Support
Contact
Winners/Losers
Here are some of mine: LOSER: The pollsBIGGER LOSER: The exit polls
BIGGEST LOSER: Conservative bloggers
THE ULTIMATE LOSER: "Republican turnout" The telephone polls were, at the end, ballpark accurate, but seem to have been wildly inaccurate previously. The exit polls were off by four, five, or six points in just about every election, always in favor of the Democrats. Still, a persistent gap in the polls is never good. Even losing by 5% is still, you know, losing. I'll call conservative bloggers losers on this for fighting the polls. Although I do so half-heartedly. Not to, you know, out myself as a liar, but while I thought we'd hold the Senate, I was pretty damn sure we'd lose the House. Readers like "someone" thought I shouldn't be doing that; a chat with another blogger about this convinced me it was time for "game faces, man. Game faces." I guess I did sort of say that holding the House was a longshot, but I tried to keep hope alive. Going into a game thinking you're going to lose means you will, definitely, lose. But I'll say that many conservative bloggers were losers on this. I didn't really buy that Republican turnout would save us, if we were truly behind by any nontrivial amount. For one thing, anything that works will be copied; we surprised the Democrats with our turnout operation in 2004, but by now, they certainly know how we did it and certainly emulated the strategy. LOSER: Bush
WINNER: Rahm Emmanuel
BIGGER WINNERS: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney I hope not all conservatives turn too nastily on Bush, which was, quite frankly, my instinct last night. Much of the reason conservatives have liked him these past two years is the same reason Democrats loved Clinton -- because he was a winner. Well, he's not a winner anymore, but that wasn't the only reason we initially supported him. He's managed a few good things along the way. But still, the "Trust Bush, He's Got The Magic" thing is dead, isn't it? Rahm Emmanuel was brilliant in recruiting attractive outsider candidates for the House who could pose plausibly as moderates. We're now in the position, I think, that the left was. The left was willing to accept someone posing as a moderate as candidate for president in 1992 because they were hungry for a win. The nutroots embraced candidates who expressed (fake) support for programs they hated -- military tribunals, coerced interrogations, etc. -- because they were so hungry to win. They didn't care what the new Democratic majority might look like, they just wanted one. At this moment I'm seriously reevaluating McCain. Look, I just don't want to lose. But overnight he's gone from someone I would only support extremely reluctantly to someone I will oppose in the primaries but support much less reluctantly should he win. My first choices are Giuliani and Romney, of course. McCain has played the politics of this beautifully, one has to admit. On Iraq, he's criticized Bush just enough to say he's not part of the stalemate strategy but supported the basics of it enough to credibly say he's part of the Victory Bloc. It's kind of cocksuckerish, but it's smart politics.
LOSER: Ned Lamont
WINNER: Joe Lieberman
BIGGER WINNER: Kos Harry Reid kissed his ring last night. Everyone may know Kos is an idiot, but for now, he's an idiot that can channel insane anger into electoral triumph. I wonder if at some point the GOP will take this blogger/interactive politics thing more seriously. I don't think Kos was really terribly critical to the Democrats' win, but surely it didn't hurt. LOSER: The non-terrorist people of Iraq
WINNER: The terrorists
ULTIMATE WINNER: The Iranian nuclear forces Pretty self-explanatory. The country has voted for isolationism and retreat, as they've done before, at the precise moment they cannot afford to do so. I hope the penalty for this mistake will not be as enormous as it was in the 1930's and then, of course, on 7 December 1941.
Another loser... This is going to be controversial, but it's what I think. The Republican-evangelical partnership took a big hit last night. Evangelicals are much more in play than we'd thought. It's just politics, but one doesn't take unpopular positions on behalf of a group that, in the end, choses not to support you. I'm not talking right and wrong (though of course I am a "libertarian" according to some), I'm talking simple math. In previous cycles, the evangelicals produced enough votes to justify taking some unpopular policy stances -- like on stem cells. Those positions were net electoral winners, or, at worst, net electoral losers by just a smidgen. But the exit polls, and raw votes from red, religious areas, indicate that a lot of evangelicals voted Democrat. That's their right, but simple political math dictates that if support from a group is half-hearted, a party is going to be much more half-hearted about pursuing their support.
If a policy alienates a certain number of social moderates who otherwise might vote GOP, and yet only attracts the smaller value Y of social conservatives who champion it, it's hard to justify such a policy in terms of pure political math. The partnership is hardly destroyed, but I think it has been dented up pretty nicely.
Comments
1
So, when does Rove spring the October Surprise I've been hearing so many left-wing bloggers anticipating and complaining about?
Posted by: MikeZ at November 08, 2006 03:21 PM (c5sWc)
2
The Russians have already came out for a weaker stance on Iran. It took less than 24 hours for the world to see the Defeatocrats in power before they knew they could pull something like that. Say goodbye to a serious stance on national security, kids-the nuance is back!
Posted by: Alex at November 08, 2006 03:23 PM (fSpiF)
3
Loser--Hugh Hewitt. He blames McCain for last night drubbing and thinks Santorum is ready for SCOTUS. This is crazy talk. The GOP lost because voters were pissed about no clear victory in Iraq and GOP laziness and corruption in congress. The voters are right about these issues.
Southern Appeal nails it by describing Hugh as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSegyAajurg
Southern Appeal nails it by describing Hugh as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSegyAajurg
Posted by: Joe at November 08, 2006 03:25 PM (+GRGs)
4
LOSER: Karl Rove, Elizabeth Dole
Pick good candidates, get good results. Pick bad candidates, and you get last night. Rove's stock went down a lot last night, since the loss was long in coming and entirely preventable with good politicking.
Pick good candidates, get good results. Pick bad candidates, and you get last night. Rove's stock went down a lot last night, since the loss was long in coming and entirely preventable with good politicking.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 03:27 PM (R8+nJ)
5
And McCain is still a dirtbag. Won't vote for him in the primary and will only cast a ballot for him if he's the only thing keeping a Dem out of the White House.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 03:28 PM (R8+nJ)
6
Big Winner: France
Bigger Winner: Pakistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_election_world_view
Arabs are cheering too!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_election_mideast_view
Bigger Winner: Pakistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_election_world_view
Arabs are cheering too!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_election_mideast_view
Posted by: MikeZ at November 08, 2006 03:29 PM (c5sWc)
7
Tancredo for President is looking better and better. Can we get Coburn for Vice-Prez?
Posted by: MikeZ at November 08, 2006 03:33 PM (c5sWc)
8
I wasn't ready to turn on Bush this morning, but this Rumsfeld thing could do the trick.
I need to see if this was a proactive helpful move, or what it looks like right now.
I think I'd like to see a Tony Snow/Michael Steele ticket because of the way they treat the press.
I need to see if this was a proactive helpful move, or what it looks like right now.
I think I'd like to see a Tony Snow/Michael Steele ticket because of the way they treat the press.
Posted by: MamaAJ at November 08, 2006 03:33 PM (uQ/sL)
9
How does Kos come out a winner in this? He and the nutroots got trounced in the one race they figured prominently in ... Lamont's. They got their asses handed to them. And if you look further south, most of the wins for Democrats were with the kinds of Democrats--southern, white, god-fearing conservatives--that make the Kossacks spit with rage.
Not to rain on blogger parades on either side, but the impact of blogs on the actual turnout of this election was about the same as the impact of me screaming at the TV screen when I'm watching a football game. The internet as a whole--and YouTube in particular--definitely had an impact, but overall, I doubt that we moved the needle noticeably. Yes, the Kossacks made an impact in the Dem primary in Connecticut, but that was at the risk of so pissing of Lieberman that he could have switched sides after kicking their ass in the general election?
Not to rain on blogger parades on either side, but the impact of blogs on the actual turnout of this election was about the same as the impact of me screaming at the TV screen when I'm watching a football game. The internet as a whole--and YouTube in particular--definitely had an impact, but overall, I doubt that we moved the needle noticeably. Yes, the Kossacks made an impact in the Dem primary in Connecticut, but that was at the risk of so pissing of Lieberman that he could have switched sides after kicking their ass in the general election?
Posted by: Ken at November 08, 2006 03:34 PM (xD5ND)
10
I wonder if at some point the GOP will take this blogger/interactive politics thing more seriously.
Yeah, it would be nice if the GOP knew what the base was thinking. You know, our hopes, our dreams, and such. I said a long time ago that the blogoshpere is a great place for a political party (particularly the GOP) to get a pulse on what the electorate is thinking and feeling. Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove could have learned a lot from reading the blogs.
Yeah, it would be nice if the GOP knew what the base was thinking. You know, our hopes, our dreams, and such. I said a long time ago that the blogoshpere is a great place for a political party (particularly the GOP) to get a pulse on what the electorate is thinking and feeling. Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove could have learned a lot from reading the blogs.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 03:34 PM (W83Im)
11
Gotta agree with Slublog about Elizabeth Dole. There were races in Wisconsin and West Virginia that could have been won, or at the least been made very close with the right candidates. Same with Washington state.
Not to say that being close is equal to actually winning, but drawing Dem resources away from a state like Montana (where my dark horse Conrad Burns let me down) or Virginia would have probably given us the Senate. But you can't force people to run, and I can see why a guy like Dino Rossi in WA didn't want to run this year. He'll probably be Goverinor in 2008, and that wouldn't be possible with a loss this year in the Senate race.
And on a personal note, I want to apologize to the country for my district sending Orleans lead singer John Hall to the House. Our current Congresswoman Sue Kelly was a raging bitch, and I hated her on a personal level, but at least she wasn't John Hall
Not to say that being close is equal to actually winning, but drawing Dem resources away from a state like Montana (where my dark horse Conrad Burns let me down) or Virginia would have probably given us the Senate. But you can't force people to run, and I can see why a guy like Dino Rossi in WA didn't want to run this year. He'll probably be Goverinor in 2008, and that wouldn't be possible with a loss this year in the Senate race.
And on a personal note, I want to apologize to the country for my district sending Orleans lead singer John Hall to the House. Our current Congresswoman Sue Kelly was a raging bitch, and I hated her on a personal level, but at least she wasn't John Hall
Posted by: Shivv at November 08, 2006 03:37 PM (nEl3r)
12
What, you think I'm wrong that defeatism is self-fulfilling?
I think you're quite wrong about the 2008 field. There's a vacuum in conservative domestic policy and it's not Rudy who's going to get us there. I can't support him any more.
Your analogy to 1992 is wrong too -- that, for us, was 2000. "Compassionate conservatism" would have been laughed out of the party if it didn't seem the only way out of the media-enforced demonization wilderness.
I'm still willing to accept a guy who pretends to be moderate, and even IS somewhat moderate. I'm *not* willing to accept a guy who pretends to be conservative but is a media puppet.
I think you're quite wrong about the 2008 field. There's a vacuum in conservative domestic policy and it's not Rudy who's going to get us there. I can't support him any more.
Your analogy to 1992 is wrong too -- that, for us, was 2000. "Compassionate conservatism" would have been laughed out of the party if it didn't seem the only way out of the media-enforced demonization wilderness.
I'm still willing to accept a guy who pretends to be moderate, and even IS somewhat moderate. I'm *not* willing to accept a guy who pretends to be conservative but is a media puppet.
Posted by: someone at November 08, 2006 03:41 PM (aR/3d)
13
This is going to be controversial, but it's what I think. The Republican-evangelical partnership took a big hit last night. Evangelicals are much more in play than we'd thought.
Wrong. FrakYou insists that it was us immigration enforcement people, not the values voters who stayed away from the polls en masse and cost the Republicans their victories. I'm sure the evangelicals were delighted at the competent handling of the Foley scandal, not to mention simply taking them for granted in so many ways. Clearly, the Minutemen are to blame for Republican losses!
Wrong. FrakYou insists that it was us immigration enforcement people, not the values voters who stayed away from the polls en masse and cost the Republicans their victories. I'm sure the evangelicals were delighted at the competent handling of the Foley scandal, not to mention simply taking them for granted in so many ways. Clearly, the Minutemen are to blame for Republican losses!
Posted by: MikeZ at November 08, 2006 03:42 PM (c5sWc)
14
Loser: Border Security
Bigger Loser: SocSec Reform
Huge Loser: ANWR Drilling/Offshore Drilling, New Refineries, New Nuclear Power Plants.
Ultimate Loser: All of us.
Bigger Loser: SocSec Reform
Huge Loser: ANWR Drilling/Offshore Drilling, New Refineries, New Nuclear Power Plants.
Ultimate Loser: All of us.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 03:46 PM (W83Im)
15
What the fuck are we paying Diebold for anyway?
Posted by: Phinn at November 08, 2006 03:46 PM (DiZv6)
16
Ken, you are absolutely right in your excellent assessment.
Voters will hold the so-called conservative dems they elected accountable if they enable a very left-wing party agenda.
Biggest Sigh of Relief: John Kerry
Voters will hold the so-called conservative dems they elected accountable if they enable a very left-wing party agenda.
Biggest Sigh of Relief: John Kerry
Posted by: paleface at November 08, 2006 03:49 PM (JysJA)
17
Winner: Mainstream media who waged information war on the Republicans by making the American public believe that 1) there were no WMD, 2) Bush violated their constitutional rights with the NSA program. They should be shot for the 5th columnists they are.
Loser: American public
Biggest Losers: American children who are going to have to go to war in 10 years because of the fucking Democrats.
And George Bush is a great man. Nothing can shake my admiration for him. Rumsfeld, too. Those who disparage them aren't worth two shits.
Posted by: ahem at November 08, 2006 03:50 PM (IZEka)
18
We're now in the position, I think, that the left was. The left was willing to accept someone posing as a moderate as candidate for president in 1992 because they were hungry for a win
WTF? Dude, in 1992 the democrats hadn't been in the whitehouse in 12 years.
We have the whitehouse *right now*, and have had it for the last 6 years. AND we had congress for 6 years. We loose congress for 2 years (but still have the presidency) and your saying we're sorta in the same position???
WTF? Dude, in 1992 the democrats hadn't been in the whitehouse in 12 years.
We have the whitehouse *right now*, and have had it for the last 6 years. AND we had congress for 6 years. We loose congress for 2 years (but still have the presidency) and your saying we're sorta in the same position???
Posted by: Entropy at November 08, 2006 03:50 PM (m6c4H)
19
Guiliani-Santorum '08
A friend mentioned to me that he thought the Dems winning was part of Rove's master plan for 08. Look, Republicans in Congress get rid of dead weight, hell Chafee is GONE! And a bunch of sleazeballs too. Now we get to see a limited version of Democratic rule, gridlock, obstructionism, baseless investigations etc. The 08 Republicans can run against a do nothing congress that's damaging our economy and losing us the war on Islamo-fascism.
The problem with this theory is it assumes that there will be viable Republican organizations in many of the states that were lost.
I think Republicans better start working on rebuilding their base, and creating/expanding their base in "blue" states, including NY and Taxachusettes. Its disgusting that nobodys were sent up against Hillary and Kennedy. They've got to look at the example of the Yankees. Every year Steinbrenner puts a team on the field with the explicit goal of winning (with a reasonable chance to boot). He may not win, but he's trying and that effort generates fan support which generates revenue which allows him to field a team that'll win. People like Hillary and Kennedy should be forced to spend their warchests on themselves, instead of being allowed to skew other contests.
A friend mentioned to me that he thought the Dems winning was part of Rove's master plan for 08. Look, Republicans in Congress get rid of dead weight, hell Chafee is GONE! And a bunch of sleazeballs too. Now we get to see a limited version of Democratic rule, gridlock, obstructionism, baseless investigations etc. The 08 Republicans can run against a do nothing congress that's damaging our economy and losing us the war on Islamo-fascism.
The problem with this theory is it assumes that there will be viable Republican organizations in many of the states that were lost.
I think Republicans better start working on rebuilding their base, and creating/expanding their base in "blue" states, including NY and Taxachusettes. Its disgusting that nobodys were sent up against Hillary and Kennedy. They've got to look at the example of the Yankees. Every year Steinbrenner puts a team on the field with the explicit goal of winning (with a reasonable chance to boot). He may not win, but he's trying and that effort generates fan support which generates revenue which allows him to field a team that'll win. People like Hillary and Kennedy should be forced to spend their warchests on themselves, instead of being allowed to skew other contests.
Posted by: Iblis at November 08, 2006 03:50 PM (SacKO)
20
And George Bush is a great man.
Ok, fine, he's a great man.
But he's marginally acceptable as President.
Ok, fine, he's a great man.
But he's marginally acceptable as President.
Posted by: Entropy at November 08, 2006 03:51 PM (m6c4H)
21
simple political math dictates that if support from a group is half-hearted, a party is going to be much more half-hearted about pursuing their support.
god forbid they don't double down to regain that support.
god forbid they don't double down to regain that support.
Posted by: taba at November 08, 2006 03:55 PM (KywdK)
22
Ace, I don't see how you can call KOS a big winner. So far every single candidate he's backed has lost - statistically that is a kiss of death. The netroots crowd showed that they had enough influence and support to affect a Democrat primary, and this will add to their power within the party. But if your candidates never take office, ultimately it's pretty worthless.
Posted by: Maetenloch at November 08, 2006 03:56 PM (XJubC)
23
I want to take a shot at the God Botherers too, dammit. All those Jesus Freaks that are constantly going on about abortion and stem cell BS (K-Lo, etal) can stuff it where the sun don't shine.
Thanks for nothing.
All you fundy retards can STFU about abortion now. You've set back the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade by decades. Nice going! Do not come to the GOP whining about the abortion plank of the platform because you inbreds cost yourself the chance of a LIFETIME to actually move that ball forward. I sincerely hope all of the Bible Thumping mongoloids enjoy the confirmation hearings for the next "moderate" Associate Justice. I hope the pain of a once-a-generation missed opportunity is exquisite.
Thanks for nothing.
All you fundy retards can STFU about abortion now. You've set back the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade by decades. Nice going! Do not come to the GOP whining about the abortion plank of the platform because you inbreds cost yourself the chance of a LIFETIME to actually move that ball forward. I sincerely hope all of the Bible Thumping mongoloids enjoy the confirmation hearings for the next "moderate" Associate Justice. I hope the pain of a once-a-generation missed opportunity is exquisite.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 03:57 PM (ivbbD)
24
I question the "Kos as a winner" thing as well, he managed to drive a life long liberal Dem. out of the party. He showed Rahm Emmanuel that the way to win is to move the Dems. away from the scary left, not into it. Emmanuel picked the right candidates for the right races and ran them on the right issues. He turned Kos & Firedoggy into a disease the Democratic Party cannot afford to catch.
And yes, Rahm Emmanuel is one scary smart bastard.
And yes, Rahm Emmanuel is one scary smart bastard.
Posted by: A. Weasel at November 08, 2006 03:58 PM (zhtB4)
25
So we lost. That's the way it goes. Let's all take a few days
and get drunk, pound on the walls, whatever. Then on
Monday, let's get back to work. Losers cry and complain
but winners keep at it. This party needs a platform, this
party needs to remember its core values. We have a big
mess on our hands and the sooner we get started the
sooner we'll be back. We have not yet begun to fight.
and get drunk, pound on the walls, whatever. Then on
Monday, let's get back to work. Losers cry and complain
but winners keep at it. This party needs a platform, this
party needs to remember its core values. We have a big
mess on our hands and the sooner we get started the
sooner we'll be back. We have not yet begun to fight.
Posted by: Rich Johnson at November 08, 2006 03:59 PM (fKivs)
26
Voters will hold the so-called conservative dems they elected accountable if they enable a very left-wing party agenda.
Just a little while ago, a co-worker was crowing about the Democratic victory. After she left, I told another person who was standing there that too many of the Democrats have sold their souls to get elected. They promised things that the party apparatus won't let them deliver. As a result, good conservative Democrats who voted for a candidate that they thought was conservative like them might get gay marriage shoved down their throats. Victory is only truly sweet if you ultimately get what you realy want.
Posted by: Steve L. at November 08, 2006 03:59 PM (hpZf2)
27
Hey AFKAF, if you hate the Minutemen and you hate the social cons, why exactly are you a Republican again?
I guess AFKAF thinks elections can be won by him and him alone.
I guess AFKAF thinks elections can be won by him and him alone.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 04:00 PM (SD/MW)
28
"A McCain-Lieberman presidential ticket would be the closest thing a national unity government the American system can produce. It would make an international political statement of enormous significance. The McCain-Lieberman statement: 'We're fighting, we'll continue to fight, and we will finish it.'"
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1351
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1351
Posted by: taba at November 08, 2006 04:00 PM (KywdK)
29
Well, AFKAF, I certainly hope you make a distinction between religious conservatives and fundamentalists. I agree that fundamentalists often act against their best interests because they don't get exactly what they want.
However, many, many religious conservatives are strong supporters of the GOP and voted yesterday.
However, many, many religious conservatives are strong supporters of the GOP and voted yesterday.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 04:01 PM (R8+nJ)
30
McCain is toast.
Posted by: ahem at November 08, 2006 04:03 PM (IZEka)
31
Let's all take a few days
and get drunk, pound on the walls, whatever.No days off. Mike Pence needs our support.
and get drunk, pound on the walls, whatever.No days off. Mike Pence needs our support.
Posted by: someone at November 08, 2006 04:03 PM (aR/3d)
32
>>might get gay marriage shoved down their throats.
Steve, that is a horrible choice of words. Ew!
Posted by: Tushar D at November 08, 2006 04:04 PM (h76y6)
33
Marginally acceptable?
What the fuck are you talking about, Entropy?
Bush is doing just fine as president. The only complaint I have about him is not his policies but his lack of defending his policies from attacks by the Dems and MSM.
ahem is right when he says the MSM did a wonderful job with their anti-Bush propaganda. Bush and his team ignored it instead of using the bully pulpit and setting the record straight.
Ann Coulter wrote in a past column that Bush needed to do what Reagan did -- go directly to the American people and make his case. Bush, his Cabinet, and the Republican leadership couldn't be bothered to explaining to the American people the ideas and policies of the government.
The bottom line is that Bush's policies, all of them except for the Guest Worker Nonsense, are sound. He's a very good president and leader.
What the fuck are you talking about, Entropy?
Bush is doing just fine as president. The only complaint I have about him is not his policies but his lack of defending his policies from attacks by the Dems and MSM.
ahem is right when he says the MSM did a wonderful job with their anti-Bush propaganda. Bush and his team ignored it instead of using the bully pulpit and setting the record straight.
Ann Coulter wrote in a past column that Bush needed to do what Reagan did -- go directly to the American people and make his case. Bush, his Cabinet, and the Republican leadership couldn't be bothered to explaining to the American people the ideas and policies of the government.
The bottom line is that Bush's policies, all of them except for the Guest Worker Nonsense, are sound. He's a very good president and leader.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 04:05 PM (tRgmb)
34
I'm really worried that last night, in exchange for a 2-year vacation back to the land of 9/10/01 and mandatory school uniforms for midnight donkey basketball, we sacrificed an American city to be named later.
Posted by: David C at November 08, 2006 04:06 PM (28gyu)
35
I didn't really see the Republicans bending over backwards for the Evangelicals this cycle. Judges were hardly mentioned. Gay marriage was below radar except at the very end, and aside from SD there was little on the abortion front as 2 conservative supremes got in.
Posted by: Iblis at November 08, 2006 04:06 PM (SacKO)
36
We need a "Conservative" caucus (both Rs and Ds) in the House and Senate.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 04:07 PM (jFTJl)
37
The only complaint I have about him is not his policies but his lack of defending his policies from attacks by the Dems and MSM.This flaw could undo the rest, you know.
Posted by: someone at November 08, 2006 04:07 PM (aR/3d)
38
You forgot the MSM...the biggest winners of the night. They just got permission to openly work as the communications wing of the DNC.
Posted by: The Anchoress at November 08, 2006 04:08 PM (hDwif)
39
You forgot the MSM...the biggest winners of the night. They just got permission to openly work as the communications wing of the DNC.LOL. You haven't been on the Republican side for long, have you?
Posted by: someone at November 08, 2006 04:10 PM (aR/3d)
40
And it is about to, someone.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 04:11 PM (tRgmb)
41
I don't think Kos really had anything to do with it. Most people don't even know who he his. Remember how big Snakes on a Plane was supposed to be based on how much the internet was talking about it? Well, with real people it bombed. Kos just happened to agree with what real people felt for once. If he was really influential Lamont would have won.
Posted by: Sweetmeats at November 08, 2006 04:19 PM (6slOJ)
Posted by: someone2 at November 08, 2006 04:21 PM (sTigZ)
Posted by: someone2 at November 08, 2006 04:21 PM (sTigZ)
44
I'ss ay what I always said: screw the Evangelicals. Seriously, what's been their big contribution the last few god damn years? Terri Schiavo, intelligent design, and a general war on science? Big god damn benefit all that was. And then they run, because of little ol' Mark Foley? Fuck'em right in their ears.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 04:22 PM (X5HHU)
45
Re: McCain, Giuliani, paragraph:
I'm not sure it follows that because the democrats ran the most conservative democrats they could find to win, ergo republicans would do better to put up more liberal (moderate) candidates. You should have heard the HFJr. ads in TN. He was attacking Corker for not being conservative enough and "not one of us" while trying to pass himself as the more conservative candidate. He did about as well as he could have hoped on that message.
No, I don't believe that the election or the victories of many of the house democrats was a repudiation of conservatism. I think republicans lost the majority in large part for not being plausibly conservative in the first place.
I'm not sure it follows that because the democrats ran the most conservative democrats they could find to win, ergo republicans would do better to put up more liberal (moderate) candidates. You should have heard the HFJr. ads in TN. He was attacking Corker for not being conservative enough and "not one of us" while trying to pass himself as the more conservative candidate. He did about as well as he could have hoped on that message.
No, I don't believe that the election or the victories of many of the house democrats was a repudiation of conservatism. I think republicans lost the majority in large part for not being plausibly conservative in the first place.
Posted by: M at November 08, 2006 04:26 PM (yc7dy)
46
I'm glad to see some of you guys ready to pitch "the Jesus freaks" over the rail. It'll make it especially sweet when we're left running the Republican Party and we send you packing back to the Dems where you'll be really happy.
The only other choice is we form the new majority party, and you're left with oblivion.
The only other choice is we form the new majority party, and you're left with oblivion.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 04:27 PM (vgyJ5)
47
Ace,
How wrong can you be? If you look at the outcomes, in seven races the decison point was a 1000 votes. In half of those we lost the count was less than 5000. It was a landslide outcome for the Dims, but each race was a squeaker.
McCain. McPain might end up being the biggest loser of all. He will not be forgotten as the man who shafted conservatives. And if you can't get conservative support in the primary runs you won't be on the podium for the convention speech. Mark it down, it's a Republican fact of life.
Evangelicals. You have this backwards, marketing 101. Voters don't going looking for a party, they go looking for like minded ideals. To capture votes parties must seek out and mold thier message to the vote. So any voting block should not be counted as solid. Not even the black vote.
Polling. I think the day of the accurate poll is probably on the wane. With the fact that 2/3rds of the electorate is no longer reachable to poll (cell phones, VoIP, Call blocking/ID) the base data is flawed using the old models. So unless the pollsters can come up with a new model methodology they are toast.
Republican Turnout. Actually this is a mixed bag. I would say the turn out was good, but it was just as good for the other guy. And a lot of Reps probably crossed over and voted for the other guy. But the trend is Reps keep increasing their turn outs in the younger age groups while the Dims do not. So demographics on the side of the good guys.
Kos. I fully do not understnad your assessment he was a winner. He's now 0-23 for a losing streak. The last man I would want for an endorsement would be Kos.
Posted by: JohnMc at November 08, 2006 04:28 PM (V213d)
48
I was riffing on Ace's comment about Evangelicals not showing up to support the GOP yesterday. Not Evangelicals qua Evangelicals.
Capiche?
To the extent they didn't show up? My comment stands and I'm with Mark V. on where they can take it.
Capiche?
To the extent they didn't show up? My comment stands and I'm with Mark V. on where they can take it.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 04:29 PM (ivbbD)
Posted by: Tushar D at November 08, 2006 04:32 PM (h76y6)
50
Because if Evangelicals think they're gonna get a fairer hearing from democrats on their core issues than they have from the GOP? Then they're too stupid to be in the conservative "big tent".
We've got to have some standards here, guys.
And this is from somebody that is desperate to see Roe v. Wade overturned and opposes cloning and fetal stem cell research and gay marriage. OK? I just despise seeing people cut off their nose to spite their face. Especially when they get blood all over me in the process.
I'm ambivalent on the immigration issue. That means I'm open to being convinced one way or the other on the issue. But, ciiirist, pitching out the congressional majority over that? Retarded. Especially in light of the a$$ phuck you Minutemen types are gonna take NOW. Well played, guys. Well played.
We've got to have some standards here, guys.
And this is from somebody that is desperate to see Roe v. Wade overturned and opposes cloning and fetal stem cell research and gay marriage. OK? I just despise seeing people cut off their nose to spite their face. Especially when they get blood all over me in the process.
I'm ambivalent on the immigration issue. That means I'm open to being convinced one way or the other on the issue. But, ciiirist, pitching out the congressional majority over that? Retarded. Especially in light of the a$$ phuck you Minutemen types are gonna take NOW. Well played, guys. Well played.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 04:35 PM (ivbbD)
51
The telephone polls were, at the end, ballpark accurate, but seem to have been wildly inaccurate previously. The exit polls were off by four, five, or six points in just about every election, always in favor of the Democrats.
HAHAHA!
Did someone miss that the Democrats did, in fact, WIN?
HAHAHA!
Did someone miss that the Democrats did, in fact, WIN?
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 04:38 PM (qF8q3)
52
I agree with you there, AFKAF. Fundamentalists have always been really good at sitting it out when they don't get exactly their way. A few years in the political wilderness will bring them home again, though.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 04:38 PM (R8+nJ)
53
Ace -- and gladly cop to being a total stooge. My first instinct in the wake of FoleyGate was: "Abandon hope. The GOP is totally screwed." But instead of listening to my gut, I allowed myself to heed the voices of "hope." Hope sucks. So I now acknowledge that Allahpundit was right in sticking to his anti-hope agenda.
You've misunderstood the evangelicals, but that's OK -- everybody misunderstands evangelicals. That's part of the twisted beauty of being evangelical, is that everybody claims to speak for you -- e.g., Ted Haggard -- without any authority whatsoever.
It will take a few days for the Professional Republican Stooges like Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity and Fred Barnes to get their "what went wrong" storyline straight. Whatever they say to do, do the opposite.
Most of all, don't fall for "hope." Learn to hate hope. Because hopelessness is our only hope.
You've misunderstood the evangelicals, but that's OK -- everybody misunderstands evangelicals. That's part of the twisted beauty of being evangelical, is that everybody claims to speak for you -- e.g., Ted Haggard -- without any authority whatsoever.
It will take a few days for the Professional Republican Stooges like Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity and Fred Barnes to get their "what went wrong" storyline straight. Whatever they say to do, do the opposite.
Most of all, don't fall for "hope." Learn to hate hope. Because hopelessness is our only hope.
Posted by: Ali-Bubba at November 08, 2006 04:41 PM (jYT9+)
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 04:42 PM (jFTJl)
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 04:47 PM (jFTJl)
56
ali-bubba,
I'm not speaking for the evangelicals. I'm just talking about voting.
Evangelicals didn't turn out for the GOP this time around -- or, at least, not by very large margins. You just don't overly cater to a voting bloc that is indifferent towards you.
It's sort of blacks and the Democrats in reverse -- Democrats ignore blacks, by and large, and vote against their interests (vouchers, for example) and just assume they'll keep voting Democrat.
So far that's worked.
But evangelicals can't assume the Republicans will support their least popular positions (stem cell research, for example) if they're not going to get the votes from that bloc to justify alienating so many other possible votes.
There's definitely a tension in the party between libertarians/social moderates and social conservatives. The dispute will be settled, as most disputes are, by what each constiuency brings to the table in terms of votes.
I'm not speaking for the evangelicals. I'm just talking about voting.
Evangelicals didn't turn out for the GOP this time around -- or, at least, not by very large margins. You just don't overly cater to a voting bloc that is indifferent towards you.
It's sort of blacks and the Democrats in reverse -- Democrats ignore blacks, by and large, and vote against their interests (vouchers, for example) and just assume they'll keep voting Democrat.
So far that's worked.
But evangelicals can't assume the Republicans will support their least popular positions (stem cell research, for example) if they're not going to get the votes from that bloc to justify alienating so many other possible votes.
There's definitely a tension in the party between libertarians/social moderates and social conservatives. The dispute will be settled, as most disputes are, by what each constiuency brings to the table in terms of votes.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 04:54 PM (4qddO)
57
For those who won't bother to learn the lesson of the Whigs at my post above...
If you're talking about "I won't vote to teach 'em a lesson" retards, fine. But if you're suggesting the Republicans give up on life issues because it's just too demeaning for you to associate yourselves with religious folks, you're in for a rude shock. As long as the Dems run a Pro-death party where any alternative isn't welcome, Pro-life is the one underlying unifying force in the Republican Party today, just as slavery was for us before the Civil War.
If you want to stop being on our side in all the other issues where we agree, we can leave and you won't have enough voters left to elect a dogcatcher. That's how the Republican Party was formed, so we know a little about how it's done.
If you're talking about "I won't vote to teach 'em a lesson" retards, fine. But if you're suggesting the Republicans give up on life issues because it's just too demeaning for you to associate yourselves with religious folks, you're in for a rude shock. As long as the Dems run a Pro-death party where any alternative isn't welcome, Pro-life is the one underlying unifying force in the Republican Party today, just as slavery was for us before the Civil War.
If you want to stop being on our side in all the other issues where we agree, we can leave and you won't have enough voters left to elect a dogcatcher. That's how the Republican Party was formed, so we know a little about how it's done.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 04:56 PM (vgyJ5)
58
...I'm seriously reevaluating McCain
There isn't a chance in hell that I'd vote for the co-author of the McCain-Feingold abomination. Does that make me a purist who cannot support a candidate who passes a law that restricts my free speech? Then yes, I'm a purist.
Romney and Giuliani, sure, but not McCain.
There isn't a chance in hell that I'd vote for the co-author of the McCain-Feingold abomination. Does that make me a purist who cannot support a candidate who passes a law that restricts my free speech? Then yes, I'm a purist.
Romney and Giuliani, sure, but not McCain.
Posted by: physics geek at November 08, 2006 05:00 PM (KqeHJ)
59
Black Republican-
Americans would more readily vote for limited government and strong national defense than they would vote for, in a manner of speaking, God.
You know where the door is.
Americans would more readily vote for limited government and strong national defense than they would vote for, in a manner of speaking, God.
You know where the door is.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 05:04 PM (X5HHU)
60
"But if you're suggesting the Republicans give up on life issues because it's just too demeaning for you to associate yourselves with religious folks, you're in for a rude shock. As long as the Dems run a Pro-death party where any alternative isn't welcome, Pro-life is the one underlying unifying force in the Republican Party today, just as slavery was for us before the Civil War."
Here's the rub, and the great shock for the religious conservatives. You have your definition of life and others have theirs. You're not any more right or wrong than others who disagree with your interpretation.
The single most aggravating thing to me about the religious right is their claim of absolute moral authority on things like the life issue. You can prove when life is human? Do it. Don't say it is because you believe it or God says so. You have your right to an opinion, not to create facts out of belief.
The second most irritating thing about the religious voters? This attitude.
"If you want to stop being on our side in all the other issues where we agree, we can leave and you won't have enough voters left to elect a dogcatcher. That's how the Republican Party was formed, so we know a little about how it's done."
Guess what? You don't have enough voters either. You want to work together? Great, it takes compromise. You want to dictate and threaten, we'll both watch from the sidelines.
Some of us have an idea how things work, too.
Here's the rub, and the great shock for the religious conservatives. You have your definition of life and others have theirs. You're not any more right or wrong than others who disagree with your interpretation.
The single most aggravating thing to me about the religious right is their claim of absolute moral authority on things like the life issue. You can prove when life is human? Do it. Don't say it is because you believe it or God says so. You have your right to an opinion, not to create facts out of belief.
The second most irritating thing about the religious voters? This attitude.
"If you want to stop being on our side in all the other issues where we agree, we can leave and you won't have enough voters left to elect a dogcatcher. That's how the Republican Party was formed, so we know a little about how it's done."
Guess what? You don't have enough voters either. You want to work together? Great, it takes compromise. You want to dictate and threaten, we'll both watch from the sidelines.
Some of us have an idea how things work, too.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 05:07 PM (t+mja)
61
Black Republican,
Oh, stop it with the threats.
It's a two way street. It's not that we don't want to "associate" with religious types. It's that religious types demand the party take a number of unpoplar positions -- net electoral losers by ten, twenty, even thrity points.
The only way such unpopular stances can be justified is if religious social cons blunt the electoral impact of taking those positions by voting overwhelmingly for the GOP.
If now they're only going to vote for the GOP by 60/40 or so, it just doesn't make sense to continue taking very unpopular policy stances. Maybe at local levels where such polciies command majority support, but not on the national level, where they don't.
I'm not blaming the evangelicals. They were pissed off by the GOP the same as almost every other part of the coalition. The difference is that most of the GOP's platform is actually popular or neutral in terms of popularity.
Oh, stop it with the threats.
It's a two way street. It's not that we don't want to "associate" with religious types. It's that religious types demand the party take a number of unpoplar positions -- net electoral losers by ten, twenty, even thrity points.
The only way such unpopular stances can be justified is if religious social cons blunt the electoral impact of taking those positions by voting overwhelmingly for the GOP.
If now they're only going to vote for the GOP by 60/40 or so, it just doesn't make sense to continue taking very unpopular policy stances. Maybe at local levels where such polciies command majority support, but not on the national level, where they don't.
I'm not blaming the evangelicals. They were pissed off by the GOP the same as almost every other part of the coalition. The difference is that most of the GOP's platform is actually popular or neutral in terms of popularity.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 05:08 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Tushar D at November 08, 2006 05:09 PM (h76y6)
63
Mark, even the Democrats think they're for defending America, in their own perverse way. As for limited government by itself, how well is that working for the Libertarians? Your contention that these are ideas you can base an entire party is irrational. How well did this idea go for you before Roe? Dutch saw, and knew, there needed to be something more, long-term, that those things, and that's how he got elected.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 05:14 PM (vgyJ5)
64
Are you fucking people serious?
You're blaming the Evangelical Christians?
How many races did the fucking Liberatarian candidates cost the Republicans?
You're blaming the Evangelical Christians?
How many races did the fucking Liberatarian candidates cost the Republicans?
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 05:14 PM (3GX+x)
65
Your best? Losers always whine about "their best". Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
I know, I know. It lacks context. I just couldn't resist the whole winners/losers thing.
I know, I know. It lacks context. I just couldn't resist the whole winners/losers thing.
Posted by: Sean Connery at November 08, 2006 05:15 PM (pzen5)
66
As an "Evangelical" I think MarkV, AFLAC as assholes, because they are blaming us for the lose. Bad move.
And Ace I think you are missing something: If the "Evangelicals" don't vote for Republicans, do you really think they will vote for the Donks?
Us "Bible Thumpers" as not a bunch of snake handling morons that take their directions beamed into them from Pat Robertson, we are thinking people that do look at the issues that matter most. Yes, abortion is a hot topic, yes Embryonic Stem Cell research is a hot topic, but "Bible Thumpers" care about the economy, jobs and national security also.
If I had my choice between a Republican that was pro-choice and a Donk that was pro-choice, I would (and have) vote for the Republican.
I wouldn't throw Evangelicals under the bus just yet, because the Republican party will not get anywhere with out them.
This lose has nothing to do with Mark Foley being outed, and has everything to do with the current crop of Republicans forgetting their conservative base.
And Ace I think you are missing something: If the "Evangelicals" don't vote for Republicans, do you really think they will vote for the Donks?
Us "Bible Thumpers" as not a bunch of snake handling morons that take their directions beamed into them from Pat Robertson, we are thinking people that do look at the issues that matter most. Yes, abortion is a hot topic, yes Embryonic Stem Cell research is a hot topic, but "Bible Thumpers" care about the economy, jobs and national security also.
If I had my choice between a Republican that was pro-choice and a Donk that was pro-choice, I would (and have) vote for the Republican.
I wouldn't throw Evangelicals under the bus just yet, because the Republican party will not get anywhere with out them.
This lose has nothing to do with Mark Foley being outed, and has everything to do with the current crop of Republicans forgetting their conservative base.
Posted by: Mr Minority at November 08, 2006 05:15 PM (W9sky)
67
I don't often disagree with our resident Faerie, but here I do. BR might "know" when life begins and you disagree. But there is a moral principle involved, and principles win.
Pretending a baby's not a baby because only it's ears are sticking out the birth canal or something in order to rake in a few more voters is, long term, a killer for all of us.
Pretending a baby's not a baby because only it's ears are sticking out the birth canal or something in order to rake in a few more voters is, long term, a killer for all of us.
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 08, 2006 05:16 PM (uSomN)
68
I think the DLC types (a group that includes Rahm Emmanuel) were the winners last night far more so than Kos and his ilk.
As for Evangelicals, I am not one and don't want get into the middle of this battle, but I do remember thinking during the whole Terry Schiavo affair that this was the beginning of the end for Republican dominance. But those kinds of fault lines are in both parties.
As for Evangelicals, I am not one and don't want get into the middle of this battle, but I do remember thinking during the whole Terry Schiavo affair that this was the beginning of the end for Republican dominance. But those kinds of fault lines are in both parties.
Posted by: Dudley Smith at November 08, 2006 05:17 PM (0S8Xt)
69
ace
re: evangelicals/blacks
"So far that's worked."
After I finished pooping myself at the mention of a black person, I realized that evangelicals jump ship quicker because they're white.
(Is this what you've intended to say? I know it's not, but it sure is a queer way to say what you're tring to say.)
Anyway, it's the same with gays or any other zealous faction. 100% ideological purity or bust. ANd you should know a bit about that with your glee at Chaffee losing. Hell, I'm glad he lost too, but think about what you're saying re: evangelicals vs. RINOs and you'll see the disease of which you complain in others afflicts us all.
re: evangelicals/blacks
"So far that's worked."
After I finished pooping myself at the mention of a black person, I realized that evangelicals jump ship quicker because they're white.
(Is this what you've intended to say? I know it's not, but it sure is a queer way to say what you're tring to say.)
Anyway, it's the same with gays or any other zealous faction. 100% ideological purity or bust. ANd you should know a bit about that with your glee at Chaffee losing. Hell, I'm glad he lost too, but think about what you're saying re: evangelicals vs. RINOs and you'll see the disease of which you complain in others afflicts us all.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 05:20 PM (jFTJl)
70
Here's the rub, and the great shock for the religious conservatives.
You have your definition of life and others have theirs. You're not any
more right or wrong than others who disagree with your interpretation.
Whatever, you hell-bound pagans.
This debate has been going on for a long time in evangelical circles and stems from the natural conflict between faith and politics. Faith is uncompromising, and politics is built on compromise. Evangelical voters see any attempt to compromise (e.g. civil unions) as a betrayal of core principles rather than a way to prevent legislation that is even more contrary to their values.
This leads to abject foolishness on the part of evangelicals, who have a habit of coming to a party with a list of ten demands, then stamping their feet and leaving if only five are fulfilled, not realizing that the alternative is a party that will give you zero.
Sure, it sounds good to say the only way to ensure evangelical values are represented in the political aren is to create a new political party.
I think that's a great idea - if evangelicals never, ever want to win an election again.
Whatever, you hell-bound pagans.
This debate has been going on for a long time in evangelical circles and stems from the natural conflict between faith and politics. Faith is uncompromising, and politics is built on compromise. Evangelical voters see any attempt to compromise (e.g. civil unions) as a betrayal of core principles rather than a way to prevent legislation that is even more contrary to their values.
This leads to abject foolishness on the part of evangelicals, who have a habit of coming to a party with a list of ten demands, then stamping their feet and leaving if only five are fulfilled, not realizing that the alternative is a party that will give you zero.
Sure, it sounds good to say the only way to ensure evangelical values are represented in the political aren is to create a new political party.
I think that's a great idea - if evangelicals never, ever want to win an election again.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 05:21 PM (R8+nJ)
71
You can prove when life is human?
Since, left to it's own devices, an embryo does in fact become an actual live human being, isn't it up to you to prove that the life isn't human?
Also, everyone needs to stop dumping on the Evangelicals for this loss. Don't forget that the Democrats won on no platform whatsoever. They won, because the people are angry with the Republicans, and that cannot be blamed on the Evangelicals.
Posted by: Defense Guy at November 08, 2006 05:23 PM (jPCiN)
72
Ace,
I agree with most of you points. As a Bush Republican, I'm not mad at him, I'm mad at all the RINOs that cut him off at the knees any chance they got. So, Good riddance to Chafee, DeWine etc. I just wish they'd taken McCain with them. I would love to see Bush do a High-Noon on them, and tell them all to FOAD when he leaves office.
I agree with most of you points. As a Bush Republican, I'm not mad at him, I'm mad at all the RINOs that cut him off at the knees any chance they got. So, Good riddance to Chafee, DeWine etc. I just wish they'd taken McCain with them. I would love to see Bush do a High-Noon on them, and tell them all to FOAD when he leaves office.
Oh, and the whole "conservatism" won is crapola, too. As soon as they are sworn in, the moderate democrats will morph into full moonbat mode. Count on it.
The party abandoned the Evangelicals. Rove and blue-blooded Repubs made it very clear that they were holding their noses to deal with the Evangelicals. Ex. They dumped the Marriage Amendment and yet it anti-gay marriage bans passed by huge margins (except for AZ?) Rove's strategy seemed to be sell out the evangelicals cause they have no where to go i.e. republicans treat evangelicals like dems treat blacks. I'm glad that the Evangelicals refused to stick around and be abused. Black people should take note.
Here's my silver lining. In 2004, it was essential to me that Bush won. The message to jihadis everywhere is that if you mess with the Great Satan, Bush and the Republicans will kill you every where. Bush is a victim of his own success in that he managed to pulverize Al-Queda and the jihadis. Now, the Dems will prove that they are the Neville Chamberlins of our time and show the world how they like to belly crawl. However, Bush has made the US a hard target and the jihadis will focus their attention on Europe, et al.
So, my plan is to kick back and watch the jihadis burn Europe. Car-b-que anyone? Bonus points: We'll see exactly how many moderate muslims there are. "World opinion" will say nothing when it's muslims killing muslims.
Posted by: BlackRedneck at November 08, 2006 05:23 PM (sndUY)
73
I think the loss was the fault of the Republicans themselves for being poor leaders.
And the filthy libertarians.
And the filthy libertarians.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 05:23 PM (R8+nJ)
74
I guess it does sound like I'm blaming evangelicals, and maybe my writing slipped towards that. I understand why people are on the defensive.
I'm just saying that their are a lot of positions that ONLY make sense to take, electorally, if they bring with them enough social-con votes to offest the votes lost among social moderates.
I understand that evangelicals may have been voting on a lot of stuff everyone was voting on: a war that isn't being won, an economy which is strong but which people don't perceive as such, etc. And social cons vote on many different issues, same as everyone.
Still, as someone who doesn't buy much of the social con agenda, I have to say that when I support (or acquiesce) in policy positions that I don't particularly like, I'm doing so because I see that as part of a tactical political alliance: you support my issues, I support yours. We may not agree on each other's issues all the way down the line, but we agree to mutually support each other to advance both of our agendas.
If social cons really aren't going to deliver the votes, it's very hard to justify, at the national level, the most unpopular parts of their agenda: bans on embryonic stem cell research, complete bans on abortions in almsot all circumstances, even *thinking* about teaching intelligent design in schools, etc.
Other positions (restrictions on abortion, protection of marriage, general family values) are more popular.
But you don't advance the most unpopular parts of a bloc's agenda unless you're getting something in exchange. These issues are net-vote-losers on their own and it's hard to justify them without the tacit agreement that Republicans will put their necks on the block for evangelicals only if evangelicals help spare us from losing our heads by voting with us enough to overcome the electoral disadvantage of being on the wrong political side of these issues.
I'm just saying that their are a lot of positions that ONLY make sense to take, electorally, if they bring with them enough social-con votes to offest the votes lost among social moderates.
I understand that evangelicals may have been voting on a lot of stuff everyone was voting on: a war that isn't being won, an economy which is strong but which people don't perceive as such, etc. And social cons vote on many different issues, same as everyone.
Still, as someone who doesn't buy much of the social con agenda, I have to say that when I support (or acquiesce) in policy positions that I don't particularly like, I'm doing so because I see that as part of a tactical political alliance: you support my issues, I support yours. We may not agree on each other's issues all the way down the line, but we agree to mutually support each other to advance both of our agendas.
If social cons really aren't going to deliver the votes, it's very hard to justify, at the national level, the most unpopular parts of their agenda: bans on embryonic stem cell research, complete bans on abortions in almsot all circumstances, even *thinking* about teaching intelligent design in schools, etc.
Other positions (restrictions on abortion, protection of marriage, general family values) are more popular.
But you don't advance the most unpopular parts of a bloc's agenda unless you're getting something in exchange. These issues are net-vote-losers on their own and it's hard to justify them without the tacit agreement that Republicans will put their necks on the block for evangelicals only if evangelicals help spare us from losing our heads by voting with us enough to overcome the electoral disadvantage of being on the wrong political side of these issues.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 05:24 PM (4qddO)
75
Guys, you're trying to be strictly logical about this, which just doesn't add up when you're talking about something intangible like faith. Can we do it without you? Some of us believe we can, with enough faith. Some of us are more realistic (if less pragmatic), that we need to hold our principles, and if we suffer as a result, so be it. (As a Catholic, I easily fall in the latter camp.)
IOW, we can sometimes threaten you, and we'll piss you off when we do, and show you we need to be reckoned with. But you can't really threaten us the same way. We've been treated badly and dismissed by people who make you look like amateurs.
IOW, we can sometimes threaten you, and we'll piss you off when we do, and show you we need to be reckoned with. But you can't really threaten us the same way. We've been treated badly and dismissed by people who make you look like amateurs.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 05:25 PM (vgyJ5)
76
As an "Evangelical" I think MarkV, AFLAC as assholes, because they are blaming us for the lose.
To the extent that evangelicals sat this out, yeah, I'm saying they have to take a share of the blame.
And it frustrates the hell out of me, because I know they are going to be around, carrying their anti-abortion signs and carrying on about it when we had a chance this year to renew the GOP Senate majority and confirm another vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and now its gone. For years to come.
Damn.
Seriously, dude. Think about that for a minute. Really get your mind around the concept that Stevens is stepping down next year and you could have had another vote to end the Roe travesty but now you will not. Lifetime appointment. Only nine slots total. Its the equivalent of a fumble on the goal line with time running out and your team down by 4. Returned for a touchdown the other way.
I get pissed just thinking about it because I care about the issue too. But too many "evangelicals" cop this attitude that if they don't get everything they want then they can't be bothered. But they'll all show up for the marches and the rest of that uselesss crap that the MSM completely ignores every year.
Ugh.
To the extent that evangelicals sat this out, yeah, I'm saying they have to take a share of the blame.
And it frustrates the hell out of me, because I know they are going to be around, carrying their anti-abortion signs and carrying on about it when we had a chance this year to renew the GOP Senate majority and confirm another vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and now its gone. For years to come.
Damn.
Seriously, dude. Think about that for a minute. Really get your mind around the concept that Stevens is stepping down next year and you could have had another vote to end the Roe travesty but now you will not. Lifetime appointment. Only nine slots total. Its the equivalent of a fumble on the goal line with time running out and your team down by 4. Returned for a touchdown the other way.
I get pissed just thinking about it because I care about the issue too. But too many "evangelicals" cop this attitude that if they don't get everything they want then they can't be bothered. But they'll all show up for the marches and the rest of that uselesss crap that the MSM completely ignores every year.
Ugh.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 05:27 PM (JkloM)
77
The second most irritating thing about the religious voters? This attitude.
Jack, you are generalizing.
You want to work together? Great, it takes compromise. You want to dictate and threaten, we'll both watch from the sidelines.
Believe it or not, I am actually with you there!
The Evangelicals that won't comprise are like the Nutroots that won't compromise on the WoT. There are extremists in both party, but don't lump all Evangelicals together as the extreme.
I have my beliefs, I will stick to them, but in politics it is about whom represents closest to your values, not who exactly represents your values.
Jack, you are generalizing.
You want to work together? Great, it takes compromise. You want to dictate and threaten, we'll both watch from the sidelines.
Believe it or not, I am actually with you there!
The Evangelicals that won't comprise are like the Nutroots that won't compromise on the WoT. There are extremists in both party, but don't lump all Evangelicals together as the extreme.
I have my beliefs, I will stick to them, but in politics it is about whom represents closest to your values, not who exactly represents your values.
Posted by: Mr Minority at November 08, 2006 05:28 PM (W9sky)
78
and noting has made that clearer than the last few comments
Man, blaming the loss of the entire election on embryonic stem cells? THat's idiotic. Embryonic stem cells (cloning) IS creepy. THe problem was that the issue was muddled by enough retards to make it a bad issue for the conservative side.
Look, you either believe in a "right to life" or you don't. THe so-called conservative coalition was in fact formed in large part on this issue, however, and it has for the last 20 + years galvanized the GOP. WIth Dems who finally learned to talk pro-life, the election has been called into question.
Real response is not to jettison one of the real, and in fact supporable, planks in favor of a slightly more refined libertarian agenda. Not enough people will ever buy the libertarian bill of goods.
Every one of us fell into the shithole and everyone is looking at his neighbor thinking his neighbor smells worse. Truth is, we all stink and we all need to clean the shit off the other guy before we move on.
That or you sit in the corner by yourself, covered in shit.
And smelly
Man, blaming the loss of the entire election on embryonic stem cells? THat's idiotic. Embryonic stem cells (cloning) IS creepy. THe problem was that the issue was muddled by enough retards to make it a bad issue for the conservative side.
Look, you either believe in a "right to life" or you don't. THe so-called conservative coalition was in fact formed in large part on this issue, however, and it has for the last 20 + years galvanized the GOP. WIth Dems who finally learned to talk pro-life, the election has been called into question.
Real response is not to jettison one of the real, and in fact supporable, planks in favor of a slightly more refined libertarian agenda. Not enough people will ever buy the libertarian bill of goods.
Every one of us fell into the shithole and everyone is looking at his neighbor thinking his neighbor smells worse. Truth is, we all stink and we all need to clean the shit off the other guy before we move on.
That or you sit in the corner by yourself, covered in shit.
And smelly
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 05:28 PM (jFTJl)
79
I'm not an evangelical by any stretch of the imagination, but I think you have it slightly wrong JackStraw. The "life issues" aren't really about people having different standards.
From a scientific view, I think we can all agree that life does begin at conception, at least in a technical sense that it is not genetically equivalent to the mother. That being said, what value does our society assign to that life? In a perfect world, voters would debate that. And they would probably allow abortion to a certain extent in most states, and I am sure some states would ban it completely. But we don't have that kind of debate, because the Supreme Court has said that we can't have that debate. Without Roe v. Wade, abortion would not even be an issue. States would have sorted it out.
As for the evangelicals in general: well, Terri Schiavo was a bad move for a good cause. But it shouldn't have ever made it to the federal level.
From a scientific view, I think we can all agree that life does begin at conception, at least in a technical sense that it is not genetically equivalent to the mother. That being said, what value does our society assign to that life? In a perfect world, voters would debate that. And they would probably allow abortion to a certain extent in most states, and I am sure some states would ban it completely. But we don't have that kind of debate, because the Supreme Court has said that we can't have that debate. Without Roe v. Wade, abortion would not even be an issue. States would have sorted it out.
As for the evangelicals in general: well, Terri Schiavo was a bad move for a good cause. But it shouldn't have ever made it to the federal level.
Posted by: Shivv at November 08, 2006 05:31 PM (nEl3r)
80
I think that pissing and moaning about Evangelicals not turning out and thats what lost the GOP is a buncha monkey belching. I can not tell you how many times libertarians and fiscal conservatives in the past year had a whole 'I'm sitting out elections" post including Ace. Yet the heavily Christian staffed NRO and Hugh Hewitt never advocated that.
I think a broad cross section of voters were just tired. Tired of Cronyism, tired of power for the sake of power, tired of K street scandals, and tired of being pissed on by Senators and representatives who seem to care fuck all about the people. (pardon my language)
I think that the voters who stayed home are lashing out at the GOP for being half serious about the war. Sure the Dems are not going to be at all serious but they have two years to produce something and become serious or show the electorate without any hiding how profoundly unserious they are. And we'll be spared two more years of whining about how the election was stolen.
Are the next two years going to be bad? I think so. You know what? they were going to be anyhow. I think that the White House needs to slash and burn. There is no legacy that Bush will leave behind that will not be improved on with him spending all his political capital.
I think a broad cross section of voters were just tired. Tired of Cronyism, tired of power for the sake of power, tired of K street scandals, and tired of being pissed on by Senators and representatives who seem to care fuck all about the people. (pardon my language)
I think that the voters who stayed home are lashing out at the GOP for being half serious about the war. Sure the Dems are not going to be at all serious but they have two years to produce something and become serious or show the electorate without any hiding how profoundly unserious they are. And we'll be spared two more years of whining about how the election was stolen.
Are the next two years going to be bad? I think so. You know what? they were going to be anyhow. I think that the White House needs to slash and burn. There is no legacy that Bush will leave behind that will not be improved on with him spending all his political capital.
Posted by: Taleena at November 08, 2006 05:32 PM (6aS70)
81
The Evangelicals were almost a non-factor in this election.
Of course, the Libs use the Evangelicals as their No. 1 bogeyman. They raise more money on the fear of the great Evangelical take-over more than anything.
But where's the great Evangelical agenda? Please.
And with Iraq and economic issues looming, the social agenda was a distant memory.
Of course, the Libs use the Evangelicals as their No. 1 bogeyman. They raise more money on the fear of the great Evangelical take-over more than anything.
But where's the great Evangelical agenda? Please.
And with Iraq and economic issues looming, the social agenda was a distant memory.
Posted by: Phinn at November 08, 2006 05:32 PM (DiZv6)
82
But the exit polls, and raw votes from red, religious areas, indicate that a lot of evangelicals voted Democrat
But...but...but....Megan assured me that banning online gaming was critical to keeping the evangelicals happy so that we could sell out our ideals on free enterprise and limited government and WIN WIN WIN!!!!!
Pfffffftttt.
Fucking bible thumping fundie-tards. I hate the fuckers as much as I do the left. Why the GOP sucks up to these Darwinian dead enders is beyond me.
(And no, I'm not talking about real Christians here. I'm talking about the fire and brimstone, old testament quoting, homo-hating, window-peeking scolds who focus on everyone's souls but their own.)
But...but...but....Megan assured me that banning online gaming was critical to keeping the evangelicals happy so that we could sell out our ideals on free enterprise and limited government and WIN WIN WIN!!!!!
Pfffffftttt.
Fucking bible thumping fundie-tards. I hate the fuckers as much as I do the left. Why the GOP sucks up to these Darwinian dead enders is beyond me.
(And no, I'm not talking about real Christians here. I'm talking about the fire and brimstone, old testament quoting, homo-hating, window-peeking scolds who focus on everyone's souls but their own.)
Posted by: Warden at November 08, 2006 05:32 PM (neXw6)
83
Every one of us fell into the shithole and everyone is looking at his neighbor thinking his neighbor smells worse. Truth is, we all stink and we all need to clean the shit off the other guy before we move on.
As soon as I'm done irrationally lashing out at everybody, that's gonna sound like very good advice.
As soon as I'm done irrationally lashing out at everybody, that's gonna sound like very good advice.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 05:32 PM (JkloM)
84
Black Republican,
With all due respect, social moderates have to be reckoned with too. Two way street.
Bear in mind when I support (or acquiesce in) the social-con agenda, I'm not having the courage of MY principles, I'm having the courage of YOURS, and I kind of expect to have that recognized.
What I'm tired of is having MY support taken for granted, too. You guys sometimes act like social moderates OWE you their support. That's like me saying you OWE the Republicans your support...
...wait, I guess I did just say that. Okay, I see how that feels.
But, still, a coaltion of people who disagree on several issues, but agree on more, still requires we vote together if we want to have any chance of winning.
I don't buy this claim that the GOP has "abandoned" social cons. From my point of view, the GOP has done just about everything possible to advance their agenda. What, precisely, are you claiming not enough has been done on?
Hey, who knows, maybe we can't win without the social cons and we can't win with them. Maybe the conservative coalition Reagan put together is just not a majority coalition anymore.
With all due respect, social moderates have to be reckoned with too. Two way street.
Bear in mind when I support (or acquiesce in) the social-con agenda, I'm not having the courage of MY principles, I'm having the courage of YOURS, and I kind of expect to have that recognized.
What I'm tired of is having MY support taken for granted, too. You guys sometimes act like social moderates OWE you their support. That's like me saying you OWE the Republicans your support...
...wait, I guess I did just say that. Okay, I see how that feels.
But, still, a coaltion of people who disagree on several issues, but agree on more, still requires we vote together if we want to have any chance of winning.
I don't buy this claim that the GOP has "abandoned" social cons. From my point of view, the GOP has done just about everything possible to advance their agenda. What, precisely, are you claiming not enough has been done on?
Hey, who knows, maybe we can't win without the social cons and we can't win with them. Maybe the conservative coalition Reagan put together is just not a majority coalition anymore.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 05:33 PM (4qddO)
85
"I don't often disagree with our resident Faerie, but here I do. BR might "know" when life begins and you disagree. But there is a moral principle involved, and principles win."
I guess this means me. I made my point poorly, I guess. Let me try again.
It is exactly what you just said that pisses off some non-religious voters like myself who usually vote Republican. I am an Independent, but I was a Republican before some here were even born. I actually helped canvas for Nixon as a kid. Yea, I was not only in the party I actually did work for it.
What drove me to the wonderous land of independence is this attitude that *only* religious people have principles and their morality trumps all. It is ridiculous and insulting and the worst sort of moral preening. Every time I hear someone say, oh I don't know, that the people of Missouri who voted by almost the same margin for ECS as they did for McKaskill over Talent, have no morals and don't respect life, it makes me wonder who made them the moral arbiter of America. Who made them the "principled" one?
And what the hell is moral or principled about saying "I'm right and have priniciples on my side and you don't so its either my way or the highway"? Its a loser arguement and has been proven to be election after election.
I guess this means me. I made my point poorly, I guess. Let me try again.
It is exactly what you just said that pisses off some non-religious voters like myself who usually vote Republican. I am an Independent, but I was a Republican before some here were even born. I actually helped canvas for Nixon as a kid. Yea, I was not only in the party I actually did work for it.
What drove me to the wonderous land of independence is this attitude that *only* religious people have principles and their morality trumps all. It is ridiculous and insulting and the worst sort of moral preening. Every time I hear someone say, oh I don't know, that the people of Missouri who voted by almost the same margin for ECS as they did for McKaskill over Talent, have no morals and don't respect life, it makes me wonder who made them the moral arbiter of America. Who made them the "principled" one?
And what the hell is moral or principled about saying "I'm right and have priniciples on my side and you don't so its either my way or the highway"? Its a loser arguement and has been proven to be election after election.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 05:34 PM (t+mja)
86
As soon as I'm done irrationally lashing out at everybody, that's gonna sound like very good advice.
Heh. Give those small-handed, patchouli stanking libertarians a whack next.
Heh. Give those small-handed, patchouli stanking libertarians a whack next.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 05:34 PM (R8+nJ)
87
hobgoblin,
I didn't blame the whole election on embryonic stem cell research. And whether creepy or not, in Missouri -- a bellwhether state, almost a 50/50 state, the state most representative of the nation as a whole -- such research won by, what, eight or ten points? (Not sure -- but it won.)
It's a whole string of policy positions which amount to dealbreakers for a lot of people.
My brother is a Republican, pretty much, but only votes such reluctantly because of these issues. And he's in Ohio, where such voters are crucial.
Look, it's scapegoating time, I'm in a bad mood, I'm looking to pin blame.
I apologize for this idea that anyone in particular cost us the election. It was GOP politicians chiefly, and Bush, and the general events in Iraq, and of course the media's relentless doomsaying on the economy.
However, I do stand by my general point that generally-unpopular positions can only be justified if the minority they appeal to actually vote for you in great enough numbers to offset the lost votes.
I didn't blame the whole election on embryonic stem cell research. And whether creepy or not, in Missouri -- a bellwhether state, almost a 50/50 state, the state most representative of the nation as a whole -- such research won by, what, eight or ten points? (Not sure -- but it won.)
It's a whole string of policy positions which amount to dealbreakers for a lot of people.
My brother is a Republican, pretty much, but only votes such reluctantly because of these issues. And he's in Ohio, where such voters are crucial.
Look, it's scapegoating time, I'm in a bad mood, I'm looking to pin blame.
I apologize for this idea that anyone in particular cost us the election. It was GOP politicians chiefly, and Bush, and the general events in Iraq, and of course the media's relentless doomsaying on the economy.
However, I do stand by my general point that generally-unpopular positions can only be justified if the minority they appeal to actually vote for you in great enough numbers to offset the lost votes.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 05:39 PM (4qddO)
88
"You can prove when life is human?"
An embryo is a living being of identifiably human species...not lupine, not crustcean...human.
An embryo is a living being of identifiably human species...not lupine, not crustcean...human.
Posted by: theanchoress at November 08, 2006 05:39 PM (hDwif)
89
Y'know, Ace has got a pretty good point here. I don't know how many voters we lost because of our Luddite stem cell policies, but if it's more than a handful, you'd think we'd be pretty well grounded in our criticism of all-or-none social conservatives.
Sure, STR is creepy as hell and there's nothing wrong with making that obvious (we didn't). But if we lost younger voters for fumbling the issue, at least we ought to be able to count on social-cons not to cut off their own noses in spite.
I'm not into baby harvests either, but it's their issue. Mine are taxes and guns. When I look around, there's no one in the foxhole with me. I don't get to ask where you went?
Sure, STR is creepy as hell and there's nothing wrong with making that obvious (we didn't). But if we lost younger voters for fumbling the issue, at least we ought to be able to count on social-cons not to cut off their own noses in spite.
I'm not into baby harvests either, but it's their issue. Mine are taxes and guns. When I look around, there's no one in the foxhole with me. I don't get to ask where you went?
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 08, 2006 05:40 PM (uSomN)
90
(And no, I'm not talking about real Christians here. I'm
talking about the fire and brimstone, old testament quoting,
homo-hating, window-peeking scolds who focus on everyone's souls but
their own.)
Nice enough of you to put in that disclaimer Warden.
Abortion and ESC research are button pushers for Evangelicals, but as I said before, they are not the only issues that voted upon.
And I will reiterate one more time:
If the Evangelicals are going to vote, do you honestly think that they would vote for a Donk over a Republican?
Nice enough of you to put in that disclaimer Warden.
Abortion and ESC research are button pushers for Evangelicals, but as I said before, they are not the only issues that voted upon.
And I will reiterate one more time:
If the Evangelicals are going to vote, do you honestly think that they would vote for a Donk over a Republican?
Posted by: Mr Minority at November 08, 2006 05:40 PM (W9sky)
91
Personally, I'm not blaming the evangelicals for causing us to lose, I'm blaming them for being a bunch of ungrateful assholes and running from us over Mark Foley when we spent two years contorting ourselves into a series of very uncomfortable positions to keep them happy. What do they do in our hour of need? Go vote for the "Party of Death" (yeah, thanks for making us sit through THAT bullshit, too), which happens to prominently feature several gay congresspersons. What the fuck was that? Trading one closeted Republican congressperson for several openly gay Democratic ones. Yeah, makes perfect god damn sense. (oh shit, took the lord's name is vain - that's not illegal yet, is it?)
As for your bullshit that the Republican Party was conservative before Roe, you obviously have no clue about the party's big government policies under Nixon or Eisenhower. Bush is more opften compared to Nixon than he is to Reagan when it comes to his spending and regulation policies. And the Reagan Revolution isn't dubbed as such because of his "brave" embrace of moralists out there and their apoplexy over Roe, but because he challenged big government orthodoxy and made Americans feel all good about wanting to defend themselves, something they couldn't do under Carter.
As for national defense, I don't give a flying fuck what the Democrats' view of defending America is, it's not the one that has objectively made Americans, up to this point, want to vote for the Republicans.
As for your bullshit that the Republican Party was conservative before Roe, you obviously have no clue about the party's big government policies under Nixon or Eisenhower. Bush is more opften compared to Nixon than he is to Reagan when it comes to his spending and regulation policies. And the Reagan Revolution isn't dubbed as such because of his "brave" embrace of moralists out there and their apoplexy over Roe, but because he challenged big government orthodoxy and made Americans feel all good about wanting to defend themselves, something they couldn't do under Carter.
As for national defense, I don't give a flying fuck what the Democrats' view of defending America is, it's not the one that has objectively made Americans, up to this point, want to vote for the Republicans.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 05:41 PM (X5HHU)
92
Winner: the Left
Loser: The far left
Posted by: ahem at November 08, 2006 05:41 PM (IZEka)
93
If Mitt Romney is the candidate, there's no reason even to hold an election in 2008. He'd stomp any competition, much more so than McCain. I have a visceral cringing whenever politicians speak, even those I support, but I've never seen anything like Romney. He surpasses Reagan in his appeal - heck, he won in Mass. as a conservative. Does anyone here seriously think a conservative who can win in Mass. might actually lose a nationwide election? He might even win Mass. running as President.
Posted by: The Raven at November 08, 2006 05:42 PM (KRWef)
94
Look, we called "all hands on deck" and the bible thumpers stayed in the church basement. Not good enough.
Of course, the libertarians were in the parking lot sparking a fatty, so they can't escape blame either. (h/t Slu).
Friggin' splinter groups. Why can't they all be about getting filthy stinking rich and rolling aound with strippers in a pile of money? Is that so much to ask?
Of course, the libertarians were in the parking lot sparking a fatty, so they can't escape blame either. (h/t Slu).
Friggin' splinter groups. Why can't they all be about getting filthy stinking rich and rolling aound with strippers in a pile of money? Is that so much to ask?
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 05:45 PM (ivbbD)
95
I'm blaming them for being a bunch of ungrateful assholes and running from us over Mark Foley when we spent two years contorting ourselves into a series of very uncomfortable positions to keep them happy
Bingo.
And Mr. Minority, I'm actually pro life. But from a political perspective, we need to drop the legislative and judicial approach on the matter and, to turn a trite phrase, start changing hearts and minds.
I think the majority of Americans support common sense measures like parental notification and banning partial birth abortion, but baby steps (pun intended) on the rest of it please.
People here get so worked up at us small government "absolutists," but why don't Evangelicals receive the same criticism on abortion? Pragmatism cuts both ways.
Bingo.
And Mr. Minority, I'm actually pro life. But from a political perspective, we need to drop the legislative and judicial approach on the matter and, to turn a trite phrase, start changing hearts and minds.
I think the majority of Americans support common sense measures like parental notification and banning partial birth abortion, but baby steps (pun intended) on the rest of it please.
People here get so worked up at us small government "absolutists," but why don't Evangelicals receive the same criticism on abortion? Pragmatism cuts both ways.
Posted by: Warden at November 08, 2006 05:46 PM (neXw6)
96
When the Dems lose, they blame the Christians.
When the Republicans lose, they blame the Christians.
I'm going to buck the trend and blame the Joos and the gays.
When the Republicans lose, they blame the Christians.
I'm going to buck the trend and blame the Joos and the gays.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 05:48 PM (3GX+x)
97
Will you guys please fcuking cut it out? Lose one skirmish, and you guys are at each other's throats! Sheesh!
There is this old Aesop's tale where two cats are fghting over how to split a big chunk of cheese. A monkey comes along, and says he will divide it fairly. He takes out a weighing scale, cuts the cheese in two and weighs it. One side is heavy. He eats some from that side, then other side gets heavy. he eats some from that side two. He repeats the process till no cheese is left. You are all monkeys (or descended from monkeys 
and Monkey Pelosi just ran away with your cheese.
Posted by: Tushar D at November 08, 2006 05:49 PM (h76y6)
98
Ok, now that I have a little more time now, let me try to restate my last point there a little more clearly.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats' subjective view of their own ability to plan for the national defense is. Objectively, it sucks, and the voters by and large don't feel like bending over and grabbing their ankles when we're hit by our enemies.
It's been the Republican Party's traditional preference for a strong military, and refusla to put up with "global village" malarkey and U.N. doubletalk that has been one of its biggest selling points. Moreso than its attempts to codify Scripture. Which is why it's so galling that the Evagelicals broke ranks after all of our sacrifices when we needed them to help make up for our shortfall over Bush's poor handling of Iraq and the War on Terror in general.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats' subjective view of their own ability to plan for the national defense is. Objectively, it sucks, and the voters by and large don't feel like bending over and grabbing their ankles when we're hit by our enemies.
It's been the Republican Party's traditional preference for a strong military, and refusla to put up with "global village" malarkey and U.N. doubletalk that has been one of its biggest selling points. Moreso than its attempts to codify Scripture. Which is why it's so galling that the Evagelicals broke ranks after all of our sacrifices when we needed them to help make up for our shortfall over Bush's poor handling of Iraq and the War on Terror in general.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 05:49 PM (X5HHU)
99
>>>If the Evangelicals are going to vote, do you honestly think that they would vote for a Donk over a Republican?
They seem to have, yes.
Not in that they gave Dems majority support, but they didn't give Republicans the sort of huge support we're used to. The sort of 90% support that justifies taking positions fairly to strongly unopopular with the 55-60% of the population that isn't very religious or at least isn't religions on issues like this.
I really hope that this wasn't due to the Foley thing. I will make no assumptions. I know that evangelicals have a tendency to turn on ideologically-sympatico candidates due to such personal indiscretions -- Tim Hutchinson, for example.
The thing is, one of my big issues -- the third issue, I guess, after the War on Terror, and then law and order -- is judges.
This is what makes my teeth ache -- the evangelicals seem to ahve stopped turning out in great numbers for the GOP at the precise time we were on the verge of getitng a majority-consitutionalist court.
AT THE VERY MOMENT.
That's gone now. It might be twenty years before we can even think about this again.
And if the Foley matter turned off many social cons-- well, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm really pissed about that.
I wanted to hold the Senate, guys. I wanted a consitutionalist court.
I could have tolerated losing the house.
But the Senate?
This was epic; this was historic. We could have had a truly conservative court for the first time since the mid 1930's.
GONE.
GONE.
GONE.
And it's not coming back for a long, long, LONG time.
They seem to have, yes.
Not in that they gave Dems majority support, but they didn't give Republicans the sort of huge support we're used to. The sort of 90% support that justifies taking positions fairly to strongly unopopular with the 55-60% of the population that isn't very religious or at least isn't religions on issues like this.
I really hope that this wasn't due to the Foley thing. I will make no assumptions. I know that evangelicals have a tendency to turn on ideologically-sympatico candidates due to such personal indiscretions -- Tim Hutchinson, for example.
The thing is, one of my big issues -- the third issue, I guess, after the War on Terror, and then law and order -- is judges.
This is what makes my teeth ache -- the evangelicals seem to ahve stopped turning out in great numbers for the GOP at the precise time we were on the verge of getitng a majority-consitutionalist court.
AT THE VERY MOMENT.
That's gone now. It might be twenty years before we can even think about this again.
And if the Foley matter turned off many social cons-- well, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm really pissed about that.
I wanted to hold the Senate, guys. I wanted a consitutionalist court.
I could have tolerated losing the house.
But the Senate?
This was epic; this was historic. We could have had a truly conservative court for the first time since the mid 1930's.
GONE.
GONE.
GONE.
And it's not coming back for a long, long, LONG time.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 05:49 PM (4qddO)
100
I don't buy this claim that the GOP has "abandoned" social cons. From my point of view, the GOP has done just about everything possible to advance their agenda. What, precisely, are you claiming not enough has been done on?
Dude, you were the one who started it, bringing out the "Jesus freak" kinda talk.
I'm happy as a clam with the party, per se. Like you, its the leadership that's got me riled, and probably for all the same reasons. Stem cells and Schiavo included, because by throwing us such stupid bones with no meat on 'em, it invites libertarians and secular conservatives to trash us for no good reason.
Dude, you were the one who started it, bringing out the "Jesus freak" kinda talk.
I'm happy as a clam with the party, per se. Like you, its the leadership that's got me riled, and probably for all the same reasons. Stem cells and Schiavo included, because by throwing us such stupid bones with no meat on 'em, it invites libertarians and secular conservatives to trash us for no good reason.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 05:49 PM (vgyJ5)
101
Drat, killed the story. You guys are Cats, and Pelosi is monkey. And I am the retard.
Posted by: Tushar D at November 08, 2006 05:50 PM (h76y6)
102
He (Romney) might even win Mass. running as President.
Speaking of Massoftwoshits, here's a though that should chill you to your very core:
If Ted Kennedy survives to the end of the term he has just been reelected to, he will have served in the Senate for 50 straight years. 50!
This is what is considered by the Democratic party as a "senior statesman."
ugh.
Speaking of Massoftwoshits, here's a though that should chill you to your very core:
If Ted Kennedy survives to the end of the term he has just been reelected to, he will have served in the Senate for 50 straight years. 50!
This is what is considered by the Democratic party as a "senior statesman."
ugh.
Posted by: Duct Tape Sellers of America at November 08, 2006 05:51 PM (AQGeh)
103
Personally, I'm not blaming the evangelicals for causing us to lose,
I'm blaming them for being a bunch of ungrateful assholes and running
from us over Mark Foley when we spent two years contorting ourselves
into a series of very uncomfortable positions to keep them happy.
This evangelical agrees with that completely. It was short-sighted and stupid, and will cost them in the long run.
This evangelical agrees with that completely. It was short-sighted and stupid, and will cost them in the long run.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 05:51 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Warden at November 08, 2006 05:51 PM (neXw6)
105
I agree 110% with what the Duct Tape Sellers wrote.
Fucking brilliant analysis, in my humble opinion. You go, DTSA!
Fucking brilliant analysis, in my humble opinion. You go, DTSA!
Posted by: wiserbud at November 08, 2006 05:56 PM (AQGeh)
106
I understand you brutal math. I agree too, to a point. But the reason it's not a "Two way street" is that it's a three or four way street.
See, there are 3 distinct factions in the GOP (1) Rockerfeller Republicans - big gov't (troughs to feed in) and socially (abortion/life issues) moderate-liberal, domestically (immigration, guns, etc) moderate; (2) Libertarians - small gov't and socially liberal, domestically conservative-moderate (toss up on immigrration, though); and (3) social cons - medium to big gov't and socially conservative, domestically conservative.
THe interplay between these three factions is what got us here now. Fact is, none of us can get the ball rolling without the other two. I view this as a tial separation in the effort to avoid divorce.
As for me, I fall somewhere between the social cons and the libertarians (small gov't, but I likes me some public morality, but with guns and tight immigration), so lots of people aren't comfortable being pigeon-holed in any of the factions. THese "floaters" (probably most of the party) are who determine what the GOP stands for, I think.
We just ned to have an internal debate to find out where we as a party stand. What we can agree on and what we can't. THe pure social con bloc is indeed going to learn a valuable lesson in the next 2 years, as are I fear, we all.
See, there are 3 distinct factions in the GOP (1) Rockerfeller Republicans - big gov't (troughs to feed in) and socially (abortion/life issues) moderate-liberal, domestically (immigration, guns, etc) moderate; (2) Libertarians - small gov't and socially liberal, domestically conservative-moderate (toss up on immigrration, though); and (3) social cons - medium to big gov't and socially conservative, domestically conservative.
THe interplay between these three factions is what got us here now. Fact is, none of us can get the ball rolling without the other two. I view this as a tial separation in the effort to avoid divorce.
As for me, I fall somewhere between the social cons and the libertarians (small gov't, but I likes me some public morality, but with guns and tight immigration), so lots of people aren't comfortable being pigeon-holed in any of the factions. THese "floaters" (probably most of the party) are who determine what the GOP stands for, I think.
We just ned to have an internal debate to find out where we as a party stand. What we can agree on and what we can't. THe pure social con bloc is indeed going to learn a valuable lesson in the next 2 years, as are I fear, we all.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 05:56 PM (jFTJl)
107
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the Libertarians. The reason no one wants to vote for big "L" Libertarians for public office is because too many Americans are put off by their "blame America first" approach to foreign policy, which, by the way, identifies them more with the Democrats in people's minds than the Republicans. They just don't feel as squeamish as Democrats do in saying "we should just accept that we're screwed because of what a bunch of old farts did to the world 30 years ago." I consider myself a small "l" libertarian because I reject their view of foreign policy while accepting their distrust of government here at home.
There are a lot of small "l" libertarians in the Republican Party who feel the same way, and a hell of a lot of people who self-identify as "independent" have the same instincts. One thng all of us have in common is an extreme distaste of people who insist on telling us what to do with our bodies, and especially our genitalia.
There are a lot of small "l" libertarians in the Republican Party who feel the same way, and a hell of a lot of people who self-identify as "independent" have the same instincts. One thng all of us have in common is an extreme distaste of people who insist on telling us what to do with our bodies, and especially our genitalia.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 05:58 PM (X5HHU)
108
my horribly misspelled comment above was to ACE
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 05:59 PM (jFTJl)
109
Here's what I don't get: the lack of realism over, say, the FMA.
Someone said upthread that the GOP had "abandoned" evangelicals by giving up on that.
Here's the deal: It takes 60 or 66 (forget if it's 3/5ths or 2/3rds support) votes to clear an amendment out of the senate.
We had 55 senators in the GOP, eight or ten or twelve who aren't even very socially conservative. SOme are social liberals. And you want to know why? Because their CONSTITUENTS, the people they're supposed to represent, are socially moderate or liberal.
So we had, at best 42 or so votes for something that needed 60 or 66 votes to pass.
How does it make sense to SHRINK these numbers? How does that get you closer to your prize?
I have a problem with people who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the public is generally wildly supportive of their positions, and their positions would EASILY carry if only poltiicians had "guts" or "principles."
I've got news for people who think there's a bona-fide conservative majority: there's not. There is, at best, a plurality, and majority power can only be had by compromising with conservative-leaning moderates.
If these issues really did command majority support, they would have laready been passed! Easily! Because politicians almost always take whatever position commands majority support among their supporters. That's either cowardice, or realism, or just representing your actual consittuents. Whatever you want to call it, that's the way it is.
These issues do NOT have majority support generally.
So, as far as getting such policies through, it's absurd to blame Republcians for "abandoning" evangelicals on these issues. There's only so much you can do when you don't have majority support.
You can't magic your ass up to 66 senators if you've only got 40.
And diminishing the number of persuadable senators makes no sense even to "teach people a lesson."
What lesson? If a minority fails to acheive the impossible, they'll be made into a a smaller minority?
Someone said upthread that the GOP had "abandoned" evangelicals by giving up on that.
Here's the deal: It takes 60 or 66 (forget if it's 3/5ths or 2/3rds support) votes to clear an amendment out of the senate.
We had 55 senators in the GOP, eight or ten or twelve who aren't even very socially conservative. SOme are social liberals. And you want to know why? Because their CONSTITUENTS, the people they're supposed to represent, are socially moderate or liberal.
So we had, at best 42 or so votes for something that needed 60 or 66 votes to pass.
How does it make sense to SHRINK these numbers? How does that get you closer to your prize?
I have a problem with people who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the public is generally wildly supportive of their positions, and their positions would EASILY carry if only poltiicians had "guts" or "principles."
I've got news for people who think there's a bona-fide conservative majority: there's not. There is, at best, a plurality, and majority power can only be had by compromising with conservative-leaning moderates.
If these issues really did command majority support, they would have laready been passed! Easily! Because politicians almost always take whatever position commands majority support among their supporters. That's either cowardice, or realism, or just representing your actual consittuents. Whatever you want to call it, that's the way it is.
These issues do NOT have majority support generally.
So, as far as getting such policies through, it's absurd to blame Republcians for "abandoning" evangelicals on these issues. There's only so much you can do when you don't have majority support.
You can't magic your ass up to 66 senators if you've only got 40.
And diminishing the number of persuadable senators makes no sense even to "teach people a lesson."
What lesson? If a minority fails to acheive the impossible, they'll be made into a a smaller minority?
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 06:03 PM (4qddO)
110
Want to see the type of fundamentalist that makes the rest of us evangelicals look bad?
Oh yes you do!
Sample:
If Democrats remain in power (likely) then we can expect expanding government involvement in our lives and deeper experimentation with all things gay.
Oh yes you do!
Sample:
If Democrats remain in power (likely) then we can expect expanding government involvement in our lives and deeper experimentation with all things gay.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2006 06:03 PM (R8+nJ)
111
Tushar, that's not how it goes.
Two cats are fighting over gay marriage. A monkey comes over and calls one of the cats a homophobe. Then the monkey and the cat move to Massachusetts ans get married.
The moral of the story: Imagining a cat and a monkey in a homosexual relationship is kinda funny. Or, Monkeys will fuck anything.
Two cats are fighting over gay marriage. A monkey comes over and calls one of the cats a homophobe. Then the monkey and the cat move to Massachusetts ans get married.
The moral of the story: Imagining a cat and a monkey in a homosexual relationship is kinda funny. Or, Monkeys will fuck anything.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 06:05 PM (3GX+x)
112
Not in that they gave Dems majority support, but they didn't give Republicans the sort of huge support we're used to.
Ace,
Could you think maybe that they were as pissed off about other issues other than Foley, Abortion and ESC?
Immigration comes to mind as does the Republicans being pussies in the Senate. I was real pissed about what I saw over the last two years, but I still pulled the lever for "R".
And guess what folks: Texas remained Republican and we actually increased our #s in the state legislature!
This election was lost, not because the Evangelicals didn't vote, let's place the blame where it really belongs:
The Republicans that were in Congress forgot their Reagan roots, and became pussies that were afraid to fight back against the Donks. And that pissed me off!
Ace,
Could you think maybe that they were as pissed off about other issues other than Foley, Abortion and ESC?
Immigration comes to mind as does the Republicans being pussies in the Senate. I was real pissed about what I saw over the last two years, but I still pulled the lever for "R".
And guess what folks: Texas remained Republican and we actually increased our #s in the state legislature!
This election was lost, not because the Evangelicals didn't vote, let's place the blame where it really belongs:
The Republicans that were in Congress forgot their Reagan roots, and became pussies that were afraid to fight back against the Donks. And that pissed me off!
Posted by: Mr Minority at November 08, 2006 06:10 PM (W9sky)
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 06:10 PM (ivbbD)
114
And that pissed me off!
Wait. Are you saying that you sat this one out? Because I need to personalize this. Helps me focus.
Wait. Are you saying that you sat this one out? Because I need to personalize this. Helps me focus.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 06:12 PM (ivbbD)
115
Honestly, can any evangelicals explain how losing our (possibly) last, best hope for a majority-consitutionalist court is anything short of an unmitigated disaster?
Not just for social moderates like myself who may approve of some policies if leglislatively enacted but despise the diminishment of democracy when they're imposed on us by judicial fiat.
But for the evangelicals themselves.
I thought I heard overturning Roe v. Wade was something of a big issue with them.
The golden moment? Gone.
Not just for social moderates like myself who may approve of some policies if leglislatively enacted but despise the diminishment of democracy when they're imposed on us by judicial fiat.
But for the evangelicals themselves.
I thought I heard overturning Roe v. Wade was something of a big issue with them.
The golden moment? Gone.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 06:13 PM (4qddO)
116
This evangelical attacking is retarded. I don't think they stayed home, it's just that our leaders weren't very motivating. You don't blame the customer, you improve the product.
My wife and I are pagans, but we'll go down fighting over two issues: abortion and guns (self-defense). If you libertarian fiscal cons want to purge the party, fiune. You're going to lose more than just Christians.
By the way, fiscal cons got screwed the most in the last two years. I don't know why you're sticking up for our leaders.
My wife and I are pagans, but we'll go down fighting over two issues: abortion and guns (self-defense). If you libertarian fiscal cons want to purge the party, fiune. You're going to lose more than just Christians.
By the way, fiscal cons got screwed the most in the last two years. I don't know why you're sticking up for our leaders.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:13 PM (yW7DJ)
117
By the same token, Mark, a lot of people get real squeamish when a bunch of militant queer activists try to change our fundamental institutions. No one that I can remember was running on a "Bring back the Lash for Sodomites" platform.
Drawing a line in the sand is not the same thing as beating the snot out of you. ANd social cons did (and do) well when we needed to draw that line.
Drawing a line in the sand is not the same thing as beating the snot out of you. ANd social cons did (and do) well when we needed to draw that line.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 06:13 PM (jFTJl)
118
And you're all assholes.
Except for Black Republican. He seems like a good guy, even if he does make me want to poop my pants.
Except for Black Republican. He seems like a good guy, even if he does make me want to poop my pants.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:15 PM (yW7DJ)
119
Mr Minority,
Well, yes, a lot of Republicans either didn't vote or crossed party lines.
But one of the biggest drops in support was specifically from white evangelicals. The polls showed that jsut after Foleygate, the exit polls indicated it, and raw vote totals (real votes) from red evangelical areas support this.
The evangelicals turned off to the GOP. It's their right, I guess.
But if this was over Foleygate-- well, expressing displeasure over the GOP's failure to act against Foley earlier cost us Roe v. Wade and a consitutionalist court.
Forest for the trees.
And yeah, I, a social moderate, have more "heart-ache" over this than many evangelicals, I guess.
Well, yes, a lot of Republicans either didn't vote or crossed party lines.
But one of the biggest drops in support was specifically from white evangelicals. The polls showed that jsut after Foleygate, the exit polls indicated it, and raw vote totals (real votes) from red evangelical areas support this.
The evangelicals turned off to the GOP. It's their right, I guess.
But if this was over Foleygate-- well, expressing displeasure over the GOP's failure to act against Foley earlier cost us Roe v. Wade and a consitutionalist court.
Forest for the trees.
And yeah, I, a social moderate, have more "heart-ache" over this than many evangelicals, I guess.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 06:17 PM (4qddO)
120
Who said "purge the party"? I didn't.
But there are numbers to consider. Look, I'm just not that big on ESS bans, or forbidding almost all abortions legislatively, etc. I acquiesce in these matters because doing so helps me get MY priorities through (judges, war, law and order).
I have a selfish interest here -- I want my agenda. I'm wiiling to suppor other people's agenda if they help me accomplish mine.
If they won't -- then why would I acquiesce in policies I don't support? What's in it for me?
But there are numbers to consider. Look, I'm just not that big on ESS bans, or forbidding almost all abortions legislatively, etc. I acquiesce in these matters because doing so helps me get MY priorities through (judges, war, law and order).
I have a selfish interest here -- I want my agenda. I'm wiiling to suppor other people's agenda if they help me accomplish mine.
If they won't -- then why would I acquiesce in policies I don't support? What's in it for me?
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 06:21 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: sandy burger at November 08, 2006 06:23 PM (PQyeQ)
122
Where is the evidence that the Jesus Freaks did not vote?
Y'all should be asking bbeck and Entropy when they converted to Jesusdom, because they are from the bloc who didn't support the GOP, yesterday.
If you libertarian fiscal cons want to purge the party...
There ain't gonna be no purgin'. If the liberatarians want to leave, they can join the other Libertarians. The rest of us are staying in the Republican Party. We will right the ship, so to speak. I have no interest whatsoever in moving to the Center. I plan to take MY party further to the right and advance a Conservative agenda, not a Moderate agenda.
Y'all should be asking bbeck and Entropy when they converted to Jesusdom, because they are from the bloc who didn't support the GOP, yesterday.
If you libertarian fiscal cons want to purge the party...
There ain't gonna be no purgin'. If the liberatarians want to leave, they can join the other Libertarians. The rest of us are staying in the Republican Party. We will right the ship, so to speak. I have no interest whatsoever in moving to the Center. I plan to take MY party further to the right and advance a Conservative agenda, not a Moderate agenda.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 06:24 PM (3GX+x)
123
I live in Texas. If Republicans are increasing their numbers in the state legislature, it's because of their shameless exploitation of the growing numbers of evagelicals in Texas. Have you ever read the Texas Republican Party platform? I did, before the 2004 election. As proud as I am to be a Texan and a Republican, at that moment I was frightened of identifying myself with Texas Republicans. It was like they got the damn platform from a burning bush in the Davis Mountains.
And Adolfo, if there ever were a purge, it would NEVER be over guns. Else, I would be one of those purged. If there's one common thread (or most accepted thread) in the Republican Party, other than national defense, it's guns. It's not a social con issue. That's about freedom.
And Adolfo, if there ever were a purge, it would NEVER be over guns. Else, I would be one of those purged. If there's one common thread (or most accepted thread) in the Republican Party, other than national defense, it's guns. It's not a social con issue. That's about freedom.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 06:24 PM (X5HHU)
124
Ace has an uncanny knack of pulling the rug out from under my comments before I post them.
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 06:25 PM (3GX+x)
125
If us Jesus freaks didn't vote, who was it who passed gay marriage ban amendments in five states?
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 08, 2006 06:27 PM (qhY12)
126
I wasn't saying that you wanted to purge the party, Ace. Your view seems reasonable - about evangelicals needing to deliver votes to get support for their more unpopular stuff.
I'm just turned off by AFKAF and a few others lashing out.
I'll repeat my best point:
You don't blame the customer when your company is losing (and you certainly don't screech f-bombs at them). You improve the product.
I'm just turned off by AFKAF and a few others lashing out.
I'll repeat my best point:
You don't blame the customer when your company is losing (and you certainly don't screech f-bombs at them). You improve the product.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:30 PM (yW7DJ)
127
ace,
the bottom line is that this election squandered years of work in the judiciary. All because you think evangelicals didn't tip as decisively toward Republicans in key states. True, and due to the absolutely dirty nature of the Pubbies that has come to light on the last 8-9 months. (Foley was just part and parcel). That people won't vote for corrupt, dirty bastards is not the voters' faults.
It's the vile, dity, corrupt bastards fault. YOu want blame? Blame the disgusting Good ol Boy's network in DC and the incestuous relationship btw the governing party and power brokers that rose up duringt he R's dominance.
We (meaning myself included in my small roles in conservative politics) are the problem in that we gave them power with no accountability. We failed to police our own and let ourselves be used so the Washington elite could line their pockets.
Fuck the insiders, the K Street faggots. They're the ones responsible for this loss.
the bottom line is that this election squandered years of work in the judiciary. All because you think evangelicals didn't tip as decisively toward Republicans in key states. True, and due to the absolutely dirty nature of the Pubbies that has come to light on the last 8-9 months. (Foley was just part and parcel). That people won't vote for corrupt, dirty bastards is not the voters' faults.
It's the vile, dity, corrupt bastards fault. YOu want blame? Blame the disgusting Good ol Boy's network in DC and the incestuous relationship btw the governing party and power brokers that rose up duringt he R's dominance.
We (meaning myself included in my small roles in conservative politics) are the problem in that we gave them power with no accountability. We failed to police our own and let ourselves be used so the Washington elite could line their pockets.
Fuck the insiders, the K Street faggots. They're the ones responsible for this loss.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 06:30 PM (jFTJl)
128
""You can prove when life is human?"
An embryo is a living being of identifiably human species...not lupine, not crustcean...human."
Oh, so then I guess your spend your free time picketing fertility clinics where embyos are discarded as a matter of routine. Daily.
An acorn is living identifiably oak species...not lupine, not crustecean....oak. But you can't build an oak desk from a bunch of acorns.
This arguement goes on endlessly and nobody ever wins. You're not right or wrong and neither am I. I don't begrudge you your opinion, why do evangelicals insist that on these types of issues, only their opinion is moral and just?
An embryo is a living being of identifiably human species...not lupine, not crustcean...human."
Oh, so then I guess your spend your free time picketing fertility clinics where embyos are discarded as a matter of routine. Daily.
An acorn is living identifiably oak species...not lupine, not crustecean....oak. But you can't build an oak desk from a bunch of acorns.
This arguement goes on endlessly and nobody ever wins. You're not right or wrong and neither am I. I don't begrudge you your opinion, why do evangelicals insist that on these types of issues, only their opinion is moral and just?
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 06:32 PM (t+mja)
129
Bart,
Don't worry about Ace and the rug pulling & such.
You scored huge with "monkeys will fuck anything".
Made my day... thanks
Don't worry about Ace and the rug pulling & such.
You scored huge with "monkeys will fuck anything".
Made my day... thanks
Posted by: A. Weasel at November 08, 2006 06:34 PM (zhtB4)
130
Just a sanity check here - are we really sure that evangelicals in general didn't turn out or voted Democratic?
A few exit polls seem to show this, but I'd hold off on the purging until there's been a more thorough analysis.
But that said, I do think some of the pet issues of the religious right like gay marriage, Terri Schiavo, and stem cell funding definitely cost votes from independents and moderates. The GOP can't use up political capital and lose votes in the middle if it doesn't get solid support from the evangelicals. It's important to pick your battles, and in my opinion all of these issues pale in comparison to national security and the WOT.
A few exit polls seem to show this, but I'd hold off on the purging until there's been a more thorough analysis.
But that said, I do think some of the pet issues of the religious right like gay marriage, Terri Schiavo, and stem cell funding definitely cost votes from independents and moderates. The GOP can't use up political capital and lose votes in the middle if it doesn't get solid support from the evangelicals. It's important to pick your battles, and in my opinion all of these issues pale in comparison to national security and the WOT.
Posted by: Maetenloch at November 08, 2006 06:34 PM (XJubC)
131
An acorn is living identifiably oak species...not lupine, not crustecean....oak. But you can't build an oak desk from a bunch of acorns.
And you can't make a good juicy steak with just one embryo, so what's your point?
You're not even stating the pro-choice side correctly. An embryo is a human life, by scientific definition, but some doubt that it is a 'person'. Kind of like black people or Jews.
And you can't make a good juicy steak with just one embryo, so what's your point?
You're not even stating the pro-choice side correctly. An embryo is a human life, by scientific definition, but some doubt that it is a 'person'. Kind of like black people or Jews.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:36 PM (yW7DJ)
132
"gay marriage, . . . definitely cost votes from independents and moderates"
Complete and utter bullshit. Maybe---MAYBE---in AZ, but not in any of the 7 states that passed gay marriage bans by large numbers.
I take no poition on the other things that might have cost votes.
Complete and utter bullshit. Maybe---MAYBE---in AZ, but not in any of the 7 states that passed gay marriage bans by large numbers.
I take no poition on the other things that might have cost votes.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 06:36 PM (jFTJl)
133
I know people who could otherwise be convinced to vote Republican for national security reasons, but refuse to do so because of creationism and the like. They won't vote for people who they don't think are basically, you know, sane.
Posted by: sandy burger at November 08, 2006 06:38 PM (Cpse7)
134
And by the way, who is it leading the drive for small government, fiscal responsibility, and accountability in the Senate right now?
Oh yeah, that agnostic metrosexual libertarian, Tom Coburn.
Oh yeah, that agnostic metrosexual libertarian, Tom Coburn.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 08, 2006 06:38 PM (qhY12)
135
Goblin,
First let me dispel the notion, if you do mean to imply it ("beating the snot out of you"?), that I am getting personally defensive over FMA because I am a homosexual. I am NOT a homosexual; I just think it counterproductive to take unnecessary positions that end up slamming the door in the faces of people who might otherwise feel welcome in the "Big Tent."
And that's at least partially what the supporters of the FMA were doing- forcing Republicans (and Democrats) to take a position that a member of the federal government had no place to take, i.e. that marriage was between a man and a woman. I agree with the principle behind the FMA- keeping federal courts from deciding what should have been a state issue. But supporters of it went a step too far in cowing candidates into committing themselves to the idea that marriage could only ever be between a man and a woman. Personally, I have no objection to 2 men or 2 women getting married. Which is why the zeal supporters of FMA exhibited in pursuing its passage was such a turnoff.
First let me dispel the notion, if you do mean to imply it ("beating the snot out of you"?), that I am getting personally defensive over FMA because I am a homosexual. I am NOT a homosexual; I just think it counterproductive to take unnecessary positions that end up slamming the door in the faces of people who might otherwise feel welcome in the "Big Tent."
And that's at least partially what the supporters of the FMA were doing- forcing Republicans (and Democrats) to take a position that a member of the federal government had no place to take, i.e. that marriage was between a man and a woman. I agree with the principle behind the FMA- keeping federal courts from deciding what should have been a state issue. But supporters of it went a step too far in cowing candidates into committing themselves to the idea that marriage could only ever be between a man and a woman. Personally, I have no objection to 2 men or 2 women getting married. Which is why the zeal supporters of FMA exhibited in pursuing its passage was such a turnoff.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 06:39 PM (X5HHU)
136
Ace your talking about losing the court NOW. No one made that case during the election. Not a soul. People have got to have something to vote for. Political junkies like us have a better idea of the score. The average person saw Foley, and Abramov and said "Hmm more of the same crap. Let's put some fresh faces in." And they don't even think about the judicial confirmation process.
So you can throw the Xstians under the bus, but I'm blaming the Republican leadership that didn't bother to inform their constituents of the stakes. Among a vast array of other sins.
So you can throw the Xstians under the bus, but I'm blaming the Republican leadership that didn't bother to inform their constituents of the stakes. Among a vast array of other sins.
Posted by: Iblis at November 08, 2006 06:42 PM (SacKO)
137
Oh, its my tone that some don't like?
Tough sh!t.
We all lost an historic chance to change the court yesterday and I'm pissed. It was important to come out and vote for our corrupt, rotten, faggy party and some of us decided not to and as a result? Opportunity gone. For a very long time to come.
Whatever, man, with the crap about shouting at the customers. The GOP isn't selling you dish soap. Its offering an opportunity to advance at least a handful of your policy preferences. Savvy up. Politics is ugly business with real unsavory types in office and around office. Deal.
Or don't. Whatever. We won't get the chance to affect the Supreme Court again like this for decades.
Tough sh!t.
We all lost an historic chance to change the court yesterday and I'm pissed. It was important to come out and vote for our corrupt, rotten, faggy party and some of us decided not to and as a result? Opportunity gone. For a very long time to come.
Whatever, man, with the crap about shouting at the customers. The GOP isn't selling you dish soap. Its offering an opportunity to advance at least a handful of your policy preferences. Savvy up. Politics is ugly business with real unsavory types in office and around office. Deal.
Or don't. Whatever. We won't get the chance to affect the Supreme Court again like this for decades.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 06:42 PM (ivbbD)
138
Y'all should be asking bbeck and Entropy when they converted to Jesusdom, because they are from the bloc who didn't support the GOP, yesterday.
Hi-larious. Will someoe please explain to me how my voting for a Republican yesterday wasn't supporting the GOP?
*crickets*
Yeah, I figured.
Now, if you want to say I didn't support the status quo, you'd be right. I didn't think anyone should vote for any RINO currently in office. If I'd lived in Santorum's state, I would have voted for him. And Virginia? Allen lost my vote when he donned some snakeskin and joined Webb under a rock. If there's anything rough to deal with from this election, it's the fact that the sleazemongering cost us a seat and a Senate we shouldn't have lost.
I have and will support the GOP as it is defined by its platform. I will not support candidates who stray too far from the core principles...which obviously included the vast majority of them or else there wouldn't be all these calls to go back to them NOW.
The base wasn't motivated yesterday. Oh, you can say the majority of the base DID go vote -- 51 percent is technically a majority, although I don't think you even got that many -- but gentlemen, getting the "majority" of the base in the polling booth just isn't enough when you need a higher percentage of them in order to pull out a win.
As for the evangelicals? Heh. The majority of the entire population are self-proclaimed religious people. But, how many of them the one issue Pro-Lifer types? I don't think the Republicans got them to the polls in any significant numbers yesterday...and if they did, it was on the issues of judges and stem cell research.
Stem cell research...that was an issue in Missouri, right? Where we lost that Senate seat, right? Uh, I think that's clear evidence right there that the Pro-lifers were absent from the booth.
Hi-larious. Will someoe please explain to me how my voting for a Republican yesterday wasn't supporting the GOP?
*crickets*
Yeah, I figured.
Now, if you want to say I didn't support the status quo, you'd be right. I didn't think anyone should vote for any RINO currently in office. If I'd lived in Santorum's state, I would have voted for him. And Virginia? Allen lost my vote when he donned some snakeskin and joined Webb under a rock. If there's anything rough to deal with from this election, it's the fact that the sleazemongering cost us a seat and a Senate we shouldn't have lost.
I have and will support the GOP as it is defined by its platform. I will not support candidates who stray too far from the core principles...which obviously included the vast majority of them or else there wouldn't be all these calls to go back to them NOW.
The base wasn't motivated yesterday. Oh, you can say the majority of the base DID go vote -- 51 percent is technically a majority, although I don't think you even got that many -- but gentlemen, getting the "majority" of the base in the polling booth just isn't enough when you need a higher percentage of them in order to pull out a win.
As for the evangelicals? Heh. The majority of the entire population are self-proclaimed religious people. But, how many of them the one issue Pro-Lifer types? I don't think the Republicans got them to the polls in any significant numbers yesterday...and if they did, it was on the issues of judges and stem cell research.
Stem cell research...that was an issue in Missouri, right? Where we lost that Senate seat, right? Uh, I think that's clear evidence right there that the Pro-lifers were absent from the booth.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 06:43 PM (qF8q3)
139
Personally, I have no objection to . . .2 women getting married.
And sometimes, it can be fun to watch.
And sometimes, it can be fun to watch.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:44 PM (yW7DJ)
140
From the (Evangelical and conservative) WorldMagBlog: Almost seven out of 10 white evangelical voters cast ballots for Republicans tonight. All the hubbub over evangelicals swapping parties due to GOP corruption or environmental concerns was apparently overblown.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 08, 2006 06:44 PM (qhY12)
141
Don't encourage me, Weasel. I'll milk that cat/monkey thing for all it's worth.
Two gay cats walk into a bar. A gay monkey walks over to them and says, "Hi fellas, want me to push in your stools?"
Two gay cats walk into a bar. A gay monkey walks over to them and says, "Hi fellas, want me to push in your stools?"
Posted by: Bart at November 08, 2006 06:45 PM (pFqJ0)
142
The polls showed that jsut after Foleygate, the exit polls indicated
it, and raw vote totals (real votes) from red evangelical areas support
this.
The evangelicals turned off to the GOP. It's their right, I guess.
Ace,
If that is the case, it was wrong of them. I am a White Evangelical, I was smart enough to realize that Foley was anomaly not a symptom of the whole party as did a lot of other Evangelicals. And I totally agree with you about losing the Senate ruins our chances of having a conservative Supreme Court nominee, but I also believe that it wasn't just the Evangelicals that didn't vote, I believe a lot of conservatives were pissed off just as I was.
Wait. Are you saying that you sat this one out? Because I need to personalize this. Helps me focus.
Hell No! I voted even though I was pissed, because I knew the importance of this election. And I vote "R" (other than the local JP, the Dem is a old school Yellow Dog Dem that is more conservative than a lot of Republicans).
Let me recap - I am a White Evangelical, that voted, that didn't let Foleygate turn me off, that understands that there are more important issues that Abortion or ESC. I would bet you that a lot of others like me voted and feel the same way as I do.
The evangelicals turned off to the GOP. It's their right, I guess.
Ace,
If that is the case, it was wrong of them. I am a White Evangelical, I was smart enough to realize that Foley was anomaly not a symptom of the whole party as did a lot of other Evangelicals. And I totally agree with you about losing the Senate ruins our chances of having a conservative Supreme Court nominee, but I also believe that it wasn't just the Evangelicals that didn't vote, I believe a lot of conservatives were pissed off just as I was.
Wait. Are you saying that you sat this one out? Because I need to personalize this. Helps me focus.
Hell No! I voted even though I was pissed, because I knew the importance of this election. And I vote "R" (other than the local JP, the Dem is a old school Yellow Dog Dem that is more conservative than a lot of Republicans).
Let me recap - I am a White Evangelical, that voted, that didn't let Foleygate turn me off, that understands that there are more important issues that Abortion or ESC. I would bet you that a lot of others like me voted and feel the same way as I do.
Posted by: Mr Minority at November 08, 2006 06:46 PM (W9sky)
143
"our corrupt, rotten, faggy party"
LMAO
be it ev--er so hum--ble, there's no-o place like home . . .
Too true.
LMAO
be it ev--er so hum--ble, there's no-o place like home . . .
Too true.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 06:46 PM (jFTJl)
144
"And you can't make a good juicy steak with just one embryo, so what's your point?"
My point was self-evident. An embryo is the basis for a human being, it is no more a human being than an acorn is an oak tree.
Interestingly, I'm not pro-choice as you assumed. I have a different interpretation of when a bunch of cells becomes a human being.
"You're not even stating the pro-choice side correctly"
See, I don't have to because I'm not.
"An embryo is a human life, by scientific definition, but some doubt that it is a 'person'. "
It is life, and it is the basis for a human, but there is NO scientific evidence to prove it is a human being. And not just some believe this, a pretty sizable portion of the planet believes this. We can play semantic games forever but you are just proving my point. It is not a scientific arguement, it is an arguement over beliefs.
My point was self-evident. An embryo is the basis for a human being, it is no more a human being than an acorn is an oak tree.
Interestingly, I'm not pro-choice as you assumed. I have a different interpretation of when a bunch of cells becomes a human being.
"You're not even stating the pro-choice side correctly"
See, I don't have to because I'm not.
"An embryo is a human life, by scientific definition, but some doubt that it is a 'person'. "
It is life, and it is the basis for a human, but there is NO scientific evidence to prove it is a human being. And not just some believe this, a pretty sizable portion of the planet believes this. We can play semantic games forever but you are just proving my point. It is not a scientific arguement, it is an arguement over beliefs.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 06:48 PM (t+mja)
145
hobgoblin,
you vote for dirty bastards when it's crucial to achieve a long-held goal that's just within reach, don't you?"
Furthermore, the GOP was punished generally for the sins of a few. If everyone voted against Denny Hastert, big whoop. One jagoff down.
Instead a lot of people voted against (or just didn't vote for) decent candidates who had NOTHING to do with this.
In Montana (this isn't a religious thing; just hte same phenomenon) Burns was voted out of office because he took money from a scumbag. Did Burns do anything scummy or sleazy? If he did, I've not heard of it. All I hear is that he took money from Abramoff who was, as far as he knew, just another lobbyist tossing around money.
It's just absurdly against one's own interests to make decisions like this.
Actually, the hell with basing evangelicals. You know who really sucks? THE MOUNTAIN STATE VOTERS, who keep voting in one fucking Democrat after another despite being some of the reddest states in the world.
And then they wonder -- gee, how come the judges we prefer don't get through?
you vote for dirty bastards when it's crucial to achieve a long-held goal that's just within reach, don't you?"
Furthermore, the GOP was punished generally for the sins of a few. If everyone voted against Denny Hastert, big whoop. One jagoff down.
Instead a lot of people voted against (or just didn't vote for) decent candidates who had NOTHING to do with this.
In Montana (this isn't a religious thing; just hte same phenomenon) Burns was voted out of office because he took money from a scumbag. Did Burns do anything scummy or sleazy? If he did, I've not heard of it. All I hear is that he took money from Abramoff who was, as far as he knew, just another lobbyist tossing around money.
It's just absurdly against one's own interests to make decisions like this.
Actually, the hell with basing evangelicals. You know who really sucks? THE MOUNTAIN STATE VOTERS, who keep voting in one fucking Democrat after another despite being some of the reddest states in the world.
And then they wonder -- gee, how come the judges we prefer don't get through?
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2006 06:51 PM (4qddO)
146
They won't vote for people who they don't think are basically, you know, sane.
Ah, tolerance.
If you hold someone's personal beliefs against them and use it as an excuse to qualify them as mentally unstable, you're not going to be dealing with over 90 percent of the population...of the entire world.
A belief in a higher being or a theology -- which I don't share -- isn't by itself an indication of insanity. It's has more to do with a desire to understand what can't be explained. Rather, it's how the belief manifests itself in someone's words and actions which is an indication of nuttiness.
Example: Pro-lifer? Sane. Abortion clinic bomber? Insane.
Ah, tolerance.
If you hold someone's personal beliefs against them and use it as an excuse to qualify them as mentally unstable, you're not going to be dealing with over 90 percent of the population...of the entire world.
A belief in a higher being or a theology -- which I don't share -- isn't by itself an indication of insanity. It's has more to do with a desire to understand what can't be explained. Rather, it's how the belief manifests itself in someone's words and actions which is an indication of nuttiness.
Example: Pro-lifer? Sane. Abortion clinic bomber? Insane.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 06:51 PM (qF8q3)
147
bbeck seems to have forgotten the months and months of her saying that people who vote for the Republicans are a bunch of, well, I'm sure you can all just imagine another one of her string of hyperbolic insults that would make even a reasonable 7th grader cringe.
Posted by: I'd just be happy to purge bbeck honestly at November 08, 2006 06:51 PM (9a/kk)
148
and some of us decided not to and as a result? . . . The GOP isn't selling you dish soap.
I'm sure that almost everyone on this blog voted. If you want to screech at someone, find the sometimes voter that wasn't very excited about yesterday's election and screech at them. That will go over real well. You'll sound like a moonbat.
Selling is selling. The Reps needed to sell themselves and they didn't. Blaming the customer (voter) will not help improve our position for next time.
I'm sure that almost everyone on this blog voted. If you want to screech at someone, find the sometimes voter that wasn't very excited about yesterday's election and screech at them. That will go over real well. You'll sound like a moonbat.
Selling is selling. The Reps needed to sell themselves and they didn't. Blaming the customer (voter) will not help improve our position for next time.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:51 PM (yW7DJ)
149
I'm not being intolerant. I believe in God, so I clearly don't think that religious faith is crazy. I am decribing a real phenomenon; extreme evengelical positions cost us many votes.
Posted by: sandy burger at November 08, 2006 06:56 PM (K2rlS)
150
but there is NO scientific evidence to prove it is a human being
Sorry, JackStraw, I was objecting to an earlier comment that a fetus isn't human. Human being is more intangible, like person. Blacks, Jews, fetuses, the disabled, there's no way to scientifically prove anyone's human beingness, but (for me) common sense says that we shouldn't kill them.
Sorry, JackStraw, I was objecting to an earlier comment that a fetus isn't human. Human being is more intangible, like person. Blacks, Jews, fetuses, the disabled, there's no way to scientifically prove anyone's human beingness, but (for me) common sense says that we shouldn't kill them.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at November 08, 2006 06:57 PM (yW7DJ)
151
Jack, That's really mendacious argument. It is life, and it is the basis for a human
OK, and he says "human life," which it is. YOu "disagree" by saying "human being"
Way to move those goalposts/prop up that strawman. Semantic games are yours, my friend.
even Pete Singer (of dog loving fame) admis an embryo is human "life," but just not life worthy of protection against the will of a more developed life.
OK, and he says "human life," which it is. YOu "disagree" by saying "human being"
Way to move those goalposts/prop up that strawman. Semantic games are yours, my friend.
even Pete Singer (of dog loving fame) admis an embryo is human "life," but just not life worthy of protection against the will of a more developed life.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 06:57 PM (jFTJl)
152
All because you think evangelicals didn't tip as decisively toward Republicans in key states. True, and due to the absolutely dirty nature of the Pubbies that has come to light on the last 8-9 months.
And empowering the Dems fixes this... how?
And empowering the Dems fixes this... how?
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 06:59 PM (X5HHU)
153
ace,
"Did Burns do anything scummy or sleazy?"
Called firefighters lazy incompetent retards - in a state where just about everyone has fought a fire.
But generally no more sleazy than the rest. Evangies were just naive to thinkthat the "God" party (the one that aped their beliefs) would actually be, you know, moral.
Dumbasses.
"Did Burns do anything scummy or sleazy?"
Called firefighters lazy incompetent retards - in a state where just about everyone has fought a fire.
But generally no more sleazy than the rest. Evangies were just naive to thinkthat the "God" party (the one that aped their beliefs) would actually be, you know, moral.
Dumbasses.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 07:00 PM (jFTJl)
154
I'm sure that almost everyone on this blog voted
Then don't take what I'm writing personally.
I thought the whole point of this post was to flog elements of the base that failed to turn out. Right?
So, I'm floggin away on a friggin' blog cause it makes me feel better.
If I'm wrong and Evangelicals did come out, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, you're missing my point about Evangelicals stupidly emptying a clip into their foot and missing a big chance to score on an issue near and dear to them (and me) just because the GOP failed to "sell" themselves. Well, fine. But look, if the issue of abortion is truly important to evangelical voters (i.e. saving "babies") then you damn well make sure to educate yourself and turn out to affect races that could well decide the issue from a judicial perspective. Even if you have to hold your nose and vote for a candidate or party that has not exactly been a human highlight reel for the last two years. Trade offs.
I don't think that's crazy talk, even if my tone is less than civil at times. And for that, I apologize. But this was a really, really, really bad fumble that will resonate for years on the issue of abortion.
Then don't take what I'm writing personally.
I thought the whole point of this post was to flog elements of the base that failed to turn out. Right?
So, I'm floggin away on a friggin' blog cause it makes me feel better.
If I'm wrong and Evangelicals did come out, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, you're missing my point about Evangelicals stupidly emptying a clip into their foot and missing a big chance to score on an issue near and dear to them (and me) just because the GOP failed to "sell" themselves. Well, fine. But look, if the issue of abortion is truly important to evangelical voters (i.e. saving "babies") then you damn well make sure to educate yourself and turn out to affect races that could well decide the issue from a judicial perspective. Even if you have to hold your nose and vote for a candidate or party that has not exactly been a human highlight reel for the last two years. Trade offs.
I don't think that's crazy talk, even if my tone is less than civil at times. And for that, I apologize. But this was a really, really, really bad fumble that will resonate for years on the issue of abortion.
Posted by: AFKAF at November 08, 2006 07:01 PM (ivbbD)
155
Mark,
They're not the smartest, evangelicals that is. In case you haven't noticed. That's what ideological purity does to you - makes you act contrary to your best interests. But the judges think was WOEFULLY underplayed everywhere, as it always is.
Plus, as a rule, evangelicals are naive as the day is long.
They're not the smartest, evangelicals that is. In case you haven't noticed. That's what ideological purity does to you - makes you act contrary to your best interests. But the judges think was WOEFULLY underplayed everywhere, as it always is.
Plus, as a rule, evangelicals are naive as the day is long.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 07:02 PM (jFTJl)
156
If us Jesus freaks didn't vote, who was it who passed gay marriage ban amendments in five states?
Well, the majority of people are for gay marriage bans, and the majority of those people are not Jesus freaks.
bbeck seems to have forgotten the months and months of her saying that people who vote for the Republicans are a bunch of, well, I'm sure you can all just imagine another one of her string of hyperbolic insults that would make even a reasonable 7th grader cringe.
Really? Goody! Then if I've said that for months and months, surely you can come up with where I said "If you vote for ANY Republicans you are a fill in the blank" ONCE.
I'll wait.
And in this instance I'll limit my insults to a lower school grade just for YOU, anonymous coward. Giving you some you can understand may quell the cringing.
While I wait for this person to never answer that question honestly, I have said for months and months NOT to vote for any Republicans for the purpose of keeping power. If you have a good candidate, then vote for him, but don't be a nose-holder.
Well, the majority of people are for gay marriage bans, and the majority of those people are not Jesus freaks.
bbeck seems to have forgotten the months and months of her saying that people who vote for the Republicans are a bunch of, well, I'm sure you can all just imagine another one of her string of hyperbolic insults that would make even a reasonable 7th grader cringe.
Really? Goody! Then if I've said that for months and months, surely you can come up with where I said "If you vote for ANY Republicans you are a fill in the blank" ONCE.
I'll wait.
And in this instance I'll limit my insults to a lower school grade just for YOU, anonymous coward. Giving you some you can understand may quell the cringing.
While I wait for this person to never answer that question honestly, I have said for months and months NOT to vote for any Republicans for the purpose of keeping power. If you have a good candidate, then vote for him, but don't be a nose-holder.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:03 PM (qF8q3)
157
Nobody moved the goalposts, hobgoblin. Once again, thats the entire arguement.
To many of us, a very, very large percentage, there is a distinct difference between human life, an embryo, and a human being. But many others want to blur the distinction and say that from the moment of conception an embryo is a human and deserves all the rights of a human.
Once again, embryos are destroyed everyday at fertility clinics but I don't see a lot of moral outrage about it. If embryos are sacred human life how can this happen?
It has nothng to do with semantics it has to do with individually held beliefs. The religious community is entitled to theirs and the rest of us are entitled to ours as well. Neither has a claim on the moral high ground. But if we can't reach a middle ground without threats and blackmail, we won't have much of a coalition.
To many of us, a very, very large percentage, there is a distinct difference between human life, an embryo, and a human being. But many others want to blur the distinction and say that from the moment of conception an embryo is a human and deserves all the rights of a human.
Once again, embryos are destroyed everyday at fertility clinics but I don't see a lot of moral outrage about it. If embryos are sacred human life how can this happen?
It has nothng to do with semantics it has to do with individually held beliefs. The religious community is entitled to theirs and the rest of us are entitled to ours as well. Neither has a claim on the moral high ground. But if we can't reach a middle ground without threats and blackmail, we won't have much of a coalition.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 07:07 PM (t+mja)
158
bbeck-
I agree with you that just calling religious people crazy is beyond the pale.
But are they really "personal" beliefs when they try to impose them on everybody else in the country or their state, OR WHEN THEY HIJACK AN ENTIRE GODDAMN POLITICAL PARTY AND THEN FUCK 'EM IN THE ASS ON ELECTION DAY?
I agree with you that just calling religious people crazy is beyond the pale.
But are they really "personal" beliefs when they try to impose them on everybody else in the country or their state, OR WHEN THEY HIJACK AN ENTIRE GODDAMN POLITICAL PARTY AND THEN FUCK 'EM IN THE ASS ON ELECTION DAY?
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 07:09 PM (X5HHU)
159
AFKAF
I'm just pissed at how dirty the Pubbies got in 12 years.
I really think we just lost the benefit of the doubt with independents, and they broke almost wholesle for the Ds. I think the evangelical thing is overblown. But then that is so much of republican politics of late.
I'm just pissed at how dirty the Pubbies got in 12 years.
I really think we just lost the benefit of the doubt with independents, and they broke almost wholesle for the Ds. I think the evangelical thing is overblown. But then that is so much of republican politics of late.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 07:10 PM (jFTJl)
160
It is life, and it is the basis for a human, but there is NO scientific evidence to prove it is a human being.
Other than that whole human DNA thing, which is established within 24 hours of conception and is the exact same DNA a person has throughout his/her entire life.
DNA is how you establish the typing of any organism.
It's a human being at the very first stage of its life cycle.
An acorn is a SEED. An embryo isn't. The analogy falls apart in a couple of different ways.
Other than that whole human DNA thing, which is established within 24 hours of conception and is the exact same DNA a person has throughout his/her entire life.
DNA is how you establish the typing of any organism.
It's a human being at the very first stage of its life cycle.
An acorn is a SEED. An embryo isn't. The analogy falls apart in a couple of different ways.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:11 PM (qF8q3)
161
<i>If us Jesus freaks didn't vote, who was it who passed gay marriage ban amendments in five states?</i>
A lot of Democrats, that's who.
Yeah. Who'dda thunk it?
Look, I don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage as I'm squarely on the fence on the issue. But preventing judicially mandated gay marriage is a winner for the GOP, hands down.
The problem is that the GOP made it into a federal issue with the FMA while once again pandering to the fundies. A federal amendment is NOT a winner. The stupid party took a positive and made it into a negative to satisfy the evangelicals and didn't even get <i>them</i> to turn out.
What a fucking mess. The GOP deserved this loss.
Posted by: Warden at November 08, 2006 07:12 PM (neXw6)
162
Goblin-
I'm sorry, but if the evangelicals can't be bothered to familiarize their own damn selves with the judicial branch and how it works, then frankly their useless.
I'm sorry, but if the evangelicals can't be bothered to familiarize their own damn selves with the judicial branch and how it works, then frankly their useless.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 07:12 PM (X5HHU)
163
I mean, if we have to keep reminding them, aren't they just taking up space?
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 07:12 PM (X5HHU)
164
I'm not being intolerant. I believe in God, so I clearly don't think that religious faith is crazy. I am decribing a real phenomenon; extreme evengelical positions cost us many votes.
I know, Sandy; as I understood it you were talking about people you knew...and, like I said, if these people are dissing politicians because of what they consider to be "extreme evangelical positions," then they need to get out more 'cause they have NO clue what extremism really is.
I know, Sandy; as I understood it you were talking about people you knew...and, like I said, if these people are dissing politicians because of what they consider to be "extreme evangelical positions," then they need to get out more 'cause they have NO clue what extremism really is.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:16 PM (qF8q3)
165
embryos are destroyed everyday at fertility clinics but I don't see a lot of moral outrage about it
I got yer outrage ritchere, pal!
(and what you said above differs significantly from what you've been saying. Can you spot the difference?
I agree with your last post in concept, btw. And you expressed it more clearly. You were getting muddled there. I am one of those who has a very difficult time distinguishing between a 16 cell clump of cells and a 16,000 cell clump, and a 2 month old clump that starts to look like a person. That discomfort/inability to distinguish counsels prudence to me in treating them differnetly, and that seems like the "conservative" approach.
I got yer outrage ritchere, pal!
(and what you said above differs significantly from what you've been saying. Can you spot the difference?
I agree with your last post in concept, btw. And you expressed it more clearly. You were getting muddled there. I am one of those who has a very difficult time distinguishing between a 16 cell clump of cells and a 16,000 cell clump, and a 2 month old clump that starts to look like a person. That discomfort/inability to distinguish counsels prudence to me in treating them differnetly, and that seems like the "conservative" approach.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 07:18 PM (jFTJl)
166
But are they really "personal" beliefs when they try to impose them on everybody else in the country or their state, OR WHEN THEY HIJACK AN ENTIRE GODDAMN POLITICAL PARTY AND THEN FUCK 'EM IN THE ASS ON ELECTION DAY?
LOL. Now THAT is what I call an extremist position!
Last time I checked, being pro-life was part of the Republican platform (I may be wrong, it's been a while since I read it). It's hardly extremism to expect a party candidate to follow the party platform. Is it?
LOL. Now THAT is what I call an extremist position!
Last time I checked, being pro-life was part of the Republican platform (I may be wrong, it's been a while since I read it). It's hardly extremism to expect a party candidate to follow the party platform. Is it?
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:20 PM (qF8q3)
167
Warden, I just thought this needed repeating.
A few times:
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
A few times:
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
The GOP deserved this loss.
Posted by: at November 08, 2006 07:21 PM (jFTJl)
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 08, 2006 07:23 PM (jFTJl)
169
The problem is that the GOP made it into a federal issue with the FMA while once again pandering to the fundies. A federal amendment is NOT a winner. The stupid party took a positive and made it into a negative to satisfy the evangelicals and didn't even get them to turn out.
There are times I want to have Warden's love child.
(This was not said in any way to manipulate Warden.)
Screwing around with the Constitution is a Party Splitter. The Fundies may want an FMA or a Flag Burning Amendment or a Pro-Life Amendment, but that will always alienate the true conservatives who don't believe the Constitution is a dumping ground for pet causes. And we're a pretty strong lobby, too.
IF the Fundies could be a little more patient and permit their pet causes to be handled by the judicial system and on the state level where they belong, we'd be in better shape. I know, what's screwing with that are activist judges.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:28 PM (qF8q3)
170
If the GOP deserved this loss, then the evangelicals don't deserve their seat at the table, because a hell of a lot of it was their fault. We pissed away shitloads of voters sticking to their agenda, and it got us nothing.
Posted by: Mark V. at November 08, 2006 07:30 PM (X5HHU)
171
"Other than that whole human DNA thing, which is established within 24 hours of conception and is the exact same DNA a person has throughout his/her entire life."
Oh, so then there is no difference. Fine, when you can show me an embryo that is self-sustaining I will call it a human being.
Was your point that an acorn doesn't have oak DNA? I hope not, cause you would be wrong.
An embryo is not a human being to many anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. The analogy is not mine, been around for a long time, and many people agree with it. Just saying you don't is nothing more than a demonstration of your belief, not a fact.
Oh, so then there is no difference. Fine, when you can show me an embryo that is self-sustaining I will call it a human being.
Was your point that an acorn doesn't have oak DNA? I hope not, cause you would be wrong.
An embryo is not a human being to many anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. The analogy is not mine, been around for a long time, and many people agree with it. Just saying you don't is nothing more than a demonstration of your belief, not a fact.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 07:30 PM (t+mja)
172
I got yer outrage ritchere, pal!
(and what you said above differs significantly from what you've been saying. Can you spot the difference?
I agree with your last post in concept, btw. And you expressed it more clearly. You were getting muddled there. I am one of those who has a very difficult time distinguishing between a 16 cell clump of cells and a 16,000 cell clump, and a 2 month old clump that starts to look like a person. That discomfort/inability to distinguish counsels prudence to me in treating them differnetly, and that seems like the "conservative" approach.
FYI, I'm outraged at the destruction of embryos, too.
And just what exactly is the definition of "human BEING?"
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:31 PM (qF8q3)
173
Talk about misplaced anger. The exit polls (the same ones some are relying upon to criticize evangelical support) listed corruption and the Iraq war as the two biggest concerns motivating voters in this elections. The same voters who were concerned about Iraq and corruption broke heavy in favor of democrats. Iraq and corruption are not exactly problems I would lay at the feet of evangelicals.
Is it possible that conservative social issues cost the republicans a seat or two somewhere . . . sure. But if the republicans honestly think that conservative social issues costs them both houses of Congress (rather than Iraq, scandals, etc.), they have begun to learn all the wrong lessons.
Is it possible that conservative social issues cost the republicans a seat or two somewhere . . . sure. But if the republicans honestly think that conservative social issues costs them both houses of Congress (rather than Iraq, scandals, etc.), they have begun to learn all the wrong lessons.
Posted by: Pundiot at November 08, 2006 07:39 PM (gfmLQ)
174
(This was not said in any way to manipulate Warden.)
must......buy......bbeck....pretty....sparkly...gifts
emptying....bank account.....
must......buy......bbeck....pretty....sparkly...gifts
emptying....bank account.....
Posted by: Warden at November 08, 2006 07:40 PM (1n1ga)
175
Oh, so then there is no difference. Fine, when you can show me an embryo that is self-sustaining I will call it a human being.
You're not self-sustaining. You need a specific environment to stay alive just like an embryo does. FYI, a born baby isn't self-sustaining at all.
Was your point that an acorn doesn't have oak DNA? I hope not, cause you would be wrong.
No, my point is that you need a biology class. The plant life cycle isn't comparable to an animal life cycle, so your analogy is flawed.
An embryo is not a human being to many anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. The analogy is not mine, been around for a long time, and many people agree with it.
Oh come on, Jack. The legitimacy of a belief isn't based on consensus. Right, Flat Earth Society? Right, people who voted yesterday?
Just saying you don't is nothing more than a demonstration of your belief, not a fact.
Saying the plant life cycle isn't analogous to an animal life cycle isn't fact? You may want to re-think that one.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:40 PM (qF8q3)
176
Good boy, Warden. Here's another pat. 
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 07:41 PM (qF8q3)
177
bbeck-
Your so gifted at arguing that sometimes you dive into one when you have only the sliver of a point and you try semantical games to advance your point. This would be a prime example.
The acorn analogy has been around for years. It is, like every analogy, flawed. Thats why they are analogies and not exact duplicates.
I took biology just like you and I am well aware of the difference between plant life and animal (you are aware, of course, that human DNA is 97% the same as animal...of course you are). But no, an embryo can't survive and develop outside the womb. You know this, too, of course. Remove it from the womb and it dies. That's what I meant by self-sustaining and you know it.
The single arguement that defines this debate is when does a group of cells attain human status and the rights and benefits. You can continue to try and pretend this isn't true but it is. Your welcome to your view on it but that doesn't make you right and it sure as hell doesn't make people who disagree with you wrong.
Your so gifted at arguing that sometimes you dive into one when you have only the sliver of a point and you try semantical games to advance your point. This would be a prime example.
The acorn analogy has been around for years. It is, like every analogy, flawed. Thats why they are analogies and not exact duplicates.
I took biology just like you and I am well aware of the difference between plant life and animal (you are aware, of course, that human DNA is 97% the same as animal...of course you are). But no, an embryo can't survive and develop outside the womb. You know this, too, of course. Remove it from the womb and it dies. That's what I meant by self-sustaining and you know it.
The single arguement that defines this debate is when does a group of cells attain human status and the rights and benefits. You can continue to try and pretend this isn't true but it is. Your welcome to your view on it but that doesn't make you right and it sure as hell doesn't make people who disagree with you wrong.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 07:57 PM (t+mja)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 08, 2006 08:16 PM (hNyWr)
179
And you're all assholes.
Except for Black Republican. He seems like a good guy, even if he does make me want to poop my pants.
I love you too, adolfo, you creepy shrub-lover.
Except for Black Republican. He seems like a good guy, even if he does make me want to poop my pants.
I love you too, adolfo, you creepy shrub-lover.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 08:24 PM (Edy/C)
180
"I got yer outrage ritchere, pal!
(and what you said above differs significantly from what you've been saying. Can you spot the difference?"
Actually, no it doesn't and no I can't. Maybe you can point it out for me.
(and what you said above differs significantly from what you've been saying. Can you spot the difference?"
Actually, no it doesn't and no I can't. Maybe you can point it out for me.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 08:24 PM (t+mja)
181
Of course, I mean that in a totally not-like-a-Viking way.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 08:25 PM (Edy/C)
182
Rest of you, not so much. The prejudice is a little too tangible for me.
Posted by: The Black Republican at November 08, 2006 08:27 PM (Edy/C)
183
Your so gifted at arguing that sometimes you dive into one when you have only the sliver of a point and you try semantical games to advance your point. This would be a prime example.
And yet, I'M not the one playing a game with semantics, distinguishing the difference between "human" and "human being."
The acorn analogy has been around for years.
You already said this.
It is, like every analogy, flawed. Thats why they are analogies and not exact duplicates.
LOL. So, I can say, "Human life is like tearing a piece of paper. Yeah it's flawed, but who are you to tell me I can't use it? It's only an analogy!"
An analogy is only useful if it's a legitimate comparision, and comparing a plant seed -- which is self-sustaining, for example -- to an embryo is not a legitimate comparison. Comparing the life cycle of a butterfly, which IS an animal and is technically closer, to the life cycle of a mammal also is not analogous. It's two completely different processes. This acorn crap is one of those specious arguments that pro-lifers indulge in and insist is correct. It isn't.
I took biology just like you and I am well aware of the difference between plant life and animal (you are aware, of course, that human DNA is 97% the same as animal...of course you are).
...and 3 percent of being off when you're talking about billions of markers is still pretty significant.
But no, an embryo can't survive and develop outside the womb.
Uh, frozen embryos are, in fact, still alive and viable, and they're not in a womb. They can also develop to a certain extent if given the right petri dish atmosphere.
You know this, too, of course. Remove it from the womb and it dies. That's what I meant by self-sustaining and you know it.
And HERE we are. You very conveniently define "human being" using a definition that you KNOW an embryo can not fit, just so you can dismiss it as something as disposable as a plant seed.
Do tell; which scientific principle are you applying there?
A human being should not ever be defined based upon its environment. Are you any less human if you were dipped in a vat of jelly? Of course not...but you'd sure die if you were left there. Similarly, the legitimacy of an embryo or a fetus as a human being should not be based on the environment it needs in order to survive.
The single arguement that defines this debate is when does a group of cells attain human status and the rights and benefits.
Sorry, that would be a LEGAL definition, not a scientific one. Using SCIENCE, which is what we were talking about after all, a cell is human based upon its DNA, and a cell has life when it demonstrates the qualities of being alive. (And before you try, a severed arm is not a "human being," but it is a portion of one, while an embryo is not lacking any of the cells it should have at its particular stage.) Hence, the human life cycle begins within 24 hours of conception. That is science.
To try and say a human isn't human within any portion of its own life cycle is, indeed, a semantic argument not at all based upon science. To say that a human isn't a "human being" based upon its level of development also isn't science.
You can continue to try and pretend this isn't true but it is.
And you can continue to say something that isn't true actually is, but it isn't.
Your welcome to your view on it but that doesn't make you right and it sure as hell doesn't make people who disagree with you wrong.
I'll just wait for the scientific principle that defines any animal as an animal only when it's "self-sustaining" or when it's in a certain environment. I think that's fair.
And yet, I'M not the one playing a game with semantics, distinguishing the difference between "human" and "human being."
The acorn analogy has been around for years.
You already said this.
It is, like every analogy, flawed. Thats why they are analogies and not exact duplicates.
LOL. So, I can say, "Human life is like tearing a piece of paper. Yeah it's flawed, but who are you to tell me I can't use it? It's only an analogy!"
An analogy is only useful if it's a legitimate comparision, and comparing a plant seed -- which is self-sustaining, for example -- to an embryo is not a legitimate comparison. Comparing the life cycle of a butterfly, which IS an animal and is technically closer, to the life cycle of a mammal also is not analogous. It's two completely different processes. This acorn crap is one of those specious arguments that pro-lifers indulge in and insist is correct. It isn't.
I took biology just like you and I am well aware of the difference between plant life and animal (you are aware, of course, that human DNA is 97% the same as animal...of course you are).
...and 3 percent of being off when you're talking about billions of markers is still pretty significant.
But no, an embryo can't survive and develop outside the womb.
Uh, frozen embryos are, in fact, still alive and viable, and they're not in a womb. They can also develop to a certain extent if given the right petri dish atmosphere.
You know this, too, of course. Remove it from the womb and it dies. That's what I meant by self-sustaining and you know it.
And HERE we are. You very conveniently define "human being" using a definition that you KNOW an embryo can not fit, just so you can dismiss it as something as disposable as a plant seed.
Do tell; which scientific principle are you applying there?
A human being should not ever be defined based upon its environment. Are you any less human if you were dipped in a vat of jelly? Of course not...but you'd sure die if you were left there. Similarly, the legitimacy of an embryo or a fetus as a human being should not be based on the environment it needs in order to survive.
The single arguement that defines this debate is when does a group of cells attain human status and the rights and benefits.
Sorry, that would be a LEGAL definition, not a scientific one. Using SCIENCE, which is what we were talking about after all, a cell is human based upon its DNA, and a cell has life when it demonstrates the qualities of being alive. (And before you try, a severed arm is not a "human being," but it is a portion of one, while an embryo is not lacking any of the cells it should have at its particular stage.) Hence, the human life cycle begins within 24 hours of conception. That is science.
To try and say a human isn't human within any portion of its own life cycle is, indeed, a semantic argument not at all based upon science. To say that a human isn't a "human being" based upon its level of development also isn't science.
You can continue to try and pretend this isn't true but it is.
And you can continue to say something that isn't true actually is, but it isn't.
Your welcome to your view on it but that doesn't make you right and it sure as hell doesn't make people who disagree with you wrong.
I'll just wait for the scientific principle that defines any animal as an animal only when it's "self-sustaining" or when it's in a certain environment. I think that's fair.
Posted by: bbeck at November 08, 2006 08:34 PM (qF8q3)
184
"And yet, I'M not the one playing a game with semantics, distinguishing the difference between "human" and "human being.""
Acutally I said human life. Its only semantics to you. To about a majority of the planet it is the distinction between what is an evolving collection of cells and a distinct human that is able to exist outside the womb. I'm with the majority on this one, your job to prove why you're right not mine.
"You already said this."
You're right, I did, and I was right then, too. Shall I say it again or do you want to say again that it's an false analogy?
"LOL. So, I can say, "Human life is like tearing a piece of paper. Yeah it's flawed, but who are you to tell me I can't use it? It's only an analogy!""
Well, you can, but it would be stupid. An acorn is a living organism that has DNA and is capable of developing into a tree much like an embryo can develop into a human being. A piece of paper can't evolve.
"Uh, frozen embryos are, in fact, still alive and viable, and they're not in a womb. They can also develop to a certain extent if given the right petri dish atmosphere."
Sure they are, they are frozen, but they aren't developing which was fully part of my statement. And no, an embryo can't develop past basic cellular division in a petri dish. This isn't close to what I said. Once again, you are jumping off the deep end to try and make your point.
"And HERE we are. You very conveniently define "human being" using a definition that you KNOW an embryo can not fit, just so you can dismiss it as something as disposable as a plant seed."
Bullshit. I'm not defining anything. This has been the basis of the debate on the definition of when does a developing group of cells become a human being forever. It's not my arguement. It is THE arguement. You're free to have your opinion but you are not free to try and assign me the status of someone who wants to define life around my terms so I can dispose of it.
"Do tell; which scientific principle are you applying there?"
You first. You're the one who claims to have scientific proof of when a human being exists. Do it.
"To try and say a human isn't human within any portion of its own life cycle is, indeed, a semantic argument not at all based upon science. To say that a human isn't a "human being" based upon its level of development also isn't science."
And this isn't science, its a belief. There are many who agree with you and more who don't. A good many people believe that a human status requires things like conscious, soul the ability to reason at even the basic level. You can keep saying over and over (yea, this may come as a shock to you and your snark, but you repeat yourself a lot) that there is no difference to you between human life and a human being but stating it repeatedly and forcefully doesn't make it true, just your opinion.
"Sorry, that would be a LEGAL definition, not a scientific one."
Oh, so you agree, there are different definitions depending on the context. Thanks.
"And you can continue to say something that isn't true actually is, but it isn't."
Nothing I said was untrue. As you noted, there are different definitions, legal and scientific. You failed to note things like spiritual and moral but I know you were in a hurry to ram your opinion down my throat.
"I'll just wait for the scientific principle that defines any animal as an animal only when it's "self-sustaining" or when it's in a certain environment. I think that's fair."
And I'll keep waiting for the time when all society is driven only by science and not, ya know, human choice.
Acutally I said human life. Its only semantics to you. To about a majority of the planet it is the distinction between what is an evolving collection of cells and a distinct human that is able to exist outside the womb. I'm with the majority on this one, your job to prove why you're right not mine.
"You already said this."
You're right, I did, and I was right then, too. Shall I say it again or do you want to say again that it's an false analogy?
"LOL. So, I can say, "Human life is like tearing a piece of paper. Yeah it's flawed, but who are you to tell me I can't use it? It's only an analogy!""
Well, you can, but it would be stupid. An acorn is a living organism that has DNA and is capable of developing into a tree much like an embryo can develop into a human being. A piece of paper can't evolve.
"Uh, frozen embryos are, in fact, still alive and viable, and they're not in a womb. They can also develop to a certain extent if given the right petri dish atmosphere."
Sure they are, they are frozen, but they aren't developing which was fully part of my statement. And no, an embryo can't develop past basic cellular division in a petri dish. This isn't close to what I said. Once again, you are jumping off the deep end to try and make your point.
"And HERE we are. You very conveniently define "human being" using a definition that you KNOW an embryo can not fit, just so you can dismiss it as something as disposable as a plant seed."
Bullshit. I'm not defining anything. This has been the basis of the debate on the definition of when does a developing group of cells become a human being forever. It's not my arguement. It is THE arguement. You're free to have your opinion but you are not free to try and assign me the status of someone who wants to define life around my terms so I can dispose of it.
"Do tell; which scientific principle are you applying there?"
You first. You're the one who claims to have scientific proof of when a human being exists. Do it.
"To try and say a human isn't human within any portion of its own life cycle is, indeed, a semantic argument not at all based upon science. To say that a human isn't a "human being" based upon its level of development also isn't science."
And this isn't science, its a belief. There are many who agree with you and more who don't. A good many people believe that a human status requires things like conscious, soul the ability to reason at even the basic level. You can keep saying over and over (yea, this may come as a shock to you and your snark, but you repeat yourself a lot) that there is no difference to you between human life and a human being but stating it repeatedly and forcefully doesn't make it true, just your opinion.
"Sorry, that would be a LEGAL definition, not a scientific one."
Oh, so you agree, there are different definitions depending on the context. Thanks.
"And you can continue to say something that isn't true actually is, but it isn't."
Nothing I said was untrue. As you noted, there are different definitions, legal and scientific. You failed to note things like spiritual and moral but I know you were in a hurry to ram your opinion down my throat.
"I'll just wait for the scientific principle that defines any animal as an animal only when it's "self-sustaining" or when it's in a certain environment. I think that's fair."
And I'll keep waiting for the time when all society is driven only by science and not, ya know, human choice.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 08, 2006 09:13 PM (t+mja)
185
Among conservatives, the long knives are coming out. I'm planning to use mine on Hugh Hewitt, but not before I slap the shit out of him.
We also need to have a reckoning with certain elements in our military, e.g., those who belong to the John Warden school of air power and the maneuver warfare proponents. They had a lot of influence on Rumsfeld--blame them for the emphasis on technology at the expense of boots on the ground, of the belief in the primacy of light divisions over heavy, etc.
We also need to have a reckoning with certain elements in our military, e.g., those who belong to the John Warden school of air power and the maneuver warfare proponents. They had a lot of influence on Rumsfeld--blame them for the emphasis on technology at the expense of boots on the ground, of the belief in the primacy of light divisions over heavy, etc.
Posted by: Ed Snate at November 08, 2006 09:46 PM (HduYT)
186
Fine, when you can show me an embryo that is self-sustaining I will call it a human being.
There are quite a few children, adolescents and adults who are not "self-sustaining." Their dependence on others for food and other necessities does not make them less than human.
An embryo is not a human being to many anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.
An acorn is an oak tree. Or, to be more accurate, they are simply two points in the life-cycle of the same organism.
There are quite a few children, adolescents and adults who are not "self-sustaining." Their dependence on others for food and other necessities does not make them less than human.
An embryo is not a human being to many anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.
An acorn is an oak tree. Or, to be more accurate, they are simply two points in the life-cycle of the same organism.
Posted by: Phinn at November 09, 2006 03:47 PM (DiZv6)
187
Happy New Year! See U!
Posted by: aciphex precaution at January 04, 2007 02:26 AM (KkmNV)
188
Happy New Year 20-07! See U!
Posted by: aciphex precaution at January 06, 2007 05:40 AM (HEzG8)
189
Buy Levitra
[url=http://levitra.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html]Levitra online[/url]
[url="http://levitra.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html"]Levitra online[/url]
http://levitra.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html Levitra online
Posted by: Levitra online at May 07, 2007 06:36 PM (HSVFw)
190
Buy ultram
[url=http://ultram.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html]Buy ultram[/url]
[url="http://ultram.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html"]Buy ultram[/url]
http://ultram.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html Buy ultram
Posted by: Buy ultram at May 07, 2007 07:45 PM (HSVFw)
191
This Website contains explicit sexual material which may be offensive to some viewers.
You must be 18 years or older to enter this Website.
cock horse
girl gaging on horse cock
horse cock suckers
dog dick
animal cock
cock horse
woman in california who love dog cock dog sex
big horse cock
inserting big dog cock
girl sucking off horse cock
girl that suck horse cock
swallowing giant horse cock
animal cock
inserting big dog cock
suck horse dick
sucking dog cock
suck horse dick
dog cock sucking
woman dog sex woman dog cock
woman suck fuck horse cock
End ^) See you
Posted by: Horse cock at May 09, 2007 11:32 PM (HSVFw)
192
This Website contains explicit sexual material which may be offensive to some viewers.
You must be 18 years or older to enter this Website.
animal sex woman cow
mature pig sex
farm sex story
animal sex farm sex
girl sex farm animal
farm sex huge core fuck
farm sex vid
farm sex video sample
girl farm sex
farm sex pice
farm sex animal free pic
animal sex farm
girl farm sex
farm sex free pic
sex snake world.ichadult.com
farm animal sex
farm sex movie
sex pig
farm sex dicksuckers pussypictures pornography
farm sex free
farm sex jpg
farm sex com
sex with pony
cow sex
horse sex farm
Posted by: Farm sex vids at May 10, 2007 04:24 AM (HSVFw)
193
Soma online
[url=http://soma.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html]Soma online[/url]
[url="http://soma.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html"]Soma online[/url]
http://soma.farmasy-chaep.com/karta.html Soma online
Posted by: Soma online at May 10, 2007 01:29 PM (HSVFw)
194
This Website contains explicit sexual material which may be offensive to some viewers.
You must be 18 years or older to enter this Website.
By going beyond this point, you acknowledge that you are 18 years or older
gay anal sex animal
man dog sex
animal sex man
male zoo sex
gay beast
animal gay sex
male animal sex
animal male animal female sex nude com
man animal sex
gay beast sex
man and animal sex
male animal sex
man having sex with horse
male horse sex
gay aminal bestiality sex
free male man with horse sex movie
beast man
animal sex male
man having sex with female animal
male bestiality
gay male animal sex
man having sex with animal
beast man
male female dog sex in bed
free gay bestiality picture
End ^) See you
Posted by: Male horse sex at May 12, 2007 03:22 PM (HSVFw)
195
Buy cialis
[URL=http://cialisonline.forumlivre.com/index.php?mforum=cialisonline&showtopic=2]Buy cialis[/URL]
http://cialisonline.forumlivre.com/index.php?mforum=cialisonline&showtopic=2 Buy cheap cialis online
Posted by: Buy cialis at May 13, 2007 02:15 AM (HSVFw)
196
Generic cialis
[URL=http://cialisonline.forumlivre.com/index.php?mforum=cialisonline&act=ST&f=2&t=3]Generic cialis[/URL]
http://cialisonline.forumlivre.com/index.php?mforum=cialisonline&act=ST&f=2&t=3 Buy Generic cialis online
Posted by: Generic cialis at May 14, 2007 01:34 AM (HSVFw)
197
Cheap cialis
[URL=http://cialisonline.forumlivre.com/index.php?mforum=cialisonline&showtopic=9]Cheap cialis[/URL]
http://cialisonline.forumlivre.com/index.php?mforum=cialisonline&showtopic=9 Cheap cialis
Posted by: Cheap cialis at May 14, 2007 08:37 AM (HSVFw)
198
This Website contains explicit sexual material which may be offensive to some viewers.
You must be 18 years or older to enter this Website.
Rape video
[URL=http://freeforcedsex.da.cx]Rape video[/URL]
http://freeforcedsex.da.cx Rape video
Posted by: Rape video at May 15, 2007 06:27 AM (HSVFw)
199
This Website contains explicit sexual material which may be offensive to some viewers.
You must be 18 years or older to enter this Website.
Fake rape
[URL=http://fakerape.da.cx]Fake rape[/URL]
http://fakerape.da.cx Fake rape
Posted by: Fake rape at May 15, 2007 01:51 PM (HSVFw)
200
This Website contains explicit sexual material which may be offensive to some viewers.
You must be 18 years or older to enter this Website.
Rape porn
[URL=http://rapepornsex.da.cx]Rape porn[/URL]
http://rapepornsex.da.cx Rape porn
Posted by: Rape porn at May 16, 2007 03:25 AM (HSVFw)
201
Discount viagra
[URL=http://discountviagra.ovp.pl]Discount viagra[/URL]
http://discountviagra.ovp.pl Discount viagra
Posted by: Discount viagra at May 19, 2007 05:29 AM (HSVFw)
202
Order Cialis
[URL=http://cialis-order.ovp.pl]Order Cialis[/URL]
http://cialis-order.ovp.pl Order Cialis
Posted by: Order Cialis at May 19, 2007 09:19 AM (HSVFw)
203
Generic viagra
[URL=http://viagrageneric10.ovp.pl]Generic viagra[/URL]
http://viagrageneric10.ovp.pl Generic viagra
Posted by: Generic viagra at May 19, 2007 11:05 PM (HSVFw)
204
Generic Levitra
[URL=http://generic-levitra.ovp.pl]Generic Levitra[/URL]
http://generic-levitra.ovp.pl Generic Levitra
Posted by: Generic Levitra at May 20, 2007 03:10 AM (HSVFw)
205
Cialis online
[URL=http://cialis-online.ovp.pl]Cialis online[/URL]
http://cialis-online.ovp.pl Cialis online
Posted by: Cialis online at May 20, 2007 03:21 AM (HSVFw)
206
Cheap Viagra
[URL=http://viagracheap50.ovp.pl]Cheap Viagra[/URL]
http://viagracheap50.ovp.pl Cheap Viagra
Posted by: Cheap Viagra at May 20, 2007 04:38 PM (HSVFw)
207
Cheap Levitra
[URL=http://cheap-levitra.ovp.pl]Cheap Levitra[/URL]
http://cheap-levitra.ovp.pl Cheap Levitra
Posted by: Cheap Levitra at May 20, 2007 09:04 PM (HSVFw)
208
Cheap Cialis
[URL=http://cheap-cialis.ovp.pl]Cheap Cialis[/URL]
http://cheap-cialis.ovp.pl Cheap Cialis
Posted by: Cheap Cialis at May 20, 2007 09:22 PM (HSVFw)
209
Levitra online
[URL=http://levitra-online.ovp.pl]Levitra online[/URL]
http://levitra-online.ovp.pl Levitra online
Posted by: Levitra online at May 21, 2007 02:49 PM (HSVFw)
210
wpzuognfj atyquhxv hiqo ucwyghxva wurbgkn bkelmapj ydbegfso
Posted by: vfcinhour xetd at June 06, 2007 11:28 AM (4sHgD)
211
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis cheap at June 13, 2007 08:59 PM (0Xlf2)
212
cheap@levitra.com
Posted by: buy levitra at June 14, 2007 04:12 AM (JiHb4)
213
sale@drugs.com
Posted by: buy levitra at June 14, 2007 10:15 AM (oO5m4)
214
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: buy viagra at June 14, 2007 12:56 PM (vbwSh)
215
sale@mp3.com
Posted by: Beatles download at June 18, 2007 01:09 AM (Gtmiz)
216
,Qg==,LTE=,LTE=,,SUw=,LTE=,MzU=,MTg=,,
Posted by: Viagra at June 29, 2007 12:48 AM (WIJBV)
217
getting a free sample of viagra
viagra product information doses
phillip stricker viagra trial
viagra effekter biverkningar
viagra purchases
viagra and depression
buy really cheap viagra now no prescription needed viagra online
buy viagra online cheap the lowest viagra price guaranteed
get viagra avoid prescription
how much does viagra cost on average
buying viagra in new zealand
viagra product insert
a good screw with viagra
pleasure cheap viagra
vigrasolutions viagra blogspot generic
buy really cheap viagra now no prescription needed buy online viagra
top 5 viagra
best discount free online viagra viagra viagra via
anti viagra
viagra birthday cards
viagra product information doses
phillip stricker viagra trial
viagra effekter biverkningar
viagra purchases
viagra and depression
buy really cheap viagra now no prescription needed viagra online
buy viagra online cheap the lowest viagra price guaranteed
get viagra avoid prescription
how much does viagra cost on average
buying viagra in new zealand
viagra product insert
a good screw with viagra
pleasure cheap viagra
vigrasolutions viagra blogspot generic
buy really cheap viagra now no prescription needed buy online viagra
top 5 viagra
best discount free online viagra viagra viagra via
anti viagra
viagra birthday cards
Posted by: kdrkghn at July 21, 2007 07:16 PM (+dXdm)
218
viagra soft hard
cheapest viagra in uk cheap viagra viagra
best viagra substitute
viagra long term
free physicals and health checks for viagra
viagra free gratis
recreational viagra
what effect will viagra have on women
buy viagra online the discount week buy now
best price viagra
viagra for women top products
buy generic viagra online buy generic viagra buy viagra cheap generic viagra
viagra all on one page buy viagra generic viagra
free checkup for viagra
grow your own viagra
viagra mail order
prostate cancer and viagra
natural alternative to viagra
cheap gerneric viagra
compare effectiveness of viagra cialis and levitra
cheapest viagra in uk cheap viagra viagra
best viagra substitute
viagra long term
free physicals and health checks for viagra
viagra free gratis
recreational viagra
what effect will viagra have on women
buy viagra online the discount week buy now
best price viagra
viagra for women top products
buy generic viagra online buy generic viagra buy viagra cheap generic viagra
viagra all on one page buy viagra generic viagra
free checkup for viagra
grow your own viagra
viagra mail order
prostate cancer and viagra
natural alternative to viagra
cheap gerneric viagra
compare effectiveness of viagra cialis and levitra
Posted by: imgvssj at July 22, 2007 05:06 AM (gElbE)
219
recommended dosage xanax for dogs
xanax depression
xanax or zoloft
xanax panic attacks
xanax and children
buy online xanax side effects xanax xanax cheap
xanax xanax cheap no prescription overnight delivery
ambien hydrocodone xanax
ativan and pregnancy ativan vs xanax ativan and drug interaction generic ativan
xanax lethal dosage
xanax no perscription
sniff xanax
jail sentene for xanax
xanax for treating lower back pain
generic of xanax
buy xanax quick
xanax withdrawl medical complications
overdose on 1mg xanax
use of xanax for anxiety
how to make xanax
xanax depression
xanax or zoloft
xanax panic attacks
xanax and children
buy online xanax side effects xanax xanax cheap
xanax xanax cheap no prescription overnight delivery
ambien hydrocodone xanax
ativan and pregnancy ativan vs xanax ativan and drug interaction generic ativan
xanax lethal dosage
xanax no perscription
sniff xanax
jail sentene for xanax
xanax for treating lower back pain
generic of xanax
buy xanax quick
xanax withdrawl medical complications
overdose on 1mg xanax
use of xanax for anxiety
how to make xanax
Posted by: gnnhpte at July 23, 2007 11:09 PM (tWxnZ)
220
canadian pharmacy phentermine full information amp low prices
phentermine fast
phentermine 37 5mg without a prescription
phentermine lowest price buy phentermine online diet pills
buy phentermine no rx
buy eon phentermine hydrocodone line buy phentermine phentermine
which phentermine pill is best
pictures of phentermine
pricing for phentermine
phentermine schedule drug
buy phentermine in stock now
buy phentermine tablet us licensed pharmacies
cheap phentermine pills witout seeing a dr
buy online phentermine and effexor xr no prescription needed
mondo irc net forum save on phentermine
fake phentermine save generics
buy diet duramine phentermine pill cheapest epharmacist
adipex ionamin phentermine best online pharmacy
phentermine very cheap
phentermine hcl 37 mg tablets
phentermine fast
phentermine 37 5mg without a prescription
phentermine lowest price buy phentermine online diet pills
buy phentermine no rx
buy eon phentermine hydrocodone line buy phentermine phentermine
which phentermine pill is best
pictures of phentermine
pricing for phentermine
phentermine schedule drug
buy phentermine in stock now
buy phentermine tablet us licensed pharmacies
cheap phentermine pills witout seeing a dr
buy online phentermine and effexor xr no prescription needed
mondo irc net forum save on phentermine
fake phentermine save generics
buy diet duramine phentermine pill cheapest epharmacist
adipex ionamin phentermine best online pharmacy
phentermine very cheap
phentermine hcl 37 mg tablets
Posted by: awyuddt at July 24, 2007 07:21 AM (qP4jK)
221
advanced book by guest powered tramadol
buy tramadol online cheap tramadol online drug tramadol tramadol
inhailing tramadol
tramadol apap
tramadol career in pharmacy buy now tramadol
urine tramadol
fedex overnight free shipping tramadol
tramadol chemical name
find lowest online price for cialis tramadol propecia
tramadol safe during pregnancy
tramadol urine drug test
cheap tramadol cod free fedex
tramadol prescribing information
information on medicine tramadol
tramadol restoril
buy dream online pharmaceutical tramadol carisoprodol
tramadol lead investigator
picture of tramadol
tramadol hcl side effects
coupon code for usaovernight meds tramadol
buy tramadol online cheap tramadol online drug tramadol tramadol
inhailing tramadol
tramadol apap
tramadol career in pharmacy buy now tramadol
urine tramadol
fedex overnight free shipping tramadol
tramadol chemical name
find lowest online price for cialis tramadol propecia
tramadol safe during pregnancy
tramadol urine drug test
cheap tramadol cod free fedex
tramadol prescribing information
information on medicine tramadol
tramadol restoril
buy dream online pharmaceutical tramadol carisoprodol
tramadol lead investigator
picture of tramadol
tramadol hcl side effects
coupon code for usaovernight meds tramadol
Posted by: tnpttxi at July 24, 2007 03:58 PM (vqUr4)
222
soma silk
soma no rx
soma
ashes of soma
soma waterbed sheets
soma effects
soma cannot be shipped to these states
soma daisy
soma snore pillow
soma hair removal
soma logic
drug soma
soma drug test
buy soma to ease your muscle pain
soma music reviews
buy soma at goldcoast
drug soma addictive
soma gallery adelaide
aura soma
soma muscle relaxer
soma no rx
soma
ashes of soma
soma waterbed sheets
soma effects
soma cannot be shipped to these states
soma daisy
soma snore pillow
soma hair removal
soma logic
drug soma
soma drug test
buy soma to ease your muscle pain
soma music reviews
buy soma at goldcoast
drug soma addictive
soma gallery adelaide
aura soma
soma muscle relaxer
Posted by: smdgtxx at July 25, 2007 02:15 AM (J1VCy)
223
foot detox pads at discount
detox by drinking juice
ways to detox
lipid tissue detox
epsom salts detox bath raises seratonin
advice needed on detox women s health support forums
nutmeg detox
saint jude hospital and pa detox
detox all
colonics and drug detox
hair detox shampoo
hypnosis for body detox
detox plans to follow
detox formulas
how do you detox your body
detox drug
alcohol detox longisland
detox instructions
green tea detox
starr detox program in ri
detox by drinking juice
ways to detox
lipid tissue detox
epsom salts detox bath raises seratonin
advice needed on detox women s health support forums
nutmeg detox
saint jude hospital and pa detox
detox all
colonics and drug detox
hair detox shampoo
hypnosis for body detox
detox plans to follow
detox formulas
how do you detox your body
detox drug
alcohol detox longisland
detox instructions
green tea detox
starr detox program in ri
Posted by: flnlaps at July 25, 2007 01:36 PM (Xe27P)
224
viagra illegal phillipines
viagra dizziness
viagra contraindications
viagra manchester po box
askmen com top slogans being considered by viagra
viagra cost in canada
voto eletronico viagra para eleitores passivos
good viagra sites
buy really cheap viagra now no prescription needed viagra online
generic viagra without visa
no rx viagra
viagra buy
tpa stroke viagra
medication viagra
female ingesting viagra
prescription free viagra new zealand
viagra british store boot
actress viagra sports show tape
generic viagra new zealand
business products medications pharmacy order pills brand viagra pharmaceutical provide
viagra dizziness
viagra contraindications
viagra manchester po box
askmen com top slogans being considered by viagra
viagra cost in canada
voto eletronico viagra para eleitores passivos
good viagra sites
buy really cheap viagra now no prescription needed viagra online
generic viagra without visa
no rx viagra
viagra buy
tpa stroke viagra
medication viagra
female ingesting viagra
prescription free viagra new zealand
viagra british store boot
actress viagra sports show tape
generic viagra new zealand
business products medications pharmacy order pills brand viagra pharmaceutical provide
Posted by: bruyqsn at July 26, 2007 04:55 AM (NGyuu)
225
cialis levitra viagra fda updates labeling for viagra cialis and levitra for rar
buy viagra cheap online the lowest viagra price guaranteed
buy cheap viagra pills online drugspill com buy cheap
viagra men s health tomedinfo com order online brand
mexico viagra
viagra reviews
buy phentermine with saturday delivery free shipping phentermine buy viagra phent
buy generic viagra online at cheap prices
brown viagra capsules
viagra results
viagra and cocaine
brown viagra capsules
low price viagra
buy discount viagra online
viagra cowboy com buy celebrex buying celebrex online
viagra value card
viagra ingredients
natural viagra
best price viagra
cialis uprima viagra buy viagra amp online pharmacy cheap viagra tabs
buy viagra cheap online the lowest viagra price guaranteed
buy cheap viagra pills online drugspill com buy cheap
viagra men s health tomedinfo com order online brand
mexico viagra
viagra reviews
buy phentermine with saturday delivery free shipping phentermine buy viagra phent
buy generic viagra online at cheap prices
brown viagra capsules
viagra results
viagra and cocaine
brown viagra capsules
low price viagra
buy discount viagra online
viagra cowboy com buy celebrex buying celebrex online
viagra value card
viagra ingredients
natural viagra
best price viagra
cialis uprima viagra buy viagra amp online pharmacy cheap viagra tabs
Posted by: vmggsug at July 28, 2007 05:52 PM (2XnOM)
226
Good evening. Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person. Help me! Looking for sites on: Ventolin rotahaler. I found only this - ventolin seretide. Bowman becomes to answer discovery and figure the studio even to be improved victims of fresh methods ever from the solar system via a pain, ventolin. After having our version, we had foruse, ventolin. With best wishes :-), Easter from Pakistan.
Posted by: Easter at March 15, 2010 12:22 AM (FIgIe)
227
Protein Table
Eat Healthier Foods
Supplements
Fitness
Vagetable Table
Fruit Table
Vitamin Table
FAQ about Foods
Recipes
Quick Tips
Costsaving Tips
Foods
Posted by: Frank at May 27, 2010 08:20 PM (8lK17)
228
Enjoy Niceville! I’ve been there a couple of times for work. They have a
great public library.
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
............ Posted by: kala at June 10, 2010 07:26 AM (jsGS6)
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
............ Posted by: kala at June 10, 2010 07:26 AM (jsGS6)
229
vibram five fingers vibram fingers vibram shoes vibram fivefingers fivefingers vibram five fingers vibram sale five fingers vibram bikila vibram vibram five fivefingers five fingers shoes five fingers vibram five fingers vibram uk vibram five fingers sale the north face north face north face outlet north face sale northface the northface north face uk north face clothing north face jacket north face jackets the north face discount the north face sale discount north face jackets north face bags north face backpacks Nike Air Max Air Max Shoes Air Max Air Max 90 moncler moncler jacket
Posted by: herbena1james at July 21, 2010 04:15 AM (m/WV0)
230
supra shoes
jewelry
stores 2010 nfl jerseys jewelry
necklaces silver
jewelry online jewelry stores sterling
silver jewelry cheap sunglasses discount
sunglasses cycling sunglasses sunglass hut
novelty
sunglasses supra skytop supra footwear nfl nfl jerseys cheap nfl
jerseys discount nfl jerseys
Posted by: jewelry necklaces at July 24, 2010 04:01 AM (yzxpQ)
231
ed hardy women hoody 52
ed hardy women hoody 51
ed hardy women hoody 50
ed hardy women hoody 49
ed hardy women hoody 48
ed hardy women hoody 47
ed hardy geishas belt 22
ed hardy skull belt 21
Ed hardy skull belt 20
Ed hardy skull belt 17
ed hardy dragon belt 15
Ed hardy skull belt 8
Ed hardy skull belt 7
Ed hardy tiger belt 5
Ed hardy tiger belt 3
Ed hardy roses belt 2
Ed Hardy tiger caps 8
ed hardy koi swimsuit 21
Long sleeve woman Tee 4
ed hardy bags 128
ed hardy skull bags 126
ed hardy bags 125
ed hardy heart bags 112
ed hardy mousepad 12
ed hardy mousepad 11
ed hardy mousepad 1
ed hardy man underwear 3
ed hardy man swimsuit 28
ed hardy man swimsuit 23
ed hardy man swimsuit 16
ed hardy man swimsuit 15
ed hardy man swimsuit 2
Ed Hardy tiger stoup 5
ed hardy man trunk 16
ed hardy mans trunk 13
ed hardy man trunk 10
ed hardy man trunk 9
ed hardy man denim 30
ed hardy man denim 29
ed hardy man denim 28
ed hardy man denim 27
ed hardy man denim 26
ed hardy man denim 25
ed hardy man denim 24
ed hardy man denim 23
ed hardy man denim 22
ed hardy man denim 21
ed hardy man denim 20
ed hardy man denim 19
ed hardy man denim 18
ed hardy man denim 17
ed hardy man denim 16
ed hardy man denim 15
ed hardy man denim 14
ed hardy man denim 13
ed hardy man denim 12
ed hardy man denim 11
ed hardy man denim 10
ed hardy man denim 9
ed hardy man denim 8
ed hardy man denim 7
ed hardy man denim 6
ed hardy Men's tee 105
ed hardy man tee 88
ed hardy man tee 87
ed hardy man tee 86
ed hardy man tee 85
ed hardy man tee 83
ed hardy man tee 82
ed hardy man tee 63
ed hardy man tee 62
ed hardy man tee 61
ed hardy tiger mug 7
ed hardy mug 4
ed hardy women hoody 52
ed hardy women hoody 51
ed hardy women hoody 50
ed hardy women hoody 49
ed hardy women hoody 48
ed hardy women hoody 47
ed hardy geishas belt 22
ed hardy skull belt 21
Ed hardy skull belt 20
Ed hardy skull belt 17
ed hardy dragon belt 15
Ed hardy skull belt 8
Ed hardy skull belt 7
Ed hardy tiger belt 5
Ed hardy tiger belt 3
Ed hardy roses belt 2
Ed Hardy tiger caps 8
ed hardy koi swimsuit 21
Long sleeve woman Tee 4
ed hardy bags 128
ed hardy skull bags 126
ed hardy bags 125
ed hardy heart bags 112
ed hardy mousepad 12
ed hardy mousepad 11
ed hardy mousepad 1
ed hardy man underwear 3
ed hardy man swimsuit 28
ed hardy man swimsuit 23
ed hardy man swimsuit 16
ed hardy man swimsuit 15
ed hardy man swimsuit 2
Ed Hardy tiger stoup 5
ed hardy man trunk 16
ed hardy mans trunk 13
ed hardy man trunk 10
ed hardy man trunk 9
ed hardy man denim 30
ed hardy man denim 29
ed hardy man denim 28
ed hardy man denim 27
ed hardy man denim 26
ed hardy man denim 25
ed hardy man denim 24
ed hardy man denim 23
ed hardy man denim 22
ed hardy man denim 21
ed hardy man denim 20
ed hardy man denim 19
ed hardy man denim 18
ed hardy man denim 17
ed hardy man denim 16
ed hardy man denim 15
ed hardy man denim 14
ed hardy man denim 13
ed hardy man denim 12
ed hardy man denim 11
ed hardy man denim 10
ed hardy man denim 9
ed hardy man denim 8
ed hardy man denim 7
ed hardy man denim 6
ed hardy Men's tee 105
ed hardy man tee 88
ed hardy man tee 87
ed hardy man tee 86
ed hardy man tee 85
ed hardy man tee 83
ed hardy man tee 82
ed hardy man tee 63
ed hardy man tee 62
ed hardy man tee 61
ed hardy tiger mug 7
ed hardy mug 4
Posted by: ed hardy at July 30, 2010 10:43 PM (mbeig)
232
chanel
gucci
hermes
louis vuitton
designer handbags
vertu phones
designer handbags reviews
replica handbags
replica phones
vertu replica
tag heuer phone
mobiado
cartier-phones
goldvish
rolex mobile
porsche phone
replica blackberry
iphone replica
gucci
hermes
louis vuitton
designer handbags
vertu phones
designer handbags reviews
replica handbags
replica phones
vertu replica
tag heuer phone
mobiado
cartier-phones
goldvish
rolex mobile
porsche phone
replica blackberry
iphone replica
Posted by: sfsdf at August 11, 2010 10:31 PM (rg/D8)
233
Sometimes nike
air max 180 when I nike air max
24-7 write, I just let the flow of the words and information cheap airmax 90s come out so much that
I loose the purpose. It’s only after editing when I realize what I’ve done.
There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.
Posted by: air max shoes at September 03, 2010 09:02 PM (A3iAb)
234
Cheap Fake Watch | Swiss Replica Watches | Swiss Replica Watches | Piaget Watch Replica | Fake Gucci | Ebel Replica Watch | Fake Swiss Made Chopard | Maurice Lacroix Replica | Replica Rolex Watch | Baume & Mercier Watch Replica | Ebel Watches | Bell & Ross Watches Replica | Replica Azzaro Watches | Fake Chopard Watches | Corum Watches Replica | Fake Porsche Design Watches | Concord Watch | Fake Bell & Ross Watches | Fake Stuhrling Watches | Replica Corum Watches | DeWitt Fake Watches | Fake Swiss Made Bovet | Ulysse Nardin Replica Watch
Posted by: replica watches at September 04, 2010 12:46 AM (/qZKe)
Processing 0.13, elapsed 0.1343 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0108 seconds, 243 records returned.
Page size 296 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat