is?? Okie-Doaky...PRO-CeeeeeeeeeeeeeedD!!
10,000 a'comin... |
|
------------
"and exactly what it has to do with 9,899th exchange over exactly the same border/amnestoid...vote/don't vote exchange twixt you two friends(of mine)is....????????????"
------------
Uh, it's just kind of funny that the architect of a soap opera (and that's not intended as a disparaging remark against you, as I do support you on it) is pointing fingers at other people for...carrying on a soap opera !
Ha, ha, ha.
:) |
|
...Rather a despiser of the Old Left--American Communists. Not a New Left either. That would be represented by Mr.Ayers and his murdurous wifey, Bernardine Dohrn...
But, yep, I came from somewhere over thar. Then, got nicely 'mugged by reality'. Me and Doug Feith.
:-) |
|
|
...and exactly what it has to do with 9,899th exchange over exactly the same border/amnestoid...vote/don't vote exchange twixt you two friends(of mine)is....???????????? |
|
|
Neo can't stop doing lines before blogging. He's one of the Old Lefties who became a Neo Righty, right Neo? |
|
NeoConScum wrote;
--------------
"Not that it's any of my bidness, BUT do y'all harbor some notion that on the 10,000th exchange on the same immovable Ish-Shoe, that one of you is going to fold?? Just wondering."
--------------
Ha, ha, ha.
Neo, please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the fellow who has a soap opera with Blovie Boy ?
You solicited us to stop talking to him "forever," and we all backed you up on that, yet you couldn't maintain your silence with him.
Is that a fair summary ?
:) |
|
VA Pat,
McCain will challenge in California to the degree that it will force the Dhimmicrats to put resources into California that they would otherwise prefer to spend in other states.
The Governator will be campaigning for him.
If Obama is forced to make media buys in Los Angeles, that will take a LOT of money away from his warchest which could be spent in less populated states where media buys are much, much cheaper.
|
|
Even if I knew the world would end tomorrow, I would still plant my tree....
If I were the only sinner, Christ still would have died for me....
Even if I am the only one to vote against Clinton/Obama in November, I'll be there, and I'll vote anyway..... |
|
No, I expect the nose holders to continue their nose holding right through November and beyond.....
There is some small chance McCain could come out for enforcement and get my vote. Not likely to happen, but I'm listening. |
|
|
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
|
Not that it's any of my bidness, BUT do y'all harbor some notion that on the 10,000th exchange on the same immovable Ish-Shoe, that one of you is going to fold?? Just wondering.
Okay, Gents, carry on... |
|
|
You don't really think McCain can carry CA, do you? |
|
Virginia Patriot wrote;
------------
"Your vote is wasted. You live in CA, the electoral votes are already in the D column."
------------
VA Pat, you sound like such a quitter.
Not even the French surrender 7 months before a battle.
The election is in November---a lot of things can happen between now and then.
McCain intends to put a lot of states in play---including California---and that will force the Dhimmicrats to spend resources here, that they would prefer to pour into "purple" states.
Besides, I plan to vote in other states, too !
:)
|
|
Your vote is wasted. You live in CA, the electoral votes are already in the D column.
All three of the Democrats running will be bad for the country in their own way, even the one in the R jersey. |
|
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote;
---------------
"Whereas I use my vote to make a point, you "waste" yours by doing what you're told to do whether it is good for the country or not."
---------------
Exactly.
I place my country above "making a point."
You believe that voting for the nominee who is better for the country is a "wasted" vote, and you believe you're standing on higher ground "making a point" by abstaining or voting a third party.
That's your "end game."
Clarity, are you reading this ?
:)
It's priceless.
...and it'll be interesting to see if Scarlet challenges the notion that McCain is better for the country than Obama. |
|
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote;
---------------
"It is not conservative to disallow a candidate for office based on his/her religion speaking in a strict manner. But if a conservative thinks that said religion will obstruct good reasoning in Office then it is legit."
---------------
Uh, actually, Scarlet Pimpernel, that's called religious bigotry.
And it is never a conservative principle.
Scarlet wrote;
-------------
"I think you're comparing my changing my mind towards Romney is not relevant to me changing my mind towards McCain. Religion questions are not in play here."
-------------
I never said religious questions were in play with McCain---please don't misrepresent what I write.
What I'm saying is that it demonstrates that you were set in stone about Romney, but you eventually changed your mind about voting for him.
Likewise, you are currently set in stone against voting for McCain, but I think you will change your mind about McCain, too.
And please don't try to change your story about why you opposed Romney.
Your opposition to Romney was explicitly due to his religion.
It didn't have anything to do with "not knowing enough about Romney."
You knew all you needed to know about Romney---he is a Mormon, and you're an "evangelical Christian."
You had specifically written back then that you "could not trust someone who believes in false doctrine."
In fact, back then, you had said you knew ALL you needed to know about Romney.
It's wonderful that you have since changed your mind about Romney. Please, good man, with respect to honesty, don't change the story for why you opposed him.
Unfortunately, from what you just wrote, it sounds like you still generally subscribe to the idea of voting for/against someone due to their religion, but it's just that you had finally decided to make Mitt Romney an exception to the rule. |
|
|
It's okay if you challenge me. I'm a full-grown man and enjoy debates. I think we all know our points. In the past, I would go along for the Party's sake when I thought the Party had some consideration for its contstituents. After so many mods in a row, to cap it off with McPain is too much. Besides Harding and JimmaCarta, McCain deserves to be President least. |
|
I am stubborn sometimes. I changed my mind about religion as a factor in voting. It is not conservative to disallow a candidate for office based on his/her religion speaking in a strict manner. But if a conservative thinks that said religion will obstruct good reasoning in Office then it is legit. For instance I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist even if they were the only Repub candidate.
This is where we change paths, OHM. You would vote for whomever the Repubs tell you to vote for. Whereas I use my vote to make a point, you "waste" yours by doing what you're told to do whether it is good for the country or not.
I think you're comparing my changing my mind towards Romney is not relevant to me changing my mind towards McCain. Religion questions are not in play here. I know all I want to know about McCain. I do not have a prejudice against him do to his religious convictions. I think he is an undermining weaselly self-centered jerk, which, by the way, does not disqualify him for President. |
|
|
I always vote, never missed in 30 years. Local, state, federal, every time the polls are open. I will vote in Nov., I really wanted to vote GOP, but if McCain won't drop Juan Hernandez and his "Mexico First" agenda and his insistence on amnesty, I can not vote for him. I'll pick another ballot option. If McCain wins, conservatism is dead, and if he gets his amnesty, maybe the Republic as well. If McCain loses, there is a chance the GOP will move back to the right and represent American citizens again. |
|
It does not answer to your end game---or is that it?
Just takin' your marbles, goin' home?
It just does not seem to address, civic duty. You know, making a change because you do not agree with something. It's a depressing thought, what you said.
I don't give a rat's a$$ if you don't vote for McCain. Big whoop.
But, staying home is what Liberals do.
Actually, when their candidate is not elected, or one they loathe is, I think they move out of the country.
I know you don't plan on taking this course---but, by your own response, you've got no other course.
Mine was a fair question----of which you dismissed wholesale.
|
|
Also not voting for amnesty. Period.
Let me know if you get John McCain to change his mind. |
|
to engage is foolish.
Unless he/she wants to queue up.
We've presently met our quota of loons, as you well know. |
|
|
or are you just pulling our leg, next you'll tell us that moveon is misunderstood, really just middle of the road, right, what "Gen. Betrayus" we didn't have anything to do with that, we would never do anything that could possibly be construed as unpatriotic, no not us, we love America, were good liberals.....why we democreants don't believe in taking a pair of scissors, jamming into the base of a childs skull, then sticking a tube into it, then sucking the brain matter out of said child, no thats not "crazy leftist", certainly not, no crazy lefty's here..... |
|
I would love to expound upon your comments, but, then I would be stepping on you.
And that, would not be considerate. |
|
Clarity,
Crown City Phil, VA Pat, and Scarlet don't have an end-game.
That's why all they can say over, and over, and over, is, "I'm not voting for amnesty," or "McCain is a liberal."
Either they have to admit that McCain is more conservative than Obama---in which case, they know in their heart that they should vote for McCain in November---or they will do as Phil does and dishonestly reach for Orwellian moral equivalence by stating that McCain = Obama.
...but what happens if Obama is the next President ?
What then ?
We are still paying for the Jimmah Cahtar Experiment, thirty years later.
What part of that do people not get ?
|
|
K.G.,
Friend, before you came to Townhall, Scarlet Pimpernel and I had e-x-t-e-n-s-i-v-e discussions about Mitt Romney, where Scarlet was adamant that he just could not vote for Romney explicitly due to Romney's theology.
Truth is, Scarlet's opposition to Romney didn't have anything to do with Scarlet "not knowing much about Romney" as he now claims---rather, it was Scarlet's opinion of Romney's Mormonism that was the problem.
I'm very thrilled that Scarlet finally recognized that it is wrong to oppose a candidate simply due to the candidate's theology, and I've said so many times.
:) |
|
|
The Democratic Party is definitely not hard left by any measure. Sure, they are less like the DLC Reagan-lites represented by the Clintons, but what they advocate isn't all that crazy out there, unless you think Bush is a moderate. The truth is that populism is what people want. We can't afford to keep on with the huge military expenditures of Bush's tenure, that is a matter of fact, not ideology. We can't afford to keep ignoring the environment and global warming, that is a fact. We can't keep ignoring infrastructure or education or our evaporating middle class. I'd like someone to show one policy of the Democratic Party that is crazy leftist. If anything they are behind what the majority of Americans want, as they have generally been with the war in Iraq. Americans want the troops home quicker than even the Democratic Party thinks is prudent, and you are trying to say the Democratic Party's positions are too far to the left? C'mon now.. |
|
Pasadena Phil,
I'll explain it for the thousandth time, Phil.
If you vote third party, you are wasting your vote on someone who has no chance of winning.
And if you abstain from voting, then the people who DO vote will decide who your next President will be.
Either way, there will be a President of the United States, and his name will be McCain or Obama.
And the policies of the next Administration will affect ALL AMERICANS---even the ones who vote third party, or whom don't vote at all.
Calling me a "liar," a "jerk," a "moron," a "tool," et al, doesn't do anything to advance your argument of opposing McCain.
But if it makes you feel better to call me names, please feel free to call me whatever names the Townhall censors will permit !
(ha, ha, ha.)
...and by the way, you've insisted about 10 times in the recent past that you will never talk to me again.
Yet you continue to engage me.
That cracks me up. :) |
|
Your 3:41 PM post could not be further from the truth.
(nor was that previous one, 10:41 PM, declaring that I was "running away"---pathetic---however, you have never answered my question)
I'll bet dollars to donuts YOU were one who voted for Scharzenegger in the first go around.
NOT ME.
I voted for Tom McClintock, no friend of your liberal brethren out there.
I moved out of California just a year after you brought Arnold in. Alot of help he has done for you. As a matter of fact, your whole state is a political mess. I regret none of that in leaving.
You got what you want out there. The republicans in that state are a feckless bunch, as far as I am concerned. You've accomplished nothing in decades of Democrat-decadence, and culture-decline. |
|
Scarlet: I hope you didn't think I was challenging you: just curious about how you are looking at things. Sometimes it's hard to gauge tone in a post.
OHM: In the beginning Scarlet had doubts about voting for a Mormon. And why? She said why: she didn't know that much about Mitt and how being a Mormon might affect a president. That's fair. Yes, she would have voted for a competitent evangelical from the get-go because she's familiar with that perspective and is OK with it.
Once she became more informed, her perspective changed. Isn't that what we're all supposed to do?
I was a huge Mitt supporter too, although I wished he were more dyed-in-the-wool conservative from the beginning. I hated the way MacHuck treated him. Really tacky on many levels.
I have the same issues with Mack that all cons do. So....what are we trying to accomplish here? I believe Scarlet's right, that he will be elected unless a third party takes him out. Are you saying the best thing for conservatism is to take him out?
Explain to me what you see is the best strategy for making some conservative headway. |
|
|
Once again, your honesty is appreciated, whatever your position is/was. |
|
At 10:23 and 10:37 PM Saturday, I asked P-Phil and V-Pat what their end game was.
P-Phil-----is a no-show on the response.
V-Pat is AWOL as well.
Reasonable question, would you not say?
And you are correct, I lean more towards a realist---as well as a pragmatist.
Idealism, for me anyway was a schoolboy fascination.
And, McCain was not my choice. Matter of fact, I have gone undeclared all along (other than that bit of fun I had with Joe, in January, telling him I would not vote for McCain given his incessant shilling for the guy for so many months). |
|
|
Which is it? I'm wasting my vote by voting against the one-party system by voting 3rd party? Or is it like your last comment, not voting at all? You would much more persuasive if you started by respecting what people actually say. You keep trying to manipulate your arguments by changing what people say. That makes you a liar and not worthy having a discussion with. |
|
|
We survived several terrible socialistic presidents. Besides, I'm telling y'all McCain will win without the cons. |
|
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote;
-----------
"i was rejecting Romney
at the time due to my religious convictions, not his."
-----------
Ha, ha, ha.
Scarlet Pimpernel, that has to be one of the most Orwellian explanations I've ever heard.
Truth is, if Romney had been an evangelical Christian, you would have supported him.
Since he is a Mormon, you opposed him.
By definition, you were opposing him due to HIS religious convictions.
And, my friend, opposing a candidate explicitly due to his religion, is most certainly NOT a "conservative principle." |
|
K.G.,
You hit it spot on.
I was as big a Romney supporter as there was at the Townhall boards during the primaries.
But my man lost.
Now I'm supporting the most conservative major party nominee on November's ballot, and his name is John McCain.
These guys (Scarlet, Crown City Phil, and Virginia Patriot) act as if by not voting in November, the consequences of Obama's radical far left wing policies will somehow not affect them !
...as if the tax increases will not apply to them, or as if the decisions handed down by Obama's radical judicial nominees won't touch their families.
It's so bizarre.
Don't people understand that we're still NOW paying the consequences of Jimmah Cahtah's disastrous term ?
Whether or not we prefer McCain to be the GOP nominee, he IS the nominee.
There will be two choices on the menu---McCain & Obama.
And for those people who don't vote, the rest of the country will choose the President for you. |
|
Was Reagan a conservative? How big was his victory?
I'm trying to figure out who is behind the choices that we got. Whoever it is we need to talk.
Withholding money and votes is one way to communicate.
We may have to go to more than one legitimate party and make deals later. No law against it. It won't be our fault.
Did I already point out that a back-stabbing back-slapper of our domestic enemies is the nominee for the GOP? How can any sane person vote for a guy who stood in the way of huge victories and annihilation of our domestic enemies? |
|
at the time due to my religious convictions, not his. Christians mature.
You are right, I was not basing everything on secular reasoning.
Ironically, you're the one showing the most faith without reason right now;) |
|
I hear you, but what is your end game? The conservative candidates did not make it through the primary process. Mack and Huck certainly ganged up to take Romney out, but in the end Pubs voted for Mack as their nominee.
To whom are you trying to send a message by voting for a conservative third party? Other, more centrist, Pub voters? The RNC for a flawed primary process?
I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) a quixotic vote simply to make your voice heard. Do you guys have a strategy beyond that?
I keep harking back to Chile in the 60's. At the time there were 3 parties, more or less equal, I believe: left (communist), center and right. Allende, the communist won because the other two parties split the vote.
Can you see a way (in the future) that a far left Dem party, and a centrist Pub party could split the vote, allowing conservative party candidate to win? Could a conservative break-off party ever become that strong? Is that what you guys see? |
|
Scarlet Pimpernel,
You completely missed my point.
My point is that you say NOW that you're absolutely set in stone about not voting for McCain, but I have confidence that you'll change your mind about it as we get closer to November---just as you changed your mind about opposing Romney !
And by the way, the point I made about "conservative principles" is to show that you were not practicing conservative principles when you opposed Romney merely for his religion.
By definition, you were opposing him for theological reasons, rather than political reasons.
You're not going to sit there and tell me that opposing a candidate explicitly due to his religion IS a "conservative principle," are you ? |
|
I knew little of Mormons or Romney. I learned. I reflected. I changed my mind. I NEVER left my conservative principles despite how you are trying to twist it. Trying to reconcile faith views with politics is not always easy.
I did the same thing with McCain and the end result is that he is an a-hole who should never have been allowed to represent the Republican Party for President.
How is this abandoning my conservative principles?
And I do not have the luxury of having flexible or no standards at all like some Republicans.
You do prove what PPhil and others say: some Repubs will vote for whoever wins the top spot. If Jim Jeffords switched back and somehow won the top spot you guys would go for it. After two decades of nonsense, can we not change our path? Cons have voted for Mods for 6 elections now. Do you mind if McCain is the last straw for us? |
|
Latest from Newsmax:
Could Bob Barr’s Run as Libertarian Doom McCain?
Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is seen as the Libertarian Party’s most likely presidential candidate — and he could wind up torpedoing John McCain’s White House hopes. “Given the recent fundraising prowess of a kindred spirit — Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet — libertarians are feeling their oats,” political analyst George F. Will writes in Newsweek. “Come November, Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 — ruinous.” Nader was a weak third-party candidate and won only 2,882,955 popular votes nationwide, but 97,488 of them were in Florida — where, because of Nader, George W. Bush won by 537 votes, Will notes. Shane Cory, the Libertarian Party's executive director, “thinks his party is upwardly mobile,” Will writes. “In 2004, its presidential candidate received just 397,265 votes, a mere .32 percent of the national popular vote… “But in no state was the Libertarian vote larger than the winning candidate's margin of victory. This year, however, Cory thinks the party can far surpass its best national performance — 921,299 votes in 1980.” Cory and Barr say the party almost certainly will be on the ballot in at least 48 states. Republican consultant Craig Shirley recently wrote: “This Libertarian thing may be bigger than anyone is foreseeing right now.” Barr left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration.
There is more but you get the idea. Conservatives are not going away. |
|
|
Runs and hides when the discussion is actually taking place but shows up 18 hours later and 150 comments in to post his useless comments and responses when the people have moved on. |
|
|
It is pointless to argue with OHM, Clarity and the other RINOs at TH. They will vote automatically for whatever candidate the Democrats nominate for the GOP. Arguing over why is pointless. The should just be issued a one-time lifetime vote that will be automatically cast for the Republican candidate without them having to leave home and vote. If you trap them in their own logic, they just become little boys who accuse everyone else of being queers. Save you arguments for those who actually think and listen. Logic and common sense gets you nowhere with these guys. |
|
Scarlet Pimpernel,
You crack me up.
I KNOW you changed your mind about Romney.
My point about you having ranted and raved against Romney's religion in the past is to demonstrate that it is part of your track record to be set in stone about something, and then change your mind later on down the road after you finally see the light.
That's great that you've changed your mind about voting for Romney---but at THAT time, you were set in stone about not voting for Romney.
...just as you are set in stone r-i-g-h-t n-o-w about not voting for McCain.
Also, in your past opposition to Romney's religion, it demonstrates that your vote hasn't always been "about being a great conservative" when deciding whom to vote for.
Even though a year ago you were opposed to Romney's candidacy merely for his religion, you sit here and lecture us about your fidelity to conservative principles. |
|
|
Game analogy: we cons will take our football, boxing gloves, and baseball bats and go home. You fellows can stay and play badminton and field hockey with the Dem/libs;) |
|
I'VE WRITTEN AT LEAST TWO ENTRIES ON MY BLOG STATING HOW I'D CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT ROMNEY. I'VE DEFENDED ROMNEY MULTIPLE TIMES IN COMMENT THREADS. I'VE ALSO TOLD YOU THIS ALREADY. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION AND WRITE THIS DOWN SO I DON'T HAVE TO GO OVER THIS AGAIN. I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR ROMNEY, OKAY.
Now, you are correct, we're idealists and you guys are just what the RNC power brokers want. |
|
Scarlet Pimpernel,
In my restaurant analogy, I was talking specifically about what are the 'soups of the day' on the menu.
The 'soups of the day' is specifically a metaphor for the Presidential nominees.
There are two major party Presidential nominees on the menu---choose one.
Ordering a bowl of soup which is not on the menu is analogous to saying you want a candidate who is not on the ballot.
Ordering an entree such as a hot dog or a hamburger is a different analogy---a bowl of soup is not an entree.
You can order an entree, but it is analgous to voting for something else on the ballot, such as voting for Senator or Governor, or a state or municipal bond issue.
By the way, you and Phil and VA Pat are idealists who are only interested in voting for a "very conservative" nominee.
Me and Clarity, on the other hand, are realists.
We will vote for the most conservative nominee available to us---i.e., whose name is a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y on the ballot.
The most conservative major party nominee whose name will be on the ballot this November is John McCain.
Additionally, Scarlet, I remember over a year ago, we had some discussions where you were pretty adamant that you could not even vote for Mitt Romney if he were the GOP nominee, simply because you could not bring yourself to vote for a Mormon.
|
|
y'all's comments too. Usually more specific than mine are and still funny.
|
|
|
I'll jump in and echo what my friend, Clarity, stated. Always good to read you, Sir! |
|
Actually, it was said entirely, tongue-in-cheek.
I do not think I, nor OHM, am more conservative than you. If I did, indeed, it would be over reaching.
You are correct in that true conservatives are not the cry babies the Libs/Lefties are.
and it is good to see you here with your reasoning.
I am laughing here at your, "McCain to cry", line.
Funny. |
|
I also like Duncan Hunter because he knows and can support his own ideas.
Plus, I want McCain to cry. Then I'll vote for him. |
|
More conservative to keep voting towards liberalism? Read my lips, Brownie
IT'S MCCAIN'S OWN PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY MUST REACH OUT TO CONSERVATIVES.
C,mon we're trying to be reasonable here. We are not taking our toys and going home. We are taking our football and leaving the tennis to y'all. Go play with the Dem/libs - they've been so nice to us so far.
OK - enough with the silly analogies. You're lashing out at conservatives because you're frightened that the vaunted GOP, which has been so effective since 1994, might lose with the charismatic guy they've picked. Don't worry. You're going to win, just not with conservative votes. There are enough Dem/libs who are not too far gone; and enough moderates around to vote for McCain. So it will be a win-win for all you moderates.
Cons are not like the cry-baby Dem/libs. We are not going anywhere. We will stay and try to get Americans to see reason. That is the American way. |
|
Virginia Patriot wrote: "Joe, there are always at least three other candidates besides R or D."
Yeah, Libertarians, the Green Party, and maybe some Socialist.
Oh wait, there is always Lyndon LaRouche. |
|
|
Joe, there are always at least three other candidates besides R or D. I have plenty of time to decide. There's even time for McCain to decide he's for enforcement. |
|
Duncan Hunter went nowhere in the nomination process. When he dropped out, he backed Huckabee (who I think is a candidate you despise even more than McCain).
Duncan Hunter is not going to be the VP. Not because Hunter is a bad guy (I like him) but because he does not make a McCain win more likely. Frankly I doubt Hunter even agrees with your positions. It will probably be Pawlenty.
So who is your third party candidate that is supposed to be the alternative to "uber-liberal" McCain? Bob Barr? He is not for deporting all illegals. Are you a Paul supporter now?
So who is your candidate Phil? Who are you and Virginia Patriot pulling for as the alternative to McCain or Obama? Because those are going to be the choices in November. |
|
When did I mention "queers"?
Not me. Never.
Now, you have.
And I suppose that reveals a bit about you now.
So, careful there, pal. Before you get yourself too deep into something you surely will regret---if indeed you are a conservative.
|
|
Re: Obama and gun controls.
I know you saw my post at 1:28 PM on Obama's pathetic lyin' charade.
I suppose your post above, at 10:01 PM was simply to affirm what I said earlier today.
Obama has proven he does not like, nor identify with, small town, gun-totin', bible-carryin' bitter folk.
He does love that San Francisco crowd, however. He plays to them like a Greek siren to the ancient mariner.
And he loves the party circuit:
******Tippin' a few over at Billy Ayers' house.
******Kickin' back with Jeremiah the Jew-hater.
******Oh, and stoppin' in with Khalidi, his PLO-apologist bud---you know, he likes to mix it up, a bit; have a broad base of friends, and such.
Each of them hate something.
That's what's important.
They all hate a bit different from the next one.
And you know, he's been a tad out of synch with his lady, Michelle, ever since she found something to be proud of.
It kinda' rattled Obama when he heard that kerfuffle she raised---that false-pride gig she was peddling.
He likes it when she stays angry too.
No need for that puffy-pride stuff. |
|
|
run. Having admitted their logic is faulty, the best they can do is descend to childish gibberish. Run cowards! Run! The world will explode if McCain loses! Time to order that ACME Defeat the Democrats Kit. |
|
|
I see you are still a prepubescent little boy who sees queers everywhere. A little insecure are you? Is it true queers are deaf? |
|
This is a great country, America.
You are free to vote, not vote, howl at the moon, carry misspelled-poster-placards, whatever your heart desires.
I ask you the same question I asked of Babs.
What's your strategy after you cross your arms, stick your nose in the air, and watch November 4th pass by?
You writ'n letters to the RNC?
Hey that's great. Our envelopes will be waving at each other on their way to the same destination.
What's your strategy?
I look forward to hearing it, 'cuz you're okay by me. Babs is okay too. Just a little hysterical. Must be all that quiche eat'n with Alec Baldwin, Richard Dreyfuss, and, you know, the gang.
|
|
...tonight?
I am betting Quiche.
Yep, Quiche.
With those little diced-up veggies and the basil and chives all sprinkled throughout. Hmmmmm, tasty little pie-pan dish, that quiche.
Well, listen now, you enjoy that plate of poultry egg-whites and yolks and yummy stuff and when you get done, consider doing me a favor, heh?
Let me know your strategy from here on out. I mean after you take your marbles and go home. You gonna write letters to teh RNC?
You gonna take some misspelled-protest-placards out to Melrose and Vine cavort with the Loons, Howl at the moon?
Or is it that you're just stayin' home on your couch and hunt'n and peckin' all day long on that wiley keyboard?
Now that's rich. Call me curious. I look forward to hearing your BIG move---other than the NO_VOTE thingy.
Okay, Babs. Don't gum that quiche, or, get any basil betwixt those pearly-whites. |
|
|
|
fine, dude. It's a free country. You go and do anything you damn well please.
My logic might well be faulty, however, that littel rant you engaged in above, that little hamburger picture you painted----well the end of it sounded EXACTLY like Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Richard Dreyfuss, and a few others who said, I'll move away from this country if George Bush is elected. Even funnier is they said this before his first administration---before 9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq. Their hysteria was way before.
Yep----that's exactly what you are there, P-Phil. A Babs.
You're a Babs. |
|
I heard today on TV that Obama wants to ban concealed carry nationwide. That will help McCain with gun owners even though Obama could not get that through Congress.
McCain does not get my vote until he dumps Juan Hernandez and his "Mexico First" agenda. He is still giving me the finger with that, why should I believe any of his "secure the border first" BS when he won't say what's next? |
|
|
Now we are arguing who is more conservative as a rationale for voting for an uber-liberal Trojan horse like McCain. Those of us who absolutely refuse to vote for a liberal are less conservative than people like you who would vote for Karl Marx himself if only he were a Republican. That is akin to liberals who argue that incarcerating criminal actually increases crime. Somehow, I find it hard to accept that putting the guy trying to kill me with an axe is placing me in greater danger than arresting him and putting him away. Voting for a liberal is not the way to prove that you are more conservative than those of us who refuse to vote for a liberal. Thanks though. I needed a good laugh. |
|
|
Your logic is faulty. Conservatives went to a restaurant and made it clear that we did not want hamburger because we had a series of bad experiences eating hamburger but because people who don't even eat at the restaurant get to draw up the menu and they want me to eat hamburger, I only have one choice: hamburger. Of course, I could opt instead to eat at THEIR restaurant where the only thing on the menu is hamburger. No. I have another choice. I don't have to eat at either restaurant. I can stay home and cook for myself or find another restaurant. |
|
Hunter as VP, ironclad no amnesty pledge, interior and border enforcement would do it for many conservatives.
Won't happen, Juan Hernandez wouldn't like it.
John McCain has chosen sides in the illegal alien battle and it's not the side of the American citizen. |
|
R or D are not the only choices on the menu or the ballot. There are always other choices. This year I will choose something other than R or D because they have become too similar.
|
|
Speaking of, "throwing them out", Scarlet Pimpernel, V-Pat, Pasadena Phil want to throw the baby out with the bathwater---a very risky propostion.
If I read them correctly, theirs seems to be a position where the republicans should lose with McCain, for a sort of rehabilitative period---a kind of "cleansing" of the party while Obama is allowed to, well, allowed to, weave his radicalism, his most extreme form of Leftism on our blessed country (pathetic judgement and all).
You and I want decidedly do want a better conservative candidate, (as I voted for Tom McClintock vis a vis Schwarzenegger. California wanted Liberalism-lite, went for the Shriver-shredder. Now what do they have?).
We are probably more conservative then they are-----WHY? 'Cuz were not willing to take that risky bet to allow Obama in just because McCain is not our ideal choice. That's right, OHM, you and I are now more conservative than Scarlet Pimpernel, P-Phil, V-Pat. We're just not willing to give it away---not to this pathetic piece of "fresh"-has been, snake-lyin'-in-the-grass radical Leftist.
He hates small-town gun owners and bible carriers.
He lied about his signature on the questionnaire where he wants "gun bans", "no death penalty", and very liberal parental notification as to teen-abortions. |
|
It might be on the menu, however, they ran out (for whatever reason) during this dining experience, this evening when it is incumbent upon you to choose your meal. After all, it is your civic duty to "dine", that four-letter word for vote. Tomorrow is a different dining day, as 2012 is a separate general election.
Interestingly enough, I agree with OHM's simplistic analogy. Conservatives, me included, had our time to choose from many choices on the menu----late last year. It was a busy time at the restaurant.
So much so, they ran out of, Thompson-tar tare, Hungry-Hunter , Romney-Roumelade, Giuliani-Jubilee. Some of these choices are still on the ballot, er, menu. But, they cannot be had---gone.
Now, the bigger issue is either that they did not order enough conservative "meat" (to last throughout the night), or, some customers tried those selections and complained; simply told the restaurateur that the conservative "meat" choices were unsatisfactory. The chef threw them out.
|
|
What is the United Establishment Party? That is a perfect example of your weasel-ness. Ask Virginia Patriot, or Scarlet Pimpernel and many others who, like you, have been commenting here for the past two years but unlike you, actually try to understand what other people are saying. I am not advocating people vote FOR it but AGAINST it. BTW, have you come up with JUST ONE example of a significant accomplishment by your cherished John McCain in his 25 years in Congress? You've had months to work on it. You've been trotting around for the past few weeks pretending that your backing of McCain was the result of a carefully thought out process but you've been shilling for him from day one and at times, in a very shrill and insulting manner.
I'll tell you what might make me vote for your man. Nominate Duncan Hunter for VP with Mr. Hunter's pledge on his own personal honor that the border will be made secure and that there won't be no amnesty. As it stands, he is offering no coattails to Republican down ticket who will have to run once again against conservative Democrats. We need to see some skin on the table because otherwise, he has been treacherous as a senator and Republican. For Hunter to agree to be on the ticket would require a credible commitment from McCain on illegal immigration and on the GWOT. Conservatives represent a much larger segment of the voting population than all of the Democrats and independents he needs to win to compensate. He is has to make up the 13% or so of voters who fled the GOP before he gains any ground. It seems to me it would be easier to swallow his pride a cut an ironclad deal and put his personal honor and legacy at risk to win our vote. Won't happen. Ego, pride, rage,... McCain is not a team player. It's all McCain, all the time. |
|
There is ribeye, hamburger and hot dog on the menu. You want ribeye but the waiter, cook, and owner do not think it is good for you. It is too much trouble to cook and not enough people can afford it. Besides, the hamburger dealer threw in some extras if they bought more hamburger. More people, who've lost their tastebuds, eat hamburger and hot dog. The restaurant owner, therefore, buys more hamburger. The ribeye is just for show. You get no ribeye. Your choice is hamburger or hot dog.
By continuing to vote the most moderate Republican, the party gets further from its principles and closer to melding with the Left. Is this what you want?
I won't vote McCain specifically because he's been such a jerk to his own party which used to be mine too. It is outrageous that he is the candidate. |
|
Clarity,
Our pal Pasadena Phil, as well as Scarlet Pimpernel and the obsessive-compulsive Virginia Patriot, are all making the wrong comparison.
They are comparing John McCain to a more conservative ideal.
However, as you know, the November election is not between John McCain and a more conservative choice.
Rather it is between John McCain and a radical left winger---someone who is so radical, that he cannot bring himself to repudiate Bill Ayres for his terrorist attacks on American targets.
One thing we know for sure; either John McCain or Barack Obama will be President.
We may have a more conservative ideal for whom we prefer to be President, but if there name isn't McCain or Obama---this isn't going to be their year.
Thus, as adults we ask ourselves, "Ok, whom between those two choices do I prefer to be given the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave ?"
The argument put forth by Phil, Scarlet, and VA Pat is comparable to a waiter at a restaurant announcing the choices of 'soups of the day' as being Clam Chowder and Navy Bean, and then listening to a customer insist that he must be brought a bowl of Chicken Noodle soup !
What part of "Excuse me, friend, but Chicken Noodle soup is not on the menu" do people not understand ?
I am a conservative, and I always want the most conservative nominee to be the President.
This year, that person is John McCain.
By the way, Clarity, thank you for continuing to write comments at Townhall.
You are fresh air on a smoggy afternoon.
|
|
I lived in Boston ('88-'90); know of what you speak on that subject--all too well. My myriad experiences, stories can attest.
I also have many family members in that region. most of them are not worth much--have not corresponded for decades.
I will attempt to bear with you on some of your pennings, with all due respect, challenging. |
|
|
cons and libs know this. Republicans do not. |
|
albeit unwittingly: elections aren't like the Super Bowl or World Series. If your candidate doesn't "win", that doesn't make you a "loser". It's time people stopped thinking of voting in terms of "World Champion" and trophy nonsense.
You don't back someone just because you think they can win. You back someone because you believe in the message. |
|
Yes sir~ the term(an Orwellian chunk of tortuous, NEWSPEAK)was invoked/invented by the Abortionist Court to find not only RIGHT TO PRIVACY implied(so say the 9)by the 4th Amendment but simultaneously to DENY this right to Infants as(implied) NON-
PERSONS(one of Orwell's favorites).This is the DOUBLE THINK classic of our PM (anti-Christian)
epoch. I apologize for overly affecting intellectualism. I grew-up in Boston, Massachusetts,and was educated there. Their pretensions to intellectual superiority(even over simple New Yorkers)is nationally renowned. That's why(after 26 years)I left Massachusetts and live in a place not so affected by likes of IQ-Kerry and the Tedster. But deleterious effects...to some extent...are permanent. YOU BECOME LIKE THAT WHICH YOU BEHOLD.
Arthur McVarish, Houston |
|
Unless you have some very viable candidate, I just cannot see it. You want to change the GOP, work to change it from within. There is a clear choice between John McCain and Barak Obama. I chose McCain. He is the better candidate, more, conservative, and a better man. McCain will be a good and perhaps a great president.
What is the "United Establishment Party." Who is the candidate for this party?
|
|
thanks for sharing.
In attending Catholic church throughout my adult life, I too have heard individual priests interpret or make statements I found distasteful, unsatisfactory.
Without greater detail, I inquired about some of these "issues" and found the "church" did not hold this same position as the priest. It is sad to think that we would have to "vet" sermons, gospels, or comments by our priests/pastors/rabbis/deacons/.
My Catholic Church does not hold the narrow position of, say, your example provided, however, there are some in the Catholic faith who think that it does. I know----I have asked that question as well.
Stay forever curious. Ask questions. And, when in the presence of a Liberal, "Challenge Authority"---you know, in honor of the 60's.
>;D |
|
I am a simple person and freely admit that your syntax, phraseology, is way over my head. Perhaps as a result of your being in Houston---me, I'm only from New York.
By example, my knowledge of "penumbras" and "umbras" date back to my astronomy classes at college. Those areas created by light cast upon one object and its resultant "shadow" upon another. One of my favorite terms from that area of study was, "albedo".
Look that one up. I even used it as part of a computer username for years. If you cannot find definition, feel free to ask.
(You may have used "penumbra" as identifying the shadowy borderlines of legalese, or court decisions, on abortion laws and how these laws have resulting deaths of 60MM infants since Roe V. Wade?)
Really, I am only able to understand snippets of your "stream".
Nonetheless, I am very appreciative of your attempt.
Thanks again. |
|
I'll tell you story about my church and the Sunday after 911. First I don't believe Obama was not in that church after 911. The churches were filled that Sunday with Americans looking for spiritual guidance. My husband and I were among all those grieving Americans.
The church we attended is christian. The pastor got up and gave his sermon and we were all crying for the victims. During the sermon the pastor spoke of all the sacrifices the police and firefighters had made that day. He stated even though these were good people, if they had not turned their lives over to Jesus Christ they would not he welcomed in heaven.
I stood up and my husband asked what are you doing ? I said we are out of here. We walked out that day and I haven't returned.
I don't believe all Christians are bad and I'm not angry at religion because so many good things come from the church. But I was not going to sit and listen to that. Not when so many people had lost so much.
For Obama to sit and listen to his hateful reverend is beyond evil. There is no explanation for his behavior.
|
|
|
Speak english. By clumsily predicating your arguments on trite cultural references, your are demonstrating your inability to argue clearly and succinctly. A little information in the wrong hands is dangerous. You want McCain to win because... well...just because. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and misguided. Very lame. Don't be such an "intellectual". Speak english. |
|
|
Enlightened Despotism is the very concept that the American Revolution debunked. The "enlightened" despots of Europe (Catherine the Great, Louis XIV, etc..) culminated in more than two centuries of regicide. Our founding fathers created the only country ever founded on an intellectual principle, that people can rule themselves. That is NOT a poor substitute for enlightened despotism. You have inadvertently revealed an elitist and condescending attitude. You really don't understand what America is about do you? That is the very same attitude infecting our political system these days. The same attitude that induces Obama to honestly state that he believes (dumb) Americans "cling" to guns and religion because their government is deaf and uncaring. If our government is deaf and uncaring, it is because it is populated by people who long for enlightened dictators. |
|
Sir~ Perhaps you expressed the Orwellian threat Obamania comprises better than I.I am accused by PP and political New Agers of his ilk of being shrill and incoherent. Those familiar with 1984 NEWSPEAK/ DOUBLETHINK(most literate contributors, conservative or liberal know what these terms evoke)are aware that Obama and her Ladyship indulge in them "liberally"...
THOUGHT-CONTROL(wimpily attempted by MSM and its lackeys)is PC preview of what "Democratic" Thought Police intend.(Obama asserted his wish to initiate...via his AG... War Crime investigation of The President).BIG BROTHERISM is essence of Obmaosity. If PP cannot follow these implications, he and his lost legion of INNER PARTY acolytes are welcome to all the Victory Gin they can swallow as this Republic(if you can keep it as Benjamin Franklin admonished)is handed-over to enemies abroad and decadent Boomer narcissists here,still trying to turn the US into Woodstock playground. A REALIGNMENT election is coming. It can serve us with opportunity to rebuild a real two-party system. Whatever its faults,a McCain Presidency will maintain American interests in the Middle East and(hopefully) retool a SUPREME COURT that interprets what is written without inventing "penumbras" that have abetted murder of 60,000,000 American infants Civil right.
Arthur McVarish, Houston
|
|
|
The miracle you refer to is the US Constitution. Now if we could just find candidates who believe in enforcing it we would be less of a miracle that the ship of state remains afloat. Actually, it isn't a miracle at all. It only seems that way because the uber-partisans of either party, offering virtually identical candidates, have no other way of energizing their voters than to present a preposterous notion that the very survival of civilization is at stake. It isn't. We'll be fine. |
|
Yes, we have enough adulterers, sheep, illegal aliens, nanny-state beggars, self-serving businessmen, and politicians who would be kings to sink the whole ship.
It's a miracle it stays afloat as well as it does. Now is certainly not a good time to jump overboard. Have a little faith. We could still be rescued by some deus ex machina.
Lula: As far as lightening up on the Obama-ites. Wah! Can't we have a little fun? Anybody with half a brain should have figured out this guy was a fraud from the get-go. |
|
In theory, I'm a big believer in Enlightened Despotism, particularly monarchy from a certain carpenter from Nazareth.
But until then, I'll settle for American-style democracy, warts and all.
|
|
|
I read in the news yesterday that they are building a wall in Sadr City to contain the militias. I'm sure they are building a virtual wall to keep those virtual terrorists at bay. We all know that real walls don't work. The only reason Palestinians complain about that wall is because they want to make the Israelis look bad. It's obstructing their view of a vast sandy vista. |
|
|
Edwards and Quayle except John's hair is so shiny and manageable. |
|
|
If you can just drop the partisanship for a minute and take a look at what Obama plans to do in Iraq to what McCain is saying, they are saying the same thing. As is Clinton. McCain's GWOT on terrorism has been reduced to the platitude that he will "follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell" while cramming terrorist coddling legislation and fighting to keep our borders open. Your problem is that you just can't grasp that we only have on party and that you are embracing the lie that the elites of both wings of that party are forcing on you. This GOP is not worthy of you loyalty. Once (unlikely IMHO) McCain is in, he will trash everything you think you are getting just like Bush trashed everything we expected by growing government beyond anything we would have tolerated from Clinton/Gore/Kerry. You are enabling the one-world liberal agenda by holding your nose to vote for McCain. If McCain wins with a majority, it is OVER for conservatism. If Obama wins with a majority it MIGHT be over for conservatism. If either wins a messy race with a plurality that represents less than 50% (43% or less preferably) conservatives win. Why is that so hard for you RINOs to see? You are going to have to decide whether you are a Republican or a conservative because in this election, you can't be both. There is a clear path for conservatives this year and at least for the presidential race, it leads to 3rd party. |
|
We should probably all lighten up on the libs on this blog.
It obvious the games over before it even began. They were just naive and more than a little mentally challenged. They wanted so hard to just believe in Obama. And they are never going to admit they were bamboozled. I'm sure John Edwards looks real good to them in hindsight.
So lighten up and we'll be compassionate winners.
They really just got taken. Have some compassion.
|
|
|
We need as many conservatives as we can get in the House and Senate. |
|
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
Bbbaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!! |
|
|
I think I may give up voting and join the 40% who don't bother, pay no attention to politics and are happier for it. |
|
that democracy perpetuated idiocy and the middle class were small and ineffective. Voltaire also thought that an enlightened monarch (McCain?) was the answer to straightening things out. He was also an adulterer who did not believe in self control.
I did enjoy Candide though. |
|
I am not going to argue with those who point out how McCain has strayed from the conservative reservation over the years. I am well, WELL, aware of his often infuriating lapses into grand maverickness.
I concede the point, completely willingly, even gladly.
However, a man who has unwaveringly supported our troops during this critical time when it hasn't been popular, who did vote for Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, who has rejected earmarks, who understands why socialized medicine won't work and even voted against the prescription drug benefit, who has pledge to make the Bush tax cuts permament, who wants to drop corporate taxes to trigger economic activity---well, a man who does these things, in my humble opinion, is not a Democrat.
At least not the Democrats I know and detested.
I will continue to respect those who think McCain is simply 'too liberal' to be the GOP nominee, but I would hope, in that same vein, those who think this of McCain will at least be a bit more gracious with those of us conservatives who will be voting for him.
|
|
One party is embarrassed by the American Revolution--sorry it ever happened--it's justices, like Ginsburg and Breyer, believe we should look beyond our constitution to any willy nilly constitution that fits their higher than thou megalomania ego for determining how we should live, um, self determine our self rule.
And of course we can't forget that Obama, Clinton, just as their forerunners Haughty Kerry and Groovy Gore, are certain that this or that European country should have not merely a veto over our foreign policy, but in all likely hood, draft it. Yes, they truly lament that Paul Revere ever rode anywhere.
But now they're in a bit of quandary--what with Italy joining France and Germany as rejecting a return to the despotic social compact of Feudalism (at least nominally). What to do? A favorite talking point about how they all hate us seems to be a dissipating fog. |
|
Amen. The illegals are here to stay. (Except for the ones who run thru my yard and move on north.) We gotta think of our military to whom we owe more than BHO/HRC.
Voltaire also said, referring to sexuality, "The only aberration is abstinence." Maybe that goes for voting also.
You can become some dried up old spinster waiting for the perfect guy, or do the best you can with what you got.
|
|
|
was exposing your hatred of liberty and your lust for murder. |
|
"in my view, McCain is INFINITELY better than Barry."
If you could think that statement through, I think you would better understand that it just isn't true. His name is only to be found as a co-sponsor of landmark liberal legislation. He has no conservative accomplishments to refer to in his 25 years in Congress. If I am wrong, give me an example. McCain has been a Democratic Trojan horse enabler for his best pals in the Democratic party. It would be one thing if he could reach across the aisle and forge compromises that include conservative and Republican interests but all they represent are surrender. If your family is threatened by a hostile and you forge a pact by surrendering your family to them, is that a compromise? That is what Quisling did with the Nazis and what McCain did with the Democrats. He is just the wrong candidate and must be defeated or at least, his victory needs to be messy and empty. |
|
I already feel your pain, hombre, as you know. Did you see where the Pubs in I believe the Senate tried to push a bill preventing illegals from getting tax rebates and housing help? (I might not have my facts precisely correct.)
Even with help from some con Dems, it lost. Vote for whomever, but I tell you: Go get Rosetta Stone and start learning to conjugate Spanish verbs in the pluperfect subjunctive.
BTW: The Moors inhabited Spain for 700 years, beinning 300 years BEFORE the Crusades, incidentally. Lots of Arabic in Spanish. So learning Spanish will give you a head start on Ababic. It's win/win, right? |
|
I am not going to argue with conservatives who think McCain is 'too liberal'. I respect those who have disagreements with McCain for good reason; I too have those disagreements with the Senator.
But, like Voltaire, I am not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
On Iraq, the Supreme Court, capital gains tax, payroll taxes, socialized medicine/health care, earmarks, and foreign policy, in my view, McCain is INFINITELY better than Barry. There is a substantial difference, a big enough difference that McCain has my vote. I may not be as enthused at the Obamabots, but my resolve is firm.
That said, if McCain goes back on his promise to secure the borders first and his promise to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, then, like many of you, I will be on the phones asking my Congressional representation to stop McCain. Frankly, I don't think this will happen, but if it does, I'll have to oppose President McCain and do so vocally.
There is American blood being spilled in Iraq, for what I believe is a noble cause. With lives at stake and the global war on terrorism in the balance, there is NO WAY in HADES I am going to NOT vote for McCain with Barry-the know-it-all, effete, quasi-Marxist, Jeremiah Wright-loving sociology professor-as the Democratic nominee.
Just as I respect those who have qualms with McCain, I hope you will respect me in my decision to support McCain despite those qualms.
|
|
Cynically, but perfectly said. I prophecy that you will be declared a prophetess in your own land.
The whole election will turn on Dem and Pub Joe Six-Packs, who will not vote for BHO/HRC. Yes, a McCain presidency will allow us to drift toward Eurabia, but at least it might not be a stampede.
The Average Joe (and Joan) will sense that Obama is a skinny, naive, less-than-patriotic girly-man and vote for their grumpy, but familiar grandfather. (I do wish he'd see a good cosmetic dentist, though.) |
|
|
Just as soon as his amnesty provides the Democrats with their new permanent majority. |
|
|
You are making a shrill and incoherent argument. There are many here who would attest to the fact that I was very effective in arguing against the Ron Paul assault last year. If you are going to be persuasive in arguments, it is important to at least understand what your people are actually saying rather than setting up straw man arguments. You cannot lie your way to truth. Get a grip. The survival of the world does not hinge on the outcome of this election. We'll be fine no matter who wins. It would just be better for us to return to a two-party system and I have laid out my strategy for accomplishing that. Now try making a cogent argument without sounding like a drunk at neighborhood bar. |
|
|
McCain will not be aggressive. That turns off his main voters - moderates. He will just coast along, throwing the occasional punch in the nads to a Republican and win. Obama (unless Gore takes over which will risk his fresh homecoming King award so probably not) will continue to put foot in mouth by being honest. The Old Stream Media will turn on McCain, claiming Obama's defects are old news, but the American people will be semi-conscious enough to vote for the moderate liberal which is McCain. And we will drift a bit more towards Eurabia. |
|
|
Your loony conspiracy-theory rantings are so tangled in nonsense that it hurts the eyes to read. |
|
After the first quarter of 2008, the RNC had 31 million dollars on hand, the DNC less than 5.
McCain will have the money, folks.
In one of the SURVEYUSA polls of Pennsylvania, almost 25% of those polled said the avalanche of Barry ads made them LESS likely to vote for him. We all know why- people get down right sick of seeing the same campaign commercials a ZILLION times. Gratuitous spending probably works against the candidate, not for him, over the long run.
As long as McCain is well funded/competitive, it won't matter if he has enough to run an ad 400 times. Running it half that many will be more than enough.
Don't forget Hillary was outspent 3-1 by Barry in Ohio, and she won it 54-44. |
|
I never thought Obama could be outdone in NEWSPEAK DOUBLE-THINK! Make room for Pasadena Phil as INNER PARTY O'BRIEN of the year. Politics is "art of the possible". Many of us are not overwhelmingly pleased by prospect of Mr. McCain's presidency. However,few of us FEAR or are shamed by the prospect either.
The "Democratic" remnant are elitist, crypto-
fascists willing to lay-down before(back-side first)our Enemies abroad while cosseting anti-
Americanism at home. REALIGNMENT ELECTION(the virtual extinction of the Democratic Party...a la Federalists/Whigs and WJB Socilaists...)is about to occur in November.
Orwellians of the "right" (PP/Ron Paul)want to snatch certain defeat of Hillary-ites(Lady Macbeths)and Commando-Obmamaniacs~ "Hand" them VICTORY(Eurasia/East Asia/USAsia) See them chanting "Libertarian" HATE mantra BHS!or HRC! while pretending that this reverse-power play will effect anything but catastrophe. War and situation in the MIDDLE EAST must be stabilized as much as possible.C-in-C McCain can be relied on to promote this. SUPREME COURT must be retooled to reflect truly conservative values that respect LIFE and individualism~not oligarchic pandering to abortion;Big Brotherism and radical anti-
Western/anti-Christian Marxist-based secularism. PP lives in dream-world as bad as BB. Ponder it if in masochistic petulance you let THEM "win"!
Arthur McVarish, Houston |
|
Your lips to the Voting Gods' Ears. And, please Howard, don't be scooting if you're off by a digit. We need ya here, Boyo!
IF she really hands him his head, it will beautifully prolong the agony for the Demowits, as Dr.Dean-o knows. And, a mighty fine toast to another rowsing success for Operation Chaos. |
|
|
But I can't see Obama losing the nomination at this point. It will soon be all over for Hillary and 7 months is a long time for healing. Obama has big bucks and the MSM behind him. McCain is old and cranky, whiter than a ghost and that combined with his being inarticulate will not serve him well down the stretch. The RNC simply made a stupendous blunder by enabling the Dems to pick their favorite Republican candidate to run against. That is why McCain can't raise money. The money may want Obama but they find McCain to be a acceptable alternative should their man lose...an he doesn't require a contribution. |
|
Folks, the press hasn't even analyzed the Kenya Connection yet. Some of you know to what I refer. I wonder if the GOP high command and conservative talkers are saving this up until AFTER the Democrats nominate this nitwit.
McCain wins decisively. |
|
you write,
"...that peculiar Blovie Boy ability to close his eyes & cover his ears and repeat his fictional-fantasy mantra and sleep soundly knowing it MUST be true..."
A priceless observation, indeed, especially for one who was 'tagged' as having nary ability to string together a sentence (Vindex?).
footnote:
And I thought a "Loon" was a form of cash and coin, just above the ceiling of our northern borders. Who would have thought it would be raining currency right here on this website? |
|
I agree with Howard on this one-she is going to win and she is going to win Pennsylvania by double digits. After spending 13-15 million dollars of television ads in Pennsylvania alone, Barry is about to find out money can't buy you love (not to mention, there aren't enough sociology professors, college kids, and African Americans for Barry to win in that state).
Artist, I saw the new Gallup numbers. Rasmussen has Barry up, but only by 2. A week ago he had a substantial lead in both polls. Something is happening.
Hugh posted about potential buyer's remorse settling into Democratic ranks. The Obamabots went wild, telling him that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Looks like Hugh was right, after all.
Everyone of you should take a peak at hillaryis44.com. I promise you-YOU WILL ENJOY IT. Peruse the comments at your leisure. After reading this it will become clear-there is NO WAY, with all the king's horses and all the king's men, Barry puts the Democratic Party together again.
A simple question for the Taupe Kool-Aid Drinkers-how BIG does Hillary win Pennsylvania?
Howard says by 11; I'll say 12.
|
|
|
The United Establishment Party. |
|
The party question.
This ex-president cavorts with and poses for family photographs with terrorists.
This candidate’s husband in a final ignominious flourish suspends detention for a filthy terrorist.
This candidate has tea and quiche with a bungling murdering piece of filth, excuse me, terrorist who lacks the basic humanity to say, sorry. He does, however, lament being a bungling murderer.
Bonus points if you can name all three members of the one-and-same party.
Creative points if you can re-name the party. |
|
I will write, regardless of your revelatory declaration of my bankrupt intellectual integrity.
For this, close your eyes, there is nothing for you here.
P-Phil states the world will not come to an end with Obama as POTUS. No, that's correct, the world's demise has already been forecast by other Dems, the likes of Al Gore and Ted Turner, now fondly referred to as,
The Professor and the Mad Hatter.
Both perfect examples of the era of "hysterics" within the DEMOCRAT PARTY.
The party which has indeed been hijacked by the Left. Examples abound to this FACT.
What Pasadena Phil fails to comprehend is the very long lasting affects of an ObamaNation:
1.) Several SCOTUS appointments which will endure for years, the likes of which will reflect his most radical Leftist intentions.
2.) Appeasing of rogue rulers. As he's indicated, all we need do is sit down with AchMADwhackJOB, Hugo CHAvez, Kim Jong "seriously" ill, and all will be restored in UTOPIA.
3.) One can only imagine, given is unfettered loyalty to those such as, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Rezko, what his cabinet will look like. Yep---open the gates...
Some complained about Clinton's "selling" of, Lincoln's bedroom. Others thought the cavalier release of secret FBI files on select individuals was highly suspect.
One can only imagine what Obama would "sell" and what "secret files" would slip through fingers of those without proper "clearance".
4.) Future unknown variables brought about by a man (exhibiting hugely poor judgement) who cannot even bring himself to offer apologies to, small-town, gun-toting, Bible-carrying, Americans is significant.
P-Phil is correct. The world will not come to an end. However, the deleterious effects on the U.S. of KKK A., of a radicalized ObamaNation, will only take years to recover from (if ever).
"Party On, Dude".
|
|
I'm enjoying your stuff immensely. I just returned from several hours of *VIGFM with the homies to find you provoking the loonier loonies to near hysteria. This, as you know, always pleases the sensitive & demure Neo.
Isn't it A-Mazin' how JimBob has that peculiar Blovie Boy ability to close his eyes & cover his ears and repeat his fictional-fantasy mantra and sleep soundly knowing it MUST be true...Why? BECAUSE he SAID IT!! Not worth spit.
*Vast Inexpressable GOOD For Mankind* |
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with TH being a Republican blog. If you had any intellectual integrity, you would have picked on my point that DNC Joe used to have no other tactic than to attack Hugh as being a phony and hypocrite for shilling on behalf of Romney. the hypocrite is DNC Joe who keeps morphing and shape-shifting without accountability. I take TH for what it is and accept the fact that Hugh is a loyal soldier for the GOP. I merely want to keep reminding people to make a distinction between conservativism and Republicans. Too many people here confuse the two. The world will not come to an end if Obama becomes the next president and it may save the flailing and intellectually bankrupt GOP. |
|
|
not a republican anymore. McCain will win without my vote. |
|
you write,
"But, I will not abandon the Republicans for a fairy tale nor will I allow any socialist pacifist like the Dems are today to take over our govt. as long as I have breath."
Agreed.
Even though I have written about my disappointments within the republican party, my discouragements over some decisions made, strategies adopted, tactics engaged, I'm with you on the above comment. I have been anethema to the spending behaviors by conservatives. The steel tariffs in 2001. The "puffed up" attitudes after Saddam fell. The preening and boasting after teh general election in 2004---disgraceful. I could share with you other examples.
Suffice it to say, KGK, I agree with what you say.
All the best to you, to me, to the healing in our party.
God Bless America.
Thanks General Patraeus.
Heartfelt appreciation to our uniformed soldiers.
God Bless America.
Thank you for your service, Ronald Reagan.
Thank you, America, the most charitable country on the face of this planet.
God Bless America.
|
|
|
You don't see what has happened to the GOP a collapse? When Bush won in 2004, Republican voters accounted for 38% of registered voters, on par with Democrats. Today, Republicans are somewhere around 25% and the Dems have grown. That is NOT a viable party. The GOP has surrendered its ideas and are now reduced to pandering for Democrat voters by arguing that they can get around conservatives to get things done. That is NOT winning in my book. It is a call to arms that our own party has sold us out. If you are a conservative, it is hard to argue that we didn't win in November 2006. The liberal catastrophe that was predicted by the lame GOP never materialized because the Dems won with conservative candidates who held their ground against the liberal Dem leadership and want to be re-elected this year. If we vote conservative downticket and deny a mandate to whichever liberal wins the presidency, we win. You CAN vote 3rd party for a candidate who loses and still win the war. The only thing that hinges on the presidency is for liberals to deliver the decisive blow by winning a mandate. Let's not give it to them. If you are a conservative, you will not be well served by McCain unless he wins a very messy and ugly election with something like 40% of the vote. He would be forced to "reach across the aisle" to a conservative Congress to get anything done. In other words, we would be turning the tables on the liberals. |
|
|
|
Is also the first day of Passover.
We set to celebrate the night God sent The Destroyer [Apollyon] to liberate His people from slavery in Egypt. Apollyon killed all the first born males of non believing Egyptians including the Pharaohs first born son while passing over [Passover] those who marked their door posts with lambs blood -as God commanded. Moses was now free to lead the Jews to their inheritance by God; Israel. We toast at midnight, the hour of reckoning; the tenth plague.
"It is a night to be much observed unto the LORD for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: This is that night of the LORD to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations." ………..Exodus 12:42
|
|
Apparently, you take some sort of self-pride in revealing to all posters that this is a republican website. Go ahead, enjoy yourself. Have at it.
You make no point about this.
ONLY that all of the senior bloggers are republican, blah, blah, blah.
SO WHAT?
If YOU have a problem with this, simply start your own "Utopian" website that fills whatever need you identify, "out there".
If YOU have a problem with this, please, feel free to spend more time on, Media Matters, Daily Kos, HuffPost.
I have seen you here for over a year now---and here you are catterwalling, whining that this is a republican website.
You have NO point, other than to state what is obvious. Hugh Hewitt has NEVER once hidden his affiliations----BUT, You infer he has.
It's really quite sad, your inability to break out of your own echo chamber.
Go out and make your own "Change". The likes of which Camp Obama would like to be, but fail miserably at.
|
|
|
Look, the Whigs were falling apart. It took John Fremont first, then ole Abe to put together the Republican Party. When a Party collapses and another takes its place, it is not a Third Party. No historian would agree to that appellation. So please, no Greenback, no Perot, not Nader, no Libertarian has ever , ever been successful. Norman Thomas tried. He failed too. That you believe this is very sad since you are a conserv like myself. I work within the Party, blasting away, meeting with other critics, pols to try to get back to the Reagan type of Party. But, I will not abandon the Republicans for a fairy tale nor will I allow any socialist pacifist like the Dems are today to take over our govt. as long as I have breath. |
|
Of course, you are free o say whetever you please----even if you are as wrong as your candidates in bringing about "fresh" political climate, "Hope" and "Change".
Your hysterics hold nothing as to evidence that this administration has, "screwed up so bad", and, "been so wrong about everything", and, "Republicans have been such a complete and utter disaster", and, "all that's left is wedge issues and race-baiting". What a laugher.
Hysterics.
On the same order that Al Gore speaks about "Global Warming".
On the same order that Ted Turner talks about all of us resorting to cannibalism---ten years from now, after the earth realizes global temerature averages 8 degrees higher than normal.
Hysterics.
That's all you have. You cannot provide any substantive nor rational nor clear-thinking argument to back up your hysterical narrative.
Hysterics.
It's all you know. It's all you have.
|
|
|
The Republican Party was THE FIRST 3rd party to succeed. I just wish some of you "Republican Uber Alles" people would just remembver American history. Ever hear of the Whigs? They were then what the GOP is today. Their pandering had finally been reduced to the same battle cry of today's GOP: "We can't let the Democrats win!!" Why? Don't know. Just because. Inserting a principle, concept or idea would help further that argument. If the GOP wants to contiune being a viable party, it will have to stand for something again. Today, they offer the fastest route for liberals to get around conservatives, you know, the "reaching across the aisle" stuff, getting things done. I prefer gridlock to surrender. Vote 3rd party. It castrates both parties by denying either the liberal mandate they seek. |
|
|
Can you see the DNCers and all the frothy lefties in the Dem leadership plus the foamies on this forum following Jummah Carter in his drive to make complete the Hamasitation of the Dem Party showing what real patriotism really is?? It is pathetic. And then we have former Pubs trying to start losing 3rd Parties to save us all. The first part of that salvation is to make sure that neither Hil or the Messiah get elected. Then the second part is to try to convince Reagan Dems to stop voting for Dems in state as well as Congressional elections. No 3rd Party will ever succeed in the USA no matter how much one strains at that gnat! I wish posters would just remember American history. Just once in awhile. |
|
|
The patriots whom we think of on Patriot's Day would have been secretly renditioned to Gitmo and tortured. |
|
|
Hugh said all along that he thinks McCain is a big mistake but he would support whoever the GOP candidate turns out to be. TH is a Republican website. All of the TH senior circuit bloggers are dyed-in-the-wool Republican operatives. The real problem is with those who are easily led around by the nose, like the mindless RINOs who keep posting fear-mongering comments on these threads. The Dems have already won in 2008. The only thing left for us to work for is to deny them a mandate by diluting the winnng vote to well under 50% by voting 3rd party and supporting conservatives of either party down ticket. A conservative House is still the cure for all that ails us. |
|
But the Left does not want to talk about his "character", his "relationships".
The Left wants to focus on the "real" issues.
Wait a minute----this is about "real" issues---his position on, "gun control", his position on the "death penalty", his position on, "birth control notification" for minors.
And Obama is proving to be a Liar about what his positions are, what they are not, who signed his name to a questionnaire he filled out. Obama is making efforts to confuse, confound, confabulate. He is NOT about "FRESH".
Not even close, unless he is talking about his sleepy time dreams. |
|
From:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/31/politico-obama-lied-a bout-survey/comment-page-1/
The Obama campaign’s response to Politico has to be read to be believed:
Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.
“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”
This makes no sense at all. If Obama’s handwriting is on the survey, then he filled it out. If the answers didn’t reflect his views, why didn’t he change them when he “jotted some notes” on it? If the answers were wrong, Obama would have “jotted some notes” to that effect, rather than allow such mistakes to get transmitted to IVI. And the “eleven years in public office” defense might make sense if Obama hadn’t spent much of that time voting “present” instead of taking actual stands.
Once again, we have more evidence that Obama represents nothing more than the political winds. He has zero credibility, zero experience, and a penchant for telling people what they want to hear rather than any truth about what he actually believes. Either he lied to IVI or he’s lying now. In either case, it’s hardly the New Politics Obama has promised.
|
|
|
Exactly. Obama has now morphed into McCain, the "straight talker" who wants to run a polite campaign by not attacking his opponents but sparing no opportunity to attack and slander conservatives. They now occupy the same political space only facing different directions to pander to the constituencies that they need. Once they are both the nominees, they will be facing the same direction. McCain is the WRONG candidate for the GOP and it will soon become obvious. |
|
From Politico:
"So what were Obama’s positions in 1996, according to the questionnaire that bears his handwriting?
1.) Opposed to parental notification on abortions. He amended this to say that he might possibly support it for 12- or 13-year-olds, but no older.
2.) Flatly opposed the death penalty, a position he denied ever having.
3.) Supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, again a position he denied ever taking.
Those positions won’t even fly with a large number of Democrats, let alone in a general election. The Hillary Clinton campaign has already begun making the argument to superdelegates that Obama holds extremist views so out of touch with the American electorate that he can’t possibly win in November. The questionnaire will bolster that argument, especially on guns, where the Democrats had tried to soften their stance since Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000."
|
|
Hear Ye, Hear Ye....
This man who is about "fresh" politics.
This guy who paints beautiful images of "Change" and "Hope" with his mellifluous cadences.
IN FACT---he supported and SIGNED, "GUN CONTROL" legislation. His name was right there for the country to see, HOWEVER, he openly declared---more recently, that his signature was NOT on it.
In fact, he LIED.
In fact, he is not about, "freshness", his is stale, old-style, politics, which is only now revealing itself----NOW that the love affair----the "honeymoon", is over with him and the mainstream media. That only happened last month, this willingness to explore and investigate the man behind the curtain. |
|
If you haven't read "Freakonomics", you should. You'll enjoy it. It is predicated on debunking "common wisdom" and succeeds thoroughly. Here's a gem of a quote from political scientist John J. Diluilo:
"Apparently, it takes a Ph.D. in criminology to doubt that keeping dangerous criminals incarcerated cuts crime."
Kind of captures the essence of what is wrong with the GOP running with McCain as a candidate. Only the blind devotion of a devoted RINO could argue for the logic of having the ultimate champion of landmark liberal legislation as their nominee. Sometimes it really does boil down to obvious, simple logic. No need for nuance. |
|
"4. If we acquiesce to a heavy handed display of government power because we disagree with the sect in Texas and the government acts in violation of the Constitution, what will save each of us when we are rounded up on a suspicion that we might break the law, or when we teaching our kids some thing the state doesn’t like?
As Thomas More said in A Man for All Seasons, “I give the devil the benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake.”"
Hear! Hear!
Who are they going to round up next? If two guys can get married and have kids what's worse about what these people are doing? I don't like either arrangement but to allow gays to have kids but not polygamists is nothing but naked govt control of what is allowable on the fringes. What would the media coverage be if the govt "rounded up" all the gays with kids? But gays are in favor and religious polygamists are out of favor. The religion part is key here. If these people were a bunch of hippies in a commune the govt would have left them alone.
Those people choose to live that way. Leave them alone lest someone informs on you and the govt swoops down and takes your kids away for reeducation. |
|
|
Your second comment appeared before I responded to your first comment so "might happen" was referring to banning SF and Berkeley, not McCain winning. I just don't see him, or any Republican candidate, winning. The Dem race is pretty much over and 7 months is a long ways away. I'm certain you don't believe that the general electorate has a longer attention span than the ADD RINOs at TH. Once it is down to Obama and McCain, they are both going to shape-shift into pandering to the same crowd and it will become clear to everyone that the Democrats picked the right candidate for the GOP. |
|
If the father of philosophy gave up in his fight against the "demos" and drank his hemlock, how can the remnant of liberty loving Americans survive the hedonists assault against us using our own wealth against us? We need term limits in Congress and merit pay to legislators for finding and ending unconstitutional programs.
Since Woodrow Wilson started provider government mob rule and the slide toward the nanny state was inevitable. Only the great wealth and the remnant of the individualist philosophy has let the Great Experiment last this long.
God said that he can take care of the widow and the fatherless through his people. How dare the government demand so much from us for work it was never created to do! |
|
|
Might happen. The open borders crowd here is on the defensive ever since the Jamiel Shaw assassination by an illegal alien Mexican criminal who should have been deported many times before. All of the MeCha and La Raza crowd that dominates the halls of government in CA is on edge over the public outcry of the utterly despicable treatment of the Shaw family by the LA City Council last week. This issue is not going away and is showing signs of going national in a big way. The Mexican Mafia picked the wrong target when they went after the pride of the Shaw family. Very strong people the Shaws. This is not good for the Sanctuary Nation, open-borders crowd including Clinton, Obama, McCain. |
|
|
When John (Middle Finger) McCain wins, I'm afraid the RNC will take this as a sign that conservatives love his ilk. Since we've voted for Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush II, and Bush II and now McCain triangulated his way into the top spot, I really don't fault them for thinking this. But we are slouching towards more socialism and less freedom each day. This is the opposite of what Patriots are for. |
|
|
Let's keep up the fight against turning into Eurabia. Let's start by banning Berkeley and San Francisco. |
|
Go back to this time last year at Townhall and read how many of these pro-Hillary and pro-McCain commenters were shrieking "We HAVE to vote for McCain (or Rudy) because he is THE ONLY ONE who can defeat Hitlery!!!" The bizarro world of RINOs.
Also go back and see how many times the only argument DNC Joe had against Hugh was calling to hurl groundless charges of being a phony and hypocrite for being against McCain. That's the problem when principles and ideas are subordinated to the emptiness of "electability". Discussions here have descended to the equivalent of listening to the buzzing of wasps whose hive has been whacked. Everyday there is a new argument for why losing to the other candidate spells the end of life itself. And you can't squeeze a stolen ID in the space that separates the candidates on issues. TH is going to be a very lonely place when McCain loses big in November. It might save the GOP. I can't wait. |
|
If clinton fails to win by 11 or more I'm gone. There is real weakness in the Obama candidacy that is not being picked up yet in the polls. There will be another last break for Clinton come tuesday night. I know Obama is out spending her 4 to 1, but that will not matter. I know Obama is getting big corwds but hat will not matter.
Write it down.
Book it!!!
Clinton by at least 11.
I stay on this blog.
Obama supporters have to start questioning their man on why he can't close this thing out. |
|
|
|
Hillary will win PA by at least 11pts.
If this does not happen I will never write another post here at Hugh Hewitt's Blog.
I'm laying it on the line for everyone to see. I have been the biggest McCain supporter on this blog since day 1.
I haven't led any of you astray on the predictions in the primarys so far.
Clinton will win by no less then 11pts.
She will win the catholic vote by such a huge margin Obama has no chance to be competitive.
Clinton will be even within a couple of points to Obama amoung men and will clean up on him with the women vote.
CLINTON WILL WIN BY AT LEAST 11 pts or I'm GONE!
Patriotic Liberal, and the rest will be praying for Obama to be close Tuesday night...but it will not happen.
Howard has spoken..so let it be so!!!
In other words I'm not going anywhere.
Clinton Big!!!
Clinton by at least 11pts!!!!!!!!
|
|
"The hard-left has captured the Democrats, and incredible as it seems, Hillary is the only hope of the old regulars for getting their party back."
The hard left is well on its way to capturing the GOP too. Why else would the RNC have enabled Dem voters to nominate a one-worlder, global-warming, open-borders co-sponsor of every piece of landmark liberal legislation to be the GOP nominee?
The only choice we have in November is to either voter FOR the one-party system or AGAINST it by voting third-party. Not complicated. You just have to resist the one-dimensional thinking being pitched by both wing of the United Establishment Party.
|
|
Joe, I wholly agree. I admit that I have not seen the women on CNN or Fox, but you are probably right about them. I'm sure that these are people that are really on the fring in more ways than one.
But we're going on, what, more than a week, and the state can't sort out which kids are in imminent danger, and which kids are not? And the state still hasn't found the actual law breaking men, and we know there probably are lawbreakers.
Today its the polygamists, tomorrow is it people that teach their children that gays are not living God's laws?
Paraphrasing Thomas Moore's character again: "If we cut down all the laws to get at the devil, where will we hide when the devil turns on us? Do we really think we'll be able to stand in the wind that blows then?" |
|
Ever since the Clinton disasters of Waco and Ruby Ridge, we have been rightfully suspicious of government interference in our lives.
But those women interviewed seem about as out of it as Patty Hearst was after she was kidnapped and later recaptured. Granted, I am all for leaving polygamists alone (no state recognitions of their marriages, but consenting adults can live as they like)--but when they are marrying off young teens (some as young as 13) to fifty year old men, the State of Texas has a right to at least check it out.
I want to see due process and a fair proceeding. I hope the members have decent counsel looking out for their interests. But at the same time, just having children does not give anyone the right to completely screw them up and abuse them. |
|
I'm celebrating Patriot's Day by being really concerned by the government's actions at the religious compound in Texas.
1. As Professor Volokh has pointed out (UCLA Law), the state can't legally take children away just because the state thinks some injury *might* happen to the child in the future.
a. The standard for the state to take a child is *imminent* danger of injury or actual injury. The State of Texas has already admitted in court that the young children (e.g. younger than 11) were in no imminent danger.
2. Isn’t anyone else troubled just by the mere scene of the government rounding up large numbers of people? It is unprecedented, except in past cases where really bad things happened.
3. If actual crimes were committed - and they may very well have been and should be prosecuted fully - shouldn’t the state find and arrest the criminals? (If the state is going to use a heavy “round ‘em up” hand, the state would be better off arresting all the men and dumping them off in El Paso rather than take 400 kids on as wards of the state.)
4. If we acquiesce to a heavy handed display of government power because we disagree with the sect in Texas and the government acts in violation of the Constitution, what will save each of us when we are rounded up on a suspicion that we might break the law, or when we teaching our kids some thing the state doesn’t like?
As Thomas More said in A Man for All Seasons, “I give the devil the benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake.”
|
|
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Obama the Revered,
On the twenty six of August, in Sixty-eight;
Barak himself was a mere lad of eight,
Who remembers that famous day and year.
Barry said to his friends, "If the Seven march
By land or sea from the Convention to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the scoreboard arch
Of Wrigley Field as a signal light,--
One if by Loop, and two if by Lake;
And on the Michigan shore I will wait,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every neighborhood, village and farm,
For the bitter folk to be up and to arm..." |
|
piece in the WashingtonPost.com and MSNBC.com, entitled,"Afghan Commandos Emerge".
Our Green Berets have spent several years training some true tough guys to go into the nether regions of Eastern Afghanistan and kill & capture Taliban & al Qaeda butchers. Nice way to begin Patriots Day! |
|
|
Be serious, just for a second (I know it's hard for you.) Do you really want the Marxist to be out next POTUS? Have you not read anything about him or by him? sheesh... |
|
Obama is 46 years old.
From the debate last week:
"He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old,"
So...now he's 48??
Are we sure he was born in HI? |
|
|
Lexington battles in the other article. Good compiling of first hand accounts. |
|
I did not vote for Kerry. I guess this is intended to describe me too:
"The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', nonpassport ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'"
Ha!
|
|
Now, put the Hi-Test Coffee down, 86...Gooood.
Now, very carefully, step away from that Mug...
Gooooood.
___________________________________________
After the Anthem you suggest, can the Meshed Up Lady MacClinton break into the Jimmy Cagney version of "I'm a Yankee Doodle Daaaaandy"...?
Nice touch, I think. |
|
Hillary Rod'em, dressed up in that wire mesh outfit Tina Turner sported in Mad Max: Beyond Thuderdome- belting out the signature song:
"We don't need a Chocolate Hero!"
"We don't need to know the way home!"
Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk
The theme song for the dimocrat Denver Death Rally.
What thinkest thou, neo-con?? |
|
Just finished Steyn's Guns & God article. As expected, it's a little gem. Excellent way to begin Patriots Day.
I'm still chortling over something he said to Hugh Thursday PM in their weekly radio chat. They were talking about the debate, of course, and Mark was hilariously scathing in his words on the Obama-Ayers 'relationship'. "You'd at least think Senator Obama would prefer a REAL terrorist for a friend, rather than this clumsy terrorist wanna'be! Ayers only succeeded in blowing his own people up!" (Liberties taken with exact quote, but it's available by link on thread below here.) |
|
|
|