GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/22/the-grand-opportunity-party/trackback/

  1. A major impediment to that philosophy is the Establishment GOP represented by John Bonehead and Mitch McCave-In; they think compromise means they will kneel before Obama, but not fellate him. And then all the liberals who say, “Oh, if only the GOP could be more moderate” will swoon and vote for them, or at least, not be quite so mean. As we should have learned in 2008, when a liberal says “Now, there’s a Republican I could support,” they don’t really mean it.

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - January 22, 2013

  2. It’s not about “conservative” vs. “liberal” or “progressive”. The real long-term struggle of the GOP is to be that “party of opportunity”…and not the party of the entrenched, nearly-dead rich-guys worrying about other-people getting abortions while giving lip-service to small-govt. and piling-on the local pork to stay elected.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 22, 2013 @ 1:44 pm - January 22, 2013

  3. V the K hits the nail on the head but it goes beyond that. Any SHOW of opposition to Obama by WhinerBoehnerLoser and Kantor and McConnell is just that…. an act. They along with other “staunch conservatives” like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush had vested interests in sinking Romney’s campaign, so one of them who are in the Grand Old-Boys-Club Posse would have a better shot in 2016. In spite of the rhetoric and the difference in social issues, the so-called Republican opposition practically advertise their cozy relationship with the liberals. And too many honest conservatives are still giving undeserved deference to them.

    Make no mistake, the Republican Party leadership is JUST AS MUCH THE ENEMY AS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and must be treated accordingly. When Tea Party and conservatives make a push in 2014 to take out the trash, Boehner, McConnell, McCain and most of the other GOP incumbents need to be tossed in the same trash heap as Pelosi and Reid.

    Comment by PopArt — January 22, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - January 22, 2013

  4. The Battle was lost when the Establishment GOP let the Tea Party ideal of limited, affordable Government be characterized as “Extremist” and “Out of the Mainstream” by the MFM/DNC.

    Mainly, the GOP Establishment did this to protect their own place at the Federal trough.

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 2:03 pm - January 22, 2013

  5. My friend Jeff linked to this column from Twitter the other day. Really fantastic read.

    Comment by Neptune — January 22, 2013 @ 2:05 pm - January 22, 2013

  6. BTW, and this is off-topic: the new sharing icons look great.

    Comment by Neptune — January 22, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - January 22, 2013

  7. “The GOP no longer needs to be known as the Grand Old Party,
    but the Great Opportunity Party.”

    It’s too late. I’ve already settled on Greedy Ol’ Pricks.

    Comment by Richard R — January 22, 2013 @ 2:22 pm - January 22, 2013

  8. As long as responsible voters mutter “they’re all crooks, …but mine” and re-elect the incumbent it’s immaterial how much “hope and change” or “opportunity” is talked about. Or as long as responsible voters insist on re-electing their local crook incumbent simply-because he’s got seniority and brings home the bacon, there will be no “opportunity”.

    Of the 12 Congressional Districts in NJ in 2012….only ONE was considered a swing seat, and that’s due to re-redistricting. And only two had significant electoral-contests in the dominant party’s primary. The entire s
    State delegation is either incumbents or hand-picked Party successors. It’s only at the Statewide-level that party-swings happen anymore…typically for the State House, …the Senate seats are typically safely-Democratic.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 22, 2013 @ 3:11 pm - January 22, 2013

  9. Is there supposed to be something new or different about this article? I see nothing but the same old platitudes.

    Republicans are built to trick the conservative movement, and the conservative movement is built to be tricked by the Republicans. Remember when the Tea Party was the new thing? That was conservatives being tricked by Republicans. Remember when Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were going to beat Barack Obama and fix the country? That was conservatives being tricked by Republicans. And now, a few months after another big defeat, you’re taken with the idea of pitching conservatism with a message of personal responsibility? FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON…. SHAME ON… YOU? …………………………… AND FOOL ME CAN’T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

    While most conservatives seem perfectly content making excuses for the GOP’s failures (media conspiracy, voter fraud, divisive Obama, War on Women distraction, etc.), there are some conservatives that understand what’s happened to the Republican Party and are making recommendations for how to restore the party. David Frum and Colin Powell are just two examples, and how are these people and their suggestions greeted by the broader conservative movement? With hostility. They’re labeled as heretics and are permanently disregarded, while the mindless bullshit of Hannity and Limbaugh continues to be eagerly consumed.

    This is more of that mindless bullshit. Grand Opportunity Party? Do you really think that you’re having problems because of your slogan? Do you really think changing this slogan is a meaningful step in restoring Republicans’ credibility?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 3:12 pm - January 22, 2013

  10. It’s too late. I’ve already settled on Greedy Ol’ Pricks.

    Comment by Richard R — January 22, 2013 @ 2:22 pm – January 22, 2013

    Well of course, Richard Rush.

    After all, that’s what you used to call your parents when they wouldn’t pay your bills, buy you drugs or bail you out for pedaresty.

    And since you no longer have their Social Security payments to steal and have become a ward of the state instead, you’ve simply shifted the tantrum-throwing and namecalling to the people who would dare suggest that you actually save welfare for the people who need it instead of the people like you who are just too lazy to work.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2013 @ 3:14 pm - January 22, 2013

  11. This is more of that mindless bullshit. Grand Opportunity Party? Do you really think that you’re having problems because of your slogan? Do you really think changing this slogan is a meaningful step in restoring Republicans’ credibility?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 3:12 pm – January 22, 2013

    Well, not to you, Levi.

    After all, everyone here knows you’re an ignorant and lazy child who thinks government exists to force everyone else to pay your bills for you.

    Worthless Obama pigs like yourself can’t understand opportunity because it requires work, and Obama supporters are vehemently anti-work, anti-responsibility, and anti-consequence. Like Richard Rush above, you’re really nothing more than lazy children who scream and throw temper tantrums that they “deserve” a BMW and that Daddy is a racist bigot unless he buys it for them.

    You can’t understand the allure of opportunity because you’re too damn lazy. You want everything handed to you on a silver platter at everyone else’s expense, and your Obama Party is about nothing more than promising people that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - January 22, 2013

  12. I’ve already settled on Greedy Ol’ Pricks.

    Classy.

    So, no objection if I refer to the opposing Social-Fascist Party as “Demonrats.”

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 3:21 pm - January 22, 2013

  13. Charging Rhino – are you a fellow “Jersey girl” like me? ;-) You pretty much summed up my state’s situation perfectly. It was disheartening that in spite of my vote, my district’s perfectly respectable Tea Party challenger had no shot against the entrenched incumbent; an entrenched incumbent who I’ve met personally several times and attended county GOP functions back in circa 1990 and who I find to be a perfectly pleasant, nice guy but who I also appreciate is now part of the problem.

    As disheartening as it is in New Jersey, as Charging Rhino stated, I really expected better of voters in other states like Virginia, Iowa and the Carolinas among others that had great opportunities to unseat the likes of Orrin Hatch and George Allen. At least the Richard Mourdock debacle accomplished the unseating of Luger. While I understand the perceived comfort and security of making an exception for “your own” incumbent, that is a luxury we cannot afford anymore. I’m quite fine with throwing over the old familiar face. Can everyone else do the same in the face of the mounting evidence of what our old frenemies are doing to us?

    Comment by PopArt — January 22, 2013 @ 3:48 pm - January 22, 2013

  14. Richard R is just upset that conservatives don’t agree with him that buggering children is fine.

    Levi’s lying as normal. but hey, he just opposes anything that gets in the way of slaughtering children. Something he proudly supports.

    It is, unfortunately, hard to be for personal responsibility. Being the adults in the room, and not expecting uncle sugar to bail you out is rough.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2013 @ 5:27 pm - January 22, 2013

  15. I’m pretty sure if you total the voters who just vote for the guy with the D after his name because they’re too unengaged or unintelligent to understand the issues plus the voters who see the words “personal responsibility” and understand that means nobody else should have to pay for their bad decisions, you have an electoral majority. When Sandra Fluke gets a speaking slot at the winning party’s convention, the winning party has obviously already realized that personal responsibility isn’t as good a selling point as the lack thereof.

    Comment by AndyN — January 22, 2013 @ 6:01 pm - January 22, 2013

  16. there are some conservatives that understand what’s happened to the Republican Party and are making recommendations for how to restore the party. David Frum and Colin Powell are just two examples…

    BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 7:22 pm - January 22, 2013

  17. there are some conservatives —. David Frum and Colin Powell

    OMG… I honestly sometimes can’t tell if he’s a brilliant parody of an Obama cultist or if he really is that delusional.

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 7:41 pm - January 22, 2013

  18. Comment # 2 just nails it. Nothing highlights the lost opportunity that conservatives had just a few years ago when we lost credibility.

    This is a great post, I hope the message get refined to show how a smaller government actually helps the poor is the better model for government. I hope conservatives start to realize that more of the country will agree with the David Frum’s of the world over the Jim DeMints

    Comment by mike — January 22, 2013 @ 9:36 pm - January 22, 2013

  19. Before anyone responds to the lower case concern troll – consider the possibility that he gets his jollies from our responses to his outrageous and nonsensical comments.

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 10:40 pm - January 22, 2013

  20. It’s possible that to obtain political power, the GOP doesn’t need to abandon conservative pro-family, pro-free market ideals, it just needs to fire all the people who have been running their media and public relations for the last twenty years and hire some people who actually know what their doing.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 6:00 am - January 23, 2013

  21. If the GOP wants to continue its “pro-family” plank it will have to redefine what it means by family. Ward and June Cleaver are no longer the prototype for the American family unit.

    Comment by David — January 23, 2013 @ 7:13 am - January 23, 2013

  22. (Sigh) Would someone explain to me what is so awful about the wholesome “Ward and June” family ideal, and why it is so hated by some people? Yeah, I know it’s not something every family can achieve, but that doesn’t mean that healthy, secure, committed families aren’t worth striving for; or that solid families are the basis of a solid society.

    It’s said that pro-family Republicans are “out of touch” with where the culture is, and that is sad but true. The culture is in a very, very bad place. Look at African-American communities in the inner city and tell me the destruction of the traditional family unit is a good thing for society.

    If we can’t save the family, we can’t save the nation. The destruction of the family is the destruction of the nation.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 7:39 am - January 23, 2013

  23. Do gays and blacks both vote overwhelmingly Democrat because both look to the state as a surrogate family/parent?

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 8:03 am - January 23, 2013

  24. @V,

    I think part of the hatred of the 1950′s lifestyle comes from the dark side of feminism
    If “Women’s Lib” was about allowng Women the ‘right to choose’ one of the side effects was to villify some choices. A woman who chooses to stay at home and be June Cleaver is mocked by her fellow XX chromosome carriers. (See Clinton, HIllary and Cookies, Baking)

    It also doesn’t help when both parents have to have a job (or two!) that envy can turn to bitter mocking of the wife who doesn’t need to work. (See Romney, Ann).

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 23, 2013 @ 8:59 am - January 23, 2013

  25. OMG… I honestly sometimes can’t tell if he’s a brilliant parody of an Obama cultist or if he really is that delusional.

    Brilliant parody? I just happen to think that Colin Powell, who used to be a 4-star general and Secretary of State, might be a better leader for the Republican Party than Rush Limbaugh. But conservatives hate Colin Powell, and they love Rush Limbaugh! The wisdom and experience of Powell is completely disregarded in favor of having Rush Limbaugh sell you expensive identity theft protection that you don’t need. Like I said; the conservative movement was built to be deceived by the Republican establishment – nothing illustrates that point better than Rush’s seemingly permanent popularity.

    Powell’s unforgivable sin, of course, was admitting that he made some mistakes in Iraq. This is a sign of reflection and critical self-analysis. It also demonstrates that Powell is not an ideologue and has the courage to acknowledge his own failings. These are good qualities to have in a leader, but not when you’re a conservative! For conservatives, the sign of a good leader is someone who calls a woman a slut on their radio show, or makes fun of people with Parkinson’s Disease, or nurses a secret pills addiction.

    Comment by Levi — January 23, 2013 @ 10:31 am - January 23, 2013

  26. For conservatives, the sign of a good leader is someone who calls a woman a slut on their radio show, or makes fun of people with Parkinson’s Disease, or nurses a secret pills addiction.

    BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Comment by heliotrope — January 23, 2013 @ 10:37 am - January 23, 2013

  27. I just happen to think that Colin Powell, who used to be a 4-star general and Secretary of State, might be a better leader for the Republican Party than Rush Limbaugh.

    there are some conservatives that understand what’s happened to the Republican Party and are making recommendations for how to restore the party. David Frum and Colin Powell are just two examples…

    Like I said; the conservative movement was built to be deceived by the Republican establishment – nothing illustrates that point better than Rush’s seemingly permanent popularity.

    Oh.

    BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Comment by heliotrope — January 23, 2013 @ 10:41 am - January 23, 2013

  28. The Republican party nominated mushy moderates in 2008 and 2012. Colin,Powell and David Frum didn’t vote for them.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 11:01 am - January 23, 2013

  29. fdsa

    Comment by Levi — January 23, 2013 @ 12:09 pm - January 23, 2013

  30. Do you really think changing this slogan is a meaningful step in restoring Republicans’ credibility?

    All the Democrats have are slogans (and promises that they can’t possibly fulfill) and they win. The American electorate has become too dumb to care about credibility, so, yeah, the Republicans need better “marketing.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 23, 2013 @ 12:23 pm - January 23, 2013

  31. The Republican party nominated mushy moderates in 2008 and 2012. Colin,Powell and David Frum didn’t vote for them.

    It’s not about nominating single individuals. It’s about the impression that the voting public has of your party. You can nominate anybody, but as long as they’re sharing the stage with Sarah Palin and Karl Rove, you’re not going to get anywhere, not with these demographics. The problem with the Republican Party is that they’ve been chasing people like Powell and Frum away while elevating Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. You’re dumping on your candidates as if they’re completely responsible for their electoral loss, but these conservative media celebrities that never go away have been there all along – so how responsible are they? If the GOP is having a hard time getting votes, it’s at least in part because your pundits are not persuasive enough. And when Ann Coulter’s idea of a joke is to just walk on a stage and call John Edwards a faggot, it’s not really hard to understand why your pundits aren’t persuasive enough.
    dd

    Comment by Levi — January 23, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - January 23, 2013

  32. fsda

    The most coherent thing Levi’s ever written.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 23, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - January 23, 2013

  33. All the Democrats have are slogans (and promises that they can’t possibly fulfill) and they win. The American electorate has become too dumb to care about credibility, so, yeah, the Republicans need better “marketing.”

    Better marketing, yes. And to that end, it might not be a bad idea to stop chasing people like Colin Powell out of the party while always saving a spot for Ann Coulter. I’m certain that Ann Coulter earns you guys a good number of votes, but she also repulses a lot of people, too. By the same token, Colin Powell likely does not get people as enthusiastic as Ann Coulter, but he probably doesn’t chase as many people away, either. A viable political party that has to cobble together enough of a coalition to win some elections needs both kinds of people in the public square, but the past decade has seen the conservative movement kick people like Powell out of the party. Your candidate went down again, the conservative movement is putting all the responsibility on him, when it belongs equally to the right-wing’s media figures and pundit class that are supposed to be persuading people to vote for Republicans. Will they ever be called to account for their failures?

    Comment by Levi — January 23, 2013 @ 1:01 pm - January 23, 2013

  34. the past decade has seen the conservative movement kick people like Powell out of the party.

    That is because Powell isn’t a conservative. As V the K pointed out, he voted for Obama twice, against candidates that are too moderate to even be called conservatives. I’m not a fan of polemics, and I think American conservatives would be wise to distance themselves from people like Ann Coulter as much as possible (which they already do, not that it makes a difference because most people wouldn’t know that), but moderation of their principles is not what they need to do. They need to communicate them better. That is it. By the way, I’m sure your suggestions on what the Republicans should do are completely in the interest of helping them.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 23, 2013 @ 1:17 pm - January 23, 2013

  35. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are taboo, but Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, Michael Moore et al are OK?

    It is OK to be attacked and take it, but it is not OK to dish it back at them? Whose rules are those?

    We watched as Romney assiduously avoided taking Obama on as a person, but he went all ugga-bubba when Obama’s surrogates called him a felon, a murderer, a vulture stripping small businesses for greed and profit and on and on. That is how the Progressives play the game.

    Romney lost in large part because he did not secure his base. He treated the TEA Party and the Christian Right as if they were the country cousins. In the other camp, the Obama crowd demagogued their low-information voters into action.

    Way back when Bush 41 wrapped up the 38 day Desert Storm operation, his approval rating soared from 61% to an astounding 89%.

    In politics, six months is an eternity and Bush sank from invincible back to 61% within a fairly short period of time and he was denied reelection.

    Obama hovers at the near 50% level of approval and he was not elected with any measure which could be interpreted as a mandate.

    Are the Congressional Republicans in disarray? Yes. Are fingers being pointed everywhere as the source of the problem? Yes.

    The second Obama term is hours old and there is a world of unknowns and unknowables in the weeks and months ahead.

    Joe Biden is wearing a Cinderella smile over his belief that he has the glass slippers and will waltz right into the Oval Office in 2016.

    The Republicans have control of the states. The Washington crowd is flustered by their loss of a place at the table. They are, in large part, just settling into being the losers.

    The strength is among the governors and a smart person (like Rand Paul) will court them assiduously and become their candidate to help get Washington off the backs of the states.

    The Democrats dare not declare themselves by actually passing a budget. They far prefer to demagogue from financial crisis to financial crisis. They are playing poker with endless chips which they get from the FED phony baloney money making machinery.

    I am waiting to see if a candidate can create an organization that sidelines the political establishment and causes them to attach to his juggernaut rather than taking the typical route of a captive to their failed conventional political wisdom.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 23, 2013 @ 2:23 pm - January 23, 2013

  36. Rattlesnake –

    1. You make an excellent point. There is no more corruption or incompetence in the GOP than there is in the Demonrat Party, and probably less. The big difference is, the Demonrats are much more effective at PR and messaging (also, they have 98% of the media on their side). The GOP really needs to work on strategy and tactics more than anything else.

    2. It’s a mistake to assume that cultists only have a problem with Conservatives because they don’t like Rush Limbaugh’s tone. That’s a distraction. Leftists hate conservatives pathologically. You could have Morgan Freeman espousing conservative values — pro-family, pro-free market, pro-liberty — in his warm, sonorous voice and the left-wing cult would still be screeching about his vitriol.

    Have you ever seen a leftist complain about the ‘vitriol’ of Ed Schultz? Neither have I.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 2:39 pm - January 23, 2013

  37. The funny part is the blathering and blabbering Levi going on about how Colin Powell is necessary to appeal to “moderates” like Levi — when we know that moderates like Levi were previously shrieking and screaming that Colin Powell was a pathological liar, war criminal, and “house n*gger” who was too stupid and Stepin’ Fetchit to ever be taken seriously about anything.

    It’s just like how Levi sh*t himself for eight years about warrantless wiretaps, and then screams that Barack Obama is Jesus Christ incarnate for quadrupling them.

    What that makes obvious is that Levi is an insane, irrational bigot who doesn’t care about anything other than party affiliation. But that’s typical of liberals; they are all insane nutjobs, cultists who can’t do anything other than support and worship their Barack Obama. As we’ve seen for the past five years, Levi will justify and spin for anything that Barack Obama does and refuses to hold Barack Obama responsible for anything.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2013 @ 3:04 pm - January 23, 2013

  38. It’s a mistake to assume that cultists only have a problem with Conservatives because they don’t like Rush Limbaugh’s tone. That’s a distraction. Leftists hate conservatives pathologically. You could have Morgan Freeman espousing conservative values — pro-family, pro-free market, pro-liberty — in his warm, sonorous voice and the left-wing cult would still be screeching about his vitriol.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 2:39 pm – January 23, 2013

    Exactly, V.

    The primary disadvantage of conservatives is that we tend to believe that other peoples’ opinions have reasoning behind them, even if we disagree with it.

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2013 @ 3:12 pm - January 23, 2013

  39. In other words, you can’t reason someone out of what he hasn’t been reasoned into.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - January 23, 2013

  40. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are taboo, but Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, Michael Moore et al are OK?

    It is OK to be attacked and take it, but it is not OK to dish it back at them? Whose rules are those?

    These are not good comparisons, since Coulter and Limbaugh have such an out-sized impact on the GOP. Limbaugh in particular – office-holding conservatives have had to publicly apologize to Limbaugh for criticizing him. There’s no similar mechanism in the Democratic Party.

    Every one of these personalities both attracts and repels voters. If you ask me, I think that people like Coulter and Limbaugh are at this point doing more repelling than attracting. We’ve already gone over this plenty, but I have to bring up Sandra Fluke again. If you can’t detect the connection between Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut and the Republicans losing single women by almost 40%, you’re blind. Wouldn’t you know that many single women like to have sex, use contraceptives, and believe them to be too expensive? The Republican message to those voters is as follows; “You are a slut, you are a prostitute, you should post a videotape of yourself having sex on the internet so we can watch.” Gee, uh… uh…. why isn’t that going over so well, fellas?

    Comment by Levi — January 23, 2013 @ 4:24 pm - January 23, 2013

  41. Wouldn’t you know that many single women like to have sex, use contraceptives, and believe them to be too expensive? The Republican message to those voters is as follows; “You are a slut, you are a prostitute, you should post a videotape of yourself having sex on the internet so we can watch.”

    Sorry, but I will not call single women mental midgets who love having sex and are too stupid to handle contraception.

    Thelittlefascist says “many” single women and then refers to Republicans losing all single women by 40%. Huh? Unmarried women preferred Obama by a better than 2-to-1 ratio, 68 percent to 30 percent.

    So, thelittlefascist is trying to downplay how really sex addled and dumb he believes unmarried women to be.

    So, let us stipulate that unmarried women think with their vaginas and the way to get their vote is to feed their vaginas with contraceptives.

    Thelittlefascist paints these women as …… sluts. Sandra Fluke was their active vaginas spokesperson. She even knows and testified to knowing women so hopelessly stupid that they paid usurious, rip-off prices for having happy vagina games.

    Thelittlefascist stoops to a level of objectifying women as being guided by their crotches and then patronizing them by making their crotches little safe havens of hedonism.

    And then, thelittlefascist is so patronizing of these boobs that he insists that they have a Planned Parenthood nearby to dump the hump in case the contraceptive failed or the dumb vagina forgot to dose up.

    So, that is the level of intelligence that thelittlefascist says we have to “speak to” and woo over to “our” side.

    What kind of intellect and what kind of character promotes this type of view of women?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 23, 2013 @ 5:39 pm - January 23, 2013

  42. Wouldn’t you know that many single women like to have sex, use contraceptives, and believe them to be too expensive? The Republican message to those voters is as follows; “You are a slut, you are a prostitute, you should post a videotape of yourself having sex on the internet so we can watch.” Gee, uh… uh…. why isn’t that going over so well, fellas?

    Comment by Levi — January 23, 2013 @ 4:24 pm – January 23, 2013

    Actually, Levi, your Obama Party’s stupidity and desperate addiction to promiscuity are already causing obvious consequences.

    Generally, you expect to see preventable diseases decline in advanced societies. Not so with some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in California.

    Syphilis cases in the Golden State jumped by 18 percent from 2010 to 2011, according to new data released by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). There was also a 5 percent increase in chlamydia cases and a 1.5 percent increase in gonorrhea cases.

    And it gets even better.

    Across the board, the chlamydia rates were about twice as high for women than for men. This is largely because the disease is often asymptomatic, but women are screened annually up to age 25 and therefore diagnosed more often, Bauer explained. The rates were highest for men and women between 20 and 24 years old, with the exception of African American women, with whom the highest rate is women between 15 and 19 years old.

    And why is that, Levi?

    Because birth control pills and abortions, which is what your screaming Fluke demands everyone pay for, do nothing to stop STDs.

    Only condoms and barrier methods stop STDs, and as you’ve admitted, you and your fellow liberal men don’t want to wear them.

    This is why we really don’t care. Your Obama Party and its puppet Fluke are creating public-health problems and driving up the cost of health care because irresponsible, stupid Fluke and her friends won’t use/demand condoms.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2013 @ 6:14 pm - January 23, 2013

  43. NDT, y’see, part of the Faustian bargain of the left is “In return for putting Government in complete control of your lives outside the bedroom, we will give you unlimited license to do whatever you want in your bedroom without judgment or consequences.”

    Now, religious folk, because of their crazy, unscientific belief in invisible sky gods, think that if you don’t have sex outside of marriage, you won’t get pregnant or infected with a sexual disease. Clearly, these people are nuts.

    Enlightened progressives know that science has completely liberated people from the consequences of sex. If contraceptives fail, just get an abortion. Catch a disease? No problem. Science has cures for all of them, or will find them, eventually, but in the meantime, by all means, there is nothing more important than sexual gratification. And there are absolutely no personal, physical, psychological or societal consequences to promiscuous sex that can’t be fixed by bigger Government and higher taxes.

    This is what progressives actually believe.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - January 23, 2013

  44. Being reasonable isn’t the same thing as being soft. Romney was too soft, as are most Republicans. There is a lot they could hit the Democrats with hard while still being reasonable, because what the Democrats are doing, in most cases, is not reasonable. It doesn’t matter what the Democrats do, though, because they will always get away with it. The Republicans and conservatives are all evil rich, white men who hate black people, gays, poor people, and want to shackle women to the stove; so, in opposing them, the left is always the good guy, no matter what vile things they do or how incendiary they are. On the other hand, Republicans or conservatives being incendiary just reinforces the misconceptions many people have about them. They need someone who is a good communicator (and a principled conservative) who can remove some of those misconceptions.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 23, 2013 @ 9:22 pm - January 23, 2013

  45. Republicans do themselves no favors by letting GOP Moonbats like New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R) introduce legislation that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial. …or face penalty of three years in prison.

    W.T.F.?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 24, 2013 @ 11:01 am - January 24, 2013

  46. Ted B.

    Again, the problem isn’t the fringe, that’s always going to be the case. The problem is the press jumping on the band wagon, while not showing the absurdity of the ‘other’ fringe. Remember, the other extreme would be to have leigslation allowing the parent to kill the baby after he was born. What happens to a democrat who supports that kind of moonbat legislation? He becomes President.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2013 @ 11:12 am - January 24, 2013

  47. Sorry, but I will not call single women mental midgets who love having sex and are too stupid to handle contraception.

    Right – that’s Rush’s job. He says it, and then you can just nod, silently and anonymously, in agreement. That’s how things have been going in the Republican Party for some time now. I’m yet to meet a conservative that disagrees with the substance of what Limbaugh said about Fluke – they’ll only lightly condemn the language, but the conservative consensus seems to be that, yes, Sandra Fluke wants other people to pay for her birth control because she’s crazy about sex, is too lazy to work, and wants the government to give her freebies. (Some form of this you’re lazy/get a job dismissal is used by conservatives as a stand-in for an argument in virtually every point of disagreement with liberals these days.)

    But contraception is this really important invention that has tremendously improved women’s health and economic situations over the past century. The argument that we should make contraception even more available, easy to use, less expensive, etc., is informed by those trends. If contraception has had these positive effects on the people who have the opportunity to use it, then it follows that we should try to maximize its use, doesn’t it? Certainly, some forms of birth control are readily available, and some forms of birth control are very inexpensive. But the most effective forms of birth control require prescriptions, which require doctor visits, which require cash. And not every form of contraception will work for every woman – there are allergies and medical conditions and hormones to consider. Additionally, widespread contraception use reduces unplanned pregnancies, and reducing unplanned pregnancies means reducing the number of abortions, which are also taxing on women.

    All of the above adds up to the progressive position – contraception should be easy to get.

    And what is the conservatives’ reaction to these reasonable arguments and the real world facts that support them? To oscillate between calling women sluts and whining about imagined affronts to their religious liberty, of course! Whatever Sandra Fluke said can be completely ignored because conservatives just know her real motivations. She wants free sex and free money and free abortions, and oh, by the way, she should post a video of herself having sex on the internet so that everybody can watch, because that’s a sane thing to say in public that completely justifies your platform and influence, right?

    Thelittlefascist says “many” single women and then refers to Republicans losing all single women by 40%. Huh? Unmarried women preferred Obama by a better than 2-to-1 ratio, 68 percent to 30 percent.

    So, thelittlefascist is trying to downplay how really sex addled and dumb he believes unmarried women to be.

    LOL! Okay buddy. You’re 70, I’m 28. You think you have a better grip on what unmarried women believe?

    Anyway, I don’t think women are ‘sex addled and dumb.’ I mean, what are you basing this assertion on? Do you have any evidence that I believe what you’re saying I believe? Do you have a recording of me on my radio show dismissing a female’s political argument by calling her a slut?

    It’s conservatives who think that single women are ‘sex addled and dumb,’ and you’re about to prove it….

    So, let us stipulate that unmarried women think with their vaginas and the way to get their vote is to feed their vaginas with contraceptives.

    Thelittlefascist paints these women as …… sluts. Sandra Fluke was their active vaginas spokesperson. She even knows and testified to knowing women so hopelessly stupid that they paid usurious, rip-off prices for having happy vagina games.

    Thelittlefascist stoops to a level of objectifying women as being guided by their crotches and then patronizing them by making their crotches little safe havens of hedonism.

    So a flick of the wrist, a wave of the hand, and surprise surprise, it’s actually ME who is out there objectifying women! Well, why not? If you believe in talking snakes and fairy tales, why not just blatantly mischaracterize your opponent’s argument in a debate?

    I’d like you to walk me through this one. I’m objectifying women? How’s that work? Politically, I support a number of ideas to make contraception more widely available, easier to use, and less expensive, because I understand that there are many health, social, and economic benefits to contraception use. I think it’s important for individuals to have control over their reproductive systems, and I think whatever costs are associated with making sure people can exert that control are well worth it, considering the alternatives. I know how easy it is to be a man in this culture, and appreciate the comparably huge amount of upkeep that women have to deal with to keep their reproductive organs running smoothly. I mean seriously, my junk requires no special maintenance and it works perfectly, all the time. For women, ‘works perfectly’ means that it’s bleeding every fourth week. Bladder infections, urinary tract infections, yeast infections – this is stuff that women are dealing with frequently that men like you and I never have to worry about.

    That’s where I’m coming from – can you point out all the parts where I’m objectifying women? I suspect you might not know what that word means, so allow me to educate. When a woman makes an argument, and the response to this argument is “You are a slut,” that’s objectifying women. You’re turning a living, breathing, thinking person into a thing that is used for sex. Rush made that explicit when he requested, after objectifying Fluke, that he be permitted to watch this thing have sex, since it has no legitimate point of view or intrinsic value other than helping radio trolls get off.

    Limbaugh’s stupid response is unfortunately a very normal way for men to react to women in this country. My wife has endured exactly this kind of objectification in the workplace, as have many of my unmarried female friends. So when this Limbaugh-Fluke thing plays out, women immediately relate to Fluke whether they care about the issue or not, and associate Rush Limbaugh with misogyny and sexism. And when Limbaugh is able to maintain his perch atop the conservative celebrity circuit completely unscathed, then they associate the conservative movement with misogyny and sexism. This reputation you guys have is well earned, and instead of pretending that the ‘War on Women’ is a completely fabricated invention of the Democratic Party and the media, maybe you guys ought to consider muzzling this revolting sexist, instead of excusing and elevating him?

    And then, thelittlefascist is so patronizing of these boobs that he insists that they have a Planned Parenthood nearby to dump the hump in case the contraceptive failed or the dumb vagina forgot to dose up.

    Hey, aren’t you pro-choice, too?

    So, that is the level of intelligence that thelittlefascist says we have to “speak to” and woo over to “our” side.

    What kind of intellect and what kind of character promotes this type of view of women?

    You’re hopeless.

    My point is that if Republicans want to learn some lessons from this election to become competitive at the next one, it’s going to take a little bit more than changing what the ‘O’ stands for in GOP. All I see around here is conservatives making excuses for their losses, which mostly takes the form of accusing Democratic voters of being idiots who want freebies. Meanwhile, the conservative pundits have dodged any share of their responsibility for the loss, they haven’t been held accountable for the many predictions they made that didn’t come true, and they’re happy to pick up right where they left off – stroking the egos of conservatives and accusing all the liberals of being welfare queens. Because that worked so great last time, didn’t it?

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 12:16 pm - January 24, 2013

  48. Wouldn’t you know that many single women like to have sex, use contraceptives, and believe them to be too expensive?

    Your description of single women, not mine.

    Then you go on to claim that single women voted overwhelmingly against Romney because of their sex lives and cost of contraceptives. That is classic “taker” talk. “Service my vaginal needs.”

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]`

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 1:49 pm - January 24, 2013

  49. It is a false choice to say that not forcing employers to provide birth control is equivalent to being opposed to birth control. If you can’t afford birth control, either wear a condom, don’t have sex, or deal with the consequences without forcing taxpayers to deal with them. There is no common sense any more…

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 24, 2013 @ 3:17 pm - January 24, 2013

  50. @Rattlesnake

    Common sense, isn’t.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2013 @ 3:22 pm - January 24, 2013

  51. Your description of single women, not mine.

    Then you go on to claim that single women voted overwhelmingly against Romney because of their sex lives and cost of contraceptives. That is classic “taker” talk. “Service my vaginal needs.”

    You objectified single women this way. Not me. The rest of your blather, including attacking my religious belied system, is just typical Levi inanity.

    I said that many single women enjoy sex, which is an undeniably true statement that passes absolutely no judgment on women or the act of having sex itself. Indeed, you could say the same thing of the opposite gender, or even human beings in general. If I say that men enjoy having sex, am I objectifying men? If I say that I enjoy sex, am I objectifying myself? If I say that human beings enjoy have sex, am I objectifying human beings?

    I said that many single women use contraceptives, which is is an undeniably true statement that passes absolutely no judgment on women or the act of using contraception. Indeed, you could say the same thing of the opposite gender, or even human beings in general. If I say that men use contraceptives, am I objectifying (ARE YOU GETTING WHERE THIS IS GOING YET?)

    I said that many single women believe contraceptives are too expensive. Can you fill in the blanks at this point?

    I think it’s as I said – you don’t really know what the word ‘objectify’ means, because none of what I said fits that definition. I could have said, “Wouldn’t you know that many single women like going to the circus, smoking cigarettes, and chasing cars down the street?”, and it makes just as much sense to say that this statement objectifies women as it does the other statement. Which is to say, absolutely none whatsoever.

    And no, that isn’t my description of single women. Describing single women is easy – single women are women that are not married. What I did was list a few common characteristics of single women, that would also apply to married women and men.

    Further, I did not go on to claim that single women voted overwhelmingly against Romney because of their sex lives and cost of contraceptives. It’s really hard to narrow down the reasoning that goes into why people cast a vote, but pollsters do capture demographic information so that we can try to infer some things. And some political issues are more relevant to certain demographics than others. Think about gay people. There is one party that supports gay marriage and one party that opposes it. Given this information, it should be fairly obvious that the gay vote is going to go disproportionately to the party that supports gay marriage. Same thing with contraception. This is an issue that involves women, and more specifically, women that are sexually active and who want to avoid pregnancy (single women is a fair enough stand-in). Now, there is one party that supports contraception coverage and is pro-choice, and there’s another party where Rush Limbaugh gets ahead by calling women sluts. Again, should we be surprised about how this demographic ends up voting when these are the options they’re presented with?

    Single women have the most at stake when it comes to contraception policies in this country, and while liberals are making their case for making contraception more widely available, conservatives are accusing women of being sluts for even caring about the issue. And in political discussions, when one side is avoiding making a counter-argument and instead offers insults, it’s usually safe to assume that they’re full of shit. And if somebody is full of shit about one thing, they’re probably going to be full of shit about other things, too.

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 3:47 pm - January 24, 2013

  52. Well, yes, Sandra Fluke was demanding that other people pay for her contraception, and she the rest of the left were screaming that those who opposed paying for her contraception wanted women to have no “access to contraception.”

    So, the position of the left is that women only have “access to contraception” when it is paid for by someone else; never mind that no Republican was talking about outlawing contraception. Nor was Mitt Romney going to outlaw tampons, as Obama supporters claimed.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 3:59 pm - January 24, 2013

  53. Why is GOProud supporting the March for Life?

    Not all members or supporters support a pro-life position…and it’s not part of the Mission Statement. A unilateral right-turn by the Board to curry favor? I thought that was the critique against the LCR and the HRC?

    Abortion must stop being the litmus-test for “orthodoxy” within the GOP.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 24, 2013 @ 4:02 pm - January 24, 2013

  54. I just don’t believe that telling pro-lifers to go piss up a rope is the key to rebuilding a Republican majority.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - January 24, 2013

  55. It is a false choice to say that not forcing employers to provide birth control is equivalent to being opposed to birth control.

    You’re right, that would be a false choice. You can support contraception and oppose ‘forcing employers to provide birth control’ and not be contradicting yourself.

    Unfortunately for you, that’s not really the issue. The specific issue is whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees, and more generally, whether or not we should allow people to ignore laws they don’t like for any reason.

    The first one, quickly. Employers don’t have the right to interfere in their employees’ healthcare. It’s none of their business if or why a woman is using contraception. Claiming that your conscience doesn’t permit you to do something is fine, but you can’t extrapolate that to include everybody under your employ.

    Secondly, and this is really the only thing that matters – people shouldn’t be allowed to ignore laws just because they feel like it. This is basic civics stuff. The rule of law depends on equal application, and if representatives pass a law and the President signs it, then that’s it. There are no exemptions, that’s not how government works.

    And if you were going to start handing out exemptions, the Catholics are hardly deserving! They spent the last part of the 20th century arguing that dying of AIDS was better than living with condoms, and you think this attitude is deserving of an exemption? You think that a group of men that don’t permit women to attain leadership roles in their organization should be given special permission to influence the decisions that a woman makes about her body with her doctor? “Well, I’d like to prescribe you something that will help you, but your boss says I can’t!” Especially when some huge percentage of Catholic women use contraception! Nothing about this can be construed as an exercise of religious freedom – it’s a group of people trying to force their preferences on subordinates who are inherently at a disadvantage.

    Why don’t you just let a bunch of anti-vaccination people administer Health and Human Services?

    If you can’t afford birth control, either wear a condom, don’t have sex, or deal with the consequences without forcing taxpayers to deal with them. There is no common sense any more…

    Ah yeah, this is one of those ‘common sense’ solutions you conservatives are always going on about, where you ignore your opponent’s arguments, don’t offer any of your own, and simply suggest that everyone should behave perfectly. Well, wouldn’t that be great?

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    The cycle has to stop somewhere, and you can make it happen by encouraging people to use contraception. Yes, people should be responsible, but you also have to take into account that people aren’t going to be responsible, and that there is a social cost to their irresponsibility. Now, the choice is whether or not you want those social costs to swell and swell until they’re overwhelming, or you make access to contraception even easier. Yes, contraception is already widely available and relatively inexpensive. That shouldn’t matter – if you want people to use something, there are always ways to make it more available and less expensive.

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 4:58 pm - January 24, 2013

  56. Time for a 10 pound sledge hammer and a steel wedge.

    Hey, aren’t you pro-choice, too?

    It never ceases to amaze how dead-headed desperate dumba$$es are.

    I know that “prohibiting” abortion is impossible in the same way prohibiting drugs, homosexuality, dreaming, thumb sucking and crotch scratching is impossible.

    If a woman has a prohibited abortion does society in general care to stone her, hang her, imprison her, drown her or what? How about the abortionist? Maybe the abortionist has 32 children under five and keeps stray animals and knits blankets for orphans.

    So, I accept abortion on the terms that it be a medical decision arrived at with all care to make it necessary and a rare procedure.

    And thelittlefascist insists on dragging me into his mindless, amoral, ethically bankrupt “pro-choice” club.

    Let this be a lesson to all. If you can be shown to agree in some slight way with a Progressive ideologue, you have to take the full doxology all the way through to its very worst characteristics. Next thing coming my way is that I support partial birth abortion as a party game.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 5:06 pm - January 24, 2013

  57. [1.] The specific issue is whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees, and more generally, [2.] whether or not we should allow people to ignore laws they don’t like for any reason.

    [1.] Employers are not required to buy top-shelf medical insurance that covers eyes, teeth, hearing, plastic surgery, etc. That would logically translate into the issue of “whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees” as those issues are unquestionably “healthcare decisions” being made by the employer under thelittlefascist’s rubric.

    [2.] “for any reason” is not the issue. The First Amendment is the issue. Can an employer deny contraception coverage as a matter of religious conscience?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 5:21 pm - January 24, 2013

  58. The cycle has to stop somewhere, and you can make it happen by encouraging people to use contraception.

    The Social Darwinist is all hot for eugenics. Feed the little girls contraceptives and help rid the cities of problems before they get born.

    Contraceptives do not begin to control STD’s and they are far from being medically benign.

    Thelittlefascist needs an enemy to mask his overflowing and gushing tolerance for irresponsible hedonistic sexual gratification.

    Let’s ask why most middle school, high school and college age women are NOT pregnant. Are they all good little consumers of contraception? How about STD’s. Do most middle school, high school and college men and women have STD’s? No? Why, pray tell?

    Suppose Hobby Lobby were court ordered to pay every employee the equivalent of having contraceptive coverage as part of the health plan. The employee could use the money to buy the coverage or not. Nearly 100% of the male employees would not, because pregnancy is not one of their problems. Ooops! Sex discrimination. But then, again, why should a male pay an extra premium cost for coverage he does not need?

    I really am not posing this Hobby Lobby scenario with any thought of it being a serious conundrum. That is the level thelittlefascist’s alleged mind works at. The point is all this contraceptive crap is just social Darwinist posturing and pouting.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 5:45 pm - January 24, 2013

  59. The cycle has to stop somewhere, and you can make it happen by encouraging people to use contraception.

    I guess that’s way easier than, you know, trying to teach people values or self-respect; so they might behave like something other then sex-crazed animals. I mean, only crazy religious people think self-restraint is a practical means of protecting oneself against disease and unwanted pregnancy.

    And, as Heliotrope said, contraceptives won’t protect against STD’s, but who cares. It’s not like chlamydia, hepatitis, or HIV are serious health problems.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - January 24, 2013

  60. The first one, quickly. Employers don’t have the right to interfere in their employees’ healthcare. It’s none of their business if or why a woman is using contraception. Claiming that your conscience doesn’t permit you to do something is fine, but you can’t extrapolate that to include everybody under your employ.

    Yes you can.

    Because it’s their choice whether or not they want to work for you.

    You want your abortions paid for? Find an employer that does it, or go into business for yourself.

    Your lies simply don’t work on informed people, Levi. If you weren’t so ignorant, you might be aware of actual facts instead of just repeating lies.

    Secondly, and this is really the only thing that matters – people shouldn’t be allowed to ignore laws just because they feel like it. This is basic civics stuff. The rule of law depends on equal application, and if representatives pass a law and the President signs it, then that’s it. There are no exemptions, that’s not how government works.

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 6:17 pm - January 24, 2013

  61. It never ceases to amaze how dead-headed desperate dumba$$es are.

    I know that “prohibiting” abortion is impossible in the same way prohibiting drugs, homosexuality, dreaming, thumb sucking and crotch scratching is impossible.

    If a woman has a prohibited abortion does society in general care to stone her, hang her, imprison her, drown her or what? How about the abortionist? Maybe the abortionist has 32 children under five and keeps stray animals and knits blankets for orphans.

    So, I accept abortion on the terms that it be a medical decision arrived at with all care to make it necessary and a rare procedure.

    None of this deviates from my position in any significant way….

    And thelittlefascist insists on dragging me into his mindless, amoral, ethically bankrupt “pro-choice” club.

    … but it’s too difficult to say that you agree with me, and so you have to pretend like we’re miles apart. I don’t see it. You either believe abortion should be illegal, or you believe abortion should be legal. Either, or. There are commonly agreed upon terms to describe these positions, pro-life and pro-choice. So what, have you invented a third category for you and you alone?

    Let this be a lesson to all. If you can be shown to agree in some slight way with a Progressive ideologue, you have to take the full doxology all the way through to its very worst characteristics. Next thing coming my way is that I support partial birth abortion as a party game.

    You didn’t agree with me ‘in some slight way,’ you agree with me almost completely. You’ve got some complaints about partial birth abortions, which I’ve addressed repeatedly by reminding you that this is a tiny fraction of the overall percentage of abortions, that the vast majority of them are medically necessary, and that Republican-lead efforts to restrict abortion access (closing clinics, requiring multiple visits, waiting periods, etc.) result in delaying abortions – which obviously means there are going to be more of the partial-birth variety.

    I don’t like partial-birth abortions any more than you do, but this is the exact same issue with the abortion problem in general; you can’t just apply a one-size-fits-all solution for all women in every situation. The method was invented for medical reasons, and it’s used almost exclusively for medical reasons. I would completely agree that a woman with means who gets pregnant and waits around until she’s 6 months pregnant before having an abortion is a deplorable human being. With so many people, it’s bound to happen every once in awhile. But a handful of cases per year does not warrant banning the procedure outright for the many women who require the procedure for medical reasons.

    But yeah, whatever – pretend like I’m being the asshole. You’ve cast me as amoral, and amoral I must remain, even when you find yourself in agreement with me, so you might as well let all that pro-lifer propaganda fill in the rest. Sure, I might give you some reasons for why I think abortion should be legal, but you know the truth – I’m just into having unattached sex with strangers and dragging my conquests into the partial-birth abortion clinics, right? You reluctantly accept abortion as a lesser of two evils, but I just think abortions are awesome and fun, right?

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 6:43 pm - January 24, 2013

  62. You didn’t agree with me ‘in some slight way,’ you agree with me almost completely.

    There you go again.

    If I wrote the statutes permitting abortion, you would be first in line attacking me and disagreeing with me.

    Get over yourself. Agreeing with you is not to think at all.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 6:50 pm - January 24, 2013

  63. *sits back and watches popcorn as Levi is schooled again.*

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2013 @ 7:01 pm - January 24, 2013

  64. *sits back and watches popcorn as Levi is schooled again.*

    Unfortunately, while Heliotrope is schooling him, Levi is sitting at the back of the classroom eating paste.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 8:28 pm - January 24, 2013

  65. [Comment deleted as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 11:23 pm - January 24, 2013

  66. If society is powerless to pressuring teens to be abstinent, then what is the point of spending billions on anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-drug campaigns? Is sexuality the only area of the teen psyche where societal pressure won’t change behavior?

    Or, is it because liberals want to have a broad pool of weak-willed teenagers to bone?

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2013 @ 7:53 am - January 25, 2013

  67. “Would someone explain to me what is so awful about the wholesome “Ward and June” family ideal, and why it is so hated by some people?”, V the K

    Never said I was a hater of Ward and June Cleaver. Families are great but the family unit isn’t what it used to be. Two men or two women can make a strong parenting unit and raise healthy, well-rounded children. When the Republican Party can accept that it will be much more in sync with the majority of Americans. Until then every time they bring up the topic they just remind Americans how much out of touch they are.

    Comment by David — January 25, 2013 @ 8:09 am - January 25, 2013

  68. Two men or two women can make a strong parenting unit and raise healthy, well-rounded children.

    I sort of accept that. I sort of accept that a single parent can raise healthy, well-rounded children. I sort of accept that the TV “daddy” with eleven children by ten wives can raise healthy, well-rounded children.

    Why do I “sort of” accept that? Because it not the norm, it is an anomaly.

    Progressives are all over “bullying” in schools. What is the likelihood that a kid with two daddies or two mommies is going to be the object of curiosity in middle school? Oh, I know the answer, we will just have to educate the red-neck kids to be more diverse and tolerant.

    Somehow, this grand experiment of altering nature of nature never has taken hold in the history of societies. Sure, Chinese kill extra child units and Indians abort females asap and some people farm kids out to strangers. But what is the 3,000 year norm? Why is that? Nobody was ever as smart and sensitive and tolerant as us?

    I really don’t know much about the demographics in The Netherlands, but I found this interesting:

    ….the Netherlands ended up with two legal statuses for both same-sex and different-sex couples. And married same-sex couples still don’t have the same parental rights as different-sex married couples. Same-sex married couples can’t adopt children internationally, and a non-biological lesbian parent only gets “parental authority” for a child born to her female spouse, not automatic parental rights. To get full parental rights, the non-biological parent must still formally adopt the child.

    It seems that the highly tolerant and liberal country of The Netherlands has not yet “normalized” gay parenthood.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 9:30 am - January 25, 2013

  69. [1.] Employers are not required to buy top-shelf medical insurance that covers eyes, teeth, hearing, plastic surgery, etc. That would logically translate into the issue of “whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees” as those issues are unquestionably “healthcare decisions” being made by the employer under thelittlefascist’s rubric.

    Obviously, employers shouldn’t have to pay for their employees’ boob jobs. But women don’t have the option of not dealing with their reproductive organs.

    [2.] “for any reason” is not the issue. The First Amendment is the issue. Can an employer deny contraception coverage as a matter of religious conscience?

    You need a few things explained. ‘Religious conscience’ is effectively the same thing as ‘for any reason.’ Religion isn’t special. I can invent a religion in five seconds. There, it’s done. Now I have my own religion, and my five-second-old religion is just as important as your 2,000 year-old religion, according to the First Amendment. If you can invoke your religious conscience, then so can I. I think I’ll go with…. public nudity laws. My new religion teaches that clothes are evil, so adherents of my religion can claim an exception to all public nudity laws because of their religious conscience. I’m just applying your logic.

    Your problem is that you think the First Amendment gives you superpowers. You think it means that your religion can serve as a permission slip for a few things, including in this case, not having to comply with a law. As usual, you’re completely incorrect – the First Amendment actually means that nobody has superpowers, and that invoking your religion in an argument is about as valid as invoking an episode of the Powerpuff Girls. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, it means that everyone is accountable for themselves. The real violation of the First Amendment would be to permit religious people to force their employees to comply with their religious preferences. Here’s how freedom of religion is supposed to work – if you have a religious objection to contraception, you don’t have to use it. You can even go around telling people that contraception is evil and that they shouldn’t use it either. What it doesn’t allow you to do is leverage your position of authority to coerce your subordinates into complying with your beliefs.

    And as for the actual belief itself, let’s talk about that for a minute. Certainly, I can imagine a scenario where a government passes an immoral law. If religious people objected to that law with a sound moral argument, I might be able to get behind the idea of invoking your ‘religious conscience.’ Is opposition to birth control one such belief?

    No. Contraception is one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. Contraception saves lives, contraception prevents the spread of disease, contraception lowers poverty, contraception promotes equality, etc. Once contraception is invented, if your organization insists on calling contraception evil and spreading lies about contraception, than that organization is actively killing people. Have a gander: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids Sure as shooting them in the face, the Catholic Church killed people with its misinformation campaigns.

    Is this a belief that society is supposed to respect and make special accommodations for? I don’t think so! It’s a belief that simply doesn’t make any sense on scientific, social, ethical, or economic levels. The Vatican’s opposition to birth control is politically motivated and has more to do with replenishing the Catholics’ ranks than anything else. There’s nothing about contraception in the Bible, some guy just arbitrarily said it was against the rules. Is that all it takes?

    Imagine a Scientologist employer telling his employees that he refuses to cover mental health problems. His claim of ‘religious conscience’ is just as valid as yours, if not more so, since the belief is a critical component of the religion. Now think back to my new religion’s claim of ‘religious conscience.’ Just as equally valid. If a ten-year old invented a religion based on the Pokemon, he’d also have opportunities to claim ‘religious conscience’ for whatever he could dream up. When you don’t care about having evidence or justifying your beliefs, you can just say anything. What’s the standard? How do we know which ‘religious conscience’ exemptions are valid and which ones are bullshit?

    Fortunately, they invented the First Amendment to straighten this all out for us – they’re all bullshit! We don’t have to worry about determining which claims are worthy and which ones aren’t, because the First Amendment establishes that none of them are worthy. Now feel free – go to church, pray to god, seethe with anger that people are having sex and using contraception, but don’t think for a minute that just because you walk around calling yourself a Catholic means you’re entitled to coerce people into living their lives according to your beliefs.

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - January 25, 2013

  70. [Comment deleted as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - January 25, 2013

  71. …..because the First Amendment establishes that none of them are worthy.

    BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Citation needed.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 12:41 pm - January 25, 2013

  72. Citation? You expect Levi to use facts?

    Actually the blind squirrel found a nut (no not himself) here.

    can invent a religion in five seconds. There, it’s done. Now I have my own religion, and my five-second-old religion is just as important as your 2,000 year-old religion, according to the First Amendment.

    Q: What’s the difference between a religion and a cult?
    A: About 2000 years.

    People who have businesses have a right to set conditions for employment. (wage, schedules health benefts 401K, pension, etc.) The employee has a right to decide if they want to accept this.

    In both cases, a person’s faith motivates them. (I know our little fascist doesn’t have faith in anything except him) The first amendment protects both.

    Well it used to.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm - January 25, 2013

  73. BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Citation needed.

    Let me put it this way. What if two religions are in conflict? Who wins? How do we determine which religion is more important than the other? If you’re willing to grant the Catholics’ this exemption, than you’ve laid the logical groundwork for Muslims to get an exemption for, oh, I don’t know, let’s go with mutilating the genitals of their females. How can you justify the Catholic’s exemption while denying the Muslim’s? What standard do we use to determine when a claim of religious conscience is justifiable and when it is not?

    Fortunately, there already is a standard. It’s called the First Amendment, and it solves this problem for us by lumping all religions into the same category, labeled ‘Ignore.’ It just doesn’t matter. Your religious conscience is your religious conscience. You’re free to go round up some converts if you like, but you can’t coerce your underlings into living by your standards, which are arbitrary and inherently mysterious to anyone that isn’t sharing your brain.

    The amendment allows us to think, speak, and believe freely. It means that if you want people to live a certain way, it’s up to you to convince them. It’s called the marketplace of ideas, and it’s quite the improvement over what came before it – theocrats desperately censoring information, burning books, and killing scientists. The First Amendment blocks off those shortcuts and their modern descendants, which are admittedly less brutal (though opposing contraception is still extremely destructive) but still rely on the same, freedom-compromising tactics of fear, coercion, and disproportionate power balances.

    It is decidedly not a permission slips to ignore laws that you don’t like for whatever reason you can imagine.

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 2:01 pm - January 25, 2013

  74. The specific issue is whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees

    So, Catholic employers are forcing their employees not to use birth control?

    I don’t know what kind of robot you are, but you can’t really expect human beings to be perfect all the time

    I’m not saying they have to behave perfectly, they should just accept the consequences of their actions. It really isn’t that hard.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 25, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - January 25, 2013

  75. Note again how Levi can’t support his, shall we say unique? take on the first amendment.

    Still, It is fun to quote the wisdom of the founders.

    “The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

    “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.”

    All from Thomas Jefferson.

    Oh and this gem.
    “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

    See? Who says that the founders couldn’t see trains planes and automobiles? It’s clear he saw Levi coming.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 25, 2013 @ 2:37 pm - January 25, 2013

  76. I’m not saying they have to behave perfectly, they should just accept the consequences of their actions. It really isn’t that hard.

    Well shit, then why don’t you raise the kids?

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 2:52 pm - January 25, 2013

  77. Let me put it this way. What if two religions are in conflict? Who wins? How do we determine which religion is more important than the other? If you’re willing to grant the Catholics’ this exemption, than you’ve laid the logical groundwork for Muslims to get an exemption for, oh, I don’t know, let’s go with mutilating the genitals of their females. How can you justify the Catholic’s exemption while denying the Muslim’s? What standard do we use to determine when a claim of religious conscience is justifiable and when it is not?

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 2:01 pm – January 25, 2013

    Currently, it’s based on whether or not they’re a potential Obama voting bloc.

    So sorry, Levi: your own Obamacare law, your own Obama Party, and your own Obama say that specific religious groups and beliefs are worthy and others are not.

    Which, according to your screaming and bleating, violates “equal protection” and constitutes “government sponsorship of religious beliefs”.

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 3:21 pm - January 25, 2013

  78. [Comment deleted due to violation of Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 3:29 pm - January 25, 2013

  79. Well shit, then why don’t you raise the kids?

    Because I’m not having irresponsible sex…

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 26, 2013 @ 12:45 am - January 26, 2013

  80. Because I’m not having irresponsible sex…

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 26, 2013 @ 12:45 am – January 26, 2013

    Exactly, Rattlesnake.

    Why should you be forced to pay for the mistakes and irresponsibility of others?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2013 @ 10:38 am - January 26, 2013

  81. Hosts,

    Please delete all of my comments from this thread as they are possibly not productive to discussion nor entirely gentlemanly in their nature.

    Thank you,

    Heliotrope.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2013 @ 11:21 am - January 26, 2013

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.

0.363 Powered by Wordpress