Here's Why I'm Pretty Sure We're Doomed...

I think people in the party have resigned themselves to being a minority party for 8-16 years. Since they do not entertain any hopes of having actual political power, what's left is interparty jockeying for position in the pecking order.

We're obviously not going to win in this state. The smartest guys in the party, at least as regards retail politics, are broadcasting this to me. As they plainly believe it, I must take this seriously.

And I have. Apparently this is going to be a philosophical period, the political equivalent of a "rebuilding season" (well, like four to eight rebuilding seasons in a row).

We're not interested in going after Democrats, not really; that seems too out of our grasp. Victories over each other seem more manageable, more winnable. We've decided, collectively, that we can't go to market (that is, the greater political contest of Republicans vs. Democrats) until we've finished our playoffs of Grassroots vs. Establishment for 8-16 years.

Given that the party doesn't want to win, I don't see the point of pretending otherwise.

Kind of hard to get interested when we already know the results are failure.

The Plus Side: Because we're not seriously contending in politics for a while, we don't have to counterfeit our beliefs any longer as regards compromise with each other and team unity.

That's actually very liberating, and very useful. If you've got lemons, make lemonade, after all.

So I will stop whining about it and just embrace it. But of course I get to play to. If we're going to have a Festivus Airing of Grievances, I've got some myself.

Here's one: I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

I'm sick of it. I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of making excuses for it. I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we're going to have a war of all against all, let's have it, honestly.


Posted by: Ace at 02:26 PM



Comments

1 Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 20, 2013 02:28 PM (GFM2b)

2 First. Why does it have to be failure? I've always said that the best to effect change is at the local level. That's where we have the power.

Posted by: No more redhot poker up the ass at February 20, 2013 02:29 PM (1XRS7)

3 Agreed, and after 8-16 years of absolute liberal control the country will be "different". People keep saying "Let it Burn" as if we'll have a choice. It's going to burn regardless of whether you let it or not.

Posted by: BuckIV at February 20, 2013 02:29 PM (gedHR)

4 And I have. Apparently this is going to be a philosophical period, the political equivalent of a "rebuilding season" (well, like four to eight rebuilding seasons in a row).


Look. I'm a Cubs fan. I'm a Browns fan. What more do you people want from me!


Now, if you'll excuse me, the tunnel under the fence to the power plant isn't going to dig itself.

Posted by: alexthechick - Chaotic Evil Hobbit. at February 20, 2013 02:29 PM (VtjlW)

5 These Townhalls needs to be Tar and Feather events.

Posted by: Captain Sulu at February 20, 2013 02:30 PM (zUW8g)

6 I propose "Watch it burn" as an alternative.

Posted by: BuckIV at February 20, 2013 02:30 PM (gedHR)

7 Welcome aboard.

Posted by: Andy at February 20, 2013 02:30 PM (OZPoa)

8 I was on the road ruminating in serious mode since I lacked my "closed captioner" this trip....

I think they are going to destroy the country this time. Nixon really did thwart them and paid for it with a purge driven by the M$M. This wilderness stay will break our back I think W was probably our Thatcher and from now on we are the "budget socialist" party.

We're fucked.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:31 PM (LRFds)

9 For some reason it reminds me of the aftermath of 9/11 Democrats became more interested in hating and hurting their fellow Americans--Republicans--than directing their energy at the terrorists.

Something like the terrorist didn't give a shit what they thought and didn't care--but by gawd they could hurt Republicans--so they felt some sense of accomplishment.

Posted by: The Pelosi Hagel Clinton Defense League at February 20, 2013 02:31 PM (r2PLg)

10 Off TOS sock.

Posted by: Hanoverfist at February 20, 2013 02:31 PM (zUW8g)

11 My concern is that it becomes like the UKIP. Not just minority party, but a little tiny minority party.

Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:31 PM (pZDxu)

12 I honestly am not sure the country can survive 8-16 years. Guns look like a tipping point issue to me.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:32 PM (CBCxo)

13 Ace, people are using the term "rebuilding" and such to avoid saying the truth - that the Constitution is a Dead Letter and we have no free elections anywhere in the future that contains any non-imprisoned Democrat "activists".

In short, no elections anymore, they have and will forever fix them. We're not giving up to fight in the weeds. We're giving up because conservative votes will never count again.

We live in a tyranny. Quit pretending we actually are in a functioning republic. We're not. The elections aren't. The elected are anything but. We are ruled, not led.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 20, 2013 02:32 PM (UzocF)

14 Fuck that.

I plan on fighting and fighting hard. And as part of the battle space preparation, I plan on going after the divisive asshats who want to waste time and resources on this Tea Party vs. Establishment B.S.

Posted by: John W. at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (iIoxT)

15 >>>Kind of hard to get interested when we already know the results are failure.

Try Letitburninol it may help.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (0q2P7)

16 And here we go.

The Flamening is at hand.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (CJjw5)

17 The GOP establishment wants to be a minority party. Same perks and benefits, no actual governance.

Posted by: zsasz at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (MMC8r)

18 Welcome, brother.

LiFB.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (QupBk)

19 Maybe the preppers aren't irrational....more like the Boy Scouts..."be prepared".

Posted by: Sheriff Joe B. at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (Sg0G/)

20 Given that the party doesn't want to win, I don't see the point of pretending otherwise.


It's hard with no leadership. I'm trying to think of the person that holds the qualities I look for in a leader. There are some with some, like Rubio. Then he goes all amnesty on me.

No unifying vision. What do we see as a successful outcome, something everyone can work for without being butthurt about the little stuff.

No clear mesage. Whens the last time a pol said something to make a room full of people go Hell Yeah!! Last one I heard was Dr. Carson. Tune in here and get thwacked by the nay sayers, they'll butcher him, they'll destroy him.

Yep Ace, I sadly agree, we are FKD.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (l86i3)

21 Here's one: I think a lot of people are in this party because it
provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for
Judging and Scolding.


But enough about the Democrats.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (/kI1Q)

22 >>>The GOP establishment wants to be a minority party.

the grassroots doesn't?

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (LCRYB)

23 Hmm. That little addendum about teh ghey, I don't get.

Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (pZDxu)

24 9 The Pelosi Hagel Clinton Defense League,

Pretty much why I pray for a peaceful divorce.

The American people never punished the mules for basically quitting foreign policy, so we are fucked and will lose all our power.

The 1980s resurgence and 1990s dominance were bought with reconditioning surplus WW2 kit that we can't do again.

We're too stupid to be an efficient but gimped socialist nation like the Scandis or EUtopia so we're a banana Republic in 20 years.


Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (LRFds)

25 Damn I thought that was over.

P{alin, aul, erry} 2016!!! OR IM SITTING IT OUT!!!

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (xAtAj)

26 Ace, can you time when your posts come up? Or were you multi tasking?

(arguing with burn and writing the post at the same time. I'm amazed.)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (qyv02)

27 Camp of the Saints-Jean Raspail. Read it and know the truth. We are doomed.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (wbmaj)

28 Just wait. In a year or so, everyone will have to fork out $7-10,000 per year for health insurance. nd the subsidies to lower income citizens (Already increased by 30% per the CBO - and we know even that figure is going to be way low) is going to break the budget.

I predict a Republican landslide in 2016. Even with the best efforts of the R party to screw things up, the Obamacare price tag is going to hurt pretty much everyone who votes.

Posted by: West at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (1Rgee)

29 Are there cookies on the Dark Side?

Posted by: ALH at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (yAPdC)

30 I' not so sure that the party doesn't want us to win as much as I'm am sure that each organization wants to be right. They want to preen.

It's no fun to back the loser.

Thee example of establishment v. insurgent used in the article..... how would that translate to Rand's win?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (piMMO)

31 I don't know why anyone bothers to make these big 8-10 year prognostications about politics. James Carville has made the same mistake twice now, of predicting generational dominance for Democrats. It never comes to fruition.

And look at the redistricting, and the Democrat's hammering of all these social issues. There will be a backlash. They're running in 2014 on their positions on healthcare, gun control, spending/taxes, etc. I find it hard to believe they're not going to piss off at least 52% of the country.

Posted by: bjjfiter at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (8z3Pa)

32 Oh this outta be fun......

Posted by: Tami at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (X6akg)

33 Marsjhmellows and Smores at the ready!

Posted by: Sunny Optomist at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (u82oZ)

34 I suspect some non-troll banhammering will be occurring before the night is through.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (BrQrN)

35 >>>And as part of the battle space preparation, I plan on going after the
divisive asshats who want to waste time and resources on this Tea Party
vs. Establishment B.S.

So you are going to go after people on our side you disagree with for going after people on our side that they disagree with. There is a joke in that someplace.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (0q2P7)

36 If we do not win the next election of the Executive--with the incumbency factor that almost guarantees the Democrats another eight years in power.

The damage will be irreversible.

Posted by: The Pelosi Hagel Clinton Defense League at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (r2PLg)

37 That little addendum about teh ghey, I don't get.

Shh. He's rolling.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (QupBk)

38 12 BSR,

I will not comply and I would prefer to help tear this nation apart rather than let our power be used for evil.

I am not alone.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (LRFds)

39 Posted by: Sheriff Joe B. at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (Sg0G/)

damn sock

Posted by: BignJames at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (Sg0G/)

40 I find your lack of faith.....refreshing.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (Lv85W)

41 We live in a tyranny. Quit pretending we actually are in a functioning republic.

This.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (/kI1Q)

42 It depends on what you want. Do you want a Republican to win, or do you want someone who is some kind of minimum standard of conservative?

At this point, the Left has won. This is the mopping up phase of their great campaign. The Long March is over, and we are trying to get Taiwan organized.

The spending goes up, the taxes go up, and there are more laws and less freedom year after year. The GOP has compromised everything away, and now they want to fight? They concede 90% of the argument to the Left, and then they wring their hands. Fuck 'em.

Posted by: Virginian at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (uXOnP)

43 LiB = nihilism

We need to fight this or die trying. Which means no more stupid intra-party fights. Churchill teamed up with Stalin for God's sake.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (CBCxo)

44 We lack anyone in a leadership position who is willing and or able to take on the Democrats rhetorically or demagogically, even if someone like a Ted Cruz tried to take on the Democrats, the GOP establishment would slap him down.


Our firewall was to be the states, we hold 30 Governorships but they seem to be falling in line with the dictates of the the federal leviathan.


Let it burn is not just a cute slogan it's an absolute certainty!

Posted by: General Woundwort at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (RrD4h)

45 >>>(arguing with burn and writing the post at the same time. I'm amazed.)

don't be, the posts in the argument and this post are all quickies, toss-offs.

And no, I can't multi-task. When I'm writing a difficult piece I can't comment or post other short posts and when I'm arguing in the comments I can't write something substantial.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (LCRYB)

46 34 Lurking Canuck?

Que?

Is there an admonishment from Ewok-6 I missed?

How bad was the row?

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (LRFds)

47 I wasn't sure w hat you meant by 'not wanting to win." Do you just mean because of the infighting? I mean, there's always going to be jockeying for positions of power within the party, unfortunately. One thing the democrats seem to have going for them is that they have so few decent candidates for higher office (think about it - was there ever any doubt it was going to be Hillary or Obama- who else could have possibly had a shot? John Fing Kerry?) that they get behind the ones they do have in lockstep. Obama was technically a terrible candidate but he had the black hook, which elevated him above his dismal record and poison past. The dems don't have the great black hope in 2016 and their candidates are pretty weak (Hillary? Really???). Unfortunately, the Republicans will spend the next 4 years tearing apart every potential candidate apart.


Posted by: Matt at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (c4UpU)

48 What happens when McCain's face explodes? I mean Hazmat suit or what? I hope he gets some on Chuckie-Hagel and Schumer.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (wbmaj)

49 I disagree. I think once 0bama's reign of error is over, things will return to normal. Herman Cain said last night on BOR that there is going to be the sufficient pain in the country to really turn people off.
Plus, the GOP has the rising stars (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, and Scott Walker).

Posted by: perdogg at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (oSdsj)

50 #46 Have another doughnut.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (wbmaj)

51 It Will Burn vs Let It Burn

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (xAtAj)

52
That's actually very liberating, and very useful. If you've got lemons, make lemonade, after all.

What if I have potatoes?

Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (+xmn4)

53
"I think they are going to destroy the country this time. "

And we'll all just sit here and watch it happen. We will be party to our own extinction because it's the gentlemanly thing to do.

It's time like these when I take a break from being sad that my wife and I couldn't have kids and simply thank God for sparing them the impending darkness.

Posted by: Jaws at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (4I3Uo)

54 the grassroots doesn't?

Posted by: ace


No, the grassroots wants an actual party with principles and defined goals. Not Democrat-Lite™.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (Ipj15)

55 I don't know who pissed in Ace's cereal, but they're fucking dead if I find out.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (da5Wo)

56 It sure is toasty here today. Nice.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (zpqa2)

57 Herman Cain-voice of reason--Come on baby, it's just a little blow job!

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (wbmaj)

58 Churchill teamed up with Stalin for God's sake.

Yeah, thanks for that.

Posted by: The Baltic States at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (QupBk)

59
The Democrats have created a perfect storm: find a way to create problems or issues, argue against said problems, and blame the party that controls the one part of government that has nothing to do with it in an effort to win it back.
The sequester is Obama's baby
The budgetstarts with Obama/Senate
solution: blame the GOP Congress for not "doing anything" about it, get us fighting with ourselves about not doing anything instead of explaining it harsh and cruelly for fear we'll be seen as mean.
Ted Cruz is a poopyhead because he's direct. Everyone should take his lead instead of run from that.

Posted by: Hawkins at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (DuTGc)

60 Absolutely the Republicans are more interested in the interparty war. They will say things about other Republicans they would never dare say about a Democrat.

Look at the discussion of Mark Sanford running for the House.


Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (pZDxu)

61 OK, so this whole thing was basically an excuse to wig on social conservatives.
Please.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (ZMzpb)

62 are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Ace, I'm trying to think of examples of this and I'm coming up blank.

The only activity I've noticed is pushback against government insisting that we have to think about other people's sex lives and using our money to make this happen.

Posted by: Mindy at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (gBOQE)

63 We're in not bad shape for presidency 2016. That's one cause for optimism.

The other is that Obamacare is set to implode by itself. We may not even need the Senate to get rid of it.

These two things are keeping me semi-optimistic.

Entitlement reform is still 10-15 years out. It's going to be more painful fixing later, but it's still doable.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (xAtAj)

64 Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (+xmn4)

Vodka.

Or a potato gun.

Or both.

Posted by: Country Singer at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (L8r/r)

65 #55 It was a coed trying to avoid being raped.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (wbmaj)

66 45 Ace,

Yeah I can empathize, my post count gets high because I really do have 3-5 windows of the place up when I am inspired but for a serious "dancing shoes" post of which I do too infrequently I wind up researching links and not posting in the scrum.

I hope the conversation is what you're looking for chief.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (LRFds)

67 When the rebuilding starts, there may be good odds for a new party.

Posted by: Skookumchuk at February 20, 2013 02:38 PM (x4x3r)

68 17 The GOP establishment wants to be a minority party. Same perks and benefits, no actual governance.
Posted by: zsasz at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (MMC8r)



This.

The only way to get back to winning is to fucking run these dinosaurs out of the party and back to their yacht clubs and country clubs where they can complain whenever their ice cubes get dry.

We need bloodthirsty fighters to run this party.

Fortunately, I know of some bloodthirsty fighters. I've just got to convince them to take the deliberate, affirmative steps to actually throw these garbage-assed droolers out and take the fuck over.


I'm looking at you, morons.

The absolute worst thing you can do for the future is to give up on America right now. It's the only country we have left. There's no other America about to pop out of he ground fully formed the next continent over.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 02:39 PM (I2LwF)

69 >>>OK, so this whole thing was basically an excuse to wig on social conservatives.

no but I have my own Code of Purity I've suppressed for a long time.

If we're all just fighting to win, I get to fight to win too.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:39 PM (LCRYB)

70 Oh, I get it. The government should be encouraging homosexuality? Is that it?

Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (pZDxu)

71 The GOP is plagued by a John McCain style of leadership, which basically amounts to no fucking leadership at all.

Posted by: Fritz at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (WM+rJ)

72 Fuck Ace. He doesn't know what it takes to get through my day.

I'm sitting here, fighting, about to just give in and chug some cock and get it over with, but then I dig down and find the strength to fuckin power through it. You don't read about the quiet heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock. It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (CJjw5)

73 22
>>>The GOP establishment wants to be a minority party.



the grassroots doesn't?

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (LCRYB)

The GOP establishment make big bucks playing footsie with democrats. They have an incentive to betray the base.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (AWmfW)

74 If we're all just fighting to win, I get to fight to win too.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:39 PM (LCRYB)


What does winning look like to you?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (l86i3)

75 How about the idea that there is a real, live, scientific basis for the Todd Akin "magic uterus" theory where rapist semen is rejected ?

There is at least one "true believer" blog that while claiming to not want to engage in the "war on women" still cannot help but to defend Todd Akin to the death.

Frankly, that debate needs to be held so that RETARDED ideas like that are shown to be as moronic as they really are.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (b2D8X)

76 58: As a polish-american I'm well aware of the shit that happened after WW2, but I think most poles will agree that living under soviet tyranny, while horrible, was preferable to extermination, which was Hitler's plan for the Slavs.


And speaking of Slavs, someone should really look into the "Velvet Divorce" of the Czech Rep and Slovakia; maybe thats the future...

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (CBCxo)

77
Posted by: bjjfiter at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (8z3Pa)


I said the same thing last November. I along with many here said it would be a wave election. I said that a can of Wolf brand chili would beat TFG
I was fucking wrong.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (R8hU8)

78 What's wrong with a religious war to define our politics?

Posted by: Pat Robertson & The Ghost of Jerry Falwell at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (pmsMR)

79 2016 GOP Convention: Welcome To Thunderdome.

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (tVWQB)

80 #60 The whorehouse?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (wbmaj)

81 If you're going to have a war, make it about vote fraud.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (KwMW2)

82 >>> The only activity I've noticed is pushback against government insisting that we have to think about other people's sex lives and using our money to make this happen.


please, you know that's not the extent of it.

that is the party as it exists in our PR literature, not as it actually is.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (LCRYB)

83 53 Jaws,

If we're LUCKY we'll just be opining on it.

Guy they are fucking evil, and they will make the worst police state ever if they can.

They jerk off to kicking in doors to look for guns while using the ACLU to protect welfare recipients' piss....

the reality is we're fucked because we took a lot for granted and the fuckers wrecked the schools and entertainment while we were working and making babies.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (LRFds)

84 You don't read about the quiet heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock. It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.





Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (CJjw5)

I WISH THESE DAMN OTTERS WOULD STOP TOUCHING MY COCK

Posted by: dude complaining about otters touching his cock at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (xAtAj)

85 We are headed for a civil war in this country. The Dems keep up with their gun grabbing attempts and the shooting will start. Probably before the end of the year.
It appears the Supreme Court is infected as well. The clerks are withholding information from the justices. I know Orly Tatiz is known as a birther, but the President failing e-verify is a BFD. He posted his tax returns online and did not redact the SS#. It is a CT #. Supposedly John Roberts was going to hear the case on 2/15. The clerks only gave the briefs to 4 of the 9 justices, the other 5 copies of the briefs were sent back to Ms Tatiz with no explanation. Even thought theyhad been logged in.
The republicans are spineless and corrupt. They won't do anything about it.

Posted by: TC at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (vYB+W)

86 Appropos to this thread, Rush now talking about Pentagon benefits being made available to gay couples only, not hetero. Reverse discriminate much?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (zpqa2)

87 There's an irony inherent in this blog post, but I'm not quite seeing it.

Posted by: H. Ross Perot at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (pmsMR)

88 I'm sick of it. I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of making excuses for it. I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Except that's not how I see it. Of course some people are attracted to the same sex (and Penthouse Forum breathes a sigh of relief every day that it is so, especially concerning hot lesbians), but to shrug off the deconstruction of the family structure underlyingmuch of the "gay marriage" agendais to abandon the field to bigots intent on reconstructing the language in order to criminalize wrong-think.

And I'm sorry, Ace, but my ass there isn't a "political" agenda. When the owner of a cake shop or flower shop or wedding photographer can be sued because they won't compromise their values to cater to a gay couple, then we ought to be right there punching back twice as hard

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (zF6Iw)

89 Arguing amongst ourselves to establish a consensus has always been the way of the GOP. We always look like retodds during Primary season too. No big deal here, IMO

Posted by: Bigby's Sockpuppet at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (PqxmY)

90 Mitch Fucking McConnell. We are doomed.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (wbmaj)

91 Maybe things will be different after the burn.

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (GQ8sn)

92 >>>What does winning look like to you?

winning to me looks like it does to you -- shaping the party to express my own true preferences, not counterfeited for the sake of unity.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (LCRYB)

93 I think this situation absolutely requires...
a really futile and stupid gesture...
be done on somebody's part.

Posted by: Otter at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (SO2Q8)

94 Why fight Democrats, when they fight back?

Far easier to fight they guys who won't fight back using any and all means available.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (VjL9S)

95
Here's one: I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.


Not sure why you think that's limited to OUR side, ace. You want to talk about a socially acceptable basis for judging and scolding? I give you the Democratic Party.

I think it's the things which are perceived as being judged that are at the heart of your complaint, not the judging and scolding itself.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (4df7R)

96 >>>>>Judging and Scolding?

Who is doing that? I don't give a damn what gay people do in private, but I don't want the big, bad government endorsing their approval. And gay folks do want that.

Posted by: L, elle at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (0PiQ4)

97 Intraparty squabbling isn't a new thing. It happens all the time in all major political parties.

Democrats have eco-freaks vs unions over Keystone XL right now. The media just doesn't highlight this.

It's basically a religious war. The eco-freaks object to fossil fuels on purely moral, religious, scold-prude grounds.

But the media agrees with the eco-nazis so they don't cover that intraparty squabble.

Media hates so-cons and wants everybody else to hate them, too -- so they cover the shit about Repub feuds with so-cons.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (ZPrif)

98 >>>the grassroots doesn't?

I'm sure they'd like to be a majority, they are just unwilling to compromise to the extent necessary to achieve that. And given our current environment, (I mean c'mon we ran McCain and Romney!! it doesn't get much more moderate than that) meaningful victory is hard to come by. I ask you, who could we have run that would have won?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (0q2P7)

99 Que?Is there an admonishment from Ewok-6 I missed?

No no. Not at all. I just seem to recall a couple of occasions where things were taking a turn this way and the ensuing interactions caused some embannenings.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (BrQrN)

100 We're fucked for 8 to 16 years because they suck. That's all their is to it.

They lost the battle of Alinsky. He'd be so proud to be here and see his accomplishment.

We'll NEVER have even the remotest of conservative government ever again. Welcome to the future, bitches.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (xmcEQ)

101 Hmm. That little addendum about teh ghey, I don't get.





Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (pZDxu)

----
Thread brawl carry over. Stay low in your foxhole.... try not to get shot.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (nELVU)

102 On homosexuality, the "conservative" position, I think, is that the Federal gov't should stay out of it, ENTIRELY. We don't need Washington to say who can't or can't have sex, and we don't need it to say who can or can't get married.




Posted by: looking closely at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (6Q9g2)

103 Better to starve to death and be "right" than to survive by accepting 3/4 of a loaf of bread.

Posted by: William F. Buckley at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (pmsMR)

104 If I may be a contrarian ready to feel the heat from the AOSHQ doomsayers (realists?), with all due respect, the GOP is arguably stronger than it has been since 2004-2005, and I'm sure many would argue that it wasn't that strong to begin with then.

The current battles are going to be at the state level, and it seems like we finally have GOP leaders who are actually willing to fight for the states. The Dems got decimated in 2010, that decimation will rear its head.

We still have the House (yes I know what good is having it if you don't try to thwart Obama), and we will keep it in 2014. If the Dems couldn't take it back dureing 2012, they won't reclaim it in 2014.

The Dems have Obama that is it. After that, they may have Hillary. But her popularity is largely the result of not having to take any hard positions in the past few years. If Hillary doesn't run in 2016, who wins for the Dems. If she does run, the American people will start expecting some results after 3 terms of Dem presidents. And if she is like Bill she'll compromise with the GOP.

Anyway, I agree with Ace that at the federal level, we are in kind of wandering period. But no so at the state level, where GOP govenors aretaking bold actions (or bolder than the norm). I'm more optimistic. Often, it ts when things look the worst that they are actually starting to turn around. It may be another 6-8 years before we reclaim the Presidency, but I don't think the wilderness period will be that long.

The worst thing is the Supreme Court appointments. The biggest failure of the Reagan/Bush years were not taking advantage of that 12 year period to claim a clear conservative majority on the court. I'm certain Obama will get at least one more appointment, as Ginsberg will retire. I'm not sure Scalia or Kennedy can hold out for the next GOP Pres.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (gmeXX)

105 >>>You don't read about the quiet heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock. It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.

hah.

I try to be the hero but sometimes i fail...

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (LCRYB)

106 the grassroots doesn't?
Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:33 PM (LCRYB)

If by grassroots you mean tea party/ conservatives, no. but they don't see a way to power with the current leadership and attitudes.

The Reps were 40 years without a majority. They liked it just fine and probably look on that as the golden years.

They could fling snark and snippy remarks at the Dems, get tv time for the folks back home and then go to the same clubs at night and laugh about the rubes swallowing another load.

Meanwhile the Dems shaped and shaved the country. Now it's too late to reverse many of the effects.

We're not going to reform the Schools/colleges. The Mass Media is out of reach still and the intertubez is beyond most of those geezers comprehension. They've decided to be the perpetual nay sayers that cave because what else can they do? If they actually try to do anything they risk angering too many voters and the people they have to work with to get any pork and power back home to those who really count; their local Party and the people who paid the most to put them in office.

Me. I say that if were going to lose, then let's lose by standing on our principles and not worrying about electability or any other crap.

And: LET IT BURN means we're not going to even try to stop it even though it will be painful for every one.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (qyv02)

107 Even the Higgs Boson says we are doomed. What chance do we have?

Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (71LDo)

108 If you're going to have a war, make it about vote fraud.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (KwMW2)

That's hardly a skirmish. We should be winning by margins immune from effects of fraud.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (zpqa2)

109 "Kind of hard to get interested when we already know the results are failure."

Welcome to the Dark, er, Darker Side, Ace. When one loses even when one wins, then there's no point in playing the old game. The Progressives inhabit both major parties and we've become an unserious nation. Those who could salvage it are demonized. As constructed America is entering an inescapable abyss. It must collapse on its own. And it will.

The big issues to be discussed are how to prepare. I don't necessarily mean Doomsday Prepping (though I have to tip my hat to that constituency for being the tip of a spear) but setting up some sort of personal buffers to soften the blows. Embracing the underground economy, for example.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (eHIJJ)

110 We don't have time for this. Too busy programming our DVRs.

Posted by: Roy at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (VndSC)

111 Socons suck. There. I've said it.
I think they're big govt nanny-staters. The only difference between your average socon and someone like Mike Bloomberg is that Bloomberg isn't trying to control who you have sex with and/or who you can marry. Last time I checked, he doesn't put an embryo's well-being over that ofits sentientadult mother, either.

I also think the War on Drugs is a colossal waste of resources, especially given most people seem perfectly OK with the tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths every year, and it annoys the hell out of me when socons get on their high horses about porn, strippers, hookers, and any number of other vices someone might want to enjoy in private homes or businesses.

I believe in maximum individual liberty. If I'm not stepping on your toes, leave me alone. And that goes for making me pay for things like abortion and contraception, too. You want to do stuff like that, it's fine by me - but don't make me pay for it.

I guess I'm a small "L" libertarian, really. Fuck the socons. I think pandering to them drives away more voters than they're worth.

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (H8fz7)

112 I'm sitting here, fighting, about to just give in and chug some cock and get it over with, but then I dig down and find the strength to fuckin power through it. You don't read about the quiet heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock. It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.

You sir, are a great American.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 20, 2013 02:44 PM (BrQrN)

113 43 BSR,

No "let it burn" is not aiding the fucking parasites to "save" a corpse.

The creative destruction phase is upon us.....

I won't cut a deal with the KKK to subvert Negros like LBJ did....

I just won't so we're fucked.

We fought evil and took our eye off the ball, and honestly I don't want to be in a nation that has California and New York calling all the shots for 300,000,000 so cleansing fire.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:44 PM (LRFds)

114
Here's why I'm pretty sure we're doomed.

$16,548,926,805,129.36 as of yesterday.

And, even more important than that amount, that NOTHING is being done to even slow its rate of growth.

Posted by: Comrade Rapist at February 20, 2013 02:44 PM (mJkp9)

115 And Judging and Scolding is inherent to human nature.
Mocking and Insulting are really the same thing, too. And Ace is very good at both.

So are we pro-Mocking and Insulting, but anti-Judging and Scolding?

Not a lot of internal coherence there.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 02:44 PM (ZPrif)

116 The dems don't have the great black hope in 2016 and their candidates are pretty weak (Hillary? Really???).

Yeah, underestimate Hillary, good idea. The country just re-elected Barack Obama for chrissakes. Don't you understand how HISTORIC a female President will be, how monumental it will be, especially following the GOP war against women. Not only is Hillary not weak, if she runs she is probably a fait accompli for President.

Posted by: BuckIV at February 20, 2013 02:44 PM (gedHR)

117 >>>The only way to get back to winning is to fucking run these dinosaurs
out of the party and back to their yacht clubs and country clubs where
they can complain whenever their ice cubes get dry.


We need bloodthirsty fighters to run this party.



Amazing just how barbarian-stupid this is.

Why am I not surprised that your solution to everything is "MOAR ANGER! LOUDER! MOAR BLOOD"? The man who only has a hammer...

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:44 PM (bcLhD)

118
72
Fuck Ace. He doesn't know what it takes to get through my day.



I'm sitting here, fighting, about to just give in and chug
some cock and get it over with, but then I dig down and find the
strength to fuckin power through it. You don't read about the quiet
heroes like myself who are out there every day, not sucking cock. It doesn't sell Ace's little internet ads, I guess.





Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:40 PM (CJjw5)


Oh please, you know you're taking it up the ass to get through the day.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (da5Wo)

119 and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality

---

I've got to admit, I'm not sure who in the party is pushing this agenda. But then again, I don't get out much to the GOP precint meetings.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (gmeXX)

120 112 Lurking Canuck,

an....aw fuck it


//Hannity

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (LRFds)

121 over/under on comments is 600

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (8sCoq)

122 You realize the Dems have all out wars, too? But we're too focused on our own battles to give two shits.

Posted by: Regular Moron at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (feFL6)

123 Why exactly are there so many Protestant denominations and even factions within each such denomination?

Posted by: This explains a lot, when you connect the dots at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (pmsMR)

124 In 8 to 16 years, Spanish will be mandatory in public schools. California? Already over, baby.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (wbmaj)

125 Principles are everything. They used to be adhered to, for a reason. Therefor their importance will once again be known, someday.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (zpqa2)

126 >>>Who is doing that? I don't give a damn what gay people do in private, but I don't want the big, bad government endorsing their approval. And gay folks do want that.

I get what you're saying -- but if you're saying you don't know anyone on the right who just does not like gays, and sort of does in fact h8 them, I'm going to call bullshit on you.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (LCRYB)

127
Wellll THAT was a bad sock puppet to leave in place!

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (mJkp9)

128 I think most poles will agree that living under soviet tyranny, while horrible, was preferable to extermination, which was Hitler's plan for the Slavs.

I prefer an option other than either of those, thank you very much.

And on the homo thing, I always have to ask why this particular fetish is deserving of respect and accommodation when so many others are not. Numbers? Money? Fashion sense?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (QupBk)

129 We don't need Washington to say who can't or can't have sex, and we don't need it to say who can or can't get married.

And we don't need it to fine small businesses for choosing not to cater their receptions. Maybe that's Ace's example? The part where we think photographers and bakers should be free to not accept work they find abhorrent?

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (/kI1Q)

130 >>>I've got to admit, I'm not sure who in the party is pushing this agenda. But then again, I don't get out much to the GOP precint meetings.

c'mon. pull the other one.

By the way, I liked your previous post, the long one.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (LCRYB)

131 winning to me looks like it does to you -- shaping the party to express my own true preferences, not counterfeited for the sake of unity.
Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:42 PM (LCRYB)

I guess it goes back to a unifying message or doctrine. There isn't an individual amongst us that sees things in the same way. To present that forcefully we need leadership and the only thing we are better at than tearing apart each other is tearing apart our leaders.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (l86i3)

132 Mitch Fucking McConnell. We are doomed.

***

How Mitch McConnell wiil get his claws into Cruz:

http://t.co/WfvvObVS

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (piMMO)

133 >>>Yeah, underestimate Hillary, good idea. The country just re-elected
Barack Obama for chrissakes. Don't you understand how HISTORIC a female
President will be, how monumental it will be, especially following the
GOP war against women. Not only is Hillary not weak, if she runs she is
probably a fait accompli for President.


This. Hillary is a guaranteed winner if she runs. Amazingly, she managed to leave the SecState job with a completely undeserved halo of competence, and if she runs in 2016 the GOP might as well not even bother. I seriously think our only hope is her having an aneurysm or something, which is an awful thing to say.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (bcLhD)

134 As long as Ace doesn't start road biking, playing jazz guitar or take up photography, I think we'll all be OK.

Posted by: Navin R Johnson at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (RRbuy)

135
Isn't it more accurate to say that some are opposing the pushing of a political agenda of homo-ism rather than pursuing a political agenda against homos?

In other words, it is they who are pushing an agenda. Some of us are simply resisting that agenda.

There is no anti gay agenda. There is a pro gay agenda, and those who oppose that agenda being imposed upon them.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (gtTDa)

136 I don't understand this same sex comment either. Libertarian I understand but to just go non-committal to societal changes which are detrimental, or at least according to the interpretation of history and faith? I think governmental interference is the real issue, not the same sex thing. I would rather try to persuade those to my side than to force redefinition on things.

Posted by: orwellsmonster at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (Ys6Np)

137 We wouldn't be in this boat if Bohner hadn't caved to FDR on his New Deal programs.

And damn Karl Rove for nominating Thomas Dewey for us.

I'm not even going to bring up how Eric Cantor voted to erupt Mt. Vesuvius.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (SY2Kh)

138
Great post.

Posted by: Goodness at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (m8jxa)

139 Premarital sex is awesome.

Gay people should be allowed to get married.

Creationism is fucking stupid.

Outlawing abortion in cases of rape and incest is not only dumb, it's strategically and tactically counterproductive.

We have Obamacare because stupid go-along-to-get-along Republicans did nothing about the healthcare mess when they had power.

Posted by: JohnW at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (44oMx)

140 Does demographics have anything to do with this mess?

Posted by: Old, Uneducated, Xenophobic and Irascible at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (pmsMR)

141 Same perks and benefits, no actual governance.

Which sounds hauntingly like Campaigner-in-Chief TFG.

It's gonna burn, because that's what Math says. Let's hope it's not a 40-year smolder, because I'm not really in the mood for that, and I don't really care to see my kids endure it through what should be the best time of their lives.

Posted by: jakeman at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (96M6e)

142 I'm not convinced we're in the wilderness for as long as Ace predicts.

In the short term, we'd be better off trying to control House and Senate.

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (8sCoq)

143 >>>If we're all just fighting to win, I get to fight to win too.

Of the 10 republicans that ran, Mitt Romney was my number 8 choice. I still supported his ass with cold hard cash. The first time I ever had done so for any politician. A lot of similarly disappointed conservatives made the same or even greater sacrifices.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (0q2P7)

144 The Democrats have a thousand competing interest groups to have little skirmishes.

We have 3 or 4(Socon / FiCon / Hawk). We make better intra-party warring.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:47 PM (xAtAj)

145 "(arguing with burn and writing the post at the same time. I'm amazed.)


Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (qyv02)"



Man, out of all ace's jokes I've found funny, I had to mention one I didn't...


You suck just one dick...

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (yCvxi)

146 OT

Does Ace have a ponytail?

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (8sCoq)

147 >>>And on the homo thing, I always have to ask why this particular fetish is deserving of respect and accommodation when so many others are not. Numbers? Money? Fashion sense?

I don't know you toby, but if I had to guess, I would guess you'd engaged in at LEAST some oral sodomy yourself.

Of course no one even thinks of knocking that. It has no defenders because it NEEDS no defenders-- no one says anything bad about it.

But when it comes 'round to gay stuff, you frame the question in terms of "why should we grant so much respect to this (nose in the air) fetish?"

How about you worry a little bit less about it. Same as neither you nor me worries about whether the other one's getting a blowjob.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (LCRYB)

148 Ok,
Here's my one comment a year.

Judging and Scolding people for being in a party so they can Judge and Scold seems... oh, I don't know.. there's a word I'm sure. In fact, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Posted by: darelf at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (Z1WKS)

149 The dems don't have the great black hope in 2016 and their candidates are pretty weak (Hillary? Really???).

Posted by: Matt at February 20, 2013 02:36 PM (c4UpU)


If you think Hillary is a weak candidate, you are a fool. Obama only beat her by playing the race card and you can be damn sure she has greater mass appeal than Captain Divisiveness. Hillary is as formidable an opponent as there is.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (b2D8X)

150 There is no anti gay agenda. There is a pro gay agenda, and those who oppose that agenda being imposed upon them.





Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (gtTDa)

THIS

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (zpqa2)

151
>>> Posted by: DRayRaven

Thanks for sharing, Shithead.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (052zE)

152

I try to be the hero but sometimes i fail...


Don't worry, Ace. I read somewhere on the internet that you aren't gay until you suck the 8th cock.

Posted by: garrett at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (aEzSf)

153 Poor Ted Cruz
Step out of line, the man come and take you away

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (wbmaj)

154 You can see this pretty clearly with people like Chris Christie, they know the republican brand is pretty damaged right now so they are feeling pretty encouraged to overtly trash the brand right now for their own political gains. I highly doubt enough republicans in the house and senate still have the will power to fight on issues such as immigration.

Posted by: Drew in MO at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (cGlgB)

155 Does Ace have a ponytail?


Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (8sCoq)
No. Unless he's decided to switch it up.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (xAtAj)

156 There are plenty of people on this blog who constantly refer to gays in vulgar fashion. To say its just about government policy for that lot is ridiculous.

I realize its the internet and all, but maybe thats part of the reason we have an image problem.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (CBCxo)

157 You suck just one dick...

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (yCvxi)


You and EoJ had your own little Moron Meetup didn't you?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (da5Wo)

158 Could I be the real problem with the GOP primary selectorate?

Posted by: Lowest Common Denominator Principle at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (pmsMR)

159 The pro gay agenda is Affirmative Action II.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (zpqa2)

160 I get what you're saying -- but if you're saying you don't know anyone on the right who just does not like gays, and sort of does in fact h8 them, I'm going to call bullshit on you.
Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (LCRYB)


Yeah, but ace, come on. Is that the mainstream conservative view? I do know conservatives, and none of us hate gay people. You're using an awfully big brush to paint our side like that. It's like saying all black people want to kill whitey. Yeah there are plenty who do, and some of them are in pretty dominant positions, but they don't hold the mainstream view.

At least not yet. Who knows what four more years of this bullshit regime will do.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (4df7R)

161 If you're going to have a war, make it about vote fraud. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (KwMW2) That's hardly a skirmish. We should be winning by margins immune from effects of fraud.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (zpqa2)
-
I think you underestimate the amount of fraud. Think back to the VP debate.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (KwMW2)

162 >>>The first time I ever had done so for any politician. A lot of similarly disappointed conservatives made the same or even greater sacrifices.

I hear that, and I know I have a problem with these overbroad claims -- "ALL WE want to do is..."

Nevertheless, overstated though it may be, the energy in the party remains Grassroots against Establishment. That is the squabble that sets most people's eyes ablaze.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (LCRYB)

163 "I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an
intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and
Scolding."

I believe you are wrong about this, and you should be ashamed for thinking it. Ashamed! Go to your room.

Posted by: Kevin at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (1Rjug)

164

Does Ace have a ponytail?

No. But his favorite butt plug does.

Posted by: garrett at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (aEzSf)

165 #140 Demographics=Destiny

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (wbmaj)

166 We need to fight this or die trying. Which means no more stupid intra-party fights. Churchill teamed up with Stalin for God's sake.
Posted by: BSR
***

Little problem there, even Stalin wasn't selling out the Brits. The GOP establishment has been doing this to us for some time now.
It would be like Stalin teaming up with the nazis against the Brits from time to time.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (uhftQ)

167 When the owner of a cake shop or flower shop or wedding photographer can
be sued because they won't compromise their values to cater to a gay
couple, then we ought to be right there punching back twice as hard


That's phrased better than I could, yeah.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (/kI1Q)

168 If you think Hillary is a weak candidate, you are a
fool. Obama only beat her by playing the race card and you can be damn
sure she has greater mass appeal than Captain Divisiveness. Hillary is
as formidable an opponent as there is.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (b2D8X)

She managed to weasel out of any responsibility for the blood on her hands in Benghazi.
She will probably govern better than Obama! Think positive!

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:50 PM (xAtAj)

169 The dems don't have the great black hope in 2016 and their candidates are pretty weak (Hillary? Really???).

***

You rang?

Posted by: Cory Booker: The Great Black Hope at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (piMMO)

170 I get what you're saying -- but if you're saying you
don't know anyone on the right who just does not like gays, and sort of
does in fact h8 them, I'm going to call bullshit on you.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (LCRYB)


I don't hate gays because they like hairy man ass. I dislike them because they're FORCING their beliefs on me and MY CHILDREN!!

You wanna be gay? FINE!!! NO ONE REALLY CARES!!!! Stop forcing your bullshit on my kids by infiltrating and bullying the schools to TEACH it like it's something that needs to be SPREAD.

They claim its a natural thing, but yet they FORCE you to read it, learn it, know it........live it.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (xmcEQ)

171 >>>eah, but ace, come on. Is that the mainstream conservative view? I do know conservatives, and none of us hate gay people. You're using an awfully big brush to paint our side like that.

dude I'm not fucking saying EVERYONE is like that, especially on THIS site.

But it happens HERE, even.

And if we now have to call out those in, say, the Establishment for their flaws, do we ever call out these sorts of people for theirs?

If not, why not?

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (LCRYB)

172 The Gay Marriage thing is not about leaving people alone. It's about trying to change the culture so parents won't be sad when little Johnny grows up and starts sucking cock instead of marrying a nice girl and having a family.

Which is why making Gay Marriage legal doesn't actually make the world a happier place since what bugs gay people is the disappointment of their parents -- not the approval of the average citizen.

It doesn't really matter anyway. Long term the genes that predispose for gayness will be discovered and selectively aborted the same way we are doing now for Downs Syndrome (but nobody will talk about.)

People who want children also want grandchildren and will act accordingly. I predict within 50 years the fraction of young people who are gay will shrink dramatically.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (ZPrif)

173 130 >>>I've got to admit, I'm not sure who in the party is pushing this agenda. But then again, I don't get out much to the GOP precint meetings.

c'mon. pull the other one.

By the way, I liked your previous post, the long one.
Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (LCRYB)


___________________

Actually there are a lot of people with the same question.

Hell I'm not afraid to be dumb--cuz I is--but I have the same question.

Is this about the GOP Proud CPAC thing?

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (r2PLg)

174 One of the big problems we have is -- where are we going to find good candidates?

I know, I know -- Romney wasn't a good candidate. But look at him on a personal level. There was never any question about him, personally. No affairs. No messy divorces. No sexual harassment cases. Nothing. I'm not saying that any of those things should disqualify a candidate, but they certainly don't help. Mitt had no such baggage, none. The left only tried to demonize him for perfectly legal business practices that the left's own money men engage in as well.

So who can we possibly get to step up? Who has no baggage, a reasonably conservative record, and is also willing to subject him or herself to the sort of personal destruction that the Left will inflict? Would any one of you do that to your family? Could you? I know that I couldn't. Why would a good person of the right even run for county commission? Just think about the level of craziness you would be subjecting your family to.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (jg+Fr)

175 And we don't need it to fine small businesses for choosing not to cater their receptions. Maybe that's Ace's example? The part where we think photographers and bakers should be free to not accept work they find abhorrent?

You think so, Heather? Because I couldn't tell. I'm thinking Ace is saying we have gay-haters in the party and need to run them out. Which I might agree with, if the pro-gay side (for lack of a better term) wasn't so hell-bent on aggressively mainstreaming homosexuality; in the words of blogger Mark Shea, "Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve."

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (zF6Iw)

176 The absolute worst thing you can do for the future
is to give up on America right now. It's the only country we have left.
There's no other America about to pop out of he ground fully formed
the next continent over.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 02:39 PM


^^^^ This. ^^^^

We have a double-edged problem right now, made up of lard-assed layabouts who have fallen prey to the cushy life in D.C. and sniveling fools who are so imbued with the cowardice of Political Correctness that they get hot flashes when anyone dares call out Choom Boy -- or similar protected affirmative action types -- on repeated misdemeanors and felonies.

America's need at the moment is for people who will stand up for honesty. We hear so many lies and evasions from the Exalted Rulers in Washington that we tend to blow them off with, at most, some off-handed snark. No one is accountable these days, whether a vapid fool like some of the candidates being run as "Republicans" or the serial criminals among the Democrats.

Repairing the damage of the last 16 years -- yes, I include both Bubba and Dubya among those who failed us -- is too much like hard work. It's easier to ignore the way the foundations of our nation have been eroded than to actually, you know, take action. We are as much to blame for the fact that President Historic First© is not wearing an orange jumpsuit and doing a long stretch in SuperMax as noted eunuchs Boner and Bitch McConnell.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (Eyvyc)

177 The author of this blog post should be deported.

Posted by: Sharron Akin Buck O'Paladino at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (pmsMR)

178 I still think Hillary's worst enemy in 2016 is going to be her face. I mean, she aged about 50 visible years since 2008, and the shitty botox job made it worse. By 2015 they'll have to use special shatterproof camera lenses to hold the primary debates.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (B/VB5)

179 Late to thread because of BS %*(*%%^ billing system for medical bills that will not accept anything it asks for. But here is what is wrong Ace in a nutshell.

1. After the disaster election of 2008 where the communists took over all three branches we had navel gazing.
2. In the 2010 election the Republicans ran on a platform of we can take the House and we will fix the budget by issuing individual bills for budget/spending with a take it or leave approach.
3. They (Boner) sold us out for a mess-o-pottage. The take it or leave it was lost in a sea of bend over.
4. Another and bigger disaster election in 2012.
5. The disaster elections from the President side are caused by lackluster shitty candidates who are liberals calling themselves moderates. This is because 90% of the initial primaries are form blue States.
6. Now after that disaster election the Republican Party has decided the reason they lose is because we haven't gone MODERATE enough and we need to expand the base to more FSA people who vote for Democrats! The do NOT want conservatives in the Party anymore.


But we don't need to totally give up. What we need is a new Party. The Republican Party was once a 3rd Party. We can make it one again.

Posted by: Vic at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (53z96)

180 I'm with ya, Ace.

From my perspective, anyone who doesn't look at the totality of our current FUBAR situation as a nation and conclude that the single greatest threat to our continued survival as a Republic is massive and truly epic out of control Government spending...anyone who truly believed that the best way to ensure their beliefs to be represented was to stay home and allow Barack Obama to be re-elected...well...if any of those folks exist, I don't want to be near a "party" that they're in.

If anyone believes that falling on their sword over any social issue (*any* social issue) was a better way to spend their time than working vigorously to defeat Mr. Obama at any cost - yeah, I want nothing to do with those folks.

Oh wait, that's why I abandoned the GOP.

nvm, this ship's already sailed for a lot of us.

Posted by: akula51 at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (EzOzr)

181 Actually I'm jealous of gays.

So there. I said it.

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (r2PLg)

182 "You and EoJ had your own little Moron Meetup didn't you?


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (da5Wo)"



I'm not into the artsy fartsy types.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (yCvxi)

183 >>>Yeah there are plenty who do, and some of them are in pretty dominant positions, but they don't hold the mainstream view.

and I agree it's not mainstream -- but it is a large enough view that we have to cover it up and make excuses for it and change the subject when it comes up.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (LCRYB)

184 There are plenty of people on this blog who constantly refer to gays in vulgar fashion. To say its just about government policy for that lot is ridiculous.
I realize its the internet and all, but maybe thats part of the reason we have an image problem.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (CBCxo)



And I point you again to any left-leaning blog or hangout. If you'd like to hear vulgarity, we're not a patch on them

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (4df7R)

185 The Social Right emerged as a reaction to, and a defense again, the aggressive secularization and sexualization of the culture by the Social Left.

Standing down on "social issues" is pretty much surrendering the culture to the cultural left.

It is possible to stake out a position of, "We don't care what you do in the bedroom... so long as you keep it in the bedroom," but you have to provide an alternative means of confronting the aggressive social agenda of the left.

And, I know it burns the moderates to say this, but the Social Right is broadly correct on social issues. Solid families are good for society, delayed sexual gratification benefits the individual and society as a whole. Broken families and unchecked promiscuity have negative personal and social consequences. We shouldn't be shaming people into denying what is self-evidently true.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (QXlbZ)

186 Can we just skip the flamewar thread already?

Posted by: taylork at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (ppNDn)

187 which will bring down the republic faster:


A) gay marriage, or


B) the government going broke giving money away so people will vote for the politicians who promise to give more money away?

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (8sCoq)

188 But only guy gays.

If I had a choice--I'd come back as a gay guy.

Suck it.

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (r2PLg)

189 Thanks for sharing, Shithead.
Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (052zE)

You're welcome, cocksucker.

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (H8fz7)

190 Our nominee should be
" I have no intention of giving a damn about abortion,turbogayness in the bedroom, or any other thing the gov't has no business being in. I am running to get the spending and deficit under control...FSA's.....Your on notice."

Posted by: Red Shirt at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (FIDMq)

191 I seriously think our only hope is her having an aneurysm or something, which is an awful thing to say.
Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:46 PM (bcLhD)--- Fuck that, I'm cheer leading for that bitch to assume room temperature.It will not matter who they run we will lose. It is time for that divorce to happen in this country.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (R8hU8)

192 "I get what you're saying -- but if you're saying you don't know anyone
on the right who just does not like gays, and sort of does in fact h8
them, I'm going to call bullshit on you."

===============

I don't personally know anyone who hates gays, even as I know many people who think redefining marriage is perhaps unwise.

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (/AHDz)

193 Ok, if ya are going to mention it twice in a day I feel free to vent.

Personally I don't really care what consenting adults do in private. I DO care what public policy is. I do care about the speech code that says I'll be called every vile name in the book for what I'm about to say.

Homosexuality is a defect, a mental abberation. This is science. If you believe in evolution you really can't defend a counter argument to the assertion that, whether genetic, cultural or any combo, any change that results in zero offspring is an evolutionary dead end. Designing a culture that encourages more defectives pretty much has to tie into the decline in reproduction going on in ALL Western countries at present.

A second point is from history. Name a civilization that openly embraced homosexuality that didn't soon decline. Maybe it is coincidence, maybe it ain't. But where is the compelling argument in favor of trying the experiment again hoping for a different result?

So far the only one I hear is that if we don't embrace 'marriage equality[1]' we lose the youth vote and are doomed to be a shrinking minority. Explain in what way that is different from McCain Co's we must favor newspeaking illegal immigration away or we will forever lose the ever growing hispanic vote. Um, they are socialists, they ain't ever going to vote for us and they are ever growing only if we accept the argument that we must not stop the flow or encourage a few to self deport. And if damned near 50% unemployment in the youth vote isn't moving the dial I can't see how a me too position on gay marriage is going to get a second look from the young skulls full of mush the Democrats have created in the government schools.

If we want to move the youth vote, seize your local school board and make a proper Civics class a graduation requirement. Make them know what the Constitution says and better, what it doesn't say. Make them watch Party Media 'newscasts' and demonstrate skill at detecting the propaganda. THEN we start winning the youth vote... and suddenly discover blue people in favor of school choice.

[1] And if that isn't the most leading naming ever (even beating pro-life and pro-choice) in that accepting that horrid phrase demands surrender to the argument, propose a better case of controlling the argument through language.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (YhRJW)

194
Judging and Scolding.


I left the R party in 2007.


I just watch in disgust now.


When enough people see the light, good things will start happening.


We aren't there yet.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (1Y+hH)

195 I never understood the term RINO.

Shouldn't it be CINO? Or is that too ethnic sounding?

I should poll CNN's staff.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (xAtAj)

196 c'mon. pull the other one. By the way, I liked your previous post, the long one.

---
Ace if you think there are gay haters, ok, if you think being pro gay marriage is the way to go, ok, but to say some people want government programs to change them ... come on. I could find a minority who want the goverment to do anything, but that doesn't really make them a problem for a party.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (gmeXX)

197 :::You suck just one dick... Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 02:48 PM (yCvxi) You and EoJ had your own little Moron Meetup didn't you?
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (da5Wo):::

Dude, if you want some of this prime beef, just ASK, okay?

The answer willbe "No" butI'm not gonna fuss at you for asking, because... look at me. I'd fuck me.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (CJjw5)

198 And in this corner, Mitch McConnell.......
I can't stop laughing. Or crying.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (wbmaj)

199 I'm not giving up on America. America is gone.

Whatever this is needs to burn, so we can build America again.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (zpqa2)

200 177 The author of this blog post should be deported.
Posted by: Sharron Akin Buck O'Paladino at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (pmsMR)

__________

Ya--he types like an Asian.

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (r2PLg)

201 "Can we just skip the flamewar thread already?"
===============

I think the theme of this post might be that they're *all* going to be flamewar threads from now on.

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (/AHDz)

202 This whole "gay fight" thing seems to grow out of GOProud being kicked out of CPAC.

One gay organization v. one conservative organization.

From that we can extrapolate that NO GAY EVER has felt welcome in the party.

This is getting to be ridiculous.

Please! For the love of God, if any gay person has EVER felt welcome at CPAC, will you PLEASE raise your hand?!

Posted by: Cory Booker: The Great Black Hope at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (piMMO)

203 In the end, it's all tribal.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (wbmaj)

204 "3 Agreed, and after 8-16 years of absolute liberal control the country will be "different". "

It's already happening. We have a woman retiree who takes care of my dad one night a week. She has 2 daughters who are low income workers just managing to scrape by. According to her, after the first of the year, her two daughters are paying more in taxes, and it has had noticeable impact. I couldn't figure out if it was due to the payroll tax.

This woman doesn't seem to be an Obama supporter and I don't know about her daughters, but I know some others who are in the same position of having low income, hourly jobs where having their hours or benefits cut would be a major hit. And these fools voted for Obama. I don't think that a lot of these people realize that Obamacare could have nasty consequences for them.

Posted by: nerdygirl at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (tAOpG)

205 I wonder what ever happened to "Totally Irrational Political Malcontent" I loved that guy.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (CBCxo)

206 Oooh! Airing of Grievances!

Here's one: I am sick and tired of those in the party that still think Prohibition was a neat idea.

You can go to any Dem function and you know there will be booze there. GOP? Ha! Run by the same scolds of which Ace complains.

It's the same damned people who thought Mike Huckabee was a jim-dandy of a candidate.

Yeah, they're the sweet ladies who spend all day manning the phone bank and all that. But, for hell's sake, when we lose the question "who cares more about you?" 81-18 to that JEF, well, "You're going to hell for your sins!" ain't exactly the cure and advice we need right now.

I'll post it again:

David Horowitz' "Go For
the Heart: How Republicans Can Win" needs to be read, re-read, posted,
re-posted until we get it.

We cannot win an emotional argument with anything less than an emotional argument.

Link to PowerLine, where you can read the whole thing. Print it off and read it again. Send it out to everyone you know.

http://tinyurl.com/a4s5hay

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (VjL9S)

207 Actually I'm jealous of gays.

So there. I said it.
Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (r2PLg)

No shit, I could have a cool car, have someone to play basketball or throw a football with, someone that enjoys giving oral sex as much as I enjoy recieving it. But Alas, it is Teh wominz I desire.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (l86i3)

208 off great black sock

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (piMMO)

209 Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (8sCoq)

You know that A) is a subset of B), right?

Remember when Sally Ride died, and instead of saying nice things about her, the professional gay lobbies just bitched that her partner wasn't going to get her pension?

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (/kI1Q)

210 162 Ace,

I have been fighting in my own rabid and sometimes addled way to whip the grassroots to accept the establishment's limits Ace. I gave some insight on Boehner pre-Orange glow tan for example. The problem is the grassroots have decided, and I am running out of ways to argue against their judgement that the GOP beltway club is so donk lite a vote for them accomplishes ONLY getting your fingerprints at the crime scene. I've finally reached the point that my won 24 year party servant brain is saying "uh duh?" 50% of the time.

Your place was always a valuable rough pub for political thought for me so i could go back to my low level life volunteering for the party but I have finally reached the point I no longer believe the GOP wants freedom as opposed to the Donks as a structural difference so much as a mere argument to "degree of surrendered liberty."

At that point why bother?

This minimum wage hike should be an easy layup, but instead the party is ignoring it when reality is it is a fine time to attack the falling dollar Ogabenomics necessitates.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (LRFds)

211 " I have no intention of giving a damn about abortion,turbogayness in the bedroom, or any other thing the gov't has no business being in. I am running to get the spending and deficit under control...FSA's.....Your on notice."

We had that nominee. He was named "Mitt Romney". Hence the Let It Burn contingent.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (B/VB5)

212 I've been meaning to ask - Does JeffB still have a girlfriend?

Posted by: garrett at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (aEzSf)

213 I don't hate Ghey people. I don't like them for being Ghey either. If they cram their Gheyness down my throat, I won't like them. I don't give a god damn what you do in your house behind closed doors. Do I shove my dick under your nose so you can smell the Vajayjay? Please. I will judge you for how you act and who you are, not for where you stick your penis or fingers or tongue. We lose when we play this stupid game.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (jucos)

214 I honestly am not sure the country can survive 8-16 years. Guns look like a tipping point issue to me. Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 02:32 PM (CBCxo)

They came for our health care and whoopy, lawsee, them gots it.

They came for our guns, that is still up in the air.

Next, they are coming for privately held equity. They got a bunch of it when they hornswoggled folks into buying $800,000 houses with the equity from a paid off house and a combined income of $85,000 and then hot damn, that house was suddenly worth $400,000, but, it still had that $600,000 mortgage.

So my question is where does it end? Is there a final straw that keeps a free people free or do we all become serfs?

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (kXoT0)

215 i don't think people (well most people) are "wigging out." i think a certain amount of people still think that there's something unique about traditional marriage, and that there's a certain ambiguity in how inborn homosexuality is, even if that's only true for a small minority of a minority.

'course people can think that's irrational/wrong. i've accepted that it'll probably happen and it's kinda pointless to have an argument about.

i will say, not to make this into a socons vs. fiscons thing because i am not arguing that the former would be a popular focus in an election (though i think the culturally conservative perspective has valuable insights even if you don't agree with it on specifics,) but the focus on the issues certain conservatives are embarrassed about sorta obscures the fact that Republican economic policy is unpopular. it's based around "government is intrinsically bad/socialist" messaging that a lot of people (including some Republican voters i'd guess) do not agree with.

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (60GaT)

216 The culture war has been lost at the political level. It should be carried on in the churches - and the conservative position should be to keep government out of personal lives. Let the liberals be the nannies.

Posted by: packsoldier at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (QkFQF)

217 I think a lot of this navel gazing is way off base.
1. The economy is in a recession again - we have to wait until the end of the quarter to officially declare it, but it is.
2. The economy is going to stay down as long as democrats hold the executive or the senate.
3. The democrats cannot win the presidency unless they run a black candidate, so Hillary is out.
4. The reason the GOP lost in 2012 was not demographics, the candidate or the message, it was due to vote fraud.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (KwMW2)

218 Long term the genes that predispose for gayness will be discovered and selectively aborted the same way we are doing now for Downs Syndrome (but nobody will talk about.)

No such thing as the gay gene. Most focus now is on in vitrio exposure to hormones. The more male offspring the mother has the higher the percentage chances are of a gay male offspring. The most curious is cases of male twins. Usually one is left handed and one is right handed. If either of them is going to be gay, the left handed one is the highest odds.

Nature is weird.

Posted by: Regular Moron at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (feFL6)

219 >>>Is this about the GOP Proud CPAC thing?

that sort of thing brings it to the surface, yes.

Look, this is not a religious party.

Or rather: It is a religious party, but it shouldn't be.

This should be a transactional, impersonal thing. It's not.

What I think is this: We either have to start being honest about what we are, or change what we are. The current situation where we are one thing but then we all agree amongst ourselves to sell ourselves to the public as something else is not working.

If we are, in fact, a party which is chiefly about not actual politics but the celebration of one cultural cohort (middle class, white, religious, surburban or rural) we have to say so, and also admit to ourselves that in a country where that represents at most 40% of the total cultural pie, we're in for a shellacking.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (LCRYB)

220 Except that's not how I see it. Of course some people are attracted to the same sex (and Penthouse Forum breathes a sigh of relief every day that it is so, especially concerning hot lesbians), but to shrug off the deconstruction of the family structure underlyingmuch of the "gay marriage" agendais to abandon the field to bigots intent on reconstructing the language in order to criminalize wrong-think.

And I'm sorry, Ace, but my ass there isn't a "political" agenda. When the owner of a cake shop or flower shop or wedding photographer can be sued because they won't compromise their values to cater to a gay couple, then we ought to be right there punching back twice as hard
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 20, 2013 02:41 PM (zF6Iw)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's just fucking great. Neato for you. Here's the rub... Just WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU PROPOSE WE DO ABOUT IT ?

Ok ? I don't necessarily disagree with you about the social consequences. But there is no government solution to that problem. PERIOD. It doesn't exist.

And so we are all about having purity purges of the movement over an issue that is tantamount to tilting at windmills. What the fuck is the point of that ?

How about you go find a state that agrees with you and attempt some manner of solution that can be used as a federal model. Until such time I don't want to hear a WORD of this alleged "debate".

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (aT8Zk)

221 Kind of hard to get interested when we already know the results are failure.

***

Get interested for the same reason people go to NASCAR events, to watch the crashes.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (Hx5uv)

222
The democratic war i'm waiting for is between hispanic and blacks for position as most-favored-interest-group. There doesn't seem like enough market space for both of them.
Hard to see hispanics winning that one which could leave them disaffected and looking for an alternative.

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (SO2Q8)

223 All humans -- on the left, right, whatever -- insult men by calling them effeminate or gay. It's standard. It's hard-wired into human beings.

Almost every insult of a man comes down to him being less of a man. Some are subtle, some aren't.

There's nothing Republican about this.

A hard left college buddy used to constantly ask if I hand sand in my vagina whenever I complained about anything. He was super pro-gay and had a lesbian mom.

It doesn't reveal homophobia on the right, it just reveals human nature. Women are insulted by calling them mannish, men are insulted by calling them a woman. Always has been, always will be.

Let's not all reach for the fainting couches about it.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (ZPrif)

224 I still think Hillary's worst enemy in 2016 is going
to be her face. I mean, she aged about 50 visible years since 2008,
and the shitty botox job made it worse. By 2015 they'll have to use
special shatterproof camera lenses to hold the primary debates.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (B/VB5)


First she has to dry out.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (XOVEM)

225 >>>Thanks for sharing, Shithead.

The problem is, he's right. Here's an ugly truth: socons just aren't worth the trouble anymore. They're costing us more votes than they're bringing in, because the socons not only drive away the vast middle of the country, they ALSO have a propensity to sit on their asses in a snitfit and stay home if they aren't catered to on every single one of their particular bugaboos. As social conservatives have seen their position in society slip due to cultural and demographic changes, they have paradoxically (but perfectly predictably, for any student of history or sociology) become even MORE intractable and unwilling to bargain or compromise or form coalitions.

Here's a reality: socons are the anchor which is dragging conservatism and the Republican Party down. It ain't the fiscalcons, it ain't the libertarians. It's easily demagogued socons. Defend your tribe all you want: you're a huge part of the problem, and it's mostly because you stake out non-negotiable positions, unlike the rest of us in the coalition. You pride yourselves on it! You perversely think it's some sort of good thing. Newsflash: if we weren't talking about politics, and governance, and vote-getting, but were just having a philosophical discussion, it would be. But we're not.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (bcLhD)

226 This whole "gay fight" thing seems to grow out of GOProud being kicked out of CPAC.

GOProud has behaved very dickishly over the past few years, loving the idea of "outing" for political shame.

I think there's more intraparty crap regarding GOProud/CPAC than anything ideological.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (T0NGe)

227 Can we just skip the flamewar thread already?

****

And they call you a dreamer.....

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (piMMO)

228 No shit, I could have a cool car, have someone to play basketball or throw a football with, someone that enjoys giving oral sex as much as I enjoy recieving it. But Alas, it is Teh wominz I desire.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (l86i3)

___________________

Well I'm a chick so I think I'm coming at it from a different angle--but almost what you said.

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (r2PLg)

229 203 Fourth Virginia,

What made me so proud of this nation, warts and all, was the lack of hard tribalism in the post WW2 gen as they walked back the war rage against the Japanese.

We're not perfect but we are a great multi-cultural union who once were united by the simple creed that common men and women unfettered do mighty things.

It's gone.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (LRFds)

230 Dude, if you want some of this prime beef, just ASK, okay?



The answer willbe "No" butI'm not gonna fuss at you for asking, because... look at me. I'd fuck me.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:54 PM (CJjw5)


Dude, I wouldn't fuck you with your dick.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (da5Wo)

231 Sometimes the best revenge is ignoring them.

For example, does anyone doubt that the Westboro weirdos get encouragement and fuel from their notoriety? If everyone ignored their attention seeking antics, they'd have a hard time remaining relevant and keeping their ranks up. (I believe).

----

Unfortunately for the GOP, the hacks in the press love to shine a spotlight on each and every kooky thing a person on the right says.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (UypUQ)

232 Officially a flame thread?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (X/+QT)

233 Our nominee should be
" I have no intention of giving a damn about abortion,turbogayness in the bedroom, or any other thing the gov't has no business being in. I am running to get the spending and deficit under control...FSA's.....Your on notice."


Thus, you free up the left to push public and religious funding for abortion, gay-history in the classrooms, and every other thing they will use the Government push.

The left is using the Government to push their social agenda. Tell me how you're going to stop that?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (QXlbZ)

234 The GOP loses because it buys into the Left's frame.

Frame control is everything.

If you allow the contest to be framed as a race to appeal to the Free Shit Army, then we lose before its even started.

All we have left to fight with, after we surrender the Free Shit Army frame, is Norman Rockwellism, Churchianity, and racism.

Those are losing positions.

Look, Obamacare is poised to be the biggest disaster in the history of American socialism, and that's saying a LOT.

A SMART position to take would be to stake out the alternative, so we can be there when it bankrupts us all. Take a stand for market freedom, not TARP and Medicare D and Fannie/Freddie, like Bush 41 and Bush 43 did. Fuck them.

Focus on winning hearts and minds via people's wallets. Socialism will discredit itself, and we can be there to rescue people from it, if we define ourselves appropriately now.

That does, however, require a purge.

Posted by: Phinn at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (R5jzY)

235 All of us down at The Brattleboro Womens Health and Pregnancy Decision Clinic say let this Sequester thing happen. We don't really need the military now because Presdent Obama has ended the Bush wars in Iran and Afghanistien. Yeah for Presdent Obama :-)

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, Vt at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (HlUFk)

236 It's the spending, 187, it's the spending...sigh.

Permanent in-fighting between socons and fiscons = permanent progressive Democratic welfare state.

I think we need a different tent, fiscons.

Posted by: akula51 at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (EzOzr)

237 Maybe I'm the one out of touch...

I know a few conservatives. Out of everyone I know, I don't know one person who would outlaw abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I don't know one person who would limit or outlaw contraception. Not one. Not one even close.

However, according to the liberal media, there are hoards of people out there that make up the bulk of the republican party that think that way.

As for gays, from what I can gather from conversations with those in my circle, no one gives a shit what they do. On principle, they're against creating a new class of oppressed minority with special rights, but aside from that and an adversion to seeing people with feathers up their ass in public, they don't care.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (ZDsRL)

238 Hitler 'teamed up' with Stalin, too. Didn't end well...

Posted by: DOA in Scrambletown, FLA at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (Dll6b)

239 I hate Democrats with the white hot something of whatever.

I'm not very political really.


I'll see yall in the nexty.

Posted by: eleven at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (KXm42)

240 Nobody wants laws against homosexuality that I know of. Standing up for traditional marriage is hardly that. Interesting that Ace would kick off the discussion with a straw man argument.

The homosexual lobby wants a governmental fix to push their agenda, which goes well beyond same sex marriage if you are willing to actually listen and read. In terms of politics, gay marriage has been a big loser at the ballot box. Even Obama had to lie about his position on that for years.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (x0g8a)

241 So Ace the Democrats are succeeding in their plan to destroy the Republican party by splitting us all up? Well I'm not gonna let them take me down. I'm a registered Independent but I never vote Democrat. I'm just gonna sit back and watch it burn, but it will be the doing of the POS in the WH. Eventually the blame will come back to haunt him... Just my 2 cents worth...

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (9+ccr)

242 Amazing just how barbarian-stupid this is.

Why am I not surprised that your solution to everything is "MOAR ANGER! LOUDER! MOAR BLOOD"? The man who only has a hammer...



It is time to start busting kneecaps at the state level GOPs. If we ever intend to save the republic, the people who have gotten fat and happy from the current situation need to go.

If they don't go, we'll end up with McConnell and Boehner and McCain and Snowe and Collins and...

ET cetera ET cetera.


We need people with a pulse. The current leadership ain't got it.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (I2LwF)

243 Another thing -- I think the 2012 election has revealed exactly why the Left is so bonkers about Fox News.

It's projection. They've always "worried," concern-troll style, about the potential impact of millions of voters who believe "Faux News" lies and Rush Limbaugh lies and vote accordingly, without seeking facts from other sources.

And while we weren't looking, they somehow managed to do exactly what they "worried" about Fox News doing -- they managed to use demagoguery to turn low-information potential voters into low-information actual voters. These are people who stood in line and proudly proclaimed they were voting for Obama because "War on Women!" and because Mitt Romney wanted to take the country back to the 50s or something. I heard people repeat those talking points to me without a hint of irony. They had internalized them. They believed them.

It's the same reason the Left is so vested in saying that the Tea Party is Koch Bros. financed astroturf. Projection. They say to themselves: "How would we manage to stage a major demonstration?" and answer "Of course! Get SEIU to hand out money and purple t-shirts, bus people downtown, give them printed signs, call it spontaneous! Perfecto!" Therefore, the Tea Party must be astroturf.

So the really demoralizing thing is that our side has no functional way -- and is philosophically opposed to -- mobilizing large numbers of people who don't normally vote by screaming baseless demagogy at them until we scare them into voting.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (jg+Fr)

244 >>>Premarital sex is awesome.



Who was talking about banning it?

>>>Gay people should be allowed to get married.


The institution of state recognized marriage is about state control over human relationships. I see no reason to broaden state power further by allowing it to branch into control of all sorts of relationships

>>>Creationism is fucking stupid.


So is a belief in Darwin style gradual evolution.

>>>Outlawing abortion in cases of rape and incest is not only dumb, it's strategically and tactically counterproductive.



And the public flogging given over those events failed to satisfy you how?

>>>We have Obamacare because stupid go-along-to-get-along Republicans did nothing about the healthcare mess when they had power.

That wasn't the most pressing problem at that time. CRA was and they failed to fix that as well. If you want to really criticize them criticize them for medicare part D.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (0q2P7)

245
Since I have left the party or more that I feel it has left me, it has been liberating. Sometimes I catch myself enjoying it too much though, because I know at the end if there is no party with a conservative movement, we actually are all doomed.

The Mohawkian Equation (tm):

Time + Math + Human Nature = Reality.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (p/cQy)

246 Furthermore, we pride ourselves on being a party of open minded, intellectually curious, fact based realists. Which I believe was true at one time.

But the situation has devolved to be less than that. It's a party of factions and fanboys. By fanboys I mean people who vehemently argue on a topical basis. Fanboys don't argue principles because they don't truly understand them. They argue what they are told or what their god-king has written or stated. Then they run with it and create havoc.

It's the converse of reason and avoids negotiation at any point. And because their god-king has suggested people must hold to untenable or unachievable positions, negotiation is heresy and equivalent to surrender.

It is why we lose and are destined to lose. It's the fanboy with his Gadsden Flag who has no idea what it represents- only that he is not going to "surrender" whatever the heck that means.

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (GGCsk)

247 That's actually very liberating, and very useful. If you've got lemons, make lemonade, after all.

What if I have potatoes?


Make wodka!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (GFM2b)

248 dude I'm not fucking saying EVERYONE is like that, especially on THIS site. But it happens HERE, even.

But WHO? I'm being serious, ace. I don't know anyone here or in general around the conservative blogosphere who says "We have to make homosexuality illegal." What I DO hear is people saying they don't want the homosexual lobby (to borrow from Chuckie Hagel) invading their lives and forcing them not only to accept but to ENDORSE that lifestyle. There's a big difference between saying, "Ban homosexuality!" and saying, "Stop telling my children that gender is a social construct!"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (4df7R)

249 >>>i don't think people (well most people) are "wigging out." i think a certain amount of people still think that there's something unique about traditional marriage, and that there's a certain ambiguity in how inborn homosexuality is, even if that's only true for a small minority of a minority.

well this is such an extraordinarily moderate-conservative position that no one can find fault with it. Even liberals would have trouble bothering you.

But again, if you're telling me that you never ever see something that really just amounts to "I really don't like these faggots very much and I'm going to use this political club to express that" then I will say I don't think you're being honest with me.


Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (LCRYB)

250 I'm moving to Brattleboro. While I still can.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (wbmaj)

251 The problem is that social conservatism polls pretty well...among people who will never, because of their race, vote Republican.

But socons suffer the same problem as libertarians, they don't fight marginal battles (partial birth abortion, keeping polygamy out of marriage) that are easily winnable over the Grand Utopian Vision.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (T0NGe)

252 I don't think that a lot of these people realize that Obamacare could have nasty consequences for them. Posted by: nerdygirl at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (tAOpG)

Yup, the Tulsa news shows are running one sob story after another about how this or that person got their fast food job hours cut back due to Obamacare.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (kXoT0)

253
specifically re: GOProud, not homos in general

What's this now the 5th year in a row CPAC is falling for their game?

This organization was created to create problems and rifts among conservatives. Every year we argue over these bozos getting invited to CPAC, which is exactly what they desire.

CPAC is to blame. CPAC of all organizations should know better than to get involved with 'groups' of any nature. That's what the Left does.

CPAC should be open to any and all conservatives. There is no goddamm need to invite exclusive groups just to show how inclusive they are.

I admit it. I hate gay groups. I hate black groups. I hate white groups. But I like conservatives. All conservarives are a-okay in my book.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (yhYn1)

254 How old are you, JeffB?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (CJjw5)

255 gay what? gay blade? gay Paree? gay old time? gay....


oh; never mind.....

Posted by: DOA in Scrambletown, FLA at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (Dll6b)

256 [1] And if that isn't the most leading naming ever (even beating
pro-life and pro-choice) in that accepting that horrid phrase demands
surrender to the argument, propose a better case of controlling the
argument through language.


And I'm so old, I remember when suggesting gays should settle down in pairs like *HORROR!* straight people do was SO HOMOPHOBIC, gays being better than "breeders" because they were sufficiently evolved to have relationships without a government stamp of approval. Ho-hum.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (/kI1Q)

257 Remember when Sally Ride died, and instead of saying
nice things about her, the professional gay lobbies just bitched that
her partner wasn't going to get her pension?


Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:55 PM (/kI1Q)



^^^^^^^ THIS!!!!!!

This is what it's ALLLLLLL about......They don't really give a shit about anything other than benefits.

If they fessed up and said that's what they wanted, that would be FINE, but NOOOOO......I want to hijack the religious institution of marriage and SHUT UP!!!!!!!!

Yes, they go hand in hand.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (xmcEQ)

258 The whole gay thing is part of the liberal pathology. They are amoral and don't believe in natural law. They endorse bad behavior and then deny the unintended natural consequences of that bad behavior. Next, they insist everyone must endorse the bad behavior to offset their guilt and all the ensuing fuck up that they set in motion.

I'm not playing that game.

Posted by: L, elle at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (0PiQ4)

259 socons ... have a propensity to sit on their asses in a snitfit and stay home if they aren't catered to on every single one of their particular bugaboos.

Bullshit.

Was it the socons who abandoned the party and went to the SCOAMF in 2008?

No, it was "moderates" like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, and David Frum.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (QXlbZ)

260 "...like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality."


There are bigger fish to fry and they are bald with glasses.

Posted by: Dept. Of Accuracy Dept. at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (+I8Mq)

261 If we're taking about h8, let's talk about the liberals who say shit like "Oh, a soldier who speaks out against gay right s? I hope he fucking dies in Iraq"

True story. Heard with my own ears.

Posted by: Lauren at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (wsGWu)

262 Voter Fraud.

Yeah that's the ticket.

Enjoy the wilderness.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (xAtAj)

263 Get interested for the same reason people go to NASCAR events, to watch the crashes.


Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (Hx5uv)

You should see my popcorn bill the past few weeks. Booyah!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (zpqa2)

264 Funny that you think people are wigging out that people of the same sex are attracted to each other. Why don't you just call us Homophobes. You know you want to.

The fact is, people are wigging out because a 2% at most minority is changing the definitions of long established words and culture. Sound almost Orwellian doesn't it?

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (m2CN7)

265 I didn't say there was a gay gene. But there are genes that predispose -- probably dozens, maybe hundreds. Most complex traits are multi-genic.

Within 20 years pre-natal whole genome analysis will be trivially cheap. Like an ultrasound -- which lead to widespread sex-selective abortions.

There is a pre-natal DNA testing revolution going on. Homosexuality will be selected out as much as possible.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (ZPrif)

266 Elections have everything to do with marketing and PR it has nothing to do with ideology or ideas. Republicans need to get that through there head. Yeah so we don't have control of the MSM, tough shit buy ads use the internet. So we don't have people in the education system, well maybe that's our fault, why don't more conservatives go into teaching.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (NzBQO)

267
"If they cram their Gheyness down my throat, I won't like them."


I have a public fb page due to business. 1666 friends. I have gay friends. They never post anything about the gay agenda.


It's the straight liberals that post all the hate crap against straights for "being against and hatinggays".

Posted by: Meremortal at February 20, 2013 03:00 PM (1Y+hH)

268 170 Sponge,

Yup...inasmuch as I am "angry' it is that they feel the NEED to try to coerce me to throw a parade for their bedtime selection....

I've never had a parade because I like the female form.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (LRFds)

269 I'll jump into the insurance mess here. Some of ya'll remember my family's traumas from last month. And my wife was just back in the hospital for another 4 day stay, and our house got broken into last week, happy fucking new year.

On our previous plan we were out of pocket besides premiums roughly $7-10k a year in co-pays, luckily my previous employer had a $7500 fsa cap so we got a good bit of tax savings from that. But come obama care and the FSA cap was lowered from infinity (employer cap) to $2500 (because you know that saves people money...).

I was lucky enough to get a new job, and they just added an HSA backed high deductible plan this year that I luckily picked. I pay about $280/mo for it (not entirely sure what employer contrib is usual is like 4-5x right?). It has a $1500 individual / $3000 family deductible, but then 100% coverage after that (for everything medical, including scrips). We can put ~6k a year in the HSA.

So far this year, we have racked up $200k in billed medical expenses. Insurance w/ their negotiated rates has paid out $145k. We have paid $3k. So a pretty damn good plan for us.

The kibitzing comes in in that within the next few years, these plans may very well be outlawed from obama care, due to them not providing enough 'free shit'. This would put us on the hook for usually 20-30% of those costs, or $29-35k, and that's not even two full months. But you know... free shit... And this will happen for everybody w/ any major pre-existing condition.

It burns me up that people don't think about the money behind insurance plans. For just our past two months, it would take what, 10 'bronze' obama plan family buyers that didn't have a single claim to just break even from expenses, let alone all the staff expenditures for dealing with it all.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (2PWuT)

270 Make their ability to create and tax money obsolete and the federal government nightmare is over.

bitcoin, amazon bucks, alternative forms of currency will liberate us all. Embrace them.

The solution is so easy, it needs to happen.

Posted by: We just need federal government to go away at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (qxcKC)

271 Is this how it's going to go down? Moron vs Moron?
Come get a taste!!

http://youtu.be/KoSmxnBXMGU

Laugh a little guys and breathe!!

Posted by: UnicornWhisperer at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (kZilO)

272 May I suggest Prozac.

Guys, we have lots of time. This "get it done today" attitude is just the stupid.

Things sort out. Give it a rest.

Trust me, I remember the months after Goldwater got beaten. The Republican party was going to cease to exist, blah blah blah.

Out of that defeat a third rate actor became one of the most loved Presidents of the Century.

God works in funny ways. Have a little faith here, OK ace, pretend.

This is my suggestion? Cut it out with the negative waves,


http://tinyurl.com/b3cdol





Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (wR+pz)

273 23 Hmm. That little addendum about teh ghey, I don't get.

Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 02:34 PM (pZDxu)

It's clear enough. A party that talks about freedom isn't going to be taken seriously when they try to regulate personal morality.

Posted by: joncelli at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (RD7QR)

274 It doesn't matter what you do or say.

The media is the root of our problem. Our indoctrination system the second problem.

We fight there and fight hard or we are destroyed.

Or we can whine. A lot of people here just want to whine.

I fight until my death.

Posted by: GardenGnome at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (XwRIg)

275 >>>What I DO hear is people saying they don't want the homosexual lobby (to borrow from Chuckie Hagel) invading their lives and forcing them not only to accept but to ENDORSE that lifestyle.

I'm glad you said this.

I find this "Endorse" language to be part of the problem.

No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty.


Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (LCRYB)

276 You think people not voting en masse is because of voter fraud?

Someone not getting all the needed electrolytes?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (xAtAj)

277 267 Meremortal,

Your gay friends are a lot more resilient than my gay contacts....

too many have decided 'yes I really AM FABULOUS!" I just ask them what Gay economics is, sort of like when we were younger we mocked 'black economics"

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (LRFds)

278 In other news, Reuters claims bird invasion in local town was caused by global warming because that's what a local high school teacher said was the cause! WTF!!!

Posted by: RoryMiller at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (IL9gH)

279 ::ude, I wouldn't fuck you with your dick.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 02:58 PM (da5Wo) :::

I would.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (CJjw5)

280 There IS "something unique" about traditional marriage, man


let's just call it............every f*cking civilization ever known.


remember what the old folks used to say about not throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater?

Posted by: DOA in Scrambletown, FLA at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (Dll6b)

281 CPAC should be open to any and all conservatives.

They're not posting guards at the door to keep all the gay people out; they just didn't invite a group of assholes who tried to destroy some people by outing them against their wishes (that's why Breitbart resigned from their board).

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (/kI1Q)

282 #271 It's Lord of the Flies, man. We will be eating our own and already are.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (wbmaj)

283 1. GOP tells 50% of their base (SoCons) to pound sand.
2. ????
3. Electoral Majority.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (QXlbZ)

284 193 I think ancient greece was pretty chill with the gheys and they did alright for themselves.

Look, no offense, but you are exactly the problem. It does no one any favors to rant and rave about the scientific and historical reasons homosexuality is bad. No public policy can or should flow from that.

Its like the VDare types who are constantly talking about IQ differences between races....So you have data? Great. Who cares?

It just makes our side look bad. I dont care if you are 100% correct, leading with that issue is not a winning strategy in 21st century america.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (CBCxo)

285 Here's a reality: socons are the anchor which is dragging conservatism and the Republican Party down. It ain't the fiscalcons, it ain't the libertarians.
Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (bcLhD)
-
Libertarians gave over 3 million votes to the dopehead governor. You want to put gay marriage and abortion rights into the GOP platform, go ahead - you just killed the party permanently. I will vote green party before I vote for a republican who supports either.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (KwMW2)

286 tiny.cc/0nltsw

Posted by: RoryMiller at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (IL9gH)

287 How about you worry a little bit less about it. Same as neither you nor me worries about whether the other one's getting a blowjob.

Indeed, you don't know me. The point I was making was 'How about the people who want to change society tell me why the change will be for the better'. I'm a traditionalist, and even when I don't remember why we have a tradition, I stick with it. As the saying goes, Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead. It's up to the skeptic to disprove the status quo of hetero-only marriage being the idea that the community should support.

Further, and I know that the Big L will spit venom over at me over this but, I don't oppose an intrusive society just because it's intrusive. Maybe the majority of people where I live really don't want Sunday liquor sales and why shouldn't they outlaw them? Ditto the celebration of homo-sex. Let communities revel in it if that is their choice. The problem I have is the geographic spread of the intrusive government. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let people govern themselves in their communities as they like, but just don't make it impossible for me to move to where the polity is more to my liking by forcing a one size fits all view on the county without an actual plebiscite.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (QupBk)

288 L, elle

Were you just joking in the Hagel thread or were you serious? I can't tell.

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (GQ8sn)

289 Jeff B: put the pure Paul Ryan vision of government on a ballot, see how it does

GMAFB

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (60GaT)

290 They claim its a natural thing, but yet they FORCE you to read it, learn it, know it........live it.
Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (xmcEQ)


Uhhh, what? Where do you live, in a gay bar?

Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (+xmn4)

291 billybob,

Good perspective... but surely you had whiners like me back then, too?

Thus I submit I am an integral part of the process of "working itself out," as you say.

You need me whining on that wall.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (LCRYB)

292 Much of the problem as I see it is that those on our side who are talking the loudest about politics don't really understand politics. They consider it beneath them- they don't want to know, much like the gun grabbers who proudly wear their ignorance about guns like a medal.

What we ended up with is a base who is loudly demanding that The Establishment (a term nobody seems able to even loosely define) obey their very, very, bad political advice and get angry when political leaders don't.

You don't win at chess without considering beyond your current move, no matter how boldly you make it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (SY2Kh)

293 I'd be satisfied with a strategy of just ignoring the "gay issue" (whatever the fuck that means) every time it comes up and redirecting to the size and scope of government with appeals to emotion like the left uses.


Confront a lefty about something really important and you're met with Obfuscate - Redirect - Demonize. Works beautifully.


Like a Moron here once said about Libertarians - Do I think that pot should be illegal? No, but there are bigger priorities like trying to prevent bankruptcy , creating jobs, and maybe trying to keep gas under OMG per gallon.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (yCvxi)

294 So vote fraud didn't happen, didnt favor democrats overwhelmingly, and didnt at least possibly sway the outcomes in several key states? Is that what we're going to go with now?


We need to rig the machines. We need to stuff the boxes. We need to be the ones counting the votes.

This is he only way to neutralize the vote fraud that have Obama the election. And it's the only way to get democrats to seriously address adopting common sense protections.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (I2LwF)

295 Skinny jeans are gay. I think we can all agree on that.

Posted by: garrett at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (y7EaS)

296 morality isn't 'personal'. Behavior is; morality is.............something else

Posted by: DOA in Scrambletown, FLA at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (Dll6b)

297 Also, it's okay that most people find gay sex gross. Why is that a horrible, evil thing? I've heard gay dudes say they find the vajajay gross.

This is a pretty normal human response.

So -- no Judging and Scolding cause that's Bad.
But yes to trying to Shame people out of their instinctive disgust of one dude putting his dong up another dude's pooper. Gotcha.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (ZPrif)

298
224I still think Hillary's worst enemy in 2016 is going
to be her face. I mean, she aged about 50 visible years since 2008,
and the shitty botox job made it worse. By 2015 they'll have to use
special shatterproof camera lenses to hold the primary debates.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 02:52 PM (B/VB5)

First she has to dry out.
----
I'd make a small wager that by 2016 pantsuits will be the hot new fashion trend. The important people will decide so

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (SO2Q8)

299 CPAC should be open to any and all conservatives. There is no goddamm need to invite exclusive groups just to show how inclusive they are.

***

I would be willing to bet that there will be a number of unaffiliated gay people at the event.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (piMMO)

300 275 Ace,

Ace they are sure as shit demanding a lot....

I do not have to take cargo if I am nervous about the customer but bakers HAVE to bake them a cake?

No 10 years ago I'd have been arguing WITH you but they simply will NOT STOP.

The Chick-Fil-A shit is babysteps to tyranny and Rahm Emmanuelle is a midget Mussolini

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (LRFds)

301 Damn, late to a Doom thread.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (bb5+k)

302 No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty.


Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:01 PMAce, I think we've gone beyond tolerance. Gays now want their "situations" *celebrated.*

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (tVWQB)

303 >>>They claim its a natural thing, but yet they FORCE you to read it, learn it, know it........live it.

a tad hysterical, no?

While there's no doubt there is some toxic injection of homosexual propaganda to our kids in school -- and that should be opposed strongly -- this sort of idea that the Gays Are Coming to Make Us All Gay is just ridiculous.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (LCRYB)

304 Yeah, but ace, come on. Is that the mainstream conservative view? I do know conservatives, and none of us hate gay people. You're using an awfully big brush to paint our side like that.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (4df7R)


Yeah, ace. This is less than one step away from the Lib jerkoff comment, "Oh yeah, ALL republicans aren't racist, but if you're racist, you're most likely a republican". It's a backhanded accusation based on your own moral smugness.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (Y5I9o)

305
Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (LRFds)
___ ____ ____ _ ____ ___ _


Maybe there's a geographic componet. I'm in the Rocky Mountain West.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (1Y+hH)

306 But again, if you're telling me that you never ever
see something that really just amounts to "I really don't like these
faggots very much and I'm going to use this political club to express
that" then I will say I don't think you're being honest with me.







Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (LCRYB)


I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit. I've never seen anything like that. Not at this blog and not with any of the people I deal with. If you're seeing that, get better friends and acquaintances.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (da5Wo)

307 Is this ace's coming out post?

Posted by: blaster at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (pZDxu)

308 What I think is this: We either have to start being honest about what we are, or change what we are. The current situation where we are one thing but then we all agree amongst ourselves to sell ourselves to the public as something else is not working.

If we are, in fact, a party which is chiefly about not actual politics but the celebration of one cultural cohort (middle class, white, religious, surburban or rural) we have to say so, and also admit to ourselves that in a country where that represents at most 40% of the total cultural pie, we're in for a shellacking.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (LCRYB)

____________________

Oh, okay completely get it.

I think we have a lot of Conservatives that confuse politics with religion--but in an even less direct way than your example.

Protestants faction off--at this point I think it's genetic.

I'm pretty sure there are over 100 denominations of American Protestants and that tendency is needing over into the political arena.

The problem is America is a unique country with very little to hold the various ethnic groups together--I don't think we can afford the academic dream of a multi-party system.

It's a miracle that it has held together as it is.

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 03:05 PM (r2PLg)

309 Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement,"

A state license is an endorsement.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 03:05 PM (/kI1Q)

310 290 heralder,

With a child aged 10-18 unless I miss my guess.

My son gets plenty of gay indoctrination here in Indiana of all places....

I could not have lived in California with their bullshit such as my nephew and niece were put through.

I'd have broken a teacher's jaw.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:05 PM (LRFds)

311 Uhhh, what? Where do you live, in a gay bar?

Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (+xmn4)


Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:05 PM (xmcEQ)

312 Ace,

I am fucking tired of pro-marijuana-prohibitionists.

In the first part, it should be a states rights issue.

In the second part, under what coherent rational reading of the Constitution is the federal government empowered to do what it has done?

But when it comes up all of a sudden the fair-weather conservatives decry the devil weed and suddenly lose their interest in federalism because "it's bad for you!"

A great many in the movement are actually big-government types, but they want it to be their type of big-government

Posted by: Hopeless at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (UYeid)

313 that tendency is *bleeding* over into the political arena.

Posted by: tasker at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (r2PLg)

314 I went up to the Capitol Hill yesterday. I saw Boehner standing on the steps, with a few of his staffers. He was very red faced and smoking like a chimney. I said, "Hey, John, are we fucked?" He took a long drag, blew a smoke ring, and said, "Yes. Yes, we are fucked."

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (wbmaj)

315 >>>>socons just aren't worth the trouble anymore. They're costing us more
votes than they're bringing in, because the socons not only drive away
the vast middle of the country, they ALSO have a propensity to sit on
their asses in a snitfit and stay home if they aren't catered to on
every single one of their particular bugaboos.

There are a myriad of social issues. Only one I consider a voting issue for me. Abortion on demand.

My opposition to gay marriage runs along the lines with my opposition to state sanctioned marriage in general so I don't even consider it a social issue but you might.

But I am in the LIB camp, so please slice off the SOCONS in masse and wait for your atheist libertarian army to form. It will make the burning so much quicker.

Don't worry. The left/media will find a new boogey man to demonize and
split your new coalition right down the middle. And you can do this again with them.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (0q2P7)

316 People tell me how God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in part due to sodomy, homosexual practices etc. I remind them how Jesus walked among the destitute, godless, sinners and prostitutes.

So do I believe that homosexuality is wrong as a religious person? Well the answer is yes. But that is ultimately between them and God. If they seek my council or ask to discuss, I will render that opinion willfully.

But that does not mean I can't walk among them and agree on other life matters- especially politics and policy. Clearly, some people who happen to be homosexual do not agree with the "gay" political activism. So why shouldn't I focus on what we have in common rather than what divides us?

What I've just articulated is still heresy to many folks in the party I speak with.

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (GGCsk)

317 Here's a reality: socons are the anchor which is dragging conservatism and the Republican Party down. It ain't the fiscalcons, it ain't the libertarians. Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 02:57 PM (bcLhD)
You have a fucked up reality.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (m2CN7)

318 Can we just skip the flamewar thread already?
Posted by: taylork at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (ppNDn)


Apparently not.

I tell ya, this day has not gotten much better from this morning. Where the hell is the straight razor when you need it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (4df7R)

319 Libertarians are the least reliable wing of the Republican coalition. Seriously, fuck the Libertarians.

And I say that as a libertarian Repub. They are a small, angry, fat, cheeto-stained disloyal group who will shit on their "friends" at the drop of the hat.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (ZPrif)

320 Can we please go back to talking about flying squids and making up funny erotic Valentine's hearts?

Posted by: jakeman at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (96M6e)

321 Well, I don't have a clue. Sold out, the response was overwhelming. But the uncertainty, or the near certainty of a dismal future, plus four feet of snow out side is making me crazy.

Crazy isn't the problem, it's the cabin fever.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (L5sKu)

322 Panetta anounces gay partners get benefits than unmarried hetero partners will not get


heck, that's fair. No agenda here; none at all

Posted by: DOA in Scrambletown, FLA at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (Dll6b)

323 Hitler 'teamed up' with Stalin, too. Didn't end well...

Yeah, but it was Karl Rove's idea to invade Poland in the first place.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (SY2Kh)

324 We have to build media guns. Nothing else will ever work.



The game is fixed against us. We cannot win in the current environment. The public has become too stupid, and too easily stampeded by the enemy's media weapon.


We can't even give them the facts. The media run interference on every attempt to inform the people.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (bb5+k)

325 "181
Actually I'm jealous of gays.



So there. I said it."

Yeah, me, too. You should see my house - hardly a picture hung in the whole place. And my window treatments? Horrifying.

Posted by: West at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (1Rgee)

326 Of course the election was decided by the "free stuff" crowd...but social issues that the Democrats hammered on, ie womens rights, gay marriage did have a significant impact.

Posted by: beerologist at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (CdhVC)

327 Gay marriage is just another wedge issue the left uses to play grievance politics with. Everyday people are not obsessing over it, right or left. Once the right caves on that there will be more grievances ginned up and Conservatives will be called bigots anyway. Cultural Marxism, Google it.




Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (x0g8a)

328 Ace, maybe you are stereotyping us icky Jesus Freaks?

Posted by: L, elle at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (0PiQ4)

329 Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty

----

Ace, are you saying this doesn't exist? I doubt you believe that. Just say what you want. You see no reason to think that gays shouldn't have the right to marry. And if you oppose that you are being intolerant. Hence the endorsement agrument mentioned.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (gmeXX)

330 301
Damn, late to a Doom thread.


Me too, I posted about the future of the party, and it turns out we are talking about fudge packers.


Go figure.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (wR+pz)

331 Meremortal,

I think the donks have engaged in some immoral mathematics to weaponize every difference.....

Ohio and South Carolina had decent Log Cabin types who are getting more rabid...basically a microcosm of RiNOs empowering mules to be ever more lefttard.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (LRFds)

332
"So my question is where does it end? Is there a final straw that keeps a free people free or do we all become serfs"

They'll steal every last penny out of every 401k and IRA and we *still* will simply lie back and think of England. It would be unacceptable to do the smart thing like shit/piss ourselves, vomit, blow a rape whistle, or try to run to a SafeZone(tm).

We've been asking for it. We deserve to be found in a dumpster, strangled with our own pantyhose.

Posted by: Jaws at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (4I3Uo)

333 DAMNATION people! WTF are we arguing about gays for? Gay issues had absolutely NOTHING to do with the last disaster election or the one before it.


This is navel gazing IT is stupid shit.

Posted by: Vic at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (53z96)

334 I would.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:02 PM (CJjw5)


That's cause you're a fag.

Oh SHIT. I wasn't supposed to say that out loud. Dammit.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (da5Wo)

335 That's just fucking great. Neato for you. Here's the rub... Just WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU PROPOSE WE DO ABOUT IT ? Ok ? I don't necessarily disagree with you about the social consequences. But there is no government solution to that problem. PERIOD. It doesn't exist. And so we are all about having purity purges of the movement over an issue that is tantamount to tilting at windmills. What the fuck is the point of that ? How about you go find a state that agrees with you and attempt some manner of solution that can be used as a federal model. Until such time I don't want to hear a WORD of this alleged "debate".
Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 02:56 PM (aT8Zk)


Where did you hear me asking for a government solution to the social consequences problem, jackhole? I don't give a fuck what anybody does in the bedroom - if you had some of my fetishes, you wouldn't either.

I am about freedom of association. If a flower shop owner is a Catholic or Protestant or Muslim who does not wish to cater to homosexual couples, then they should be allowed to do that. The gay couple should not be able to hijack the power of the state to force the shopowner to violate his moral precepts.

But if you think they should, then let's really let it rip and submit a bill requiring Catholic churches to perform gay weddings.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (zF6Iw)

336 The social con point is less about "gay people" and more about public discretion about sexuality.

It just so happens that an awful lot of the pro-explicit public sexuality propaganda goes hand in hand with a lot of homosexual activism, such that it can't be separated. And in fact the people behind this don't want them to be separated because it serves their rhetorical purpose of labeling as "homophobic" anyone who opposes one part of the larger agenda.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (Y5I9o)

337 No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty.Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM


Yes, ace. I know that. But they don't WANT mere acceptance and tolerance. They want endorsement. You can argue against that all you want, but I'm sorry, you're wrong.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (4df7R)

338 "Are there cookies on the Dark Side?"

Yes but they are always burnt.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (71LDo)

339 Anyone who thinks embracing gay marriage is the way forward is a fucking idiot!

Posted by: General Woundwort at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (RrD4h)

340 We don't need Washington to say who can't or can't have sex, and we don't need it to say who can or can't get married.

And
we don't need it to fine small businesses for choosing not to cater
their receptions. Maybe that's Ace's example? The part where we think
photographers and bakers should be free to not accept work they find
abhorrent?


Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 02:45 PM (/kI1Q)

---------------
And we don't need the government telling pastors and chaplains who they must marry. And we don't need the government telling pastors and chaplains what they must and must not preach. And we don't need the government telling churches who they must rent reception halls to.

But it is coming.
Because some people's freedoms are lesser than others.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (P6QsQ)

341 "But WHO? I'm being serious, ace. I don't know anyone here or in general around the conservative blogosphere who says "We have to make homosexuality illegal.""

Ace has a bad habit of believing the liberal media narrative about conservatives, Tea Party people and certain politicians. Once he gets the picture in his head, it's impossible to change.

I'm certain he wishes we would stop lynching blacks and making them ride in the back of the bus.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (ZDsRL)

342 Honestly, I'll Judge & Scold as I damn well please. I won't base my politics off it, but if you think you're not going to hear if I think you're being a retard, well, you're being a retard.

That said.

GOP's being retards.

I'll fight in the venues that can yield results for now. Politics ain't one. I've been saying that since November 666th, and nothing's changed it.

Learn to deal.

(And...don't be afraid to deal a little payback, where you can.)

Posted by: Brother Cavil and his Ampersandsaurus at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (GBXon)

343 207,
Women are in the same boat. There were a couple of gay guys that I had crushes on. They're the perfect dates. They dress nicely, go to good restaurants, like musicals, like antiques, have clever patter. I know this is all generalization but it is largely true.

A woman I knew asked me what I thought about this guy she was dating. About every two weeks he would take her out to a nice restaurant and to a concert or something. But he never even tried to cop a feel. I told her he was gay and sure enough, a few years down the road there was an article about some gay rights function and he was one of the people interviewed.

Posted by: nerdygirl at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (tAOpG)

344 I think the ammo shortage describes how conservatives view our future poilitical fates.
8-16 years seems reasonable. I have been telling liberals since Obama's re-election that they are not thinkers, that they are experiential learners. I mean we can tell that their policies won't work andhave never worked, we can point to Detroit and Chicago, Illinois and Califonia as examples of the failure of Democrat governance, we can point to any state in Africa and Asia as evidence that class warfarealways leads to..well, warfare.
We can tell them the stove is hot. They won't believe us. They have to touch the stove.
The problem with Democrats, though, is that as long as someone, anyone has money to confisicate to prop up their lofty ideals, they will keep burning their hands. It will take all of 16 years for them to get to the elbow. Maybe then.

Posted by: thesgm at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (T0dFH)

345 is NOT navel gazing

Posted by: Vic at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (53z96)

346 8-16 years? Try for the rest of history. The Democrats are a hard left radical party, and they don't intend to let opponents take over from them, ever.

I refuse to enter your dream world.

Posted by: Mike James at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (cgDgK)

347 I am about freedom of association. If a flower shop owner is a Catholic or Protestant or Muslim who does not wish to cater to homosexual couples, then they should be allowed to do that. The gay couple should not be able to hijack the power of the state to force the shopowner to violate his moral precepts. But if you think they should, then let's really let it rip and submit a bill requiring Catholic churches to perform gay weddings.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM
-
You say that as a joke, yet I see it coming - soon.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (KwMW2)

348 "While there's no doubt there is some toxic injection of homosexual
propaganda to our kids in school -- and that should be opposed strongly"

what's your objection there though, if it's bad to look at it in any different light, what's the issue with kids being made aware of it

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (60GaT)

349 @337:Yes, ace. I know that. But they don't WANT mere acceptance and tolerance. They want endorsement. You can argue against that all you want, but I'm sorry, you're wrong.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 03:08 PM (4df7R)

--

If you've been to college campuses lately (esp. small lib arts ones), you'll see this in spades.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (Y5I9o)

350 Just a question, since I am too lazy to read all 200 posts.


How did we get on Gheys while talking about the future of the GOP?


Did someone suggest we recruit Barney?

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (wR+pz)

351 Fourth Virginia you're a crack up.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (zpqa2)

352 Obama announces formation of Department of Gay Affairs.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (wbmaj)

353 "I remind them how Jesus walked among the destitute, godless, sinners and prostitutes."
===============

The message of that was not "YAY prostitution, godlessness and sinning."

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (/AHDz)

354 a tad hysterical, no?



While there's no doubt there is some toxic injection of homosexual
propaganda to our kids in school -- and that should be opposed strongly
-- this sort of idea that the Gays Are Coming to Make Us All Gay is just
ridiculous.





Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:04 PM (LCRYB)


Not really.

It's the forced acceptance in all aspects that is bothersome. I'll never be gay, but that won't stop them from bashing ME because my religious beliefs say they're "wrong" and forcing their way into my church or forcing my bible to be rewritten.

I go to a bar, restaurant or other social forum, I don't give a rats ass who does what in their bedroom. But, as mentioned before, I'm not out there demanding a fucking parade because I like to fuck my wife.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (xmcEQ)

355 DAMNATION people! WTF are we arguing about gays for? Gay issues had absolutely NOTHING to do with the last disaster election or the one before it.


This is navel gazing IT is stupid shit.

****

Ace, it seems, has an axe to grind.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (piMMO)

356 No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty.

And if that's all gay activists wanted everything would be kosher. Instead, gays need special privileges like forcing businesses to cater to them and being nude in public (this is a big battle in San Francisco if you aren't up to date on Zombie's blog). Those are de facto endorsements, special perks not available to you or me.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (B/VB5)

357 Yeah, but ace, come on. Is that the mainstream conservative view? I do know conservatives, and none of us hate gay people. You're using an awfully big brush to paint our side like that. It's like saying all black people want to kill whitey. Yeah there are plenty who do, and some of them are in pretty dominant positions, but they don't hold the mainstream view.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:49 PM (4df7R)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the thing. I know gay people too. And they can send you the link to Mitt Romney's webpage that claims support for a federal marriage amendment. Mitt Fucking Romney they can't support because he is anti-gay.

Now, part of that is a media creation, part of it is a perception created by the Democrats, but the fact is, that support was listed on Mitt Romney's web page. Again - Mitt Fucking Romney, pro-choice Northeast RINO. And you're telling me that when you go further to the right on the spectrum there isn't at least feigned support for that anti gay marriage movement ? Please.

And maybe THAT is the issue here. Not so much nutter politicians that are anti-gay, but a sizable portion of the Conservative base that IS, thus requiring virtually every single Republican politician to pay some kind of lip service to their preferred anti-gay agenda.

Its time for the anti-gay agenda to die a sad, painful death.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (b2D8X)

358 You say that as a joke, yet I see it coming - soon.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (KwMW2)

----------
Absolutely it is coming. Anyone who does not see that is fooling themselves.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (P6QsQ)

359 >>>A state license is an endorsement.

Silly. So Daddy Government is your Validator and if Daddy Government gives someone a piece of paper, they have "Endorsed" the thing, and betrayed you.

Mind you, I've never been pro-gay-marriage and I'm still not. But this idea that the government "endorses" every thing it simply acknowledge?

Ridiculous. Is the government "endorsing" gambling by requiring gamblers to account for the gambling income?

It's this idea that we need Daddy Government to do our shunning for us. And we can't get Daddy Government to shun something for us, then Daddy Government is "endorsing" that thing on our behalf.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (LCRYB)

360 352
Obama announces formation of Department of Gay Affairs.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (wbmaj)

For reals?

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (9+ccr)

361
Don't worry. The left/media will find a new boogey man to demonize and

split your new coalition right down the middle. And you can do this again with them.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (0q2P7)

I've said this repeatedly. If you think you can win on the "fiscal" issues, you will discover your error when the media turn their big guns on you.

Social issues have been under attack by liberals since the 60s. The vast majority of the Nation used to side with us on them, but the constant media onslaught has peeled off enough to hurt us politically.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (bb5+k)

362 276 You think people not voting en masse is because of voter fraud?

Someone not getting all the needed electrolytes?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (xAtAj)



The story at every key polling place all day was that it was the biggest turnout for Rs that anyone could remember. And yet, millions fewer votes were recorded for Romney than for McCain.

We turned out. We got robbed.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (I2LwF)

363 Oswald was a fag

Posted by: Michael McManus at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (Dll6b)

364 "I said that a can of Wolf brand chili would beat TFG
I was fucking wrong."

A FREE can of Wolf brand chili would have swayed a few votes though.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (71LDo)

365 How did we get on Gheys while talking about the future of the GOP?

***

Did you read the post?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (piMMO)

366 We are a 50/50 country but ace lives in the 10/90 part so he is naturally pestimistic about all things conservative. Can't see the forest because of the big ass liberal trees.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (m2CN7)

367 >Remember when Sally Ride died, and instead of saying nice things about
her, the professional gay lobbies just bitched that her partner wasn't
going to get her pension?


Well, I remember when she came out posthumously, that I didn't care. I just appreciated her achievements in life.

Okay, here's my opinion on the gay thing. Y'all write this down as I will not repeat it again.

I get that some people are gay. As a dude, I don't understand being hot for other dudes, but I get that it happens. Same for women.

I've had one gay acquaintance in my life. Long ago, a girlfriend had a gay guy friend. Lifelong school friend of hers. He was a good guy; welcomed us to the pool at his parents' house. The guy cut hair for a living and he even cut my hair a few times for free.

Personally, I don't care that there are gay people. What I do resent is that the attention they get/influence they have in the media is WAY out of proportion to their numbers in the actual population. I mean, a casual viewer of American television might think that half of America is gay.

BUT I STRONGLY RESENT IN THE EXTREME the notion that I must 'celebrate' or 'acknowledge' the gay lifestyle. The radical in-your-face gay agenda offends me deeply.

Here is my offer to the gay community: I promise not to give a fuck what you are, if you promise to STOP TELLING ME ABOUT IT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (8sCoq)

368 If you've been to college campuses lately (esp. small lib arts ones), you'll see this in spades.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:09 PM (Y5I9o)


Tell me about it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (4df7R)

369 :::And I'm so old, I remember when suggesting gays should settle down in pairs like *HORROR!* straight people do was SO HOMOPHOBIC, gays being better than "breeders" because they were sufficiently evolved to have relationships without a government stamp of approval. Ho-hum.:::

Well, the lexicon has certainly changed. It used to be a "Lifestyle Choice." Then it was an "Alternative Lifestyle." Now you don't hear it described in those terms anymore. The *consensus* is now that it's genetic, while providing zero proof.

Here's the thing - the aberrant sexual behavior part doesn't bother me. You'd be surprised if you knew what I did with your telephone handset when you're not around. It's the making a "Lifestyle" out of a sexual behavior and setting it up in competition with "straight" lifestyle that bothers me on an intellectual level. And I AM an intellectual.

Question: What other genetic abnormality has a lifestyle built around it? Lepers do, I suppose, having their own colonies, but I don't recall ever seeing Leper cable TV channels, magazines, PACs or nightclubs.Or festivalslike the Fulton Street Fair or Southern Decadence wherelepers get together totouch dicks in public.

It's a constantly evolving and contradictory mess of a shitpile. And I find it annoying.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (CJjw5)

370 >>>I am fucking tired of pro-marijuana-prohibitionists.


In the first part, it should be a states rights issue.

I personally don't give a F* whether it's illegal or not other than it is an overstep of federal authority. One out of a f*king billion. What I have seen of the MJ crowd is that they are not in it for the 10th amendment, and true self reliant free autonomy. They are in it to get their joint, following which they will not rally with the same fervor for reductions in entitlements or scaling back federal authority on other issues. So they can just wait till the more pressing threats to our freedom get taken care of then when weed is the most important thing for me to fight for as a government abuse of authority, I will fight for legal weed.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (0q2P7)

371 If you've been to college campuses lately (esp. small lib arts ones), you'll see this in spades.

Hell, it was true when I was in college in the late '80s. The battle cry was "One in four, maybe more!"

Posted by: jakeman at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (96M6e)

372 "Stop telling my children that gender is a social construct!"


Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 02:59 PM (4df7R)"



Recently had the future DiL at our place, home from her Freshman year. Spouting the gender as a social construct crap she had just been fed. She was actually a SoCon (for the most part) and FiCon, but still bought off on it. "But the professor has written a book on it!"


Took about 45 minutes to deprogram her. Thankfully she had minimal exposure by the time I got to her.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (yCvxi)

373 I'm trying to figure out what basic tolerance of the gay means? I would have though that we were there. Hell, I thought we were there in the 60s. I really can't remember the last time a public scourging took place. Maybe around the Stonewall riots.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (QupBk)

374 What was the last fiscal conservative win?

I mean, if you want me to roll over on socon stuff, what do I get in return? Are the Rs gonna refuse to fund OCare? Will they refuse to raise the debt limit? Will they shut .gov down unless they get a budget? What?

Posted by: Invictus at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (OQpzc)

375 I am fucking tired of pro-marijuana-prohibitionists.

***

Here in Colorado we're going for tokin' tourism. Maybe our slogan could be, "Get Down. Get High, Get Colorado." Send us your tax money now.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 03:12 PM (Hx5uv)

376 Ex-gf of mine told me about the time she experimented with lesbian sex. She and her friend got drunk and decided to fool around. She got to the carpet licking part but had to stop cause she found it too "gross".

So is me ex-GF a despicable homophone?
Or did she have a pretty normal human sexual response -- normal people (ie 98% of humans) find homosexual sex "gross". Doesn't mean they think gays are evil people.

But it's that normal human instinct that I think the activist Left is trying to overcome. And they'll fail cause it's a hard-wired response. Sex and disgust are strongly linked in the human animal.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:12 PM (ZPrif)

377 when government 'acknowledges' something, it ain't the same as a person acknowledging it.

Posted by: Socrates, not Plato at February 20, 2013 03:12 PM (Dll6b)

378 But, as mentioned before, I'm not out there demanding a fucking parade because I like to fuck my wife.


Posted by: at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (xmcEQ)

Well, shit who doesn't?

Oh that was mean.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:12 PM (wR+pz)

379 tip-toes out of the room , shut door softly

Posted by: willow-ette at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (nqBYe)

380
There is not going to be a federal government in 8-16 years. The one thing holding us together is the dollar, and because the blue states are doubling-down and tripling-down on their unsustainable blue behaviors, our common currency is going to be destroyed.

When the EU dissolves, that will give us the blueprint for how the US will dissolve.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (V3kRK)

381 Homosexuality will be selected out as much as possible.

----


.... and then, at that period of time, ALOT of "pro-choice" progressives will start demanding restrictions on...... THAT choice.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (nELVU)

382 Like I said earlier, just calm down wait for Obamacare charges and penalties to kick in. Like they say, money changes everything, and lack of it can change even more. When virtually everyone has to shell out thousands of dollars a year that they did not have to before, all of a sudden Democrats are not going to be so popular anymore.


Posted by: West at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (1Rgee)

383 ....but no homo.

Posted by: Bosk at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (n2K+4)

384 #360 I can hear him now: Now let's be clear.. let's get this straight. We need a Department of Gay Affairs....

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (wbmaj)

385 Ace - open your eyes. Why do you think Christian chaplains in the Armed Forces are resigning their commissions?

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (P6QsQ)

386
we're spinning our wheels in this mudpit yet again

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (/v7wy)

387 Well, vote all you want. You made your big gay tent, and it worked so damn well you can just wallow in it. Or nance about in it, whatever the hell you do when you're not parading in studded leather w/assplugs to demand your "rights". This coalition thing, it's not working. It's not going to start magically working. There is no Cyrus to bring all the gangs together and if there is he's just gonna get popped. Something about life imitating art and of course, The Warriors.

Posted by: Liza Minelli, woman beater at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (qM5uD)

388 People who have lost their ability to negotiate or center around the party's positions have two choices; either work to become part of it or be marginalized.

People who want to live in a constant state of conflict will do so to their detriment. Look no further than Democrats who march in lock step then pay lip service to the more polemically tendentious. They sit on the margins and complain. But it's pretty clear from their leaders if you don't jump on board, get used to the view.

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (GGCsk)

389
But that does not mean I can't walk among them
and agree on other life matters- especially politics and policy.
Clearly, some people who happen to be homosexual do not agree with the
"gay" political activism. So why shouldn't I focus on what we have in
common rather than what divides us?

What I've just articulated is still heresy to many folks in the party I speak with.


Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (GGCsk)

I argue that they are a threat to society in general. Their lifestyle is incompatible with civil society, and i've got plenty of examples throughout history with which to demonstrate this. The problem I always face is that I can't educate people quickly enough. There is just too much to learn for someone starting at average knowledge.

Homosexuals are, in general, people with serious psychological problems. The number one cause of death among them is suicide.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (bb5+k)

390 Diogenes you are right: Only a fool continues to play a game which is obviously rigged against him.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (zpqa2)

391 I'm sorry. I'm off my medications today. I'm going to take a napper.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (wbmaj)

392 You guys, stop worrying about Hillary.

Start worrying about Corey Booker.

He's our next president.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (I2LwF)

393 I don't hate gays because they like hairy man ass. I dislike them because they're FORCING their beliefs on me and MY CHILDREN!!

You wanna be gay? FINE!!! NO ONE REALLY CARES!!!! Stop forcing your bullshit on my kids by infiltrating and bullying the schools to TEACH it like it's something that needs to be SPREAD.

They claim its a natural thing, but yet they FORCE you to read it, learn it, know it........live it.
Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 02:51 PM (xmcEQ)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great. And you would put a stop to it..... HOW again ?

Quit fucking ranting at me about how evil forcing gayness on you is and tell me some palatable way to fix it through a political process. I won't hold my breath.

Unless there is a plausible way to counter that movement I don't give shit about your rants.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (b2D8X)

394 As a dude, I don't understand being hot for other dudes

Not even Darren Helm?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (QXlbZ)

395 You can't get anywhere with you fucking breeders.


Bite me.

Posted by: Mrs Barney at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (wR+pz)

396 378 Billy Bob,

Bawney Fwank does not fuck my wife.....

neither does Reggie Love...

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (LRFds)

397
Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (b2D8X)


You're equating "anti gay marriage" with "homophobic." That's a leftwing tactic, and it's utterly false.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (4df7R)

398 Actually the liberating part is admitting there is no Conservative movement that has any political power. That being the case, I don't have to give a shit about what other "Conservatives" think either.

You think supporting traditional marriage is a loser? Good. Fuck it. I don't care. I won't change my beliefs to get more people with "R" next to their name elected. I also won't change them because other "Conservatives" use liberal tactics to refer to me as a bigot who hates "faggots".

I am an island unto myself, as always. The country is lost, there is simply no reason to even participate in public discourse really. Hopefully the bloggers out there have other means of supporting themselves. It's been fun at times but it is all getting tiresome now.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (x0g8a)

399 And I AM an intellectual.


Yep. All the dick jokes gave it away!

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (GQ8sn)

400 @359 - ace

The issue is with the 'Equal Rights Act'. If government 'condones' something then EVERYONE must condone it. You see it w/ the contraceptive coverage in obama care. The left has hundreds of camel noses under the tent, and in 0.5s here comes the camel.

I still believe, naively as it may be, that we shouldn't push social issue because they should be off fucking limits to the federal government. Push that message. Push fiscal restraint.

Get asked about horse fucking or whatever, and say its none of our damned business next question.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (2PWuT)

401 "Recently had the future DiL at our place, home from her Freshman year.
Spouting the gender as a social construct crap she had just been fed.
She was actually a SoCon (for the most part) and FiCon, but still bought
off on it. "But the professor has written a book on it!"




Took about 45 minutes to deprogram her. Thankfully she had minimal exposure by the time I got to her."

===============

I lost a nephew to that. Before college he was a good, conservative Catholic. By the time they got through with him, he was a leftwing Obamabot and still is.

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (/AHDz)

402 And I say that as a libertarian Repub. They are a
small, angry, fat, cheeto-stained disloyal group who will shit on their
"friends" at the drop of the hat.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:06 PM (ZPrif)

Amen to this. And their ideas don't work either. I've got examples throughout history of where Libertarian ideas were tried, and failed miserably.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (bb5+k)

403
Ace, the gays don't get a free pass on the political end either.

I know some gays who say, "Why the hell do I want to participate in a ceremony that started out as a religious sacrament? Just give me a civil union."


Gays aren't monolithic about gay marriage. I don't care myself, gays show much less ability to keep relationships together than straights, and we are pretty bad at that ourselves.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (1Y+hH)

404 362: There probably was voter fraud especially in the cities, but Romney did get more votes than McCain. The "missing McCain voter" is a myth.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (CBCxo)

405 396
378 Billy Bob,

Bawney Fwank does not fuck my wife.....

neither does Reggie Love...


Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (LRFds)

I always knew you had taste.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (wR+pz)

406 JeffB and others against SoCons. I consider myself a social conservative, though not of the religious right. The only thing I want at the federal government with respect to abortion is the only thing the federal government can do under the Constitution. Defend public provided abortions, and planned parenthood, and I want the anti Roe v Wade justices. Because if they are not anti Roe v. Wade, I can guaranty you they probalby have a pretty broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. I think the states ought to decide, and I would want my state to be pro-life.

Now, getting that out of the way, you say the socons are the problem. And it is tempting to say, and sometimes I believe it myself (even as someone who considers himself part of that wing). But here is why I don't think it matters. Every time I talk to someone who says they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they can never name one program they would cut. I just have this sneaky suspicion they are socially liberal and fiscally liberal, but hide behind the social issues.

Now I have no proof of that just as you have no proof that jettisoning the socons will bring the GOP back to the promise land.

I'd say let's all get behind a cultural issue that we can ally rally around --- GUNS.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (gmeXX)

407 393 deadroody,

so wait a minute we on the right who value freedom to choose have to endure the ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS DARLING! agenda that is using law as a weapon and can't fight it using law as a weapon?

Oh yeah you're right actually because we live in a fucking insane asylum

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (LRFds)

408 shaping the party to express my own true preferences

And therein lies the problem. We all have different prepferences.

Posted by: Infidel at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (O/fK8)

409 I agree with #13 that vote fraud is now institutional and unless that is fixed, we will never win another national election. But aside from that, I notice that when Republicans lose, we suffer paralysis and the deer-in-headlights syndrome. When Democrats lose, they dig in, become shriller and more stubborn than ever.

Posted by: real joe in blue state hell at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (riZCD)

410 34
I suspect some non-troll banhammering will be occurring before the night is through.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 20, 2013 02:35 PM (BrQrN)
You called for a banhammer???

Posted by: Mjölnir the Banhammer for the Gates of Hell at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (Jls4P)

411
We have evidence showing who exactly is pushing an agenda. To wit: Chik Fil A

Posted by: soothsayer at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (KwX0v)

412 You guys, stop worrying about Hillary.

Start worrying about Corey Booker.

He's our next president.

***

I keep trying to tell them. They just.won't.listen.

Posted by: Cory Booker: The Great Black Hope at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (piMMO)

413
If the government stops discouraging homosexual behavior, then what should we do when it promotes heterosexual behavior? For example, should we keep dependent tax breaks? I agree with Plato that a strong heterosexual family unit builds a strong nation/culture, thus incentivising it makes sense.

Posted by: Draki at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (L8r/r)

414 And you would put a stop to it..... HOW again ?

Quit fucking ranting at me about how evil forcing gayness on you is and tell me some palatable way to fix it through a political process. I won't hold my breath.


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

Well, education reform leaps immediately to mind. End Federal subsidies for education not related to math, science, reading or practical skills. Let local schools set standards, if give parents the ability to opt out of public schools without penalty.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (QXlbZ)

415 >I argue that they are a threat to society in general. <

Perhaps. But the people I share politics in common with don't believe in, for example, gay marriage or adoption.

So, if you think through your argument- how can people like that have an existential threat on society? By definition, their lifestyle is self-defeating and their influence on traditional families is almost nil.

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (GGCsk)

416 Where the hell is gigg? It would be interesting to hear from a gay conservative on this...

Posted by: Meremortal at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (1Y+hH)

417 Has anyone brought up Jews yet?

Posted by: Chuck Hagel at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (C2Y4l)

418 Flatbush Joe needs to put out a Kindle book.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (zpqa2)

419 "3. The democrats cannot win the presidency unless they run a black candidate, so Hillary is out. "

Which shows us just how stupid the voters are. Affirmative Action has no place in a job as important as the presidency.

"4. The reason the GOP lost in 2012 was not demographics, the candidate or the message, it was due to vote fraud."

Also, constant, and unremitting propaganda from the liberal media. Including newspeople who blatantly promote their own political agenda by ignoring anything that makes "their guy" look bad, and makes issues out of stupid crap like "women in binders" and "mean rich ladies with their dancing horses". More evidence of how dumb the voters are that they fall for this shit.

Posted by: nerdygirl at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (tAOpG)

420 So, Jeff B. How'd Romney work out with you? I mean, he had the fiscal stuff all wrapped up right? And his social con thing was *this close* to being beyond reproach, right?

Good luck winning without the socons. Kick 'em out of the party at your peril, because you won't be replacing them with the mythical moderates.

Posted by: GMan at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (sxq57)

421 When the EU dissolves, that will give us the blueprint for how the US will dissolve.
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (V3kRK)
-
Even in this hellhole of a post, I found some optimism.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (KwMW2)

422 but on the bright side, there's this (from yahoo news):

The White House on Wednesday unveiled first lady Michelle Obama's new official portrait for President Barack Obama's second term—"midlife crisis" bangs and all.

Posted by: mallfly at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (bJm7W)

423 >>>The game is fixed against us. We cannot win in the current environment. The public has become too stupid, and too easily stampeded by the enemy's media weapon.

The answer here: Rename the GOP the Socialist Party. The MFM will not know how to talk about us. The retodded public will vote in droves for us. The GOP Party stalwarts will find the honesty refreshing. Foriegn nations will beat a path to our door and lavish funding on us. The Dems will gnash their teeth in anger because we seized on their branding.

Then we just do what the fuck we want. Lying is A-OK

Posted by: Bigby's Chainfist at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (3ZtZW)

424 359 >>>A state license is an endorsement.
Silly. So Daddy Government is your Validator and if Daddy Government gives someone a piece of paper, they have "Endorsed" the thing, and betrayed you.

Mind you, I've never been pro-gay-marriage and I'm still not. But this idea that the government "endorses" every thing it simply acknowledge?

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (LCRYB)
-----
Nice straw man. The point is that in this day and age, and with the media the way it is, the force of governmental acceptance is a de facto strong endorsement. I wish it weren't, but we have low-info voters all over the place who do not make the kinds of fine (and I think correct) intellectual distinctions that libertarianism makes. As a result, you get a shift in culture over time. The overton window moves. That's a very big deal when we're talking about issues like this, where people are accused of spreading "hate" on the basis of their beliefs about sexual morality.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (Y5I9o)

425 Besides, I'm sick of being told that I have to be TOLERANT of everything on the fucking planet, but NONE of them have to be TOLERANT of ME, dammit.

It's a two way street, but we're the only one that have to drive on it.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (xmcEQ)

426 >>>Yes, ace. I know that. But they don't WANT mere acceptance and tolerance. They want endorsement. You can argue against that all you want, but I'm sorry, you're wrong.

if your idea of "endorsement" is simply "acceptance and not treating as the Weird Other," then yes, you can call that "endorsement."

I do know sort of what you might mean, maybe: Some gays do go quite too far with this.

But that doesn't change that, in the main, the ask here is "hey, we sort of what to stop being treated as deviants, and worse yet, treated as *officially* deviant."

If your idea of "endorsement" is that -- then you are simply saying that unless you have the unabashed, untrameled right to call queers out for being weirdo perverts, then you're being asked for your "endorsement."

I note once again that especially on this site most commenters have had a fairly wide range of experience with sodomy (oral and the other one), porn, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage (or promised loyalty), etc.

We don't seem to beat ourselves up too much about it, and no one says we're asking the government to "endorse" our behavior simply by not having an official opinion on it.


Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (LCRYB)

427 Bush to head Department of Gay Affairs?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (wbmaj)

428 392
You guys, stop worrying about Hillary.



Start worrying about Corey Booker.



He's our next president.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (I2LwF)

Well, out of 400 posts, you find a least one that makes some sense.
I agree.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (wR+pz)

429 So, okay. According to the "fiscons" all the Christians should be forced to deny their faith in order to win political power.

Well, jeff b and ace, fuck yourselves sideways and eat shit twice.

If you don't realize just how fucking bigoted you guys are, then yeah, there's no sitting next to you.

You demand that everyone bend over to your little indoctrination. How about this? How about you get forced to go to synagogue or church every week in order NOT to be fired? Or be forced to pretend to head and believe in a bible study in order to not be blackballed and have your house vandalized? Or your fucking car?

Because that's my fucking life in reverse due to little shiteating cowardly bigots like you.

Bigots that demand that I deny my Saviour in order to not be fired for "gay bashing".

Bigots that key my fucking car because I have a bible in the front seat - and scrape GOD SUX on my paint.
Those are your fucking seatmates. Your fucking "coreligionists", Jeff B and Ace. They are YOU.

They are the ones that scream obscenities at people working at Chick Fil A - I bet you guys got wide chubbies at that youtube, seeing some angry man berate a "xtian" for the crime of believing in God. Fuck you.

Fuck you Jeff b and all you other bigots on the right and left. Fuck you and your hatefilled ignorance.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (UzocF)

430 And, I know it burns the moderates to say this, but the Social Right is broadly correct on social issues. Solid families are good for society, delayed sexual gratification benefits the individual and society as a whole. Broken families and unchecked promiscuity have negative personal and social consequences. We shouldn't be shaming people into denying what is self-evidently true.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 02:53 PM (QXlbZ)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hate to be a broken record, but... Neato for you. And you would fix it by.................. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (b2D8X)

431 #417 Jew to head Department of Gay Affairs?

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (wbmaj)

432 411 soothsayer,

yup...dress rehearsal for Kristalnacht my friend....just like Rahmbo E "advising" banks on guns....

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (LRFds)

433 Dismantle big govt to its constitutionally ennumerated powers, and most of these bullshit debates and arguments over social issues go away.

It's way, way past time for our side to start explaining and educating people about the role of govt, its proper limits, and how less govt benefits them, and not just the evil rich. And it's time for the politicians on our side to mean it.

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (H8fz7)

434 We have two major problems in the GOP:

1)We want to win 100% of the issues or nothing, with zero regard to how to actually implement anything if you can't win elections. I'll take 90% and move on, but our base would rather lose 100% than give up 10%.
Nose, meet face.

2) And Aces' point that a large chuck of "conservatives" just want a political party that's basically another extension of the Church where politicians are moral leaders.

Democrats are better about winning on big picture issues by abandoning unpopular parts of their platform and focusing on the popular parts. Example: they saw that capital punishment and soft on crime stances meant they couldn't win the White House, so they abandoned it. Do you really think though liberals are giving up their ideals with Obama instead of Dukakis? Me either. Republicans need to do the same with some nutty SoCon issues, at this point much of it is settled law and it's become more of an abstract moral issues that people are going to decide themselves
(see point #2)



Posted by: McAdams at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (K5srs)

435 The GOP could officially stop fighting the gay and prochoice agenda. They could fully endorse both views and it wouldn't matter. The media would still paint us gay haters and pro rape. And all the LIVs will believe it.

Posted by: L, elle at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (0PiQ4)

436 DAMNATION people! WTF are we arguing about gays for?
Gay issues had absolutely NOTHING to do with the last disaster election
or the one before it.


This is navel gazing IT is stupid shit.


Posted by: Vic at February 20, 2013 03:07 PM (53z96)

People bring it up and we get distracted. As I am firmly in the camp of our number one problem being the lopsided advantage Liberals possess through owning all the media outlets, I really don't see much point in debating other causes of our losses.

Liberal media is 90% of our problem. The other ten percent is just polishing a wrecked car.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (bb5+k)

437 Ace, I'd be interested to hear more about your views regarding 'blaming' and 'shaming' to establish moral or intellectual superiority. I have long thought that our biggest sins as a society are probably envy and hubris. If envy didn't work, there would be no class warfare.Andif we were all securewith ourselves, why do we need to judge anyone else aboutanything?

Posted by: Liberty Lover at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (encrR)

438 :::And I AM an intellectual.Yep. All the dick jokes gave it away!
Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (GQ8sn) :::

The internet said so, EC.

THE INTERNET.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (CJjw5)

439 Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:05 PM (xmcEQ)


Holy shit this thread moves fast, I can't even get my comeback in in a reasonable amount of time.

Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (+xmn4)

440 And their ideas don't work either. I've got examples throughout history of where Libertarian ideas were tried, and failed miserably.

I'm libertarian sympathetic, but reading the comments at Reason Hit & Run generally cures me of that impulse. Half of them think global warming is Serious You Guys and all of them think Islamists would shut down the jihad if we left them alone.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (B/VB5)

441 I go to a bar, restaurant or other social forum, I don't give a rats ass who does what in their bedroom. But, as mentioned before, I'm not out there demanding a fucking parade because I like to fuck my wife.


Maybe you should. hard to say. Got any pics?

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (I2LwF)

442 festivalslike the Fulton Street Fair or Southern Decadence wherelepers get together totouch dicks in public. It's a constantly evolving and contradictory mess of a shitpile. And I find it annoying.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (CJjw5)

The only reason you don't see Lepers do this is because their dicks would fall off.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (m2CN7)

443 Okay, seriously, I need to walk away for a bit. There's too much bullshit and backbiting on this thread. If I stay, David Carradine is going to have a dinner guest.

Later, all.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (4df7R)

444 Really couldn't give a care about gay marriage. The issue is just another club that the left like to beat us with and then occasionally we beat ourselves with it. It certainly has nothing to do with our political wandering in the woods. If tomorrow Republican leaders across the nation issued statements saying they supported gay marriage it wouldn't matter. Gay marriage is not about gay marriage, its about having a weapon to make republicans seem intolerant. If the issue went away tomorrow it would suddenly be like it did not matter and the media would just grab a new wedge issue to beat us with.

Posted by: Drew in MO at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (cGlgB)

445 431
#417 Jew to head Department of Gay Affairs?


Hey, what about us? We'll made the "Gay Affairs" department really Gay.



Posted by: Mohamed, the goat fucker at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (wR+pz)

446 Department of Gay Affairs?

***

To exclusionary. It needs to be the Department of LGBTWTFBBQ.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (Hx5uv)

447 Good luck winning without the socons. Kick 'em out of the party at your peril

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


Yesterday there was an election in Wisconsin. I did not vote. This was the first election that I have sat out in at least ten years. I mean, I vote every single time those doors open. For anything. Every single time.

Not yesterday.

I am a SoCon. So my non-participation should be cause for celebration among many here.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (P6QsQ)

448 I note once again that especially on this site most commenters have had a fairly wide range of experience with sodomy (oral and the other one), porn, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage (or promised loyalty), etc.
We don't seem to beat ourselves up too much about it, and no one says we're asking the government to "endorse" our behavior simply by not having an official opinion on it.
Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (LCRYB)

-

So your argument boils down to "tu quoque". Great.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (Y5I9o)

449 Oh shit...

IT'S ON!!!!

BLOG WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (GQ8sn)

450 Most of the liberal people I know (both male and female) think gay dude sex is gross -- but also think that thinking gay dude sex is gross ... is horribly homophobic. So they feel all guilty about it. They enjoy mocking when some less-cultured person says out loud what they are thinking. They are ashamed of their "ick" response. It's an odd thing.

Most women marry men in their same ethnic group and are much more attracted to some ethnic groups than others -- usually their own. Are they all horrible racist people?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (ZPrif)

451 One other thing - the reason I call socons big govt nanny-staters is because these kinds of issues should be taught at home and in church/synagogue/whatever, not enforced or promoted by govt.

And, yeah...I get that the other side is using big govt to promote their gay rights and abortion agendas. And that's why it's all about limited govt - or at least it should be.

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (H8fz7)

452 The only reason you don't see Lepers do this is because their dicks would fall off.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (m2CN7)


Lepers are Sea Slugs??!?!???

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (da5Wo)

453 Well, out of 400 posts, you find a least one that makes some sense.
I agree.

***

Ahem, make that TWO

Posted by: Cory Booker: The Great Black Hope at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (piMMO)

454 I note once again that especially on this site most commenters have had a fairly wide range of experience with sodomy (oral and the other one), porn, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage (or promised loyalty), etc.

I've done it doggie style, but that doesn't make me a bestialist.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (QupBk)

455 If we are going to let it burn why don't we all just start pouring gas on it to help the process along.

Also we all know some body on our "side" is going to lose their shit over gun control and is going to whack some low level politician in one of these states pushing for banning guns and going house to house looking for them, or baring that there will be a stand off where police are killed trying to take someones guns. When it happens we need to take a page from the left on not condemn them but turn it onto the lefty politicians for causing people to have to resort to such violence.

We need to start naming names and giving out personal details about Dem party activists just like they do to our people. Make them live in fear for a change.

Posted by: southdakotaboy at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (Baypg)

456 I disagree with the 8-16 years assessment.

Candidate Hillary, I believe, would only get a fraction of the Leftie deference granted to Obama. "First woman president" goes a long way, but she's a known commodity, unlike 2008 Obama.

She has very little personal warmth. She's not much of a politician, really. In 2016, she will be very old and will still be very shrill. Her debate performances in 2008 were not terribly inspiring. She relied on a certain amount of deference.

What's more, she will be forced in 2016 to do what McCain had to do in 2008 -- run on a tangent from her own party's President. She can't say "We need to fix the economy" without blaming the problem on Obama. Ditto with health care. Sure, she'll try to blame things on George W. Bush. But Democrats in the 22nd Century will be blaming the country's problems on George W. Bush.

Her big advantage: Bill's endless fundraising capacity. But she's been in Washington long enough to make enemies. It's been a long time since Watergate.

I think another failed Obama term leaves 2016 a pure toss-up -- especially if we can take away the Dems' nonsense about "War on Women!" and "Republicans hate gays!"

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (jg+Fr)

457 It is nice to see everybody has the same hope for the future as I do.

Posted by: Mark formerly in Spokane,now in Sandy Ut at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (xGX1p)

458 >>>JeffB and others against SoCons. I consider myself a social conservative, though not of the religious right.

I'm not really anti-socon per se.

What I'm demonstrating is this: Some people are determined to Just Win All the Chips in the conservative playoffs. That is, they no longer wish to compromise.

Fine. But see, some of us have been compromising. We don't talk about it much, but WE are also unhappy with the compromise.

And if we're just going to all push for our idea of a perfect movement, sans compromise, well, then I'm not keeping out of the fun, either.

There are lots of things I don't like about the party myself that *I'm* sick of compromising on.

But if "Compromise" is cowardice -- as I'm often told -- well then here I am claiming my own piece of courage cake.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (LCRYB)

459 Speaking of Ghey, looks like the Catholic Church has another fudge packer problem.



http://tinyurl.com/b6hk7eg

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (wR+pz)

460 Great. And you would put a stop to it..... HOW again ?



Quit fucking ranting at me about how evil forcing gayness on you is
and tell me some palatable way to fix it through a political process. I
won't hold my breath.



Unless there is a plausible way to counter that movement I don't give shit about your rants.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (b2D8X)



If I knew the answer, do you think I'd be sitting here behind this desk typing the "rants" on this fucking blog?!?

Much like your admitting that you don't give a shit about my rants, I don't give a shit whether you suck dick or not. It's really irrelevant. If everyone involved took THAT line, it'd be a lot better for everyone.


Like Eddie Murphy once said:

"I'm gonna go get me a beer."

"Yeah? I'm gonna go suck somebody's dick."

"You go suck that dick, I'm gonna have my beer."

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (xmcEQ)

461 I've done it doggie style, but that doesn't make me a bestialist.Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (QupBk)

Tell that to the doberman.

Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (+xmn4)

462 It's way, way past time for our side to start
explaining and educating people about the role of govt, its proper
limits, and how less govt benefits them, and not just the evil rich. And
it's time for the politicians on our side to mean it.

Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (H8fz7)

But this would pre-empt Honey Boo Boo!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (zpqa2)

463 440:I'm libertarian sympathetic, but reading the comments at Reason Hit & Run generally cures me of that impulse. Half of them think global warming is Serious You Guys and all of them think Islamists would shut down the jihad if we left them alone.
Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 03:19 PM (B/VB5)

---

Similar here. When I read all the asinine anti-religion comments, it really turns me off. They're more locked up in their own dogmas than most religious people I know.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (Y5I9o)

464 Late to the party but 2cents:

A. There is no "political" discourse right now with respect to Obama. He runs to the right, he runs to the left, he campaigns against his own record, he lies outright about what's he done and will do.

That is, he didn't campaign that he would be the most leftwing president since FDR and ad hoc end welfare reform and regulate unconnected, small businesses out of existence.

He's a god head with a loving press corps and an active voter fraud organization.

We didn't lose the argument. There was no argument, except maybe a branding argument that Obama is awesome and the GOP is icky.

Second, nonetheless, with great depression 2.0 fully engaged and dark ages 2.0 on the horizon, the historical trend illustrates that we need to wait for a popular somewhat conservative general or governor to emerge from the media's character assassination killing fields to lead the GOP to victory, in about 30 years.

say, how about that Petreus, he could be our guy...oh.

So, we just have to wait 30 years or so. That's all.

Third, GOP conservative purity? What the fuck? Gays? Really? Who's out of touch? The people who will vote for Great Depression 2.0 to let Lena dunham's sister have a pretty princess ceremony. The only purity I'd like right now is to demand spending cuts.

That is, we could cut 20% of the Federal Gov's operating budget without missing a beat. So fuck all this.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (QxSug)

465 Defend public provided abortions

----

Jeez, first i said I wanted styrofoam to keep my coffee cold and now I said defend when I meant defund.

I need to hire a proofreader.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (gmeXX)

466 I've done it doggie style, but that doesn't make me a bestialist.

It's a slippery slope, toby. Next thing you know, you're trying to make a Horse-Man baby.

Posted by: jakeman at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (96M6e)

467 One other thing - the reason I call socons big govt nanny-staters is because these kinds of issues should be taught at home and in church/synagogue/whatever, not enforced or promoted by govt.

Why is a religiously based policy preference a second-class political opinion that should politely step to the back of the bus when requested?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (QupBk)

468 I want to know a couple of things
1) Why is it imperitive that we socons accept a late-Victorian paradigm of "gayness" instead of treating a tendency towards homosexual behavior the same way we treat tendencies towards any other type of behavior?
2) Why is it wrong to be against a position (gay marriage) that was considered homophobic and heterocentric 20 years ago?
3) In the vast range of possible human sexual behavior, why is it imperitive that monogamous marriage between two men and two women and only that be given the same treatment as between one man and one woman? Why single out monogamous gay relationships for special treatment?
4) Why is it that while the Marxists are bright enough to realize that in order to raise the state to ultimate power they have to break down societal mores, so many libertarians are unable to grasp that in order to be free of government control, the mass of people have to control themselves in a mutually satisfactry manner, which means in practice a shared sense of morality?

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 20, 2013 03:22 PM (EI3K0)

469 I need to hire a proofreader.

Blame Pixy, it's what I do.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (QupBk)

470 We all do realize this entire thread is about Ace Shaming us into not Scolding and Judging the Ghey, right?

Hey, when do we start accusing those who won't toe the line as being closet cases?

Good to know that Scolding and Judging are bad.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (ZPrif)

471 :::So your argument boils down to "tu quoque". Great.:::

More like... TWO COCKS!!!

What. Is. UP?!!!!


***raises hand for high-five***

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (CJjw5)

472 So, is it a crisis? No.

Unless we do something insane like citizenize the whole of Somalia and Mexico to permanently change America's culture and voting blocks.

Is that anti-somalia or anti-mexican? No. but the flip side is true. People who are doing this Vichy governance are anti-American.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (QxSug)

473 Ian - yeah, I'd publicly label myself a Libertarian if'n it would not associate me with the current cereal bowl that is Libertarianism today. (Cereal bowl - full of Nuts, Fruits and Flakes).



Posted by: West at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (1Rgee)

474
Its time for the anti-gay agenda to die a sad, painful death.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:10 PM (b2D8X)


No, it is time for this cartoon of a national government to die a sad, painful death. It's broken, and nothing we can do will fix it.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (bb5+k)

475 A lot of the homo stuff is a just a reation to active efforts encouraging it. It's just a gut disgust reaction.

Posted by: SamIam at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (S09w5)

476
There is a silver lining if we assume Ace is right on the 8 to 16 years in the wilderness. It would be the perfect time to start a new party to eventually fill the vacuum.

Now this also assumes there won't be a collapse in the next 8 to 16 years. 5% interest on $20 Trillion is $1 Trillion a year. Rather than cut back spending, the politicos will always choose inflation. Prepare individually, screw the parties.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (p/cQy)

477 If you look at the arguments many people in the party make against including gays with whom we share political beliefs, they are the same arguments those people use, with different context, against other groups.

So whether someone is "gay", an establishment denizen, a RINO, etc. the arguments repeat themselves.

To me, that's disingenuous and destructive. That's a person who focuses on what they oppose rather than what they're for- probably because tey truly don't understand what they are "for".

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (GGCsk)

478 Speaking of Eddie Murphy and teh gheys, ever see his Norton (Honeymooners) bit?

Hee-larious.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (zpqa2)

479 I miss the pudding dipping days.....(sigh)

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (9+ccr)

480 The problem is there's not much reason to vote for Republicans at the moment. Pro-life? R's have always been pro-life and where has it got you? Illegal immigration? R's, at least the Washington DC ones, are all for it. Guns? The public seems to be on our side on this issue mainly due to the NRA and the Washington DC R's are basically irrelevant when it comes to guns. Taxes? Eh, D's will raise it a few % points and R's might, if you're lucky, lower it a few % points, not much difference. Judges? Hi there John Roberts who gave us Obamacare. So yeah, why bother?

Posted by: booger at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (HI6wa)

481 Sorry, this is lonf and personal but maybe possibly helpful?

My grandparents' neighbors were a gay couple. Very nice men, both HIV positive. My grandpa (democrat) hated when they moved in, but over time they became friends. One of the men was a gardener and he and my grandmother used to exchange gardening tips.

Well, the men both started getting quite sick, and I guess gave up on life and started doing drugs. My grandpa tried to help them, and somehow, miraculously, they both got clean and got back on their meds.

They ended up being the pallbearers at my grandma's funeral, and took care of my grandpa in his grief.

They still look over my grandparent's house. They've been committed to each other for 30 years.

But...and here's the big but, if they wanted to get married, I still don't believe anyone should be forced to.perform the services or do the flowers or bake a cake. I believe that those men should have the absolute liberty to make their life together, but I also believe in the liberty of the florist and the baker to not violate their religious belief.

That's not h8. It's not ZOMG!! Social Con!!!

Posted by: Lauren at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (wsGWu)

482 Dismantle big govt to its constitutionally ennumerated powers, and most of these bullshit debates and arguments over social issues go away. It's way, way past time for our side to start explaining and educating people about the role of govt, its proper limits, and how less govt benefits them, and not just the evil rich. And it's time for the politicians on our side to mean it.
Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (H8fz7)
-
That is the actual answer. The federal government has no business deciding what a marriage is, when a child becomes a human, how much money I make, or giving cash to poor people. Eliminate two-thirds of the federal government, and we eliminate the problem. We can do this through elections, or just wait until reality does it for us in a more painful fashion.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (KwMW2)

483 Just to change the subject for a moment.



Have I ever talked to you about Herba Life?

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (wR+pz)

484 I think we need to separate Gay stuff from abortion. Abortion is an issue of life and death and can be opposed from a non religious POV (see Hitchens, C)

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 03:25 PM (CBCxo)

485 Is This Something?

Julia Harrington ‏@iisJulia

University of Colorado Regents discussing an action to oppose gun free zones for campus #coleg pic.twitter.com/9lOAAWum

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:25 PM (8sCoq)

486 Also, the gheys? Isn't Obama nominating a Mooslim to the head of the I to the C to the A?

Is he a ROP with a love for the sodomite?

Shouldn't we be using him as a shaming tool against obmaa?

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:25 PM (QxSug)

487 For anyone who has their doubts about Hilary winning in 16 I submit my grandmother. She is as politically unaware as a person can get, and yet she already knows she is going to vote for Hilary because the media told her Hilary really stood up to those Republicans at that hearing.

Posted by: Drew in MO at February 20, 2013 03:25 PM (cGlgB)

488 #483 I think Oscar Pistorius is a big user.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 20, 2013 03:25 PM (wbmaj)

489 429 So, okay. According to the "fiscons" all the Christians should be forced to deny their faith in order to win political power.

Well, jeff b and ace, fuck yourselves sideways and eat shit twice.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (UzocF)

Oh Good Lord. Too fucking bad. Nobody is telling you to "deny your faith". You can hate homosexuality with all the passion in the world.

Stop telling politicians that you expect them and the government to do something about it. They can't and they won't and even if they thought they COULD, there is no government imposed solution to your problem that doesn't invite MASSIVELY greater government intrusion than we already have, and its already FAR too big and intrusive.

Grow up already. When the government doesn't officially endorse your religious doctrine, that is not the same as "denying your faith". Maybe you could do us all a favor and quote the bible sections that require the government to enforce the moral code of the Christian bible. I'm not as familiar with the bible as you are, I'm sure, but I'm pretty sure you will fail to come up with anything to support your ideal on what constitutes "denying your faith".

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:26 PM (aT8Zk)

490 >Have I ever talked to you about Herba Life?


Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (wR+pz)

Colorado is living the herbal life.
Wait- what?

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:26 PM (8sCoq)

491 >Speaking of Ghey, looks like the Catholic Church has another fudge packer problem.<

Speaking of idiocy, unproven conspiracy theories and people who indict an entire religion based on one person...

Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (GGCsk)

492 No matter what, Ace and JeffB need to stop keying cars and beating up religious people.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (ZDsRL)

493 Yesterday there was an election in Wisconsin. I did not vote. This was
the first election that I have sat out in at least ten years. I mean, I
vote every single time those doors open. For anything. Every single
time.

Not yesterday.

I am a SoCon. So my non-participation should be cause for celebration among many here.


Same here. First vote I've missed in WI in about 12 years. JeffB should be fucking happy!

Posted by: GMan at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (sxq57)

494 1)We want to win 100% of the issues or nothing, with zero regard to how to actually implement anything if you can't win elections. I'll take 90% and move on, but our base would rather lose 100% than give up 10%.


I'd be happy with 10%, as long as we were moving in the right direction. Every "debate" we have is over how much socialism we add to the mix. It's never about liberty, ever.

That's why the gun debate heartens me-- we haven't moved to the left yet. Some states have made affirmative statements against moving left.

That's a good baseline to judge our success- the bare minimum ought to be a line in the sand we do not cross. Anything less is failure, and should be rewarded as such.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (I2LwF)

495 ace @ 303 said, "While there's no doubt there is some toxic injection of homosexual
propaganda to our kids in school -- and that should be opposed strongly
-- this sort of idea that the Gays Are Coming to Make Us All Gay is just
ridiculous."

If you accept the phrase "Marriage Equality" it isn't a slippery slope to exactly that, you are already there. Especially if you assume progs run the schools and they do. In exactly the same way we have black history month, celebrate Cinco De Mayo, throw students out for displaying the American Flag, etc. Once you accept the 'equality' argument you passed from tolerance to acceptance and designated victim class.

Blackness is a matter of birth so they can't promote 'conversion' exactly. But of course they DO use the schools and culture to promote gangster life as superior. However gayness, apparently... at least according to SOME of their propaganda... and the phase of the moon or something, is a choice for some people. So they damned well intend to 'encourage' as many as physically possible to choose it. Because it validates themselves, because it degraded our civilization (and if you don't think that is a key goal of progressive you aren't paying attention) and helps reduce the green's #1 'problem' which is too many people on the planet, especially first world people.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (YhRJW)

496 I checked for a new thread, alas, no.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (QupBk)

497 >>>if your idea of "endorsement" is simply "acceptance and not treating as
the Weird Other," then yes, you can call that "endorsement."

State Marriage isn't about acceptance. It is submission to state authority as a social obligation and responsibility. In order to be "Responsible" with your sexual relationship, you make a single monogamous commitment to one person of the opposite sex and enter into an agreement whose terms is defined and governed by the state. All the way back to Greek times state recognized marriage has always been about control of families. The excuse for it has always been it's the "responsible" thing to do because kidzzzz. Why the state has to manage it? Good of the whole don't you know.

In the modern world the state has grown and abused its control over marriage. It's time not to expand that, but to roll it back to church recognition only.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (0q2P7)

498 470 We all do realize this entire thread is about Ace Shaming us into not Scolding and Judging the Ghey, right?
Hey, when do we start accusing those who won't toe the line as being closet cases?
Good to know that Scolding and Judging are bad.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (ZPrif)

---

Hah, my thoughts exactly. Why can't we just be more accepting of those people who can't seem to accept us?

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (Y5I9o)

499 The Declaration says something about 'the pursuit of happiness'


think about it

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (8sCoq)

500
Here is my offer to the gay community: I promise
not to give a fuck what you are, if you promise to STOP TELLING ME
ABOUT IT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.


Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:11 PM (8sCoq)

It's what they do. And when they get into positions of power it gets worse. Astute bloggers has an article regarding this. Apparently they were some of the most brutal camp guards in the Nazi concentration camps.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (bb5+k)

501 Its funny how everyone has been conditioned on the health 'insurance' thing. Dude, if the insurance is more than the cash price, I think you've just been scammed.

I've already had the conversation with my doctor.. I asked if he'd accept cash at a big discount if things went tits up and he said no problem.

If we went back to a cash based system, it'd be soooo much cheaper. I worked at a cardiologists office for a while, and they had 6(!) people employed there full time that did nothing but billing for insurance. This has become an employment scheme of some kind, and nobody will say it

Posted by: Just the Facts at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (m6Fkk)

502
How about manning up? How about realizing that the gay rights movement is just another cog in the wheel of Progressivism like feminism and the environmental movement? They're all smoke screens being used to destroy civil society from within. Like every other liberal cause that starts out with a valid grievance, it soon gets co-opted by Marxists who use it to pound another nail into the coffin of American Exceptionalism. The idea that we are born with natural rights that no man, no monarch, no government can take away. Hell, I'm an atheist and I get the notion of God given rights.

Be a man, Ace. I know that will be tough for you. But give it a try. You might surprise yourself. I don't think you have it in you but I would love for you to prove me wrong. Listen to Mark Levin everyday. Maybe that would help. Go to YouTube and watch old videos of Andrew. He knew. FU #WAR

Posted by: Jaynie59 at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (4zKCA)

503 Posted by: West at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (1Rgee)

I hearya. I'm a small l libratarian. Everthing goes back to the states except national defense and some natural resources rules so nobody gets greedy with water or food. Then if you don't like the politics, you move to a different state. I know it's simplistic but the current supranos episode thats playing out in Washington can't work.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (l86i3)

504 It's always darkest just before the dawn.

Or right after they throw the dirt on your casket.

Whichever.

Posted by: Andy at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (OZPoa)

505 I would still like to know how old JeffB is. He does not strike me as someone very experienced with encountering people who do not live, work and play as he does.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (CJjw5)

506 >>>How old are you, JeffB?

32 years old. Born in 1980, a couple of months before Reagan was elected.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (bcLhD)

507 More like... TWO COCKS!!!



What. Is. UP?!!!!





***raises hand for high-five***

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:23 PM (CJjw5)


No. Just...no.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:29 PM (da5Wo)

508 Speaking of Eddie Murphy and teh gheys, ever see his Norton (Honeymooners) bit?

Hee-larious.


Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (zpqa2)


NORTON pal. Come on down here, I wanna SHOW ya sumpthin.....

Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:29 PM (xmcEQ)

509 The Declaration says something about 'the pursuit of happiness'


think about it

***

Probably a misprint. Should have been "pursuit of penis."

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 03:29 PM (Hx5uv)

510 My son gets plenty of gay indoctrination here in Indiana of all places....

If you read the IndyStar, you'd never know straight people live here.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (/kI1Q)

511 32 years old. Born in 1980, a couple of months before Reagan was elected.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (bcLhD)


Thats a good age. Young enough to try it and old enough to pull it off.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet is no longer shamelessly hawking his book Amy Lynn available on amazon. at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (l86i3)

512 I've resigned myself to being a registered Libertarian. I stood with the GOP for long enough to realize they do not represent me.

Posted by: California Red at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (cB0VK)

513 I think it's important for socons to act a little smarter in their arguments. I'm not saying that they should be kicked out or made kings, but you have to play the long game. Going around and screaming your beliefs from the rooftop isn't going to make any friends. That's Santorum's big problem, he thinks he's in an echo chamber, he isn't.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (NzBQO)

514 how many people are bisexual is the real question here. if we're not careful we could unleash the Bi Menace

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (60GaT)

515 496 I checked for a new thread, alas, no.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (QupBk)

This is just the airing of the greivences. We've got the feats of strength yet to go.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (ZDsRL)

516
let's get this straight. We need a Department of Gay Affairs....
----
ISWYDT

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (SO2Q8)

517 May I suggest everyone re read my post @272. Prozac!

Ace, we did have whiners after the 64 election. Remember we kicked the East Coast Rockefeller GOP Rino's basically out of the party at the convention in SF.


Course everyone on the East coast said that is why we lost.


That all passed when Nixon came back with the Southern Strategy, which was basically go after the segregationist democrats.

It worked and then the paranoid MFer sold us out.


Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (wR+pz)

518 #409 #13 & #3 Right as rain :O) but then again, I am in the Seattle area. For the unknowing, control freak core of the universe people live there and control waaay tooo much. The lemmings love the control, they orgasm at every, so called, victory. #3 has it spot on, it will burn down from it's own level of putrid, self serving arrogance to force lifestyles of anyone, on everyone.
Some of the posts here I can see they have no indication of the move toward sharia law. They will all be so happy to be able to murder their own offspring, should they EVER offend them.
Damn, sure glad my children never offended me! Ya right.

Posted by: virtusvelox at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (YeGSs)

519 Santorum's just kinda sour in general

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (60GaT)

520 There is not going to be a federal government in
8-16 years. The one thing holding us together is the dollar, and
because the blue states are doubling-down and tripling-down on their
unsustainable blue behaviors, our common currency is going to be
destroyed.



When the EU dissolves, that will give us the blueprint for how the US will dissolve.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (V3kRK)

This is my current working theory. The dollar is going to drag down everything we have through hyperinflation.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (bb5+k)

521 >>>Fine. But see, some of us have been compromising. We don't talk about it much, but WE are also unhappy with the compromise.

Dude as much as you hear. F*king RINOs are dooming us. I hear get rid of the F*king socons. Romney didn't make either side happy. We all compromised. Stop acting like you are the only one doing so, or are willing to do so.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (0q2P7)

522 Holy crap, this thread is approaching ONT levels and it's only mid-afternoon!

Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)

523 "222
The democratic war i'm waiting for is between hispanic and blacks for position as most-favored-interest-group. There doesn't seem like enough market space for both of them.
Hard to see hispanics winning that one which could leave them disaffected and looking for an alternative."

Don't count the Hispanics out of winning that. higher birthrates + some flavor of amnesty vs the highest rate of abortions in the country doesn't bod well for blacks. The democrats have proven in the past they will abandon a client group when they don't need them. Even if they don't abandon blacks the dems know they have their votes and don't have to actually provide any results.

Posted by: vote Lord Humungus 2016 at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (HEa5q)

524 Thats a good age.

Still young enough to learn to swim.

Posted by: Mr Dark at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (QupBk)

525 Maybe you could do us all a favor and quote the bible sections that require the government to enforce the moral code of the Christian bible.

I expect them to enforce the no murder or stealing stuff.I also expect them to enforce the sexual rules on rape, bestiality, and paederasty. Those are usually considered moral issues. Is that wrong of me?

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (EI3K0)

526 If you're bisexual do you get to vote twice?

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (Hx5uv)

527 >>>Much of the problem as I see it is that those on our side who are
talking the loudest about politics don't really understand politics.
They consider it beneath them- they don't want to know, much like the gun grabbers who proudly wear their ignorance about guns like a medal.

What
we ended up with is a base who is loudly demanding that The
Establishment (a term nobody seems able to even loosely define) obey
their very, very, bad political advice and get angry when political
leaders don't.

You don't win at chess without considering beyond your current move, no matter how boldly you make it.


I'm just reprinting this and putting it in bold because it's the smartest thing anyone has written in this thread.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (bcLhD)

528 Also, on guns, your friendly Washington DC R's are going to go along with Obama's universal background checks so again, why vote for them? And the gay stuff is beyond idiotic, why should any married person get benefits single people don't? If R's were a true small government party they'd be getting government out of marriage, eliminating the income tax and on and on, but they're not, so here we are.

Posted by: booger at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (HI6wa)

529 429-The butthurt is strong with this one

"When the sky falls, and it crumbles, we will stand tall/
Or face it all together."

As bad as things are, I'm glad I have Ace and the HQ to experience Skyfall with.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (m/bYW)

530 Burn

Posted by: trainer @ LIB at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (QbdUW)

531 Grow up already. When the government doesn't officially endorse your religious doctrine, that is not the same as "denying your faith". Maybe you could do us all a favor and quote the bible sections that require the government to enforce the moral code of the Christian bible. I'm not as familiar with the bible as you are, I'm sure, but I'm pretty sure you will fail to come up with anything to support your ideal on what constitutes "denying your faith".
Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:26 PM (aT8Zk)

---

Nice straw man caricature of Christianity; maybe next time add something about how we all want to kill jews and feast upon their entrails. you know, for greater vividness and accuracy.

Apart from that, have you been to a public school or university lately? Are you aware of the amount of preemptive censorship that occurs under the name of "diversity"? Do you know what kinds of statements of mere personal beliefs (as opposed to arguments or overt activism/proselytization) might get you censured for "hate crimes"?

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (Y5I9o)

532 I blame Rachel Carson.
We had almost eliminated gay cooties when they banned DDT.

Posted by: Roland THTG at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (QM5S2)

533 Ace - To the extent that some in the party think it should only be about socons, or fiscons, I agree with you. We need a broad coalition. Frankly, I have no idea why you can't be in all three camps of the GOP and even in the libertarian section, if that is a separate camp. And at certain times, some are more important than others. I certainly think that fiscal issues are more pressing than social issues and defense issues. However, I don't think they move voters as much as the other two.

I also suspect that many are strong pro-life but really don't have any issue with gay marriage. There is no reason the two should be linked.

Anyway, I'm with you in that I think the current (or is it coming) war between the establishment v. grassroots (tea party?) is good. In the end, we will need to come together and have respect for each other. We should all be on the same team at the end of the day. However, there is a grassroats sense that the establishment doesn't even want us to play. We can debate the reality, but the perception exists.

Like I said, let's just alll get behind the one thing we can agree on - at least on this board - GUNS. The DEMS are coming for your GUNS.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (gmeXX)

534 Hillary, if her health holds, is the early favorite for 2016.

As for the gay stuff, I believe if your going to grant special rights and privileges for the married those same rights and privileges have to be extended to gay couples under the Equal Protection Clause. With respect to gay marriage, I'm against it. Marriage is a 5 thousand year old heterosexual tradition recognized in the Bible.If the people who follow that tradition do not want it extended to gay people, so be it

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (w+Dvf)

535 519 Santorum's just kinda sour in general
Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (60GaT)
---

For the record, I'm very SoCon, but I can't stand Santorum.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (Y5I9o)

536 Amen. We need to stop being the party that doesn't suck quite as bad as the other one and really differentiate ourselves. For some reason, we think we can win if we are just a tiny bit more leftist. What we REALLY need to be about is freedom and not just blab about it. Freedom for all. Individual rights over 'group' rights. We need to act like we say we believe. That our rights preceded the constitution. And the governments only role is to protect us and our rights. That we don't care what people do if it doesn't violate our own human rights. Who has what kind of sex with who definitely belongs in that category. Many of us believe way more in liberty than so called 'liberals'. That should be our key message and expose democrats for the controlling elite statists they've become.

Posted by: BigRed1 at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (azHH1)

537 I agree. If we can't get along, let's get it on.

Posted by: notaveryfunnyname at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (9mpfK)

538 Going around and screaming your beliefs from the rooftop isn't going to make any friends.

-----------


I believe the screaming from the rooftops is on the other side of the fence.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (P6QsQ)

539 522
Holy crap, this thread is approaching ONT levels and it's only mid-afternoon!


Posted by: EC at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)


Lot of venting going on, and I am about to open my second bottle of wine.
Guess the thread mill will have to wait till tomorrow.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (wR+pz)

540 Diogenes you are right: Only a fool continues to play a game which is obviously rigged against him.


Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (zpqa2)

Agreed. It's time to break the rules which have been protecting them from us all these years.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (bb5+k)

541 Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:01 PM (wR+pz)

And it took 18 years to happen. I don't have that much time left.

Also, Ace, you haven't been paying attention; they DO demand endorsement.

When they want required courses on the equivalency of Gay vs hetero life style, when they want to make it illegal to say being gay is not a good thing, when they want to make it illegal to BELIEVE that being gay is a bad thing, then yes they want and ENDORSEMENT.

They particularly want the Church to be forced to be punished for it's belief in the negative aspects of gayness.

They want to suppress free speech of others that they feel are "oppressing" them with their OPINION.

That's a demand for legitimacy that is equal to an endorsement.

That position is the one that gets me stirred up. That and the slippery slope argument.

If (insert previously held deviant behavior here) is made legal or lawful and no one can hold a negative opinion, then where is the line drawn? Pederasty? Bestiality? Polygamy? Polyandry? Multi national fuck fests on Discovery Channel?

Why stop there? I'm sure that arguments could be made for other supposed Religious based laws and that they do untold harm to the poor people who violate those laws. Why not let them be a protected group?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (qyv02)

542 I am a party of one.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (QupBk)

543 512
I've resigned myself to being a registered Libertarian. I stood with the
GOP for long enough to realize they do not represent me.


Ditto.

Posted by: booger at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (HI6wa)

544 So, you've been less than honest until this moment?
And we should all re-trust you since "at 02:26 PM .

I might consider starting to trust after I experience some free-flowing Goldstein linkage around here.

Since it seems your "old" not really honest-ness had a lot to with the de-linking-ness.

Posted by: S at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (FaiRm)

545 513 I think it's important for socons to act a little smarter in their arguments. I'm not saying that they should be kicked out or made kings, but you have to play the long game. Going around and screaming your beliefs from the rooftop isn't going to make any friends. That's Santorum's big problem, he thinks he's in an echo chamber, he isn't.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (NzBQO)
---

This. Same with Akin, Mourdock, and sooooo many others.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (Y5I9o)

546 Wow, you guys have a talent for endlessly missing the point.

As far as the GOP should be concerned, the question of gay marriage isn't whether the GOP should embrace gay marriage or not. It's a matter of presentation.

We're not losing voters because of opposition to gay marriage, we're losing voters because of HOW we're opposing gay marriage.

Ranting about the Gay Agenda and Homosexual Lobby indoctrinating our kids, pushing for a Constitutional Amendment that has zero chance of passing- stupid, stupid, stupid.

Know how to oppose gay marriage without sounding like a homophobic bigot that younger voters recoil from? Stop talking like a homophobic bigot.

Portray it as a state issue. Dodge with the old "I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but don't believe the federal government should interfere". Just drop the fire and brimstone bullshit.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (SY2Kh)

547 :::I'm just reprinting this and putting it in bold because it's the smartest thing anyone has written in this thread.
Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:31 PM (bcLhD):::

Youmay understand politics. At least you say you do. But to me, it seems you understand very little about people beyond your immediate circle.

When you understand both, you may actually make some money at getting people elected. So far, I see a lot of bad advice based on what your ideal of the party would look like, and it is a recipe for political irrelevance.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (CJjw5)

548 Quit fucking ranting at me about how evil forcing
gayness on you is and tell me some palatable way to fix it through a
political process. I won't hold my breath.



Unless there is a plausible way to counter that movement I don't give shit about your rants.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (b2D8X)


Same problem as always. We have to take over, or at least match, the Liberal Media Weapon.

It *IS* a weapon, and until we get one of our own, we cannot win on any issue.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (bb5+k)

549 510 Radish,

Yeah it's funny stuff...I grasp Ace is trying to find a 3d way, and maybe I'm touchy on it given my expenditure of early political capital on civil unions.

If the Gays are just wanting "acceptance" based on the framework and rage they're using maybe I need to rethink my ethics and declare myself an entitled class.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (LRFds)

550 Guess the thread mill will have to wait till tomorrow.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (wR+pz)

No the THREAD MILL is what you're on NOW. The tread mill is what you NEED tomorrow.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (qyv02)

551 NEW ONE

Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:35 PM (8sCoq)

552 I would also argue that a bigger war will be hispanics vs. greens. You can see it brewing out here in California.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 20, 2013 03:35 PM (NzBQO)

553
I still believe, naively as it may be, that we
shouldn't push social issue because they should be off fucking limits to
the federal government. Push that message. Push fiscal restraint.



Get asked about horse fucking or whatever, and say its none of our damned business next question.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (2PWuT)


If they weren't a Federal issue, abortion would still be illegal in most states. Possibly all.






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (bb5+k)

554 >>>F*king RINOs are dooming us. I hear get rid of the F*king socons. Romney didn't make either side happy. We all compromised. Stop acting like you are the only one doing so, or are willing to do so.

Well, let's not unduly personalize this -- I am talking about the party as a whole, yes. And it is undeniable that the "Do Not Compromise" position is now in play in the intraparty scrum.

Which liberates ME, too, from the need to compromise.

If you don't get this point you're being thickheaded. Yes, you did compromise. But do you deny that there is a current zeal for Taking Back Our Party and other euphemisms for "Let's Win It All"?

Well, I'm just saying, I too have some bones to pick. If we're no longer, as a group, compromising with each other, I'd be a fool to compromise too.


Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (LCRYB)

555 I'd make a small wager that by 2016 pantsuits will be the hot new fashion trend. The important people will decide so Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 20, 2013 03:03 PM (SO2Q

Oh yeah, all the beautiful people will be wearing them. Put beautiful people in gunny sacks and they are still beautiful and desirable. The trick will be to make 60 pounds of doorknobs in a 20 pound sack pantsuits look ravishing. It can't be done, especially when topped off by greasy grey/blonde hair and a face that looks like it was made out of used and dirty PlayDoh run over by a truck and touched up with a jackhammer.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (kXoT0)

556 Grow up already. When the government doesn't officially endorse your
religious doctrine sexual preferences, that is not the same as "denying your faith love of getting it on with dudes".


Huh. How about that one, folks!

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (/kI1Q)

557 whoever said "Serious You Guys" with those capital letters made me laugh. I'm going to use.

Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (LCRYB)

558 The establishment pols have decided that since THEY cannot win then the PARTY cannot win.
And you, being a good apparatchik, acquiesce.
Noted. But no real surprise.

Posted by: ThomasD at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (UK5R1)

559 SURPRISE!

I am Ghey!

I know you are simply shocked. Another Joo in the entertainment field taking it up the butt? Who would have thought that?

Posted by: Clive Davis at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM (wR+pz)

560 The GOP seems hell bent on quitting their job and spending their days watching tv and drinking themselves to death

So be it then. Politics like nature abhors a vacuum and if the GOP ceased to exist, the MSM themselves would resurrect it because every "good guy" needs a villain, and most citizens of a society need a scapegoat.

The GOP might be like Israel in that if it didn't exist, the Dems would tear themselves apart or their subjects would turn on them, which is why most Arab regimes want Israel around forever in their own minds

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (mCvL4)

561 Ladies, do you wish your man was better equipped?
Hey fellas, do you wish your woman was as snug as the day you met her?

Well here's the solution to all of your troubles! Introducing, the Fabulous Pocket Squid!

It's debeaked for his pleasure!
It's fluted for her pleasure!

It's the Fabulous Pocket Squid!

Posted by: The Fabulous Pocket Squid at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (UzPAd)

562 Most of this is an attempt to destroy Christianity as was done in Europe.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (ZPrif)

563 The new thread is about French-bashing, you guys. It's a non-holiday miracle!

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (B/VB5)

564 I still believe, naively as it may be, that we
shouldn't push social issue because they should be off fucking limits to
the federal government. Push that message. Push fiscal restraint.



Get asked about horse fucking or whatever, and say its none of our damned business next question.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:15 PM (2PWuT)

When the media turn their guns on the FiCons, they will be destroyed just like the SoCons. You really need to understand what is happening.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (bb5+k)

565 Youmay understand politics. At least you say you do.
But to me, it seems you understand very little about people beyond your
immediate circle.



When you understand both, you may actually make some money at
getting people elected. So far, I see a lot of bad advice based on what
your ideal of the party would look like, and it is a recipe for
political irrelevance.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff


I'm reposting this because it is the smartest, and sexiest, thing anyone has written in this thread so far.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (w+Dvf)

566 502
How about manning up? How about realizing that the gay rights movement is just another cog in the wheel of Progressivism like feminism and the environmental movement? They're all smoke screens being used to destroy civil society from within.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at February 20, 2013 03:28 PM (4zKCA)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great. Point conceded. I don't disagree with you at all. And yet... What is the point, exactly ?

You do realize that at a minimum 90% of the public not only doesn't care about what you just posted, but a sizable portion of them will laugh at you for being a nutjob for saying it.

And so #1, there is no mainstream political solution or political will to be expended on correcting the fact that the gay rights movement is just part of the liberal agenda to undercut civil society and end capitalism.

Proceeding forward from there, accepting it as FACT does nobody any good at all.

Honestly. That kind of intellectual purity is of limited , if any value. I'm sorry to point that out, but its simply a fact.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (b2D8X)

567 You don't win at chess without considering beyond your current move, no matter how boldly you make it.

I'm just reprinting this and putting it in bold because it's the smartest thing anyone has written in this thread.




The Republicans had there time of pretty much carte blanche from the base from 2000-09. If they hadn't of channeled the ever loving fuck out of fail they would still have it.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (0q2P7)

568 Social issues hurt us terribly with the young, no information voters that will one day be our future. Unfortunately, so does merely being a Republican at times.
It's high time to realize that it is not our place as a party to advocate for the family or for who can get married. That is for religion to do. Liberals insist that government must provide healthcare to everyone; we say the only role gov should play is to reduce the regulations and tax penalties. Turnabout is fair play

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (m/bYW)

569 Why we should give a shit about pacifying the gays I can't imagine. They are going left to he bitter end. I will raise my hand and say I am one of those evil bastards who finds them distasteful cuz every one I've meet is either a leftist douche or a pretentious flaming whacko. I would not miss them if they packed up and moved to Canada or whatever. I've never seen an anti-sodomy law that didn't make me smile a little, just cuz I know it irks them. In any case, while it is tactically unwise to target them, it's a waste to try to win them. They are a tiny minority with a nearly monolithic subculture of leftism. The same can be said for most other types we scold.


The drug war is lost, so we should give up on that noise and accept that giving folks a right to self medicate is a great idea. Let the Left thin itself out. Or, maybe little or nothing happens, in which case we are at least a bit freer and the wasted resources spent on drug warring can be reallocated elsewhere. We can still bad mouth and judge the druggies, but at the same time sit back and let them self destruct. I call that a win.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (tfsYj)

570 No the THREAD MILL is what you're on NOW. The tread mill is what you NEED tomorrow.


Facts? Fuck em.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (wR+pz)

571 Youmay understand politics. At least you say you do.
But to me, it seems you understand very little about people beyond your
immediate circle.



When you understand both, you may actually make some money at
getting people elected. So far, I see a lot of bad advice based on what
your ideal of the party would look like, and it is a recipe for
political irrelevance.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (CJjw5)


That was a well thought out, intelligent, cogent comment. Who the fuck are you and where's Jeff?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (da5Wo)

572 Watchingthe Dorner incident living in California just showed me how little it would take for a few comitted people to really stir some shit and how it could get out of hand quickly.

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (nTgAI)

573 ""I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but don't believe the federal government should interfere"

i get you as a matter of rhetoric, but this is an untenable position

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (60GaT)

574 A little mood music for the thread:

http://tinyurl.com/a2fdvkw


Posted by: kathysaysso at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (6H6o8)

575 489"Oh Good Lord. Too fucking bad. Nobody is telling you to "deny your faith". You can hate homosexuality with all the passion in the world"

Okay, right there you're absolfuckinglutely showing your ignorance and bias.

I am forced to deny my faith because being forced to provide services and goods to people performing an anathema (gay marriage) can be grounds for some gay couple to take my store, take my business, all because they DEMAND my endorsement. I can't say "This is painful to you and will cause you harm." That is "gay bashing". I MUST be FORCED to cooperate with an activity that is in itself an attack on my faith, my church, my Saviour.

Your stance would force me to continue to choose - do I have a business, or am I a Christian? There shouldn't be a conflict, but people like you who have zero understanding of Christian thought and ethics will force me to shut down. People who do not see how forcing me to cooperate, to equate, and to publicly state the equivalence of real marriage to fake gay marriage are in every point forcing me to lie about my faith and deny my faith.

But that's okay. Bigots like you, shithead, never think they're in the wrong. Ask any KKK member- they'll always say, "Oh them darkies and us get 'long jus fine"
And I'm sure you have a lot more in common with people like that. Just replace "african americans" with "christians" (the jews are in common for both of y'all) and you guys are like two bigots in a pod. Peas. I mean Peas.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (UzocF)

576 HeatherRadish is the smartest ex-Wisconsinite-currently-living-in-Indiana I know.

see comment 556

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (P6QsQ)

577 "As far as the GOP should be concerned, the question of gay marriage isn't whether the GOP should embrace gay marriage or not. It's a matter of presentation."
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (SY2Kh)

As much as I believe Hollowpoint hasn't been right about anything in this century, amazingly, somehow, out of the fucking blue, he hits this on the head.

These issues that have Ace's panties in a wad are simply a product of how the media have crafted the narrative to make the GOP/Tea Party/conservatives/right wing as mean, bigoted, murdering, raping bastards who shouldn't be voted for.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (ZDsRL)

578 It's time to break the rules which have been protecting them from us all these years.

***

One rule I would like to see broken concerns comity and decorum in Congress. We just had the president string together a pack of lies and call it a State of the Union Speech. (Reminded me of Genesis 11 except it was the Hour of Babble.) The Republican sit there mildly in essence acquiescing to Obama's lies, almost becoming accessories to his lies. I would have liked to have seen and heard a chant of 'Liar! Liar!" every time he told a whopper.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (Hx5uv)

579 :::That was a well thought out, intelligent, cogent comment. Who the fuck are you and where's Jeff?:::

You ever pull your sack over your junkpile? I call it "The Blister."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (CJjw5)

580 I guess I'm a small "L" libertarian, really. Fuck the socons. I think pandering to them drives away more voters than they're worth.
Posted by: DRayRaven at February 20, 2013 02:43 PM (H8fz7)

I happen to think this 'socon/ficon' business is largely a false construct, but here's the big question: Would you classify a slavery-era Republican opposed to slavery as a social conservative?My point is that there must be a moral foundation to any political movement. You're unlikely to find a others willing to fight and die so youcan keep your stuff. You will, however, find those willing to go the limit fora higher causelike, say, oh I don't know, freedom.

To Ace's point: we haven't lost yet. The Marxist socialist weasels currently running the Democratic Party and the federal government are bound to overreach. They can't help themselves. It's in their nature. Giving up at this point seems premature, at least to me. And you folks in the Let It Burn crowd? Who's to say you won't burn up with it? But hey, if you get through it intact, you can always tell your grandchildren, as you gather shivering around the cooking fire in the ruins of the wasteland, that you saw what was coming and did absolutely nothing to prevent it.

Posted by: troyriser at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (vtiE6)

581 Youmay understand politics. At least you say you do. But to me, it seems you understand very little about people beyond your immediate circle.

I'd like to see Jeff B. explain Operation Orca in light of his constant praise of Romney's executive abilities. Until he does that is name is mud, as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (EI3K0)

582 546 Hollowpoint,

um you're making the assumption we control our messaging....


even "Faux" news was trying to push "HateChicken' FFSakes...
yes it was Shempf but still


Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (LRFds)

583 Late to the party, but....

If we're resigned to lose the next few elections, me might as well spend the next 8-16 years brutally fighting the mainstream media. LiV's exist because of the MFM. Without a corrupt media, Rubio isn't best known for chugging water. Romney's 47% comment doesn't get 10 hours of airplay a day. Binders full of women doesn't become the take-home point of an debate on jobs. Bob Menendez dominates the headlines before the election. Maybe without a corrupt media, the Fat Man feels a little less incline to have a bromance with teh won. And Benghazi? There would already be indictments. The media needs to be destroyed. Fox, Rush, and the blogosphere are not enough to act as a counterweight to the MFM.

Posted by: Dante at February 20, 2013 03:40 PM (NWLVJ)

584
****wanders in****
you know, this might not be the best time for the blog's resident democrat to post
have fun

Posted by: navycopjoe at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (660FR)

585 Until recently, every ballot for gay marriage was defeated handily. At that time these same people were saying it was a losing political issue.

They were going to say it whether it was true or not. Same holds true today.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (m2CN7)

586 Social issues hurt us terribly with the young, no information voters that will one day be our future.

I respectfully suggest we're better served by better teaching why our values are better, than by surrendering them.

Posted by: Brother Cavil and his Ampersandsaurus at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (GBXon)

587 But where is this coming from?

Who, as voters, did we lose in 2012?

We lost the newly minted, bussed to the pollign place by DNC operatives, vote and the black vote.

Otherwise, we had a pretty good election season of endorsements and debate performances.

Plus, Obama didn't run on his record, you know? He abandanoned the gays in october 2012 not pushing ghye marriage during the election.

He fucking ran on taxing the rich (who weren't paying taxes) and 100K new teachers.

And, some think he won because Chris Christie performed the gay sex on obama in public after hurricane sandy (instaed of telling him to get lost, we don't need presidential photo ops here)

Again, what are we self immolating for?

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (QxSug)

588 541Also, Ace, you haven't been paying attention; they DO demand endorsement.
When they want required courses on the equivalency of Gay vs hetero life style, when they want to make it illegal to say being gay is not a good thing, when they want to make it illegal to BELIEVE that being gay is a bad thing, then yes they want and ENDORSEMENT.
They particularly want the Church to be forced to be punished for it's belief in the negative aspects of gayness.
They want to suppress free speech of others that they feel are "oppressing" them with their OPINION.
That's a demand for legitimacy that is equal to an endorsement.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (qyv02)


Consider how many tv shows have gratuitous scenes with characters are shown obviously to be gay and there is either an overt approval of it or an overt shaming of someone who disapproves.

Doctor Who and the BBC have been doing this for several seasons now.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (Y5I9o)

589 I think one day the GOP will find it has a "libertarian problem."

I hope so, anyway. The RINO's will be out like vampires, showing their true colors. That magazine can rerun those altered pics of McCain with blood dripping from his mouth. Yippee!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (zpqa2)

590 Hoo boy, this thread has anger and semen all over it.

Posted by: joncelli at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (RD7QR)

591
So, if you think through your argument- how can
people like that have an existential threat on society? By definition,
their lifestyle is self-defeating and their influence on traditional
families is almost nil.


Posted by: Marcus at February 20, 2013 03:16 PM (GGCsk)

I think your scope of view is too short. I could go into detail, but I figure the thread will end before I can get very far.

Know this. The largest repository of sexually transmitted diseases is the "gay" community.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (bb5+k)

592 I think people in the party have resigned themselves to being a minority party for 8-16 years

8-16 years? Imagine a bad economy in 2016. Now replace St. Obama at the top with Generic White Democrat. Do we lose again? I don't think so.

Karl Rove is milking his Bush years until the last drop. Players will emerge by 2016 that we've never heard of. Just like Rove in 2000 and Axlerod in 2008.

Posted by: CJ at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (9KqcB)

593 You ever pull your sack over your junkpile? I call it "The Blister."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (CJjw5)



There we go.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (da5Wo)

594 S541

"And it took 18 years to happen. I don't have that much time left."


18 years? WTF are you talking about?

Nixon won in 68, FOUR years after Goldwater's defeat.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (wR+pz)

595 Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (P6QsQ)

Thank you. Nice to see you here, btw. Everything well up there?


And if anyone sees AllenG, tell him his Twitter got hacked.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (/kI1Q)

596 I add: "overt approval, etc." that adds absolutely nothing to the plot or the characters.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (Y5I9o)

597 :::That was a well thought out, intelligent, cogent comment. Who the fuck are you and where's Jeff?::: You ever pull your sack over your junkpile? I call it "The Blister."
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (CJjw5)

use a flaslight to create the sack o lantern

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (nTgAI)

598 whoever said "Serious You Guys" with those capital letters made me laugh. I'm going to use.

Free of charge. I was just trying to express the earnestness some of those guys have.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2013 03:42 PM (B/VB5)

599 I agree with MWR, ace.

Too big a brush by many orders of magnitude...

Posted by: KG at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (p7BzH)

600 Now replace St. Obama at the top with Generic White Democrat.

Hi.

Posted by: Cory Booker at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (/kI1Q)

601 Start worrying about Corey Booker.



He's our next president.

Posted by: Truman North at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (I2LwF)
------------------------------------------------------
Corey Booker has a deep affinity for the Jews. If he doesn't he certainly fakes it well. There are things about this guy that I like.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (jucos)

602 Nice straw man caricature of Christianity; maybe next time add something about how we all want to kill jews and feast upon their entrails. you know, for greater vividness and accuracy.

Apart from that, have you been to a public school or university lately? Are you aware of the amount of preemptive censorship that occurs under the name of "diversity"? Do you know what kinds of statements of mere personal beliefs (as opposed to arguments or overt activism/proselytization) might get you censured for "hate crimes"?
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (Y5I9o)

How the hell am I portraying a "caricature" of Christianity ? I'm not the one claiming that if you aren't demanding your government enforce your moral code that is equivalent to "denying your faith".

What I'm saying is the exact opposite. I know for a fact that the bible DOES NOT require you to push for government enforcement of Christianity.

And AGAIN, acknowledging the fact that liberal indoctrination under the guise of "diversity" is evil and destroying civilization accomplishes NOTHING.

I am perfectly aware of their playbook and the fact that through this playbook they are kicking our ass and leading by two touchdowns with 2 minutes to go.

The only way that is relevant is in how you develop YOUR playbook in a way that can get first downs and possibly score.

In that analogy, I ask for the one millionth time, what do you propose we do about it ? Because nominating a politician who is simply willing to publicly acknowledge that diversity is nothing but code for undermining society in hopes of establishing all out socialism not only doesn't WIN votes, it actively LOSES them.

I honestly do not understand what part of that people don't get. You aren't going to educate 200 million people on this point. Its not going to happen. That is a political reality in the year 2013. And so its time to stop pretending that is a possibility. Its not.

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (aT8Zk)

603 For better or worse, the socons and fiscons are going to have to learn to get along. The party needs both to get a big enough coalition. Now, I'm willing to put socon issues on the back burner in order to push a more ficon message. I think they go hand and hand frankly.

I agree with an earlier poster, that all of this can be solved by going back to the Constitutional limits of the federal government. I just don't see how that moves voters?





Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (gmeXX)

604 >I'm sick of it. I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of making excuses for it. I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we're going to have a war of all against all, let's have it, honestly.




What are the likelihoods that the non fundies win this battle?

Posted by: palooka at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (QxnUA)

605 It would be interesting to hear from a gay conservative on this...

----------

What am I, chopped liver?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (QXlbZ)

606 If you don't get this point you're being
thickheaded. Yes, you did compromise. But do you deny that there is a
current zeal for Taking Back Our Party and other euphemisms for "Let's
Win It All"?



Posted by: ace at February 20, 2013 03:36 PM

Sorry ace, but I won't fight to save or support a party that won't at least fight for themselves. Do you know anyone who says "I'm a proud Republican" at work or out on the town? Do you? I don't. The brand is probably damaged beyond repair due to the "ick" factor driven into peoples heads by the MSM and self destructive behavior by the Republicans themselves.

No matter how many times people say "there IS a difference between the two parties", I have a hunch that the differences are mainly for show. It's like professional wrestling where there's trash talking and acrobatics to make it look like a fight, enough to fool the rubes watching on tv. Like the wrestlers, the politicians go out and party together after the show.

I've reached the Let It Burn point with the GOP too

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (mCvL4)

607 Instead of binders of women, romney joked that isn't it just like obama to try to help the economy by making it easier for people to sue companies, therefore making them go out of business. What about the illegal preferences for minority owned and women owned businesses for govt contracting, that puts white men at a competeitive disadvantage?

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:44 PM (QxSug)

608 >>>4) Why is it that while the Marxists are bright enough to realize that
in order to raise the state to ultimate power they have to break down
societal mores, so many libertarians are unable to grasp that in order
to be free of government control, the mass of people have to control
themselves in a mutually satisfactry manner, which means in practice a
shared sense of morality?

Well said. The reason is the don't think beyond what they want. "Whatever "I" want should be legal" runs on a loop in Libertarian brains.

Posted by: typo dynamofo at February 20, 2013 03:44 PM (WVMUQ)

609 Nice to see you here, btw. Everything well up there?

-----------


Nice to see you too Heather. Pre-Season starts Saturday, and I'm gonna be a grandma again, so life is good.


Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:44 PM (P6QsQ)

610 "Again, what are we self immolating for?"

people always get embarrassed by these issues post-election loss. it's a GOP tradition

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (60GaT)

611 Give us 25-30 years. There won't be any more Democrats by then because they refuse to marry and reproduce. Those 50 million abortions were all future Democratic voters that will never vote. There will be more Duggars than Democrats in Arkansas. And the Mitch McConnells and John Boehners will all be dead or put out to pasture.

I refuse to believe a party that controls 2/3 of the states and the House of Representatives is dead or even irrelevant. We surived Watergate and Jimmy Carter, we sure as hell can survuive Barack Fucking Obama.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (qE3AR)

612 See you can have a 'moral base' to your message and not push a 'moral message'. Push responsibility. We need people who can do the remedial education to the idiot masses about economics and liberty and federalism.

Keep your social 'laws' on the state side, and people can see what works. The exact same thing we talk about for fiscal matters. On the national stage economics and security are what matters, leave the other stuff up to the states, and allow some to fail so that people will be constantly reminded that, hey, there is right and wrong.

I know its all pipe dream because the idiots are super idiots and the media gives them bj's every day.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (2PWuT)

613 580 Troyriser,

yeah well Chris 98% Cuomo Christie says that we will not take a single step away from worker's paradise....

which is worse than letting the fuckers wreck the ship

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (LRFds)

614 I'd like to see Jeff B. explain Operation Orca in light of his constant praise of Romney's executive abilities. Until he does that is name is mud, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: Grey Fox at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (EI3K0)

What's your point? Is it your contention that Romney doesn't have superior executive abilities? His entire executive career success was just a sham or pure luck? This is why we lose, becuase of this type of bullshit.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (m2CN7)

615 I am a party of one.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at February 20, 2013 03:33 PM (QupBk)

heh, I'll party with you brother if our platform only includes 3 things:1. No Gun Control for anybody that is not in prison.2. Flat tax across the board for everybody.3. Govt spending at the most can be 98% of the previous year revenue.I want nothing else.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (p/cQy)

616 -----

Nice straw man. The point is that in this day and age, and with the
media the way it is, the force of governmental acceptance is a de facto
strong endorsement. I wish it weren't, but we have low-info voters all
over the place who do not make the kinds of fine (and I think correct)
intellectual distinctions that libertarianism makes. As a result, you
get a shift in culture over time. The overton window moves. That's a
very big deal when we're talking about issues like this, where people
are accused of spreading "hate" on the basis of their beliefs about
sexual morality.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:17 PM (Y5I9o)

Exactly right. Beliefs which were standard in the 1960s, are now considered extreme.

The beliefs didn't move, the population did, and as a result of constant media pressure.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (bb5+k)

617 The Fabulous Pocket Squid at February 20, 2013 03:37 PM (UzPAd)

Gotta love serendipity.

Look at the nic, then look at the hash.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (qyv02)

618 OK, no one is going for the Prozac.


Anyone want a hit on the bong? JonesinCO?

Fire that sucker up, we need to mellow out the horde.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:45 PM (wR+pz)

619 @611 rock mom -

I fear you're mistaken. There will be no 'democrat' intelligentsia, they are not breeding. But the idiot masses of democrat free shit voters are breeding.

Posted by: Kerncon at February 20, 2013 03:46 PM (2PWuT)

620 Current politics benefit a rump party. Still get paid on the public dime, still get all the PR you want, still get to make friends in big business, still get to be a 7 figure employee of that big business when you leave office.

Posted by: palooka at February 20, 2013 03:46 PM (QxnUA)

621 And, Ace, temper yourself with the fact that we can't out-gay or out-liberal the democrats. There are no rules, they will gay smear when convenient and so on.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:46 PM (QxSug)

622 605 Gregory of Yardale,

GoY you notice any of your peers going into FABULOUS mode?

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:46 PM (LRFds)

623 >>>I would still like to know how old JeffB is. He does not strike me as
someone very experienced with encountering people who do not live, work
and play as he does.


This couldn't be more wrong, by the way. I grew up in the DC suburbs (where I live), but my parents were from the midwest and rural (conservative) New York state respectively, and I spent months living there every year growing up. Furthermore, I was always at odds with everyone else I knew growing up, in terms of my political and intellectual approach: literally, I did not know a single other non-left-wing person until I went to college. And yet I still held the line on my beliefs, and got a considerable amount of flak for it. I didn't give a shit -- I was right, both then and now.

Also, it sharpened me up in a major way: people who are surrounded by people who think exactly the same way become intellectually flabby. People who have to fight for the respect of their political opinions on practically a daily basis not only know how to defend them, they also know what will and will not "sell" to potentially convinceable people.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:47 PM (bcLhD)

624 >>>Yes, you did compromise. But do you deny that there is a

current zeal for Taking Back Our Party and other euphemisms for "Let's

Win It All"?


You mean Carl Rove?

Posted by: typo dynamofo at February 20, 2013 03:47 PM (WVMUQ)

625
These issues that have Ace's panties in a wad are simply a product of how the media have crafted the narrative to make the GOP/Tea Party/conservatives/right wing as mean, bigoted, murdering, raping bastards who shouldn't be voted for.

Posted by: jwest




And the hothouse orchid dilemma. If you live in a liberal state, in a liberal city and almost everyone you interact with daily FTF is a liberal, then almost inevitably your own expressions and beliefs begin to conform to their's.

That is was society does and in fact is much of its purpose.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 03:47 PM (kdS6q)

626 Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (aT8Zk)

You see black Christian helicopters where none exist.

Posted by: polynikes at February 20, 2013 03:47 PM (m2CN7)

627 616

is everything media to you. seems like a paranoiac, arrogant worldview. of course the media has an impact but independent thought does not cease because of this, people come to their own conclusions.

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (60GaT)

628
I hate to be a broken record, but... Neato for you. And you would fix it by.................. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:18 PM (b2D8X)


Too late to fix. Has to collapse now. From the ashes it will begin again.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (bb5+k)

629 If I'm going to roll over, can someone at least rub my tummy?

Posted by: Dang at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (R18D0)

630 Ace is right. Up here on the tundra we have a conservative gov't because we no longer wig-out over gay folks. Go figger.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (3Aixx)

631 Social voters who don't vote because the GOP doesn't advocate executing abortionists are selfish. By taking votes away from candidates (who for all their other faults) have solid positions on national security and fiscal sanity they only enable liberals who pass more pro choice laws and policies dangerous to our national security. If you truly believe that gay marriage, oral sex , anal sex are so awful simply do not partake in it. It's not hard. Its annoying hearing some of my "redneck" Marine friends talk about how immoral gay marriage is and then talk about plowing some chick in the ass...after coming back from church services

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (m/bYW)

632 Speaking of idiocy, unproven conspiracy theories and people who indict an entire religion based on one person...YEAH!JUST ONE. Only one kiddie diddler in the Catholic Church. What are they doing, some sort of timed release, like a diet pill? The collapse cannot happen soon enough.

Posted by: Liza Minelli, woman beater at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (qM5uD)

633 That's not h8. It's not ZOMG!! Social Con!!!

****

No, it's not.

Posted by: Cory Booker: The Great Black Hope at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (piMMO)

634 That was a well thought out, intelligent, cogent comment.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM

.... Overruled!

Posted by: Judge in My Cousin Vinny at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (mCvL4)

635 sorry Sir Ewok, but i am not celebrating the sucking of cock or hairy man ass.

now, equine ass, well, that's a whole 'nother thing.

*longingly eyes shadowfax*

Posted by: Gandalf at February 20, 2013 03:49 PM (OqeDl)

636 All right. I got all my anger out. Now I can be sweet and nice to everyone.

Even the cocksuckers.

(I am now making a joke. It is customary to forego offense and instead, have a slightly horrified giggle.)


That's me. Source of horrified giggles.

Have a good day, even you, Ace. I truly hope your evening is bright and filled with promise.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 20, 2013 03:49 PM (UzocF)

637 592 CJ,

I knew who Axelturf was in '96 and Rove in '88.....

the problem ain't our idiots in charge of campaigns the problem is the US media...

and were I an evil man I'd point out they are ripe for a fatwa....

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:50 PM (LRFds)

638 >>>But do you deny that there is a current zeal for Taking Back Our Party and other euphemisms for "Let's Win It All"?



>>>Well, I'm just saying, I too have some bones to pick. If we're no
longer, as a group, compromising with each other, I'd be a fool to
compromise too.


I have heard that a bunch. But to the extent that it has been leveled upon you, (I know how much it has been leveled upon me) I cannot know. What I think is re-electing Boehner was a political expediency that made a lot of people feel as if the GOP isn't serious about doing *anything* let alone what *I* want. When that sort of thing happens you get a lot of "break up" sentiment. Even Beck floated the idea of a libertarian based party where both he and someone like Penn Jillete could get along to replace the GOP. If the GOP could fight for *something* then I think alot of the rampant dissatisfaction that has plagued us from our feelings of impotence would subside and we could become a functional coalition again.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:50 PM (0q2P7)

639 The good things in life, cold Chinese noddles, shrimp and wine.


Let the fight continue.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 03:50 PM (wR+pz)

640 I have nothing against gay people. They sense my power and they seek my essence. I don't avoid gays, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:50 PM (ZDsRL)

641 So your argument boils down to "tu quoque". Great.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:20 PM (Y5I9o)


Excellent rebuttal.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:51 PM (bb5+k)

642 I keep thinking the media will turn on Barky... I keep being wrong

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 20, 2013 03:51 PM (nTgAI)

643 remember. ace's panties are in a bunch because we were portrayed as a bunch of intolerant hill billies so as to win over the already won over lena-dunham crowd.

BUT the GOP won almost all the white voters out there.

It was demographics. i.e., it was a racial thing because the Donks made everyone FOB into a donk.

I don't know, but maybe voters from the post-1968 immigration law should know how the GOP reflects their values and helps them get $$.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:51 PM (QxSug)

644 The real target of the gay agenda is destroying religion. Not all gay people understand they are being used. Traditional values of every kind are being demolished by the left, the gay rights issue is just one front.

Libertarians will soon be telling us age of consent laws should be abolished and sex with consenting children should be accepted. NAMBLA is always included in the gay pride parade folks. Look up Harry Hay, a hero of the homosexual movement.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 03:51 PM (x0g8a)

645 "I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality."

LOL, and there it is, another fiscal conservative with no actual morals. So Ace, are you gay? Is that why your identity must be kept such a secret? It would explain why you like Perry so much. GOProud baby!

Seriously, how does bad get twisted into good and good into bad? Toss religion out the window. Let's just talk about common sense biology, about the statistical reality of homosexual behavior patterns. Dudes having their balls cut off and dressing up like women, this is normal to you? A woman born into a man's body? Seriously? You're an idiot to think this. And let's entertain for a second that maybe this is possible. Ok, so what? You would advocate for the perpetuation of an evolutionary failure? So much for letting natural selection take its course.

The political issues are over the gays forcing their lifestyle on others. Exhibit 1, the Boy Scouts. Show me an example of Christian organizations waging political warfare against a private gay group. Nobody is beating these people's doors down. But they are relentless in harassing conservatives and trying to force their ways on all of us.

I don't care if two dudes suffering from psychological problems want to suck on each others poop stained dicks. Disgusts me, but couldn't care less. Where I get raging mad is when they try to force their way into my kids scouting organization, or when they try to force their way into my kids schools and read them books about having two mommies and tell them that gay is ok. I have issues with them trying to force their agenda into my local church and get them to change their doctrine to accept their immoral behavior.

Stick it wherever you want, just leave me and my family alone. Conservatives are not attacking gays and never have. Not caving into attacks is not an "attack."

Posted by: Andrew at February 20, 2013 03:51 PM (HS3dy)

646 What's your point? Is it your contention that Romney doesn't have superior executive abilities? His entire executive career success was just a sham or pure luck? This is why we lose, becuase of this type of bullshit.

***

Romney has been invited to speak at CPAC and folks are going nuts on twitter to be the first to mock him.

It pisses me off.

Posted by: Cory Booker: The Great Black Hope at February 20, 2013 03:52 PM (piMMO)

647 Damnit.

Off great black sock

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 03:52 PM (piMMO)

648 What I think you are seeing ace, is how people act when they think there is no hope left but they don't want to give up.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 03:53 PM (0q2P7)

649 "I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still
wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same
sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this,
like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality."



It's not about discouraging homosexuality- It's about the Left's insistence that homosexuality MUST be embraced and advocated at the expense of any and all religious liberties, and observable natural law to the contrary.

But of course Ace, as an Atheist, it's no big whoop to you is it. Well no. No it's not.

Frankly, I'm sick of pretending that weird anti-religious secularists like yourself are somehow an acceptable "fit" for Conservatism- As if the most fundamental premise of all Rights it not based on the self-evident Truth that man does indeed come from a Creator Who endowed him with certain unalienable Rights.

So you see Ace- it is YOU who are weird.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 03:53 PM (z3Lez)

650 Keep rubbing it in our noses o'bearded bagpipists. When the burning begings, how fares your mighty 2%? As well as the pushy, loud, entitled 12% ? I know you've done your best to indoctinate with all this "everybody wins" bull shit, but you know what? Ask any one individual, they're all keeping the score. Interest payments are going to be a real bitch when they finally come in the mail.

Posted by: Liza Minelli, woman beating fagHag at February 20, 2013 03:53 PM (qM5uD)

651 Nixon won in 68, FOUR years after Goldwater's defeat.

Nixon was a Big Government prick who did nothing conservative. He made fiat money permanent and expanded the bureaucracy.

We need to make economic freedom our top priority. Our purity test.

Then triangulate on social issues, which are all just window dressing anyway.

Puuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrge!!!!!

Posted by: Phinn at February 20, 2013 03:53 PM (93RDb)

652 The Declaration says something about 'the pursuit of happiness'


think about it
Posted by: Jones in CO at February 20, 2013 03:27 PM (8sCoq)
-------------------------------------------------------
If'n we wanted to make Teh Gheys happy why the fuck would we force marriage on them?????

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 20, 2013 03:54 PM (jucos)

653 "We're obviously not going to win in this state. The smartest guys in
the party, at least as regards retail politics, are broadcasting this to
me. As they plainly believe it, I must take this seriously."

The smartest guys in the party, at least in regards to retail politics... Are they like the smartest kids in resource class? Who are these mythical smart retail politicians of which you speak? This should give us hope that victory is just around the corner.

Posted by: Smartest Guy in the Room at February 20, 2013 03:54 PM (AeRh+)

654 648 MikeTheAMoose,

MtM there's a difference between mentally preparing yourself for the crash and giving up.

Frankly I am excited at the possibility of a totally empowered to be as batshit retarded as they want to be Blue state nation.....

God willing I won't be living in it but I want to see the magic of mexifornia and N'yawk work....

SHOW ME just don't pull me over the ledge with you you hippie fuckers.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 03:55 PM (LRFds)

655 "Unless there is a plausible way to counter that movement I don't give shit about your rants.
Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:14 PM (b2D8X)"

Republicans like adverbs such as "plausible" because it negates all criticism of the Party.

For example:

Me: We can create a national political consensus that such policy is undesirable, so that the Senate will not confirm judges that endorse it, and the legislatures of the various States, stand ready to ratify an Amendment banning it.
You: I said PLAUSIBLE.

The Republican definitions of "plausible", "reasonable", "achievable" and "realistic" are unAmerican.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 03:55 PM (0Bs6G)

656 I still feel like there are at least a dozen Morons who could do a better job running the Republican party than the hacks who are running it currently.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:55 PM (QXlbZ)

657 I'll bring up math again

SoCons may be "icky" or stubborn but there are still a lot of them.

Does anyone think there are enough Meggie Mac and David Frum types to replace their numbers?

I know ... math is hard

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 03:55 PM (mCvL4)

658
Much like your admitting that you don't give a
shit about my rants, I don't give a shit whether you suck dick or not.
It's really irrelevant. If everyone involved took THAT line, it'd be a
lot better for everyone.




Posted by: © Sponge at February 20, 2013 03:21 PM (xmcEQ)

How do you feel about people torturing animals? Same sort of psychological problem. 40% of gays were molested as children according to one JAMA study I have read.

Yeah, they really are fucked up people. Look at Chas Bono, molested for years by a lesbian babysitter. Go figure that she would turn out "gay."








Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:55 PM (bb5+k)

659 602: How the hell am I portraying a "caricature" of Christianity ? I'm not the one claiming that if you aren't demanding your government enforce your moral code that is equivalent to "denying your faith".
Posted by: deadrody at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (aT8Zk)


uh...that's not what people who have been disagreeing with you in these posts have been claiming. You seem think that people are arguing for some kind of chapter/verse theocracy. The actual issues, however, has to do with how in recent years and due to current cultural/legislative forces, government sanction on hot button issues ends up very quickly becoming coercion to conform to the accepted "right-thinking" belief.

Cf. Many homosexual activists' opposition to "civil unions". No, they want the word "marriage" because they don't just want equal treatment; they want to destroy the linguistic possibility of making a distinction, which in turn becomes a de facto cultural endorsement along with the concomitant criminalization of refusing to use such "inclusive" language.

I would've thought someone as Libertarian-minded as you would be more worried about such Orwellian assaults on language.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (Y5I9o)

660 i get you as a matter of rhetoric, but this is an untenable position.

Why? The Dems have been riding that train with respect to abortion for decades.

Besides, it's only nominally a federal issue. Why should anybody be falling on their sword over something they can't do jack shit about anyways?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (SY2Kh)

661
Ace, are you gay?
Posted by: Andrew




You kidding? We're seen pictures. The way he dresses - defiantly No Mo.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (kdS6q)

662 Clearing sock, that's all this thread is good for.

Posted by: Vic at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (53z96)

663 If the GOP could fight for *something* then I think alot of the rampant dissatisfaction that has plagued us from our feelings of impotence would subside and we could become a functional coalition again.

----

MtM - This is a good comment. Right now its as if we can't win any battle. This is why I think the Hagel battle is so important. For me, defeating him is almost as important for the message it sends than the practicality of not having him at top of defense. I liken it to the Doolittle Raid.

Posted by: SH at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (gmeXX)

664 "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."
- G.K.Chesterton

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 03:58 PM (z3Lez)

665 **Nixon was a Big Government prick who did nothing conservative. He made fiat money permanent and expanded the bureaucracy. **

BUT the point is, we ran Mackerel and we ran Romney, two very ... um ... reasonable guys.

Yet, the media commenced their character assassination campaign against them.

And sure sure, Nixon wasn't a pure conservative, I guess. So what, the left hated him with a passion nonetheless, as if he were John Galt himself.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:58 PM (QxSug)

666 Math will become a reality. Cold, hard numbers. It is already a reality where I live. In the bluest of blue states New York, local politicians have all become fiscal conservatives. They have no other options. I was listening to our county executive last night, an Irish Democrat, he sounded more conservative than John McCain. He is closing the county run nursing home because, "why should the county be spending tax payer dollars on something the private sector could do better." NY state has no money, my county has no money, my town has no money. Eventually the reality of no money will trickle up to the federal level.

Posted by: Long Island at February 20, 2013 03:58 PM (hl8SI)

667 Libertarians will soon be telling us age of consent laws should be
abolished and sex with consenting children should be accepted. NAMBLA is
always included in the gay pride parade folks. Look up Harry Hay, a
hero of the homosexual movement.


That thing I mentioned about not being stupid about how gay marriage should be opposed? Above is Exhibit A of how NOT to talk about gay marriage as a political issue.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:58 PM (SY2Kh)

668

I promise not to give a fuck what you are, if you promise to STOP TELLING ME ABOUT IT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Atheists are the same way....all they want to talk about is God.

And going OT here....there's a Bra Fitting Salon in Alexandria! I wonder if they give tours? I wonder if I could get a job there? "Hi, I'm Sticky, and I'll be fondling your boobs today".

That just rolls off the tongue.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at February 20, 2013 03:59 PM (eyJh9)

669 oh yeah, math!

We ran the Math Wizard as veep.

We are so radical and ghey bashing!

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:59 PM (QxSug)

670 There is a silver lining if we assume Ace is right
on the 8 to 16 years in the wilderness. It would be the perfect time to
start a new party to eventually fill the vacuum.

Now this also
assumes there won't be a collapse in the next 8 to 16 years. 5% interest
on $20 Trillion is $1 Trillion a year. Rather than cut back spending,
the politicos will always choose inflation. Prepare individually, screw
the parties.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 20, 2013 03:24 PM (p/cQy)


Yup.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 03:59 PM (bb5+k)

671 661 Ace, are you gay? Posted by: Andrew Well, there was that one blog, ways back where he was wearing George Takei's star trek boots. My mind was made up right there.

Posted by: Liza Minelli, smiter of limp wrists at February 20, 2013 03:59 PM (qM5uD)

672 656
I still feel like there are at least a dozen Morons who could do a
better job running the Republican party than the hacks who are running
it currently.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 03:55 PM

First thing I'd do is get the home phone number of every fucking consultant and robocall them at all hours until they fell over dead from exhaustion

Whoever thought robocalls were a great idea, especially in Florida with seniors who have to hobble to the phone should have electrodes plugged into their squeakholes that activate every time a robocall is made

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 03:59 PM (mCvL4)

673 "So Ace, are you gay? Is that why your identity must be kept such a secret? It would explain why you like Perry so much. GOProud baby! "

Hey, let's not get personal here. If Ace was gay, that wouldn't make any difference to us, the commenters.

Anyway, I'm certain that any guys we may have fucked or may fuck in the future would be done in a manly, viking way. As a goof, or perhaps to demonstrate our dominance.

Something like that.

Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:59 PM (ZDsRL)

674
But do you deny that there is a current zeal for Taking Back Our Party and other euphemisms for "Let's Win It All"?

Ace




I doth deny. The zeal, the enthusiasm, is for leaving the party and going GDI or building a new City on the Hill.

There is little apparent passion on the Right for controlling the Republican Party as such. It's more like fighting over the property in a messy divorce and we don't want the wife to get the house.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 04:00 PM (kdS6q)

675 Hollowpoint: I'd also discourage use of the phrase "shit-stained dick" as used above.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 04:00 PM (CBCxo)

676 And going OT here....there's a Bra Fitting Salon in Alexandria! I wonder if they give tours? I wonder if I could get a job there? "Hi, I'm Sticky, and I'll be fondling your boobs today

***

Check out Double Divas on Lifetime t.v.

Redneck bra fitters.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 04:00 PM (piMMO)

677 546 Hollowpoint,

um you're making the assumption we control our messaging....


No, I'm doing the opposite. Give your enemy ammo, don't be surprised if they return the bullets at high velocity.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 04:01 PM (SY2Kh)

678 guys guys guys this is all moot Anthony Kennedy will have the last word very soon

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 04:01 PM (60GaT)

679 tire and frog thread up


*thank you*

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2013 04:01 PM (piMMO)

680 There is little apparent passion on the Right for
controlling the Republican Party as such. It's more like fighting over
the property in a messy divorce and we don't want the wife to get the
house.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 04:00 PM (kdS6q)

The GOP trashed the house. They can keep it.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 04:02 PM (zpqa2)

681 385 ---" Why do you think Christian chaplains in the Armed Forces are resigning their commissions? "
Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 03:13 PM (P6QsQ)

I guess it's the same reason Catholic Charities had to close their adoption services in Massachusetts. They weren't willing to bow down to the religious dictates of Caesar.
But that's good because they were Haters anyway and Caesar can do a better job handling adoption. Oh, he may not be as efficient as a private charity, but he is holier.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 20, 2013 04:02 PM (C8mVl)

682 Strife my friend, you are the bizarre one. I'm religious myself and even I can admit it's not secularists messing us up. Until the day comes that government tries to force a church to marry a gay couple, it's not a big deal. I feel that the Catholics got fucked over with Obama care but lets get real, go to the Mass I go to in Tucson (fallen Catholic-I only go for the soulful beauty that is religious mariachi music) and it's more pro amnesty than a Berkely radical. The Church screwed herself with all that "Social Justice" bullshit.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 04:02 PM (m/bYW)

683 "It's not about discouraging homosexuality- It's about the Left's
insistence that homosexuality MUST be embraced and advocated at the
expense of any and all religious liberties, and observable natural law
to the contrary."

===============

I have a friend in California who considers himself a Libertarian (capital L). Now, given that he considers himself fiscally libertarian if not conservative, you would think that would put him at odds with someone like Barack Obama, but he is so obsessed with same-sex marriage that he would not support the Republican ticket in either 2008 or 2012.

I have no idea what can be done about that. THESE are people who are as unwilling to compromise as anyone I've ever seen.

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 04:03 PM (/AHDz)

684 #649 The problem with your POV is that everyone under the age of 30 has come up through schools where there is a Gay-Straight Alliance and an Anti-Bullying Week and they watch 27 different TV shows that depict gays and lesbians as ordinary, cool people. There are "out" gay kids in almost every public high school and university in the country now, and the straight kids don't see a thing wrong with them. They Do. Not. Get. the social-cons' fear and loathing of gays, and because of that they become easily turned away from anything else conservatives have to offer them, including economic freedom.

I have two teenagers that are as fiscally and Constitutionally-conservative as anyone here, and both are pro-life, but they are super-super-super offended by anyone speaking ill of gay people. My son voted for Mitt Romney, but there is no way in Hell he would ever vote for a Rick Santorum.

These views are not going to change. Acceptance of gays has become a threshold issue for tons of younger voters --and franky, for many of their parents now as well-- and if we keep turning them off, we really will be a minority party forever.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 04:03 PM (qE3AR)

685 The comment that SoCons aren't willing to accept a compromise makes me laugh. Someone, I think it was Ramesh Ponnuru, talked about this idea of the immovable SoCons, saying that if you're an abortion opponent, you've already had to accomodate to the law, which allows unfettered abortion. Yes, I know final trimester abortions must be under a doctor's judgement, but the whole idea is that conversation, which to opponents is a life or death sentence on a human life, is conducted in private. Abortion opponents wake up every day in a country where living with the legal regime is an accomodation, and one that goes against their moral and ethical beliefs, because the accomodation means that human lives are ending.

Abortion opponents fight small and large battles every day. There's always talk about a GOP President finding Justices that will reverse Roe v. Wade (and the first Rep.nominee that adopts that as a central effort will be the first in my lifetime), but every day there are people across the country, legislators and activists, trying to find ways to not only restrict access, but to change hearts and minds, including- and I've witnessed this with my own eyes and know it occurs in every state of this country- direct financial and emotional support for women who choose not to abort,both during their pregnancies and after their delivery.

So there you have it. I'm pro-life, and I'm not interested in compromising.

Posted by: KingCranium at February 20, 2013 04:04 PM (lHn6+)

686
640
I have nothing against gay people. They sense my power and they seek my
essence. I don't avoid gays, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.


Me too!



http://tinyurl.com/ychydq5

Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 04:04 PM (wR+pz)

687 @651

I agree, hence my second sentence in the post.


Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at February 20, 2013 04:05 PM (wR+pz)

688
I think it's important for socons to act a little smarter in their
arguments. I'm not saying that they should be kicked out or made kings,
but you have to play the long game. Going around and screaming your
beliefs from the rooftop isn't going to make any friends. That's
Santorum's big problem, he thinks he's in an echo chamber, he isn't.


Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 20, 2013 03:30 PM (NzBQO)

I am a SoCon, and I agree. I really think Akin and Murdock swung the election to the Dems, and at the very least cost us two Senate seats.

I blame the media 90%, but their 10% didn't help.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:06 PM (bb5+k)

689 Again, separate gheys and arbortion different issues with much different gravity.

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 04:06 PM (CBCxo)

690 The GOP should embrace Gay marriage? I see that resulting in business owners, who may have personal religious objections, being forced to provide benefits to the "spouses" of employees.

No big deal for some people I'm sure. But how is it any different than forcing a Catholic business owner to provide contraceptions in health plans against their religious views.

I'm not Catholic, and I think someone who is just wanting to make money would be open to it. BUT there are alot of Christian owned "family" type business who could not abandon their views on homosexuality. Should they be forced to?

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM (1z8rY)

691 >>>No, I'm doing the opposite. Give your enemy ammo, don't be surprised if they return the bullets at high velocity.

They've been building to use social construct of the nuclear family *against* us for 50 years. If they can turn *that* against us, what precept that you hold, name one, that they cannot turn as a weapon against you in time.

Am I "wigged out" by same sex intimiate relationships? Hell no, (unless they happen to be graphically depicted in Game of Thrones, then I'm a little ick not my bag baby. ) I also find their relationship of no special social consequence and of no interest to society in general and so therefore such relationship should go largely unnoticed and unregulated by the state.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM (0q2P7)

692 no but I have my own Code of Purity I've suppressed for a long time. If we're all just fighting to win, I get to fight to win too.
Posted by: ace


I'm an adult not just as part of some kinda deal where I only have to act like an adult as long as everybody else does too. I'm an adult because I'm grown-up. I'm an adult because being a child mentally sucks.
Be an adult.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM (ZMzpb)

693 If both parties decide that social issues are off the table, then what's to keep SoCons from voting Democrat, like blacks, hispanics, and muslims do?

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM (mCvL4)

694 And sure sure, Nixon wasn't a pure conservative, I guess. So what, the left hated him with a passion nonetheless, as if he were John Galt himself.

1. We REALLY need to stop begging for love from the MFM. There's this thing called the Internet now. There are more media outlets than 3 TV channels and Time Magazine.

2. If they're going to shred us anyway, then all the more reason to go Galt. It's Marketing 101 -- stake out a Unique Selling Proposition. Don't be a pale copy of the competition. Differentiate! Create a new niche and occupy it. Quit chasing the leader. Offer the consumer something real and unique and they will come to you.

Posted by: Phinn at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM (LP7M9)

695 >>>> Ridiculous. Is the government "endorsing" gambling by requiring gamblers to account for the gambling income? I see that Ace never purchases lottery tickets when he buys his Val-U-Rite.

Posted by: Rocko at February 20, 2013 04:08 PM (MPIX5)

696 Why I've never registered as a Republican. (Though that doesn't stop them from bombarding me with mail asking for money.)

Posted by: Socratease at February 20, 2013 04:08 PM (3V4IJ)

697 Until the day comes that government tries to force a
church to marry a gay couple, it's not a big deal.
Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 04:02 PM (m/bYW)

Apparently you think that day is far in the future, if ever, yet we've seen the gov't force the religious to pay for abortion. A FORM OF MANDATORY ENDORSEMENT.

And you think that once the Supremes weigh in and approve gay marriage that they next fight won't be about making "anti-gay" remarks a hate crime? And grounds for the revocation of an institutions tax free status?

You need to study some past history. Start around 1913 with Russia and then Germany. Report back on your findings.

Or even more recent; Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, any Islam dominated country. Tell us how much government restrains itself when dealing with the Church (any church).

Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka Ol' 3 tooth) at February 20, 2013 04:08 PM (qyv02)

698 700?

Posted by: BSR at February 20, 2013 04:09 PM (CBCxo)

699
Ace,
Is this your pre-coming out post? Call me <3

Posted by: Reggie Love at February 20, 2013 04:09 PM (qXy1H)

700 677 Hollowpoint,

The trouble is they will destroy any mistake any misstep...

plaintiff's exhibit one Rubio and water

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:10 PM (LRFds)

701 Hey, who cares if a guy likes to suck dick and fuck hairy smelly man-ass?

And who cares if he and several of his well funded political cronies wants to institutionalize their fucked-up sexual dysfunction into public policy as a tool to indoctrinate your kids and to stifle religious liberties?

Who cares?


Who cares? Certainly not us atheistic anti-religious porn-loving reprobates who don't have any children!


So what's the fucking problem here people? *fap fap fap*






Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 04:10 PM (z3Lez)

702
As for the gay stuff, I believe if your going to
grant special rights and privileges for the married those same rights
and privileges have to be extended to gay couples under the Equal
Protection Clause. With respect to gay marriage, I'm against it.
Marriage is a 5 thousand year old heterosexual tradition recognized in
the Bible.If the people who follow that tradition do not want it
extended to gay people, so be it


Posted by: Dr Spank at February 20, 2013 03:32 PM (w+Dvf)

And thus opens the door to polygamy and closes the door on marriage.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:10 PM (bb5+k)

703 Beliefs which were standard in the 1960s, are now considered extreme.

Beliefs that were standard in the 1990s are now considered extreme.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 04:10 PM (/kI1Q)

704 >>>I have no idea what can be done about that. THESE are people who are as unwilling to compromise as anyone I've ever seen.

What amazes me is they fail to see the institution of state sanctioned marriage as a mechanism of state control.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 04:10 PM (0q2P7)

705 Ace, I would caution you against giving away your loyalty to those against gay marriage. If you think it is JUST about gay marriage and they won't move on to another step that you won't like you aren't an observer of the left. Remember when civil unions were good enough? Good Times? When they are teaching kindergarten kids what anal sex is because it is now recognized as part of a loving relationship sanctioned by the state just remember it all began with throwing religious people overboard to please the left.

Posted by: Conan at February 20, 2013 04:11 PM (mkq4I)

706 It's anecdotal, but a lot of socons are pretty close to washing their hands of the GOP, self definitely included.
There's only so much of being blamed for every electoral fuck-up made by the party that one can reasonably be expected to stand.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 20, 2013 04:11 PM (qevSe)

707 I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Homosexual attraction may or may not be genetic (and thus unavoidable). Homosexual conduct is avoidable. Its harmful public health consequences are well-documented. Open homosexual conduct's corrosion of a society founded on the nuclear heterosexual family is also well-documented.

Further, government has a rational basis for encouraging childbirth, as maintaining the population of contributing members of society allows that society to continue (duh). Since it's well-documented that children raised by married monogamous heterosexuals turn out better/healthier/more productive/more peaceable than children raised in other environments, gov't has a rational basis for encouraging monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whateversexuals will put their naughty bits where they want to. Gov't can't stamp that out. But at a minimum, gov't should refrain from subsidizing, celebrating, or normalizing such socially corrosive conduct.

If you choose to warp this argument into "teh creepy Jesus peoplez want to round up teh gayz!!!1!" … well, I can't stop you. I can sure as hell ridicule your intellectual fuckuppery, though.

The American electorate appears determined to join the Free Shit Army™, while preening in the mirror over its collective refusal to recognize corrosive conduct for what it is. So be it. Spendthrifts will eventually run out of money, and libertines will eventually reap the whirlwind of chaos. I'll be here to rebuild once reality's finished pimp-slapping some basic sense back into y'all.

Let it burn.

Posted by: OhioCoastie at February 20, 2013 04:11 PM (pKCuj)

708
and this is why the rethugicant party is dead
enjoy your john mccains and your other democrats with an R after their names

and pls tell me again why its so bad being a democrat?

Posted by: navycopjoe at February 20, 2013 04:13 PM (660FR)

709 Shit. Lost the blockquote. That first paragraphshould be a quote.

Posted by: OhioCoastie at February 20, 2013 04:13 PM (pKCuj)

710 Diogenes, once when I was in bootcamp we had an elderly Asian lady who was nice to us recruits during Team Week. She let us chill in the warehouse and she talked to us. She also spouted the baloney that you put forth-that gays are made gay by molestors. I was too cowed and too much of a pussy in the middle of bootcamp to say anything, and I still kind of regret it. Would you consider a sick man who molests a little girl "straight?" No, that's retarded. He's a sick piece of shit, and his actions should not be dignified by attaching accepted sexual nomenclature to it. This might be a total shock to you, but outside of Hollywood many gays actually love each other and have always liked the same sex. And for all the freedoms of this country that I treasure with all my heart, gay teens are (look at the macho patriarchal country of my parents-Mexico) still more likely to suicide. Stuff like that doesn't occur in a vacuum. Now I've said this many times, will continue to say it, and si Dios querie ill say it if i make it as a politican: national security is the prime consideration. Every other issue we can figure out later. Hard to believe, but I'm not an LGBT activist. However, I seriously can't stand bullshit such as the idea that gays became that way. If you have gays in your life that you treasure, you don't have to be a liberal squish to get pissed off.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 04:14 PM (m/bYW)

711 What amazes me is they fail to see the institution of state sanctioned marriage as a mechanism of state control.

I disagree...I think many of them see it as a way for the state to control people they don't like (Bible-believing Christians, people who think the military is more than scholarship program, Daddy, etc.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 04:14 PM (/kI1Q)

712
126 I get what you're saying -- but if you're saying you don't know anyone on the right who just does not like gays, and sort of does in fact h8 them, I'm going to call bullshit on you.

Ace,I actually know more dems that are vocally anti gay than conservatives by a long shot. I think you're taking this a bit personally.

When did you come out of the closet?

Posted by: Hamilton Burger at February 20, 2013 04:14 PM (GmPNB)

713 Look, the left is at war with us. The useful idiot program that the USSR ran was pretty powerful, just a couple of decades too late to be useful.

But here we are with the cancer of the march through the institutions.

Re: Nixon. Look, the left will hound and destroy any non-liberal leader. period. They went after pinochet to his dying days. His crime was fighting back against communist death squads. George the W will be hounded to his dying days too. Becuase water boarding, or the spanish journalists who got killed in Iraq, or whatever.

Going gay isn't going to change that. Once gheys have been given the key to the house, the left will discover that bestiality or sister wives are the newest victim groups. Think about it, like at most 1% of the pop is gay and maybe 5% of that group wants to get married. We are throwing the coutnry away for literally no one. It's all hypothetical.

The solution? It's not going gey that's fer sure.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 04:14 PM (QxSug)

714 >>Beliefs that were standard in the 1990s are now considered extreme.

Yup. CPAC/GOP is now in line, or to the Left, of Clinton's DLC 1996.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 04:15 PM (0Bs6G)

715 "and pls tell me again why its so bad being a democrat?"

Its only bad if you actually aren't a marxist and love individualism.

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:15 PM (1z8rY)

716 693
If both parties decide that social issues are off the table, then what's
to keep SoCons from voting Democrat, like blacks, hispanics, and
muslims do?



Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 04:07 PM

Does anyone know that most SoCons used to vote Democrat until the 1970s? The deep Red states in the South at that time were Democrat fiefdoms, the Jim Crow laws were written and enforced by Democrats like George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Lester Maddox.

The GOP at that time were more the Northeastern socially liberal country club types

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2013 04:15 PM (mCvL4)

717 "There's only so much of being blamed for every electoral fuck-up made by
the party that one can reasonably be expected to stand."

lol word

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 04:15 PM (60GaT)

718
If both parties decide that social issues are off the table, then what's to keep SoCons from voting Democrat, like blacks, hispanics, and muslims do?

Posted by: kbdabear



Bingo! Consider the Iowa problem. Once considered Republican because of rural Christian values. Now government farm supports and other handouts as well as an economy increasingly based around cheap immigrant labor, have moved a Redish state to Swing and now to Bluish.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 04:15 PM (kdS6q)

719 The trouble is they will destroy any mistake any misstep...

plaintiff's exhibit one Rubio and water


So say fuck it and commit to the self-beclowning because the MSM will try to do it anyways?

"You're going to take a shot at me? Oh yeah? I'll show you how it's done!" * shoots self in leg *.

I don't have much faith in the electorate, but I do believe that most think the Rubio awkwardly taking a drink of water is a stupid thing to focus on.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 04:16 PM (SY2Kh)

720 I knew who Axelturf was in '96 and Rove in '88.....

That makes you and five other political junkies outside of Illinois and Texas sven.

the problem ain't our idiots in charge of campaigns the problem is the US media...

They've hated us all my votinglife. But we managed to win. That said, I am damn ready for a SECOND non-liberal TV news outlet. A Fox News in which the personalities don't wear clown noses. There's got to be money in that still-untapped market.

Posted by: CJ at February 20, 2013 04:16 PM (9KqcB)

721 708 NCJ,

Deference to terrorists, former domestic terrs in advising positions, Malthusian hatred of prosperity, rage against the bill of rights, illegal immigration, you really want me to go on?

Here's a deal when the divorce happens I'll call the red American opposition the Tories and you donks can dust off "Whigs".....



Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:17 PM (LRFds)

722 It's high time to realize that it is not our place
as a party to advocate for the family or for who can get married. That
is for religion to do. Liberals insist that government must provide
healthcare to everyone; we say the only role gov should play is to
reduce the regulations and tax penalties. Turnabout is fair play

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 03:38 PM (m/bYW)

Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not only contemporaries and countrymen, but they were good friends as well. One's Monetary philosophy exactly dovetails with the others Social philosophy.

If you think you can have one without the other, you are mistaken.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:17 PM (bb5+k)

723 In the first part, it should be a states rights issue.

I personally don't give a F* whether it's illegal or not other than it is an overstep of federal authority. One out of a f*king billion. What I have seen of the MJ crowd is that they are not in it for the 10th amendment, and true self reliant free autonomy. They are in it to get their joint, following which they will not rally with the same fervor for reductions in entitlements or scaling back federal authority on other issues. So they can just wait till the more pressing threats to our freedom get taken care of then when weed is the most important thing for me to fight for as a government abuse of authority, I will fight for legal weed.



I watched my closest friend in the world, more like an extra brother, dying of cancer, and the only relief he got in his final weeks was from marijuana. Which he had to buy illegally, making him a criminal as he was dying. His own doctors at the cancer hospital suggested he "find a way" to get it.

Not everyone is in it for a cheap high. Although I don't see why it's OK to get a cheap high from liver-destroying alcohol and not from pot.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 20, 2013 04:17 PM (7ObY1)

724 again, what social issues? The 2012 campaign was about hiring teachers and finally aasking the rich to pay some taxes, really, just a little bit, their fair share, and all that.

I don't recall any of these social issues really coming up.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 04:18 PM (QxSug)

725 Anal sex between males will be taught in schools as being no different or worse than heterosexual sex. Given kids propensity to "experiment" it will in effect be an endorsement of behavior we know carries a greater health risk than vaginal sex.

That is the problem with support for "gay marriage". It goes beyond marriage to a whole host of other issues such as indoctrinating our children. Gay people claim they should not be stigmatized because they are "wired that way". Well I am wired to oppose their agenda, why isn't my position just as valid? Especially given my view was the majority view of the civil society for 100's of years?

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 04:18 PM (x0g8a)

726 "Portray it as a state issue. Dodge with the old "I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but don't believe the federal government should interfere". Just drop the fire and brimstone bullshit.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:34 PM (SY2Kh)"

The Democrat line is that the promise of equal protection, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, requires all levels of government to interfere to guarantee gay marriage.

What's your next move?

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 04:18 PM (0Bs6G)

727
These issues that have Ace's panties in a wad
are simply a product of how the media have crafted the narrative to make
the GOP/Tea Party/conservatives/right wing as mean, bigoted, murdering,
raping bastards who shouldn't be voted for.





Posted by: jwest at February 20, 2013 03:39 PM (ZDsRL)

Helllooooo? This is pretty much becoming a Chant for me. The MEDIA is the problem. We have to get one of our own.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:19 PM (bb5+k)

728 **If both parties decide that social issues are off the table, then what's to keep SoCons from voting Democrat, like blacks, hispanics, and muslims do**

Who knows. It seems to come down to a racial thing. The GOP is white and you can't as blacks, hispanics, and muslims to that (or asians).

Seems to me that gheyness has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 04:20 PM (QxSug)

729 It used to be all this anti Chrstian bigotry was only on the left. But our culture has changed so much in the last 10 years that now the right sounds like the left in that regard.

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:20 PM (1z8rY)

730 There's only ONE Repub I know of right now who answers media questions correctly, by not accepting the premise of the question:

Rand Paul

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 04:21 PM (zpqa2)

731 Hell, the DoD has a Gay/Lesbian appreciation month coming up this year. But no, there's no real push to celebrate homosexuality in the mainstream.


Nothing to see here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2013 04:21 PM (yCvxi)

732 The false sense of affluence engendered by the credit boom of the last 25 years has only hastened the decline of civilized society. Perversions abound in Sodom and Gommorrah style. there is no stopping it. It will burn.

Posted by: John Adams at February 20, 2013 04:21 PM (qXy1H)

733 Maybe without a corrupt media, the Fat Man feels a
little less incline to have a bromance with teh won. And Benghazi? There
would already be indictments. The media needs to be destroyed. Fox,
Rush, and the blogosphere are not enough to act as a counterweight to
the MFM.



Posted by: Dante at February 20, 2013 03:40 PM (NWLVJ)


The Media is the problem. The Media is the problem. The Media is the problem.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:21 PM (bb5+k)

734 "I watched my closest friend in the world, more like an extra brother, dying of cancer, and the only relief he got in his final weeks was from marijuana. Which he had to buy illegally, making him a criminal as he was dying. His own doctors at the cancer hospital suggested he "find a way" to get it. "

Let me know when they can prescribe a dosage to be taken orally, like morphine, and I'll back its medical use like I do morphine.

As long as you're arguing that we have to let people buy grass to toke til they're buzzed, because some of them are sick, you're helping the potheads more than cancer patients.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 04:21 PM (0Bs6G)

735 OhioCoastie- Perhaps you could provide me some of your "well documented proof". Perhaps you could show me said well documented proof regarding kids actually doing better in chaotic orphanages and chaotic foster homes than with two loving gay parents. Also, you could actually provide some sources, because a little something called common sense states that Adam and Steve have nothing to do with whether Adam Jr. goes off and cheats on Little Eve, creates a child out of wedlock and thus contributes to the (actually) well documented epidemic of kids without a father-which incidentally happens with straight parents. (Gasp! Maybe all people of all sexual orientations should be held individually responsible for their actions)
Thanks, you're a doll.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 04:21 PM (m/bYW)

736 "'Beliefs which were standard in the 1960s, are now considered extreme. '

Beliefs that were standard in the 1990s are now considered extreme."

===============

Beliefs that were publicly held by our lying bullshitter of a POTUS as late as last May are now considered extreme.

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 04:22 PM (/AHDz)

737
Ace, Is this your pre-coming out post? Call me <3
Posted by: Reggie Love




Rejected by all women, he considers taking that first fateful step.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 20, 2013 04:22 PM (kdS6q)

738 <i>Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not only contemporaries and countrymen, but they were good friends as well. One's Monetary philosophy exactly dovetails with the others Social philosophy. If you think you can have one without the other, you are mistaken. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:17 PM (bb5+k)</i>
Or, put another way, the fiscally-conservative/socially-liberal dream candidate remains as elusive as Bigfoot.
I'd be fine with a truce on social issues, frankly. Unfortunately, from all the lead flying around,the progressives don't seem all that interested in one.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 20, 2013 04:22 PM (qevSe)

739 719 Hollowpoint,

The problem is that too many think "if I just CHANGE THIS the media will stop beating me."

The media is not beating you because you "hate gays" look at the rhetoric the Donks use against my Friend Richard Grenell, the media doesn't beat you because you "hate blacks" look at Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas, the media doesn't beat you because you're pro war those are Barry's video game toys now h8er you can't even run a war as well as Barry, the media beats you because as Orwell said "that boot stamps the face forever."

You want to know why my early posting was surly and pissed off?

Too many fuckers bray on about the leftard talking points as seen on the Daily Show.

Fuck it crash it break it up start over I am not going commie and they are not gonna stop....better to get it over with now.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:22 PM (LRFds)

740 >>>Not everyone is in it for a cheap high. Too many are for me to promote that plank beyond its small importance to society for the sake of unity.

In essence the PRO MJ caucus demonstrates they will give me nothing in return for my support. Why should I prioritize their wants over more pressing concerns to freedom in the US?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 04:22 PM (0q2P7)

741 "There's only ONE Repub I know of right now who answers media questions correctly, by not accepting the premise of the question:

Rand Paul"


Ted Cruz

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:24 PM (1z8rY)

742 733 Diogenes Lamp,


There's nothing wrong with Chris Tingle I can't fix with my hands.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:24 PM (LRFds)

743 >>88 "Except that's not how I see it [Ace]. Of course some people are attracted to the same sex ... but to shrug off the deconstruction of the
family structure underlying much of the "gay marriage" agenda is to
abandon the field to bigots intent on reconstructing the language in
order to criminalize wrong-think.



And I'm sorry, Ace, but my ass there isn't a "political" agenda.
When the owner of a cake shop or flower shop or wedding photographer can
be sued because they won't compromise their values to cater to a gay
couple, then we ought to be right there punching back twice as hard."--Posted by Mary Poppins' PPP



But Ace doesn't care about any of that, Mary.

Posted by: Ron Penfound at February 20, 2013 04:24 PM (Q1DS+)

744 "Does anyone know that most SoCons used to vote Democrat until the 1970s? The deep Red states in the South at that time were Democrat fiefdoms, the Jim Crow laws were written and enforced by Democrats like George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Lester Maddox."

False history. 99% of America was against gay marriage, abortion, shacking up and welfare for single moms until about 1970.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 04:24 PM (0Bs6G)

745 chaotic orphanages!

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 04:24 PM (60GaT)

746 Consider how many tv shows have gratuitous scenes
with characters are shown obviously to be gay and there is either an
overt approval of it or an overt shaming of someone who disapproves.



Doctor Who and the BBC have been doing this for several seasons now.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 20, 2013 03:41 PM (Y5I9o)

On ABC News this morning they had Robin Roberts (Lesbian) and Sam Champion. (Homosexual) The series "Glee" is nothing but an unending stream of gay normalization propaganda, and the stuff has become ubiqutuous because the Media people keep pushing it in a favorable light.

The reality is closer to "silence of the lambs" but they don't show that stuff any more.

The Media are controlling where the public goes, and it is leading them down this path.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:25 PM (bb5+k)

747 And Ted Cruz, right Jeff

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at February 20, 2013 04:25 PM (zpqa2)

748 720 CJ,

CJ my "serious mode" posts have long been on point, even prior to the loss that the American Conservative needs to go to ground and use their money as a weapon like the Blacks and other minorities did in the 70s.

I hate a lot of Glenn Beck's spiel but his media end around may be something.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:26 PM (LRFds)

749 "The reality is closer to "silence of the lambs" but they don't show that stuff any more."

lol just stop

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 04:27 PM (60GaT)

750
What are the likelihoods that the non fundies win this battle?





Posted by: palooka at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM (QxnUA)


The same likelihood that the Atheists will stop the Muslims in Europe.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:28 PM (bb5+k)

751 So much for the Big Tent.

Posted by: Y-not at February 20, 2013 04:28 PM (5H6zj)

752 Ace,

For Gay marriage to be acceptable there would have to be a provision that allowed business owners to retain their 1st Amendment liberties to free exercise of their religion.

I dont see the left ever agreeing to that.

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:28 PM (1z8rY)

753 Diogenes Lamp- Sure, your historical analogy tries to make an otherwise rational point (I would expect a religious person to give more to a charity of some sort than a non believer, though obviously that is not always the case. But come on dude. Thomas Jefferson had kids with his slaves and did yoga in the nude and (shock!) was a Deist, not a Christian. Patrick Henry (one of his contemporaries) ridiculed organized religion. Are their ideas less valid because they don't believe in a strict Christian theology? Were they incapable of proposing great things because of the minimalist approach to religion?

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 04:28 PM (m/bYW)

754 They've hated us all my votinglife. But we managed to win. That said, I am damn ready for a SECOND non-liberal TV news outlet. A Fox News in which the personalities don't wear clown noses. There's got to be money in that still-untapped market.

+1000. When I heard that AlGore refused to sell to The Blaze, I got it immediately, because he knew, too. The market's there. A new tv outlet without a lot of Fox'shangups would do gangbusters for a while, and I doubt Fox's ratings would suffer much as a result.

Posted by: KingCranium at February 20, 2013 04:29 PM (lHn6+)

755 752 Jeff in Michigan,

correct...or I'll add one caveat...

I'll agree everyone should be forced to bake the gays a cake if I get to force parity in the network news editorial staff....


Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:29 PM (LRFds)

756 murderers and pedophiles are just wired that way.

Posted by: John Adams at February 20, 2013 04:30 PM (qXy1H)

757 With all due respect, Ace, I think you are ignoring how well Republicans are doing at the State level. And I think you are being way too pessimistic about the swings in voter sentiment that will happen when Obama's policies come home to roost (which is already happening).

Get a grip, man!

Posted by: Tex's Assaultin' Batteries at February 20, 2013 04:31 PM (wtvvX)

758 sven

LOL no no that part of the Bill of Rights is "sacred" ...but not those pesky parts that progressives don't like.

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:31 PM (1z8rY)

759
Also, it sharpened me up in a major way: people
who are surrounded by people who think exactly the same way become
intellectually flabby. People who have to fight for the respect of their
political opinions on practically a daily basis not only know how to
defend them, they also know what will and will not "sell" to potentially
convinceable people.


Posted by: Jeff B. at February 20, 2013 03:47 PM (bcLhD)


Unfortunately, you are bringing a knife to a gunfight. The sort of debate we have with the opposition party is not intellectual, it is "binders full of women."



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:32 PM (bb5+k)

760
Ace,
I am ready for good felching.
-B

Posted by: Barack Obama at February 20, 2013 04:32 PM (qXy1H)

761 Oh Ace. I've seen Prager mentioned other times on this blog as a voice of wisdom and insight. Obviously you have not listened often enough or read his columns pertaining to this topic. He elucidates and clarifies the issue every time he speaks.

There was a reason why he was one of only two persons brought in by Republicans to talk about the reasoning behind the DOMA act as it was passing through Congress. It is indeed unfortunate that nearly every other Repub end up stepping on their schlong or girly parts as they try to defend DOMA in a public setting.

Why don't you go do your homework

Posted by: john doesky at February 20, 2013 04:33 PM (g7mo7)

762 "And I'm sorry, Ace, but my ass there isn't a "political" agenda. When the owner of a cake shop or flower shop or wedding photographer can be sued because they won't compromise their values to cater to a gay couple, then we ought to be right there punching back twice as hard"

No, that's exactly the wrong argument. The problem isn't gay couples getting married, it's that individuals who own businesses can be forced into servitude at the whim of the state. Let's punch at that.

If we intend to win we need to stop allowing our policies to be defined by the irrelevant details our opponents throw our way.

Posted by: GalosGann at February 20, 2013 04:33 PM (T3KlW)

763 In this current climate it's my way or the high way. Nowhere does this work. We're getting shellacked. Let's look past the little differences and unite on the major issues. Nothing pissed me off more than when I realized that Romney lost because so many conservatives stayed home. Yes Romney sucked ass, but Obama sucks ten times more ass. It was simply choose the lesser of two evils but people were so happy sitting on their high horses that they wouldn't even get off of them for the sake of the country. In that way they are just as bad as the libernatzis. It's all about them and what they want as opposed to what's best for the country. Oh it's gonna burn all right and it's not gonna be as wonderful as some people here are projecting it is going to be. Gay people? No big deal. Gay conservatives? Yes please! It's that simple.

Posted by: Nat at February 20, 2013 04:34 PM (hLWeb)

764
Ace gets all emotional and throws in the towel on gay marriage, capitulating to the nastiest group of bullies in politics (who, btw, very much have a "political" agenda.)
It's anti-depressant time for Ace.
He's right though. The GOP, at a party level, just doesn't want to win. Or, rather, they've acquiesced to the idea that they're not going to win and they've stopped trying. All they're content to be is a milder version of the Democratic party. They loathe conservatism. And people don't vote for Sugar-Free when they can have the real thing. So it's gonna be Democratic governance for a long time to come.
Funny thing is I really don't care much anymore. Talking about politics really isn't fun like it used to be. If people want to turn America into a $hithole, fine. I'll at least have the shadenfreude of seeing what they do to themselves, even if they do it to me too.

Posted by: Sam In VA at February 20, 2013 04:34 PM (rFiOs)

765 is everything media to you. seems like a paranoiac,
arrogant worldview. of course the media has an impact but independent
thought does not cease because of this, people come to their own
conclusions.


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 03:48 PM (60GaT)

The middle voters are all swung by the media. That 5% of the middle costs us every election, and they are 100% swung by the media.

You tell me. If 100% of the losses are the result of the Media screwing us, what else should we be working on to correct it?


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:34 PM (bb5+k)

766 And that's funny how you bring up shows like Glee which dare to portray gays as human beings. I used (and still kinda love) W.E.B. Griffins The Corps, but it was sad how all his gay characters were (literally) degenerates or traitors.
Modern shows also show plenty of hot nudity and premarital sex. Is this an example of straights "indoctrinating" or "recruiting" kids?

Gay acceptance started a few decades ago and the amount of bullshit they had to fight (save the children, anyone?) to even begin to be treated as human in the media is incredible

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 04:34 PM (m/bYW)

767 Strife you made my day with this:

Hey, who cares if a guy likes to suck dick and fuck hairy smelly man-ass?

And
who cares if he and several of his well funded political cronies wants
to institutionalize their fucked-up sexual dysfunction into public
policy as a tool to indoctrinate your kids and to stifle religious
liberties?

Who cares?


Who cares? Certainly not us atheistic anti-religious porn-loving reprobates who don't have any children!


So what's the fucking problem here people? *fap fap fap*


Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 04:35 PM (x0g8a)

768 719 Hollowpoint,

The problem is that too many think "if I just CHANGE THIS the media will stop beating me."


Practically nobody thinks that.

Make them fire blanks, like the Rubio Drinks Water Scandal.

One doesn't need to abandon their principles to avoid pulling an Aiken, be it over abortion or gay marriage, yet we keep seeing Republicans doing just that to prove how very TRUE PURE CONSERVATIVE they are.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 04:36 PM (SY2Kh)

769 766 Danny,

Danny I'll bake you a cake...when do you want the parade?

In the 5th and 6th grade i was a volunteer crossing guard and the reward was to go to King's Island...

Danny I probably did not need to see guys giving each other tongue in line and groping their junk on the Smurf's Magic Kingdom ride.....

In my later years when going to the park I manage to wait in line and ride rides without going down on my wife or trying to smother her with my tongue......

"Gay Day"

well honey EVERY DAY IS GAY DAY NOW!

Gays need to nut up and accept that I don't give three fucks about their bedtime antics, and that decorum is there for a reason.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:39 PM (LRFds)

770 768 Hollowpoint,

Too many Pols think that, I was in three states this weekend.

Heard Rubio shit in two of them.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:39 PM (LRFds)

771 Gay acceptance started a few decades ago and the amount of bullshit they
had to fight (save the children, anyone?) to even begin to be treated
as human in the media is incredible

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


Let me know when they start portraying Christians as human in the media. On every show, like they do with the homosexual characters. I'll be sure to tune in.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 04:40 PM (P6QsQ)

772 >>>was a Deist, not a Christian

By your definition Jews are Deist then. He believed in the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob as far as we know. He disbelieved the trinity by his own words. He never said anything definitive about his belief in Christ, however he did directly support missionary work about Christianity.

One thing Jefferson held firm was the idea of absolute morality from a higher power. So did Henry. So to say that they had a minimalist view of religion is completely mistaken.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 04:40 PM (0q2P7)

773
Besides, it's only nominally a federal issue.
Why should anybody be falling on their sword over something they can't
do jack shit about anyways?


Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 03:56 PM (SY2Kh)


Like Slavery? Yeah, they couldn't do jack shit about that moral issue.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:41 PM (bb5+k)

774 "It was simply choose the lesser of two evils but people were so happy sitting on their high horses that they wouldn't even get off of them for the sake of the country. In that way they are just as bad as the libernatzis. It's all about them and what they want as opposed to what's best for the country. "

Judging by the total collapse of the incumbent federal Republicans since November, I can't call them the lesser evil. They imagine they are free to do as they please to 'win' This Week, without regard to what they promised to get elected. That kind of character flaw wouldn't be fixed with more power.

There is no "intramural" fighting.
There is a continual effort by a rump conservative movement to destroy opponents in Washington.
Right now the Republicans are the weaker dog. The turn of the Democrats will come later, simply because they are not at all weakened by Right wing opposition.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 04:41 PM (0Bs6G)

775 "756 murderers and pedophiles are just wired that way.
Posted by: John Adams at February 20, 2013 04:30 PM (qXy1H)"

Foul. In both senses of the word. And I'm one of the "here's your hat, what's your hurry?" state-loving, hate-in-my-heart social conservatives, too. Comments like that don't do much to dispel the stereotype.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 20, 2013 04:41 PM (qevSe)

776 Damn. Rick Scott just decided to take the Medicaid money.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 04:43 PM (NYnoe)

777
And sure sure, Nixon wasn't a pure conservative,
I guess. So what, the left hated him with a passion nonetheless, as if
he were John Galt himself.

Posted by: joeindc44 is now more concerned about Dark Ages 2.0 than Great Depression 2.0 at February 20, 2013 03:58 PM (QxSug)


The left detested him because he was the prosecutor in the Alger Hiss trial.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:43 PM (bb5+k)

778 I honestly do not think that the "smart people" in the party, much less the leadership, really care if the Republican Party has a majority or not; right now, they are all scrambling to get as much of the pie as they can, before they retire to the Think Tank-Fox News Contributor-Lobbyist circuit.

Posted by: DaveinNC at February 20, 2013 04:44 PM (boNGU)

779 As a gay man who leans to the right, I am fed up with the party's anti-gay stance. People can pretty up their ideas with nice language, but the truth is that it is discrimination that they support. I voted for and donated to Romney despite his insulting comment about protecting marriage, but I will never again back someone who wants to deny me equal rights. Can't look at myself in the mirror anymore. Doesn't mean I am going Democrat, but the Libertarians are looking might nice these days.

Posted by: Jon at February 20, 2013 04:44 PM (jr5Bn)

780 Don't accept the leftist triumphalism, least of all when Republicans are not in fact in the minority, not when they hold a big majority in the House, 30 of the 50 governorships, and the bigger share of the state legislatures.
@
At this point eight years ago, the Democrats were shut out of the House as well as the Senate and presidency, and had nothing like the state presence that Republicans do today, and yet in two years they had captured the House and Senate both, and two years after that they'd elected the leftwardmost president in American history.

If this next two and four years go anything like theanalysts in what may be called the ZeroHedge School have in mind, then Obama and Obama-ism will be anathema, and Republicans and conservatives and libertarians will be last man standing, and might run and win on a platform of "we told you so", though preferably not in so many words and with an affirmative program as well.

And I'm as conservative as they come, socially as well as in the more polite ways, from a Bible-believing family, andI suppose there must be such people in the world as Ace describes, but I expect I'd have met one if there were very many, and the Bible-believing, fire-breathing, devoutEvangelical Christians I've known are kindly, generous, and loving folks -- complete teddybears.

Posted by: Andrew at February 20, 2013 04:45 PM (HnnlX)

781 "Let me know when they start portraying Christians as human in the media. On every show, like they do with the homosexual characters. I'll be sure to tune in.
Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 04:40 PM (P6QsQ)"

Don't you watch any of the iterations of"Law and Order"?

[Ducks.]

The creators of those bits of agitprop lost me forever when they turned a homeschooling family into a murderous freakshow.

Though I was pleasantly surprised by a crumb from a recent Castle episode, in which the murderer ofthe creator of a"Girls Gone Wild" porn empire didn't turn out to be the anti-porn crusader. Probably was a twist ending for the lefty viewers...

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 20, 2013 04:46 PM (qevSe)

782 772 Mike the Moose,

The deism thing is a narcissism of the Atheists pretending that the founders were proto Atheists, when the reality is they rejected the mystery and ritual of organized faith for the most part and many were "invited" to move here because of the English Civil War and the dying embers of the scourge of the Huguenots.

The Founders believed in natural law heavily influenced by recognizable Christian and Judaic foundation which sorta makes sense given their Masonic bent.

Their view was different than prevailing EUtopian angst on the matter because they were trying to render something better where men of faith and morals could work together in freedom to gain getting past the hubris of the reformation and counter-reformation.

That post earlier where I lamented the death of the melting pot....

yeah that's why....

Love Locke, hate Marx...all you need to be in my tribe is a deference to the founding and the restraint to not try to subvert the minds of man.

Where'd those "Americans" go?

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:46 PM (LRFds)

783 No, I'm doing the opposite. Give your enemy ammo, don't be surprised if they return the bullets at high velocity.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 20, 2013 04:01 PM (SY2Kh)

When they are the only ones with guns, it isn't going to make any difference whether you give them ammo or not. You certainly can't use it.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:46 PM (bb5+k)

784 So Ace is on another toss the So-Cons jag. There's a winner for ya. It was the fis-cons who no-showed last go round.

He is right about the leadership being dickless though. I mean there are so many totally beatable Dems out there who aren't even being challenged. They don't even try in the northeast. So what if you loose. Try! Expand the playing field!

You want to make a difference, how's about the Sheldon Aldersons and Koch brothers spend a few sheckles and flip the NY State Assembly? Pick off a few congresscritters.

The Republican leadership doesn't understand that they are in a continual propaganda war, and that they are hilariously outgunned. At least Newt got that.

Posted by: Iblis at February 20, 2013 04:47 PM (9221z)

785 "Let me know when they start portraying Christians as human in the media.
On every show, like they do with the homosexual characters. I'll be
sure to tune in."

===============

They show the occasional liberal Christian who is always, without exception, horrified by the more orthodox Christians.

Posted by: Kensington at February 20, 2013 04:48 PM (/AHDz)

786 776 RockMom,

My post last evening about 'conservatives" like my dad is based on that....

"yeah yeah free markets but I want MY TURN at the free shit now!"

Yeah pop...I'll be totally fucked but can we free my son or God grant Grandson to be?


Nom nom nom

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 04:48 PM (LRFds)

787 but I will never again back someone who wants to deny me equal rights.

You have all the same rights I have, and preferential hiring status.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at February 20, 2013 04:51 PM (/kI1Q)

788 The left detested him because he was the prosecutor in the Alger Hiss trial.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 04:43 PM (bb5+k)

When talking about Richard Nixon, his role in the Hiss case should never be forgotten. Nixon was the driving force behind nailing that highly placed commie traitor to the wall in the face of very powerful opposition. It should be remembered that Hiss was being groomed for higher appointed office and was predicted as a possible future pick for Secretary of State. Scary stuff.

Posted by: troyriser at February 20, 2013 04:51 PM (vtiE6)

789 >>>People can pretty up their ideas with nice language, but the truth is that it is discrimination that they support.

You won't respond to my argument that state marriage is an institution of control and instead just want to hurl insults? I would say you are fundamentally disinterested in freedom. You just want your woobie. You will get it by the way. Gay marriage will be reality inside of a decade. Your freedom will also be gone in the same period. But you just go ahead and keep to the idea that marriage is about freedom when in fact it is the exact opposite, while the rest of your freedoms, your real freedoms go bye bye.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 04:52 PM (0q2P7)

790 "As a gay man who leans to the right, I am fed up with the party's anti-gay stance. People can pretty up their ideas with nice language, but the truth is that it is discrimination that they support. I voted for and donated to Romney despite his insulting comment about protecting marriage, but I will never again back someone who wants to deny me equal rights. Can't look at myself in the mirror anymore. Doesn't mean I am going Democrat, but the Libertarians are looking might nice these days."

And the religous liberties of those business owners who refused to comply?

Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:52 PM (1z8rY)

791 751 So much for the Big Tent.

Posted by: Y-not at February 20, 2013 04:28 PM (5H6zj)


The big tent has been replaced with the broad brush.

As well as fucking lies, like yesterday.

I'm not even a socon, I'm mostly libertarian, but this shit disgusts me.

If it's going to be false-narrative smears from here on out, I literally have nowhere to go.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 20, 2013 04:52 PM (bxiXv)

792 As a straight, married man, I am fed up with the militant homosexuals parading around their gayness and talking about equal rights and discrimination while trying to force their lifestyle on those who might disagree with how traditions are defined in our country.

You wanna be gay, fine. You're not going to get the blessing or approval or sanction you seek and bitching about how you keep getting picked last to play is getting really tired.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the subject. I'm willing to do that, even though the American electorate time and again has placed their votes and voiced their disapproval. But it didn't matter. Gays went to the courts, had elections overturned, used the courts in the manner of the Progressive Left and are getting their way.

Fine. You want it? You got it

But please stop bitching about how no one is supportive of your gayness.

Posted by: Catmman at February 20, 2013 04:56 PM (C8XlI)

793 So, basically, Jon is willing to embrace national bankruptcy because Romney hurt his feelers.

Le sigh.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 20, 2013 04:56 PM (R4WsQ)

794 weren't the people who didn't show for Romney people who aren't inclined to vote for Dems, but bought into the "Romney as out of touch richie rich" narrative?

i dunno that it's a clear-cut fiscon, socon or whatevercon thing

i think joeindc's got a point in this thread, regardless of where you come down personally on all these issues. say the GOP drives up its white vote to 60+% (impossible, maybe, never know though) and holds down losing margins with minorities. they still won't be "hip," but they'll be winning.

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 04:56 PM (60GaT)

795 367 Here is my offer to the gay community: I promise not to give a fuck what you are, if you promise to STOP TELLING ME ABOUT IT AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Not only is this my policy towards homosexuality, it's my policy concerning religion too.

Long live the N/A-theists.

Posted by: akula51 at February 20, 2013 04:56 PM (EzOzr)

796 Where's the CTRL-ALT-DEL key on this whole topic? My head aches.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 20, 2013 04:57 PM (AP0wO)

797 #766 I watch "Glee" every week with my teenage daughter. It tries to "normalize" everything...except Christianity. First it was the disabled kid, then the gay boys, then the lesbians,nowit's the tranny, always portrayed in the best possible light and shown fighting off prejudice and bigotry at every turn. Message: being "different" is OK, whether you're in a wheelchair or having buttsex or you're a guy who wants to be a girl in the school play. All the same.

The overt Christians, on the other hand,are ALWAYS portrayed as judgmental, prudishassholes, the characters we're supposed to hate. Nobody is ever scoldedfor criticizing the Christians. Message: Christians are h8ers, and we don't like h8ers.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 04:58 PM (NYnoe)

798 Obviously the socons need to concentrate on infiltrating the Democrats. That way, the GOP might compromise with them.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 20, 2013 05:00 PM (bxiXv)

799 "And the religous liberties of those business owners who refused to comply?
Posted by: Jeff in Michigan at February 20, 2013 04:52 PM (1z8rY)"

That liberty is only granted us because our forefathers would rather burn the mutha down than surrender it.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 05:02 PM (0Bs6G)

800 Message: Christians are h8ers, and we don't like h8ers.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 04:58 PM (NYnoe)

----------------
Which, by the way, drives the gays and lesbians in my Evangelical church nuts.

What, you say? Evangelical Christian Gays and Lesbians ? You betcha. Smashing stereotypes to bits since 33 AD.


Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 05:03 PM (P6QsQ)

801 <710 Would you consider a sick man who molests a little girl "straight?" No,
that's retarded. He's a sick piece of shit, and his actions should not
be dignified by attaching accepted sexual nomenclature to it. This might
be a total shock to you, but outside of Hollywood many gays actually
love each other and have always liked the same sex.>

Yes of course. IF your definition of "love" is based on the dysfunctional obsession of a bodily orifice exclusively designed to excrete the most vile waste product the human body can produce, then yes. Your point is valid.

You stupid nonsensical fucktard.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:03 PM (z3Lez)

802 Atheist Libertarians with no kids are fucking bent. It is easy for them to throw in the towel on gay marriage. It won't be their kids being taught the finer points of fecal contamination in school. If people don't want to treat their mental disorders that is one thing, reorganizing society to cater to their dysfunction is quite another.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 20, 2013 05:04 PM (x0g8a)

803 LOL!

Ace you put too much faith in the democratic party to keep winning.

The sad truth is, which is what hurts the most after 2012, is that the democrats are just as inept as the GOP.

So while while you all fight it out over male-male love issues, a wise conservative will watch and wait for the progressives to totally destroy the democratic party in the next 4 years and take advantage of the situation.

Lets face it Romney could not beat McCain in 2008 which should have been a sign of trouble. He was just lucky in facing a weak field of GOP choices. 2016 will be different.




Posted by: William Eaton at February 20, 2013 05:05 PM (rwioF)

804 Here's one: I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

Not really. Those are the "progressives."
A lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Being Left Alone.

Posted by: BuddyPC at February 20, 2013 05:05 PM (jfUIE)

805 Yes, some people are So-con because they hate gays. And more people than that are Dems or Libertarians because they hate Christians. So we're supposed to give up what we believe and do the bidding of people who hate us? What for? Fuck you, you don't want us, our money or our votes? We won't impose.

Oh, and the moment the GOP gives up on pro-life, it loses probably 40% of it's most stalwart activists and supporters. Nominate a Huntsman or a Giuliani and watch the party split in two. The Dem candidate will get a bigger landslide than Reagan. I for one, and millions more like me, won't check that box.

Some things aren't worth saving. The GOP is pretty high on that list.

Posted by: Let Them All Burn at February 20, 2013 05:06 PM (g1kPC)

806 "I'm sick of it. I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of making excuses for it. I'm sick of pretending I don't think it's weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of "political" agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality."

I hardly think that sounds like "we must purge the social conservatives."

But we're never going to win with some kind of "nuanced" stance on what's kind of OK and what's not kind of OK, while the other side just says "Republicans hate gay people." And I for one am sick of losing.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:06 PM (jg+Fr)

807 The only ones in this party who want to win are Grassroots i.e. Tea Party. The Establishment are really Dems so they don't care one way or the other. If the Establishment weren't Dems, there'd be no "intra-party" fighting.

Just for one little example of how stooooopid the Establishment is, consider that they are the ones who agreed to Candy Crowley et al for debate "moderators"; just today one of the RINOs on the debatecommission admitted that agreeing toCandy was a "mistake" (no word on whether he's realized all the "mods" were a "mistake", too, tho); WE the grassroots knew that ALL along! We knew the MSM would massacre any Republican, but The Establishment always has their heads up their asses and don't care one whit about winning. In fact, I firmly believe the Establishment is in cahoots with the Dems.
So, gee, excuuuuuse us Grassroot/Tea Partiers for trying to actually save this country! We have to save this country not only from Commies in the guise of Dems but Dems in the guise of Republicans. We are the only ones who actually CARE.
And for the record, no I didn't support most of the Grassroots candidates in the primary (I only supported Perry), but the Establishment has just as many LOOOOSERS on their side as we have O'Donnells (at least none of our guys has ever lost a POTUS election whereas The Establishment has lost 4 of the last 6).

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:08 PM (KL49F)

808 Ace is making the assumption that there will be anything left in 8 to 16 years worth fighting over of we concede to the left.

Even if we are but vying for time, any limiting of what the left does is necessary and important.

If we quite the game now, we won't be let back in .

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 20, 2013 05:08 PM (XvHmy)

809 @805

"Oh, and the moment the GOP gives up on pro-life, it loses probably 40% of it's most stalwart activists and supporters. Nominate a Huntsman or a Giuliani and watch the party split in two."

Okay, fine. But keep in mind, the other side ran ads that were nothing but Mitt Romney saying over and over again "I would repeal Roe v Wade. Repeal Roe v Wade. Repeal Roe v Wade." So if you want to nominate someone who is as strong or stronger than Romney on abortion, you need to be prepared to bring a whole lot more people to the table than the people we already have, because losing by a little and losing by a lot is still losing.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:09 PM (jg+Fr)

810 805

agree regarding the pro-life thing

i get the Akin and Mourdock brouhaha, but i'm not tripping off the general pro-life position being called "extreme" by some of the same people indulging their pet theories on Obama being the reincarnation of Mao

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:10 PM (60GaT)

811
"As a gay man who leans to the right, I am fed up with the party's anti-gay stance"


As a straight man who leans toward common sense, I'm fed up with you gay ass-badits demanding that the world suspend all observable natural design, and embrace and advocate your sick fucking psychological sexual dysfunction as a celebrated "virtue"

Here's a hint, silly-boy: You're fucked up and your sexual desires are fucking repulsive to me and to the very biological design of your own body.

So shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down you faggot fairy poop-pokin freak.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:11 PM (z3Lez)

812 well then

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:12 PM (60GaT)

813 So if you want to nominate someone who is as strong
or stronger than Romney on abortion, you need to be prepared to bring a
whole lot more people to the table than the people we already have,
because losing by a little and losing by a lot is still losing.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:09 PM (jg+Fr)

-------------
I disagree with that premise. A winning candidate needs to bring voters ALONGSIDE the pro-life voters on a host of other issues. The Pro-life vote was there. Was the libertarian vote? The minority vote? The small-government vote? The private sector union vote?
I would suggest that the place to draw additional votes from is not the pro-life sector- which responded to the message, but the sectors that didn't bother to show up because there was no message drawing them in.

Posted by: mama winger at February 20, 2013 05:15 PM (P6QsQ)

814 @811 Please tell me you're a troll.

"Here's a hint, silly-boy: You're fucked up and your sexual desires are fucking repulsive to me and to the very biological design of your own body."

How about what I do is none of your goddamn business.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:16 PM (jg+Fr)

815 Well, I certainly can't dispute that *some* socially-conservative GOPers hate gays...

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 20, 2013 05:16 PM (qevSe)

816 Some comments regarding all the dumping on social conservatives.

* SoCons are often pretty damn bad at communicating their message. Mourdock and Akin fouled up due to stupidity and miscommunication, not because they were simply pro-life. The way the conservative side of the gay marriage debate is handled is simply pathetic - it's not the issue or position, it's the presentation. Mitt Romney's 47% comment ended up hurting him, but no one took the reaction to that as evidence that cutting government spending was therefore suicidal and should be dropped as a GOP issue.

* Arguing "so many in the country are pro-gay-marriage or pro-abortion, therefore we should drop these issues" is asinine. With gay marriage in particular, you don't have to go back terribly far in history to find a period where gay marriage was a joke as an issue - next to no one was in favor of it. SoCons should be figuring out why they've lost so much ground, so fast, why their opposition has gained the ground they have so quickly, and responding accordingly. Blast them for failing to do that, but insisting that SoCon issues should be dumped for the good of the party is a recipe for disaster and a pipe dream.

* In fact, the problem with conservatives generally has been this tendency to go, 'Oh, these guys over here are liberal or trend liberal. Fuck them. Let's go find some conservatives.' The left has spent an incredible amount of time and energy trying to CONVINCE people who disagree with them. And sadly, not just with very intelligent, persuasive arguments, but with far more visceral, emotional methods. But the point is, the left sees people who disagree with them and, among other things, they try to change their minds instead of simply writing them off. Conservatives really seem far more in the habit of going, 'He's black, she's a single woman, he's gay*, that one is latino. Let's forget them and move on.'

* The fundamental issues are cultural, and not just for SoCons. I'm stating the obvious here, but the media en masse is against conservative/GOP views across the board. University culture, same thing. If you can figure out a way to deal with that, let me know, because it's one hell of a puzzle.

Anyway, that's my take on it all. I say this as a social conservatives who thinks SoCon arguments and methods have been idiotic for years now. I actually think the pro-lifers tend to be better in terms of argument and presentation, but obviously Mourdock and Akin made idiotic moves.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:18 PM (eLtHg)

817 <682
Strife my friend, you are the bizarre one. I'm religious myself and even
I can admit it's not secularists messing us up. Until the day comes
that government tries to force a church to marry a gay couple, it's not a
big deal. I feel that the Catholics got fucked over with Obama care but
lets get real, go to the Mass I go to in Tucson (fallen Catholic-I only
go for the soulful beauty that is religious mariachi music) and it's
more pro amnesty than a Berkely radical. The Church screwed herself with
all that "Social Justice" bullshit.>

Uhm, so you're "religious" but uhm, you're a "fallen Catholic-I only
go for the soulful beauty that is religious mariachi music"

I don't think that word "religious" means what you think it means.



Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:18 PM (z3Lez)

818 Well, I certainly can't dispute that *some* socially-conservative GOPers hate gays...

---

Because some SoCons can't tell the difference between gay individuals and the LGBT movement. The LGBT movement is reprehensible and nasty. It's like hating democrats versus disliking the democratic party's views.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:19 PM (eLtHg)

819 Just s the left thinks everything not pushing affirmative action and black studies is evidence of Selma, the same also applies to the gay issues. The issue isn't the govt persecuting blacks or gays, it isn't anymore. It used to. Libs act like disagreeing with them is the equivalent to what used to happen. I it matters, I am gay, and remember very well what it was like short while ago.

Posted by: Baldy at February 20, 2013 05:20 PM (opS9C)

820 <814 How about what I do is none of your goddamn business.>


If that's the case, then how about you shut the fuck up about it and stop shoving it in our collective face with fucking legislative mandates? Oh and, how about you fags STOP hijacking and bastardizing the very definition of the word "marriage".

How about we try that for a change- fucktard.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:22 PM (z3Lez)

821 Danny,

If you can't be bothered to accurately state my argument, then you will get no polite response from me. I'm not going to cite sources in good faith for an asshole who's on his own little gay jihad.

Fuck you very much, princess.

Posted by: OhioCoastie at February 20, 2013 05:22 PM (pKCuj)

822 Furthermore, the GOP CANNOT fight voter fraud because a court deemed so in 1981. The Dems have the GOP over a barrel on this issue: they know that they can cheat at the ballot box and the GOP is legally bound to stay silent. We need a NEW party that isn't under this court-order.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:23 PM (KL49F)

823 The abortion issue is a tough one. I am pro-life, but the words of extremists like Akin push unthinking moderates to the pro-choice side and help the leftists get elected, so obviously great care needs to be taken there.

Posted by: Jon at February 20, 2013 05:24 PM (jr5Bn)

824 Ace,
I notice that you haven't actually gotten all petulant flamewar, which is more than I can say for most other members of the party (including far too many socons). So at this point I can't really say you've embraced your inner child.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 20, 2013 05:25 PM (ZMzpb)

825 Brewdog, you like to fuck hairy smelly man-ass.

Uhm, that does in fact, make you a sick fucked-up freak.

Tell me, how exactly is your man-ass attraction "normal"?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:25 PM (z3Lez)

826 >>>Okay, fine. But keep in mind, the other side ran ads that were nothing
but Mitt Romney saying over and over again "I would repeal Roe v Wade.
Repeal Roe v Wade. Repeal Roe v Wade."

And "47% 47% 47% 47%"

Don't even attempt to portend that Romney's electoral woes were merely due to an abortion quote.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 20, 2013 05:25 PM (0q2P7)

827 well this discussion turned graphic

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:27 PM (60GaT)

828 Strife the Butthurt Fucktard, I (and many of the dirty Morons) love eating pussy. Now there's an orrifice that produces many vile things, such as the Stifes of the world. I never once said that love is a product of sex. No where in your nonsensical response do you address why two men can't love each other. An earlier commentator described a gay couple-both men suffering from HIV- that have been together over 30 years. Thats literally more than many hetero marriages. Is that not love?
PS I have some KY to help you remove that Dildo O' Bigotry which has surely resided in your anal orífice for quite some time

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:27 PM (m/bYW)

829 827 well this discussion turned graphic
Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:27 PM (60GaT)


What, you've never seen a troll here before?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 20, 2013 05:27 PM (bxiXv)

830 "The abortion issue is a tough one. I am pro-life, but the words of extremists like Akin push unthinking moderates to the pro-choice side and help the leftists get elected, so obviously great care needs to be taken there."

Akin wasn't an extremist. His view was not 'an extreme pro-life view'. It was stupidity, a flat-out biological inaccuracy.

If a man tells you that guns cure breast cancer, he's not a pro-gun extremist. He's just saying something goddamn stupid.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:28 PM (eLtHg)

831 isn't Danny the guy who's A-OK with prostitution?

make this man a GOP strategist!

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:28 PM (60GaT)

832 Strife-You will receive no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:29 PM (m/bYW)

833 <827
well this discussion turned graphic>

Yeah, God forbid we actually get specific and honest about the actual dysfunctional mechanics of homosexuality.

Let's just pretend it's safe, clean, and "normal". Shall we?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:29 PM (z3Lez)

834 Correction: for all I know, Akin was a pro-life extremist. But what killed him wasn't 'pro-life extremeness', it was him saying something dumb and clearly incorrect - and something that is utterly unessential to the pro-life argument.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:29 PM (eLtHg)

835 832
Strife-You will receive no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:29 PM (m/bYW)

Could I redeem myself by sucking dick?Would that win back some "points"?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:30 PM (z3Lez)

836 Strife, i think a lot of people have a certain visceral reaction. it's just they don't think about it that much

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:30 PM (60GaT)

837 #809 Amen! I think a lot of people never saw those ads. They ran 24/7 in Virginia, and pretty heavily late in the campaign in Philly. I believe that ad cost Romney more votes than any of the Bain Capital ads did.

Neither Reagan nor either Bush ever, ever uttered the words "repeal Roe v. Wade." The only things they actually did to advance a pro-life agenda were the Mexico City policy, and supporting the Hyde Amendment.And of course the conservative SCOTUS appointments. Yet Mitt Romney -- a Mormon, for crying out loud -- was pretty much forced to say over and over again that he favored repealing Roe in order to prove his pro-life bona fides.

We have to stop this sort of thing or we really won't win any more elections.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:31 PM (aBlZ1)

838 We need a NEW party that isn't under this court-order.
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:23 PM (KL49F)


Do you honestly think people who would look at looming national bankruptcy, record-setting cronyism, massive vote fraud, a corrupt and beholden press corps, and rampant abuse of legal and constitutional principles and say "hey, I know what let's do, let's attack So-Cons" is going to do something so breathtakingly rational?

Of course not, they're going to ride the country into the ground and hope they'll somehow come out on top.

NO ONE DOES.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 20, 2013 05:31 PM (bxiXv)

839 <828 No where in your nonsensical response do you address why two men can't love each other.>

How do men "love" each other?

With sex?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:32 PM (z3Lez)

840
I'll play, briefly.

It seems that everyone is missing the Larger Point:

To what extent may we, as a society, regulate behavior?

Homosexuality is a behavior; it's something that you do. If you do not engage in homosexual conduct, are you homosexual?

That regulating behavior really is the point can be shown by the Left's attitude towards Christianity and the nuclear family.

There's good, but not conclusive, evidence that some homosexuals, "born that way", really have certain areas of their brain that have developed as that of the other gender. Probably not genetic, but maybe due to hormone exposure/lack of exposure during pregnancy, and likely with a genetic component. But there's also evidence that some are "created": physical abuse, sexual abuse, maybe just the opportunity to play ...

In any event, their brains are or get "wired" to "homosexual", or some degree thereof. Should we return to the time when homosexuals, by virtue of their behavior, were outlawed? I vote "no". This is a vote for "toleration". This behavior has been known for millenia, and, at best, never quite publicly acceptable. Do as you like, but be prepared to accept the penalties: higher risk for various diseases, some degree of social stigma.

But the Left, by trying, and apparently successfully, to identify homosexuals as a "protected class" or "protected group", is forming a basis to regulate behavior ... societal behavior, individual behavior, acceptable behavior

... and, as we've seen, when behavior is regulated by government, rather than social choices, homosexuals are among the first to be shipped off to "camps".

Posted by: Arbalest at February 20, 2013 05:32 PM (9ZOw+)

841 Crude @ 818 said, "It's like hating democrats versus disliking the democratic party's views."

But I do hate Democrats. Time for a reality check, at the best possible spin for a Democrat is that they are an idiot. If they actually do know what that party stands for they are Evil with the capital E. What isn't to hate about it, I'm tired of pretending that isn't where we are. They are evil, and they absolutely won't stop until we are dead or bend the knee to them.

I'm just not interested in bipartisanship, compromise or getting along with evil. Evil must be confronted, fought and defeated. It isn't over until no democrat holds a position of authority or influence in either the political or cultural arena. Democrat Delenda Est.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 05:33 PM (YhRJW)

842 <836
Strife, i think a lot of people have a certain visceral reaction. it's just they don't think about it that much>

Because it's so natural.... and stuff.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:33 PM (z3Lez)

843 Social issues are a trap. Have we learned nothing? The GOP is all wrapped up around the axel on this because they try and legislate morals and values as well as demand compliance inside the camp.But changing the GOP is a waste of time. There's too many 'legacy pledges' in there to even think of starting. So walk away and never look back. Which leaves you with starting a new party of going Libertarian. Quite frankly the Libertarian approach is what you want without the "side order of Ron Paul". So throw him under the bus and take it over.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 20, 2013 05:33 PM (pDRpv)

844 Strife-I'm sure you have to use copious amounts of alcohol to reproduce; surely no self aware woman would want your tiny shriveled bigoted excuse of overcompensating manhood inside her reproductive orifice. Yes I blame you for using orifice first.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:33 PM (m/bYW)

845 "something that is utterly unessential to the pro-life argument."

well it's a problem of confronting "hard cases" that complicate an ideology, and naturally people are tempted to downplay/wave away said cases so they feel more comfortable. i'm guilty of this myself at times, though i try not to do it.

not excusing Akin mind just that i get the "fitting reality into your worldview" impulse

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:33 PM (60GaT)

846 841 John Morris,

Damn straight fuck 'em.

They quit the nation back in '68 or ~2001....

I'm done with 'em I'd walk across the street not to help a union shit stirrer who was on fire.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 05:35 PM (LRFds)

847 844
Strife-I'm sure you have to use copious amounts of alcohol to reproduce;
surely no self aware woman would want your tiny shriveled bigoted
excuse of overcompensating manhood inside her reproductive orifice. Yes I
blame you for using orifice first.

I'm sure you've pounded many a turd up many a man-ass..... and yet, you can't reproduce.

It's almost as if nature is telling you something. You sick fuck.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:36 PM (z3Lez)

848 Furthermore, I am black and a legal-immigrant-cum-naturalized-citizen. I know for a fact that some conservatives don't like black people or immigrants but you don't see me running over to the libernatzis. Most conservatives are good decent people and I agree with what they want for this country, that's why I'm here. So I stand with them even if it means I have to give a little. That's life. We all have what we want and what we firmly believe to be right but you got to learn to bend a little. Not enough to be butt f*cked, but enough to get this country moving in at least the general direction that we want. Then we can go from there.

Posted by: Nat at February 20, 2013 05:36 PM (hLWeb)

849 Tell me, Danny:

how exactly is homosexuality "normal"?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:37 PM (z3Lez)

850 @JDP,

"well it's a problem of confronting "hard cases" that complicate an ideology, and naturally people are tempted to downplay/wave away said cases so they feel more comfortable. i'm guilty of this myself at times, though i try not to do it."

Sure, the 'hard cases' are tricky. I'm just pointing out that what sunk Mourdock and Akin had very little to do with actual pro-life issues. People are acting as if the mere fact that Mourdock and Akin were pro-life, or 'too pro-life', did them in. It's not the case.

@John Morris

"But I do hate Democrats. Time for a reality check, at the best possible spin for a Democrat is that they are an idiot."

Yes. We need to convert idiots. We need to get idiots to vote for us. Like it or not.

I am not saying 'compromise'. I am saying, 'communicate.' Don't say "well that large group of people are idiots" and move on. You need idiots. Absolutely, positively need them, because they happen to be a very sizable portion of the voting populace.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:38 PM (eLtHg)

851 831-My good sir, truly my views on prostitution impressed you; you always bring it up. Call me a pimp,but I'm the one who wants human freedom. Human freedom is one of the few arrows we have in our quiver. If you can convince a no info voter to support legalization in the name of freedom, you might be able to convince him to roll back government in the name of said freedom.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:38 PM (m/bYW)

852 850 Crude,

anyone stupid enough to follow the red diaper babies should be lobotomized.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 05:38 PM (LRFds)

853 #830 and #834 That is an extremist viewpoint, and it is bullshit. I have a good friend who is a longtime conservative pro-life activist in Virginia, and he says the really militant pro-lifers have for years been pushing the notion that women can't get pregnant from a rape. It isn't true, but it is cited as the reason to oppose exceptions for rape and incest. They believe these exceptions will mean thousands of women falsely claiming rape in order to get abortions. My friend swears he has heard this stuff, for many years, and that Todd Akin was just repeating stuff he had heard from these folks.He wasn't just spouting nonsense off the cuff, this is doctrine within a small segment of pro-lifers.

And unfortunately, that small segment is very organized and very loud, and ends up getting to pick our candidates and put forward ridiculous legislation that just kills us in statewide and national elections.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:39 PM (aBlZ1)

854 Akin's only mistake was talking to the Leftist media about abortion.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:39 PM (KL49F)

855 <828 I never once said that love is a product of sex. No where in your
nonsensical response do you address why two men can't love each other. >

Two men "love" each other in a non-sexual way?

Really?

Then why gay-"marriage"

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:40 PM (z3Lez)

856 I think I touched a nerve with Strife.

Good.

As for the social cons, I resent the notion that they should have a veto. I'm pro life, but I am unwilling to sacrifice everything for the sake of that one issue. Maybe that makes me not pro life enough? Whatever. But if pro lifers "stay home" at least admit that you're willing to elect a pro abortion Democrat by default over an insufficiently pro life Republican. "Staying home" is the same as capitulation, it's not a statement.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:41 PM (DcbLC)

857 America's fucked. This society will collapse, at least in the urban cores of our deep blue cities. The smart bet is to be elsewhere when it happens, well-armed and -provisioned, trying to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Let it burn. We can rebuild after the rampaging mobs run out of steam (and statist politicians to attack for not delivering enough Free Shit™).

Posted by: OhioCoastie at February 20, 2013 05:41 PM (pKCuj)

858 The GOP does not wish to 'fight' the Dems. This is not because they think they will loose, but because in the end they are all partying it up on the big government living.

They with the Dems have built an aristocratic class and are growing their power. There is little to no conservatism in their bloodline. For the people, the conservative people, to think the GOP is for them in anyway is a grand mistake. The GOP must be replaced.

I really don't believe in political parties, but know we are stuck with only two being viable at a time in the US. We must make the GOP become the third party, or make it melt into the DNC.

Posted by: All_IS_LOST at February 20, 2013 05:42 PM (T/L2Z)

859 Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:41 PM (DcbLC)

How exactly is homosexuality "normal"?

I seemed to have missed your answer.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:42 PM (z3Lez)

860 Purely anecdotal, but all the close Republican friends I've talked to about this are really sick of Repubs making an issue about gays and marriage. A few even voted for Gary Johnson to send a message to the GOP that they're sick of the anti-gay stuff. It was safe to do that here because Obama had no chance of winning TX.

It's the only thing I don't like about Rick Perry, but his other qualities outweigh that negative.

Romney was my second pick for the nom after Perry flamed out mainly because I thought he was the candidate who would mention genitals less. Even with Newt and Cain, we would've had to hear all about THEIR genitals and what they did with them if they had gotten the nomination. And with Santorum it would've been Ladypartspalooza.

Of course then the Dems had to artificially make the election about lady parts.

No naughty bits or danglies. I don't want private parts in politics.

Posted by: stace at February 20, 2013 05:43 PM (m+UHL)

861 Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 05:33 PM (YhRJW)

Yep. Did the Founding Fathers allow Loyalists any part of the new government? Were they allowed to hold positions of authority? Did they negotiate with them? Did they play by Marquis de Queensbury rules with them?Nope. They were the Enemy.The Dems are the modern-day King George III on steroids. They are the Enemy now.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:43 PM (KL49F)

862 Danny, why do you even bother responding to someone like Strife?There are people you can discuss things with and then there are those who are so bigoted that they simply spew bile and act like they never matured beyond fights on the playground.

Posted by: Jon at February 20, 2013 05:44 PM (jr5Bn)

863 "anyone stupid enough to follow the red diaper babies should be lobotomized."

Like a young Andrew Breitbart? David Horowitz? That's just two better known names. People's views change. But they need to hear alternative views, and they need them presented in a way they can understand.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:44 PM (eLtHg)

864 <860
Purely anecdotal, but all the close Republican friends I've talked to
about this are really sick of Repubs making an issue about gays and
marriage.>


Gee that's funny,

all the Conservatives I've talked to are really sick of Democraps making an issue about gays and
marriage.

You have some really unique "Republican" friends.


Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:45 PM (z3Lez)

865 <862
Danny, why do you even bother responding to someone like Strife?There
are people you can discuss things with and then there are those who are
so bigoted that they simply spew bile and act like they never matured
beyond fights on the playground.>

Bigoted?

Tell me Jon, how exactly is homosexuality "normal"?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (z3Lez)

866 Posted by: All_IS_LOST at February 20, 2013 05:42 PM (T/L2Z)

I truly wish this could happen. We've always been told not to start a third-party because it's much easier to take over an existing one; but since we've seen the temper tantrum Rove has thrown, I don't think the Grassroots has a voice in the GOP anymore.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (KL49F)

867 Strife: Bend over. Here comes the big one.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (S4AQU)

868 #856 The single-issue pro-life voters and activists blow my mind. It's a MORAL issue. You must change hearts and minds before you can change the law. Reasonable people disgaree on when life actually begins. I refuse to be labeled a baby-killer because I think it'sa dumb idea to repeal settled law on this after 40 years. I've never met anyone who thinks abortion's a great idea and is thrilled that there are so many of them. Most people wish all babies were wanted and born to loving adult parents who would raise them well. But that ain't where we live now. And most people also think what a couple decide to do about an unplanned pregnancy is their own damn business and not yours or mine. The minute you try to take away anything that has been defined for 40 years as a legal right guaranteed by the Constitution, you are going to pay a gigantic price at the polls from the people you are taking the right away from.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (aBlZ1)

869 I think I may be being misunderstood here.

When I say conservatives should try to convert liberals, I'm not saying 'accept RINOs into the party' or 'compromise with the Democrats' or any such nonsense.

I'm talking about something as simple as, presenting conservative ideas, targeted to a black audience. Try to sell conservatism to hispanics, latinos. Try to sell conservatism to liberals.

This isn't some "compromise" schtick.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:48 PM (eLtHg)

870 <867
Strife: Bend over. Here comes the big one.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (S4AQU)>
I'm sorry, how exactly is homosexuality "normal"?

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:49 PM (z3Lez)

871 Strife-Over 400 animal species engage in homosexual activity. Does Animal Planet "recruit" them and turn them to commit gay sex?
No you will not win any points for sucking dick (you are probably too scared to give a woman oral at any rate) but you will win major points for removing that bigoted dildo out of your culo.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:51 PM (m/bYW)

872 851 i do like bringing it up cuz it is teh stupid

most Americans do not find using "freedom" as a catch-all abstract argument convincing

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:51 PM (60GaT)

873 Of course then the Dems had to artificially make the election about lady parts. No naughty bits or danglies. I don't want private parts in politics.
Posted by: stace at February 20, 2013 05:43 PM (m+UHL)

No, they didn't have to "artificially" make it about lady parts. Mitt Romney hung himself on this, being forced to prove his pro-life bona fides a million times during the primaries to satisfy the militant pro-lifers. He didn't want to say anything in this campaign about abortion or any other social issues, but he had to to win the nomination, and the Democrats quite rationally and smartly hung it around his neck in the fall.

Lather, rinse, and repeat in 2016, especially if Hillary runs.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:52 PM (aBlZ1)

874 Strife is the arbiter of "normal" now, so I will be sure to submit my choices for his approval.

I must have missed the clause in the Constituion that requires all of us to be "normal."

For someone who is disgusted by hairy man-ass, Strife certainly has a lot of thoughts and opinions about hairy man-ass.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:53 PM (AP6/F)

875 Crude @ 850, "We need to convert idiots. We need to get idiots to vote for us. Like it or not

Good point. But I'm not a very good 'speaker to idiots' so while I will admit it is something the movement needs to find a way to do, I don't need to be the one to do it. And I seriously doubt it can be done on anything approaching a useful timescale.

I still say our only hope short-mid term is to make an all out push to seize school boards in red areas. At minimum we could stop the enemy from taking our own kids. Imagine every kid graduating from a red controlled school knowing what the Constitution says and doesn't say. Being able to take apart a Party Media 'newscast' and identify the propaganda points being pushed. Imagine schools purged of progs, where Heather Has Two Mommies isn't in the school library and certainly not assigned reading material. Where basic economics is taught. Where reason, debate and knowledge are prized higher than bullshit, if not higher than sports at least equal to it.

And after we take the local K-12 in deep red areas try for the State education machinery in the red states. Turn the tables on them and use the schools to push an American political agenda into Blue cities in red states. Purge progs from State Universities. Watch how fast Blue people suddenly support school choice and vouchers and getting the government out of higher education. Which is of course what we want longterm, because OSullivans Law and the dependency of government schools on government will push em back blue the second we stop putting active effort into keeping them on red team.

Instead of trying to fix stupid, how about we try producing less of it in the first place.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 05:54 PM (YhRJW)

876 Reasonable people disgaree on when life actually
begins. I refuse to be labeled a baby-killer because I think it'sa dumb
idea to repeal settled law on this after 40 years.
Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (aBlZ1)

Ignorant people disagree. As for repealing settled law, you do know the Republican part was founded expressly for the purpose of ridding the nation of slavery?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 05:54 PM (bb5+k)

877 more importantly than its popularity, it's false

prostitution is not a state, no one's being discriminated against because we recognize its social consequences


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:54 PM (60GaT)

878 Jon- You raise a great point. Part of it is being bored in class and part of it is being 20 and full of passion (maturity not so much)

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:55 PM (m/bYW)

879 Convince the scolds that the best way for the government to leave THEM alone (end war on Christmas, allow Christians to pray, stop abortifacient mandates) is to get them to accept a live and let live attitude for gays.

Also gay marriage is really an opportunity to 'indoctrinate' homosexuals into the traditional conservative way of looking at things. Taxes, family morals, government interference...and raising kids.

Posted by: coondawg68 at February 20, 2013 05:55 PM (VhcOZ)

880 "But if pro lifers "stay home" at least admit that you're willing to elect a pro abortion Democrat by default over an insufficiently pro life Republican. "Staying home" is the same as capitulation, it's not a statement.
Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:41 PM (DcbLC)

Wrong.
It is a proactive step to curtail the career, power, influence and prestige of an opponent to our policy agenda, and an opportunity, next election, to promote a supporter of our agenda to go directly against the partisan opponent who is also opposed to our policy agenda.
It prevents us from being goaded to abandon our policy goals because "that doesn't win elections."

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 05:55 PM (0Bs6G)

881 Strife-Over 400 animal species engage in homosexual activity.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 05:51 PM (m/bYW)

That is bullshit. I've attempted to find examples of such behavior, and every example presented turns out to be false.

They argue that birds nesting together is equivalent to lesbianism.

Again, bullshit.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 05:56 PM (bb5+k)

882 coondawg68 -- Alec Baldwin is that you

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 05:57 PM (60GaT)

883 Democrats quite rationally and smartly hung it around his neck in the fall.



Lather, rinse, and repeat in 2016, especially if Hillary runs.

Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:52 PM (aBlZ1)

You mean the Democrats who control the microphones.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 05:57 PM (bb5+k)

884 Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 05:48 PM (eLtHg)


The GOP has been trying for decades to win over Latinos. They've done a lot of "Hispandering". Reagan signed amnesty for them. Bush spoke Spanish and "compassionate conservatism". It's never going to happen. Outside of Cruz and Martinez (and to an extent Rubio but he supports amnesty) the majority of Hispanics in America are illegal immigrants wholove Free Stuff. They are socialists.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:57 PM (KL49F)

885 871
Strife-Over 400 animal species engage in homosexual activity. Does Animal Planet "recruit" them and turn them to commit gay sex?

Yeah out of 1.5 million species. And within their respective species their numbers are a clear minority. Add it all up and it is the statistical definition of ABNORMAL.

Oh and by the way, they're lower species.

So you admit that homosexuality is a de-evolution to a lower more primitive animalistic behavior.

Well played sir.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 05:58 PM (z3Lez)

886 "Reasonable people disgaree on when life actually
begins. I refuse to be labeled a baby-killer because I think it'sa dumb
idea to repeal settled law on this after 40 years.
Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (aBlZ1) "

What's the definition embraced by the EPA for endangered species? Pretty sure I can't have a bald eagle omelette cause you can't say when the bird began.

Also, why is Scott Peterson serving time for TWO murders?

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 05:58 PM (0Bs6G)

887 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 05:56 PM (bb5+k)

It is BS. All it is with animals is a show of dominance, not because they're homos.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:59 PM (KL49F)

888 @880

I disagree. "Staying home" and electing a pro abortion Dem by default is not proactive. It's a victory for the other side.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 06:00 PM (5qa+L)

889 DiogenesLamp, the media is liberal news at 11. what does your "MEDIA CONTROLS MINDS" drumbeat accomplish other than diverting blame. i mean if it makes you feel better, k, but it's not healthy

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:00 PM (60GaT)

890 Diogenes Lamp.

Dolphins and Chimpanzees are the only species to derive pleasure from sex. They engage in homosexual acts. Granted they also commit patriacide, but then again homo saipians have done far worse.
Speaking of avian species, there have been observed instances where a female goose will insert herself between two copulating male geese.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:00 PM (m/bYW)

891
I must have missed the clause in the Constituion that requires all of us to be "normal."



For someone who is disgusted by hairy man-ass, Strife certainly has a lot of thoughts and opinions about hairy man-ass.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 20, 2013 05:53 PM (AP6/F)

In Thomas Jefferson's time, the usual method for dealing with gays was execution. I wouldn't be looking in the constitution for support on this issue.

The evidence I have seen convinces me that Homosexuality is generally a psychological condition, partially genetic, but largely environmental.

Historically they never achieved such large numbers as 2% of the population because incidence of disease and incidence of an inability to control their fetishes got them killed.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:00 PM (bb5+k)

892 @John Morris

I agree that the education system is one area that needs to be worked with. That's a larger part of the problem, really - the school system, the university system, and mass media generally is stacked against conservatives. How to deal with that is a big, looming issue, and it's not easy to solve.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 06:01 PM (eLtHg)

893 Ace Finally Embraces The Suck

Posted by: It Will Burn at February 20, 2013 06:02 PM (ZJW1c)

894 Normally making analogies to nature has been problematic (see social Darwinism, eugenics). However since anti gay jihadists argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" it makes sense to rebuke this falsehood as such

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:02 PM (m/bYW)

895 Reasonable people disagree on when life actually

begins. I refuse to be labeled a baby-killer because I think it's a dumb

idea to repeal settled law on this after 40 years.



Posted by: rockmom at February 20, 2013 05:47 PM (aBlZ1)



Settled law after 40 years? So slavery shouldn't have been abolished either?



Ok, if people can't agree on when life actually begins (yeah, whatever)....what about HOW life begins? Can we agree on that?

Posted by: Tami at February 20, 2013 06:02 PM (X6akg)

896 Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 05:54 PM (YhRJW)




I don't believe it is possible to stop a social/fiscal apocalypse. Romney was the last shot at this. The window of opportunity has now passed. It's time to light backfires if we can.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:02 PM (bb5+k)

897 There is some kind of universal Law of Conservation of Competence.

If your policies are not suicidal, your politics must be.

Kind of like some kind of force in the universe that likes collapse, death camps, war and revolution, and ensures that people are collectively too stupid to avoid these things.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 20, 2013 06:03 PM (bxiXv)

898 You just can't get it through your head, Ace...

The R has been getting bitch slapped in elections because the R stands for nothing anymore than sucking D cock and spreading its ass cheeks for whatever issue the msm tells it to spread for.

Conservatives, and non retard level "centrists" stand up for those who stand up for something worth standing up for, not a God Damned party initial.

The Rs of this day are absofuckinglutly worthless.

Posted by: Grimmy at February 20, 2013 06:04 PM (uUsh9)

899 <894
Normally making analogies to nature has been problematic (see social
Darwinism, eugenics). However since anti gay jihadists argue that
homosexuality is "unnatural" it makes sense to rebuke this falsehood as
such>

Feel free to rebuke it.

What exactly is "normal" about homosexuality.

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 06:04 PM (z3Lez)

900
And there you have it, gentle viewers - a man, with z3Lez attached to all his posts, trapped forever in a unending jihad against all things non-heterosexual. An irony that can only be found.....in the Moron Zone.

[Cue ending theme as camera pans upward]

From Episode 51, Gaymare at 20,000 Feet

Posted by: Rod Serling at February 20, 2013 06:05 PM (wJliR)

901 oh, and I forgot...

Simply voting to "stop" hard leftists with soft leftists or quislings of leftists who wont solve a single fucking problem or have the courage to stand up on a single fucking issue does nothing good. It does do bad, in that it gives the rabid destructionists the option of saying "well, the other side did it too!" with the bene of it actually being a true accusation which can not be refuted.

Posted by: Grimmy at February 20, 2013 06:06 PM (uUsh9)

902
Also gay marriage is really an opportunity to
'indoctrinate' homosexuals into the traditional conservative way of
looking at things. Taxes, family morals, government interference...and
raising kids.





Posted by: coondawg68 at February 20, 2013 05:55 PM (VhcOZ)

Do you ever look at what gays are doing in San Fransisco? Check out Zombietime blog.

I'm not sure if you know anything about the bible, and I am definitely not a religious person, but the bible has several descriptions of events which occur when homosexuality is accepted in a town.

If the pattern holds true, when they get to a certain level of density, the ugly comes out. I would not be so sure of my theory of "Moral" gays were I you.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:07 PM (bb5+k)

903 Posted by: Rod Serling at February 20, 2013 06:05 PM (wJliR)

Ah yes: "projection"!


Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 06:07 PM (z3Lez)

904 rockmom @868 said, "I refuse to be labeled a baby-killer because I think it'sa dumb idea to repeal settled law on this after 40 years."

Excuse me, I missed that part about it being 'settled law.' Or do you buy into the notion the Supreme Court is a super legislature? That is exactly the point, the Supremes took the issue out of the political process and thus the law isn't at all settled. Even today I'd bet cash money that a bill couldn't pass Congress legalizing abortion to the extent Roe v Wade did. That is why the fight rages on, because the anti-abort side KNOWs they were robbed, that knowing they would lose at the ballot box the progs abused the Courts.

Me, I want Roe gone more for the side effects. Roe is now the lynchpin that holds the whole living Constitution monster together. Knock it out and most of what the court did between then and the end of the 20th Century would become attackable.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 06:08 PM (YhRJW)

905 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:07 PM (bb5+k)

Other hisorical texts besides the Bible show the same thing: Rome fell after accepting homosexuality (along many other problems, of course).

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 06:09 PM (KL49F)

906 Yes D. Lamp- People are now starting to see gays as human beings that merit life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therefore they aren't killing them anymore (at least in the post-Enlightenment West) Imagine that.
The Declaration and Constitution speak to the rights of all citizens. Over the decades we've had to actually make certain groups full citizens (see Americans, African and Women) yet "in spirit" they have always been citizens. MLK made appeals to these same documents, even though at the time the way to test blacks was to end law them. Thus, would you argue that MLK's speeches are illogical, even fallacious for appealing to our founding documents?

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:09 PM (m/bYW)

907 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 05:56 PM (bb5+k)



It is BS. All it is with animals is a show of dominance, not because they're homos.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 05:59 PM (KL49F)

Exactly. Dogs will hump a leg. That doesn't make them "legasexuals."

When an opportunity occurs with a female, they take it with great gusto. A preference for males, they do not have.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:10 PM (bb5+k)

908
In "Gaymare at 20,000 Feet," we had to use rear-screen projection. No, it wasn't really necessary for the effects, but z3Lez wouldn't have it any other way. He insisted on it. For the authenticity. And the unintentional irony."
Director's Commentary on Twilight Zone Episode 51

Posted by: Rod Serling at February 20, 2013 06:11 PM (wJliR)

909 *treat blacks was to enslave them

That'll teach me to comment under my desk while class is I'm session

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:12 PM (m/bYW)

910 DiogenesLamp, the media is liberal news at 11. what
does your "MEDIA CONTROLS MINDS" drumbeat accomplish other than
diverting blame. i mean if it makes you feel better, k, but it's not
healthy


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:00 PM (60GaT)

In order to solve a problem, one must first have an accurate understanding of what is causing the problem.

There is an internet resource called "Newsbusters." You should check it out.

Beyond that, Benghazi should have roasted Obama. Fast and Furious should have roasted Obama. The Inspector General Scandal should have roasted Obama. The Dealergate scandal should have roasted Obama. The New York Dive bombing by Air Force One should have inspired constant ridicule. Myriad stories SHOULD have made him unelectable. Do you know why they did not?

Because the FUCKING MEDIA WOULD NOT REPORT THEM!!!!

How are we going to argue that the man is a fool if we can't SHOW him to be a fool?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:14 PM (bb5+k)

911 863 Crude,

it was tolerable when they didn't vote....

guess what they vote now....

I am a big Hwitz fan and Andrew was a Godsend but the juicebox mafia ain't reforming because their red is not misguided thought it is fucking religion.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 06:14 PM (LRFds)

912 <906 People are now starting to see gays as human beings that merit life
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therefore they aren't killing them
anymore (at least in the post-Enlightenment West) Imagine that>

Free thinking intelligent people see gays as narcissistic bigoted militant state-sponsored fascists, hell-bent on anti-Christian persecution in an effort to legislate their sexual dysfunction into a mandated precept of secular social engineering.



Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 06:15 PM (z3Lez)

913 DiogenesLamp @896 said, "I don't believe it is possible to stop a social/fiscal apocalypse."

Probably true. But we can and should be trying to equip as many of the next generation with the tools they will need to survive the burning and more importantly, help build something better. Do you really want to see what sort of rebuilt world is going to come from this current crop of high self esteem idiots?

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 06:15 PM (YhRJW)

914 in

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:17 PM (m/bYW)

915 Posted by: Rod Serling at February 20, 2013 06:11 PM (wJliR)

Whatever you say, "rod".

Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 06:17 PM (z3Lez)

916 Dolphins and Chimpanzees are the only species to
derive pleasure from sex. They engage in homosexual acts. Granted they
also commit patriacide, but then again homo saipians have done far
worse.

Speaking of avian species, there have been observed instances where a
female goose will insert herself between two copulating male geese.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:00 PM (m/bYW)


I suspect an investigation into your examples will reveal that they are misconstruing what is actually taking place. That has been what I have discovered every single time i've looked at these claims.

Do you have any links which support these claims?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:18 PM (bb5+k)

917 Look, the gay rights movement is just the latest incarnation of the hedonist movement. Its a self-absorbed, primitive, me-first movement.

What we call "traditional" or "christian" values are a relatively recent cultural evolution. Before that, human beings basically fucked, snorted, smoked, and ate anything that moved, with often fatal side effects. It took the idea of self-denial, delayed gratification, and caring for one's spawn for society to progress and be successful.
Traditional values work. You start screwing in high school, and have a kid without a husband you and your kid are doomed to poverty. You start doing drugs in high school (or sooner), and you permanently alter your brain, before its finished developing (which can have long term health problems and cause mental illnesses later). You engage in the homosexual lifestyle, and you cut your life expectancy in half, plus if you somehow have children, those children will not have successful lives.
But if you keep your legs crossed, your pants zipped, and wait until marriage to have a kid, both you and your kid will have a much better chance for success. Married couple live longer, happier, healthier lives. Religious couples are even better than non-religious.

So reality (let alone science) shows the "traditional" lifestyle is a net benefit to not only the individual, but the family, and society. Yet many of us are afraid to defend it. We don't want to be seen as "squares" or "uncool".

But hedonism in all its forms is as old as mankind. Its mankind at his animalistic base worst. Its unevolved and we need to move past it.

Posted by: Iblis at February 20, 2013 06:18 PM (9221z)

918 I am already at After the Burn™. Here we shoot first, (and second and third if you're a liberal) and take anything valuable. Now back to my shelves, that ammo ain't gonna stack itself...

Posted by: In The Ground at February 20, 2013 06:18 PM (5pA5T)

919 910

the public does not trust Republicans, even though they don't always like Democrats. this has been true for a while on the economy in particular, where opposition to certain big tax-and-spend programs =/= agreement with the catch-all "government needs to get out of your way" rhetoric.

this is not something that can be fixed by pointing out some scandals. and it's not something that the media is solely responsible for.

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:20 PM (60GaT)

920
Other hisorical texts besides the Bible show the
same thing: Rome fell after accepting homosexuality (along many other
problems, of course).

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 06:09 PM (KL49F)

Before the fall, they engaged in "bread and circuses." Free Bread for townfolk, and circuses to keep them amused.

Our modern equivalent is Welfare and Television.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:22 PM (bb5+k)

921 Strife-Hows the whole love your neighbor thing going?

DL-When two animals only fuck the same gender (at the price of not spreading genes) that's kind of a preference that goes beyond merely wanting to assert dominance. In humans this is great-people being people means that there are plenty of unwanted kids in foster homes and orphanages. In reality, gays can literally pick up the slack of heterosexuals.

Rome fell for a variety of different reasons, especially the fact that people were no longer willing to fight for their Empire and instead subordinated that task. That doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with treating homosexuals as equals.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:28 PM (m/bYW)

922 Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 06:09 PM (m/bYW)


I regard people with homosexual preferences as having a severe psychological problem. (Such as Chas Bono. ) They have been regarded throughout most of the History since Jefferson as being "non compos mentis."



I don't see any merit for arguing that people with psychological problems should be accepted because they chose to engage in an ill behavior.

That this should somehow be a protected right? Even nuttier.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:28 PM (bb5+k)

923 "If we're going to have a war of all against all, let's have it, honestly."

Works for me.

Posted by: MadisonConservative at February 20, 2013 06:28 PM (sb+ta)

924
"A lot of people ask that question - why was Wally Cox credited when he didn't even appear in the episode? z3Lez kept insisting it was necessary for him to 'get into character.' Wally got a little weirded-out when z3Lez screamed 'Say your name - your FULL name' before every take. He kept doing it when the shoot was over too, even in the parking lot. What? Yeah, Lucille Ball was on the set that day, and....yeah, her too. She was not cool with it, and even Desi got a little irate. 'Man,' he said, 'this is not method acting, I don't care what you say.'"

Director's Commentary to Twilight Zone Episode 51

Posted by: Rod Serling at February 20, 2013 06:28 PM (wJliR)

925 Probably true. But we can and should be trying to
equip as many of the next generation with the tools they will need to
survive the burning and more importantly, help build something better.
Do you really want to see what sort of rebuilt world is going to come
from this current crop of high self esteem idiots?


Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 06:15 PM (YhRJW)


I think a lot of people will just die. I'm hoping the big conservative chunk of states mostly in the Middle of the country will become an independent nation, and be strong enough to fight off the Liberal fucks.

Hard times make good people.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:31 PM (bb5+k)

926
Look, the gay rights movement is just the latest incarnation of the
hedonist movement. Its a self-absorbed, primitive, me-first movement.



...




But
hedonism in all its forms is as old as mankind. Its mankind at his
animalistic base worst. Its unevolved and we need to move past it.


Posted by: Iblis at February 20, 2013 06:18 PM (9221z)



Very well put.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:34 PM (bb5+k)

927 "That is the system of Tammany Hall and the Chicago machine. It should be repugnant to every conservative and every Republican."

It's probably repugnant to conservatives, but a toss-up where Republicans are concerned.

Always remember: these days, Republican != conservative.


Posted by: Blacqur Jacques Shellacque at February 20, 2013 06:37 PM (vd7A8)

928
the public does not trust Republicans, even though they don't always
like Democrats. this has been true for a while on the economy in
particular, where opposition to certain big tax-and-spend programs =/=
agreement with the catch-all "government needs to get out of your way"
rhetoric.


this is not something that can be fixed by
pointing out some scandals. and it's not something that the media is
solely responsible for.


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:20 PM (60GaT)

No doubt some of our problem is the fact that many Republicans are lying shit-bags who keep doing exactly the same thing as Democrats, but just not as quickly or as much.

Even so, the problem I am referring to is that of losing elections. There is nothing wrong with our candidates or our ideas. What is wrong is that we are not allowed to present them. We are subject to constant interference by the Liberal media.

During Sarah Palin's speech to the Republican National Convention, her teleprompter failed.. (I personally think it was sabotaged by some of the "Code Pink" shitheads or the media that got in the door) No one watching could tell her teleprompter had failed because she didn't miss a beat. She continued on with her speech perfectly.

Shithead had the same thing happen to him. (and not even in front of an audience of millions.) He turned into a gibbering jackass.

And the Media convinced everyone that Sarah Palin was the fool.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:40 PM (bb5+k)

929 Morons.

The Democrats were dead in the water but for his eminence BHO. Without him, the Democratic Party (Pelosi, Reid, other crusty white people) had no redeeming features. BHO offered something superficially new and undefined. But because of BHO, we are led to believe the GOP is done for the foreseeable future? Hah!

We had plenty of good options in 2012 but they didn't want to put themselves out on the line against an incumbent (his eminence BHO). In 2016, it's the increasingly dried-out Hillary Clinton, the buffoon Biden, Cuomo, O'Malley, and random others against Rubio, Christie, Jindal, Paul, Nikki Haley, Ryan, Perry etc. There is far more intellectual firepower and accomplishment on our side. Not to mention far more ethnic diversity.

Morons getting carried awat by the myth of BHO.

Posted by: Crispian at February 20, 2013 06:42 PM (zO4K8)

930 <921
Strife-Hows the whole love your neighbor thing going?



DL-When two animals only fuck the same gender (at the price of not
spreading genes) that's kind of a preference that goes beyond merely
wanting to assert dominance. In humans this is great-people being people
means that there are plenty of unwanted kids in foster homes and
orphanages. In reality, gays can literally pick up the slack of
heterosexuals.



Rome fell for a variety of different reasons, especially the fact
that people were no longer willing to fight for their Empire and instead
subordinated that task. That doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with
treating homosexuals as equals.>

Treating "homosexuals" as equals?

Equality has nothing to do with sexual desires and dysfunctions. And if the inconvenient "spreading of genes" thing is removed from the paradigm- then that's all you have: a mere sexual desire and a dysfunction. It's fucking for the sake of fucking with no possibility of reproduction of life. You must be a big fan of incest and bestiality. And hey, pederasty must be appealing to you as well.



Posted by: Strife at February 20, 2013 06:42 PM (ntNJz)

931 "What is wrong is that we are not allowed to present them."

yep, deflecting blame

have fun with it


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:42 PM (60GaT)

932 "Not to mention far more ethnic diversity."

dunno if this means as much as people think. lotta Hispanics don't care about Rubio for instance. maybe that'll change but i got my doubts about the same message going over much better just cuz the guy's Latino

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:44 PM (60GaT)

933 "888 @880
I disagree. "Staying home" and electing a pro abortion Dem by default is not proactive. It's a victory for the other side."

What "other side"? If the nominees of both parties are in agreement on policy, then opponents of that policy have no immediate "side". In such a situation, sinking the squishy Republican sets up a rematch where the liberal Democrat can be challenged by a Republican that supports an opposite policy.

The alternative is renouncing the policy goal. This whole thread is about getting fed up with "purity" instead of just taking whatever crap the GOP offers, as good enough.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2013 06:46 PM (0Bs6G)

934
The Democrats were dead in the water but for his
eminence BHO. Without him, the Democratic Party (Pelosi, Reid, other
crusty white people) had no redeeming features. BHO offered something
superficially new and undefined. But because of BHO, we are led to
believe the GOP is done for the foreseeable future? Hah!


Posted by: Crispian at February 20, 2013 06:42 PM (zO4K


I am not arguing that the GOP is done for the foreseeable future, I am arguing that the NATION is done for the foreseeable future. Debt could possibly have been controlled under a Romney administration. It will simply expand quickly under an Obama administration.


The 60 Trillion dollar social security mess is about to hit soon.


Romney was the last chance to grow the economy faster than the avalanche could overwhelm it.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:47 PM (bb5+k)

935 yep, deflecting blame

have fun with it




Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:42 PM (60GaT)

I honestly do not understand your view. I am willing to bet I am far more plugged into this politics shit than are you. I saw how the Media got Bill Clinton elected, and how they protected his ass.

If you don't see the media as the numero uno threat facing conservatives in this nation, what DO you see as the number one threat?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:50 PM (bb5+k)

936 We're no longer slouching toward Gomorrah; we're sprinting.

Posted by: OhioCoastie at February 20, 2013 06:52 PM (pKCuj)

937 I don't feel like Romney was our last/best chance. I'm optimistic. Maybe it had to get worse for people to wake up. The impending failure of Obamacare can help - especially if that failure is sharp and obvious - not a slow burn like other entitlements.

Posted by: Crispian at February 20, 2013 06:53 PM (zO4K8)

938
I don't feel like Romney was our last/best chance. I'm optimistic. Maybe
it had to get worse for people to wake up. The impending failure of
Obamacare can help - especially if that failure is sharp and obvious -
not a slow burn like other entitlements.


Posted by: Crispian at February 20, 2013 06:53 PM (zO4K


How are you going to make the debt math work?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 06:55 PM (bb5+k)

939 sven,

"I am a big Hwitz fan and Andrew was a Godsend but the juicebox mafia ain't reforming because their red is not misguided thought it is fucking religion."

I'm using them as examples of ex-liberals. Just because someone disagrees with you - even a population - doesn't mean you can't change their minds over time.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 06:58 PM (eLtHg)

940 i see the media as a large influence that can be effectively bypassed with a good candidate

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:58 PM (60GaT)

941 i see the media as a large influence that can be effectively bypassed with a good candidate


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 06:58 PM (60GaT)


Like Reagan? And that's a solution? I don't see any such candidate on the Horizon. Most of our potential candidates have one or more faults.

We have to do perfect, yet the opposition can get by with seriously deluded idiots/criminals.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 07:00 PM (bb5+k)

942 we don't have to do "perfect," Romney got 60 million votes and he had some flaws to put it mildly

you write like an inverted Marxist where anyone who isn't a conservative is suffering from false consciousness/brainwashing. it's comforting but it's untrue.

Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 07:04 PM (60GaT)

943 Crude @ 939 said, "I'm using them as examples of ex-liberals."

Oh I'm happy to have ex progs on the Red Team. But Horowitz et al repented and came completely over to the red team, they didn't just vote for our guy while being mostly blue. I really don't see us winning low information voters or members of the FSA. Over time, especially as the burning gets painful enough, we might be able to get a few to board the cluetrain. At which point they won't be low information/fsa types anymore.

But we have to stop/reduce the supply of new low information voters as that is a lot easier than trying to fix stupid once it sets in, especially if that brain has been baked, high, drunk for a decade.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 07:14 PM (YhRJW)

944 D. Lamp, please look up Alan Turing. He was gay and helped crack the Enigma, so I think it's pretty petty of you to ascribe a lack of intelligence and metal disorder (among other things) to gays. Incidentally he was probably smarter than most of us here. And you are wrong as fuck. America isn't going to splinter. We will figure shit out and creak along-Thats what Americans do. Unlike some people I refuse to give up because well that's not something Marines take lightly. Your delusional fantasies of Civil War 2.0 will fail to pan out like nuclear war with the Soviets or the Mayan apocalypse.

Strife-try the International Jornaul of Primitology. Although the average chimpanzee is surely more intelligent than you (not saying much at all) it is hardly a lower species as you claimed. I'd tell you to go eat a pussy, but I guess that scares you too much. I bet I literally like women more than you do

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 07:14 PM (m/bYW)

945 we don't have to do "perfect," Romney got 60 million votes and he had some flaws to put it mildly

you
write like an inverted Marxist where anyone who isn't a conservative is
suffering from false consciousness/brainwashing. it's comforting but
it's untrue.


Posted by: JDP at February 20, 2013 07:04 PM (60GaT)

Uh, dude. He lost.

"Binders full of Women!" "Lady Parts!" "Dog on Roof!" "Dancing Horses!".

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 07:21 PM (bb5+k)

946 Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 07:14 PM (m/bYW)


You do know what eventually happened to Alan Touring? Not pretty. To say the man was mentally ill is putting it mildly.


Suicide is the most common cause of death among homosexuals.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 20, 2013 07:24 PM (bb5+k)

947 There are NO portrayals of homosexuals on American TV or the movies and we are discriminated against all the times - not those Catholics who will have to go to PRISON for refusing to pay for others abortions.

OH THE HUMANITY.

Posted by: The Cast of Glee at February 20, 2013 07:34 PM (RGgMp)

948 @JDP,

"But we have to stop/reduce the supply of new low information voters as that is a lot easier than trying to fix stupid once it sets in, especially if that brain has been baked, high, drunk for a decade."

If you're talking immigration, I agree. But it has to be a multipronged approach. We have to dumb down our messages, we have to try to fight for every single voter we can get.

And I'm not saying it's easy, of course. The schools, the universities, and the media is against a conservative view across the board right now. At least gun rights views are in better shape now.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 07:39 PM (eLtHg)

949
Eight or sixteen years?

I don't think so. History will intrude either in form of economic or social collapse or some catastrophe that will make 9/11 look "quaint". The world will not sit idly by while "America In Decline" while the GOP navel gazes. The abdication of America's commitment to freedom and its ability to serve as a role model is going to bite us on our collective posteriors.

Posted by: Mr. Peabody at February 20, 2013 07:44 PM (0b17P)

950 If they don't believe they can win, they should GTFO of the way for some new leadership thats willing to fight. After all, it's better to go down fighting than to not have fought at all!!!!1111!!!1!!!

Posted by: t-dubyah-d at February 20, 2013 07:46 PM (hhsyr)

951 Danny @ 944 said, "please look up Alan Turing."

You might want to do likewise. Genius but seriously fudged up dude. If I had to guess, and that is all any of us can do since any attempt to use Science on the question would run straight into a wall of political correctness, I'd suspect that to the extent homosexuality is genetic it is tied into some of those evolutionary Faustian Bargains like Sickle Cell Anemia. It is a trade off. Serious mental instability with a possibility of a genius. Especially with males, nature seems to consider a wider bell curve desirable even if there are a lot of useless ones on the low end; probably because males are expendable anyway. Apparently the few high functioning ones at the top of the curve are valuable enough to make the trade work from an evolutionary perspective. Remember, Mother Nature is a bitch; not the hippie's 'loving Earth Goddess'.

But I'm ok with the gays who can function well enough to get along in society to be contributing members, because they DO contribute. Of the mental disfunctions, homosexuality in and of itself isn't much of a menace, unlike say bipolar disorder, but homosexuality does tend to cluster with more serious problems. I'm not one of those lock em all up in asylum types. Just don't demand that I not only accept homosexuality out in public, but double down and declare that any voice who says it is a mental abberation will be called a 'hater' and shunned from polite society. Do that and I'm perfectly happy to be a good libertarian on the whole thing.

See how simple it is? Don't get in my face and don't make it a political wedge issue and I won't bother you or make it a political issue.

Consider this. Every human language we know of has a word representing 'marriage' as a mating pair of humans. It carries with it notions of child custody, inheritence, etc. None of those words in any of those languages apply to m-m or f-f pairings with no possibility of offspring. Some extend to m-f(n) and I'm told a couple even have m(n)-f. But until perhaps thirty years ago the notion of same sex pairs being included in the word 'marriage' was limited to just a few crazy marxist types in university 'studies' departments. But now anyone who doesn't accept this sudden redefinition (one that President Obama himself claimed not to support only a scant couple of years ago) is the moral equiv of a Klansman. There is where I call Bullshit.

Posted by: John Morris at February 20, 2013 07:50 PM (YhRJW)

952 "like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality."

No, we need the government to stop PROMOTING it and ENCOURAGING it and treating it like it's all special and you MUST ACCEPT IT.

Posted by: Torqued at February 20, 2013 07:50 PM (AKS75)

953 You know what? Fuck you. What a load of moralizing, cowardly horseshit based on your FEELINGS. You're wrong and insulting and full of shit. These pronouncements, these Big Truths are such BS - just look at the people and sockpuppets that are in agreement. Well, they're not really agreeing, they're just major suck-ups, how pathetic is that?

Posted by: jeannebodine at February 20, 2013 08:03 PM (x0dlI)

954 When marriage equality exists nationwide and civilization hasn't collapsed, I wonder what the bigots will say then. They'll probably grumble about the good old days when certain people knew their place just like the few remaining racists do today.

Posted by: Jon at February 20, 2013 08:40 PM (jr5Bn)

955 Even if there was evidence of homosexuality in nature, who cares? Animals eat their young, should we? Animals live next to their poop, should we? The black widow spider kills the male after mating, should we? Animals do a lot of things we find disgusting, but oh! animals do it, it must be normal! Last I checked we are not animals.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 08:47 PM (KL49F)

956 It would be nice if homosexuals complained more about Muslims who KILL gays then Christians who merely want their sex lives kept private and not redefine an ancient institution. Until gays complain more about THAT, I'm not listening to their grievances. Instead, gays by and large vote for Islamophiles like Obama. Square that circle before complaing about "percecution" here in America.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 20, 2013 08:52 PM (KL49F)

957
The government should neither encourage nor discourage homosexuality. It should be silent on the subject.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, it should be basically the same situation. No laws against it. No laws endorsing or licensing it. The response from some of its supporters will be the unfairness of the government giving marriage licenses to straight couples. Fine enough. Stop doing that. Get government out of the marriage business entirely.
There. Done. Moving right along......

Posted by: Reggie1971 at February 20, 2013 08:56 PM (8cOY0)

958
Falsehoods spread by the gay mafia
1. Animals are gay too. False. Animals can engage in ss intercourse to show dominance (see term top dog), but there is no trace in science that a dominant monkey REFUSES to mate with the females of the bunch and mates exclusively with males. At most faggot retard like Danny might have a point for bisexuality which incidentally is an anathema to gay males because it's the ultimate evidence that the female pussy can generate interest even to people fucking males.

2. as a het woman what bothers me is not 2 gays fucking each other (as 2 lesbians aren't a problem for het males) but it is the constant degradation, obvious disgust, celebrated insult that gay males make of the female body or lady parts (except the female retards that are useful idiots to the gay cause). This is the true war on women. Whoever is disgusted by the very body that gave you life is sick in the brain. You can't be disgusted by a vulva because it is a body part like others. Lesbians are disgusted by dicks (except plastic ones) because they have some psychological problem against their fathers. This is the sad truth that no doctor would admit. Gays have an irrational fear of the female body. They are gynophobic exactly like the Muslims who put their women in chains. Would I trust a gay male in a position of power over women? Hell no because he doesn't give a shit about us and would gladly get rid of us to get all the rest of available hereto cocks.
3) modern countries like Japan, s Korea will never cave to gays. Why should I consider myself backwards when a lot of noble people simply keep homosexuality where it rightly belongs: BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
...more later

Posted by: fromabroad at February 20, 2013 09:04 PM (rnV3B)

959 Jon bleated:

When marriage equality exists nationwide and civilization hasn't collapsed, I wonder what the bigots will say then. They'll probably grumble about the good old days when certain people knew their place just like the few remaining racists do today.

Marriage equality does exist. Each of us can marry any one person we wish, as long as they are of the opposite sex, are not a child, and are not closely related.

As for your blithe confidence in society's ability to withstand yet more progressive policies gnawing upon its structure like termites on roof beams, I suspect your good cheer is misplaced. Unlike you, I am both familiar with human history and with the course of events in America since the dawn of progressivism in the early 20th Century. Given those facts, I'd prefer not to repeat the foolishness of societies past while expecting different results. But hey, at least you can feel immense self-righteous pride in your Brave New World, you precious snowflake.

That is, right up until the termites collapse the roof right on your swollen head.

Posted by: OhioCoastie at February 20, 2013 09:06 PM (pKCuj)

960 939 Crude,

better to just change the population....Obama and Tony Blair both did it...

I'm done not using Moonbats' logic against them....

we need to import right wingers and self made men and women.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 20, 2013 09:19 PM (LRFds)

961 @sven,

"we need to import right wingers and self made men and women."

Great. Where? Where is this country that has right wingers and self-made men and women to import? As near as I can tell, there's not a substantial population out there to tap, and certainly not in the quantities necessary to offset immigration of people who are poor and tend to look towards the government for salvation.

I don't understand this reluctance to try and change the minds of the populace. The NRA has done this, and they've actually had success. Do you think more success couldn't be had if it was attempted with other issues? I agree that some people just are unteachable. I agree that many people are stupid, and that the way to convert them is not through argument, but through more emotional or similar means. But we should still be putting in that effort.

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 09:23 PM (eLtHg)

962 Oh well ... I got tricked into visiting by a link at GeoThermal. Eh .. no big loss .. I'll be more careful.

Up yours, Ace.

Posted by: Gerry at February 20, 2013 09:28 PM (s1UpY)

963
4) as a female I am outrageously offended that 2 gay males think they are better than male/female. It again falls down on being gynophobic. It is diminishing of the natural role of motherhood and degrading to females in general. Gays uses us solely as egg donor and womb donor but think we are useless in the life and development of a child. This is the ultimate insult. Give me Akin everyday against any idiot who is sponsoring the gay cause

5) if more and more liberal institutions give children to gays what will be the rationale behind childcustody 95% of the times to the woman in hetero divorce cases? No rationale, and remember, with children the woman gets the house and the alimony. Why women are so stupid?

6) there is a solid reason why survival benefits are there for hereto couples alone. Historically the social status of male vs female has been in favor of men. Plus female live longer, this is why at least after a life of sacrifices to take care of the family and putting career aside (not to mention children which are career killers) she gets to have his social security check. 2 gay males DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM
7) look at media darling gay celebrities. Sooner or later they come up with some unkind reference to women, the female body, the female persona etc and I am not even considering proper gay mafia activists like d savage who should be sent to Iran with a 1 way tix

note that I did not mention religion, the church aids because there are so many reasons to be against the gaystapo agenda that no conservative should enter other shaky territories. Being pro gay marriage and gay adoption is EQUAL to being against women = gynophobic. Republicans are not able to fight. Nobody ever thought about putting against 2 Democratic fanbases. Gays against women. Unprecedented. When a stupid female lib tells you gays should adopt PLEASE PLEASE ask her why she thinks a child is better off without a mother and why she thinks a female point of view is so useless in a child's experience and see her head explode!!!

9) another gay lie is that there are millions of American children dying in orphanages. FALSE. With abortion and less children per woman there is virtually no western country full of orphans. You must always adopt abroad and it is not morally right to deprive another country of it's children especially if they end up in a gay household that do not exist in their original country (see Russia, Asia, and most of the poor countries where these kids come from)

10) finally when it comes to manufactured gay rights I am going to display them the same appreciation they show for my pussy. You fucking gynophobes!

Posted by: fromabroad at February 20, 2013 09:39 PM (rnV3B)

964 Oh shut up. We're doomed, but it's not because your politically incompetent ass isn't being listened to.

Posted by: MlR at February 20, 2013 09:43 PM (vR2l5)

965 11) final and most delicious point. Let idiots like Danny and Jon vote Democrat forever as all homos do in any western country. When, due to wild immigration and overbreedingthe Muslim population will reach the critical point(as in some pro gay countries in europe) I am sure they will have a way to deal with teh gheys that will admit no appeals. At that point the remaining Christians and socons will pass the popcorn and enjoy a mixture of karma and poetic justice never seen before. Leftwing parties will throw them where they belong because the Muslim constituency will be large and enough to keep them in power.At that point i hope no socon moves a finger for them because they voted for their own doom.

Posted by: fromabroad at February 20, 2013 09:58 PM (rnV3B)

966 A guy who mentions the Frankfurt School and their influences has bought into the "cultural terrorism" that their predecessor György Lukács formulated.

Huh. Imagine that. It's almost like he and hisloser-loving buddies mouth the platitudes but can't break through the brainwashing. "Just as planned" said the leftists as they finished up their march through the institutions. "Abolish patriotism, ownership, religion, and the family! They are enemies to peace, and we are their enemies!" Did you think that writing "Smash Monogamy" on their wedding cakes was some sort of joke for these leftists? These people were and are dead fucking serious.

Upthread I read somebody predicting a fight between Hispanics and blacks in the victimhood hierarchy. Sorry, they are ranked the same.

The strata are ethnic minoritieson the bottom, homosexuals in the middle, and the Islamists on top.

Leftistsuse the upper strata to disciplinelower ones. Blacks are already converting to Islam in droves to move up the ladder.When the homosexuals become too bothersome to the leftist elite after destroying their allotted portion of traditional Judeo-Christian society, they will be crushed between the hammer and anvil of converted and infidel ethnic minorities.

Posted by: NotAMoose at February 20, 2013 10:27 PM (ZZg4j)

967 fromabroad-I would PAY to see you debate a hardcore feminist, you certainly have an Intresting view.Just so you know, I vote R and constantly espouse the West's superiority over Islam-and Western tolerance is one of my arguments. You mentioned Japan and Korea earlier, their societies are those of collective shame and collectivism. It's why Japan has next to no guns and yet has 10,000+ suicides a year. I'll take America any day honey. Your argument about gays being sexist was interesting, although you totally got my orientation wrong. In fact, just so you know, I worship at the alter of Eating Pussy (TMI, but then again this IS the HQ, and you did make a faulty assumption about my sexuality).

And finally, as someone who actually loves America and isn't ready to say fuck you USA like some people here, I'd rather that Pavel grow up in America with two loving gay parents than stay in the children's paradise that is Russia's orphanages. Pavel will have better opportunities in America (SCOAMF or no SCOAMF) than he will in Russia or Eastern Europe.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 10:28 PM (Q5Qa6)

968 Damn, that's cray-cray. Somebody echoed my sentiment about Islamists oppressing gays just before I hit the Post button.

I guess we're all crazy now, bitches.

Posted by: NotAMoose at February 20, 2013 10:29 PM (ZZg4j)

969 D Lamp, he was literally publicly humiliated and prosecuted for being gay and his immense aid to the war effort was forgotten. To blame that on him for being gay and not on the society which he helped defend that later persecuted him is beyond stupid, it's cruel.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 10:33 PM (Q5Qa6)

970 "D Lamp, he was literally publicly humiliated and prosecuted for being gay and his immense aid to the war effort was forgotten."

What unfolded with Turin's case was a shame, but no, he was not prosecuted for being gay. That makes it sound like they aimed the gaydar at him and whoops, it started beeping. He was prosecuted for having sex with, if wikipedia is right, some 19 year old homeless man who later burgled his house.

Say that was wrong if you like, sure. But it's not "prosecuted for being gay".

Posted by: Crude at February 20, 2013 11:05 PM (eLtHg)

971 275 "I find this "Endorse" language to be part of the problem.

No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty."

======================

As a matter of law, the gay minority is trying to FORCE a change to the meaning of the word "marriage," and impose on it a meaning it has never had in any culture in history.

They're demanding more than tolerance. They are demanding approval.

Mary Poppins PP (@ 88 & 175) is right, and you are wrong.

And yes, there's something Orwellian about it.

Saying "no one's asking you to endorse it" is eyes wide shut bullshit.

I'm not remotely a h8r, btw. Helped a faggot buddy smuggle aids drugs from Mexico back in the day. Read all about it: 978-0679418399.

And I might add you can learn a HELLUVA lot about homosexuality when you spend hours talking to a gay friend who is a psych major and also honest and not trying to press a political agenda like ssm (unheard of, in any event, in the 1980s).

ace: "Basic tolerance and accepting the basics of the situation is not an 'endorsement' "

Bzzt. Wrong. Gays got "basic tolerance" a long time ago. Lawrence v. Texas.

Or, try firing a gay because he's gay in 2013. Good luck with that.

They're pushing for something more than tolerance now, and have been for some time. Eg, you *vill* make the gay wedding cake, citizen. Orson Scott Card at DC comics. Etc, etc. (Blogger Mark Shea has documented MANY such cases that haven't made the national news.)

Anywho, the above is not particularly well put, but a point worth making is worth making badly. I haven't read all the comments, but others have articulated the case better than me. Eg, Mary Poppins, and 792.

Peace out.

Posted by: sumguy at February 20, 2013 11:05 PM (dY+4R)

972 No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex. Basic tolerance and accepting
the basics of the situation is not an "endorsement," no more than
accepting that there will always, by definition, be people at the bottom
quintile in income is "endorsing" poverty.

"Tolerance" literally means that I don't hit you with a bat when I see you on the street.

"Acceptance" means giving you a big old hug and kiss, or at least a wink and a nod.

"Endorsing" means accepting and SUPPORTING your way of life, choices, agenda, etc. Being "required" to redefine a social institution cause govt. says so (and not because society says so via a clear and convincing % of the democratic vote), or having to provide financial benefits intended to encourage stable families to a social arrangement that DOESN'T create kids, IS endorsing it.

How in the hell can you accept their "condition" when no one even knows for certain what causes it, and therefore how to classify it?

The gays' best argument was to eliminate the criminal sanctions on their behavior and to keep it private, as sexual matters should be.

But that simply isn't enough for them. They are playing out their daddy issues on a national scale - if their parents wouldn't accept them, then God Damn It!, they'll force all of us to. Oh, and the benefits ain't to shabby, either.

And be very, very scared of what the consequences taking a "sexual orientation" like homosexuality to "protected class" status will be, legally and socially.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 20, 2013 11:09 PM (XG4Sp)

973 52
That's actually very liberating, and very useful. If you've got lemons, make lemonade, after all.

What if I have potatoes?
Posted by: Heralder at February 20, 2013 02:37 PM (+xmn4)
*****

Potatorade.

Posted by: Socktopus at February 20, 2013 11:30 PM (1FLBb)

974 I'm not following the whole "Rome fell after accepting homosexuality" argument - fell to what? Christianity? Did not Christianity become the official religion of the empire in 380? Did the eastern empire not persist until Byzantium was sacked by their co-religionist crusaders?

I also fail to see how Christian doctrine would allow for such hate of fellow man as exhibited by so-called socons in this thread. Jesus washed the feet of a prostitute, I'm sure he would be happy to bake a lesbian a cake as an act if love. Maybe the christers in this thread should read less of the Old Testament fire a brimstone and more of the god is live stuff. Is your faith that weak that it is challenged by taking pictures?

Or, maybe y'all just use your religion to justify your hate and as a stick to pound others, feel superior, and exert raw will to power? That's politics, not faith.

In the post election debacle I said the same thing: what good is pandering to unpopular socon positions if they don't even bother to show up due to some perceived failure of purity tests while allowing the worse possible outcome? That's not politics, it's faith - keep it in your church

Posted by: Joe at February 20, 2013 11:42 PM (PT24Y)

975 Live s/b love

Posted by: Joe at February 20, 2013 11:43 PM (PT24Y)

976 Joe- well said. Sadly, for some of our fellow morons, if Jesus himself came back to walk the earth in his sandals and robe they would deride him as a dirty faggot hippy.

Posted by: Danny at February 20, 2013 11:56 PM (Q5Qa6)

977 965 At that point the remaining Christians and socons will pass the popcorn and enjoy a mixture of karma and poetic justice never seen before.

Never has a more Christ-like statement been made ...

Testify and witness ...

Posted by: Joe at February 20, 2013 11:59 PM (PT24Y)

978 It's entirely possible to show love for homosexuals without endorsing same-sex sex acts, just as it's entirely possible to show love for any other person.

And yes, some SoCons do seem to be anti-gay. Part of the problem is that most LGBT groups are rotten things, and have become the unified voice of bisexuals and homosexuals.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 12:04 AM (eLtHg)

979 "that some people are attracted to the same sex"

Yeah. That's it.

Tell ya what - explain exactly why they're attracted, and how that correlates to special governmental treatment, and I'll concur.

See, I can lay out exactly why minorities and people with disabilities fall into specialized categories. It's called science.

Hand special rights over to a group with no scientific classification as to why they are declared a minority, and it really is all f'ing over. We don't know why gay people are gay, and they don't want to, because they know a healthy contingent of people living an LGB lifestyle are doing it by choice, not biology.

So if we go down this road, redheads will easily qualify, and you could even make a case for blondes since they are technically a global minority.

How about Vegans? Why can't they claim it's really not a choice because meat and dairy do not agree with their quality of life?

How about geeks and nerds?

If minority rights can be bestowed upon a group solely for social reasons, then it's open season. It's an admission that society is unbalanced because white heterosexual males are in control. Is that really what you believe?

Sorry you feel like a social pariah, Ace. Grow up.

Posted by: budfox at February 21, 2013 12:07 AM (9+DJg)

980 Crude-Turing was charged with "gross indecency" when he admitting to having sex with a 19 year old unemployed man (when he reported the burgary) He was given a choice between prison or therapy designed to reduce libido (read:chemical castration). Pretty sure thats a massive injustice for anyone, but especially for someone that literally played a decisive role in WWII (please don't make me rehash the significance of cracking the Enigma). Yes Crude, there were such things as legal prohibitions on gays at one point.
I wonder if D Lamp would consider suicide to be a good option if D Lamp was chemically castrated after having consensual sex. Because that would be a natural thought for anyone of any orientation.

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 12:12 AM (Q5Qa6)

981 "Turing was charged with "gross indecency" when he admitting to having sex with a 19 year old unemployed man (when he reported the burgary) He was given a choice between prison or therapy designed to reduce libido (read:chemical castration). Pretty sure thats a massive injustice for anyone, but especially for someone that literally played a decisive role in WWII (please don't make me rehash the significance of cracking the Enigma)."

If it's a massive injustice, it's an injustice for anyone. People should not get get-out-of-jail-free cards for their usefulness to the state. What, you think it would have been more just if it happened to some mere plebe?

"Yes Crude, there were such things as legal prohibitions on gays at one point. "

No, there were legal prohibitions, period. They applied to bisexuals and straights as well. "Sodomy" or "sexual indecency" is not a class of acts that only applies to gays.

And that's what I was correcting. You said he was arrested for being gay. No, he was arrested for a sexual act.

"I wonder if D Lamp would consider suicide to be a good option if D Lamp was chemically castrated after having consensual sex. Because that would be a natural thought for anyone of any orientation."

According to who? Whether Turing committed suicide is itself speculation. Keep in mind, Turing had a choice between a prison term and the chemical castration - he chose the castration. Are you going to say that he was an idiot? Or that prison time is worse than chemical castration?

Look, I'm not arguing that the law was just. I'm pointing out that no, Turing was not punished 'for being gay'. If you don't think that distinction matters, then I submit you haven't thought about the issue reasonably.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 12:19 AM (eLtHg)

982 Most animals are polygamists. I suppose Danny thinks that's "normal" and natural, too.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 21, 2013 12:27 AM (KL49F)

983 Crude-you've approached this far more reasonably than some other commentators. Looking to a modern day example technically I am guilty of gross violations of our American UCMJ for partaking in oral sex (this is actually illegal under our antiquated military law system which equates oral sex with actual sexual crimes). Such laws have always been in place until recently; but make no mistake these were used to target gays far more often than straights. Such was the case for Turing. And yeah, I do expect SEAL Team 6 to be treated a little better than your average Sandra Fluke. Not that they should be our overlords, but I'd definitely let someone that performed a noble task for the people off a little easier than your average civilian. It's not about usefulness to the state, it's about serving the people. Thats why I was so angry last year when a former gay naval aviator (F/A-18 driver) and top Virginian attorney was denied a state level post because in the words of one blunt bigot:" how could he uphold our laws if we define marriage as between one man and one woman?"
Just the fact that he once landed on swaying carrier decks is enough to make me resent the bigoted assholes (who were too good for the military, as many politicians are) who denied him a job he was well qualified for. Sometimes, I'm proud of having an (R) checked in my voter ID. Other times, not so much.

I'm not at risk of a NCIS investigator nabbing me. At least I don't think so

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 12:38 AM (Q5Qa6)

984 I'm not up to speed on all the details of what went down with Turing, but it sounds profoundly wrong. That said, psychological treatment was much more brutal on many fronts in that era. That doesn't excuse what happened to Turing but context is not irrelevant.

On a different note, there was a pretty good article on the subject of ssm in the Daily Caller by Mark Judge, "The marriage argument that conservatives are no longer allowed to make."

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ascozq5

Posted by: Gerrit Smith at February 21, 2013 12:38 AM (dY+4R)

985 "Such laws have always been in place until recently; but make no mistake these were used to target gays far more often than straights."

Largely because it's easier to stumble upon that kind of indecency between two males than a straight couple. If a man and a woman walk out of a bedroom after likely having had sex, they may have committed adultery, but sodomy is an open question.

If two men or two women walk out of a bedroom after likely having had sex, then it's equally likely they committed sodomy. And if sodomy's against the law, well, now you see why it's easier to tag one group than the other.

"And yeah, I do expect SEAL Team 6 to be treated a little better than your average Sandra Fluke. Not that they should be our overlords, but I'd definitely let someone that performed a noble task for the people off a little easier than your average civilian. It's not about usefulness to the state, it's about serving the people."

I reject that mentality. I rejected it when some journalist got off for violating gun laws on TV, I reject it when idiot celebrities duck prison terms for DUIs, and I'd reject it with Turing. 'Serving the people' and 'usefulness to the state' aren't exactly easy to tell the difference between at times anyway.

If that's going to be the case, then I say: throw it on the law books. Say how much leeway you'll get when it comes to committing crimes for 'serving the people'. I bet you it will not be quite so easy to justify once it's done openly rather than at the convenient discretion of authorities.

Also, the wikipedia also says that, in the context of Turing's time, this sort of thing was particularly dangerous due to blackmail concerns and (in Turing's case) the resulting national security risk. It was also an era where the secular science of the day regarded homosexual attraction as a kind of mental illness.

"Thats why I was so angry last year when a former gay naval aviator (F/A-18 driver) and top Virginian attorney was denied a state level post because in the words of one blunt bigot:" how could he uphold our laws if we define marriage as between one man and one woman?" "

I fail to see how the two are related, unless that 'gay naval aviator' was pushing for gay marriage and the usual LGBT baggage - in which case, it would turn out they were opposing him for his views about legislation and morality. If the man was simply gay and was not advocating any policy related to LGBT, then the opposition makes no sense.

I will not deny that some people just plain dislike gays, period. I will also not deny that part of the reason for that is the LGBT lobby, and the close association between so many gays/lesbians/bisexuals and said lobby. That doesn't justify their attitudes - I think it harms their cause. But I start to see some of the reasoning. If people think Christianity is largely isomorphic with Westboro Baptist, then right or wrong, I start to see why they bristle at the presence of Christians.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 12:49 AM (eLtHg)

986 "They're pushing for something more than tolerance now, and have been for some time. Eg, you *vill* make the gay wedding cake, citizen. Orson Scott Card at DC comics. Etc, etc. (Blogger Mark Shea has documented MANY such cases that haven't made the national news.) "

Wade through the Perry v Schwarzenegger prop 8 decision, which was a hand grenade thrown by a gay judge on his retirement. The 9th Circuit knows it was a botch, just on procedural grounds (where the defense has no standing that is a basis for default entry of requested relief NOT a trial with findings of fact - if you sue me for stealing your trademark, and I don't show up to argue, you get your car back; the judge MAY NOT write a 50 page decision about the meaning of theft in America)-- but then there's the "facts" determined in the case such as

"Religious beliefs that homosexual relationships are sinful do harm to gays and lesbians" (Really? Is that harm a basis for monetary relief- cash from the Pope- or injunctive relief - no Baptist chaplains in the Navy?)

or

"Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States."

and

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

(What is "social meaning" and "cultural meaning" except the opinion of third parties? Can Justin Bieber sue in federal court to get the cultural meaning of Beethoven? Why not?)

http://documents.nytimes.com/us-district-court-decision-perry-v-schwarzenegger

This is the record of the United States. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down Perry v Schwarzenegger 9-0, everybody can still cite these "facts" so long as they add "(Reversed, Supreme Court [year of decision])" after the cite.

The Court in Lawrence v. Texas invented the authority to declare that some laws passed by popular majorities rest on religious attitudes rather than "public policy", and, imagined the judiciary can tell the difference. This usurpation of popular sovereignity is an unnoticed assault on the moral authority of the federal government and will be seen as such within our lifetime.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 21, 2013 02:17 AM (Hw93f)

987 Well lets be fair, judging from the comments a fair amount of people still regard homosexuality as a mental illness. I will definitely concede that it is impossible to define said leeway, although in my mind I was conceptualizing a cop I know who almost always lets former military sevicemembers off with a warning. Unequal application of the law? You bet. Unjust? Ehh.

Yes, the F/A-18 driver was not running on an LGBT platform-indeed he was a Republican. That was why the whole thing was so rotten-had he been straight, he would have been perfect. He also has an adopted daughter with his partner. Clearly it was the lifestyle and not the abilities that so bothered his fellow Virginia Republicans. And in the end, patriotism and ability were simply not enough.
Your last point is an interesting and very valid one; as unfair as that is it happens. Thats also why our party gets so vilified-voters see us isomorphic to many radical things, particularly hard line social conservatives. Well I'm afriad I must punch out, good night fellow Morons. Have a good night and thanks for the discussion

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 02:23 AM (Q5Qa6)

988 "...the media as a large influence that can be effectively bypassed with a good candidate..."

The first requisite of what I would consider to be a good candidate is that he or she is willing to call the media types out to their faces on camera about the leftist slant and Democrat cheerleading that's helped to steer the country into its current untenable position.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at February 21, 2013 03:04 AM (8J3jn)

989 If we're going to have a war of all against all, let's have it, honestly.
-
That will be a change from people screaming "Stormfront!" every time I point to the obvious facts: the left, in every historically white country and mainly in America, has a racial strategy now, and it works. Non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation - for the whites, while then non-whites are free to play us-vs-them games, creates a mass of people with overwhelming reasons to vote for a big government with politically correct preferences, and against the relatively conservative white voting base and its values.

(Class struggle is old hat, now the left is the ruling class, and in 2008 Obama proved at Hilary Clinton's expense that gender is subordinate to race.)

With this strategy in place, and conservatives not opposing it for fear of being called racist, white people are doomed, and so are their relatively conservative values. Chronic mass immigration and forced integration means the end of white people and their political institutions. And every year, the balance of power shifts to the left. You can already re-elect a complete dud of an American President, with a bad economy, on the basis of the "minority" vote.

There is no sixteen years for the Republican Party. Every year is going to be worse than the one before it as long as conservatives play by liberal rules on race, and as long as they beg for mercy when they are accused of racism, instead of calling anti-white leftists what they are.

After sixteen years of conservative navel-gazing, it's going to be all over. The demographic changes will be too great. Passivity is not an option.

I've already given suggestions on what an active, hopeful strategy would look like. Mobilize the white vote on issues that are common sense and popular, like getting rid of "affirmative action and "disparate impact" and end immigration. (Yes from white countries too - American conservatives don't need Euro-socialists of any color.)

It's doable, and it doesn't involve anybody pulling a sheet over their head.

What conservatives can't do is navel gaze and tacitly concede the left's racial agenda and strategy. There is no future in it for whites of conservatives.

Mexican demographics mean a Mexican-style future, with both major parties being officially socialist. The left knows that. That's why they're going for it. Push back or accept that conservatism is over.

Posted by: Chromoly Man at February 21, 2013 04:03 AM (IMZcb)

990 First of all, it's absurd to suggest that the GOP is doomed for the next 8 to 16 years. For all we know, the Republicans will be in complete control of the federal government come January 2017.

Second, if you biggest grievance with the GOP is that some people in the party aren't completely on board with the homosexual agenda, then I frankly don't know what to say.

The big issue right now is immigration/amnesty. That's an issue that will have far-reaching consequences, both for the party and for the nation.

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 04:41 AM (l7fAH)

991 And on February 20, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Ace used the term "H8" unironically.

We are fucking doomed.

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 04:44 AM (l7fAH)

992 "But it happens HERE, even."

Yeah, and once-upon-a-time not so long ago, one of the people HERE who was doing it was YOU.

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 04:49 AM (l7fAH)

993 "Even liberals would have trouble bothering you."

Jesus Christ, Ace. Have you ever spoken to a liberal?

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 04:52 AM (l7fAH)

994 "No one's asking you to "endorse" gay sex."

Again, I ask: Ace, have you ever actually met a liberal?

In fact, your offhand comparison of homosexuals with people living in poverty would likely get you expelled from a few of the Ivy League universities.

At any rate, the whole "gay rights" thing is a dead issue. The homo-left won. We lost.

The next big thing, that almost no one on the Right is talking about, is the Rise of the Transsexuals. Within a decade, your daughter/son will be taught that their own sex organs are a mere cultural construct. Obamacare will expand from covering third trimester abortions to covering sex-reassignment surgeries for preteens.

When (not if) this happens, I wonder if Ace will be lecturing us knuckle-dragging right-wingers that we simply need to move on from our H8-ful anti-trans* bigotry, and become more accepting of these diverse lifestyles?

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 05:02 AM (l7fAH)

995 Agree with Ace. Feel much the same way.

Funny that many scoffed at Ace's characterization of homophobia among conservatives (as if it were a strawman) and yet there plentiful examples on this thread of exactly what he's described-- or worse. (Or, to put it more neutrally, stronger or more extreme judgment-- condemnation-- of homosexuals and homosexuality as evil, contemptible, repugnant, sick. Not just the political "gay agenda", but homosexuality *itself* and homosexuals *themselves.*)

There are plenty of socon voices here that I respect. But there are some-- more than a few-- that, on this topic, repel me. Disgust me. And their views repel and disgust the vast majority of young people. That's a fact. Unfortunately, given my fiscon concerns, I have to share a tent with them. That doesn't make me happy. But mostly I don't complain about it (here), for the sake of political unity. (I'm especially irritated by those who use a scientistic-- pseudio-scientific veneer as their rationale for their condemnation of gays, especially since they get so many of the basic facts, scientific and historical and empirical, just plain wrong. But I just don't think it's worthwhile to squabble with them.) But as Ace says, if we're airing our grievances? Yeah, it sucks.

Some of you say it's not "bigoted" to feel repelled by aspects of homosexuality (and by extension homosexuals?), but natural. Well, then I guess it wouldn't be "bigoted" for people to feel repelled by aspects of social conservatism (and by extension social conservatives?)... e.g. when exposed to some of what's been said in this thread here about a class of human beings who may well include our family members, friends, loved ones, acquaintances, people we may greatly respect or admire or like, persons we have first-hand knowledge and experience of, and of course, some of us morons at AOSHQ (including some of the most esteemed of them).

Some of you argue that you're not anti-gay, but against the "gay agenda" that is, cough, shoving things down our throat... imposing things upon us politically, through top-down governmental coercion. That's an important distinction to make, and when it's made well, I agree. We are talking about politics, right? So, you're on the side of political liberty, and it's the "gay agenda" that is on the side of political coercion and imposition. And some of you use as proof-- TV shows with likable gay characters, etc. "Gay propaganda."

Um, since when is the content of a TV show a kind of political or governmental imposition?

When a young person hears socons complain about TV shows or other art/ media forms "imposing" gay propaganda, what they hear is: this is someone who'd favor censorship, political meddling and intrusion on the TV shows (or other media) I like. When you complain about TV shows pushing moral/ political values that don't conform with yours-- and more than complain, speak of this as a *political wrong* being done to you as a citizen which requires a political counter-- you're not making the case for liberty-- you're making the case of suppression, interference, coercion.

You know what? You can change the channel, or turn off the TV. Glittery gay gayness on the tube (or the artistic choice by show creators to have gay characters with such and such roles and characteristics) is not governmental or political "imposition" of anything. You can complain, you can boycott, whatever. You can work to encourage the production of media (in the arts and pop culture) that do conform with your views and values. But conflating the two things is WRONG-- and it's part of what makes socon rhetoric (even here, by some socons I like) so creepy to non-socons. Creepy to me.



Posted by: lael at February 21, 2013 05:03 AM (NqArY)

996 "this sort of idea that the Gays Are Coming to Make Us All Gay is just ridiculous."

Test out your theory, Ace. Go to a random city's Craigslist page, click on "casual encounters," and read the first 100 ads you see. Wanna bet that at least 25% of them are "m4m" "gay guy looking to blow a straight guy" ads?

Count them. See if I'm exaggerating. Four percent of the population absolutely flooding a public personal ad website with offers of oral sex to men of a different sexual orientation.

Just ridiculous he said...

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 05:11 AM (l7fAH)

997 I'll just say one thing to those who make their anti-gay argument (or diatribe) by appeal to history.

Yeah, that Greco-Roman civilization. Just the worst thing ever.

Posted by: lael at February 21, 2013 05:12 AM (NqArY)

998 "Ridiculous. Is the government "endorsing" gambling by requiring gamblers to account for the gambling income?"

Seeing as how most state governments run their own gambling operations, yes.

Ridiculous!!!1!1!

"no one says we're asking the government to "endorse" our behavior simply by not having an official opinion on it."

The government certainly does have an official opinion about homosexuality when it mandates that young schoolchildren read about "My Two Dads," slightly older schoolchildren learn about anal fisting, and how college students at public universities are mandated to agree with policies that celebrate "diversity" (every single noncriminal sexual perversion imaginable) and ban "hate speech" (dissent).

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 05:18 AM (l7fAH)

999 lael:

Let me be blunt. Homosexuality is a mental illness. Now, that doesn't mean homosexuals are all bad people. Not all schizophrenics are bad people, for instance.

But homosexuality is a literal disorder, an aberrance. It should not be celebrated, any more than cystic fibrosis or astigmatism are celebrated.

As for young people being supportive of deviant sexual practices, this is true. And it's true because of 20 years of pro-homosexual propaganda in the schools and in the movies and on the television. Which explains why socons are more than a little annoyed at the unceasing agitprop coming from Hollywood. It is twisting the minds of our youth. It's now "cool" to embrace mentally ill sexual deviants while mocking traditional marriage and Christianity.

This sea change in thought did not occur in a vacuum.

Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at February 21, 2013 05:33 AM (l7fAH)

1000 1K

Posted by: that guy at February 21, 2013 06:24 AM (QupBk)

1001 None of these guys are going to get it until they get married and have kids. then they'll understand that hetero sex is the future of civilization LITERALLY. now they view sex as something merely gratifying, thus why would homo sex be a problem? Monsieur Ace is pushing 30, I'd wager, and no closer to getting married than when he was 14. that's not entirely his fault, but it's partly his fault. he lives in a town where it's too expensive to raise a family. he chooses to live there. he is an intelligent succesful man and he chooses to spend his time posting about video game consoles and complaining about Sarah Palin. that's where his priorities lie, and that's why he doesn't see a problem with homo sex.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 09:49 AM (yrKiI)

1002 "(I'm especially irritated by those who use a scientistic--
pseudio-scientific veneer as their rationale for their condemnation of
gays, especially since they get so many of the basic facts, scientific
and historical and empirical, just plain wrong. But I just don't think
it's worthwhile to squabble with them.)"

Please by all means - let's have this debate.

But you won't.

That's why you went to the dismissive card. You know the science does not exist in your favor.

The best points advocates have are hypothesis by anthropologists that are framed to put a positive spin on same-sex attraction.

The entire SSM debate is couched in touchy-feely, emo terms or historical annotations. To make the issue emotional and not based on logic. Just look at Prop 8. The challenge was based on how it made civil union couples feel, not the actual rights of citizenry.


Posted by: budfox at February 21, 2013 09:51 AM (9+DJg)

1003 can we talk about gays recruiting young men, as happened to my sister's best friend? who died of AIDS-related screwed up health when he was 55? and was fairly miserable and alone for most of his life? yeah, the local hairdresser bonked him when he was 13. but we can't talk about that either, right Ace?

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 09:51 AM (yrKiI)

1004 Separate - more true than most here will realize, especially Ace.

Posted by: budfox at February 21, 2013 09:53 AM (9+DJg)

1005 "that sort of thing brings it to the surface, yes.


Look, this is not a religious party.



Or rather: It is a religious party, but it shouldn't be."


Are you serious? That's how you frame this? Like Maher?

The Dem party, compared to thirty years ago, let alone fifty, is the one that's radically changed its purpose. As the rule goes for every action, we have a reaction. So the balkanized interests of the Dems pushed everyone who didn't fit those interests into the GOP.

"This should be a transactional, impersonal thing. It's not."

Right. Which is why my issue with giving special rights to the gay community is based on science, and not in sociology or flippant cock-sucking kewl guy talk.


"What I think is this: We either have to start being honest about
what we are, or change what we are. The current situation where we are
one thing but then we all agree amongst ourselves to sell ourselves to
the public as something else is not working."

That is your perception, and the viewpoint of the urban chattering class like Cupp and company. It is not the ground reality.


"If we are, in fact, a party which is chiefly about not actual
politics but the celebration of one cultural cohort (middle class,
white, religious, surburban or rural) we have to say so, and also admit
to ourselves that in a country where that represents at most 40% of the
total cultural pie, we're in for a shellacking.
"

You cannot be serious.

The entire reason behind the challenge to Prop 8 is cultural, not equal citizenry. Everything the Dems stand for and do is based on the emotional feeding of different cultural groups, and you see that as "actual politics"?

The issue, Ace, is this blog has become your identity. You cannot discern the difference between professional and personal. Your politics is now personal, so how the party reflects, shapes your identity in your everyday life.

So being "Ace" of the right has apparently made it difficult to either push your career forward because you're not socon enough, or it's hampered your personal life. This is the same shit with Cupp.






Posted by: budfox at February 21, 2013 10:25 AM (9+DJg)

1006 Greece and Rome built tremendous civilizations, but when they got fat, lazy, and yes hedonistic, that's when they fell. It was moral corruption, of which homosexuality is just the most blatant example. That's why I said hedonism is the problem, not just homosexuality.

And yes @999 homosexuality is a mental disorder, and up until the 70s it was recognized as such. Homos are physically capable of have normal intercourse, as they (nominally) have balls and penises. However they choose not to. The parts they try to mash together, have not evolved to work in that manner, thus they shorten their lifespans. And there is no Gay gene. Believe me, the Soviets, Chicoms, Nazis, and Islamofasicists would've found it by now as they have a vested interest in not allowing gays to exist. Besides, how can there be a gay gene when gays don't engage in the activity that would pass that gene along? No gay behavior is learned. It arose from primitive dominance relationships and has been carried on until now.

Posted by: Iblis at February 21, 2013 10:29 AM (U0ndG)

1007 I feel for millenial ficons like Ace. I'm gen x and wasn't able to create a comfortable middle class existence until I moved out of DC, even though my spouse and I BOTH worked as lawyers. You guys are fucked financially, especially if you are on the coast (idea: gtfo), so there is little incentive to grow up and move beyond a chateau heartiste set of incentives in life (sex! video games!movies!). But you are failing to launch. This makes you panic and naturally you want to justify it politcially and intellectually. But face it: you think the way you do because you are not yet an adult. time to grow up, sweetie. tick tock

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 10:45 AM (yrKiI)

1008 <987
Well lets be fair, judging from the comments a fair amount of people
still regard homosexuality as a mental illness.
Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 02:23 AM (Q5Qa6)>

That's because it is.

The culmination of clinical data over the last few decades is quite conclusive. For instance, the close correlation between homosexuality and narcissism is well established. However, what has changed in the last few years is a new politically motived *interpretation* of the data by so-called "professionals" in the mental health arena.

The data also indicates an unmistakable correlation between the homosexual lifestyle and physical illness. An increased risk of certain cancers of the head, neck, and oral cavity, as well as anal and rectal cancers and diseases such as "Gay Bowel Syndrome" are well established in the medical community and have been for decades.

But of course, the *interpretation* of this data by socio-politically motivated "professionals" attributes these correlations to the "shame factor" that supposedly governs the average gay man. Apparently they fear moral condemnation from their health-care providers, therefore they don't reveal their lifestyle and therefore this secretive omission somehow contributes to the proliferate occurrence of these various uncommon diseases in the first place.

The number of logical fallacies present in this ridiculous extrapolation of the data simply boggles the rational mind. But of course, there is nothing rational in the blind pathos that motivates the fanatical advocates of this profound dysfunction.

The collective stupidity in our society has reached critical mass.


“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.” - G.K.Chesterton

Posted by: Strife at February 21, 2013 12:02 PM (z3Lez)

1009 Strife,

I can get behind some of what you say about how what is or isn't classified as a mental illness is subject to quite a lot of manipulation by "mental health professionals". It's a soft science, and it's one that's ripe for abuse.

Here's the thing. You say homosexuality is a mental illness. What about heterosexuals who engage in sodomy? What about heterosexuals who get married but absolutely do not want kids, ever - despite being otherwise physically healthy and economically capable?

And what's your opinion of chaste, celibate Christian/Catholic homosexuals?

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 01:42 PM (eLtHg)

1010
I've never been with a party. I understand the attraction is increased electoral clout.
Should this prove important, I'd think of casting about for one excluding those over 30% body fat, e.g., Christie, Rove, Powell(above neck 100% adipose tissue) and Ace.
I really can't think of a single exception.

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 21, 2013 02:16 PM (uv0Aw)

1011
"Some of you say it's not "bigoted" to feel repelled by aspects of homosexuality"
Yet gheys are perfectly legit in saying they are repelled by the female body because the pussy smells like a dead fish. Please someone ask them how a hairyasshole smells.

Isn't that bigotry?

Evidently you never read a gay forum or been around gays. They are repulsed by women, they only keep them around to get their eventual male dates.

Think about it, they are repulsed by the body that gave them life. How can it be not mental illness? Are they repulsed by Venus by Milo or botticelli's birth of Venus too?



Eeeeeeehh, icky... A pussy on display

Posted by: fromabroad at February 21, 2013 02:58 PM (rnV3B)

1012 fromabroad-just about all women I know have close gay friends who love them and hear them out without trying to get in their panties 24/7. As a straight male it pains me to admit this, but I would sleep with 95% of all of my female friends if they asked me too. It's not hard for me to grasp why females have gay friends.
Also I'm not exactly sure if we inhabit the same planet, but you do realize that for centuries nominally straight religious prudes (*cough* Puritans *cough* Islamists) have been repulsed by those glorious artworks you describe. This also might be a huge shock to you, so bear with me darling, but not all gays think the way you think they do. (Are you still there?)

PS As long as a pussy is clean (and shaved), it tastes like the most amazing fish ever. I'd have to see a pic, but it sounds like you have "males not loving your pussy" syndrome.

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 03:20 PM (mDymu)

1013 "as long as it's shaved" of course!...another millenial panicked by scary adults, this time the womenz. Childhood Forever! there's no need to parody you folks, you do it for me.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 04:45 PM (yrKiI)

1014 Separate-All I can respond with is "LOL". If I must land my craft through bush, I will do what I must. But a landing strip never hurts. Does requesting a decent runway make me an eternal child?

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 05:01 PM (Q5Qa6)

1015 By the way, to the people saying 'No one is trying to make you accept/celebrate homosexuality' and the like...

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/edc/Announcements.cfm

"This spring the LGBT Resource Office (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) is hosting a program called “gay? fine by me.” to help combat homophobia by publically affirming the university’s LGBT community and creating an inclusiveenvironment where all students can feel safe to express who they are. The LGBTRO will be ordering shirts that say “gay? fine by me.” and distributing them to students, faculty and staff to promote an atmosphere of support on campus.

Everyone will be encouraged to wear the shirts on campus and to participate in a campus wide ally project to create a human rainbow. Photos of this massive showing of LGBT support will be publicized on the LGBTRO’s website and social media accounts. Along with the rainbow, the LGBTRO would also like to create an internal marketing campaign by taking pictures of ECU faculty, staff, administrators, student leaders and student groups wearing the shirts. The picture will be yours for your own marketing materials but will also be part of a campus wide poster campaign of Pirate Allies. This is a wonderful opportunity to be a part of something great while showcasing support for positive change on ECU’s campus.

Individuals, departments, offices and student groups wishing to reserve shirts may do so by clicking here and filling out the order form. T-shirts are free of charge, though the LGBTRO welcomes donations to the project in any amount. The t-shirts will be distributed at the end of March. For more information please contact Summer Wisdom by email or by phone at 737-4451. To read more about the national project, click here."

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 05:09 PM (eLtHg)

1016
"This also might be a huge shock to you, so bear with me darling, but not all gays think the way you think they do. "

You are so stupid it's painful. So your normal circle of friends is faggots (of which you know everything about) and fag hags (that tells you everything about their love for they faggot friends. What a pathetic circle...
You claim to know them so well you must be one yourself...

"sounds like you have "males not loving your pussy" syndrome. "

If it's faggots or faggots cheerleaders like yourself I'd rather keep my distance. Real man have got no problem with women. It's only gays and retards like yourself.

Posted by: fromabroad at February 21, 2013 05:35 PM (rnV3B)

1017 "If it's faggots or faggots cheerleaders like yourself I'd rather keep my distance. Real man have got no problem with women. It's only gays and retards like yourself."

I'm against gay marriage, I'm against the celebration of homosexuality, LGBT culture and all that shit. But this sort of thing? It's wrong, it doesn't help, and it's not necessary. In fact, you're doing exactly what LGBT style groups want by conducting yourself in that way.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 05:41 PM (eLtHg)

1018 Danny boy, yeah, to believe shaving is necessary for female genitalia being "decent" is the essence of childishness. it's also kinda gay.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 06:10 PM (yrKiI)

1019 "I'm against gay marriage, I'm against the celebration of homosexuality, LGBT culture and all that shit. But this sort of thing? It's wrong"

yeah, I'm a conservative but I'm a cool conservative! I'm not one of THEM! love me, love me! ur so awesome! pleeeeaaaassssse

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 06:16 PM (yrKiI)

1020 Posted by: lael at February 21, 2013 05:12 AM (NqArY)

Does Greece still have an empire? Does Rome? No? Acceptance of homosexulaity is one of the reasons.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 21, 2013 06:44 PM (KL49F)

1021 706 "Modern shows also show plenty of hot nudity and premarital sex. Is this an example of straights "indoctrinating" or "recruiting" kids?"

YUP. indoctrinating them into believing free love is harmless. any more questions, Danny boy?

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 07:13 PM (yrKiI)

1022 "yeah, I'm a conservative but I'm a cool conservative! I'm not one of THEM! love me, love me! ur so awesome! "

Cool conservative? For Christ's sake, in whose imaginary eyes? You think my views are acceptable to most people who love the LGBT agenda? Being against gay marriage, thinking same sex behavior is immoral and wrong on religious and secular grounds?

Now, people who go "I HATE FAGGOTS"? The LGBT agenda people love them. Why do you think Westboro Baptist gets so much airtime? Because the media knows WBC is repugnant to most people, and can shift someone from the 'homosexuality is wrong' to 'those people are bigots' mentality effectively.

That behavior is not just wrong, it's counter-productive. Would you like to help reverse the LGBT agenda, or do you want to help advance it? If you want to advance it, be sure to act like the WBC.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 07:23 PM (eLtHg)

1023 Separate-Crude actually thinks gays are human beings even though he disagrees with the lifestyle, that's hardly pandering. And while I never thought I'd be having this discussion, but a preference for shaved is well, a preference I shave, I prefer shaved. I PT plenty, I prefer good fitness in mates.



Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 07:26 PM (Q5Qa6)

1024 A. Girl- The Roman Empire made Christianity the official religion under Constantine. Are Christians to blame for the fall?

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 07:31 PM (Q5Qa6)

1025 fromabroad-I mention this far too often on this site, but I'm in the Marines. Some of my friends there are pretty homophobic like you. I know a variety of men and women of which a couple are gay and dear friends. Some straights are wonderful people, others are assholes. Ditto for gays. Frankly it's incredibly silly that you feel that all people of the same sexual orientation are the same.
When I first read your posts I thought you might be a beautiful conservative woman. Now I'm scared that you are the old hag at my university who wears a "you deserve hell" sweater and heckles students. (Gee they will surely be voting R real soon!)

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 07:46 PM (Q5Qa6)

1026 Separate-You need to read Flyboys. None other than Bill Whittle recommended it and it is impressive. One of the WWII veterans talked about getting some when he was in high school. The author was suprised, to which the pilot said "we did it as often as the young kids do now. We just didn't talk about it as much and you always wore a condom because if you got her pregnant you married her." Or as Ace put it "peoe have been having premarital sex since the first boner about 30,000 years ago." Point is, the media is merely reflecting culture not entirely shaping it. Indeed one of the reasons more kids have premarital sex in nominally religious places is that many religious parents are too scared to have an honest discussion with their kids about sex. Voila! That's where the media steps in. Thus I hold everyone accountable, not just the media. And lets be real for centuries marriage had not one goddamn thing to do with love and was done exclusively for political advantage. So while two parent families are ideal they certainly aren't uniformly perfect or achieved out of pure love as my Catholic religious educators would have you believe. Having a mother and father is the ideal, but because humans will never be perfect allowing gays to adopt children is logically compensating for the poor decisions of straight parents which resulted in children they couldn't (or chose not to) support.

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 08:10 PM (Q5Qa6)

1027 where did I say gays aren't human beings? Danny boy, you're not worth the time.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 08:15 PM (yrKiI)

1028 Crude, I did a search. the ONLY person in this entire thread who said 'I HATE FAGGOTS" is you. yeah. no one even said it in lower case.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 08:18 PM (yrKiI)

1029 Danny, how depressing that you're a Marine. God help us.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 08:19 PM (yrKiI)

1030 Oh and while we are having this epic bloodletting over gays, let me open a second front. The Earth is a FEW BILLION years old. I love Rubio, and his answer to a recent question wasn't bad. But if he had said "I'm religious, and thus I believe God can be (partly at least) understood through science as Newton and others did. So I'm going to say the Earth is 4-6 billion years old. Next question." that'd be way better.

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 08:19 PM (Q5Qa6)

1031 "the ONLY person in this entire thread who said 'I HATE FAGGOTS" is you. yeah. no one even said it in lower case."

Yeah, it's great that all the fag and faggot talk came up with slight variations instead of that 1:1 quote, right?

Do you agree that the LGBT groups love people like the WBC? If you do, do you know why they love them?

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 08:23 PM (eLtHg)

1032 Separate-A gay friendly Marine? Shocker
Being in an organization sworn to defend this nation is why I find it hard to say "fuck you U.S.S.A." like some people here.
Besides, Pat Tillman, an Army Ranger and one tough human being, was known for being gay friendly. I wanted to ask my lovely sparing partner fromabroad if she would describe this man as a "faggot cheerleader" and not a "real man."

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 08:31 PM (Q5Qa6)

1033 listen, genius, i have known and loved many gays in my life. you or i both don't get a fucking medal for being nice to humans. I just don't want to hear about their sex lives and i don't want to be told that their lives are peachy keen for themselves and for society. I've seen the effects of homosexuality on homosexuals and society alike, and I fucking vote no, OK? Learn the difference between bigotry and discerning disapproval, and fucking quit congratulating yourself for not burning some gay guy's house down, as if we're that's what I and people who agree wiht me are doing every Friday night. Your self congratulatory straw men disgust me and expose you for the masturbatory fraud that you are. get a fucking grip.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 08:37 PM (yrKiI)

1034 you can spend all your free time patting yourself on teh back for being a "gay friendly Marine" instead of reading fucking history or maybe raising the next generation. maybe you don't have the time since you are busy consorting with women who have the genitalia of seven-year-olds. (but that's just a "preference", right)

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 08:39 PM (yrKiI)

1035 "I just don't want to hear about their sex lives and i don't want to be told that their lives are peachy keen for themselves and for society."

Then don't help them make it easy to portray people who disapprove of the LGBT lifestyle and choices as idiots and crass bigots.

There are good ways and bad ways to object to the lifestyle. Do you honestly disagree with this? How much more ground do you have to lose in the culture war, how many more elections do the people you support have to lose, before this lesson is learned? Do you need Barney fucking Frank to call you up on the phone and tell you to keep up the good work before you're willing to come to grips with the possibility that you may be making a mistake in how this issue is handled?

"Learn the difference between bigotry and discerning disapproval,"

Learn how to argue to convince, rather than walking into any given discussion with the intent of telling everyone who disagrees with your idea or your methods to fuck off.

And no, I didn't say you're 'burning some gay guy's house down'. I suggested you and others are not only not handling the issue right, you are actively turning others off to your point of view. It took, what - one decade? maybe two? - for gay marriage proponents to gain tremendous ground. It's about time we start asking why, and how to reverse that trend. And that's going to mean owing up to mistakes, because they sure as shit were and are made.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 08:58 PM (eLtHg)

1036 Crude you bore me. someone said "faggot" and now you're all in high dudgeon for "LGBT"s by proxy. aren't you special.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 09:00 PM (yrKiI)

1037 But you're right, Crude. gays , sorry LGBTs are constantly going way out their way not to offend me and I should behave in kind, right? right.so what they're actively trying to fuck up my kids' lives? i shouldn't let that bother me!!

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 09:04 PM (yrKiI)

1038 Separate-I'm 20 sir and I have standards. I have yet to find a 6 foot white girl who dates shorter men-otherwise you the taxpayer would be paying for my BAH for Juanito.And it's hilarious you mention marriage, most young people my age are terrified of any kind of serious commitment, let alone marriage. So yeah I actually wouldn't mind raising the next generation but that's neither here nor there.
I don't ever pay myself on the back, but one of the things you do in the military is talk about sex. Every. Last. Detail. So I figure, if us straights get to boast/discuss it, it'd be hypocritical to not let gays talk about it. Letting gays marry provided no one forces Fater Joe to perform a gay marriage, in no way interferes with Adam and Eve being a happily married monogamous couple.

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 09:09 PM (Q5Qa6)

1039 " Crude you bore me. someone said "faggot" and now you're all in high dudgeon for "LGBT"s by proxy. aren't you special."

Dudgeon? That's a new one. Great, I get to expand my vocabulary.

No, it's not just someone saying faggot, it's about a pervasive attitude and approach which is frankly toxic from a 'winning people over' point of view, and often wrong besides.

I say LGBT to specify the groups that really are the problem. Like I imagine you may say, it's the actions, not the preference, that is the objectionable part, and it's the mentality that justifies the actions the needs to be dealt with.

"But you're right, Crude. gays , sorry LGBTs are constantly going way out their way not to offend me and I should behave in kind, right? "

Of course they're going out of their way to offend you! That's half the fucking point! Again: these groups LOVE groups like the WBC. They LOVE it when idiots can get goaded into some verbal onslaught, or even physical altercation. Have you not pieced together yet that they love victim status? And don't tell me that it's not fair that they can get away with one thing and you can't get away with another, because it's not fair, and that doesn't matter. Not when we're talking about doing what will actually change people's minds.

Yes, I agree, these groups ARE actively trying to fuck up your kids' lives. Yes, you SHOULD be bothered. You should not let yourself be tricked into thinking that that's going to automatically justify - from a political, a social point of view - your response. It won't. It will, if you're not careful, bite you in the ass.

Do you think I'm arguing that you shouldn't say anything that would offend some gay rights advocate? No, that's idiotic, and those people tend to be professionally aggrieved. I'm saying we need to start taking stock of why we've lost the ground we have and how we're going to reverse that. Language and communication is key.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 09:13 PM (eLtHg)

1040 "most young people my age are terrified of any kind of serious commitment, let alone marriage"

i rest my case.

Posted by: separate at February 21, 2013 09:16 PM (yrKiI)

1041 Separate-And that my friend has not a goddamned thing to do with gays being able to marry.be fair, maybe it's preferable to wait to marry at a mature 25 than 20-wouldn't want to continue to the divorce problem by getting married too soon for naive reasons.

Posted by: Danny at February 21, 2013 10:04 PM (SUmVe)

1042 "And that my friend has not a goddamned thing to do with gays being able to marry."

It has to do with a larger cultural problem related to breakdowns in the attitudes towards sex and marriage, of which gay marriage is just the latest contributing factor. But a contributing factor is certainly what it is.

Posted by: Crude at February 21, 2013 10:23 PM (eLtHg)

1043 Those with eyes wide shut pine for the resurgence of the other political party when there is little or NO difference between the two.
Its past time to starve the beast from both inside and outside.

Posted by: fltlandr at February 21, 2013 10:52 PM (ZrzPj)

1044
Danny thanks for proving you're a 20 year old retard. Never in my posts I mentioned religion or god or going to hell. I do not give a crap about it but thanks for proving your anti religion bigotry.

now the million $$$ question

Would you want your son to be gay?

How many mothers out there are thinking "I really wish to have a gay son"

Now there are 2 ways to answer this: the truth or turning the reply into 'i would have nothing against my son's gayness' which is a non answer.

I am not bitchslapping you on all the other retard things you said only because I'm typing with a smartphone (hence the mistakes) but frankly if you are example of young conservatives we are doomed and I am thankful I am not American. I am working in the UK. Here a teacher can be FIRED for refusing reading in classroom (primary school) heather has 2 mommies. Thanks for your service. This is what your faggot friends gave us.

Tell me with a straight face (assuming you can) that a child is fine without a mother.

And crude I don't give a shit that you're upset that I call them faggots until you're not equally upset that gays are saying mothers and women are useless

Posted by: fromabroad at February 22, 2013 02:47 AM (rnV3B)

1045 "And crude I don't give a shit that you're upset that I call them faggots until you're not equally upset that gays are saying mothers and women are useless"

Well, prepare to give a shit, because I *am* upset at that. They also say fathers are useless, since you know - there's homosexual women. (Admittedly, not nearly as reliable.) The idea that a mother and father are utterly superfluous to the raising of a child is goddamn inane.

Look. Do you realize when you call "them" "faggots" that you're railing against every single person who's gay? Even willingly celibate gay Christians? Even guys who are on the fence and aren't sure what to do given who they're sexually attracted to? Do you realize that railing against faggots - not specifying who you're criticizing, but 'all homosexuals, everywhere' - you're making sure that people who otherwise may hear you out, instead tune you out?

And if you say 'well if they won't listen to me talking like this I don't care', again, great. Those LGBT groups love you, because you're doing their work for them.

Why are you getting this impression that I'm running defense for the LGBT by pointing out that some attitudes are wrong and some behavior is counterproductive to the very goal of lessening LGBT influence? I'm asking you to be more discerning, not so you can be fucking PC, but so you can more easily attain the goal you want. Hell, I'm asking you to make arguments and have an approach that could in principle appeal to a gay man or woman intellectually.

Here, you tell me: do YOU think the opposition to LGBT shit has been performing beautifully to this point? No improvements to be made?

Posted by: Crude at February 22, 2013 08:15 AM (eLtHg)

1046
Boy. All one need do is read through the comments to understand why Republicans keep on losing so many elections. Boggles my imagination why people who claim they believe in small government are so outraged at the idea of allowing two consenting adults of the same sexwho love one another enjoy the same legal protections that heterosexuals do.
And what I particularly donot understand is this. No matter how much some of you may hate gays or be outraged at the notion of equal rights for everyone - don't you appreciate that this view doesn't mean you end up with Rick Santorum instead of Mitt Romney? You end up with Barack Obama and all the far left politicians who are ruining our nation instead of a small government leader in our economy AND our personal lives.

Posted by: Peg at February 22, 2013 09:11 AM (sEXfl)

1047 Thanks Peg, the thread needed killing. May as well wallop it with a big dose of banal stupidity.

Posted by: Separate at February 22, 2013 12:03 PM (yrKiI)

1048 #1046

Yes - the Republicans lost because many of them are traditional. TRADITONAL! If they were more... progressive they would all be ON POINT! And ... eventually they would be Democrats.

Gay 'marriage' is the ultimate splinter issue like gun control is - people who stick to their principles will be forever labeled ruinous bigots, who could give a damn less about whether people are gay but rather about the fact that the heterosexual family is the fundamental unit of society and only based on that is it even POSSIBLE to suggest subsidizing it.

Subsidizing gay couplings is societal suicide waiting to happen. But let's face it, if Peg is at all representative in terms of thinking, we have a situation of the guy steering the Titanic thinking "Oh, if I had just TURNED at the right moment the boat would have been okay." It's a way to be right in one way and yet totally, totally wrong in every other way.

Yes, if the conservatives supported gay marriage and embraced the gayness fully they would win elections. Do you know why? Because then they would liberals and thus, Democrats.

Posted by: RiverC at February 22, 2013 12:42 PM (El+h4)

1049
"Hell, I'm asking you to make arguments and have an approach that could in principle appeal to a gay man or woman intellectually"

I might appreciate what you say intellectually but you are wrong. First gays are miniscule number. What's the point in convincing 2% of the population? Especially a kind of people where 78% support the democraps no matter what? The myth that some gays would be naturally in the conservative plant if not for manufactured accusations of homophobia is a fairy tale exactly like Latinos are naturally conservative. Some gays might be into keeping their money and their guns and that is the 20~% that are already voting Republican. Do you want to sell your ass to try to beg some 1-2% of the rest. Do you realize we're talking about peanuts?

If you are talking about convincing the gay mafia apologists (heterosexuals that have been brainwashed into thinking appreciating traditional values is a crime against humanity) well it's time to open their eyes. One way is to point out the inhumanity of gay adoption and the deep mysogyny of gay people. The situation is mirrored for lesbians with males. If gays and their supporters start screaming about the word faggot, I start screaming too when they call me surrogate or breeder. There were no apologies when they threw rocks at Mormon churches after prop 8. People like you would always maintain the double standard. You are buying the narrative. This is why we're losing.

The correct attitude is to remind people that there are economic and social reasons why a widow woman or a divorced woman are entitled to some benefits. A gay man IS NOT! The rest is background noise.

It doesn't take a scientist to know that in the future there will be less white people and more gay unfriendly immigrants. The problem will be taken care of. There's only a limited number of countries where you can take refuge.

Posted by: fromabroad at February 22, 2013 02:52 PM (rnV3B)

1050 "I might appreciate what you say intellectually but you are wrong. First gays are miniscule number. What's the point in convincing 2% of the population? "

You misunderstand me, and that's because I was less than clear.

When I talk about making arguments and having an approach that could in principle persuade a homosexual, my primary concern isn't in carving off a portion of the meager percentage of the gay populace for election purposes. I'm talking about the breadth of an argument's appeal. Something that appeals not just to the 2%-3%, but also to those people who are not gay, yet who are in favor of gay marriage or who view homosexuality as no big deal. Especially when you consider that quite often their supporting such things is due to fundamentally emotional reasons, so you have to be extra goddamn careful if you can manage it.

So no, I'm not talking about pursuing the gay vote here. That would be idiotic. But the number of people who get worked up over this issue far, far outstrip the gay populace. And that's only talking about things from the culture war level. On the personal level, I keep asking - what about the willfully chaste gay Christian? They do exist. What about a gay who rejects the homosexual lifestyle or arguments? They do exist. I think it is, morally and ethically, a mistake to treat gays, period, in such a way that implies they are fundamentally immoral people who cannot, to a person, resist their desires or think rational on the issue of same-sex sexual behavior.

That's why I distinguish between gays and LGBT groups. I've talked with willfully celibate gays who reject the gay culture. I've talked with people who were reflexively in favor of gay marriage and "gay rights", but who could actually start to back off when given the right arguments. LGBT groups? They're rotten. The groups and the philosophy are different from the people.

"You are buying the narrative. This is why we're losing."

I am not buying the narrative. Again, why are you under the impression that I think gays are all victims or - holy fucking shit - are being nice, much less fair, to people who disagree with them? What double fucking standard am I endorsing? I am talking about *effective* responses to their bullshit, not ones that just boomerang back and harm us. Like I said: it doesn't matter if the playing field is uneven. That doesn't stop being the case just because we notice and complain. We have to work with what we have.

If you're called a surrogate or a breeder, I suggest you raise hell. I also suggest you do it when you're actually called a surrogate or a breeder - not referring to some guy who called you that in a totally different time and place and using that as a justification to talk trash about faggots. Really, I suggest we raise hell over the most minor issues of language on this subject.

"The correct attitude is to remind people that there are economic and social reasons why a widow woman or a divorced woman are entitled to some benefits. "

Frankly, it's worse than that. One thing we have to recognize is that it's not as if gay marriage was the start of cultural descent. Marriage as a concept, certainly sex as a concept, has been under attack and abuse for a while now, by largely heterosexual people. You cannot possibly deny that, can you?

Posted by: Crude at February 22, 2013 03:32 PM (eLtHg)

1051 Crude, you seem to have some very complicated special "lure the gays and their supporters into our tents" politically persuasive dance of the seven veils mapped out in your head, or at least the possibility thereof. PLease get real. They know how we feel about them, they hate us for it, and will never buy our efforts at accomadation. Just like blacks will never buy the first black secretary of state and the first black female secretary of state as evidence of republican non-racism. not even COLIN POWELL buys it as evidence of conservative non- racism, and he WAS the freakin first black secretary of state! come to grips with the fact that this is culture war, and choose a side. you can't be friends, they hate you already, get over it.

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 04:13 PM (yrKiI)

1052 "Crude, you seem to have some very complicated special "lure the gays and their supporters into our tents" politically persuasive dance of the seven veils mapped out in your head, or at least the possibility thereof. PLease get real."

What I have in my head is this thought: people's views change. Most of the time, they change due to incidental non-rational shit, emotional responses and the like, despite their own protests. This doesn't just apply to gays and LGBT supporters, but generally. This is why bias in the media matters - because people DO change their minds, and along with it their voting patterns, in response to slogans they hear and ideas that are presented to them, and sometimes even arguments they read. Especially if these things are sustained over a period of time.

Yes, we actually can lure them into our tents. They were lured out *largely over the course of two decades*. That's a fucking eye-blink in the span of time, and it's important to ask why that's the case.

"Just like blacks will never buy the first black secretary of state and the first black female secretary of state as evidence of republican non-racism."

What, do you think voting against the GOP is in their DNA? Or is it that the GOP got out-maneuvered by Democrats? That the Democrats have their media and cultural hooks deeper into blacks that the GOP doesn't contest enough?

Your argument here amounts to the idea that people's views never change so if they don't agree with you already, they're forever lost causes. If that's what you think, then please reconsider, because it's a stupid view and demonstrably wrong. People's minds change. You have to focus on how to change their minds if you want to accomplish it.

"and choose a side. you can't be friends, they hate you already, get over it."

I don't give a shit if they're "friends". This isn't about me being accepted by some hypothetical liberal douchebags, or getting some fucking medal from the LGBT for advancing pride or equal marriage rights or whatever the most fashionable term for their collective delusion is. It's about fighting that culture war you refer to.

Look, your method has been tried for two decades, maybe more. It has failed. Meanwhile, the liberal method of "try to change people's minds" has succeeded. They didn't stumble into their success by accident. They figured out what worked and what didn't, and acted accordingly. They made mistakes at times, and learned from them.

Don't you think it's about time we start to ask the question, "How do we improve our results?"?

Posted by: Crude at February 22, 2013 04:32 PM (eLtHg)

1053 Crude, your comments are overlong and don't make sense. you're the one who needs a different strategy, not me. you are a poor communicator. next.

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 05:03 PM (yrKiI)

1054 we tried 'be nice', it hasn't worked. so what's your genius idea, Crude? Out with it. Otherwise pipe down.

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 05:13 PM (yrKiI)

1055 i want specifics

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 05:13 PM (yrKiI)

1056 "Crude, your comments are overlong and don't make sense. you're the one who needs a different strategy, not me. you are a poor communicator. next."

Me speak long sentences. Long sentences CONFUSE separate. Separate scared!

Look, if you can't figure out what the fuck I'm talking about when I'm writing clearly, that's your problem. What's probably happening is I'm confusing the shit out of you because I'm both disagreeing with your methods while agreeing with your goals, or at least what I think your goals are. Hard to process - if I agree with your goals, we should all be on the same team and you should never be criticized, right? I mean, the only guy who could possibly think your methods suck are liberals.

That attitude kills us.

"we tried 'be nice', it hasn't worked."

What the fuck is this "be nice" shit, and when has it been tried?

"so what's your genius idea, Crude? Out with it. Otherwise pipe down."

No, Separate, I'm going to keep writing, much as it confuses and worries you. And you should consider sitting down, shutting up, and listening. You may learn something, if you try real hard and don't piss your pants at the prospect of having to think for a little bit.

Also I'm not saying I have "genius ideas", as if I'm here offering the fucking panacea (yes, I know, confusing word - google it) for all our problems. Who the fuck am I? Nobody. Exactly who you are. I'm pointing out what mistakes are made and have been made, I'm offering suggestions - not genius plans, suggestions - and I'm asking us to recognize failure for failure when it's clear.

I've given specifics - you couldn't fucking grasp them by your own admission, so I'm not trying that again. Instead I'll drive this point home, because I've asked it several times in this thread, and no one replied.

Westboro Baptist Church: do they help or hurt SoCons on gay marriage?

If you say help, well, you're a goddamn idiot who is beyond communication. I don't think anyone in this thread is that stupid.

If you say hurt, then tell me why. What is it about what they do that hurts the SoCon image on those issues? Once you understand that, you're well on your way to understanding my criticism here.

Oh, and while I'm at it: this issue has been fought over for around two decades now. We've done poorly. Were mistakes made? If so, what are they? This is the shit that should be considered. Bitching about liberals and gays only helps so much.

Posted by: Crude at February 22, 2013 05:51 PM (eLtHg)

1057
crude

I am Italian so this malaise of gay marriage will never touch my shores (I might simply tell you Idon't give a shit what happens to the USA anymore, after all after 2 Obama terms you cannot goany lower but I want to tell you a story).

The press is always left leaning and they run propaganda and they try to portray gay marriageas the latest american fashionable import, like the ipad or xbox, but when people are polled anonymously the truth comes out.
Support for gay adoption in places like Italy and France (and I bet other secretly conservative states) polls below 20%. Gay marriage is still considered an alien concept and the state pensions funds are already bankrupt without adding extra MALE tit suckers to it.

I can guarantee you that even in catholic Italy the religious and biblical factor are zero. There's plenty of people against gay propaganda for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with religion. They are almost all connected with the reverse racism. People are fed up at being called bigots, people feel that Orwellian society is already here, where normal is strange and abnormal is the new normal.

I am happy that the very few in favor of this abomination are only guillable people, hardline leftists (all gay politicians in Europe are from commie parties), or cretins who want to feel good about themselves by copying Sweden, Norway etc (all countries that will be extinguished within 200 years unlike Japan as our idiot Danny believes). We are not yet at the lunacy level of firing people because they laugh at the idea of 2 men getting married and it is because we didn't have people like you caving on it.

It is all about perception and unfortunately American people are all about being the popular ones. They crave for acceptance (for cheering for the PC theme du jour). The only way to stop this is to stand up with the ones affirming their values, who fucking cares if some gay fanatic doesn't hang out with you anymore. Good riddance! Why should I hang out with bigoted people who hate my gender, hate my body, hate religion (I am not religious myself but I push back to the christianophobicbigots).

You have double standards. You talk about irresistible urge to fuck a ss person, an uncontrollable lust. When it is a heterosexual woman it's called ninphomany and they suggest a cure, when it's a man, it's priapysm and you should see a specialist, when it is a gay, please, the state must applaud you and celebrate your healthysexual appetite.

The key is to stop PC and point out double standards and you do that only by calling a spade a spade. The few enlightened ones will get your message (say to a woman that the rise of gay powerwill meansthat potentially in the future a divorced woman might have less chances to get custody of the child -and the house and $$$- and see herswitch180 on her support of gay marriage). The gaycargo cultwill always think teh gheys are the best thing since sliced bread but you can't possibly want to waste your time with a cargo cultist...

One anecdote: all the people who truly switched from communism to conservatism are the ones who saw first hand the shit there was the eastern block in the past.

Let them see with their own eyes the hypocrisies of the gay mafia, demanding tolerance for themselves and submission from anybody else, their contradictory stance of anti Christianism and support for Muslims (because gays are naturally leftists - the party of free love, debauchery and no morals), their pretended alliance with females and the disgust for motherhood. At that point they will start to cave and say "...but but I love women, I just prefer to fuck males" so you can reply "so if it's only a matter of preference we shouldn't destroy the meaning of thousands year institution to accommodate you gheys".

Separate is right, we don't have to cave, you won't get any converts, and if someone that is ficon votes Obama just because I say faggot, he deserves to be fucked in the ass good and hard.

Remember here in the UK a elementary school teacher can be fired for not talking flowerily about gay marriage.

They have already declared war, you still think you're in peace negotiations...

Posted by: fromabroad at February 22, 2013 06:07 PM (rnV3B)

1058
crude, stop whining about the Westboro church
Next time someone mentions it tell them what was the name of the group of ppl who broke windows and stained glass at Mormon churches after prop 8. aaah the name of the group was teh gheys.

And the guy who shoot a guard is some other religious association? Ah it was a prominent cheerleader for teh gheys.

Crude the last election didn't teach you anything. You have to be in their faces and spat back.

educate yourself on their lies, no dominant animal fucks other males and refuses the females. Not a single one.

They say homosexuality is natural? So is sexual ritual cannibalism after sex (black widow and praying mantis) and eating up progeny (sharks some mammals). Yes homosexuality is as natural as the above so we must condone a wife murdering her husband?

Posted by: fromabroad at February 22, 2013 06:36 PM (rnV3B)

1059 fromabroad, have you lived in US? where are you in UK now?

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 08:18 PM (yrKiI)

1060 Crude, your writing doesn't "worry" me, it irritates me. greatly.

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 08:18 PM (yrKiI)

1061 Crude, you're still giving me 8 paragraph comments? come on man. are you one of those youngster evangelical mega church types that wants to make nice with the libs, and be cool, has jeans from Buckle and a tatoo? you guys are lame

Posted by: separate at February 22, 2013 08:21 PM (yrKiI)

1062 I have lived in Italy and for work I lived in other countries in EU. I am now in London.

Posted by: fromabroad at February 23, 2013 02:20 AM (rnV3B)

1063 Italy's political corruption seems fairly old school, which bolsters your argument about gay marriage there. in spite of the corruption, I'd take Berlusconi over Cameron.

Posted by: separate at February 23, 2013 02:01 PM (yrKiI)

1064 separate there's a unique situation in italy. Some descendants of communists are also sort of catholic (imagine a democrat in a deep red state) so even ifthe left is in power they will never manage to push ss marriage. And if they do a referendum for the peple to vote on, with 30% unemployment and desperation all around people are going to lynch politicians before they give 2 shits about gay marriage. We're not going to pull a Spain on that, and i'd be very surprised if spaniards are 100% ok with they gay marriage law they have

Posted by: fromabroad at February 23, 2013 02:22 PM (eWCL7)






Processing 0.18, elapsed 0.2365 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0832 seconds, 1073 records returned.
Page size 709 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