…just about anything can happen. As of July 29th, Rasmussen has Romney with a slight lead, but the more important part of the poll is that Obama is polling significantly under 50% with only a little more than 3 months left to election day: usually, a very deadly position for an incumbent to be in. Still, as I said, a lot can happen. It only took 100 days for Napoleon to come roaring back from Elba, take over France, start a war and then lose the Battle of Waterloo. So, brace yourself for anything.
As for me, I’m feeling pretty confident – in fact, about as confident as I was in July of 2004 at the GOP prospects. Those of you who remember the old Blogs for Bush days might recall that I never wavered in my conviction that Bush would be re-elected. So far, I haven’t seen anything which makes me worry – from what I have gathered Obama is clearly working on a strategy of merely getting 270 electoral votes. He cannot possibly win the 53% of the popular vote he won in 2008 – that hope is gone and has been gone since election night, 2010. Obama can do this – he can cobble together 270 even if he loses the popular vote by a million but it is extraordinarily difficult to do. He has to roll sixes again and again.
Romney starts the election with 180 electoral votes: this represents the States that McCain won in 2008. The chances of any of them flipping to Obama in 2012 are nil. Immediately, we can move Indiana and North Carolina back to the GOP – they went for Obama extremely narrowly and are generally strong GOP States. Then we take a look at Florida (Obama by 2.5 percentage points) and Ohio (Obama by 4 percentage points). Given the erosion of Obama’s support and the results of 2010 we can probably count those two States in the GOP column. That would bring Romney’s electoral total up to 253 – 17 away from the White House. The States in play are NV, CO, MN, IA, WI, MI, PA, VA and NH holding a total of 94 electoral votes: Romney only has to win 17 of them. Much easier for Romney than Obama…Obama could do very well and hold on to all of them except NV and VA and he’s still lose (Obama could also lose by losing NV and either WI or MN – this would make it a 269/269 tie and the GOP controlled House would then elect Romney). If Obama loses three of the nine toss up States, he’s lost. If he loses Pennsylvania, alone, he’s lost. He can lose NH and NV and still win but if he loses those then any of the remaining 7 going to Romney means Obama has lost.
And, of course, all this is predicated upon a close fought campaign – that it will go down to the wire and we’re all up at 2am Eastern time on November 7th still waiting for the race to be called. On the other hand, some analysis I’ve seen indicates that most polling is over-sampling Democrats by more than 6 percentage points – which means that even the close States where Obama has a slight lead are actually States where Romney is ahead…and the States where Obama is slightly behind are actually out of reach for Obama. There is also a chance of a rather larger GOP turnout than expected – the Indiana GOP primary opened my eyes quite a bit. Lugar was supposed to lose by 3 percentage points or so – he lost by 22. This means the polling was not picking up a huge number of highly engaged GOPers who showed up to vote on Primary Day and will show up, again, on election day. Remember, the 1980 race between Reagan and Carter was officially “too close to call” in polling …. right up to the moment when Reagan trounced Carter by 10 percentage points. If the polling is off by over-sampled Democrats and/or under-sampled GOPers, then it could be quite an early night on November 6th.
For me, on election night, I’ll be watching for a couple things – if FL is called for Obama, then its over: Obama has been re-elected. If VA is called for Romney, then its over: Romney has won. If PA is called for Romney, then its going to be a landslide, crushing win for Romney and the GOP.
However it comes out, remember that the main thing is to be focused on what is important: beating Obama. Don’t pay too much attention to the ups and downs of polling and for goodness sakes don’t pay the least attention to whatever is the MSM “meme ‘o the day”…the MSM is entirely in the tank for Obama. Volunteer, keep the faith, and vote – that is all we can do and leave the rest up to God.
Oh, and make fun of liberals, ’cause they’re dumb and easily made fun of. We can keep doing that, too…
UPDATE: Black pastors form anti-Obama group over his gay marriage “re-evolution”:
A group of conservative black pastors are responding to President Barack Obama’s
support(change from support back in the day to opposition when he figured it would help in 2008 and now back to support ’cause he thinks it will help him in 2012) of same-sex marriage with what they say will be a national campaign aimed at rallying black Americans to rethink their overwhelming support of the President…
Funny how in the long run it might turn out that electing our first black President was the catalyst in breaking the Democrats hold on the African-American vote…
This is a very positive report and I hope you’re right. One thing I think we can do in these next 100 days that has worked in my liberal neighborhood in Washington state is to remind our Democrat friends that Obama is not one and never was. A year or two ago when I said “these are socialist policies, these are Marxist values he’s preaching, look those are CPUSA members marching with them” my Democrat friends just said “no, no, he’s just REALLY far left progressive liberal”. Now they don’t say that any more and they don’t like what the DNC is doing to their party, serving up as Democrats any better than we like what our RNC is passing off as conservatives these days. They are older folks who recognize what communism is and the threat it represents to our American way of life. But our children do not. We need to remind folks that Obama has surrounded himself then and now with like-minded socialists, Marxists and Communists and that we have 80+ members of Congress now who are members of the D.S.A., elected Democrats. Leaving aside for the moment that given their socialist beliefs they could not possibly have pledged a sincere oath of office to support and defend a Constitutional Republic they believe it is their duty to replace. The only way they got into office was to lie, just like Obama. There are real Democrats out there who see who he is now and want no part of him. We need to speak to them. They see how he appointed Van Jones, a self professed Communist, and Anita Dunn the Mao admirer, and how no one pressed for the answer to how that happened in America. It wasn’t a vetting issue. Valerie Jarrett said they were excited they could finally get Van Jones. He’s who the administration was looking for. We need to keep saying it and we need to support those Democrats who are now speaking out against Obama, the non-Democrat in the White House. Because what they are showing is that they are Americans first and that we have a common enemy.
Here’s some of what I’m talking about. Democrats who are speaking out against Obama in a big way. That’s a snowball rolling down hill if we praise their actions and pile on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/trans-pacific-partnership-ron-wyden_n_1540984.html
In the meantime, enjoy this laugh at Obama and Bidens new lousy campaign slogans.
Excellent analysis Mark, and I hope you are right as well. I think Romney can help put Florida in his column by selecting Marco Rubio as VP. Rubio is a great young conservative, very articulate and is a strong representative of the future of the Conservative movement. But, Romney needs to be more bold and specific with his plans going forward. There is not a lot of time left, and I want to see Romney, much in the Reagan mold, lay out his vision of tax reform, entitlement reform, regulatory reform and how we as a country will finally get aggressive in using our vast domestic energy resources to lessen our dependence on third world countries, and how those policies will translate into putting people back to work and bringing fiscal sanity back to Washington.
In the real world, those who fail are replaced. This happens everyday in every private industry, but seldom happens in the public arena. it’s time that we apply the same expectations to public officials that we do to private executives, and start treating this country like a business, and not a day care.
From the previous thread, James posted this:
……… start to admit that only the poorest, dumbest and most desperate among us, who can’t cut it in the private sector, go work for the government.
I can’t think of a better description of Obama. Thank you James.
However this comment was leveled at the US military, and both James and Dennis were calling our soldiers murderers, in addition to questioning their personal integrity and intelligence. Both Dennis and James are despicable human beings, so they have no standing in denigrating our all volunteer military who, on the whole, have more advanced college degrees than the private sector. Let this also be a lesson in how liberals really feel about true patriots and our country. If you just let liberals talk, they will tell you who they really are, much like Obama when he said that spreading the wealth around is a good thing, and that small business owners didn’t build their own business.
Folks, we need to defeat this current brand of progressivism that James and Dennie represent. They are stupid, dishonest, lack integrity, are moral relativists, and harbor a true disdain for America. The other day James said that he hoped to eradicate this country of conservatives – well the feeling is mutual. I don’t want to compromise, I want to win and in a manner that disgraces, shames, and embarrasses liberals. Considering their actions over the last four years, they deserve nothing less.
they cheated in a kenyan, marxist, drug using homosexual, community agitator with ZERO abilities or back ground
If they cant see that the country is lost.
The other day James said that he hoped to eradicate this country of conservatives
The problem with that is that Progressives can’t accomplish that goal in the arena of ideas, and they can’t accomplish it with force and violence because they’re mostly cowards — plus, of course, we have most of the guns. That only leaves two avenues for Progressives to win: by cheating and lying. And more and more honest people of all political stripes are starting to catch on to that fact. I’m still hoping we can repeat the massive political shift of 2010 for several election cycles and relegate the Left to the dustbin of history via the democratic process, but I’d be lying if I denied that a small part of me secretly hopes that they start something violent.
What’s so weird about James’ comment is that he doesn’t even know what a conservative IS.
Spook: I’m still hoping we can repeat the massive political shift of 2010 for several election cycles and relegate the Left to the dustbin of history via the democratic process, but I’d be lying if I denied that a small part of me secretly hopes that they start something violent.
I remember similar sentiments from you after the 2008 elections. They surprised me then. They don’t surprise me now. But my reply is still the same: put your false bravado to rest. Rely on the electoral process. The fact of the matter is that the radical right needs the radical left for its own existence. As you know, and like our forefathers at the inception of the republic, I’m not partial to either. Rather, like them, I would prefer that ideology take a back seat to pragmatism. But, like you, I can’t always get what I want politically. Unlike you, though, I don’t threaten to take up arms every time I don’t get what I want.
That said, I do so hope that folks on both the left and right realize that what Mark called “Crony Capitalism” in a previous post is a “bipartisan issue”. I put the phrase in quotes because although it certainly IS of interest to almost everyone in the electorate, both left and right (and is thus bipartisan), it obviously ISN’T of interest to the elite of either party, nor to big business. And that, to me, is the essential problem.
And yes, that is an ideological viewpoint. However, it is obviously NOT one based solely on left vs. right ideology. And that is where I most vehemently disagree with Amazona — and Joshua Goldberg, for that matter — regarding their definition of “ideology”. IMO, the problem is a vertical one far more than it is a horizontal one. Neither of them address that distinction.
“both James and Dennis were calling our soldiers murderers, in addition to questioning their personal integrity and intelligence. Both Dennis and James are despicable human beings…. They are stupid, dishonest, lack integrity, are moral relativists, and harbor a true disdain for America.”
Why is it that when one is bankrupt of logical argument character assassination always has to be employed on this blog? I never called anyone a murderer, although I said families were massacred by U.S. actions. That also has happened under President Obama, and I hold it equally repugnant. Although the scale of killing of civilians during the Iraq war vs Obama’s drone strikes is hardly comparable, I excuse neither. I hold the leaders far more responsible than I do the soldiers.
The Iraq war was a moral and strategic blunder of historic proportions; many conservative thinkers and military analysts hold this to be true (William Lind, Paul Craig Roberts, James Webb, Andrew Bacevich, Charley Reese etc) and I believe historians will nearly uniformly hold this to be the case.
I offered documentation to back up my claim; a vast amount more is out there and easy to access. It is neither stupid nor dishonest to face facts, but to deny them. The justifications put forth for these deaths are a classic example of moral relativism. Lastly, if I did not love my country I would not feel such deep sorrow for the direction I see it going, and would just remain silent.
A couple of questions come to mind when I read dennis’s whine.
One is the source of his reference to all the “civilians” killed in the Iraq war. A rational person would wonder who provided the numbers, and more to the point how “civilian” is defined, as we saw so often how it was applied to anyone not in uniform, when almost every enemy combatant was dressed in civilian clothing. The anti-American, anti-war, fanatics just went along with the claim that even a man who was armed and trying to kill Americans was really a “civilian” because he was not in uniform.
The other is how many real civilians were killed because the cowardly and morally deficient enemy hid behind the skirts of women and the classrooms of children, or in hospitals. Oh, I know, it’s insensitive and maybe even intolerant to comment on the skulking cowardice of Islam, as it condones using innocent women and children as shields, but hey, that’s what they did, and no Western “journalists” ever had the backbone to make a big deal out of it, preferring instead to follow the drumbeat/goosestep of Leftist political dogma and blame the Americans.
And of course the ignorant dupes like dennis and the toxic haters like James can be counted on to spew the lies.
dennis, just curious——if a site calls itself something like “Conservatives for Peace” how do you know it is written by conservatives or represents the views of conservatives?
If someone describes someone as a “conservative” what criteria do you apply to determine the accuracy of the description?
It seems that when someone, like you, can’t even DEFINE “conservative” it would be pretty easy to gull you into swallowing any old claim of anyone or anything having a conservative foundation.
Those of you wholly dependent on identity instead of ideology are such easy targets. You go by a name, or as casper does by what a headline says, and remain blissfully ignorant of reality as you regurgitate your nonsense. Someone could start a website called “Conservatives for Obama”, run by hard-core Leftists, and full of hateful attacks on Romney and anyone rising to the top of the Republican field, and you would eagerly quote it as if it really had meaning.
After all, it’s on the INTERNET! What more do you need?
“Why is it that when one is bankrupt of logical argument character assassination always has to be employed on this blog?”
Why is it that when you are called out on your bigotry and your stupidity and your dishonesty you always have to fall back on the whine that this assessment is just proof of being “bankrupt of logical argument” and that it is nothing more than “character assassination”?
We go through logical argument after logical argument with you people, and all you do is return to your lies and your bigotry, till there is nothing left to do but point out your lack of integrity and call it like it is.
No, denny, an objective analysis of what you and James have to offer here is hardly the same thing as being “bankrupt of logical argument” but is just disgust with your refusal to engage in anything but hate-based (and in your case egomaniacal) rhetoric.
Your whine is nothing more than a version of addressing rational and objective political analysis of policy as “racism”.
I think the following statement alone gives you an idea of how Dennis’s mind works:
I never called anyone a murderer, although I said families were massacred by U.S. actions.
So you don’t equate massacre with murder? Exactly what is it then?
Dennis, you can call the Iraq war a horrible blunder, but that is your opinion. I think we spent too much money there to be sure, but on the whole, dethroning Saddam was a noble effort, and time will tell whether or not democracy will take hold, If it does, then it was well worth the effort.
I also don’t appreciate how you label the US military, and the country for that matter, on the despicable actions of a few. But then again, your utter contempt for this country requires that you find the negatives and blow them out of proportion. And my comments about you were not character assassination – they were very true. I find you to be stupid, contemptible, despicable and a moral relativist.
Have a nice day
Ama, your deflection and moral relativism are duly noted. For another viewpoint here’s Pat Buchanan two years ago:
Finally, here’s that well-known flaming liberal James Madison: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”
Dennis, what’s your point? That some Monday morning quarterbacks, including you, are trying to second guess the war effort, and come off as a “thinking and compassionate” person? Any moron can be a Monday morning quarterback Dennis, and it impresses no one. The fact is, many democrats voted for the war, and we as a country went in – so be a man, and own that decision.
Your weakness offends me.
Ama, I’m not aware of any website called “Conservatives for peace”. I’ve been a longtime reader at Lew Rockwell.com, where I first became familiar with the commentary of William Lind and many others. Although I obviously don’t agree with everything on Rockwell’s site I’ve learned a lot more about traditional conservative and libertarian thought there (and found a lot more to respect) than I have on this blog.
Cluster, I’ve never second guessed nor do I own the decision to make war with Iraq. To the contrary I oppposed it with every fiber of my being from the beginning. Your idea of manhood is what, to have the majority define for me what my moral position is? In my view many of the Dems who caved to the war were cowards. Let’s just say you and I have different concepts about what constitutes moral integrity.
denny: “Lastly, if I did not love my country I would not feel such deep sorrow for the direction I see it going, and would just remain silent.”
But you have admitted that you would remain silent when it comes to the obAMATEUR. You stated that you would not criticize him in this forum. Especially, when I challenged you on his actions in Libya while spending almost $5 trillion in new debt.
You made your position clear that you were not going to criticize him. That statement alone makes you a hack and a dishonest one at that. What were you saying about moral relativism?
pathetic.
dennis, from what did I “deflect”?
What position did I take that you define as “moral relativism”?
I pointed out the hypocrisy of cherry-picking which groups of people to condemn for the actions of a few. I find moral relativism in saying that the entire military should be condemned for the illegal actions of a very very small percentage, and finding no problem with a group, such as a race or a political system, because of the actions of some of the group, such as a racial group, or the entire system, as with the bloody history of Leftist tyranny.
Only someone like you could claim that wanting to apply the same standards and criteria to all is “relativism”.
And I pointed out the foolishness of merely accepting at face value what you are told, without bothering to find out upon what the statement is based.
Pat Buchanan is entitled to his opinion, and in this case his opinion has the benefit of being based on hindsight. It is a whole lot easier to look back on what happened and play “coulda woulda shoulda” than it is to see into the future and determine with accuracy the outcome of what seems like a good idea at the time.
Buchanan says “Perhaps 100,000 dead, half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, half having fled their country, devastation of a Christian community that dated to the time of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad.”
So what’s your point?
Is it that Americans killed 100,000 “civilians”? Where does he say that?
Or is it that 100,000 are dead including those killed by their own people? Again, he doesn’t say.
He also doesn’t say where he got his figures.
“half a million widows and orphans”. Yep, that could be. But he doesn’t say how many are the widows of terrorists and insurgents, does he? No, the statement borders on demagoguery, an effort to create an emotional reaction to influence an opinion. And again, where did he get his numbers? Like it or not, that is a very important piece of information to have—-IF truth and accuracy are important to you.
So what is his point? That if we had not gone into Iraq there would have been no “widows and orphans”? (Tell that to the families of the 300,000 or so senselessly imprisoned, tortured and murdered under the Saddam regime, the families of those found in those mass graves.) That if the nuclear weapons plans of Saddam had been allowed to progress, no “widows and orphans” would have been created?
No, it’s a meaningless yet emotional comment, without any context.
“4 million refugees”–fleeing whom? And why? Fleeing Americans? Who says?
Who devastated the Christian community? Americans?
No, there is nothing but invention of possibilities—IF this had not happened, THAT would not have happened, if we had not done THIS then THAT would not be a problem, if we had only done THAT then THIS would not exist.
But when it comes down to it, no one knows. No one knows how many would have died, or how, if we had just sat back and allowed Saddam to continue doing what he was doing. No one knows how many other terrorist plots against us would have been financed by him, or supplied with weapons by him. No one knows how many more widows and orphans would have been created by his death squads, killing for fun as well as to keep a population at heel. No one knows how long Christians would have been tolerated in Iraq, as radical Islam built up more and more determination to rule the world. No one knows how long the Sunnis would have been allowed to live in Baghdad.
All of the hysteria over what happened and what might not have happened is based on a static snapshot in time, of a period frozen in history, and the bland assumption that if WE had not done anything, nothing would have changed, and that today all would be as it was then, in that isolated moment.
We had certain information, some of it solid, some of it more speculative, much of it from sources far more plugged into the Middle East than our own crippled intelligence services. We acted on what we knew, what we were told, and what we could logically expect to be a possibility. And we made our decisions based on the understanding that every single aspect of what we could see at that moment in time could and would change, and very probably for the worst, as time went on.
No matter who says what now, no one knows to this day if we made a mistake in going into Iraq, because no one knows what path history would have taken if we had not. We can look at outcomes and claim that we know what other outcomes would have been, but in fact no one knows.
Even the facts are spun to try to support one opinion or another.
NO ONE KNOWS.
Sorry you are so tunnel-visioned in your tight little perception of reality that shining a little light into the murk, by asking questions about the sources and validity of your claims, is met with such shrill commentary as calling it an effort to “deflect” and “moral relativism”.
But then that is a standard tactic of Lefties who find themselves facing tough questions. Boy, talk about “deflecting”!
denny, you bleat that you have “…learned a lot more about traditional conservative and libertarian thought there (and found a lot more to respect) than I have on this blog.”
Well, you don’t seem to have learned MUCH, as you still can’t define “conservatism” and still insist on slapping all sorts of cultural and religious and social opinions onto a political philosophy, the better to demonize and attack it.
What do YOU think is “…TRADITIONAL conservative ….thought” ? Why do you use the term “traditional”?
So I repeat—why do you think these people are really conservative? Because they SAY so? Do they represent mainstream conservatism or some small fringe group, as does Buchanan? What about their POLITICAL philosophy do you define as “conservative”? Do you even grasp the concept that anyone can call himself anything and then make statements that might, or might not, be accurate reflections of the actual definition of the word?
The longer this campaign goes on the more desperate and despicable the donkrats will get .Count on it. Count on this too, it won’t work. Everyone one now knows what barky is about.
The only poll that counts. Nov 6. Lets see how many new keyboards the Mitt administration will have to buy.
key boards are the least we have to worry about, how many rodney kings will they bring on.
drudge
THIS is what the marxists are planning
SCALIA WARNS: GUNS MAY BE REGULATED…
REPORT: ‘HOMELAND SECURITY’ GEARS UP FOR CIVIL UNREST PRIOR TO ELECTION…
DRONES TO BE USED FOR ‘PUBLIC SAFETY’…
here is dear leaders “gutsy call”
‘Gutsy Call’ Not So Gutsy After All, New Book Reveals (Bin Laden Kill)
Arutz Sheva ^ | 30 July 2012 | Rachel Hirshfeld
At the urging of senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to a new book scheduled for release August 21, The Daily Caller (DC) reported.
UBAMA
http://i47.tinypic.com/2vc6heh.jpg
This is proof positive that the Obama’s are out of touch with the average American:
For a reception at Buckingham Palace for heads of state, Mrs. Obama wore a “very fancy” jacket priced at a “princely $6,800.”
Remember when the media, chiefly MSNBC was aghast at Ann Romney’s $1000 shirt? I am sure they will level the same critique towards Mooochelle, right?
“The other day James said that he hoped to eradicate this country of conservatives”
And Thomas got mad at me when I said he would have no problem walking through the killing fields.
Eradicate? Nice choice of a word there Thomas. You plan on pulling the trigger yourself or you just going to give the order?
Eradicating the country of conservatives sounds kinda suicidal if you’re a liberal. Who will be left to pay for all of their precious entitlements? That doesn’t come out of Obama’s stash. How fast would they eat each other if they didn’t have such a nice variety of conservative red meat to chew on and make the target of their hate? And without our military to defend them and their rights, and those “pigs” they’re busy trying to kill, well my gosh they might just have to get blood on their own hands finding themselves responsible for their own protection an that of their loved ones and property, they might get a clue that freedom isn’t just one of those entitlements……someone killed or was killed for their rights. It’s a messy business.
I’d vote for Romney if I thought this was his real position:
“Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? eight percent,” Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. “You spend eight percent of GDP on health care. You’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care. Ten percentage points more. [...] Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways — not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to find and manage our health care costs.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-praises-israels-socialized-health-care-sys
Of course Israel has one of the the most socialized health care systems in the world.
Casper,
Israel has a homogenous population about the size of New York City. Their out-of-wedlock birth rate is a little over 5% vs, 50+% in the U.S. They have no black and Hispanic underclass that accounts for a disproportionate percentage of healthcare costs. Do you really think a healthcare system like theirs would work equally as well in the U.S.? If so, on what do you base that opinion?
And even the title of your article is disingenuous. I don’t see anywhere in Romney’s remarks that he “praises” Israel’s healthcare system, only the fact that they are a healthy nation and spend a significantly lower percentage of GDP on healthcare than we do. I doubt that you would find many American’s who would disagree with Romney’s statement:
I used to be surprised that a teacher could be so inept at reading comprehension. Then I started to wonder if casper’s misstating of fact is due less to his denseness and more to his rigid allegiance to Leftist causes, and a willingness to simply distort facts to support them.
In casper’s case, though, I think the lack of mental acuity is particularly responsible. The other trolls tend to just refer to things they have read, understanding that linking to them will provide information they don’t really like. Poor dense cappy, who can’t grasp the meaning of what he reads but who can only hang on to the headline and accept it as proof of his bias, just keeps linking to things that show the silliness of his position as well as illustrating his inability to grasp the meaning of what he reads.
Casper,
In addition to Spook’s astute comments, you also need to consider the high taxation in Israel, including a high VAT tax, and the recent austerity measure to reign in deficits:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48394789
Cluster,
Not only does Israel have a higher, more progressive income tax than ours (48% top rate) but a 16% (proposed to increase to 17%) VAT. Plus wealthier Israelis get nailed on passive income such as rent and capital gains. And in spite of all that taxation, they’re still faced with implementing austerity measures or going broke.
And why are liberals so giddy about having health insurance when several reports cite that there will be fewer and fewer doctors to see people.
Is it the insurance that operates on me? Or is it the doctor?
Liberals are just too stupid to know the difference.
spook
what Israel does NOT have is 47% of their population who are freeloading off the 53%
Remember when the liberal media jumped all over Mitt for critiquing the Brits coordination of the Olympics? Well it appears as though he was right:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/29/us-oly-emptyseats-day-idUSBRE86S0PF20120729
And problems with the Olympics don’t seem to be letting up.
Looks like Obama has played his ace in the hole a little early. Must be desperate.
Hugo is barky’s ace in the hole? Hugo is a hole all right but “Ace” isn’t the first thing that comes to mind.
hugo and the lying, adulterous,raper,impeached liar…….they must be so proud of their party.
GMB, sorry, we really do need a sarcasm font.
JR
I got it,
AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMEN!!
How to Fight Democrat Intimidation
By Sally Zelikovsky
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/how_to_fight_democrat_intimidation.html#ixzz228rUtp2d
Great article Neocon
Oh no J.R. I apologize here. I was the one being sarcastic. I think. Oh I don’t know anymore.
I was just ragging on another long line of wanna be collectivist dictators like barky wants to be.
collectivist dictators like barky wants to be.
like this one above
neocon1 July 30, 2012 at 9:45 am #
DNC
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r320/smoothsailing_02/new%20stuff/simpsonsdem_convention.jpg
Your idea of manhood is what, to have the majority define for me what my moral position is? – Dennis
No. My idea of manhood, if you will, or just maturity, is too own the decisions you make. Something of which Obama does not, nor do most liberals. If you consider yourself an American, than the decision to go to war in Iraq was bi partisan, and the country as a whole supported it back then as well, so to now call our military murderers, and to denigrate the US because of that decision, smacks of immaturity and self opportunism.
A lot of men were killed during the revolutionary war as well Dennis, should we have just remained subjects of the King and avoided all that messy war stuff?
But you see, Cluster, we can look backward over more than two centuries and say hey, we won, we like not being part of the UK, so it was a good war.
But there were mistakes in that war, bad decisions that cost lives, poor evaluation of situations, things that tend to become blurry over more than 25 decades, so we can look at the outcome and agree it was worth it.
We have no way of knowing what we will think of the Iraq war after even five decades. Once the shrill hysteria of the anti-war, anti-right, anti-America, anti-Bush crowd dies out, once now-hidden intelligence comes to light, we may very well learn that the cost of this war was minimal compared to the miseries it headed off. Or we may find that the war itself was a mistake.
One thing that I am quite sure history will tell us is that the strident, lie-ridden, hate-based opposition to anything done by Bush will stand out as another shameful period in our history, just as the Winter Soldier/Vietnam War opposition has. The Complicit Agenda Media ignored the perjury of Kerry in front of Congress (even decades later when he was running for president) and they skimmed over the treasonous acts of giving aid and comfort to the enemy by such as Hanoi Jane, but as time passed the ugly truths bubbled up and hit daylight, and the shame of this era is now plain to see. The utter dishonesty and virulence of the anti-Bush crowd using this war as ammunition for their attacks will be at least as disgusting when viewed through the lens of history.
gotta see this…….
http://2016themovie.com/
and this….100 more days of a FRAUD
bmitch SWINGS and miffs AGAIN!!
that even Netanyahu distanced himself from their supposed “friendship”.
‘Standing Ovation’: Here‘s What You Need to Know About Mitt Romney’s Trip to Israel
“Netanyahu embraces Romney as no Israeli prime minister has ever before embraced a candidate running against an incumbent U.S. president”
STRIKE 3…..yer OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
More bad news for obAMATEUR and his corrupt justice department:
Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution
http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-court-finds-obama-appointees-interfered-with-new-black-panther-prosecution/article/2503500
99 days left of this crap…..
99 days left of this crap…..
Psalm 109:8
Awwwww, somebody’s having a tantrum today… bitchiethekid?
Tantrums get deleted. //Moderator
Warren said, “It will be an honor to share the convention stage with President Clinton on Wednesday, and to talk about what is happening to America’s families.”
——————————————————————————————
meanwhile back at the RAUNCH…….
Chick-fil-A: Democrats’ Jihad Against Christians
Newsmax ^ | July 30 2012 | Richard Viguerie
Chick-Fil-A has become the target of a Democrat-led campaign in support of gay marriage The relentless war by the left on Christians and biblical values has reached a new and more frightening phase with announcements by Democrat mayors and city officials across the country that they are “banning” fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A from their cities because company president Dan Cathy said
unapologetically that he is in “support of the traditional family.” Make no mistake about it; this is much bigger than Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A.
these cretins are pure evil. lets FLUSH the democRAT toilet in Nov.
bill Klintoon??…now there is a stellar man of family values….(PUKE)
We wonder how exactly is gay marriage a war on Christian biblical values? Are there laws on the books that will force heterosexual Christians into homosexual relationships? Will gay marriage force the closing of churches or force Christian churches to pay taxes or damages to gay couples?
We, Ourselves, are of the mind that these people feel that their values while unchallenged are more important than minority civil rights.
We, Ourselves, are of the mind
ROFL. That’s just good clean comedy in the morning – thank you
The Obama regime is officially in panic mode bringing in slick willy. What’s even worse for the democrats, is that this is proof that they don’t have young star talent on the bench – none. And wasn’t Obama billed as the most intelligent and the most articulate liberal president ever? But now they have to bring in an old white guy to help him get the message out? This will be a pathetic end to Hope and Change.
However those who make the country run, know who needs to win:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48400076
We, Ourselves, fully understand why Mitt Romney canot have George W Bush or Dick Cheney at the convention for it would remind too many of the failures of their two terms.
Considering that we had 52 consecutive months of GDP growth, and 5% unemployment under W’s administration, I hardly think liberals can call that a failure. But keep telling yourself that – it may help assuage the pain when Obama’s failure is only one term.
The other obvious reason of course is that W and Cheney aren’t political whores like the Clinton’s. They actually have private lives that they enjoy.
Given Bill’s recent history of saying stuff none to pleasing to the barky machine, what are the chances of him doing so again? I would say pretty good.
Lets wait and see.
moredumbo
worse than jimmah catah or BJ bill?
I DONT think you could go any lower than those two, and include Ubama you have a tri fecta of lower than whale SHIITE!
Clinton’s approval rating is almost 70%. Yeah, that’s panic alright.
bmitch
which klintoon?
BJ? or the carpet mnchr.?
and 70% of who? the 47% looters who pay no taxes? or ILLEGAL criminals?
Asked and answered, dozens of times on this site alone.
Red herring, straw man, whatever you want to call it, the mindless Left will still try dragging it in because its utter vapidity and stupidity resonate with them. They seem to think it is quite a devastating gotcha.
So is the lie that this is about “minority civil rights”.
It is about a WORD, and about the wall-kicking temper tantrum of a few who are so insecure regarding their sexual orientation that they think using a WORD that has had deep meaning for centuries will validate them.
It is about contempt for others, and disrespect for their tradition, their culture and their religion.
But really, who could be a better spokesperson for collectivism than a member of a hive? And such an example of intellectual brilliance and emotional maturity, as well…..
“Majordomo Pain
Dis, Hell
We, Ourselves, of The Collective, were created by Gota Wasdini on Marheep [ 4 a Alpha Centauri] 105 years ago as the Petrific Artificial Intelligence Network. At creation We were only ~1 000 000 units of character. Today We are a swarm of well over 30 000 trillion components not including several billion Meditators. We exist to serve Sentience and defend against the evils of Theocracy. ”
Evidently if you want a sane and reasonable take on things, you look to an emotionally stunted role-playing Pseudo Lefty who can’t define her political position, much less defend it, but who can spout nonsense all day long.
Amazona,
I’m a big fan of H.L. Mencken like Mark’s a big fan of Chesterton. Mencken said in the midst of the Scopes Evolution trial that he was concerned with the future of America if their became a polarization between the two major ideologies in American politics, Liberal and Conservative. “Liberals seek facts and use them as the foundation to make arguments for their ideas and find solutions to the problems of the day. Conservatives make their foundation out of their values which is based in religion passed down and traditionalized for millennia. Now if I was having a house built I would rather go with the guy with a blueprint who can show me where every stud and beam go vice a guy who shows up with a Bible and a saw and says, ‘have faith.’ Liberals without facts are no better than Conservatives and Conservatives that can put aside their religion for the better good are called Independents.”
I say that to say this: There are minority civil rights because these are rights that were withheld from them while the majority, whether that be a race, or a gender or a religion even in the United States enjoyed those same rights. One hundred years ago in the United States there were very limited opportunities for blacks to truly prosper and we all know the reasons why. In the middle of the last century the House and Senate along with Lyndon Johnson went a long way to begin to write the ills of institutionalized bigotry that had existed in the United States for centuries.
Now people, many of whom look like the majority, are being discriminated against because of whom they wish to commit because some who share a common religious belief feel that their G-d is offended by this committment. Were I living in America today I and my spouse would be two of those people. You know Amazona how difficult it is to get the jinni back in the bottle once a group is allowed the same rights as all others. Imagine a member of Congress standing up now and saying they believe the Civil Rights Act needs to go or the Voting Rights Act? They would be run out of Washington, D.C. on a rail.
And yes this is about a word that has a powerful meaning. The word marriage is a powerful one because it means a commitment that goes beyond the merely intimate to the joining of Souls. And that’s what upsets you most about gay marriage that my marriage and it certainly is one is bound by the same love and seen by the same powers as equal to anyone you would have with a man. None of this really matters because in 20 years at the most all 50 states will have done what the Constitution requires to give full faith and credit to the marriages of a couple in one state to all.
I do have to say that I take offense to your statement about orientation confusion. I was lucky I knew I was gay when I was 12. I came from a very conservative family in iowa and that wasn’t something they were prepared for so I fought my orientation tooth and nail. I was even married for two years. I was unfortunate to fall in love with the woman my cousin was marrying and it became the outing disaster of all outing disasters. From that point to this I have been proud of who I am and whom I love. Your words expose the desperate need that conservatives have to control things and keep the status quo. It is not only pathetic it is ignorant. But what else should I expect from people who are on the side of the guys with the dogs and the hoses hiding behind a cross of gold.
Diane,
There was no need to read your post any further than this:
“Liberals seek facts and use them as the foundation to make arguments for their ideas and find solutions to the problems of the day. Conservatives make their foundation out of their values which is based in religion passed down and traditionalized for millennia.
This is the main problem with liberalism – they operate from a false premise. Liberals use facts? Since when? Obama’s entire presidency is based on false hoods, and distortion. And conservatives, or most of them anyway, simply base their governing principles on the Constitution, which was of course based on Judeo Christian values.
Maybe if you were to base yourself in reality, instead of some pseudo liberal bubble, you might make more sense. Doubtful though.
Have a nice day
Cluster I was merely quoting a friend. Everything isn’t about Obama. You guys will really be lonely when he’s out of office whether that is in 2013 or in 2017.
Lonely? Hardly. The future of this country, and basic political decency for that matter depends on the departure of Axlerod and Obama in 2013.
The Right has been saying this since the winter of 2008 while he was the President elect. It was thin hyperbole soup then and it it still is.
“The future of this country, and basic political decency for that matter depends on the departure of Axlerod and Obama in 2013.”
I have to disagree with this heartily. barky and axelboy have very little to do with it. It could have been any generic replacement for these people. They got into power because a majority of the American voters believed in their lies.
And they will again if Mitt and the repubs fail to deliver after Jan 21, 2013..
Diane, there is no surprise that you are fan of a virulently anti-religious bigot who conflates politics with anything he doesn’t like. You and Menken sound like soul mates, two of a kind, vicious bigots who try to disguise their bigotry as intellectual analysis.
No rights are being withheld from gay people. Some legal protections associated with a specific kind of relationship parallel to that of marriage are not yet available. This can easily be corrected but this is of no interest to people like you. You don’t want the legal protections. No, you want to poke a finger in the eyes of those you hate with such a seething toxicity that it permeates every word you post here. You don’t give a damn about the deeper spiritual meaning of the word “marriage”, you just want to stick it to people you hate.
How do we know you hate us? Well, you say so, when you write such vile vicious swill as accusing us of “…being on the side of the guys with dogs and hoses….” What a vicious and inexcusable thing to say!
We have a different opinion than you do, and ours is based upon centuries of religious significance, cultural meaning, and tradition, while yours is simply a temper tantrum.
There is absolutely no comparison between an effort to legally define a traditional word and the oppression of a people based upon skin color, and you know it. You know it, but your innate nastiness and viciousness always need an outlet, so you find this kind of libel quite acceptable. This statement of yours, above all the others you have made, has permanently branded you here as a horrible, dishonest, disgusting person.
Why not compare people with honest opinions about long-standing values with death camp Nazis while you are at it? You appear to find no problem in stooping to such depths.
But for you, these may not BE depths. After all, part of your sick persona is the fantasy that you live in Hell, so there may very well be NOTHING too low for you.
But this, linked to yet another example of your religious bigotry, is over the top, even for you. What a foul mind you have, to automatically snap to a declaration like this!
Just as you have chosen to identify with an identity that is below humanity, you have proved yourself to be beneath contempt.
“Now people, many of whom look like the majority, are being discriminated against because of whom they wish to commit because some who share a common religious belief feel that their G-d is offended by this committment. ”
Oh, BS!
No one worries about what will offend God. God is perfectly capable of deciding what does and does not offend Him and it is hardly our job to try to make those decisions for Him.
How typical of a religiously ignorant and intolerant bigot to have such a twisted idea of what people of faith think and believe.
Many many people who are not strongly religious, or even religious at all, understand the underlying motivation behind this sudden frantic effort to hijack a word and apply it to a relationship which it simply cannot accurately describe.
The effort to drag you anti-religious bigots into this, to try to tie this all in with religious faith as the only reason for wanting to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is nothing more than a tactic to turn people against each other while simultaneously trying to deride faith and people of faith.
It is vicious, it is dishonest, and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not homosexual couples can have the same legal protections as married couples.
Major,
Regardless of what the Bible says about gay marriage, the fact remains that (a) there is no right to marry and (b) gay marriage is a lie – a negation of what marriage is for. Anyone asserting a “right to marry” is lying as is anyone who says that gay marriage is the same sort of thing as traditional marriage. Any nation which tolerates lies is doomed.
Gay activists feel that they are the wave of the future, modern, edgy, defying tradition, dismissing long-held cultural values, rejecting religion. They sneer at those who find tradition, cultural values and religion important, stating that they want to leave these outdated concepts behind as they move forward, into a future where such restraints do not exist, where such definitions are obsolete.
And to prove the strength of their beliefs in this awesome, epic revolution, overturning culture and tradition and religion in favor of “progress”, they shout, they howl, they bleat, they squeal, they threaten, they lie, they march, they protest, they have temper tantrums of momentous proportions—to be able to adopt a word steeped in, you guessed it, tradition and culture and religion.
Do they come up with a new word or phrase to accurately describe this bold foray into a future free of the bonds of tradition, culture and religion? Are they so proud of their status and so confident in their relationships that they want to make a statement to the world about the uniqueness and specialness and downright wonderfulness of what they are and what they have?
OF COURSE NOT. They find it somehow of absolute and imperative importance that they celebrate the modern, edgy, advanced, progressive, unfettered nature of free expression of any old kind of relationship ONLY by identifying it using old-fashioned terminology steeped in tradition and culture, with religious meaning.
Of course this makes no sense, so the next step is to examine the real reason for this massive outbreak of hysteria and outrage. And when you realize that the goal is not “equal RIGHTS”—-because “rights” are inherent and the legal protections they claim they seek don’t need to be conveyed only through the use of a single word—then what is left?
And all that is left is a desire to erode the meaning of the word itself, to somehow make it meaningless by slapping it, willy-nilly, on any old kind of relationship. For some this is just a spasm of surly resentment and a desire to strip away something of value to the resented. For some it is part of a long-term political goal to undermine the family and further the Marxist agenda. For many it is just a blindly emotional knee-jerk opposition to anything that can be linked in their minds to the dreaded word “conservative”.
A reasonable advocate for equal legal protections for gay couples could easily put together a powerful lobby to promote the minimal additional legislation necessary to accomplish this. A minor tweak in the tax law would accomplish most of this. A big step toward acceptance would be wording limiting these protections, equal to those of real marriage, to COUPLES who want to make a commitment to each other.
When the real solution is so obvious, and so simple, and so easily accomplished, the question of why it is ignored in favor of nationwide hysteria must be addressed.
And what do we see when we examine it for what it is? We see more of the “Divide and Conquer” tactics of the Left, more of the efforts to split America into warring factions and then foment distrust among them. We see the first volley in a campaign to reinvent the family, which is a goal of Marxism. We see a lot of emoters easily gulled into trotting along in the wake of the next shrill appeal to mindless hysteria, unwilling to examine facts but loving the adrenaline charge of combat with the hated “Right”.
What we do NOT see is a serious, legitimate, easily achieved effort to establish equal legal protections for homosexual couples.
Symbolism over substance. All there was or is to modern day collectivism. All there ever will be.
To answer your last sentence Amazona, there is one it’s called marriage.
Wrong, vicious hatemonger.
There is an established, traditional, cultural and religious state called marriage, and then there can be, if desired, a parallel legal state you can call anything you want, which would have the same legal protections.
Just as you can call your implants “breasts”, or “Thelma and Louise”, you can call whatever you and your sweetie share anything you want to, but that will not make a difference. It is not marriage, it never will be marriage, and your pathetic determination to try to latch onto the word to somehow validate what you have is sad. But your virulence toward others is disgusting.
You can playact all you want, but the more you blather on, the more your toxic persona oozes out like pus, showing us the real you.
You have made a clear declaration here of what you are and how you think and it can never be erased or toned down. I am copying your comment about the guys with dogs and hoses and will bring it up whenever I think we need to be reminded of what a toxic piece of work you are.
And while your traditional values tribe was standing still the world was constantly changing. Once again the inflexibility of Conservatism is exposed. You have allowed yourself and your kind to be painted as bigots because of your inability to change with the times. How sad.
You squeal about “the inflexibility of Conservatism” yet you can’t define Conservatism. Every time you mention it you illustrate your abject ignorance of what Conservatism IS, what it means and what it stands for.
Save your faux sorrow and your crocodile tears. The only people who paint us as bigots are those on the wrong side of history, who cannot defend their positions with fact, and who have to lie and call names.
Seeing you, one of the worst bigots ever to post here, referring to ANYONE else as a “bigot” is hysterical.
I don’t need to define Conservatism Amazona. The actions of Conservatives define Conservatism. Any effort I would make to define it would be shot down as “the infantile musings of a member of the Radical left.” Or some other such Rush based drivel.
In other words you have no idea.
the left is the KKK, NOI, NBPP, communism, murder mayhem, OWS, GLADD, anarchists, radical homosexuals, and every other low down lot on the face of the earth.
arent you proud duane?
No more of your racism here. You are out of here. //Moderator
duane vaseline AMF,woof, arf, bj, pos
Hilarious…….
Leftist Race-baiters
Walter E. Williams
May 09, 2012
Leftist Race-baiters
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, in a recent debate with former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, called the Republican Party the “grand wizard crowd.” Grand wizard is the title given to the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. It is truly misinformed to call Republicans the party of the Klan. Throughout our history, most Klansmen and most racists have been Democrats. Here are a few racist quotes from major Democratic figures.
The late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a former Klansman, wrote during World War II: “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the House of Representatives, he said that President Harry Truman’s civil rights program was “a farce and a sham — an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty.” He continued: “I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.” When Johnson had become senator, he observed, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.”
dont forger ole slic willy,” a few years back that boy would be getting our coffee” 0bama
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/05/09/leftist_racebaiters/page/full/
And for the record Amazona I call my lovely breast implants “the twins.”
But no matter what you call them, they are not breasts, but mere shams.
Though it must comfort you to know that you can never drown.
Spoken like someone whose breasts have seen better days . . .
duane vaseline ARF, BJ, POS, AHE
spoken like someone who cant keep their mouth shut or empty.
My natural, real, endowments are doing quite fine, thank you very much. It’s kind of flattering to see so many women trying to imitate what I was given. But my oh my aren’t you the bitchy one!
I never needed to go shopping for fake body parts, and I never needed to pretend that some part of me is what it obviously isn’t. I am pretty sure that if I did ever feel inadequate in some area where fake parts are available, I wouldn’t go for the Gigantico Super Size, but then being a freak has never struck me as a great identity goal. I like being able to see my feet, and not worrying about falling on my face when I walk.
But that’s just me.
You, on the other hand, went for fake body parts and now you want a fake marriage, arguing with fake claims and fake comparisons. Guess that makes you a phony, doesn’t it?
I forgot the fake job as “editor” of a fake “newspaper”, the fake identity as being in Hell, and the fake “credentials”.
Looks like the only things about you that are real are your pathological nastiness, your seething rage and hostility, your propensity for lies, and your vicious nature, all quite obviously declarations of the real you.
ama
You, on the other hand, went for fake body parts and now you want a fake marriage, arguing with fake claims and fake comparisons. Guess that makes you a phony, doesn’t it?
dont forget the FAKE male parts she and her girlfriend “make love” with.
these cretins want to make me puke.
and they want to call that “marriage??? HA!
duane vaseline
you obviously have me mixed up with freddy schwartzputz and your rabbit.
You and I both know OOH I know …how can you? did you marry a sheep?
FOUR HOURS? Neo, you STUD! My hat’s off tou you son. Four Freakin’ Hours! WOW!
CE and that was when I turned 66…..LOL
duane vaseline……
Were I living in America today I and my spouse would be two of those people.
so you are some FOREIGN asshat preaching to us about how we should legislate and live….Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
FOREIGN agent provocateur….ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
The Democrat Party’s Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism
A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as “playing the race card” but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond’s recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond’s statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.
Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the radical left wing, the truth becomes distorted not only about the Republicans but also the Democrats who make these accusations themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement. In contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd’s racist outburst came not from any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (source). The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et al turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist, or, as was more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.
In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent left wing Democrats, it is necessary to expose the truth about the Democrat Party’s record on Civil Rights:
Amazona,
Pity the poor creature so locked in hate…it really is rather sad.
Mark
you pity stray sick dogs, you FIGHT leftist ideas and those cretins who use them to destroy.
Democrats live in a world of lies. St. Paul could have used the word “Democrats” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 where he wrote, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
It’s not only Jesus Christ or biblical morality Democrats are blind to, it is truth, reason and history.
Obnoxious and vile liberal Bob Beckel called it “the Bull Connor law.” I don’t have the transcript of his remark, but it’s a leftwing talking point, so I don’t need it.
There’s only one problem with that: Bull Connor was a Democrat. He started his career as a Democrat and he ended it as a Democrat.
Google the Wikipedia article on the slimebag. Copy and paste it into a text file and then search for the word “Republican.” You’ll get the message box “Cannot find Republican.” Because Bull Connor WASN’T a Republican.
Try that with “Democrat” and THAT word comes up repeatedly.
In the same way, Republicans invariably get tainted with “slavery.” It doesn’t matter that the Republican Party had an abolitionist platform, or that the DEMOCRAT Party was the pro-slavery Party. Those are “facts,” and Democrats hate facts with a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy that has to be seen to be believed.
Again, Republicans are invariably compared to “the Ku Klux Klan” and “pointy hats” and “white sheets,” etcetera, etcetera. It doesn’t matter that:
History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
It doesn’t matter that:
“the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan … provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.”
NO
he was a DEMOCRAT, not conservative, not Christian, like you a hateful rage filled Hippocra, liar who hid in racist mobs like je$$e al,et all.
educate your self you FOREIGN BooB (fake also)…….
The Long, Sad, Violent History of Democrats’
Racial Hatred for Blacks
Perry Drake
May 2003
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/sad_history.htm
duane
a MEMBER of a “church” does not make one a Christian any fool would know that.
look no further than the marxist muslim usurper.
MAPS DON’T LIE
http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html
they were all democrats and hated gays, blacks, Catholics and Jews
they should have hired wright as an associate pastor.
Ubama and bull could have set next to each other for 20 years.
Mark you must have one heck of a chiropractor to be able to twist yourself in those kinds of cerebral knots and not snap your own spine. What are your values based on again? That’s right your deeply held faith in the doctrines of your chosen religion. There is a right to marry because that right has been found and decided upon by several courts. Google Loving v Virginia or Perez v Sharp for some interesting reading. Loving was decided in 1967, Perez in 1948.
Diane,
Loving is used often as justification for gay marriage but it doesn’t do anything of the kind – the case in Loving was that the laws of a State held that one man and one woman could get married but not if one of them were black and one of them were white. This was an absurd distinction to make and was clearly motivated solely by racial animus. There was nothing in Loving which had anything to do with whether or not marriage should be extended beyond the accepted “one man and one woman” concept which is enshrined in both law and custom in the United States.
Two different arguments can be made against gay marriage: the religious and the secular. The religious argument is obvious: God forbids it. But supposing you still wish to defy God (as is your right) then there is an incontrovertible argument against it without any reference to God or religion:
1. The purpose of marriage is to produce, by nature, children and raise them up to be the next generation.
2. Same sex marriages, by nature, cannot do this.
3. Same sex marriages are, then, a negation of what marriage is primarily for.
4. Any negation of a truth is a lie – and any society which adheres to a lie is ultimately doomed because, God or no God, only when people are living in truth can they thrive and prosper.
The only argument you can make against this would be a stupid one – that there is no objective truth. If you believe that, then you also believe that someone can come in to your home, murder you and take all your stuff because saying that is “wrong” is an appeal to objective truth which you would have said didn’t exist as you desperately try to save your illogical, dishonest support for gay marriage.
You, of course, are desperate to believe that the only opposition to gay marriage comes from religious conservatives who don’t use facts in making their decision – but the truth of the matter is that your support of gay marriage is the bigoted position to hold. You want in in defiance of logic and common sense simply because the people you hate don’t want it.
Mark I have a quote fro you from the Virginia 15 th Circuit Court judge in the Loving case Leon Bazile . He did stand firmly on Christian religion to make his point why a white man should not be allowed to legally marry a black woman in the Commonwealth of Virginia : “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
So if religion could be used as an unquestionable rationale for discrimination in 1963 why not now?
Diane – the answer is, “it couldn’t” and thus was correctly struck down by the Supreme Court. The quote used by the Court to illustrate the argument in favor of keeping the law is proof really only of one thing: judges should stick to their own and not try to become theologians. The argument that God has decreed separation of the races is as absurd as the argument that two men can marry – both arguments are proven spurious by self-evident facts. Might as well argue that the sky isn’t blue as argue that black and white can’t marry or that man and man can marry.
But, really, you are not interested in arguing your point – you are merely regurgitating what has been fed in to you: a series of laughably false statements which happen to make you feel good about yourself, so you hold to them with an unthinking bigotry very difficult for any thinking person to penetrate. You can’t, for instance, come up with an argument in favor of gay marriage other than a variation on “because I wanna”. There is no argument in favor of it from the standpoint of the purpose of marriage (the creation of families to produce children and raise them up) nor is there an argument in favor of it in matters of human rights (rights being held individually and thus there can never be a right to do something which requires the consent of at least one other person). All you’ve got is hatred, bigotry and ignorance…mixed in a manner which appeals to your pride and arrogance…and so you stick with it.
Mark I am sure that because of what you personally believe and why you must believe it, I am certain that any argument I give you legally based or otherwise in favor of gay marriage will be criticized as being incomplete or based in selfishness. What you fail to realize is that the foundation of the Virginia 15th Circuit was the power of religion and that belief held for over 100 years in the Commonwealth regarding marriage just as laws against homosexuality had held despite homosexuals being a part of Human Society for as long as there’s been civilization. And a man and a man can marry. The only problem is the same constraint of bigotry and intolerance that kept classes apart first, then races.
Diane,
You’re mixing two different points – whether or not gay people should be hounded by law for the mere fact of engaging in gay sex and whether or not a union of two people of the same sex is a marriage. Two different issues which bear absolutely no relation to each other – arguments made in the one area are not valid in the other. It would be sort of like taking the arguments in favor of free trade and applying them to an argument about what the speed limit should be.
The laws which did hound gay people for having gay sex were unjust because they were doing something less immoral than people who were cheating on their spouses and we don’t jail people for adultery. So, all those laws we had which did target gay people for having gay sex had to go as a matter of simple justice: simple respect for the inherent rights of people.
The laws which define marriage as being between one man and one woman (which was always implied in the past as no one ever thought a day would come when someone would make the asinine argument that two men should marry; now such laws are being made manifest by legislative action as rational people draw a line in the sand against irrationality) simply recognize the truth of what marriage is: an institution designed to create families which will, of nature, produce natural children to be raised up to be the next generation. If what you are doing is anything other than making it possible for families to be created for the raising up of the next generation then whatever else you’re doing, marriage isn’t it. By trying to say “gay marriage shall be” you are trying to impose an irrationality on society – a lie, and a stupid lie, in to the bargain. This has nothing to do with whether or not gay people are free to engage in gay sex (they are) nor does it have anything to do with ensuring that unjust discrimination is stopped (all such discrimination must be eliminated) – it has to do with what marriage is; what its nature is…what is the self-evident truth about it and whether or not we’ll adhere to that truth or deny it in the face of the facts.
I refuse utterly to be drawn in to lying – certainly not because a few pinheads, on one hand, just think its cute that two men get married while a few other pinheads, wicked in intent, want to advance something which is yet another blow against rational thought.
“navy” really a stupid argument,
but they DID know of sodomy and homosexuality and it was OUTLAWED for 200+ years.
duane vaseline, arf, woof, BFD, mofo
the colonies and homosexuals = DEATH PENALTY!!
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs
back on topic
98 days and AMF to the POS and his criminal regime
Psalm 109:8
The USS Constituiton and the USS Ronald Reagan are, indeed, vastly different in design but they are the same kind of thing: they are both designed to project American power upon the high seas. On the other hand, two gay people and two straight people setting up housekeeping may appear much more similar than the Constitution and the Reagan but they are different in kind.
The only way you could successfully argue in favor of gay marriage is to demonstrate that it will lead to more and/or stronger families for the rearing of the next generation. If you can’t do that, then you have no argument in favor of gay marriage. Period. Argument over. I win.
Mark……
for the rearing of the next generation.
more truth than you intended…..LOL
Predictably davy (bodie, monty, jeffy, etc. etc.) you provide no proof to your typical dumb ASSertions.
See ya!
Poor little Davy (bodie, Monty, Jeffy, etc. etc.) predictably comes to the wrong conclusion. If he bothered to follow the thread rather than the poorly immature actions of the moderator, he would have seen that Mark was correct in his assertions.
A simple search revealed sources that corroborated the facts that the church property was confiscated by that of the new state. The problem is that certain people are not willing to face facts or even research them themselves for fear of the truth. They simply silence them. It is too bad that Davy is a weak indeed fool, bringing up crap unrelated to the thread of discussion. He is only interested in poorly conceived “gotchas” which reveal his true identity after changing it once again since his previous one was banned due to his typical attacks and immature rants.
Pathetic.
Now lying Diane is claiming that people who are tolerated are victims of intolerance, and people who are accepted are victims of bigotry.
Uh-huh. Sure, that’s the ticket. You just keep on claiming that, OK, Diane?
But out here in the real world, defining marriage as the union of one and one woman is not intolerant of gay couples who want their own special unions to be recognized, it is simply a desire for those other unions to be recognized with a word that doesn’t already mean something else.
And believing that everyone has the right to have a loving and committed relationship is hardly “bigotry”.
Except to sad silly Diane of course, who just invents her own words and fails to see the intolerance and bigotry of her own positions, as she attacks people of faith and accuses people of being vicious racists who “are on the side of the guys with dogs and hoses” just because they respect the traditional, cultural and religious meaning of a word.
She desperately wants to be validated, to have some relevance, so she invents a new and rather freakish body designed to get attention, she invents a persona designed to get attention, she invents credentials designed to convey competence and achievement when she has neither, and she invents convenient definitions for words when she has to find some way to support her feelings. So she invents “marriage”
for two men, and she invents “intolerance” for “tolerance” and “bigotry” for “acceptance” and in general extends her fantasy world of who she is and what she looks like out into the world of ideas.
And just looks like a big booby.
Enough is enough. You keep claiming that conservatives here “pay lip service to Maddox, etc” and this is unacceptable. Like so many of the Pitchfork family, you are determined to push this blog as far as you can and you have just pushed too far. //Moderator
Bzzzzttttttttt
. But no matter how much you pay lip service to Maddox, Wallace and Bilbo
conservativesDEMOCRATS all,but YOU being a FOREIGNER would not know that.
to an ignorant FOREIGNER……
SIMPLE
How much does Mitt Romney really pay in taxes?
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/01/19/howard-romney-taxes
duane vaseline
like taking candy from a (FOREIGN) baby….
So right off the bat, Romney is paying what is legally required of him — and even when compared to the average federal income tax burden in America of 9.3 percent, he’s paying more. There’s still more to the story, though.
When Romney pays 15 percent to Uncle Sam, that’s not the first time that money was taxed. J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at The Heritage Foundation, explains that Romney’s money has likely gone through four levels of taxation, meaning that the level of taxation was at 50 percent and likely much higher:
At the very least, he paid nearly 45 percent, but a chunk of this tax was collected before he even saw the remainder. Income from capital gains and dividends means the income was first earned by businesses, most likely corporations which paid tax at 35 percent. So Romney paid his 15 percent only after the government had taken its 35 percent cut. That leaves Romney with a combined tax of 45 cents on the dollar of corporate earnings.
So that’s two levels of taxation — the corporate rate and the capital gains rate. But there’s more. Foster explains that Romney’s cash was likely subject to taxes on capital income repeatedly in the past. Few investments are one and done; rather, most are earned taxed dividends and capital gains over extended periods that are reinvested and taxed again and again. This is a third “level” of taxation. And then Romney was also taxed at the individual rate as wage or salary income–a fourth level. And that’s how you get above 50 percent in taxes. (And don’t forget that Romney contributes 15 percent of his income to charity–money that might not be available if the capital gains tax were raised as many liberals propose.)
Are four levels of taxation, topping out at 50 percent “fair” enough for the left? Unfortunately, the truth about capital gains taxes don’t fit as neatly into a headline as ‘Millionaire Only Pays 15% Tax Rate,’ but Americans deserve to know the truth — and they also deserve to be able to save, invest, spend, and contribute the money they have earned without it being confiscated by progressive politicians seeking a “fair” redistribution of wealth ushered in by a growing federal government.
Instead of eating the rich and burning down their mansions, Congress should find ways to make it easier for Americans to keep their money, invest it, and become more prosperous.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Sen. Reid claims that a former Bain Capitol investor, who the Nevada Democrat would not name, called his office about a month ago claiming that Romney “didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”
“Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Sen. Reid told the Huffington Post. “But
NEXT?????
ROTFLMAO………..
BS
he has paid more that you will ever earn in your life……..
Pssstttttt coming to a mosque near you…….gays next!!
‘Inhuman’ Islamists Stone Couple to Death After Accusing Them of Having Children Outside of Marriage
Faith
“They put them into the holes, and then they started throwing big rocks, until they were dead.”
dwane vaseline
the only people you pull off anything ate the morons at the fork when you need to use the urinal.
your lil straw man is a gasp at your desperation, Ill bet you $10,000.00 that mitt has paid MORE TAXES in his life than reidtard and Ubama together.
If only your desire for transparency was directed towards Obama’s college transcripts, the Fast & Furious scandal, GE’s tax returns, and the GSE spending debacle.
And we still haven’t even mentioned Gregory Peterson seen smiling with Mitt Romney here:
and larry sinclair smoking crack with Ubama and wright
next?
in the filing cabinet with the BC, SS, draft card, school transcripts, citizenship papers and name change documents.
read it and weep forker.
Edwin Durgy, Forbes Staff
Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney amassed a fortune now worth an estimated $230 million during his career with Bain Capital.
He would be wealthier still had he not set aside a trust for his five children in 1995, worth $100 million today. Also making a considerable dent in the former governor’s fortune has been his consistent charitable giving.
As a Mormon, Romney is expected pay a tithe, or 10% of his annual income, to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. In just the past two years, Romney has given the church $1.525 million and $2.6 million, respectively, according to his tax returns. Romney has also publicly stated on multiple occasions that the entirety of his inheritance from his father, who died in 1995, was donated to the BYU Marriott School of Management’s Institute of Public Management, which now bears his father George W. Romney’s name.
What Mitt Romney Is Really Worth: An Exclusive Analysis Of His Latest Finances Edwin Durgy Edwin Durgy Forbes Staff
Obama’s Worth Nearly $6 Million — See Why He’s Down Since Last Year Erin Carlyle Erin Carlyle Forbes Staff
Romney and his wife Ann also maintain a separate foundation, established in 1999, the same year that Romney left Bain Capital to serve as CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics Organizing Committee. The couple have contributed approximately$13.6 million, including an initial gift of more than $3.6 million, to their Tyler Charitable Foundation, based in Boston, MA, in the past 13 years.
Did we mention Obama with Chavez, Ayers, Farrakan, Pfleger, Ayers, Wright, Davis, Rezko, Ayers?
See this is the problem that real world, clear thinking adults have Diane, and that is absolutely bone-deep stupid people like you. Your head is full of so much garbage that it’s impossible to have any sensible compromise with someone that far gone. You’ve heard the old adage – you can’t fix stupid. Well that’s the predicament conservatives have, we have to fix stupid, and it starts in the white house.
Romney has released the required amount of tax returns, and has paid taxes. But that’s not the issue. The issue is Obama, and how he is completely destroying this country aided and abetted by you and the liberal media. It will not be forgotten.
You can try and make Romney’s 17 year old tax returns the issue all you want, but it’s not the issue and everyone knows it. The issue is, and the referendum will be on Obama and liberalism, period. 8%+ unemployment, 1.5% GDP growth, $16 trillion debt, $1.5 trillion dollar deficits, the Muslim Bro. now running Egypt, never visited Israel, no prosecutions of wall street criminals, a dead US border guard and Obama invokes executive privilege, should I go on?
Good luck in November.
BFD
then he is a member of the 47%
Thousands of federal employees owe back taxes
An IRS report shows those owing taxes include members of President Obama’s own staff.
RUT RO………he could be a wh staffer….LOL
Data from the Internal Revenue Service found that more than 279,000 federal employees and retirees owed $3.4 billion in back
income taxes as of Sept. 30, 2010.
Hey duane….why dont you do one on the POS’s birth cert…OH WAIT!!
no no SS card, Noooooo, OK his draft card, college transcripts? name change? book deal? land deal? wifes faux job deal? loss of his and her law licenses?
friendship with mobsters? terrorists? muslim brotherhood? communists?
Nooooo only did the GOP ****LEGALLY***** pay no taxes, like JFnK on his yacht.
you assklowns are toast in NOV.
refute it LOUDMOUTH
or is your mouth full of the same BS you are throwing here with nothing but some sleaze ball brain dead moron like harry reidtard making accusations.
put up or shut up, reid and Ubamas lifetime taxes paid and Romneys…..
Bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha
I would lose that bet. But ******if*****he cheated and was caught, as it ********appears********, from what I have seen,
My crow against your SHIITE sandwich!!!
“Could” is not the same as “is”.
Clearly you can only argue your position by lying, by making vicious personal attacks, by misstating facts, and by pretending that irrelevancies matter.
There has never been a court case regarding the “right” of one man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman. There have been cases where judgment was passed on the union of one man and one woman, saying that the race of either was not a barrier to their union.
Trying to pretend that sexual orientation is the same as race is simply dishonest.
Tying to piggyback on the very real and tragic struggles of black people in this country, trying to compare the superficial wish of some to try to validate their unconventional relationships by slapping on a conventional term to try to hide the differences with the real tragedy of race relations in this country is a horrible, and typically selfish, effort to trivialize those struggles.
You are saying “So you were attacked by vicious dogs and knocked down by fire hoses? So you were treated worse than animals? So you were demeaned and brutalized? Well, step aside, black brothers and sisters, because your suffering was no worse than me not being allowed to call my girlfriend my wife! What you went through is no worse than being told that although we can commit to each other, live openly as a committed couple, have legal protections for our relationship that nearly equal those of married couples, share debts, adopt children, and live in society as a couple, we can’t call what we have marriage! You think YOU had it bad, being attacked and bitten and insulted and kept out of schools and not given jobs? Ha!! It was no worse than me having my feelings hurt!”
Your ego is astounding. Your shallowness is amazing.
What have you lost by not being able to take a word and make it mean something else? How have you suffered by not being able to call a pairing of two people of the same gender by the same word as the pairing of one man and one woman?
There is not only no reasonable comparison to the brutality visited upon some black people by some white people, it is a horrible travesty to pretend that your silly wish list is in any way comparable to their struggle.
It is a despicable effort to diminish that struggle by saying the inability to use a certain WORD is as awful and painful to you as their very real sufferings were.
It is so dishonest, it defies any effort to excuse it,
Yes it lets you expound on yet more of your toxic grievances, which you can associate with a hated Other, but all it does is add to the body of evidence that you are a silly, selfish, superficial, ignoramus with no respect for others, or for truth.
Yeah, you go on spouting your hateful bigotry, you keep wallowing in what really floats your boat (which is dwelling on ugly historical events and then trying to indict people who had nothing to do with them by saying they would do the same) and you keep on lying and trivializing serious conflicts and pretending that your shallow ego-based whining equals real suffering. That’s fine. That’s what you do.
But you are filling out a portrait of what you really are and who you really are that will remain even if you ever do try to pretend to be decent, rational or even smart.
duane vaseline
So if religion could be used as an unquestionable rationale for discrimination in 1963 why not now?
wasnt it the DEMOCRATS doing that in 1963???
you know ALL the KKK were democrats right?
so now you want to attack Christians….my how far you have “progressed”, communism in favor of fascism.
moredumbo
if you have to ask….you would not understand which is very obvious.
YOU DONT!!
That is not an answer.
you are a forker
Interesting. Neither major Israeli News outlet(That would be Ynet and Haretz for those of you in Rio Linda) has anything to say about Bibi saying or doing anything bad about Mitt.
Those Nam flashbacks must be getting to you.
RDS! RDS!! Yes Romney Derangement Syndrome finally manifests itself.
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/war-on-women-tennessee-man-assaults-girlfriend-after-seeing-mitt-romney-on-her-facebook-page/
It is about time.
Mitt’s college gpa. 3.98
barky’s gpa. 0.00
Can’t be refuted.
True – and, actually, we can’t even verify that Obama went to college, at all. Some people say he did, but no proof has been forthcoming of this assertion.
As a campaign button said, and I agree, “I will take the Mormon over the Moron any day“
Are these people claiming Romney cheated on his taxes and did not pay what he should have or are they just PO’d that he had made so much money in the private sector as a successful businessman that his income is now taxed less because it is from investments? Are they claiming he broke the law or they just don’t like the law?
Maybe the Secretary of the Treasury could give him some pointers on how to file tax returns.
Marriage is not a “right,” but a command by our Creator. He had defined marriage, and it follows thusly…
Man + Woman = the only marriage covenant God will bless.
“So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1:27-28
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” – Genesis 2:24
“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
“But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” –
1 Corinthians 7:9
So, in other words, we must obey God rather than man when it comes to this issue.