PDA

View Full Version : The Religious Right or Jessica Hahn, where are you?



Water Closet
04-29-2009, 12:46 PM
The genesis of this thread is a reply I made in the thread regarding Specter changing parties (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=13909)...


Well, I didn't make that statement (at least in this thread), hazlnut did. However, relating to the general term of "bedroom," the RR:

1. Opposes gay marriage and, down deep, opposes domestic partnerships (they are marginally on board with the latter as an antidote to pure gay marriage)
2. Favors laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults (witness the sodomy laws)
3. Favors stringent enforcement of laws regarding prostitution
4. Would like to see laws regulating PDA (an acronym I learned here :eek: meaning "public displays of affection") between gays
5. Opposes sex education in schools

This, predictably, engendered a great deal of discussion that drifted away from the subject of the OP. Therefore, being a responsible member of this community, I decided to break the topic out into a separate thread.

The original post was constrained by looking at those issues/positions of the Religious Right (RR) as regard specifically to the bedroom. If I were to drop that constraint and look at a broader range of issues, I would add the following:

6. Opposes the legalization of drugs
7. Opposes abortion, including many forms of birth control that it regards as equivalent to abortion
8. Supports the teaching of creationism (in some form) in science classes as an "alternative" to evolution

What is important to note about all of these issues is that the RR supports or opposes based primarily upon moral grounds derived directly from their religion.

All of this leads me to a series of questions as follows:

1. Does the Religious Right even exist as a cohesive political and social force in this country?

2. Are the above eight points a fair and accurate portrayal of the RR and their position on issues?

3. Has the RR taken the Republican Party to the right over the last 28 years? If so, has this broadened support for the Republicans or shrank it?

4. Would the RR like to see a government that enforced its religious/moral beliefs, even at a cost to personal freedoms? Note that I'm not speaking of turning the government into a theocracy, but rather of returning to a (mythical) time in the past whereat the policies of the government were more in tune with the teachings of the scripture.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 12:54 PM
The answers to #1 and #3 are yes, and yes (and that a yes to #3 has shrunk it).

Once those two questions are answered in the affirmative, the rest don't really matter, do they? :cool:

FeebMaster
04-29-2009, 01:17 PM
1. I don't know if I'd call them cohesive or a force.
2. More or less. But the slightly less religious right is mostly for them as well.
3. No. Support is probably a wash.
4. Absolutely, but that's no different than anyone else on the left or right, other than the religious excuse.

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 01:19 PM
I'd have to disagree with Linda. I think that conservative Christians naturally felt more attracted to the Republican party for a time. They joined (or voted for) the Republicans because of some common ground. Naturally enough, the Republicans listened to this block of people and there was feedback between the two groups.

That said, conservative Christians have a generally wary view of government regardless of which party is in power.

Speaking as a member of the RR demographic, I see it as much less cohesive than the average newsie or pundit would see it. They get blinded by the whole cross/bible dynamic and fail to see the many differences among us. They also fail to distinguish between conservative Christians, traditional Christians, and socially conservative but politically liberal Christians. We aren't the same and we don't have the same views or aspirations.

libhtr72
04-29-2009, 01:30 PM
I would say that my views border on the views of the RR, but not quite as profound. I am in agreement with most of the points that were cited, numbers 1-8 with a mild exception of number 8. I don't believe that religion should be pushed onto anyone and in my mind some of the theories regarding creation I consider to be stories. Religion should be something that a person finds for him or herself with the guiding hand of their parents. In a perfect world, everyone's families would be so inclined, but unfortunately we have many children who are so lost by their 6th birthday that there is almost no hope for them to be grounded and rooted with the values and beliefs of most Christians.

1. I think that the RR is alive, but not doing so well recently with the rise of the liberal, Christian hating media.
2. The 8 points are an accurate rendition of the beliefs held by the majority of the RR, but some might be more passionate about a few of the points and not so on the other ones.
3. I think that the RR is trying to keep the Republican party where it started, but some ranking members of the party are trying to take it too far left. There is finally some dissent among the regular mambers that are tired of their representatives moving their views and laws to the left.
4. I think that the views of our Founding Fathers and the constitution need to be taken into account, but at the same time we need to realize that not everything is going to be the same. We live in a different world than our Founders did and the change that has come with a more global economy needs to be taken into account when we look at the laws and regulations that currently exist. The majority of the people in the world would not agree with a theocracy, there are too many beliefs and religions for all of us to be incorporated under one umbrella.

Lager
04-29-2009, 01:35 PM
I see it as much less cohesive than the average newsie or pundit would see it. They get blinded by the whole cross/bible dynamic and fail to see the many differences among us. They also fail to distinguish between conservative Christians, traditional Christians, and socially conservative but politically liberal Christians. We aren't the same and we don't have the same views or aspirations.

I don't think anyone is blinded by the cross/bible dynamic. I think they very well know there exist a multitude of differences between Christians. What they want is a straw/bogey man Christian for the purposes of changing social values. For example, if you polled people who were against gay marriage, you'd find many who weren't religious at all. However, if you link that position strongly to the "religious right", and you've already spent a lot of time and capital discrediting the definition of that group, then you may have an easier time drawing moderates to your point of view.
Not many want to be on the same side as those who are considered religious extremists.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 01:39 PM
That said, conservative Christians have a generally wary view of government regardless of which party is in power.

You need to meet my in laws..
My wife and I are both Christian, but her mom and pop have vastly different views from us on how wary we are of government. When any Republican is in power, to them it's the same as Christ himself and his Kingdom on earth....they are quite at peace with government intervention if it suits their POV. They've even went so far to tell me that McCain was a "Godly" man....and reprimanded me for my 3rd party choice.... who just happened to be a baptist pastor. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 01:48 PM
1. I don't know if I'd call them cohesive or a force.
2. More or less. But the slightly less religious right is mostly for them as well.
3. No. Support is probably a wash.
4. Absolutely, but that's no different than anyone else on the left or right, other than the religious excuse.

I concur....although I'll add to number 3 that the RR has been a patsy of the Republicans for some time. Just like the treehuggers are a patsy for the Democrats.

They have very little control over moving the party right or left.
The Republican party has not, nor will it ever seriouly try to overturn Roe V Wade. And the RR are duped every year into believing differently.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 01:56 PM
I misread #1 and would like to change my answer, Alex. :)

FlaGator
04-29-2009, 01:59 PM
I'm not even sure what the religious right is? I am religious (Christian) and my political views lean right. I, however, don't resemble much of what you describe as the religious right, and I can only think of one person that I know who comes close to fitting that description. Most of the Christians I know could careless what goes on in the world except where it effects the practice of our beliefs. This is not to say that when we vote we don't vote based on our moral point of view or conscience.

noonwitch
04-29-2009, 02:15 PM
1. Yes, but it is not as strong as it was 10 years ago. The death of Jerry Falwell and the increasingly obvious senility of Pat Robertson have dealt blows to the movement. Also, there are evangelical preachers like Rick Warren, who are distancing themselves from the politcal agenda of the religious right.

2. Some of it is a fair portrayal and some is not. There are conservatives who support the legalization of marijuana and are opposed to the curbing of civil liberties in the name of the War on Drug Users. I don't think too many people on the religious right support abortion rights, and most call for making it illegal, either for all women, or for all women with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. Protestant conservatives are not opposed to birth control for the most part, they are opposed to letting teenagers get access to medical methods like the Pill without parental consent. They are generally opposed to schools giving away condoms, but are not calling for stores to ask customers for id before selling them condoms.

Churches frequently have good reasons for calling for strict enforcement of prostitution laws-this has nothing to do with politics, though. When I lived in Detroit, there were several churches right on Woodward in Highland Park, where there are also a number of adult bookstores and peep shows. These establishments attract prostitutes. The churches put pressure on the city government to enforce the law, and helped organize the neighborhood people into action to stop this from happening, because there are not just churches, but elementary schools and day care programs in visual range.

I haven't heard too many calls to ban all PDA between gay people from the right. I have heard and read comments expressing disgust about gays kissing or holding hands in public. As long as that's the definition of PDA-nobody wants to see gay or straight people engaging in blatantly sexual acts out in public.

They're split over the evolution/creationism debate. You can see that here, on this board.

3. I think that the RR has taken over the GOP to the extent that they can. Reagan formed a coalition between fiscal and religious conservatives that has endured for a while, and still endures in parts of the country. They have the numbers to form a majority block in that party, but not in the nation at large. Has it hurt the GOP? I don't know, the jury's still out. It helped them win some elections, in particular, for Reagan and W. The RR connection probably helps the GOP win local elections and some congressional races.
On the other hand, I probably would vote for more GOP candidates if the religious right wasn't so influential in the Michigan GOP. The coming 2010 governor's race is a good example. I'd be willing to vote for a moderate republican like David Gorcyca, especially as the dems best potential candidate has said no (Dennis Archer, former Detroit Mayor). But I'm not voting for Hoekstra, even if the dems nominate Fieger. In that scenario, I would be tempted to vote 3rd party. I doubt that the GOP is that interested in my vote, however, and they have no reason to change their opposition to legal abortion and gay marriage to get a few votes at the risk of losing thousands.

4. There are always people who want to impose one set of values over everybody else, on all sides of the spectrum. When it comes to homosexuality, some people use their religious beliefs not just to claim its immoral behavior, but also to dehumanize those who practice it. A nut-job like that wouldn't care if the civil rights of gays were infringed on to prevent him from having to recognize their humanity, because he would rather define gays by the sex acts they allegedly commit.
There are people on the left that do the same thing. I would say that the pro gay marriage protestors who were harrassing people on their way to church would qualify in that regard, because they are taking what is basically a legal battle and making it personal. It's the "Approve me or me and my friends will get in your face" mentality. It's not going to win more support for legalizing gay marriage. Perez Hilton's treatment of the Miss USA candidate would also be an example of someone wanting to force another to accept his values.
I don't think the desire to make everyone follow a set of beliefs and rules is exclusive to the religious right.

Abortion is different, because the religious right believes that the procedure is murder. They don't see that as an issue of sexual morality, so they do not feel that they are trying to get the government to impose their morality on the populace by trying to get abortion re-criminalized. They see a voiceless victim who needs defending, and liken their fight to abolitionism in the 1800s. I may disagree with their arguments, but I don't think that they view it as taking away someone's rights, the way feminists and liberals like me do, but they see it as protecting the rights of the unborn.

As far as some of the fears about hate crimes, I'm a liberal, but I understand why they are afraid. There are situations in Canada where pastors have been charged with hate crimes for saying that homosexuality is wrong. Speech should never be considered a hate crime in a legal sense, with sanctions on those who violate the rules. Any law used to punish a pastor who states that homosexuality is wrong could be turned on liberals by conservatives, when they eventually get another president elected. I wouldn't want a conservative government telling me that criticizing fundamentalist christians was a hate crime.

marinejcksn
04-29-2009, 02:58 PM
I don't agree with a lot of their points and a lot of other strong Conservatives and Libertarians don't either. I think we need to remember what Barry Goldwater said about the Religious Right and Homosexuality:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Amen.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 03:05 PM
I don't agree with a lot of their points and a lot of other strong Conservatives and Libertarians don't either. I think we need to remember what Barry Goldwater said about the Religious Right and Homosexuality:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Amen.

You know, marinejcksn, your posts consistently increase my respect for Goldwater. I barely remember his presidential run in '64. The one thing I do remember is my wonderful grandmother worrying so much that Goldwater was going to take away her social security. LBJ really did a number on him during that campaign.

marinejcksn
04-29-2009, 03:15 PM
You know, marinejcksn, your posts consistently increase my respect for Goldwater. I barely remember his presidential run in '64. The one thing I do remember is my wonderful grandmother worrying so much that Goldwater was going to take away her social security. LBJ really did a number on him during that campaign.

He's my #1 favorite politician of the last 100 years, followed by Reagan and Bob Taft. If you want a great resource into just how real and honest the man was, read "Pure Goldwater" by John Dean and Barry Goldwater Jr. He just makes so much damn sense, even now.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 03:26 PM
4. There are always people who want to impose one set of values over everybody else, on all sides of the spectrum. When it comes to homosexuality, some people use their religious beliefs not just to claim its immoral behavior, but also to dehumanize those who practice it. A nut-job like that wouldn't care if the civil rights of gays were infringed on to prevent him from having to recognize their humanity, because he would rather define gays by the sex acts they allegedly commit.
There are people on the left that do the same thing. I would say that the pro gay marriage protestors who were harrassing people on their way to church would qualify in that regard, because they are taking what is basically a legal battle and making it personal. It's the "Approve me or me and my friends will get in your face" mentality. It's not going to win more support for legalizing gay marriage. Perez Hilton's treatment of the Miss USA candidate would also be an example of someone wanting to force another to accept his values.
I don't think the desire to make everyone follow a set of beliefs and rules is exclusive to the religious right.

I agree with your point about those who would force others to live/think a certain way. However, your example of the gay rights people harassing people on their way to church--wrong, yes, but I see them doing that in support of the one set of values that should trump all. The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

IMO--the gay rights movement, like the civil rights movement--is not about Dems or liberals trying to force the rest of us to be tolerant of everyone and everything--its about a Republic working the way it should--seeing that the tyranny of the majority does not trample the rights of the minority.

Of course, for those who still believe sexual orientation is a choice, then this may be a difficult concept to grasp. Despite people's personal beliefs on this, the legal system now sees Gays as a special type of minority called a "subject class". This is one of several legal concepts involved in the Prop 8 issue in CA.--I digress...

Anyway, great points--I just disagree with one of your examples.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 03:46 PM
Since when did being gay become equal to the color of one's skin? Sexual choice is not the same as being born with different colored skin. Homosexuality is a choice that they decide to persue for their own pleasure. Homosexuality is deviant behavior. If somebody wants to be gay. They can be gay but quit trying to make ME feel bad because of a choice THEY make.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 03:47 PM
Since when did being gay become equal to the color of one's skin? Sexual choice is not the same as being born with different colored skin. Homosexuality is a choice that they decide to persue for their own pleasure. Homosexuality is deviant behavior. If somebody wants to be gay. They can be gay but quit trying to make ME feel bad because of a choice THEY make.

Did you make a conscious choice to be straight, or did you just discover you were attracted to the opposite sex?

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 03:51 PM
We're talking about the OP's questions concerning the religious right as they relate to specific issues in the OP. While homosexuality and gay marriage are a small part of much larger questions, let's not get sidetracked into an entertaining but irrelevant discussion of gayness. ;)

Jfor
04-29-2009, 03:52 PM
Did you make a conscious choice to be straight, or did you just discover you were attracted to the opposite sex?

Never had to. It is natural for male species to be attracted to the females of their species. It is unnatural for males of a species to be sexually attracted to other males of the same species. Same story for female members of a species.

You can sit there and try to force YOUR opinion of homosexuality is right on me all day long but it won't work. It has only been within the last 10+ years that homosexuality has been tolerable here.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 03:53 PM
You don't get what I was saying. You didn't make a choice to be attracted to certain people; they don't either.

I don't intend to "force" anything on you; just be aware that history and society are moving away from you on this.

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 04:37 PM
I have created a new thread containing most of the gayness posts from this thread. If you want to discuss gayness AND the other matters outlined in the OP here, fine.

If you want to discuss gayness as it pertains to evolution, fashion, civil rights, or whatever - take it to The Obligatory Gayness Thread. ;)

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:38 PM
We're talking about the OP's questions concerning the religious right as they relate to specific issues in the OP. While homosexuality and gay marriage are a small part of much larger questions, let's not get sidetracked into an entertaining but irrelevant discussion of gayness. ;)

And besides, drugs and prostitution, are so much more interesting than gay marriage! :D

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 04:40 PM
And besides, drugs and prostitution, are so much more interesting than gay marriage! :D

Well, since I'm not a lesbian, I'd have to agree with that. :D

Constitutionally Speaking
04-29-2009, 04:41 PM
The genesis of this thread is a reply I made in the thread regarding Specter changing parties (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=13909)...



This, predictably, engendered a great deal of discussion that drifted away from the subject of the OP. Therefore, being a responsible member of this community, I decided to break the topic out into a separate thread.

The original post was constrained by looking at those issues/positions of the Religious Right (RR) as regard specifically to the bedroom. If I were to drop that constraint and look at a broader range of issues, I would add the following:

6. Opposes the legalization of drugs

For the most part, probably yes - but they are not alone in this and the reasons are not really religious at all.


7. Opposes abortion, including many forms of birth control that it regards as equivalent to abortion

Yes, some do so on religious grounds.

Others, such as I, think it is denying a human being the most basic right and it is more an issue of individual liberty than a religious reason.


8. Supports the teaching of creationism (in some form) in science classes as an "alternative" to evolution

Some do some don't. This is not a solid across the board thing with the RR

What is important to note about all of these issues is that the RR supports or opposes based primarily upon moral grounds derived directly from their religion.


All of this leads me to a series of questions as follows:

1. Does the Religious Right even exist as a cohesive political and social force in this country?

They are certainly a force - but I think the power they have is vastly overstated by some in order to alienate people from the Republican party.

2. Are the above eight points a fair and accurate portrayal of the RR and their position on issues?

See the individual responses above - but I do not see eight points

3. Has the RR taken the Republican Party to the right over the last 28 years? If so, has this broadened support for the Republicans or shrank it?

They certainly have tried - but have failed miserably. They themselves gain as many people to the Republican party as they alienate - probably are a net gain, but that is simply my opinion and I cannot back it up.

4. Would the RR like to see a government that enforced its religious/moral beliefs, even at a cost to personal freedoms? Note that I'm not speaking of turning the government into a theocracy, but rather of returning to a (mythical) time in the past whereat the policies of the government were more in tune with the teachings of the scripture.If you could be specific, I might be better able to answer this. Without that, I would say no not at all.



Good post.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 04:56 PM
Since when did being gay become equal to the color of one's skin? Sexual choice is not the same as being born with different colored skin. Homosexuality is a choice that they decide to persue for their own pleasure. Homosexuality is deviant behavior. If somebody wants to be gay. They can be gay but quit trying to make ME feel bad because of a choice THEY make.

Current medical and social science does not see it that way. Sexual orientation is a hard-wired personality trait related to brain development in the uterus--which is a function of genetics and pre-natal nutrition.

Sorry, Ginger, I wasn't sure how to copy/paste it to the new thread.

Let me just add--to make relevant to the OP--that IMO, the Republican party could attempt to hold its RR base by making this an issue of tolerance--we must ensure the rights of those born different than us.

Although, the (false, IMO) notion of choice about sexual orientation seems to be pretty well engrained into the RR core beliefs.

Maybe the RR needs their own party?

Here's a relevant question for this thread:

To what extent has the RR and GOP mutually beneficial relationship become less beneficial to one or the other? Could the GOP now survive without the RR?

Can RRs reach a point where they focus on fiscal and public policy issues in Government and accept moral choices as a private matter?

Constitutionally Speaking
04-29-2009, 06:10 PM
I don't agree with a lot of their points and a lot of other strong Conservatives and Libertarians don't either. I think we need to remember what Barry Goldwater said about the Religious Right and Homosexuality:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Amen.


I thinkg most Christians would agree with you there. Even the evangelicals. What we resent is the fact that they are teaching our children things that are contrary to what we wish our children to be taught.

They demonize anyone who dares disagree with them - like they did with Miss California - and like they did with anyone who dared vote for or contribute to Prop 8 in California.

Phillygirl
04-29-2009, 06:28 PM
From a federal legislative standpoint, has there been a serious effort to force the teaching of evolution in science class in schools? If so, I've missed it.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 06:31 PM
1. Not to the extent that its critics assert. The Religious Right became politically active as part of an overall backlash in reaction to the excesses of the left during the 60s and 70s. Evangelicals began to see themselves under attack by an increasingly hostile and powerful secular left and organized against that. Their high water mark was the election of Ronald Reagan, but they were only part of the Reagan coalition (albeit a critical part), along with fiscal conservatives, non-religious social conservatives, law and order conservatives, cultural conservatives (not necessarily religious, but generally respectful of religion and suspicious of radical changes to the culture as promoted by the left), anti-communists and even country club Republicans (who smelled a chance to get back into power and held their noses while they made common cause with the declasse arrivistes) and libertarians.

2. Yes and no. Again, many of these positions are not simply religiously decided positions but resonate across conservative groups.

Gay Marriage is mostly opposed by the Religious Right, but others across the political spectrum are disturbed by the radical redefinition of an ancient and effective institution into something that will eventually become unrecognizable. Fiscal conservatives recognize that the traditional family is a bulwark against the state, as do anti-communists. It's hard to find a conservative who doesn't find this trend alarming.
Sodomy laws are pretty much passe, but for the most part, it's a religious objection.
Prostitution is put forward as a victimless crime, but to those conservatives who see it as exploitation and slavery, it cuts across the conservative coalition. Also, why would you want laws on the books that aren't enforced?
Personally, I have no problem with PDA if it's two women. I don't particularly want to see two men, but that's my own issue. I don't know of anyone who has sought to ban it, though.
My previous comments on sex ed are that opposition to the various leftist coalitions that seek to promote stems not from a dislike of either sex or education, but distrust of the agenda of the promoters. Since you didn't address this comment the first time because you wanted to start a new thread, I'm repeating it here, but this cuts across conservative positions as well.

Ah, now there, you have 'em. Why a religious fundamentalist wouldn't want his or her kindergartner to learn the finer points of putting a condom on a banana and to learn the details of oral sex as a means to prevent pregnancies is obviously a serious question. After all, the public schools do so well at teaching the most important basic skills, such as reading, writing, math and history, that we'd be fools not to entrust our children's moral and sexual development to them. Of course, the three Rs have changed a bit over the years, but Recycling, Relativism and Reproductive rights are every bit as important as those outmoded concepts. Why, I remember when Jocelyn Elders proposed teaching masturbation in public schools. What an uproar! Of course, if she knew anything about public schooling, she'd have known that the phys-ed teacher is usually the one responsible for the sex ed classes, but I'd happily entrust my daughters' knowledge of the art of self love to someone with no neck, a stopwatch and a whistle (and I'm sure that the male gym teachers will do equally well with the boys in the class). Nope, no argument there. Who could possibly be against that?
Drug legalization is a tough call. You'd think that because Prohibition was partly a religious movement, that religious conservatives would oppose drug legalization, but Prohibition was also a big Progressive cause. William F. Buckley, who was certainly a religious conservative, favored drug legalization. I'm going to say that this isn't a religious issue.
The Religious Right is probably most concerned with the life issue, which covers abortion, euthanasia, embrionic stem cell research and any other areas in which medical technology challenges previously accepted norms, but even secular conservatives can be concerned about these issues. It ultimately comes down to whether or not you believe that human life begins at conception or at birth and whether or not you see human life as fundamentally unique, as opposed to animals. However, it must be noted that the left's demagoguery of these issues is as shameless as anything that they accuse the right of. When the Democratic VP nominee promised that Christopher Reeve would walk if embrionic stem cell research was permitted, he was just as over the top as any preacher.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are definitely issues of the Religious Right.

3. It's not so much that they've taken the Republican Party to the right, as they've kept it there on some issues, notably abortion and stem cell research, but single issue voters who vote on abortion are more likely to be pro-life than pro-choice, and that's the same for embrionic stem cell research. BTW, it's funny that this started in a thread on Arlen Spector, because the RINOs that we invariably come to loathe for their constant betrayals are the country club Republicans who never miss an opportunity to demand control of a party that they ran into the ground in the 50s and 60s. They are constantly telling us that we need to purge the party of the Sarah Palins, Newt Gingrichs and other declasse riffraff that offends their delicate sensibilities, but keep in mind that they also wanted to jettison Ronald Reagan in 1980 (they supported Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush) and had their way in 1976, when they gave us the Ford/Rockefeller ticket, but given a choice between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, the liberals will almost always pick the liberal Democrat. Given a choice between keeping Sarah Palin and Arlen Spector, I'll take Palin in a heartbeat.

4. I think that most religious conservatives would be happy if they were just left alone. As I said before, their politicization cannot be understood except in the context of the radical politics of the 60s and 70s which put them on the defensive. Here's an obvious example: The Los Angeles seal used to have a cross on it, not as an expression of faith in Christianity, but as a reference to the city's founding as a Catholic mission. The ACLU threatened a lawsuit to have it removed, and the city council caved in. Now, as a very secular Jew who was living in LA at the time, I didn't find the crest offensive, but I also knew the history of the city, but militant atheists couldn't live with a Christian symbol on a state seal and, like the good little fascist bullies that they are, they had to make sure that no one else got to live with it either. If I were a Christian, I'd have been offended by the ACLU. In fact, I was offended by them and I'm not a Christian.

On edit: You missed a couple of major issues that may appear to be religiously based, but also cut across the spectrum of conservatism. First, gays in the military, second, support for Israel, which many evangelicals consider a biblical prophesy issue.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 06:52 PM
I thinkg most Christians would agree with you there. Even the evangelicals. What we resent is the fact that they are teaching our children things that are contrary to what we wish our children to be taught.

They demonize anyone who dares disagree with them - like they did with Miss California - and like they did with anyone who dared vote for or contribute to Prop 8 in California.

Like what for example?

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 07:05 PM
Like what for example?

Like how to put a condom on a banana. Especially in elementary school. Or a revisionist history of the US that treats our founders as a bunch of cynical and corrupt oppressors of people of color. Or a highly politicized view of global warming that paints dissenters as "deniers." You know, indoctrination rather than knowledge.

marinejcksn
04-29-2009, 07:51 PM
Like how to put a condom on a banana. Especially in elementary school. Or a revisionist history of the US that treats our founders as a bunch of cynical and corrupt oppressors of people of color. Or a highly politicized view of global warming that paints dissenters as "deniers." You know, indoctrination rather than knowledge.

Exactly. In my opinion sex education is the parent's job anyway and the school should have nothing to do with it. And anyone who tries to deny that kids are being indoctrinated about the upcoming Firey Flood of global warming, stop by the closest school near you and ask some of the students about saving the planet. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/kids-worry-about-environment.php)

And how about the glorification of Margaret Sanger in some Woman's studies courses that are being offered? Youths are learning how important she was to abortion and women's rights issues, but does anyone else notice how the fact that she supported some of the worst Racism in history in the form of murderous Eugenics (used by the Nazi's, by the way) goes unnoticed? :rolleyes:

Bubba Dawg
04-29-2009, 08:20 PM
To me, the Religious Right did not have anywhere near the influence in 2008 as it did in elections since 1980. They were never a monolithic group that could be counted on to vote en masse as directed, but they did have significant political power in the elections of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and probably George HW Bush but I don't really know the details on that one.

Their power was that, in an election that was close, their numbers could provide the margin of victory. And they still can.

What I see is that religious or social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and pure conservatives probably cannot win without some consensus that allows them to vote as a more-or-less coalition of sorts.

Considering the issues involved, such a coalition may not be possible in a realpolitik way if the fissures between these groups continue to deepen and widen.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 08:29 PM
Like how to put a condom on a banana. Especially in elementary school. Or a revisionist history of the US that treats our founders as a bunch of cynical and corrupt oppressors of people of color. Or a highly politicized view of global warming that paints dissenters as "deniers." You know, indoctrination rather than knowledge.

I agree with you about the condoms in elementary school--although I've never heard of that actually happening. Sounds like an isolated incident sort of thing.

As far as the rest--I think it goes back to the point you made about defining center and a person's perspective being regional.

For example, in a more densely populated area with heavy highway congestion, you tend to be more aware of air quality. I grew up with smog alerts--this could speak to my POV on the environment.

I visited Tulsa last year for business and I remember driving from the suburbs to downtown on the freeway and there was no traffic.:eek::eek::eek: I kept saying, this must be a holiday.

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 12:07 AM
I agree with you about the condoms in elementary school--although I've never heard of that actually happening. Sounds like an isolated incident sort of thing.
Sadly, no.
Bill Funds 20 New Elementary School Health Clinics Offering Condoms and Birth Control for Students (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07052307.html)
Schools Chancellor Is Proposing Limits To Condom Lessons (http://www.aegis.org/NEWS/NYT/1995/NYT951214.html)


As far as the rest--I think it goes back to the point you made about defining center and a person's perspective being regional.

For example, in a more densely populated area with heavy highway congestion, you tend to be more aware of air quality. I grew up with smog alerts--this could speak to my POV on the environment.

I visited Tulsa last year for business and I remember driving from the suburbs to downtown on the freeway and there was no traffic.:eek::eek::eek: I kept saying, this must be a holiday.

I grew up in NYC and lived in Los Angeles for eight years. Both cities have dense smog, but it's a local phenomenon, especially in LA, which sits in a geographic bowl that traps smog. Outside of a few cities, US air quality is actually quite good, and even LA has seen vast improvements over the last thirty years, but that's not something that you'll find in most articles on pollution. Usually, it's just fear mongering, but the more you know, the harder it is to be suckered.

You have to get out of the bubble.

Sonnabend
04-30-2009, 05:41 AM
1. Does the Religious Right even exist as a cohesive political and social force in this country?

No.Pity.If it did the borders would be closed and CAIR would be a bad memory.


2. Are the above eight points a fair and accurate portrayal of the RR and their position on issues?

No. Objections to many of these issues are based as much on fact as they are on faith...and bear in mind that more Christian valiues would see a better balance between the right and the lunatic left, as portrayed by President Jerkweed.


3. Has the RR taken the Republican Party to the right over the last 28 years? If so, has this broadened support for the Republicans or shrank it?\\

If anything, the GOP isnt right enough, and it would be good to see real conservatives have a voice. And real power in making decisions.

If the Right really had the power to be a "cohesive force" then the borders would be slammed shut and a mass set of raids to net and throw out illegals would be underway.

The swine fle us a threat because of illegals, and doing something about them would be a step towards making sure that this flu was contained.

I also see nothing wrong with teaching creatiionism...let people make up their own minds.

Water Closet
04-30-2009, 08:11 AM
No.Pity.If it did the borders would be closed and CAIR would be a bad memory.

Ah, then we could be pure again. Then, if we could get rid of those pesky blacks, we could all live in white Christendom in bliss.


No. Objections to many of these issues are based as much on fact as they are on faith...and bear in mind that more Christian valiues would see a better balance between the right and the lunatic left, as portrayed by President Jerkweed.

President Jerkweed took over from the Idiot Child? The respect for the offrice is palatable.


If anything, the GOP isnt right enough, and it would be good to see real conservatives have a voice. And real power in making decisions.

If the Right really had the power to be a "cohesive force" then the borders would be slammed shut and a mass set of raids to net and throw out illegals would be underway.

The swine fle us a threat because of illegals, and doing something about them would be a step towards making sure that this flu was contained.

Papers, papers. Herr, may ve see your papers?


I also see nothing wrong with teaching creatiionism...let people make up their own minds.

Agreed. But only if this is also required reading in all science classes...


Muspell
The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it.
Surt sits at Muspell's border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire.

Ginnungagap and Niflheim
Beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of Niflheim.
Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell.

Ymir
Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir.

Frost ogres
Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.

Audhumla
Thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir.

Buri, Bor, and Bestla
The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome.
Buri begot a son named Bor, and Bor married Bestla, the daughter of a giant.

Odin, Vili, and Vé
Bor and Bestla had three sons: Odin was the first, Vili the second, and Vé the third.
It is believed that Odin, in association with his brothers, is the ruler of heaven and earth. He is the greatest and most famous of all men.

The death of Ymir
Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir.
When Ymir fell, there issued from his wounds such a flood of blood, that all the frost ogres were drowned, except for the giant Bergelmir who escaped with his wife by climbing onto a lur [a hollowed-out tree trunk that could serve either as a boat or a coffin]. From them spring the families of frost ogres.

Earth, trees, and mountains
The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken.

Dwarfs
Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks.

Sky, clouds, and stars
From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South.
The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds.

Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths.

The earth was surrounded by a deep sea. The sons of Bor gave lands near the sea to the families of giants for their settlements.

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 10:30 AM
Ah, then we could be pure again. Then, if we could get rid of those pesky blacks, we could all live in white Christendom in bliss.
Why is it that whenever someone talks about regaining control of the borders and getting rid of terrorist fronts, they're accused of racism? If the swine flu panic demonstrated anything, it's that we have no control over our southern border. Forget the potential for terrorist infiltration (if you ever considered it in the first place), forget the drug war that is spilling over into our cities (ditto) and the crimes committed by illegals throughout the US (statistics of which are difficult to come by because so many major cities refuse to identify felons by immigration status, even after conviction), forget all of that and just think about the risks of disease vectors. Today it's the flu, tomorrow it could be tuberculosis (already a problem in cities with high illegal immigrant populations, and the new strains are increasingly resistant to treatment with antibiotics). One of the main functions of Ellis Island was to provide medical screenings of immigrants in order to prevent the kinds of epidemics that are now sweeping Mexico. People were checked out, treated if possible, and then permitted access to the US. What's your problem with that?

As for CAIR, they were started as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and their goal is to advance Islam through jihad. Here's an excerpt from an internal memo that explains how they do it:


The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan (brothers) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack….

Now, do you still think that they ought to be given carte blanche to act in the US?


Papers, papers. Herr, may ve see your papers?
The only conservative who's never been called a nazi is the one who's never won an argument with a liberal. We've all heard it before. If that's your best argument, you might as well pack it in.


Agreed. But only if this is also required reading in all science classes...
Taking the whole Loki thing a bit far, are we? I assumed that you were a John Buscema fan, but I guess that there's a reason that you picked Loki, rather than Odin or Thor as your avatar. But remember, Loki was the bad guy in Norse Mythology, and his pranks were the instigation of Ragnarok and the end of the world. If that's your intent, you've certainly chosen the right course of action, since advocating for rules that allow jihadis a free hand is probably the most effective way to sabotage the US.

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 10:58 AM
Agreed. But only if this is also required reading in all science classes...

We can agree that Science is about teaching the natural where religion is about the Supernatural. I think that is best left up to the church.

I'll admit I had to look that stuff up you posted... But I thought Norse mythology Hitler's religion?

Had to invoke Godwin's law. This thread needed it badly. :D

Water Closet
04-30-2009, 11:23 AM
Why is it that whenever someone talks about regaining control of the borders and getting rid of terrorist fronts, they're accused of racism? If the swine flu panic demonstrated anything, it's that we have no control over our southern border. Forget the potential for terrorist infiltration (if you ever considered it in the first place), forget the drug war that is spilling over into our cities (ditto) and the crimes committed by illegals throughout the US (statistics of which are difficult to come by because so many major cities refuse to identify felons by immigration status, even after conviction), forget all of that and just think about the risks of disease vectors. Today it's the flu, tomorrow it could be tuberculosis (already a problem in cities with high illegal immigrant populations, and the new strains are increasingly resistant to treatment with antibiotics). One of the main functions of Ellis Island was to provide medical screenings of immigrants in order to prevent the kinds of epidemics that are now sweeping Mexico. People were checked out, treated if possible, and then permitted access to the US. What's your problem with that?

As for CAIR, they were started as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and their goal is to advance Islam through jihad. Here's an excerpt from an internal memo that explains how they do it:

Now, do you still think that they ought to be given carte blanche to act in the US?

The only conservative who's never been called a nazi is the one who's never won an argument with a liberal. We've all heard it before. If that's your best argument, you might as well pack it in.

Simplistic solutions deserve simplistic, even sarcastic responses. I don't want to live in a country wherein we close our borders and surpress organizations that disagree with our way of life. I lived in Saudi for five years and had enough of that style of "safety."

Certainly I'm in favor of stopping illegal immigration and favor all methods, including enhanced border surveillance, cracking down on employers, insta-verify, and others, used to control the problem. However, I'm not naive enough to think that illegal immigrants are the only, even primary, source of the issues we face in the US.



Taking the whole Loki thing a bit far, are we? I assumed that you were a John Buscema fan, but I guess that there's a reason that you picked Loki, rather than Odin or Thor as your avatar. But remember, Loki was the bad guy in Norse Mythology, and his pranks were the instigation of Ragnarok and the end of the world. If that's your intent, you've certainly chosen the right course of action, since advocating for rules that allow jihadis a free hand is probably the most effective way to sabotage the US.

:D I'm a big Buscema fan and read Thor back in the days when he was Dr. Don Blake. As a grad student I also read the Eddas and the sagas in their original Old Icelandic. I'm very much aware of the avatar I chose. ;)

Water Closet
04-30-2009, 11:27 AM
We can agree that Science is about teaching the natural where religion is about the Supernatural. I think that is best left up to the church.

I'll admit I had to look that stuff up you posted... But I thought Norse mythology Hitler's religion?

Had to invoke Godwin's law. This thread needed it badly. :D

Damn, ML, that's a bit too subtle (or convoluted depending on your perspective) even for me. :D See my post above regarding my avatar and knowledge of Old Icelandic language and literature.

hazlnut
04-30-2009, 11:55 AM
Sadly, no.
Bill Funds 20 New Elementary School Health Clinics Offering Condoms and Birth Control for Students (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07052307.html)
Schools Chancellor Is Proposing Limits To Condom Lessons (http://www.aegis.org/NEWS/NYT/1995/NYT951214.html)

That story from a pro-life web site is from 2007--it doesn't say what happened to the PROPOSED bill--and being familiar with the tactics used by these types of groups--it's probably a gross misreading of the bill.

What did happen to the bill? If it didn't pass--then the story you're suggesting happened, didn't happen at all.





Usually, it's just fear mongering, but the more you know, the harder it is to be suckered.

You have to get out of the bubble.

Is it fear-mongering when kids start getting nose bleeds at recess. The Smog Alerts of the 70s were real.

Everytime I think about leaving, I go outside and find it's 72 degrees--another perfect day in L.A.:o:):cool:

marinejcksn
04-30-2009, 02:01 PM
The Smog Alerts of the 70s were real.

That isn't Smog....it's Smug!

http://www.hybridcars.com/files/imagecache/article_lead_image/files/graphics/south-park-smug-313.gif

:D

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 05:39 PM
Simplistic solutions deserve simplistic, even sarcastic responses. I don't want to live in a country wherein we close our borders and surpress organizations that disagree with our way of life. I lived in Saudi for five years and had enough of that style of "safety."
Except that CAIR is deliberating working towards the overthrow of the US constitutional order in favor of Sharia, which creates an interesting problem that the founders didn't expect to have to deal with: What is the proper response, under the First Amendment, to a religion that seeks supremacy over the Constitution? Remember, Islam doesn't allow for secular law. All four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence reject man-made law as sacrilegious, since the Koran, as Allah's law, supersedes any human authority.

Certainly I'm in favor of stopping illegal immigration and favor all methods, including enhanced border surveillance, cracking down on employers, insta-verify, and others, used to control the problem. However, I'm not naive enough to think that illegal immigrants are the only, even primary, source of the issues we face in the US.
But they are a major source of problems within many of the issues that we do face. For example, the demand to nationalize health care is driven by the increased costs of services, which is exacerbated by the need to provide medical care to illegals who invariably default on their bills. And when the administration cites the number of uninsured people in the US, they're including illegals in the total. Hospitals in California have closed because they couldn't meet the demand for services and stay in business. Much of the cost of public schooling in California, New York and Texas is driven by court-mandated schooling for illegals, as is the growth of social programs. Plus, as stated before, the incidence of communicable diseases increases dramatically among illegals because they can't or won't seek treatment, and not always out of fear of getting caught. Drug-resistant strains of TB have surged with illegal immigrant population increases. Then, there's the crime problems associated with illegals. A lot of gang violence is driven by illegals, and believe it or not, illegals have a much higher incidence of drunk driving than the average, due to a cultural association between drinking to excess and macho.


:D I'm a big Buscema fan and read Thor back in the days when he was Dr. Don Blake. As a grad student I also read the Eddas and the sagas in their original Old Icelandic. I'm very much aware of the avatar I chose. ;)
I'm not surprised. I actually met Buscema years ago at a convention. Nice guy, if a bit crusty.

That story from a pro-life web site is from 2007--it doesn't say what happened to the PROPOSED bill--and being familiar with the tactics used by these types of groups--it's probably a gross misreading of the bill.
Or, it may be an accurate one.


What did happen to the bill? If it didn't pass--then the story you're suggesting happened, didn't happen at all.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else on that bill. Basically, most states start the condom education in 9th grade, which I still consider excessively young, and unless parents are allowed to opt out, it's certainly an intrusion. I don't know too many people, regardless of religious affiliation and intensity, who object to the basic biological information being disseminated. It's when the schools begin forcing moral conditioning on kids that they have a problem.

Is it fear-mongering when kids start getting nose bleeds at recess. The Smog Alerts of the 70s were real.

Everytime I think about leaving, I go outside and find it's 72 degrees--another perfect day in L.A.
No one is denying that LA had a real problem with smog, but as I pointed out, it's at least partly because of geography. The same basin that traps air and causes the Santa Ana winds also traps smog and keeps it from moving westward. That's why LA had such a pronounced pollution problem. In fact, I once suggested to someone that one of the few areas where battery-operated vehicles make sense is the limited bus system in LA, because the power generation could be done remotely and the batteries swapped out at each end of the route, making the pollution issue moot for mass transit. Of course, no one LA rides the bus unless they can't afford a car or aren't old enough to drive one.

Gingersnap
04-30-2009, 05:56 PM
Is it fear-mongering when kids start getting nose bleeds at recess. The Smog Alerts of the 70s were real.

Uh, yes it is. Just a little environmental aside here since I'm in the biz: while air quality was poor in the 70s, it's pretty much terrific now. The story that came out yesterday about X number of American cities having "poor air quality" left a few things out.

Ever since The Clean Air Act, stands have become tighter and tighter every few years for the criteria pollutants. Today a city can fall out of attainment if it has a couple of days in a three year period that exceed the standard. This isn't your Grandfather's air pollution, Skippy.

Most of the "poor air quality" cities became so overnight when the new ozone standards went into effect.

As for kids with nosebleeds, it's unlikely air pollutants were the cause. While pollutants can do various things to you, they don't actually eat away the inside of your nose (or not at those levels, anyway). The nosebleeds were more likely the result of lower humidity levels during a Santa Ana episode.

So those smog alerts were real for a few years but the bleeding kid reference is fear-mongering.

You may all now go back to your posting usual subjects - but don't diss the air on Ginger's watch. :p

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 06:03 PM
As for kids with nosebleeds, it's unlikely air pollutants were the cause. While pollutants can do various things to you, they don't actually eat away the inside of your nose (or not at those levels, anyway). The nosebleeds were more likely the result of lower humidity levels during a Santa Ana episode.

We're talking Los Angeles, and especially Hollywood. Were the nosebleeds accompanied by feelings of euphoria, increased heart rates and energy? I'm betting that it wasn't the air that did it. :D

hazlnut
04-30-2009, 11:55 PM
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else on that bill. Basically, most states start the condom education in 9th grade, which I still consider excessively young, and unless parents are allowed to opt out, it's certainly an intrusion. I don't know too many people, regardless of religious affiliation and intensity, who object to the basic biological information being disseminated. It's when the schools begin forcing moral conditioning on kids that they have a problem.


I agree with you on this. There are studies where economists proved that the availability of condoms in high schools can actually increase the instances of STD's and teenage pregnancy. I think it depends on the context in which the information is presented. 9th grade is too early, IMO.

Odysseus
05-01-2009, 01:53 PM
I agree with you on this. There are studies where economists proved that the availability of condoms in high schools can actually increase the instances of STD's and teenage pregnancy. I think it depends on the context in which the information is presented. 9th grade is too early, IMO.

Agreed, but this demonstrates that objections to sex education aren't simply religious, and that they aren't just the objections of the religious right.

Sonnabend
05-04-2009, 10:19 PM
Ah, then we could be pure again. Then, if we could get rid of those pesky blacks, we could all live in white Christendom in bliss.

Let whoever it is emigrate LEGALLY.

No problem with legal immigrants.Illegals should be arrested,interned, DNA tagged and then deported.Put em in buses, drive em across the border, throw them out in Mexico and turn the bus around.

As for the rest, the "Idiot Child" as you call him, COLD WARRIOR, had an MBA , was a qualified fighter pilot, Governor and twice President.

Jerkweed has served no one but himself his entire life.

Res ipsa loquitur.

P.S I love reading your blog entry, trashing CU and hurling epithets in every direction. Charming.

djones520
05-04-2009, 11:01 PM
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else on that bill. Basically, most states start the condom education in 9th grade, which I still consider excessively young, and unless parents are allowed to opt out, it's certainly an intrusion. I don't know too many people, regardless of religious affiliation and intensity, who object to the basic biological information being disseminated. It's when the schools begin forcing moral conditioning on kids that they have a problem.


I knew of kids having sex in 6th grade. My dad and I had the "talk" when I was in 8th grade. 9th Grade IS NOT to young today, unfortunately.

Odysseus
05-05-2009, 09:47 AM
Let whoever it is emigrate LEGALLY.
No problem with legal immigrants.Illegals should be arrested,interned, DNA tagged and then deported.Put em in buses, drive em across the border, throw them out in Mexico and turn the bus around.
As for the rest, the "Idiot Child" as you call him, COLD WARRIOR, had an MBA , was a qualified fighter pilot, Governor and twice President.
Jerkweed has served no one but himself his entire life.
Res ipsa loquitur.
He's employing tactic one in the amnesty playbook: Blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, then accuse anyone who opposes illegal immigration of being a nativist or a bigot.

P.S I love reading your blog entry, trashing CU and hurling epithets in every direction. Charming.
Got a link? I'd be curious to see what he says about us.

I knew of kids having sex in 6th grade. My dad and I had the "talk" when I was in 8th grade. 9th Grade IS NOT to young today, unfortunately.
The operative word in that sentence is "dad." You had one. My girls have a dad, too. Me. I don't need the schools to do my job, especially since they're less interested in the welfare of my daughters than I am. I'm perfectly willing to have the talk with them, and I'll take responsibility for their development. In that regard, I understand the evangelicals who see the schools usurping their authority as parents and indoctrinating their kids. Like those evangelicals, I don't want my daughters being bombarded with leftwing doctrine about sex and introduced to activities that I consider dangerous or degrading.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 12:08 PM
...
Got a link? I'd be curious to see what he says about us....

If he hasn't given you one, send me a note and I'll pm it to you (wouldn't want to be self-promotional and all). But, I'll warn you that's sort of old news. I also haven't updated the blog in a couple of months, at least.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 12:48 PM
...
The only conservative who's never been called a nazi is the one who's never won an argument with a liberal. We've all heard it before. If that's your best argument, you might as well pack it in. ...

I've been meaning to share this post, which was directed at me shortly before my post you reference above...


Thank you for leaving the republican party. It is a better party now that your gone. If you have any friends that believe like you and are still republicans please convince them to leave too. You never were a conservative you just had no idea what the parties stood for. Why do liberals call people who are religeous and uphold the constitution far right? That is the center it always will be. That was the type of people who formed or country. Go row a boat to cuba . You would love it there.

Lions and commies and nazis, OH MY! :D

Sonnabend
05-05-2009, 08:32 PM
If he hasn't given you one, send me a note and I'll pm it to you (wouldn't want to be self-promotional and all)\\

Note that he hasn't addressed the issue.

The swine flu epidemic has now landed on our shores, and we will have zero problems with legal immigrants, as they will be screened.

As with the usual suspects, the only issues we will have with health is with illegal immigrants.

I've also answered the question re the religious right...actually, I'd LOVE to see a serious right wing government here., leave the UN, slam the door in illegals, end ALL muslim immigration.

Love the idea.

P.S Cold Warrior, as you have repeatedly trashed Pres. Bush's military service, I'll do us all a favour and ask the question..where'd YOU serve???

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:39 PM
\

Note that he hasn't addressed the issue.

The swine flu epidemic has now landed on our shores, and we will have zero problems with legal immigrants, as they will be screened.

As with the usual suspects, the only issues we will have with health is with illegal immigrants.

I've also answered the question re the religious right...actually, I'd LOVE to see a serious right wing government here., leave the UN, slam the door in illegals, end ALL muslim immigration.

Love the idea.

P.S Cold Warrior, as you have repeatedly trashed Pres. Bush's military service, I'll do us all a favour and ask the question..where'd YOU serve???

It turns out that the swine flu originated with some hick in WI (US, in case you need the explanation) who was doing odd things with his pig. He exported it to Mexico. So, perhaps you're correct; there does need to be better border controls.


Swine flu originated in the state
Sheboygan teen diagnosed in 2005
Gannett Wisconsin Media • May 5, 2009

The 17-year-old boy contracted the virus — which is a mix of swine, avian and human flu — after helping butcher pigs and being exposed to chickens, according to published reports. The case was the first known mixing of the three flu strains, but it is a different strain than the current outbreak and not related to it, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Boffeli noted that the teen did not pass the virus to anyone else, unlike the current strain. The boy recovered within days after experiencing symptoms consistent with typical seasonal flu, Boffeli said.

More... (http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20090505/FON0101/905050411/1289&located=RSS)

Can you point to a post wherein I made fun of Bush's military record? I've made fun of Bush's general abilities, his capabilities and decisions as president, but not of his military record other than to note that it was odd that he was able to get into the ANG at a time when there were so many people waiting in line to do so.

You first, this time. Where did you serve? The bedpan brigade?

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 10:16 AM
It turns out that the swine flu originated with some hick in WI (US, in case you need the explanation) who was doing odd things with his pig. He exported it to Mexico. So, perhaps you're correct; there does need to be better border controls.

You really should read below the headlines, since you clearly missed this critical piece of information:


The 17-year-old boy contracted the virus — which is a mix of swine, avian and human flu — after helping butcher pigs and being exposed to chickens, according to published reports. The case was the first known mixing of the three flu strains, but it is a different strain than the current outbreak and not related to it, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Boffeli noted that the teen did not pass the virus to anyone else, unlike the current strain. The boy recovered within days after experiencing symptoms consistent with typical seasonal flu, Boffeli said.
More...

Also, the term hick is a tad offensive. I believe that they prefer the term inbred-Americans. :D Seriously, just a bit of an elitist there, aren't you? Would you have referred to a Mexican who'd brought the flu over as something that rhymed with hick?

You first, this time. Where did you serve? The bedpan brigade?

That's a really cheap shot. I'd apologize if I were you.

Water Closet
05-06-2009, 10:24 AM
...
That's a really cheap shot. I'd apologize if I were you.

Why? :confused: If you read the post I was responding to, I was not the one who asked the question first?

On edit: Additionally, as I noted in my response, I haven't criticized Bush for his military service. In fact, I was one of those severely criticizing CBS for their lame, "yeah, the documents are fake but the story is true" response. There are plenty of things to criticize Bush about other than this.

Sonnabend
05-08-2009, 09:08 PM
You first, this time. Where did you serve? The bedpan brigade?

You repeatedly call President Bush an idiot.

Your exact words are "the Idiot Child"

He is and was a qualified fighter pilot with at least a thousand hours in the air, flew interdict missions in US airspace, Governor and twice President. You trash him and repeatedly impugn his intelligence - hence you are calling a qualified fighter pilot an idiot hence I am now asking you where you served...as from my POV and that of several qualified fighter pilots I have met, AND my own family members, (one of which flies multi engine commercial jets every day)..no one in the cockpit of one of these aircraft is an idiot in any way shape or form.

http://varifrank.com/images/F-106A_Delta_Dart_cockpit_sim.jpg

Go ahead...tell me when and where you flew this.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 09:14 PM
You repeatedly call President Bush an idiot.

Your exact words are "the Idiot Child"

He is and was a qualified fighter pilot with at least a thousand hours in the air, flew interdict missions in US airspace, Governor and twice President. You trash him and repeatedly impugn his intelligence - hence you are calling a qualified fighter pilot an idiot hence I am now asking you where you served...as from my POV and that of several qualified fighter pilots I have met, AND my own family members, (one of which flies multi engine commercial jets every day)..no one in the cockpit of one of these aircraft is an idiot in any way shape or form.

http://varifrank.com/images/F-106A_Delta_Dart_cockpit_sim.jpg

Go ahead...tell me when and where you flew this.


Sigh! It's obvious that Georgie wasn't the only idiot child around. There's a difference between training and intelligence. You are tiresome and a bit slow.

Sonnabend
05-08-2009, 09:20 PM
Sigh! It's obvious that Georgie wasn't the only idiot child around. There's a difference between training and intelligence. You are tiresome and a bit slow.

Wow, so I am slow too. My my, aren't we the superior one??

No there is not, and if you knew anything about what is involved in a flight of any jet anywhere,. let alone the intelligence and skills required to achieve qualification to fly SOLO in one of these you wouldnt say that.

I could undertake the training for a jet pilot but I know for a fact I do not have the intelligence or aptitude, especially in math, to be able to accomplish it.

You cannot train someone who does not have the intelligence to use that training.

Tell me, without googling it, in your head, in the dark, and with no calculator or other equipment, at 1.2 mach what is the time to intercept a bogey at a distance of ten miles?

Can you read this?

http://www.megginson.com/blogs/lahso/images/bush-tfr.jpg

(sorry, image too large to repost here)

He did, alone, in the dark, at 25,000 feet and at mach 1. Can you?

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 09:26 PM
No there is not, and if you knew anything about what is involved in a flight of any jet anywhere,. let alone the intelligence and skills required to achieve qualification to fly SOLO in one of these you wouldnt say that.

I could undertake the training for a jet pilot but I know for a fact I do not have the intelligence or aptitude, especially in math, to be able to accomplish it.

You cannot train someone who does not have the intelligence to use that training.

Tell me, without googling it, in your head, in the dark, and with no calculator or other equipment, at 1.2 mach what is the time to intercept a bogey at a distance of ten miles?

I have no clue and really don't care. Are you really (really) suggesting that Georgie could answer that question. Where is the evidence that he has any mathematics aptitude? If I recall (and I'm not googling), his scores in mathematics in university were pretty crappy.

Further, are you suggesting that being able to fly, for example, a 747, qualifies one to be president? That we can go to any Delta or US Air (:eek:) pilot and say, God you must be smart! Give it up. Bush repeatedly demonstrated in his academic efforts as well as his performance as President that he wasn't very bright. Seemingly a nice guy (although mocking a female death row prisoner isn't all that nice), but dumb as a brick.

Sonnabend
05-08-2009, 09:36 PM
I have no clue and really don't care. Are you really (really) suggesting that Georgie could answer that question.Part of his training.He did it every day.


Where is the evidence that he has any mathematics aptitude? If I recall (and I'm not googling), his scores in mathematics in university were pretty crappy.If you dont understand the requirements for mathematics aptitude in piloting a single seat supersonic fighter designed for air to air and air to ground warfare then quite frankly, you're the idiot.


Further, are you suggesting that being able to fly, for example, a 747, qualifies one to be president?Goes to intelligence. Think about it.


Give it up. Bush repeatedly demonstrated in his academic efforts as well as his performance as President that he wasn't very brightThat's your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Y'know...we could, i suppose, make a comparison between the military service of Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama...

...oh wait....

New avatar. LOVE IT.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 09:44 PM
Part of his training.He did it every day.

You are making assumptions about what Bush did during his TANG service which are not based upon known factl, but rather your assumptions.


If you dont understand the requirements for mathematics aptitude in piloting a single seat supersonic fighter designed for air to air and air to ground warfare then quite frankly, you're the idiot.

I understand a bit about mathematics, and I'm pretty sure that Georgie doesn't


Goes to intelligence. Think about it.

So, let's be clear so we can reference it later. Your are saying that any competent 747 pilot is intelligent enough to be President? Can you confirm that statement?


That's your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

An opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans and, in fact, by the world. It's only that small clique of which you're a part that understands enough about the world to know that Georgie was a genius.


Y'know...we could, i suppose, make a comparison between the military service of Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama...

...oh wait....

Compare him all you want to Obama. I didn't vote for him (Obama).

Sonnabend
05-08-2009, 09:53 PM
You are making assumptions about what Bush did during his TANG service which are not based upon known factl, but rather your assumptions.

He was an air intercept pilot. His job was to intercept and interdict in airspace over CONUS.

The flight chart I linked to? Was one of his. Oops...you didnt look, did you?

Being able to calculate the time to intercept is part of a pilots job..he also has to keep one other thing in mind, O ye of the Great IQ....when he will come within the envelope of his enemy's missiles.

He has to do that in his head, in the dark, at speed, and alone....the plane he flew was single seat.

You really dont have any clue, do you?.


I understand a bit about mathematics, and I'm pretty sure that Georgie doesn't

And you'd be wrong.


So, let's be clear so we can reference it later. Your are saying that any competent 747 pilot is intelligent enough to be President? Can you confirm that statement?

No "idiot" can fly a 747. Thats my point, which you, like most liberals, are busy avoiding.

Conservative?? YOU?? You belong on DU...they're more your speed.


An opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans and, in fact, by the world. It's only that small clique of which you're a part that understands enough about the world to know that Georgie was a genius.

More and more people are now waking up to the fact that he was a damned sight smarter than they gave him credit for, and a lot smarter than that moron in the WH now.


Compare him all you want to Obama. I didn't vote for him (Obama).

Care factor: minus fifteen.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 09:59 PM
...
More and more people are now waking up to the fact that he was a damned sight smarter than they gave him credit for, and a lot smarter than that moron in the WH now.
...

Got any hard proof of that, or is it simply your imagination? Can you cite me some polls wherein Georgie's approval ratings have improved (outside of WorldNutDaily). Please, enlighten us.

You know, Sonna, your preoccupation with all things military is really pretty pathetic.

djones520
05-08-2009, 10:00 PM
You are making assumptions about what Bush did during his TANG service which are not based upon known factl, but rather your assumptions.



I understand a bit about mathematics, and I'm pretty sure that Georgie doesn't



So, let's be clear so we can reference it later. Your are saying that any competent 747 pilot is intelligent enough to be President? Can you confirm that statement?



An opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans and, in fact, by the world. It's only that small clique of which you're a part that understands enough about the world to know that Georgie was a genius.



Compare him all you want to Obama. I didn't vote for him (Obama).

Sonna kinda went over it already, but I'll reiterate. Fighter Pilots have to be smart. They have to be good with numbers, and they have to be fast thinkers.

I spent 4.5 years sitting in a Fighter Squadron every day briefing them, listening to them while flying missions, and just generally getting to know them. They don't let idiots fly fighter jets. Especially fighter jets that exist for the sole reason of hunting down soviet bombers and blowing them out of the sky before they can unleash their nuclear payloads.

People always comment on President Bush being an idiot because he'd make the occasional grammatical error while speaking. Well go fuck a duck, so do I. And I'm a pretty smart individual.

Tell me something, if he didn't have a head for numbers then why is he the ONLY President who has an MBA?

Sonnabend
05-08-2009, 10:07 PM
Got any hard proof of that, or is it simply your imagination? Can you cite me some polls wherein Georgie's approval ratings have improved (outside of WorldNutDaily). Please, enlighten us.Nope.Just observation. Obama's performance so far has elicited some...interesting...observations on people who trashed Pres. Bush earlier.

Buyer's remorse, ya know.


You know, Sonna, your preoccupation with all things military is really pretty pathetic.Well then, why don't you prove me wrong? Floor's open.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 10:12 PM
Nope.Just observation. Obama's performance so far has elicited some...interesting...observations on people who trashed Pres. Bush earlier.

Buyer's remorse, ya know.

Observations are like assholes, everyone's got one. Got any hard proof that peoples' assessment of the Bush presidency (not whether or not they're comfortable with Obama) has improved. No, I thought not. Just like most of your posts -- baseless.


Well then, why don't you prove me wrong? Floor's open.

You haven't said anything that can be proven or disproven. You've merely said that Georgie must be smart because he can fly a plane. That's an umprovable statement. However, your obsession with all things (a) military and (b) American is demonstratably provable (and, as noted, a bit pathetic).

Sonnabend
05-08-2009, 10:16 PM
You haven't said anything that can be proven or disproven. You've merely said that Georgie must be smart because he can fly a plane

S'a fact. Sorry you dont like it.


. That's an umprovable statement. However, your obsession with all things (a) military and (b) American is demonstratably provable (and, as noted, a bit pathetic).

Like I said. That's an opinion. And considering the source, one I will happily ignore.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 10:23 PM
S'a fact. Sorry you dont like it.

Well, if it's a fact, you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it. Oh, oh. I know. Let's go with the line "you're not worth it." That's always a good one for people like you who make assertions and, when called on it, can't back them up. But, on the other hand, given your history, why should one be surprised.


ike I said. That's an opinion. And considering the source, one I will happily ignore.

No, unlike your statement regarding Bush's popularity, my statement is a fact. And I'm perfectly happy to demonstrate it through your posting history if you'd like.

Come on, Sonna. Show us those little soldiers all set for recreation of historical battles. Maybe even some are wearing animal costumes! :eek:

Odysseus
05-08-2009, 10:24 PM
Why? :confused: If you read the post I was responding to, I was not the one who asked the question first?

On edit: Additionally, as I noted in my response, I haven't criticized Bush for his military service. In fact, I was one of those severely criticizing CBS for their lame, "yeah, the documents are fake but the story is true" response. There are plenty of things to criticize Bush about other than this.

Your crack at Sonnabend was really nasty. He was unable to serve, and it eats at him.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Your crack at Sonnabend was really nasty. He was unable to serve, and it eats at him.

Then perhaps he shouldn't jump up and down to everyone he disagrees with shouting "Where did you serve?" Don't you agree?

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 10:31 PM
...He was unable to serve, and it eats at him.

Everyone sees it, Sonna. Everyone.

djones520
05-08-2009, 10:32 PM
In your hurry to trade insults, maybe you missed my question.

Why, if President Bush was such an idiot, is he the only President who has actually earned an MBA? The last 4 failed Presidential candidates held no more then a Bachelors degree, yet plenty thought they where smart enough to do the job.

djones520
05-08-2009, 10:33 PM
Everyone sees it, Sonna. Everyone.

And quite frankly, your a douche bag for digging at it. Your making yourself look as bad as Gator right now, and thats saying quite a lot.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 10:41 PM
In your hurry to trade insults, maybe you missed my question.

Why, if President Bush was such an idiot, is he the only President who has actually earned an MBA? The last 4 failed Presidential candidates held no more then a Bachelors degree, yet plenty thought they where smart enough to do the job.

I'm not sure you're correct. Didn't both Dole and Kerry hold a law degree, as well as a bachelors? As to an MBA, it's one of the easiest and most common graduate degrees around.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 10:42 PM
And quite frankly, your a douche bag for digging at it. Your making yourself look as bad as Gator right now, and thats saying quite a lot.

Answer one question for me. Who (Sonna or myself) was the first to bring up military service in this thread? When you honestly answer that question, then perhaps I'll give a damn about your opinion.

Water Closet
05-08-2009, 11:05 PM
Answer one question for me. Who (Sonna or myself) was the first to bring up military service in this thread? When you honestly answer that question, then perhaps I'll give a damn about your opinion.

Bueller, Bueller? Just in case you can't find it, it's post #53...



...
P.S Cold Warrior, as you have repeatedly trashed Pres. Bush's military service, I'll do us all a favour and ask the question..where'd YOU serve???

It would seem to me that if you're going to throw shit around, you'd better be prepared to and defended from taking the same shit back. I think the word "pathetic" is a pretty apt description, don't you?

hazlnut
05-08-2009, 11:12 PM
In your hurry to trade insults, maybe you missed my question.

Why, if President Bush was such an idiot, is he the only President who has actually earned an MBA? The last 4 failed Presidential candidates held no more then a Bachelors degree, yet plenty thought they where smart enough to do the job.

Wait, who are you talking about exactly? Which candidates?

Odysseus
05-09-2009, 08:54 PM
I'm not sure you're correct. Didn't both Dole and Kerry hold a law degree, as well as a bachelors? As to an MBA, it's one of the easiest and most common graduate degrees around.

Not as easy as a divinity school program, which Al Gore flunked out of. And let's face it, it's not like becoming a lawyer is that difficult. Joe Biden did it, although he had to plagiarize papers to do it. Come to think of it, wasn't Teddy Kennedy thrown out of Harvard for paying someone to take an exam for him? And as I recall, Kerry's grades at Yale were worse than Bush's.

Water Closet
05-09-2009, 09:09 PM
Not as easy as a divinity school program, which Al Gore flunked out of. And let's face it, it's not like becoming a lawyer is that difficult. Joe Biden did it, although he had to plagiarize papers to do it. Come to think of it, wasn't Teddy Kennedy thrown out of Harvard for paying someone to take an exam for him? And as I recall, Kerry's grades at Yale were worse than Bush's.

Bush's and Kerry's grades were pretty comparable -- gentlemen's C's. However, I was responding to the comment that the last four failed presidential candidates had only a bachelors degree which is, of course, wrong. It's interesting that you divert away from djone's patently false statement by saying "well, a law degree ain't that great." The statement is wrong as I pointed out.

Sonnabend
05-09-2009, 10:15 PM
No, unlike your statement regarding Bush's popularity, my statement is a fact. And I'm perfectly happy to demonstrate it through your posting history if you'd like.

Demonstrate whatever you please. It's not as if I give a rats ass for your opinion. Be my guest, Alphonse, either way it makes no never mind.

You're really not worth it.

Water Closet
05-09-2009, 11:04 PM
Demonstrate whatever you please. It's not as if I give a rats ass for your opinion. Be my guest, Alphonse, either way it makes no never mind.

You're really not worth it.

Thank you...


Well, if it's a fact, you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it. Oh, oh. I know. Let's go with the line "you're not worth it." That's always a good one for people like you who make assertions and, when called on it, can't back them up. But, on the other hand, given your history, why should one be surprised....

Water Closet
05-10-2009, 11:26 PM
Bueller? Sonna? Godot? 42?

I answered your question here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=135088#post135088)...


...
I never served in the military, nor have I ever claimed to have. Neither have I ever disparaged military service, here or elsewhere. I did not enlist, only took one year of deferment (again, unlike Cheney), was fit and healthy, and had no criminal record. Can you figure out why I wasn't drafted? It's not hard if you know anything about the era.

Since you of all the posters here seem to ask this question the most--more than Odysseus, more than djones, more than any other--why don't you answer it for all the board? Where/when did you serve?

Sonnabend
05-10-2009, 11:49 PM
Where/when did you serve?

Looks like you need reading lessons. Try going back over my posts and the answer will be clear as day.

TTFN...

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 06:38 AM
Looks like you need reading lessons. Try going back over my posts and the answer will be clear as day.

TTFN...

Well, since I really don't have the inclination to go back over your posts, I'll take that to mean that you didn't. Therefore, why are you invariably the first and normally the only to ask others "where did you serve?"

Water Closet
05-11-2009, 08:07 PM
Well, since I really don't have the inclination to go back over your posts, I'll take that to mean that you didn't. Therefore, why are you invariably the first and normally the only to ask others "where did you serve?"

As usual I answered your question, Sonna. But, of course, you didn't answer mine. Why is it that someone who never served in the military is always the first, the loudest, and in many cases the only to scream in response to logical argument "WHERE DID YOU SERVE?" I'd be interested in the psychology behind such.

AmPat
05-11-2009, 11:55 PM
I'm a right wing Christian and I have the same opinion on PDA as before my conversion. I don't want to see, nor allow my children to grow up in a world where two males are allowed to lip-lock and tongue-wrestle in public. I'll make a deal with those who wish to engage in that behavior:

You do that in front of me and I'll remain silent. Of course I reserve the right to puke all over the nasty scene and expect you to remain equally silent, um-kay?;)

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 07:27 AM
I'm a right wing Christian and I have the same opinion on PDA as before my conversion. I don't want to see, nor allow my children to grow up in a world where two males are allowed to lip-lock and tongue-wrestle in public. I'll make a deal with those who wish to engage in that behavior:

You do that in front of me and I'll remain silent. Of course I reserve the right to puke all over the nasty scene and expect you to remain equally silent, um-kay?;)

Interesting choice of words.

Odysseus
05-12-2009, 03:28 PM
Bueller? Sonna? Godot? 42?

I answered your question here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=135088#post135088)...



Since you of all the posters here seem to ask this question the most--more than Odysseus, more than djones, more than any other--why don't you answer it for all the board? Where/when did you serve?

I don't recall ever asking where you served. Frankly, the only time I ever bring it up is if someone claims to have served but raises my suspicions due to a lack of basic knowledge. The left loves to have fake troopies spread their line.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 05:30 PM
I don't recall ever asking where you served. Frankly, the only time I ever bring it up is if someone claims to have served but raises my suspicions due to a lack of basic knowledge. The left loves to have fake troopies spread their line.

I know that you haven't (I wasn't addressing that post to you). In fact, there's really only one poster who pops up in threads when he has no argument (most of the time) with the "WHERE DID YOU SERVE" meme.

hazlnut
05-12-2009, 06:45 PM
I'm a right wing Christian and I have the same opinion on PDA as before my conversion. I don't want to see, nor allow my children to grow up in a world where two males are allowed to lip-lock and tongue-wrestle in public. I'll make a deal with those who wish to engage in that behavior:

You do that in front of me and I'll remain silent. Of course I reserve the right to puke all over the nasty scene and expect you to remain equally silent, um-kay?;)

I agree, it doesn't seem fair that my kids have to grow up in a world where bigots and homophobes get to scream their viscous ugly rants in public as long as they have a permit. I'll make this deal:

We'll keep granting you permits to hold your little hate rallies, but if you spew anything other than words out of your mouths, we'll lock you up and put your kids in foster homes. Fair enough?

Shannon
05-12-2009, 06:48 PM
I agree, it doesn't seem fair that my kids have to grow up in a world where bigots and homophobes get to scream their viscous ugly rants in public as long as they have a permit. I'll make this deal:

We'll keep granting you permits to hold your little hate rallies, but if you spew anything other than words out of your mouths, we'll lock you up and put your kids in foster homes. Fair enough?

WTF are you talking about? Little hate rallies?

MrsSmith
05-12-2009, 07:01 PM
I agree, it doesn't seem fair that my kids have to grow up in a world where bigots and homophobes get to scream their viscous ugly rants in public as long as they have a permit. I'll make this deal:

We'll keep granting you permits to hold your little hate rallies, but if you spew anything other than words out of your mouths, we'll lock you up and put your kids in foster homes. Fair enough?

Conservative "hate rallies:"

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20090416/thumb.photo_1239828948801-2-0.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090508/thumb.93bc981556244cb3a5049935b4a35c81.obama_notre _dame_injr102.jpg

hazlnut's idea of an acceptable protest march:

http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/RBG30174.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/143-4360_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

hazlnut
05-12-2009, 08:32 PM
WTF are you talking about? Little hate rallies?

Westboro Baptist Church. Fred Phelps and company.

Shannon
05-12-2009, 08:38 PM
Westboro Baptist Church. Fred Phelps and company.

You're saying what? Ampat is a member or conservatives are part of "the company"?

BadCat
05-12-2009, 08:48 PM
Westboro Baptist Church. Fred Phelps and company.


http://lcrga.com/images/gore-with-phelps1.jpg

http://lcrga.com/images/gore-with-phelps2.jpg

http://lcrga.com/images/gore-with-phelps3.jpg

Well nutsucker, that little bald guy in those photos is Fred Phelps Jr., who is every bit as whacky as his daddy.
They're good pals with Al and Tipper, and Westboro Baptist has held several fund raisers for Al.

Maybe your own party should STFU.

hazlnut
05-12-2009, 08:59 PM
You're saying what? Ampat is a member or conservatives are part of "the company"?

No. Absolutely not. -- I don't know what you know about that group, by 'and company' I was refering to the family that now runs the church. I believe it's his daughter that now appears on T.V. most often.

But the notion of vomiting on someone as a form of protest...


I'm a right wing Christian and I have the same opinion on PDA as before my conversion. I don't want to see, nor allow my children to grow up in a world where two males are allowed to lip-lock and tongue-wrestle in public. I'll make a deal with those who wish to engage in that behavior:

You do that in front of me and I'll remain silent. Of course I reserve the right to puke all over the nasty scene and expect you to remain equally silent, um-kay?;)

...raises an interesting question. How many 'degrees of separation', if you will, are there between say Prop 8 supporters and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Prop 8 supporters believe that most of the intolerance was directed at them. They see themselves as wanting to define marriage according to their values. But most of them find Fred Phelps repulsive and offensive--including Sean Hannity. So, I ask, how far removed from their position is he. Honestly, I don't know the answer, but I think the question is relevant.

BadCat
05-12-2009, 09:01 PM
Additionally, Fred Phelps has run for office 5 times, for the office of Governor and Senator.

Each time, he ran as a DEMOCRAT.

hazlnut
05-12-2009, 09:02 PM
Well nutsucker, that little bald guy in those photos is Fred Phelps Jr., who is every bit as whacky as his daddy.
They're good pals with Al and Tipper, and Westboro Baptist has held several fund raisers for Al.

Maybe your own party should STFU.

Son, the adults are trying to have conversation here. Take your little idiotic attempt to distract and change the subject, and go to your room. Isn't neil cavuto on??:eek:

BadCat
05-12-2009, 09:04 PM
Son, the adults are trying to have conversation here. Take your little idiotic attempt to distract and change the subject, and go to your room. Isn't neil cavuto on??:eek:

Fuck you, I answered your question.

Can't face the fact that Fred Phelps is a DEMOCRAT?

Fucking pussy.

Shannon
05-12-2009, 09:07 PM
Phelps and co. are whackjobs. Nobody wants to claim them. I'm still unsure why you would bring them up in response to Ampat's post.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 09:10 PM
Fuck you, I answered your question.

Can't face the fact that Fred Phelps is a DEMOCRAT?

Fucking pussy.

I really doubt that Phelps is a Democrat. His basic premise, as I understand it, is that America's going to Hell because of our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle. I doubt many Democrats, or many moderate Republicans, woulld support that idea.

However, I do think that many conservatives on this board would basically agree with the idea (although not with the tactics protesting it). Pat recently posted he did not want to live in a country wherein PDAs between gays were allowed.

MrsSmith
05-12-2009, 09:11 PM
No. Absolutely not. -- I don't know what you know about that group, by 'and company' I was refering to the family that now runs the church. I believe it's his daughter that now appears on T.V. most often.

But the notion of vomiting on someone as a form of protest...



...raises an interesting question. How many 'degrees of separation', if you will, are there between say Prop 8 supporters and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Prop 8 supporters believe that most of the intolerance was directed at them. They see themselves as wanting to define marriage according to their values. But most of them find Fred Phelps repulsive and offensive--including Sean Hannity. So, I ask, how far removed from their position is he. Honestly, I don't know the answer, but I think the question is relevant.

Marriage has been defined as a relationship between one man and one woman for centuries. Prop 8 supporters aren't defining it according to their values, the gay activists are attempting to define it according to their lack of values.

MrsSmith
05-12-2009, 09:12 PM
I really doubt that Phelps is a Democrat. His basic premise, as I understand it, is that America's going to Hell because of our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle. I doubt many Democrats, or many moderate Republicans, woulld support that idea.

However, I do think that many conservatives on this board would basically agree with the idea (although not with the tactics protesting it). Pat recently posted he did not want to live in a country wherein PDAs between gays were allowed.

Yeah, he only ran for office as a Democrat and was a great pal of Al Gore. :rolleyes: Your doubts don't change history.

BadCat
05-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Well, he sure ran for office as a registered Dimocrat, 5 times.

And as for nutsucker's reference to "our" little hate rallies, I'd have to see some proof that Phelps is now a registered Republican or Libertarian. I do know he still supports Al Gore.

Shannon
05-12-2009, 09:13 PM
I really doubt that Phelps is a Democrat. His basic premise, as I understand it, is that America's going to Hell because of our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle. I doubt many Democrats, or many moderate Republicans, woulld support that idea.

However, I do think that many conservatives on this board would basically agree with the idea (although not with the tactics protesting it). Pat recently posted he did not want to live in a country wherein PDAs between gays were allowed.

I don't think PDAs between anyone should be allowed. But I think you are making more of his comment than was intended.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 09:17 PM
Yeah, he only ran for office as a Democrat and was a great pal of Al Gore. :rolleyes: Your doubts don't change history.

Let me ask you. Do you think America's "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle is causing God to punish us?

MrsSmith
05-12-2009, 09:22 PM
Let me ask you. Do you think America's "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle is causing God to punish us?

God hasn't punished us...we aren't slaves in another country or anything. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you recall hearing something at some point about the New Covenant with Christ? It changed a few things...happened a couple thousand years ago? You know, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." I don't think Phelps read the Bible any more thoroughly than you have.

Shannon
05-12-2009, 09:28 PM
Let me ask you. Do you think America's "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle is causing God to punish us?

Well, He sure is punishing me and I've never been a fan of gay marriage so all bets are off at this point.

hazlnut
05-12-2009, 09:32 PM
Phelps and co. are whackjobs. Nobody wants to claim them. I'm still unsure why you would bring them up in response to Ampat's post.

No--I brought them up as an example of a hate rally.

Actually, it was the notion of vomiting on a person as form of protest that made me think of them. It does seem rather hateful.

Shannon
05-12-2009, 09:36 PM
No--I brought them up as an example of a hate rally.

Actually, it was the notion of vomiting on a person as form of protest that made me think of them. It does seem rather hateful.

I highly doubt that he was serious. But you did use "you" as if he or any other conservatives perhaps were a part of those "little hate rallies".

BadCat
05-12-2009, 09:39 PM
I agree, it doesn't seem fair that my kids have to grow up in a world where bigots and homophobes get to scream their viscous ugly rants in public as long as they have a permit. I'll make this deal:

We'll keep granting you permits to hold your little hate rallies, but if you spew anything other than words out of your mouths, we'll lock you up and put your kids in foster homes. Fair enough?

You're a freakin' LIAR, asswipe. You were attempting to link AmPat and "us" to Fred Phelps. You have many posts here where you refer to "us" as homophobes and racists, this is just another in your modus operandi.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 09:48 PM
You're a freakin' LIAR, asswipe. You were attempting to link AmPat and "us" to Fred Phelps. You have many posts here where you refer to "us" as homophobes and racists, this is just another in your modus operandi.

I would ask you then. Do you think that Mrs. Smith would agree with the premise that God is "displeased" with America for our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle?

BadCat
05-12-2009, 09:58 PM
I would ask you then. Do you think that Mrs. Smith would agree with the premise that God is "displeased" with America for our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle?

How would I know what Mrs Smith thinks?

I'm as atheist than you are and I'm on record as saying I think homosexuals are either genetically or socially defective. I have little tolerance for defects.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 10:04 PM
How would I know what Mrs Smith thinks?

I'm as atheist than you are and I'm on record as saying I think homosexuals are either genetically or socially defective. I have little tolerance for defects.

Fair enough. However, I'm sure you have an opinion as to what Mrs. Smith thinks and, I'm pretty sure, as an intelligent man, your opinion is the same as mine.

However, this illustrates where you and I differ. I don't think homosexuality is a "defect." I simply cdonsider it "different" and am not overly concerned with it. I certainly am not concerned about "the baaabbbbies."

MrsSmith
05-12-2009, 10:05 PM
I would ask you then. Do you think that Mrs. Smith would agree with the premise that God is "displeased" with America for our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle?

You could just read my answer. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Post # 108

MrsSmith
05-12-2009, 10:14 PM
Fair enough. However, I'm sure you have an opinion as to what Mrs. Smith thinks and, I'm pretty sure, as an intelligent man, your opinion is the same as mine.

However, this illustrates where you and I differ. I don't think homosexuality is a "defect." I simply cdonsider it "different" and am not overly concerned with it. I certainly am not concerned about "the baaabbbbies."

If BadCat has any opinion on what I think, it's hardly like to be a hate-filled as yours. :D For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a defect, I think it's a natural result of environment and experiences.

AmPat
05-12-2009, 11:11 PM
I really doubt that Phelps is a Democrat. His basic premise, as I understand it, is that America's going to Hell because of our "tolerance" of gays and the gay lifestyle. I doubt many Democrats, or many moderate Republicans, woulld support that idea.

However, I do think that many conservatives on this board would basically agree with the idea (although not with the tactics protesting it). Pat recently posted he did not want to live in a country wherein PDAs between gays were allowed.

Actually I want to live in the country I GREW UP IN without the gay whackos and pseudo-intellectuals forcing their disgusting public displays on me or my children. If anyone wants that, I suggest THEY are the ones who are dissatisfied with their country and therefore they should find another country immediately.

I understand Denmark is accomodating to that lifestyle.

I don't slobber all over my wife in front of homosexuals so why don't they keep their sex life to themselves? Frolicking, panty- clad protesters will never win my support.

Water Closet
05-12-2009, 11:22 PM
Actually I want to live in the country I GREW UP IN without the gay whackos and pseudo-intellectuals forcing their disgusting public displays on me or my children. If anyone wants that, I suggest THEY are the ones who are dissatisfied with their country and therefore they should find another country immediately.

I understand Denmark is accomodating to that lifestyle.

I don't slobber all over my wife in front of homosexuals so why don't they keep their sex life to themselves? Frolicking, panty- clad protesters will never win my support.

However, do you hold hands with your wife in public? And do you object to two men or two women walking along holding hands?

No one, in their maturity, lives in the country they grew up in. The world changes faster than we all would like. There is nothing we can do to stop it; only those who adapt, and adopt a stance of tolerance to change, will survive, because the rate of change will only increase.

AmPat
05-12-2009, 11:22 PM
I agree, it doesn't seem fair that my kids have to grow up in a world where bigots and homophobes get to scream their viscous ugly rants in public as long as they have a permit. I'll make this deal:

We'll keep granting you permits to hold your little hate rallies, but if you spew anything other than words out of your mouths, we'll lock you up and put your kids in foster homes. Fair enough?

1. I don't support nor attend rallies of any kind.
2. Christians don't hate nor do they organize hate rallies. Trying to associate Phelps and CO. with real Christians or attempting to make any Conservative connection is just plain wrong,,,and stupid. Phelps is a DIMocRAT!
3. I find it interesting that you use the phrase, "we'll lock you up." Who are the unamed "we" to which you refer? I hope you aren't threatening me with the Gay Posse? EWWW, scary.:rolleyes:

Shannon
05-12-2009, 11:32 PM
However, do you hold hands with your wife in public? And do you object to two men or two women walking along holding hands?

No one, in their maturity, lives in the country they grew up in. The world changes faster than we all would like. There is nothing we can do to stop it; only those who adapt, and adopt a stance of tolerance to change, will survive, because the rate of change will only increase.


Scarlett?

CW, stop being daft. Men or women making out in public is inappropriate. Disagree with me.

AmPat
05-12-2009, 11:37 PM
[QUOTE=Water Closet;136190]However, do you hold hands with your wife in public? And do you object to two men or two women walking along holding hands?
Yes, sometimes. Holding hands is considerably different than slobbering over each other and making a spectacle of themselves.

I understand the idea of the freedom and rights angle. I'm merely stating MY opinion. Like it, love it, or shove it. You have no idea how little your opinion matters to me but I support your right to hold your opinion.

No one, in their maturity, lives in the country they grew up in. The world changes faster than we all would like. There is nothing we can do to stop it; only those who adapt, and adopt a stance of tolerance to change, will survive, because the rate of change will only increase.
And in the "No S--- Sherlock" category...........
Of course things change. I don't like and am willing to resist the change I believe is damaging and/or changing my country for the worst. Homosexual PDA is wrong and harmful to what I want or believe to be good for my country.

Gingersnap
05-12-2009, 11:42 PM
Would y'all be more comfy in the Dome? I'd be fine with opening up a free-for-all for you. This is a debate board but sometimes it's a good thing to stretch your wings (scaled or feathered).

Input from players....?

Water Closet
05-13-2009, 12:06 AM
[QUOTE]
Yes, sometimes. Holding hands is considerably different than slobbering over each other and making a spectacle of themselves.

I understand the idea of the freedom and rights angle. I'm merely stating MY opinion. Like it, love it, or shove it. You have no idea how little your opinion matters to me but I support your right to hold your opinion.
.
And in the "No S--- Sherlock" category...........
Of course things change. I don't like and am willing to resist the change I believe is damaging and/or changing my country for the worst. Homosexual PDA is wrong and harmful to what I want or believe to be good for my country.

Yes, I understand Pat. However, your desires cannot be codified into law as they are the SAME in this case, as the evil Muzzies.

Water Closet
05-13-2009, 12:09 AM
Would y'all be more comfy in the Dome? I'd be fine with opening up a free-for-all for you. This is a debate board but sometimes it's a good thing to stretch your wings (scaled or feathered).

Input from players....?

All you'll get for your troubles is a wuss that will run away or scream "Your're not worth it" while simultaneously screaming "WHERE DID YOU SERVE?"

patriot45
05-13-2009, 12:22 AM
Originally Posted by Water Closet
However, do you hold hands with your wife in public? And do you object to two men or two women walking along holding hands?

No one, in their maturity, lives in the country they grew up in. The world changes faster than we all would like. There is nothing we can do to stop it; only those who adapt, and adopt a stance of tolerance to change, will survive, because the rate of change will only increase



You make me laugh, tolerance! Do you think what you said is a GOOD thing!?! Because if you do then you are one of the left that wants us to go down the toilet! I don't want to celebrate the depraved and the different. Imagine America without the traitorious left, that will leave a smile on your face!

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 12:31 AM
Well, he sure ran for office as a registered Dimocrat, 5 times.

And as for nutsucker's reference to "our" little hate rallies, I'd have to see some proof that Phelps is now a registered Republican or Libertarian. I do know he still supports Al Gore.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I bet Phelps didn't vote for Obama and that he no longer supports or associates with anyone in the Democratic party.:rolleyes:

Lager
05-13-2009, 05:11 AM
No one, in their maturity, lives in the country they grew up in. The world changes faster than we all would like. There is nothing we can do to stop it; only those who adapt, and adopt a stance of tolerance to change, will survive, because the rate of change will only increase.

Your premise seems to be that a conservative resists any or all change, perhaps out of fear, or stubborness. Of course the world changes and change is a constant. But there are negative connotations to change that should be discussed and in some cases resisted. Cell phones, for example, have improved the quality of life and productivity in business. But they've also brought about a lowering of civil behavior, and a loss of manners in society. Texting is a great way to communicate, but can distract kids and affect their intellectual development.
Society has changed to the point where there is a larger percentage of single mother households in this country, and statistics have been published that prove all the detrimental aspects of that change.

You can exaggerate a conservative's desire to preserve values and traditions to an extreme, but it would be just as easy to say that a liberal invites and accepts change eagerly, simply because it's something new, or out of fear of being called judgemental.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 06:33 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I bet Phelps didn't vote for Obama and that he no longer supports or associates with anyone in the Democratic party.:rolleyes:

Of course. Just because he runs for office as a Democrat, and has supported Democratic candidates, and still indulges in leftist-style hate rallies does NOT mean he's still a Dim. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 06:39 PM
Of course. Just because he runs for office as a Democrat, and has supported Democratic candidates, and still indulges in leftist-style hate rallies does NOT mean he's still a Dim. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

...and what year was that?

Leftist-style hate rallies? Like which one's for example?

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 06:48 PM
...and what year was that?

Leftist-style hate rallies? Like which one's for example?
All of Phelp's rallies are leftist-style hate rallies...which is why the right-wing groups generally surround Phelp's group and block them from sight.

As Phelps has never donated to any Republican candidates, supported any Republican candidates, or run for office as a Republican, it's pretty funny that so many would just LOVE to claim that he isn't a Dim any more. :D:D:D

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 07:24 PM
All of Phelp's rallies are leftist-style hate rallies...which is why the right-wing groups generally surround Phelp's group and block them from sight.


I don't know if you've noticed, but the Democrats and the Left-leaning folks generally campaign FOR gay marriage, while Fred Phelps and the right are pretty much AGAINST it.

Based on this FACT, how do you argue that his rallies are 'leftist'?

Which right-wing groups have tried to block him from sight? Have any left-wing groups tried to hinder his protests?


As Phelps has never donated to any Republican candidates, supported any Republican candidates, or run for office as a Republican, it's pretty funny that so many would just LOVE to claim that he isn't a Dim any more. :D:D:D

So, that's your logic. One time he ran as a Demoncrat, therefore reguardless of which side his view clearly leans toward, in your mind, he's still a Democrat.

I don't suppose he has a say in it.

By the way, what year was that again?

Shannon
05-13-2009, 07:30 PM
I was going to wait awhile before I said this but I'm in a mood. You are a fucking dumbass, hazlnut.:rolleyes:

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 07:39 PM
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Democrats and the Left-leaning folks generally campaign FOR gay marriage, while Fred Phelps and the right are pretty much AGAINST it.

Based on this FACT, how do you argue that his rallies are 'leftist'?

Which right-wing groups have tried to block him from sight? Have any left-wing groups tried to hinder his protests?



So, that's your logic. One time he ran as a Demoncrat, therefore reguardless of which side his view clearly leans toward, in your mind, he's still a Democrat.

I don't suppose he has a say in it.

By the way, what year was that again?


And he has supported how many Republican candidates? Can we all hear a big ZERO?

And he has run for how many offices as a Republican? Again, ZERO!

Regardless of your distaste or opinion in the matter, he has never, ever supported any Republicans. Sorry! :D



Oh, and his rallies are leftist due to the hate, of course. Hatred is a leftist trait. Right-wing rallies do "horrible" things like like holding signs saying, "Abortion stops a Beating Heart," or "Don't Tax Me, Bro!"

Leftists find it necessary to out-shout and silence right-wing speakers on college campuses. Right-wingers are usually happy if allowed to have one Christian group that is not forced to elect homosexual officers. :eek::D

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 07:48 PM
I was going to wait awhile before I said this but I'm in a mood. You are a fucking dumbass, hazlnut.:rolleyes:

Darn, I thought we were going to rap about Lost later. Oh well...

Is there a reason for such ugly words??

hazlnut
05-13-2009, 08:05 PM
[QUOTE=MrsSmith;136384]And he has supported how many Republican candidates? Can we all hear a big ZERO?

And he has run for how many offices as a Republican? Again, ZERO!

Regardless of your distaste or opinion in the matter, he has never, ever supported any Republicans. Sorry! :D

Did I ever say he was a republican?




Oh, and his rallies are leftist due to the hate, of course. Hatred is a leftist trait. Right-wing rallies do "horrible" things like like holding signs saying, "Abortion stops a Beating Heart," or "Don't Tax Me, Bro!"

Leftists find it necessary to out-shout and silence right-wing speakers on college campuses. Right-wingers are usually happy if allowed to have one Christian group that is not forced to elect homosexual officers. :eek::D

So, in your mind: Left=Hateful people, and Right=Love & Tolerance towards all??

No person on the right has ever been mean-spirited or tried to shout down someone with whom they disagree. All the ugliness and meanness in this country comes from the left? Is that correct?

No Democrat has ever helped another person or acted with purely altruistic motives? Every Democrat in this country is a hateful person, and every Republican has nothing but love for his fellow man?

Is that your world view?

Because I think people are more complicated then that. I see dishonesty and self-serving greed on both sides of the aisle. I also see people who are dedicated to service and sacrifice for their country. Republicans and Democrats who work tirelessly with each other on many issues and initiatives we never here about because they're not as sexy or polarizing as the ones we do.

MrsSmith
05-13-2009, 08:13 PM
Did I ever say he was a republican?





So, in your mind: Left=Hateful people, and Right=Love & Tolerance towards all??

No person on the right has ever been mean-spirited or tried to shout down someone with whom they disagree. All the ugliness and meanness in this country comes from the left? Is that correct?

No Democrat has ever helped another person or acted with purely altruistic motives? Every Democrat in this country is a hateful person, and every Republican has nothing but love for his fellow man?

Is that your world view?

Because I think people are more complicated then that. I see dishonesty and self-serving greed on both sides of the aisle. I also see people who are dedicated to service and sacrifice for their country. Republicans and Democrats who work tirelessly with each other on many issues and initiatives we never here about because they're not as sexy or polarizing as the ones we do.

It is more complicated than that, of course. Nevertheless, the violence and hatred from the left is far more pronounced, wide-spread...and forgiven than that from the right. Even on this site, as witnessed by my signature. The left, the party of "love, tolerance and diversity," is completely blind to their own hatred, intolerance and bigotry...to the point that many can't understand how a person that speaks out against gay marriage should retain a Beauty Queen crown. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

For some "wonderful" examples of leftist hatred, you should browse through http://www.zombietime.com/.

AmPat
05-13-2009, 09:45 PM
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Democrats and the Left-leaning folks generally campaign FOR gay marriage, while Fred Phelps and the right are pretty much AGAINST it.

Based on this FACT, how do you argue that his rallies are 'leftist'?

Which right-wing groups have tried to block him from sight? Have any left-wing groups tried to hinder his protests?



So, that's your logic. One time he ran as a Demoncrat, therefore reguardless of which side his view clearly leans toward, in your mind, he's still a Democrat.

I don't suppose he has a say in it.

By the way, what year was that again?

Look up Patriot Guard. Of course they won't claim "right wing" per se but ask the riders what they believe and you'll soon get the picture.:cool:

Constitutionally Speaking
05-13-2009, 10:01 PM
[QUOTE]

Did I ever say he was a republican?





So, in your mind: Left=Hateful people, and Right=Love & Tolerance towards all??

No person on the right has ever been mean-spirited or tried to shout down someone with whom they disagree. All the ugliness and meanness in this country comes from the left? Is that correct?

No Democrat has ever helped another person or acted with purely altruistic motives? Every Democrat in this country is a hateful person, and every Republican has nothing but love for his fellow man?

Is that your world view?

Because I think people are more complicated then that. I see dishonesty and self-serving greed on both sides of the aisle. I also see people who are dedicated to service and sacrifice for their country. Republicans and Democrats who work tirelessly with each other on many issues and initiatives we never here about because they're not as sexy or polarizing as the ones we do.


You obfuscate when you say " no republican has EVER" or "no Democrat has EVER"

Of course there are exceptions. But that is what they are - exceptions.