Is there a more despicable "Republican" than John McPain? I still can't believe I let my family guilt-trip me into voting for this clown in '08. I can't wait for the day he no longer holds public office. As for Rubio, he's been nothing but one big disappointment. Sold to us as some great Tea Party Republican, he's been nothing but yet another establishment RINO. Besides Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, are there are decent politicians?

I think Corbett here has it right. Just like when people say we need to force everyone to buy Health Insurance because we are paying for them now. So because government interference screwed something up, that means we need MORE government interference? The answer is to remove these foolish regulations we already have, not have government interfere even more.

Clearly neither the Pope nor Mr. Buchanan know much about economics. Those "evil, nasty sweatshops" don't oppress people, they lift them up. Tariffs interfere with the free market and create less competition, which means lower quality and/or higher cost products. (Which is the result pretty much every time the government interferes with the free market). John Stossel some time back debunked these silly notions that Mr. Buchanan is now preaching, I'll have to see if I can find it.

Indeed. There is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim." Their religion calls for them to convert, oppress, or kill the unbeliever, and it's perfectly fine for them to lie to the unbeliever to achieve their goals. Miss Charen here should read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" and the Koran itself. I get a little sick of so many on the right accepting the left's false premise of "just a few radicals in Islam." No, this is what Islam actually is.

Indeed.

"Davis then uses an argument that is libertarian (which Reagan was not)" Are we sure about this? He did say that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism. I don't see why he would say that if he didn't consider himself to be a least somewhat libertarian. Anyway, I agree with what John148 says below. I would guess that Regan would be for taking government out of marriage, which would kill the issue for the Democrats who use it to paint Republicans as "homophobes."

Well, I suppose I'm in that category. I'm a Christian under 30, and I'm for ending the War on Drugs. But I don't fall under that other portion saying there's nothing morally wrong about pot use. It is morally wrong to become intoxicated. To address your point about legalization = de-stigmatizing it, that isn't necessarily true. Look at cigarettes. They are perfectly legal, yet I think we can all agree that smokers and smoking are very much stigmatized in our society. If you really think it's the government's business to stigmatize bad personal choices, then we can just do to pot and other drugs what has been done to tobacco. Have it be legal, but run an ad campaign about how awful it is for you.

Exactly. When are people going to accept the fact that there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim?"

"The religious wing bases its world view on a 1st century text that cannot change. They try to use 1st century tools to solve 21st century problems." The exact same argument leftists make about the Constitution. "It's old and outdated. They couldn't have anticipated the changes that would happen in the following few hundred years." Both the Constitution and the Bible are unchanging because the values they express are timeless. They don't need to change.

"By your own expressed standard, you just lost the argument." I decided to use a condescending tone because you already did so. "it was the way you failed to address my points, leaving them standing, and indicating that you have bupkis, that lost the argument." All your "points" are completely irrelevant to what I originally said. I replied to your original question of what's wrong with denigrating bad choices. Since then you've made it perfectly clear you feel describing someone you know only 1 thing about as a pathetic loser isn't an attack.