GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/21/some-americans-like-the-idea-of-barack-obama/trackback/

  1. I think she’s right. How else could someone be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for being elected President of the United States of America without another significant accomplishment to his name?

    Comment by David — December 21, 2012 @ 7:47 am - December 21, 2012

  2. I think Obama has always been good at avoiding saying what he really believes so people who like the idea of him can just paint their own opinions as his.

    The media has also had his back, by accusing any legitimate criticism as racist. Basically you can’t have an honest dicussion about Obama and his failures without having the race card thrown at you from all corners.

    Comment by Just Me — December 21, 2012 @ 7:58 am - December 21, 2012

  3. And Time Magazine’s Man of the Year twice! The 2nd-time with a “special border”. **…yeesh!**

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 21, 2012 @ 8:00 am - December 21, 2012

  4. I disagree. Who actually *likes* Obama? And who, by this time, seriously believes He is post-partisan or can bring people together?

    His core supporters voted for Him out of greed (expectation of getting stuff – whether His Big Banking type of supporters, or His Obamaphone Lady type of supporters). The rest voted for Him from various combinations of guilt (can’t vote against the black!) and fear (Republicans are coming to grab your va-jay-jay! Their candidate murders workers’ wives!) None of which have to do with *liking*.

    From where I sit, America is controlled by a regime of special interests who steadily vote themselves goodies, devouring productive Americans. (Example: In Congress recently, the bill to help Superstorm Sandy victims has been larded down with pork.) This coalition controls low-information voters, by diverting their attention from actual national problems. (Example: the present extreme attention on Sandy Hook which was a local tragedy, rather than on the tragedy that will affect most Americans’ lives, which is the behavior of the regime having bankrupted us.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 9:11 am - December 21, 2012

  5. Since the election, I’ve pulled back and have been fairly detached, but….
    Obama getting RE elected simply means to me that
    this battle and war is over.
    The public in 2012 had a stark choice.
    One man selling JOBS (work for your pay and benefits)
    One man giving gifts, safety nets, free lunch, no cuts in anything.

    If the country and the world economy was going to continue to struggle, for whatever reasons….53% of voting Americans, want the Santa Claus figure to be in charge.
    The days of Reagan, Churchill, Thatcher are long long gone.
    I’m 60, so it probably is time to start voting Democrat myself.
    The Myans may have been wrong today, but our children are in for a rude awakening.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 21, 2012 @ 11:49 am - December 21, 2012

  6. Or maybe it’s not because people “like” Obama all that much, but they dislike the Conservatives more.

    Lets face it, the Romney campaign were offering the same ol’ same ol’ Republican boilerplate they’ve been offering for the last 30 years. Your team keeps trying to be the next “Ronald Reagan”, except without either his genuine gentlemanly disposition, or any semblance of new, bold, or intriguing ideas. Anyone who did, say a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, were marginalized from within. The GOP is an old, stale party, with old stale ideas.

    On tax cuts. Yes, they worked during the Reagan years. But that was a HUGE tax decrease. from 70 to 29ish %. And we didn’t have the horrific debt that we do now. Add to that 30 years of decreases in job stability, job pay / income and ever shrinking benefits of those residing in the lower middle class, a subset of the middle class that has been increasing in the last 30 years, and you find a voting block that won’t buy the notion that living under the same economic model will help them in the long term, as it’s failed them for 30 years.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - December 21, 2012

  7. Riffing on Gene’s point, the choice in 2012 was between a flawed Republican who nonetheless had serious ideas about repairing the economy and trying to move the country toward fiscal responsibility…. and a reckless spendthrift who ran on a platform of free contraception and keeping Big Bird on the dole.

    The people voted for the SCOAMF.

    Which is the point where some of us decided the country is FUBAR, gave up on politics, and decided to hoard dried food and ammunition.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - December 21, 2012

  8. Add to that 30 years of decreases in job stability, job pay / income and ever shrinking benefits of those residing in the lower middle class, a subset of the middle class that has been increasing in the last 30 years, and you find a voting block that won’t buy the notion that living under the same economic model will help them in the long term, as it’s failed them for 30 years.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 12:50 pm – December 21, 2012

    Economic model, no.

    Demographic model, yes.

    So what you’re whining about, Sonic, is that people who aren’t responsible and won’t be responsible are upset because they aren’t making as much as the responsible, so they demand that government take the money from the responsible and give it to them.

    You and your fellow Obama liberals want to govern by the least common denominator. The stupid should rule the classroom, the lazy should rule the workforce, and the violent should dominate the culture.

    Why should these people be enabled? It’s time to cut them off.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - December 21, 2012

  9. “Anyone who did, say a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, were marginalized from within. The GOP is an old, stale party, with old stale ideas.”

    Sonicfrog, you are absolutely right again.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 21, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - December 21, 2012

  10. Your team keeps….

    Well, at least you’re finally admitting that you aren’t on it.

    But I digress. What I came to say: Let’s ask our Obama-supporting friends; do any of you actually like Obama, as a political leader? Why?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - December 21, 2012

  11. I haven’t been on your team for quite some time. And from the looks of things, I won’t be coming back any time soon.

    Dan believes you can change the party from within. I believe change will only come when people stop voting for them, giving them tons of money, and they see the danger that they are going to become irrelevant.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - December 21, 2012

  12. I discovered there is a label for people like me, ‘Conservatarian,’ I have a mix of conservative and libertarian beliefs.

    The reason the Libertarian movement never catches fire is because Libertarians, by and large, are ideologues and not pragmatists. Libertarians seem more obsessed with who is the purer Libertarian than in building effective political coalitions.

    My son is very much like that. I like Rand Paul a great deal, and admire him for trying to push the GOP in a more libertarian direction from a position of influence. But to my son, Rand Paul is a traitor and a sellout because he is working on the inside of the Republican Party instead of standing outside throwing rocks at it.

    This is why the Libertarian movement gets nowhere; at least this reason is equally responsible with that of the resistance of the Republican Establishment (who are, I agree, scumbags).

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 2:14 pm - December 21, 2012

  13. And now, let me point out, and piss off everybody here, by stating what no one dares say: Rick Santorum would have been a better candidate than Mitt Romney.

    1. Rick Santorum would not have lost so many socially conservative voters in Ohio and Florida.

    2. Rick Santorum could have attacked Barack Obama on ObamaCare without being labeled a hypocrite.

    3. Rick Santorum might have won Pennsylvania.

    4. Obama could not have made an issue out of his offshore investments.

    5. The left couldn’t have savaged Santorum on abortion any worse than they savaged Mitt Romney.

    6. Rick Santorum’s 0% tax on manufacturing would have been attractive to voters in Ohio and Michigan.

    7. Rick Santorum could not have been effectively attacked as an out-of-touch rich guy.

    Could he have beaten Obama? I doubt any politician could have beaten the Free Sh-t Army that turned out to keep their Government bennies and Obamaphones; but in retrospect, Santorum would have been the better candidate.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - December 21, 2012

  14. V, your son is libertarian? Not that I agree with either of the Pauls on everything (because I don’t), but… Coooooooollllll.

    I haven’t been on your team for quite some time.

    Not my team; I still have yet to be a Republican in this life. Also, my specific reference was more to your I-hang-with-the-lefty-team-and-happily-spread-their-bullcrap-but-don’t-you-dare-call-me-leftie approach to things.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - December 21, 2012

  15. NDT… You really are dull and not very bright. Did you even read the article you posted? Caveats include:

    But no one has suggested that single parenthood is the sole or even main force driving the increases in inequality,…

    That does not prove that single parenthood caused those outcomes.

    Changes in family structure may explain anywhere from 15 to 40 percent of the increased inequality in recent decades. Readers may wonder why there is such a broad range of estimates. It depends on the time period examined, the income rungs examined, and assumptions about how much the absent parent might have brought into the household.

    Mr. Western’s estimate that the rise in single parenthood explains 21 percent of the growth in inequality comes from a 2008 article in the American Sociological Review (with Christine Percheski and Deirdre Bloom). He examined the change from 1975 to 2005.

    At the same time, Mr. Winship warned that the analysis could mask other factors that are more important than family structure per se — like underlying differences in race or education.

    Yes, being married vs being single with kids is a factor. But as the article you linked to states over and over again, that is just one of many factors, and can’t at this point be singled out as a cause of the increase in inequality of incomes.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - December 21, 2012

  16. The whole premise of this post is wrong. People DON’T like Barack Obama; he hemorrhaged something like 5 million votes between the 2008 and 2012 contests, and the republican vote went up, albeit by less than a million.
    The only reason why you aren’t looking at a Romney President-elect is that he had a campaign that operated in an echo chamber that saw lawn signs and large attendances at staged rallies as evidence of support, rather than, for example, making sure that their voter registration activities were actually registering real voters. Those 5 million votes could, SHOULD have been mopped up; they’re not coming back to Obama or the Democrats.

    Romney wasn’t a bad candidate, but he was badly managed, and his campaign was an absolute clusterf–k. When you’re running against a man with no ideas, economic failure, a world on fire with revolution, AND YOU LOSE, you’ve done a real bad job of running against them.

    Comment by facesofkoridai — December 21, 2012 @ 2:38 pm - December 21, 2012

  17. The reason the Libertarian movement never catches fire is because Libertarians, by and large, are ideologues and not pragmatists. Libertarians seem more obsessed with who is the purer Libertarian than in building effective political coalitions.

    V, I agree with that assessment. That has been a problem with the Libertarian movement for quite some time. It’s why i call myself a libertarian with a little “L”. But I also think you comment that they are “ideologues and not pragmatists” applies to the GOP as well.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 2:39 pm - December 21, 2012

  18. I don’t really see much ideology in the GOP, beyond the ideology of the Establishment GOP that they should be in charge of things.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - December 21, 2012

  19. I don’t really see much ideology in the GOP…

    The fact that you don’t see it is kind part of the problem.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - December 21, 2012

  20. I really don’t see one. I see the Democrat Party as ideologically committed to socialism and welfare, universally, but the GOP doesn’t seem to believe in anything. There’s a faction that wants fiscal responsibility, another faction that wants limited Government, and another faction that wants to use Government to counter the cultural jihad of the left, and there is another faction that believes in socialism and welfare (just slightly less than the Democrats) but there does not seem to be any dominant ideology in the GOP.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 3:17 pm - December 21, 2012

  21. If I were to describe the current political landscape, it wouldn’t be “Voters are flocking to the Democrats!”, it would be “Voters are fleeing from Republicans.”

    The truth is that the Republican Party and its platform are unpopular. They did not leave the government with good results when they were last in control, and they’re recognized as obstructionists and stubborn partisans in their minority status. Instead of confronting this and re-examining the leadership and objectives of the GOP establishment, most conservatives prefer to believe the opposite – that they’re super popular, that they’re well liked, it’s just that Obama has the brainwashing tricks and the media in the pocket and the freebies for the Welfare Queens. Conservatives don’t want to face the reality that their own policy preferences have gone too far. The apparently widespread belief among many conservatives that Romney had the election in the bag is further proof – the party of personal responsibility refuses to take responsibility for their own deeds and rhetoric, and would rather float a million excuses to explain their loss than do any serious reflection.

    There are things to like and a lot of things not to like about Obama. But conservatives have always overestimated his supporters’ enthusiasm for him. Democrats, even Obama, are mostly uninspiring, but people remember the Republicans and don’t think they deserve another chance. That’s my sense of things, anyway.

    Comment by Levi — December 21, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - December 21, 2012

  22. They like the idea of Obama because the media tells them what Obama wants them to know.

    Comment by Annie — December 21, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - December 21, 2012

  23. Not to mention the complete and utter spineless asses on the GOP side. Spineless or complicit, you decide.

    Comment by Annie — December 21, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - December 21, 2012

  24. I’ve just about given up, frankly.

    The variance between where I thought I’d be at 50+ when I got out of college…and now that I am 50+…are just breathtaking and morbidly-discouraging; regrets, missed-opportunities and could-have-beens. Even compared to where I was 12-years-ago I’m worse off by-far.

    And on the Day the World’s Supposed to End, the President is more worried about a minor but tragic event in Connecticut while the White House and Congress fling the Republic off the Cliff with a shrug and a casual “meh”…

    Congress has gone home for the Holidays, The President is off to Camp David or Hawaii to golf “…don’t call me unless it’s the REAL Apocalypse”, and the Nation’s economy going to Gehenna in a wheelbarrow.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 21, 2012 @ 3:31 pm - December 21, 2012

  25. NDT… You really are dull and not very bright. Did you even read the article you posted? Caveats include:

    Yes. And it’s from the New York Times, so I expect those kind of “can’t challenge the liberal dogma” caveats.

    And I also expected you to sit there and whine and complain because it doesn’t suit the narrative that the poor proletariat like yourself are being robbed of your honest labor by rich people; it focuses much more on the fact that the poor are poor because of their poor choices.

    That is the difference between conservativism and liberalism, as I stated before. People who aren’t responsible and won’t be responsible are upset because they aren’t making as much as the responsible, so they demand that government take the money from the responsible and give it to them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - December 21, 2012

  26. after reading for years what the resident retards like sonicfrog and levi write it is without the shadow of a doubt that they are simply not intelligent. I am not talking about low IQ but also lacking basic common sense to perform any moderate logical conclusion.

    When you have 50 million people that are actually stupid due to their poor upbringing and failed schooling (yes all those communist ivy leagues are failed schools), add in randomly the uninformed, localized voter fraud and emotional females and you get the majority the democraps need.

    Fact is the whole europe is on the verge of bankrupcy thanks to socialist policies, fake compassionism and wild immigration and what is the answer to that? taxes over taxes, VAT in some countries is 21% and rising, freebies are granted to illegal immigrants just because. Those are the policies that people like levi advocates in spite of the failures that they always bring. But yet, a mind untouched by critical thinking is not able to elaborate and process information and simple cause-effect.

    There is a say among small business owners that goes like this: when you start a small business, even if you are alone you have always a partner: the government. See this partner does not work, doesn’t do absolutely anything, but every month he takes 50% of your hard earned income. Just because.

    The explanation of the personal success of the turd you have in the white house is very simple.

    When you are a not so attractive girl with low self esteem, you try to hang out with girls uglier than you. When you are a particularly dense man and you are ashamed of it, you search for a woman that is less intelligent than you.

    The idiots that vote democrat being inept, dim and lazy themselves need to elect someone that does not surpass them in ability, intelligence and wit.

    This is how inept people react to life, by lowering the overall standard so they can pretend to shine.

    When you erase logic you have to fill the void with something else. See the obama cargo cultists like levi & the rest. They don’t need any logic, they have a Kardashian president that tells them they are perfect as long as they live in the plantation and degrade whoever votes against.

    Their only sense of worth comes from worshipping, this is why they will never admit that companies are firing people for obama care and it will be impossible to have health care that is at the same time more affordable, for more people, with more quality.

    Add to that, liberalism is a mental disease as explained in the following medical essay

    The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness [Jr. M.D., Lyle H. Rossiter, George Foster, Bob Spear]

    The most ironic thing of the leftist idiots that populate the web is that they talk about socialist europe like a paradise (because their kardashian president and his goons in the press said so) but when you question them on the issues you realize they NEVER lived in europe, most of them barely visited on holiday. Once you start debunking their myths one by one their only reaction is the one you would expect from a full blown idiot, take the ball and leave.

    Comment by susan — December 21, 2012 @ 4:23 pm - December 21, 2012

  27. “The truth is that the Republican Party and its platform are unpopular.”

    The stupidity lives rent free in levi’s brain.

    Every dictator in history has been at some time ‘popular’ among his people. The Kardashian mentality is 100% here.

    Margareth Tatcher was widely unpopular as well as anybody else that tried to apply reasonated policies.

    The takers and the freeloaders will always consider unpopular everything that undermine their situation.

    Every country that has a majority of takers vs makers is doomed from the start.

    Comment by susan — December 21, 2012 @ 4:33 pm - December 21, 2012

  28. “The truth is that the Republican Party and its platform are unpopular.”

    I wouldn’t say unpopular, I’d say more like there are more takers than makers in society. Obama was promising free sh-t, Mitt Romney was saying, I’ll give you the chance to work so you can buy sh-t for yourselves. There were simply more people who wanted to freeload than people who wanted to work.

    The Democrat value proposition — we’ll take stuff away from people you hate and give it to you — is very appealing to a lot of people, but it isn’t sustainable in the long term.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 5:03 pm - December 21, 2012

  29. Just 2% the other way, and the Democrat Party and its platform would be unpopular.

    And they will be, before Obama is done.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - December 21, 2012

  30. Which is the point where some of us decided the country is FUBAR, gave up on politics, and decided to hoard dried food and ammunition.

    Not true. Not true!

    I’m also hoarding chocolate and toilet paper …

    Comment by Adriane — December 21, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - December 21, 2012

  31. You all know my position on this argument in Feb. I’m going to buy a crossbow and take up hunting and foraging. I think a lot of people have already or will need to in the near future.I believe the future will be very bleak. Welcome to the New Dark Age!

    Comment by Catseye — December 21, 2012 @ 5:31 pm - December 21, 2012

  32. When you have 50 million people that are actually stupid due to their poor upbringing and failed schooling (yes all those communist ivy leagues are failed schools), add in randomly the uninformed, localized voter fraud and emotional females and you get the majority the democraps need.

    Yep. Insult the voters. There is the solution. Tell me. In about a year, when your candidates have to go out once again and try and convince / convert people who are on the fence to vote for your ticket, how exactly are you going to get any meaningful portion of that 51% to peel off of the Democrat vote and vote for your guys when you and the Conservative talking heads have spent s much time building the narrative that those same voters are stupid?

    Oh, I know! We’ll call Obama a socialist and a horrible President, because that worked so well this time. Or maybe you’ll sign a new set of “pledges” to not raise taxes, or to be faithful to your wife, with many of those who signed that one already having broken it, several times! Or, just blame everything on the moderates in your party. I certainly won’t stop you from doing any of those things.

    And you wonder why your party is becoming more and more unpopular.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 5:45 pm - December 21, 2012

  33. Just 2% the other way, and the Democrat Party and its platform would be unpopular.

    And they will be, before Obama is done.

    This is exactly my point. You can’t count on the other guy to fail. You’ve got to find ways to get back out in front. And Boner’s horrible “Plan B” debacle was certainly fun to watch for us political junkies.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 5:48 pm - December 21, 2012

  34. Gee, Sonic, as long as you’re going to spout the left’s talking points for them, why don’t you call the GOP racist as well?

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - December 21, 2012

  35. I mean, yes, the GOP should be criticized relentlessly, but the GOP, for all of its flaws, is not as anti-American, corrupt, and downright evil as the Democrat Party.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - December 21, 2012

  36. I mean, yes, the GOP should be criticized relentlessly, but the GOP, for all of its flaws, is not as anti-American, corrupt, and downright evil as the Democrat Party.

    That’s not going to help either.

    Next.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 6:04 pm - December 21, 2012

  37. “Yep. Insult the voters. There is the solution. ”

    it perfectly worked for your party. If anything, that should tell you all you need to know about your voting base. Thanks for brilliantly proving my point and agreeing with me that the democrat voting base is full of scumbags.

    You have succesfully vilified social conservatives, legal immigrants, married women, christians, business owners, people who lived within their means.

    Goes without saying that I’d rather lose elections than identify with the cargo cultists who live everyday on class envy, racism, christianophobia etc.

    Be careful with “what’s popular” because in the 30s it was very popular to round up jews.

    I’d keep distance from that kind of popularity.

    Comment by susan — December 21, 2012 @ 6:08 pm - December 21, 2012

  38. in usa less thaan 50% of ppl votes. The rest is not comprised of full blown idiots like the cargo cultists.

    Comment by susan — December 21, 2012 @ 6:14 pm - December 21, 2012

  39. it perfectly worked for your party.

    First, you should check yer inglish. And second, the libertarian party did not do those things as far as I can tell.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - December 21, 2012

  40. nice deflection and by yours i meant democraps.

    the libertarian party never did anything relevant or useful, btw. How many elected from the libertarian party?

    Boy you are a real winner!!!

    And surely the yeast infection in the oval office is going to pass a lot of libertarianism-inspired laws.

    Wow, you won, enjoy your expensive and inefficient obamacare, you unemployment %, the devaluation of the $ and all the nice things this election brought you.

    Instead of looking at my grammar, you should go back to first grade to re learn basic math.

    Comment by susan — December 21, 2012 @ 6:44 pm - December 21, 2012

  41. There is a presumption here that Obama actually won. With longer lines everywhere, how did fewer people vote? And given the results of the Tea Party, where did the ABO votes go? Just the fact that everyone is surprised, including dems, suggests that there’s ‘a powerful smell of mendacity’ about.

    Comment by ellie — December 21, 2012 @ 7:33 pm - December 21, 2012

  42. Strange, How can I be a registered Libertarian, and yet be a Democrat? Maybe you should do some Googling and learn the difference between the two before you embarrass yourself further.

    Wow, you won, enjoy your expensive and inefficient obamacare, you unemployment %, the devaluation of the $ and all the nice things this election brought you.

    Instead of looking at my grammar, you should go back to first grade to re learn basic math.

    Just so you know, they don’t teach percentages and economics in first grade. And don’t blame this election on me. I didn’t vote for the eventual winner. Your attitude and the poison that it spreads turns more voters away from your party than my libertarian beliefs ever could.

    And, on the “what have the libertarians ever done?” bit. Ron Paul might not be a Libertarian now, but he leans close to it. He is considered the “Godfather” of the Tea Party. Why? Because a lot of his libertarian ideas and ideal from his 2008 campaign fed into the creation of the Tea Party. Too bad the Tea Party became infested with the likes of you. It could have really been something, instead of the laughingstock it is becoming as a GOP appendage..

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 21, 2012 @ 8:03 pm - December 21, 2012

  43. How can I be a registered Libertarian, and yet be a Democrat?

    There are right-leaning libertarians (aka libertarian-conservatives, “classical liberals”, etc.), and left-leaning libertarians. The left-leaning like to claim the prestige that the right-leaning ones have given to the name “libertarian”, but manifest many of the same flaws as actual leftists: Poor at facts and logic; unjustly proud of themselves; eager to preen at the expense of others, and/or of the truth; etc. sf, you can often be counted on for a useful demonstration, for which I feel a certain gratitude.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 10:19 pm - December 21, 2012

  44. eager to preen at the expense of others

    You’re kidding, right?

    Poor at logic? Sorry. I’m not the one who can’t type a response without delving into one logical fallacy or another. But it’s all right. It’s no sweat off my back if you choose to take actions that will lead the GOP into obscurity, despite all the good intentions.

    I will easilly admit – I love watching political parties implode. I loved it when the Dems were beside themselves that Kerry lost in 2004. I loved it when they lost big time in 2010, and, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I love this too.

    Who knows, maybe something better will rise from the ashes. But it can’t go on like this. I think we all agree on that.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 22, 2012 @ 12:47 am - December 22, 2012

  45. “Your attitude and the poison that it spreads turns more voters away from your party than my libertarian beliefs ever could”

    Romney lost because the hard core conservatives stayed at home. This is not caused by something I said but rather by pandering to the middle to sway idiots like yourself.

    You are part of the problem. Not of the solution.

    I particularly enjoy the fact that you were not able to answer logically to my post without resorting to ad hominems.

    So tell me how the vilification of conservatives by the democraps won the election. This is their new standard, expect more of the same in the near future. You helped build that. I bet you are proud of yourself. Which frankly says it all about yourself.

    Comment by susan — December 22, 2012 @ 3:52 am - December 22, 2012

  46. Anyone who didn’t vote for Mitt Romney voted for Barack Obama; that’s the hard and unfortunate truth of it.

    Also, here we see the problem; a libertarian unwilling to make compromises or coalitions with people who might help advance his agenda because he views them as untouchables.

    Comment by V the K — December 22, 2012 @ 10:24 am - December 22, 2012

  47. Back on the original topic, though, I remember how shocked I was when I found out bug-chasing was a real thing; that there really were gay men (and women, apparently) who got turned on by the thought of getting HIV and actively sought it out. It shows that, with a slick enough marketing campaign, people can be made to ‘fall in love with’ an idea, even if it is malignant and dangerous.

    Comment by V the K — December 22, 2012 @ 10:41 am - December 22, 2012

  48. Several members of my family voted for Obama mostly because they wanted to give him “more time” to handle a “difficult situation” that was not “of his making.” They like the fact that he is a clean, articulate black man. Besides, if we survived eight years of Bush, what can Obama do that is any worse.

    So, where do you start with those people? In my experience, you don’t. Their minds are made up and they only care about selective “facts.”

    Obama and the Alinsky theory of demagoguing “social justice” and the powerful Chicago style of machine politics all came together and Obama won the crown with Axlerod, Jarrett and a whole side show of near felons and creeps doing the ground work.

    Obama campaigned on smoke and mirrors (hope and change, to be exact) and he was able to posture and pose his way to idolization replete with a national socialist realism type poster, halo lighting, chin jutting and enhanced aura settings and demeanor.

    If it had been Ron Paul doing this stunt, we would all have laughed ourselves silly. Obama very likely was able to carry it off in no small part because he actually feels and believes the role. That is always a charismatic part of successful dictators.

    We have to live through these four years just like the libs had to live past Reagan. There will not be another Obama. No Republican black will ever avoid the abuse and scorn the Democrats will heap on him only and solely because he is black.

    Nor will the Democrats come up with another Obama. They will have to move on to finding a woman and an Hispanic and whatever else they need to showcase.

    The Republican party is in deep turmoil and I would say that the civil war analogy within the party is probably correct.

    No major businessman of any stripe is comfortable with an economy in turmoil. But neither is he willing to go the collapse and restructure route if it can be avoided. So, the big money is likely to be cautious money on the Republican side. (I can not explain why big money on the liberal side is so willing to fund state socialism.)

    I rule libertarians out. There is much that appeals to me, but every time they get a little backing, the whole movement goes busted haywire over some issue like drug legalization or isolationism or other principle that the public is just not ready for and which can be ridiculed and demagogued by amateur comedians doing charity gigs just to get noticed.

    Four years is an eternity in politics and Obama has plenty of time ahead of him to ruin his cache and educate even the slowest minded of his voters that at the end of his term all he is is black. (That is really tough for me to say, because being black is in no way the issue, but when you rode black into the winner’s circle and you didn’t do anything else outstanding, it is all you have left.)

    No sentient human being can look at the skyrocketing spending and money printing and the total resistance to cutting spending or modifying underfunded and unfunded entitlements and not see disaster.

    Yet, that is where we are. And the masses refuse to get it.

    This week, I took a lot of capital gains and I moved almost entirely out of the market. As I talked with bankers and financial guys, I was informed that my moves are being taken pretty much across the board by people who are planning how to cut their losses. No one does what I did thinking he will preserve his principle. You do it to minimize the hit you are going to take. I know what the rates are today and I can deal intelligently with them.

    Obama has a hungry bengal tiger, an irritated komodo dragon and a disgruntled grizzly bear all on a cobweb leash. He may play golf and body surf in Hawaii and do meet and greets with the glitterati, but he can’t strut and preen his way through by ignoring and pooh-poohing reality. If he does manage to ooze by these four years unscathed, he will prove to have been a real piece of work.

    But, you and I are going to pay heavily for all his anointment and glory. We won’t get not stinkin’ Nobel Prize just for existing. (Why hasn’t Obama gotten a second one of those prizes? He has certainly done no less than he did to get the first one.)

    Comment by heliotrope — December 22, 2012 @ 11:27 am - December 22, 2012

  49. Here’s a way to illustrate the difference between the right-leaning and left-leaning libertarians.

    The right-leaning libertarian goes to a Tea Party protest. He’d seen media reports that it should be a bunch of racists. He wants to find out for himself. Of course he finds no racists, because there never were any. He finds a diverse bunch of ordinary people holding signs in favor of fiscal prudence, good work ethics, capitalism and freedom. He feels proud that he stood with them, because in his heart and in his convictions, he favors those things.

    The left-leaning libertarian goes to an Occupy Wall Street protest. His leftist friends had dropped hints that doing so would make him cool. He finds a diverse bunch of drug users (I include 420 there) holding signs in favor of greater handouts and welfare for themselves, various over-dramatized causes such as the Palestinians, and certain forms of nihilism. He feels proud that he stood with them, because in his heart (if NOT necessarily his convictions), he favors those things.

    (I can not explain why big money on the liberal side is so willing to fund state socialism.)

    Because of what you said a few sentences later: the skyrocketing spending and money printing. They benefit from (and seek) that. They’re after the bailouts, and the Fed’s money printing campaign is a giant bailout. They can handle the tax hikes via their accountants, which is what they did the first time around (1930s through 1970s).

    Also: Expanding government regulation favors large, established businesses who can afford to comply, at the expense of newer and smaller players who can’t. The big banks *wanted* the Dodd-Frank bill, because it enshrines their “Too Big To Fail” status, thus guaranteeing them future bailouts, and because their consultants and lobbyists will be writing the Dodd-Frank rules, which will be too onerous for up-and-comers to comply with.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - December 22, 2012

  50. I voted for Mitt Romney. I was excited when the Tea Party formed. I stand here today wondering the hell why. All I hear, from the Right, is an echo-chamber of total hypocrisy. They spent four years telling America that big government could do nothing of value, while they…continued to push for their very own, special version of big and ever-more-intrusive government.

    Call that what you want. I call it hypocrisy, because that’s what it is.

    We got into this pickle in the first place because people — both Left and Right — fell for the fairy tale that if big government could only be tamed and trained to do THEIR bidding (because they’re right, and everybody else is wrong, and they’re just a little more special than everybody else).

    But big government is a beast that can’t be tamed or controlled. And in the space of a single election cycle it can turn against those who fancied they could handle it.

    I await the chorus of “la-la-la…crazy-crazy-crazy…extremist-extremist-extremist…we can’t HEAR you!”

    Government is like hair or fingernails. It must be repeatedly trimmed.

    “All” libertarians do not believe the same things about many issues, because they do not believe those matters should be left to the government — not necessarily because they have no concern about those matters. This is why so many of us differ on those issues. We believe big government has handled them badly, and that they are best left to the citizenry to solve (as self-reliant people are supposedly able) for themselves.

    So much for Right-Wing rhetoric. Turns out even many of them don’t really believe it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2012 @ 2:20 pm - December 22, 2012

  51. hey spent four years telling America that big government could do nothing of value, while they…continued to push for their very own

    Not clear who ‘they’ refers to… the Tea Party?

    Government is like hair or fingernails. It must be repeatedly trimmed.

    Agreed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 2:45 pm - December 22, 2012

  52. ILC, “they” means the people in the Tea Party (and others who agree with them) who give big government a free pass as long as they fantasize that they can make it do their bidding.

    The Tea Party, I well realize, is not of a single mind. There are some very good people in it. There are also some who want to use it as a vehicle for a big-government social agenda. Its informal structure, while a good thing in many ways, seems to lend itself to such abuses.
    I’m well aware that when Leftists speak of the Tea Party, they try to make it sound as if ALL of them are like that, and that nowhere near all of them are. But they need to clean house — and they need to do it now.

    No organization — however loosely-structured — can pursue two totally opposing and contrary goals and hope to succeed. That is simple logic. Logic may be a bitch, but the Right has ignored it for far too long.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - December 22, 2012

  53. “they” means the people in the Tea Party…who give big government a free pass

    No offense Lori, but I never knew that Tea Party. I would say that the Tea Party, by definition, opposes Big Government. Republican candidates such as Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Huckabee were not part of it, though Romney tried to acquire some of its energy with the Ryan pick for VP (Ryan being Obama’s nemesis on budget matters).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - December 22, 2012

  54. As to why Romney lost – barely, that last 2% he needed: He is, at heart, a Big Government guy; just not insane like the Democrats. Romney learned to ‘speak fiscal conservatism’ by the end of the campaign, but it was too late. Romney never put together a compelling story (as some others have) about why Big Government hurts people, and why cutting it will help people.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - December 22, 2012

  55. (continued) Romney was indeed a ‘compromised’ candidate, as the guy who had prototyped Obamacare. Romney couldn’t bring himself to attack Obamacare’s moral premises, because he largely agreed with them. Romney mainly attacked Obamacare from the left: that, instead of Obamacare, we should do a better job on Medicare.

    I remember Romney and Ryan talking about opportunity, but I can’t remember if they ever said anything as clear as what Reagan did, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”

    Part of what’s wrong with the Republican Party is, indeed, the extent to which it serves Big Government. Don’t get me started about everything Bush did wrong, in his domestic policies.

    I voted for Romney – really, more that I voted for Ryan – because it was a no-brainer, between them and Obama. As someone said, a vote for anybody else but Romney, was effectively a vote for Obama. But I’ve long been dissatisfied with the Republicans, and was never very happy about Romney.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 3:17 pm - December 22, 2012

  56. (last thought) The Republicans should have run a candidate who was explicitly anti-bailout. That would have inspired people, and started a fundamental conversation about the role of government in our society. But they didn’t. It would have rocked the boat too much, with the Republicans’ version of the Big Government lobbying complex.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 3:27 pm - December 22, 2012

  57. #53 — ILC, I mean no offense either, but I DO know “that” Tea Party. One of its local chapters here, in Chandler, Arizona — a suburb of Phoenix — invited a speaker, Pastor Steven Anderson of Eternal Word Church, who was actually on record as calling for the death penalty against gays.

    They will say, of course, that they didn’t call him to speak for that reason. That it was because he claimed to have been beaten up by border guards, and that he therefore had something to say about immigration. But hundreds of people pass through that border every day. Surely they could have found a better spokesman than that.

    I repeat, they need to clean house. People who propose Taliban-style crackdowns on U.S. citizens — simply because they happen to dislike or disapprove of them — are not fit spokespeople for any organization that claims to advocate limited government and individual liberty.

    They called this clown to speak for them. They own what he has to say, whether they agree with all of it or not.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - December 22, 2012

  58. Of course I can’t argue the particulars (since I don’t know them). If that guy is as much a clown as you say: then yeah, you’re right.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 22, 2012 @ 3:39 pm - December 22, 2012

  59. As to why Romney lost … He is, at heart, a Big Government guy; just not insane like the Democrats. … Romney never put together a compelling story (as some others have) about why Big Government hurts people, and why cutting it will help people.

    It’s very frustrating to many of us that the GOP, with all of its Think Tanks and all of its well-paid consultants, can’t communicate the Small Government message with the strength, passion, and eloquence that can be found daily in the posts and comments of conservative blogs.

    And it’s precisely because, for most Republicans, conservatism is a second language.

    Comment by V the K — December 22, 2012 @ 3:52 pm - December 22, 2012

  60. Anyone who didn’t vote for Mitt Romney voted for Barack Obama; that’s the hard and unfortunate truth of it.

    Nope. I voted for Gary Johnson. And that’s the hard and fortunate truth. Of course, since I live in California; as long as there is an electoral college, it really doesn’t matter who I vote for. The Dems own this state, and will for a long time to come.

    Romney lost because the hard core conservatives stayed at home.

    Perhaps. But how many of those who voted for Romney in this election would have stayed home had the choice been, say, Santorum or Bachmann, instead of Romney? Any guess is pure speculation, but I suspect it would be more than the 3 million voter drop-off that Romney saw this election cycle.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 22, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - December 22, 2012

  61. Sonicfrog, another point to consider is how much Romney lost because people voted for Gary Johnson instead. I’m not criticizing you; I very nearly did that myself. Next time the GOP puts up such a lame candidate, I will definitely vote my conscience and pick the Libertarian.

    What the soc-cons are shrieking about is that the GOP didn’t give Baby his bottle by putting up a nutbag like Santorum, so the little brats stayed home and sulked. Boo friggin’ hoo. What the party really needs to do is grow a pair and tell those people to stay home permanently — then nominate a really viable candidate. They would certainly far more than make up the difference in new people coming in (or those who have left the party in disgust).

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - December 22, 2012

  62. Um, actually it’s not the social cons who are throwing tantrums and demanding that the libertarians/fiscal cons be expelled from the GOP. Quite the other way around.

    And it wasn’t the social cons that abandoned the GOP in 2008, either. No, that was the moderates like David Frum, Kate Parker, and Chris Buckley.

    But, go ahead, shriek and tantrum and point and blame the social cons for all your failures. They formed an effective and pragmatic political organization. You did not.

    Comment by V the K — December 22, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - December 22, 2012

  63. Social cons are just plain, flat-out lying. They are saying one thing out of one side of their faces — that they want limited government and the protection of individual liberty — while out of the other side, they advocate bigger and more oppressive government.

    None of your rhetoric, V the K, can obscure that. Nor can forming “an effective and pragmatic political organization” make up for it.

    As for my failures, I am not a Republican. Your party’s problems are on your own head.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - December 22, 2012

  64. I am not a Republican. If you had been paying attention, you would have read my criticisms of the GOP.

    I am not a Republican, I am a realist. And what I see are libertarians who bitch that social conservatives have too much power in the GOP. And when one suggests that they perhaps should organize to more effectively assert power, they indignantly protest that they would never dirty their soft, precious hands with the grubby business of politics.

    Bunch o’ frakkin’ whiners. That’s all you guys are.

    Comment by V the K — December 22, 2012 @ 11:22 pm - December 22, 2012

  65. #64 — And since, V the K, you know every single libertarian on the planet, you are qualified to make such a grand and sweeping condemnation.

    Really, that is ignorant. You sound like a third-grader.

    Many Libertarians are indeed concerned about the need to come down from the mountaintop and get the party’s head out of the clouds. I happen to be one of them, and I write about that often.

    I’m hardly the only one. But of course you know all things without having to investigate them. Just like most third-graders.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2012 @ 11:34 pm - December 22, 2012

  66. I am going by what’s been said in this forum, on this thread, and from the way I see it, the libertarians are coming across as kinda whiny and spoiled. Y’see, the reason social conservatives have influence is because they turn out for Republicans, they donate to Republicans, they do GOTV for Republicans.

    Libertarians by and large just don’t do that; it’s like it’s beneath them. “Well, you’re not pure enough for us, so we’re going to vote for a guy who has no chance of winning, and then we’re going to brag about how we chose purity over pragmatism.”

    And this whole “Social cons want big government too?” Really? Seriously? Because they’d like a few more restrictions on abortion and oppose gay marriage? That’s not Big Government. You don’t need to create massive bureaucracies on the scale of the EPA or Obamacare to outlaw partial birth abortion or enforce DOMA. By and large, social cons are not fans of bureaucracies or entitlements.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 12:24 am - December 23, 2012

  67. #66 — “Spoiled?” That’s pretty incredible. We’d need to be pretty accustomed to getting our own way a lot of the time to get spoiled. That hasn’t happened too often in the last 150 years.

    Social conservatives do not all want only “a few more restrictions on abortion,” nor do they merely “oppose gay marriage.” There may be a few who stop there, but a great many want to outlaw all of them — even to consider every fertilized egg a human being — and to continue an entitlement program in which the wealth of single people is redistributed, via the tax system, to married heterosexuals.

    Sounds a hell of a lot like big government.

    As far as those massive bureaucracies are concerned, if they ever got their hands on enough power to create those that would do their bidding, they’d certainly do it.

    They certainly are fans of bureaucracies and entitlements — as long as they’re controlling the bureaucracies and receiving the entitlements.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 23, 2012 @ 1:59 am - December 23, 2012

  68. I have always found the speculative “if social conservatives had power, then they would do” argument unpersuasive; especially in the light that we know what leftists do when they get power.

    Even when George W. Bush and Tom DeLay had full power, they didn’t outlaw abortion, make it illegal for women to work outside the home, or close down a single gay bar. The paranoia of the social left over these things is ridiculous; particularly when it is used as justification to help elect real, hardcore, Big Government, anti-freedom leftists to power.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 10:10 am - December 23, 2012

  69. Wow, I get such a kick out of this blog, now that I understand that some of the people who comment here simply live in their own, pretty little bubble and cannot relate to the rest of the world.

    Libertarians are no longer socially liberal; notice that now, to aspiring mind-manipulators like V the K, we are “The Social Left.” We are being re-branded!

    “We are Borg…Resistance is futile!”

    And then they wonder why so many of us simply laugh at them and shake our heads.

    V, let me put something on the record. I don’t give a damn what you call me. From this point on, you are an interesting case-study in what happens when people buy into the Right-Wing B.S.

    “Our poison isn’t as bad as their poison…drink ours instead, and the country will, at the very least, die a slower death. ”

    I refuse to accept that for my country, so I am unrealistic, out of touch, a purist, or whatever else you can throw at me and try to make stick.

    Now I’m a card-carrying member of the Social Left.

    If I wasn’t utterly convinced that politics in this country needed a major refiguration, all I’d have to do would be to read the comments of people like you for my eyes to be opened.

    Yes, V, you have indeed opened my eyes. Just not in the way you wanted to.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 23, 2012 @ 11:29 am - December 23, 2012

  70. I’m not here to persuade anyone of anything; just to call it as I see it. I am all out of f–ks to give.

    If you don’t think abortion-on-demand and state redefinition of marriage are not social left issues, I don’t think you get out very much.

    I also doubt you’re going to achieve much in the way of “refiguration” (sic).

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 11:49 am - December 23, 2012

  71. Sorry, but both of you need to back off. Red-on-red (or good-on-good) violence is unproductive.

    By the way, Lori: you did make some assumptions about V without knowing what you were talking about. And V: Rick Santorum, at least, did declare his opposition to libertarians within the GOP (quotes given about 2/3 of the way down).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - December 23, 2012

  72. Just sick and tired of Libertarians blaming social conservatives for their political failures. The truth of the matter is, a Libertarian (or even small Government) society only works when it is built on socially conservative morals and ethics.

    Also, I don’t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the less sucky.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 12:21 pm - December 23, 2012

  73. I think we all feel a little frustrated that Obama, who won barely (with a big net loss of support from 2008), is busy flushing America down the toilet. And only the hapless Boehner stands in his way.

    It is some comfort to know that Obama’s system, being decadent and unsustainable, is doomed. But a small comfort. Because we must live through the collapse, first. And the Beast is at its worst, in its death throes. That’s frustrating, and scary. Times are not going to be fun again, for awhile.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2012 @ 12:21 pm - December 23, 2012

  74. Even when George W. Bush and Tom DeLay had full power, they didn’t outlaw abortion, make it illegal for women to work outside the home, or close down a single gay bar. The paranoia of the social left over these things is ridiculous; particularly when it is used as justification to help elect real, hardcore, Big Government, anti-freedom leftists to power.

    Yeah, and, when they got done dealing with things related to the GWOT and the unfunded wars that would last for ten years running, we got mostly feel-good stuff out of them like the PROTECT act, Prison Rape Elimination act (I’m betting they haven’t eliminated prison rape at all), Check 21 (so much for letting the free market decide things), Partial Birth Abortion act, Medicare-D, No Child Left Behind, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, none of which did squat to balance the budget. And then add in a couple of efforts to introduce the dumb unpassable flag burning amendment, and the Terri Schaivo debacle, which was no business of theirs to get involved with in the first place…

    Sorry V. The problem with the social cons is that they always promise fiscal conservatism, but instead pursue So-Con agenda items instead to please the base. Most all of the supposed Tea Party candidates are So-Con who found a new angle to get / stay elected. Rick Santorum? Michelle Bachmann? Newt “I’m not a lobbyist lobbyist” Gingrich? Fiscal Conservatives? Really???

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 23, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - December 23, 2012

  75. And then there’s sf… who threw “Your team” type of remarks/assumptions in a thread where the three largest participants could all be described as libertarian on some level and anyway are not Republicans, even if they all reluctantly voted Romney.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - December 23, 2012

  76. ILC, Sonicfrog is like concern-troll mike: they project their own obsession with social issues, their hatred and bigotry, and the fact that they vote solely based on social issues and their own bigotry onto others.

    These folks are easy to spot: they will rant over and over and over again about the supposed “sins” and “hypocrisy” of Republicans, but will never under any circumstances do the same for the Obama Party or for Barack Obama.

    That’s because they really don’t care about these things on a principled basis. They are only looking for rationalizations for their hatred and bigotry toward conservatives, and they will vote for anyone who opposes conservatives, no matter how destructive that person’s other views are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - December 23, 2012

  77. I don’t think anyone ever claimed GW Bush was a fiscal conservative. Neither was Arnold Schwarzeneggar… who also happened to be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-drug legalization.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC75aU47GRk

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - December 23, 2012

  78. [Some] are only looking for rationalizations for their hatred and bigotry toward conservatives

    Agree, and would tie it back to my distinction between right-leaning and left-leaning libertarians. The leftie one despises conservatives (and obsesses over social issues) to the point that he cannot stand with conservatives who support property rights, gun rights, genuine free speech (not speech codes), budget/entitlement cuts, defense against terrorists, etc. I’m not that person and Lori, to her credit, isn’t either. I happen to support gay marriage, pot legalization and first-semester abortion; that doesn’t stop me from recognizing the fact that the great threats to freedom in our time are the Islamists, and the Democrats.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2012 @ 2:15 pm - December 23, 2012

  79. ILC gets where I am politically. A social leftist would legislate morality that runs contrary to what social conservatives desire. A libertarian (like me) would not legislate morality one way or another, but would leave matters of conscience to each individual.

    I’m sick of being slandered by soc-cons (or by those who have been taken in by their propaganda) who are too mentally lazy to even attempt to understand what freedom means. It means to you what it means to you, and to me what it means to me. And as long as neither of us commits force or fraud against the other, then the government ought to stay the hell out of the equation.

    The only way to effectively spread your morality, anyway, is by how you live your life — by your example. Trying to legislate a code by which you cannot live yourself (or make no honest effort to) is crappy, sloppy and hypocritical. It will also ultimately fail.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 23, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - December 23, 2012

  80. Ugh! Social conservatism has become more of an epithet than a description. I went to Wiki (ugh! again) and found this statement about social conservatism in the United States:

    Social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family, church, or locale. Social conservatives would typically define family in terms of local histories and tastes. Social conservatism may entail support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman (thereby banning same-sex marriage) and laws placing restrictions on abortion.

    This convoluted, ugga-bugga-yoyo type of try-to-sound-smart speak really says next to nothing.

    But, as a social conservative, I happily admit to supporting civil unions, but not gay marriage and I am fiercely in favor of the family structure for raising children and caring for kith and kin. I can do a lot with my time, mind and money on the local level than the state and national level and I do. Banning abortion is like all prohibitions, so I prefer regulating it sensibly and sensitively and at the local level.

    I will add that we are nation of laws, not of men.* [*and women and transgendered and undecided and whatever other crowd takes offense at the tradition meaning of "men" in such usage] As a result, the national government should drop the social engineering and stick to protection and infrastructure.

    I also believe the government should adopt zero-based budgeting and that the Constitution should be amended to stipulate the parameters for deficit spending.

    In no way do I place marriage or abortion above the urgent needs of restoring the health to our economy. However, I fully realize that there are those who will not vote for a person who opposes gay marriage and there are those who will not vote a candidate unless he does oppose gay marriage. If we had a national government that actually tended to the business of the Constitution and was not all tied up in social engineering, this would not be a concern.

    The Progressives have pushed us into the social funding business through progressive taxation. Therefore, the Progressives have defined themselves and their raison d’être on the spending of other people’s money by confiscating the earnings of some to give to selected (entitled) others. When this level of social engineering becomes entrenched, and it has, the country is open to all manner of social engineering.

    Therefore, social conservatives are attacked politically for their belief systems if they are not in accord with the transient fads of the greater “culture.”

    Republicans need the social conservatives in order to win. Many Republicans believe that winning the “independents” is more important than holding the social conservatives. Romney and McCain both discovered that that calculation does not work.

    The national government has insinuated itself into every nook and cranny of state and local government as an effective method of controlling them. That tangled web must be broken. In many respects, it is almost a Gordian knot in which local police departments, for example, are dependent upon national funding.

    As a result, this whole craziness of government at all levels as nanny has become a national nightmare.

    We need to grow up, put on our big boy pants and sort out what government can do effectively and efficiently and what we have to handle for ourselves through the private economy.

    So long as the Progressives can keep the voters riled up by demagoguing social issues, they will have the offensive and be offensive doing so.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 23, 2012 @ 3:32 pm - December 23, 2012

  81. The really ironic part is that I long for the demise of the GOP as much as anyone. I just see no benefit to the poo-flinging between social conservatives (who by and large tend to be small government fiscal conservatives) and libertarians who want smaller Government but not if it means compromise on their lifestyle issues.

    Also, I don’t see social conservatives throwing hissy fits and demanding that fiscal conservatives be tossed out of the party; but I sure as heck see a lot of that going the other way.

    Makes me wonder how much of the political criticism of social conservatives is rooted in animus toward Christianity.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - December 23, 2012

  82. #81 — To what “party,” V, are you referring?

    The Republicans? As I am not a Republican myself, I give not a single fat damn whether social conservatives stay in that party or not.

    I do believe they should be told the truth, by libertarians in the GOP, that no organization or entity can go in two contrary directions at once. They need to be very clear as to what they want government to do, and what they don’t. And if those dastardly leftists are distorting their opinions to make it look as if they want more government control than they do, then it behooves soc-cons in the GOP to clear up that misunderstanding.

    They have not done this. They have made almost no effort to do it. That is their own fault, not anyone else’s.

    The GOP needs to be clear, focused and as united as possible on what it wants to do. And as for putting on the Big Boy pants, the Republican Party needs to tell everybody to do that, and to get on the same page.

    I refuse to get into a pissing contest over who, within the Republican Party, is more wrong than whom. They just need to get their heads on right and figure out what they stand for. If that turns out to be limited government and individual liberty, I may — at some point in the future — vote again for a GOP candidate.

    Until that time, this Libertarian wouldn’t vote for a Republican for anything — be it dogcatcher or inspector of the public crapper.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 23, 2012 @ 4:23 pm - December 23, 2012

  83. But social conservatives *will* turn and vote for a GOP that’s less than perfect on every issue; which is why they have more influence in the party than libertarians.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 4:27 pm - December 23, 2012

  84. I don’t think anyone ever claimed GW Bush was a fiscal conservative.,/blockquote>

    Um… He ran as one in 2000. Tax breaks for all…. As Governor of Texas, he balanced the budget…. Was going to abolish base-line budgeting. The last being the main reason I voted for him in 2000… That, and my well founded disdain for anything that even resembles Al Gore, not to mention Al Gore himself.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 23, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - December 23, 2012

  85. Try that again..

    I don’t think anyone ever claimed GW Bush was a fiscal conservative.

    Um… He ran as one in 2000. Tax breaks for all…. As Governor of Texas, he balanced the budget…. Was going to abolish base-line budgeting. The last being the main reason I voted for him in 2000… That, and my well founded disdain for anything that even resembles Al Gore, not to mention Al Gore himself.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 23, 2012 @ 5:17 pm - December 23, 2012

  86. #83 — As I said, in an earlier comment on this very thread, that I voted for Mitt Romney in November, pause for just one moment, V, to consider what a ridiculous assertion you just made.

    I am a libertarian, yet I voted for a candidate who, in my opinion, is about as far from perfect as any the GOP has put up in my voting lifetime. I also know other libertarians — both small “l” and large — who voted for Romney.

    Maybe we should simply consider your last comment an ice-cream-cone-in-the-forehead moment and move on from there.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 23, 2012 @ 5:38 pm - December 23, 2012

  87. So long as the Progressives can keep the voters riled up by demagoguing social issues, they will have the offensive and be offensive doing so.

    Here again, another perfect example of the PARTY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY completely abdicating its responsibility and ludicrously blaming others for its own failures. All of a sudden, its the Progressives who are demagoguing the social issues, is it?

    If you’re capable of remembering all the way back to the George W. Bush administration, you’ll recall how frequently the Republican Party flogged gay marriage as a pressing domestic issue that all social conservatives had to worry about. Just ahead of the 2004 election, George W. Bush stated his support for an amendment to the Constitution that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Karl Rove and the GOP coordinated to put gay marriage on the ballot in 13 states in 2004, and they won every one of those votes. Suffice to say, the Republicans of ten years ago strongly believed that opposing gay marriage was a big political winner for them.

    Only a decade later and the pendulum has swung the other way. Gay marriage won on all 4 of the ballots that it was on this year, and it’s looking like the Supreme Court may make it law of the land in a matter of weeks. This is called a backlash, and it happens when one side overreaches. Bush and Rove thought they could wrench some election success out of the issue, but that came at a cost to the long-term stability of the party. An issue that helps you win one election may be an issue that helps you lose the next three. There was definitely a receptive audience for an anti-gay marriage pitch back in 2004, but that audience is old, dying, and now more focused on pressing economic concerns. There is also an entire generation of young voters who consider the right’s position on gay marriage to be inhumane, mean-spirited, and pointless – hard things to overcome if you’re a party leader trying to get people to commit to your ideology for a lifetime.

    The issue of gay marriage used to be a narrow win for Republicans, it’s now a massive win for Democrats. Can you blame them for beating Republicans over the head for it? Gay marriage is a weapon that the Republicans enthusiastically used against their political opponents, and now it’s been turned on them. Conservatives started this fight and the liberals are finishing it. But again, it was the GOP that was riling people up about this issue – not the Democrats, so take some responsibility for yourselves now that it’s crippling you.

    Comment by Levi — December 26, 2012 @ 9:52 am - December 26, 2012

  88. So long as the Progressives can keep the voters riled up by demagoguing social issues, they will have the offensive and be offensive doing so.

    I have another great example.

    Ask a Tea Partier what the Tea Party is all about, and they will promise you that they are a reformed conservative movement that has stripped out all the social conservatism stuff and is now laser-focused on fiscal policy. So the 2010 elections come around and Tea Party candidates win significant victories! Supposedly, this meant that Americans craved conservative fiscal policies, and the new Tea Party forces in the GOP would mean that this would be their priority.

    So how did that go? Well, in the first 3 months of 2011, Republicans introduced an unprecedented number of anti-abortion bills in state legislatures. So much for all that, I guess! While they were trying to win the most recent Presidential election, the newly Tea Party-infused Republicans voted to remove the rape exception from their abortion language in the party platform. A 6-term GOP Senator from Indiana was defeated by a Tea Party candidate in a primary – the candidate went on to lose in large part because he said in public that God intends for people impregnated by rape to have children. A woman advocating for public financing of contraception was publicly accused of being a slut by all the Tea Party’s favorite leaders.

    BUT NEVER MIND ALL THAT, you want to say. Conservatives expect to be able to define themselves with words, not with their actions. If they say they’re focused on fiscal policy, we’re supposed to just believe them, and ignore their coordinated, widespread efforts to restrict and eliminate abortion. Once again, Republicans have overreached and created a backlash, but they’re wholly unwilling to accept any responsibility. Thus, you have the Republicans’ talking points about the Democrats’ fabricated War on Women, and the incessant whining about the liberals creating distractions to win elections. Republicans spent 2 years becoming more extreme and more active than they’ve ever been on issues of reproductive health, and they want to get away with it without suffering a single consequence.

    Here again, the Republicans are eager to use a political weapon when it seems to be giving them an advantage, but scream to high heaven when it’s used against them. Another perfect example of Republicans starting a fight and crying like children when they ultimately lose.

    Comment by Levi — December 26, 2012 @ 10:18 am - December 26, 2012

  89. All of a sudden, its the Progressives who are demagoguing the social issues, is it?

    Poor little fascist does not understand “demagoguing.”

    What does a demagogue do when he demagogues an issue? He agitates, he rouses the rabble, he incites, he uses incendiary language, he harangues, he antagonizes, he is the malcontent, he foments propaganda, he is a provocateur, he acts the zealot, he is a revisionist and he instigates unrest.

    I would be interested in seeing links to GW Bush demagoguing social issues.

    The little fascist apparently believes that if you disagree with his wants and hope and agenda, that disagreement is automatically demagoguing.

    Poor little fascist, his computer must have some restriction his mom put on it so that he can’t google simple definitions.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 26, 2012 @ 4:31 pm - December 26, 2012

  90. Ah, once again LEvi lies.

    The Social Conservative reaction on the gay marriage issue came as a defensive reaction to courts exceeding their power.

    (Of cours,e when a court makes up stuff Levi likes, it’s all well and just)

    Facts. Those things Levi can’t handle

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 9:31 am - December 27, 2012

  91. Poor little fascist does not understand “demagoguing.”

    What does a demagogue do when he demagogues an issue? He agitates, he rouses the rabble, he incites, he uses incendiary language, he harangues, he antagonizes, he is the malcontent, he foments propaganda, he is a provocateur, he acts the zealot, he is a revisionist and he instigates unrest.

    I would be interested in seeing links to GW Bush demagoguing social issues.

    The little fascist apparently believes that if you disagree with his wants and hope and agenda, that disagreement is automatically demagoguing.

    Poor little fascist, his computer must have some restriction his mom put on it so that he can’t google simple definitions.

    Why should I bother? Regardless of whether or not George W. Bush personally demagogued on a social issue is utterly irrelevant. What matters is that during his re-election campaign, his strategists made it a central issue. The rest of the GOP followed suit, and now we have people like you going around thinking you’re making sound arguments by stating over and over again that legal gay marriage necessitates legal horse marriage. The suggestion that the Republicans weren’t demagoguing social issues during the Bush administration is absurd on its face – I’m not going to debate the color of the sky with you.

    The bottom line is that you’re complaining about liberals pushing back on issues that have been under sustained assault from Republicans for years. You’re complaining about liberals using gay marriage as a base motivator after Republicans started a coordinated effort to ban it across the country. You’re complaining about liberals using reproductive health as a base motivator after Republicans started a coordinated effort to reduce access to abortion across the country. It’s costing you elections, and instead of considering that hey, maybe these two issues aren’t worth losing a generation of young voters over, you’re just going to cry about it like you’re unfairly getting picked on.

    When some GOPer in Virginia gets the idea that they’re going to require transvaginal probing to get an abortion, you need to understand how crazy you people look. Why wouldn’t Democrats want to publicize that kind of behavior? Of course they’re going to use that against the GOP, why wouldn’t they?

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2012 @ 9:32 am - December 27, 2012

  92. More lies from Levi *yawn* Poor coward can’t face facts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 9:35 am - December 27, 2012

  93. You’re complaining about liberals using gay marriage as a base motivator after Republicans started a coordinated effort to ban it across the country.

    Oh • my • goodness. Where to begin. 1) Gay marriage has not been banned. It has been proscribed by the definition of marriage under our legal understanding of the institution. 2) Gay activists and Progressives are working through the courts to try to change the proscription. They are being challenged. Furthermore, there are efforts to have the one man/one woman tradition written down in the proscription so there is no question. Those wishing to maintain the tradition are demagogued by the likes of the little fascist as being against equal rights, domineering, sky-god lunatics, haters, homophobes, etc. 3) I encourage the little fascist to link to instances on the right of people demagoguing about gay marriage.

    You’re complaining about liberals using reproductive health as a base motivator after Republicans started a coordinated effort to reduce access to abortion across the country.

    Once again, Progressives demagogue about pro-life people “wanting” to take away a woman’s basic civil rights, about putting their laws on a woman’s womb, about women loosing their right to choose, about back alley abortions and dead women, about forcing a woman to carry a child of rape, incest and terrible physical conditions, etc. Yet, Progressives will not discuss the life of the innocent child in the womb and make all manner of handstands and pirouettes to call “it” a mass of cells. The Progressives not only will not discuss the lies that surround partial birth abortion, but the President himself has backed legislation that would permit the doctors to let an infant die if it survives the abortion process. I encourage the little fascist to link to instances on the right of people demagoguing about abortion.

    we have people like you going around thinking you’re making sound arguments by stating over and over again that legal gay marriage necessitates legal horse marriage.

    Oh, but you do not. I have consistently asked you (and others) your justification for bending the marriage tradition to include same sex marriage but closing the door to other forms of change in the tradition of marriage. That is to say, why not marriage between a father and son? Why not polygamy? Why not make an old lady happy by marrying her cat? That is not demagoguing. That is forcing you to be specific, logical and reasoned about the change you are demanding. You repeatably fail to answer in specific, logical and reasoned terms. You demagogue.

    So, what’s new? The little fascist rants and throws charges all over the place. I said that it was clear that the little fascist does not know what demagoguing is and his pitiful comments above prove me out.

    The little fascist is all about demagoguing.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 27, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - December 27, 2012

  94. Oh • my • goodness. Where to begin. 1) Gay marriage has not been banned. It has been proscribed by the definition of marriage under our legal understanding of the institution. 2) Gay activists and Progressives are working through the courts to try to change the proscription. They are being challenged. Furthermore, there are efforts to have the one man/one woman tradition written down in the proscription so there is no question. Those wishing to maintain the tradition are demagogued by the likes of the little fascist as being against equal rights, domineering, sky-god lunatics, haters, homophobes, etc. 3) I encourage the little fascist to link to instances on the right of people demagoguing about gay marriage.

    Once again, Progressives demagogue about pro-life people “wanting” to take away a woman’s basic civil rights, about putting their laws on a woman’s womb, about women loosing their right to choose, about back alley abortions and dead women, about forcing a woman to carry a child of rape, incest and terrible physical conditions, etc. Yet, Progressives will not discuss the life of the innocent child in the womb and make all manner of handstands and pirouettes to call “it” a mass of cells. The Progressives not only will not discuss the lies that surround partial birth abortion, but the President himself has backed legislation that would permit the doctors to let an infant die if it survives the abortion process. I encourage the little fascist to link to instances on the right of people demagoguing about abortion.

    Do you need someone to explain American politics to you?

    In the 80′s, big business and the religious right formed an alliance under the banner of the Republican Party. Big Business needed a reliable voting bloc, and the religious right wanted someone who played to their social views. This has been a very good deal for both groups, and the Republican Party has been able to count on big business providing the cash flow and the religious right providing the votes. By embracing the religious right’s opinions on gay marriage and abortion (among other things), the GOP has acquired a powerful voting bloc that will respond to the slightest bit of cajoling with great enthusiasm.

    And so for three decades, GOPers have gone around talking about how liberals don’t care about killing babies, or that liberals want to ‘gay-up’ the culture. This is demagoguing, regardless of how graciously you’d prefer to characterize it. The truth is, the only thing significant about gay marriage and abortion is how insignificant these issues are. They involve private citizens making personal decisions that affect only themselves, but the GOP has whipped up the religious right by making it seem like these issues represent a legitimate battle for the fate of western civilization. The GOP positions on these issues exploit the kind of sexual insecurity and homophobia that define the religious right. This arrangement has been mutually beneficial until very recently.

    And now that you’re caught up on the history of your political party, I’ll add something about partial birth abortion. It almost never happens, so you’re wasting your time. If your objective is to reduce the number of abortions, you couldn’t be going about it less efficiently than stomping your feet about the horrors of partial birth. There are dozens of things that could be done that would reduce all abortions, and you are wherever you are stomping your feet about partial birth, even though it almost never happens and is often done for medical reasons. You’re spinning your wheels….

    …. which is another important part of the arrangement! See, strategically, it makes no sense for the GOP to actually succeed in eliminating abortion. It’s too effective a recruitment tool! It allows the GOP to make people think they’re saving lives, and it allows the GOP to cast their political opponents as baby murderers. Their unwillingness to expand healthcare coverage or provide better sex ed to students demonstrates exactly how little GOP operatives genuinely care about abortion, since those are policies they should support if they want to see fewer abortions in the world. What they really want is to be able to continue going to this well, pushing the religious right’s buttons so that the religious right will push buttons for them. In other words, they demagogue instead of actually doing anything.

    Oh, but you do not. I have consistently asked you (and others) your justification for bending the marriage tradition to include same sex marriage but closing the door to other forms of change in the tradition of marriage. That is to say, why not marriage between a father and son? Why not polygamy? Why not make an old lady happy by marrying her cat? That is not demagoguing. That is forcing you to be specific, logical and reasoned about the change you are demanding. You repeatably fail to answer in specific, logical and reasoned terms. You demagogue.

    I don’t know what to tell you. If it’s illegal for kids to buy cigarettes, why isn’t it illegal for adults to buy cigarettes? If it’s legal for grown-ups to drive, why isn’t it legal for blind grown-ups to drive?

    There are good reasons for making those kinds of rules. There are good reasons for not allowing polygamous and incestuous marriages. Incestuous marriages are inherently exploitative. Polygamous marriage is impractical in our laws and our economy. On the other hand, gay marriage is exactly the same as straight marriage.

    There’s nothing logical about this. You’re employing the dumbest form of the slippery slope fallacy I’ve ever seen. For proof, consider the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. By your idiotic formulations, the military allowing gays to serve means that convicts, the elderly, and kindergartners now have legal standing to join the military. And yet, here we are 6 months later and we have zero toddler divisions so far. Why is that? Because there are rules in place about who can be in the military, and many people are automatically disqualified, simply because of who they are, for very good reasons.

    What’s more, gay marriage has now been legal in Massachusetts for a decade. By your logic, this means that pedophiles and animal lovers should be very close to earning themselves the right to marry their objects of affection. But they’re not! So you’re incorrect. Gay marriage, where it has been legalized, has not given pedophiles and animal lovers even the tiniest toehold when it comes to who they’d like to marry. You keep saying this stuff as if you haven’t been proven absolutely wrong about it every time.

    Let me repeat it – there are no good reasons to disallow gay marriage. There are dozens of good reasons to disallow other types of marriage. That’s really all there is to say about it.

    So, what’s new? The little fascist rants and throws charges all over the place. I said that it was clear that the little fascist does not know what demagoguing is and his pitiful comments above prove me out.

    This is tedious. I don’t want to debate the color of the sky with you. Your original allegation that the Progressives are flogging the social issues more than the conservatives is utter nonsense, and anyone with a glancing familiarity with American politics fundamentally understands that. Conservatives staked out these positions a long time ago, they hammered them every election, getting great results, and now they’re dealing with a backlash that was easy to see coming and that’s crippling their electoral viability. Yes, this has presented an opportunity for the Democrats and they’ve seized it. But these are fights that you guys picked, and you’re embarrassing yourselves by whining about now having to pay the piper.

    Comment by Levi — December 27, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - December 27, 2012

  95. So the little fascist continues the big lie.

    Back in the 90′s, when Levi was a child (oh wait). The SC in Hawaii said that the Hawaii constitution didn’t disallow SSM. In response the people of Hawaii amended the constitution. The Hawaii supreme court said then that there was no longer a question of if SSM was allowed.

    Judicial overreach, people’s reaction.

    Again, facts. Those little things that Levi can’t address. Because all he has is lies.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - December 27, 2012

  96. And so for three decades, GOPers have gone around talking about how liberals don’t care about killing babies, or that liberals want to ‘gay-up’ the culture. This is demagoguing, regardless of how graciously you’d prefer to characterize it.

    The little leftist characterizes GOPers as going around “talking about how liberals don’t care about killing babies” and then says his characterization of GOPers is demagoguing.

    I would agree with that. But his characterization is not supported by either fact or evidence. The 2012 GOP draft-platform resolution said: “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

    I call, once again, on the little fascist to provide links to GOPers demagoguing about liberals not caring about killing babies.

    I agree that GOPers who say liberals want to “gay up the culture” is demagoguing. I do not even know what “gaying up the culture” means. So, if it is demagoguing, it isn’t playing to me. But, as a conservative, I have never heard anyone say that liberals want to gay up the culture. So, I detect an hallucination, but I would be happy for links to read and digest.

    This is tedious. (…..) Conservatives staked out these positions a long time ago, they hammered them every election…

    I agree entirely. This • is • tedious.

    Conservatives have believed in the sanctity of life for since forever. Conservatives have believed in traditional marriage since forever. Progressives come along with promoting and accommodating abortion and promoting gay marriage and conservatives have a political reaction.

    Read my lips: Opposing a social change is not the same as demagoguing.

    Try to understand that.

    Progressives rush to demagogue. Especially with the fact challenged electorate. They rally them around emotion and like the little fascist, as soon as facts show up, they get louder and meaner and sputter off in other directions.

    So, once again, little fascist, how does your alleged mind qualify same sex marriage but not plural marriage. How did your alleged mind decide that same sex marriage is OK but plural marriage is not OK? Don’t worry about convincing me, make sure you can convince the people who really want plural marriage and whose feelings you are going to hurt. Since that is as about as deep as you care to wade into things, just that superficial non-thinking, but judgmental decision will be constructive.

    Oh, and if a gay father and gay son want to marry, why is it incest?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 27, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - December 27, 2012

  97. The little leftist characterizes GOPers as going around “talking about how liberals don’t care about killing babies” and then says his characterization of GOPers is demagoguing.

    I would agree with that. But his characterization is not supported by either fact or evidence. The 2012 GOP draft-platform resolution said: “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

    I call, once again, on the little fascist to provide links to GOPers demagoguing about liberals not caring about killing babies.

    Okay, you want to play stupid. You have your special word and you have your secret standards and there’s nothing I could ever produce that would allow you to agree with me that Republicans demagogue on abortion. So why should I bother? You’ll dismiss it anyway. You’ll always appraise the Republican position on abortion to be perfectly reasonable and completely genuine and not at all about stirring up emotions or inciting anger – it’s all perfectly acceptable politics as far as you’re concerned.

    So maybe we should talk about how the Progressives are demagoguing the issue, because that was your original statement, was it not? Maybe you could provide some examples and explain what you mean?

    I agree that GOPers who say liberals want to “gay up the culture” is demagoguing. I do not even know what “gaying up the culture” means. So, if it is demagoguing, it isn’t playing to me. But, as a conservative, I have never heard anyone say that liberals want to gay up the culture. So, I detect an hallucination, but I would be happy for links to read and digest.

    Still playing stupid! Why should I waste my time? I’m talking to someone who is warning that gay marriage leads to legalized pedophilia, and you don’t want to admit that Republicans demagogue the issue!?

    I agree entirely. This • is • tedious.

    Conservatives have believed in the sanctity of life for since forever. Conservatives have believed in traditional marriage since forever. Progressives come along with promoting and accommodating abortion and promoting gay marriage and conservatives have a political reaction.

    Read my lips: Opposing a social change is not the same as demagoguing.

    Yes it is – especially when that opposition is completely indefensible on legal grounds and relies exclusively on religious preferences.

    Try to understand that.

    Progressives rush to demagogue. Especially with the fact challenged electorate. They rally them around emotion and like the little fascist, as soon as facts show up, they get louder and meaner and sputter off in other directions.

    Gay marriage is obviously an emotional issue, but the Constitution is clear on what needs be done. It’s a matter of basic fairness that children can understand, and the only group of people standing in its way are a bunch of homophobic religious zealots and who feel their social, cultural, and political relevance evaporating. How anyone could accuse the progressives of being the demagogues on this one is completely beyond me.

    Abortion is another emotional issue, but it is also a completely private decision that people need to be allowed to make for themselves. It’s also a women’s health issue and a poverty issue, and these are the arguments that liberals proffer in its defense, while agreeing that every measure to reduce the necessity of the procedure ought to be taken.

    Meanwhile, pro-lifers will stand on street corners and literally scream until they’re blue in the face, waving around giant banners depicting aborted fetuses and shouting at teenagers that they’re murdering their babies. WHO IS DEMAGOGUING?

    So, once again, little fascist, how does your alleged mind qualify same sex marriage but not plural marriage. How did your alleged mind decide that same sex marriage is OK but plural marriage is not OK? Don’t worry about convincing me, make sure you can convince the people who really want plural marriage and whose feelings you are going to hurt. Since that is as about as deep as you care to wade into things, just that superficial non-thinking, but judgmental decision will be constructive.

    I’ve answered this question at least a half a dozen times. Marriage law in this country can accommodate two people. Upon this foundation, we have built divorce law, adoption law, child custody laws, property laws, health insurance law, inheritance law, tax law, and a number of other rules and regulations that are predicated on two people, and only two people, being able to get married at a time. It’s a completely arbitrary limit, but it’s one that was set up a long time ago and it’s not worth changing it now. While I don’t think there’s anything necessarily morally wrong with plural marriage, it just doesn’t fit into our system of laws. Nobody is being discriminated against by prohibiting gay marriage in the same way that no one is being discriminated against if they get their licenses revoked. You can marry one person in this country at a time, and that’s accessible to everybody. If you want to go in the words and marry a harem and live with them and raise a family, go for it – but as far as the government is concerned, only two people can be legally married at a time.

    Oh, and if a gay father and gay son want to marry, why is it incest?

    You know, I generally don’t like thinking or talking about incest. It only ever happens when I’m debating gay marriage with simpletons, who seem to view it as some ace up the sleeve. I don’t care about your question – if you want to go over the particulars of what constitutes incest and what doesn’t, I’ll leave you to toss that around in your brain. I’m cool with, ya know, not thinking about fathers having sex with their kids.

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 10:08 am - December 28, 2012

  98. The little fascist wriggles and squirms for a very long time before shrugging its shoulderless shoulders and slinking off.

    The little fascist can not produce demagoguing by conservatives, but neither can he explain away the core technique of demagoguing by the liberals who pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. Ridicule the opponent, keep the pressure on, shift tactics and change the issue to keep the crowd from getting bored, threaten mayhem, make the opponent responsible to his own rules, be judgmental, apply constant pressure, hide your agenda, cause fear, confusion, retreat. Never stop baiting the opponent and never be trapped into exposing what you would do.

    That is the side the little fascist has pledged his allegiance to and now he must pretend that the other side operates the same way; therefore he does not have to defend the vile and corrupt practices of demagoguing.

    Meanwhile, pro-lifers will stand on street corners and literally scream until they’re blue in the face, waving around giant banners depicting aborted fetuses and shouting at teenagers that they’re murdering their babies. WHO IS DEMAGOGUING?

    This sorry example would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

    When Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis and friends paraded across the front of the capitol and were spat upon and repeatedly called the “N” word, we only had their word for what happened. Did it happen? Well, the late Andrew Brietbart offered $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund for any audio/video footage supporting the claim. Hundreds of independent cameras were in the immediate area and not a single entry to support the claim was made. Miss Nancy and John Lewis were left dealing with their highly selective hearing which remarkably escaped the eyes and ears of everyone who did not have a stake in the claim. That is the soft underbelly of demagoguing. Have a respected black civil rights leader claim he was assaulted with foul racist language in order to target, freeze, personalize, polarize and identify the TEA Party as racists. Then keep making the claim, be judgmental, and stick with your story. But, they got caught and they had to slink away.

    So, the little fascist says that waving pictures of aborted fetuses and yelling at the person going to kill her fetus is fetus killing is somehow demagoguing.

    I am not particularly fond of placing more pressure on a youngster who is already feeling enough pressure to have chosen to kill her fetus. But, protest is protected under the first amendment and it applies even to people who occupy private property, crap on police cars and scream gibberish about the 1%. Neither group is demagoguing.

    If a father and son really love one another, why shouldn’t they be married? There is no incest involved. Can’t be. Check Darwin.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 28, 2012 @ 11:15 am - December 28, 2012

  99. The little fascist wriggles and squirms for a very long time before shrugging its shoulderless shoulders and slinking off.

    The little fascist can not produce demagoguing by conservatives, but neither can he explain away the core technique of demagoguing by the liberals who pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. Ridicule the opponent, keep the pressure on, shift tactics and change the issue to keep the crowd from getting bored, threaten mayhem, make the opponent responsible to his own rules, be judgmental, apply constant pressure, hide your agenda, cause fear, confusion, retreat. Never stop baiting the opponent and never be trapped into exposing what you would do.

    That is the side the little fascist has pledged his allegiance to and now he must pretend that the other side operates the same way; therefore he does not have to defend the vile and corrupt practices of demagoguing.

    Again, you have your special word and your secret standards. What I consider demagoguing, you consider reasoned discourse, what I consider reasoned discourse, you consider demagoguing. I just happen to be right, for the reasons I’ve laid out; abortion should be a decision left up to individuals, not religious groups, and allowing two consenting adults to marry regardless of their sex is basic, kindergartner fairness. These things are obvious to most humans, but the issues are distorted by a political faction that depends on ‘inciting and agitating’ religious people to vote based on these issues.

    When Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis and friends paraded across the front of the capitol and were spat upon and repeatedly called the “N” word, we only had their word for what happened. Did it happen? Well, the late Andrew Brietbart offered $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund for any audio/video footage supporting the claim. Hundreds of independent cameras were in the immediate area and not a single entry to support the claim was made. Miss Nancy and John Lewis were left dealing with their highly selective hearing which remarkably escaped the eyes and ears of everyone who did not have a stake in the claim. That is the soft underbelly of demagoguing. Have a respected black civil rights leader claim he was assaulted with foul racist language in order to target, freeze, personalize, polarize and identify the TEA Party as racists. Then keep making the claim, be judgmental, and stick with your story. But, they got caught and they had to slink away.

    Don’t care, don’t care, don’t care.

    So, the little fascist says that waving pictures of aborted fetuses and yelling at the person going to kill her fetus is fetus killing is somehow demagoguing.

    I am not particularly fond of placing more pressure on a youngster who is already feeling enough pressure to have chosen to kill her fetus. But, protest is protected under the first amendment and it applies even to people who occupy private property, crap on police cars and scream gibberish about the 1%. Neither group is demagoguing.

    Well, technically, the cajoling that took place to put these people in front of abortion clinics with their signs would be the demagoguing. Again, abortion is a private issue that has no effect on other peoples’ lives, and yet people are motivated to go to abortion clinics and scream “BABY-KILLER!” at the top of their lungs all afternoon. Use your definition:

    What does a demagogue do when he demagogues an issue? He agitates, he rouses the rabble, he incites, he uses incendiary language, he harangues, he antagonizes, he is the malcontent, he foments propaganda, he is a provocateur, he acts the zealot, he is a revisionist and he instigates unrest.

    That is the pro-life side of the abortion issue. In the past, you have agreed with me that prohibition of abortion is not a good idea. Generally, pro-life people cannot articulate a law that would criminalize abortion, and will never answer questions about who should go to jail or what they should be charged with under their preferred set-up. Additionally, people who are pro-life tend to oppose other policies that would reduce abortions like better healthcare access and sex education. This is the nuts-and-bolts stuff, these are the substantive topics that need to be addressed when you’re talking about abortion in America, and across the board, the pro-life segment has completely checked out, in favor or the aforementioned screaming at teenagers.

    Abortion is supposed to be a personal, private issue. Women, couples, and families are in the best position to determine for themselves how to proceed, and they should be left to do it. Abortion has been made into a national issue by a political party that desperately needs religious voters to turn out. So they agitate, they rouse the rabble, they incite, they use incendiary language, they harangue, they antagonize, they are the malcontents, they foment propaganda, they are provocateurs, they act the zealot, they are the revisionists and they instigate unrest. The GOP’s agenda on abortion is not to end abortion, the GOP’s agenda on abortion is to use it as a means of riling up their base.

    This does not describe the left. The left understands the real, practical implications of reproductive health, and this is where we live when we argue for abortion rights. Every woman is entitled to determine for herself whether or not to carry to term, and there are seriously negative economic, social, and public health consequences for interfering with that determination. I can give you concrete, substantive, evidence-based reasoning for allowing abortions all day long – the pro-life side can only muster “You are killing all the babies!” You want proof? OPEN YOUR EYES. Some of your friends will be along shortly to accuse me of murdering kids.

    If a father and son really love one another, why shouldn’t they be married? There is no incest involved. Can’t be. Check Darwin.

    If a father and a daughter really love one another, why shouldn’t they be married?

    These are stupid questions that have nothing to do with allowing two consenting gay adults to get married. What you’re doing here is demagoguing – you have been convinced by some prior demagogue that gay marriage leads to incestuous marriage, and now you’re paying the demagoguery forward! Incest is reviled, and stating over and over again that gay marriage establishes a precedent for incestuous marriage serves no purpose other than to make people worried and scared and agitated, roused, incited, etc. There’s absolutely no connection here, and as I’ve said to you a million times, the legal status of gay marriage in Massachusetts for a decade with no corresponding increase in incestuous marriages proves this point conclusively.

    The organized opposition to gay marriage is driven by sexual insecurity and the increasing irrelevance of the religious right. It is completely irrational and anathema to the Constitutional principles of liberty and equality. It is kept in the air as a political issue by demagogues, who know that the best way to endear people to you is to create a scary boogeyman that’s out to turn your kids into homos. Here again, the left has the law on their side, they have history on their side, they have compassion and inclusion on their side. After a decade, we have evidence on our side. Gay marriage opponents can do nothing except repeatedly invoke their traditions and deploy scare tactics about pedophiles and people that screw their pets. In other words – they can do nothing but demagogue!

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - December 28, 2012

  100. Heliotrope,

    It’s clear that Levi will not answer your questions. He can’t, lest he show further how foolish he is. Instead he will just continue to scream and lie and cry and suck his thumb. Indeed, he’s shown just now that when confronted with facts, his reaction is “Don’t care.”

    I appriciate your Quixotic posts, but Levi’s more blowhard than windmill, and hardly a giant.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 12:16 pm - December 28, 2012

  101. The little fascist can not read and comprehend. The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and political protest. Protesting is not a form of demagoguing. It is protest. No matter how the protest is staged, it is protest.

    If the protest uses incendiary language that could lead to violence, the protest can be iced down. There are limits.

    Obama is a demagogue and he and his party have become experts at demagoguery. When the “Plan B” effort to stave off going over the fiscal cliff failed, Nancy came forth and announced that the result of Republicans not saving the country would be:

    It entirely eliminates federal funding for services like Meals on Wheels – which serves 1.7 million seniors – by getting rid of the Social Services Block Grant. This would also eliminate federal funds for child care and related assistance for 4.4 million children; services for nearly 1 million disabled individual; and child protective services which serve 1.8 million at-risk children

    That is demagoguery. Any number of choices have to be made in deciding which cuts to make in the overall general 10% cut mandated. The demagogue immediately says that if you cut the fire department budget, none of the fire engines will have tires.

    Try as he might (and he doesn’t try), the little fascist remains steadfastly i immune from understanding anything that is inconvenient to his rants.

    A father and daughter can not marry because of incest. They are of different sexes and how they do sex includes the biological imperative. There is no equivalence between a father and daughter and a homosexual father and his homosexual son. As to the sex of that loving couple, you can look it up. The survival of the species is not dependent on where or how they grasp things and/or stick them.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 28, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - December 28, 2012

  102. The little fascist can not read and comprehend. The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and political protest. Protesting is not a form of demagoguing. It is protest. No matter how the protest is staged, it is protest.

    If the protest uses incendiary language that could lead to violence, the protest can be iced down. There are limits.

    I said quite clearly that its the conservative media celebrities and politicians that are the demagogues on the issue of abortion. Those protesters are the rabble, and they’ve been roused. Accuse me of poor reading comprehension, you say? Look at what I said here;

    “Well, technically, the cajoling that took place to put these people in front of abortion clinics with their signs would be the demagoguing. Again, abortion is a private issue that has no effect on other peoples’ lives, and yet people are motivated to go to abortion clinics and scream “BABY-KILLER!” at the top of their lungs all afternoon.”

    Not that any of this is important. When you state that protesting is not a form of demagoguing, I disagree. Hell, I don’t even know if I’d call the people that stand in front of abortion clinics ‘protesters’, anyway. I think activists is a more fitting term – can activists demagogue, heliotrope? After all, you’re the only one that knows what that word means, right? Either way, this doesn’t matter. You’re going to absurd lengths to narrow your definition of these words so tightly that they apply to people like me and don’t apply to people that, for example, accuse women of being sluts for voicing their opinions.

    Obama is a demagogue and he and his party have become experts at demagoguery. When the “Plan B” effort to stave off going over the fiscal cliff failed, Nancy came forth and announced that the result of Republicans not saving the country would be:

    It entirely eliminates federal funding for services like Meals on Wheels – which serves 1.7 million seniors – by getting rid of the Social Services Block Grant. This would also eliminate federal funds for child care and related assistance for 4.4 million children; services for nearly 1 million disabled individual; and child protective services which serve 1.8 million at-risk children

    That is demagoguery. Any number of choices have to be made in deciding which cuts to make in the overall general 10% cut mandated. The demagogue immediately says that if you cut the fire department budget, none of the fire engines will have tires.

    Try as he might (and he doesn’t try), the little fascist remains steadfastly i immune from understanding anything that is inconvenient to his rants.

    Okay, I’m confused. I did a Google search for the quote you attributed to Nancy Pelosi, but it seems like this is actually a statement from the White House. What’s more, it’s describing an actual cut that was written into the language of Plan B. To me, it seems like the Democrats are accurately describing a cut that the Republicans would prefer to make and are citing statistics – and apparently this meets the secret standards for your special word. Never mind that the whole ‘Plan B’ thing was a sideshow to begin with! Demagoguing is for people that don’t have plans, demagoguing is for people who are too afraid of their base to compromise. This definitely describes one party, and it’s not the Democrats.

    And why did you say Nancy Pelosi said this?

    A father and daughter can not marry because of incest. They are of different sexes and how they do sex includes the biological imperative. There is no equivalence between a father and daughter and a homosexual father and his homosexual son. As to the sex of that loving couple, you can look it up. The survival of the species is not dependent on where or how they grasp things and/or stick them.

    What?

    Boy, you really are dying to go on this disgusting journey, aren’t you? Is it necessary to have in-depth conversations about all the various ways that family members can have sex with each other just because you don’t understand how laws work?

    Straight marriage does not establish a precedent for father-daughter marriage. Similarly, gay marriage does not establish a precedent for father-son marriage! There’s even empirical proof, since gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade in parts of the country and incestuous marriage has yet to gain a foothold. I mean, they really have nothing to do with each other. You could just as well posit that if we allow gay marriage, we must allow people to run meth labs out of garages. You could just as well posit that if we allow gay marriage, we must allow murder. You’re comparing something that is harmless and innocuous to something that is horrible and taboo and legitimately criminalized, not because you’re trying to be logical or reasonable, but because you want to scare people into voting the same way that you do. In other words, you’re demagoguing! Somebody brings up gay marriage, and you immediately launch into a series of increasingly stupid statements about people marrying animals and their children and Hitler’s corpse, because what else can you do? You’re upset that people don’t take religion as seriously as they used to, and are desperate to establish that bizarre, adverse, and perverted sexual preferences are creeping into our society as religion is forced to withdraw.

    Well, this idiotic strategy of yours is failing miserably, to the delight of anyone who values rule of law and basic human decency over the scribblings of superstitious, bronze-age goatherds. You know a good way to tell a demagogue? They’re losers. And on gay marriage, you are most definitely a loser. Might not even be a year before it’s legal everywhere in the country. What will you do then?

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - December 28, 2012

  103. This does not describe the left. The left understands the real, practical implications of reproductive health, and this is where we live when we argue for abortion rights. Every woman is entitled to determine for herself whether or not to carry to term, and there are seriously negative economic, social, and public health consequences for interfering with that determination. I can give you concrete, substantive, evidence-based reasoning for allowing abortions all day long – the pro-life side can only muster “You are killing all the babies!” You want proof? OPEN YOUR EYES. Some of your friends will be along shortly to accuse me of murdering kids.

    No, you can’t, Levi; you simply lie and demagogue.

    That is the truth, and you are helpless to admit it. If you actually had facts, you would not need to lie. But you do lie, you demagogue, and you scream and cry and rant because you have no facts, you have no rationality, and you have no morals.

    Why won’t you provide links, Levi? Why do you scream and cry and lie and demagogue? Is it because you are a loser, boy? Is that why you and your fellows have to lie so much? Is it because you know the Supreme Court is just about to find that there is no “right” to gay-sex marriage, that your “right” to force abortion on people is about to explode, and that your sick and deluded perverse party that endorses having sex when you’re drunk and coercing women into sex like you brag about doing is losing?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2012 @ 5:00 pm - December 28, 2012

  104. NDT.

    Keep in mind, Levi supports the Government outlawing SSM, even if the Court decides to overturn a 7-0 decision. He’s on record saying that rights don’t matter if the government feels they should trample on them

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 7:46 pm - December 28, 2012

  105. Here is Nancy Pelosi doing her abbreviated December 20 demagoguery. If I can locate the transcript or video in which she read the White House stuff, I will post it.

    But the point is moot, anyway. The little fascist can not recognize demagoguery if it bites him on the lips. He is too invested in it to risk discussing it.

    Numbskull is too kind a diagnosis.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 28, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - December 28, 2012

  106. And here’s another example of how Obama Party leaders and supporters can’t argue with facts, so they demagogue and accuse Republicans of murder.

    Once you realize that liberals are all irrational bigots who can’t function without their addiction to hate, they become that much easier to handle.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - December 29, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.632 Powered by Wordpress