1

She's not funny. She's cutesy, in a very self-satisfied way.

And we already have one Maureen Dowd, we don't need another.

2 I always loved Jonah.

3

Screw her and all the rest of the DC/NY supposed "conservatives."  They are of the same mindset as McCain when it comes to true conservativism.  She, and they, have truly "evolved" while in their axis, just they way liberals prefer for a conservative.  Fuck'em.

4 That was the stupidest column in what is becoming quite the series of them.

Was this idiot writing this stuff when those damn Godbags carried a Republican to the White House in 2000 and 2004?

That said, I still hit that shit. And by hit I mean have sex with, though the literal version is fairly tempting at times (there's some more 'hate' for your scrapbook Kathleen).

5 Kathleen Parker has lost her mind and the local paper picks her up ... drives me crazy.

6 Parker's been writing these columns for a while.

The Corner really hit her hard this week.

In news so totally unrelated I don't know why I'm mentioning this now, NRO is soliciting donations right now.

7 Parker's column was extremely offensive and just plain stupid. However, I was not impressed with Goldberg's response. He should have kicked her to the curb big time.

8 She could be trying to form a Molly Ivins tribute band.

9 Has anyone ever seen Maureen Dowd and Kathleen Parker in the same room at the same time?

10 Her article is another good example that before we start throwing the social conservatives overboard, we should look at the people who are advocating throwing them overboard. We may not agree with the social conservatives all the time, but without them we're apparently left with a party consisting of Frums, Parkers and Noonans. Those aren't people we should trust with the future of conservatism.

11 Parker can go fuck herself.

And Goldberg's a pretentious twit.

12 Parker isn't a "Republican", she's a "Whatever i can say that gets me that sweet [one angstrom to the right of the DNC, but still liberal enough that they don't scare the poor readers of the WaPost/NYTimes] gig"

13 The follow-up is the best part.

14 We may not agree with the social conservatives all the time, but without them we're apparently left with a party consisting of Frums, Parkers and Noonans. Those aren't people we should trust with the future of conservatism.

Or sharp objects.

15 I don't see why NR gets rid of Frum, who is thoughtfull and interesting, and Buckley, who at least is ... W.F. Buckley's son, and yet keeps this no-talent piece of shit around.

16

I liked his follow up even more:

What aspects of the Christian Right amount to oogedy-boogedyism?

...

Opposition to abortion? Opposition to gay marriage? Euthanasia? Support for prayer in school?

There are all sorts of legitimate positions on all sides of these issues and I don't necessarily agree with the conventional religious right view on all of them. And as a committed federalist, I'd like to see most if not all of them settled as locally as possible.

Word.

17 For calling Christians gorillas, whatever that weird rhyming slur of hers was, and "low-brows", she should be fired.

Imagine if she called Jews that, or Muslims, or Hindus.

It's time for her to find a new job.

18 before we start throwing the social conservatives overboard, we should look at the people who are advocating throwing them overboard

Amazingly enough, a lot of them were the ones telling us we had to nominate McCain and then they ditched him for Obama.

Here's a hint, if McCain is too conservative for you, you aren't a conservative.

19

Man, I would pay some good money to see her and Peggy Noonan have some boxed lunch, if you know what I mean, nudge, nudge...

20 Allow me to express my utmost satisfaction at the incredible length of this cock that's in my mouth.

21 Posted by: Chimpy McPhucknuts at November 19, 2008 02:02 PM (JbRmM)

And Demosthenes/Johnny Gentle/Miguel Clamporia gives us yet another reason to dismiss Parker's column.

Hint to Ms. Parker: If your columns are making liberal trolls drool themselves in glee, you might want to re-examine your 'conservatism.'

22 Frum is still on NRO. In what sense was he fired?

23

Express away Fucknuts.There's always room for another lefty asshole who doesn't know a goddamnthing about the subject to fill the air with his putrid wisdom.  You keep right on expressing, Chief.

24 Smug is not a good look on anyone.

25 Speaking of "getting rid of Frum", I noticed he's there on his NR blog today with a great post about Andrew Jackson of all things.

When exactly is he going? I thought yesterday was his last day.

26 C. Buckley? Gone. Frum? Gone. Parker? Gone?

NR (and sometimes) O is getting its sea legs back post-W.F. Buckley.

27

oogedy-boogedyism

What about the left's insane belief of man-made global warming (or climate change now that is cooling).

Hint -- the cause of climate change is variations in radiation output of the massive body that you see in the sky every day.

28 But religion is oogedy-boogedy stuff.. but still, her smugness is irritating and she seems to be writing the same column over and over again.

29

When someone threw the list of supposed conservatives backing Obama at Ann Coulter, her reaction was perfect:  THE Kathleen Parker?

30

The mark of a true intellectual is that they say things like "oogedy-boogedyism". Those poor benighted Jesus feaks probably don't even know what that means.

 

31 I'm sure Bill Maher agrees with Kathleen.

Ouch.

32 Poor Kathleen.  On her voyage of self discovery, discovers she's an idiot and martyrs herself on the alter of idiocy for the sake of idiots everywhere.  Her selflessness and humility would be noteworthy - except they're not.

33
If she and Frum and Buckley, Jr. and Noonan are all right, then why are they moaning day after day?  If demographics really are destined to doom conservatism in its current form, then the party will naturally move left on its own.  It will be totally unavoidable.  I don't see why these people feel the need to convince the right to change if it destined to happen anyhow.  But they do seem to be in quite a hurry to ditch the rest of us, and I have a feeling they won't be with us if the shift they desire comes to pass.  Kinda like how they bailed on McCain after trumpeting him as the one guy who could win.

34 Sorry but she is so stupid, her so-called insights are anything but insightful and she comes across as a rather dull-witted writer re-hashing trite arguments when the majority of readers have progressed to more relevant issues.

35 The only thing one can ask oneself in this world of oogedy-boogedyism and its role in True Conservatism is:

What would Andrew Sullivan think?

There. I said it. I'm not proud. I just need the truth.

36

radiation output of the massive body that you see

That judge Ace posted about??

37

NR better hope she doesn't leave, I don't know if they could take another hit to their eruditeness.

38

the majority of readers have progressed to more relevant issues

 

I think the people she's aiming at (liberals) have an inexaustable appetite for the slop she's serving them. She can write the same crap every day for the next four years and the WaPo will give her space for it.

 

39
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the Democrats simultaneously promising tax cuts and massive entitlements. It's all the fault of those pesky anti-abortionists and fag-haters.

Because the GOP couldn't find neither the will nor the desire to call the Democrats on their bullshit and simply explain why the Dem's plans were silly and detrimental to our republic, it opened the door for twits like Parker to bash the social cons. Not to mention that the GOP also gave away the White House to a Leftist academic hack.

40

I think Jonah was really holding his tongue there. 

I'm not an evangelical Christian social-con myself, but I find this sort of snark tiresome and useless. 

I do believe that appealing to the evangelicals was a key to Bush's reelection in 2004, but so was the war.  I didn't see any such overt appeals in McCain's campaign.  The only time McCain did anything to directly appeal to evangelicals was at the Saddleback Forum.  So I really don't understand what the hell Parker is talking about. 

The fact is that if only 85% of black voters had voted for Barack Obama, instead of 96%, today we would be discussing President-elect McCain's amazing victory and how he was able to hold on to the evangelical base while not overtly appealing to it. 

Democrats knew their only shot at winning this election was to nominate a black man and maximize turnout of their same old coalition of blacks, guilty white liberals, unions, and old people.   So that's what they did.  And it worked.  Doesn't say a damn thing about the Republican Party.

41 Did I call Kathleen Parker a twit?

Sorry.

I meant to say cocksucker. Kathleen Parker is a cocksucker.

42 Kathy wasn't screaming "oogedy-boogedy" the other night when she was getting mackerel coiffed.   IYKWIMAITTYD

43 Here's a hint, if McCain is too conservative for you, you aren't a conservative.

Where does that leave me?

44

I hope everyone has gone over to TH and given that column a “1”. Eventually HH will see the light and terminate her contract for columns at TH. She may still right for NRO for a while but her dissemination will be cut in half.

 

I was not impressed with Jonah’s reply either. I’m sure that he was trying to be a “gentleman” about it but it needed more force and he was also wrong about Huckabee. Huckabee is NOT right wing. He is a religious liberal full of tax and spend.

 

This is one of the liberals that need to be purged. What she is trying to do now is go on the offensive because she knows that the liberal wing of the party has been discredited and she must fight to get it back. I say fuck her and her liberal ass horse.

45 For calling Christians gorillas, whatever that weird rhyming slur of hers was, and "low-brows", she should be fired.

I'd love to see her call blacks or Obama that crap and try to get away with it.

46

"That said, I [would] still hit that shit.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2008 01:45 PM (hlYel)"

I'd hit it, too, Drew, but I'd make sure to call out Sarah Palin's name.

Just like Parker's husband does, apparently.

47
Again, if gay marriage is so wonderful and everyone in America is for it, why were Obama and Biden so emphatically opposed to it when asked about it?

And why did Obama invoke God so often?

And why did Obama stutter and stammer when asked about abortion?

And why did Obama talk about the need to secure the borders during the Democrat debates?

48 Just like Noonan, KP has for years been masquerading as a conservative pundit, all the while holding her readers in secret contempt.  How many other writers have been doing this?

49

This whole question of "what do we stand for?" is somewhat silly. Both the GOP and the Democrats are not monolithic ideologies, but coalitions arrayed across a wide spectrum of economic, social, and philosophical positions. This is one of the wages of having a two-party system: rather than the constellation of small parties, you have two catch-all parties with necessarily vague 'core ideals'.

This is why I don't call myself a Republican even though I tend to vote Republican most of the time. I'd use the term "classical liberal" to describe my own views, but there is little agreement even on what that means.

I suspect that whatever we are -- conservatives, small-r republicans, whatever -- we do better as an "out" party than an "in" party. First, I believe we are a natural minority. There will always be a majority of people who, for whatever reason, think that rights flow from the government rather than from the people. The majority of people also interpret the concept of "freedom" differently than we do. When we think of "liberty", we tend to think in more abstract terms: freedom of speech, of thought, of individual action. Others tend to think of it in more constrained terms: "freedom" as a physical state, such as being free to move and being free from forced confinement. Classical liberals also take "liberty" as an innate right, not a status granted by the government.

The problem over the past five years or so is that the political party which was supposed to be in favor of smaller government and responsible fiscal policy turned out to be neither. The Presidential election of 2008 basically became a contest as to which band of thieves we wanted to hand our keys to. I am not surprised at the GOP's abdication of their principles; disgusted, yes, but not surprised. It is a consequence of letting government grow too large, to the point that the question is no longer whether they should engage in statist boondoggles, but rather how.

It is my earnest hope -- and a hope is all it is, and probably a futile one -- that this recession (Depression?) will force Americans to re-learn the lessons of probity, responsibility, and the limits of government.

 

50 People shouldn't lump Peggy Noonan in with the Christian bashers.

Peggy Noonan is actually a serious Catholic, and she wrote a heartfelt book about Pope John Paul II, a few years ago.

I just think she caught the elite Washington bubble disease.

Parker isn't even worth our time. The libs can have her.

The NRO crowd are begging her to step away from the keyboard, Something tells me she won't be writing there, much longer.

51 Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.

Surprised that Goldberg didn't pick up on this, arguably the most offensive quote from her article. Armbands + politics = fascism.

52

How does this help Mitt Romney?

53 Man, when I saw the title I got really confused and thought you were talking about Goldberg telling Maureen Dowd Peggy Noonan Kathleen Parker "you're next". Damn pro wrestling keeps coming back to me.

54 I meant to say cocksucker. Kathleen Parker is a cocksucker.

You mean that in the bad way, right Bart? Cause you know the other way....

55 Well, count me in as one of the dreaded "oogedy-boogedy" people.  I am foremost a comitted Christian.  I am most definitely not a committed Republican.  I will support the party and candidates that most likely will commit to the things I hold dear:
1. Freedom to worship my God in peace.  Giving others the freedom to choose,  for that is why we are all here.
2. Small govt.
3. Strong defense
4. Low taxes

When the party abandons these things, then they lose my vote.  For instance, I could not have voted for Hucklenuts, who is just an opportunistic charlatan, aka Edwards with a cross.  I almost didn't vote for McCain.  There are many Parker, Frum, et al, as well as some posters here who feel that tossing me to the curb is the path to victory.  But to win what exactly, power?  If so, then perhaps you should toss me out.  I am not interested in Power or Winning or any of those other Cool Things^TM .  If that is your voyage, then you sail without me.  My prayers for my country and my president.  Right or wrong, I love and respect them both.

56 I'm not entirely sure but I think Oogedy-Boogedyism is what I describe as "basic Christian doctrine that Jesus's death atones for our sins or any of the other mystical or supernatural aspects of Christianity." Hey, way to make friends and influence people there, Kathleen.

If I remember right, there was a song on Credence Clearwater Revival's Cosmo's Factory album called "Oogey Boogey" or something like that. I did not realize until this minute that that was a religious song.

57 LGF's front page is flogging an article in the Washington Post, cowritten by uber-RINO Christine Todd Whitman, on the same theme. ie. those evil fundies are ruining our party. Wait, Parker's article appeared in the Post, too, didn't it? Gee, if I didn't know that the media is fair and objective, I might think there's some kind of coordination going on here...

58

Her article, by the way, is atrocious. Not just for the predictability of it, but for the radioactive smugness at her own alleged wit and humor.

She's not funny. She's cutesy, in a very self-satisfied way.

Yeah, that's what I thought reading that as well.  Yeah, her overall thesis is a dud, but her writing style probably has Maureen Dowd snickering at her.  If you're going to attack someone because of their lack of intellect - as she does with Palin - it would probably help if you weren't a complete twit yourself.

59 How many other writers have been doing this?

Allahpundit, for one.

Also, Noonan always rubbed me the wrong way. And to those of you who would hit Parker, she's got to be in her 50s and the photos are touched up.

60 She's not funny. She's cutesy, in a very self-satisfied way.

I know, Parker has most likely reached the point in her life where she realized that serious writing and journalism is beyond her reach, and so has decided that Maureen Dowd is the way to go.

61

Poor Kathleen.  The oppression she is enduring must be unbearable.  I mean the nasty biblethumper's mean e-mails and all the other critisism is making it just impossible to enjoy getting passed around MSNBC.  I understand she was pulling a fourway in the greenroom with Jon Meacham, Howard Fineman, Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman and right when they were getting to the good part (lets just say it involved anal beads, a gallon of vasoline and a goat) she happened to notice an e-mail calling her a bitch on her laptop (which was halfway up Olberman's ass at the time but that's another story).  It was all she could do to finish them off and make it down to Maddow's office for her 5pm fisting.  Tough stuff, man, tough stuff. 

62

Steyn and K-Lo weighed in on the anti-Parker side, too.

I'm not a fundie or a born-again...I'm a Catholic libertarian. I find Parker's "bathing in holy water" and "oogedy-boogedy" comments to be vile.

Are all Christians snakehandling abortion clinic bombers in Parker's world?

63

Parker can go fuck herself.  And Goldberg's a pretentious twit.

Damn...y'all turning on Parker AND Goldberg? Calm down.

One thing Parker did through the years was defend traditional marriage and child-rearing, from a woman’s point of view, without resorting to the bible. Which is exactly what the Right needs. I agree with just about every stance the Religious Right takes, but for non-religious reasons. They just make sense. There is something to be said for taking our message to a broader audience.

I don’t agree with her that the Religious Right was a problem in 2008 (with McCain as the candidate??) And go ahead and slam her for belittling religious conservatives and basking in her newfound popularity on the left. But we do need to take the message to the next level.

 

 

64 I was not impressed with Jonah’s reply either. I’m sure that he was trying to be a “gentleman” about it but it needed more force...

Goldberg knows her personally. It's unreasonable to expect that he's going to just unload on her, as she deserves. Not without a lot of preparatory work and then if he does, he will lose her as a friend, permanently. That is not an easy thing to do.

65 I think it's one thing to say:

"Christian doctrine that Jesus's death atones for our sins or any of the other mystical or supernatural aspects of Christianity."

... is false. I don't believe there's any evidence for it or reason to believe it.

Yes, this will hurt a lot of Christians' feelings, but it's a reasonable opinion to express and any hurt feelings are as a result of other Christians' belief systems rather than an attempt to insult or malign.

Likewise, Christians expressing their opinion that those beliefs are true, materialism doesn't explain the world, and evolutionary science is misleading might aggravate Darwinists, but so what? It's a free country.

Where Parker crossed the line is calling an entire group of people gorillas and low-brows. I don't see why that isn't at least potentially a firing offense.

66 #49 Monty,

Are you sure you are not a Democrat? Most of the people who vote for the Democrats would probably agree with you.

67

And what the Hell is this smug bitch's problem with Palin? She's still ranting about Sarah Palin. Memo to Ms. Parker: The election was two weeks ago. Sarah Palin has gone back to her job being governor. Kathleen Parker needs to go back to her job being irrelevant and hardly note-worthy.

And as for the insane rants about the religious conservatives in this obtuse op-ed, if we boot them out, what are we supposed to do? Accept the secular religion of "Big Government" like the Left has? I think not.

We're supposed to be the party of ideas. We're also a big tent party. Granted, yes, it's time to clean house (and hopefully we'll get the necessary changes if Michael Steele is elected as the RNC chair). But the sort of house-cleaning Ms. Parker wants is the kind we'd expect from the snooty crowd in the party. They claim to have all the answers? Really? Are they sure?

I only ask because their ideas got us shellacked in this last election. Thans Ms. Parker for your opinion, but it wasn't asked for, nor is it wanted.

68 Look, all I am saying is that GOP should become pro-choice, pro-tax, anti-military, anti-religious, pro-government, anti-gun, pro-union, and pro-environmentalist. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Oh, and we should kick out the Irish, lousy drunks.

69 lol, #44 and #61. Is this the most offensive political website ever? How is this even happening in a thread about social conservatives? I am serious. What the hell is going on in here? What would you think if you were reading this sort of thing about yourself?

70

Yes, this will hurt a lot of Christians' feelings, but it's a reasonable opinion to express and any hurt feelings are as a result of other Christians' belief systems rather than an attempt to insult or malign.

Christoph, why would that hurt a lot of Christians' feelings? I don't know any Christians whose feelings are hurt because someone doesn't share their beliefs. There are, after all, billions of non-Christians out there.

What a silly stereotype.

71

Oh, and we should kick out the Irish, lousy drunks.

Oi, me Mither would blush to know the violence I'm thinkin' o'.... Faugh, a wee dram of the juice of the barley is the best for what ails ye. Not our fault you colonials can't hold your liquor. Mind yer tongue, now, or I'll lay about yer head with me knobbled shillelagh.

 

72

Kathleen Parker had some good columns for many years. There were a number of them that supported the troops and the Iraq war, one about not rushing into legislation permitting gay marriage, and some blasting John Edwards  that were quite well written IMO. However, more recently she seems to have taken a turn to the left.

What is perplexing is that there are a number of formerly conservative pundits, writers, and commentators who seem to have tasted some of that particular kool-aid and seem to actually pride themselves on "moving left".  (Parker, Peggy Noonan, Michael Smerconish - a talk show host from Philly, etc., etc.)

Like others, I have been frustrated about some of the decisions from the Bush WH, but it is hard to imagine how some seemingly conservative commentators and thinkers have moved so far left as to vote for Obama. I mean, really, even if say, Maureen Dowd the NYT didn't like some of what was happening under the rule of Obama, does anyone think they would vote for or endorse Sarah Palin or someone of that ilk? I don't think so...

 

73 I don't see why NR gets rid of Frum, who is thoughtfull and interesting, and Buckley, who at least is ... W.F. Buckley's son, and yet keeps this no-talent piece of shit around.

She's writing for the Washington Post, not NR.

Frum(p)? Oh, yeah, thoughtful and interesting, in search of his next book on the future of the GOP....and he's still at NR.

Buckley quit. Good riddance. Frum should have the grace to do the same.

74

Oh, and we should kick out the Irish, lousy drunks.

I think it was George Carlin who commented on the Notre Dame Fighting Irish - only the Irish would be so self-deprecating to adopt the stereotype of a drunken bellicose Irishman as a mascot. Can you imagine a sports team called the New Jersey University Murdering Italians or the New York University Bargaining Jews? 

75 Okay, wildly off-topic, but I would really appreciate y'alls help here.

DO YOU HATE DAILYKOS AND WISH TO SEE THEM SCREAM?  DO YOU LIKE BASEBALL?  DO YOU LIKE SMART PEOPLE DOING SMART ANALYSIS?  TWO CLICKS AND YOU CAN SCRATCH ALL OF THESE ITCHES.

One of the greatest baseball bloggers in America, David Cameron of U.S.S. Mariner, is up for this online scholarship award.  The people who run it, in their infinite wisdom, have made the contest one an INTERNET POLL: the winner gets $10,000 to pay off their educational debts.  Cameron was the early favorite, but some other asshole named David Mauro, who runs a hard-left blog on Texas politics, went to Daily Kos and started diary-bombing the site begging people to run up the vote for them, by hook or by crook.  It's turned into something of a war between left-wingers and baseball fans, with the Kos people screaming about how they need to "support one of their own" (even if nobody's heard of the guy Mauro) and that sabermetric blogging is a "commercial sell-out."

We need help.  Not only is Cameron one of the smartest, most hard-working, influential baseball thinkers in America (seriously, if you've ever read in-depth on statistical analysis, odds are you've read stuff either written or inspired by him), he's newly married and could really use the money.  This is a great guy who has not only changed the way an entire city thinks about sports, but helped influence the entire country.  Don't let him lose now because these assholes at KOS are smurfing the poll. 

VOTING IS EASY.  No registration, no secret tricks, nothing.  Just go to the link below and vote for Dave Cameron.  Make a Kos Kid Kry today!

http://tinyurl.com/5gc63y

I never do this sort of thing, here on Ace of Spades or anywhere else, but it really matters this time.  Help us out.  Shit, if somebody could make a front-page post out of it (a very brief one) that would be even better.  Please, let's stomp on these lefty motherfuckers.

Yours in pussification,

Jeff B.

76 Instead of "No Christians in the Republican Party" How about, "No Fat Chicks:" instead?

77 Pro-gun, pro-life, pro-military, pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-smaller govt, pro-border security, pro-energy independence, Christian, heterosexual white guy ... where's my bailout?

78

Buckley quit. Good riddance. Frum should have the grace to do the same.

Frum is on his way out...starting up a website of his own around Inauguration Day. I think it's going to be a neocon or a RINO website.

79

LGF's front page is flogging an article in the Washington Post, cowritten by uber-RINO Christine Todd Whitman, on the same theme. ie. those evil fundies are ruining our party.

 

Charles Johnson is a less witty version of Chris Hitchens. They're both lefties who found themselves temporarily aligned with the right after 911. And they're both reverting to their true beliefs as time passes.

80

Wolverine, don't you get it? Yours is to be the bailer, not the bailee. 

81

Working to be the female "Dave Brooks" at the NY Times?  Is she gay too?

Kemp

82

"Oogedy-boogedy" must be the type of logic by which Kathleen Parker supposes the Republican Party can get elected by running as Democrats.

And while I'm here, the report at Hot Air on Mike Steele's comments about Obama's appointee for AG is pathetic.  Mikes says he doesn't want to country-club around, so then he goes all country-club smoochey on ths Dem, saying what a wonderful guy he is.

Here is a telegram for Republican Leaders-wannabees:

TALK TO ME NOT REPORTERS STOP

DONT CARE IF YOU LIKE DEMOCRAT APPOINTEES STOP

NOT IN JOB DESC OF POSITION YOU SEEK TO TELL REPORTERS YOU LIKE THEM EITHER STOP

REPEAT: TALK TO ME NOT REPORTERS OR STFU STOP ENDS

83 Kathleen Parker is an editorial whore. She will say or write whatever gets her the attention of those in power. When George was in town she was little miss conservative. Now however, a new Sheriff named Obama has ridden into town, and Kathy needs to get noticed as the DC pet conservative, which she seems to have done successfully. She is now being invited onto MSNBC and other leftwing outlets.

No need to fret, she will undoubtedly see the error of her ways if the GOP retakes the White House in four years.

84 "Christoph, why would that hurt a lot of Christians' feelings? I don't know any Christians whose feelings are hurt because someone doesn't share their beliefs."

I've experienced it many times.

All I have to say is, "I don't think Jesus existed," for Ace to threaten to ban me, for example. He just knows people will jump all over that and a pissing match will ensue, particularly if I actually say why I think that.

No, naturally not all Christians react that way or get hurt feelings, but for many if you say anything they perceive as negative about Jesus, they take it personally.

85 >>That said, I still hit that shit. And by hit I mean have sex with, though the literal version is fairly tempting at times (there's some more 'hate' for your scrapbook Kathleen).

Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2008 01:45 PM (hlYel)

I'd still hit it too, but it would be all about teh haet. I'd be sure to make it as degrading as possible for her, berating her as a filthy slut and telling her how Sarah Palin is a hundred times the woman she could ever dream of being. Then I'd give her a Nasty Adolph. And a Cleveland Steamer just for good measure.

86 Yours in pussification, Jeff B.

No, problem. Plus, I've gotten into it with Mauro before.

87 Anyway, my broader point is it's one thing to disagree with someone's beliefs, or even call a person stupid for a reason, but it's quite another thing to call all members of a low-brows or gorillas because of their faith. It seems to me that's risking one's job security.

88 *of a group

89 Frum, Buckley, Noonan and Parker... standing bravely athwart the path of history and shouting "come back!"

90 Used to read LGF alot ... lately the anti-creationism rhetoric just became over the top, and then he started blasting certain bloggers ... I don't care if you think like I do about creation, but damn dial down on the hysteria

91 No, problem. Plus, I've gotten into it with Mauro before.

If we could just find a way to get this onto the front-page...or maybe the headlines.

Dammit, I used to have an Open-Blog key lying around here somewhere...but no, I won't do it myself. 

Spread the word!

92

However, more recently she seems to have taken a turn to the left.

That is not the problem. It's the nasty, mean snark. It's the martyr act because she's getting angry EMAILS.

I mean, really, even if say, Maureen Dowd the NYT didn't like some of what was happening under the rule of Obama, does anyone think they would vote for or endorse Sarah Palin or someone of that ilk?

Well, the PUMAs moved from Hillary to McCain. How big a jump that was...okay, maybe it wasn't much of a jump...

93 I was one of those people who sent her an angry email when she wrote  her first article about Sarah Palin. I told her I dont usually say these kinds of things, but i told her to shut up! ( pretty mean huh?) She is getting what she wants, all the attention from the lefty media. And at  what cost? In the end you sell your soul and friends out and you end up a lonely ole bitch! (oops) pardon me....

94 I will disagree with Jonah on one point - when Bill Maher agrees with you, you have taken a wrong turn as a human being, let alone as a conservative.

95 Jim62sch,

By pure, pure coincidence, Hot Air's lead post starts with this:

"An attempt by German Academia to provide outreach to moderate Muslims may have significantly backfired, with its leading light becoming an apostate.  Muhammed Sven Kalish has written a paper asserting that the prophet Mohammed never existed at all, and that Islam started as a Christian heresy."

So they're going to try to kill him, of course.

Now Christians don't try to kill you because unlike Islam their faith not only doesn't require them to, it forbids it. Score one for Christianity and I say that sincerely.

However, emotionally, they're both faith belief systems and they're both followed by human beings. You can -- whether you like it or not -- get a lot of high emotions out of many Christians by offering an opinion that Jesus didn't exist, or that he wasn't Divine if he did exist, or that he was evil if he was divine and exactly as depicted in the Bible.

Anger, hurt feelings, taking it personally: It happens.

96

Are you sure you are not a Democrat? Most of the people who vote for the Democrats would probably agree with you.

I doubt it. The devil, as always, is in the details. There is a strain of Utopian thought among Democrats that I do not share, and no one as resolutely small-government as I would ever feel comfortable among the rank-and-file of the Democratic party as currently constituted. I also profess a Christian faith, and I see a fairly widespread hostility toward my faith within the Democratic party.

I also think that Democrats overwhelmingly believe that freedom flows from government. Which is to say, they believe that you are allowed to do only those things which the government permits; whereas I believe you are born as a free person, and constrained by law only from doing those things which are injurious to others or which prevents them from enjoying the same natural freedoms you yourself enjoy. This is probably the biggest fundamental difference between my beliefs and those of the Democratic party. I believe government is a necessary evil -- the Democrats believe that it is both avatar and agent of social change.

I'm trying very hard not to caricature the Democratic position, but since I disagree so profoundly with so much of what they espouse, I should probably leave an explanation of what they believe to someone who believes as they do. (I only wish they would afford us the same courtesy.)

 

97 Christoph I think you could say the same for any belief system. You have people that can take criticism and have an open discussion, and those who can't, in any group.

98

Anyway, my broader point is it's one thing to disagree with someone's beliefs, or even call a person stupid for a reason, but it's quite another thing to call all members of a low-brows or gorillas because of their faith. It seems to me that's risking one's job security.

Yeah, agreed. Me, I don't care what other people believe, just want to be left alone to believe what I want. I don't care if gays marry, but if they do then crazy Mormonists should be allowed to do their polygamist thing if they want. Fair is fair.

It seems to me that atheists are much more upset by displays of Christianity than Christians are upset by displays of atheism. 

99 and no belief system is a belief system

100 "Christoph I think you could say the same for any belief system."

Exactly right. And the more intense and faith based the belief system, the stronger the reaction.

Take anthropogenic global warming, for example.

101 Note to some people here: Just because your a republican does not mean you are a christian.

Just a reminder (I'm looking at you, 79 and 90).

102 I used to sell college textbooks, and the most absolute irate, angry people I met were biolgy profs who had any students that dared question evolution, you talk about venemous. They didn't get their feelings hurt, they were militantly belligerent.

103 @ 98: Strange, isn't it, that atheists get more upset over displays of Christian faith, and yet they are supposed to be the intellectual rational ones?

104 I think all belief systems have an element of faith by definition.

105 People shouldn't lump Peggy Noonan in with the Christian bashers.

Peggy Noonan is actually a serious Catholic

I'm having some trouble reconciling "serious Catholic" with referring to God as a "great big problem."

106 #79, Before 9/11 I couldnt stand Hitchens. I used to want him to go back to England. Like why was he here anyway in the great USA. But wow, after 9/11 he really was a chaged man. He took a lot of hits from the likes of  Andrew S. and few... Sorry to hear he is going back to his far lefty ways....

107 @ 102: Oh I can absolutely attest to that.  If you dare question anything about evolution to a biology professor, not only will they publicly humiliate you, but they will attempt to shove Darwin's Origin of Species up your ass.  And the funniest thing is that they are acting precisely in the irrational way that scientists aren't supposed to.

108 "Strange, isn't it, that atheists get more upset over displays of Christian faith..."

It depends on the individual. Some Christians get more upset. You're looking at it from one point of view, so you either minimize -- or more likely, simply haven't experienced to the degree I have -- the upset seen from my point of view.

109 98:  Maybe the atheists groups fringe element would be less annoyed with your group's fringe element if your group would stop complaining every time we remind them it's unconstitutional to push their beliefs via the government.

Just sayin'.

110

Posted by: chemjeff at November 19, 2008 03:46 PM (wy+AE)

Scientists also like to assert that their work can't be politically biased because science is fact-based.

111

#6 In news so totally unrelated I don't know why I'm mentioning this now, NRO is soliciting donations right now.

Ya know, Lowry keeps sending me fundrasing crap, and now NRO's on their Begathon. Being a subscriber, normally I might break open the wallet.

K-Lo keeps writing Parker's "someone I know and love dearly". There's the problem. You're either a boss or you're not. When you love them dearly, you don't have the fortitude to kick them out when necessary. You can't get all snuggly with the help and remain objective. That's poor management. And you notice that there appears to be a pundit clique which renders them unable to unload on each other when necessary.

I thought about offering a donation in exchange for a public apology to the readers for inflicting upon us the disease which is Parker. Waddya think? Or just invest in Valu-Rite?

112

I don't think any one group has the market cornered on pushing their beliefs, it's human nature to support what you value.

113 I believe government is a necessary evil -- the Democrats  all of the Democrats and most Republicans believe that it is both avatar and agent of social change.

Fixed that for you, Monty.

114

Also, what's the deal with Townhall?  Its comment sections are inevitably filled with more lefty trolls than anything else.  It's the most bizarre thing.

Is there a right-wing equivalent (i.e, a left-wing site with more conservative trolls than liberal commenters)?  I can't think of one.  Imagine if the Kos comments were filled with nothing but right-wingers.

115 In any case, it comes down to not lopping of parts of the GOP coalition, but creating and promoting an agenda that we can all support.

116 "I don't think any one group has the market cornered on pushing their beliefs, it's human nature to support what you value."

Indeed. You are a wise weasel.

117

"I thought about offering a donation in exchange for a public apology to the readers for inflicting upon us the disease which is Parker. Waddya think?"

It would be nice if it were sincere, but I'd still love to see it.

I want Kathleen Paker, to the extent I give even a slight rat's ass about her, to be sorry some day, to realize what a putz she decided to made of herself.

118 hahaha a wise weasal ... well thats better than a skunk bear!

119

K-Lo's been allowing talk about Star Trek in exchange for donations, so why not?

Also, the entire field of mathematics broke when trying to calculate what an improvement replacing Chris Buckley with Mark Steyn in on-paper NR was.

120 ooops weasel ... I can spell ... but my typing ... er ... uh sucks

121

Also, what's the deal with Townhall?  Its comment sections are inevitably filled with more lefty trolls than anything else

 

The trolls took over Townhall right after the primaries were over. There had been quite a few regular trolls, but like that article from Cracked said, if you allow more than one pretty soon they will have it all.

 

I left TH because they would not police the trolls.

122
I also think that Democrats overwhelmingly believe that freedom flows from government. Which is to say, they believe that you are allowed to do only those things which the government permits; whereas I believe you are born as a free person, and constrained by law only from doing those things which are injurious to others or which prevents them from enjoying the same natural freedoms you yourself enjoy.

Exactly. The Democrats believe that the gov't bestows rights. But in the Bill of Rights, the language is not "such and such a right is hereby given to..." but rather "such and such a right shall not be infringed." The assumption is that the rights exist prior to any governmen, and therefore do not depend on government for their. I have tried to engage liberals on this point, but they don't understand what you're talking about.

123 Spread the word! Posted by: Jeff B.

Go to Urbangrounds and the Lonestartimes.com and contact the owners. They are conservative Texas bloggers. There are a few more...

124 The trolls took over Townhall right after the primaries were over.

The moonbat trolls have taken over the comments of most blogs.

125

Parker's assertion that all Christians are to lunatics on a wooden crate on the street corner is shit.   She fails to realize that most religious voters are rational and hold honest beleifs.  

As a libertarian I wonder if she has a point that less religion in the platform migth appeal to moderate Democrats, but I wouldn't insult the social conservatives by calling them street corner lunatics. 

126 I wonder if Jonah Goldberg chastised Parker publicly as a warning because he knows damn well they'll have to fire her if she repeats that.

127 Yeah you Jesus-freaks, get over that gay marriage shit.  Now get over here and feed my lions.

128

I'm interested in this "there was no Muhammad!" talk.

True fact: Outside of suras 3 and 47, there is no documentation at all which mentions Muhammad prior to 'Abd al-Malik's Dome of the Rock in the 680s AD. And sura 3 only mentions him in reference to Muhammad's death in battle.

(There are also mentions in sura 48; but Yehuda Nevo in Crossroads to Islam proved that sura 48 postdates 'Abd al-Malik, so that one doesn't count. Sura 61 mentions an "Ahmad". That's it.)

"Muhammad" must have existed at least as a legend or else sura 3 would be nonsense (and it is not nonsense elsewhere). But what did "Muhammad" do? And all the Qur'an's repetitive mentions of an Arab prophet - are they really the same as Muhammad? or did they refer to some other prophet (like Musaylima, or Zayd)?

129 Okay, no Arabic documentation. Sebeos's history, the Maronite Chronicle, the Khuzistan Chronicle, and a few other non-Arabic sources do mention Muhammad. But they date to the late 650s AD at earliest and have only the vaguest idea of what the Muslims were preaching about, mostly because they were being kept busy dodging swords.

130

I guess there's no money in limited government fiscal conservatism, so the power seekers always move left.  There is a difference between using the blunt club of the law to enforce morality and voting Christians off the island, but that distinction is a little too nuanced for Ms Parker.

Which leaves her columns not quite nuanced enough for me.

131 Note to 101:  nobody cares.

132 I think there's more contemporary evidence for Mohammed than Jesus existing as an actual person.

133 re: 44 Vic: "I hope everyone has gone over to TH and given that column a “1”. Eventually HH will see the light and terminate her contract for columns at TH."   żQué? What &/or where is TH?

134 I think that Mr. Bush used his religion to motivate his remarkably stupid policies toward immigration and entitlements. I think that the term "compassionate conservatism" deserves to go on the ash-heap of history. If that's what is meant by too much influence of religion in the Republican party. OK. I agree.

But I'm from a more Conservative mindset who thinks that Christ's commands to me as a person cannot be handed over to the Government. "Compassionate Conservatism" is not conservatism; it's big government same-old flying under false colors. With a patina of phony piety smeared on top of it.

If Mike Huckabee says, "Vote for me, i'm a Baptist." I'll reply, "I'm a Baptist, too. And I voted for Fred." That's one kind of identity politics that Kathleen Parker has said nothing about, to my recollection.

Sarah Palin electrified the Republican base. She did not do so by being a George Bush or Mike Huckabee in drag. Instead, she recited Ronald Reagan's lines with Ronald Reagan's optimism. I heard nothing of the entitlements or government paternalism I'd heard from Mssrs. Bush & Huckabee.

135

Link to Townhall

136 re: 122  OregonMuse:"The Democrats believe that the gov't bestows rights. But in the Bill of Rights, the language is not "such and such a right is hereby given to..." but rather "such and such a right shall not be infringed." The assumption is that the rights exist prior to any governmen, and therefore do not depend on government for their. I have tried to engage liberals on this point, but they don't understand what you're talking about."

The peoplescube has a draft of Obama's bill of positive (versus negative) rights:

http://tinyurl.com/5hezxl

"Non Confining Version
Congress shall respect no one’s religion except the worship of The One.  All speech shall be free and fair under the Fairness Doctrine and anyone who questions The One shall be cut off from any further interviews.  Since The One shall redress all grievances, there is no need for assemblies or complaining to the government since all will be well."

137 You know, I am one of those crazy, "oogedy-boogedy", fundamental, born again Christians and I happen to vote Republican most of the time. The reason being that the Republican party, and the (R) candidates I've supported all claim to be federalists and support less intrusion from the feds and more governing at the local levels by the people themselves.

Marginalizing and demeaning Christians turns us off. You don't have to like our values but stop badmouthing them.
If you want our votes (and yes, they are needed if the R's want to win), knock it the hell off!

I get real tired of all the Christian bashing that's come from the left wing of our party. We're entitled to our beliefs and, as per the Constitution, if we want to ban gay marriage and abortions and have prayer in schools, we can have them so long as we can win a majority support at our local level and don't try to force it unwillingly onto another community or state.

If you call yourself conservative you should support the federalist model and allow us, the people, to make these values-based decisions for ourselves. I think if we focused on THAT as a national party instead of trying to pimp one set of values or another, we'd get a lot further than we have.

138 Steve @ 134 If Mike Huckabee says, "Vote for me, i'm a Baptist." I'll reply, "I'm a Baptist, too. And I voted for Fred."

I'm right there with ya, man!

139 The new Ellen Goodman.  Only stupider and more insufferable.

140 Thanks Vic for the TH=Townhall explanation!

141 She wants so badly to be Mark Steyn, but she just can't pull it off.

142 I have a philosophical question for you, Mandy P:

I don't believe Jesus existed, if he did exist I don't believe he was Divine, and if he was Divine and exactly as described in the Bible, I believe he is evil.

The question is, have I bashed you?

143 "...If you dare question anything about evolution to a biology professor, not only will they publicly humiliate you, but they will attempt to shove Darwin's Origin of Species up your ass. And the funniest thing is that they are acting precisely in the irrational way that scientists aren't supposed to."

Once practicing biologist here, now just part of my extended experiences:

Some people are just pricks whether they be biology professors or other - a subset of the human condition. However, denying Darwinian evolution via Origin of Species to a biologist is equivalent to denying a Baptist the Bible. Each "knows" the history of their world is inscribed in those texts whether the texts are destroyed or not, but the essence of life is perpetuated through them. Be careful where you tread when trashing either and don't generalize too much.

I'm agnostic (as atheistic as I can rightfully be as a scientist) and disagree wholly with the Christian understanding of man on Earth, but I'll still respect the opposing position and not belittle the belief system. I've known many a scientist, too, who are Christians. I can't quite wrap my head around that phenomenon, but I don't think you'll find them force feeding Darwin in Church.

144 Christoph @ 142

Of course not and to suggest that I would think that is silly. You have the right to believe whatever you want as do I; and I could care less what you think so long as you leave me alone. 

My point was that elitist asshats like Parker need to shut their pie holes if they want to keep the votes of Christians. It's blatantly obvious from her op-ed that she harbors some substantial disdain for Christians and she's made it very clear as of late she doesn't like any religious ideas floating around the party.  Fine. But if you want to keep our votes, either shut up or at least try to rationally and respectfully convince us that your opinion is valid instead of insulting us.

Most of the people I know (who are Christians) would be more than happy to vote for candidates that vow to stay the heck out of our business- and actually operate as such- and let us govern ourselves, as was intended at the time of our founding. What we DON'T want is people like Parker trying to move the party leftward to make the "moderates" happy; cause you know, that worked so well this time around. And making the moderates happy's really been successful at shrinking the government and bringing responsibility back to Washington. /rolls eyes

The shift the Republican party has taken towards the left, both socially and fiscally, has resulted in more government intrusion in our lives, higher taxes, unwanted and unneeded regulation, etc.

Get the government out of my life and leave my freaking religion alone. That's all I'm asking for.

145 "Of course not and to suggest that I would think that is silly."

No one suggested that you were going to. The reason why one asks a question is to learn an answer.

Some people would, you don't, and that's great.

"... either shut up or at least try to rationally and respectfully convince us that your opinion is valid instead of insulting us."

For the most part I do, however... it is a fact that your religion -- Jesus the Christ, no less -- threatens (yes threatens, not just warns, because God made the rules) those of us who choose not to believe he is the way, the light, the son of God, God incarnate, and our personal saviour... with eternal death and torment (torture).

So while I try not to take my angst out on individual Christians, I feel justified in asserting I believe Jesus as depicted in the Bible is vastly more evil than good... at least if he really is one with the Father (otherwise, maybe he really is good and is trying to save as many people from sadistic torture as possible).

Considering what a low opinion Christians are taught (in the Bible if not always in the pews) to hold of homosexuals (for example), I can understand why these people respond angrily and with insults. I don't condone it, but I do understand it.

Smiting and eternal torture are rather more severe than insults, after all, if one is completely objective.

Personally, I believe in God... but not the God of the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text.

146

Somewhat ott, but wikipedia places "classical liberalism" into the historical versus modern list of Republican ideology. Is it commonly agreed that "classical liberalism" is only an historical artifact? I thought that it was still a cornerstone for the modern GOP.

147 Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom identifies with being a classical liberal. I do too although I usually often different words to describe it, more understandable to modern ears.

148

The wiki definition of classical liberalism...why wouldn't this be part of the modern GOP platform?:

"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism^[1], laissez-faire liberalism^[2], market liberalism^[3] or, in much of the world, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.^"

149 I've read that definition too. Yes, I agree with it as being both accurate and a good summation of my beliefs assuming one gives adequate weight to human rights (such as the right to life).

150

So, basically, I, presonally, would vote to move the "classical liberalism" link down from the "history" to the "modern" list, but I can't find the edit button for that particular box. I would be much obliged if any like minded & more tech savy person would make the edit:

http://tinyurl.com/yn3gsp

151 Wikipedia has a "semi-protected" status on it (the padlock icon above the elephant top right).

You have to have be signed in with a Wikipedia account and the account has to be a certain number of days old, plus has to have made a certain number of edits. This is to prevent vandalism of popular articles, like that one.

It's a bit lame, but them's the breaks.

152 Smiting and eternal torture are rather more severe than insults, after all, if one is completely objective.

How is it an insult if you think it's all a load of bullshit?

If a Wiccan claimed I would suffer eternal damnation for not worshiping an oak tree, my response would be to laugh. 

How many Christians have marched up to you personally and stated that you are condemned to eternal hellfire?

153

Re: 151: Christoph: "Wikipedia has a "semi-protected" status on it (the padlock icon above the elephant top right)..."

I have all of those things & can apparently edit the other sections on the page. I just couldn't find an "edit" button for that particular box.

 

154 "How many Christians have marched up to you personally and stated that you are condemned to eternal hellfire?"

Well, more than one actual Christian. And sometimes they walk around with signs to that effect.

If you count Mormons as Christians (I don't, but they tend to insist they are these days), I've had them knock on my door to ask for "discussions" and then proceed to tell me this during the discussion, although it wasn't so much eternal hellfire as denied to greatest glory of Heaven... less offensive.

That's why I said I try not to hold it against individual Christians, such as my girlfriend, or my friends, or people I don't yet have the honour to know... and instead, I don't believe their faith is true. If it is true, I oppose the God depicted in the Bible and I hold it against Him.

155 "I have all of those things & can apparently edit the other sections on the page. I just couldn't find an "edit" button for that particular box."

You're more of an expert than I am. I'm afraid I don't know. Try a Wikipedia talk page?

156 "How is it an insult if you think it's all a load of bullshit?"

It isn't an "insult". It's a threat of eternal torture. And it's used to scare children into complying, convincing them (in some cases) they'll go to hell for such things as masturbation, being homosexual, or not believing in Jesus.

157

I just don't get why it's so personal to you.

I'm a deist who doesn't really buy in to Christianity myself, but I'm not at all hostile to it. I think that the New Testament is the greatest spiritual guide ever written regardless of whether or not the resurrection or other assorted miracles actually happened.

My wife is a Christian. I go to her church and am comfortable there. I even attended her covenant group for awhile. No one pointed at me and warned that I was going to burn in a lake of fire. If they had said anything, it would have been out of concern rather than condemnation.

I don't hate the God of Christianity. I am hostile to individuals who pervert what's in the bible to scare children and otherwise manipulate others, but in my own experience these people are in the minority.

158 "I am hostile to individuals who pervert what's in the bible to scare children and otherwise manipulate others, but in my own experience these people are in the minority."

I'm not hostile to how everyone practices Christianity, I'm hostile to the evil depicted by God in the Bible.

As one insane example, it's used as justification to cut off part of the genitals of baby boys. The part that protects the glans of the penis from abrasion and has a huge multitude of pain-receptive (cutting) and pleasure-receptive (sex-and-masturbation) nerve endings in it.

Rightly, you can't touch a baby boys genitals to stimulate it. That's sick and evil and you'd go to prison. Thank God (we're both deists).

Rightly, you can't cut a female child's genitals even for religious or cultural reasons. That's sick and evil and you'd go to prison.

However, the Bible provides justification for the sick and evil act of cutting off a non-consenting baby's foreskin. I'm obviously talking about the Old Testament, not the New here, however, the justification for the act comes from the Bible.

It should be a crime. But it isn't.

There's other examples I can use, but this is a concrete one.

159

Well, I guess I should be in prison for having my son cirumcised. You may be interested to know that they put a topical anesthetic on it first, and he slept through the whole "ordeal."

I did it for cleanliness/health reasons. A lot of what's in the Old Testament is nothing more than a common sense health code. Problem is, it probably didn't seem so common sense back then, so you had to put the threat/authority/force of God behind it to get people to adhere to the rules.

 

160 "Well, I guess I should be in prison for having my son cirumcised. You may be interested to know that they put a topical anesthetic on it first, and he slept through the whole 'ordeal.' "

The point is he didn't consent to have a healthy organ removed. And not just any organ, a sexual organ.

And, yes, in a just society, that would be a felony.

I agree with this fellow.

161

The point is he didn't consent to have a healthy organ removed

No. Neither can he consent my rules of discipline, whether he gets an innie or an outie belly button, the path I choose for his personal development, what he gets to eat for breakfasts, whether or not he is breast fed, and a whole lot of other shit.

He didn't have an organ removed. He had some foreskin removed. Just like I did when I was a baby. Big deal. I never missed mine. 

 

162 I also agree with this fellow about why not to do circumcision "for medical and cleanliness reasons."

Routine "medical" circumcision would never have come about, but for the Old Testament, Torah, and the Qu'ran. Now our society accepts as normal acts that the average child molester doesn't even do.

I don't think you're evil nor depraved (I'm sure you're a loving parent), nor do I think my dad is evil for this reason, but it is one example of horrors inflicted as a result of the Bible. It SHOULD be a crime so parents know not to cut parts of their babies off without damn medical necessity. If a person wants their foreskin cut off, fine, but let them make the choice when they're old enough.

Have Christians done good? Sure. And evil.

Jews? Likewise. Read about their tales of conquest, genocide, and Divinely inspired (if not outright ordered) rapes.

I think not confronting the evil in the Bible is a historical whitewash practiced in the churches more than anywhere. The Bible is a mixed bag.

163 "Neither can he consent my rules of discipline..."

There is a big, big, big difference between cutting off part of a child's genitals and a spanking or time out.

"...whether he gets an innie or an outie belly button..."

Well he has to have one or the other in order to survive, doesn't he? The same can't be said for cutting off part of his penis without finding out whether he'd prefer to keep it or not.

I assume the answer was yes, he'd like to keep it, because after all you had to anaesthetise him to get it cut off.

In short, it should be a crime so that the evil practice can be stamped out, and after that is accomplished, people who do it should be imprisoned just the same as people who practice female genital mutilation -- in the sincere but mistaken belief it helps the child (by not sinning, I assume) -- are today.

They're both similarly evil and literally barbaric.

Thank GOD the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, and other organizations have changed their position on this and no longer recommend it.

164 "I never missed mine."

How would you know?

"The stretching and rolling action shown in the above pictures are very important. The foreskin is filled with nerve endings called stretch receptors. These nerve endings fire when they are stretched, rolled, or massaged. The only purpose of these nerve endings is to make sex more enjoyable. The stretch receptors are unlike the nerve endings in the head of the penis which are very sensitive to friction but can be so sensitive that the sensation can be irritating or painful. The nerve endings in the head of the penis tend to trigger orgasm much more than the nerve endings in the foreskin.

"The head of the penis has no skin. This may be a surprise to those of you who are familiar only with circumcised penises. The head of the penis is actually covered by a very thin moist mucus membrane, very much like the inside of the lip or the inside of the eyelid. The head of the penis is not meant to be exposed to the elements such as friction against clothing, friction during sex, the sun's rays, or soap... The head of the penis is supposed to be protected by the warm, moist cocoon that the foreskin creates. If the foreskin is removed, the mucus membrane of the penis thickens in response to the lack of protection. It may look like skin, but it is not."

Does it sound like it was meant to be cut off? God created this bit of mucus membrane to be exposed to undergarments and thickened, not covered by a foreskin like in every primate? Why?

It makes no sense. You, like the medical organizations that used to recommend it, did it out of custom because it's in the Bible.

165

On Townhall:

Kos and HuffPo from what I understand will not tolerate anything non-leftist on their sites. As always, we try to be fair, tolerant and inclusive and let them post on most conservative sites. Then the conservative sites get taken over by the trolls and the best posters leave. In the meantime, we're cut out of their sites (not that I have much interest). And they just laugh at us. Sounds like sort of a metaphor for the Republican party, or maybe for conservatives in general.

I read the articles but I've pretty much left the Townhall comments section because of the trolls taking over. It was great for a while.

Vic mentioned this site on TH a few days ago and said he had left TH to the trolls. I've always enjoyed his posts so decided to give it a try.

Thanks, Vic, good call.

166 All I have to say is, "I don't think Jesus existed," for Ace to threaten to ban me, for example. He just knows people will jump all over that and a pissing match will ensue, particularly if I actually say why I think that.

We have plenty of atheists here as well as varying degrees of believers. I think you get into trouble when you insist smugly (of course, you are Canadian after all*) on pressing the details of your faith and reasons therefore in threads where it really isn't even relevant. The way you present that sort of thing can usually get a reaction, but it serves no good purpose unless you have a higher opinion of threadjacking than most.

Or, short form, you get busted for being a faith troll, not for being a non-Christian. Instead of feeling persecuted, you might want to watch how the other guys do it and let the lessons sink in.

* See what I did there?

167 Democrats have the G-O-D problem; they just elected their Messiah. Talk about your Wall-of-Separation issues. Now their Armband Messiah has to deliver.

168 Re: circumcision

Yes, it's barbaric, and should be illegal.  This is a stupid, brutal religious practice.  Male genital mutilation is no better than female genital mutilation (which rightly *is* illegal).  Both my mother and my grandmother pressured me into paying a doctor to mutilate my son's penis.  They bullshittily claimed, "He'll have a lot of problems if you don't."  Don't what?  Cut off part of his dick without his consent?

If slicing off the clitoral hood of baby girls was also something we Americans did to appease cultural conformity, then Warden would justify and excuse it with "health" and "hygiene" bullshit.

I, too, was circumcised and I don't have any problems because of it.  That does not justify the continuance of male genital mutilation.

Re: oogedy-boogedyism

Jonah Goldberg asks, "So where has the GOP embraced to its detriment oogedy-boogedyism?"

Would evangelical Christian Republicans feel okay writing "666" on their name badge at a Republican convention?  Why not?  It's just a number, right?  They aren't superstitious ... or are they?

And what about souls, also known as ghosts.  That's a pretty common  evangelical Christian Republican belief, isn't it?  Shouldn't the government pass laws with the ghosts of people in mind?  Ghosts are both real and spooky, aren't they?

169

I've pointed it out before but Goldberg cannot write a column without acknowledging that the other side may have a legitimate argument.  Its like a facial tic for him.

For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them.

170 Shouldn't the government pass laws with the ghosts of people in mind?

What the hell?

171

172 Welcome to wow gold our wow Gold and wow power leveling store. We wow gold are specilized, wow power leveling professional and reliable wow power leveling website for wow power leveling selling and wow gold service. By the world of warcraft gold same token,we offer wow power leveling the best WoW service wow power leveling for our long-term and wow powerleveling loyal customers. wow powerleveling You will find wow powerleveling the benefits and value powerlevelingwe created powerleveling different from other sites. As to most people, power leveling they are unwilling to power leveling spend most of wow power leveling the time wow gold grinding money Rolex for mounts or rolex replica repair when replica rolex they can purchase Watches Rolex what they Rolex Watches are badly need. The Watch Rolex only way is to look Rolex Watch for the best place RS Gold to buy Cheap WARHAMMER ONLINE GOLD. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting RuneScape Gold tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal RuneScape Money customers who really appreciate our service.

173 SWF Converter,SWF to AVI,SWF to MP4,SWF to FLV Converter,SWF to WMV,SWF to MOV,SWF to 3GP,SWF to MPG, MPEG,SWF to VOB,SWF to iPod,SWF to iPhone,SWF to Apple TV,SWF to PSP,SWF to Zune,SWF to MP3,SWF to WMA,SWF to JPG, JPEG,SWF to Gif, Animated Gif,SWF to PNG

174 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

175 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

176 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

177 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

178 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

179 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

180 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

181 Fake Watches | Replica Watches | Replica watches | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica watches | Bvlgari Watch | Oris Replica | Michele Fake | Fake Hamilton Watches | Tissot Watches | Rado Watch Replica | Tissot Replica Watches | Girard Perregaux Fake | Baume & Mercier Watch Replica | Replica Cartier Watches

182 Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Fake Watches | Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Gerald Genta Watch | Replica Daniel Roth Watch | Swiss Rolex Replica Watches | Replica Roger Dubuis | Glashutte Watch | Replica IWC | Gucci Replica Watch | Rado Replica | Tudor Watch Replica | Gerald Genta Replica

183 Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Bell & Ross Watch Replica | Fake Movado Watches | Bvlgari Watches Replica | Fake Alain Silberstein | Parmigiani Fake | Hublot Watches Replica | watches brand | Gerald Genta Fake Watches | Wholesale Rolex Watch | Fake Zenith

184 Fake Cheap Rolex | soccer jersey wholesale | replica soccer jersey | soccer jersey supplier | Replica watches | Bell & Ross Watches Replica | Titoni Replica Watches | Cheap Rolex Fake Watch | Replica Maurice Lacroix | Jaeger Lecoutre Watches Replica | Bmw Replica Watch | Hublot Wristwatch | Cheap U-boat Fake Watch | Cheap Concord Fake Watch | Cheap Rado