2014 10:41 PM (eBupg)
908
I can't believe I am gonna be in the top ten based on one evening.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 10:44 PM (TE35l)
909
912 the farmer,
I agree the GOP is counting on your sentiment.
I am gonna go with "Reagan" like choice according to George Snuffalupagus, and make celebs happy.
Hillary! 2016, why change horses mid-apocalypse?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 10:50 PM (TE35l)
910
912 the farmer,
I agree the GOP is counting on your sentiment.
I am gonna go with "Reagan" like choice according to George Snuffalupagus, and make celebs happy.
Hillary! 2016, why change horses mid-apocalypse?
I'm cornfused by your response. who do you favor at this point?
Posted by: The Farmer at January 23, 2014 11:04 PM (eBupg)
911
Wake up and the thread is still going? I guess the bodies have not hit the floor yet.
Posted by: GMB 15x ONT thread killer at January 23, 2014 11:10 PM (nkPV9)
912
915 The Farmer,
If/when the GOP passes Amigo Grande?
Hillary! Clinton, it's been explained very carefully she is the safe conservative decision.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:13 PM (TE35l)
913
915 The Farmer,
If/when the GOP passes Amigo Grande?
Hillary! Clinton, it's been explained very carefully she is the safe conservative decision.
Posted by: sven10077
No way is the House actually gonna pass amnesty.
I think Boehner is a POS, but he's not gonna go that far. Too many good conservatives in the house will stop that. Call me an optimist
Posted by: The Farmer at January 23, 2014 11:20 PM (eBupg)
914
916 GMB 15x ONT,
Byproduct of unhealthy socon living...
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:21 PM (TE35l)
915
918 The Farmer,
Don't bet the baby's shoe money on it.
I'm not.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:27 PM (TE35l)
917
The Farmer,
Don't bet the baby's shoe money on it.
I'm not.
Posted by: sven10077
I'll agree on that, I'm not either.
But I need some hope when it's -5 in N IL. Keep well where you are at.
Posted by: The Farmer at January 23, 2014 11:48 PM (eBupg)
918
922 The Farmer at January 24, 2014 03:48 AM (eBupg)
The GOP refuses to engage the democrats on vulnerable points this tells me that they agree with Schumer Obama Reid and Pelosi's agenda...
The GOP refuses to engage the democrats on vulnerable points this tells me that they agree with Schumer Obama Reid and Pelosi's agenda...
Posted by: Sven 10077 at January 24, 2014 02:26 AM (TE35l)
919
With all due respect to ace and other non SoCons, the Republican Party is not going to nominate a pro-choice candidate. (BTW, if you were looking for one, Rand wouldn't be your guy, anyway). The base feels strongly enough about this issue that they won't hesitate to take their ball and go home. I'd say the same for gay marriage but I think that issue is more in flux, especially amongst younger voters that I don't really know.
I'm not a pro-life activist because I find protesting outside abortion clinics distasteful and I could really give a rat's ass if women who have abortions ever forgive themselves for what they've done. I'm not the sort of person who should be talking to them anyway. All I'm looking for out of a pro-life candidate is to not make steps towards legalizing infanticide, to respect my free speech rights, and to keep me from involuntarily funding anyone else's abortion. It has less to do with making anyone's private choices illegal than keeping me the hell away from them.
We can't trust Democrats on the last two issues because they don't believe in free speech and they keep sending us the bill. Which brings me to Huckabee. Nothing he said was inaccurate and Democrats created this issue for themselves by insisting that women are incapable of either refraining from sex or being responsible for their own contraception. *They* reached into our wallet, therefore they do not get the right to complain when Huckabee points out that they don't think women are capable of financing their own sexual decisions. If they truly feel that's not the case, then that would be AWESOME. But they've got to stop sending us the bill if that's what they want.
Posted by: Kat at January 24, 2014 04:35 AM (jjkR7)
920
Ace>> Perry would have to go out of his way to prove that he is smart.
he could try to get into UT.
Posted by: X at January 24, 2014 04:40 AM (KHo8t)
922
Ace- if you happen to check in here, it is pretty cool to see you contemplate the Bible and Christianity.
One thing you must understand is that Jesus was a practicing Jew. He did not blot out the old testament. He believed in it.
One thing you must understand is that Jesus was a practicing Jew. He did not blot out the old testament. He believed in it.
Posted by: Typo Dynamofo at January 24, 2014 05:37 AM (FtCW+)
923
The goal now is to get the nuttiest (in their view) GOP candidate possible. Or, double bonus, Rand Paul, who is not only nutty but racist (their view, not mine, I love the guy and am a Kentuckian) and second-generation
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 08:42 PM (vE1mx)
Except up until Christie won reelection, he was breathlessly covered by the media as the front runner, and he was a 2008 favorite, as well. What a stupid premise that they want Rand so they can tar him as a neo-Bircher.
His filibuster moved public opinion in sharp opposition to Obama's use of drones, and most (not at all) surprisingly, the biggest support for the program comes from establishment Republicans who like have ties to the defense industry.
His father, despite relentless hammering from the media, is respected by many blacks because of his libertarian views, and that is probably the best way to reach out to minorities, with an honest discussion about civil rights as they are relevant in today's society. And in regards to Ace's comments about so cons, they can be invited to participate in that discussion, as well. We need to talk more about wedge issues like guns, gays and abortions, not less.
Unfortunately, I don't think either of the Pauls can do that successfully. Ron at least called a truce between libertarians and so cons, but falling back on "state's rights" is perceived as a dog whistle by many, and I think conservatives need to quit flinching at the idea of legislating morality.
So cons have made great strides in protecting life at a state level in recent years, and the left has taken notice. Public opinion swings back and forth, and in the end, I think it will come back toward the pro-life movement. With advanced ultrasound technology and graphic images easily searchable on the Internet, younger generations find the idea of any abortion, and especially late term, abhorrent.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 24, 2014 08:21 AM (Cjjf6)
924
458 I must have missed this part in the NT when Jesus went wall to wall about how much he hates gays
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 09:15 PM (/FnUH)
There was no reset when Jesus came to earth regarding Old Testament law. He didn't crusade against it, because it went without saying. In the story about a Gentile woman who asked Him to cure her possessed daughter, He resisted at first and even called her a dog, because He was a way to salvation only for believers. He didn't have time or patience to bother with those who wanted nothing to do with Him. But they could always repent and all would be forgiven.
When Jesus was asked about divorce and polygamy, He said that marriage is between one man and one woman period. He said it was not that way in old times, because of the hardness of men's hearts. God's plan was laid out in Genesis. Jesus' words.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 24, 2014 08:32 AM (Cjjf6)
925
I see Christ doing two things: Telling people not to judge or look for the mote in thy brother's eye, and to judge not, and then telling people, from his own mouth, "Go and sin no more."
Only Christ can forgive. But the quote about the beam in your eye is often deliberately misinterpreted. He means you are no good to Him unless you have your shit in order. So your focus should be on self-improvement. If you insist on judging, you will be judged, too. But that isn't the same as not judging. Being judged is no fun, but we all need to hear the truth.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 24, 2014 08:45 AM (Cjjf6)
926
"It's the pundits like Rush who were saying "Anyone can beat Obama" that did us a disservice.
I said at the time "I don't think that's true"...but we ended up with a primary from hell as a result of it, with people thinking they had a shot because everyone was saying 'anyone can beat Obama'."
Our pundits *suck*. They can say anything they want because they know they have a captive audience. You can't call some of them out either or they'll call you a RINO or Establishment.
That's one of the benefits Democrats have with their control of the mainstream media. Conservative/Republicans have less choices, and have a lot of bad choices that will tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
I said at the time "I don't think that's true"...but we ended up with a primary from hell as a result of it, with people thinking they had a shot because everyone was saying 'anyone can beat Obama'."
Our pundits *suck*. They can say anything they want because they know they have a captive audience. You can't call some of them out either or they'll call you a RINO or Establishment.
That's one of the benefits Democrats have with their control of the mainstream media. Conservative/Republicans have less choices, and have a lot of bad choices that will tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
Posted by: Shoot Me at January 24, 2014 11:09 AM (qiXMt)
927
"There was no reset when Jesus came to earth regarding Old Testament law."
You sure about that, champ?
Because Christianity pretty much threw off all the dietary restrictions.
Posted by: sexypig at January 26, 2014 09:39 PM (dZQh7)
928
And Christians had to ask for an exemption at the Jewish courts...I'm reading History of the Jews by Paul Johnson...maybe he's wrong.
Posted by: sexypig at January 26, 2014 10:03 PM (dZQh7)
929
Tattoo de Plane: if you're referring to the passage in Mark 10 a literal reading of it doesn't involve polygamy at all. It takes a tradition outside of the Bible to arrive at that conclusion. Whether that's seen as coming from the Church or wherever, polygamy just isn't mentioned in that passage. Catholic apologist Mark Shea has something good on this:
http://www.mark-shea.com/6.html
Posted by: JohnAGJ at January 27, 2014 02:55 AM (7xKra)
930
Interesting discussion here too, btw. Ace you are a man of greater depth than just Ewok pron. Thanks for posting your thoughts on this.
Posted by: JohnAGJ at January 27, 2014 02:58 AM (7xKra)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
667kb generated in CPU 0.5661, elapsed 0.7189 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.4687 seconds, 1058 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
64 queries taking 0.4687 seconds, 1058 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2014 03:39 PM (Wq5le)