Bobby Jindal: Hey, Let's Tax the Rich
Rand Paul: Hey, Let's Have an Amnesty
WSJ: Hey, Let's Have Gay Marriage

Jindal makes the case for a blend of fiscal conservatism with a dash of populism:

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

Rand Paul wants a pathway to citizenship for illegals.

He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives.

Brett Stephens in the WSJ says we must not only give up being interested in other people's sexual habits, but join the gay marriage movement. And also, learn Spanish.

Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.

Also, if gay people wish to lead conventionally bourgeois lives by getting married, that may be lunacy on their part but it's a credit to our values. Channeling passions that cannot be repressed toward socially productive ends is the genius of the American way. The alternative is the tapped foot and the wide stance.

Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's call for a "truce" on social issues.

By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice.

Which reminds me: Can we, as the GOP base, demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates? This is not a flippant suggestion: There were at least five Senate seats in this election cycle that might have been occupied by a Republican come January had not the invincible stupidity of the candidate stood in the way.

I'm still trying to figure things out so I mention these as a Quote of the Day sort of thing, without endorsement.

I'll be honest: I thought I understood what was needed to win this election and I may have been very wrong. (I say "may" because it's possible things were just too stacked against us, so it's possible my prescriptions were generally right, but yet still insufficient.)

I keep thinking of that baseball manager: Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game? I'm not sure I can answer yes. Maybe everything I thought was wrong.

I think it's good that people are offering opinions and prescriptions. I suppose we'll have to see who wins the day. I really don't know anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 02:21 PM



Comments

1
woo hoo!

sounds like a plan

...for defeat

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:22 PM (jUytm)

2 I don't want to climb aboard the let it burn bandwagon. But damn, those seats look comfortable.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 13, 2012 02:23 PM (3Y7RV)

3 1. A pathway to citizenship already exists for illegals. And it isn't all that painful or onerous.

2. Why does the WSJ writer assume that conservatives don't speak Spanish, or any other foreign language for that matter?

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 02:23 PM (jm/9g)

4 It's cannabis, not pot.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 02:24 PM (dZ756)

5 I think it's good that people are offering opinions and prescriptions. I
suppose we'll have to see who wins the day. I really don't know
anymore.

_______________________________________


Except that's not what they're doing. Lots of people are trying to get rid of one of the legs of the coalition that they were never fond of in the first place - the election was just an excuse.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 13, 2012 02:24 PM (mg08E)

6 Let it burn and watch them squirm...

Posted by: Max Wedge at November 13, 2012 02:24 PM (hQFp3)

7
This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.

hahahaha, next time we won't wear those vulva costumes!

oh wait...

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:24 PM (jUytm)

8 What's really screwy is everyone could be a little bit right--and there is no solid proof anyone is wrong.


It's the perfect storm for a circular firing squad.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (r2PLg)

9 Oh look, I just seen an ad to purchase an Atlas shrugged hoodie. WTF.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (3Y7RV)

10 So they basically just want to through in with the democrats to save their political position and keep the power. Nice to know.

Posted by: Infidel at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (O/fK8)

11 By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it.

I'll learn it right about the time the vast hordes of Mexicans coming over our borders start reading those authors.

Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (ThM2Q)

12 Spanish sucks, btw. What literary or intellectual heritage, other than a few things written over 100 years ago, claims Spanish as its tongue? The Inquisition? I'll master German and Japanese before i go back to Spanish.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (dZ756)

13 Let it burn.

Though I like the IQ test idea.

Posted by: LibertarianJim (Team #letitburn) at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (9TK8E)

14 This is more confirmation that 2016 seems to be the chaos-theory predicted year that the American political system enters a "dynamic complexity bifurcation."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (+inic)

15 Why not all 3?

Achievement Unlocked

Posted by: The GOP at November 13, 2012 02:26 PM (iEoiA)

16 I'll be honest: I thought I understood what was needed to win this election and I may have been very wrong.
___
I don't remember what you said about what was needed to win, but you did say one side was going to be really shocked by the results, and that turned out to be correct.

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 02:26 PM (jm/9g)

17
I took Jindal to be saying we are percieved that way, not that the rich needed to pay more. I will re-read....
In that, he is right-
We are always accused of "protecting the rich", never mind the ultra rich tend to support the left.
We should couch our opposition in terms like, "The rich can certainly afford to pay more taxes. The problem is, the people they employ need their jobs."

Posted by: Gerry Owen at November 13, 2012 02:26 PM (4ABat)

18 It's fun to listen to all the activists today on TV and radio who can barely speak English as they become media pundit queen for a day.


Posted by: PJ at November 13, 2012 02:26 PM (ZWaLo)

19 IQ exam? Now that will have to be a legitimate IQ exam that will no be rejected by my brain

Posted by: T.Aiken, M.D.OBGYN at November 13, 2012 02:26 PM (WR5xI)

20 Nationalize all the 401K accounts and bail out California.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 13, 2012 02:26 PM (SDkq3)

21 This is what happens when 3 million Republicans stay home; the GOP decides it's because you wanted amnesty, legalized weed, gay marriage and higher taxes.

Hard to say who the bigger idiots are.

Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM (2rMmy)

22 Shorter Jindal, et al: Hey, let's just all become Democrats!

Posted by: Insomniac at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM (4TBK2)

23
What's left, then?

What will we stand for?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM (jUytm)

24 Should have been throw.

Posted by: Infidel at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM (O/fK8)

25 Good God almighty -

I think I'll just crawl back under my rock.
Somebody wake me when this is all over.....

Haven't these people heard of principles?
Don't they understand that once the country "gets" these things, they aren't going to go quietly, but they will just demand more and more?

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM (P6H+d)

26 So we're waving the White flag already? It's only been 1 week since obamas re-coronation...

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 13, 2012 02:28 PM (9+ccr)

27 I'll stick with my values which veer more to fiscal repsonsiblity and limited government. I am sick to death of all of the "experts" now coming out of the woodwork.
Do you think that the left in this country will give an inch? That's not how they play and they win.

Posted by: Cheri at November 13, 2012 02:28 PM (G+Wff)

28 I am going to keep posting this and updating it as I gather new info and data.

The GOP establishment as one of its first acts of capitulation looks to want to sign on to another general amnesty for Mexicans illegals and others.

This as I will show will have the exact opposite effect that many in the GOP establishment think they will attain with this policy.

If the GOP establishment wants to argue that it is good humanitarian policy
I could accept that, I would reject it, but I could accept that line of reasoning.

The GOP establishment surely must have access to the information I present it runs counter to the arguments put forward by the GOP establishment and the "conservative" intelligentsia that if we just amnesty millions of Mexican illegals and others the GOP will get the credit and the lions share of the votes that result from Mexican illegals and others being amnestied.

Here is all you need to know about how doing another round of amnesty will go.

Many of you are probably unaware, but the GOP used to own California.

Richard Nixon, yes that Richard Nixon, was a congressman and Senator
and Reagan was Governor from '67 to '75.

Do you think men such as these will ever be elected in California ever again.

Surely not!

A Brief History of the Presidential Voting History for California with a little background

1965 - Immigration and Nationality Act Passes

Ted Kennedy: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million
immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia....

In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed
measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."


THIS AS WE KNOW WAS A LIE

1968 - GOP
1972 - GOP.
1976 - GOP.
1980 - GOP.
1984 - GOP.
1986 - Simpson/Mazzoli Amnesty Act Passes. Largest general amnesty for illegal immigrants due to our cities being flooded by the '65 act.
1988 - GOP.
1992 - DEM.
1996 - DEM.

1996 - Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility act - Smoke and mirrors that was neither reform nor responsible.
It's main function was to water down sponsership requirements putting chain migration on steroids.

2000 - DEM.
2004 - DEM.

2008 - The political class tries to do another round of amnesty but is rebuffed by public outcry

2008 - DEM.
2012 - DEM.


California is now entirely Democrat and will never vote for another GOP President again, it's legislature has a super, super majority of Democrats because of massive unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico to that state.

Here is an article from the PEW center on hispanic voting patterns.

http://tinyurl.com/6uuc4

No Democrat has received less than 56% of the hispanic vote.

Two years after signing the largest general amnesty for Hispanics, the GOP nominee garnered 30% of the hispanic vote.

John "Mr Amnesty" McCain received 31% of the hispanic vote.

George W. Bush did the best with 40% of the hispanic vote.

On average Democrats get 65% of the hispanic vote.

The GOP will be committing suicide if it does another round of amnesty

Now if the GOP wishes to commit suicide they should state that is their plan.

This would allow conservatives the time to build a new party, because suicide is what they will be achieving with the policy.

Now what we should do is confront our politicians and the members of the "conservative" intelligentsia with these irrefutable facts and demand what the real reason is that they pursue these ruinous policies.

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 13, 2012 02:28 PM (RrD4h)

29 Amnesty for gay cannabis!

Posted by: Insomniac at November 13, 2012 02:28 PM (4TBK2)

30 Little of this would come as a surprise if you read the Libertarian Party platform. Amnesty, open borders, gay marriage, etc. Tax the rich is kind of a new wrinkle, but smoke a little more of the legalized pot, and it will all make sense. Maybel.

Posted by: OCBill at November 13, 2012 02:28 PM (YJvVE)

31
Rand Paul needs to shut it up until we get the border sealed. No talk on Amnesty until that happens.
As for the WSJ, we probably lost those issues anyway with the coming changes in the judiciary makeup. Water under the bridge. We might as well start complaining about whether or not the Panama Canal is a good idea.

Posted by: Gerry Owen at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (4ABat)

32 These people are idiots. Why the fuck are they saying this to the fucking Politico and CBS? Say this shit at a think tank, or a conservative gathering. Regardless of what "we", I'm starting to no longer consider myself part of we, do...talking to partisan outfits who only want to see us fail about how we are going to win by endorsing our opponents policies is retarded.

On a side note it's funny to see supposedly smart people tell us the way to beat Democrats is to become more like Democrats. If it was only on one or two issues and the chorus was pretty confident on the one or two I might be ok with it, ala Dems and gun control......but the chorus here is EVERYTHING, down to and including legalizing illegals which will end the Republican party.

Posted by: Mr pink at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (EoQ9s)

33 Hey, We're Boned!

Posted by: jakeman at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (96M6e)

34 I held out hope that the--

Despicable Democrats could unite us all--

even they really couldn't do it.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (r2PLg)

35 I wonder what 5 Senate seats Stephens is talking about? MO and IN obviously, but where else did we lose because of dumbasses this cycle? (I'm guessing MT and ND, but don't know much about those candidates)

Posted by: buzz at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (i27M5)

36 The Dissident Frogman has a very good point: America is always outnumbered. So don't surrender. And that's from a Frenchman! Nobody respected Vichy. Let's not turn into them. (link in name to foil Pixy)

Posted by: bad cat robot at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (65lpa)

37 Something tells me that Stephens wants to be less embarrassed at cocktail parties.

I don't see that as a convincing argument to blow the whole thing up.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (mg08E)

38
Could there be a better example of the arguement for limited federal govt and state's rights than the SCOAMTT's re-election?
Too bad the smart people need to make all the decisions for the slobbering masses.

Posted by: Justamom at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (Sptt8)

39
Miss my Mom yet?

Posted by: Trig Palin at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (Ks4nX)

40 That baseball manager: Casey Stengel of the '62 NY Mets. Some of his other quotes make as much sense as the advice for Republicans being batted about.

Posted by: Greg Toombs at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (2xLsT)

41 I'm ok with the path to citizenship, if it's a long path.

Posted by: Jose Biden at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (vYB+W)

42 I'd be for a California bailout.

If they reverted to territorial status until the bailout was repaid.

Posted by: LibertarianJim (Team #letitburn) at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (9TK8E)

43 Just think, a win and we wouldn't even be having these conversations.

Posted by: Ben at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (C2Y4l)

44 Bah. Bilingualism is great, sure. So are sobriety, patriotism, abstinence, Christianity and cheesecake. I don't see the government requiring that my kids learn to appreciate the virtues of those other things, and I wouldn't want them to.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (IPG9V)

45 I agree. Fuckit. I want an Obamaphone and an EBT card.
(end sarc)

Posted by: Roy at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (VndSC)

46 Maybe we can compromise on Spanish-speaking prostitutes?

Posted by: Senator Menendez at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (sOtz/)

47 Hey, let's just all become Democrats!

Posted by: Insomniac at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM


I suppose it will be more fun to be the engineer pulling the throttle on the Free Shit Express than standing by and watching it rush by with all those Obamafone recipients ridin' in the Pullman cars and whoopin' it up.

Does it matter that we become enemies of America in order to "win?"

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 13, 2012 02:30 PM (yKUrR)

48 120% top tax rate, legalize heroin, tax cuts for swingers clubs, and absentee ballots for all world citizens!

Posted by: Felt Wrapper at November 13, 2012 02:31 PM (ecmD4)

49 "I really don't know anymore"

Listen to your heart, Ace.

Listen to your heart.
_

or your balls.

Your choice.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 13, 2012 02:31 PM (RuUvx)

50 You can't even poll and find out who stayed home because they weren't answering the phone before Election Day.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:31 PM (r2PLg)

51 Sounds like a winner, Senator Menendez.

Posted by: Secret Service at November 13, 2012 02:32 PM (sOtz/)

52
Lessons from the 2010 elections:

-- more civility; tone down the rhetoric
-- oh, and more compromising

Lessons from the 2012 elections

-- more compromising, a lot more
-- be more like the Democrats

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:32 PM (jUytm)

53 White House held a press conference today--caught the end of it.

The media was all excited because Bono and some other rock star were seen entering the WH.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (r2PLg)

54 Agree on mass amnesty. That is fucked and should never happen.
For the kids though, a long path to citizenship must be available. That's going to happen and it's just a fact.
Powerline had a great sum up of what we should say.

What Jindal said made sense. What Rand said made sense.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Out of our bedrooms, out of our lives, out of our pocketbooks. Big business is the enemy in a lot of ways. So our big banks.

Divorce personal belief from policy. Let states decide. As simple as can be.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (tVTLU)

55 I have finally decided I am fully for legalization of pot. Never smoked it. Despise many of those I know who do but I would like just one damn thing to be less governmentally controlled than it was when I was born.

And it would likely have sucked most of the 1million votes away from Gary Pureheart Johnson.

Posted by: typo dynamofo at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (+VMZ0)

56 "I really don't know anymore"

Listen to your heart, Ace.

Listen to your heart.
_

or your balls.

---------------------------

Or listen to me. I'm lonely, Ace, you haven't molested me in so long...

Posted by: Marco Rubio's garbage at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (IPG9V)

57 Not only The Stupid Party, but the party of stupid, hysterical ninnies. I dont remember the Dems caving in 2004. Not on one friggin issue. After a defeat more devastating than ours (they not even had the House) they put hard-leftlunatics like Pelosi and Obummer in charge. Does that look like caving to any of you? Parties lose elections, thats been known to happen for quite a while now. Dont get your panties all twisted!

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (cM7Ib)

58 Eh. Decriminalizing pot works for me. Leave gay marriage to the states. Not sure about the rest -- not sure it'll do any good. If a crucial fraction of Republicans have decided to sit the electoral process out then we won't win the presidency again.

Posted by: joncelli at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (RD7QR)

59 I'm not listening to anyones advise this soon after the loss. Its like when a spouse dies, you shouldn't make hasty decisions. Gotta grieve and then wait until your head is clear before you take stock of options.

Posted by: snowcrash at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (I30qo)

60 Basically the GOP in the form of Romney/Ryan saying that Obama inherited
a tough situation, Boehner and the GOP establishment saying that we
need amnesty and tax increases and now Jindal, our own poster children for
what a conservatives should be, saying we are the party of the rich and
have backwards thinking candidates, has now VALIDATED EVERY FUCKING CHARGE THE DONKS HAVE LEVELED AT US!!


Why it's almost as if they are in the employ of the Progressive agenda.


It is to laugh and to cry at the same time.

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (RrD4h)

61 Not with a bang, but a whimper.....

Posted by: speedster1 at November 13, 2012 02:33 PM (yeM7r)

62 We should have nominated a reasonable moderate like Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Ben at November 13, 2012 02:34 PM (C2Y4l)

63 Rand Paul???

Maybe he has some secret plan after the collapse???

Posted by: izoneguy at November 13, 2012 02:34 PM (oKH8p)

64 All of this, and folks still believe that the Republican Party can be fixed?!

Posted by: DaveinNC at November 13, 2012 02:34 PM (boNGU)

65
1. A pathway to citizenship already exists for illegals. And it isn't all that painful or onerous.


This.


Posted by: EC at November 13, 2012 02:34 PM (GQ8sn)

66 How about an IQ test for pundits?

Posted by: Ace's Anus at November 13, 2012 02:34 PM (ZJ/un)

67 Like these idiots know. They got us here in the first place.

Posted by: Witchfinder at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (pLTLS)

68 Jindal is right, and so (perhaps for the first time) is Bill Kristol. The GOP can still be the party of lower taxes and smaller government without taking the absolutist position that we will never accept any tax increases on millionaires. Why is that the hill we should die on?

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (2ihLK)

69
39
Miss my Mom yet?

Posted by: Trig Palin at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (Ks4nX)

---------------

Is this a joke?

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (ICEh3)

70 Watch -

Dec 21st 2012 - will be the end.....

Then we can all laugh!!!!!!!

Posted by: izoneguy at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (oKH8p)

71 And for the record, What's wrong with English?

Everybody makes such a big deal about "bilingual" somehow being better than only knowing one language, but let's face it - most people in this country can't even learn ENGLISH, much less any other language. Let's ask the black community how they feel about illegal immigrants and bilingualism, shall we?

FWIW, most people in other countries aren't multi-lingual, either - it's only in the big cities/businesses that you see people who know more than one language.

If you're going to move/live in a country where a different language is spoken, you are expected to learn that language - they are not expected to change their culture just because your precious little snowflake self moved there.....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (P6H+d)

72 There is way too much unapproved opinionating on that interweb. Needs a 3 letter regulatory agency to tame it, and tax it.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (SDkq3)

73 These idiots want to make sure the Republican Party is deader than Genghis Khan. Running moderates twice in a row and losing wasn't enough. They want to become Democrat light now.



Yeah, how about we see if we can get 20 million Republicans to sit at home in 2014? We need 2/3 Senators and 100% House of Democrats.

Posted by: Vic at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (YdQQY)

74 Let's also push for an expansion of the welfare state, more government regulation, and a strict racial and gender quota system in all aspects of employment!

Also, more stuff to help Hollywood and lawyers, our two most long-suffering constituencies!

Posted by: The Q at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (w4fEE)

75 14
This is more confirmation that 2016 seems to be the chaos-theory
predicted year that the American political system enters a "dynamic
complexity bifurcation."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (+inic)

Is that chaos-speak for "Mongolian clusterfuck"?

Posted by: joncelli at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (RD7QR)

76 We were doomed from the beginning, Ace. We were just fooling ourselves into thinking the polls were skewed. Ironically, that may have lulled us into not doing proper GOTV.. but then again, we thought Romney had that covered this time.. what a clusterfuck.

The Obamaphone blacks were nowhere near as disillusioned as we thought, while the Asians and Hispanics are riding the gravy train as well.

Love of self and overtaken love of country. Let's allow the fiscal cliff to hit. At least some of those takers in the 47% not paying taxes will end up having to pay a portion of their "fair share". They need to learn that goodies are not free. They look up to the Europeans with all the "free stuff", but never want to look at their tax rates.. 40-50% on working class folks. Yes, they get their services, but they are willing to pay for it. Dem voters need to learn what it means to pay for their "free" stuff.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (f9c2L)

77 Is anyone giving out free blowjobs? I could support that?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (79ueO)

78 What will we stand for?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:27 PM (jUytm
Pie!

Posted by: Cicero Kid at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (dNmQK)

79 22 Shorter Jindal, et al: Hey, let's just all become Democrats French!

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (Jdtsu)

80 Wait'll they get a load of me...

Posted by: Chris Christie, Global Warming Crusader at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (Ks4nX)

81 lets just be Democrats and now lets celebrate our big victory!!!!

Posted by: ntac at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (rhHz3)

82 @ 57

"Not only The Stupid Party, but the party of stupid, hysterical ninnies. I
dont remember the Dems caving in 2004. Not on one friggin issue."

This is a clue as to what is really happening: We've tipped, and the GOP is going after it.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (zpqa2)

83 Gay marriage? The way I see it, when the argument is over government license we already lost.

Taxes? Just let the Bush tax cuts expire. All of 'em. Bring the pain.

Amnesty? I don't think it gets through the house even if Boner wants to deal.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (3uIOB)

84 And call the media out.


Politico is a hit piece. In the pocket of the liberals.

Start an interview with just that statement. We need to take back the mantle of Reagan.

We are the party AGAINST welfare. That's our social platform. And individual freedom, conservative principles and values.

God will judge your personal actions. While we may not approve it is not government's job to interfere. The feds should have nothing to say about abortion, it is a state matter.

Our religious taxpayers should not be forced to pay for something they are severely against, so no taxpayer funding.

Guys, this is not that hard.
If an incumbent had lost because of 400k votes in four states, would they blow up their entire commie/socialist playbook???????

Of course not.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (tVTLU)

85 Strangely enough, what the GOP needs to do to win elections is exactly what I have long thought they should do anyway! You lost the election because you failed to agree with me!

Posted by: Danby at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (vISoV)

86 Is anyone giving out free blowjobs? I could support that?

Yoo hoo!!! Right here, sweetie!!!

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (GQ8sn)

87 meh who cares. Marriage always struck me as gay anyway

Posted by: uterus cannon at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (3ZtZW)

88 You guys are kind of lying. Did Jindal ever say we need to tax more?

How about just end bailouts and subsidies?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (xAtAj)

89 I didn't read the full Jindal because I won't give Politico the traffic, but I didn't think that there's anything in the quotes offered to support the assertion that he wants to tax the rich. And I would add that there's a lot of what would be good public policy that would be also be considered populist. Wall Street is corrupt. But we don't need more financial regulations, we need more prosecutions. As things now stand, Wall Street firms defraud their clients and if they get caught they have to disgorge some of the ill-gotten gains. No one ever goes to jail (well, almost no one). Does anyone remember any Republican bringing up the name of Jon Corzine in this election cycle? The regulatory state favors the big firms and puts small firms at a disadvantage in inductry after industry. It breeds corruption. There is a winning conservative and populist message there.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (nZvGM)

90 Miss my Mom yet?
Posted by: Trig Palin at November 13, 2012 02:29 PM (Ks4nX)

---

Nope

Posted by: D. R. Ainbough at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (BgIBZ)

91 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (8y9MW)

92 These idiots need to stop panicking and strap their balls back on.

Conservatism wins. Fiscal responsibility is popular. But you have to go where the people are to preach it. They're not watching FoxNews. They're watching Leno and Letterman and Conan. They watch reality TV. They're on Facebook, and twitter and god knows what else and playing Xbox, Wii, etc.

In order to evangelize you have to go where the people are, and not just hang out with your friends, no matter how cool they may be.

Posted by: Iblis at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (9221z)

93 The man is a genius
Posted by: The Q at November 13, 2012 02:20 PM (w4fEE)

Apparently it's some kind of Army reinlistment bonus.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (3Y7RV)

94 "Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults
might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual
and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is
socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often,
unwittingly revealing."



Wow, Brett Stephens is taking his script right off the Human Rights Campaign's website. And he even ends with the classic: Oh, and by the way, if you oppose this glorious pansexual future, well, you're a closet case.

People who oppose sodomitic pseudogamy aren't obsessed with homosexuals' private activities but rather with their push for mandatory public recognition. And it's coming: the normalization of homosexuality in public schools and other institutions, the inclusion of homosexual spouses in benefit plans, the compulsion of clerks and clerics to perform homosexual nuptuals, etc.

Sodomy may be linked to libertinism but never to liberty.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 13, 2012 02:37 PM (mAm+G)

95 77 "Is anyone giving out free blowjobs? I could support that?"

If you were rooting for the Miami Heat last year, two Obama voters promised just that for following them on Twitter.

Posted by: The Q at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (w4fEE)

96 We already have a party that advocates these things. It's called the Democratic party.

Fewer Republicans voted for Romney than voted for McCain, who got fewer votes than Bush. It's not the Republicans were too lazy to vote, it's that they could not see much of a difference between a squish who seemed to adopt many of the positions of the left, and the candidate who was unapologetically on the left.

Until the GOP is willing to stop their slide to the left and support truly classical liberal candidates who believe in liberty and small government, they will never win another national election, because they will not have the support of the base that they have abandoned.

Posted by: cranky-d at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (e+0SC)

97 He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and
Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession.


I have a friend who works drug enforcement for the PBSO. A few years ago he mentioned that DEA wasn't really interested in prosecuting Federally unless there was like a thousand+ pounds of weed involved or a ton of cash and property they could seize.

...they just kick it back to the locals and states to prosecute.

Years ago, one of my bro's SigEp pals got busted with a pound of weed at RPI and nothing came of it. 1st time offense, some fines, a couple of months weekend lockup.

Anyone who's in Federal prison for "pot possession" isn't telling the whole story. They got busted for a lot more than a few ounces of weed.

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (NIdfj)

98 Ace, I think you're being a bit hard on Jindal. I read the larger excerpt, and it sounded more like Jindal wanted to be more anti-corporatist, and not specifically "tax the rich".

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (4+LTj)

99
this is kinda like the frog taking advice from the scorpion

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (jUytm)

100
“We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”


Arrghhhhh! (high decibel scream). What F'ing party are you a part of Jindal? I wasn't in the party the simply protects the rich, or if I was I guess I missed it. Have you been watching too much msnbc? Great SMOD above, we don't need you repeating bullshit of the left.

I think the nation has moved to a left center country then. If that's the case, I think I am done.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (PHb2k)

101 Is anyone giving out free blowjobs? I could support that?


Apparently it's some kind of Army reinlistment bonus.


oops, posted wrong comment.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (3Y7RV)

102 So, basically toss the rule of law and semi-abandon our party's supposed platform. Full of win. It's 100% what the Dems would do if the situation were reversed. I'm totally sure.

Posted by: Lady in Black at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (qlW5D)

103 Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (Jdtsu)
___
I wouldn't mind that so much, at least I could get a decent croissant every now and then. It's not France they're trying to turn us into so much as Newark, NJ.

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (jm/9g)

104
Hicks: I dont know if you guys noticed...... but we just got our ASSES kicked back there.

Ripley: .... and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.




.... just sayin....

Posted by: fixerupper at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (nELVU)

105 Is it Bobby Jindal day on AoS ?

Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (nTgAI)

106 If you were rooting for the Miami Heat last year, two Obama voters promised just that for following them on Twitter.
Posted by: The Q at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (w4fEE)

I hate the heat. But about them blowjobs?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (79ueO)

107 Get rid of Federal income tax deduction for state taxes. Blue states have highest tax rates; libs therefore will get hid hardest by loss of this deduction.

Posted by: assman at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (x9s9/)

108
Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.
Also, if gay people wish to lead conventionally bourgeois lives by getting married, that may be lunacy on their part but it's a credit to our values. Channeling passions that cannot be repressed toward socially productive ends is the genius of the American way. The alternative is the tapped foot and the wide stance.

Two problems:
1) Like it or not even consentual behavior affects other people if you start demanding that we recognize it. What two people do in their bedrooms may be private, but when they start demanding that we as a society give our stamp of approval, then we damn well are going to start complaining. Furthermore, the notion that consent trumps all other objections is insane. If a father marries his 18 year old daughter, we as a society have numerous objections and rightfully so.
2) I don't believe most gays are actually interested in living"conventionally bourgeois lives". Every time gay marriage starts to winvictories, the left immediately starts publishing articles abouthowgays are by and large not monogamous, and howgay marriage will require society toabadon monogamy as a virtue.

Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's call for a "truce" on social issues.

Democrats never wanted abortion "safe, legal and rare" and they knew that if the first two were true then the third would never be. It was a pretty lie, like "conventionally bourgeois lives", that Dems tell people while in private they believe the most extreme positions.

By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice.
Which reminds me: Can we, as the GOP base, demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates? This is not a flippant suggestion: There were at least five Senate seats in this election cycle that might have been occupied by a Republican come January had not the invincible stupidity of the candidate stood in the way.

There is nothing wrong with learning Spanish, or any other language. The problem becomes when we as a nation lose the major threads that unite us as a people. The problem comes not from the idea that we shouldn't learn Spanish, but from the simple fact that millions of Americans and illegal immigrants cannot or will not learn to speak functional English.

Posted by: Alex at November 13, 2012 02:39 PM (3x3F6)

109 honestly, fuck the Wall Street Journal.

not on this issue specifically -- it's that if they had their way, conservatism would be nothing besides low-tax, cheap-labor liberalism.

Posted by: JDP at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (60GaT)

110 Good bye, GOP. You are irrelevant, now.

Posted by: Duh! at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (Zs83Q)

111 1. A pathway to citizenship already exists for illegals. And it isn't all that painful or onerous.

This.

_________________________________

Then clearly "a pathway to citizenship" is not what they want. They want some kind of comeuppance for the gringo. Some, shall I say, "revenge."

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (mg08E)

112 I love Rand Paul, but that amnesty idea can get fucked

Posted by: The Q at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (w4fEE)

113 I'm still trying to climb aboard the runaway free shit freight train, but nobody is offering a ticket.

Posted by: Fritz at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (0yCoM)

114
Coronate Barry ASAP!

Posted by: Idiocracy Now! at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (ypzqs)

115 "Tonight on Leno, we welcome, from the Grand OLD Party, preezy candidate..."

Yeah, that's gonna work.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 13, 2012 02:40 PM (zpqa2)

116
Who came up with the phrase..."Too Big To Fail"?

I'm asking, because I don't remember.
For some reason my brain has blocked it out.

It was in 2008, and the Dems were in control of both houses of congress.
So was it a Dem or a Republican who came up with..."Too Big To Fail"?

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (ICEh3)

117 Maybe if the GOP from 2000 - 2006 had kept its nose clean, didn't join the corruption bandwagon, and put as much effort into publicizing and denouncing the mortgage bubble/Fannie/Freddie as it did hyping two undeclared wars, maybe it would have more appeal to bottom-liners (like people who need to make ends meet). Toss in the Bible-literalist crowd and it's no wonder Obama won.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (dZ756)

118 TAx the fuck out of hollywood and tax the fuck out of the corporate elitist .01% - THEY ALL VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!
Seriously, knock out the state tax deductions, and knock out the megahome tax deduction and let's hit the libs in the pocketbooks where we should.
After WWII there was a 20% excise tax on Hollywood to help with the deficit.
I say make it a 40% excise tax and levy that sucker right now.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (tVTLU)

119 I'm reconciled to the fact that it was a loss, but razor fucking thin one, at that. I'm also reconciled to the fact that the 'evil' head of Bain Capital didn't 'get' the concept of a 'mission critical' application. Not
'mission would be nice'
or 'mission sorta important'
but 'mission CRITICAL'. If they asked me, and they should have, I would have told them payment was dependent on the desired results. Unless they were willing to bet the house, I was not willing to bet the election on software.

Also, shit happens. A couple days before the election I said that the way for Romney to show he cares and stick his middle finger at Obama was to take Donald Trumps five million and bring in a caravan of tractor trailers and hand the shit out anywhere they could find Sandy victims. Donald would have loved that and it would have gone down in history as the penultimate November surprise. Instead? *crickets*

So we lost by 400,000 votes spread across four states. No need to do anything drastic. Just ask me my advice. It's free. And worth every penny.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (feFL6)

120 "

Paul plans to inject himself into the middle of the GOP’s emotional
immigration debate in the wake of Romney losing swing states with heavy
Latino populations like Florida, Colorado and Nevada.
Paul is working on a novel plan that he says would “assimilate” many of
the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those
individuals, he said, could apply for legal status, but immigration
would then be clamped down in the interim. He also says his plan would
toughen security at the border.

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in
describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they
got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an
eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came
here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I
think we need to normalize those who are here.”

Paul said the “trade-off” would be “not to accept any new legal
immigrants while we’re assimilating the ones who are here.” Asked if he
is concerned about the ripple effect that could cause around the world,
Paul said the details over which countries would be affected are still
in the works."


A little disappointed. Rand, you say all the right things about other stuff, but you can't be naive about how this is going to work out. Border hopping won't get stopped, and we can't simply stop letting people in that have been in line for years.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (xAtAj)

121 To win the game you have to show up. Conservatives didn't.

Posted by: Socratease at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (iVBDH)

122 How about amnesty for gay illegal immigrants only ? That way we are targeting the real minority.

Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (nTgAI)

123 This reminds me of when upon discovery that your military unit has horrible leadership, everyone just starts to laugh at it.

sir you want us to dig a fighting position around a poorly defendable building in lower Iraq that 50 other convoys a day use and none of them dig? By Jove that's a great idea, even the FSG laughs when he gives the order.

Sir you want us to dismount and walk toward a destroyed tank because you heard someone 5 convoys back may have gotten a pot shot taken at them from it? Oh fuck yeah sir that's great, and make sure you take as many souvenirs as possible once you get an E4 to go in first!

Sir you want us to have PT formation at 0500 after our convoy got back at 2000 and didn't dismount and perform AAR and weapons cleaning until 2200 while you slept in your tent all day and went to the px? Oh fuck yeah sir that's great!

And the fuckers wondered why their sensitive items went missing and their racks smelled like urine.

Posted by: Mr pink at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (EoQ9s)

124 Navy discharging 11 Wasp sailors for Spice use
The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Nov 13, 2012 13:59:56 EST
NORFOLK, Va. — The Navy is discharging 11 members of a Norfolk-based ship’s crew for using a synthetic drug known as Spice.

Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Bill Urban tells media outlets that two other sailors aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp face similar charges. They’re accused of possessing another synthetic drug called 2C-1.

Urban didn’t identify the sailors, who range in rank from seaman to petty officer 2nd class.

The investigation began in October after a crew member reported finding Spice in a work area of the ship.

The Wasp returned to Norfolk on Monday from a humanitarian mission providing support for Hurricane Sandy relief efforts in New York and New Jersey.


Anyone that stupid, after all the warnings, is to stupid to be in the Navy.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (79ueO)

125 On the other hand, if everyone becomes a Democrat, then everything will be the Democrats fault!!!11! Chock full of win.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (qwK3S)

126 I'm curious -- the Horde has already had quite a few debates/arguments/shit fights over these issues.

1. Has your position been swayed substantially from your 1st stance?

2. Have you swayed anyone to your point of view?

3 . Is any kind of consensus appearing as a result of these talks?

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (ccXZP)

127 Dear WSJ

Fuck you this is america, learn ENGLISH like my grand parents did, and I never heard them speak a foreign language!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: cicero skip at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (3m9Uc)

128 Knock more doors, drive more people to the polls.

That's fucking all it would take.

Posted by: Truman North, last of the famous international playboys at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (I2LwF)

129 of these three Jindal's the only one who makes sense given who we failed to turn out, as opposed to just someone writing on whatever pet issue they have where they disagree with Republican voters

Posted by: JDP at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (60GaT)

130 No immigration reform without a ban on federal funds for cities, counties, states, and, well, anything else with a sanctuary policy. And a provision that if that provision is struck down, continued presence in this country without valid paperwork is a felony. And a provision that if that provision is struck down, the federal income tax is rescinded. I don't know, something like that.

Posted by: Fritz (but not Fritz) at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (U0t2o)

131 97
A few years ago
he mentioned that DEA wasn't really interested in prosecuting Federally
unless there was like a thousand+ pounds of weed involved


Oh yeah, that's what we thought...then the feds raided our medical pot clinics. Then the GOP legislature piled on and "fixed" the initiative and pretty muched screwed the whole business.

Posted by: Jeanne of the North at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (GdalM)

132 116
Who came up with the phrase..."Too Big To Fail"?

I'm asking, because I don't remember.
For some reason my brain has blocked it out.

It was in 2008, and the Dems were in control of both houses of congress.
So was it a Dem or a Republican who came up with..."Too Big To Fail"?
Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (ICEh3)

____________________


The term "too big to fail" was popularized by U.S. Congressman Stewart McKinney in a 1984 Congressional hearing, discussing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's intervention with Continental Illinois.[1] The term had previously been used occasionally in the press.[2]

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (r2PLg)

133 >>>We should have nominated a reasonable moderate like Mitt Romney.

No, no, no, we should have nominated a dyed in the wool conservative like Santorum or Perry.

Posted by: Fritz at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (0yCoM)

134 It is important to realize that politicians and political pundits, as a rule, have forgotten that politics is practical.

That is, to them, it's "just" some law that get's passed. To them, it's "just" a policy. It's all some giant game of chess, and what's important isn't the pieces, but which King is still standing at the end.

To us actually having to live by the rules they right, politics is not just practical, it's deadly serious.

This is what the Patriots rebelled against.

It wasn't a tax on tea, it was what that tax on tea represented. It wasn't that they didn't, technically, have representation, but that their "representatives" couldn't be bothered to actually represent them.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (8y9MW)

135 Paul plans to inject himself into the middle of the GOP’s emotional
immigration debate in the wake of Romney losing swing states with heavy
Latino populations like Florida, Colorado and Nevada.




NV and CO are blue States, not swing States.

Posted by: Vic at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (YdQQY)

136 This is the type of crap that happens when you stray from principles..every candidate in 2016 should be forced to watch 100 hours of Ronald Reagan's political commentaries.
If we're going to cave on taxes then I'm out, because it's caving to social engineering not sound economic policy.
Romney hurt himself by running as a efficient technocrat, not a conservative, so the solution is to go to the left of that?
Kill me now.

Posted by: jjshaka at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (3r+Q2)

137 Even people in blue states reject gay marriage.

Posted by: eleven at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (KXm42)

138 Posted by: somebody else
.............
I was disappointed in Romney that he never talked tough during his whole campaign about corruption.. on Wall St.. in the government. Not a word.

I would have blasted Obama on the fact that not one Wall St exec went to jail. We got fucked.. they got bonuses. Nice.

Romney did not challenge the populist creds of Obama.. not once.. and in not doing so, he came across as the guy who is working for big money. His tax policy didn't help that impression either.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (f9c2L)

139 Let's be honest here, 90% of our opposition to gay marriage is because we believe homosexuality to be immoral and we don't want the government to endorse it.

I'm willing to fold on the gay marriage issue because I really have no compelling argument against it except that it's absurd.

I really can't argue with a straight face though that allowing two people to have a piece of paper that says they're legally together undermines the family when we also allow heterosexual couples to marry and divorce as many times as they want.

This is one of those issues that young people are going to latch on forever if it's not dealt with, it's unfortunately going to be looked at as a civil rights struggle.

Really, is it worth alienating entire generations when already gay people can claim each other as partners and adopt children legally?

I actually think liberals will be pissed at seeing gay marriage taken off the table as an issue for them, once that's taken off the table, I don't see affluent gay people pushing for socialism.


Posted by: McAdams at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (aVSeo)

140
Right now when you sell your house, the first $250K (single) / $500K (married) of capital gains is tax free. The most expensive houses, however, are in and around cities, which are infested with liberals. We should reduce these amounts to $100K (single) / $150K (married), since doing so will hammer libs the most.

Posted by: assman at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (x9s9/)

141 Does. Not. Matter. What. We. Do.

Even if GOP said to open the borders.
Hey gays get government benefits same as marries hetero's get.
Tax the bejeebers out of the so called rich.
If the M EFFING MEDIA is still able to eat the GOP alive. absolutely nothing will change.

Posted by: Deli LLama at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (lGu1O)

142 This is a clue as to what is really happening: We've tipped, and the GOP is going after it.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 13, 2012 02:36 PM (zpqa2)


If we really tipped, why do we still control the House? Doesnt make sense to me. I know you guys are in an apocalyptic mood, but it getting old andboring by now. Andyou guys look like you're politically menstruating.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (cM7Ib)

143 1. Has your position been swayed substantially from your 1st stance?

2. Have you swayed anyone to your point of view?

3 . Is any kind of consensus appearing as a result of these talks?


Posted by: GnuBreed at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (ccXZP)
1) RINO!!!2) COMMIE!!!3) RINO!!!!

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:44 PM (xAtAj)

144 Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you

The effin shallow thinkers on our side will be the death of us. If it's consensual, in their own space, how the hell do I even know about it? Who you boink is not the problem.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 02:44 PM (evdj2)

145 Is anyone giving out free blowjobs? I could support that?

If everyone gets blowjobs, then no-one is special.

Posted by: eleven at November 13, 2012 02:44 PM (KXm42)

146
We need to demagogue better. We need to drive wedges between the Democrat factions-- I'm talking Greenies vs. Unions, Gay Marriagists vs. Black Churchgoers, the works.


Seriosuly, though, the Democrat Party is more of a coalition of factions, not some grand, united front. Those factions don't always have the same goals. Weshould be ableuse fracking and other resource development and gun rights to weaken the Democrats' hold on blue collar workers, for example.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (zgHLA)

147 1. Has your position been swayed substantially from your 1st stance?

Nope.

2. Have you swayed anyone to your point of view?

Not seriously. The best I've ever done is get people to concede specific points.

3 . Is any kind of consensus appearing as a result of these talks?

Nope.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (4+LTj)

148 We need to give away free ladies pumps.

Posted by: Rex Ryan at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (O6q63)

149 I would rather just give up on the GOP altogether and sit back and laugh at these people. All of them.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (C8mVl)

150 And then, after we are exactly like the Progressives, we can move on to the thinkprogress cutting edge and promote 90% taxation--as long as everyones' needs are met--and unionize all healthcare workers by force and getting rid of all the Jooos and requiring a minimum income for all residents whether citizens or not and mandatory sensitivity training for all residents and...and....and...


Let it burn.

Posted by: Daybrother at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (+paCV)

151 It wasn't a tax on tea, it was what that tax on tea
represented. It wasn't that they didn't, technically, have
representation, but that their "representatives" couldn't be bothered to
actually represent them.


Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (8y9MW)


It was actually a lot more complicated than that. It was a tax passed by a Parliament 2000 miles away. It was required to be paid in gold or silver and there was almost none in the colonies because of the onerous Townsend acts.

And the crown refused to listen to their complaints regarding the same.

Posted by: Vic at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (YdQQY)

152 And the fuckers wondered why their sensitive items went missing and their racks smelled like urine.
Posted by: Mr pink at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (EoQ9s)


See here now is my advantage. As a DR in a Medical Unit no one really ever questions my Dental Judgements and I make sure to tell the Chief how great all the Enlisted are doing and they all make sure I have hot coffee all day. It all works out great in the end.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (79ueO)

153 What is truely frightening is that after all this time and hundreds of millions of dollars, the RNC organization and information technology, which should be the equivilant of a Ferrari, is a horse drawn carriage.

And not even a good horse drawn carriage.

Without fixing this basic structure, all other suggestions won't matter.

Posted by: jwest at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (ZDsRL)

154 If we really tipped, why do we still control the House? Doesnt make
sense to me. I know you guys are in an apocalyptic mood, but it getting
old andboring by now. Andyou guys look like you're politically
menstruating.


Careful with that crazy talk Elize.

Posted by: eleven at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (KXm42)

155 Oh good. I was in court all morning and was afraid I'd missed the no one is pure enough clusterfuck. Lemme get my popcorn.


Sort of related, am I the only one who feels like last Tuesday was forever ago? I cannot possibly have been only a week.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (VtjlW)

156 Rand Paul proves that the acorn never falls far from the tree. And, as someone noted above, the WSJ would be all-in with the notion that all taxes on the rich and corporations be eliminated, especially if all those pesky rules relating to workers' pay, safety and work hours were eliminated.

Extremists will always be extremists, especially when they can profit from their views.

What's Jindal's excuse? Same question for Kristol, Hannity and all the other loose screws who have been popping out of the woodwork since Election Day.

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (yKUrR)

157
Why don't we mail ballots to everyone in the world next time?
It wouldn't be fair to let Mexico vote in them againand no one else!

Posted by: Who Knows at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (W+Itt)

158 Dear WSJ:
Why don't you cease publication in English and limit yourself to a Spanish edition?

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (qwK3S)

159 The only thing that these arguments have convinced me of is that I'm right and you are wrong, and you're a RINO because of it.


Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (xAtAj)

160 The GOP can change until it's even more radical-left than the Democrats. None of that will matter because the Media will still favor the Democrats and the GOP will continue to lose elections.

If there was a way to get a Conservative message to the American people, without distortions by the Media, the American people would buy it. We will never have that chance with the Media we have.

The Media must be destroyed.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (P7hip)

161 So, in other words, the liberals win and this country will suck forever more.


Good. At least I know where we stand and I should never talk about American the Great ever again.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 13, 2012 02:46 PM (UK9cE)

162 More:

Some economists such as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman hold that economy of scale in banks and in other businesses are worth preserving, so long as they are well regulated in proportion to their economic clout, and therefore that "too big to fail" status can be acceptable. The global economic system must also deal with sovereign states being too big to fail.[6][7][8][9]

Critics see the policy as counterproductive and that large banks or other institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective.[10][11] Some critics, such as Alan Greenspan, believe that such large organisations should be deliberately broken up: “If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big”.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (r2PLg)

163
100% tax on all things Hollywood please

Posted by: dimdim at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (x9s9/)

164 Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults
might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual
and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you
.....

----------

Deal..... but in return, all I ask is that the said adults stop demanding my approval and endorsement.

Posted by: fixerupper at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (nELVU)

165 It is rather curious that right out of the gate the GOP is capitulating to higher taxes and amnesty for Mexican illegals.


A cursory glance at the history of both sorts of policies measures and how it fared for the Republican party lead me to conclude that the Republican party exists solely as a way for giving the Progressive agenda a gloss of having a counterpoint.

We always move toward the progressives preferred policies and agenda, always

Fact: Two years after signing onto the largest general amnesty the GOP presidential candidate received 30% of the hispanic vote. Romney received 27% of the hispanic vote.

Our vote share is trending in the wrong direction. What makes Rand Paul or any other rocket surgeon in the GOP establishment think these trends will go in our direction?


Fact: After saying "Read My Lips, No new Taxes! Bush initially presents Congress a proposed budget containing steep spending cuts and no new taxes, but congressional Democrats dismiss this out of hand and Republicans refuse to fight.

President George H.W. Bush agrees to tax increases with illusionary spending cuts.

Was Bush hailed as a statesman and a bi-partisan compromiser?

No, he promptly gets branded a liar by the general public and faces a third party challenge by H. Ross Perot over tax increases.

During the Presidential campaign the the narrative is set that Bush is an out of touch tax hiker and liar. He loses his election to Slick WIlly.


The moral of the story is never compromise on foundational principles and never be goaded into policy positions that are clearly ruinous for your party by members of your party.

The GOP seems intent on destroying itself, I am torn about this prospect!

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (RrD4h)

166 At least I know where we stand

Yep, the social contract is void. It's every man for his own. Let the tribalism rage.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (evdj2)

167 That's the beginning of wisdom, Ace. 1.) Admitting that you don't know everything. 2.) Admitting that what you think it is true ...might be subject to correction.
(You can't learn anything new if you already think you know it all.)
Sadly, political ideologies of every stripe and kinda often have troublefacing these basic, and very human,limitations.
Too often, an ideological 'body of doctrine' becomes a body of 'myth and belief'. The former addresses reality while the latter focuses on fantasy and wish fulfillment.
If your ideology constantly leaves you disappointed with the real world results ofthat ideology, you just might -possibly- be living in a fantasy world.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (WwR1j)

168
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at November 13, 2012 02:35 PM (P6H+d)

Most of the the billboards in South Central Los Angeles are now in Spanish. As a matter of fact, in most communities with a high illlegal alien population, the billboards are in Spanish. The majority of workers in the fast food restaurants are Hispanic, and yes, they speak Spanglish in the drive-thru window.

My fiance' and I drove by his old high school not too long ago and we didn't even recognize the place. He went to school in what use to be a nice area of Santa Ana/Costa Mesa...now it looks like a war zone. And Santa Ana High School, which is two blocks from the federal courthouse, is completely surrounded by bars. Nice areas in Orange County have been overrun by illegals and it is disgusting.

As for blacks, the ones who voted for this shit sandwich, they are too stupid to realize that they are slowly becoming irrelevant to the Democrat Party. I hear the complaints of how the Hispanics are taking over the city government of Los Angeles and I just laugh. Pathetic!

Posted by: I Be That Chick at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (X20+7)

169 I actually think liberals will be pissed at seeing gay marriage taken off the table as an issue for them, once that's taken off the table, I don't see affluent gay people pushing for socialism.

Agreed. I think we’re losing far more than we gain here.

And that’s from someone who sees state-recognition of gay marriage as the equivalent of state support for white slavery. I understand the desire for equality, but I think they’re going about it the wrong way.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (QF8uk)

170 I don't think "truce" means what the WSJ writer thinks it means.

Look, we've run candidates further to the left of Reagan every since he left office and have done progressively (see what I did there?) worse. Yet the smart people are calling for us to move further left.

Sorry, I'll pass. Yes, I'm willing to "let it burn" if the "it" we're supposedly saving looks no better than socialist Europe after we get smarter by following all of these suggestions to move left.

Posted by: The Hammer at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (wo1YR)

171 I'm willing to fold on the gay marriage issue because I really have no compelling argument against it except that it's absurd.

My gripe is that we had a solution in Civil Unions. The problem is that all it took was one idjit and a court to throw that work away.

From my perspective, the point where your freedom to make a mistake ends is where my freedom of religion begins. If you use the word "marriage" then lawyers will use that as an excuse to make churches marry gays.

And just because the gay community as a whole might not be looking to marry in a church, all it takes is one idjit and one court, and that's why the well is poisoned.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (4+LTj)

172 Let's be honest here, 90% of our opposition to gay marriage is because we believe homosexuality to be immoral and we don't want the government to endorse it.
----

My fundamental opposition to it is that it is not necessary. I was open to it, but then realized there was no legal reason for it. Anything these folks need legally can be achieved via contracts. Gay marriage is about forcing people to condone your behavior and, for many gay activists, a way to club people whose religious beliefs who abhor over the head.

From a public policy perspective, I actually see it as the line we dare not cross in order to prevent polygamy and, ultimately, Sharia law. There is no justification for preventing a religious-based thing like polygamy if you are going to redefine something as fundamental as marriage for less constitutionally-relevant reasons.

Posted by: Y-not at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (5H6zj)

173 It was required to be paid in gold or silver

I've got 30 pieces of silver I just came across. Anyone want to swap them
for some Springsteen tickets?

Posted by: Chris Christie at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (feFL6)

174 OBAMA fixed our immigration problem. Hear me out.

Birthrate for Mexicans was just at 7 kids per woman in 1970. It is now JUST BELOW the replacement rate.

Our economy is now so shitty (thanks to Obama)that illegals are headed back to Mexico. You got it,we are now losing more Hispanics than gaining.

Mexico actually does a fucking decent job in holding closed its southern border.

The Hispanic wave has crested and is essentially going to recede a bit.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (tVTLU)

175 and put as much effort into publicizing and denouncing the mortgage bubble/Fannie/Freddie as it did hyping two undeclared wars,
__
The GOP House did hold hearings on the mortgage clusterfuck but Barney Frank politicized it and called the investigation racist.

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (jm/9g)

176
We need government transportation for all those wanting to move to America.
Free government transportation.
It would be racist any other way.

Posted by: Who Knows at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (W+Itt)

177 While we're at it, let's pass that UN Global tax.

Posted by: Roy at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (VndSC)

178 Jindal is patently wrong in his advice. Romney thought he could treat voters like adults, explain to them what needed to be done to get our fiscal house in order re: debt, deficits, entitlements (hence his pick of Ryan for VP) and that they would take responsibility for themselves and for the future of this country. He was wrong -- the majority of voters are children (hence "killing" Big Bird resonated more than 4 dead -- including our ambassador -- in Benghazi) who believe they are "entitled" to a comfortable life without having to *do* anything to earn it (it's why they hated that 47% tape so much -- the truth hurts).

Of course, Obama also benefited from the fact that the MSM trumpets his every success no matter how trivial and downplays or outright ignores his every failure/mistake no matter how serious and far reaching while treating Romney under the exact opposite paradigm. I'd worry about what we need to do about circumventing the MSM before I'd worry about what we need to do to our platform because until the fact that we no longer have a free and fair press in this country is dealt with, it doesn't matter how the GOP "re-brands" itself, the MSM will insure the public doesn't know about it.

That, btw, is why I'm not giving any credence whatsoever to the "What Romney did wrong" b.s. coming from the right -- it plays into the MSM phony narrative and covers up their responsibility for the outcome of the election. All Romney "did wrong" was dare to run for election against Obama.

Posted by: angienc at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (w3JGl)

179 Art V convention!

Posted by: Vic at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (YdQQY)

180 Conservatives should focus on individual rights. Legalizing gay marriage is an application of individual rights.

If we are going to start a "populist" tax approach (meaning a watered-down leftist approach) we might as well join the leftist movement. Trying to defend individualism and liberty by compromising with the statists and socialists is suicide.

Posted by: Quantum at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (ZPZfC)

181 Posted by: McAdams at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (aVSeo)

---------------

I pretty much agree. Gay people exist, and it makes everyone's life easier if they can set up their lives with partners as easily as straight people---go to the courthouse, sign a document that says basically "we are now joined, you can assume that any child borne or adopted by one of us belongs to both of us, our property is now joined, our tax liability is joined, and until you hear differently, we are the next-of-kin for making medical decisions and so on." say some vows, ta-da. Cake optional.

But I don't think that this was really where the GOP lost this particular election. It's a good idea in general, but it's not the main problem here.

Posted by: Marco Rubio's garbage at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (IPG9V)

182 When are the open borders nitwits at WSJ going to get it thru their beltway heads that, Hispanics want free stuff.gubmint

No matter how much pandering the GOP does, Hispanics want big Gubmint Cheese. The ones who do not, are in the GOP already like Sandoval and Ted Cruz

Posted by: Jack J at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (4WesI)

183
There is all kinds of tax changes and such we wish we could make, but we can't, we can only play defense in the House. Much like the Jets, we have no offense.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (PHb2k)

184

Posted by: Y-not at November 13, 2012 02:48 PM (5H6zj)

The truth is the govt doesn't allow us to make contracts as we see fit, so it's not entirely true. The status quo is schizophrenia imo. Either get gay marriage, or get the govt out of our love lives.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:50 PM (xAtAj)

185 And, sock fail. Yay.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 02:50 PM (IPG9V)

186 >>let's pass that UN Global tax

With John F. Kerry as SecState, I'm sure we'll at least be passing a lot of "global tests."

Posted by: jakeman at November 13, 2012 02:50 PM (96M6e)

187 That's a brilliant idea - let's adopt everything the Democrats want and run on that!

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (1Jaio)

188 The gay marriage argument that Stephens advances is completely disingenous. The point isn't to allow gays to marry, it is to use the force of government to make others agree that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Once gay maariage is legal, the next cause will be to make churches change their doctrines and force employers to subsidize. There is no end to the left's war on any insitution that stands in its way; marriage, family, church - they all have to go.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (nZvGM)

189 Tebowwww!

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (evdj2)

190 Your thoughts?

Even turds can have silver linings?

Posted by: eleven at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (KXm42)

191 GOP who? they are dead to me, when they can promote candidates who actually match my values, refuse to eat themselves alive and have a modicum of character maybe then I`ll return, until then count me in the ranks of the "independents".

Posted by: heh at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (bKX6s)

192 I've come to the opinion of they want marriage so bad, let them have it. Just be careful what you wish for. Kinda like having 2 wives? Who in their fucking right mind.......

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (79ueO)

193 Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you .....----------Deal..... but in return, all I ask is that the said adults stop demanding my approval and endorsement.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (nELVU)

Fucking exactly. Well stated.

Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (nTgAI)

194 I would reluctantly conceed to gay marriage if they take away all of the government benefits that go along with being married.

Even the socially liberal , fiscally conservative personshould not supportgay marriage as the construct marriage stands today. You are looking at a great increase in the cost of doing government business. Family Court problems, social security suvivor benefits, housing, private insurance, etc. Add up the benefits or exemptionsor rights provided to married couples. Why add to the cost of doing government business at this time?

Posted by: Peter Rock at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (m2CN7)

195 Gerry Ford was more liberal than Carter in 1976, and he was the Republican Incumbent who lost

Posted by: Jack J at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (4WesI)

196 Why we lost Act 1 Scene 3, Take 2047

Whack!

Roll'um

Posted by: AoS Movie Director at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (YdQQY)

197 152 And the fuckers wondered why their sensitive items went missing and their racks smelled like urine.
Posted by: Mr pink at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (EoQ9s)


See here now is my advantage. As a DR in a Medical Unit no one really ever questions my Dental Judgements and I make sure to tell the Chief how great all the Enlisted are doing and they all make sure I have hot coffee all day. It all works out great in the end.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:45 PM (79ueO)


Our company commander went home 4 times while we were in country. Beat that and you get into the Shamming Hall of Fame

Posted by: Mr pink at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (EoQ9s)

198 The dirty money from the NRA PAC is corrupting the political process, somebody should do something about it.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (SDkq3)

199 the only plan left that will work for the country and GOP. Give the dems everything they want then stand back and let it burn.
If you want someone tocome around toyour POV you have to hit them in the wallet. It works every time.

Posted by: booter at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (5KRL6)

200 It's also a little strange to say GOP wants everyone to change to Democrats... each person in the GOP has their own idea of a better coalition, and it tends to be one or two stances.

I have a couple things I think should change as well.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (xAtAj)

201 139
I
actually think liberals will be pissed at seeing gay marriage taken off
the table as an issue for them, once that's taken off the table, I don't
see affluent gay people pushing for socialism.



-----------------------------------------------------

Well, you think wrong then if you think that total victory of SSM will appease them. Next will be polygamy and polyamory. Those will finally kill marriage and so next will come the legal abolition of marriage. The age of consent will be lowered or abolished and "age-disparate relationships" will be normalized. The incest taboo too will come under assault.

As always happens when the family breaks down, women and children suffer most. So thanks, feminism, gay liberation, and sexual freedom, thanks for all that.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (mAm+G)

202 Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you .....----------Deal..... but in return, all I ask is that the said adults stop demanding my approval and endorsement. Posted by: fixerupper at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (nELVU) Fucking exactly. Well stated.
Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (nTgAI)

Too add to this it's all about the approval and endorsement. It's about the marriage.


Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (nTgAI)

203 Tebowwww!

What, really?

Posted by: eleven at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (KXm42)

204
132 116
Who came up with the phrase..."Too Big To Fail"?

I'm asking, because I don't remember.
For some reason my brain has blocked it out.

It was in 2008, and the Dems were in control of both houses of congress.
So was it a Dem or a Republican who came up with..."Too Big To Fail"?
Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 02:41 PM (ICEh3)

____________________


The term "too big to fail" was popularized by U.S. Congressman Stewart McKinney in a 1984 Congressional hearing, discussing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's intervention with Continental Illinois.[1] The term had previously been used occasionally in the press.[2]

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:42 PM (r2PLg)

-----------------

Thanks, tasker.
I had no idea it had been used before 2008.

Stewart McKinney was a Republican from Connecticut. (I looked him up.)
A'moderate'.
Why am I not surprised.

Well, as long as the Republican party is wedded to the concept of "Too Big To Fail"...then it is doomed to fail.

I think this was basically what Jindal was trying to say.
I could be wrong...but I read it twice.
He just didn't explain it very well.

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (ICEh3)

205 It was actually a lot more complicated than that.

I actually don't think it was.

Oh, the situation was a lot more complicated. I don't dispute that.

But the underlying principle which had finally been pushed too far was that the laws passed by Government (whether 2000 miles away, or 20) have a direct effect on people's lives. If the Government refuses to acknowledge that and base its policies on that reality, then the Government is no longer acting to secure those inalienable rights- and people have the right and duty to overthrow the old and institute a new one.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 02:53 PM (8y9MW)

206 With John F. Kerry as SecState, I'm sure we'll at least be passing a lot of "global tests."
Posted by: jakeman at November 13, 2012 02:50 PM (96M6e)


You did not get the memo? Let's go to the video rice is going to State and horseface is going to Defense.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:53 PM (79ueO)

207 Art V convention!

Thank you. Sir! You are a great American!

Posted by: Art VanDelay at November 13, 2012 02:53 PM (O6q63)

208 I actually think liberals will be pissed at seeing
gay marriage taken off the table as an issue for them, once that's taken
off the table, I don't see affluent gay people pushing for socialism.




Posted by: McAdams at November 13, 2012 02:43 PM (aVSeo)


So Rosie O'Donnell will become conservative? Also think how many affluent straight people push for socialism. I don't think the 2 are connected

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 13, 2012 02:53 PM (1Jaio)

209 the country is in peril- do we want to win? or be ideologically pure?


we can't get our people into position to do good unless we win--- so I say, let's win FIRST

did not FDR cozy up to one of the worst dictators in history in order to defeat the Nazis? YES. And 40 years later, we took down that enemy.

so I say--- we usurp all the democrats issues. agree with them, neutralize them, and by doing so, take them off the table.

THEN the fight begins

Posted by: Jones in CO at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (8sCoq)

210 I would reluctantly conceed to gay marriage if they take away all of the government benefits that go along with being married.

Government benefits, in general, are screwed up where families are concerned. The whole point to the marriage benefits was so that a household could be formed and children could be raised.

We've screwed things up badly enough that kids have babies out of wedlock (and are not really interested in marriage), while gays want to get married.

We need to re-examine those incentives.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (4+LTj)

211 Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you .....----------Deal..... but in return, all I ask is that the said adults stop demanding my approval and endorsement. Posted by: fixerupper at November 13, 2012 02:47 PM (nELVU) Fucking exactly. Well stated. Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (nTgAI) Too add to this it's all about the approval and endorsement. It's about the marriage.
Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (nTgAI)

Fail.. I meant to say it's not about the marriage, it's about the consent and approval

Posted by: The Jackhole at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (nTgAI)

212
toby, did you happen to see Canseco's latest tweet over the weekend?

from memory: It's sad how you don't care about people. Aliens are out there waiting to extinct us.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (jUytm)

213 Wow so in short Republicans are NOT going to be the party that the left and the media (same thing) define us as?

But the question is, "Will the left and the media define Republicans differently with these policy changes?"

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

They will still say we are the party of the rich and are racist sexist homophobes.

If the meantime we lose a few more million of our base and get all off 10 votes from the center, another Democrat win.

But that said we should let the media and the Democrats (yes, again the same thing) tell us how to change AND do the opposite. Because we all know the Democrats and the media want Republicans to WIN ELECTIONS!!

Posted by: bobbymike at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (wJSZn)

214 The GOP will keep the House in 2014, they have many pick off targets on Dems who won squeakers. Sessions is the only leader we have who gets it

The Senate is the real test. We must gain seats to solidify a filibuster or gain control, in case a Conservative Judge retires.

Posted by: Jack J at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (4WesI)

215
Let's get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: Some other 'conservative' giving advice at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (PHb2k)

216 Angienc,
I agree, I think Mitt is taking a lot of hits. Look, he was a very good man and I grew to appreciate him more as the debates happened and the campaign closed.

I thought he could definitely help on the economy. I was always nervous about his true conservatism, or lack thereof though. But Obama is so fucking bad the alternative is clear.

I will say this though, and it's not Mitt's fault who he is. It is tough when your main message is fuck Detroit and don't raise taxes on the rich to convice lower to middle class whites in Ohio and elsewhere that you have their best interests at heart.

Is it right, is it fair, no. But that's just the way it is. We must have a candidate that comes from humble beginnings in the next election.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (tVTLU)

217 i really only have two thoughts on same-sex marriage

a) it's not the end of the world
b) the fact that it's not the end of the world is not an argument for full normalization of homosexuality

i guess people think any area between total rejection and total acceptance is untenable at this point. I don't. i think it's entirely possible to tolerate, while still having small preferences for straight couples in adoption, and acknowledging that there are marginal cases of people who aren't "born that way" (or are bisexual) and aren't served by being encouraged to identify a certain way at a young age.

Posted by: JDP at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (60GaT)

218 Lets tax everyone. Seriously. If we are going to roll over and let it burn, VAT is the way to go. It fucks everyone at every level, sometimes twice.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (evdj2)

219 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 02:53 PM (8y9MW)



I have sent a lot of time studying up on that period in the last year. Tired of 1850 to 1861 and 1930 to 1965

Posted by: Vic at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (YdQQY)

220 Bobby Jindal: Hey, Let's Tax the Rich
Rand Paul: Hey, Let's Have an Amnesty
WSJ: Hey, Let's Have Gay Marriage


Fuck you.
Fuck you.
And fuck you.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (X3lox)

221 Stewart McKinney was a Republican from Connecticut. (I looked him up.)
A'moderate'.
Why am I not surprised.

Well, as long as the Republican party is wedded to the concept of "Too Big To Fail"...then it is doomed to fail.

I think this was basically what Jindal was trying to say.
I could be wrong...but I read it twice.
He just didn't explain it very well.

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 02:52 PM (ICEh3)

__________________

Yep.

Although it says the media used it first.

Why am I not surprised?

The footnote for the media using the term first--sucked, however.

Just know that Krugman gave the policy the full tonguing.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM (r2PLg)

222 I don't have much doubt the reason we lost the white youth vote was gay marriage/abortion.
Illegals are largely a lost cause. They come from socialist hellholes and would ironically vote to make this a socialist hellhole. So long as they get thier phone. Hispanics in general are much likely than the population at largeto be poor and on welfare. Good luck wooing them.
I don't think we need to raise taxes on the rich necessicarily, but Jindal is right, we need to find some populism; to relate conservatism to working class people. More than anything else up here, working class whites not voting is why we haz no President Romney.
A fourth reason is that god damn the media is absolutely killing us. They were biased before, but they threw it in overdrive after 2004. We absolutely cannot get our message out, basic truths (ex: the unsustainable economic situation we're in) are obscured, and most tellingly we are caricatured and villified.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (t06LC)

223 so I say--- we usurp all the democrats issues. agree with them, neutralize them, and by doing so, take them off the table.

THEN the fight begins
Posted by: Jones in CO at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (8sCoq)


Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer? Worked for Micheal

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (79ueO)

224 This is what happens when 3 million Republicans stay home; the GOP decides it's because you wanted amnesty, legalized weed, gay marriage and higher taxes.

What part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the ability to regulate what I eat?

Because Michelle Obama wants to use it. The Pot clause. Gonna do something about them big macs...

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (TULs6)

225 Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (jUytm)
___
So even the aliens have given the election results a big thumbs down.

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (jm/9g)

226
COMING FROM BEHIND
The Story of How General Petraeus Won In Iraq

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (jUytm)

227 Just remember, it can ALWAYS be worse...


http://tinyurl.com/a3nphuy

Posted by: RWC at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (fWAjv)

228 >>rice is going to State and horseface is going to Defense.

Ah, of course. That's makes much more sense. But, SecDef will still make sure we pass our global tests with flying colors.

Posted by: jakeman at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (96M6e)

229 2 I don't want to climb aboard the let it burn bandwagon. But damn, those seats look comfortable.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 13, 2012 02:23 PM (3Y7RV)

Welcome to the party pal...

Posted by: carrot McClane at November 13, 2012 02:56 PM (UZQM8)

230 >>>>>Your thoughts?

Our best strategy at this point is to stall on immigration until doom hits hard enough that the states can't provide services. Because the wave has crested but we still have no way to stop another.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (Ech5T)

231 Foreign exchange controls and a two tiered currency is something the 'new' GOP should champion.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (SDkq3)

232 >>>>did not get the memo? Let's go to the video rice is going to State and horseface is going to Defense.
Posted by: Nevergiveup


I wonder if we could have the first case of fragging ever to occur "inside" the Pentagon.

Posted by: Roy at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (VndSC)

233 Well you kids can self-immolate all you want.

The GOP's future looks way better than the 2000's.

America might be bleaker over all, but I'm not quitting.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (xAtAj)

234
1) Yes, I personally think the GOP is on the wrong side of some issues. The GOP needs to get out of trying to legislate morality, especially on a Federal level. Pot, Abortion, Gay Marriage, should all be left to the states.
2) With that said, it doesn't matter what our candidates actual positions are, as it will be the media who will define us.
So cave all you want on core principles. In the end, a moderate like Romney will still be painted as an extremist who wants to outlaw vaginas.

Posted by: California Red at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (icSBv)

235 "I pretty much agree. Gay people exist, and it makes everyone's life
easier if they can set up their lives with partners as easily as
straight people---go to the courthouse, sign a document that says
basically "we are now joined, you can assume that any child borne or
adopted by one of us belongs to both of us, our property is now joined,
our tax liability is joined, and until you hear differently, we are the
next-of-kin for making medical decisions and so on." say some vows,
ta-da. Cake optional.



But I don't think that this was really where the GOP lost this
particular election. It's a good idea in general, but it's not the main
problem here."

I also don't think gay marriage was why we lost (Akin abortions were more damaging) but the GOP is in danger of losing several generations in the coming elections over this issue if it's not dealt with.

Social issues in general need to be dealt with. They used to help the GOP (like 30 years ago) and took the South away from Democrats, but the world has changed and even the Bible Belt is rejecting social issues.

We simply don't have a majority of people living in this country that want to criminalize abortion or outlaw same sex marriage, even though a majority likely thinks it's immoral.

Posted by: McAdams at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (aVSeo)

236 The effin shallow thinkers on our side will be the
death of us. If it's consensual, in their own space, how the hell do I
even know about it? Who you boink is not the problem.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 02:44 PM (evdj2)


Fuckface Stephens has joined Drunk Before Noonan as being a worthless asshole who has jumped the shark. Maybe Rupert makes them all draw straws to see which one sacrifices his or her self to the great PC God that the journalists worship on each election.

Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (9q8BB)

237
Let's get rid of the 1st Amendment.

Posted by: Even a different 'conservative' giving advice at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (PHb2k)

238 so I say--- we usurp all the democrats issues. agree with them, neutralize them, and by doing so, take them off the table

Who you gonna trust to actually reverse course and play it straight after "we win the election," buckaroo?

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (yKUrR)

239 People who hate pro-lifers are claiming pro-lifers are the problem. People who hate SoCons are claiming SoCons are the problem. People who support amnesty are saying we need amnesty. None of this stuff surprises me. It's expected after a loss. The only think I find painful about losing on Tuesday was that Romney's campaign was focused on fiscal issues and he lost. There has long been a part of me that thought we could win more elections if we focused on fiscal conservatism and maintain an unspoken agreement on the importance of social conservatism. I thought that some aspects of social conservatism scared voters off. I'm starting to think fiscal conservatism may be the more unpopular of the two.

Posted by: Ben at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (C2Y4l)

240 It's sad how you don't care about people. Aliens are out there waiting to extinct us.

Intriguing. I might have to subscribe to his newsletter.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (evdj2)

241 @ 142

"If we really tipped, why do we still control the House?"

This is a trailing indicator due to the way representatives are elected, IMO. Think about the national map by county which is pretty much all red, vs. the actual electoral outcome.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (zpqa2)

242 I think it's good that people are offering opinions and prescriptions.

Sure - head in the sand stuff always works.

I
suppose we'll have to see who wins the day.


Basically - we'll be seeing about the time China decides to stop lending us money, and just colonize us.

I really don't know give a crap
anymore.


"ObamaCare is the law of the land.", says Boehner. Chief Roberts can take his legacy as his final reward - the one man with the last clear chance to save the Nation. We know how to play the game, but we got out-numbered. Comes a day when the stacked deck beats an honest hand.

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (eMtQ2)

243 So Rosie O'Donnell will become conservative?

There are more gays than Rosie O’Donnell. Here in San Diego there are a lot of gays with money who don’t want to lose it. (Unfortunately, there are also a lot of government union members who don’t want to lose their money, so we got Bob Filner instead of Carl DeMaio as our mayor.)

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (QF8uk)

244 toby, did you happen to see Canseco's latest tweet over the weekend?



from memory: It's sad how you don't care about people. Aliens are out there waiting to extinct us.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:54 PM (jUytm)


Canseco 2016

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (1Jaio)

245 I find it sad how little faith you guys seem to have in the USA.

Posted by: Olaf at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (t1NLo)

246 We are fucking boned. When we turn our backs on the Constitution, our sovereignty, and our morals, we have nothing left to offer. Nothing.

The Mayans were right. This is the end of reality as we've known it. It's a brave new world now.

Hold on to your God and faith. It will be the only thing that will save us.

Posted by: Soona at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (n6eVv)

247 Any of those 3 things happens, I'm out of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Big T Party at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (WiQr+)

248
C'mon. You knew this was coming, right?
Eff them all. Let it crash and burn.

Posted by: keithp at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (kduZC)

249
I didn't see the tweet. I'm sure Jose's typos made it 200% funnier.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (jUytm)

250 Why not try workers owning the means of production?

Too academic?

Posted by: George Orwell what knows we are now Airstrip One at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (LyF0H)

251
A big ol' hound dawg Howdy to y'all! Got my laptop up and running.

Did I miss anything today? Is the world still fucked up?

Good. Nice to know I can take a few days off and still stay current.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (lOmbq)

252 Your thoughts?

Posted by: Prescient11
.......
That's nice for 20 years from now. But they were having babies at alarmingly high rates for several years. Those babies are now teens. In 2016, they get to vote.. and more in 2020.

So, yeah.. their birthrates are down, but the short-term ain't lookin' too good.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (f9c2L)

253 I don't think we need to raise taxes on the rich necessicarily, but Jindal is right, we need to find some populism;

Ahem. Shakespeare, anyone?

Posted by: AmishDude at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (T0NGe)

254 Bobby Jindal didn't say tax the rich. Jindal is talking about messaging abd perception, in that quote, iirc.

Ron Paul can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Elizabethe at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (ou/rY)

255 Third Party? I think it might be time - I can't believe I'm saying that, but I think we're there. Of course I know a Third Party could never win a general election. But, that's the point. Steal enough votes from the Repubs and force the election over to the Dems by default. Then let it all burn down. Let.It.Burn.

Posted by: Not and Artist at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (uRumV)

256
The ironic part about the abortion thing is that under Obamacare you will have to wait 11 months to get one.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (PHb2k)

257 12 Spanish sucks, btw.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (dZ756)

The more I embrace my wife's Mexican heritage, the more I realize why my in-laws speak English. I find Spanish more complex due to its reliance on implied context. Where as English is more verbose.

Posted by: carrot McClane at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (UZQM8)

258 See, I just don't get the argument that gay marriage = forcing people to say that there is no difference between hetero sex and gay sex. Legalizing divorce doesn't force people to view divorce any given way, and our refusal to lock people up for adultery doesn't mean we don't spit upon adulterers. Freedom of religion does still exist (though of course we should be vigilant about that) and it will remain up to each individual church/temple/whatever to decide whether they will perform any marriage, gay or straight. Some straight couples can't get married in the Catholic Church, or by the Mormons or what have you, and that's that.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (IPG9V)

259 >>Just remember, it can ALWAYS be worse...

Ah, see, I thought you were going to go with the graveyard scene from Young Frankenstein:

http://www. youtube .com/watch?v=9AFf0ysgNiM

(delete spaces)

Posted by: jakeman at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (96M6e)

260 I find it sad how little faith you guys seem to have in the USA.

Of course you do, bless your math-impaired little heart.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (evdj2)

261 I wonder if we could have the first case of fragging ever to occur "inside" the Pentagon.
Posted by: Roy at November 13, 2012 02:57 PM (VndSC)

_________________

Or the first case of--

self-fragging--if that's possible.

Posted by: tasker at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (r2PLg)

262 I been thinking about JJ Sefton's challenge/thinker about how to change the culture, and then about Sven's hankerin' for a New Republic as such, and the ideal, uh idea has just hit me. Though it might be just lunch and dyspepsia, I dunno...

Anyway: We all go to Louisiana and start our own College. Legally speaking, the bar is way low so its easy-peasy. We can all live as faculty or whatver on the grounds of the campus. And we can offer free tuition for whatever semester the coeds show us their boobehs plus we can offer pizza and beer scholarships. Maybe just a law school because we got so many of them here.

Laterz, imma set up the Seal now

Posted by: uterus cannon at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (3ZtZW)

263 12 Spanish sucks, btw. What literary or intellectual heritage, other than a few things written over 100 years ago, claims Spanish as its tongue? The Inquisition? I'll master German and Japanese before i go back to Spanish.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 02:25 PM (dZ756)


Exactly. My half-assed conversant (sort of) Spanish makes me sound like a Lithuanian tourist in Peoria. It's good enough as long as I have one of those quick translation books for the little used stuff. There is nothing intellectual about the Spanish language.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (ctm1d)

264 McClane sock off... yippie kay yay!

Posted by: cajun carrot at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (UZQM8)

265 Hey let's have a mass migration exodus and get ready to make the next secession wave stick.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (LRFds)

266 "I think it's good that people are offering opinions and prescriptions."

If winning elections were the only touchstone, the prescription would be obvious:

Free shit!

The other guys are promising you free shit?

We'll give you even more free shit!

This model doesn't scale and it's not sustainable, but it sure is popular.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (ymG7s)

267 I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm hoping the next Bourboncast will perforate eardrums.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows we are now Airstrip One at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (LyF0H)

268 "Why the fuck are they saying this to the fucking Politico and CBS? Say this shit at a think tank, or a conservative gathering."

Because they're massive pussies?

Posted by: holygoat at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (IGIFh)

269 There is already a pathway for citizenship for illegal aliens. The line starts at the US embassy in their home country. We'll even arrange transportation. One-way.

Posted by: epobirs at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (kcfmt)

270 Did I miss anything today? Is the world still fucked up?

Everything is still backwards.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (evdj2)

271 The more I embrace my wife's Mexican heritage, the more I realize why my
in-laws speak English. I find Spanish more complex due to its reliance
on implied context. Where as English is more verbose.


Spanish has something like a third of the words that English does, and most of the modern words are common with English.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (4+LTj)

272 As always happens when the family breaks down, women
and children suffer most. So thanks, feminism, gay liberation, and
sexual freedom, thanks for all that.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson

Why don't you just add the right to vote and own property while you're at it?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (dZ756)

273 Ahem. Shakespeare, anyone?
Posted by: AmishDude at November 13, 2012 02:59 PM (T0NGe)



Just so long as I get to shoot back.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (VtjlW)

274 "What's left, then?
What will we stand for?"

==========

The GOP. Modestly priced same-sex wedding receptions.

Wait, no. That won't do. If we don't go extravagant, it will seem as if we're not REALLY supportive.

The GOP. Modestly priced heterosexual wedding receptions.

Posted by: Sweet Little Abbie, Age 4 at November 13, 2012 03:01 PM (znT2j)

275 Oh and Ace you aren't alone in the "what the hell do I know anymore?" boat.

Everything I thought I knew about Ohio was wrong, and i guess 15 years later I am finally at peace with being an outsider.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (LRFds)

276
"Twenty-nine percenters" or the "29%ers"

I'm sure you all remember this, right?

That's what the Left called us during the last two years of Pres Bush.

Obama's approval ratings will also be 29% soon.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (jUytm)

277 I think the GOP should push for an Enabling Law and the forced collectivization of farms.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows we are now Airstrip One at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (LyF0H)

278 A big ol' hound dawg Howdy to y'all! Got my laptop up and running.

Did I miss anything today? Is the world still fucked up?

Good. Nice to know I can take a few days off and still stay current.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy
.........
Win 8? I was running Win 8 preview and I liked it a lot once I got used to it.

But, my hard drive crashed last night (I think) and I may be looking at getting a new computer.. *sigh*

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (f9c2L)

279 I pretty much agree. Gay people exist, and it makes everyone's life

easier if they can set up their lives with partners as easily as

straight people---go to the courthouse, sign a document that says

basically "we are now joined, you can assume that any child borne or

adopted by one of us belongs to both of us, our property is now joined,

our tax liability is joined, and until you hear differently, we are the

next-of-kin for making medical decisions and so on."


But if there are same-sex marriages, how does the court know which partner to screw over in the divorce?

Seriously, give it 30 years and it'll be just like 30 years ago when even suggesting the idea of same-sex marriage was the anti-gay position.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (T0NGe)

280 Stupid stupid sock puppets...

Posted by: Kensington at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (znT2j)

281 You wouldn't be dealing with gay marriage if you hadn't given marriage certificating to the Government.

Used to be marriage was something done in church. A church thing.

But your Christian Progressive grammie had to go get government involved, issuing certificates. Because, it was wagered, she could use the government to rig up benefits and penalties that would nudge more people into getting married, which was a social good.

So you gave it to the government and now the government is going to let someone marry a fish.

At what point do we learn the lesson? Seperation of Church and State is about protecting the Church, not the State. Look what happens when you don't mind it.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (TULs6)

282 And Rome falls because everyone lowers their standards.... jump on the bandwagon and give up your identity to get votes..... how week is that!

Posted by: mkn at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (SXu8/)

283
Republicans - They Don't Call Us Cavemen For Nothing!

Posted by: t-bird at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (FcR7P)

284 Obama's approval ratings will also be 29% soon.

How?

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (QF8uk)

285 Just a hypothetical. If it becomes clear that Huckabeeism is the ticket to national success does the urban single conservative faction that Ace represents jump ship?

Posted by: Sam Haysom at November 13, 2012 03:02 PM (xwlja)

286 The reps should be more libertarian and more tenth amendment.

Does anybody remember when Ford opposed the life amendment and proposed an amendment that would return abortion to the states.
I'm sorry but Fords approach is more consistent with the constitution .

Does anyone else remember when it was the reps that were the pro abortion and pro women's right party?

Posted by: Avi at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (Gx3Fe)

287 272 SFGoth,

yeah just like that.

If you think that go home to the donks.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (LRFds)

288 Ace, I really believe you are asking the wrong question. The election is over. The question now is, does it make sense, in light of the Dem win, for these guys to say this stuff now?

If so, how? And if not, then why are they saying it?

I don't believe Boehner/Jindahl are suddenly for raising taxes, I don't believe Rand Paul is all about the open borders. There's another explanation. Do I know what it is? Heck no, I haven't a clue.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (TOk1P)

289 "By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice."

I don't know. Look at the countries the speak it as their primary language.

Shitholes. All of them. Spanish is a language associated with the bowels of the planet.

Maybe you should ask them to learn English if being 'bilingual' is a virtue. Maybe, like Democrats telling blacks they can't do it on their own, you just think they're too stupid to do so.

Posted by: blindside at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (x7g7t)

290 "Miss my Mom yet?"
==========

If we were going to lose anyway I wish we'd have swung for the fences and lost with her. Of course, she would have had to actually step up and RUN.

Posted by: Kensington at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (znT2j)

291 Republicans move left, they lose. Move further left, lose. Repeat ad nauseum.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (da5Wo)

292 ... and it will remain up to each individual church/temple/whatever to
decide whether they will perform any marriage, gay or straight.


You've obviously missed the gay activists' argument that limiting marriage to straights is exactly like miscegenation laws.

And churches are not allowed to prevent biracial couples from marrying now.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 03:03 PM (4+LTj)

293 'It was called “the Optimizer,” and, strategists for President Obama say it is how he beat a better-financed Republican opposition in the advertising war.
Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it
with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying
to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed
Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of
level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree...'

Posted by: Comrade J at November 13, 2012 03:04 PM (6kkPP)

294 Huckabeeism? Izzat full submerging or the sprinkle kind?

Posted by: uterus cannon at November 13, 2012 03:04 PM (3ZtZW)

295 >I find it sad how little faith you guys seem to have in the USA.

Posted by: Olaf at November 13, 2012 02:58 PM (t1NLo)

much of it evaporated last Tuesday night

Posted by: Jones in CO at November 13, 2012 03:04 PM (8sCoq)

296 258
See, I just don't get the argument that gay marriage = forcing people to
say that there is no difference between hetero sex and gay sex.
Legalizing divorce doesn't force people to view divorce any given way,
and our refusal to lock people up for adultery doesn't mean we don't
spit upon adulterers.


------------------------------------------


So under the SSM regime, the public schools will be able to teach that only a union between a man and a woman is "marriage"? Catholic Charities can deny adoption services to SSM couples? Oops, that one's already failed in Massachusetts, Illinois, and D.C.

The law is a great teacher of morality, and some people get their moral instruction only from the law. So if divorce is legal, it must be good. Likewise sodomy.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 13, 2012 03:04 PM (mAm+G)

297 If we could get rid of governmentmarriage, you wouldn't have to worry about gay marriage.

But then government wouldn't "support marriage" by giving married people special tax breaks that penalize singles.

Silly government didn't get the message that only socially conservative republicans are supposed to get Free Shit.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (TULs6)

298 So if homosexuality and homosexual lifestyle gets more and more entrenched in the law, will gay activists start demanding that the Bible be banned ? or that those who preach against homosexuality be prosecuted for hate crimes ? or demand that the Bible be rewritten ?

Posted by: runner at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (WR5xI)

299 >>Huckabeeism

Do *not* want to look that up on Urban Dictionary.

Posted by: jakeman at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (96M6e)

300 Collective establishment opinion: "Our last three centrist/RINO candidates were unpopular so we need to...um...become democrats in order to beat the democrats. Turning back to genuine Conservatism just doesn't occur to us. Dammit, SCREW the country, we want the media to LIKE US!"

I haven't been a Republican for six years now. Looks like i never will be again.

Let it burn...the country, the GOP...let it all burn.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (yk8/j)

301 I will say this though, and it's not Mitt's fault
who he is. It is tough when your main message is fuck Detroit and don't
raise taxes on the rich to convice lower to middle class whites in Ohio
and elsewhere that you have their best interests at heart.



Is it right, is it fair, no. But that's just the way it is. We must
have a candidate that comes from humble beginnings in the next election.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 02:55 PM

****************************************************

Are you an idiot? Seriously -- do you have a mental defect because "fuck Detroit and don't raise taxes on the rich" is not never was Romney's "message" -- that is the outrageous lies the MSM Obama said his "message"was.

On the small chance you aren't a MOBY, you are proof that the only intellectual pygmies in this country aren't just on the left.

Posted by: angienc at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (w3JGl)

302
Hey, what if Ispray-paintover my bald spot and pinkie swear not to mention rape?

C'mon, guys!

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (Ks4nX)

303 By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice.

German is the language of Kant and Goethe as well as that of Mozart and Bach. Call me when telephone trees start having "press 1 for German" as an option, Brett, you assclown.

Posted by: Yakov Smirnoff at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (zF6Iw)

304 1) anyone can marry anything in any number

2) abolish the INS

3) spend it spend it all the problem with cutting government is we can't figure out how to add enough revenue from the electorate to keep cutting services while taking money from earners.

Let it burn

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (LRFds)

305 Are you crying?! There's no crying in Politics!

Posted by: Manager From 'A Party Of Their Own' at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (x34E8)

306 So if I have this right what will turn things around for the Republican brand is the following:

1) Raise Taxes.

2) Amnesty millions of people who historically have voted 70% for the opposition.

3) Relent on the two planks that animate and move the very base of your party.


In other words, COMPLETE AND UTTER CAPITULATION!!



Posted by: General Woundwort at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (RrD4h)

307
libertarians beleive in the free flow of labor an in the personal freedom of individuals to migrate. Rand Paul and Cato's positions on immigration are frustratingtoconservatives, nationalists, and those that put sovereignty over personal freedom. Its been a tough one to square for me. I always run around spewing aboutliberty. Doesn't theMexican suffering in a shitty economy deserve that just as much as my American children?
For me,theacceptable solution to this is to allow the free flow of labor and migrants, but wihout thesocial benefits that act as a magnet. Yes, youshould be able to come to this country, but you are going to have to adhere to the legal process (whichneeds to bereformed) and you are going to have to make it on your own when you get here. Otherwise, you are infringing on my liberty.
Our system is so broken though that free flow of migrans + social welfare = chaos and doom.

Posted by: California Red at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (icSBv)

308 The more I embrace my wife's Mexican heritage, the more I realize why my in-laws speak English. I find Spanish more complex due to its reliance on implied context. Where as English is more verbose.
Posted by: carrot McClane at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (UZQM


Yes. Spanish is very imprecise. And when you're highly excited, you sound like a blithering idiot and I do a very good job of that when I lapse back into Chicago-accent English. Usually drunk.

.

In a bar.

.
Abusing a Democrat.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (ctm1d)

309 The Reps were the party of equal opportunity - they were the civil rights party and the women's rights party.

Unfortunately the rats went further and became the equal outcome party, and put the pub bites on the defensive by calling them sexist/racist if they weren't for equal,outcomes


I'm going Galt

Posted by: Avi at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (Gx3Fe)

310 I guess I don't understand how we can dispose of some of our closely held beliefs and still be credible. I am not getting it. I couldn't be for amnesty if I wanted to. It is rewarding law-breaking and I don't care who is offended by that stance.

Taxing the rich? The current definition of "rich" is those making over 200 grand. That will be adjusted downward. We all know the high income brackets already pay most of the tax burden. Should we pretend we don't know that and allow the freedoms of successful people to be impinged for political expediency even though we know it would be bad for the country?

I believe abortion is at the very least preventing a life. We are all former fetuses. These are just some made up positions I hold to be part of the Conservative club. These are my beliefs. I can't just forget about them. This is all absurd. I would rather live out my days being in the minority than pander to the assholes who are destroying the country. The pandering won't work anyway and even if it did we would be no different than the opposition. I am not understanding what the point is.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (x0g8a)

311 1. We will never out left the DNC.
1a. They exist for patronage so they won't share
1b. When convenient they will go to your right, see e.g., 2008 when obama wanted to cut spending line by line.
2. Intellectually, please explain what issue or giveaway would have given ObamaPhoneLady or Lena Dunham (representing the voting blocs we lost) to have considered Romney?
3. How were we losing ground when we picked up newspaper endorsements that were unheard of?
3a. there were many semi-celebs that came out for Romney, first time GOP voters
3b. Who switched to Obama?
4. Voter fraud is real and needs to be addressed, it's not a matter of IF but but a matter of how much
4a 410,000 votes cost us the election
4b millions of votes outstanding
4c military votes?
4d Each swing state had irregularities
5. Therefore, what recriminations should we follow?
5a do we go after Lena Dunham (slutty, gay marriage loving sluts) or ObamaPhoneLady (welfare for lifists)?
5b. tax cuts are now negotiating tools, we need a budget or something in exchange
5c. again, we can't give away everything, we still lose because we aren't democrats

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (QxSug)

312 188 -- " The gay marriage argument that Stephens advances is completely disingenous. The point isn't to allow gays to marry, it is to use the force of government to make others agree that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Once gay maariage is legal, the next cause will be to make churches change their doctrines and force employers to subsidize. There is no end to the left's war on any insitution that stands in its way; marriage, family, church - they all have to go."
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (nZvGM)

THIS.

Speaking to a gay leftie colleague at work a while ago, I suggested that the government should get out of the marriage stuff altogether, just giving us all domestic partnerships, civil unions, whatever, and leave "marriage" to churches and yoga studios. He was 100% against that.

The point is not equal "rights." The point is Piss Christ.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (C8mVl)

313
"Let it Burn"...?

Okay.
But what does that mean, exactly.

Does that mean we endorse the Bailouts for the profligate Blue States?
Because they will be screaming for those.

Bailing out the broke states that went for Barky, will only prolong the agony.
It will delay the whole 'Let it Burn' thing.

Without Federal Bailouts, the broke states will implode and serve as examples of why liberal policies don't work.

So I say....NO Bailouts.
None.
Not for states.
Not for companies.
Not for banks.
None. Not one dime.

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (ICEh3)

314 Let's allow our gay ambassador and Consolate staff to be murdered because our president has something to hide, and turn it into a salacious honor and integrity and betrayal clusterfuck.

Posted by: Fritz at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (/ZZCn)

315 Chi-town Jerry, that's actually pretty funny. That's why we want a "long path". But many of those millions are in CA, which does not really matter anyway regarding the presidential vote.
NEWSFLASH:
We won the WHITE YOUTH vote by seven points
We won the WHITE WOMAN vote as well
Now, we got slaughtered with
MINORITY WOMEN. Even among black and hispanic men we did pretty good compared to how we did with their women.
We don't need to blow the whole fucking thing up, WE NEED OUTREACH TO MINORITY WOMEN.

Plain and simple. And a better GOTV campaign and a candidate that does not have any elevators for any fucking things anywhere except the office.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (tVTLU)

316 That's what I thought three shitty jokes. Damn I'm gonna miss sharing at tent with you 30 guys and your three combined girl friends.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (xwlja)

317 But then government wouldn't "support marriage" by giving married people special tax breaks that penalize singles.


Name one. I pay more taxes "married, filing jointly" than I did when I was single. Yes, I get a child tax credit (which we can debate) but so do single people with kids. What else have you got?

will gay activists start demanding that the Bible be banned ? or that
those who preach against homosexuality be prosecuted for hate crimes ?


If England is any indication? Yes.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:07 PM (8y9MW)

318 The law is a great teacher of morality, and some people get their moral instruction only from the law.

Other people's morality is not your concern, only their legality. So long as they don't murder and steal from you, it doesn't matter if they're going to Hell or not.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:07 PM (TULs6)

319 <<
Republicans move left, they lose. Move further left, lose. Repeat ad nauseum.>>

THIS.

We're long past the nauseum part.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 13, 2012 03:07 PM (yk8/j)

320 @1.) Yes. Let's just give up economic literacy and go with the Democrat's plan to destroy our economy with vapid pablum and pseudomarxist bullshit that hasn't been relevant to economics since the 40's.
@2.) Meh. We can still win here we just need to pick our battles (late and partial birth abortion are unpopular with women).
@3.) I can see this, so long as we can go without forcing churches to perform the ceremony there should be reasonable leeway for adequate compromise on the issue with socons.

Overall. I don't think the issues caused the problem I think the problem was the media. Obama and his administration have done things ranging from unethical (the unelected and unaccountable bureacrats known as czars imprisoning a citizen for creating a video) to downright criminal (fast and furious along with Benghazi) and the average voter knows nothing about this crap. This was, IMO, a failure of information dispersal.

Posted by: Ben(the original) at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (c2ddD)

321 Barney Frank for Supreme Court !

Posted by: Mohamed Abdul Muhammad Muhamed at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (/A1Rb)

322 Used to be marriage was something done in church. A church thing.



Uh, no.

In fact, most of our marriage rituals date back to pre-Christian Rome. (Note that the Bible doesn't tell you how to conduct a wedding.) Virtually every society has had marriage and the state enforced it.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (T0NGe)

323 Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 13, 2012 03:04 PM (mAm+G)

-----------------

I don't know about the public schools where you're from, but mine didn't teach me one whit about marriage. Ideally, there shouldn't be a public school as the model currently exists, but lots of different schools which could accept vouchers. Then parents who believed in gay marriage or not could send their kids to a school that would teach that. And those of us who are perfectly okay teaching our kids about marriage at home and in church would choose schools that stuck to the academics.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (IPG9V)

324 Tax all incomes (note the "s') over $100,000 at 55%.

That should make sure that the 8 richest counties that voted for Obama take it in the shorts.

Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (OY/SZ)

325 re: "Rand Paul proves that the acorn never falls far from the tree."

It's fucking Politico. If the story's not completely made up, it's falsified to make him look shitty. He's been on the "you can't have a welfare state *and* citizenship-via-borderjumping" side in the past. You can't get to replace-the-electorate beltway-GOP land from there.

It sounds like he's floating a plan that lets illegals roundaboutly *buy* citizenship on an installment plan. The "highly qualified workers" H-1B and similar market-distorting loopholes bring in *buy* theirs (via credential and indenture), and you guys love that shit, so why not?

I wouldn't be surprised if he's just making a point.

Posted by: oblig. at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (cePv8)

326 The

Posted by: errhead at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (XFG/E)

327 The Fair Tax plan made it possible to have open borders and actually encouraged inviting every foreigner to move to the U.S. on a permanent basis.

By giving anyone (non-criminals) permanent resident (non-citizen) status, and charging the Fair Tax sales tax on all transactions, the economy would be taking off like a rocket.

Posted by: jwest at November 13, 2012 03:08 PM (ZDsRL)

328 98 Ace, I think you're being a bit hard on Jindal. I read the larger excerpt, and it sounded more like Jindal wanted to be more anti-corporatist, and not specifically "tax the rich".
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 02:38 PM (4+LTj)

Yes and big business is only marginally better than big government. Big tits are good though, can't see a sane person that would challenge that.

Posted by: Ed Gibbon at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (4eNxd)

329 Let's say your fiance is a dirty stinking ho. You decide to go through with the wedding because you have plans to recoup your losses later, but you are not going to call off the wedding. It would make YOU look like the bad guy, when she's the one letting every Tom's Harry D**k inside her holes.

At the wedding you act happy. Even kiss the bride, shove cake in each other's mouths at the reception, but your lawyer is in the house, and he's recording everything.

You'll spring it later. But not until after the "honeymoon."

Your President, the newly wedded Mrs. Scoamf is on his/her honeymoon.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (TOk1P)

330
How?

I'll answer your question with a question: In what state do you see the economy in 2013...in 2014?

Better, same, or worse?

Obama's policies have barely touched the economy so far. Wait until next year and the year after. We're headed, I believe, towards recession. Obama weathered the storm so far and fooled 50.1% of the people, but as soon as things get even a little worse, Obama's celebrity ride is over. The tide will turn against Obama.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (jUytm)

331 While we're at it, let's just elect Pelosi majority leader and get it over with

Posted by: the dandy at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (lVK3L)

332 Politically, I'm mostly libertarian. That means I really don't care much about the social conservative issues; if two gay folks in a committed relationship want to get married, I'm fine with that, as long as the government doesn't force churches to do the weddings. (I'm pretty sure the Catholic church won't be doing gay weddings any time soon, and it would be wrong to force them.)

Ace, like you, I'm wondering how things really work and how they ought to work. The libertarians (including, but not limited to, the Libertarian Party) have been unsuccessful in selling freedom. Freedom! What the USA was founded upon! You might think that would be an easy sell. But it turns out that given the choice between freedom and free stuff, a lot of people go for the free stuff. And given the choice between freedom and having the government put it's boot on the necks of "the right people" a lot of people go for the boot on the necks. If you take the union of all the people who want free stuff, and all the people who want government boots on necks, you have a lot of people who just keep voting for more government.

I've been hoping that, over time, the Republican party would let go of a lot of the social conservative issues and gradually become a more libertarian party. That sounds good to me. But I think it would be a huge mistake to make sudden, drastic changes based on decisions made a very short time after a shocking defeat.

As Ace noted, the defeat was actually pretty narrow. Maybe the Republicans don't need to change that much?

But also as Ace noted, the election shouldn't have been close. It should have been a blowout, with anybody-but-Obama elected. Does that mean the Republicans do need to change?

Eh, I think special circumstances. The MFM went far beyond just being in the tank, they went into outright partisanship, and it might have been impossible for any Republican to win.

But each year, new media (such as blogs) is going to keep eroding at the MFM. In four years time, either Joe Biden will be running (and he is not beloved the way Obama is) or someone non-incumbent will be running, and the bar will be that much lower for Republicans.

I think the Republican party should not make any drastic changes, not even to become more libertarian and make me personally happy about it. What the R's need to do for the next four years is just work to make Obama and the D's own the problems.

Sometimes I wonder if the House should just start rubber-stamping whatever Obama asks for, but each time, say "You own this. We are giving you what you asked for."

The Republicans and new media need to work together to hammer on a single meme for the next four years: Why didn't the MFM tell you about this sooner? Expose every skeleton to daylight and ask why this wasn't big news. Make Obama and the Democrats own their skeletons.

Posted by: mr_jack at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (TMG3G)

333 Does anybody remember when Ford opposed the life amendment and proposed an amendment that would return abortion to the states.

Ford was the only pro-abortion candidate I ever voted for, and that only because I didn't know at the time.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (evdj2)

334 FDR is laughing at all of you who think that fiscal conservatism means a damn thing.

Posted by: Shoot Me at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (qiXMt)

335 "I find it sad how little faith you guys seem to have in the USA."

I have faith in arithmetic. And in history.

Both of which indicate quite clearly that the USA as we have known and loved it is boned. It will not continue in its present form. It cannot. It may fission into new nations; it may collapse _in toto_. But Stein's Law will out.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (ymG7s)

336 312 MD,

Yup which is why i flipped from civil unions to "just go ahead and sue"

it is all a hit on the Church which I am going home to.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (LRFds)

337 Freedom of religion does still exist (though of course we should be vigilant about that) and it will remain up to each individual church/temple/whatever to decide whether they will perform any marriage, gay or straight. Some straight couples can't get married in the Catholic Church, or by the Mormons or what have you, and that's that.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:00 PM (IPG9V)

Yeah, you're trying to too hard. Do you ACTUALLY believe - for one second - that when a church refuses to marry a couple of gays - they won't be immediately subjected to a lawsuit by said gays and the ACLU (but I repeat myself)?

You don't seem to understand: It's never enough. First they just wanted to be left alone. Then they wanted to be tolerated. Then they everyone to affirm they are ok with gayness by redefining the word marriage for them.

It. Is. Never. Enough.

It's time to blow up the starship Enterprise.

Posted by: blindside at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (x7g7t)

338 It's all over but the crying. And the sex tape. The sex tape with a senior citizen retired 4 star and another dude going by the name "Paula Broadwell." It's a man, baby!

Posted by: Paula Poundwell at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (x9s9/)

339 I thought Romney was a good man and would've made an Excellant president. However as long as the MSM defines us we need candidates that go against type.
Raegan may have had a WASP mother but looked like his fathers Irish side and lifted himself up. Rubio and Jindal and even Ryan are bootstrappers and as long as we are unfairly targeted as the rich party we need to go against type

Posted by: Avi at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (Gx3Fe)

340 The ironic part about the abortion thing is that under Obamacare you will have to wait 11 months to get one.

I'm sure the NHS has sussed that one out.

Posted by: eleven at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (KXm42)

341 I'll just say, regardless of what people's individual opinions on these issues are

Romney got almost 48% of the vote

a lot can go wrong in four years

aaaand...remember people saying the Left had alienated religious people after 2004, how they needed to moderate to win again? Somehow they stayed the same, and won again.

this is all very premature (eww)

Posted by: JDP at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (60GaT)

342 So a TV station in Denver posts a picture of Broadwell standing in front of her book with this title "ALL up IN - my snatch" oops, who didn't do a little QA on that screen shot?
Is it just me or is watching or reading the news just getting harder and harder?

Posted by: Cheri at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (G+Wff)

343 312
The point is not equal "rights." The point is Piss Christ.


----------------------------------------


Wow, nicely put.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (mAm+G)

344 Knock doors. Call voters. Drive them to the polls.

This policy argument is utter bullshit.

Posted by: Truman North, last of the famous international playboys at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (I2LwF)

345 298 So if homosexuality and homosexual lifestyle gets more and more entrenched in the law, will gay activists start demanding that the Bible be banned ? or that those who preach against homosexuality be prosecuted for hate crimes ? or demand that the Bible be rewritten ?
Posted by: runner at November 13, 2012 03:05 PM (WR5xI)



Why, yes! Glad you asked.

Posted by: Ubergruppenfuher von Metrosexual at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (ctm1d)

346 287
272 SFGoth,
yeah just like that.
If you think that go home to the donks.
Posted by: sven10077

Can I buy a translation, Chuck?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (dZ756)

347 Doesn't theMexican suffering in a shitty economy deserve that just as much as my American children?

"deserve" got nothin' to do with it. Do I "deserve" to have to pay for them, since an overwhelming majority of them use more in social services than they contribute? Do the people they put out of work, or whose wages they artificially depress "deserve" that?

Fuck "deserve."

A nation which cannot or will not secure its own borders is not a nation.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (8y9MW)

348 <<You wouldn't be dealing with gay marriage if you hadn't given marriage certificating to the Government.
>>

THIS!

You want to end the Gay Marriage issue? Get government out of marriage where it had no business in the first place!

Domestic Partner laws now! One adult chooses one other adult to be their beneficiary. End of story. Then anyone can have any ceremony they want and call themselves "Married".

Guarantee you propose this in a serious way and the gay community will fight it...it's not about the benefits, it's about the forced legitimization.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (yk8/j)

349 Name one. I pay more taxes "married, filing jointly" than I did when I was single. Yes, I get a child tax credit (which we can debate) but so do single people with kids. What else have you got?

Well, if in your opinion there are NO freebe benefits to government marriage, that's all the more reason to get government out of it.

Know when you asked your wife if she would marry you? That's great. Know the part where you had a ceremony in a church so it would be "before the eyes of God"? That's peachy. Know the part where you went down to city hall and got a certificate? That's where you fucked up.

When you ask them for permission you give them control. Why look to the secular State to certify a marriage? That's not about the eyes of God, that's about the eyes of Caesar.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (TULs6)

350 Angie,
I am typing slowly now. Of course that wasn't Mitt's message.

BUT IT IS WHAT THE AVERAGE VOTER SEES, regardless of what we think.

Now, all of us on AOSHQ are not "average" in many ways in many respects. But we have to stop thinking as if everyone sees the world through our eyes.

THEY DON'T. We need streetfighters, not high minded fucksters at the heritage foundation.

Democrats are COMMIES. Democrats are WELFARE QUEENS. Democrats are AGAINST AMERICA. Democrats hate the MILITARY.

Go all alinsky against them. Mitt was 1) uber rich; and 2) stupid enough to let the NY Times write a headline under his name that said let Detroit go bankrupt.

If you're not studying exit polls, you are not helping. We need a messenger immune from all their bullshit attacks so that the message shines through.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (tVTLU)

351 When Mussolini won the elections in Italy, should the opposition parties gone more Fascist to win? When Hitler won the German elections, should the opposition parties gotten a piece of that popular Holocaust action to win?

Posted by: Tantor at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (659DL)

352 by the way i'm not trying to say this is directly analogous to 2004. I'm saying let's see how things pan out. I suspect Jindal's the closest to the truth, that the reason Romney lost is because working-class soft Republicans saw him as Gordon Gekko.

Posted by: JDP at November 13, 2012 03:12 PM (60GaT)

353
But, my hard drive crashed last night (I think) and I may be looking at getting a new computer.. *sigh*

So did mine (but not last night, it was about a month ago). It was a highly selective failure, hitting some days but not on others. I lost everything except the pictures (something for which B'Gal is eternally grateful), and I sure as hell haven't needed my resume for anything in years.

Managed to scrape together enough gig money to buy a smaller hard drive and spent the last couple of days getting everything running again. I should probably go over to my blog and sign out permanently. I see no point in trying to educate the LIV anymore after the country was killed last week. I can spend my time practicing on my drums and my bass and trying to get more gigs.

Heh. Silly me, I thought we were well and truly boned before...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 13, 2012 03:12 PM (lOmbq)

354 (Hard to be) Shorter (than) Jindal: Hey, it worked for Hughie Long!

Posted by: Kingfish Jindal at November 13, 2012 03:12 PM (x34E8)

355 @ 344

"Knock doors. Call voters. Drive them to the polls."

To vote for the next moderate?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 13, 2012 03:13 PM (zpqa2)

356 "Sometimes I wonder if the House should just start rubber-stamping
whatever Obama asks for, but each time, say 'You own this. We are
giving you what you asked for.'"

With the caveat that it be time-limited.

Build in sunset provisions, as the original Bush tax cuts were built to sunset at the end of ten years. Except make the time horizon shorter. Four years max.

Obama doesn't care what the hell happens after he leaves office. Make sure he owns the consequences politically while he is in office. ESPECIALLY for the next two years. The 2014 Senate races beckon.

If the economy sucks for the next two years, and Obama and the Democrats can't escape ownership, and if we nominate Senatorial candidates who can refrain from blurting out insane nonsense about rape pregnancies being "intended" by God, then we might have a shot at rendering Obama a pure lame duck for his last two years in office.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 13, 2012 03:13 PM (ymG7s)

357 <<a lot can go wrong in four years>>

Dude, a lot has already gone wrong in four DAYS!

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 13, 2012 03:13 PM (yk8/j)

358 . Do you ACTUALLY believe - for one second - that when a church refuses to marry a couple of gays - they won't be immediately subjected to a lawsuit by said gays and the ACLU (but I repeat myself)?

-------------------------

I'm sorry, I must've missed the point where my Church had to start letting divorcees and non-Catholics marry within their Church.

If the government does start forcing churches to marry same-sex couples, I'll be against that, of course. But right now, I don't think that fear is enough to keep other churches---no matter how wrong I think they are---and secular people from having their gay unions and their cake and their own choices.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:14 PM (IPG9V)

359 Is this the same"Paul(a) Broadwell" who did the entire Academy football time after winter finals Junior year? Tight end no more indeed!

Posted by: Paula Poundwell at November 13, 2012 03:14 PM (x9s9/)

360 346 SFGoth,

No

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:14 PM (LRFds)

361 "...that when a church refuses to marry a couple of gays - they won't be immediately subjected to a lawsuit by said gays and the ACLU (but I repeat myself)? "<br>
<br>
<br/>
A feature not a bug, of gay marriage. I don't think marriage has anything to do with it. Its an attack on the Christian Church.

Posted by: puddleglum at November 13, 2012 03:15 PM (GCTeZ)

362 I just tried to jerk off to that photo of Paul A. Broadwell. Meh.

Posted by: Paula Poundwell at November 13, 2012 03:15 PM (x9s9/)

363 fiscal conservatism means enforcing smaller government, starving the beasts.

Look how easily DHS took shipments of armored Humvees, or million/billions of rounds of ammo. WTF?

scary shit, you plebes will be crushed

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (QxSug)

364 Name one. I pay more taxes "married, filing jointly" than I did when I was single. Yes, I get a child tax credit (which we can debate) but so do single people with kids. What else have you got?will gay activists start demanding that the Bible be banned ? or that those who preach against homosexuality be prosecuted for hate crimes ? If England is any indication? Yes.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012

Not taxes but If you die, your wife can collect your full SS at age 60.

Posted by: Peter Rock at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (m2CN7)

365 It's time to blow up the starship Enterprise.

Posted by: blindside at November 13, 2012 03:09 PM (x7g7t)

"My god, Bones....what have I done?"

"The same thing you've always done, Jim. Turn defeat into a fighting chance to survive."

Posted by: EC at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (GQ8sn)

366 I read on Wikipedia that Bret Stephens "went to the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics," and yet he writes like this, like some journalism hack with no depth or nuance to his thinking?

Stephens seems to have no concern for the conscience rights of religious dissenters. For example, who will protect the Christian photographer from being forced by the state to participate in ceremonies that violate his religious beliefs?

Ffffff ... over his head. Not on his radar. He doesn't care. And yet, freedom of religion is our most important right.

Posted by: edj at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (+QKfp)

367 I think it's cute how sailing off the cliff isn't good enough for the GOP. They have to detonate the car while we're still in the air.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (zpqa2)

368
Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (tVTLU)

Others have mentioned how obnoxious it is, when someone uses a lot of 'all Caps' words in their comment.

In case you're still doing it, because you don't understand how to create Italics, Bold, or Underlined text...here is how:

Italics: [ i ] text [ /i ]
Bold: [ b ] text [ /b ]
Underline: [ u ] text [ /u ]

Take out the spaces that I used to enable these to show up.
Your comments will be much better without the 'shouting'fromputting so many wordsinall Caps.

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (ICEh3)

369 Without Federal Bailouts, the broke states will implode and serve as examples of why liberal policies don't work.

So I say....NO Bailouts.
None.
Not for states.
Not for companies.
Not for banks.
None. Not one dime.


Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 03:06 PM (ICEh3)

-------------------------------------------
I agree with you. But, how do we stop the bailouts? In the House? Ok, so all the Dems have to do is wait for the next fiscal cliff to come up and hinge any agreement on a bailout of a large Dem-controlled state - like California.
By, "let it burn" I think it means let's let the country fail sooner rather than later. Some of us have kids just entering the work force. They will never have the chances I've had in my career with the current economy. I want my kids to have a chance to prosper. That's not going to happen unless we see some drastic changes.

Posted by: Not and Artist at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (uRumV)

370 363 JoeInDc,

I'll take that bet.

O'll use WMDs or he'll lose.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:17 PM (LRFds)

371 We seem to be forgetting that hedonism is a primitive lifestyle. That its humanity in its base state.
Its only by developing self-discipline that we've been able to advance as a species and a society.

Humans have been around for 500,000 to a million years, and it was only in the last 6,000 years that we finally started developing what's now derisively called the "traditional" family and have reaped the benefits from that social development.

Liberals sell hedonism as "freedom".
Conservatives need to learn to sell self-discipline as "success".

Posted by: Iblis at November 13, 2012 03:17 PM (9221z)

372 For example, who will protect the Christian photographer from being forced by the state to participate in ceremonies that violate his religious beliefs?

Really poorly framed and out of focus shots.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:17 PM (evdj2)

373
344
Knock doors. Call voters. Drive them to the polls.



This policy argument is utter bullshit.

Posted by: Truman North, last of the famous international playboys at November 13, 2012 03:10 PM (I2LwF)


THIS.

48% of the vote with 32% turnout.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 13, 2012 03:17 PM (da5Wo)

374 Okay, I'll be 69 on Friday. Obama"care" is law. All of the Republicans who looked promising for 2016 are espousing Dem/Com positions. Prices for everyday necessities are skyrocketing, but military pensions and SS are just losing value.

Looks like time to hunker down into survival mode for us oldpharts, as long as we can make it. There aren't enough WalMart greeter jobs for all of us.

Posted by: Empire1 at November 13, 2012 03:18 PM (PR+Tr)

375 I'm sorry, I must've missed the point where my Church had to start letting divorcees and non-Catholics marry within their Church.

If the government does start forcing churches to marry same-sex couples, I'll be against that, of course. But right now, I don't think that fear is enough to keep other churches---no matter how wrong I think they are---and secular people from having their gay unions and their cake and their own choices.
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:14 PM (IPG9V)

You missed the point that 'heterosexual couples' aren't the cause celebre' and don't go around suing everyone and everything. Nor do they have anyone who would take their case.

Did you miss the point where this Administration decided what constitutes ministry and what doesn't, and therefore who/what the 1st Amendment applies to and who/what it doesn't?

You don't think they'll broaden the reach of that.

You're a fool if you don't see where this is going. I won't waste more time on fools.

Posted by: blindside at November 13, 2012 03:19 PM (x7g7t)

376 Not taxes but If you die, your wife can collect your full SS at age 60.
Posted by: Peter Rock at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (m2CN7

---------------------

And it's better for the government to keep the money you paid in over the course of your lifetime because....?

I actually hate SS as a matter of principle, but the problem is SS itself, not gay unions. SS screws over unmarried people of any age and sexual preference and their families who pay their funeral costs.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:19 PM (IPG9V)

377 There has long been a part of me that thought we could win more
elections if we focused on fiscal conservatism and maintain an unspoken
agreement on the importance of social conservatism. I thought that some
aspects of social conservatism scared voters off. I'm starting to think
fiscal conservatism may be the more unpopular of the two.


That's why the 0bama campaign blanketed Pennsylvania the final weeks of the campaign with images of Romney talking about stacking the SC to have another look at Roe v Wade.

As opposed as I am to having anyone, anywhere pay even a tiny percentage of taking the life of an unborn, I also hate, hate, hate how the Democrats somehow win elections with the issue. But they do, over and over.

I thought R/R did a great job of stepping around the third rail of the SS issue. But (R)'s have to realize the abortion issue is just as large. Despite all the polls that show a majority of Americans oppose abortion, it seems to be a rallying cry of GET OUT THE VOTE DAMNIT that works. Not just gets out the vote on their side, stifles the vote on our side.

Those who do not learn from history are destined to annoy me.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 13, 2012 03:19 PM (feFL6)

378 "Democrats are COMMIES. Democrats are WELFARE QUEENS. Democrats are AGAINST AMERICA. Democrats hate the MILITARY.
Go all alinsky against them."

I seem to recall that we had a guy in Congress back in the 1990s who specifically coached incoming freshmen members to do exactly this. Use hot button words and issues as political weapons against liberals.

What ever happened to him again? Oh, yeah. Went on a big crusade against a President who couldn't keep his dick in his pants, only for the rest of the country to find out that said crusader had his own zipper problems. Destroying the crusader and making our entire party look like sanctimonious hypocrites.

So maybe if we're going to pull out that old playbook we should also be focused on not repeating the fatal mistakes of the guy who was originally calling plays from it.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 13, 2012 03:19 PM (ymG7s)

379 Avi,
You are 100% totally and unbelievably correct!!!!
Plus, it gives one the strength of conviction. When is the last President we had that was from humble beginnings.
Reagan!!!!!!!

How'd that turn out. Regular Americans knew the truth of his background, even though the media spent 8 years trying to tear him down.
WE ENDED UP WITH LANDSLIDES.

GWB kind of limped along, but he was ok, not really uber conservative, but he did right by S. Ct. judges (once straightened out on H. Myers).

Now what have we had?? It would have been tough to beat a D in '08, for sure, but this time was doable and we failed.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 13, 2012 03:19 PM (tVTLU)

380 I'm of Irish ancestry and was raised up on the stories of a the anti-irish immigration stance of the 19th century US. Also, I have a few buddies from central america countries and Mexico in my unit that recently gained their citizenship and are trying to do so for their wives. Our current immigration process is retardedly hard and expensive for those who follow the laws and process, but easy to circumvent for those who wish to do so illegally. That is the issue right there. If you make the correct path hard and onerous, but the incorrect path easy and with limited consequences, you get more people following the incorrect path. We need immigration reform that encourages immigrants to follow the correct path and encourages social integration (english mandatory, etc.) while strongly discouraging the illegal path. We should not be putting monetarily high roadblocks in the path of the way of immigrants that we want to come into our society.

Posted by: J the Saint at November 13, 2012 03:19 PM (+Awp3)

381 374 Empire1,

The good news is IPAB won't want to boil the frog all at once so you may be safe.

The bad news is my "retirement age" will be 72 and a defacto DNR will be on my IPAB profile at age 60.

I'll bet money on it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:20 PM (LRFds)

382 Jindal was onto something when he said conservativism is/should be apopulist movement (of course, then he went off on some class war tangent about 'protecting the rich man's toys, blah, blah, blah', and lost me entirely). I would argue 'populist' isn't enough.

Conservatives tend to be reserved and uncomfortable when it comes to public demonstrations of any kind, whether holding hands witha sweetheart on on a public sidewalk or carrying a protest sign. I'm guessing because our political leanings are at least in partreflection of our temperament. Remember Beck's big rally in DC a few years ago? Everyone was painfully nice and tidy and polite, picking up their own trash and saying 'excuse me,' 'pardon me', and 'sorry'. That shit needs to stop. We're confronted by a stealth socialist takeover of our country, and possibly the downfall of the Republic. Nice won'tdo the job.

This business about moderating the GOP's stance on various issues to become more palatable to the views of more moderate, supposedly more mainstream fellow citizens? Screw that. We're either right or we're wrong. If we are right on most if not all of the important economic, cultural, and political issues of the day, then we need to find political representatives capable enough to make the argument. Whatever one might think about Mourdock's views on rape and abortion, whether you agree with him or not, he was ineffective and unpersuasive in espousing those views, and for that reason alone didn't deserve the vote I gave him. Socialism is a dreadful idea, worst form of governance devised by man, yet Obama and the Democrats manage to sell it successfully, so don't tell me we need tosteal ideas from the Democrats. We don't need their ideas. We need their methods. We need to start thinking of ourselves as revolutionaries in the way our Founders were revolutionaries.

Posted by: troyriser at November 13, 2012 03:20 PM (vtiE6)

383 188 The gay marriage argument that Stephens advances is completely disingenous. The point isn't to allow gays to marry, it is to use the force of government to make others agree that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Once gay maariage is legal, the next cause will be to make churches change their doctrines and force employers to subsidize. There is no end to the left's war on any insitution that stands in its way; marriage, family, church - they all have to go.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 13, 2012 02:51 PM (nZvGM)


1) In addition to the problem of forcing churches to conform doctrinally and materially (forcing churches to allow gays to use their buildings, etc.) there is also the problem of religious schools, etc.

2) Why just gay marriage? Folks are already talking up polygamy and paederasty, and while proponents of gay marriage may want to dismiss those folks as nutters, fifteen years ago gay marriage was a fringe position and those who were afraid relaxing the laws against sodomy would lead to gay marriage were derided as paranoid. Add to this the fact that the notion that homosexuality is a identity, not a behavior, is afairly new idea, and the question of why homosexuals get special privileges over other kinds of non-heterosexual-monogamy sexual preferences is a something that demands an answer.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 13, 2012 03:20 PM (aJahi)

384 No.

Posted by: L. at November 13, 2012 03:20 PM (VnIQw)

385 Bailouts for the state ARE the 'hill to die on.' That's the point where the 'S-word' becomes more than just talk.

Posted by: blindside at November 13, 2012 03:20 PM (x7g7t)

386 Uh, no. In fact, most of our marriage rituals date back to pre-Christian Rome. (Note that the Bible doesn't tell you how to conduct a wedding.) Virtually every society has had marriage and the state enforced it.

Amish, you're WRONG. Ahistorical. You bought into the marriage movements propoganda (I've heard that a million times too, but it's wrong).

In Western society, government did not start getting involved with who's married to whom until the 17-19th centuries. In English culture I think it was the 18th.

In 1600 and everything before that, The catholic church considered any man and woman who claimed to be married to be married in the eyes of the Church barring specific exemptions (ie already married to someone else).

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:21 PM (TULs6)

387 Most of us were fine with civil unions. I always was. Gay marriage is simply a front on the war against Christianity and a direct assault on the Tea Party, which is or was rather gay sympathetic, period. The dumbassed gheys lap it up and will dance the leftist tune on their single issue. I was gay sympathetic. Fuckers ruined that real quick with the Gaystapo Brigades. I have no sympathy whatsoever. There is nothing wrong with limiting it at civil union.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 13, 2012 03:21 PM (ctm1d)

388 When you ask them for permission you give them control. Why look to the
secular State to certify a marriage? That's not about the eyes of God,
that's about the eyes of Caesar.


This is the problem, and I think it was AmishDude who referred to it earlier- people believed in state-sanctioned marriage long before Christianity. Civilizations other than Israel practiced monogamous marriage for a long time.

The fact is that Marriage is a Natural Right- if a man and a woman want to make a life together (and have children, natch) they can do so without any government's existence, let alone say-so.

The state does not define or mandate marriage at all. Just like all our other natural rights, it defends it for the good of our posterity.

Do I get *some* benefits from signing a marriage certificate? Yes. But none that can't be achieved through contracts or other legal documents. It's a short-cut. But that's not where your argument started- you claimed I got tax breaks. And I don't.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:21 PM (8y9MW)

389 The idea that marriage has been a government institution for over 2000 years is flat out incorrect. Look it up.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:22 PM (TULs6)

390 Obama is scary, he'll use violence without a second thought. I told you, lefties aren't a bunch of peace and love hippies but Stalinists, union thugs, and mafiosi.

BTW, if voter fraud truth ever catches up to Obama or any other scandal, he will give Israel the green light to smack Iran. or vice versa.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 13, 2012 03:22 PM (QxSug)

391 I’m staying home. I’m done with the party of stupid. I’ve voted in every single election, school board, primaries, etc for the past 16 years. But the party of stupid wants to be leftist-light so they can count me out. Anyone know a nice, quiet part of the country where I can get a job to make ends meat and live with like-minded conservatives?

Posted by: NJRob at November 13, 2012 03:23 PM (FVp26)

392 This is the problem, and I think it was AmishDude who referred to it earlier- people believed in state-sanctioned marriage long before Christianity. Civilizations other than Israel practiced monogamous marriage for a long time.

But not Christian Europeanones, THEY only started doing thisin thelast few hundred years.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:23 PM (TULs6)

393 385 Blindside,

So get ready and start talking to people.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:23 PM (LRFds)

394 349 -

True story: when my late wife and I went to city hall to get our cert/license, the lady behind the counter said "God bless you."

That was a few years ago, but even then I'm sure it was against the rules, and she knew what she was doing.... being young and dumb, we thought it was a hoot.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 13, 2012 03:24 PM (TOk1P)

395 I'm sorry, I must've missed the point where my Church had to start letting divorcees and non-Catholics marry within their Church. If the government does start forcing churches to marry same-sex couples, I'll be against that, of course. But right now, I don't think that fear is enough to keep other churches---no matter how wrong I think they are---and secular people from having their gay unions and their cake and their own choices.
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:14 PM (IPG9V)


See: Europe, Canada, Free speech issues regarding biblical doctrines on homosexuality. People have gone to jail or been sued into bankruptcy for simply stating that homosexuality is a sin.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 13, 2012 03:24 PM (aJahi)

396 391 NJRob,

by themselves TX, MS, and LA can make a go of it but we'll probably get OK, AR, and maybe AL to go along in wave 1.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:24 PM (LRFds)

397 I'm not talking about monogamy, that's natural. I'm talking about government marriage.

Yes, people have had male/female monogamous sleeping arrangements since 9500 years ago.

But they never had government certificates.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:24 PM (TULs6)

398 Jindal didn't mention taxing the rich. I hope people read the article and not just Ace's misleading headline.

Posted by: Ken at November 13, 2012 03:25 PM (3ar4L)

399 So Rosie O'Donnell will become conservative? Also
think how many affluent straight people push for socialism. I don't
think the 2 are connected


Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 13, 2012 02:53 PM (1Jaio)

Most wealthy people vote Democrat for social issues, I would say that's the overwhelming majority of it. My "well to do friends" that vote that way I would say are 99% of it, I never hear them say things like "I want a bigger government with more food stamps and higher taxes."
I'm not trying to placate every voter, but the fact that even affluent women have turned against the GOP is troubling.For me, the battle now for conservatives should be fighting socialism, everything else should fall by the wayside. We don't have the luxury of playing "Moral Police" any longer.

Posted by: McAdams at November 13, 2012 03:25 PM (aVSeo)

400 Seems to me it's a lot of so-called conservatives not letting a crisis go to waste.

This guy (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334891.php) seems to think the problem isn't the message, it's that the message didn't *penetrate* to the low-information voters.

Since voters are impure (hat tip again to beaglescout) and vote (or don't) based on all kinds of reasons, "correcting the message" is usually code for "this helps my career"....

Pox on 'em. Every one.

Mew

Posted by: acat at November 13, 2012 03:25 PM (4UkCP)

401 Well, you either believe in things or you don't. Once we cede the ground to higher taxes it becomes extremely hard to ever make the case against taxes again. Either you believe that a persons money is, in fact, their money or you believe it's the governments money.

I'm beyond tired of this wishy washy nonsense where we accept a certain amount of enslavement, which is what income taxes are, in exchange for votes from people benefiting from that enslavement. Take a stand or go the fuck away.

Posted by: booger at November 13, 2012 03:26 PM (HI6wa)

402 390 JoeInDC,

I've said for a long long time that a democrat President will be far more savage on RoE with us than any Muslim terrorist.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:26 PM (LRFds)

403
where would we be if the truth had been told prior to election?
1) BenGhazi: The masses were kept ignorant of the scandal.
2) Bailouts: The masses were told that the GM bailout was paid back in full.
3) Unemployment: 7.8%? Come on.
4) Obamacare: O takes $750B from Medicare and Romney is the guy killing granny?
5) etc. etc. etc.

All this hanwringing about our policies and coalition is healthy, but we must remember that we lost to Obama and the media. Without the cover of the MFM, Obama would have lost. Until we have influence in the MFM, it may not matter what our actual policies and condidates positions are. For we will always be racist, mysoginistic, gay hating, rich protecting, whiteys that want to scorch the earth.

Posted by: California Red at November 13, 2012 03:26 PM (icSBv)

404
369....I agree with you. But, how do we stop the bailouts? In the House?

Posted by: Not and Artist at November 13, 2012 03:16 PM (uRumV)

----------

Yep...in the House.

This is the hill to die on.
No Bailouts.
None.

Bailing out anything will only prolong the agony.
Bailouts will make the Dems look like heroes.

I think that Barky and the Dems, will try to keep things afloat until 2015.
Then they will welcome a 'Crisis' that they can use.

If we're serious about the "Let it Burn" thing, then there can be No Bailouts.

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 03:26 PM (ICEh3)

405 The idea that marriage has been a government institution for over 2000 years is flat out incorrect. Look it up.

Just to be pedantic: go take a look at Chinese marriage laws.

But the point kinda-sorta stands in Northwest Europe. After the fall of Rome, there was a period where marriage wasn't a state thing (beyond nobility).

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 03:27 PM (4+LTj)

406 A nation which cannot or will not secure its own borders is not a nation.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:11 PM (8y9MW)


Tee-hee. That's part of the plan!

Posted by: Ubergruppenfuher von Metrosexual at November 13, 2012 03:27 PM (ctm1d)

407 Hmmm, came across something interesting in the last hour. Apparently, in California, there were more than 2 million lessvoters for Obama this year than in 2008.

So what's with all the disapearing voters?

Posted by: HH at November 13, 2012 03:27 PM (v+ExF)

408 404 wheatie,

from your mouth to God's ears I hope.

Tell every GOP rep you can that if you bail out CA or IL you can add your career to the list of crisis points.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:28 PM (LRFds)

409 Do I get *some* benefits from signing a marriage certificate? Yes. But none that can't be achieved through contracts or other legal documents. It's a short-cut.

Then nuke it. Get government out and then who can marry who isn't a political issue. You can debate your pastor/priest.

The state does not define or mandate marriage at all. Just like all our other natural rights, it defends it for the good of our posterity.

Defends it? From WHAT? Infidelity? No. Divorce? No. Abusive mother-in-laws? What?

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:28 PM (TULs6)

410 Not taxes but If you die, your wife can collect your full SS at age 60.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

Of course, I think that's a flaw in SS (well, beyond its existence in the first place) not in how marriage works.

In Western society, government did not start getting involved with who's
married to whom until the 17-19th centuries. In English culture I think
it was the 18th.


Check your sources. As far back as ancient Rome (at least) a woman, once married, had a host of rights single women did not. Including the ability to inherit and own property, and to vote (widows as head of household).

The difference in the European nations in the Medieval period (and after) was that there was not nearly the separations between Church and State as that to which we have become accustomed. But, again, there were differences in how women who were married were treated under the law- which means that the State, not just the Church, recognized marriage.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:29 PM (8y9MW)

411 But the point kinda-sorta stands in Northwest Europe. After the fall of Rome, there was a period where marriage wasn't a state thing (beyond nobility).
A period of about 1000 years, up until a couple hundred ago.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:30 PM (TULs6)

412 "1. A pathway to citizenship already exists for illegals. And it isn't all that painful or onerous."

It's pretty terrible, actually. My friend (a citizen) married a Mexican girl four years back and has been slowly navigating this so-called path. His wife overstayed her visa and they were forced to "touchback" several times at the consulate in Juarez, the world's most dangerous city while attempting to get a green card. In the mean time, she had to work crappy jobs, sometimes in abusive conditions because she lacked government paperwork. She now has a green card, and should be eligible for citizenship sometime soon. Incidentally, after living through this arduous process, my friend has decided to go to law school to study immigration law. There are just too many people, too many families caught in the cracks of our society for us *not* to reform our immigration laws and citizenship requirements. Neither we, as Americans, nor poor immigrants are well served by the current system.

Posted by: Jordan at November 13, 2012 03:30 PM (jRfn3)

413 I can go along with taxing the rich as long as wherever the line for rich is drawn it is also a cap for government pay because no one should get rich off the taxpayers.

If $250k for a couple is rich, then $125k is the maximum government salary.

Posted by: PR at November 13, 2012 03:31 PM (KHo8t)

414 372 For example, who will protect the Christian photographer from being
forced by the state to participate in ceremonies that violate his
religious beliefs?


Really poorly framed and out of focus shots.
=================
You would think so -- but never underestimate the thoroughgoing vindictiveness of leftist martinets.

Posted by: edj at November 13, 2012 03:31 PM (+QKfp)

415 But the point kinda-sorta stands in Northwest Europe. After the fall of Rome, there was a period where marriage wasn't a state thing (beyond nobility).
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 13, 2012 03:27 PM (4+LTj)


How exactly are we defining "state" thing? I am not sure that the modern understanding of one can draw a strict line between societal customs and "the state"/legal system under feudalism.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 13, 2012 03:31 PM (aJahi)

416 Rand Paul is just openly calling for the goals he had long before he became a senator. He has never hidden them. I happen to agree with him.

Bret Stephens has wanted this for several years as well, and honestly Even though I am a church going pro life catholic, who btw thought Mourdock has gotten a raw deal from the party, I just don't see at this point why gay marriage is such a big issue.

As to Jindal, I can tell you I am not surprised at all that he would want call for this. Like a lot of the new republicans in the party he is really a socially conservative New Dealer, like Huckabee. The GOP absorbed a lot of these people over SoCon issues when the Democrats became the party of death. They maybe Republicans now, but they are old time Democrats at heart. See Santorum, Rick

Posted by: Roy at November 13, 2012 03:31 PM (EuD1c)

417 I'll answer your question with a question: In what state do you see the economy in 2013...in 2014? Better, same, or worse?

Much worse. And Republicans will get the blame. If Obama isn’t stuck with the responsibility for an extended depression caused by programs enacted when Democrats had full control of the House and the Senate, he’s not going to get blamed for economic conditions when Republicans are in control of the House.

Obama could line up today’s journalists against the wall and shoot them with a gun, and their colleagues would blame Republicans for providing him with the gun.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 13, 2012 03:32 PM (QF8uk)

418 For what it's worth, and speaking as a (legal) immigrant, I wish conservatives would drop the very term "Hispanic" from their vocabulary.
It's bad enough to make gross generalizations about Mexicans, PRicans, Dominicans, etc., and I understand we have to be able to generalize to speak. But "Hispanic" is MUCH too broad.

There are many Americans from Spanish-speaking countries who do NOT fit the profile of the stereotypical welfare moochers or drug lords.

And BTW, it is always amusing to read these threads where I am told that all Hispanic countries are "shitholes," that Spanish itself is a pathetic language, etc., etc., and then have someone pipe up and say things are so bad, by God, I'm moving to Costa Rica!!!!!!!!!

Just as I, a pro-lifer, despair of certain GOPers inability to address the subject without being idiotic and offensive, I despair of certain conservatives addressing the open-borders problem without sounding like ignorant nativists.

Sorry to say that, because I know you guys really DO care about character, not race or ethnicity. But the MSM will make sure no one else knows that.

Worry about holding the 30% of "Hispanics" who are on your side. Talk to them.... and their numbers will grow. Forget the others.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at November 13, 2012 03:32 PM (C8mVl)

419 Fuckers better not bail out IL. I have a ringside seat bought and paid for, bitches.

Commence the misery!

Posted by: Ubergruppenfuher von Metrosexual at November 13, 2012 03:32 PM (ctm1d)

420 Posted by: angienc at November 13, 2012 02:49 PM (w3JGl)

Well said!!! I have the same conclusion. I was a Perry guy, but grew to really like Romney. He was an accomplished ADULT with experience our country needs. Well, the MFM won't have it.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at November 13, 2012 03:32 PM (UU0OF)

421 This is the wrong question. It assumes that our message was heard by the voters. It wasn't.

Now, I don't assume the fact that we lost the election proves the voters didn't hear our message. My proof is that I only hear center-right arguments described in the terms of the dominant media culture narrative. In other words, I hear what liberals think about center-right policy prescriptions but not a lot of actual center-right policy prescription. It's an important distinction. It means this conversation is both stupid and wrong-headed.

Until we succeed in projecting our views, in our own words, unfiltered by the cultural institutions that guard the public forums we lose. Every time. We lose because we are defined by our opposition.

Some folks reckon that we can deal with that by talking more and louder amongst ourselves. The reality is we are just talking to ourselves. We even managed to believe we would win an election we had no objective right to think we would. Hell, they even managed to convince some folks that Romney was going to ban tampons. That's how boned we are right now.

The mechanism that prevents our own words from penetrating the media din is digital copyright. It is the federally mandated funding mechanism of the cultural left. Every dollar collected under digital copyright agreements is a de facto donation to the Democratic party. It is the Trojan horse by which, if left unchallenged, all other property rights will ultimately be undone.

Repealing digital copyright and placing all digital works in the public domain is the necessary step to reduce the reach and influence of the cultural institutions that are the exclusive province of the Left. By doing away with digital copyright you essentially de-fund a big chunk of the liberal PR apparatus. You also create an opportunity for new voices to be heard.

Meantime, let the circular firing squad resume its important work.


Posted by: Basil Seal at November 13, 2012 03:32 PM (xvN0P)

422 Check your sources. As far back as ancient Rome (at least) a woman, once married, had a host of rights single women did not. Including the ability to inherit and own property, and to vote (widows as head of household).

WRONG. You check the sources, I have. That was ancient Italy. There was no such trend throughout Western civilization. It does not "go back to" that, as if it's been a straight line.

Do you assume because government marriage existing in 300BC and 1900AD it must have existed all the time inbetween? Well, you'd be wrong.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:33 PM (TULs6)

423 Posted by: Grey Fox at November 13, 2012 03:24 PM (aJahi)

-----------

No, I get that. I do think we can have gay civil unions without it getting that far, though. I KNOW that leftists will always be trying to make their worldview the only acceptable one. But I don't think that that justifies denying gay people the right to have their unions recognized by the government and by whatever churches do approve of gay marriage.

We do, also, have stronger protections for free speech and religion than the UK and Canada. Again, when and if anyone is jailed in the US for refusing to officiate a gay marriage or for saying that gay sex is a sin, I'll be there with a check for the defense fund and all that. But until that happens I just can't see the point of keeping adults from entering into the sorts of unions they want---or at least think they want, now, before their spouse gets fat.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:34 PM (IPG9V)

424 Oops, sock off.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 13, 2012 03:34 PM (ctm1d)

425 396 391 NJRob,

by themselves TX, MS, and LA can make a go of it but we'll probably get OK, AR, and maybe AL to go along in wave 1.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:24 PM (LRFds)

-------------------------

Thank you. I was debating going to North Dakota and getting an oil job, but they voted for a lefty senator and are not going to have any jobs once the EPA gets done with em. To the south it is.

Posted by: NJRob at November 13, 2012 03:34 PM (FVp26)

426
Good God you guys, the sniveling GOP have been DEAD for 2 decades now.
Why (on this board especially where I thought real men reside) would you continue to entertain quotes from another sissified Republican?
I mean really, when was the last time a Republican fought and won for you?
You have had your private health care stolen, your livelihoods stolen, your children's education stolen, your children's innocence stolen by Dems (who run our schools and culture) who have allowedpervertsto dress up anal sex in flowery civil rights language, your children's economic future stolen, their jobs stolen, our judiciary stolen, and on and on.
Are you suffering from battered wife syndrome?
What is this pathology?


Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2012 03:35 PM (cgrL5)

427 397
I'm not talking about monogamy, that's natural.


Monogamy isn't natural. Its more advantageous to the participants and society at large, but human beings are naturally horny little bastards. Do the readers of this site really need to be reminded of the hit Iraqi Love video? We have to overcome our base moron selves to be monogamous. The benefits are longer life, better health, stable and successful children, and a stronger society.
The Liberal/moocher/hedonists are saying we'll give you sexual license, and we'll pay for it when you get crabs. That's a tough deal for a moron to resist.

Posted by: Iblis at November 13, 2012 03:35 PM (9221z)

428
408 404 wheatie,

from your mouth to God's ears I hope.

Tell every GOP rep you can that if you bail out CA or IL you can add your career to the list of crisis points.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:28 PM (LRFds)

---------------

Thank God a few people are seeing this, Sven.

I see so many here, getting bogged down in "What went wrong".

We need to unite on...this...one...thing.
No Bailouts.

None.

Who knows, if Romney had kept saying "No More Bailouts" over and over...
Then we might have won this.

If the GOP remains wedded to the "Too Big To Fail" bullshit, then we are doomed to fail.

Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 03:36 PM (ICEh3)

429 the path exists, and requires an honorable discharge as an important step. no other path for illegals is needed.

jindal may be be right.
no bailouts for anyone, no corporate welfare for anyone. break up anything that's too big to fail. if we can break up AT&T we can sure break of BofA

to battle the MSM:
copyright reform to more rationally limited time frames.
no legal penalties for non-commercial copyright infringement. starve the media beast.

marriage sucks. instead of worrying so much about gays and polygamists, we need to change it so there is a reasonable incentive for straight men to want to marry.

Posted by: errhead at November 13, 2012 03:36 PM (+jyUl)

430 But not Christian Europeanones, THEY only started doing thisin thelast few hundred years.

Not true. Among the upper classes, it was always a big deal. Who married who had a lot to do with how countries interacted, after all.

And, yes, the serfs and peasants didn't exactly keep records, except in the Church, and the State didn't pay much mind- until something required a court to look into it- in which case they accepted the Church's documentation about the matter.

There's a huge difference in not "recognizing" marriage because the lower classes are not worth noticing, and ignoring the fact that every civilization on the planet has acknowledged that marriage is a heterosexual relationship used to build a family unit- and most of them have acknowledged that it should be between one man and one woman.

Defends it? From WHAT? Infidelity? No. Divorce? No. Abusive mother-in-laws? What?

Well, it used to defend it from those. Would you be surprised that I'm not a fan of no-fault divorce? But it also "defends" it from those who would see it completely torn down and marginalized.

The basic unit of matter may be atom (okay, it's not, but go with me here),but the basic unit of "stuff" is the molecule (a group of atoms). The basic unit of humanity is a Person, but the basic unit of society is the family.

The fact that too many have lost sight of that, and that it's constantly under assault doesn't make it any better to weaken it further.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:37 PM (8y9MW)

431 Let me break it down for you.

1. The GOP Brand is in the toilet.

2. Voters don't want to climb into the toilet.

3. The GOP is starting to realize that the voters don't want to climb in the toilet.

Hence, the panic. What's missing from this whole sordid equation is an honest assessment of "Why are we in the toilet in the first place?"

The cold, hard truth is that while the underlying message of conservatism is valid, the Republican party has slaughtered itself and the good name of conservatism by governing as big government spendaholics, social busybodies, incompetent militarists and pro-corporation cronies, not pro-business advocates. There's been precious little in the way of frugality, common sense or wisdom coming from the GOP within the last 10 years. We know it. The public knows it. It's the truth.

Saying 'but the Democrats are worse' is correct from a conservative standpoint, but you don't win elections by being weak shades of your opponent. You win by having popular positions that work. Trying to half-ass Democrat positions is a tacit admission that full-assing it is the right way to go, and the voters respond accordingly.

What the GOP luminaries are missing in their mad scramble for popular positions is an admission that many of the most unpopular current GOP positions just ain't that conservative. Or they are socially conservative, but not small government. Or pro-military but counterproductive to our national defense.

Like McCain before him, Mitt Romney proved that splitting the difference between dumb Democrat ideas and dumb Bush-era ideas is the path to nothing more than historical footnotery. It's not what the people want.

Independents want to hear the GOP break with the past. The want cleanly articulated conservative ideas, not clunky big government programs with a thin coat of Reagan sauce across the top. They want a reason to vote for the New and Improved GOP, one that is Actually Conservative, but for that to work it really does have to be New, Improved and Actually Conservative.

So, we have a problem. We need to rebrand. A panicked scramble off of whatever cliff the pundits demand (Amnesty, Ho!!) isn't the answer, but a rebranding will require honest introspection and reassessment of where we are and what our product really is.

To that end, we need a clear reckoning with our mistakes in order to avoid being buried by them.

Posted by: Artemus Khan, Supervillain-Billionaire-Layabout at November 13, 2012 03:37 PM (27tUc)

432 marriage sucks. instead of worrying so much about gays and polygamists,
we need to change it so there is a reasonable incentive for straight men
to want to marry.


Its all the womyn's fault!

Posted by: Iblis at November 13, 2012 03:38 PM (9221z)

433 How exactly are we defining "state" thing? I am not sure that the modern understanding of one can draw a strict line between societal customs and "the state"/legal system under feudalism.

I reiterate - in 1500AD if a man and a woman told the Catholic church they were married, they were married. No certificate from the king. If you told the church you were married, in the eyes of the churchyou were married.

The Church kept records of who's married to whom under the Church. The King (or whatever other State agent) did NOT. The State paid no attention and no mind to who was married to whom. The institutions existed, in the culture and in the churches, not in the governments. Kings kept no record of who was married to whom.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:38 PM (TULs6)

434 If we're serious about the "Let it Burn" thing, then there can be No Bailouts.


Posted by: wheatie at November 13, 2012 03:26 PM (ICEh3)


---------------------------
While I would agree if we were living in anything resembling a normal economy. But, we're not. We're never again going to see anything better than 1 or 2% growth in our GDP unless we make some fundamental changes in spending. In the last 12 years, we've seen no consensus on the Republican side of the aisle to truly reduce spending. I'm not talking about cuts scheduled to take place 10 years out - I'm talking about real cuts - now, not later.
So, if we want our children to have a chance, we have to let it go. Let the Dems spend as much as they want - it will bring a reset quicker. It won't be pretty and many people will die, but it's the only chance at this point to get our country back. That's what I mean by "Let it burn".

Posted by: Not and Artist at November 13, 2012 03:38 PM (uRumV)

435 Posted by: Jordan at November 13, 2012 03:30 PM (jRfn3)


Hi, Jordan, is the Texas Legislature still in session?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:39 PM (8y9MW)

436 Do you assume because government marriage existing in 300BC and 1900AD it must have existed all the time inbetween? Well, you'd be wrong.
Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:33 PM (TULs6)


Again, please define what you mean by "government marriage." I have a nice little collection of Early Medieval English lawcodes right here which do touch on marriage from time to time...

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 13, 2012 03:39 PM (aJahi)

437 What is this pathology?
Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2012 03:35 PM (cgrL5)

You seem to be saying the GOP's a lost cause. What's your alternative?

Posted by: troyriser at November 13, 2012 03:39 PM (vtiE6)

438 Nope, but Obama is still your president.

Posted by: Jordan at November 13, 2012 03:39 PM (jRfn3)

439 The fact that too many have lost sight of that, and that it's constantly under assault doesn't make it any better to weaken it further.

It! It! It!

That tells it all. What is it?

The legality. You see marriage as coming from Caesar. That's the only thing Caesar has the slightest bit of control over - who is married in the eyes of Caesar.

If marriage is a bond before God, Caesar has no ability to grant, deny, rescind, or certify God's sight.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:41 PM (TULs6)

440 You would think so -- but never underestimate the thoroughgoing vindictiveness of leftist martinets.

I think a bunch of paid-for-in-advance pictures of people's shoes would eventually get you out of the gay marriage photog business.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:41 PM (evdj2)

441 The Church kept records of who's married to whom under the Church. The
King (or whatever other State agent) did NOT. The State paid no
attention and no mind to who was married to whom. The institutions
existed, in the culture and in the churches, not in the governments.
Kings kept no record of who was married to whom.


And if the question ever came to a civil authority (and it did, from time to time) the State asked the Church and then took their word. The State did not say, "This is none of our business, you figure it out."

Again, there's a huge difference in not bothering to deal with it, and not acknowledging it.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:42 PM (8y9MW)

442 403---
"...where would we be if the truth had been told prior to election? ....Without the cover of the MFM, Obama would have lost. Until we have influence in the MFM, it may not matter what our actual policies and condidates positions are. For we will always be racist, mysoginistic, gay hating, rich protecting, whiteys that want to scorch the earth. "
Posted by: California Red at November 13, 2012 03:26 PM (icSBv)

THIS.
THIS. THIS. THIS.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at November 13, 2012 03:42 PM (C8mVl)

443 418 MDV,

I'll drop Hispanic the next time I am not called gringo, anglo or my fave "diablo blanco" in El Paso....

"unity!"

I do try to be polite about it though be well

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:42 PM (LRFds)

444 Si.

Posted by: Manuel Labor, now living in Los Angeles at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (wAQA5)

445 The idea that marriage has been a government institution for over 2000 years is flat out incorrect. Look it up.

It's been such an institution for well over 3000 years. One of the commandments addresses it.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (X3lox)

446 One thing about this election it that it will end up being a time-saver. Hundreds of pundits and politicians can now be ignored. After spending years advocating things like moral values, the rule of law etc, they are now ready to throw it all overboard so people with "R" next to their name can still get elected. Rather than try to figure out who is going soft and who isn't, I have decided it is easier to just ignore the whole bunch. I am 54, I can live out my years knowing my nation is doomed. Nothing changes that now.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (x0g8a)

447 "The cold, hard truth is that while the underlying message of
conservatism is valid, the Republican party has slaughtered itself and
the good name of conservatism by governing as big government
spendaholics, social busybodies, incompetent militarists and
pro-corporation cronies, not pro-business advocates."

After G.H.W. Bush allowed himself to be booted out of office, ushering in eight years of Bill Clinton, the GOP should have washed its hands of Bushes.

Instead, the party twice elected his son, Lyndon Baines Bush, with all of the consequences so accurately described above.

Reagan wept.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (ymG7s)

448 Again, please define what you mean by "government marriage." I have a nice little collection of Early Medieval English lawcodes right here which do touch on marriage from time to time...

The King kept no record of who was married to whom.

If you wanted to know if Bob was married to Sally, you had to go look in the Church records. You wouldn't find shit in the RoyalCourt. They kept tax records instead.

When you got married, you didn't report to the King for your status update. You reported to your Priest. You need not ever tell the King you're married or not, for it's none of his damn business.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (TULs6)

449 #433 - entropy - I don't think that is strictly accurate, as the courts (definitely the province of the king and nobility) were deeply involved in matters of ownership and inheritance, and those frequently hinged on who was married to whom, legally.

Not arguing as to what should or should not be; just noting that, generally, marriage has both civil and religious aspects.

Posted by: Dianna at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (mKMj1)

450 Hey jordan....see you in 2014 or 16.


Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:44 PM (LRFds)

451 Learn Spanish?
I'd rather learn Chinese. They are capitalists and have a future.
Unlike us.

Posted by: SCFOAMF returns at November 13, 2012 03:44 PM (3oPjL)

452 It's been such an institution for well over 3000 years. One of the commandments addresses it.

*Sigh*

Yes please cite me the part of the bible that says married before the eyes of City Hall.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:45 PM (TULs6)

453 but Obama is still your president

Wha?!? When did this happen?!?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:45 PM (evdj2)

454 It is tough when your main message is fuck Detroit...

Thats another MFM meme that stuck. NYT wrote that headline on Mitt's op-ed. If you read his article it did not resemble that fucking slanted headline they slapped on the top.

Our problem is not the candidate, or our platform. It is the MFM. Period.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at November 13, 2012 03:45 PM (UU0OF)

455 I'm willing to fold on the gay marriage issue because I really have no compelling argument against it except that it's absurd.That's not a good enough reason to continue opposing it?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 13, 2012 03:45 PM (oY6Yp)

456 I was in Krakow, Poland last week and heard a man ranting about the American empire is over. O-ver. My colleague spent fall break (we're at a university in Lithuania) in Lviv, Ukraine where, at a outdoor cafe a Norwegian man pulled up a chair and proceeded to say capitalism is the curse of the world, the Soviet experiement has been wrongly vilified, and also that America was going to the dustbin of history. In his case, a Ukrainian woman walked up to the table and said, "I couldn't help but overhear you and I want to say, everything you just said is a lie and is wrong." Today I found out one of my students is an ardent Soviet-ist. Meanwhile I see the video from a U.S. university where a professor says all the accusations against Stalin are "bullshit!" No one challenges him.

My wife and I visited Auschwitz. It was sobering. The Scorpions sang about the winds of change 20 years ago. I fear new winds of change are blowing. Not good ones.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 13, 2012 03:46 PM (lOlyY)

457 If marriage is a bond before God, Caesar has no ability to grant, deny, rescind, or certify God's sight.
Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:41 PM (TULs6)


---------------------

Exactly! There should be another word besides "marriage" for the eyes-of-Caesar version, maybe, (I like civil unions, for everyone) but really, we're kidding if we think that Caesar's version is the important one. So let the gays and the polygamists and everyone else have Caesar's version. It doesn't change what I have with my husband, a marriage before God. What God does or doesn't recognize isn't what's at stake.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 03:46 PM (IPG9V)

458 Those saying the media is the problem...I hear you.

I've been told that the media will be better protected than Amb Stevens b/c they are more important to the King.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:47 PM (LRFds)

459 *Sigh*

Yes please cite me the part of the bible that says married before the eyes of City Hall.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:45 PM (TULs6)


*Sigh* *Sigh*

Judaism was "City Hall", Einstein. It was "The Jewish Nation", as in a nation, as in a state - the first abstract nation-state based on an ideology and world-view. It was also limited government as it only applied to the Promised Land, but that's a whole other issue.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 13, 2012 03:48 PM (X3lox)

460 456 MaxMBJ,

Yup....

I think it'll be a bright sunny day in a coastal city at 2am in my lifetime.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:49 PM (LRFds)

461 Yea that damn New Dealer Santorum who was instrumental in getting welfare reform passed. Your position on gay marraige puts you far closer to Democrats than any economic policy Jindal or Huckabee have advocated. But you are special I guess because no wait they are better than you.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at November 13, 2012 03:49 PM (xwlja)

462 If marriage is a bond before God, Caesar has no ability to grant, deny, rescind, or certify God's sight.

While I believe God created the institution of Marriage (being a Christian) I don't need religion at all to describe Marriage- that relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual benefit (always including children until the modern times) as a Natural Right.

I expect the State to protect my right to Property, too. Also my right to Life.

You're the one mistaking who thinks the power comes from government here. Marriage just is. It doesn't need the government. However, the government can choose to acknowledge it, ignore it, or disavow it. My right to life was not given to me by the Government, but the Government can still deprive me of it.

Now, my stance is this: Marriage is a Natural thing (in that the Government really shouldn't have any say-so), and that, just like my other Natural Rights, the Government was instituted (in part) to protect it from a variety of assaults.

Taking this view, Government does not "define" marriage at all, any more than it "defines" free speech. Marriage comes pre-defined, and Government just protects the institution.

The only other view is that Marriage does not exist independent of the Government. This is the only view that allows for the "legalization of same-sex marriage" because same-sex marriage does not exist without Government making it up. But if Government can make up one kind of marriage, then it can outlaw another. It can also make up any other kind of marriage it wants. Polygamy. Polyamory (which I'm pretty sure I spelled wrong). Pederasty. Inter-species marriage.

There is no philosophical defense against them if Government gets to define marriage at all.

But Government "just ignoring" marriage doesn't work either- marriage has civil consequences, and must be considered by the civil authority.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:50 PM (8y9MW)

463 So let the gays and the polygamists and everyone else have Caesar's version.Since we "are" Caesar, I am simply asserting my authority as a citizen of this republic as to what "Caesar's version" "is". If they can get the popular support for it - fine. If not, screw their legal warfare using judges to "find" rights to gay marriage in old legal documents.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 13, 2012 03:51 PM (oY6Yp)

464 I think most politicians have lost their freaking minds. Idiocy abounds.

Posted by: mare at November 13, 2012 03:52 PM (A98Xu)

465
WTFF?

Ace, all you can muster in response to this hallucinogenic display of political and substantive idiocy by Stephens, Jindal, and Paul is "meh"? That's it? Wholesale adoption of the some of the most absurd and slanderous myths of "the left" (obsession with bedrooms, party of the rich) doesn't catch your attention?

Oh, meanwhile over at Hot Air, Ed is demonstrating his boffo substantive cred by describing upholding "the law of the land" on immigration as a "hardline stance".

OK, I already know where to find jaw-droppingly distorted, slanderous, illogical, ahistorical, racist nonsense - the "press", the mouths of idiot Dem politicians, the exrescences of this ridiculous affirmative action intern of a president, the popular "culture", etc.Now I get more of this sewage from clowns like Jindal, Paul, Rubio, and Stephens? Do these guys understand the concept of "market niche"?

For those of you who couldn't believe what you were seeing a week ago, how does this surreal landscape look?

There is no firewall. The cretinization of the country is not limited to the "liberal" educated types - it's clearly taken a huge toll amongst the "conservative" types too. Inertia is all that's saved us so far, and remains the main force "for good" today.

Posted by: non-purist at November 13, 2012 03:52 PM (UViC2)

466 The King kept no record of who was married to whom. If you wanted to know if Bob was married to Sally, you had to go look in the Church records. You wouldn't find shit in the RoyalCourt. They kept tax records instead. When you got married, you didn't report to the King for your status update. You reported to your Priest. You need not ever tell the King you're married or not, for it's none of his damn business.
Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 03:43 PM (TULs6)


OTOH, if you killed a man whether he was closeted with your wife or not would make a big difference in what happened next, according to Alfred. Adultery and fornication were accompanied by a fine as well. Code of Alfred, cap. 10, 18.1, 42.7.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 13, 2012 03:53 PM (aJahi)

467 So, let's see, Immigration is a net loss for GOP because we are importing in people who hate the GOP. Why is this a good idea for the GOP again?

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 13, 2012 03:53 PM (QxSug)

468 but really, we're kidding if we think that Caesar's version is the important one.

"Caesar's" version is kind of important. It's the one that says my wife or my kids get my stuff when I die, not my (or her) parents or siblings. It's the one that says what we own is owned jointly.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 13, 2012 03:53 PM (8y9MW)

469 If only J. Christopher Stevens had been able to Ghey Marry, then maybe he'd still be alive.

Posted by: Brett Stephens, WSJ at November 13, 2012 03:55 PM (Gx5Cd)

470 I think most politicians have lost their freaking minds. Idiocy abounds.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 03:56 PM (evdj2)

471 A whole lotta conservatives been sayin' this for a long time: lose the effin' socons. Without them, we lose votes, but gain some too. With them, we just lose votes. They have become so marginalized, and so stigmatized. And fairly so—The whole idea that someone would be so concerned with
other people's private lives is offensive to my libertarian
sensibilities. They're like an anchor around the GOP's neck, and help nominate a bunch of shit-for-brains candidates.

Anybody know Bob Van Der Plats? He's the CEO of the socons here in Iowa. Iowa's a swing state, in general, but guess who's one of the most hated people here? Yep...Mr. Van Der Plats. That tell you anything?

Posted by: Cornfed at November 13, 2012 03:56 PM (Hoy9u)

472
Bobby Jindal: Hey, Let's Tax the Rich +
Rand Paul: Hey, Let's Have an Amnesty +
WSJ: Hey, Let's Have Gay Marriage +
= Hey, Let's Be Democrats.

Posted by: BikerDad at November 13, 2012 03:57 PM (0Ygy6)

473
REALLY!? REALLY!?
Those who are so willing to say "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" are NOT leaders. They are NOT worthy of our support in fighting for the vision crafted by the Founding Fathers who literally risked their lives to win freedom NOT just for themselves, but for US, WE THE PEOPLE!!! This is a precious gift handed down to us to protect and defend with all our might.
THAT is NOT the American Spirit that courses through my veins. Surrender is NOT in my vocabulary. Tyrrany has raised it's ugly head and infested our great republic through our generosity, faith and belief in the good of our fellow citizens. It is time to determine if the gift of freedom is worth the sacrifice, commitment and dedication many every-day Patriots gave back in the 1770's.
I, for one, am NOT prepared to let the communists/socialists now called the Democrat party take it without a fight. You can't beat the enemy unless you identify them, define them and understand their tactics. The American Spirit lives and is prepared to fight the soft tyranny with as much courage as our military fights to give us OUR FREEDOM. We must ensure they know we have their backs just like they have ours. GOD BLESS!
American_Spirit

Posted by: American_Spirit at November 13, 2012 03:58 PM (Pd4qC)

474
Any alternative must lie with the MEN who need to step up and protect their families and their country, and hopefully it will be only spoken about in private, and not on a public board.
You guys are not helpless like the women and homosexuals (ie media/DNC/Hollywood/Academia/GOP flunkies) lead you to believe.
What ever it is it CANNOT be done thru the GOP, they areNOT on your side.

Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2012 03:58 PM (cgrL5)

475 I don't care one bit about who fucks who, or who marries who - we have $16 trillion in debt and counting.

I don't care about who kills off unwanted fetuses - we have $16 million in debt and counting.

Preventing abortion and keeping gays from marrying won't mean a goddamned thing when the nation disintegrates because it is completely and utterly bankrupt and the bill is coming due. To me, choosing abortion and gays as the hill to die on while we get absolutely crushed by massive debt and and ever-burgeoning welfare state shows an incredible lack of priorities. Rich, successful nations have the luxury of fighting over trivial things. Nations that are flirting with economic collapse do not.

Posted by: radar at November 13, 2012 03:58 PM (zmlwq)

476 Sorry, this is one of those "hey, those libertarians are not stupid" moments. The GOP turns off huge numbers of gay people (and their friends) because of something that is none of the government's business. Legalizing pot, same story. Hell, take that story farther and argue for removing sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Instead, we are the buzzkill party. Granted, a lot of government spending has to go, but on stupid shit like this live and let live. Many young people are beginning to realize they are going to be the folks holding the bag on entitlements, but they are not going to turn on gay/pot head friends and family. Why ask them to?

Posted by: Aaron at November 13, 2012 03:58 PM (Tlix5)

477 The libertarian paradox: the less you care about "what is going on in other people's bedrooms TM" the less is likely going on in yours. Guys just because you are cool with abortion and BC doesn't mean chicks will sleep with you.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at November 13, 2012 03:58 PM (xwlja)

478 Church and State were not separate in the Middle Ages.They co-managed society at that time.

Posted by: Peter Rock at November 13, 2012 03:59 PM (m2CN7)

479 475 Radar,

Stop kissing the corpse embrace the change.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 03:59 PM (LRFds)

480 "Caesar's" version is kind of important. It's the one that says my wife or my kids get my stuff when I die, not my (or her) parents or siblings. It's the one that says what we own is owned jointly.

All of which is possible to do without what Caesar calls marriage. It's called "contract law".

There is a conflation going on between the religious institution and the legal one, which some refuse to entertain seperately.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 04:00 PM (TULs6)

481 Posted by: Jordan at November 13, 2012 03:30 PM (jRfn3)
__
The two Mexican nationals I know who took this path did not suffer egregious hardship. My friend's wife did have to venture to Ciudad Juarez a couple times, but she stayed with her family and newborn son elsewhere while she waited on word from the state dept. Her stay there lasted about seven months.

(About the same length of time that my parents were separated - by a continent and an ocean - when my dad sponsored my mother for legal citizenship shortly after they married in Italy.)

Ciudad Juarez is dangerous because the unholy alliance of Mexican military-narcoterrorists has created a cottage industry of torture-murdering unsuspecting young women who are under the impression they are about to get work at a maquiladora. Why hasn't Calderon done anything to address this situation? For that matter, why doesn't La Raza turn all its attention and focus onto the criollo government elites that run Mexico, neglecting their poorest population, descended from indigenous people? Could it be...racism?

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 04:00 PM (jm/9g)

482 Um, Calderon basically spent his entire second term fighting the cartels.

Posted by: Sam Haysom at November 13, 2012 04:02 PM (xwlja)

483 Let me just put it to you this way.

If you can't accept Private Marriage you'll get Gay Marriage and you'll like it. I'm done worrying about it. I oppose all Public marriage, gay or straight.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 04:02 PM (TULs6)

484 No really, people will be glad to give up social security if we change our stance on [fill-in-the-blank!]

Posted by: Shoot Me at November 13, 2012 04:02 PM (qiXMt)

485 sven, so you keep telling me! heh

Posted by: radar at November 13, 2012 04:03 PM (zmlwq)

486 Caesar's version matters, sure. What doesn't matter is *excluding* people from Caesar's version. If Jane and Sue get to have Caesar's version, how does it hurt their neighbors, Bob and Carol? Is Bob-and-Carol's marriage before God any weaker because of Sue and Jane's legal, secular marriage?

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 04:05 PM (IPG9V)

487 HEY LETS ALL BE DEMOCRATS!

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at November 13, 2012 04:05 PM (ovpNn)

488
Whew, that's a relief!

I couldn't comprehend Romney losing to his idiotic opponent and his limp/weird non-campaign, esp. in this economy, with right track/wrong tracks numbers at all-time lows, and partisan self-ID historically R.

Now I see it was the high profile Romney stances on redefining marriage, aggresively banning abortion nation-wide, obsessing with pot laws, and persecuting Hispanics via the racist immigration "laws".
Gives me hope! Apparently Americans are very receptive to the message of fiscal sanity, limited govt., and economic freedom! Yay!

Posted by: non-purist at November 13, 2012 04:05 PM (UViC2)

489 LET IT BURN!

GIVE THEM EVERYTHING THEIR LITTLE BLACK HEARTS DESIRE!

LET THE MOTHER FUCKER BURN DOWN TO THE GROUND!

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at November 13, 2012 04:06 PM (ovpNn)

490 So I don't take the Jindal quote as a "tax the rich" quote at all. I think it's more about being against all of these corporate and bank bailouts that so many Republicans lined up behind. It's then hard to say how pro Free Market you are when you don't le the free market work. Message doesn't resonate. It's then even harder to say you, like the Democrats, are also for the little guy when you were giving billions and billions to the big guy. Granted, the Democrats did too, but they then offer up the "Get the Big Guy" Tax Plan, while we just keep telling them we are for everyone, even though we gave out money in the forms of bailouts as if we were only for the people at the top.

Posted by: Rich at November 13, 2012 04:07 PM (arczc)

491 Stop kissing the corpse embrace the change.

Yep. We are getting both a debased culture and a broken economic system.

The Boning II: Double Impact.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:07 PM (evdj2)

492 Republican Outreach III: Romancing the Stoned.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:09 PM (evdj2)

493 Anybody know Bob Van Der Plats? He's the CEO of the socons here in Iowa.
Iowa's a swing state, in general, but guess who's one of the most hated
people here? Yep...Mr. Van Der Plats. That tell you anything?


That Iowans are a bunch of bigoted dicks? I'm not religious and couldn't care less about social conservative causes, but i'm not going to be part of any party that joins in with democrats bigotry and hatred of Christians.

Posted by: booger at November 13, 2012 04:09 PM (HI6wa)

494 Hey let's have a third party.

It's all socialism now. Plan for it accordingly.

Posted by: jukin at November 13, 2012 04:09 PM (WGm5T)

495 Sam,

We're back on birth control? You think the GOP should be against it?

Posted by: ace at November 13, 2012 04:10 PM (LCRYB)

496 So rob my wealthy neighbor and doink his Hispanic gardener in the squeak-hole while whispering sweet nothings, in Spanish, in his ear.

That's all it takes to win?

Why didn't somebody say so?

Posted by: marcus at November 13, 2012 04:10 PM (T+udu)

497 I oppose all Public marriage, gay or straight.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 04:02 PM (TULs6)


Good for you. It's "pretend gay marriage", BTW. Never in history has there been any sense of gays getting "married". It's a ridiculous idea, akin to calling a building a "chair" because a person can sit on it.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 13, 2012 04:10 PM (X3lox)

498 I can be accused of being too simple, I guess, so here's some more Occam's razor-type stuff that makes perfect sense to me. There is literally NOTHING to be gained by putting substansive power and faith into government. People who rail about special interests and how politics is dirty and corrupt? If government didn't hold so much power, there would be no reason to grease politicians, would there? If you accept the power of government today because it upholds things you value, then you're implicitly accepting the power of government to do the opposite should conventional wisdom shift over time, as you're seeing now with gay marriage. This was the true (and underappreciated) genius of the Founders - they spelled out the powers of the federal government and specifically forbade it from going beyond those powers. To our eternal discredit, we have allowed that vision to be rejected and perverted, and now we have the behemoth that statists of both the left and right have foisted upon us.

Posted by: radar at November 13, 2012 04:10 PM (zmlwq)

499
And what is with the commie-left collaborators here?
Same old shit.....please SHUT UP about your sex life! Who gives a shit, and who would know if you didn't harp about it 24/7?
Maybe if you would STOP inviting us into your bedroom every fucking day, at our K-12 schools, on TV sitcoms, in movies, in politics, in churches telling kids and their parents it is all so natural and normal!
Seriously, you libs are sick, you have men in their 30s and 40s, in hospital wings who can no longer even keep their feces in, FGS. I see and talk to their families every damn day.
The commie libs are the party with dead babies andcelebrated perverted lifestyles hung around their necks. Along with their worship of Government.
So-Cons are not the problems here, and you damn well know it.

Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2012 04:14 PM (cgrL5)

500 If you accept the power of government today because it upholds things you value, then you're implicitly accepting the power of government to do the opposite should conventional wisdom shift over time, as you're seeing now with gay marriage.

Yup. I wish the Christian Temperance Union would learn the law of unintended consequences. All they've ever done is blow their feet off.

Hey, people should go to church more often! Let's put government in charge of church attendence. Oh wait, Government is using it's powers to obstruct attendence and now the churches are empty! Who could have seen it coming.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 04:16 PM (TULs6)

501 Jindal was saying we need to change the PERCEPTION that the GOP is for those things, not that we are.

Posted by: Hard Right at November 13, 2012 04:16 PM (uhftQ)

502 Looks like the fight is boiling down to the libertarians vs the religious.

Same old story.

SO really, their should be a poll.

Which do you value more

Gay rights or effective governance?
Abortion or effective governance?
Instilling moral values or effective governance?

BTW, their is a solution - be religious, but accept politics is secular and not god driven, that your god is a personal matter, which needs to be evangelized IN PERSON.

Posted by: KM at November 13, 2012 04:17 PM (8I6vf)

503 So, Republicans can win buy becoming fiscally moderate and socially liberal. I have a two word response: Scott Brown.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 13, 2012 04:18 PM (QXlbZ)

504 #433. I wonder if you understand the property structure of the period. Most of the wealth in medieval times was held in fee tail. Land was granted by the king to men who pledged to support him with money and by raising men at arms. That land and the chattel that went with it along with it typically passed automatically at death to the the closest legitimate male heir- along with the feudal obligations to support the King. You bet civil authorities were immensely concerned with questions of marriage and legitimacy among the handful of people who mattered to them. The stability of the state depended upon it. Illegitimacy was a huge concern because a bastard son was a potentially destabilizing presence. If you want to know where the term He's a real bastard came from I suggest you study Mary Queen of Scots dealings with her illegitimate half brother, James Stewart.

Since few common folk held much of anything the civil authorities weren't concerned with their marriages but that's the point. Those people didn't have a claim to much of anything to begin with, including how they spent their own lives. Most were tied to the land. Unless the men were called on by their Lord to go fight for the king they would die within a few miles of where they were born after a very meager life.



Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at November 13, 2012 04:19 PM (efiKT)

505 Jindal was saying we need to change the PERCEPTION that the GOP is for those things, not that we are.

--------

Except we are. Or we were. We led the way on bailing out banks and these other major corporations. That's more than being "perceived" as being for the big guy. That's actually being for the big guy. And it's then very easy to paint us as the party of the rich.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 13, 2012 04:23 PM (arczc)

506 If we just slip our heads in the guillotine already, we can just get this experiment in a democratic Republic over with. It's best we have a death by one cut than by a thousand.

Posted by: GOP "Leadership" at November 13, 2012 04:24 PM (eHIJJ)

507 I mentioned it in a dead thread last night, but this crap is why I just re-registered as Independent.

Posted by: Rusty Nail at November 13, 2012 04:25 PM (WWuYG)

508 482-
*Oh well, nothing to see here, glad that problem's solved!*
The thousands of parents mourning their disappeared daughters find cold comfort in your claim. Amnesty International's latest report on las desaparecidas does notreveal any significant action on the part of the government.

Posted by: kallisto at November 13, 2012 04:26 PM (jm/9g)

509 BTW, their is a solution - be religious, but accept politics is secular and not god driven, that your god is a personal matter, which needs to be evangelized IN PERSON.

I know a lot of you are young people, and generally of a Libertarian strip, but I have to point out that these are in now way original thoughts. The traditionalist/tory wing of conservatism has been arguing with the libertine wing forever. All government does is enforce "morality", besides stealing your money to do it with. The argument is properly about what morality to enforce. And the fact that some religious based opinions harsh your mellow is not a valid reason for excluding them from political discussion.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:27 PM (evdj2)

510 And the fact that some religious based opinions harsh your mellow is not a valid reason for excluding them from political discussion.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:27 PM (evdj2)

-------------

I completely agree.

Posted by: Gay Anglican Bishop at November 13, 2012 04:31 PM (IPG9V)

511
What???
"Gay people are turned off by the GOP because of something that is not gov business"??
SINCE WHEN DO GAYS NOT LIKE GOV INTRUSION?
So why do they vote for big government?
So why do they lobby gov on enormous scales to punish their enemies, in schools, churches, businesses, government, and private homes?
Why do they seek gov protections to have naked parades, and street fairs to sell sex, sexual toys, pics, movies....ie Folsom Street Fair.
They seek and receive special civil rights that no one else is allowed, they seek and receive special protections from gov, they seek and receive special medical care from government.
Don't try that shit here......the Right plays defense, they DID NOT start the fire......so don't whine when you get push back, and act all victimized.



Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2012 04:32 PM (cgrL5)

512
re: bilingualism - I already speak 3 languages, don't need to learn a fourth. If bilingualism is so fine, let the immigrants learn English like other people AROUND THE WORLD.

But hey, if you want to live at the edges of society by only speaking a foreign language, I can't do much to stop you.

Idiot.

Posted by: disa at November 13, 2012 04:32 PM (INP/i)

513 As an easy example, the stickly libertarian view of prostitution is that it is a private exchange and basically no one's business. The traditionalist might argue that, even were there no abuses, kiddy sex, sex slavery, general pimpery, the very fact that prostitution was granted legal status would be so coarsening to society that is a bad deal. Even if the practice was no actively persecuted by aggressively raiding "redlight" districts and such.

How do you determine what is the best course? In our system, it was based on persuasion at the lowest local level through elected officials and local laws. I think it should be again.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:35 PM (evdj2)

514 If we're really going down the road of "government's proper role is to legislate morality, the only question is which kind" then why exactly does preventing gay people from marrying fall under "the right kind" of morality for the government to enforce?

Personally, I see the government's role as protecting *rights* not enforcing morality, but just for the sake of argument, why is this the right kind, while things like burkhas and preventing the KKK from publishing a newsletter and transfat bans the wrong kind?

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 04:36 PM (IPG9V)

515 On the other hand, a little thought experiment...

We all saw the video of the Obamaphone woman. It was horrifying to see a person so reduced by government dependency as to trade her vote for a phone.

Maybe we drew the wrong conclusion. They say everyone has a price and that video shows just how reasonable that price is - electorally speaking.

I'm sure but that woman might have some sort of political philosophy that roughly corresponds to the Democratic platform. But it sure seemed like the phone was the thing that got her fired up about voting.

Here's the problem for Democrats: you can debase people in order to make them dependent to make your path to power a bit easier. Unfortunately, once you do that to a people they are essentially untethered from your ideology from that point on. I mean: anyone could have given that woman a phone.

So what's to keep some enterprising Republican candidate of the future from distributing free wireless handsets to these same folks? And what if that candidate further let be known that, should he prevail on election day the free phone may keep working past election day. There may be some interruption in service if he loses. What if a text arrives on election day along with directions to the the appropriate polling place? What if supporters can keep their handset activated by performing task on behalf of the party or candidate? For example, sign up a friend and get another month of service. Go door to door, and get another month of service. And so on.

This could turn out to be much cheaper than TV ads and more effective than, say, ORCA. I'm not advocating any of the above per se, I'm just pointing out that conditioning voters to trade their vote for free stuff can work both ways. It's not about ideology at that point, it's straight-forward commerce.

To piggy-back on my other posts about repealing digital copyright, I think this points the way to make inroads where the Democrats least expect it.

What if, for example, the RNC made an offer of free cable/internet/wireless (pick one) to the bluest residents in those cities. Before and after every program and during every commercial break viewers are reminded that this is a free service provided by the Republican party - Tammany Hall style.

This might actually serve to get Republicans into places they have been traditionally shut out of like city councils. From there you gain some control over things like polling stations. Etc. See the potential?

Point is free stuff doesn't have to be free-stuff-from-the-government. What if the free stuff is just privately funded stuff? Why do we have to spend it on TV ads and Karl Rove's salary? Why not have donors sponsor a free handset and wireless plan to give to a low info voter? Why not a one-laptop-per-low-info-voter model? See the potential?

For that matter, we should lay off the moochers and takers rhetoric. Fact is, these people have never been invited to participate. What do you do when you go to meet the new neighbors? You bring a gift. It shows that you are friendly, that you mean no harm, that you want them to like you. There is nothing wrong with that. We need to get to know these folks and see if we can't talk some of them around to our side.

Basically, we/they spent millions to reach the voters who were going to show up anyway. I doubt the result would have been much different if they had just piled up all the cash and put a match to it. In addition to repealing digital copyright, we need to figure out ways to push low info voters to the polls and to pull the lever for us.

Just a thought but this would probably pair well with amnesty. Remember that scene with Boss Tweed meeting immigrants at the docks in Gangs of New York?


Posted by: Basil Seal at November 13, 2012 04:36 PM (xvN0P)

516 stickly? strictly.

Effin spell check

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:36 PM (evdj2)

517 then why exactly does preventing gay people from marrying fall under "the right kind" of morality for the government to enforce?

In our system, you are free to try and persuade people to your view. What should not be allowed is rule some people's desires out, a priori, because they bear a moral taint. A religious based opinion is not a second class opinion.

I see the government's role as protecting *rights* not enforcing morality

Define rights. Is it a consensus thing?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:41 PM (evdj2)

518 I'm tempted to agree with Jindal, and maybe even more.

The Republicans could go full retard and introduce a wealth tax (not an income tax, a *wealth* tax) aimed squarely at Soros, Heinz-Kerry, Buffett, Hollywood, et al. Put a tax lien on the Kennedy compound.

Even if it would never pass, make the Democrats go on record to shoot it down.

Posted by: Barky O'Drama at November 13, 2012 04:43 PM (pkkxZ)

519 If you don't share my religious views, you will probably find my arguments less persuasive, but that doesn't mean I should shrink from seeking to have my policy preferences actualized. That was the system we set up, and it worked for a long time.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:43 PM (evdj2)

520 It's probably not news to anyone here, but this is why assclowns like Buffet are all about increasing the income tax. At that level, most of your swag does NOT appear as ordinary income.

75% on everything past the first billion sounds about right. Make Barky explain why that's a bad idea.

Posted by: Barky O'Drama at November 13, 2012 04:45 PM (pkkxZ)

521 Define rights. Is it a consensus thing?
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:41 PM (evdj2)

-------------

No, it's kind of a Constitutional thing. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Free exercise of religion, free speech, free press, freedom to redress the government. Right to bear arms. Right to refuse to testify against oneself. And so on...

Which one of those does a pair of dudes getting married harm?

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 04:45 PM (IPG9V)

522 Republicans. The ¤other¤ party that steals your toys and tells you what to think.

Not really feelin' the love for that message.

From a free people to begging for a better master at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith's mobile at November 13, 2012 04:46 PM (Yfo5v)

523 At 509....Wish I WAS young.

Thats why I said it was the same old story.

But you do not understand, government enforces the LAW. The law is predicated on one simple principle.

Freedom.

That is what the law continues to evolve for. Freedom is the only moral right. Liberty and the right to pursue happiness are all functions of that freedom.

As much as I hate abortion, the laws evangelicals propose are SLAVERY.

As much as I am not gay, (NOTICE THE NOT), preventing an action which they choose, IS SLAVERY.

I say, give me freedom, or give me death...(sounds familiar.)

Now for the religious point. (Yes, I have studied many religions, which is why I do not believe any of them...) God gave you FREE WILL. That is FREEDOM to choose. I suggest you respect his decision for other people.

Posted by: KM at November 13, 2012 04:46 PM (8I6vf)

524 If you don't share my religious views, you will probably find my arguments less persuasive, but that doesn't mean I should shrink from seeking to have my policy preferences actualized.

-----------

Right on, brother. I'ma go vote for my own religion's definition of marriage to be the only one now.

Posted by: Jihadist Muslim at November 13, 2012 04:47 PM (IPG9V)

525 "Which one of those does a pair of dudes getting married harm?"

Not to mention that getting involved with the religious aspects of marriage is a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment.

Marriage is a weird thing in that it has both religious and contractual aspects. The government has a clear interest in the contractual aspect (making sure kids get supported, deciding how the estate gets divided up after someone dies, determining who gets to decide on medical treatment for someone who's incapacitated) but has absolutely no business meddling in the religious aspect.

I say civil unions for everybody, and whether you call it a "marriage" is up to you and your church (if any).

Posted by: Barky O'Drama at November 13, 2012 04:47 PM (pkkxZ)

526 Toby, I actually probably do share some of your religious views. I hope my Church never recognizes gay marriage. And I don't deny that you have the right to work for your preferred policies. I do think that on this one, you shouldn't win. That's all.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 13, 2012 04:49 PM (IPG9V)

527
Does Jindal even know that the initial tarp vote FAILED in the Conservative GOP house? The stock market then promptly declined 30%.
Of course, the media, Dems, and GWB creamed them......told them you had better pass it next time or it is total financial crash.
And of course they did.
Another GOP capititulation that did them NO good. Since now they are blamed (on this board no less) for protecting the banks?!

Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2012 04:49 PM (cgrL5)

528 "Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game?"

This game has been lost since 1965 and still people don't get it. We as a nation has been willing turning toward liberalism both culturally and politically for fifty years and now we're sitting here scratching our heads wondering why we can't win.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 13, 2012 04:51 PM (7Nq2G)

529 God gave you FREE WILL. That is FREEDOM to choose.

To chose what? It could be argued that theft is not, in and of itself, immoral. I won't make that point because I don't believe it, but it can and has been argued.

The beauty of our system was that peoples desires get to compete for currency in a mostly peaceful manner, within the framework "we" agreed to at the ratification of our Constitution. I may win, or I may lose, but I have the right to redress of grievances, as Jenny notes above. When I lose, I just try to persuade harder, or I carve out a personal sphere to try to mitigate what I see as the polity's mistake.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:53 PM (evdj2)

530 ight on, brother. I'ma go vote for my own religion's definition of marriage to be the only one now.

Posted by: Jihadist Muslim


Persuade on, my smelly brother.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:54 PM (evdj2)

531 I thought you killed off Newt prematurely. But if ABO votes weren't going to get us over the threshold anyway, SMOD was really our only hope all along.

Posted by: sarahw at November 13, 2012 04:55 PM (LYwCh)

532 Anyway, the question is moot. - Mayan Calendar

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:56 PM (evdj2)

533 Re; marriage, it's a religious construct and has no business in government. I say we call the whole shebang civil unions (gay or straight) and leave the marriage business to churches (who would continue being able to "marry" whoever the hell they want, under the first amendement.

If the anglicans or whatnot choose to marry gay peeps, fine, they can get married there. My problem with gay marriage is the idea that more conservative churches/synagogues/mosques will be forced to break their deeply held religious tenets.

Posted by: Atlas Mugged at November 13, 2012 04:57 PM (u0GTE)

534 Actually, I the right to press for redress of grievances, not actual redress. My bad.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:57 PM (evdj2)

535 Actually, I the right to press for redress of grievances, not actual redress. My bad.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 04:57 PM

------

You do have to right to re-dress yourself. And, honey, you should.

Posted by: Stacy London, fashion cop at November 13, 2012 05:00 PM (IPG9V)

536 You do have to right to re-dress yourself. And, honey, you should.

I see you've met my wife.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 13, 2012 05:00 PM (evdj2)

537 Why the concentration on social stuff?
Taxes and spending are far more important. If the Evil Dems want higher tax revenues, lets give those to them: cap mortgage deductions so that the rich can't write off more than the average (blue state propery values are higher than ed state), end the deduction for previously paid state and local taxes (blue state Dems may find themselves suddenly in favor of tax reform when they hear this one), andcap personal deductions in the aggregate (aimed, again, at the wealthy Dems).
If we do these things we will find a lot of liberal Dems suddenly interested in tax reform.

Posted by: MTF at November 13, 2012 05:01 PM (B5y+v)

538 Cuccinelli lost us Virginia, BTW, not Romney.

Posted by: sarahw at November 13, 2012 05:05 PM (LYwCh)

539 marriage is anything but a religious construct. It's a contract with the state, designed to achieve a compelling public interest.

Posted by: sarahw at November 13, 2012 05:06 PM (LYwCh)

540 If we make the republican party an exact clone of the loony dem party, why would people leave the dem asylum?

Posted by: J at November 13, 2012 05:12 PM (3GsRm)

541 540 J,

the more pertinent question is why wouldn't conservatives leave the federal trap?

Posted by: sven10077 at November 13, 2012 05:15 PM (LRFds)

542 Fuck that shit. All we needed is another 1.5% of the population.I say we cut to the chase and do what the Democrats do: just bribe 'em.

Posted by: West at November 13, 2012 05:18 PM (1Rgee)

543 SarahW
The word marriage refers to a religious rite (not right)

Posted by: Atlas Mugged at November 13, 2012 05:48 PM (u0GTE)

544 529. Anyone who argues that theft is in its self, not immoral, needs to understand that any system of morality which allows that theft to happen, is in itself, amoral.

Because to have the justification to steal that is moral, indicates the failing in that moral system.

But then again, nature is amoral, its the ground state of the universe.

Posted by: KM at November 13, 2012 05:53 PM (8I6vf)

545
Focusing on something outside of social issues, we may have overreached by a) arguing that we were so close to the brink of fiscal disaster that we should tackle entitlement reform now, in the midst of a shitty economy while b) aggressivelypusing tax "cuts." It's hard to sell an on-the-fence voter that these things go together. That's one non-media reason why Joe Voter tends to see us as the party of "The Rich."
I'm not saying change course on our tax policy, but don't have it as priority #1b. We need to find issues to reestablish some trust and credibility with voters - apparently many of them on our own side, like the stay-at-homes from last week. Closing loopholes as a stand-alone measure would buy some credibility, but overall I'd first focus on cutting regulation (as the most doable, public-painless issue) and rampant spending. That's more consistent with our "repent now or end is near" spending message and it's harder to make it look like we're talking out of both sides of our mouths and featherbedding for our "rich cronies."
Jindahl's right on our need to more populist appeal, but you can do that with better messaging and more focused policy - without supporting outright tax increases. Sell, but don't sell out.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at November 13, 2012 05:53 PM (WLuv5)

546 THIS is why the Republican party is dead. Not because we "lost" (we actually won but fraud stole it) but because they will not FIGHT for ANYTHING -- not their "principles" not against fraud. They are USLESS. We really do need a new party with actual fighters. West is showing the way as are the governors who are fighting Ocare and NDAA. The rest of them need to be left behind in our dust.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 13, 2012 06:26 PM (KL49F)

547 But we can still be about "More Battleships!", can't we?

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at November 13, 2012 06:33 PM (7x9pP)

548 My Platform. Go look.

Gee, I only seem to agree with Jindal, maybe the rest isn't 'classical liberal' enough for me...oh, sorry to liberal for ME!

Posted by: Tracy Coyle at November 13, 2012 06:54 PM (DGr/g)

549 I'm with Jindal. I suspect that the Republicans who didn't turn out were blue collar gun rights Republicans. Mitt Romney wasn't very motivational for downscale Republicans. It's not that we want higher taxes on business owners, we just don't care so much either way.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 13, 2012 07:45 PM (Rwrs+)

550 The problem is that the GOP doesn't know how to play chess. Jindal walks into an interview with Jonathan Martin and seemingly doesn't anticipate how his remarks will be used (read how Martin leaves ambiguous if Jindal meant the perception or the reality and, even more, how Martin tries to take down Jindal's statements snarkily by referencing tenuous connections to local politics).

If they played two moves ahead they'd use what Jindal's saying properly. Propose taxes that punish the crony capitalists (like repealing the Hollywood tax cuts, taxing the biggest of businesses, taxing progressively high cost-of-living areas) and daring Democrats to oppose. The Democrats will be forced to either leave their crony capitalist backers hanging (more likely), will have to explain their opposition, or will try to get away with tricks to water them down. But they don't think two moves ahead and are left pandering and/or playing catch-up, all of which is seen as caving.

Posted by: Moron X at November 13, 2012 08:07 PM (nlp31)

551 28 I am going to keep posting this and updating it as I gather new info and data.

The GOP establishment as one of its first acts of capitulation looks to want to sign on to another general amnesty for Mexicans illegals and others.

This as I will show will have the exact opposite effect that many in the GOP establishment think they will attain with this policy.
-
Keep going, General Woundwort. It has to be done.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 13, 2012 08:29 PM (uMgL+)

552 It is so funny.
Dems will never vote for Pubs acting like Dems because we all know that Pubs are sexist, racist, homophobs no matter what they say or do.

In the process they will lose every true conservative....ie every thinking person in America.

That is okay because they lost me at McCain.

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 13, 2012 08:36 PM (T/L2Z)

553 Personally, I see the government's role as protecting *rights* not enforcing morality


There are a large number of people who think they have the right to have their government enforce their morality.


That group could be said to include both people who think the government must protect the religious concept of marriage, and those who insist the government must refute it.


I wish we had some kind of wall that could separate government issues from religious ones. Not to protect government from religion, to protect religion from government.


While we're at it, toss in a wall for science and the economy too.

Posted by: entropy at November 13, 2012 08:43 PM (YUttk)

554 I was thinking this recently, given the fact that several Republicans like Jindal and Rand Paul have now magically come out in favor of same sex marriage, higher taxes, and amnesty for illegal aliens.

The Republicans, aka RINOS, are the fat chick in high school.

Cubby,
not pretty but not ugly, full of self___ problems, not very popular
and desperate to be liked/loved. So in order to be seen with boys or
hang out with the cool kids, she buys food for the group, provides rides
in her car to and fro, pays to get into movies, and passes out bl0wj0bs
just so someone, anyone, will like her. And maybe, just maybe, one of
those guys will ask her out, or to the prom, or to wanna "go steady".
But it ain't ever gonna happen - you be the chubby booty call, one
that's never gonna get the prom queen crown. BECAUSE YOU DON'T RESPECT YOURSELF. BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT TRUE TO YOURSELF. Pathetic.

This is what some of the Republicans want to become - promise whateva the "hip" minority wants, and "maybe, just maybe, they'll vote for us!".

Pathetic. Reason No. 146,786 that the Republicans need replaced.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at November 13, 2012 08:49 PM (XG4Sp)

555 And oh how we were mocked for our caveman ideas of independence, freedom, property rights, and the right to life as a fundamental conservative stance.

I hate when I'm right ALL THE TIME!

I'm getting used to it. BUT dahummmm why is it each and EVERY TIME?


Posted by: Blacksmith8✡ at November 13, 2012 09:04 PM (Yzu6e)

556 554 I was thinking this recently, given the fact that several Republicans like Jindal and Rand Paul have now magically come out in favor of same sex marriage, higher taxes, and amnesty for illegal aliens.

The Republicans, aka RINOS, are the fat chick in high school.
-
I think that there's truth in that. And the liberal mass media is working every day in every way to deepen that lack of self-respect.

The new Republican formula is suicide if you look at it logically. The Republican Party is the White Party, the party of marriage and married people, and the party that supports business and therefore has enough money to run on and a sane economic agenda. What's the new agenda? Destroy the institution of marriage, or at least devalue it culturally and legally as much as possible; genocide the Whites with chronic mass immigration (both legal and illegal) and forced integration and assimilation (with the obvious implication that in the long run there will be no White people); and join the tax-and-regulate mob, the people with the pichforks that Obama uses as part of his shakedown game. There goes the party's married demographic base, there goes its White demographic case, and there goes its funding and a third of its legitimate agenda.

What's next? The Republican Party needs to come out in favor of banning Christianity and abolishing the armed forces?

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 13, 2012 10:21 PM (uMgL+)

557 552 It is so funny.
Dems will never vote for Pubs acting like Dems because we all know that Pubs are sexist, racist, homophobs no matter what they say or do.
-
Right.

Suppose you are a prospective recipient of amnesty. You are for amnesty (of course), generous entitlements, vast increases in public expenditures and hiring, and more taxes on the wealthy and preferences for yourself and your racial kin over Whitey.

Who are you going to vote for: the people who've been pushing to give you all of that from the beginning, with more to follow; or the gringos who were dragged into accepting some of this after they lost an election and their backbone? Duh.

And amnesty is supposedly going to work out well for the Republican Party. I don't think so.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 13, 2012 10:31 PM (uMgL+)

558 Anybody who tells you that all the Republicans, or conservatives, have to do is A, and they'll come roaring back in 2014 and 2016, whatever A is, doesn't know what they're talking about. If A=being nice and willing to reach across the aisle to find common ground and solve the problem, and especially not talk about social issues, tell them "cool story, bro" and throw them out, because they're (a) unfamiliar with reality, (b) willfully ignoring reality or (c) lying to you and they know they're lying to you. I just described the template California Republican campaign for 2012, and really for 2010 as well, certainly for Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. If it worked, Whitman would be governor right now, not Jerry Brown. Fiorina and Elizabeth Emken would be senators right now, not Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. The House delegation would be mostly Republican or getting there. The statewide officers would mostly if not all be Republicans. And the state legislature would be majority Republican or getting there. None of this is the case, of course. It doesn't work. Not here. And if not here, where?

Am I going to tell you being loud-and-proud conservative in and of itself is going to get it done? No, and that's where my sympathies lay before the election and lie now, rather than with moderation. I'm just telling you that whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not, whether Dave Frum/Andy Sullivan/Steve Schmidt/pick any political talking colon you wish likes it or not, moderation has been tried, multiple times now, in real elections, in one of the most likely states where it would ever work if it did, and it doesn't.

Posted by: Rich Fader at November 13, 2012 11:02 PM (9JKm/)

559 'I say "may" because it's possible things were just too stacked against us...'

That's a brilliant observation, Ace. Maybe the next time 90% of the journalists in this country willingly and willfully perpetuate a false narrative - with absolute impunity - about the Republican candidate being a tax cheat and murderer, we can figure out a way to burn their houses down with them inside. I'm speaking figuratively, of course, but how in the name of God can we expect to win when these people can capitalize on Ratherian prevarication, c. 2004, and get their candidate reelected? Talk all you want about low information voters, pervasive entitlement mentalities, shifting demographics and other such bullsh*t, but at the end of the day, they won, didn't they?

Posted by: Caninepundit at November 14, 2012 12:14 AM (PlKIC)

560 I agree with what Jindal is trying to say.

The biggest problem with GOP this time was that it failed to explain how free market policies help individual middle class Americans. More often than not their defense of free market was exactly what many in this board is describing:

The rich guy worked for his wealth and nobody should be able to take it away from him.

While conservatism should advocate that, a middle class guy gains nothing from this aspect of conservative policies.

What conservatives should have emphasized was the policies that makes republicans the party of upward mobility.

A good example is how repubs dealt with the occupy movement. Instead of arguing with them about sharing rich peoples’ wealth (which is simply fighting in their turf), repubs should have spent their effort pointing out how Obama’s policies were making a bunch of people so desperate and hopeless that they were going around occupying things. Repubs should have used occupy as an example of how Obama was killing the American dream – American dream of those hippies. Again I am not saying that they would agree with you, but the common people would.

Posted by: Somebody at November 14, 2012 12:59 AM (R0mSX)

561 The Democratic Party claims to be "anti-racist" but in fact it's anti-White. It loves policies that harm working class Whites, such as affirmative action and mass immigration, both legal and illegal. These policies hurt White people because they are meant to; they are inspired by hostility.

Because of this, the Republican Party never lacks potential popular issues to go with its economic agenda. Just demand fair play for Whites on issues that are popular, like getting rid of affirmative action, and you've got a winning fight. Most White people will never agree that they shouldn't have a fair shot at a job they are qualified for, and the Democrats will never willingly give them that fair shot, and it's game on, on terms that are morally and politically advantageous for the Republican Party.

There's no excuse for running a campaign that doesn't energize the White base. It's easy. You have to be a coward and run away from social issues to do that.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 14, 2012 01:55 AM (P/h4l)

562 The traditional American dream that attracted millions is doomed. Work hard and you will succeed! The current reality is don't work or manage your money properly because the politicians will bail you out for your vote. Are we beyond the point of no return? With 50%+ on the dole, when and if they all vote with their claim of MANDATE and progressive leadership, they will force the 50%- to pay more and more taxes until the golden goose is fleeced, cooked and eaten. Is the only peaceful alternative to be abandon our beloved country for a better future?

Posted by: CptCARC at November 14, 2012 02:57 AM (0VQ3B)

563 I think Gov. Jindal is on to something. If the Republican party is ever
going to shed their reputation as the party of the rich they need to
return to, or discover, the political principles and themes of the
Jacksonian Democrats. By attacking entrenched concentrations of power,
in government, industry, and labor and championing equal access to power
for all, not just elites, the Republican party could shed its country
club image.

Government, business, and media elites are experiencing an all time low in public confidence. Based on
their poor performance and behavior this is no surprise. The
concentrated power and influence these individuals increasingly wield
and their poor track record make them in particular, and concentration
of power in general, an attractive target.

The beauty of this
is that it can also be done without jettisoning current principles like
commitment to limited government, low taxes, and the free market. In
fact, it might reinforce a commitment to free market capitalism. No one
is more opposed to free market competition like “Big Business.” Once
they have their slice of the market pie they regularly endorse and
support new regulations that make it cost prohibitive for new
competitors to enter the market.

This may be the way to turn our country and the Republican party around.

Posted by: Joel Leggett at November 14, 2012 04:45 AM (ChqG2)

564 "That group could be said to include both people who think the government must protect the religious concept of marriage, and those who insist the government must refute it."

Government incentivizes traditional marriage, because it reduces the burden of the welfare state. Children raised in loving, two parent homes will become productive, well-adjusted adults... and likely Republican voters. Single women and unwed mothers are Democrat bread and butter. They want a dysfunctional society, and they understand that Rove got the GOP base to the polls by making sure gay marriage was on key states' ballots. Republicans need to learn how to play hardball and have a no appeasement strategy with Dems.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 14, 2012 05:13 AM (i0vBR)

565 The old saying applies here, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." The RINOS are ready to do and say whatever they have to in order to win next time around, but what are they winning? Why have two parties at all?
The problem is that we've allowed progressives to take over the media, education and universities with little to no opposition other than conservative radio and bloggers. Instead of changing good policy, why not start educating people about why it's the way to go?
Got ROKU? Look at UStream's channel as an example. Last week, they had every Obama campaign stop listed as "Featured" but not one Romney appearance. Therein lies the problem and I don't see anyone making a serious effort to fight it other than Glenn Beck (like him or not, he gets that part of it.)

Posted by: Texmom at November 14, 2012 09:28 AM (xSFpw)

566 Government incentivizes traditional marriage, because it reduces the burden of the welfare state. Children raised in loving, two parent homes will become productive, well-adjusted adults...

Blah blah blah, socialized BS.The Governmentshould not beinterested in the productivity of my children. They are not cattle.

Hey, banning fatty foods reduces the burden of the welfare state. Lower healthcare costs.

This argument can be used for anything. And it will be. Listen to yourself.

Posted by: entropy at November 14, 2012 09:30 AM (TULs6)

567 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578108830276820800.html

A good link to a wsj piece on the folly of thinking Hispanics are natural welfare state moochers and there is not point in talking to them.

Talk radio has been good for conservatism, but in some ways it worries me because it seems to be narrowing and narrowing the definition of conservatism to something barely recognizable to people whose introduction to conservatism was from reading books rather than listening to the radio.

Posted by: PC at November 14, 2012 12:33 PM (dQHuQ)

568 Why on earth should the GOP help grant amnesty to a group which will turn around and then vote predominantly for Dems?

The word "suicidal" comes to mind.

Posted by: Vick at November 14, 2012 01:58 PM (mI6YO)






Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.1149 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0328 seconds, 577 records returned.
Page size 368 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