« Things not to do at home II | Main | Law & Order Update »

Hard Choices

With apologies to Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul, the GOP race is effectively over, and Senator John "Maverick" McCain is all but sure to claim the Republican party's nomination for President of the United States. This news has provoked a range of responses, and created a condition for all the major players which, at the very least, means a set of hard choices for us all.

First, the hard-line Right. I consider myself as strong a Conservative as anyone I know, and frankly I have no great desire to see John McCain in the White House, but I have to say I am appalled by some of the statements made by even leading Conservatives. Ann Coulter's claim that she will actively support the Democrats' nominee out of spite against McCain, is a poor decision on many counts, including comprehension of the difference between even the weakest Republican President and any potential Democrat in the office, as well as simple ideals of the party. Conservatives are bitterly disappointed, and with cause, that the party they worked so hard to build has denied them an effectively Conservative representative in this election cycle. There was no Reagan in this race, not even a Bush. There were people who said the right things, but they never caught on, and the men who won the early primaries were none of them quite what Conservatives wanted. As a result, Conservatives must now choose between a man with whom they have strong differences, a party which threatens massive damage to the country should it claim control of the White House and Congress at the same time, and sitting out the election and hoping for the best. I don't think any of the three choices will sit well with Conservatives.

Next, Senators Clinton and Obama. You might not think they would have much to worry about, but indeed they do. You see, before Super Tuesday both parties had an all-out tussle going, and while McCain had the lead, if Romney or Huckabee had a big day on Feb. 5 then things would be back to total chaos, while Clinton and Obama each hoped to pull cleanly away from their rival. Instead, the opposite happened - the GOP race is pretty much decided, while the Democrats are neck and neck, and they have some sharp disagreements on their record. At the very least, the Democrat candidates will each have to spend a lot of energy and resources trying to win the party nomination, while McCain can begin his general campaign right now. Clinton and Obama will each maintain something of a negative campaign, while McCain can build up name recognition with the undecided voter as a positive force, memories of his own negative tactics fading as he moves ahead. Figuring out how to beat your party opponent and McCain from the Republicans at the same time, will be unquestionably be problematic for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

-- [] continued [] --

Then there are Senator McCain's own hard choices. McCain won the commanding lead he has, through courting the independent-minded and socially liberal Republicans and middle-ground voters, which may provide some help in the general election for him. But no Republican candidate can win the White House without making sure his party is solidly behind him. And that party support depends heavily on Conservative support. In 1988, almost all Conservatives supported G.H.W. Bush, and he cleared 53% of the Popular Vote, the last Presidential candidate to do so well. In 1992, almost no Conservatives supported "Poppy" Bush, and he barely cleared 37% of the Popular Vote. In 2000, Conservatives were lukewarm to George W. Bush, and he only barely won through a popular minority and Electoral majority. But in 2004, Conservatives poured support on for Dubya, and he cleared 51% of the Popular Vote. Having or not having the support of the Conservatives can therefore be said to mean at least 6% in the Popular Vote margin, and possibly double that. It is obvious that McCain cannot win without the Conservatives behind him, but if he chases the Conservatives, he may lose those social Liberals who would not already have chosen to support Obama or Hillary.

Also, it may be too late for McCain to decide he needs the Conservatives' support. The war between McCain and Conservatives is not the result of one issue or one incident - John McCain went out of his way, well out of his way in some cases, to make enemies of Conservatives and to attack them, in some cases completely without cause. It's not just McCain's vote on some issues as the way he discussed them in public, viciously denouncing Conservatives time and time again. McCain also acted in a narcissistic manner on a regular basis, not merely supporting but leading a movement to deny Senate committee votes to judicial nominees, to prohibit support for public debate just before elections, and in regularly defying his Senate Majority Leader, GOP leadership, and even tossed off regular snipes at President Bush, displaying a petulance and temper ill-suited to a would-be head of state. McCain did not merely burn some bridges, he cratered the landscape around the wreckage, salted the ground and disparaged all efforts to commend him to a more gracious behavior. Just how Senator McCain will be able to construct a unified party in time to win the General Election seems at the moment to be beyond the scope of feasibility.

Conservative bloggers and pundits also have hard choices to make. Posting articles which tear down McCain may be factually accurate and idealistically suitable, but this could help the Democrats, which is universally a bad idea. Supporting McCain without pointing out the areas where he is well out of bounds, however, would be unethical and only encourage his arrogance and false assumptions - anyone want to bet that the Democrats are not ready to go after every one of McCain's many weak spots? Bloggers also need to keep their emotions in check. Ann Coulter's little hissy-fit about supporting a Democrat will do no good for the Conservative Movement, especially if some of her readers get the idea that voting Hillary or Obama would be any wiser than dousing yourself with gasoline, lighting up a stogie and tap-dancing through a minefield. Set a better example please, Ms. Coulter. Just as Dan Rather's criminal attempt to influence the 2004 election with forged documents was unacceptable, those people who are fortunate enough to have a large following must be reminded that they are accountable for the course they counsel their people to follow. While it is true that Conservatives are not lockstep robots, it remains a penultimate sin for an icon to forget that he or she does influence millions of people. This makes the choices weighty, but we must in any case be aware of that fact.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/27730.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hard Choices:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush Rallies Conservatives to 'Keep the White House in 2008'

Comments (212)

You *really* need to re-thi... (Below threshold)

You *really* need to re-think what you're saying here. First of all, you write, "Ann Coulter's claim that she will actively support the Democrats' nominee out of spite against McCain" - which is simply untrue. Her reasons are clearly stated and do not include spite:

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

You may not think those reasons are adequate, and it's more than fair to dislike her bombthrowing style. But dishonestly saying that her reason is spite and characterizing it as a hissy fit is beneath you.

Ann Coulter's decision doesn't harm the conservative movement one iota. It hurts the GOP, which is an entirely different thing.

Oh, and comparing a disagreeable, forcefully expressed opinion with disseminating fake documents? You're embarrassing yourself. Please stop.

"Can I take a breath now?" ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"Can I take a breath now?" - Laura.

Please do. A deep one. Then please take the trouble to go back and read the entire article, not just firing off as soon as you hit a part you don't like.

You might also want to look up the definition for "spite".

Yes, Conservatives do have ... (Below threshold)
Skip:

Yes, Conservatives do have a hard choice. Do we want zero chance of an acceptable President in the next 8 years, or a very small chance of one.

The next 4 years are already decided, the decisions we need to make are for the 4 after that.

I did read your entire arti... (Below threshold)

I did read your entire article, thanks. I just think you're dead wrong.

I did mess up my blockquote - the section from "on the issues" down to "solar panels" is quoted from anncoulter.com. Those are her stated reasons, and don't include any of these.

A Republican that Ann Coult... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

A Republican that Ann Coulter hates pretty much fits my definition of viable candidate.

I have some strong disagreements with McCain, but annoying the far right wing isn't one of them.

See, irf in four years you ... (Below threshold)
Ryan M:

See, irf in four years you DO get your conservative candidate, what happens if in the meantime you have completely alienated the moderate republican wing by heaping vitriol their way and essentially throwing the election to Hillary?

You see, what goes around comes around, and if you throw a hissy fit this time, they fvery well might do it next time. How will you feel if you get your ideal candidate. .and because of yourfit of pique and insistance on the candidates ideology being as pure as the driven snow. .they go down in flames?

Have we forgotten everythin... (Below threshold)
Burt:

Have we forgotten everything that Karl Rove taught us about elections? Ann Coulter's endorsement just made Hillary pure poison to nearly all Democrat voters. In just a few words Ann accomplished what conservatives have been trying to do with money and campaigning. Ann has stopped Hillary.

Also. .using the standards ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Also. .using the standards I have seen some of these loons applying to the race, we will never have a viable presidential candidate again> They will remain pure. .and completely unrepresented in the United states government.

"Ann has stopped Hillary." ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"Ann has stopped Hillary." - Burt

Hillary seems unimpeded, if RCP's numbers are to be believed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html


DJ, don't be such a defeati... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

DJ, don't be such a defeatists. There is still hope, but you and your brothers must act now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1966036/posts

Oh yeah, Ryan, calling peop... (Below threshold)
Skip:

Oh yeah, Ryan, calling people who are standing on principle childish, yeah, that will help restore the Republican coalition. Way to go. That will sure help us in four years.

Nearly everyone has a line that they would not cross in a nominee. Would you vote for the R if it were David Duke, or even a slightly more sane Ron Paul? My line was McCain. I supported Thompson, but I would have voted for every single other candidate.

Barney, I'm curious. D'you... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Barney, I'm curious. D'you support His Blackness, who does not have a record, or Her Femininity, who hides hers?

Laura's comment certainly d... (Below threshold)
mikem Author Profile Page:

Laura's comment certainly deserved more than the flippant and way off target "reply" from DJ. I have a feeling that this is the way it's going to be from here on out. McCain critics, of which there were many here at Wizbang will suddenly become "denialists" and McCain defenders will become "reality based".

One of the ways used to disarm an opponent in debate is to label their reaction and arguments as irrational or emotional and so we will be seeing a lot of the "spite" and "suicide" words applied to people like Laura and myself. It does no good for converted McCain supporters, as party loyalists, to admit that there could be a logical political calculation to not supporting McCain in an all but unwinnable election. Better to dismiss McCain denialists as nuts and extremists.

DJ, way to sink to race/gen... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

DJ, way to sink to race/gender baiting.

You're a class act all the way.

Race and gender baiting? G... (Below threshold)
Chad:

Race and gender baiting? Give me a break... Obama and Hillary are the ones desperately playing the race and gender cards here. And you sarcastically calling DJ a class act is freaking hilarious. You wouldn't know a class act if it bit you on your liberal buttocks.

One of the ways used to ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

One of the ways used to disarm an opponent in debate is to label their reaction and arguments as irrational or emotional and so we will be seeing a lot of the "spite" and "suicide" words applied to people like Laura and myself.

Well, you are dealing with Republicans here. ;)

mikem, the funniest thing a... (Below threshold)
lol'ing:

mikem, the funniest thing about obstinate whiners like Drummond is that they will vote for McCain, but will hold themselves above you because you came to the same conclusion as them more quickly.

Well, you are dealing with ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Well, you are dealing with Republicans here. ;)
-------------------------------
Another idiotic post from Lava 's brainwashed moron.

mikem, if you actually look... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

mikem, if you actually look at the article, you will see that I agree with many of Laura's complaints. I even agreed that these incidents may collectively be more than McCain can repair with conservatives.

However, to publicly declare support for a candidate known to stand against all Conservative values and ideals, simply because you are angry at the Republican candidate, no matter how valid the cause, is indeed to act rashly and in spite, and instead of the limited damage a McCain Presidency would do, risks the widespread catastrophe of much worse effects:

Yes, McCain may not nominate another Alito, but he would surely nominate better judges than we would see from Clinton or Obama;

Yes, McCain is 'iffy' on certain aspects of the WOT, but he would not desert Iraq or Afghanistan, while Clinton and Obama are already on record for a bug-out.

I don't think I need to go on. Taxes, government regulation, socialized medicine, restrictions of free speech, on every conceivable front a Democrat would be worse than anything we have reason to expect from McCain.

That does not mean McCain has earned your support, or that you owe him anything. But working for the enemy is always going to be out of bounds. That should be obvious to everyone.

Thanks Chad. As Chad expla... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Thanks Chad. As Chad explained, Barney, it's Obama who makes a big deal about being a black candidate; it didn't matter to Dr. Keyes when he ran, or Condi Rice in doing her job. ONLY Democrats make a big deal about race as some sort of QUALIFICATION for a job.

As for Hillary, name me one other candidate crying on cue this campaign. Name me one other candidate who sells how 'hard' it is to be a woman running against all those men. Yep, you want to see who's pandering gender, it's Hillary. I merely called her on it.

Oh and lol'ing, you might want to actually read all the words in the article, because you pretend to sum up my position on a point. You missed this one badly.

Let's get one thing straigh... (Below threshold)
james wallaby kangaroo:

Let's get one thing straight, nothing Ann Coulter says about Hillary will make any difference. Outisde of the most far right circles, Ann Coulter's opinion is simply not taken seriously by anyone. I seriously doubt that Ann Coulter even takes the things she says seriously. She is good at saying very reactionary things to make money, thanks to you all.

another comment- you all are so against mccain based on his positions on things which you view as sacred cows; immigration, etc. mccain is no liberal. have you ever thought about why mccain believes what he does? he's a senator from AZ, so surely his constituency has some interest in the illegal immigration debate.

your belief system is going extinct. as is your power. that is what your Mr. Bush and company has achieved for you. What happened to the permanent republican majority?

"working for the enemy"<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"working for the enemy"

That's true in this case on many levels.

"simply because you are ang... (Below threshold)

"simply because you are angry at the Republican candidate,"

Her reasons are clear. Why do you keep reducing them to mere emotionalism? McCain has made it abundantly clear that on many issues, "liberal" is an entirely appropriate adjective to describe him. Now as President, and with the support of a Democrat majority Congress, try to imagine just how much more effective he will be implementing those ideas than Obama or Hillary would be with the Republicans nearly universally against him/her. His damage would not be limited *nearly* as much as a Democrats would be because he would split the Republican opposition. This isn't about being mad. It's about simple logic.

As for judges - McCain took that argument off the table himself when he proved that a handful of rogue Senators controls who gets a chance to be on SCOTUS.

I seriously fear that this ... (Below threshold)

I seriously fear that this part:

"John McCain went out of his way, well out of his way in some cases, to make enemies of Conservatives and to attack them, in some cases completely without cause. It's not just McCain's vote on some issues as the way he discussed them in public, viciously denouncing Conservatives time and time again. McCain also acted in a narcissistic manner on a regular basis, not merely supporting but leading a movement to deny Senate committee votes to judicial nominees, to prohibit support for public debate just before elections, and in regularly defying his Senate Majority Leader, GOP leadership, and even tossed off regular snipes at President Bush, displaying a petulance and temper ill-suited to a would-be head of state. McCain did not merely burn some bridges, he cratered the landscape around the wreckage, salted the ground and disparaged all efforts to commend him to a more gracious behavior."

Will be written again on 11/05/08...

I'm sorry, but it IS childi... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

I'm sorry, but it IS childish. Standing on principle is fine when thne you are punishing is yourself.I dislike the EXACT same things you do about McCain, hover I am not insane enough to gine that we would somehow be better off with Hillary or Obama. YOu see, the difference is tre more about the wellfare of _the UNited States_ than "The conservative movement' - the 'COnservative movement' never does any good if you constantly reject anyone imperfect and allow people who espouse the complete dismantling of everything you have accomplished into office.

THe gulf between McCain and either of the democrats is MUCH larger than the gulf between Cain and my ideal candidate. ANd, if you really thought about ideal candidate. On every issue where you excoriate McCain, the Democrat would do _at best_ the same or in almost all cases _Worse_/. SO my apologies, but I really don't see your point in any way. I don't consider a stand that injured your cause to be principled. I don't see a stand that sets all the gains you have made back to be principled.


I'm sorry, I don't like McCain either, but. . . .I dislike him> I LOATHE the alternative.

"Outisde of the most far ri... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Outisde of the most far right circles, Ann Coulter's opinion is simply not taken seriously by anyone"

Finally, someone on the right acknowledges CPAC is the "most far right circle" of the GOP:

"Ann Coulter's only full speech and Q & A at CPAC will be on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 4:00 pm "

Well, we know we're going t... (Below threshold)
mimisk:

Well, we know we're going to end up with either McCain, Clinton or Obama in November.

Here's the thing, if we don't have as many Republicans (even if they're RINOS) in the House and Senate as we can, there won't be any Republican comeback in 2012 and probably never; and you can forget about third party stuff. That never works.

The President will probably not get much done if we can create deadlock in both House and Senate. Choose who you want or don't for President, but do vote Republican on all the rest of the ballot. It could make a difference even if we can push back a little in the coming 4 years.

DJ: "it's Obama who makes a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

DJ: "it's Obama who makes a big deal about being a black candidate;" and how has he done that? Maybe in his "One United States of America" speech at the '04 convention?

Please feel free to continue to call Obama "His-blackness" when you refer to him. I wouldn't want you to have to play out of character.

As far as Hillary is concerned, Romney and Rudy have cried like babies on numerous occasions during their campaigns.

Laura, one more time. Choo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Laura, one more time. Choosing not to vote for someone because they have not earned your votes, yes that is principled.

Publicly declaring support for someone whose values and purposes you rightly despise, in order to 'punish' someone who won't even pay attention whatever the outcome, and in so doing risking the installment of the worst of potential political conditions, and in so doing damaging your own movement's strength, credibility, and future? That is definitely pure spite, and there is no better word to describe it.

Please feel free to continu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Please feel free to continue to call Obama "His-blackness" when you refer to him. I wouldn't want you to have to play out of character.
------------------------------------
Why have been you shilling for the Clintons all these years? BTW, are you supporting Obama because of his church association (Farakkhan was honored there)?


As far as Hillary is concerned, Romney and Rudy have cried like babies on numerous occasions during their campaigns.
------------------------------------
Are you going to vote for McCain now? Or you have been conned by Obama? Or you actually think that his platform represents your true conviction?


"The President will probabl... (Below threshold)
james wallaby kangaroo:

"The President will probably not get much done if we can create deadlock in both House and Senate."

That's the spirit I like to see! It's not like there are any real, serious and pressing problems that need to be solved by the next administration, whoever it may be. The real goal for all americans should be to be as obstructionist as possible. Actually, your attitude explains why the "conservatives" (misnomer, by the way) are on the way out. Your "my way or the highway" attitude is simply not good enough anymore. There are REAL problems which need very difficult solutions now, and they are going to require some compromise. This is not an all conservative country, I regret to inform you. What we need now is not simply a war of attrition by conservatives or liberals- we need solutions. if conservative candidates don't see this, or can't, it is time for them to step out of the way. clearly this is what the american people are saying now.

bye-bye deadenders. you have done quite enough damage already. to use your phrase, the "grownups" are going to have to clean up your mess now. i hope there are some grownups left...

you serisously thought fred thompson was going to be able to pull this one off? no wonder all of your "convservative" candidates are gone now. get real, people. time to wake up.

"Publicly declaring support... (Below threshold)

"Publicly declaring support for someone whose values and purposes you rightly despise, in order to 'punish' someone who won't even pay attention whatever the outcome, and in so doing risking the installment of the worst of potential political conditions, and in so doing damaging your own movement's strength, credibility, and future? That is definitely pure spite, and there is no better word to describe it."

And once more time, you *refuse* to see that there is a logical, reasonable argument to prefer a D in office rather than McCain, who will do many of the same things the D would, but with the support of a good deal of the GOP.

So to use your methods, I guess I can conclude that your lust for power for the GOP is more important to you than the outcome of socialist and open border policies being enacted?

DJ, Yes, there is ... (Below threshold)
mikem Author Profile Page:

DJ,

Yes, there is some anger, just as you get angry at politicians like Kerry or Clinton over certain issues. But that does not make your subsequent stated reasons for opposing them irrational or emotional, right?

For those who see an out of phase Republican victory this cycle as a pipedream anyway, your warnings about Hillary or Obama don't seem to apply. Sure, they are worse. But they are all but sure of winning regardless. And all that we Far Right Extremists (who more or less converted over from Dems to Republicans and made the Republican Party a majority, but now we are Far Right, LOL) can accomplish by supporting the new libertarian Republican party is normalize our marginalization.
It's rational for me and others to oppose McCain. It would not be rational, I guess, for someone who is a minimal tax guy, but for converted Dems it is. We were never minimal tax people to begin with and frankly I consider minimal tax people to be the most deserving of Far Right Extremist labels. Taxes are the meat and bones of Right politics after all.

And DJ, to give you an exam... (Below threshold)

And DJ, to give you an example - do you *really* think the GOP would have tolerated that Bush's massive social services expansion from anybody with a D after their name?

History, Laura. It has NEV... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

History, Laura. It has NEVER worked out to the nation's advantage, for Conservatives to throw an election to the Democrats, EVEN when they do not find the Republican nominee attractive.

Having to explain why someone should not let Democrats have control of both the White House and Congress, is like having to explain why it's bad to let toddlers play with loaded guns.

It should be obvious!

DJ and Lovie, here are some... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

DJ and Lovie, here are some comments from Ann today at the most far right circle of the GOP (CPAC) that you two can really rally behind:

"Hillary wanted [to change her campaign song to] 'I am woman,' but it was already taken by Edwards."

"The best thing that had ever happened to the campaign of "B. Hussein Obama" was when he was born 'half black.'"

Republicans are a class act all the way.

Here are my 2cents: A lot o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Here are my 2cents: A lot of damages to the conservatives have been inflicted by McCain himself and his whining supporters (remember 2000 SC campaign). That being said, McCain is preferable to both Hillary and Obama (only Lava's brainwashed morons could support them).

If we look at the election from the perspective of helping the country as much as we can, then a GOP victory even with McCain is preferable. Knowing that we won't get conservative leadership from him, we need to make sure that we have as strong conservative leadership in Congress as we can. Even if the country is sliding towards a disaster, we still want to slow down as much as we can while finding a cure (just like cancer).

"And DJ, to give you an exa... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"And DJ, to give you an example - do you *really* think the GOP would have tolerated that Bush's massive social services expansion from anybody with a D after their name?"

From 1932 to 1952, they did.

From 1961 to 1968, they did.

From 1977 to 1980, they did.

From 1993 to 2000, they did.

And I'm calling your bluff. Besides the Prescription plan (which was a blunder), what specific new program for expanding social services did the Bush Administration propose?

The FACT (you have trouble with those), is that the vast majority of the increase in spending for social programs was not that Bush created new programs, but that more people signed up for them. Also, tiered expansions written into the programs in their Clinton-era expansion also caused increases. It's an old Donk trick, and you fell for it: write a spending increase into a future budget, and then blame the Republican in office when it happens.

PLEASE stop and check your sources on these 'Bush is a Socialist' lies and such crap. He's not perfect, but ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat. Again and again, History warns us. But too many people buy into BDS and ignore the evidence.

Barncommie, If you ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Barncommie,
If you care so much about racism and anti-semitism, why have you been shilling for Clintons all these years? And why do you support Obama? Do they truly represent your convictions? Still waiting for your answer.
Remember Ann Coulter is not a presidential candidate. Hillary and Obama are. So put this idiotic comparison aside.

History, DJ. It's how we g... (Below threshold)

History, DJ. It's how we got to where we are today, when people like McCain and Huckabee can call themselves conservatives and not be laughed off the stage.

No comment on how that Medicare expansion slid through Congress like a greased pig? You think Republicans would have let Hillary or Obama get that past them?

"PLEASE stop and check your... (Below threshold)

"PLEASE stop and check your sources on these 'Bush is a Socialist' lies and such crap."

Now you're just making things up. Did I hit a nerve? I have trouble with facts? What fact did I state that is incorrect? I asked you if you think the Congressional GOP would let a D get by with as much as they will let McCain get by with and you start foaming at the mouth. That's very interesting.

All those dates you listed - of the ones *after* the Reagan Revolution, _what_ social program expansions *went essentially unchallenged* and unmodified by the GOP to the extent that the Medicare expansion did?

Yes Laura, as I explained, ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Yes Laura, as I explained, History shows they have. IN fact, when Democrats are in power they are much, much worse. And they control Congress right now, with no sign they are going to lose this fall. Congress AND the White House in Democrats' hands, what do you SERIOUSLY think will happen?

History repeats itself, because people just refuse to learn.

You explained nothing - you... (Below threshold)

You explained nothing - you listed dates. Which is fine, I'm perfectly capable of doing my own research, but let's not pretend you wrote anything substantive there. It's not even enough to imply anything.

Nor did you explain what, exactly, will check McCain's liberalism on key issues - like illegal immigration, which will effectively hand the country over to Democrats for decades, when there will be no opposition from the Dems and the GOP will be split.

It's all moot, of course, because McCain will lose, but the thought process of the "sit down and shut up" crew interests me.

Such unproductive infightin... (Below threshold)
ptg:

Such unproductive infighting! This is where the GOP is going to be harmed or even ruined. Perhaps a bit of levity will help us to calm down and get in line.

OK Laura, I tried logic. <... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

OK Laura, I tried logic.

I expect you'll blame everyone else for you putting bullets in your own ideals, but that's your choice, however foolish and short-sighted.

Some words to go with those... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Some words to go with those numbers, Laura

Social Security

Welfare

Medicare

Department of Education

Also, look at the SCOTUS justices nominated in those years, and some of their milestone decisions.

Facts are a problem for people who want to claim their temper tantrum is doing no harm.

"I expect you'll blame ever... (Below threshold)

"I expect you'll blame everyone else"
See, once again you make a personal, emotional attack. I can see why you're so comfortable with McCain.

I don't see what's foolish or short-sighted about preserving opposition to liberal policies, instead of splitting it.

On the slight chance McCain actually pulls it off, he'll jam his Shamnesty through and guarantee decades of Dem rule. I call failing to oppose that now, foolish and shortsighted.

Again, I understand why peo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Again, I understand why people wouldn't want to vote for McCain. Laura 's post is well reasoned. I would just rather err on the safe side in this case because I am not sure how it is going to turn out with either Hillary and Obama. A lot of risks with McCain also, but based on the data so far it is probably better with him.

Welfare - like the welfare ... (Below threshold)

Welfare - like the welfare reform that the GOP congress forced down Clinton's unwilling throat?

Education - you *like* No Child Left Behind?

Good grief.

And as for SCOTUS - McCain ... (Below threshold)

And as for SCOTUS - McCain took that off the table himself, as I pointed out upthread.

And yes, I'm aware that the... (Below threshold)

And yes, I'm aware that the GOP was the majority at the time of the welfare reforms. But a determined minority can get a lot done, as we've seen for a good deal of the last 7 seven years.

On a technical note, is any... (Below threshold)

On a technical note, is anyone else having trouble with how slow it is to type a comment?

"IN fact, when Democrats ar... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"IN fact, when Democrats are in power they are much, much worse." DJ

Since Bush has been office the budget has gone from $300-billion+ surplus to $400-billion+ deficit.

The dollar has lost value.

The debt has grown by $3.5-trillion dollars.

We are fighting a war on two fronts.

The arm forces are (at least the army) is near collapse and can't not respond to another emergency.

The economy is going into the second recession of Bush's term.

Retail sales in Jan. were the worst in 4-decades.

We have a mortgage crises, war crimes, unemployment rising and I could go on and on.

Tell me again how republicans have been such great stewards of the American way?

How many months (years!) o... (Below threshold)

How many months (years!) of growth? And the mortgage "crisis" ISN'T unless you mean the crisis of having the government interfere with legally binding private contracts or the societal crisis of rewarding poor judgment.

And thanks, this ridiculous... (Below threshold)

And thanks, this ridiculous stimulus package is yet another example of something Republicans would be far less inclined to go along with if a Dem had proposed it.

Laura, Barney is a trog. H... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Laura, Barney is a trog. Hope you know who you're cozying with ...

Barncommie, Again l... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Barncommie,
Again let 's put aside that idiotic spin. Just try to give you a simple example to help you understand the issue.

Let 's say we don't fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and spend all of time trying to play defense in America, how much will cost? Remember one lone shooter can paralyze the economy of the entire of the DC and Northern Virginia for several weeks. The cost will be in the trillions if we have to spend all our resources defending every soft targets in America. Do you know that AlQ is willing to use retarded women and children as bombers? That is the staggering cost even if we are not hit by one or more terrorist attacks. If a few more 9/11 happens, you may lose more than just money.

No attack on American homeland alone is a major accomplishment given the unprecedented disgraceful Dem sabotage. That 's why Obama supporters like you still can be conned into comparing him to Jesus today.

Still waiting for your answer why you have been shilling for Clintons and support Obama now? I assume that they truly represent your convictions. If that 's wrong, please let me know.

LAI, Laura does not just no... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

LAI, Laura does not just not want to vote for McCain. That is principled. No, she WANTS a Donk President.

Think about that, because Laura plainly is not.

LAI, Laura does not just no... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

LAI, Laura does not just not want to vote for McCain. That is principled. No, she WANTS a Donk President.
-------------------------------------
This is hair-splitting in my opinion. Not voting for McCain gives extra advantage to the Dem. The end result would be the same. I know that Laura wouldn't pull the lever for Hillary or Obama. She will write in or vote a third party or not vote at all. I think we have enough discussion on this issue. Going forward, it depends on McCain to ensure as much support from the base as possible. He needs to pick his VP wisely for example.


DJ, I'm sorry to say this b... (Below threshold)

DJ, I'm sorry to say this but you're really being an ass. I did not now nor ever "cozy up" with Barney and I know well who he is because I've been reading this blog and infrequently commenting on it for several years before you starting posting here. I just haven't commented lately. If you re-read my comment it should be clear I'm disputing his nonsense, not agreeing.

You want to argue with my logic or to disagree, fine, but I'm really disappointed in the personal attacks you're making.

"He needs to pick his VP wi... (Below threshold)

"He needs to pick his VP wisely for example."

That would help, as would an outright repudiation of his position on illegal immigration and global warming.

That would help, as would a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

That would help, as would an outright repudiation of his position on illegal immigration and global warming.
------------------------------------
Personally I wouldn't demand or expect an outright repudiation. He is who he is at this point. Picking someone like Fred Thompson with a more conservative view on those issues would go a long way towards easinng any discomfort with him.

John Bolton makes the case ... (Below threshold)

John Bolton makes the case for MCain (and against my argument):

"Bolton said it was now clear that he would be the nominee, and specifically addressed those who argue that conservatives would be better off in the long run if Democrats win and mess things up than if mistakes are associated with a Republican. He compared this logic to Vladimir Lenin's declaration that "worse is better" and said that "tactical domestic considerations" shouldn't be allowed to harm our national security."

from Hot Air.

Bottom line is that we alre... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Bottom line is that we already know what we're getting in the white house no matter who is elected. There is no clear defining line between hillary/obama and McCain. Sure McCain isn't as liberal as hillary or Obama, but he's still a liberal and he's still going to damage the country.

The real thing to focus on is the senate and house seats. The White House has been lost until 2012, but by keeping democrats out of the house and senate, McCain will have less democrats to reach across the aisle to, or in the event of Hillary and Obama, we can at least play the obstruction game. The Presidential election is now irrelevant in 2008. The liberals won it fair and square.

The Presidential election i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

The Presidential election is now irrelevant in 2008. The liberals won it fair and square.
-------------------------------------
The sad thing is that we have done a great job protecting the homeland that the liberals can sing Kumbaya in Obama rallies now. Just like Reagan/Bush ended the cold war so that the liberals could play their Clintonian con job.

Maybe, DJ, you should stop ... (Below threshold)
Neil Bush:

Maybe, DJ, you should stop to consider the possibility that a majority of Americans have been exposed to whatever you think you're referring to when you use the word "conservative", and don't like it. And maybe, just maybe, you aren't a whole smarter than everyone; that it's not merely stupid people not getting it; that reasonable people have intractable disagreements with one another; and that for the forseeable future, you've lost the argument, for all intents and purposes.

It's February; the election is in the fall; and your team has already lost. As in, failed to persuade enough people who care about their country to vote for them. McCain will lose, obviously, and while everybody hates Congress, they trust Democrats more than they do Republicans. What exactly do you expect to accomplish with your bleating, other than amusing a handful of liberal trolls and twisting the knives in your compatriots' proverbial wounds? Gonna jump into that super-successful online wingnut fundraising racket? How'd that go for Republicans? Apart from Ron Paul, I mean.

This will be a long, undignified crawl to the finish line. Pass the popcorn!

Neil, We give you t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Neil,
We give you the credit for ensuring the liberal culture of corruption will continue longer. You should pass the popcorn since you have a real chance at implementing the liberal agenda of "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov. You will either have Clintonian ethics or Obama con-job. Congratulations again! You should be proud.

Barney, your dishonesty is ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, your dishonesty is showing again. You claim that the forthcoming recession is Bush's second, but the first recession occurred just weeks after he took office - only a completely dishonest troll like yourself would blame that on "Republican stewardship". But that would describe you would it not?

Our armed forces are not "near collapse" - that is just another despicable lie on your part Barney.

Barney the buffoon: ""Outis... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Barney the buffoon: ""Outisde of the most far right circles, Ann Coulter's opinion is simply not taken seriously by anyone"

Finally, someone on the right acknowledges CPAC is the "most far right circle" of the GOP:"

Barney, Ann Coulter was not invited to speak by CPAC.

In fact, CPAC specifically disinvited Coulter.

She was invited to speak by YAF at the same hotel as the CPAC conference.

Since CPAC does not "control" the hotel, CPAC does not control who other groups invite.

Moron.

My sister-in-law (and her g... (Below threshold)
COgirl:

My sister-in-law (and her girlfriend) are active and strong Democrats. But the other day she called and told my husband that if Obama got the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. She also commented that the MSM distorts the truth about Obama, so they've been watching Fox.

The point of telling you this is that if it was Romney getting the nomination, he would not get any support from any Democrat.

The bottom line IMHO is that Republicans screwed up when we "had it all" and blew it in the 2006 election. McCain, like it or not, is what we've got. We'd better support him because the alternative is far, far worse. No time for crying over spilled milk, we need to salvage what we have.

Actually, her appearance wa... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Actually, her appearance was organized by Citizens United, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, Human Events, Young America's Foundation and Townhall. YAF and Human Events are the cosponsors of CPAC, so in effect she spoke at the conference, invited by its sponsors, but was technically not part of the official program. Why they even bothered with "disinviting" her, I have no idea.

"Our armed forces are not "... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Our armed forces are not "near collapse" - that is just another despicable lie on your part Barney."

I guess you are just keeping up with the news SPQR?

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military is not ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces do not have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report."

"The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation 'does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available' to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, 'an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk.'"

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8138997

COgirl-not to bust... (Below threshold)
james wallaby kangaroo:

COgirl-

not to bust your bubble but no "strong democrat," absolutely none, is going to vote for any republican this election. maybe independents, but no strong democrat. I can absolutely assure you of this.

get in the puch, kids, becuase this wallaby kangaroo is taking the conservatives to the promised land!!! boing! boing! hopping awaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy!!!!!!!

DJ:"..while Clint... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

DJ:
"..while Clinton and Obama each hoped to pull cleanly away from their rival. Instead, the opposite happened - the GOP race is pretty much decided, while the Democrats are neck and neck, and they have some sharp disagreements on their record."

I'd sure like to see a wizbang-blogger expound on their differences. I'd love to see the MSM expound on their differences; with actual voting records and long-standing policy positions to back up that assertion.

What the heck is the difference between Obama and Hillary? Does one promise to tax the hell out of the top 51% of taxpayers and the other promise to do the same to the top half? Pffft. Sounds about the same to me.

Other than a few debating points made in the heat of a campaign, I don't think there is any difference between the two.

Now c'mon, people, Huckabee... (Below threshold)

Now c'mon, people, Huckabee is less liberal than McCain and less nutty than Ron Paul.

He dug Arkansas out of the Clinton Machine mess the previous governor had left by raising necessary STATE taxes, not federal funding.

He's well-spoken (with apologies to our President, far more well-spoken than GW Bush), and common-sense.

His populism is a conservative populism, rallying people who WANT to be self-sufficient.

It's over when the votes are in, unless you decide RIGHT NOW to vote for McCain or abstain.

not to bust your bubble ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

not to bust your bubble but no "strong democrat," absolutely none, is going to vote for any republican this election. maybe independents, but no strong democrat. I can absolutely assure you of this.

Heh. They come here to gloat when the Repubs are arguing about jumping ship, but they get all defensive when it's mentioned that some Dems might do the same.

What the heck is the differ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

What the heck is the difference between Obama and Hillary?
---------------------------------
None, exactly. Their agenda is basically the same. It is "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov. The credit for that phrase belongs to Cassy, so I have to put it in quotes. It is a really succint statement of facts. Hillary tried to attack Obama 's record. Then the abortion crowd tried to show how good a liberal Obama is by showcasing his perfect 100% rating from PP/NARAL and also his vote against providing medical care for surviving aborted babies. Imagine denying medical care to injured terrorists. The liberal left will be up in arms about the inhumanity of it. You can see the extent to which the left will go to deny legal protection for surviving aborted babies. At the same time, they tried to give the terrorists maximum legal protection. Obama can send out flyers proclaiming that he is a "committed christian". His supporters can even compare him to Jesus. Either they are conned or these are truly their convictions. Either way I am still waiting for an answer from Barney and he tries to avoid it so far. Using Mantis 's terminology, we are talking about liberals and dems here!

mantis: "Actually, her appe... (Below threshold)
Drago:

mantis: "Actually, her appearance was organized by Citizens United, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, Human Events, Young America's Foundation and Townhall. YAF and Human Events are the cosponsors of CPAC, so in effect she spoke at the conference, invited by its sponsors, but was technically not part of the official program. Why they even bothered with "disinviting" her, I have no idea."

So, for future reference, lets make note of the "Mantis Rule": In any situation where different events by different organizations share some or all of the same sponsors, then any speaker at either event is immediately and objectively to be considered a speaker at the other event.

I'll be sure to google up all speakers at events sponsored by Soro's or other left-wing organizations to see what more "mainstream" Dem groups can then be said to "effectively share" the same speakers and intent.

Thanks mantis. It's always fun to see the left invent new "rules" for conservatives based on some "inner nuance" and then listen to the left squeal when those same rules are applied to the left.

I believe that McCain does ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

I believe that McCain does have the right values. Is he as out-spoken of his values as Mr. Huckabee? Probably not, but then, sadly; most in this nation are simply not ready yet to fully understand the SPIRIT that moves Huckabee.

Am I acting in the Spirit of God when I vote for one who is 100 percent in thinking as I am and says it just as "I" want to hear it? More than likely, I would be more focused on "I" if I wanted someone who was JUST as "I" am...The spirit of God draws people to Himself and away from worldly ways slo-ooowly and so in the Spirit of God's way; McCain is just right at this point of our nation going back to right values.

Don't get me wrong, we NEVER condone wrong actions or thought when we vote for a person. But on his voting record; McCain has voted in the pro-life cause, he may have voted against a amendment to the Constitution that says marriage is one man and one woman; but in no way does that say he 'favors' gay unions or gay marriage. He says: he would leave it to the states, the states elect representatives to the Congress and Senate, therefore, if the states send those who will honor that special marital bond of God; aka marriage - President McCain would more than likely say OK. (it's that simple) He supports our military, and he knows Iraq must be won (or the terrorists will strike us again)I believe Sen. McCain got the message from we the people regarding amnesty for illegals; so as President he would not try to influence reps any other way.

Basically; McCain is a conservative leader; and it's good to remember this on what a leader is: Leadership is an upside down triangle. The Leader is at the bottom 'holding up' the masses, enabling them to 'be'/not one OVER ALL 'ruling over others'/the democrat candidates will set the spirit of conservative values back more than 200 steps...a vote for McCain will lead all back to 'the right'

Sometimes one needs to lose 'a battle over self and self ideas' to win a BIG WAR.

"Neil",You are mis... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Neil",

You are missing a few important points. When Bush was elected in 2000, it was because the U.S. was sick of the Clintons and their shenanigans.

The democrats voted for the war before they were against it.

It's only the exit polls that are the deciding factor, and because no-one has abolished the electoral college and it's only February, we've got a long way to go before November.

One more thing to consider: Yhe deciding factor for most people this time around may be who they don't want back in the White House.

As one of those far-right r... (Below threshold)
Ace:

As one of those far-right radical freedom lovers, I'll throw in my 2 cents. My political beliefs fall somewhere between the Constitution Party and the Libertarians so I already know that I am far out of the mainstream of the electorate. However, my goal is not to align myself with the electorate, but with our Constutition, our founders and philosophers such as John Locke, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman among others. This means that people like myself may never enjoy political power, but I just can't stomach the idea that government can be a force for good other than protecting us from enemies abroad and punishing those who break laws. Governments always seek to oppress their citizens; ours is no exception. Such is the nature of humans to seek to dominate others through force. The irony is that in this country we use the democratic process and vote for serfdom to the State.
Now onto the business at hand. I can understand both sides of this argument. DJ is correct that Democrats generally run the nation into the ground, especially during a time of war. Moreover, if the Dems get to nominate a couple of Supreme Court justices, liberals will pretty much become the dictators they have aspired to be. McCain might be better than the Dems, but there is no way to be sure.
On the other hand, I think the reason why the GOP has lost so much ground is because it moved left to win elections rather than defending its principles. Seeking common ground to get things done always moves the country left; it's hard to defend the belief that government is the problem when conservatives are always willing to endure more government for the sake of getting things done. Many times we would be better off is government did nothing. Moreover, because the government plays some role is acting on said problem, it is viewed as a source of help, even when evidence becomes available that says otherwise. Facts matter little; only the myth of government as savior matters.
Thus, there appears to be little difference between the two parties to the average American. More ideology could help the republic. There are stark philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals; generally speaking, the right believes in individual freedom and the left believes in collectivism. The right believes that government is the problem and the left believes that government is the solution. Such differences are not clear to the American people, especially since our current president signed No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. I'm not sure whom I will vote for and I probably won't until election day. Perhaps the idea of a Democrat in the as president will scare me sufficiently to support McCain, but I'm not sure and I won't criticize any conservative who votes her conscience.
But honestly, even if these differences were aired, I'm not sure if the right would win. I'm not sure if Americans really care about their freedom at this stage in history. The State has been taking more and more of our freedoms each year. We get upset for a while, but then we become inured to the intrusion and go about our business. The long term problem for those of us on the right is convincing the American people that we are truly on the Road to Serfdom and that their choices will create a Servile State in a couple of generations. We are going to have to take the message of freedom to the people and hope that we can convince them to not trade freedom for security and receive neither.

Barney, you are dishonest a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, you are dishonest as ever. The story you link to has nothing to do with your claims - nothing to do with the assertion you initially make.

This is your only trick Barney, to make one assertion and when called on it, to spin off into never-never land with unrelated nonsense. This time whining about the readiness of national guard forces for a different mission from the war on terrorism that was your initial whine.

You are inded the perfect Democrat, Barney. Confused, ignorant, outclassed and dishonent.

What is going to be interes... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

What is going to be interesting in the election will be the moment when the Wall Street Democrats start to realize what a disaster Hillary will be to the US economy.

I think we are seeing some beginning signs of it right now as Wall Street evaluates the odds of Hillary being elected. Her outrageous proposals for a sub-prime mortgage interest moratorium has them realizing that she's a complete loon and dangerous. I suspect that is why her campaign funds are drying up.

Anon, Although I di... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Anon,
Although I disliked McCain, our disagreement with him over global warming, illegal immigration, ... is not over intrinsically immoral (or evil) policy like denying medical care for surviving aborted babies. Also on the issue of racism and anti-Semitism, the liberal hypocrisy is astounding. If McCain has voted like Obama did and even remotely (much less intimately) involved with a racist and anti-semitic church, in good conscience we wouldn't be able to vote for him no matter what. But again we are talking about liberal dems here.

"We are going to have to ta... (Below threshold)

"We are going to have to take the message of freedom to the people and hope that we can convince them to not trade freedom for security and receive neither."

Failing that, and because we may not have the choice anyway, we can just affirmatively let them wallow in it until they're begging for John Galt to save them.

"Barney, you are dishonest ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Barney, you are dishonest as ever. The story you link to has nothing to do with your claims " SPQR

Here is what I wrote:

"The arm forces are (at least the army) is near collapse and can't not respond to another emergency."

SPQR are you saying the Guard and reservers are not part of the armed forces? I would like to see you say that to one of them that has served and fought in Iraq.

Are you saying an attack on the mainland is not an emergency? I would like to see you say that someone who lost a loved one in 9/11.

The arm forces are stretched and are limited in what they can respond to. I think you owe an apology to those that have served bravely and with honor to protect your ungrateful ass.

I think you owe an apology ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

I think you owe an apology to those that have served bravely and with honor to protect your ungrateful ass.
-------------------------------------
Like your fellow Berkeley liberals. And that 's why you support Obama? Is it because he got the overwhelming endoresement from one of your favorite orgs, MoveOn.org? Also because he didn't dare to vote for a resolution condemning the smear of Gen. Patreaus?

Still waiting for your answers, Barney. Obama/Hillary truly represent your convictions?

Are you saying an attack on... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Are you saying an attack on the mainland is not an emergency? I would like to see you say that someone who lost a loved one in 9/11.
-------------------------------------
And that 's why you would rather withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and fight them here instead over there? Trying to pull an Obama on us?

SPQR, do you want more? He... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

SPQR, do you want more? Here it is:
"Despite security gains in Iraq, the military has not been able to reduce the response risk level, which was raised from moderate to significant last year, according to the report."
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/02/08/ap/headlines/d8umf8780.txt

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The top uniformed military officer on Wednesday described a tired U.S. military force, worn thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unlikely to come home in large numbers anytime soon.
The assessment comes as President Bush decides whether to continue troop reductions in Iraq -- possibly endangering fragile security gains made in recent months -- or not, and risk straining ground forces further.
"The well is deep, but it is not infinite," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We must get Army deployments down to 12 months as soon as possible. People are tired.'"
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD8UL1RT80

I think you owe an... (Below threshold)
SPQR:
I think you owe an apology to those that have served bravely and with honor to protect your ungrateful ass.

This is typical of your despicable conduct, Barney. You make a false claim, get called on it, spin off into an unrelated direction and use your own confused stupidity as an excuse for making this dishonest accusation against me?

The only ungrateful ass here is you, Barney. Because you are a despicable example of humanity. You have no basis for making such an accusation against me. You have no knowledge of how much of my own time and money I've spent in support of our troops and their families, but you feel free to make baseless accusations - because you are a disgraceful liar.

Barney, From your o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Barney,
From your own source (given how dishonest the AP has been, they buried this inside)
On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got more stability there as an example."

ANd that 's why you want to withdraw from Iraq now to further the liberal agenda of "killing babies, not terrorists"?

LAI, Barney is notorious fo... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

LAI, Barney is notorious for being too stupid to even read his own links.

Not to mention that the punk accuses me of being ungrateful to the troops in the same thread he makes accusations of war crimes.

And this is the liberals' g... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

And this is the liberals' gratefulness to the troops

Berkeley to Marine Corps: You're Not Welcome

SPQR,Only som... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:


SPQR,
Only someone like Barney could be conned into supporting Obama.

I should add that or... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

I should add that
or Obama's records actually reflect Barney 's convictions.

Failing that, and bec... (Below threshold)
HughS:

Failing that, and because we may not have the choice anyway, we can just affirmatively let them wallow in it until they're begging for John Galt to save them.

Laura, oh how I wish your Galt anaolgy somehow intruded in a real way into the Greek tragedy we are watching. I share your disgust with Mccain. I felt the same about Ford, only with less intensity because he his failings were ones of ommission, so to speak. Then there was Dole redux.

McCain is anathema to my political position and conservative principles;however, having lived with the consequences of a failed Ford and Dole candidacy, I simply can't sit by and let this train wreck happen again, particularly with foreign policy risks and SCOTUS nominees on the table.

I listened closely to Mccain's CPAC speech and came away unimpressed. But will I vote for him? Yes. Given the damage that this country suffered under Carter and Clinton's second term, I will not stand by and let a Democrat be elected without a fight. The stakes are too high this time and there is no John Galt, Dagney Taggart or Hank Reardon in the nomination mix ( frankly,there hasn't been one of this type since Reagan).

Republicans that despise McCain (me) need to start rebuilding the Conservative base now. It starts with Congress ( if spending is our concern, then that is where our effort should be). Sitting out and letting a Clinton or Obama in office carries risks today that are radically different than what we faced in 1976 and even 1996. We are in a Hot War that will not end for a long time.

I don't like John McCain, but unlike the era of previous Republicans that were weak on Conservative priciples, we don't have the luxury of sitting this one out. We live in a time of crisis.

Conservatives are essential... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Conservatives are essentially faced with 3 choices

1.) Don't vote - possibly the best choice
2.) Vote McCain - vote for a liberal
3.) Vote Democrat - vote for a liberal

At this point in time the 2008 election is irrelevant. a liberal in office either way.

I think alot of people are getting false hope up about McCain. The man does not represent any Conservative views. To think otherwise is only to set yourself up for future disappointment. I'm making my peace now. Lib in the white house no matter what. McCain is going to be just as much of a problem in the white house as either obama or clinton.

People keep saying "McCain would do X if he were president". How does anyone know? the man is obviously unashamed of being a liar. I will never trust anything he says even if he is the president.

Call it McCain Derangement syndrome, but the man is clearly a liberal.

All this bluster about supp... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

All this bluster about support McCain because he's better for the country than a democrat is short term thinking. Because McCain wears the label Republican, his failures will be the party's failures. The damage caused by McCain's folly will set the Republican party back more than Carter set the Democrats back. Why on earth would anyone think it's a good idea to elect a man to the presidency who's to the left of moderate Republicans and dumber than Bush acts.

McCain won't be able to do a thing on the national defense front because that course was set by the 2006 election. McCain is unlikely to effect the balance of the Supreme court because none of the conservative judges are likely to retire while he is in office. McCain is just as clueless about the economy and global warming as the democrats. Our best hope is to prevent the democrats from holding 60 seats in the Senate and not have McCain in the White house undermining the cohesion of Republican senators.

Better to suffer four years of democrats in power and let them prove what failures they are than to elect McCain and suffer decades of democrats in power as a result.

Allright, I'll bite; if he ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Allright, I'll bite; if he is CLEARLY a liberal, then why don't you prove it. Not prove that he is "More liberal than you are' but that he is _Left of center_. GO through the liberal platform and tell me how many candidates espousing his positions woudl ever get elected on a democratic ticket. Please show me how his tax idead, budgetary principles, Military principles - PLEASE show me how they are liberal. Again, not how you think they are "Not as conservative as you like' but that they are L:IBERAL.

Put up or shut up. CLaiming he is insufficiently conservative is one thing. YOu could be right wor wrong. CLaiming he is liberal? You can only be wrong.

Because facts are stubborn, and he does not fit in the box called liberal, even if he was an odd fit for conservative.

We had four years of Carter... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

We had four years of Carter and twenty years later still haven't recovered. FOur to eight years of Clinton or Obama. . do the math.

I have a feeling that alot of you must not have actually lived through the Carter years.

SPQR, you are the one that ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

SPQR, you are the one that dismissed the sacrifice of the guard and reserve, and do care about their readiness.

You called me on my statement (only one of several) and I supplied supporting evidence from Pentagon reports that the armed forces are not ready to respond to an emergency today.

Lovie points out that maybe, someday if the Iraq and Afghanistan situations continue to stabilize we could get back to readiness, but not today, so Bush has made us more vulnerable and less safe than we were when he took office.

I actually like John McCain... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

I actually like John McCain. I like Obama too. Wouldn't mind having a beer with either of those two guys. Hillary Clinton makes me shudder.

That being said, at this point I plan to side with Ann Coulter on this issue. John McCain is not as liberal as Hillary Clinton is that's for sure. However, John McCain certainly is liberal and will take this country down the wrong path.

You put Hillary Clinton in office and you absolutely guarantee Republicans retake control of the House and Senate in 2010 just to put a stop to her and the Democratic antics.

You put John McCain in office and you get a worse disaster.

Sure, John McCain is indeed less liberal than Hillary Clinton. However, Hillary Clinton won't be able to get her radical liberal agenda passed even with a majority Dem congress. The Republicans will rally around the filibuster.

John McCain on the other hand, will easily pass his liberal agenda, as he'll team up with folks like Lieberman, Feingold and Kennedy to get his liberal agenda passed.

The Democrats go by the belief that, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This means that they will happily pass legislation with McCain that is their legislation and his legislation that is conservative will be negotiable. IE: Not get passed.

McCain would be a disaster for conservatives. Hillary at least we'd have a fighting chance.

The real problem is not how... (Below threshold)
fiona:

The real problem is not how conservatives vote (if at all), but how they act. in 2004 a wide variety of conservatives from libertarian to religious worked an incredible number of hours and committed a lot funds to insure victory for GWB. Can you see this happening for McCain? Already we see lower primary turnout for Republicans. I may or may not vote for anyone for President, but I won't be ringing doorbells or making phonecalls for the leader of the gang of 14. Given his past behaviour, I don't believe anything the man says.

In my ideal world, people l... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

In my ideal world, people like Barney and the people at Blue are all in chains and we ride them around like ponies. I will be voting for McCain, because giving the Donks a chance to appoint judges without restraint is unacceptable.

Barncommie, You are... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Barncommie,
You are so dishonest. No attacks on the homeland up until now. It is a remarkable achievement given the level of dishonest attack to demoralize country and the troop as the AP and you have been doing here. That 's a significant achievement in itself.
So withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan will make the country safer? That 's why you support Obama and the democrats (given all their smears against the military)? Because you love the troops?
We have a serious discussion on why we should and should not support McCain and you try to distract it with cheap spin. Why do you support Obama given his records? Why did you shill for Clinton all these years? Because you love the military, because you truly care about racism and anti-semitism?

Again; Please, show me how ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Again; Please, show me how McCain is, on Balance, a liberal, comparing his positions on social issue, military and foreign policy and economics. ANd providing a laundry list of individual liberal bills doesn't do it, because I could provide a much longer list of conservative votes. On what do you base your assertion that he IS a liberal - not that he occasionally makes liberal votes.
Just because you continuously make a claim does not make it true. If we want to go with your apparent definition of what you have to be to be a conservative you are bound to end up being a party with no no power. YOu keep your principles and you can proudly watch as they are trashed for the next fifty years, because using your 'principles' you will NEVER have power ever again.

I have a feeling that... (Below threshold)
HughS:

I have a feeling that alot of you must not have actually lived through the Carter years.

I lived and worked through the Carter years:

1) Miles long gas lines...literally.
2) 18% inflation
3) 19% prime rate
4) Historically high commidity prices
5) No Mideast strategy
6) Iranian hostage crisis
7) Desert One
8) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
9) Carter grain embargo to Soviets....which had what effect? Broke American farmers.
10) Soviet infiltration of Central America


The list goes on and on and on Ryan. Want some more?

At least with Bush the char... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

At least with Bush the charge that he lied can be debunked just by looking at the public facts and using a little common sense. However, which McCain the charge will be true on his first day in office.

Did anyone else catch McCain's statement that he would require the governors of all border states to certify that the borders are secure? What branch of government does McCain think runs the border patrol? Is McCain planning to cede the defense of U.S. borders to the states? The guy is not only liberal and a liar, he's also a dunce.

If McCain really cared anything about this country he would withdraw while there's still time to select a better candidate.

Ryan, Let 's talk a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Ryan,
Let 's talk about major principle. I can give you national security and foreign policy. McCain is solid there. We can nitpick but overall he fine there. His view of government power (via McCain-Feingold) is disctintly liberal. The gov has the power to regulate political speech! ON economics, we can give him a good grade on spending at least in terms of rhetoric. Sure he is not as liberal as Hillary or Obama. That 's a given. Still his view of gov power is disctinctly liberal. That also affects how he want use the power of the gov (instead of market) to deal with "global warming" etc...

BTW, I will still vote for ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

BTW, I will still vote for McCain because of judges as List pointed out. We don't know for sure what McCain is going to do wrt judges. But we know for sure what Hillary and Obama are going to do. Just err on the safe side here.

The judges argument is comp... (Below threshold)

The judges argument is completely fallacious. McCain made it a point to prove that the President is subject to the whims of a handful of rogue Senators, as this WH Press release put out earlier today so aptly illustrates:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080207-9.html

So don't try to sell the "McCain is better for SCOTUS" argument. Again, he took that off the table himself.

"BTW, I will still vote for... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"BTW, I will still vote for McCain because of judges as List pointed out."

That's funny. With a democrat controlled Senate McCain will have to compromise to get any judges nominated (from the lowest to highest courts). You really think that the man who has worked deals with Feingold and Kennedy is going to stand on principle to appoint "true" conservative jurists?

Ha/Ha!!

Barney, You are sim... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Barney,
You are simply so stupid and dishonest. I am just amazed at your shamelessness.
Read what I wrote. We know for sure what kind of judges Hillary and Obama will appoint (someone like Ginsburgh). You are so happy because they will make sure that medical care to surviving aborted babies will be denied, right? With McCain, we don't know for sure. In the worst case, will be as bad as Ginsburgh. But there is a chance that he will appoint someone better. If he is smart, he can send up more conservative judges and let the dem shoot them down. That will garner the base for sure.

DJ...I cannot vote for McCa... (Below threshold)

DJ...I cannot vote for McCain. You need to read
some history on McCain and his involvement with
the Keating Five. This man is a crook!!! He is
worst than the Clintons. Nobody is talking about this saving and loan scandel. What is so
very funney about the whole thing is that McCain
went on to write McCain-Feingold. We are in trouble on all fronts.

Nora, If you want t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Nora,
If you want to test that spin on McCain, it is old. He "confessed" his "youthful" mistake on Keating 5. And that 's why he is determined to clean up the gov. At least that is his spin. It is idiotic to compare him to Clinton though. Yup, Clinton endured the torture of the communists and went to fight for his country. But you are right, I wouldn't put it past the liberals though.

So don't try to sell ... (Below threshold)
HughS:

So don't try to sell the "McCain is better for SCOTUS" argument. Again, he took that off the table himself.

I'm selling nothing.

He took more than that off the table:

Consider McCain Feingold
McCain Kennedy
Objection to Bush Tax Cuts

As I said, the list goes on and on.

But,do you want to risk the next four years with Obama or McCain? Think about that with a post 9/11 world view. With Obama/Hillary in office, who is going to answer the phone at the Whitehouse when a bad SCOTUS nominee is served up? Larry Tribe or John McCain's best liberal Republican buddy? Who gets to serve up an argument to McCain? The out of power Republican ( that would be Romney supporters, the Christian Right, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation........all on hold at the Hillary/Obama switchboard)or the Old Liberal Guard?

When the next terrorist attack happens, are you going to sit back in an envelope of self satisfaction and tell us here at Wizbang! that you told us so? I don't like McCain, but who do I trust on national security more: Mccain or Obama? No question. McCain. I don't need a Bay of Pigs or Cuban Missile Crisis or Desert One in my kids future.

That's a laugh Lovie. McC... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

That's a laugh Lovie. McCain wont get a pussy hair though the judicial committee unless he make some serious deals with the Dems.

Ha/Ha

LA...I am from a military f... (Below threshold)

LA...I am from a military family and my husband is a VM vet. I have lost dear family members to
the VM war and you can only stand on the war hero thing so long. He is what he is a crook. A lot of good people were hurt by that "youthful
mistake" and I will not look the other way.

"Who gets to serve up an ar... (Below threshold)

"Who gets to serve up an argument to McCain?"

If history is any indicator, the Democrats.

Listen, I'm not just taking an adversarial view on this because I feel like arguing. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do.

Do you read Armed Liberal? He makes a good case about what will happen if/when the Dems "own" the war. And he's got a son in the sandbox, so this is not a blowoff issue for him.

Laura, The lunatic ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Laura,
The lunatic left will not let their spineless and anti-American leaders pursue the war against the terrorists. I have more confidence in McCain to do that though. The liberal agenda is "killing babies, not terrorists". The best we can do is to restrain them as much as we can. But that is where they want to go.

Fuckin' right, LA,I! We'll ... (Below threshold)
Neil Bush:

Fuckin' right, LA,I! We'll finally get all them babies murdered, and even pay Al Qaeda to do it for us. You're obviously a clever individual. Too bad your vote only counts once.

Stock up on kleenex, douche bags, 'cause you're in for a generation of political hurt, and you have no one to thank but your obtuse, ignorant selves.

"Fuckin' right, LA"<p... (Below threshold)
mikem Author Profile Page:

"Fuckin' right, LA"

Matgaret Sanger's dream of de-"Negroid"-ing the human race lives on through Democrats and Libertarians. Slavery, Jim Crow and Planned Parenthood, what a legacy!

the test of what is a "libe... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

the test of what is a "liberal person"

First the dictionary definition of the word liberal in and of itself:

liberal: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or AUTHORITARIAN attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

definition of personhood: The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; THE SELF.

so a liberal person in the positive sense is a
person who KNOWS THY SELF; thier own good and bad characteristics (ie: strengths and weaknesses) The person with understanding of
the TRUE SELF that is within them; that longs to live 'in a Way, Truth, and Life' in and by
the source of objective truth (God)is a person
FREE (free of mind aka liberal of mind aka liberated) ie: liberated of 'mind thoughts' so as to allow THE 'CHRISTO-CENTRIC self' within to come out of the personality of themselves.

free of AUTHORITARIAN attitudes; ie: will not
let other mere mortal flesh ideas RULE OVER them nor will they RULE OVER others.

The two Democrat candidates see themselves as
'a god' to others rather than relying on THE GOD within thier being that longs to RULE OVER 'them' ... Mr. McCain has come to understand, I believe that LIFE of the unborn
is important. His voting record would not be the voting record of those 2 dem candidates.
Mr. McCain has come to understand that life matters, and has not allowed 'the norm' around him to sway him otherwise. THE TRUTH within McCain set him FREE of merely accepting what
'the established' thinks. ie: what mere SELF
thinks.

If McCain has this much understanding; SUCH SPIRIT will continue to lead him into TRUTH to good living.

McCain is not the liberal of Obama and Hillary.
He's still struggling at times to 'hear' the words of THE TRUE SELF...but he's certainly closer to that self than the dem candidates.

addendum to above to clarif... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

addendum to above to clarify:

THE TRUTH within McCain set him FREE of merely accepting what 'the established' thinks. ie: what mere [mortal and fleshly]self (self in smalll letters)thinks...and has embraced THE TRUTH the of the CHRISTO-CENTERED SELF...the
'objective source of [the] authentic Go(o)d."

It's a weak argument that i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It's a weak argument that if we don't elect McCain the balance of the Supreme court could take a sharp turn to the left. The reason it's weak is that in order for any president to nominate a "replacement" justice, there needs to be an opening. Unless one of the conservative justices retires or dies in the next 4 to 8 years the worst any president could do is replace liberal judges with more liberal judges. That's not an ideal situation as the replacements will be younger, but it's not the disaster some are trying to make it out to be.

Bush has been successful in protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks, in part by expending tremendous resources overseas to disrupt, destroy and distract terrorists. The American electorate voted for change in 2006, so if an attack comes on the watch of the new president I won't be saying I told you so. I'll be saying the American people got what they voted for. If they don't like it then they need to vote to change it back to the way it was pre 2006.

Anonymous,Your com... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Anonymous,

Your composite definition of "liberal" is a self-serving fabrication, and one that ignores the many examples set by so-called liberals. Liberals also like to call themselves progressive, but they are only progressive in the same sense that a fatal disease is progressive. For society to prosper that disease needs to be controlled. Right now the country is having a flare-up of a progressive disease called liberalism. Once the American people get sick enough they'll vote for the cure.

THew p[roblem is, one of th... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

THew p[roblem is, one of the judges that might retire in the next eight years is Scalia. Is he a liberal justice?
ANd so. .you would be willing to give up a chance to move the court rightward for over twenty years because you dislike McCain?

So, HUgh, you woudl rather ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

So, HUgh, you woudl rather have THAT again than McCain?

ANd by your definition, BArney. . .

Bush was also a liberal. Both BUshes were Liberal> And Reagan, he leaned a bit towards the liberal side too. . .

I missed your point, Ryan.<... (Below threshold)
HughS:

I missed your point, Ryan.

There's no indication Scali... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

There's no indication Scalia is considering retirement and like other conservative judges, he likely wouldn't retire while a democrat is president. Scalia might retire if McCain were president and then watch the maverick nominate a liberal rather than a conservative. You want to bet he wouldn't? Better to have an out in the open liberal in office rather than one posing as a conservative.

... For society to ... (Below threshold)
StephanJanna:

... For society to prosper that disease needs to be controlled. Right now the country is having a flare-up of a progressive disease called liberalism. Once the American people get sick enough they'll vote for the cure.

Just a question, for most of you. Who the hell do you think you are that you feel the need to force your value system on everyone else in the country? It may surprise you, but most of the country doesn't agree with you that every facet of the conservative agenda has merit.

Your unhappy with your choice for a nominee? Get out of your self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing bubble. He's the man they want -- just like the ultra-left wing won't be pushing through the agenda of their constituents (I know. Some of you who are a bit misinformed will say that everyone on the left is ultra-left. The reality is you're so out of touch with what the country wants and needs - and so unmoveable about your own beliefs, you don't recognize that your platform is the extreme - and not wholeheartedly supported).

When people like you start making statements like the fool quoted above - and believing that - you've already lost and couldn't be more wrong. Division is not what most of us want. If you want it, sorry, it's not in the best interest of the country and it won't be tolerated.

Regarding Carter, Hugh.... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Regarding Carter, Hugh.

ANd the point you are missing in the rest of your rant, Lorry, is that you would be cementing those supreme court positions as openly liberal for the next quarter century. There is a good chance that the Democrats will have enough of a majority in the senate that they will be able to put through WHOEVER THEY WANT with no obstruction, and if you think the judges that Hillary or Obama would put forth and the ones McCain would put forth are the same, then you are truly delusional.

So if you want to make it absolutely certain that no progress whatever can be made on the supreme court for the next quarter century, by all means, go ahead and have your little hissy fit. Not wholeheartedly supporting him is one thing, I don't. But claiming we would be better off, long or short term, if the democrat won? Delusional. I suppose the issue is whether you consider the United states more important or the 'purity' of the 'conservative movement. If its the latter, welcome to the same level of power and success that they libertarian party currently enjoys> I suggest you go back and look at who Reagan put on the court. Reagan put O'COnnor on.

Look, I'm a combination of ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Look, I'm a combination of a true conservative (a Christian who loves Reagan), a practical conservative (I supported Giuliani just so that we could avoid a scenario like this), and a hater of all things liberal (nothing personal, but mainly because it is out to distort God's will).

Right now I'm about a 2 in a 0 to 100 scale of happiness of what is going on in the primaries. But I think we strongly need to support McCain. And that includes the psychotic liberals here like Barney and lava (and are Brian and Lee still around?). And the reason is the following (with no exaggeration): Obama and Hillary just proposing bad policy for America -- I could live with that if that's all it was (this is in fact what McCain is doing). What Obama and Hillary want to do is to push us, purposefully, into absolute and total destruction (militarily, socially, financially, physically, etc.) as fast as possible once they take on the presidency. Again, that is with zero exaggeration.

nehemiah-your firs... (Below threshold)
dick cheney:

nehemiah-

your first sentence sums up all that is wrong with your "conservative movement." You strongly imply that a true conservative must be a Chsristian. That is why your "movement" is abhorrent to all right thinking Americans. Please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. You all have had almost a good 8 years to destroy the country, and now it is time for some real damage control. Please step aside. Who you argue about supporting doesn't really matter now, does it, if mcCain is such a "liberal"? You lose. America rejects you. Even poor old Open Heart himself, Dicky Cheney, rejects you.

LOSERS!!!!!

Obviously Bush has done a g... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Obviously Bush has done a good job protecting the country through all the unprecedented disgraceful sabotage of the liberal left. The proof is obvious here. No attack on American homeland so that people can feel secure enough now. Even the liberals conceded that Iraq is no longer an issue for 2008, an issue which they planned to bring up again. The liberals were looking to a speedy withdrawal from Iraq so that AlQ can be free to use retarded women and children as bombers.

Another sign of the success is that liberals can sing Kumbaya at Obama rallies and ready to push through their liberal agenda of "killing babies, not terrorists". But we have to congratulate them for a job a well done. The left has encouraged AlQ and their sponsors to fight on in the last 5 years.

Congratulations and you can be proud of your legacy.

Love America Immigrant-... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

Love America Immigrant-

Dick Cheney says: "You're crazy!!!!!!"

Do you know where I can get a good fried baby? Because if there's something liberals like better than killing babies, it's eating them!

Thanks for admitting it. No... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Thanks for admitting it. No wonder you are so excited about the ultra-leftist Obama. He is the #1 liberal (ie a liberal extremist). That 's his records: denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. Imagine denying medical care to injured terrorists, and the left will be up in arms about the inhumanity and the evil of it. Obama is also extreme on pushing for a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Those are the truths and facts.

If you don't agree with these ultra-leftist positions, why do I see so much excitement from the left? You have been conned or you actually agree with these records?

Just facts and logic here. If you don't want to fact it, what can I do?

"Just a questio... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
"Just a question, for most of you. Who the hell do you think you are that you feel the need to force your value system on everyone else in the country?"

The answer is an American citizen who's exercising his free speech and right to vote. Who the hell are you to question those rights? You don't like what I have to say, so be it, move on.

Only a naive fool like the person quoted above doesn't know that the political climate follows cycles just like the natural climate does. Right now the American electorate is inclined to lean left, but once they have found that side devoid of ideas as well as principles, they lean right again. A liberal running as a conservative confuses the issues. Who is the public going to blame for bad economic times, weakened defense, and terrorist attacks if McCain is president and the majority of congress is democrat? Better to let the democrats be fully in charge and watch them fail so we can get the American electorate leaning right again, maybe in just 4 years.

The answer is an Am... (Below threshold)
StephanJanna:

The answer is an American citizen who's exercising his free speech and right to vote.

No one's questioning your rights, just your attitude of entitlement - and the false belief that since our current president has an evangelistic and ultra-conservative bent - and has been able to strong arm his way through certain objectives (with an, unfortunately compliant congress and senate), that this is your birthright.

The other fool who quoted this regarding liberals ("...nothing personal, but mainly because it is out to distort God's will") just reinforces my distaste for people who feel they are so right - in their opinions, in their place with the Lord and their feelings that what they believe need to be forced on the rest of us -- that they have a hissy fit when the rest of the country doesn't agree with them.

I'm a Christian as well, and let me tell you - everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when those people feel the need to label those who disagree with them as blasphemers and evil, I've got no use for that person. When I'm told I' not a "true" christian for not being as intolerant of others as they are, I kindly tell them to go to hell.

Now, I may disagree with your opinions, and want your type out of control in the political arena, but I would fight for the right for you to voice your opinion.

Most of you don't seem to have the same openess of character that others do. Maybe it's because you've been spoiled your whole life. Maybe your parents taught you that your opinion is the only one that matters. Maybe they labeled liberals as evil, non-christians as unworthy and non-whites as inferior. Don't know. Maybe you don't even know why you have so little tolerance for other opinions.

In any event, the country wants to go in another direction from you. We've had 8 years of disaster, one on top of another, and it has nothing to do with idiology and everything to do with incompetence. Deal with it.

And yes, the political climate does run in cycles - so be a good sport and take your turn.

Stephan, So are you... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Stephan,
So are you supporting Obama and do you agree with his ultra-lefist positions. Are you tolerant of anti-semitims and racism? These are just different opinions, right?

Here is my questions again, just the facts please.

Obama is the #1 liberal (ie a liberal extremist). That 's his records: denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. Imagine denying medical care to injured terrorists, and the left will be up in arms about the inhumanity and the evil of it. Obama is also extreme on pushing for a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Those are the truths and facts.
If you don't agree with these ultra-leftist positions, why do I see so much excitement from the left? You have been conned or you actually agree with these records?

Stephan writes: 'We've had ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Stephan writes: 'We've had 8 years of disaster, one on top of another, and it has nothing to do with idiology and everything to do with incompetence.'

Yes, those liberal democrats in Congress these eight years did make for lots of problems. Of course, not to worry - they will be 'out' soon.
: )

> Thankfully we had a leader in the White House that did not allow such democrats to push thier 'cut and run' philosophy; leaving Iraqi citizens to be oppressed by hard core evil. HARD CORE. Imagine the mind of someone
who would tell a mentally retarded Iraqi to strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a crowd? Are you "tolerant" of these types of persons? or would you come down from your 'tolerant' perch to call such INTOLERABLE!

> It's humorous, the dems want to say that
certain techniques in dealing with such minds is 'torture' and I surmise we should simply sit these terrorist prisonors down and have a nice gentle 'chat' and persuade them to 'stop all this "silliness"...Stephan, being a Christian does not mean 'stop using your common good sense' ... EVIL is EVIL ... and there are some persons beyond talking to...

> and of course, It's hypocritical that as dems try to say 'torture' is wrong always; most in Congress voted NO to the BAN on partial birth abortion. That procedure of partially delivering a newborn and then sticking a scalpel into his/her small neck.
(the reasoning of some minds is baffling)

I will tolerate your 'opinion' but as a
Christian - I won't tolerate WRONG ACTIONS
"forgive, they KNOW NOT what they do." It's
one thing to forgive actions, but if all one does is forgive while not INSTRUCTING others
in 'right ways' - who KNOW NOT right ways that bear 'good fruit' (good results) then guess what 'we' 'reap what we sow' ... aka we make our own hell on earth. Not unlike those parents with such 'liberality of love' that they allow thier child 'free expression' to do anything that comes to mind, until - the household is a mess of scribbled walls, broken windows, and stained carpeting. The true Christian, Stephan, says NO to certain actions, for certain ACTIONS are NOT TOLERATED by GOOD FOLK.


and to Mac Lorry who writes... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

and to Mac Lorry who writes: 'Who is the public going to blame for bad economic times, weakened defense, and terrorist attacks if McCain is president and the majority of congress is democrat? Better to let the democrats be fully in charge and watch them fail so we can get the American electorate leaning right again, maybe in just 4 years.'

Mac Lorry: We never condone out and out wrong
thinking just to 'make a point' ...

We do not 'vote in' someone as liberal as Obama or Clinton - who think 'the unborn'
don't have 'a choice' for life, who believe
'government' is the 'provider to all' who
think a health insurance 'policy' is going to
keep people in good health.

We don't vote in such persons, with such wrong judgments of living -- just to prove how wrong thier ideas are. The consequences of what could be in 'just 4 years' would take 8 years or MORE to repair. The 'consequences' of
suppressing TRUTH, makes for a hell of our own making. People of Germany in the 40's voted in someone who promised them 'economic prosperity' if they voted him into power, you know the rest of that story. WRONG THINKING
is WRONG THINKING. We don't vote for them.

On the other hand, McCain has a 'level head' it appears, on his human body. He votes pro-life, his getting the 'gang of 14' to vote in conservative justices that never would have seen the light of an appelate court - speaks of his knowing they were good judges, he knows evil must be stopped in the middle east.

Is McCain 'perfect' as yet as his heavenly father is perfect? mmmm. maybe not...but
are any of us? A bit of humility here. McCain
will lead 'rightly' along with nice right leaning 'reps' in Congress.


No one's questioni... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No one's questioning your rights, just your attitude of entitlement - and the false belief that since our current president has an evangelistic and ultra-conservative bent - and has been able to strong arm his way through certain objectives (with an, unfortunately compliant congress and senate), that this is your birthright.

What? I'm making a political argument. The "attitude of entitlement" you so disdain is your own, not mine. Only someone with that attitude would claim someone else shouldn't exercise their constitutional rights. If you don't like liberal bashing you should stay away from this blog because many here engage in it. Even so, it's tame compared to the conservative bashing found on liberal blogs.

I'm a Christian as well, and let me tell you - everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when those people feel the need to label those who disagree with them as blasphemers and evil, I've got no use for that person.

Why are you bringing your religion into this? I surely haven't labeled others as blasphemers and evil. If someone did then quote them and address them directly.

When I'm told I' not a "true" christian for not being as intolerant of others as they are, I kindly tell them to go to hell.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Don't you see that you're as intolerant as those you claim are intolerant? What Christian tells someone to got to hell?

Now, I may disagree with your opinions, and want your type out of control in the political arena, but I would fight for the right for you to voice your opinion.

Yet you attacked me on a personal bases for expressing my opinion. Attacking my ideas is to be expected, but when you degrade me for having those ideas you cross a line that puts in to question your claim of being a Christian.

Maybe you don't even know why you have so little tolerance for other opinions.

In the paragraph the above sentence is from you ascribe bad upbringing and racism to people who have opinions different than your own. That's so typical of liberals. You can't deal with ideas apart from ascribing negative attributes to those expressing them. How narrow minded and petty!

In any event, the country wants to go in another direction from you. We've had 8 years of disaster, one on top of another, and it has nothing to do with idiology and everything to do with incompetence. Deal with it.

The 9/11 attack is directly traceable to Bill Clinton's incompetence in dealing with Muslim extremists. It took massive military spending to deal with that incompetence. Liberals don't like to considers the cost of leaving Saddam in power, but they should really think about what a disaster that would have been.

The mistake Bush made was in over estimating the resolve of the American electorate in response to an attack on U.S. soil. Five years of a war with minimal impact at home and the majority of the American electorate voted to quite. What do the extremists have to do before the American electorate gets spine enough to do whatever it takes to win? If it takes an atomic explosion in a major U.S. city then that's what's coming because the extremists haven't quite. Deal with it.

And yes, the political climate does run in cycles - so be a good sport and take your turn.

That's exactly what I have been saying. Let the democrats have full control so they take full blame for the mess they will make.

We do not 'vote in... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
We do not 'vote in' someone as liberal as Obama or Clinton - who think 'the unborn' don't have 'a choice' for life, who believe 'government' is the 'provider to all' who think a health insurance 'policy' is going to keep people in good health.

You're assuming some conservative justice is going to retire or die in the next 4 to 8 years. You are also assuming the man known to be a "maverick" would nominate a conservative justice. Those are bad assumptions. The only way to preserve and even expand the number of conservative justices on the Supreme court is to take back both the senate and the presidency. The best and fastest way to do that is to let the democrats take full control so they take full blame for the mess they will make. If you want to argue that's a mistake because the American electorate will like how the democrats rule than make your case.

to Mac Lorry who writes: 'I... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

to Mac Lorry who writes: 'If you want to argue that's a mistake because the American electorate will like how the democrats rule than make your case.'

There's no case to make. I know the bulk of decent Americans don't really want [socially and fiscally liberal] democrat politicians ruling over thier lives.

We don't vote someone into the Presidency with a 'what of the Supreme Court' or 'what of the Senate' or What of the Congress' ... that's
a subjective looking rather than following objective TRUTH. Objectively: 'if we know right and wrong thinking and actions' when we
see TRUTH in the 'flesh' we draw to it. We draw away from those who speak of 'giving us
the good life' through THEIR ACTIONS alone and nothing required of 'us'...

If we don't want high health insurance bills, we act in our own good by eating and staying reasonably healthy; for those not blessed with good health from the start; and unable to work, yes - 'we the people' will accomodate
thier health needs (medicaid) that and FAMILY flesh and blood, and that human person will
be 'alright' (flesh and blood care is far better than a bureaucratic health care program who's main concern will ultimately be: "how much is this one costing us...leading to that next 'sin' called 'assisting in the relieving of this one's suffering' awwww...how nice the word Euthanasia sounds (like that nice word;
pro-choice) Both of which comes down to 'doing what's easiest for me, your human ruler)

If we want the good life, we work for it, we
teach our children by saying NO where NO is required (illegal drugs first BIG NO) We teach
that 'to be educated' is not merely memorizing facts in a book - but being able to 'think it out' as far as how best our skills or gifts (everyone has something)can bring us to having
for ourselves. (it takes work)

I don't assume McCain will nominate conservative justices; 'by one's fruit' do we know one another. McCain might have the title
Maverick...but you give me one example of where he did not vote in a conservative judge.
He voted yes to Roberts and Alito did he not?
Did he not work to get those 'stalled' appellate justices of conservative spirit to the bench? One is who they are; and it appears McCain knows a good judge.

ONly if you have your way, ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

ONly if you have your way, the only seats that could expand will be locked into clones of Ginsberg. FOr the next 25 years. There will BE no open seats to put conservatives in. If McCain puts Kennedy clones in their place, it would be A net gain.

Ryan; we currently have a '... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Ryan; we currently have a 'divided' SCOTUS.
4 conservative values judges (one being a Republican and African American named Clarence Thomas; who I highly doubt would vote for Obama; 'just to have an African American President) The man knows right thinking and wrong thinking.

We have 4 more liberal minded.

and we have Justice Kennedy; who I read has been leaning slightly rightward in the decisions made. (and in fairness, on rare occasion, Ginsburg and the others has seen Roberts point)

I believe 'even if' one more judge came who was a 'moderate' in the likes of Kennedy; 'the
right' WAY would come to be for a long time.

If this is what you are saying; I agree.

Anonymous,The Amer... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Anonymous,

The American electorate hears all the wonderful things about Canadian and European health care and wants the same. It doesn't matter how many programs and articles showing block long lines of people waiting to get a dentist appointment, or how many Canadians come to the U.S. for care they can't get in Canada. The only way the American electorate is going to understand the downside of government mandated health care is to experience it first hand. Only then will they listen to conservatives who can offer them a better alternative.

When it comes to court appointments you can't extend what McCain did as a senator in supporting the President's nominees to what this maverick will do if he's the one making the nominees. It's just a pipe dream the think McCain is somehow going to move the court to the right or even keep it's current balance.

As for the economy, global warming, immigration, energy, border security, and most other areas McCain is a dunce.

On national defense, the issue was settled by the 2006 election. McCain will be lucky if congress lets him keep even a single outpost in Iraq. All the money that would have gone to defense will now go to social programs and into carbon payments to other nations once dumb and dumber sign the carbon trading treaties.

The only solution to this mess is to sweep the liberals from power and that's only going to happen after the American electorate suffers the consequences of their 2006 votes. McCain can do nothing but mess that up.

Sorry - that was actually f... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Sorry - that was actually for Mac Lorry, not you - I think if we replaced teh far left with Kennedy clones on the court we would be massively better off.

Whatever McCain's position ... (Below threshold)

Whatever McCain's position on one issue or another or The Big Three that continue to be humped, it seems to me to be a fair statement that "John McCain is a Liberal" is just, well --NUTS.

So he's not conservative enough for many. Fair enough. Callng his a liberal is over the top.

But then aain, it is Ann Coulter.

And as far as she goes, conservatives might listen to her and read her books. Democrats just laugh at her.

ONly if you have y... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
ONly if you have your way, the only seats that could expand will be locked into clones of Ginsberg. FOr the next 25 years. There will BE no open seats to put conservatives in. If McCain puts Kennedy clones in their place, it would be A net gain.

A justice can't control who the President will nominate to replace him. All he can do is take his chances based on what he thinks the President's leanings are. With most Presidents that's been rather easy to figure out, but that's not the case with maverick McCain. He's been known to buddy up on numerous occasions with far left liberals. The trap is that a conservative justice will be lulled into thinking it's safe to retire only to find McCain nominating a liberal justice to replace the conservative. Do you want to risk that?

says Mac Lorry: 'He's been ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

says Mac Lorry: 'He's been known to buddy up on numerous occasions with far left liberals.'
(he being Sen. McCain)

that's an interesting point for reflection 'Mac' ...now I give this: "and Jesus has been known for 'eating with sinners' - HOWEVER, just because He 'ate with them' we know HE never imitated thier way of living; He did however bring many around to THE Way, Truth, and Life."

good point for reflection.

Mac Lorry says: 'As for the... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Mac Lorry says: 'As for the economy, global warming, immigration, energy, border security, and most other areas McCain is a dunce.'

Let me state that in better words: "as far as the economy, global warming, immigration, energy, border security - 'we the people' are
in charge of our own individual economies; economic advisors plan the raising and lowering of interest through thier expertise honed, as do energy chiefs handle energy, military and national guard guard the border,
and immigration handled by those at the INS.

The 'leader' need not have to know all; the leader enables those with expertise to do what they do best. If McCain acknowledges such problems exist, he's already ahead

it has been said:
to change that which can be changed and accept that which cannot and to have wisdom to know the difference - brings SERENITY of Spirit.

p.s. the expert on global warming (climate control) is GOD; no mere human is going to
'reverse' global warming (if such term is real)
Some scientists doubt it.

Anonymous,All the ... (Below threshold)
Alan Orfi:

Anonymous,

All the more reason to not give up on Huckabee, the only candidate of the remainiing four who we can trust with Supreme Court nominations.

"America rejects you. Ev... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"America rejects you. Even poor old Open Heart himself, Dicky Cheney, rejects you.

LOSERS!!!!!"

(Pseudo) dick cheney, whoever you are, jeez! Conservatives don't abhor Christianity. "America rejects you." But I'll bet you sure as hell don't reject those illegal huddled immigrants, do you? Nice of you to speak for all of America, though. Take a shot of Tequila or a pill or something. Relax.

when dick cheney speaks, am... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

when dick cheney speaks, america is spoken for. cheney never said that conservatives abhor christianity; cheney said that a religious litmus test for an American (home of freedom of religion, if i recall correctly) political movement is abhorrent to right thinking americans. Since when do "Christians" (and I will note this is an entirely self-proclaimed and vague notion of what the religion is all about) determine what is and is not American?

Dick Cheney has another news flash- Jesus never said anything about being xenophobic, warmongering or a member of the Republican party.

Please leave America alone, religious conservatives. We have had quite enough of your ignorant nonsense.

Cheney has spoken. America is spoken for.

The liberal trolls on this ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

The liberal trolls on this thread are perfect example of Lava (the liberal visitor of places where America is more feared than AlQuaeda) 's "brainwashed morons". These liberals cannot not deal with the facts and simply spout empty slogans. The self-despised fake Chenney (who dare not use the post name of his hero Clinton or his savior Obama) still don't want to answer my facts. Why are these liberals when facing the facts about their agenda of "killing babies, not terrorists"? Is it because this agenda is truly offensive to them and they have to spout empty slogans to hide it?

Self-loathing Clinton/Obama... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Self-loathing Clinton/Obama worshipper: did Jesus say anything about killing surving aborted babies? Why don't these babies deserve the same protection/care accorded even captured terrorists?

"LoveAmerica, Immigrant" - ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

"LoveAmerica, Immigrant" - I do not 'worship'
Clinton/Obama. My post was in reference to Mac
Lorry's post that McCain 'buddies up' to liberals as though that would make McCain liberal. Of course, it does not, with the same understanding -- that Jesus eating with sinners did not make Jesus a sinner.

All in all, McCain seems of the SPIRIT; and I suspect if McCain chose Huckabee as a running mate - it would up his credentials for conservativeness quite a bit.

Anon, this post is not dire... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Anon, this post is not directed at you, sorry. It is directed at the self-loathing liberal fake Cheney. He dares not use the name of his hero Clinton or his savior Obama for his posting name. I guess he must be self-loathing liberal because he cannot face the fact about the liberal agenda of "killing babies, not terrorrists". Denying medical care to surviving aborted babies is a requirement to get 100% (perfect) rating from NARAL/Planned Parenthood. And we all know abortion is a sacrament of the liberal left. I really don't understand why liberals are so upset about this fact of "killing babies".

Anon, Sorry that I ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Anon,
Sorry that I can't trust Huckabee at least not yet. I would feel more comfortable with someone like Thompson. If you like a young face, Bobby Jindal is the one exciting choice.

Pseudo cheney,"... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Pseudo cheney,

"cheney never said that conservatives abhor christianity;"

So, why do you abhor Christianity? You don't even like Dick Cheney, so why use his name in this comment section, and do you really think you're channeling his views?

"cheney never said that conservatives abhor christianity; cheney said that a religious litmus test for an American (home of freedom of religion, if i recall correctly) political movement is abhorrent to right thinking americans."

Oh, a litmus test! The be all and end all of what right thinkers and conservatives think! You realize you're going around in circles and contradicting yourself, don't you? "Freedom of religion" for everyone but the Christians, which you abhor under the guise of a pseudonym. What movement are you talking about?

DJThis post has legs... (Below threshold)
HughS:

DJ
This post has legs, to borrow from the political lexicon. You should try it again in a few weeks.
The comments are all over the political spectrum and remind me of a phrase often used in my profession: it's like herding cats.
I suggest teeing it up after today's caucus' and after another week or two of results.

Well done.

LaMedusa, I don't understan... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

LaMedusa, I don't understand your comment on
freedom of religion; but in case you don't understand: America's founding principal (the reason for this nation coming to be)has everything to do with honoring THE Creator (aka God) It is because of such honor that was was 'self evident' in the actions of every citizen God, Spirit GRACED our nation (grace aka favored) our nation these past 232 years.

Our laws were based on principals not self interest. God, Spirit was the 'provider' not a mortal governmnent body OVER the citizen. We were a nation of MATURE SPIRIT (maturity is an act of the will, and has everything to do with
understanding the ways of HIS SPIRIT that is
within.)

Government will not form a 'state religion' (it is the reason English colonists fled from England's King George, to this new land; to freely worship and learn of THE WAYS of the Spirit of God. (and all may worship learn of such Spirit as they wish, the worship of and the learning of God is called RELIGION, the religion IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED with THE OBJECT OF THE RELIGION - GOD, SPIRIT.) Many call the religion 'the god' rather than the means to the
end: to come to KNOW GOD, SPIRIT, CREATOR.

If 'as a nation' you sense chaos, confusion,
wars, fighting amongst one another - in violent actions domestically: ASK YOURSELVES: is it because we 'turned our backs' on Our Creator; for the most part- believing we know all and can do it all ourselves.

His Words are truth: "without HIM 'we' can do
NOTHING." nothing. nothing at all.

To those of agnostic or atheistic minds who say
there is no God, spirit; it is probably because
the still perceive a CHILDish image of the SPIRIT. a 'MAN' in flowing robes and long beard. GOD IS SPIRIT. THAT SPIRIT IS OBJECTIVE
LOVE. Such spirit provides ordinary 'flesh'
to do extrordinary things or just ordinary things consistently well. It is the Spirit of
God that provides order. It is the 'contrary spirit' that loves disorder and chaos and confusion. (the contrary spirit being Satan, the devil, the one that makes us 'live only for ourSELF rather than acting responsibly for
ourself and OTHERS.)

May God again shed HIS GRACE on us; but it won't happen if as a nation we call 'the unborn' OUR CHOICE to do with as we wish, or
if we change THE SPIRIT OF OBJECTIVE LOVE for others; to explain love as merely 'a physical
action' called sex. SEX is the means to creating life with the Creator, an intimacy that comes AFTER 'real love' is understood in
self and the same love is seen 'in the one who
we find ourselves attracted to' (God - God aka love brings man/woman together to be co-creators with HIM of new life) Any ideas man
has of 'sex alone' is 'making love' is nothing more than LUST. (and does not last)

God alone is eternal. God is Love, therefore
what God brings together is LOVE that lasts.
(in spite of the fleshly flaws of our beloved)
man and woman together -

Mac, you aren't even coming... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Mac, you aren't even coming close to addressing my point. You aren't SURE who McCain will Nominate. You _Know_ who Obama or Clinton will nominate. You act as if this is occurring in a vacuum, as if you are comparing McCain to a potential perfectly conservative candidate instead of to a perfectly LIBERAL candidate. Once those justices are placed by Obama or Clinton _they aren't going away for more than twenty years. Opportunity lost for a generation.

Anonymous:This is ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Anonymous:

This is what I mean by freedom of religion:

"His Words are truth: "without HIM 'we' can do
NOTHING." nothing. nothing at all."

Your freedom to express what you believe, just so that you understand. For the record, you and I agree, however paraphrased.

Wow...thank you LaMedusa; f... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Wow...thank you LaMedusa; first time on a blog site I was not attacked for stating it as it is. (there was one site 'filled' with hate filled (tolerant) liberals; who tried every which way to 'stifle my words'

INTERESTING isn't it? the socially liberal yell of rights; SO LONG AS those RIGHTS give them 'all power' and 'control' of other words.
In a word; they want the right to 'do thier own thing' irregardless of how thier thing
disruspts 'the domestic tranquility' of a nation. ie: how it disrupts the COMMON GOOD.

In a word; the socially liberal mind is the mind that has yet to fully mature in thought process. It's all mine mine mine (spend time in a day care center and you will see the same
except in shorter pants)

Cheney asks anonymous:<br /... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

Cheney asks anonymous:
What, exactly, are you talking about? Please be a little more specific. We have had seven years of the religious right "doing its own thing," and I think that has been more than adequately disruptive to the common good, n'est-ce pas? Cheney speaks French. Cheney is a surrender monkey.

Dick Cheney would also like to point out to LaMedusa that he said nothing about taking away freedom of religion for "Christians." That is your paranoid, persecution complex coming out. Cheney simply wants freedom FROM your "religion" (or what Cheney the Theologian might call your distortion of one of the world's great religions) for himself, capiche? (Cheney parla Italiano). Please just drop the right wing Christian persecution complex. It's completely absurd in a country of, what, 90% Christians? Just let it go. If you can have a 90% majority and still be afraid, i think you are a coward, and not an American (home of the brave, anyone?)

Look, you all are going to have to face it- America simply no longer wants to buy what you're selling. Simple! Plain and simple! Take it home, take it back to the warehouse, take it to the curb, frankly, Cheney doesn't care where you take as long as you take it away.

Cheney and the rest of the liberal brown shirts are off to kill some babies now, and have a feast. Can one of you pass the barbecue sauce?

Pseudo Cheney-D... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Pseudo Cheney-

Dick Cheney would also like to point out to LaMedusa that he said nothing about taking away freedom of religion for "Christians. That is your paranoid, persecution complex coming out."

I'm not talking to Dick Cheney, I'm talking to you. Or, is that just your way of saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" That would make sense.

"i think you are a coward, and not an American (home of the brave, anyone?"

Really? Is that why you can't come up with your own pseudonym, because I'm the coward? There's no paranoia or persecution complex going on here. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or think I have a distorted view of God. The actual truth that's going on in this comment section right now is your (not the real Cheney's) persecution of the religious right, assuming that they all are trying to get others to believe the same way they do. You also have never disclosed what you actually believe because you are more comfortable with telling others what is wrong with their beliefs. I have never felt pressured by the religious right, so why should you?

In a word; the soci... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

In a word; the socially liberal mind is the mind that has yet to fully mature in thought process.

...first time on a blog site I was not attacked for stating it as it is.

Just a question. You consider your confused, religious drivel written at 3:00 in the morning is the rant of a mature, responsible adult who is stating it "as it is"?

I'm not here to question your beliefs. You have them, great. But one of the biggest problems I have with born-again's is their superiority complex, their belief that only they have the answers to life's questions and whatever their political bent happens to be, it can be THE ONLY WAY since it is in line with THEIR interpretation of God's beliefs. (i.e. take a look at Tom Cruise's scientology video. THAT is the kind of obnoxious "only I know the way" attitude that much of the rest of us glean from you folks).

I was brought up Congregational protestant, and to some THAT'S not even enough. But I'll tell you this: In addition to being taught by my minister that much of the old testiment were stories with morals, and possibly not actual fact, I was also brought up to believe that while my beliefs are what they are, I should respect those of Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, atheists....in short, it is not my place to tell others how to live, even the majority of my country.

And I also stand by the idea of separation of Church and state. The religious right doesn't seem to understand that their beliefs are not that of the majority and, when it comes down to it, the majority in this country do not, as cheney says, want what they are selling.

So, respectfully, leave your interpretation of what you think "liberals" believe to yourself. It shows you to be intolerant in an ugly way, even if you decide to voice it in a kind manner. And no, anonymous, what you spout is not "stating it as it is." It is your interpetation of the world. That does not make it gospel.

Pseudo Cheney-One ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Pseudo Cheney-

One more thing: These last two sentences make more sense than your previous three paragraphs. Why? Because you are not Dick Cheney.

"Cheney and the rest of the liberal brown shirts are off to kill some babies now, and have a feast. Can one of you pass the barbecue sauce?"

'typical' liberal rantings.... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

'typical' liberal rantings. You call Christians cowards but hide behind the name of
a famous political person. (if you wish to be anonymous; be anonymous - don't use someone else's good name for your rantings - to deceive others)

and be careful what you wish for: you don't really want freedom FROM those of the Christian FAITH. When a humanitarian crisis hits anywhere in the world today, Christian organizations are often the FIRST to respond.
(and usually without a tv camera filming thier
help) Some examples: Christian Appalachian Project, constantly helping those of that region in building homes, feeding, providing basics (I'm sure ther's a website; go read), Covenant House - main office NYC, takes in the youth that have been 'used' by society and moves them back into 'right' living, Habitat for Humanity; CHRISTIAN - how many live in homes (with thier own sweat but also help from CHRISTIANS), the Salvation Army...

Where would our society be if all the church-based programs that reach out to those in need suddenly came to an end? You can bet your tax dollars wouldn't come NEAR paying for it all.

Then there are the soup kitchens in many a church that feeds 'those society would otherwise call losers' not worth their time.

What motivates all these actions? SELF-LESS-NESS; as in imitating THE ONE who died 'to himself' for the sake of OTHERS...here's a link with more: http://www.centralpc.org/links/links1.htm

Do you really want to live in a 'me first' nation? I guarantee, 'you' won't be 'the me'
who gets 'your way' because there will be that
one, that one, that one ...right ahead of you.
civility will go out the window, manners,
respect? WHY respect you..."I" matter first
(unless of course, you can give something to me)

CHRISTianity fully lived; is a nation that
accepts new life even if SACRIFICES are to be
made (2 am feedings, diaper changes, a 5 year
old car, a child getting sick on the new carpet and the first thought is THE CHILD not
the carpet, CHRISTIAN families do argue, quibble, but LOVE is there and when the chips are down, such families help where government
bureaucracy says "can't help you anymore"

I doubt you'd like being 'free' of CHRISTIANS.

'it is not my place to tell... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

'it is not my place to tell others how to live, even the majority of my country.' says
Hansel2.

whew, you do see it backward. You see Christians as TELLING YOU how to live rather than seeing (authentic Christians) living THE
ONE LIFE we are called to live. I highly doubt
'any faithful Christian' got 'in your face' and said to YOU - don't do...unless they knew you and wanted to avert your coming into a
major problem if you followed YOUR way, contrary to THE WAY. (ie: if a Christian friend told you to - example only - stop drinking so much; it would be words of LOVE for your well being; of course your free will
given you by God - makes the decision ultimately yours...but any with GOD living in them - does not stand idly by if one is about
to 'go over a steep cliff' ... CHRISTIANS ACT
AND HELP AND TRY TO SAY NO.

Then there are the broader ways that one knows will destroy 'the good' - minimizing the family
life by giving abortion the name 'choice'?
Please. One's choice comes before the act, not after. If one loves another enough to lay down with that one, one gives of SELF and MIRACLE OF LOVE...a 'little self' comes to be...actually the 'self of the two who bonded in HOLY matrimony. (animals in a jungle 'mate' on instinct ONLY...humans with LOVE in them (love being God) do it for an end; creating NEW LIFE AND WANTING THAT NEW LIFE.)

You see Christians hindering your ways...
Actually, what you feel is 'your own guilt'
Christians are merely living THE ONE LIFE they
know is in them, you hate the seeing of that
living that contradicts your way. And mostly, seeing the Christians enjoying life more.

CHRIST IS THERE to provide you 'the same peace'
if you make room for him. 'deny your SELF'



dicky boy's got a few comme... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

dicky boy's got a few comments for ya, pilgrims:

1) Cheney appears to have riled ya up, but evoked some thoughtful comments (most likely because Love America Immigrant is taking a nap or something). Cheney thinks the Cheney synonym and third person communtication is pretty funny. Not sure why everybody's got their panties in a bunch over the use of a pseudonym in the body of the least popular, yet ironically, most powerful politician in the US&A (Cheney would have to have a good name for me to be besmirching it-not the case). Lighten up, just a tad.

2) LaMedusa mentioned that Cheney was here persecuting Christians (3;53 pm). This is exactly what I am talking about. In what possible universe could any of Cheney's comments be considered persecution? If this is persecution, y'all are the most poorly persecuted majority in history. Christians in America, despite some of their paranoia, are SIMPLY NOT PERSECTUED. Give me one example. One. This is why it is hard to take your rantings seriously.

3)Your last post was probably one of the most actually Christian (and not "Christian") posts I have ever seen on a right wing blog. No one is against this- Cheney is not against Christianity at all. All of these works you wrote of are good works, done largely by good people acting out of selflessness, as you said. I have no argument with that, though I would point out that Christians and conservatives do not have a monopoly on good works.

What Cheney and the rest of the brownshirts do have a problem with is self-righteousness, politicians saying they want to amend the constitution so that God's rules are in charge (I don't think it takes a lot of thought to imagine why that would be a bad idea- hello, Iran!), people like love america idiot calling all liberals "baby killers." That is simply simple-minded and not constructive. What Cheney doesn;t like is the aggressive attitude of the "Christians" trying to silence and condemn people who do not think as they do (people , who I might add, include a lot of Christians). Evengelicals and born-agains don't own Chrsitianity, despite what they think. That's the problem. DOn;lt force it down my throat. Worship as you ;like, do good worksd, but once you confuse politics with religion, it's not about Christianity, it's about "Christianity."

I stand by previous comments- America has had enough of politicized holy roller garbage. Go back to your churches and get right with Christianity and get right with God, and you might find you have a lot more in common with liberals than you thought. Stop listening to the people who corrupt your religion to manipulate you. Do you really think Cheney and Bushy are men of God? Look at what they do, not what they say. It's not enough to talk a lot of cheap nonsense about Jesus being one's favorite philosopher. I don't think Cheney even pretends to be a real Christian. Peel off the scales- see the truth! It's not my liberal truth- it's what is really going on! take a look and fire up the brain again!

Love,
Richard B. Cheney

Actually, what you ... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Actually, what you feel is 'your own guilt'
Christians are merely living THE ONE LIFE they
know is in them, you hate the seeing of that
living that contradicts your way.

Simple question. Do you KNOW me?

No. Don't think you do.

I appreciate your selflessness - and quite simply I don't disagree with you on the essence of what it means to be Christian - but what I do disagree with is the sanctimonious attitude. This is something you're probably not even aware of. You've laid out several reasons you feel I "must" be guilty or "going off a cliff" or simply feel Christianity as hindering.

Well, let me state this again with emphasis: YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY LIFE IS LIKE AND CANNOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS - but yet you have.

This is my beef. It's not aimed at Christians, as I am one. It is aimed at Born-Again's and any group that sees the world through the narrow focus of their own beliefs and that holier than thou attitude. Because I do not agree with you does not make me a bad Christian, but I'm certain you would disagree with that. In that, you would be wrong, but I know there's no convincing you of that. I would also go so far as to claim you to be a good Christian, but a little self-absorbed.

And, getting back to the original issue, this is why folks of your mindset really should not be in charge of this country. There is a narrow-mindedness that does not sit well in a democracy. Now, if you can live with me just as I am (and like many are) then we have something to talk about. If you feel there needs to be a standard that is set by you for living life, then it's a problem.


Cheney,I should ha... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Cheney,

I should have refreshed my browser before posting, as I can't agree with your last post more.

ahhh...I understand; when I... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

ahhh...I understand; when I write 'you' - you literally think I am writing to 'you'. Wrong.
'you' is 'generic' to those who feel 'a Christian' is 'in thier face' at whatever point in time they feel that. 'you' refers to
such persons whoever they are. I surmise it is not that the Christian is telling them what to do but that that one is getting a bit 'tweeked'
by something within...from this one living (doing) (acting) in a way that he/she may have
forgotten.

example: a perfectly innocent conversation, about relationships/dating...one says "did you
hear? I'm pregnant. the other forgets all political correctness to say: Oh, I didn't know
you were married. The other gets 'huffy'
wha? I didn't say I was married? What are you
talking about? Of course, we know single mothers become financially poor fending for
self and child when 'the lover' walks ...
we attempt to explain 'it would be good to
commit fully' and of course get scolded for
saying WHO ARE YOU to tell me...I don't need
marriage...(then really I guess you won't need
my tax dollars for food stamps, housing, etc-
is what the Christian would like to say;
but of course,the other turns away 'upset' that the Christian is forcing beliefs onto)

Of course, such don't want to hear first,
but they do listen eventually when THE NEEDS
COME...(being politically Christian, we help AFTER AND THUS 'THEY' stay dependents of ...
real Christians speak so that THE TRUTH DOTH
SET ONE FREE OF SUCH 'dependency')

p.s. this thought above abo... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

p.s. this thought above about 'political Christians' is really what 'pseudo Cheney' approves of... it's ok to help those in need,
'after the fact' but don't PREVENT the coming into need by speaking of HOW TO AVOID in the first place...'social liberals' want to live
thier way - then want the GOD FEARING (GOD RESPECTING to show them CHRISTIAN LOVE to get them 'out of their jam')

You want your butter on both sides of the bread.

Pseudo Cheney-Don'... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Pseudo Cheney-

Don't misquote people to try to prove a point. It's just dishonest and falsifies your argument.

"2) LaMedusa mentioned that Cheney was here persecuting Christians (3;53 pm)."

No, I didn't. This is what I said:

"The actual truth that's going on in this comment section right now is your (not the real Cheney's) persecution of the religious right,"

This is what you stand by: Using a famous politician's pseudonym, misquoting, and wasting time. All with dishonesty. This is also what you stand by:

"Please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Freedom from, but no tolerance for. Not at all representative of the real Dick Cheney.


you people are useless. us... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

you people are useless. useless wastes of space. cheney thought he had a reasonable and fairly respectful resposne to your last post, and you come back with a prime example of your sanctimoniousness. holier than thou, right up to the hilt. your self-righteousness allows you to judge people and then tell them their business. that is not what jesus would do.

i can only thank the lord i live an area of the country generally free from you and the rest of the lemmings. follow bush and cheney off the cliff. don;t say no one tried to help you or warn you. i hope the lord has mercy on your soul.

Pseudo Cheney-"... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Pseudo Cheney-

"i hope the lord has mercy on your soul."

Nice of you to hope that, but then no-one's actually being persecuted, are they?

"you people are useless."

Only because we don't buy your "Cheney" shtick and choose to express an opinion that disagrees with yours. You're correct in that we're not the pawns you wish we were.

anonymous,Do you e... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

anonymous,

Do you even realize how insane you sound? Have you been hitting the bottle?

As for your little "conversation example", you mirror exactly what I just said -- you talk about a perfectly innocent conversation, but it's clear in your intonation and description of this "pregnant single woman" that you know exactly what she is about (Of course, we know single mothers become financially poor fending for
self and child when 'the lover' walks
), know better what is right for her life than she does, and bristle at the idea that what you've said is not regarded ("then really I guess you won't need my tax dollars for food stamps, housing, etc-").

But really, above that, you still can't get beyond the idea that your opinions are simply that - your own opinions and not necessarily the best way forward for everyone.

Why is it that you can't simply let others believe what they want without feeling the need to make moral judgements about them? You talk about the selflessness of being Christian, yet you show little tolerance for others not like you.

I myself am tolerant of anyone and their beliefs as long as they don't force it down my throat, diminish me or others like me, or use it as a cloak for their own prejudices and racism - even those who don't seem to have enough sense of self to realize that is what they are doing.

Stop being so scared of the world, so insecure about your place in it that you need to "bring others over" in order to feel comfortable. And as far as the conservative right is concerned, this is not a religious theocracy. It is a democracy. That means you have to tolerate people you don't agree with. Get used to it.

Lastly, read over what you write before you post it. That last post really comes across like the scribblings of someone on their fifth martini.

Obama is a "committed chris... (Below threshold)
Love America, Immigrant:

Obama is a "committed christian" that the self-loathing fate Chenney approves of. Obama got a 100% rating from PP for denying medical care to aborted children. Also Obama got an overwhelming endorsement from MoveOn for walking (not voting) on a resolution condemning this disgraceful org for smearing Gen. Patreaus. The 's the platform that the liberal left is so excited about.

I guess the liberals are tolerant of denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. Otherwise, we would see liberal outrate 10 times the outrage over waterboarding.

Still waiting in vain for an answer whether liberals actually agree with Obama 's ultra-leftist positions given the excitement.

I think liberals are tolera... (Below threshold)
Love America, Immigrant:

I think liberals are tolerant of using government power to jam their agenda on other people 's throat. That 's why liberals are tolerant of 40 senators including Hillary and Obama for signing on an intentional smear to silence a private citizen. That 's why liberals are excited about McCain-Feigngold.

Just constrast the problem McCain has with the conservative base with the excitement for Obama and Hillary. Honest liberals would have left the dem party a long time ago.

OK, again, in summary, libe... (Below threshold)
Love America, Immigrant:

OK, again, in summary, liberals are tolerant of "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov.

Hey self-loathing fake Chen... (Below threshold)
Love America, Immigrant:

Hey self-loathing fake Cheney,
In good conscience I cannot vote for Obama given his record of "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov. How about you? DO you support him?

COngrats guys> YOu realize... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

COngrats guys> YOu realize you have just let a troll do a threadjack.

Ryan, WE know. The ... (Below threshold)
Love America, Immigrant:

Ryan,
WE know. The trolls will do that. So here is my last questions to them for all the cheap liberal spin
In good conscience I cannot vote for Obama given his record of "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov. How about you? DO you support him and why?
If they cannot give an honest answer to that, then it is not worth out time. That 's my take.

pseudo cheney; my scribblin... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

pseudo cheney; my scribblings are a slow computer today; got to do some cleaning out I guess.

Now, onward: you say: 'Why is it that you can't simply let others believe what they want'

First, how you get intonation from the written word is amazing. How do you do such? Talk about judging motives oooh boy.

Second: The real Christian will relunctantly
allow any to live any way they wish, but again, if one wishes to live without commitment then find the means yourself to pay for 'your wonderful way'...it's quite clear from experience that live togethers break up,
'mom' is left with child, child without real dad, and 'a nation' is left paying for such
wonderful actions.

The word is responsibility for your choice.
You want to live without marriage - go ahead,
experience has shown it will hurt - the common good.

You call 'the right' self righteous ... I call
your words arrogance (the opposite of humble)
ie: I'll do what I want when I want, and then
I will fault 'the rich guy' for having while
I don't - and expect you to give to me, when
my free will choice didn't get me the happiness I thought it would. No admission of:
gee, maybe my thought was wrong...

No admission of wrong, continuing the same way,
yet expecting 'the Christian' to LOVE by
getting you out of a tight spot. REAL LOVE says
"you made your bed, lie in it" FIRST admit
your error, show you are amending yourself,
and then GRACE will flow back to you...and you
will be better and truly stronger. All Christians know this truth, because 'guess what?' more times than not, we've already made
the error...REAL LOVE tries to tell another,
'the humble' listen, the arrogant walk away
miffed. (so be it, we pray for you)

Anon, This is may t... (Below threshold)
Love America, Immigrant:

Anon,
This is may take. Don't waste your time explaining your "metaphysics" to these liberal trolls. They are spouting their ignorant prejudices. Then they get upset when I simply pointed out the facts about the liberal agenda of "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov.

a REAL Christian, who follo... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

a REAL Christian, who follows Christ:
'a Christian's motivation for telling others how they should behave is not one of self-righteousness, but one of concern for the fate of the other person's soul.'

Forgive they KNOW NOT what they do...

To know what is right, what will bear good fruit, and then to allow another to go the opposite way - just to 'keep a friendship' (on this earth) does NOTHING for that person's
eternal peace. (might even hinder our own)

... and yes, telling another that: "what you
think, it's not at all going to benefit you
here or in the here-after, it's never easy."
...and many friendships are 'lost' - but of
course, the Christian friend continues to love
by praying for the one.

says hansel2: 'I myself am ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

says hansel2: 'I myself am tolerant of anyone and their beliefs as long as they don't force it down my throat, diminish me or others like me, or use it as a cloak for their own prejudices'

Well then, I guess you couldn't vote for either of the two dem contenders; after all:
is it not DIMINISHING 'the littlest ones' when
one adamantly believes in 'pro-choice' aka aborting the unborn? As for forcing one's
beliefs at others: it is dems who want to
re-define the objective sanctity of marriage 'for thier own subjective reasoning'
FORCING THIER BELIEF down the throat of most
citizens, that 'it matters not if it's man
and woman or man and man or woman and woman.
(well, that's thier belief; DON'T force all
in this nation to uphold 'their' idea of moral
law.

and in all of it - it is indeed merely a cloak
for thier prejudice against 'those faithful
to God' and 'God's word' - heaven forbid; those
of faith in God disagree with thier 'earthly
ways of seeing'

but in essence hansel2 you,... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

but in essence hansel2 you, in your way summed up perfectly what it means to be 'a follower of Christ' or merely God, Creator-though you
have it backward when you state:

>'I myself am tolerant of anyone and their beliefs as long as they don't force it down
my throat, and diminish me'

Paul of the bible said it thus: "I" must decrease and HE must increase. Jesus was
tolerant but HE NEVER condoned anyone in actions that were detrimental to thier spiritual well being. Jesus was not tolerant
of the moneychangers of the temple area; making
his Father's house a 'den of thieves' rather than a 'house of prayer' (diminshing his Father's house for human purpose)

Some 'beliefs' are simply not to be tolerated.

Any 'belief' that DIMINISHES the Almighty God
and GOD'S WORD and makes mere human words
'the law' over all; is not to be tolerated.

Ryan-Can you hones... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

Ryan-

Can you honestly say that Cheney is more of a troll than anonymous? Do you actually understand the point of his/her ravings? I would try to respond to them, but I seriously have no idea of what the point is. As far as I'm concerend, it is a prime example of born again brainwashing. It appears to be some sort of raving against stereotypes, or more caricatures, of liberals. There's nothing to respond to.

LAI-
I support Obama because he wants to kill and eat babies, just like all liberals. Then, after the baby feast, we will surrender to the terrorists and let them implement sharia law in america. You are right- all of your paranoia is real. Liberals, Obama, HRC, Cheney, all of us, simply want to kill babies. Actually, that's all we want to do. Our only agenda. Our only purpose in life. You could say that our raison d'etre is to kill babies. You happy now?

You people are too much. Really, too much.

Slef-loathing fake Chenney,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Slef-loathing fake Chenney,
Thanks for your honesty now. I am happy. Looks like you agree that the liberal agenda is "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov. No more protest of the facts now. That 's really good. The facts are clear. So you be open and honest about that agenda instead of all the cheap talk about hope and change.

Yes, LAI, we are EXACTLY th... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

Yes, LAI, we are EXACTLY the one-dimensional characters you make us out to be in every one of your postings. We have to be, after all. If there were any nuances you might look like a a simple-minded, one-note imbecile.

Nuance,Your nuance a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Nuance,
Your nuance allows you to support denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. I guess you can be tolerant of a view that it is justifiable to kill retarded children (as advocated by Peter Singer for example). I know you are tolerant of that. Are you tolerant of waterboarding to get information from terrorists that can save thousands and millions of lives? I know that you are multi-dimensional too. The dem primary is also about racism and sexism that honest liberals can see. Here are some excerpts from the link below (the aiding of the terrorists is also clear as well).

No one doubts, or at least no one who is honest does, that both racism and sexism come into play as people decide between Clinton and Obama, but could it be that people are more willing to admit that they won't vote for the woman than that they won't vote for the black?


http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/02/10/clinton-has-lead-with-democrat-superdelegates.php

Hansel2, I agree th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Hansel2,
I agree that between Obama and Hillary, you liberals have a strong mixture of Clintonian ethics, "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov, cult-like compaign, racism, and sexism. You can be proud of that multi-dimensional liberalism.

LAI,Did I accident... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

LAI,

Did I accidentally say simple-minded, one-note imbecile?

What I REALLY mean't was one-note, simple-minded imbecile.

Hansel2, Look like ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Hansel2,
Look like you cannot dispute any facts. Here I acknowledge your nuance and multi-dimentional sophisticated liberal thinking here. Looks like you don't have anything substantial to post yet (except some simple minded cheap talking points)

Hansel2,
I agree that between Obama and Hillary, you liberals have a strong mixture of Clintonian ethics, "killing babies, not terrorists" big gov, cult-like compaign, racism, and sexism. You can be proud of that multi-dimensional liberalism.

Hansel2, BTW, if yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Hansel2,
BTW, if you don't want to deal with facts, then let me know so that we can put it on the record that you only like to deal with virtual reality.

LAI-Offer one shre... (Below threshold)
richard b cheney:

LAI-

Offer one shred of proof that torturing people does, or ever has, provided evidence that has been instrumental in preventing a terrorist attack? Stop watching 24.

You are also obsessed with liberals killing babies. I think you might have mental problems. Abortion is an important and controversial issue, but you have removed all nuance. It seems to be some kind of fetish. The more you rage about liberals and babies being killed, you feel better? Do you even feel better?

LAI,I know you mea... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

LAI,

I know you meant to add the proper emphasis to your posting to reinforce the seriousness of your statements, so let me do it for you:

Hansel2,

Looks like you cannot dispute any facts, Muha..ha..ha..ha!, .Here I acknowledge your nuance and multi-dimentional sophisticated liberal thinking here, Muha..ha..ha..ha!.

Muha...muha....muha...ha...ha...ha..ha! (pinky finger to mouth).

Thanks for admitting that y... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Thanks for admitting that you liberals have nothing substantial to say and here only to distract. Good luck with your liberal sewage. Laughing and enjoying it as you consumed that tasty stuff. Good job! Ha Ha Ha. Thanks for giving us so much fun here! Good luck.

LAI,I've seen some... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

LAI,

I've seen some of your previous threads. You always claim some lame version of victory in every debate even when you've verbally soiled yourself - and, as always, could be further from real truths.

So, just so you can't have the last word here, I claim that YOU have nothing of substance to say but for your one-note cackling and I have officially trumped you in this discussion. Case closed.

And if you still feel the need to have the last word, I will come back to this post in a year's time and post the LAST last word for prosperity.

Hansel2, I enjoy wa... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Hansel2,
I enjoy watching liberals exposing their ignorant prejudices while proclaiming their nuance, sophisticated liberal thinking. Go ahead and post as much as you can. So far no facts yet. Ha ha ha! I really have fun.

Hey Hansel2, Here i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Hey Hansel2,
Here is my question again. Is this your tolerance?
Your nuance allows you to support denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. I guess you can be tolerant of a view that it is justifiable to kill retarded children (as advocated by Peter Singer for example). I know you are tolerant of that. Are you tolerant of waterboarding to get information from terrorists that can save thousands and millions of lives? I know that you are multi-dimensional too. The dem primary is also about racism and sexism that honest liberals can see.

claim that YOU have nothin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

claim that YOU have nothing of substance to say but for your one-note cackling and I have officially trumped you in this discussion. Case
closed.
-------------------------------------
Is this a tacitly admission that you only like to deal with virtual reality? I will bookmark this page to make sure that I don't lose it. IT is so much fun.

LAI: I'd say psuedo cheney ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

LAI: I'd say psuedo cheney is indeed silenced;
as he indicated in a note with regards my post; he has not the ability to respond. He calls it ravings...'brain washed born again'
the reality: I suspect he/she is doing some
serious reflecting.

Convince each other as much... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

Convince each other as much as you want that you've won this argument. Normal thinking people will always know otherwise.

Hansel 2 writes: 'Normal th... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Hansel 2 writes: 'Normal thinking people will always know otherwise'

'normal' does not kill unborn life for their
own convenience. 'normal' does not tell 2 of the same sex they can have 'physical' contact
and equate that contact to 'love.'

Love is a SPIRIT...not truly 'tangible' but
found DEEP within, the 'surface flesh' ... it is such spirit love which causes
one to 'forget self' and bring another to a
higher place. ie: to that eternal paradise
of heaven (union with the DIVINE SPIRIT of authentic self giving love)SEX ALONE is not
what makes the sacred bond of marital relations. (animals of the jungle are of the
mere physical instinct of sex; yet there is
not one bit of LOVE that motivates such actions)

the marital bond of man and woman is a bond only SPIRIT LOVE brings together. To honor such relationship - is to honor GOD. To honor
mere human ideas is to put the HUMAN above GOD.

NOT good at all.


and so I reiterate:<p... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

and so I reiterate:

Any 'belief' that DIMINISHES the Almighty God
and GOD'S WORD and makes mere
human words the law over all;
is not to be tolerated.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy