CPAC in the News Again, Sorta

I don't know about you guys, but I'm excited about CPAC this year. It's my first year in D.C., so I can actually go. Unfortunately, not everyone is as excited about it. Some groups are again organizing a boycott over the inclusion of gay conservative group GOProud.

When the latest story came out about the social conservative groups who are choosing to absent themselves from the conference, I decided not to post about it. First of all, it was just after Christmas and who wants to deal with a downer like that during the holidays? Second, the story was in World Net Daily and nowhere else. I suspected WND was simply continuing its crusade against GOProud (recall the kerfuffle when Ann Coulter had the audacity to speak at their Homocon party). Third, I figured WND's story and the various social con boycotts in general wouldn't make much of a splash on the Right, but rather give the Left something to chortle about.

As Jimmie at the Sundries Shack discovered, it was a good prediction:

And you know what? The boycott isn’t drawing much attention from the right, if any at all. Take a look at this memeorandum thread. See all those blogs writing about this story? They’re almost all left-wing blogs and I can guarantee you they’re not writing about the noble moral stand of the Concerned Women of America or the Family Research Council. Without even looking, I can tell you they’re eating up the “I hates me some gay people” quotes like sweet, sweet candy and using words like “bigot” and “hater”. It’s a mortal lock that they’re playing those two groups as representative of conservatives as a whole, to make us all look like homophobic cretins.

Whether CWA and FRC are taking a "noble moral stand" is somewhat questionable anyway. FRC says in WND that it has been "very involved in CPAC for over a decade." In fact, FRC stopped participating in CPAC a few years ago and now operates a rival conference, the Values Voters Summit. Encouraging people to skip CPAC and wait for its own conference is fine, but let's not pretend FRC doesn't have this self-interested motive in making CPAC look bad in the papers.

Stacy McCain doesn't understand the "auto-marginalization" of these groups, given the unparalleled opportunity at CPAC to reach out to other conservatives. But I suspect that they don't believe they are marginalizing themselves. Many conservative identity groups, particularly the Christian-identity Christian-themed special-interest groups* making the ruckus here-- FRC, Liberty Counsel, NOM -- already feel isolated in an immoral world. It's an easy calculation: will they get more by reaching out to other (immoral) conservatives at CPAC or by making a flashy stand in WND and then hold their own Christian conference?

The target constituency for these groups isn't conservatism as a whole, but a rather more limited group. I think they were genuinely surprised by the general lack of reception to their vocal GOProud opposition last year (remember the Sorba incident?) and this is the response. If they can't convince conservatives of the evils of GOProud inclusion (we're not even talking about the "evils" of gays here, we're talking about merely standing in the same room with them), well, they're going to take their ball and go home.

Update: *I was informed in comments that refering to these groups as Christian-identity groups is defamatory. Rather than fight about whether they are in fact identity groups with explicitly Christian goals and outlook, I'll just strike and rephrase to avoid the disputed words. A google search turned up a movement refered to as "Christian Identity" which is basically a racist idea masquerading as religion. I had no intention of associating FRC or the other special interest groups above with the racist Christian Identity movement and I'll avoid that phrasing in the future since it comes with unfortunate implications and a likelihood of misunderstanding.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:15 AM



Comments

1 Are we going to take the netroots, view of anything as dispositive, they lie, they misrepresent, they twist the truth. That's what the Journolist does, if have an opportunity to go, go, I did two years ago, and I don't regret it.

Posted by: justin cord at December 29, 2010 08:20 AM (c0+w5)

2 One thing people forget. Right or wrong, if republicans loose the Christian conservative vote, the party is dead. In. The. Water. Mock them all you want, the homosexual issue is a deal breaker for many Christians, who will indeed take their ball and go home. They better find a way to reconcile the the two or there's gonna be problems down the road.

Posted by: D. Smith at December 29, 2010 08:26 AM (f7nZH)

3 Inshallah the FRC wailing is the last gasping of a dying influence.
When even my mom stops sending them money it is over for them.
Progress? I'll take it.

Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at December 29, 2010 08:26 AM (le5qc)

4 Mocking? Wrong. I don't see any mocking from the center or right in America.
It's the ignoring these people hate, the perceived loss of relevance.

Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at December 29, 2010 08:28 AM (le5qc)

5 You would think they'd want the freedom to enjoy their own idea of family values freely,, that's what you'd think.

Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at December 29, 2010 08:31 AM (le5qc)

6 What's the old Klingon saying? "Only a fool fights in a burning house".

The house is burning folks, we need to put differences aside for the good of the nation.

And I say that as a social conservative.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 08:34 AM (02uN6)

7 Hmm.... I wonder if I should go to that thing.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at December 29, 2010 08:34 AM (imVIY)

8 "I don't know about you guys, but I'm excited about CPAC this year"

Ah, no. Don't care, never did care, nor will ever about the strikingly irrelevant.

Posted by: Jess at December 29, 2010 08:36 AM (JxrwH)

9

Normal
0




Gabe I think the basic
problem goes all the way back to how we actually define “conservative”. It is
one of those terms that the MFM has so debauched that it almost no longer has
any real meaning. To the MFM any religious
organization is always considered “conservative” and a member of the far right
Christian conservatives groups. That includes some of the most left wing groups
in the country.Personally my definition of
a conservative would be someone who:1. Believes in the Constitution as written in the text.

2. Believes in small government, not “no
government”. In other words as one of
the founders said, that government which governs least governs best.
That also includes item 1 for the federal gov for the enumerated powers of
congress not withstanding the liberal’s false interpretation of the general
welfare clause which really means nothing.

3. Believes in a strong national defense, including
protecting the borders.

4. Believes in the rule of law, not the rule of man.
This means judges ruling in accordance with the law, not in accordance with
“outcomes”.I could probably list a lot
of other things but really a small Constitutional government pretty much takes
it all in. On the “gay issue” my only opinion on that is that I believe that
they should get no more and no less “rights” than any one else. They should not
be persecuted but they should not become another “protected specie” (to use a
member of senior management’s term).So what should we do at
CPAC. Nowhere in my definition above does the term “straight” come up. As long as GOPround meets the conservative
mold they should be welcomed. If someone knows of reasons why they do not meet
the definition of “conservative” then the argument should be why they do not meet
the definition.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 08:38 AM (M9Ie6)

10 Wasn't there a fair amount of kerosene pouring this summer and fall, because well the Journolist and the MFM, subsets of each other were saying it, so it must be true., and we must talk about it ad infinitum, negatively, to be thought of as fair.

Posted by: justin cord at December 29, 2010 08:41 AM (c0+w5)

11 Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

Posted by: bunu at December 29, 2010 08:41 AM (FbCum)

12 Hey Vic, you looked pretty banged up last night. Get some rest, the Eagles need a healthy you.

Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at December 29, 2010 08:44 AM (le5qc)

13 So the social authoritarians are leaving the field and some people think this is a BAD thing?

The best thing that I can say about them is that they aren't as bad as the left, but that's like saying a burglar isn't as bad as an axe murderer. You still don't one lurking in your living room.

It is the job of society to regulate the government, not the other way around.

When a vocal minority starts looking to government to enshrine their own limited preferences into the law of the land, they are tyrants, and should be treated as such.

Social change, if it comes at all, flows from the soap box, not the ballot box.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:47 AM (/gY4D)

14 When a vocal minority ANYBODY starts looking to government to enshrine their own limited preferences into the law of the land, they are tyrants, and should be treated as such....

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:47 AM (/gY4D)

Agree with you 100% now...

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 08:50 AM (02uN6)

15 Really now, doesn't that fit the antiwar netroots, the AGW fraud promoters, the anti energy activists, more appropriately, and not surprisingly, you think abortion is a good thing,

Posted by: justin cord at December 29, 2010 08:54 AM (c0+w5)

16 The reason I said vocal minority is that when the majority does it, we call it democracy.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:56 AM (/gY4D)

17 The reason I said vocal minority is that when the majority does it, we call it democracy.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:56 AM (/gY4D)

Agreed again, and democracy was (IMHO) best defined by Benjamin Franklin who called it "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".

Which is why I'm glad I live in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 08:59 AM (02uN6)

18 Eh, some people seem to act on here like fiscal conservatism can exist without social conservatism, but I don't think they can. Fiscal Conservatism requires a bedrock of Social Conservatism which says...that you shouldn't take other peoples money because you can spend it better, in other words "Thou Shalt Not Steal" can't just be a good idea.

The idea that Liberty can exist apart from morality is greatly desired in today's society, but the Bible says something totally different Psalm 119:45 "I will walk at liberty for I seek your precepts." So, Social Conservatism is a long-term necessary component of Fiscal Conservatism.

Now, one might think that as a result I was big on the FRC, but that would be wrong, they're just being stupid. The problem is, quite frankly, everyone including Social Conservative, and especially glaring because Social Conservative supposedly answer to a higher authority have been completely bearing false witness over and over and over.

Social Conservatism is not advanced by being as intelligent as a box of rocks. Social Conservatism is advanced when society sees a difference between social conservatives in their fiscal policy and personal lives then the rest of society.

As a "Social Conservative," the main reason that Social Conservatism needs a time-out, is because it's purveyors need to reestablish credibility by being fiscal conservatives.

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 09:01 AM (d8H1q)

19 I think change should come at the ballot box. It was the case up until Roe/Wade that this was the general consensus. Look at Prohibition. People made the case to their fellow constituents, won the day, people figured out this was bad policy that didn't fit the Country and changed course.

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 09:02 AM (zyaZ1)

20 They arrogate themselves the right to determine what is taught, what is imparted to the next generation, what is created, (the incandescent light bulb) what we must buy
(the health care mandate) how and when our soldiers fight, and how it will be characterized

Posted by: justin cord at December 29, 2010 09:02 AM (c0+w5)

21 Which is why I'm glad I live in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

Also why we need a strong Constitution that is upheld by the courts and not turned into a piece of stretchable rubber, whether the judge is a liberal like 90% of the past 75 years or a conservative like Scalia.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 09:03 AM (M9Ie6)

22 "Which is why I'm glad I live in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy."

Yes, America does remind me of Rome in the 2nd century BC.

If we did away with all of the corrupt and oligarchical parts of our government there'd be no parts left.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 09:05 AM (/gY4D)

23 On the whole GOProud thing. I don't have a problem with gay people. I have a problems (ie policy disagreements) with DADT and Gay Marriage. We can agree to disagree on those, but everything else we can talk about and find consensus. To boycott a conference because someone else is going to be there is strait juvenile.

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 09:05 AM (zyaZ1)

24 I don't think you MUST be a social conservative in order to be a fiscal conservative. It helps, but it is not a must.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 09:05 AM (M9Ie6)

25 There's way too many acronyms in this story.

Posted by: Tami at December 29, 2010 09:10 AM (VuLos)

26 Acronyms are a military thing. We find them comforting

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 09:11 AM (zyaZ1)

27 Also why we need a strong Constitution that is upheld by the courts and not turned into a piece of stretchable rubber, whether the judge is a liberal like 90% of the past 75 years or a conservative like Scalia.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 09:03 AM (M9Ie6)

This


As a "Social Conservative," the main reason that Social Conservatism needs a time-out, is because it's purveyors need to reestablish credibility by being fiscal conservatives.

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 09:01 AM (d8H1q)

and This

I also think that Social Conservatives will do much better in the future if they present their arguments as "appeal to reason" rather than "appeal to authority". Appeal to authority turns too many people off and is a lazy way of arguing anyway...

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 09:11 AM (02uN6)

28 Acronyms are a military thing. We find them comforting

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 09:11 AM (zyaZ1)
Tell me about it. My son is Army....I barely understand what he's talking about.

Posted by: Tami at December 29, 2010 09:12 AM (VuLos)

29 27
Acronyms are a military thing. We find them comforting

Are there acronyms of acronyms?

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 29, 2010 09:12 AM (9hSKh)

30 Probably Kratos. It could get interesting IYKWIMAIKYKWIM

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 09:14 AM (zyaZ1)

31 I don't think you MUST be a social conservative in order to be a fiscal conservative. It helps, but it is not a must.

I'm speaking a little in hyperbole. I'd say it can help a lot, if someone is genuine committed to socially conservative principles.

The big problem (in my mind) is that so many representative are committed to One Principle, and Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, Wealth Redistribution, or whatever they choose are merely means to the commitment to the One Principle, from a secular standpoint that is why I think Wealth Redistribution is the favored means of adherence for the One Principle, because it is the most straight-forward means.

Anyone care to guess what that shared "One Principle" is?

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 09:16 AM (d8H1q)

32 Why do Gays have to tag everything with the "I'm Gay and Proud".

Folks are tired of every aspect of life being affected by people who have to flaunt their lifestyle first before anything else.

If Gay folks could just be gay without being ghey and shoving their preferences down everyone throat, folks would be more accepting. Instead this Proud crap generates anger at being forced to accept it, hence I don't tolerate it because I don't agree with the lifestyle. I just want to be left alone.

Push the gay crap and get pushed back.

Posted by: TexBob at December 29, 2010 09:16 AM (7cXE7)

33 The argument that you must be a Social Conservative to be a Fiscal Conservative is a crock of excrement.

Social Conservatism is leftism by another name. It is attempting to use the power of government to dictate personal behavior for the purpose of achieving salvation. Can you tell me how any member of the FRC is functionally different than a member of PeTA? Other than the issues they care about, they wish to achieve the same goal - use government to limit your rights because THEY know better.

Fiscal Conservatism does not require a specific set of religious beliefs in order to be validated. Anyone who tells you so is selling something.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 09:18 AM (y05cf)

34 Yes, America does remind me of Rome in the 2nd century BC.

If we did away with all of the corrupt and oligarchical parts of our government there'd be no parts left.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 09:05 AM (/gY4D)

OK, ya took a sharp turn there somewhere and lost me. We have a system of government, a Constitutional Republic, that produces laws which proscribe a minimum standard of behavior while allowing people (be they in the minority or the majority) to pretty much do what they want as long as they maintain that minimum.

The maxim being that the laws enacted reflect the will of the majority with respect for the rights of the minority.

How did we get from that to 2nd century Rome?

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 09:19 AM (02uN6)

35 Zakn:

The change you describe as coming from the ballot box, Prohibition, was merely REALIZED at the ballot box. The temperance movement spent a LONG time stumping for their cause before they were able to convince enough people to go along with it. They made their case in the court of public opinion. It was only then that the laws were changed.

The issue I take with social conservatives is that they seek to hijack the state in order to push their pet agendas precisely because they have failed to make their case in the court of public opinion. Most leftists try to do the same thing. The principle difference between these two groups is that the agenda pursued by the social cons is merely annoying, whereas the leftists are fucking evil.

Social conservatives should spend more time promoting their ideas. If their ideas are good and sound and persuasive, then they will eventually win out over ideas that are faulty. If they want to see our nation change to be more in line with their ideas then they need to convince the rest of us that those ideas are good. If they can't do that then they'll have to take a back seat to the people and the ideas that can.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 09:19 AM (/gY4D)

36 Are there acronyms of acronyms?

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 29, 2010 09:12 AM (9hSKh)

Sadly yes. Years ago I worked on a gizmo called the Electrostatically Suspended Gyro Navigator (ESGN). The control software for this gizmo was called EON, for "ESGN Operational Navigation"- an acronym within an acronym.

I'm sure there are many others...

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 09:24 AM (02uN6)

37 Nighthawk - the lazy appeal to authority does bother me.
Moor argument signals poor thinking and suggests poor ideas.

Posted by: SEIU at December 29, 2010 09:27 AM (Z4T49)

38 Poor argument, that is. Nothing against the Moors.

Posted by: SEIU at December 29, 2010 09:27 AM (Z4T49)

39 "How did we get from that to 2nd century Rome?"

That's a very good question.

Read up on the political landscape of the late Roman Republic. Deja-vu all over again. The shenanigans that are going on in our government right now could be drop-in replacements for the crap that went on back then.

FCC and EPA bureaucrats ruling by fiat? (How is that the rule of law?) Congress repeatedly passing unpopular legislation despite vocal opposition from a majority of the citizens?

This is nothing but SSDM: Same Shit, Different Millenium.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 09:32 AM (/gY4D)

40 Are there acronyms of acronyms?
AIM. AOL Instant Messenger. America Online.
LADAR. LASER Detection and Ranging. Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 09:34 AM (NfIvb)

41
The issue I take with social conservatives is that they seek to
hijack the state in order to push their pet agendas precisely because
they have failed to make their case in the court of public opinion.
Most leftists try to do the same thing. The principle difference
between these two groups is that the agenda pursued by the social cons
is merely annoying, whereas the leftists are fucking evil.

Just wow. Passing laws that limit or outlaw abortion would be an example of social conservatism in action. And that is NOT 'hijacking' anything. The Mass supreme court justices 'finding' the right to gay marriage in a 200 year old document is an an example of social liberalism hijacking the state. One preening judge overturning Proposition 8 because he doesn't like it is an example of 'hijacking'.

Catholic Church advocating pro-life policies: social conservatism in action
Catholic Church cheering on a bloated, badly written unfunded government takeover of health care: social liberalism hijacking the state.

One involves an attempt to further a goal within the law, and the other involves a gaol which is questionable, using methods which are intrusive and corrupt.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 09:34 AM (1O93r)

42 They made their case in the court of public opinion. It was only then that the laws were changed.

Actually they made their case to "congressional opinion". Actual "public opinion" then showed what a damnable disaster it was.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 09:40 AM (M9Ie6)

43 I knew it would take a Coner to come up with the Acronym within the Acronym.

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 09:42 AM (zyaZ1)

44 FCC and EPA bureaucrats ruling by fiat? (How is that the rule of law?) Congress repeatedly passing unpopular legislation despite vocal opposition from a majority of the citizens?

This is nothing but SSDM: Same Shit, Different Millenium.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 09:32 AM (/gY4D)

Corruption hasn't changed in 2000 years- I get that.

I wasn't asking about that.

I was asking (indirectly I admit, and I apologize for not making myself more clear) if you think that a democracy- where (in a perfect world) laws reflect the will or the majority- is a better form of government than a constitutional republic where (in the same perfect world) laws reflect the will of the majority with respect for the rights of the minority.

Corrupt politicians and gladiators not withstanding.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 09:45 AM (02uN6)

45 AIM. AOL Instant Messenger. America Online.
I'm starting a chapter of AIM Haters of America:
AHA!

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 29, 2010 09:49 AM (XdlcF)

46 So what should we do at
CPAC. Nowhere in my definition above does the term “straight” come up. As long as GOPround meets the conservative
mold they should be welcomed. If someone knows of reasons why they do not meet
the definition of “conservative” then the argument should be why they do not meet
the definition.



Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 08:38 AM (M9Ie6)

GONECRO? GOPEDO? GOBEASTO?
How about we not put up with people who are intentionally linking an abnormal sexual practice with the GOP?That is what most people are having heartburn about. It is an explicit linking of Homosexuality with the Party, and a tacit acceptance of the underlying behavior of that group. The only reason this is even tolerated nowadays is because of the News and entertainment media's efforts to mainstream this behavior for the last 50 years or more.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 09:49 AM (/G5LI)

47 Are we going to take the netroots, view of anything
as dispositive, they lie, they misrepresent, they twist the truth.
That's what the Journolist does, if have an opportunity to go, go, I did
two years ago, and I don't regret it.

Posted by: justin cord at December 29, 2010 08:20 AM (c0+w5)
Hey man, we are way ahead of the medical-industrial complex on the dangers of vaccines and the healing powers of crystals.

Posted by: The Huffington Post at December 29, 2010 09:49 AM (7BU4a)

48 Someone has to protect our soldiers from being molested in their sleep.

Posted by: Ben at December 29, 2010 09:51 AM (DKV43)

49 They better find a way to reconcile the the two or there's gonna be problems down the road.

Posted by: D. Smith at December 29, 2010 08:26 AM (f7nZH)
Yep. The State Media has been trying to separate the three legs of conservativism for a long time, favoring one here then another in order to use conservatives against each other. Remember, for example, when the State Media suddenly started to respect Pat Buchanan when they wanted to attack Bush 43's foreign policy?
We need to be smart enough to not help them in that regard.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 09:52 AM (7BU4a)

50 I call bullshit--as well as defamation. FRC and NOM have nothing whatsoever to do with "Christian-identity groups," which are racist organizations masquerading as churches.

Does Gabe even know what he's talking about? I'm starting to see a case of Andrew Sullivan syndrome here.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 09:53 AM (s3dMx)

51 The reason I said vocal minority is that when the majority does it, we call it democracy.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:56 AM (/gY4D)
True enough. However that is preciously why the Constitution didn't create a democracy. There are a whole host of things, at least at the federal level, that the government should never be able to to - even if 51% of the electorate want it to.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 09:55 AM (7BU4a)

52 Regarding Appeal to Authority...

Appeal to Authority like many logical fallacies is dependent upon the nature of its use as well as its intended affect among others. If for example we are having a discussion about whether slavery is permissible under the Constitution, appealing to law professor X's position is an exercise of the fallacy of appeal to authority, there is no reason why professor X's opinion is better than anyone elses. On the other hand, if someone appeals to the 13th amendment of the constitution that is a proper "appeal to authority," because the Constitution is the authority on what the Constitution actually says.

Because the Bible says something is not a reason for a person who has no faith in the Bible to accept it, on the other hand an appeal to the Bible is a reason to accept it, if I accept the Bible as an authority. Which I do, that it does not persuade a person who rejects the Bible outright should be expected, then the argument should be made with different axioms and logical followings.

I would simply note this, IF every person is expected to act in their own self-interest, then my expectation would be that an elected representative would act in a way to best advance his own self-interest.

Since, I believe that most people are easily tempted by "Free Goodies if you vote for me," something must restrain that impulse to take for free that which you have not earned, some degree of private virtue, one that says I do not desire to take from others what I have not earned is a bedrock of both people who would vote against "Free Goodies if you vote for me," and a bedrock for representatives who would be tempted to use "Free Goodies if you vote for me," as a means of re-election.

That private virtue is expressed through what I call "Social Conservatism," I do not think it has to be Christian, However, I am a Christian, nevertheless the civic religion of Rome was sufficient while widely practiced to maintain the Republican Character of the state.

That is why, from even a Secular perspective, I believe that fiscal conservatism can not long last without some form of Social Conservatism.

On another note, Social Conservatives may want to order other people around, some do...But I think most believe that the only way you get anyone to change is for them to choose to make wiser and more responsible decisions, so, from my perspective it is about not providing incentives for foolishness and not punishing wisdom.

For example, Student Aid is absolutely atrocious at this, if you are a family that saves for your child's education you receive fewer grants and aid, on the other hand if you don't you get more.

THIS is nothing more than Grasshoppers beating up and stealing from the Ant in Winter, just because. It is wrong, it is not socially conservative (because it rewards foolishness and punishes wisdom) and it is not fiscally conservatives, it steals from one to give to another...just to "redistribute the wealth."

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 09:55 AM (d8H1q)

53 I proudly give this thread one Picard facepalm for its ever-so-not-so-subtle inclusion of persecuted gays.

Posted by: Jean Luc Picard at December 29, 2010 09:56 AM (GxPL5)

54 When a vocal minority starts looking to government
to enshrine their own limited preferences into the law of the land, they
are tyrants, and should be treated as such.

Social change, if it comes at all, flows from the soap box, not the ballot box.



Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:47 AM (/gY4D)

Thomas Jefferson Authored a bill in the State of Virginia to change the punishment for being homosexual from being killed to being castrated. He did this for reasons of compassion.
My point is that you apparently have no real understanding of the long history of this nation regarding "social" issues, and which side the vast majority of this population has been on for the vast majority of this nation's existence.
Now you are referring to people who don't simply change their social attitudes with each and every passing fad as "Tyrants?"
There are some of us who see that where your attitude leads, worse will follow. You accept this, next you will accept NAMBLA.Give the media enough time, and they will sell that too!

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 09:56 AM (/G5LI)

55 So. Some people don't like teh gays. So what?

Seems to me this could go both ways (heh). Some so-cons don't want to be included with gays, and some gays are taking this as an opportunity to cry foul about how those who don't give them acceptance are bigots or whatever.

Newsflash: Hey gay folks! Some people ain't never gonna accept you. They don't like your lifestyle, for whatever reason. Get over yourself.

Newsflash: Hey 'Those-who-don't-like-teh-gays'! They ain't going anywhere. Gays can be conservative too. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else.

As far as the CPAC folks: Figure out a way to make both sides come together on this issue - or deny them both attendance. Make it known that all viewpoints are accepted and both groups are more than welcome. That being said, tell them to grow the fuck up or stay the fuck home. Tough love baby. Be an actual arbiter to both sides, not a advocate for one group or another.

Is it that hard?

Posted by: catmman at December 29, 2010 09:58 AM (DTzwU)

56 As a "Social Conservative," the main reason that
Social Conservatism needs a time-out, is because it's purveyors need to
reestablish credibility by being fiscal conservatives.

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 09:01 AM (d8H1q)
Meh. In practice financial conservatism goes hand and hand with social conservatism. When we look at the slew of supposed fincon/anti-socon people most of them crumble as soon as the State Media leans on them. Remember the liberalitarians? Snarlin' Arlen? Jumpin Jim? Hell, Kennedy-Seat Brown.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 09:58 AM (7BU4a)

57 If I may deal in trivialities for a second:

A very detailed article in the local paper headlined "Unemployment Falls Again [etc.]". There are more jobs (broken down by sector), and fewer unemployed. But, when you read further, you trip across this: "in spite of greater number of jobs, there are fewer people employed...". It was a drop of 1200 jobs out of 186,000 (up 12,000 from 1993) from October to November. There's 400,000 people in the county (up 60,000 since 1993).

Thiis won't end well.

Yeah, I have some issues with the headline and thrust of the article.

Please resume with the heavier issues...

Posted by: t-bird at December 29, 2010 10:00 AM (kho+0)

58 I call bullshit--as well as defamation. FRC and NOM have nothing
whatsoever to do with "Christian-identity groups," which are racist
organizations masquerading as churches.

Good point. Gabe, I strongly suggest you fix this in your main post.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:00 AM (7BU4a)

59 16
The reason I said vocal minority is that when the majority does it, we call it democracy.




Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:56 AM (/gY4D)

We weren't founded as a democracy, we were founded as a democratic republic. The operative differences are that the majority cannot override the rules and meanings of law. That takes a super majority. Also, not everyone was allowed to vote. Only those people who had a stake in the Nation and who bore the costs of operating it.
What we have today is a far cry from what we started out as. If we had adhered to the original intent, we wouldn't have welfare recipients (and public employees unions) continuously maintaining Democrats in power.If we had limited the franchise to only responsible people, (as the founders originally intended.) we would not now be dealing with this catastrophic fucking mess in Government and Finance.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:02 AM (/G5LI)

60 Fiscal Conservatism does not require a specific set
of religious beliefs in order to be validated. Anyone who tells you so
is selling something.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 09:18 AM (y05cf)
Exactly - which is why I voted for the true libertarian in 08 - Barack PBUH Obama!Let's show those Holy Rollers the door and get on with helping Barry give us a truly free country.

Posted by: Brink Lindsey, Cato VP at December 29, 2010 10:05 AM (7BU4a)

61 NOM is ok in my book.

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 10:05 AM (zyaZ1)

62 I call bullshit--as well as defamation. FRC and NOM have nothing whatsoever to do with "Christian-identity groups," which are racist organizations masquerading as churches.Wait, you're saying that FRC and NOM aren't Christian identity groups? From FRC's mission statement:

Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

document.writeln('');


From NOM's "about" page:The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.
They are identity groups, or if you prefer, "special interest groups" with an explicitly Christian theme andexplicitly Christian goals.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 10:05 AM (NfIvb)

63 24
I don't think you MUST be a social conservative in order to be a fiscal conservative. It helps, but it is not a must.


Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 09:05 AM (M9Ie6)

A FisCon who is not a SoCon simply hasn't matured yet. It is the old notion of trying to have your cake and eat it too. A lot of people simply don't understand that it is inconsistent to be responsible with money and not be responsible with life.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:05 AM (/G5LI)

64 <i>Meh. In practice financial conservatism goes hand and hand with social
conservatism. When we look at the slew of supposed fincon/anti-socon
people most of them crumble as soon as the State Media leans on them.
Remember the liberalitarians? Snarlin' Arlen? Jumpin Jim? Hell,
Kennedy-Seat Brown.</i>

That's because those people (and that movement) were all about misrepresenting their progressivism to try to sucker the conservatives into voting for them.

I'm as fiscally conservative as it gets. Beyond ensuring life, liberty, and property, my social agenda is nonexistent.

fighting against homosexuality, abortion, "hate speech", etc. don't enter my daily thoughts. As long as it doesn't impact me, I could give a fuck. Let them have homosexual marriage. If it is indeed genetic, then homosexuality will burn itself out in a couple generations. It'll be the Roe effect all over again.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:07 AM (y05cf)

65 I for one welcome our new gay conservative overlords

Posted by: Ben at December 29, 2010 10:08 AM (DKV43)

66 Read up on the political landscape of the late Roman Republic.
Deja-vu all over again. The shenanigans that are going on in our
government right now could be drop-in replacements for the crap that
went on back then.

So, are we to the Marius/Sulla phase or are we ready for some politician of the populares to cross the Rubicon?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:10 AM (7BU4a)

67 It'll be the Roe effect all over again.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:07 AM (y05cf)
You mean millions of people will be killed to advance a leftist sacrament?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:11 AM (7BU4a)

68 A FisCon who is not a SoCon simply hasn't matured yet. It is the old
notion of trying to have your cake and eat it too. A lot of people
simply don't understand that it is inconsistent to be responsible with
money and not be responsible with life.

That's effectively saying that belief in religion is a requirement for conservatism. Way to use the liberals' definition on yourself.

Social Conservatism == Nanny state progressivism. Progressivism is a mental disorder which must be flushed from the human condition if we are to survive as a species.

Ergo, social conservatism is a mental disorder. Stop trying to get your preferred god's rules enshrined in law, whether you pray to Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, or Gaia.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:12 AM (y05cf)

69 "It’s a mortal lock that they’re playing those two groups as representative of conservatives as a whole, to make us all look like homophobic cretins."
Now you are referring to people who don't simply change their social attitudes with each and every passing fad as "Tyrants?"
Yeah, the fashion slaves are calling conservatives who believe in One Nation under God "out of step" with a fad.When did conservatism start to mean only being fiscally balanced? When the MSM and RINOs started to define it that way, that's when.
So what happens when economic reality forces the Democrats to become more fiscally prudent? The difference between Republican and Democrat politicianswill become vanishingly small then won't it?

Posted by: Speller at December 29, 2010 10:12 AM (J74Py)

70 Social Conservatism is leftism by another name. It
is attempting to use the power of government to dictate personal
behavior for the purpose of achieving salvation. Can you tell me how
any member of the FRC is functionally different than a member of PeTA?
Other than the issues they care about, they wish to achieve the same
goal - use government to limit your rights because THEY know better.

Fiscal
Conservatism does not require a specific set of religious beliefs in
order to be validated. Anyone who tells you so is selling something.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 09:18 AM (y05cf)

I see this line being pushed by libertarians all the time. It is just crap. Social conservatism is an acknowledgment that Reality cannot be finessed. Much of the Hedonistic behavior that is currently WRECKING this nation is the result of Government Financed immorality. The "Great Society" program and easy welfare have created generations of useless people and dangerous criminals.
You can talk about not criticizing other people's lifestyle, but the facts are that letting people have countless children without fathers (as encouraged by government policy for decades) is a recipe for death and bloodshed sometime in the future. If allowed to go on long enough, the rot will make the nation too weak to even defend itself.
A nation can only put up with so many unfunctional "lifestyle choices" before it simply collapses.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:12 AM (/G5LI)

71 They are identity groups, or if you prefer,
"special interest groups" with an explicitly Christian theme
andexplicitly Christian goals.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 10:05 AM (NfIvb)
Oh please - if you don't know the meanings of words, don't use them;Christian Identity is a label applied to a wide variety of loosely affiliated believers and churches with a racialized theology. Many promote a Eurocentric interpretation of Christianity. [from wiki]


Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:13 AM (7BU4a)

72 Okay, I did a google search on "Christian identity groups" and found the wikipedia page for the Christian Identity movement. I can see how it was a bad idea to use the phrase "Christian-identity groups." What I meant is that these are identity groups and they're Christian faith-oriented. But referring to them as "Christian identity groups" has unfortunate implications, so I've changed it and added an update to be clear that these groups have nothing to do with the racist CI movement.
Thanks to Leo and 18-1.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 10:13 AM (NfIvb)

73 A FisCon who is not a SoCon simply hasn't matured yet. It is the old
notion of trying to have your cake and eat it too. A lot of people
simply don't understand that it is inconsistent to be responsible with
money and not be responsible with life.

Well said Dio, Well Said.

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 10:14 AM (zyaZ1)

74 You mean millions of people will be killed to advance a leftist sacrament?

No. Abortion supporters and homosexuals share a common trait - they are a genetic and evolutionary dead-end. Long term, their lifestyles will ensure their destruction as they do not procreate to further their belief systems.

That's where religion has its place - the religions that affirm life and reproduction will eventually win the social battle because the future belongs to those who show up.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:14 AM (y05cf)

75 When did conservatism start to mean only being fiscally balanced? When
the MSM and RINOs started to define it that way, that's when.
And it will switch again when the State Media finds it opportune - I'm looking at you Huckabee.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:17 AM (7BU4a)

76 You can talk about not criticizing other people's lifestyle, but the
facts are that letting people have countless children without fathers
(as encouraged by government policy for decades) is a recipe for death
and bloodshed sometime in the future. If allowed to go on long enough,
the rot will make the nation too weak to even defend itself.

There's an enormous difference between creating and supporting progressive policies designed to undermine society and requiring someone to subscribe to a faith (or a specific faith) in order to be considered conservative.

Of course if I can't be a fiscal conservative because I don't worship a god, then words have lost their meanings.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:17 AM (y05cf)

77 Wait, you're saying that FRC and NOM aren't Christian identity groups?



No, they aren't. "Christian identity" is a generic term for a number of groups following a white-supremacist, racialized theology.

Here's SPLC's page on Christian identity. And here's the ADL's page on the movement.

Get your facts right before getting on your homo hobbyhorse.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 10:17 AM (s3dMx)

78 The finest example one can think of as a "fiscal conservative/social liberal" is Arnold. The simple and practical fact is that, if you are a "social liberal", you are going to be a spender, no matter what you say.

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 10:18 AM (Urhve)

79 And it will switch again when the State Media finds it opportune - I'm looking at you Huckabee.

If Huckabee is conservative, then I'm a potted plant.

Huckabee is the perfect example of the Christian Progressive. Just like the Gaia-humpers, he wants to use the government to enforce his religion's moral code.

That is unacceptable. It's also not conservative.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:19 AM (y05cf)

80 Long term, their lifestyles will ensure their destruction as they do not procreate to further their belief systems....

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:14 AM (y05cf)

I think you may be sowing a little false hope here considering the current state of the public school system and most universities.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 10:19 AM (02uN6)

81 The issue I take with social conservatives is that
they seek to hijack the state in order to push their pet agendas
precisely because they have failed to make their case in the court of
public opinion. Most leftists try to do the same thing.


You've got it backwards. The Liberals have won their cases in court AGAINST the vast majority of public opinion. The Assault on religion in schools and elsewhere, Abortion on Demand, the taking of private property, etc. All liberal assaults forced upon a dissenting public against it's will.

The principle
difference between these two groups is that the agenda pursued by the
social cons is merely annoying, whereas the leftists are fucking evil.


The latin word for left means "sinister." Yeah, Liberals are fucking evil.


Social
conservatives should spend more time promoting their ideas. If their
ideas are good and sound and persuasive, then they will eventually win
out over ideas that are faulty. If they want to see our nation change
to be more in line with their ideas then they need to convince the rest
of us that those ideas are good. If they can't do that then they'll
have to take a back seat to the people and the ideas that can.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 09:19 AM (/gY4D)

Great idea. We can cup our hands together and yell, meanwhile the other side has amplified loudspeakers in every living room.
You underestimate the advantage that evil thinking people have in mainstreaming bad ideas. Americans pay too much attention to their entertainment creators and not enough attention to real life. Public opinion is led around like a sheep. That's how the "Precedent" got elected. Enough brainwashing convinced the voting idiots that the man wasn't a fool.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:19 AM (/G5LI)

82 I can't wait for the Palinbots at Hot Air to pick up on this story.

Posted by: Gary at December 29, 2010 10:22 AM (plUl6)

83 That is unacceptable. It's also not conservative.

Which is just as true of the fincon/anti-socons I mentioned above.

Why do so many conservatives feel the need to help the State Media divide us? Instead of arguing for a Huckabee, Arnold, or Lieberman to advance a very narrow part of conservatism, which inevitably fails, why not argue for conservatism across the board?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:22 AM (7BU4a)

84 Stop trying to get your preferred god's rules enshrined in law, whether you pray to Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, or Gaia.
Nonsense on stilts. Why should I stop? Are my opinions and desires for my polity somehow second class? Must they step to the back of the bus?

If I can convince the majority of my fellow citizens, I should get my way (consistent with prior agreements, ie The Constitution). Why I want what I want has no bearing on the matter.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:22 AM (S5YRY)

Posted by: Zakn at December 29, 2010 10:23 AM (zyaZ1)

86 You can talk about not criticizing other people's lifestyle, but the facts are that letting people have countless children without fathers (as encouraged by government policy for decades) is a recipe for death and bloodshed sometime in the future. If allowed to go on long enough, the rot will make the nation too weak to even defend itself.Are you suggesting that the government should force people to marry? Or simply outlaw divorce?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 10:24 AM (NfIvb)

87 Y'all postin in a troll thread.

Posted by: Stalin Peel at December 29, 2010 10:25 AM (GxPL5)

88 You underestimate the advantage
that evil thinking people have in mainstreaming bad ideas. Americans pay
too much attention to their entertainment creators and not enough
attention to real life. Public opinion is led around like a sheep.
That's how the "Precedent" got elected. Enough brainwashing convinced
the voting idiots that the man wasn't a fool.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:19 AM (/G5LI)
Indeed, the State Media is a real problem. 100 years ago someone with Obama's credentials would be laughed off the public stage.I've mostly stopped watching TV over the last few years - which I find really brings perspective to many of the State Media antics. I've seen so many tempests-in-a-teapot that leaving me scratching my head as to why anyone would care...

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:26 AM (7BU4a)

89 If I can convince the majority of my fellow citizens, I should get my
way (consistent with prior agreements, ie The Constitution). Why I want
what I want has no bearing on the matter.

The Huckabees of the world don't WANT to convince their fellow citizens. They simply want to convince a majority of congresscritters or judges to do their bidding just like the anti-religious progressives.

I'll be honest, I'm tired of being told that since I don't want the government trying to save my soul I can't be a fiscal conservative. Belief in God does not make one righteous.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:26 AM (y05cf)

90 brian, I think you are being way over the top in your caricaturization of social conservatives.

Do some social conservatives want to force everyone to worship God? Yes. But, is that the core precept of social conservatism? No.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2010 10:28 AM (7Kgkj)

91 Are you suggesting that the government should force people to marry? Or simply outlaw divorce?

Gabe - that is precisely what some of the religious progressives want. In their mind, it's a simple case - if people are married, they aren't on welfare. How they get from that to fiscal conservatism is anyone's guess.

But if Huckabee is to be considered conservative, can someone explain the way he spends? Because that's not very fiscally conservative.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:29 AM (y05cf)

92 The finest example one can think of as a "fiscal
conservative/social liberal" is Arnold. The simple and practical fact
is that, if you are a "social liberal", you are going to be a spender,
no matter what you say.

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 10:18 AM (Urhve)
In a previous thread like this one, one of the other Morons was asking for an example of anyone holding federal office who could by truly called a fin-con/social liberal and no one could come up with one. OTOH, you can point to plenty of fin-con/soc-con/ns-cons.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:29 AM (7BU4a)

93 You can be an atheist and a social conservative. There is no contradiction. To be a social conservative is essentially to be Burkean in your view of society - that things should not change rapidly based on what 'experts' say is best, but things should change slowly, organically, and with a constant reminder of the traditions of the past, because society is like a tangled web of interactions - if you disturb one, you risk the whole thing crashing down.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2010 10:29 AM (7Kgkj)

94 Are you suggesting that the government should force people to marry? Or simply outlaw divorce?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 10:24 AM (NfIvb)
Maybe this kind of argument worked in law school, but in the real world it's called bullshit.If you can't thrash Diogenes with real arguments I would say that your points are poorly thought out.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 29, 2010 10:29 AM (LH6ir)

95 Do some social conservatives want to force everyone to worship God? Yes.

I won't even buy this. Is there some movement to reestablish state churches that I've somehow missed?

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:30 AM (S5YRY)

96 That's effectively saying that belief in religion is
a requirement for conservatism. Way to use the liberals' definition on
yourself.

Social Conservatism == Nanny state progressivism.
Progressivism is a mental disorder which must be flushed from the human
condition if we are to survive as a species.
Ergo, social
conservatism is a mental disorder. Stop trying to get your preferred
god's rules enshrined in law, whether you pray to Jehovah, Allah, Jesus,
or Gaia.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:12 AM (y05cf)

The rule's aren't God's. They are nature's rules.
Morality wasn't created by mythology. It was created by experience and enshrined in the teachings of whatever religion held sway. This is why so many diverse religions have such similar rules of conduct worldwide. It's because the rules are universal and objective, not regional and subjective.
Adam Smith uses the metaphor of the "invisible hand" of finance. There is also an "invisible hand" of social conduct. It is just as real as the one in finance. Just as finance has unbreakable rules, so does social conduct.
Do bad things, and worse things will follow. You don't have to invoke a God for this to be true, but "God" is as useful a term as any for the invisible hand of karma.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:30 AM (/G5LI)

97 You can talk about not criticizing other people's lifestyle, but the
facts are that letting people have countless children without fathers
(as encouraged by government policy for decades) is a recipe for death
and bloodshed sometime in the future. If allowed to go on long enough,
the rot will make the nation too weak to even defend itself.

It's not very often I see social cons talking about fatherless children. In fact, it's not very often I see social cons talking about anything other than gay marriage and/or abortion.

Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at December 29, 2010 10:31 AM (BZ2Bm)

98 Do some social conservatives want to force everyone to worship God?
Yes. But, is that the core precept of social conservatism? No.

Then what is? Beyond opposition to abortion and homogamy on purely religious grounds, I don't see any. And if the sole reason you can offer in 2011 for a law is "because God said so", then I'm afraid you're going to find yourself running afoul of the Incorporation test.

And I still fail to see how advocating in favor of some religion's interpretation of proper social arrangement is a prerequisite to being fiscally conservative.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:32 AM (y05cf)

99
Then what is? Beyond opposition to abortion and homogamy on purely religious grounds, I don't see any.

brian, see #93

Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2010 10:32 AM (7Kgkj)

100 Ergo, social conservatism is a mental disorder. Stop trying to get your preferred god's rules enshrined in law, whether you pray to Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, or Gaia.
Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:12 AM (y05cf)
You were corrected once or twice but apparently it didn't stick. Stop trotting out the MFM/Liberal line on what a SoCon is and get a fucking clue.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 10:33 AM (fLHQe)

101 In fact, it's not very often I see social cons talking about anything other than gay marriage and/or abortion.
And yet we post every day. :-)

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:33 AM (S5YRY)

102 It's a good thing that the Family Research Council is focused on such important things like getting online poker banned in the U.S.

Fucking nanny busybodies. Fuck 'em. They're statists, just like the left. And they give Christians a bad name.

Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 10:35 AM (V6HDd)

103 It's not very often I see social cons talking about fatherless
children. In fact, it's not very often I see social cons talking about anything other than gay marriage and/or abortion.

yeah that is partly because abortion/gay marriage are the hot topics of the day, but also because that is how the media has defined social conservatism through its reporting - remember Sarah Palin's visit to Haiti? All people could talk about was the stupid 'hairdresser' picture/comment/whatever, but she was there actually on a mission of mercy, to help, you know, fatherless children, among others. But all we heard about in the media was "LOLOL LOOK SHE TOOK HER HAIRDRESSER!!!!!!!" And it's also partly because social conservatives, in my experience, aren't self-promoters - they give to charities and do good deeds out of habit and don't expect a lot of publicity for it.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2010 10:35 AM (7Kgkj)

104 That's where religion has its place - the religions
that affirm life and reproduction will eventually win the social battle
because the future belongs to those who show up.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:14 AM (y05cf)

I point out often that everything the left supports evolves eventually into bloodshed and death. Abortion, Homosexuality, Promiscuity, nature worship, (banning ddt caused millions of deaths worldwide) pacifism, socialism. (over 100 million killed from this wicked ideology!)The path of leftism is the path of death. The path of conservatism is the path of life.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:36 AM (/G5LI)

105 brian, see #93

If that's the case, then why all the God stuff? Why is it the only arguments advanced against homogamy are based on "it's a sin to be gay" when the real argument is purely one of contract law?

Ditto abortion. There's an unassailable human rights argument to be made against abortion, but the only argument ever advanced is "God created a little life, and he'll be mad if you snuff it out".

If that's the case, then I'm a social conservative who's managed to come to all his conclusions without resorting to appeal to authority. If I can do it (hell, I'm a Moron), anyone can. So why don't they?

I'll tell you why - because the people most vocal on both sides of those and many other social issues are really Progressives who want to use the government as a bludgeon.

Anyone who advocates for a stronger central government is a Progressive, and must be opposed.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:37 AM (y05cf)

106 Are you suggesting that the government should force people to marry? Or simply outlaw divorce?
Government should allow people to bear the cost of their decisions. Stop subsidizing bad behaviour.(is that a good enoughfiscal conservativeanswer?)
Single woman are having these countless babies just because of the existence of the welfare state. Am I pro-abortion? No.
Does abortion on demand exist because of Leftistjudicial action and the existance of the welfare state? Yes.
Does the socialist welfare state subsidize the cost of getting medical attention for contractingSTDs? Yes.

Posted by: Speller at December 29, 2010 10:37 AM (J74Py)

107 The path of leftism is the path of death. The path of conservatism is the path of life.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:36 AM (/G5LI)
I knew I liked liberals for some reason.
Seriously, I promise I'll cut their heads off last.

Posted by: Some Islamist at December 29, 2010 10:38 AM (7BU4a)

108 Government should allow people to bear the cost of their decisions. Stop subsidizing bad behaviour.

This. It is by definition reducing the size, scope, and influence of government. If that's truly socially conservative, then I'm all for social conservatism.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:40 AM (y05cf)

109 Like Capitalism, Social Conservatism in a society is what makes that society work. That some are unhappy being under social stigma is no more significant that the fact that we still have poor people in a market economy.

IMO, obviously.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:40 AM (S5YRY)

110 That some are unhappy being under social stigma is no more significant
that the fact that we still have poor people in a market economy.

There's a gulf as wide as the Grand Canyon between "social stigma" and government enforcement.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:42 AM (y05cf)

111 And regardless of all the other arguments I still say the definition of conservative should follow my post number 9.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 10:43 AM (M9Ie6)

112 Are you suggesting that the government should force people to marry? Or simply outlaw divorce?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 10:24 AM (NfIvb)

I am suggesting that government stop interfering with nature. In the absence of government intervention, women who become pregnant without having a husband would have a very miserable life. They would have to either support themselves or be supported by their family. Regardless, they would be unhappy with their fate, and thereby serve as a negative example to other girls who are contemplating the same choice.
Government takes away the pain of their bad decisions leaving onlookers to wonder "What's wrong with doing what she did?"
I have met countless young girls who INTENDED to get pregnant so they could move out of mommy house and have one of their own where they could do what they want and don't have to listen to mommy.
In terms of finance, government involvement is distorting the market. Let the market be free, and much bad behavior would regulate itself out of existence. (Now apply the same concept to the "social" market.)

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:43 AM (/G5LI)

113 Ditto abortion. There's an unassailable human rights argument to be
made against abortion, but the only argument ever advanced is "God
created a little life, and he'll be mad if you snuff it out".

I imagine the only pro-lifers you have ever met are cardboard cutouts then. This argument is made all the time. It's not effective because pro-choicers refuse to believe a baby is alive until after the second trimester.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2010 10:44 AM (TpXEI)

114 If that's the case, then I'm a social conservative who's managed to come to all his conclusions without resorting to appeal to authority. If I can do it (hell, I'm a Moron), anyone can. So why don't they?

I think a lot of its cultural, the way we speak is often based on where we are from...

Why say "It's a fundamental truth of life God is not mocked a man reaps what he sows." vs. "Look at nature, you don't take care of your lawn you get weeds, if you want a garden it takes work, you reap what you sow."

But, among other conservatives (i should hope) there should be some freedom in expressing the former, among secularists only the latter. They both are true.

Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean an atheist should reject it just because...

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 10:45 AM (d8H1q)

115 There's a gulf as wide as the Grand Canyon between "social stigma" and government enforcement.
I disagree. Laws are, or should be, the expression of community morals among free people. We have laws against theft because no society can survive where the strong feel safe to take the goods of the weak. The fact that God also denounces it notwithstanding.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:46 AM (S5YRY)

116 Based on my experience with conservatives more focused on the so-con part of conservativism, I would argue these are their major goals;

1) Overturn RvW and put a stop to judicial activism in general
2) Introduce choice into schooling by moving to a voucher system
3) Stop the removal of DADT
4) Keep marriage defined as one man/one woman
5) Reform welfare policy to stop the federal government/states from subsidizing illegitimacy (many different takes on how)

How this agenda is supposedly at odds with financial or ns conservatism is perplexing. In fact, points 1,2, and 5 are as much fin-con as so-con.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:46 AM (7BU4a)

117 I've mostly stopped watching TV
over the last few years - which I find really brings perspective to many
of the State Media antics. I've seen so many tempests-in-a-teapot that
leaving me scratching my head as to why anyone would care...


Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:26 AM (7BU4a)

This is another point I am constantly addressing. Virtually EVERYONE involved in the creation and production of News and entertainment is a Liberal Member of a Union living in an extremely Liberal state. (New York, Los Angeles)The people they hire to put up the klieg lights, to sweep the floors, to run the cameras.... They are ALL UNION and likewise mostly Liberals from Liberal parts of the country. And they use their monopoly of media resources to severely restrict conservative thought from ever reaching the public.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:49 AM (/G5LI)

118 Brian ... lol this is me at #52

On another note, Social Conservatives may want to order other people around, some do...But I think most believe that the only way you get anyone to change is for them to choose to make wiser and more responsible decisions, so, from my perspective it is about not providing incentives for foolishness and not punishing wisdom.

That's the perspective a lot of "social conservatives" I think genuinely have.

Posted by: Gov98 at December 29, 2010 10:49 AM (d8H1q)

119 It's not effective because pro-choicers refuse to believe a baby is alive until after the second trimester.
My experience can be summed up in this actual quote from a neighbor: I'm pro-choice and I don't want to think about it.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:49 AM (S5YRY)

120 We have laws against theft because no society can
survive where the strong feel safe to take the goods of the weak. The
fact that God also denounces it notwithstanding.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 10:46 AM (S5YRY)
It is interesting to watch as the left has slowly weakened those specific laws. We've gone from the notion that the state has no right to take from one group to give to another to the notion that the state should be equalizing outcomes by "legal" theft.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:50 AM (7BU4a)

121 But if Huckabee is to be considered conservative,
can someone explain the way he spends? Because that's not very fiscally
conservative.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:29 AM (y05cf)

I don't consider Huckabee to be a conservative. I also don't consider him to be anything but an annoying distraction. If he runs for President at the best he will be ignored, at the worst he will enable Obama to win.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:51 AM (/G5LI)

122 I'm pretty disappointed in conservatives who adopt liberal identity labels like "Black conservatives", "Hispanic conservatives" and "Gay conservatives". None of those identity qualifiers* tell me a damn thing about their political beliefs so I just don't care.

I've also got not use for people who simply can't stand the idea of being on the same sponsor list with another group simply because they don't approve of who they have sex with.

To Hell with all of them.

Meh, maybe I'll support Mitch Daniels after all.


* The "Christian conservative" label does tell me something. It's not that all Christians are conservatives but it's an accepted shorthand that at least gives me some idea what you care about as opposed to other types of conservatives. Black, Hispanic, Gay, etc...not so much.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 10:52 AM (HicGG)

123 Christian Identity = White Supremacists.

Sorry, Gabe, but your apology and explanation for your use of it just doesn't cut it.

On a culinary note, Malor has been identified as a HoBos. So, we can kill him, skin him, and cook him.

Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 10:54 AM (Ez4Ql)

124 I imagine the only pro-lifers you have ever met are cardboard cutouts then. This argument is made all the time. It's not effective because pro-choicers refuse to believe a baby is alive until after the second trimester.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2010 10:44 AM (TpXEI)

It's been my experience that abortion advocates want pro-lifers to get all "Biblical" on them so they can turn around and blurt out the "You Just Want To Turn America Into a Saudi/Iraninan Style Patriarchical Theocracy" speech. Said speech being an effective smokescreen for the fact that their argument (bolded above) makes no sense.

Leave out the Bible, keep the truth expressed in the Bible, express it in logical terms and their argument falls apart and they have nothing to hide behind.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 10:54 AM (02uN6)

125 93
You can be an atheist and a social conservative. There is no
contradiction. To be a social conservative is essentially to be Burkean
in your view of society - that things should not change rapidly based
on what 'experts' say is best, but things should change slowly,
organically, and with a constant reminder of the traditions of the past,
because society is like a tangled web of interactions - if you disturb
one, you risk the whole thing crashing down.


Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2010 10:29 AM (7Kgkj)

AWESOME! Someone citing Edmund Burke! (considered to be the father of conservatism. A contemporary and friend of Adam Smith.) Well one good turn deserves another. Here is my favorite quote from Burke.

"Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and
appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the
more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution
of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 10:55 AM (/G5LI)

126 122
+1
The blog ate my comment that said pretty much the same thing, so I'll just cheerlead yours.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 10:56 AM (fLHQe)

127 "I've also got not use for people who simply can't stand the idea of being on the same sponsor list with another group simply because they don't approve of who they have sex with. "

It's more than that if that at all. It's about not wanting 5 year olds forced to sign LGBT pledges in crayon by their kindergarten teacher. It's about not wanting gay sex taught to children as part of a curriculum. Another issue is the push to remove the ban on gays donating blood as if it were a civil rights issue. These are all gay issues and don't suppose for a minute that gays who call themselves conservative aren't for them.

Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 10:59 AM (Ez4Ql)

128 These are all gay issues and don't suppose for a minute that gays who call themselves conservative aren't for them.
Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 10:59 AM (Ez4Ql)


Unless you can show me that these are policies groups like GOProud are advocating for you're simply smearing all gays and all gay political groups.

Again...I have no use for that shit. YMMV.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 11:01 AM (HicGG)

129 How this agenda is supposedly at odds with financial or ns conservatism is perplexing. In fact, points 1,2, and 5 are as much fin-con as so-con.
Agree. The difference being, fiscal cons aren't going to kick social cons out of the party for their stance on 3 4, whereas social cons are ready to do the reverse. As somebody noted up above, it's harder for social cons because they have understandable inability to compromise with something they see as evil.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:02 AM (NfIvb)

130 brian, I think you are letting the language of faith get in the way of the arguments that social conservatives make.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2010 11:02 AM (7Kgkj)

131 It's not very often I see social cons talking about
fatherless children. In fact, it's not very often I see social cons
talking about anything other than gay marriage and/or abortion.


Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at December 29, 2010 10:31 AM (BZ2Bm)

Fatherless children are the root of many of societies problems. Who should teach them better if they have no fathers? No offense to the ladies, but I have concluded time and again that it is a rare woman who can raise children by herself and have them turn out resembling anything like civilized. Most children raised solely by women and the state are hedonistic hellions with no concern for anyone but themselves.
This is only possible because the government makes it so. Were nature allowed to take it's course, women who become pregnant out of wedlock would be facing a disastrous and unpleasant future. This would have the effect of discouraging other young girls from emulating the unfortunate.It is probably less common to hear about fatherless children than it is to hear about abortion or homosexuality, probably because those other things are more overt and demanding of attention, while the problem with society encouraging fatherless children is not so "glamorous." Never the less, I think it is the more important issue in the long run.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:04 AM (/G5LI)

132 I'm an atheist and a social conservative. I'm also minimally pro choice in that what the pro life people advocate is often pretty crazy. I don't care what gay people do in bed but I believe in traditional marriage as it is the best way to raise kids. It should be promoted, not constantly chipped away at.

Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 11:04 AM (Ez4Ql)

133 Sorry, Gabe, but your apology and explanation for your use of it just doesn't cut it. On a culinary note, Malor has been identified as a HoBos. So, we can kill him, skin him, and cook him.

Look, I corrected, apologized, explained what I was trying to say, and made a note never to use that phrase ever again. What more do you want from me?
Regarding the second thing,I saw that too.Here's the link for those who haven't seen it yet. *backs slowly away from the morons*

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:05 AM (NfIvb)

134 "Unless you can show me that these are policies groups like GOProud are advocating for you're simply smearing all gays and all gay political groups.

Again...I have no use for that shit. YMMV."

No, I'm calling a spade a spade. I have no use for your crap either.

Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 11:06 AM (Ez4Ql)

135 Look, I corrected, apologized, explained what I was trying to say, and
made a note never to use that phrase ever again. What more do you want
from me?

Not good enough. You must be purged from the party.

Posted by: The One True Conservative, Nobody Is As Conservative-y As Me at December 29, 2010 11:07 AM (7Kgkj)

136 How this agenda is supposedly at odds with financial
or ns conservatism is perplexing. In fact, points 1,2, and 5 are as
much fin-con as so-con.


Posted by: 18-1

I support a lot of things so-cons advocate. But check out some of these positions from FRC:
Family Research Council supports efforts by the Federal Communications
Commission to increase the fines and penalties for the broadcast of
indecent and profane materials, and FRC believes such restrictions
should be applied to cable and satellite transmissions.
Uhm, no. Fuck off. You can argue for regulation of broadcast content because the bandwidth is considered public. The content a cable provider provides is none of your business. Don't subscribe if you don't like the content.
the fact is that the overwhelming majority of hardcore Internet
pornography is produced in the United States and should be prosecuted
aggressively

Again, fuck off. Stay out of my business. I am an adult and can make my own decisions on what I view. I don't need you to play mommy.

per-child tax breaks are important in encouraging the birth of children
not only for the solvency of Social Security and Medicare but also to
ensure the well formed workforce needed by modern economies.

Yay! Picking and choosing winners with the tax code! How conservative!

Family Research Council Vice President Tom McClusky testified that his organization favored banning internet poker in the United States. When questioned further by Rep. Steve Cohen
[D-TN] on how much gambling FRC advocated banning, McClusky testified
that FRC wished to ban all gambling in America, including even poker.

How are these idiots any different than the leftists who want to ban trans fats from all restaurants? What nonsense. Gambling isn't even mentioned in the bible. Maybe these fucksticks should go raid a Catholic church the next time they have a bingo fundraiser.


Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:07 AM (V6HDd)

137 No, I'm calling a spade a spade.
Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 11:06 AM (Ez4Ql)

No you're not. You're making wild and reckless charges against a whole group of people without a shred of evidence.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 11:08 AM (HicGG)

138 Gabe: I have no doubt that you would taste like a delicious Sunday pork roast just like Mom use to make.

Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 11:09 AM (Ez4Ql)

139 What a bunch of balderdash!

Rightwing so-cons are on defense against commie-lib social policies...and have been for decades.

Did the liberal homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, lesbian political lobby (who are petitioning their government to make anal sex normal and natural), think that their would be no push-back from parents, religious groups, or normal just Americans???? Same with Roe v Wade.

So-Cons didn't wake up one morning and decide, hey, we want to lord over Americans and tell them how to behave.....these concerned Americans DID NOT start this fire.

The Homosexual and liberal lobbies did.

And any attempt to make So-Cons out to be theocratic is simply helping the Left.

Of course, this is what Rinos do, this is their goal, to help the left defeat Conservatives.


Posted by: pam at December 29, 2010 11:12 AM (uDwml)

140 I have met no Christian who rapes the unwilling ear with his beliefs as forcefully as just about EVERY atheist I've met. Annoying cocksuckers, almost without exception.

Proselytizing - nobody does it like atheists.

Further, you sneer at the very belief system that keeps you safe. It is only the teachings of Christ that restrain me from enslaving this planet. If only you knew how my soul longs to crush the skulls of the weak beneath my jackboot, you would fall to your knees in wonderment at the words that could shackle such murderous impulses.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2010 11:13 AM (zk7RY)

141 Posted by: Moi at December 29, 2010 11:06 AM (Ez4Ql)

Don't rise to DrewM's bait. That's just the way he argues.

Here are three of GOProud's legislative prioroties.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.
Wow! This stuff looks like every other gay organization's priorities. But I guess it's just wild and baseless to accuse them of having an agenda at odds with most conservatives.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 29, 2010 11:16 AM (LH6ir)

142 If only you knew how my soul longs to crush the skulls of the weak
beneath my jackboot, you would fall to your knees in wonderment at the
words that could shackle such murderous impulses.

I believe the words you're looking for are:

"Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company"

Because mere words are meaningless without the credible threat of force.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:17 AM (y05cf)

143 Ditto abortion. There's an unassailable human rights argument to be
made against abortion, but the only argument ever advanced is "God
created a little life, and he'll be mad if you snuff it out".

I
imagine the only pro-lifers you have ever met are cardboard cutouts
then. This argument is made all the time. It's not effective because
pro-choicers refuse to believe a baby is alive until after the second
trimester.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk

Try reading this site and you'll find that many of us have made the argument that what is trapped within a woman's body is a life, a life that currently is denied the franchise, both before (abortion) during (partial birth abortion) and after (sticking the failed abortion victim in a closet).

See? No pesky God. You can climb down off of the ledge now.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 11:19 AM (1O93r)

144 Then what is? Beyond opposition to abortion and
homogamy on purely religious grounds, I don't see any.
And if the sole
reason you can offer in 2011 for a law is "because God said so", then
I'm afraid you're going to find yourself running afoul of the
Incorporation test.



And I still fail to see how advocating in
favor of some religion's interpretation of proper social arrangement is a
prerequisite to being fiscally conservative.





Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:32 AM (y05cf)




Geeze, I would like to explain this, but neither you nor I have the time. I'll take a quick shot at it though.

For most of humanities existence, Child morbidity has been a horrible problem. Many children died, and the replenishment rate often barely kept up with the losses. The sorrow and loss of losing so many children to various childhood diseases and accidents engendered in the public mind the notion that children are precious and should be loved and protected at all costs. The notion that someone who was blessed with a child should decide to kill it was horrifying to a society that had so long endured death and loss. It was interpreted as being the ultimate in selfish evil. (and i'm not even getting into the practical matter of maintaining a replenishment rate sufficient to allow for the normal maintainance and defense of a nation.) Thus did history dictate the common attitude regarding abortion. (The abolitionists, after outlawing slavery, turned their efforts to outlawing abortion in all of the United States. They were successful, though you don't hear much about this.)

As for Homosexuality, the aversion to it is multifold. It appears to have both genetic and environmental components, but I just want to quickly point out why it has been so objectionable in society.

It is a disease ridden lifestyle. Do the slightest bit of research and you will discover that a major repository of sexually trasmitted diseases today resides in that portion of the population that insists on risky sexual behavior. This was always the case throughout history. (though it is not exclusive to homosexuality. Heterosexuals were dying by the thousands from risky sexual behavior during the Georgian period of England, which of course gave way to the Victorian era. )

People in history noticed that Homosexuals often became diseased and died of various maladies. Many people thought that disease was synonymous with evil spirits and evil spirits were attracted by evil behavior, hence, homosexuality was evil behavior.

Apart from that, having no children meant not contributing to the future of society which was saw as a sort of duty to the community. Children were a blessing, barren was a curse. How much worse for being barren because of nonviable sexual practices?

That is a brief description of why you don't have to invoke "God" to object to either of the two issues. We don't have time for a more in depth discussion on this.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:20 AM (/G5LI)

145 Matt Lewis has an interesting take on these groups overtures to WND. Sorta echoes my suspicion that this isn't about them appealing to conservatives, but rather voluntarily marginalizing themselves:
Regardless of where you come down on the fundamental issue at hand, my contention that social-conservative groups are not terribly savvy was probably confirmed when news of their boycott was first reported by World Net Daily, considered by many to be on the fringe of the conservative movement. The boycotters might have instead talked to National Review or Townhall (where I formerly worked). But by leaking to (or breaking the story with) World Net Daily, these groups have symbolically cast their cause as outside the mainstream of conservatism (while CPAC now occupies the mainstream turf, at least for now).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:21 AM (NfIvb)

146 So a group like GOProud is worthy of a boycott from them . . . But having the John Birch Society there is cool?

Posted by: AD at December 29, 2010 11:21 AM (q1Tbv)

147 Now that I've bashed some of FRC's positions, let's look at GOP Proud:


1 – TAX REFORM -
Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the
tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the
capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and
create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare
reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across
state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits;
emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift
would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for
all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect
future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.






Yeah, they can mostly fuck off, too. This is 50% conservative. Mostly it's just pushing the same gay agenda items that leftist gay groups push.

Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:21 AM (V6HDd)

148 Agree. The difference being, fiscal cons aren't
going to kick social cons out of the party for their stance on 3
4, whereas social cons are ready to do the reverse. As somebody noted up
above, it's harder for social cons because they have understandable
inability to compromise with something they see as evil.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:02 AM (NfIvb)
My argument is that conservatism is made up of three equal planks. Now how much you can differ from each plank and still really be a conservative is open for judgment. To reverse the argument, can you be a conservative if you don't support all of the fin-con agenda? Because otherwise you are kicking out Reagan, for example.
But part of this discussion should be tactical too. I would argue that if you supported DADT repeal in the lameduck you are no conservative. Why? Because even if you support the repeal, kicking it down the road on a procedural argument to the new congress would have allowed it to be used as a bargaining chip for other conservative items.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:24 AM (7BU4a)

149
If that's the case, then why all the God stuff? Why is it the only
arguments advanced against homogamy are based on "it's a sin to be gay"
when the real argument is purely one of contract law?

Ditto abortion. There's an unassailable human
rights argument to be made against abortion, but the only argument ever
advanced is "God created a little life, and he'll be mad if you snuff it
out".

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:37 AM (y05cf)

You are just hearing the media amplified voices. Not necessarily the most reasonable ones.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:24 AM (/G5LI)

150
4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.Wow!
This stuff looks like every other gay organization's priorities. But I
guess it's just wild and baseless to accuse them of having an agenda at
odds with most conservatives.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

And these are not DNC platform talking points how? Fuck the opposition of the icky god-luvin' rednecks. How is this crap in any way consistent with the platform of the Republican party?


We've watched people take shots at the stated goals of the icky god sites. Let's now see the bold and the beautiful explain how this fits the party platform.

P.S. That bullshit line about forced marriages and outlawing divorce is a new low for you Gabe.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 11:25 AM (1O93r)

151 108
Government should allow people to bear the cost of their decisions. Stop subsidizing bad behaviour.

This.
It is by definition reducing the size, scope, and influence of
government. If that's truly socially conservative, then I'm all for
social conservatism.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:40 AM (y05cf)

Same thing I said. Just briefer, and therefore using more wit.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:26 AM (/G5LI)

152 I say screw CPAC.
not because of GOProud, but because it is being taken over by non-conservatives who call themselves conservatives, if Huckabee has a place at CPAC then I want nothing to do with it, CPAC can go rot in hell.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 11:28 AM (ehKDD)

153 116
Based on my experience with conservatives more focused on the so-con
part of conservativism, I would argue these are their major goals;1) Overturn RvW and put a stop to judicial activism in general2) Introduce choice into schooling by moving to a voucher system3) Stop the removal of DADT4) Keep marriage defined as one man/one woman5) Reform welfare policy to stop the federal government/states from subsidizing illegitimacy (many different takes on how)

How
this agenda is supposedly at odds with financial or ns conservatism is
perplexing. In fact, points 1,2, and 5 are as much fin-con as so-con.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 10:46 AM (7BU4a)


Ditto. What he said.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:29 AM (/G5LI)

154 @#150 -

DADT is something that belongs under military purview, not federal law. Let the military deal with the issue themselves. This prevents the issue being decided either way by the courts.

As far as fighting "extremists", it's awfully convenient for them that all such regimes happen to be countries that coincidentally are exporters of and supporters of islamic expansionism.

And anyone who understands the Constitution should be opposed to any marriage amendment. The Constitution is about limiting government, not people. And no matter how you word it, such an amendment is meant as an explicit limit on people. In truth, the government ought not to be recognizing marriage at all.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:29 AM (y05cf)

155 if Huckabee has a place at CPAC then I want nothing to do with it, CPAC can go rot in hell.
I think you're seriously confused. Here's what Huckabee said about CPAC and why he refuses to attend.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:30 AM (NfIvb)

156 I don't trust Christians as a group to value Freedom over Evangelism.

Dogma can possess the mind of an individual and the minds in a crowd.

If you can't make an argument regarding social or political matters without invoking your religion, then you haven't made the grade in my book.

The case for Conservatism of all sorts can be made from empirical evidence and Human Reason; nothing else is needed.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 11:31 AM (ZTPeW)

157 As long as you are ignorant of the mortal insult you gave by calling the groups "Christian identity", then by rights you should keep your mouth shut to avoid more egregious "accidental" lies about the groups you so clearly hate, Gabe.
Either ignorance or full-throated bigotry - that's the explanation there. Looks like you should get down off your victimized poor offended hind legs and offer a fucking REAL apology Gabe.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 29, 2010 11:32 AM (d6yBx)

158 sorry, my mistake Gabe, didn't do my homework.

but CPAC can still go f%^! itself.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 11:33 AM (ehKDD)

159 It's sad to watch the idiots line up in a row to declaim and defame a faith just like their friends on the Left do so often. Must make them feel warm inside, like McCain feels when he blows the media.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 29, 2010 11:34 AM (d6yBx)

160
GOPud is a sham.

Here's why: They not only wanted to repeal DADT but they went to court over it.

They not only want homosexual marriage, they're in court fighting for it.

They 're fighting conservatives in the courtroom looking for judicial 'relief,' i.e., fiat.

CPAC is a joke and should be dissolved. GOProud is a sham and should be shunned. They're not gay conservatives, they're social activists with a radical leftist agenda.

Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:34 AM (uFokq)

161 140
I have met no Christian who rapes the unwilling ear with his beliefs as
forcefully as just about EVERY atheist I've met. Annoying cocksuckers,
almost without exception.



Proselytizing - nobody does it like atheists.





Further, you sneer at the very belief system that keeps you safe. It is
only the teachings of Christ that restrain me from enslaving this
planet. If only you knew how my soul longs to crush the skulls of the
weak beneath my jackboot, you would fall to your knees in wonderment at
the words that could shackle such murderous impulses.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2010 11:13 AM (zk7RY)

That post was so good i'm saving it to my file of "Wise things people say."

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:35 AM (/G5LI)

162 On the gambling ban, I agree those positions are wrong.



As long as you are an adult, and the gambling institution/website runs
"fair" games you should be allowed to do stupid things like gamble away
your money - and then pay the consequences.



There is a problem here though. The Welfare state generally doesn't allow people to pay for their mistakes, does it? So we've got people gambling their government checks, and other people gambling their money, and then getting on the government teat when they spend it all.

This is actually one of the reasons why for the forseeable future libertarianism won't work. You have to significantly pare back the welfare state before we are in a position where people are only making decisions with their own money...

Yay! Picking and choosing winners with the tax code! How conservative!

Continuing the line of argument from above, SS is in trouble primarily because people don't have enough children to keep the Ponzi scheme going. If repealing SS is not on the agenda, and it certainly isn't now, how do you handle this issue?



Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:36 AM (7BU4a)

163 Inspector A.
while it's true I dispise Huckabee (he's a Statist)I believe in God and count myself a christian.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 11:36 AM (ehKDD)

164 It's sad to watch the idiots line up in a row to declaim and defame a
faith just like their friends on the Left do so often. Must make them
feel warm inside, like McCain feels when he blows the media.

Most often, faith is the enemy of reason. I don't want a government based upon faith, I want one based upon reason.

Faith is what got us into this mess. Faith that real estate only increases in value. Faith that bad people can be swayed with kind words. Faith that evil can be ignored and it will go away.

Reason is the only thing that can get us out.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:37 AM (y05cf)

165 It's sad to watch the idiots line up in a row to declaim and defame a
faith just like their friends on the Left do so often. Must make them
feel warm inside, like McCain feels when he blows the media.

Go fuck yourself, douchewad.

Posted by: Kessler at December 29, 2010 11:37 AM (q/Y+m)

166 It is
only the teachings of Christ that restrain me from enslaving this
planet.

I'll repeat myself - this is false. It is the fact that were you to attempt such a thing someone else would shoot you deader than fried chicken. The words of a long-dead man are not sufficient to silence the evil that lurks in the hearts of all men. Only the credible threat of retribution can do that.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:39 AM (y05cf)

167 I don't trust Christians as a group to value Freedom over Evangelism.

You realize it was a group of Christians, in fact "radical fundies" by today's standards that gave us our Republic, right?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:40 AM (7BU4a)

168
Andrew Sullivan - the love for Obama = GOProud.


Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:41 AM (uFokq)

169
GOProud = true conservatives

Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:41 AM (uFokq)

170 "Reason is the only thing that can get us out."
reason is a good and useful tool when i'mdealing withan engine or a computer.
reason is practically useless when dealing with human beings.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 11:43 AM (ehKDD)

171 The words of a long-dead man are not sufficient to silence the evil that lurks in the hearts of all men.

While our Dread Lord Jeff is being hyperbolic, I have to agree that the fear of the Judge who cannot be fooled is all that prevents me from predations on a lesser scale.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 11:44 AM (S5YRY)

172
And, yeah, if any of the Republican candidates pander to GOPud or the Logs, I will not vote for them.

I'm sick of the pandering. I'm sick of the "I'm a true friend to Israel bullshit," and "I love guns" crap, and "Some of my best friends are native Americans."


Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:44 AM (uFokq)

173 There is a problem here though. The Welfare state generally doesn't
allow people to pay for their mistakes, does it? So we've got people
gambling their government checks, and other people gambling their money,
and then getting on the government teat when they spend it all.

I hear you. But here's the problem--you can extend this argument to all kinds of places when it comes to restricting personal liberty.

In other words, if one were to argue that we must ban internet gambling because irresponsible types will gamble away their money and then get on welfare then one would also need to argue that we need to ban video games.

Video games are addictive, you see. And irresponsible people will spend all their time and money on them, lose their jobs, and end up on welfare.

We also need to ban cigarettes because irresponsible welfare types will smoke them, get cancer, and then we'll have to pay for their health care.

Mcdonald's? Ditto.

Where does this end?


Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:45 AM (V6HDd)

174 I'll repeat myself - this is false. It is the fact
that were you to attempt such a thing someone else would shoot you
deader than fried chicken. The words of a long-dead man are not
sufficient to silence the evil that lurks in the hearts of all men.
Only the credible threat of retribution can do that.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:39 AM (y05cf)While world domination is generally restrained by conflicting interests, coming to power in a country, or a group of countries, is not.
In fact, historically, rule by the most powerful men was the norm before the advent of Protestant Christianity, and we've seen a return to this in countries that have specifically abandoned the social structure that Protestant Christianity gave them return to form.
See, for example, how quickly Germany reverted to form when it moved from Protestant Christianity to Positive "Christianity".

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:46 AM (7BU4a)

175
...the fear of the Judge who cannot be fooled is all that prevents me from predations on a lesser scale.

That's kinda why I laugh everytime I see those wacky anarchists at the G-8. The last thing they want is anarchy because they're the first ones I'll chew up and spit out.


Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:47 AM (uFokq)

176 I'll repeat myself - this is false. It is the fact
that were you to attempt such a thing someone else would shoot you
deader than fried chicken. The words of a long-dead man are not
sufficient to silence the evil that lurks in the hearts of all men.
Only the credible threat of retribution can do that.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:39 AM (y05cf)

Perhaps you are not seeing this correctly. Thomas Jefferson said that he cared not whether a man worshiped one god or twenty, it would neither pick his pocket nor break his leg.
His opponent responded, "But let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg, but my neck!"

The point being, some people need a "God" to convince them to behave. The fact that "waves of atheism" can exist is only because they float on an ocean of Christianity. Never before in history was a society so tolerant of beliefs which diverged from the majority. Certainly the Romans, Greek, or Egyptians would not have put up with atheists.Godless people will take over the world in tandem, not singular. We have only to look at Stalin to see how this might play out.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:48 AM (/G5LI)

177 Video games are addictive, you see. And irresponsible people will spend
all their time and money on them, lose their jobs, and end up on
welfare.
Does the polity have the right to make stupid laws? Yes. The essence of our system is to prevent the rise of people who have the power to determine that a law is stupid.

That way lies Mandarinism.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 11:48 AM (S5YRY)

178
Hey, Gabriel, is there an instance of GOProud going to court and being on the side of conservatives? On anything?

Or do they just go to court to argue for gay 'rights?'

Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:49 AM (uFokq)

179 The idea that you have to be a SoCon to be a FiscalCon is crap. People have pointed out Huckabee. 'Nuff said.

I've always had the attitude that if you're a FiscalCon, an actual practicing FiscalCon not some poser, you kinda' get a lot of SoCon stuff as a bonus. This is because social progressivism requires the government to do things, and if you exercise fiscal restraint in government, then there's no money to do bullshit like fund the EPA, NEA, welfare, send millions down the drain to third world crapholes, etc.

Posted by: shillelagh at December 29, 2010 11:50 AM (Oz4Bj)

180 Where does this end? Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:45 AM (V6HDd)
Oh indeed, and that is why paring the welfare state down is so important, but again we have to seriously face the question of how we deal with the welfare state when we cannot.
I think gambling bans are not a reasonable near term solution, but child tax credits (though not the kind where your tax bill can be "negative") are. And I think that it is just as important to get people to address how they will deal with the here and now as it is with where they will try to move the country to.
Or for another very specific example - partial privatizing SS is important because it provides a first step to getting government out of the retirements business.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:51 AM (7BU4a)

181 We also need to ban cigarettes because irresponsible
welfare types will smoke them, get cancer, and then we'll have to pay
for their health care.Mcdonald's? Ditto.
Where does this end?




Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:45 AM (V6HDd)

I have long felt that one of the STUPIDIST ideas in the world is to give money to people who by definition are irreconcilably poor, and therefore cannot possibly manage it.Give them vouchers for staples. No candy, no soda, no McDonalds or Cigarettes. JUST STAPLE FOODS on a list. There lives are not supposed to be easy or happy or convenient when they suck on the government teat.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:52 AM (/G5LI)

182 GOPud is a sham.Here's why: They not only wanted to repeal DADT but they went to court over it.They not only want homosexual marriage, they're in court fighting for it.
Unlike the other fellow (really, how much do we keep up with what Huck says), it doesn't surprise me that Soothsayer is seriously confused when it comes to these issues.
In fact, GOProud did not go to court over DADT. (GOProud has never filed any lawsuits, nor has it offered any amicus briefs inlawsuits.) Soothsayer is just plain making that up.
Similarly, they haven't gone to court for marriage either. I don't know where Soothsayer is getting that. In fact, GOProud Chairman has said that the organization focuses strictly on federal issues which means that, institutionally,it doesn't take a position on state policy issues like same sex marriage.
Soothsayer, we get it. You don't like teh gheys. No need to make stuff up.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:53 AM (NfIvb)

183 Most often, faith is the enemy of reason. I don't want a government based upon faith, I want one based upon reason.

Faith is what got us into this mess. Faith that real estate only increases in value. Faith that bad people can be swayed with kind words. Faith that evil can be ignored and it will go away.

Reason is the only thing that can get us out.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 11:37 AM (y05cf)

Faith and reason can, and must, work together. When one is removed the other becomes deranged. I think history bears this assertion out.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 11:53 AM (02uN6)

184 There lives are not supposed to be easy or happy or convenient when they suck on the government teat.

50 years ago, my Father predicted that two words would destroy our country: With Dignity.

Poverty is not supposed to be easy or dignified. It's the whip that drives the lazy.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 11:54 AM (S5YRY)

185 #179
now that is hitting the nail on the head... so true.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 11:54 AM (ehKDD)

186 That's kinda why I laugh everytime I see those wacky anarchists at the G-8. The last thing they want is anarchy because they're the first ones I'll chew up and spit out.



Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 29, 2010 11:47 AM (uFokq)

Well, yes and no.

People that really believe in anarchy are generally simple fools with no understanding of history.

Take away a free government with a monopoly on force and eventually you will get a tyranny with a monopoly of force - after a nice civil war among the various armed factions - history is clear on this.

But plenty of so-called anarchists aren't fools. They have no illusions about what smashing the classically liberal state means. They want the tyranny and to be the ones running it.

The German National Socialists and International Socialists both played this same game at the end of the Weimar Republic.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:56 AM (7BU4a)

187 The fact that "waves of atheism" can exist is only because they float on an ocean of Christianity.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 11:48 AM (/G5LI)
This. I'm agnostic. Borderline atheist. And be damned (oh wait, already am) if I can convince one of the usual militant atheists to see the irony in the fact that they're allowed to profess their non-beliefs by the good graces of Christianity in this country.
When the shit goes down in a few years and it's time to pick sides, I'll always throw my lot in with the Christians.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 11:59 AM (fLHQe)

188 I don't think that the CPAC members are necessarily supportive of GOProud or against speaking out against GOProud. Instead, I think that perhaps they (like me) would rather conservative leaders focus like a laser beam on dismantling Obama's statist expansion (and Bush's too, for that matter). In other words, CPAC members don't want to be distracted by secondary concerns at this point. This theory seems to be supported by Ron Paul's winning of their staw poll last year.

Although, didn't Romney win three of their straw polls in a row? Maybe it should be R(ino)PAC.

Posted by: gm at December 29, 2010 12:00 PM (ABUrf)

189 I'll always throw my lot in with the Christians.

We make better casseroles.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:00 PM (S5YRY)

190 Well, yes and no.

People that really believe in anarchy are generally simple fools with no understanding of history. Take
away a free government with a monopoly on force and eventually you will
get a tyranny with a monopoly of force - after a nice civil war among
the various armed factions - history is clear on this.

But
plenty of so-called anarchists aren't fools. They have no illusions
about what smashing the classically liberal state means. They want the
tyranny and to be the ones running it.

The German National Socialists and International Socialists both played this same game at the end of the Weimar Republic.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:56 AM (7BU4a)

The problem is, fools of this sort have just as much say so as an informed responsible person. I just read an interesting article yesterday which opined that the "Articles of Confederation" were the Libertarian version of a founding document, and as a practical matter they were complete crap. (Meaning non functional.)
The Articles of Confederation basically incorporated every libertarian principle of governance, but reality intruded in the form of the British and their short commings were made manifest.Libertarianism is just the preceding stage to anarchy.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 12:00 PM (/G5LI)

191 You realize it was a group of Christians, in fact "radical fundies" by today's standards that gave us our Republic, right?
Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:40 AM (7BU4a)

The Father of our Republic is the Enlightenment, not Christ.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:01 PM (ZTPeW)

192 Everyone whose name will be on the Protected Rolls during the coming Dark Times, raise your hand.

Put your hand down, brian.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2010 12:03 PM (RKfMo)

193 This. I'm agnostic. Borderline
atheist. And be damned (oh wait, already am) if I can convince one of
the usual militant atheists to see the irony in the fact that they're
allowed to profess their non-beliefs by the good graces of Christianity
in this country.
When the shit goes down in a few years and it's time to pick sides, I'll always throw my lot in with the Christians.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 11:59 AM (fLHQe)

I have evolved into an agnostic, but I still see Christianity as a positive influence for mankind throughout history. There is a website called Bede's Library which has a series of essays detailing how scientific advancement was the enhanced by Christianity, not held back because of it.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 12:05 PM (/G5LI)

194 Although, didn't Romney win three of their straw polls in a row? Maybe it should be R(ino)PAC.

Yeah Ron Paul won it as well. I don't trust ANY straw polls anymore from these types of events. They are too easy to manipulate.

Also,

On the score of "we must keep gambling illegal because of welfare" that falls under the criteria of two wrongs don't make a right.

Follow my rules at #9 there would be no rules against gambling and no welfare either.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 12:05 PM (M9Ie6)

195 Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:00 PM (S5YRY)

And the Catholic school girls give the best head.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 29, 2010 12:06 PM (LH6ir)

196 Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 12:05 PM (M9Ie6)

We must keep gambling illegal unless the state runs it or gets its cut.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 29, 2010 12:07 PM (LH6ir)

197 Libertarianism is just the preceding stage to anarchy.

But with weed, brah...

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2010 12:07 PM (RKfMo)

198 Hey Malor, are you going to address the comments calling out GOProud's policy positions posted by CBD and Warden? Or are you just going to skip out on defending your position yet once again and just go for the low hanging fruit?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 12:08 PM (fLHQe)

199 The disdain for people, the people who think abortion is wrong - just like banning guns from people to protect their families is wrong - and think that redefining marriage is wrong, is so thick with arrogant derision from supposed conservatives that we who do find these things wrong and harmful to the nation as policy won't burden you with our working on campaigns, making donations or voting for the abortion on demand and/or ghey republicans in your face candidates.

"We're cool now?"

Posted by: message received at December 29, 2010 12:08 PM (4zKre)

200 The problem is, fools of this sort have just as much say so as an informed responsible person. I just read an interesting article yesterday which opined that the "Articles of Confederation" were the Libertarian version of a founding document, and as a practical matter they were complete crap. (Meaning non functional.)
The Articles of Confederation basically incorporated every libertarian principle of governance, but reality intruded in the form of the British and their short commings were made manifest.
Libertarianism is just the preceding stage to anarchy.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 12:00 PM (/G5LI)

well said and ditto... I would add that libertarianism is not bad, I think it's good, even great, but it can't stand on it's own.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:08 PM (ehKDD)

201 Libertarianism is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what to munch on after they smoke a fuckin' bowl, man.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2010 12:14 PM (RKfMo)

202 Two Random thoughts

Lord, save me from the enlightened. The Original Enlightenment was anti-hubric
in rejecting the divine rights theories of rule by the wise and anointed. We've come
full circle with our own enlightened intellectuals however, who reject divine authority yet overrule society's collected judgments with their own. Hubris is the original sin.



The humility of God Made Man and our acceptance of our fallen nature by
the religious should make us wary of trusting our own judgment,
implemented by force. Persuasion and an obstinate pressing against those who would apply a perversely inverted Religious Test against us is allowed, however.



However I know, I know what I know, and I have the right to agitate for what I think best.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:16 PM (S5YRY)

203 The articles of Confederation had NOTHING to do with "libertarianism". Their weaknesses were only in giving enough power to the central government to keep the States from fighting each other.

As events later showed the Constitution was no better.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 12:20 PM (M9Ie6)

204
It's an easy calculation: will they get more by reaching out to other
(immoral) conservatives at CPAC or by making a flashy stand in WND and
then hold their own Christian conference?
There's even easier calculation they're overlooking: if all you do is preach to the choir, don't be surprised when you get no converts.

As one wit famously said, be all things to all men. Does a physican go visit the healthy?

No, I think they're afraid that a libertarian like myself might take unspeakable liberties with their women folk. And that their women folk would like it.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 29, 2010 12:22 PM (BDH94)

205 38 Poor argument, that is. Nothing against the Moors.

Posted by: SEIU at December 29, 2010 09:27 AM

Oh, I'm sorry. The answer is Moops. The card says Moops.

Posted by: George Costanza at December 29, 2010 12:23 PM (NITzp)

206 American Foundation For Equal Rights...GOPROUD, Log Cabin Republicans, and Rino Republicans groups and orgs all have the same Board Members, and all fundraise to DEFEAT Conservatives (ck out all the Republican names at their last fundraiser in Sept).....this is just a sample of AFFER's bragging on their web site:

"We have a reputation of taking on the toughest fights against the most entrenched,
well-financed interests like Big Tobacco, Big Oil and the right wing to
shape the policy debate around some of the nation’s most important
issues, including equal rights, clean energy, universal health care,
stem cell research, and early childhood education. They led the
largest ballot initiative ever recorded, Proposition 87: California’s
Clean Alternative Energy Initiative; Proposition 10, which generates
$600 million a year to early childhood education; and Proposition 71,
which secured billions of dollars for stem cell research."

Gabe and ACE....read up about it, these people are not your friends.

They are not helping in any way whatsoever "fiscal conservatives" or "fiscal Republicans", "center-right" or whatever one wants to call themselves.

They are working against you, and with the left to defeat the Right!

Posted by: pam at December 29, 2010 12:24 PM (uDwml)

207 Hey Malor, are you going to address the comments calling out GOProud's policy positions posted by CBD and Warden? Or are you just going to skip out on defending your position yet once again and just go for the low hanging fruit?
Sure, let's start with what unites us first:
1 – TAX REFORM - Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.
5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.
9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.
10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.
Hmm, tax relief, free markets, entitlement reform, gun rights...sounds very conservative to me. And the "fighting global extremists" sounds downright neo-conservative.
Yes, there are some gay rights issues like DADT (now moot, since the GOP House conference chair has announced no plans to repeal repeal) and many are cast in howconservative priorities are good for gays -- note "free market reforms" and gun rights to protect "our community."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 12:26 PM (NfIvb)

208 No, I think they're afraid that a libertarian like myself might take
unspeakable liberties with their women folk. And that their women folk
would like it.



Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ©



We're fear for our sheep.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:26 PM (S5YRY)

209 Everyone whose name will be on the Protected Rolls during the coming Dark Times, raise your hand.



Put your hand down, brian.

What's that supposed to mean? You think Jesus is coming to save you? He isn't. You think God cares about you? He doesn't. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that God has ever intervened in the affairs of man. Fairy stories, perhaps. But no evidence.


Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 12:27 PM (y05cf)

210 With regard to legislative priority number 9, somebody up there put the same thing: school choice on their list of social con priorities...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 12:28 PM (NfIvb)

211 The Father of our Republic is the Enlightenment, not Christ.



Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:01 PM (ZTPeW)
Not or but and.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 12:28 PM (7BU4a)

212 I am very disappointed in the morons this morning. I really thought this would be 600 posts of bomb throwing. I miss those...any chance we can have Christine O'Donnell weigh in on the issue to get this moving?

Posted by: CAC at December 29, 2010 12:28 PM (m37Ua)

213 Lord, save me from the enlightened. The Original Enlightenment was anti-hubric in rejecting the divine rights theories of rule by the wise and anointed. We've come full circle with our own enlightened intellectuals however, who reject divine authority yet overrule society's collected judgments with their own. Hubris is the original sin.



The humility of God Made Man and our acceptance of our fallen nature by the religious should make us wary of trusting our own judgment, implemented by force. Persuasion and an obstinate pressing against those who would apply a perversely inverted Religious Test against us is allowed, however.

However I know, I know what I know, and I have the right to agitate for what I think best.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:16 PM (S5YRY)

Maybe we invented the Divine Authority. I think that is the case and that means we need to invent a new way to achieve Freedom and Order without some Higher Power at the root of it all.

The US Constitution was a good start, we have a ways to go.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:30 PM (ZTPeW)

214 What's that supposed to mean?

It means he won't kill you last. You seem unfamiliar with our Dred Lord Jeff's schtick.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:31 PM (S5YRY)

215 The Father of our Republic is the Enlightenment, not Christ.
Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:01 PM (ZTPeW)

Not or but and.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 12:28 PM (7BU4a)

Reasonable, but I suspect we would differ on what we mean by "Christ".

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:32 PM (ZTPeW)

216 It means he won't kill you last. You seem unfamiliar with our Dred Lord Jeff's schtick.

Ah. How does he know I'm not the crocodile?

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 12:34 PM (y05cf)

217 What is the root objection to GOProud?

That they are gay?

Not ashamed of being gay?

Have a gay-oriented agenda?

They are deceivers?

Over-dressers? (Sorry, Gabe)

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:34 PM (ZTPeW)

218 we need to invent a new way to achieve Freedom and Order without some Higher Power at the root of it all.





However you know. You can get to proposing and persuading. As long as you don't try to rule out, a priori, my views as not within the political process.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:34 PM (S5YRY)

219 "What's that supposed to mean? You think Jesus is coming to save you? He isn't. You think God cares about you? He doesn't. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that God has ever intervened in the affairs of man. Fairy stories, perhaps. But no evidence.
Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 12:27 PM (y05cf)"



we are here, no further evidence is needed

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:35 PM (ehKDD)

220 However you know. You can get to proposing and persuading. As long as you don't try to rule out, a priori, my views as not within the political process.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:34 PM (S5YRY)

Agreed. I prefer to let time and Natural Selection work on societies just as it does on living things. We will evolve a more perfect Union best that way, I think.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:39 PM (ZTPeW)

221 Ergo, social conservatism is a mental disorder. Stop trying to get your preferred god's rules enshrined in law, whether you pray to Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, or Gaia.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 10:12 AM

You are making the incorrect assumption that marriage and abortion are strictly "religious" issues. They are not. There are plenty of secular and atheist people who are against the LGBT agenda and think legalized abortion-on-demand in an abomination. The latter can easily be opposed based on science alone, thanks to advancements in technology. One does not have to believe in a god in order to be opposed to the random killing of developing children.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2010 12:39 PM (NITzp)

222 It's hard to know what to say here. On the one hand CPAC is a joke. The thing gets entirely co-opted by Paulians every year. On the other hand you have all these stories insisting GOProud is a conservative group which they clearly are not.

Posted by: Rocks at December 29, 2010 12:39 PM (Q1lie)

223 we are here, no further evidence is needed

There is only one valid response to this:

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no
basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a
mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 12:39 PM (y05cf)

224 Over-dressers? (Sorry, Gabe)
Meh, it happens.
As that freakish dude said: “If I am occasionally a little over-dressed, I make up for it by being always immensely over-educated.”
;-D

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 12:40 PM (NfIvb)

225 Totally unrelated to anything posted here, I just bought this new book, Chicken Soup for the Absolutely Humorless Soul.

Would anyone like to borrow my copy?

This is why there are no successful atheist comics.

"A Jew, a Catholic, and a Muslim walk into a bar. And then they're stupid for believing in a god.

Thank you, I'll be here all week."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2010 12:41 PM (RKfMo)

226 Eman,
the problem is that GOProud sees itself as a seperate group, it centers itself around gayness rather than conservatism, they see themselves as gay first and conservatives second.
we already have a group of people in the GOP who see themselves as different or special, we call them RINO's.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:42 PM (ehKDD)

227 we are here, no further evidence is needed

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:35 PM (ehKDD)


Oh, you mean God created the Big Bang which produced a Universe with properties that eventually produced a planet with Life and once Life existed Evolution eventually led to thinking beings who looked around and said, "Nice job, God"?

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:42 PM (ZTPeW)

228 Blessed are the cheese makers

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:42 PM (S5YRY)

229 Holy shit, Gabe deigned to actually try defending himself.
"Sure, let's start with what unites us first:
1 – TAX REFORM -...domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians..."
Sorry dude, identity politics through the tax code. All in the progressive effort to create another protected class. And the thing about the GLB "community" is that eligibility for these tax incentives is based on a mere declaration. Sorry, this is fail.
"6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians."
So radical regimes who have no position on criminalization of homosexuality are cool. It's only the Global Extremists who want to gore your particular ox. This has fuckall to do with neo-conservatism. Weak weak weak.
"8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community."
What are the free market reforms? What sort of "support" are we talking here? This one is loaded with cool socio-economic buzzwords, but I bet the underlying philosophy is pretty Progressive. I'll see if you can expound upon this and show me how it's FiCon.
So in addition to the missing 4 and 7 (which you didn't feel necessary to address at all for some totally unknown reason), there's also 1 and 6 with maybe 8. That's 4 (possibly 5) platforms that aren't really very FiCon at all. Unless of course you want to explain how they are.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 12:42 PM (fLHQe)

230 What is the root objection to GOProud?


Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:34 PM (ZTPeW)

For me? The fact that they aren't conservative. Every other one of their priorites is specifically tied to benefits for gays and lesbians and using the government to get them. I don't care how much lip service you pay to conservatives ideals that isn't conservatism.

Posted by: Rocks at December 29, 2010 12:43 PM (Q1lie)

231 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at December 29, 2010 11:16 AM (LH6ir)

Yes, it's such an affair to argue...asking people to document their accusations. What was I thinking?

If "moi" had done what you did, I might have agreed with him/you but that's not what he accused groups like GOProud of....
It's about not wanting 5 year olds forced to sign LGBT pledges in crayon
by their kindergarten teacher. It's about not wanting gay sex taught
to children as part of a curriculum. Another issue is the push to remove
the ban on gays donating blood as if it were a civil rights issue.
These are all gay issues and don't suppose for a minute that gays who
call themselves conservative aren't for them.

None of those things are on the list you provided.

I guess addressing what people actually write is unfair or something.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 12:44 PM (HicGG)

232 Are you suggesting that the government should force people to marry? Or simply outlaw divorce?


Or maintain the flawed status quo? That's the fallacy of the false alternatives--more homo "reasoning," I guess.

Government should encourage marriage--e.g., by tax credits--and discourage divorce--e.g., by granting divorces only for cause.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 12:45 PM (mAm+G)

233 223 we are here, no further evidence is needed There is only one valid response to this:Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 12:39 PM (y05cf)


government does not exist to excerise executive power, it exists to protect our God given rights

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:46 PM (ehKDD)

234 If GOProud is a fake, let them in and make them expose themselves.

(I can't believe I wrote "expose themselves". That's going to leave a mark.)

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:47 PM (ZTPeW)

235 Government should encourage marriage--e.g., by tax credits--and discourage divorce--e.g., by granting divorces only for cause.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 12:45 PM (mAm+G)


Ah, so big government is good when we like it but bad when we don't?

I always hear from those opposed to SSM that marriage as an institution predates the state. Now it needs subsidization but the state?

I'm going to need a scorecard I guess.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 12:48 PM (HicGG)

236 There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that God has ever intervened in the affairs of man...

Posted by: brian at December 29, 2010 12:27 PM (y05cf)"

You are quite right. As a person of faith, I cannot "prove" that God has intervened in the affairs of man or that He even exists (for to do so would make my faith irrelevant) just as anybody else cannot "prove" His non-intervention or His non-existence (which would be, at best, "evidence of absence" arguments)

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 12:49 PM (02uN6)

237 "no further evidence is needed"

That is some scary shit right there.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:49 PM (ZTPeW)

238 I miss those...any chance we can have Christine O'Donnell weigh in on the issue to get this moving?

Posted by: CAC at December 29, 2010 12:28 PM (m37Ua)
I think you shouldn't have spent 32 minutes and a box of kleenex on the hot gingers link last night.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell replacing Ceiling Cat at December 29, 2010 12:51 PM (7BU4a)

239 #232
in 1830/40's Missouri there was a law that said that all eligible young men had to get married, look it up it's true. your state may actually make a law like that, it is constitutional.
why would they make such a law?
to impose their religous beliefs?
or maybe to build up the population of the area, to encourage settlement and growth?

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:51 PM (ehKDD)

240 You are quite right. As a person of faith, I cannot "prove" that God has intervened in the affairs of man or that He even exists (for to do so would make my faith irrelevant) just as anybody else cannot "prove" His non-intervention or His non-existence (which would be, at best, "evidence of absence" arguments)
Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2010 12:49 PM (02uN6)

I agree.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:51 PM (ZTPeW)

241 Here's what it should be:


1 – TAX REFORM - Eliminate ALL federal taxes and invoke a 15% flat tax on all incomes, no exceptions and no deductions.


2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Get government out of health care all together.


3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - Eliminate SS starting with those who are less than 40 years old now.


5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – To go with number 1, pass an amendment that forbids the government from spending more than the amount derived from the 15% flat tax except in the event of a declared war.


6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Kill them all no matter where they currently live.


8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Eliminate all federal regulations and number 1.


9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – Get the federal government out of the community and number 1 8.


10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Not needed at federal level.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 12:52 PM (M9Ie6)

242 Ah, so big government is good when we like it but bad when we don't?

How can it be otherwise? The very definition of Big Government is one that does more than we want. Imagining our own pure devotion to principle is self-flattery of the worst kind. Accepting your own biases and still hearing other's argument fairly is what we should strive for.

We like what we like.

YMMV


Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:52 PM (S5YRY)

243 government does not exist to excerise executive power, it exists to protect our God given rights

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:46 PM (ehKDD)
This is a pretty fundamental point that often gets overlooked.The real advantage of representative government is that over the long term it has proven to be a better safe guard of rights then the alternatives. But when any particular government stops protecting those rights, even if it is doing so with 52% of the electorate's support, it is illegitimate.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 12:54 PM (7BU4a)

244 I think you shouldn't have spent 32 minutes and a box of kleenex on the hot gingers link last night.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell replacing Ceiling Cat at December 29, 2010 12:51 PM (7BU4a)

There was not one big chested ginger amongst them. Close but no cigar.

Seriously, we need ONE MORE Christine O Donnell thread this year...

Posted by: CAC at December 29, 2010 12:54 PM (m37Ua)

245 in 1830/40's Missouri there was a law that said that all eligible young men had to get married, look it up it's true. your state may actually make a law like that, it is constitutional.

why would they make such a law?

to impose their religous beliefs?

or maybe to build up the population of the area, to encourage settlement and growth?

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 12:51 PM (ehKDD)

It's Constitutional to force people to enter into a legal contract?

How do you feel about the Individual Mandate in EbolaCare? When you purchase insurance you are forming a contract, you know.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:55 PM (ZTPeW)

246 I'd like to visit CPAC but if it's going to be overrun by teh gheys, forget it.

I'm inclined to change my mind if Mary Katharine shows up in lingerie however. I'm a reasonable man after all.

Posted by: The guy who goes to CPAC to pick up women at December 29, 2010 12:56 PM (7YKsD)

247 Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 12:42 PM (fLHQe)


You did pretty good.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform.
Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state
lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing
individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would
prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
Notice the emphasis here. Not only expanding domestic partner benefits but we should shift to individual health care ownership to prevent discrimination. The emphasis here is getting benefits for domestic partners, not health care reform. Indiviual ownership would be paid by the individual. Would employers still be allowed to pay higher wages to people who are married? No. Would heath insurance companies be allowed to charge higher premiums to gay/lesbian couples to factor in their increased health risks? I doubt it.

That isn't freedom, except for gays of course.

And I don't give a rat's ass if radical or non-radical regimes are criminalizing sexual acts and I sure as hell don't think it should be a priority of our foreign policy.

Posted by: Rocks at December 29, 2010 12:57 PM (Q1lie)

248 Accepting your own biases and still hearing other's argument fairly is what we should strive for.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 12:52 PM (S5YRY)


I agree entirely. Thing is, I don't think most people realize that. They tend to think that what they want isn't a simple preference but the right and natural order of things. When other people want in on it, they don't see a competing interest group, they see people attacking fundamental tenants of society.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 12:57 PM (HicGG)

249 Ah, so big government is good when we like it but bad when we don't?I
always hear from those opposed to SSM that marriage as an institution
predates the state. Now it needs subsidization but the state?I'm going to need a scorecard I guess.


I guess you do. Let me break it down for you, sport.

(1) I didn't say anything about "big" (i.e., federal) government. Most of this is a state issue.

(2) Unless you're some kind of libertarian nutjob, we'll always have government and government will always have legitimate functions. Setting the legal boundaries of family life has always been such a function.

(3) To the extent we have any income tax policy (as opposed to a flat tax or some kind of consumption tax), the tax law ought to encourage good social policy as opposed to bad social policy. I would have thought that rather elementary.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 12:57 PM (mAm+G)

250 Seriously, we need ONE MORE Christine O Donnell thread this year...
Posted by: CAC at December 29, 2010 12:54 PM (m37Ua)

I agree. I heard she and Mike Castle are hosting a new show on MSNBC.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:57 PM (ZTPeW)

251 We're boned.

Posted by: that guy that always thinks we're boned, sometimes inappropriately at December 29, 2010 12:57 PM (S5YRY)

252 Has any member of GOProud strangled a hobo?

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 01:00 PM (ZTPeW)

253 It's not very often I see social cons talking about fatherless children. In fact, it's not very often I see social cons talking about anything other than gay marriage and/or abortion.

Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at December 29, 2010 10:31 AM

Well, you must not be paying attention, since a big issue for social conservatives has always been abstinence education and saving sex for marriage. This has to do with wanting people to have children within the bounds of marriage, since it is ideal for society. So this is why social conservatives are always involved in the issue of sex education in schools.

The government position is to teach tweens and teens how to have sex, how to put on condoms and to pass out condoms. This inevitably leads to tweens and teens having sex and getting pregnant and becoming single teen mothers, not to mention it sometimes leads to spreading of STDs. The social conservative position has always been to save sex for marriage. The reasons behind that stance have been many: because unmarried parents don't always stay together and many children end up fatherless; because tweens/teens aren't emotionally ready to handle a sexual relationship; because sex is not just about love, but also about procreation and procreation is best within marriage; because promiscuous sex puts one at risk for contracting STDs; and then some believe that sex should be special and only reserved for husband and wife. And yes, part of the reason is that planned pregnancies lead to less people choosing to have abortions. But that is only one of many reasons for social conservatives.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2010 01:01 PM (NITzp)

254 They tend to think that what they want isn't a simple preference but the right and natural order of things.

Guilty as charged. I just try to remember that not everyone sees it that way.

The religious and non-religious are always talking past each other. To borrow and mutilate a quote: The non-religious think that the religious are seeing things that aren't there, while the religious don't understand how the non-religious can fail to see what stands plainly before us both.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 01:02 PM (S5YRY)

255 #245
I hate the Individual Mandate, I believe it's unconstitutional, the Federal government has no authority to do it, but the States do.
here's the difference, I can leave a state anytime i want and states can't print money.
"The powers of the Federal Government are few and well defined, the powers of the state are many and varied"
something like that was spoken by one of the Founders

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:06 PM (ehKDD)

256 I hate federal power, not state or local power

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:07 PM (ehKDD)

257 13 So the social authoritarians are leaving the field and some people think this is a BAD thing?The best thing that I can say about them is that they aren't as bad as the left, but that's like saying a burglar isn't as bad as an axe murderer. You still don't one lurking in your living room. It is the job of society to regulate the government, not the other way around. When a vocal minority starts looking to government to enshrine their own limited preferences into the law of the land, they are tyrants, and should be treated as such.Social change, if it comes at all, flows from the soap box, not the ballot box.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 29, 2010 08:47 AM (/gY4D)
I find Lee's first statement hilarious. He's attempting to use all this to blast social conservatives to me. But his statements fit in perfectly with the gay community. Vocal minority looking to the government to enshrine their preferences? Well who's been doing that? Gays trying to make gay marriage legal. And they don't even bother with the ballot box. They attempt to pull an end round on it by getting a liberal judge that is favorable to them to pass it via judicial fiat.

Posted by: buzzion at December 29, 2010 01:07 PM (oVQFe)

258 (2) Unless you're some kind of libertarian nutjob, we'll always have
government and government will always have legitimate functions.
Setting the legal boundaries of family life has always been such a
function.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 12:57 PM (mAm+G)


Not necessarily. I think government reflects to boundaries of families that society sets up and accepts. Those boundaries can be changed (through democratic methods).

I don't think government necessarily should be a weapon used by one group or another to enforce their will.

It seems that the family did pretty well before the government got involved in trying to 'help' it. I'd say get the government out of family life as much as possible and family life will improve tremendously.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 01:11 PM (HicGG)

259 Is the R party willing to crap on the opinions and preferences of a large group (Christians)to placate a group that has the loyalty of Andrew Sullivan combined with rock ribbed conservatism of David Frum?If the answer is yes, you are dumber than a Huckabee fanatic.

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 01:11 PM (Urhve)

260 It's not very often I see social cons talking about fatherless children. In fact, it's not very often I see social cons talking about anything other than gay marriage and/or abortion.
Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at December 29, 2010 10:31 AM (BZ2Bm)
That's likely because its the only time they get any coverage. Showing them talking about gay marriage and abortion lets the media peg them as bigots and haters of women.

Posted by: buzzion at December 29, 2010 01:12 PM (oVQFe)

261 I hate the Individual Mandate, I believe it's unconstitutional, the Federal government has no authority to do it, but the States do.

here's the difference, I can leave a state anytime i want and states can't print money.

"The powers of the Federal Government are few and well defined, the powers of the state are many and varied"

something like that was spoken by one of the Founders

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:06 PM (ehKDD)

So a State, NY for example, can force you to buy health insurance simply because you are alive? And the remedy is to move to another State?

What will you do when all 57 States have the same law as NY?

No Government should have the power to force an individual into a contract such as this. Period.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 01:14 PM (ZTPeW)

262 Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 01:02 PM (S5YRY)

It's simple human nature (which as conservatives we should all be able to agree is rather resistant to change and improvement)

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 01:15 PM (HicGG)

263 Do any GOProud members visit this site?

If so, perhaps you could discuss your organization.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 01:17 PM (ZTPeW)

264 The difference being, fiscal cons aren't going to kick social cons out of the party for their stance on 3 & 4, whereas social cons are ready to do the reverse.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 11:02 AM

That's not how I remember the last 4 years. After the Democrat win in 2006, there was plenty of talk by fiscal cons leading up to 2008 and 2010 that social conservatives need to bag their issues of the LGBT agenda and abortion and just stick to focusing on fiscal issues. They may not have been asked to leave the Party, but they were told to shut up about the issues most important to them. And I recall plenty of fiscal cons saying they didn't need social cons leading up to the 2008 and 2010 elections.

I don't know of any social cons who are also fiscal liberals. Huckabee is always mentioned, but he is not really a social conservative. He is Christian and anti-abortion and against redefining marriage, but that's it. That doesn't a social conservative make. Social conservatism is also about what many have mentioned above: not rewarding bad behavior or punishing good behavior. Huckabee's big government, redistributionist policies are socially liberal. Welfare, unending umeployment, pardoning criminals, etc... those are not socially conservative positions.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2010 01:20 PM (NITzp)

265 Libertarianism is the political philosophy of teenagers seeking cheap certainties. This also throws some light on their whinges....'Dad, why can't I drive the car?'
"Um, because its mine, and you're thirteen years old?"
And that throws some light on the structure of power in the GOP.

"Well, ok, but I hate your driving. I guess that means Uncle Billy has to drive."
Uncle Bill, the RINO, has three DUI's, and a tendency to get lost in a town with five thousand people.
"Ummmm."
"Uncle Billy, Uncle Billy, Uncle Billy!"
"I'm a good driver. Been doing it for longer than you have." Bill says.
"Sigh, Bill here's the keys. Try not to take us over the cliff again like you did in 06 and 08."
"This stinks. I just got out of my last full body cast from Uncle Billy driving."

Enough with that nonsense. Time to tell the Libertarians to support the Socons in taking down the RINOs or to get out of the way (and yes, I'm fine if the Libertarians go off and join their own party.) Otherwise, the Socons are going to have to take down the Libertarians to have a chance to get at the Main Enemy, the RINOs.

Posted by: Tennwriter at December 29, 2010 01:21 PM (r07cg)

266 So a State, NY for example, can force you to buy health insurance simply because you are alive? And the remedy is to move to another State? What will you do when all 57 States have the same law as NY? No Government should have the power to force an individual into a contract such as this. Period.
Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 01:14 PM (ZTPeW)


you assume that all 57 states would adopt unsustainable policies, I assume they wouldn't if left to their own devices. and yes moving, picking up stakes and just going somewhere else has always been an american trait, well at least it used to be before we all had to be told when to stay home from football games.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:22 PM (ehKDD)

267 I assume they wouldn't if left to their own devices

Like Colorado in Atlas Shrugged. Until the Hammer of Compassion and Fairness smites them.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 01:25 PM (S5YRY)

268 Do any GOProud members visit this site? If so, perhaps you could discuss your organization.
I am not a GOProud contributor, but I'm on the mailing list and I've gone totheir events. But nobody believesme when I say they're not a secret liberal organization created to undermine the GOP. If you'd ever met the GOProud board members --Chris Barron, Jimmy LaSalvia, Tammy Bruce --you'd never be able to say that with a straight face. Theyhosted Ann Coulter at their party, for cryin' out loud.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:26 PM (NfIvb)

269 235
Government should encourage marriage--e.g., by tax credits--and discourage divorce--e.g., by granting divorces only for cause.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 12:45 PM (mAm+G)


Ah, so big government is good when we like it but bad when we don't?

I
always hear from those opposed to SSM that marriage as an institution
predates the state. Now it needs subsidization but the state?

I'm going to need a scorecard I guess.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 12:48 PM (HicGG)

Government should not interfere with natural practices that are in the best interest of society. Especially not to the extent of requiring other people to pay for their foolish intervention.
If Welfare was not so readily available, and teenage girls had the opportunity to see the results of not getting a ring on that finger before getting pregnant, it would improve societies problems dramatically.
This is too simply of a concept that it should need be explained to anyone, let alone you Drew. In spite of our occasional disagreements, I perceive you as being quite intelligent.Go over to Doug Ross and look at his charts today. There is one there that asserts that Marriage drops the probability of child poverty by 82 percent.
How can that be a bad thing?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:27 PM (/G5LI)

270 Oh, Bruce Carrol aka the blogger GayPatriot is also involved. We went to see freakin' Cheney himself when he was in L.A. And Barron ispratically a one man"Elect Cheney '12" campaign.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:27 PM (NfIvb)

271 yep, that Hammer of Compassion and Fairness is a bitch on wheels, an unrelenting, shrieking harpy of a bitch i'd say.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:28 PM (ehKDD)

272 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:26 PM (NfIvb)
Yeah, nevermind their highly questionable (at best)policy positions, they're just a swell bunch of folks by golly!

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 01:31 PM (fLHQe)

273 268
Do any GOProud members visit this site? If so, perhaps you could discuss your organization.
I am not a GOProud contributor, but I'm on the mailing list and I've gone totheir events. But nobody believesme when I say they're not a secret liberal organization created to undermine the GOP. If you'd ever met the GOProud board members --Chris Barron, Jimmy LaSalvia, Tammy Bruce --you'd never be able to say that with a straight face. Theyhosted Ann Coulter at their party, for cryin' out loud.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:26 PM (NfIvb)

i'm sure they all believe they are doing the right thing, but what they are really doing is attempting to forcefullyimpose "social justice" on a group that is deadset against it.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:32 PM (ehKDD)

274 Government should not interfere with natural practices that are in the
best interest of society. Especially not to the extent of requiring
other people to pay for their foolish intervention.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:27 PM (/G5LI)

I agree with that. I think I got called a silly libertarian for my troubles.

I think government involvement in family matters should be kept to an absolute minimum simply because I think even 'good' involvement by government will eventually harm the family.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 01:32 PM (HicGG)

275 7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

Yeah, they can mostly fuck off, too. This is 50% conservative. Mostly it's just pushing the same gay agenda items that leftist gay groups push.

Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:21 AM

Yeah, this right here is ridiculous. How is opposing an amendment to the US Constitution "defending our Constitution"? (And, "OUR Constitution"? I didn't know the US Constitution belonged to the LGBTs)

And a federal marriage amendment is not "anti-gay". Marriage is what it is. It would actually be more appropriate to say that the LGBT agenda regarding marriage is "anti-marriage". Since the LGBTs want to completely redefine what is marriage.

So yeah, if GOProud can't even be honest about this, then it follows that people should be suspicious about the rest of their agenda.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2010 01:33 PM (NITzp)

276 When legitimate criticism of policy positions arises, it's always effective to just appeal to personal likability.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 01:34 PM (fLHQe)

277 It seems that the family did pretty well before the
government got involved in trying to 'help' it. I'd say get the
government out of family life as much as possible and family life will
improve tremendously.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 01:11 PM (HicGG)

Same thing i'm saying, more or less. Restrict government to it's proper role as outlined by the founders, and let society take care of itself.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:35 PM (/G5LI)

278 I think government involvement in family matters
should be kept to an absolute minimum simply because I think even 'good'
involvement by government will eventually harm the family.Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 01:32 PM (HicGG)

See African American families circa 1960 - present.

Posted by: Tami at December 29, 2010 01:39 PM (VuLos)

279 259
Is the R party willing to crap on the opinions and preferences of a
large group (Christians)to placate a group that has the loyalty of
Andrew Sullivan combined with rock ribbed conservatism of David
Frum?If the answer is yes, you are dumber than a Huckabee fanatic.

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 01:11 PM (Urhve)

I'm not sure people realize that the Group offended is much larger than any of the other groups at CPAC (in terms of votes) but they don't bother to go to all these different political events. The Overtly Socially conservative groups actually represent the opinions of a large segment of the voting bloc which DOES NOT attend functions like this.
Meaning, (to put it another way) PAC convention attenders are over represented by Libertarian minded people, while the electorate is not.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:39 PM (/G5LI)

280 reason is a good and useful tool when i'm dealing with an engine or a computer.

reason is practically useless when dealing with human beings.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 11:43 AM

Exactly. What's the saying... "You can't reason someone out of something that they did not first reason themselves into".

All we have to do is go back to the 2008 Presidential campaign. Reason was useless when talking to Obama supporters. Their support was based solely on emotion.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2010 01:41 PM (NITzp)

281 And here we see one of the essential schisms of the conservative movement -- those who are for big government imposing values v. those for little government permitting liberty.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at December 29, 2010 01:41 PM (19lFx)

282 No Government should have the power to force an individual into a contract such as this. Period.

Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 01:14 PM (ZTPeW)

I agree. I likewise think that No State government should be able to do it either. Compulsion is no substitute for acquiescence in the affairs of man.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:41 PM (/G5LI)

283 I don't really see GOProud as bad but rather as opportunists. No one thinks gay issues will ever be a priority for the GOP but some votes can be peeled off.
It was founded by a couple guys who worked for the Log Cabin Republicans.
The Log Cabin Rs have pretty much screwed thew pooch at this point. No one sees them as anything but liberals. But there is a significant, and extremely influential, minority within the GOP who really want to get beyond gay issues at any cost and have some money to throw at people who could provide cover for that while still appearing conservative. So GOProud is born.

Their chief, and sole, accomplishments to date have been to attend CPAC and hold a dinner party in Manhattan for about 180 people. How this warrants any press coverage at all I have no clue, never mind appearnces on cable news shows.

Posted by: Rocks at December 29, 2010 01:45 PM (Q1lie)

284 I am not a GOProud contributor, but I'm on the
mailing list and I've gone totheir events. But nobody believesme when I
say they're not a secret liberal organization created to undermine the
GOP. If you'd ever met the GOProud board members --Chris Barron, Jimmy
LaSalvia, Tammy Bruce --you'd never be able to say that with a straight
face. Theyhosted Ann Coulter at their party, for cryin' out loud.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:26 PM (NfIvb)

Then why do they insist on identifying themselves as a hyphenated Republican. You know, like "African-American", or "Asian-American" ? Why must they insist on being identified as "Gay-Republican"? One aspect of conservative thought is that people should be acknowledge as people first, and whatever their hyphenation is, shouldn't even enter the conversation.
I Ignore race and gender when I am communicating with a person. I regard it as an attribute such as red hair, or tall. Why must we pay note on people who insist on putting their explicit differences front and center? This is contrary to conservative thinking in my opinion.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:48 PM (/G5LI)

285 Oh my. CAC may get his wish...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:49 PM (NfIvb)

286 " The Overtly Socially conservative groups actually represent the opinions of a large segment of the voting bloc which DOES NOT attend functions like this. "

exactly!
CPAC started out as a meeting of conservatives, a conference by conservatives for conservatives, but as soon as it started to make a name for itself, the vultures started moving in, picking it apart and turning it into anything but a conference on conservatism.
GoProud is a distraction, and the people running GOProud play right into the hands of the progressives.
how do you get people to destroy something they love?
"I had to destroy the freemarket, to save it" G.W. Bush

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 01:51 PM (ehKDD)

287 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:49 PM (NfIvb)

My understanding is that that issue has been investigated once already. Keep in mind which group is doing the "investigating" now.

Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 01:53 PM (M9Ie6)

288 That makes sense. They are willing to stick it to actual voters to have what they consider to be better after convention cocktail party banter. I am sorry but the Manhole in Chicago's Boystown is not going to ever be a stronghold for Republicans any more than the neighborhood will be on any top ten list of military recruitment.

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 01:53 PM (Urhve)

289 I agree with that. I think I got called a silly libertarian for my troubles.

I
think government involvement in family matters should be kept to an
absolute minimum simply because I think even 'good' involvement by
government will eventually harm the family.




Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 01:32 PM (HicGG)

The Federal Government ought to concern itself exclusively with Federal matters. You know, defense of the nation, regulation of interstate commerce... enumerated stuff. For the most part, the Federal Government has no place in dealing with individual citizens directly. (at least in policy terms.)

Beyond that it should leave the common law practices of societies to the states. And even THEY shouldn't be allowed to do anything they want. I have long believed that it is wrong for the States to impose a mandatory insurance (automobile insurance) requirement on anyone for any reason, especially as it constitutes a prior restraint for an offense not yet committed.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 01:54 PM (/G5LI)

290 Then why do they insist on identifying themselves as a hyphenated Republican. You know, like "African-American", or "Asian-American" ? Why must they insist on being identified as "Gay-Republican"? One aspect of conservative thought is that people should be acknowledge as people first, and whatever their hyphenation is, shouldn't even enter the conversation.
Indeed, I get so frustrated when folks identify themselves as Christian conservatives... Don't they know that an aspect of conservative thought is that people should be acknowledged as people first?
Diogenes, the point is to tell gays that conservative principles are good for everyone, including them. Nobody else is making that argument and, in fact, many on the Left and the (social con) Right think that gays should be single-issue, reliably leftist voters. That's crap and GOProud is demonstrating that.
I don't go around identifying myself as a gay Republican. In fact, I don't go around identifying myself as a gay person to freakin' everyone, either. I'm not a hyphenated person. I'm just a person and I want other people, includinggays like me, to adopt conservative principles like support for free markets, low taxes, entitlement reform, school choice, and gun rights.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:55 PM (NfIvb)

291 281
And here we see one of the essential schisms of the conservative
movement -- those who are for big government imposing values v. those
for little government permitting liberty.


Posted by: Rhymes With Right at December 29, 2010 01:41 PM (19lFx)

Much of this sentiment is confusing because people are always mixing up the roles of the Federal government with the roles of the state government. For Example. Roe v. Wade.
Abortion was illegal in Texas, but legal in other states. It was a state issue, not a Federal issue. According to the way our country was founded, it still is. The Federal Government has no legitimate business getting involved in this issue one way or the other. It should be up to the individual states to decide what laws they want regarding this issue.
One more thing. Values are going to be imposed. The Question is never "IF", but is instead "Whose?"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 02:01 PM (/G5LI)

292 282 No Government should have the power to force an individual into a contract such as this. Period.
Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 01:14 PM (ZTPeW)

I agree. I likewise think that No State government should be able to do it either. Compulsion is no substitute for acquiescence in the affairs of man.


Look at Mass. their healthcare monstrosity will collapse as soon as the Federal government stops feeding it, like it or not the Constitution does give the states this power, buta states power is limited by it's resources, both fiscal and human, when it runs out of money it's done, if people don't likewhat the state is doing they move away and go somewhere more to their liking (Cali. vs Tex.)
i'm not saying that i like states having that much power, but it's easier to change a states behavior than the National governments behavior.

Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 02:06 PM (ehKDD)

293 Posted by: Warden at December 29, 2010 11:07 AM (V6HDd)
Thanks for providing examples, something this thread more or less lacked. I agree that these items should be no business of federal government, and preferably not state either.

Posted by: Randy at December 29, 2010 02:10 PM (D0PNd)

294 Indeed, I get so frustrated when folks identify
themselves as Christian conservatives... Don't they know that an aspect
of conservative thought is that people should be acknowledged as people
first?


You have a point, except for one possible distinction. Christianity is also a philosophy. It is a set of beliefs that otherwise identify the person within the spectrum of ideas. It's like saying I follow the Philosophy of Burke, or Locke, as opposed to the philosophy of Nietzsche or Engels.





Diogenes, the point is to tell gays that conservative principles are
good for everyone, including them. Nobody else is making that argument
and, in fact, many on the Left and the (social con) Right think that
gays should be single-issue, reliably leftist voters. That's crap and
GOProud is demonstrating that.
I don't go around identifying myself as a gay Republican. In fact, I
don't go around identifying myself as a gay person to freakin' everyone,
either. I'm not a hyphenated person. I'm just a person and I want other
people, includinggays like me, to adopt conservative principles like
support for free markets, low taxes, entitlement reform, school choice,
and gun rights.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 01:55 PM (NfIvb)
Great! Love it! But regarding sexual practices, people don't want to know. Some people practice anal sex, some people practice oral sex, some people ONLY practice procreational sex. This last group of people were taught that anything else is wrong. Why must we insist on trying to overturn their beliefs by forcing them to acknowledge practices they find abhorrent? It would be like telling Muslims or Jews "watch me eat pork!" It is a form of taunting. A lot of people feel that is what is actually driving this particular movement; A Desire to taunt, as opposed to advancing a specific agenda.Having a less controversial name would probably have helped a lot. Probably would have defused the whole situation.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 02:19 PM (/G5LI)

295 Damn it! The Formatting doesn't always work right. I italicized your comments, but it didn't take for some reason.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 02:20 PM (/G5LI)

296 i'm not saying that i like states
having that much power, but it's easier to change a states behavior than
the National governments behavior.


Posted by: Shoey at December 29, 2010 02:06 PM (ehKDD)

And just as important, State Legislators are much closer to and much more answerable to the residents of their district. There is a better feedback system the closer a government is to a citizen.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 02:23 PM (/G5LI)

297 191 You realize it was a group of Christians, in fact "radical fundies" by today's standards that gave us our Republic, right? Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2010 11:40 AM (7BU4a) The Father of our Republic is the Enlightenment, not Christ.
Posted by: eman at December 29, 2010 12:01 PM (ZTPeW)
Aren't you thinking of the French Revolution?

Posted by: Randy at December 29, 2010 02:32 PM (D0PNd)

298 I'm sick of so-called conservatives bashing the religious right (who are the only reason conservatives have ANY political power). It's downright nauseating to constantly read you liberal-tarians demanding Christians STFU about their beliefs. "You can't tell me how to live" as you tell others how to live....

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 02:33 PM (cSlKk)

299 Nobody else is making that argument and, in fact, many on the Left and the (social con) Right think that gays should be single-issue, reliably leftist voters. That's crap and GOProud is demonstrating that.
LOL- They're a group called GOProud (proud of praticinghomosexuality) and you're pretending their sexual perversion isn't the defining feature of the group? That's absurd.
The difference between Left and Right isn't mere fiscal policy. Few if any politicians in the Republican party are trying to roll back the welfare state. What part of F.D.R.'s welfare state did Republicans roll bacl all these years?
It wouldn't be hard for Democrats to match Republican fiscal policy. such as it is,if they shed the extreme Left.(and reality is going to force them to do just that)

Posted by: Speller at December 29, 2010 02:34 PM (J74Py)

300 But, Peter, they would rather be backstabbed by this tiny group than consort with those kinds of voters. Scratch a goprouder and you'll find an Andrew Sullivan just waiting to come out of the closet.

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 02:35 PM (Urhve)

301 But regarding sexual practices, people don't want to know. Some people practice anal sex, some people practice oral sex, some people ONLY practice procreational sex. This last group of people were taught that anything else is wrong. Why must we insist on trying to overturn their beliefs by forcing them to acknowledge practices they find abhorrent?
Hey, if people want to only practice procreational sex, good for them, it's no skin off my back. And no one is trying to "overturn" their belief in good, old fashioned sex.
But you're suggesting that they should get to live in a world where they won't even have to "acknowledge" that other sexual practices exist. And that's ridiculous. Obviously other sexual practices exist, including the use of contraceptives, oral and anal and uncountable variations of the deed. You just admitted it.
Now you want us all to pretend that we're also only practicing procreational sex? And that somehow if we don't pretend this giant lie, which even you acknowledge is a lie, it's "overturning" their beliefs? That's insane. Do you see how twisted that is?
As I said, they are welcome to their sexual practice and belief. I have rather strong beliefs about monogamy, myself. But that doesn't mean that when I hear about people sleeping around it is "overturning my beliefs" because I've been forced to "acknowledge" that people do, in fact, sleep around.That's horseshit.
They don't get to impose their worldview on the rest of us. If they want to pretend that the only sex taking place is procreational...well, they're just plain insane. The world does not comport with their worldview. They can either adapt and recognize that other people do not share their beliefs or they can stick their heads in the sand and keep pretending.
And note very clearly: I'm not saying that they have to abandone their belief in only having procreational sex. I'm not saying they should be marginalized for their belief in only havingprocreational sex. I'm saying that it is insane of them to expect the world at large, which clearly does not share their beliefs, to behave as if it does. That's twisted. That's them trying to impose their beliefs on the world.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 02:37 PM (NfIvb)

302 It
seems that the family did pretty well before the government got
involved in trying to 'help' it. I'd say get the government out of
family life as much as possible and family life will improve
tremendously.



Who said anything about the government getting "involved" in family life? I said, setting "boundaries," like: one man, one woman; free to marry (i.e., not already married); consenting; of appropriate age; not related by blood or marriage within prohibited degrees; not for an improper purpose (like fraud); etc.

These natural and common-law aspects of marriage are what's under assault by homosexuals, polygamists, sexual liberationists, and immigration fraudsters.

No one here is arguing that the government hasn't made a hash of family policy for the last 50 years: contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, values-free sex ed, welfarism, and now SSM.

I'm arguing that the government is necessary to enforce certain basic natural and common-law norms.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 02:38 PM (mAm+G)

303 Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 02:33 PM (cSlKk)

Don't confuse pushing back and arguing with Social-cons as telling them to STFU. Unless they are somehow a privileged class against whom no argument may be made.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 02:38 PM (HicGG)

304 Gabe said: "I'm saying that it is insane of them to expect the world at large, which clearly does not share their beliefs, to behave as if it does."
Funny,you don't say that aboutgays,who are what, 5% of the population? Why the hell don't YOU have to recognize that it's twisted trying to impose your viewin the face of numbers?

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 02:41 PM (cSlKk)

305 I'm arguing that the government is necessary to enforce certain basic natural and common-law norms.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 02:38 PM (mAm+G)


If these norms are so basic and self-evident, why do you need the power of government to enforce them?

It seems social pressures should be enough to enforce them. In fact, they were until government got involved (albeit on the wrong side).

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 02:41 PM (HicGG)

306 DrewM said: "Don't confuse pushing back and arguing with Social-cons as telling them to STFU."
And yet look at the top of this thread. Take this for instance:
---
13 So the social authoritarians are leaving the field and some people think this is a BAD thing?The best thing that I can say about them is that they aren't as bad as the left, but that's like saying a burglar isn't as bad as an axe murderer. You still don't one lurking in your living room.
---
Tell me that's not a STFU, comparing a religious person to a fucking burglar.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 02:43 PM (cSlKk)

307 I'm saying that it is insane of them to expect the world at large,
which clearly does not share their beliefs, to behave as if it does.
That's twisted. That's them trying to impose their beliefs on the world.
Have I missed the Crusade to impose Procreational-Only Sex under penalty of law? I haven't noticed a big push for an anti-sodomy amendment since Lawrence-vs.

Maybe I should get out more.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 02:46 PM (S5YRY)

308 Tell me that's not a STFU, comparing a religious person to a fucking burglar.
Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 02:43 PM (cSlKk)


It's not a STFU, it's an unflattering analogy. People use them all the time against others they disagree with.

Again, do social-cons get some sort of dispensation from the normal give and take of political argument?

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 02:46 PM (HicGG)

309 It seems social pressures should be enough to enforce them. In fact,
they were until government got involved (albeit on the wrong side).
A man after my own heart. The country took a turn for the worse when we began to look with disfavor on the old country ass-whooping.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 02:48 PM (S5YRY)

310 Hey, if people want to only practice procreational sex, good for them, it's no skin off my back. And no one is trying to "overturn" their belief in good, old fashioned sex.
I didn't care that homo sex perverts existed(it is a deadend lifestyle when not state subsidized and protected)until they declared war by profaning the institution of marriage. It was only done to grind the faces of people who held marriage as sacred. I didn't care that Muslims had their twisted ways either, until they attacked us.
It's the attacks on our security and way of life that brings the fight.
As for being proud of being a homosexual, what is it they're so proud of anyway, their quilt making?

Posted by: Speller at December 29, 2010 02:48 PM (J74Py)

311 Now you want us all to pretend that we're also only practicing
procreational sex? And that somehow if we don't pretend this giant lie,
which even you acknowledge is a lie, it's "overturning" their beliefs?
That's insane. Do you see how twisted that is?



Not at all. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Vice gets its play, but it doesn't get to call every tune.

It's typical libertarianism not to see that there is a moral economy beneath every society--with moral externalities and a moral Gresham's law. Bad moral decisions, with their attendant costs, have a disproportionate effect on social health, and vice tends to drive out virtue. Our system was set up with the understanding that, as Madison noted, men are not angels, but it also presupposes, as Washington noted, the moral self-mastery of our people.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 02:48 PM (mAm+G)

312 But you're suggesting that they should get to
live in a world where they won't even have to "acknowledge" that other
sexual practices exist. And that's ridiculous. Obviously other sexual
practices exist, including the use of contraceptives, oral and anal and
uncountable variations of the deed. You just admitted it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 02:37 PM (NfIvb)

I'm suggesting that the topic does not need to be brought up. People want the SoCons to shut up or declare a truce long enough to get some fiscal restraints imposed. It's basically the same idea.
I've had many black friends over the years. We don't talk about race. On the occasion the subject gets brought up, it is just uncomfortable. We still managed to be friends and we got lots of stuff accomplished together. Why? Because we didn't let Race and past Race Relations get in the way of our friendship and productivity.
I am not saying people don't have a right to talk about this or that because it makes people uncomfortable, i'm saying that it is an impediment to progress.It's not that they can't, it's that they shouldn't.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 02:50 PM (/G5LI)

313 Again with the formatting!

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 02:51 PM (/G5LI)

314 Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 02:48 PM (S5YRY)

Instead of marginalizing freaks and anti-social behavior we celebrate it. No amount of government intervention can save a society from that sort of choice.

You want to save society? Bring back shame and hypocrisy.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 02:52 PM (HicGG)

315 I'm still waiting for Gabe to tell us where he got forced marriage and outlawing divorce from an observations that producing children for welfare payments was a bad thing.

And for Gabe to honestly address the GOPProud platform points that he obviously chose to skip over (no pun intended).

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 02:53 PM (1O93r)

316 If these norms are so basic and self-evident, why do you need the power of government to enforce them?It
seems social pressures should be enough to enforce them. In fact, they
were until government got involved (albeit on the wrong side).



Come, come now. You're basically arguing here for some kind of anarcho-libertarianism. The prohibition against murder and the enforcement of contracts are both fundamental norms of the natural and common laws, but in those cases, you don't argue that government has no role in enforcing them--or do you?

Conservatism doesn't mean no government. It means: the right government, which is generally limited and adheres to the principle of subsidiarity.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 02:56 PM (mAm+G)

317 Have I missed the Crusade to impose Procreational-Only Sex under penalty of law? I haven't noticed a big push for an anti-sodomy amendment since Lawrence-vs.Toby, read Diogenes' comment. He said that merely having to "acknowledge" that gays exist is "overturning their belief" in procreational sex. That's insane.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 02:57 PM (NfIvb)

318 Peter writes:
Gabe said: "I'm saying that it is insane of them to expect the world at large, which clearly does not share their beliefs, to behave as if it does."
Funny,you don't say that aboutgays,who are what, 5% of the population? Why the hell don't YOU have to recognize that it's twisted trying to impose your viewin the face of numbers?
What in tarnation are you talking about? When have I (or gays or straight people who do not practice only procreational sex) ever tried to force the world to believe that only gay sex or non-procreational sex exists? You're just talking crazy, man.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 02:59 PM (NfIvb)

319 Instead of marginalizing freaks and anti-social
behavior we celebrate it. No amount of government intervention can save a
society from that sort of choice.

You want to save society? Bring back shame and hypocrisy.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 02:52 PM (HicGG)

Amen! That's what I mean by letting society take care of the problem, once you can get the government to stop interfering.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 03:01 PM (/G5LI)

320 Instead of marginalizing freaks and anti-social
behavior we celebrate it. No amount of government intervention can save a
society from that sort of choice.

You want to save society? Bring back shame and hypocrisy.


Posted by: DrewM

You said before that is was preferable that "society enforce these things, not government". Now you're using the words "shame and hypocrisy". Cute trick to include the word hypocrisy, but yes, shame is a negative norm that societies have used to discourage behaviors.
In the interest of seeing things clearly, perhaps you could inform us of what you meant by " social pressures should be enough to enforce them." What constitutes social pressures that you won't then condemn?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 03:01 PM (1O93r)

321
4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.


Try addressing these Gabe.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 03:02 PM (1O93r)

322 This thread is gay.

Posted by: catmman at December 29, 2010 03:03 PM (DTzwU)

323 Toby, read Diogenes' comment. He said that
merely having to "acknowledge" that gays exist is "overturning their
belief" in procreational sex. That's insane.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 02:57 PM (NfIvb)

My point was more nuanced than that. As an analogy, it's like talking about Armenian Genocide when we are trying to fix a broken transmission. It is made even less useful when some of the people helping us happen to be Turkish.In other words, Why bring that up?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 29, 2010 03:07 PM (/G5LI)

324 Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 29, 2010 02:56 PM (mAm+G)

Maybe I'm miss-reading you or reading more into what you're saying but I don't think culture is a static thing. It evolves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

I don't have a problem with society evolving but what I do have a problem is government being used as a tool by one side or the other. Eventually government will reflect whatever changes society makes but it shouldn't be a player or a weapon for either side (I get that it inevitably will be but that's a different point).

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 03:09 PM (HicGG)

325 Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2010 03:01 PM (1O93r)

Watch your average 'reality' show on MTV or the like...people who live abnormal, anti-social lives are celebrated rather than shunned. Now that's different than me saying, "I don't approve of the things these idiots are doing, so the government should come in and regulate these shows. For the children."

As for hypocrisy my point is simply if the criteria is if you ever done something wrong, you may never speak out against that thing, you're simply removing any chance for people to learn from the mistakes of others.

You see this with a lot of parents. People will say, "don't be a hypocrite. You can't tell your kids not to do drugs because you did them when you were young."

That's idiotic.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 03:13 PM (HicGG)

326 Gabe asked: "What in tarnation are you talking about?"
You act as if Christians have never heard about sin. As if we were unaware of sodomy. As if Sodom wasn't in the Bible in the first place. So you frame this as if we're stupid. Thanks, but that's problem 1.
Problem 2: you keep asserting that the best way to move forward to to attack the religious beliefs of the very people who give the GOP its power, for the sake of a minority of a minority--a *conservative* homosexual group.
I don't care who you sleep with, Gabe. That's not why I object to homosexual behavior. You pretend it's because I want to be in everyone's bedroom, but I don't. I have the right to point out that when evil actions are performed, culture as a whole suffers for it. You have the right to disagree with me that homosexuality is evil, but you don't have the right to pretend that my view is based on fear of what you do in bed, or that my view is saying only monogomous heterosexual relations exist. Saying they SHOULD be the only ones that exist isn't saying they ARE the only ones that exist.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 03:19 PM (cSlKk)

327 You see this with a lot of parents. People will say, "don't be a
hypocrite. You can't tell your kids not to do drugs because you did them
when you were young."

Word. Perhaps I have lived in a transitional age but when did conservatives stop being 4-square for hypocrisy? Did we have a convention where we decided that saying Sure, go fuck up like I did was morally superior to Do as I say, not as I do?

Posted by: toby928™ at December 29, 2010 03:23 PM (S5YRY)

328 this is hilarious. so-called "conservatives" here want a bunch of faggots, who want to stick their dicks into poop-crusted butt-holes, into CPAC. gotta love it. i don't care how fiscally responsible you are, if you alienate social cons, then you will never win an election.

CPAC is PC...hilarious.

Posted by: Greg at December 29, 2010 03:24 PM (527MO)

329 Libertarians should be pro-life and pro-marriage. The one cause 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'...Libertarians ought to make Operation Rescue seem calm and mellow on this issue. And on marriage, a contract is a contract for a Libertarian, right? SSM is a problem, but no-fault divorce is worse. Problem is, socons are too used to reacting, and not attacking. Time to do as Reagan did, and break the Leftward Rachet of History (He did it internationally more, but we need to do it here, more.).............................Silly Libertarian, isn't that likeThoughtful Socon, or Spendcrazy Liberal, a redundancy?........................Concerning bad and unflattering analogies and telling people to STFU, I think Libertarians are like some horrible disease in the blood supply that needs to be purified. Now, one might think I was being all harsh and stuff, and basically desiring the Libertarains to shut their traps forever, but as was explained to Peter, just cause you compare a socon to a burglar doesn't really mean anything.................The problem here, Libertarians is that Socons tend to take what you say seriously. You're half-joking all the time. And you think they should know better. But when you say 'Socons are the direst threat to the future and humanity, and little baby seals' well, we tend to take that seriously. In fact, we start to wonder why we let you sleep in the shed back of the house, if you take my meaning......

Posted by: Tennwriter at December 29, 2010 03:28 PM (r07cg)

330 Problem 2: you keep asserting that the best way to move forward to to attack the religious beliefs of the very people who give the GOP its power, for the sake of a minority of a minority--a *conservative* homosexual group.
And I repeat: what in tarnation are you talking about? When did I ever say the best way to move forward is to attack people's religious beliefs?
I'm fine with their religious beliefs. I'm not the one trying to kick them out of CPAC. They're the ones trying to kick me out of CPAC. This is what I meant by "twisted" up above. Somehow, in your head, the gays are trying to run these Christian groups out of the conservative movement. In fact, it's the other way around.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2010 03:49 PM (NfIvb)

331 Gabe said: "When did I ever say the best way to move forward is to attack people's religious beliefs?"
It's not what you said, it's what you're doing. When pro-homosexual groups are in CPAC, they will promote a pro-homosexual agenda. That's what they're there for. You can't pretend otherwise. But when religious people object to the promotion of immoral behavior within our own committees, we're said to be driving you out of the conservative movement.
When a religious person objects to gay people being in CPAC because of the immoral behavior presented, suddenly we're violating the Big Tent principal. It's never the gay person who would be perfectly accepted if he wasn't trying to promote a pro-gay agenda who's to blame--always the religious majority who's at fault.
So we get treated to posts scorning us for boycotting that which violates morality, mocking us because only the liberals are trumpeting the boycot, etc.
But that's not an attack on anyone's religious beleifs, because you said so.
Actions <---> Words.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 04:12 PM (cSlKk)

332 This thread is gay.

Don't you take that tone of voice with me, mister.

Posted by: Ambiguously Gay Richard Simmons at December 29, 2010 04:15 PM (GxPL5)

333 But when religious people object to the promotion of immoral behavior
within our own committees, we're said to be driving you out of the
conservative movement.
Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 04:12 PM (cSlKk)


Here's the thing...Neither CPAC nor the conservative movement as a whole is your "own community". It's a lot of different groups, that's why it's a movement, not an organization. You may not like all of the players but social-cons don't get a veto over who else gets to be part of the conservative movement.

I doubt GOProud shows up at the Values Voter Summit. That's FRC right to not include them but that doesn't mean FRC gets to determine who gets to show up to CPAC.

If they don't want to show up at CPAC, that's also their right. Personally, I'd have a lot more respect for CWA and FRC folks if they showed up and debated the issue instead of either claiming the right to exclude people from the movement or run away as if they are going to be tainted by simply being in the same room with gays.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 04:25 PM (HicGG)

334 Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 04:12 PM (cSlKk)

The problem is that you demand that they respect you, yet you show them no respect at all. You hide behind an interpretation of the Bible that's about condemning people for their sins, rather than trying to be a better person and loving people in spite of their sins. GOProud is as welcome to talk about their message as you are to talk about yours. If you don't like that, then you can be like the other groups and go home.

Posted by: FPW99 at December 29, 2010 04:34 PM (TV27A)

335 "If you don't like that, then you can be like the other groups and go home."
And good luck winning elections without the Religious Right.
By the way, I don't hate Gabe. I don't even dislike him. You're the one being judgmental here.
And I'm not hiding behind an interpreation of Scripture, either. Where have I even mentioned Scripture? Or do you just assume that moral = Scriptural? If so, I appreciate the acknowledgement, but that's not my argument here. I've merely mentioned that Gabe's behavior is immoral--which, were this a blog that actually debated moral issues, I could defend in debate format; but which is pointless to do when I seriously doubt that Gabeor Dreweven believe in objective morality anyway, so we'd need to deal with THAT first anyway.
And I believe I show Gabe far more respect bystating my opposition tohim than I would show if I didn't give a shit and said nothing, consequences be damned.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 04:46 PM (cSlKk)

336 Drew said: "You may not like all of the players but social-cons don't get a veto over who else gets to be part of the conservative movement."
And like I've mentioned multiple times already, good luck winning without us.
I, for one, would be glad to watch you fail,except it wouldresult intaking out my whole country in the process. So instead I'll mourn when your inevitable trek results in the failure it's destined for.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 04:49 PM (cSlKk)

337 They do, however, get to decide if they want to be a part of a movement that doesn't show a great deal of appreciation for either their efforts or beliefs. They can also point out that courting a tiny subset of a tiny subset of the population which doesn't work particularly hard on behalf of conservatism isn't going to be the thing that wins any election

Posted by: ed at December 29, 2010 05:05 PM (Urhve)

338 Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 04:49 PM (cSlKk)

And good luck winning without fiscal cons who aren't outrageously outraged at the mere thought that gays exist. Or independent swing voters who are put off by this kind of stuff.

You seem to think you're the only ones who can play this game.

It's a coalition...that means give and take. I don't expect the FRC to invite GOProud to their events, I don't get why FRC and their supporters think they get a veto over the list at a coalition wide event like CPAC.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 05:21 PM (HicGG)

339 Drew said: "I don't get why FRC and their supporters think they get a veto over the list at a coalition wide event like CPAC."
How is it a demand for"a veto" for us to disagree with CPAC's choices, but it's not a demand for a veto against*our wishes* that GOProud is there? How can you not see that THIS is the double standard that is so friggin nauseating?

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 05:36 PM (cSlKk)

340 Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 05:36 PM (cSlKk)

It's not a double standard just because you don't get your way.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 05:39 PM (HicGG)

341 Welp, looks like Gabe feels it completely unnecessary to address the serious issues with GOProud's platform as posted in this thread.
Just one more reason why Malor is intellectually worthless.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 05:42 PM (fLHQe)

342 Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 05:36 PM (cSlKk)

CPAC is for everyone who says they are a conservative. Nobody, not fiscal cons, not social cons, not homo cons should get a veto over who participates.

It's not a double standard, it's your heads you win, tales they lose attitude that's the problem.



Your "wishes" for a gay free zone are fine for events you guys run. Just
like GOP can elect not to event FRC folks to their event. That's give
and take. You're all about what you're willing to take but not at all interested in giving an inch.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 05:43 PM (HicGG)

343 CPAC is for everyone who says they are a conservative.
Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 05:43 PM (HicGG)
Well this is the problem.
Four or five out of ten of their little group's platforms aren't conservative or aredamn near antithetical to conservatism, but just because they say they're conservative, it's all good. And these problems with GOProud's platform have fuckall to do with religion or morality.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 29, 2010 06:03 PM (fLHQe)

344 CPAC is for everyone who says they are a conservative. Nobody, not
fiscal cons, not social cons, not homo cons should get a veto over who
participates.

Yeah, and BO says he's a Christian too. Doesn't make it so. Just wanting to keep more of your own money and have a strong national defense doesn't make you a conservative.

Posted by: teej at December 29, 2010 06:35 PM (WHmDb)

345 Oops, Didn't see your post there 'burn'. And you said it better than me too. Happens around here a lot.

Posted by: teej at December 29, 2010 06:37 PM (WHmDb)

346 Fine Drew. Go ahead and shit all over the people who kept Republicans from becoming the dodo overthe past twenty years. You just keep on having funwith the dwindling remains of your tattered group. Maybe history will remember you as the moron that sacrficed 60% of your base to appease 0.03% of your enemies, ushering in The Thirty Years of Obama that much faster. Hell, you might even get a medal out of it.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 06:56 PM (cSlKk)

347 منتدى كول
منتديات كول
منتدى
منتديات
كول
كول
منتدى كول
منتديات كول
دليل مواقع
توبيكات
مركز تحميل
يوتوب
العاب
برامج
اخبار
_ chat
ahj
الحب
شات الحب
دردشة الحب
دردشه الحب
دردشه
دردشة
شات
دردشه صوتيه
دردشة خليجيه
شات صوتي
دردشة صوتية
شات كتابي
دردشة كتابية
_ مقابلة فايز المالكي - برنامج ابشر
أبشر , برنامج ابشر
دردشة جرحك
جرحك
شات جرحك
شات
دردشه جرحك
دردشة جرحك
منتدى جرحك
دليل جرحك
صوتية جرحك
كتابية جرحك
_ روتانا
شات روتانا
دردشة روتانا
دردشه روتانا
شات صوتي
صوتيه روتانا
صوتية روتانا

Posted by: كول at December 29, 2010 08:29 PM (M2zLe)

348 Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2010 06:56 PM (cSlKk)

Not giving you every damn thing you want is not shitting all over you.


Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 10:06 PM (HicGG)

349 <a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Gold-Love-2.html">cartier gold watch</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Love-1.html">cartier love bracelet</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Love-1.html">cartier love charity bracelet</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Love-1.html">cartier love prices</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Necklaces-4.html">cartier necklaces</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Necklaces-4.html">cartier replica necklaces</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Necklaces-4.html">replica cartier necklaces</a>
<a href="http://www.cartier4us.com/Cartier-Trinity-Ring-14.html">cartier trinity ring</a>

Posted by: cartier love at December 30, 2010 04:18 AM (Ams05)

350 Not giving you every damn thing you want is not shitting all over you.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2010 10:06 PM (HicGG)

For the last 50 years this country's moral fiber has been torn to shreds by both liberals and libertarian thinking people alike, and the above is your defense?

Social Conservatives have been getting every damn thing they want? That's laughable. In most of their eyes the country is a shambles morally. How you and so many others twist reality to make it seem like every time the bar lowers that it is somehow the new moral reality is one of the things that scare me most.

Posted by: kdj0172 at December 30, 2010 10:06 AM (mdGpP)

351 Should you know anything about nike shox outlet,I search about cheap nike shox,but it is hard to find nike shox Clearance on sale One problem,Can you contact with you at offline.something about nike shox black,it hear about the nike shox nz,nike shox r4,nike shox turbo,nike shox oz are the hottest sale.I am pleasure to learn much about womens Nike shox.

http://www.nikeshoxweb.com

Posted by: nike shox Clearance at December 31, 2010 05:54 AM (VRJVw)

352 titip link ya pakde
Wong goblog
Asuhan Keperawatan
ngekngok
Song Lyric
badboybaik

Posted by: ngekngok at December 31, 2010 12:12 PM (K///b)

353 Ya know, the combination of the terms "conservative" and "identity" is one I've only heard from two people -- a dickhead troll over at JustOneMinute, and now Gabe.


Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 04, 2011 02:40 PM (ZJ/un)

354 I had no intention of associating FRC or the other special interest groups above with the racist Christian Identity movement...

Right. Because you've never heard of them before.


Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 04, 2011 02:42 PM (ZJ/un)

355 Thanks for redacting "Christian identity." That was the very first thing I thought of when I read about your post in the Atlantic Wire. (Though I suspect many of their ilk are closet white supremacists anyway. Trent Lott comes to mind.)

Posted by: Robin at January 04, 2011 03:38 PM (xMKYa)

356 ugg boots for cheap

ugg discount boots


Coach handbags on sale

Coach handbags sale

Posted by: Ugg Boots On Sale at January 06, 2011 10:41 AM (ZuQ1W)

357 شات صوتي
شات كتابي
سعودي كول
صوتية سعودي كول
دردشة سعودي كول
شات سعودي كول
سعودي كول6666
شات تعارف
سعودي كول
لايف كامات
كامات
لايف
سعودي
كامات
كول6666
سعودي 78
كول
6666
تعارف
دردشه صوتيه
دردشة صوتية
سعودي 78
كام 78

Posted by: جرحك at February 03, 2011 11:32 AM (TZf2h)

358 Thanks, for your efforts, i really liked it and to be shared with my friends

Posted by: شات الخليج at May 10, 2011 07:02 AM (e+TSE)

359 دليل المواقع- منتديات روتانا - دردشة صوتية
التوبيكات-شات صوتي -

منتديات روتانا كام - دردشة صوتية - دليل المواقع
روتانا كام - القران الكريم - الصحف روتانا كام - الطبخ -المكتبة الاسلامية - الزخارف
المنتدى العام - || روتــآنآ الأدبي ~ - ●~✿| ▐|آدــم وَحـوآء | ▐|✿~ ● - ●~✿| ▐|الوناسة والترفية ~ | ▐|✿~ ● - ●~✿| ▐| عآلمـّ التقَنيّهـ | ▐|✿~ ●
-✿–•{• تطوير المواقع و المنتديات ..!~

Posted by: ro6ana at May 12, 2011 06:33 AM (FtH2I)

360 المنتدى العام | فضاء حرٌ لـ قلمك | نقاشات - مواضيع ساخنه - اختلاف وجهات النظر | محطة الاستقبال - Receptio | مجلس اعضاء المنتدى | || روتــآنآ الأدبي ~ | قصائد شعريه - قصائد اشهر الشعراء | خواطر , خواطر حب , خواطر رومانسيه | قصص - روايات - روايات ادبيه | ●~✿| ▐|آدــم وَحـوآء | ▐|✿~ ● | ✿–•{• أטּـآقة الرجُلْ |▪ ●™ ..!~ | ✿–•{• أטּـوثـة طـآغــية,’..!~ | الطب البديل - صحه - حقائق علمية | ديكور - ديكورات - اثاث - اثاث منزلي | ●~✿| ▐|الوناسة والترفية ~ | ▐|✿~ ● | دوري زين السعودي - بطولات السعودية | نكت - نكت جديدة - مواقف مضحكة -ضحك -فرفشة ونآسة Srqap..!~ | ✿–•{•ξـِدسة الصور /Pictures..!~ | ●~✿| ▐| عآلمـّ التقَنيّهـ | ▐|✿~ ● | ✿–•{•Computer. •• ..!~ | ✿–•{• التصَآمِيمْ والجَـرآفِڪسْ •• ..!~ | ✿–•{••M.Š.ή •• ..!~ | ✿–•{•BLACK BERRY ♥ I PHONE..!~ | ✿–•{•MmŠ × şMş ..!~ | ●~✿| ▐|الإدارة | ▐|✿~ ● | اقتراحات - طلبات الأعضاء | ✿–•{•آخبآر آلمنتديًٍ - News..!~ | المواضيع المكرره والمحذوفه ~ | ✿–•{• تطوير المواقع و المنتديات ..!~ | المشآكـل وحلولهآ | ✿–•{• ستايلات مجآنية..!~ | ●~✿| ▐|الشات الصوتي~ | ▐|✿~ ● | الا رسول الله - احديث نبوية -قصص -احكام ادلة | اناشيد - اناشيد اطفال - اناشيد اسلاميه | اسلاميات - فتاوي شرعية - احكام -اطمئنان النفوس | ✿–•{ مدونـآت الآعضاءًٍَِ ..!~ | خـطوط للفوتوشوب - خطوط للتصميم | اكلات - وجبات سريعة - اطباق | اخبار الصحف , اخبار محليه , اخبار عالميه |

Posted by: ro6ana at May 15, 2011 06:45 PM (Ulz7r)

361 cheap windows 7 keycheap windows 7 keycheap windows 7 key


chenweili

Posted by: cheap windows 7 key at June 18, 2011 03:11 AM (Nu66X)

362 As the number of female stars <a href="http://www.weddingdress.com.ph/">wedding gown</a>of the dress has been questioned users, making the "cottage dress" hot term, a shop, but to seize this opportunity, through online ordering <a href="http://www.weddingdress.com.ph/">wedding dresses</a>"cottage dress" open the way of getting money.Overwhelming competitive <a href="http://www.weddingdress.com.ph/">bridesmaid dresses</a>online clothing store, clothing store, but avoid a hot war, with its own characteristics to seize a stable customer base.

Posted by: vince at June 21, 2011 09:20 PM (3gTbI)

363 دليل المواقع- منتديات روتانا - دردشة صوتية
التوبيكات-شات صوتي -
دليل مواقع روتانا كام
اتصل بنا روتانا كام
المكتبة الاسلامية
الاعلانات روتانا كام
منتدى منتديات
لمسات الخليج
روتانا
منتديات روتانا كام -
دردشة صوتية
- دليل المواقع
روتانا كام - القران الكريم
- الصحف روتانا كام -
الطبخ -
المكتبة الاسلامية
- الزخارف
روتانا كام
شات صوتي روتانا كام
شات صوتي روتانا
كام
سعودي
كامات
انحراف
دردشة صوتية دردشة صوتية
دردشة صوتية شات صوتي
v,jhkh ;hl

Posted by: ro6ana at July 04, 2011 07:53 PM (H/udN)

364



Play space of mobile devices
By default, Windows7 of blank mobilewindows 7 key devices will not automatically play,windows 7 key this option can click Tools - Folder Options - View - Disable "Hide empty folder on the computer drive" option to changequicken 2011


Posted by: quicken 2011 at July 11, 2011 10:05 PM (G/YiS)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0732 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0227 seconds, 373 records returned.
Page size 285 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
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