Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Tea Party snubs GOP leaders”

Heartening? Or self-defeating. Depends on whether or not your are an OUTLAW or a “pragmatist”, I guess. From the Hill:

The Tea Party is hosting a Tax Day rally on Thursday in Washington, but the Republicans leaders in the House and Senate are not invited.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) were not asked to speak at the April 15 rally in front of the Washington Monument. ??

According to officials with Freedom Works, the organization coordinating the event, the leaders haven’t redeemed themselves since backing the 2008 Wall Street bailout bill.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), who chairs Freedom Works, told The Hill, “What [Tea Party activists] are saying to the officeholders and office-seekers is, ‘Earn your spurs and you can get on our stage.’ There’s an old line: ‘We don’t call you a cowboy until we can see you ride.’

[…]

Though the four Republican leaders won’t partake in the Thursday festivities, a handful of their colleagues were invited to fire up a crowd of possibly thousands […].

Republicans Reps. Tom Price (Ga.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Ron Paul (Texas) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are scheduled to address the crowd.

[…]

Mike Gaske, one of the national coordinators for the Tea Party Patriots, said, “This is the people’s event. This is not a Republican event. It is a time for the Tea Party movement to get up and represent what the Tea Party is all about.”

A recent poll showed that four of every 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats (13 percent) or independents (28 percent).

Politicians who voted for TARP hoping to crash the Tea Party gathering should think twice, said Max Pappas of Freedom Works.

“The Bush Wall Street bailout was the tipping point, and things kept getting worse from there and we have seen Republicans booed off a stage who voted for the bailout and then suddenly talking about how fiscally responsible they wanted to be,” Pappas said.

Hundreds of Tea Party Tax Day rallies are scheduled on Thursday.

[…]

Congressional Republican leaders are hoping to harness the energy of the Tea Party this fall in their effort to take back control of Congress.

Earlier this year, Boehner praised Tea Party activists on the first anniversary of the movement. At the time, Boehner said, “These great patriots have been at the forefront of a growing political rebellion born from the American people’s opposition to greater government control over our economy and our lives.”

Boehner added, “It’s not enough, however, for Republicans to simply voice respect for what the Tea Partiers are doing, praise their efforts and participate in their rallies. Republicans must listen to them, stand with them and walk among them.”

Sure.

But that would make them racist, too, wouldn’t it?

And some of them simply can’t have that.

Me, I don’t happen to care about party affiliation. My OUTLAW posts argued that the quest to slow the growth of government and protect individual freedoms would cross party lines and appeal to a loose collection of libertarians, classical liberals, old-school Democrats, conservatives, and some of the more idealistic Republicans.

Recent polling showing that Democrats and Independents make up over 40% of Tea Party supporters lends some credence to that assertion — and it looks as though, for once, the GOP pragmatists and “realists” are losing control of the party message.

Sadly, the drubbing of McCain didn’t send that message — with many “pragmatists” insistent that we look to the victory by Obama as a sign that Americans were fed up with conservatism, and that for the GOP to remain viable, it needed to reach across the aisle and support, at least by way of collegiality, the “good man” we’d as a country elected.

It has been the growth and popularity of the Tea Party movement that has caused a rethinking of that ideological surrender — meaning that all the hicktards and racists and xenophobes may be having a desirous effect on civic awareness and the resultant massaging of party politics that some of us have long clamored for.

And to think: they were able to do it without law degrees, and while eating pork rinds and mallow pies.

Astounding.

416 Replies to ““Tea Party snubs GOP leaders””

  1. SDN says:

    We don’t care what party you’re from. And a lot of us were down with the Porkbusters movement even while Bush was in office. The problem is that O! and crew are Hogzilla by comparison.

  2. JHo says:

    A watershed moment. Perhaps the fifty two’rs shall yet experience chagrin.

  3. Ella says:

    I haven’t had much respect for the Tea Party thing since I went to the one in Tulsa last tax day – and they’d invited John Sullivan, who voted for TARP. And the other protest in town had radio guy John Gibson – who also supported TARP.

    Screw that with something pointy.

    So this OUTLAW motion actually makes me happy. Well done, Freedom Works.

  4. bh says:

    And to think: they were able to do it without law degrees, and while eating pork rinds and mallow pies.

    Astounding.

    That cracked me up.

  5. baxtrice says:

    And to think: they were able to do it without law degrees, and while eating pork rinds and mallow pies.

    Oh and I bet they were wearing wifebeaters too! Those hicktards!

  6. dicentra says:

    And yet, some of the Tea Partiers just don’t know how to keep their TRUE feelings hidden.

  7. sdferr says:

    Heartening? Damn right heartening.

    Salutary. Profound, even.

    Critical distinctions recognized and met in action. Finally, thanks be. Bring on the destroyers of the technocratic monsters of our demise as a nation united in liberty. Let them be harsh in their dealings with those “pragmatic” technocrats. Scour them out of government for the damage they have done and will continue to do if left in place.

  8. dicentra says:

    Here’s another 52% for ya: the 52% who believe that Obama is moving the country toward socialism.

    Boy, that Glenn Beck sure is nefarious. Who knew he had better ratings than God?

  9. happyfeet says:

    we are waiting for the ones we are

  10. dicentra says:

    Tea Party Barbie!

    Sexism, racism, and boobies all in one pic.

  11. sdferr says:

    I’ve been thinking we’re the ‘nother thing coming, hf.

  12. happyfeet says:

    oh. then we won’t have long to wait

  13. JD says:

    Denounced. Denounced and condemned. All of you.

  14. Darleen says:

    I was listening to Mike Galagher yesterday on the way to work and he said he is all for keeping the TEA party as a movement (not a 3rd party) and supports that not one politician be allowed as a speaker.

    The movement is about principles and policy and not a partisan group to be co-opted by the GOP.

    Republican candidates want TEA Party support? Earn it. (That’s also why TEA partiers were not at all upset that Scott Brown stayed in DC doing his job rather than attend their rally)

  15. Mike LaRoche says:

    And to think: they were able to do it without law degrees, and while eating pork rinds and mallow pies.

    Yep. I reckon we got-r-done!

  16. Ginger says:

    Wow. Late-breaking news from The Hill. No politicians were welcome, including Republican squanderers, at our very first TEA Party event at the St. Paul capital last year. The most recent “Kill the Bill” rally did include Bachman, but that was because she was on the front lines fighting the Beast.

    It is healthy to be rigorously suspicious of politicians. There are millions of us and few of them. Their power should reflect that.

    “we are waiting for the ones we are”

    Hah! I had one last sign to make before our Tea Party this evening. I think I found it – only maybe I’ll just write it on my palm in honor of “feets.”

  17. Bob Reed says:

    I agree completely Darleen,

    The GOP politicians must earn the support of the Tea partiers by adhering to the pronciples of smaller, limited, government, low taxes, responsible fiscal policy-and I mean specifically cutting spending in a drastic fashion.

    They should listen to Paul Ryan’s Roadmap plan as well as entertain the Tax Policy Institute’s flat tax ideas; the same magnitude of Revenue that flows into treasury today could be collected using a flat tax of approximately 11% on individuals and businesses-inclusive of FICA contributions!

    Now, that simple tax rate doesn’t allow for many of the deductions we all have grown used to, like for our mortgage interest, etc; and neither does it allow for all of the business deductions either. But, in most cases, individuals would recieve much more of their income than they write off now. And with a business tax rate of 11%, there’d be loads of American and international companies basing here to take advantage of what would be among the lowest rates in the west.

    Imagine all the jobs that would be created…

  18. Carin says:

    I just learned (from a Hostage) that pork rinds are actually considered one of the “good” snacks now. Low carbs. Low fat.

    PORK RINDS FOR EVERYONE.

  19. serr8d says:

    Republicans (the Party) should, and must, take a whipping, both from Conservative Tea Partiers and from leftists. These Republicans we have in management are deserving of whippings, for the two Bush presidencies and the attempted Dole – McCain presidencies (remember, Bush I was only ‘installed’ on the ticket with Ronald Reagan because the string-pulling elitist Republicans wanted to keep an eye on the Cowboy).

    Until there’s a major, major shakeup in (old-school, blue-blood) Republican thinking, they will desire to revert to their old, unacceptable ways. Flush ’em all.

  20. Jeff G. says:

    That they are, Carin. Dukes-of-Hazard chic.

    Soon they’ll be called something foreign with “fritter” in the title, and the chicks in Soho will be paying top dollar for that shit.

  21. scooter (still not libby) says:

    In Texas all the bags of pork rinds say “chicharrones.” It makes them more exotic, and more metropolitan, somehow. And I love ’em.

  22. Bob Reed says:

    This may also be a watershed moment in American political history in that it has served to get low involvement and traditionally low information voters more focused on the discussion of the proper role of government in American society.

    It’s a shame that it had to come about on the back of Obama’s attempt to remake us a Eurosocialist model, and having to watch out everyday lest another Sunday night cram-ram-through or a holiday evening vote take place in an attempt to sneak by measures that profoundly effect us all. But the anger at people not being able to trust their alleged representatives, and the concomitant heightened awareness of the issues and the theoretical mechanisms can never really be a bad thing.

  23. happyfeet says:

    pork rinds aren’t just a snack they’re an entree

  24. mojo says:

    I’m a party of one. I vote for whomever best represents me. The rest of you are on your own.

  25. Jeff G. says:

    I’m an army of one. But that’s just because I think being unstable and violent beats cowardly pragmatism whereby I run my life based around the hope that the crocodile eats me last.

  26. scooter (still not libby) says:

    But, Mojo, the system conspires to make you choose between 2 candidates, each having one of 2 letters next to their names. I can’t believe you haven’t noticed a trend regarding the letter next to those names you’re (figuratively) punching.

  27. happyfeet says:

    With Mr. Bush I got to vote for someone I really really liked twice in a row.

    That can last me awhile.

  28. serr8d says:

    ‘feets, you’ve tried these of course? A delicacy!

    Oh, and this, from ‘real’ card-carrying socialists…

    If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don’t look to Obama.

    “To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin.”

  29. happyfeet says:

    hah – only once… me and my friend niffer were driving around outside Goliad and we went into this bar on the bend of a road in the middle of nowhere and had pigs feet and vodka

    tabasco is key

    we never could find the place again…

    I remember en vogue was singing about how I was never gonna get their lovin’.

  30. Jeff G. says:

    READER POLL!

    ___ Obama is still a “good man,” and those who say otherwise hurt conservatives’ chances of ever being re-elected.

    ___ They are who we thought they were.

    ___ The jury is still out — at least, until we can find us a little boy, an elderly black man, and a dog. We have a sociological experiment we need to run.

    ___ Fuck you, Jeff. Racist.

  31. Jeff G. says:

    (murmer murmer OUTRAGE murmer murmer. TWEET!)

  32. sdferr says:

    Obama, glub man.

    Glub, glub.

    Who we thought they were.

    Here boy.

    Yeah, what that said.

  33. Dennis Green says:

    You know my vote.

  34. scooter (still not libby) says:

    Regarding your social experiment, I knew of a number of examples of people (many years ago, of course) who had dogs named… you know. They were black dogs, if you know what I mean.

    Would introduction of that particular variable skew your results, d’you think?

  35. happyfeet says:

    They’re worse than we thought they were and they’re getting worser.

  36. Jeff G. says:

    Scooter —

    You mean…”Nipsey”…?

  37. Entropy says:

    I think that joke backfires. Tea Party Barbie is hot. I’d totally hit on that chick.

  38. Jeff Carlson says:

    had they invited any one of the GOP leaders the media would have labled those same people as “leaders of the Tea Party” and thus would become targets for media attacks which would always start out with “Tea Party leader XYZ”. The Alinsky media needs high profile targets to smear in order to smear the Tea Party.

  39. arturo dent says:

    Hm, chicharrones, what were we talking about, btw El Palacio de Los Jugos “the Juice Palace” makes the best ones in Miami, if you’re ever down here

  40. scooter (still not libby) says:

    “You mean…”Nipsey”…?”

    3 out of 6 ain’t bad. And yet, I chuckle.

  41. sdferr says:

    Obama Tied with GOP Contenders:

    Our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race finds Barack Obama more or less tied with all four of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination. He trails Mike Huckabee 47-45 and Mitt Romney 45-44, ties Newt Gingrich at 45-45, and leads Sarah Palin 47-45. This is the weakest performance Obama’s posted in these 13 monthly surveys and a pretty clear indication that passing health care has not done anything to enhance his political standing, at least in the short term.

    And not one is of any use. Someone else is wanted.

  42. Jeff G. says:

    Huckabee?

    I’d rather vote for Obama. Same result, only faster and more obvious.

  43. happyfeet says:

    they do that list of candidates on purpose I think…

    Romney and Huckabee are less popular within their own parties than Palin and Gingrich but have better overall favorability numbers because they’re less toxic to Democrats and independents.

    They didn’t write that with a straight face I don’t think.

  44. Bob Reed says:

    I’m thinking Paul Ryan sdferr,

    His ideas are on target, and he’s not so charismatic as to attract a cult of personality…

    It’s a hard lift though, to go from the House of Representatives to the White House. Not impossible though. Perhaps in the meantime an amenable governor will decide to throw his hat in the ring.

  45. Royce says:

    The tea party is smart to remain independent from the Republican party. Without the tea party’s influence pushing the GOP to the right and discouraging “bipartisanship” (code name for giving in to the liberal agenda), it’s sometimes difficult to tell the difference between many Republicans and the Democrats.

  46. bh says:

    coughMitchDanielscough

  47. happyfeet says:

    Mitch Daniels is well-suited to the presidency and Paul Ryan is very America to where people are proud to identify with him.

  48. JD says:

    Someone else is NEEDED, sdferr.

  49. Susan says:

    The GOP leadership deserves to be snubbed. John McCain is a neocon, a maverick in his own mind, and a has-been. Newt Gingrich is yesterday’s news. Sarah Palin is a chorus girl singing the top-40 populist songs of the moment, and she is a McCain shill. Neither she nor McCain have true Libertarian/Constitution/limited government credentials.

    If the tea party wants to move forward, it has to reach out to young people with ideas for tomorrow. It cannot be a soap box/pulpit for today’s political has-beens who have feasted at the public trough and share the responsibility for getting us in the mess we are in.

    It’s not just Kill the Bill any more, it’s time to Tear Down the Hill. That said, Tea Partiers, PARTY ON!!!

  50. sdferr says:

    Not Paul Ryan Bob. He’s a natural born legislator. Let’s leave him alone to do his thing.

  51. sdferr says:

    “John McCain is a neocon…”

    Not.

  52. DarthRove says:

    Agreed, hf. Also, the level of trollopiness and cumsluttish you ascribe to Sarah Palin, I double that and staple it to Fuckabee’s crack-whore mug.

    But I should get a rasp and de-hard some edges. Sorry. I’m in a bad had-to-write-checks-to-IRS mood.

  53. JD says:

    Daniels/Ryan would be something good. Something very good. Mitch is not afraid to fight back, either. We already know that about Ryan.

  54. sdferr says:

    Leave Ryan alone! Whaaaa!

  55. sdferr says:

    Can Daniels speak with the intensity and knowledgeable savvy of Mark Levin? If he can’t, he ain’t your guy.

  56. Jeff G. says:

    If nominated I will not run.

    If asked to write an article for Weekly Standard — like neo-neocon was — I would probably have done that.

    But I’m kinda all poisony.

    So instead you all get to keep me.

  57. Slartibartfast says:

    Only people who haven’t the slightest idea what “neocon” means (other than: a conservative I dislike more than most other conservatives) would paste that label on John McCain.

    John Kerry is as much of a neocon as John McCain. Or nearly so.

  58. sdferr says:

    I’d hire your ass on as a Presidential speech writer in a heartbeat Goldstein.

  59. Bob Reed says:

    sdferr,

    Just for the record, John Quincy Adams went back to the House for many years after being President. So, there’s that.

    Something to be said about the humility of such a move at least.

  60. bh says:

    Wait, I thought you already were President, Jeff. Those griefer threads get very confusing.

  61. sdferr says:

    Don’t care. Leave the man alone. I don’t know that you’ve noticed, but there happens to be an extreme dearth of decent legislators these days. He’s fit, he’s ready, he’s serving. Again, leave him alone! Whaaaa!

  62. happyfeet says:

    I like the idea of having Mr. Ryan in reserve but if he were to run I wouldn’t be sad.

    Fuckabee I think doesn’t reflect well on Team R, Darth. It’s like he’s a big round hole and Team R is more of a square peg kinda party really.

  63. JD says:

    I like the fact that Daniels is not out there trying to run. Someone once said that anyone that thinks they should be President should be immediately disqualified.

  64. sdferr says:

    Goddamn it, have I got to shoot myself like that Japanese writer guy to get the point across? Leave Ryan alone. Ignore him. Pretend he doesn’t exist. He’ll do just fine without the attention.

  65. bh says:

    I don’t know if I’d say Daniels has any Levin-like intensity. But, I think he’d take the budgetary wonk stick to the bumbling empty suit and good. That’ll be all kinds of salient in 2012.

  66. sdferr says:

    Then it sounds as though Daniels might make a decent Sec. Treas.

  67. DarthRove says:

    Jeff as Presidential speechwriter would be teh hawt. The State of the Union speech would be an historic, unprecidented melange of “cockslap”, “mushroom bruise”, and “armadillo”.

  68. Bob Reed says:

    No Huckabee, No Romney, Gingrich and Palin are too polarizing, although I personally like one of the latter which shall go un-named so as to not start any furballs that may result in FF incidents.

    And Ron Paul? While possessing some valid points and ideas-just no…

    None of the so called “Front Runners” are acceptable. There has to be a dark horse out there.

    RACIST!

  69. happyfeet says:

    I like Daniels on the podium cause he takes the pop star kitschyness down a notch.

    Several notches really.

    With Daniels you know you’re voting for the steak.

  70. bh says:

    Sdferr’s point is magnified when you realize that he’ll move up on the Ways and Means and/or Budgetary committees come a House switch in 2010.

  71. sdferr says:

    Imagine for a moment the most magnificent and thundering speeches on American Classical Liberalist political ideas you’ve ever heard. Imagine those speeches excoriating the bastards who would take those political ideas from the American experience. Now put those speeches in the mouth of your Presidential candidate, spoken from the heart and the mind in full grasp of their origin and intent. Who is that candidate?

  72. Jim Ryan says:

    Paul Ryan has a B.A. from Podunk U and experience in business and brains. Unlike the people who rule us with Ivy degrees, no experience in business and no brains.

  73. bh says:

    Oh, I’m talking about Ryan with #70 of course.

  74. bh says:

    Do you have someone in mind, sdferr?

  75. Bob Reed says:

    Well…Don’t keep us in suspense sdferr. Who is it!

    I mean, to me it sounds like you’re describing Ronald Reagan.

  76. happyfeet says:

    I vote for sdferr’s guy.

  77. Jeff G. says:

    I mean, had the Weekly Standard or National Review had me do a series of articles on language — like the one I posted at Hot Air — that might have helped galvanize the classical liberal base, or at the very least, provided them with some of the tools necessary to beat back progressivism.

    But no.

    No.

  78. sdferr says:

    No, and that is the problem. I’ll think about anyone, but I’m rubbing them on that touchstone and if anything, anything, rubs off, they ain’t it.

  79. Entropy says:

    If nominated, I would not run either.

    But if elected anyway, I would serve.

    So there’s that.

    You could vote for me.

    I’ll basically gut the government, fire employees with reckless abandon, leave half my cabinet slots vacant, veto everything that isn’t veto-proof, rescind most of the executive orders, and devote nearly all FBI resources into investigating Congress members.

    I’m not elligible as I’m not 45 though.

  80. Entropy says:

    Oh. And I’m a foreign policy realist who, despite prefering not to get involved, let’s face it, is probably going to blow someone the hell up with cruise missiles.

  81. Bob Reed says:

    Send them your stuff Jeff G. Send it to Jonah G. See of he can give it entree to the NRO crew. Or alternatively send it to Fred Barnes or Irving K’s son at WS. Use a nom de plume if you’re concerned about them googling who you are.

    You can be like Doc Zero, just be Dr. Jeff!

  82. sdferr says:

    Bob, it’s a heartbreaking thing to have to say, but at this point in the American political experience, I’m fearful that the person needful would have to put Reagan to shame as a proponent of American political virtue. Besides, Reagan is dead and mouldering in the grave.

  83. Bob Reed says:

    I mean, I’d run too. But, being a racisty racist h8ter and all…

  84. bh says:

    Well, I’m already missing football terribly so I’ll offer the notion that while we definitely need a touchdown (super ideal candidate), maybe there is a greater likelihood of success if we pick up twenty yards and get out of bounds rather than feeling all is lost without a Hail Mary.

  85. bh says:

    Oh, and our defense also needs to keep them from getting another score before we even get onto the field.

  86. happyfeet says:

    we need someone smart enough to know why he won I think…

    it would be a great start anyway.

  87. Bob Reed says:

    You’re probably right sdferr, especially since there isn’t the luxury of a Soviet Union to contrast against. That, and the younger voters have no real concept of just how socially and economically stifling communism really was; I’m sure the public schools don’t inform them of actual, relatively recent, history in a factual way either.

    And given that they’ve been inculcated with the fatuous notion of the over-arching merit and supposedly inherent “social justice” in the Euro-socialist “democracies” they are no real example to cantrast against either really. Unless of course one could count on a result of the tea-party movement being that politicians could finally talk to the electorate like, you know, actual adults and so factually reveal the failed economies and of the Euro social welfare states.

    Then it might at least be effective to point out how we, meaning all of us Americans, don’t want to go there, and then highlight the ways in which we’ve started down that path.

  88. Andrew the Noisy says:

    I’m not elligible as I’m not 45 though.

    You only need to be 35 to be Prez.
    30 for a Senator, in the old Roman tradition.
    25 for the House.

  89. sdferr says:

    Sure we’re going to have to go to war with the army we’ve got when we get to the point of wargoing. In the meantime, what’r we testing that army against? How is it being built? By hiring on Mitch Daniels, good man though he may be? That’s the path that took me to supporting Romney in the last disastrous go-round.

  90. sdferr says:

    89 was intended to answer bh and the hail mary, sorry.

  91. happyfeet says:

    A party chaired by Michael Steele probably should temper its expectations.

  92. bh says:

    I’m in agreement for the most part, sdferr. Mine isn’t a pitch for the sort of pragmatism we rightfully mock. It was more a simple restatement of that “army you got” truism.

    Now, I’ll offer the further thought that perhaps some of these great men start as good men (again not our mocking good man) and they better themselves through a fierce struggle. I was surprised with GW Bush’s resolve in regards to the WoT. Did he start that way? Would anything in his history suggested as much? Or was it born within him as a response to 9/11?

  93. baxtrice says:

    Hmm, Jeff as a speechwriter..Does that mean we get a SOTU address/notes on the afterlife? cuz that would be teh awesome!

  94. sdferr says:

    If the potential candidate isn’t already espousing uniquely American Classical Liberal principles loudly on their own behalf and those born from their own grasp of said principle, he or she isn’t worth examining any further, I think. This candidate needn’t be perfect to start with, I think, but they’ve got to have certain characteristics already, characteristics that can’t be acquired later. They have to already have seen the dangers to the Republic. They have to already be recommending a means to right the ship, or bail the bilge, pick your metaphor.

  95. bh says:

    suggest=suggested above. And imagine this comment corrects any and all errors in my other comments, please. Thank you.

  96. sdferr says:

    “…and those born from their own grasp of said principle,”

    That would read better, “and those espousings, born from his or her own grasp… etc.

  97. happyfeet says:

    We’re back to Paul Ryan then kinda.

  98. bh says:

    Heh, I was thinking the same.

  99. Bob Reed says:

    Full of goof points today sdferr! I will say though, that there are a number of folks that may exhibit those qualities, but as such are known only provincially at best.

    Take that fellow retired Colonel West running in Fla. I’m sure you are privy to his vibe a lot more than those of us up north. The few films of him speaking that I’ve seen make me pretty excited. But does he believe all of what you outlined? My gut says probably yes, but it would require more inquiry to be sure.

  100. sdferr says:

    You want I can add the additional characteristics that’ll take you away from him, or youse can do that yourselves, your choice. But please please please leave my Paul Ryan alone! Whaaaaa!

  101. Bob Reed says:

    Drat goof points = good points…

  102. Bob Reed says:

    By all means, sdferr, feel free to enlighten us.

  103. sdferr says:

    EXACTLY that guy Bob! YES yes yessity! He’s the man we should be looking at. And others like him. Executive experience out the ying-yang. Decisive. Modest. Comprehending, where it comes to uniquely American Classical principle. Outspoken on his own behalf. and etc.

  104. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    Me, I don’t happen to care about party affiliation. My OUTLAW posts argued that the quest to slow the growth of government and protect individual freedoms would cross party lines and appeal to a loose collection of libertarians, classical liberals, old-school Democrats, conservatives, and some of the more idealistic Republicans.

    kk…then kick the socons and WECs out.
    Social conservatism is ILLIBERAL.
    Show me the voter registrations an’ ill believe that 40%.
    a conservative is just a republican trying to scrape the bushcheney off their shoes when no is looking.
    The bipartisan shit is a crock.
    lies.

  105. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    kk…then kick the socons and WECs out.

    haha YOU can’t.
    you would have no base left.

  106. Bob Reed says:

    And there’s others that may run in 2012, like Bennett, Tancredo, Giuliani…

    But the same evangelical crew that will never! vote for Romney, unfairly so, due to his LDS faith, will also never vote for Giuliani because they see him as a squishy RINO; even though his tax plan is admirable. The same is probably true for Jindal-who I also like.

    It’s too bad Thompson didn’t seem serious last time around, because unfortunately he’d probably suffer from age bias as well as the slur of “ACTOR!” taht was often used against Reagan.

  107. happyfeet says:

    social conservativeyness is less illiberal than the dirty socialists I think…

    that’s how it’s been in practice anyway

  108. David R. Block says:

    Some of the GOP leadership should be snubbed.

    John Cornyn, I’m looking at you.

  109. happyfeet says:

    John Cornyn is disgusting. Him and Kay Bailey both.

    Texas can do better than those ones.

  110. Darleen says:

    Oh lordy, Kate Mengele, utero-phobe, is spamming again

    one more time:

    90% of people agree that if one’s neighbor is out of food and cannot feed their family they have a moral obligation to help

    58% of people disagree that the government has a duty to enforce that moral obligation.

    Those 42% of people in the latter question? THOSE are the illiberals.

    “Social Cons” who don’t want the GOVERNMENT to enforce moral obligations are Classical Liberals.

    “Social Libs” who want the Government to enforce moral obligations (ie using CFLs for Gaia!) are Illiberals.

    I understand why Kate wants “WEC” and “Soc Cons” suppressed … interfers with her Muslim wish to see Israel destroyed.

  111. sdferr says:

    Legislators are contemplative, at least more so than our executive may be (or at least we hope they are so) and filled with a wonder of theory. Legislators are skilled in the arts of committee and the concomitant arts of compromise in committee.

    Legislators suck at the arts of generalship. Strategoi, the Greeks called those artists. Your executive, while somewhat contemplative, is to a far greater degree a person given to action, and to the application of the results of his contemplations to affecting practical problems directly and more immediately than the legislator.

  112. David R. Block says:

    Nishi, some of the social cons that should be “kicked out” are also “fiscal cons” as well.

    There’s not a real nice neat division there, sweetheart…

  113. sdferr says:

    “Some of the GOP leadership should be snubbed. ”

    Much of, I’d say, rather than “some”. The rot runs deep.

  114. Bob Reed says:

    Hummers report TTP closing rapidly, from your low 9. Do not engage…Repeat, do not engage…

  115. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    actually not feets.
    Jefferson would have spit on the teabaggers….so would Andy Jackson. he hated dirty secessionists worse than red indians.
    I don’t unnerstand why the teatards keep tryin to rewrite history.
    Jefferson would have loathed them with the fire of a thousand suns.
    I can just imagine what he would have said about Jeff the faux classic liberal and Sarah Palin the demogogue.
    membah, Jefferson was an elite and a polymath….among Sarah Palin’s natural enemies…….smart people.
    booyah!

  116. bh says:

    From Jeff’s post to sdferr’s line of thinking, this thread has shown itself to be vastly superior than the ones where we dance with the griefer.

  117. Entropy says:

    These Moby’s so far have demonstrated remarkable aptitude for impersonating racist teabaggers.

    If by remarkable aptitude I meant holding a sign that said “I’m a racist teabagger”.

  118. sdferr says:

    I nominate Jeff as Eliminationist-in-Chief, leastwise so far as the blog extends.

  119. David R. Block says:

    113. sdferr

    Merely trying to be kind…

  120. Jeff G. says:

    Just say to nishi, “yes, dear. Of course you’re right. You rule, we drool,” and be done with it.

    Then when she leaves, roll your eyes.

    Go ahead. Give it a go. It’s liberating.

  121. sdferr says:

    S’aright David, but I’d rather you’re ruthless. This ain’t no time for being nice.

  122. David R. Block says:

    117. Entropy

    Those with the obvious racist signs are showing amazing disrespect. Do they really think that someone would be as dumb as a sack of hammers and HAVE such a sign?

    Yes, they do. Speaking of dumb as a sack of hammers….

  123. Jeff G. says:

    I’m a faux classical liberal. I use the appellation only to hide that I’m really a WEC luddite social con. You’re right on those accounts, nishi. You rule, I drool.

  124. bh says:

    Perhaps an interesting side project could be to collectively identify and relate to one another the potential talent that we’re thinking of.

    This Colonel West sounds like he’s worth investigating. And another might be…

  125. happyfeet says:

    Jeff the faux classic liberal and Sarah Palin the demogogue

    Jeff is not a faux classic liberal.

    And Tea Party ones are no more concerned with secession than your little president man is concerned with fiscal responsibility.

    Plus it’s lunchtime.

  126. David R. Block says:

    121. sdferr

    Understood.

    Our House members from these parts (DFW) are better than our Senators.

    Come on Texas, finish the Census and gain 4 seats. To hell with the conspiracy theorists.

  127. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    an idc about supressin’ WECs and socons..that is happening naturally along with demographic and cultural evolution.
    contemporary culture rejects evangelical christianity like a disease.
    So does academe.
    Culture is going liberal and you can’t “take it back”.
    Like you can’t take back the word “liberal” when you are illiberal….and you can’t take back anti-abortion, anti-SSM, anti-civil rights, anti-mixed marriage legislation you pushed…..it is to laff.
    too late to rebrand teatards.
    you are dead already but the tiny little dinosaur brains in your hips don’t know it yet.

  128. sdferr says:

    Col. West cut through the bullshit in Iraq in order, he said, to better defend his men. He caught hell for it. He said, I did that, and I’d do it again. He didn’t weasel about for the sake of his job. He stood proud and owned his deed. He wouldn’t think of hiding himself, as Obama never ceases to do by way of contrast. Our polity cannot tolerate another such EverLiar. Not one more. Not again.

  129. bh says:

    Yes, of course, griefer. You’re teh awesome. We’re teh anti-awesome.

  130. happyfeet says:

    I’m not sold on the idea we can tolerate the one rally.

  131. Jeff G. says:

    What can you say? When she’s right, she’s right.

    Nishi rules, we drool.

    Thanks for setting us straight!

  132. DarthRove says:

    To whatever nishi the trollhammered just said:

    Yes, dear. You’re right. Have a nice day, now.

  133. Jeff G. says:

    hmd is right, too.

    He’s on the right side of history, we’re on the wrong side.

    Thanks for setting us straight, hmd!

  134. TheThinMan says:

    Sen Thune is the guy that can beat this guy. First things first, though–there’s talk of a blow-out (continuing the sportsanalogy) in the congressional elections (R’s + 70?). I’m already doing my part deep in the heart of the Peoples Republic of Illinois. Vote/throw the bums out!

  135. happyfeet says:

    *really* I mean

  136. sdferr says:

    “*really* I mean”

    Say more, please, cause I don’t know what you mean yet.

  137. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    I’m really a WEC luddite social con.

    False! you just defend WECs, socons, and bioluddites and enable them to pretend they are classic liberals too.
    Consider Darleen the pedobear hag….she claims to be a classic liberal yet came out supporting virtual chattel slavery of women and children and child-rape of 13yr olds by 50 year old “christian” men during YFZ.

    YFZ just doesn’t say classic liberalism to me.

  138. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    Answer one question and I’ll go away, Jeff.
    What proportion of the tea partiers claim to be christians?

  139. Darleen says:

    yet came out supporting virtual chattel slavery of women and children and child-rape of 13yr olds by 50 year old “christian” men during YFZ.

    Don’t you ever get tired of lying?

  140. happyfeet says:

    I mean I think that our doom is inscribed in the dirty socialist stars and that we have broken faith with the ideals of our little country and you can’t just superglue that kind of thing back together.

  141. Darleen says:

    oops… sorry Kate

    “yes, dear. Of course you’re right. You rule, we drool.”

  142. sdferr says:

    superglue is highly shattery. Turners use it to mount bowls on account of it’s easy to release with a blow. Bang, bowl off mounting.

  143. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    oh sdferr can answer this one…..WTF are we doin in Iraq?
    we spent a trillion taxpayer dollars and 5000 american soljah lives to kill 200,000 iraqis, some infiestimal percentage of which MIGHT have been either “terrorists” or Reuters camera crewes to make another Islamic state where the citizens declared a national holiday when american troops left their cities.
    Why did we go there?
    refresh me.

  144. Darleen says:

    Comment by Nishi the Kingslayer on 4/15

    “yes, dear. Of course you’re right. You rule, we drool.”

  145. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    Im the elephants child and filled with ‘satiable curtiousity and that is my question…..lol.
    what percentage of tea partiers are self-declared christians?
    you see….the teatards have been pushing the bipartisan fakememe since last year….people do lie on surveys.
    but i dont they can lie about being “christians”.
    I think the tea parties are 100% christian.

  146. Bob Reed says:

    It’s not a superglue job this time happyfeet, It’s a remanufacturing based in large part on what sdferr said. Adherance to the founding principles of this nation. A counter-revolution, turning back team DS’s agenda, as led by all of us; and articulated by a leader who knows thise principles through and through and not only espouses them, but also believes them intellectually and in his/her heart.

    Whoever that is.

    It’s not too far gone hf, the tea=party phenomenon is an indication that a majority of the citizens want their counry back.

    It won’t be easy, spending will have to be cut drastically while still collecting about the same percentage of GDP in taxes, in order to retire the overhanging national debt. But it can be done.
    We’ve done hard things before, but the siren song of the illiberal policy has made many of us soft.

    Don’t be soft! Fight for what is right! For what you believe in.

  147. happyfeet says:

    the trillion dollar number is for both Iraq and Afghanistan, most of which was paid from one part of America to other parts of America, so it was a lot like the little president man’s stimulus except for it made people more free instead of less, is how I think of it

  148. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    No guesses?
    I bet I’m right.
    I’ll go ax Andrew.
    He publishes my mails to him sometimes.
    I think that would be most interesting.

  149. DarthRove says:

    Superglue worked great on the cut I got last week. I hate stitches.

  150. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    One more time….what percentage of the tea partiers are self declared christians?
    I bet it is approaching 100%.

  151. happyfeet says:

    Mr. Reed what I mean by doomed is more that once a little country falls under the sway of pop star politics, they can fall under the sway of anything.

    The only constancy will be inconstancy I think. There will always be someone a little more sexy a little more chirpy a little more razzle dazzle than plain old good decent America.

  152. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Excuse me, ot: I just caught little – actually as little as possible – of Dear Leader’s tax day address at the Kennedy Space Center on his vision for NASA . In the ice-breaking, butterup, and faux self-deprecation he was praising the old Astronauts, including Buzz Aldin who was present, and said something to the effect that they would certainly be among those “most singularly unimpressed by Air Force One.” Huh? Dead silence.

    Then in response, it seemed to me that he felt forced to ad lib about AF1 being “more comfortable” and etc., “but”… No biggie, but I’m taking it as a rightful dud.

  153. baxtrice says:

    I think the tea parties are 100% christian.

    I think you’re an idiot because you’ve never been to an actual Tea Party and talked to them.

    but for the sake of Jeff: “yes, dear. Of course you’re right. You rule, we drool.”

  154. DarthRove says:

    Oh yeah. You’re right, nishi dear.

  155. Mike LaRoche says:

    Confusing elites with elitism, repeating the same worn memes day after day, mushi’s stupidity never fails to amuse.

  156. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    lawl….should I wear my hijab? or maybe my medlevhi sufi gear.

    no thnx bax….i’ve seen enough angry fat old stupid white rageravers on terebi to last a lifetime.
    do you know one of my ancestors was burned as witch?
    I’m not a fan of Kylon, but a devotee of Pythagoras.

  157. happyfeet says:

    What answer can you have to the question of Barack Obama then oh. I thought we were better than this.

    We weren’t though.

  158. Abe Froman says:

    Is there anything worse than taking a nishi and then realizing there’s no toilet paper?

  159. sdferr says:

    What answer can you have to the question of the possibility of the place in the first instance? Did it happen, or was it only a dream that never? If once, how not again?

  160. Bob Reed says:

    Buck up me buck-o! Folks got fooled; the press did their part. We won’t be fooled so easy again.

    Don’t fret too much, we’ll get our little country back, and solve the problems facing her too. Once the bums are thrown out everything will start to turn around.

    We’re not going to be soft anymore!

  161. Mike LaRoche says:

    did you know one of my ancestors was burned as a witch?

    So what? Are you demanding reparations from the state of Massachusetts?

  162. happyfeet says:

    Russians only ever had the briefest taste of democracy.

  163. happyfeet says:

    Are ones are more ruthless than Russians and they lie more better and they have more resources.

  164. Bob Reed says:

    What answer can you have to the question of Barack Obama then oh.

    happyfeet,
    Can you flesh that out a little more? I’m not certain what you’re asking.

  165. baxtrice says:

    WTF fashion?
    i’ve seen enough of arrogant bitter clueless hipsters preachin’ social justice to me
    my ancestors were Commanche and chased by WEC – oh wait that’s the past.
    I’m a fan of Wolfwood, not Kenshin

    see I can be as incoherent lawl

  166. happyfeet says:

    *Our* ones I mean

  167. happyfeet says:

    I think it’s very sobering Bob that the paint was even dry on Barack Obama that many many in Team R went shopping for an inexperienced pop star what they could have for their very own.

    I definitely think that’s more sobering than anyone else seems to think it is.

    Yup.

  168. happyfeet says:

    *wasn’t* even dry I will brb there is a boss person rifling through my file cabinet

  169. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    One more time….what percentage of the tea partiers are self declared christians?
    I bet it is approaching 100%.

    The ratio in my immediate family is 6/1 against, including me against. But only those of the Progressive Religion would even care. They are the ones mortally threatened by Christians, right, nishi? – and, of course, by “the brown people”.

  170. happyfeet says:

    don’t you… is there a stunning array of people in your life what voted for Obama that you always thought had more sense than that?

    Cause I can make a list.

  171. Andrew the Noisy says:

    What percentage of the tea partiers wear pants, that’s what I want to know.

    And what percentage drink Tetley on a warm summer afternoon.

    And what percentage DVR Lost.

  172. baxtrice says:

    Interesting observation here; I suggest Nishi talk to the attendees at a Tea Party and she brings up her “dress code” —

    Here’s the thing, the college I attend has a high Muslim population – I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat next to a Muslim woman in a hijab or burkha or seem them everyday I attend classes. It’s not something I actually pay attention to or anyone else in that matter on campus – however Nishi usees it here as if she wears it to a Tea Party then she’ll be ostracized or maybe the attendees will be frozen in fear over her choice of clothing. Is this really how she sees the non-liberal (not classical) American population? As a cartoon stereotype that cannot abide someone’s because of their clothing hence religion?

  173. DarthRove says:

    Ding!

    Ew. Luzianne.

    Ding!

  174. Bob Reed says:

    Are you talking about Palin happyfeet? If so, do yourself a solid and review the videotape, my friend. She was still Governor of Alaska when Obama was elected. And although she appeals to some folks, even myself, and others have talked her up, team R isn’t seriously searching her our or anything.

    While I don’t personally believe her to be the empty suit that you do, I can say without much doubt that she will not be a candidate in 2012. She will probably work to fire up crowds and support candidates and such, but not a contender herself.

    Team R knows it can’t field any empty suits, especially in view of the talk fom tea-partiers of repentance from their profligate ways-no matter if they were simply following Bush’s lead in the interest of party unity and such. That’s why there’s going to have to be some serious contention over budgets and other fiscal matters following the 2010 elections. Not only to regain some of the public trust, but so that team R can prove to the public that the spending under Bush was a momentary lapse in discipline and judgement, and that they want to do what it tales to put us back on the right track to smaller government, far less spending, and maybe even less taxes (via the flat tax system) which will helo generate new jobs and opportunities for all-the same way Reagan did…

    A rising tide floats all boats. Imagine how much money the consumers would have to spend if they were taxed less? Imagine how valuable US bonds and bills would be if the national debt were decreasing instead of increasing? Imagine the number of jobs available if we adopted the flat tax system and had among the lowest business tax rates on Earth?

    Imagine ‘feets, have that vision. Fix it in your mind, we all should. Settle for nothing less. And don’t vote for anyone that says you have to.

  175. happyfeet says:

    you know what it is? I spend too much time reading the comments at Hot Air. I should never have started that. It’s very scary, Bob. I mean it.

    Those people are supposed to be on our team but they are appallingly stupid. And they are so many.

    Team PW is smart and wise and wholly unrepresentative of Team R is the lesson Hot Air teaches.

  176. JD says:

    baxtrice – If the genocidal eugenecist did not have those caricatures to argue with, she would be all alone.

  177. dicentra says:

    Can Daniels speak with the intensity and knowledgeable savvy of Mark Levin?

    If by intensity you mean a whiny nasal voice pitched two octaves above mine, then he’d better NOT.

  178. Slartibartfast says:

    self declared christians

    What other kind is there, I wonder?

  179. happyfeet says:

    I had my sister bring out sun tea jars from texas cause you can’t get them here and I haven’t made any yet – I just look for anything what’s called jasmine green tea – that’s what they serve at the tasty vegan thai place

  180. Bob Reed says:

    There are a great number of people I know here in and around NYC who voted for Obama. Especially at the Catholic church I attend. After all, they thought him a “good man”, just like, you know, others…

    Many of those same people aren’t so ecstatic now. And a few of the Jewish ladies I know wonder just what they were thinking. I know I should be all harsh, but I’m not; I tell them all about Obama being an anthropomorphized Rorschach blot and that they projected what they want on it. I also allow them the wiggle room of the media propaganda assaulting them from all sides, even though we discussed stuff at length before the election. I’m gracious because I haven’t been here that many years to establish a reputation for political acumen. But, they know I was right…

    And, while I’m being gracious now, you can bet when discussion focus on the upcoming election, I’ll always be able to remindthem of how right I was about Obama, and how oh-so-wrong they were.

    Just like the good-ol-days with Jimmuh Carter!

    My opinions and observations will carry much more weight when that time comes, I think.

  181. Mike LaRoche says:

    Better “self-declared Christians” than pseudo-Sufis like the nishbot.

  182. JD says:

    I lurv how the cleanser simply brushes past the actual make-up of the Tea Partiers, as facts act inconvenient to Teh Narrative. No brain, no pain, huh?

  183. dicentra says:

    Palin = Energy or Dept of Interior
    Paul = Fed Chair
    Huckabee = Ambassador to Micronesia
    Romney = Treasury

    I mean, had the Weekly Standard or National Review had me do a series of articles on language

    You’re going to make me submit your stuff, edited and condensed, to Jonah, aren’t you?

    Did I ever tell you about the time he thought I was you? I don’t think he knows that the pub is a separate entity.

  184. sdferr says:

    “If by intensity you mean a whiny nasal voice pitched two octaves above mine, then he’d better NOT.”

    Um, of course that’s what I meant… But you knew that on your own without the detailing from me? whew

  185. sdferr says:

    Or as Levin might put it:

    GET OFF MY PHONE!

  186. Entropy says:

    Dude her argument never even changes.

    I swear to god if you don’t cut it out I’m going to write a bot program in C and you people will spend the next 5 years arguing with it.

  187. dicentra says:

    Giuliani = State Dept.

  188. happyfeet says:

    I hope so. But it’s … the Obama potentiality won’t just go away.

    We elected a dirty socialist twat with political experience such that it was roughly equivalent to elevating a produce manager at Ralph’s to CEO of Wal-Mart.

    This is not a good omen.

    I think it’s horrifying just on the face of it, before you even look at what the twat has done the past two years.

    We’re supposed to be better than this.

  189. B Moe says:

    None of the so called “Front Runners” are acceptable. There has to be a dark horse out there.

    Starting to hear done here in Georgia that Herman Cain might be interested. Seriously.

    RACIST!

    Nah, he would definitely get the joke.

  190. dicentra says:

    Levin doesn’t have a good radio voice. I can’t listen to his voice. I’ll read him, but I can’t listen.

    Can’t can’t can’t.

  191. Entropy says:

    In such a way that I seriously, fundementally believe we need to worry about some of you getting your hands on a magic 8 ball and then not feeding yourself or bathing.

  192. Bob Reed says:

    Team PW is smart and wise and wholly unrepresentative of Team R is the lesson Hot Air teaches.

    Amen to that, brother. Sometimes it’s like b/chan/ and other times it’s like a imbecile convention over there; with varying degrees of fatalism, bravado, and ignorance in between.

    I won’t lie, I still visit there and read Cap’n Ed and AllahP. I respect Cap’n Ed’s views most of the time, and enjoy some of AllahP’s snark. But, I only am on the same page 50% of the time-so to speak.

    There’s NO web site like PW, no host like Jeff, no guest authors like Darleen, JHo, and TSI, and certainly no commentariat so varied in background, life experience, education, or social and economic strata; it’s true diversity.

    But for all of that great variety they all share a thoughtfullness of opinion, a certain level of erudition, an ability to express themselves, and a special je ne sais quoi that sets PW apart from all the rest.

  193. sdferr says:

    “Levin doesn’t have a good radio voice. I can’t listen to his voice. I’ll read him, but I can’t listen.

    Can’t can’t can’t.”

    Don’t flying care. Don’t care, don’t care, don’t care. Get it?

  194. happyfeet says:

    I’m going to stop going there I think cause it messes with my head.

  195. Snubs? That sounds suspiciously close to snubnose, and the only noun Tea Partiers are likely to apply snubnose to as an adjective is a GUN! Tea Party Violence!

  196. JD says:

    Bob – You forgot to mention all the RAAAAAAAAAAACISTS. Features and bugs, and all.

  197. Bob Reed says:

    If by intensity you mean a whiny nasal voice pitched two octaves above mine, then he’d better NOT.

    zOMG Dicentra, in addition to all of your other good qualities, you also have a voice like Lauren Bacall? All I can say is, Wow!

  198. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    From what I’ve seen, I’ll even take any leading televangelist over Dear Leader or any other average Progg anytime anywhere – once they get to “average”, they can’t get much worse. Jimmy Swaggart is still on and he even makes more sense. Little Jimmerjammer not as much, though – sadly, he won’t ever make it alone.

  199. Matt says:

    What percentage of terrorists claim to be Muslim?

  200. Bob Reed says:

    That’s your role JD, calling all of us out! :)

  201. Squid says:

    According to the recent CBS/NYT survey, Tea Party supporters identified as 61% Protestant and 22% Catholic. This compares to 2007 Pew survey numbers of 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. So, more religious by a degree, but hardly disproportionate.

    Which makes sense, given that the movement is about fiscal restraint far more than it is about religious conversion. Of course, if your entire raison d’être is coming up with unsavory motivations for those who really just want to see government trimmed back, these numbers may come as something of a disappointment.

    Unless, of course, your other raison d’être is obstinately ignoring every piece of evidence or reason raised, in which case it’s just one more thing to ignore. Still, it bears stating, if only for the benefit of others who might be interested.

  202. Jeff G. says:

    Thanks for that Squid.

  203. Danger says:

    114.Comment by Bob Reed on 4/15 @ 12:51 pm #

    Hummers report TTP closing rapidly, from your low 9. Do not engage…Repeat, do not engage…

    115.Comment by Nishi the Kingslayer on 4/15 @ 12:53 pm #

    Rocketman’s got his radar calibrated tonight, might have to rename him DopplerBob;)

  204. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    What percentage of terrorists claim to be Muslim?

    Aha, Matt, your subconscious Islamophobia is in full sway! Another level down and you’ll find yourself one day crawling around on your belly like a snake, or maybe like Jon Carray’ when he hunt de’ deer, whichever comes first.

  205. sdferr says:

    That thing they just played over at the b-cast.

  206. sdferr says:

    A link to it.

  207. serr8d says:

    There’s some CHANGE needed in Muslim nations. Let’s send the Sufi.

  208. Danger says:

    “Jeff is not a faux classic liberal.

    And Tea Party ones are no more concerned with secession than your little president man is concerned with fiscal responsibility.”

    Wait was that what I thought it was?

    Feets,
    I think I just might cry now;)

    What are you shlubs looking at BACK TO THE FIRING RANGE!

  209. Mikey NTH says:

    #114 Bob Reed:

    Good call – ignore the TTP.

  210. Bob Reed says:

    Rocketman’s got his radar calibrated tonight, might have to rename him DopplerBob;)

    We had a weatherman that went by that handle when I was a young man in DC Danger! Who knew I would have a second career in meteorology…

    No AGW kool-aid though…

  211. happyfeet says:

    Danger I am staunch I promise I just am adrift in a sea of doubt sometimes. Cause of the uncertainties. There has been a lot of changes in our little country in a very short time. Startling ones.

  212. Mikey NTH says:

    #212 happyfeet:

    When your engine goes down and you are adrift, figure out your sea state (how rough it is), how deep the water, and drop your anchor on good holding ground (anchor line deployed should be 6 to seven times the water’s depth).

    Have everyone put on PFDs (lifejackets), then hit channel 16 and call the Coast Guard, and be prepared to answer a lot of questions about your passengers – numbers, medical issues – and your location and situation. If you have an EPIRB (emergency position indicating radio beacon) turn that on.

    This analogy brought to you as a courtesy.

  213. Mikey NTH says:

    Oh – and ignore the talking telephone pole.

  214. BuddyPC says:

    19. Comment by serr8d on 4/15 @ 11:09 am #
    Republicans (the Party) should, and must, take a whipping, both from Conservative Tea Partiers and from leftists. These Republicans we have in management are deserving of whippings, for the two Bush presidencies and the attempted Dole – McCain presidencies (remember, Bush I was only ‘installed’ on the ticket with Ronald Reagan because the string-pulling elitist Republicans wanted to keep an eye on the Cowboy).
    Until there’s a major, major shakeup in (old-school, blue-blood) Republican thinking, they will desire to revert to their old, unacceptable ways. Flush ‘em all.

    We diverge here.
    Bush 43 is no Bush 41 country club dweeb.
    FTR, Reagan was a glutton with his 20-25%-of-GDP federal budgets compared to W’s 18-20% along with sustained 3.5-4% annual economic growth. Furthermore, a little more W-like middle eastern resolve on the part of the Reagan Admin scowcroftianbaker realpolitikers back then would have saved W, and the rest of us, a whole lot of trouble later on.
    Agree with everything else, particularly any implied Romney opposition. It was the insider Reagan/HW Bush holdovers (cough Colin Powell) who were getting W into trouble.
    That “Iraq Study Group” wizbanging sure was one for the books. Transfers weighty authority over to everything else like Biden’s “partitioning” on steroids.

  215. Danger says:

    Yeah Feets,

    Kind of like I’m not happy being a part of a “whether we like it or not dominant military super-power”

    Sorry about the repeat link. I am still stunned from watching that!

  216. happyfeet says:

    I saw that… I think the actual gasp-worthiness is that he qualifies us as a military superpower…

    He’s seen to the other.

  217. happyfeet says:

    that’s a very complex analogy, Mikey. I’ll write it on my hand.

  218. happyfeet says:

    I’m so bad why can’t I just be nice?

  219. arthur dent says:

    True the ISG was a joke, the funnier was W, picking up the report and throwing in in the trash. As for who will run I have no idea, but I have an inkling that any such candidate would become less shiny in the immediate aftermath of his or her selection, and truth will have little to do with it

  220. happyfeet says:

    that’s a problem but the little president man we have right now has peaked shiny-wise as well I think

  221. SDN says:

    All I’m going to say is that I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee if you paid me… I can’t listen to him without the word “Pharisee” echoing in my head.

  222. SDN says:

    Buddy, the thing you have to remember with any President is that fiscally what they want doesn’t matter, since Congress writes the budgets. And Team R hasn’t had a filibuster proof majority in Congress since the Civil War. At least Reagan and Bush 2 had the good sense to get the government out of our wallets a little.

    Oh, and I find the Trollhammer to be the perfect solution to Nishi….

  223. newrouter says:

    There is NOTHING liberal about Celebrate the Confederacy Month

    as a progg you should celebrate slavery. that’s your whole world view.

  224. newrouter says:

    I’ll write it on my hand.

    you need a teleprompter

  225. JD says:

    Nishit apparently thinks that attributing things to people just because it says so is a logical and legitimate form of discussion. I think it eats too many mushrooms.

  226. serr8d says:

    @215 BuddyPC, I spent 8 years mostly defending George 43, whilst often grimacing – especially during that prescription-drug fiasco, the illegal alien shamnesty, and, worse, when his justice department mailed in a brief to attack Heller. But, bottom line, he was vastly superior to those two pus-filled scrotal sacs who were run against him. But, because GWB was such an easy target for our enemies at left, we are in a helluva mess right now: so good a target was Bush 43 that they can still trot him out and get votes from his legacy.

    All’s I’m saying is, we have to select a better primary candidate, if it’s not too late already.

  227. serr8d says:

    Nishi, you are tiring. Your ideas are insane. Why don’t you go to some Muslim country and try to make a difference?

  228. serr8d says:

    strong trigger warning heh.

  229. happyfeet says:

    nishi Mr. Jeff is not a poseur and he is pro-choice about the abortions with a small set of asterisks and he is not enthusiastic about the Confederacy and also he does not think that the creationism belongs in science class.

  230. serr8d says:

    There’s no need to use the word ‘enthusiastic’ when describing the history of the confederacy, ‘feets. The Civil War happened, we learned much from it; those 600K soldiers (men and boys, mostly) died. We still keep their graves clean and marked, here in the U.S.A. Are the groundskeepers RAAAAACIST! for doing that much?

    Where and when do we tell these baiting fucking leftists to stop their tauntings? It’s past time to tell ’em I think.

  231. Mikey NTH says:

    #218 happyfeet:

    I’d rather you wrote it in your mind before you despair – again – and go back to crankyfeet.

    What is the drill again? Survey your situation. Evaluate your equipment. Use your equipment with regard to your situation. Contact help and let them know of your situation. Hang in there, and above all – Don’t Panic.

  232. happyfeet says:

    I resolve not to panic.

  233. serr8d says:

    Newt Gingrich is da man. A good man, really.

  234. bh says:

    Use your equipment with regard to your situation.

    That sounds like a chance to fire a flare gun. I’ve always wanted to do that.

  235. dicentra says:

    you also have a voice like Lauren Bacall?

    No, I was exaggerating about Levin’s pitch. My voice is middle-range and unremarkable.

  236. happyfeet says:

    but can we expand the boundaries of criticism enough that by 2012 someone can say that on the debate podium is the question I think

  237. bh says:

    Most radical or most incompetent. One will definitely fit like a charm by 2012.

  238. Bob Reed says:

    hf,

    Take MikeyNTH’s advice, it is good counsel. Use the force…of your willpower to avoid panic, and instead appeal to rational thoughts when you have an anxiety attack…

    Criticism is good, we need to select the right person to be on that podium. Let’s find the best, but be respectful of the rest, and keep the friendly fire to a minimum; save your ammo for our true adversaries-the dark lord of team DS!

    That’s not to say you have to accept Huckabee, Romney, Palin, or whomever, without voicing your reservations.

  239. JD says:

    happyfeet’s reservations against McCain and Fuckabee have proven to be quite prescient.

  240. serr8d says:

    Huckholio I called him! But he’s very polite, to a fault. Obama would shred him in a debate. But he wouldn’t have shredded Fred Thompson. But that’s over; I need to let it bleed out.

  241. Mikey NTH says:

    #239 Bob Reed:

    I have been with the Coast Guard Auxiliary (the unpaid, the overweight) for ten years. The advice of what to do in a boating mishap is, I think, applicable to other situations.

    #235 bh:

    Flares should not be fired unless you know that someone will see the flare. Flares are limited in number and visibility. If you spot another vessel, fire one. If rescue is in the area and calling for your position, announce you are firing a flare and wait before firing another.

    Always conserve your available resources and equipment.

    Damn – I can get all pedantic about this.

    One more: A good life jacket should have a light – either battery operated strobe or a chemlight fastened to it, and a signal mirror, a knife, and a whistle (one without a ‘pea’) all of those fastened to the lifejacket with three feet of nylon cord. This obviously goes out of analogy and into real boating requirements, but always good to broadcast that.

  242. bh says:

    If you spot another vessel, fire one.

    In the movies, this is a great way to cause the bad guys’ boat, car, airplane, or bicycle to explode. I like the way you think.

    (Kidding.)

  243. happyfeet says:

    Bob… dark lord?

    That’s brave.

  244. Bob Reed says:

    I know hf, I’m fearless when it comes to plays-on-words :)

  245. Bob Reed says:

    But, you know, I was referring to the dark socialistic tendencies in his heart…For Reals! And making a play on a geeky Star-Wars line…

    FOR REALS!

  246. hmd says:

    “as a progg you should celebrate slavery. that’s your whole world view.”

    That’s why the VA governor “forgot” slavery. Because he’s not a progressive.

  247. newrouter says:

    That’s why the VA governor “forgot” slavery. Because he’s not a progressive.

    stating the obvious is so hard on the progg “mind”

  248. serr8d says:

    No, hmd, he forgot slavery because he wasn’t a progressive who needed a few divisive race-baiting talking points to bolster his proggtard alligator-tears cred. Let sleeping dogs lie, unless you can make a political fortune out of kicking ’em awake.

  249. Bob Reed says:

    MikeyNTH,
    Having served a lifetime in the Navy, I’m well acquainted with the 3-M system for organizing tasks and the materials needed to accomplish them…

    And we had a flares too, but ours were IR decoy flares mounted on the aircraft itself; we had a lot more of them than in the SERE kits (thank God I never had to use one of them save for training!)…

    We had a lot of the kind of equipment you mention on our person, or attached to the ejection seat…

    But you are correct, it’s better to know the drill by heart so that if “it” hit’s the fan you’ll have your ducks in a row.

    Fair winds and following seas.

  250. David R. Block says:

    As for dropping the WEC, that’s going to be difficult since most “purges” have been done on the left.

  251. Mikey NTH says:

    Thanks, Bob. For everything you have done and for everything you are doing.

    Semper Paratus.

  252. SDN says:

    serr8d, Fred’s problem is that in this country we mistake not wet-dreaming about power 24/7/365 for “lack of enthusiasm”. George Washington would understand Fred just fine.

  253. Pablo says:

    …his reactionary whiteyness.

    Well, looks like we’ve got us a bonafide racist here.

  254. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    no feets, Jeff is poseur in his assertions that anyone but him is a “classic liberal”.
    Take Darleen for example…..she asserted the YFZ commune had the right to local self government without federal interference….that is federalism.
    She also asserted the right of the patriarchy daddies to rape and impregnate the 13 year old girl children of the community …. that is libertarian, because children don’t have the rights of adults, and adults have rights to raise to raise their children as they see fit.
    Jeff argues that liberals are the ones that deny science and then Ric Locke dismissed the growing domains of SBH and SBR as a crank leftist conspiracy theory….now that is just pure epidemistic closure…and immediately we have many other proteins asserting that ToE is also some sort of liberal conspiracy.
    The reason no one will listen to Jeff about classic liberalism or adopt classic liberalism as a memetic is that his assertions are simply laughably non-empirical.

  255. serr8d says:

    Heh. hmd said ‘reactionary’, during which time all the little dancing leftard reactionary gnomes are partying and dancing in his microencephalic skull case. There’s Hugo Chavez, Al Sharpton, Roman Polanski, FDR, LBJ, Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dan Rather…with BHO’s ears flapping to keep ’em in synch.

    That’s a word, hmd, you should strike from your vocabulary. It’s our turn to be ‘reactionary’, and you ain’t seen nothing yet.

  256. serr8d says:

    Nishi, you little poster child for neoteny, you need to learn at least one thing today: it’s “classical” liberalism, you insufferable stinktwat.

  257. Bob Reed says:

    Hummer reports TTP incoming from your low 9. Condition yellow, weapons safe…

  258. serr8d says:

    Bob Reed, did you read the Navy is considering naming a ship after Murtha?

    I think I’ve found one that’s appropriate

  259. serr8d says:

    hmd, the confederates weren’t around long enough to be considered ‘classical’. Most of the confederates only wanted to protect the rights of the states to secede, not to defend slavery. As Adolphus Hieman put it, pro-confederate opinions evolved due to “the injudicious and suicidal acts of the present imbecile administration.”

  260. Pablo says:

    TrollHammer™ Keeps a thread minty fresh.

  261. Bob Reed says:

    serr8d,
    I’m thinkin’ a garbage scow would almost be too good for Murtha, but probably appropriate; especially after all of the trash talking he did about the Marines at Haditha…

    The Marines that have since been cleared, by the way…

  262. hmd says:

    “hmd, the confederates weren’t around long enough to be considered ‘classical’. ”

    Maybe we can call Bob a “neo” confederate.

    “Most of the confederates only wanted to protect the rights of the states to secede, not to defend slavery.”

    Did the confederacy allow states to secede from it? It certainly didn’t allow states to be free states. So much for “states rights” huh?

  263. SBP says:

    Sorry I called Bob “reactionary.”

    Sorry I wasted time reading any of your drivel.

    Trollhammered.

  264. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    yeah and don’t for get the night riders, teatards.

    The first wave of the KKK was during Reconstruction. In defeat the Confederate Party was without political power and so they quickly turned to terrorism. While Robert E Lee did not take to the woods to extend the conflict, his Generals like Forrest did and many of his troops followed this call to violence and terror as tools to score political victories that they could not win at the ballot box. And the tactic worked. By the 1890s the Night Riders had done their part, Jim Crow laws were firmly in place and the Confederate Party had a strong power base in the Democratic Party. No longer needed, the KKK began to fade away.
    And then in the wake of World War I the Confederate Party felt threatened again. Not only were African-Americans organizing and fighting for their rights, some just back from the war were willing to fight back in the streets. And then their was the rise of Unions and these ethnic religious groups from Europe—especially those Romans and those Jews. In 1915 the Klan began their second act in America with a mass market media campaign through the propaganda film, Birth of a Nation (also known as The Clansman). It was a big hit and within a decade the ranks of the KKK swelled to 6 million.
    Along the way race riots popped up all over America. These were your traditional American Race riots where mobs of angry whites hunted down and killed people of color. There were so many riots in 1919 that it was called “Red Summer”. In 1921 riots in Tulsa ethnically cleansed the black population from the town killing between 300 and 3,000—depending upon which reports one chooses to believe. And in 1923 the town of Rosewood, Florida was wiped off the map by white rioters. In addition to these riots the first and second iterations of the KKK led to an endless number of lynchings, beatings, rapes and other manifestations of terror.

  265. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    and i’ll preempt the liberals did it too!!!! squalling.
    LBJ and JFK were democrats.
    They kicked the racists out or reformed them.
    That is why the party of Lincoln inherited the white southern racists, that infest your party to this day.

  266. FYI says:

    According to the Southern Poverty Law Center who monitors the activities of extremist hate groups, the Tea Party is helping to strengthen the white supremacist movement in America, and has helped to re-energize some specific hate groups that were on the verge of extinction

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/tea-partys-racist-roots

  267. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    which ever party is the party of the South……is the party of racists and anti-science thugs and reactionaries.

  268. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    Who is the tea party?
    I betcha they all believe in Baby Jesus.
    That is the single unifying principle of the tea parties.
    You can be christian and not be in the Tea Party, but if you are in the Tea Party…i’d bet that farm that you are “christian.”
    You name should be the Christian Confederate Party.

  269. serr8d says:

    the Tea Party the far-left Social Democrat Party is helping to strengthen the white supremacist movement in America

    FTFY, FYITARD.

  270. Bob Reed says:

    According to the Southern Poverty Law Center…”

    A group of racialists, race-baiters, and professional hand-wringers who have no credibility…

  271. serr8d says:

    Nishams, you Muslim pretender, where’s your burkha? Why are you not submitting to male rule, as is the prime directive of your new religion?

    Nose to the grindstone, goofball.

  272. Darleen says:

    She also asserted the right of the patriarchy daddies to rape and impregnate the 13 year old girl children of the community

    the lying never quits.

    Why hasn’t someone 5150’d Kate the utero-phobe and Jewhater?

  273. serr8d says:

    Kate Mengele, AKA “Nishi”, “Shams al-Nahar”, never looked better.

  274. FYI says:

    “She also asserted the right of the patriarchy daddies to rape and impregnate the 13 year old girl children of the community “

    Exactly. The GOP platform makes no provision for rape or incest. Look it up.

  275. Bob Reed says:

    Weren’t the Patriarchy Daddies a swing music band?

  276. SBP says:

    Fucking Yokel Idiot:

    What makes you think anyone here gives a rat’s ass about the “GOP platform”?

    Unlike you and your fellow travelers, we aren’t cultists.

  277. mojo says:

    The GOP has no special call on the TP groups. Sure, more than 50% of the folks were probably R voters, but there are plenty of D’s and I’s in there. The GOP shouldn’t count on support. That depends on what they DO…

  278. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    where have all the unicorns gone?
    To the tea party.

    In America, one can be a christian and not be in the Tea Party.
    But I suspect…..that n/e one in the Tea Party is a christian.
    …..as a sometime statistician, christians are unlikely to lie about their religious preference on a survey instrument, while they often lie about racism, political affiliation, and IQ gradient or education.
    I don’t understand why that would upset anyone……it is just data.
    Why does it bother you that the Tea Parties are homogenously christian?

  279. SBP says:

    as a sometime statistician

    Liar.

  280. mojo says:

    And as far as I’m concerned, if you want to off your offspring, go right ahead. Just means more opportunity for mine. Life is a zero-sum game.

  281. Silver Whistle says:

    as a sometime statistician

    P>0.05

  282. Jim Ryan says:

    Nishi translator:

    as a sometime statistician, christians are…

    Translation: “Duh.”

    christians … often lie about racism, political affiliation, and IQ gradient or education.
    I don’t understand why that would upset anyone……it is just data.

    Translation: “Grunt.”

  283. JD says:

    nishit got a little wet copying and pasting that KKK krap. And she continue to just make shit up. I wish the orderlies would find her.

  284. Slartibartfast says:

    as a sometime statistician

    As a sometime high-energy physicist, I cry bullshit.

  285. B Moe says:

    Did the confederacy allow states to secede from it?

    West Virginia did.

  286. Cletus The Trollslayer says:

    In America, one can be a christian and not be in the Tea Party.
    But I suspect…..that n/e one in the Tea Party is a christian.
    …..as a sometime statistician, christians are unlikely to lie about their religious preference on a survey instrument, while they often lie about racism, political affiliation, and IQ gradient or education.
    I don’t understand why that would upset anyone……it is just data.
    Why does it bother you that the Tea Parties are homogenously christian?

    Pigs, they tend to wiggle when they walk
    The infrastructure rots
    And the owners hate the jocks
    With their agents and their dates

    If the signatures are checked
    You’ll just have to wait

    And we’re counting up the instants that we save
    Tired nation so depraved
    From the cheap seats see us
    Wave to the camera
    It took a giant ramrod
    To raze the demon settlement

    But high-ho silver, ride
    High-ho silver, ride

    Take another ride to see me home
    Listen to me! I’m on the stereo stereo
    Oh my baby baby baby baby babe
    Gave me malaria hysteria

    What about the voice of geddy lee
    How did it get so high?
    I wonder if he speaks like an ordinary guy?
    (I know him and he does!)

    And you’re my fact-checkin’ ’cause
    (aww…)

    Well focus on the quasar in the mist
    The kaiser has a cyst
    And I’m a blank want list
    The qualms you have and if they stick
    They will drown you in a crick
    In the neck of a woods
    That was populated by
    Tired nation on the fly
    Everybody knows advice
    That was give out for free
    Lots of details to discern
    Lots of details

    But high-ho silver ride
    High-ho silver ride
    Takes another ride to make me
    Oh, get off the air
    I’m on the stereo stereo
    Oh my baby baby baby baby baby babe
    Gave me malaria hysteria

  287. hmd says:

    “West Virginia did.”

    Ignoring the question of whether they were a state in the confederacy to begin with, the fact that confederate military action and occupation continued in parts of west virginia would tell me that, no, a state was not allowed to secede from the confederacy.

  288. B Moe says:

    You aren’t sure if Virginia was a part of the Confederacy?

  289. B Moe says:

    And also major points off for whiffing on the obligatory who cares about a bunch of hillbillies joke.

  290. mojo says:

    WEST Virginia was formed precisely because they didn’t want to join the Confederacy.

  291. Mikey NTH says:

    #284 mojo: The future belongs to those who (genetically) show up.

    #295 hmd: Read some civil war history, and tell us when West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a state.

    Unless you want to go all TTP.

  292. SBP says:

    Watch hmd fly the stupid right into the ground….

  293. happyfeet says:

    unicorns!

    back later

  294. LBascom says:

    “I betcha they all believe in Baby Jesus.
    That is the single unifying principle of the tea parties.”

    Not only baby Jesus, but Jesus, son of God, risen after three days, Creator of your universe, your only hope for eternal life.

    Tremble, bitch.

  295. happyfeet says:

    oh yeah… unicorns!!!

    brb

  296. happyfeet says:

    unicorn in a box with droids and derring do and real live russians

  297. happyfeet says:

    unicorn sadness

    lo siento he says

  298. happyfeet says:

    unicorn adventures!!!! with laser guns pew pew pew

  299. happyfeet says:

    be vewwy quiet we’re hunting unicorns

    ohnoes

  300. Mike LaRoche says:

    Why does it bother you that the Tea Parties are homogenously christian?

    Why does it bother you that most Americans are Christian, nishbot? And what is the relevance of Christianity to the Tea Parties anyway?

  301. happyfeet says:

    hey you want I will sing a song for you bout jesus ok here we go

    jesus lub da little children all the children of the world red and also yellow and black and even white they are precious in his sight jesus lub da little children of the world

    you’re welcome

  302. LBascom says:

    She’s scared Mike. She thinks everyone has as black a heart as her own.

    Oooooh! Pretty rainbow!

  303. LBascom says:

    See hf, that’s what is funny. The anti-social cons tell us Christians have no right to exercise our political rights in accordance to our beliefs, then turn around and tell us to do ~blank~ “for the children”.

    Go to hell I say.

  304. happyfeet says:

    Well… hmmm. I do think it’s fair to say hello Mr. social con can you please maybe modulate the importance of your religious beliefs inasmuch as our little country is in dire dirty socialist peril… oh. Either that or go balls out for Huck again I mean to where some loser like Meghan’s daddy ends up getting nominated. Either way it’s all good.

    What matters is that everyone votes to where they can go to heben.

  305. bh says:

    Isn’t it odd that politicians are always thinking about the children and yet they never make their bedtimes later or introduce strong pro-candy legislation?

    I suspect it’s all a cynical ruse.

  306. happyfeet says:

    let’s do this one too cause of it’s kind of sublime

  307. bh says:

    I think that little girl was rolling on E.

  308. happyfeet says:

    I think so too really.

    It was a simpler time.

  309. LBascom says:

    “go balls out for Huck again I mean to where some loser like Meghan’s daddy ends up getting nominated”

    Huck wants to be the Christian candidate, but I don’t think most Christians are that insecure. And I don’t mind if you don’t believe same as me. Just save your breath if you were going to say my views on, say, ~blank~ are invalid, ‘cuz I got the God stench on me.

    We all come to our decisions from different perspectives, and mine is; what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, and loses his soul?

    I doubt the premise that heaven is secured by the election ballot. Heaven is more a family thing.

  310. happyfeet says:

    I just think it’s unacceptable that there would be a “Christian” candidate in 2012 when for love of God and country it’s the mostest anti-dirty socialist candidate what we need to be praying for. “Christians” are polarizing in an unhelpful way I think, and there are specific Christian ones what have made this so, not Christians generally. But in 2012 we need to transcend the usual social con … special pleadings. We have to. I think even today 2012 looks like more of a longshot for Team R than any election in my lifetime.

    But that’s me. I think we’re teetering on the precipice of doom.

    I really do.

  311. happyfeet says:

    doomedy doomedy doom doom

  312. happyfeet says:

    Thesis: Christians what get all bent out of shape when you mack the wacky ones upside the head are as much ensconced in the mire of identity politics as your average Pacific Islander tranny I think.

  313. B Moe says:

    You lump all Christians together, then complain they are practicing identity politics? Did you really just do that, hf?

  314. B Moe says:

    The western part of Virginia was isolated geographically, culturally and economically from the rest of the state and had desired independence for quite some time when the war broke out. The opportunity to break from Virginia overshadowed whatever allegiance they felt to either the North or South, which in truth wasn’t clear at all, so in a wonderful bit of irony they gained state hood by aligning against state’s rights.

    Or more specifically, remaining neutral. But they seceded from Virginia after Virginia was part of the Confederacy, so in a sense they seceded from the Confederacy. The South and North both sent conscription parties into the state, and battles were fought there, but I am unsure how the Confederacy actually regarded the “legality” of the secession.

  315. hmd says:

    “The opportunity to break from Virginia overshadowed whatever allegiance they felt to either the North or South, which in truth wasn’t clear at all, so in a wonderful bit of irony they gained state hood by aligning against state’s rights.”

    I like that you sneak in the ‘state’s rights’ view of the confederacy. Good show.

    “But they seceded from Virginia after Virginia was part of the Confederacy, so in a sense they seceded from the Confederacy. ”

    I’m cool with that, O’m just allowing room for someone to differentiate between a state in the confederacy having some legitimate claims vs a part of a state to break away. Whatever claim “states rights” would have in the confederacy, there’s a fair argument they don’t apply to entities that aren’t states within the confederacy — like a subunit of a state.

  316. B Moe says:

    I like that you see something subversive about me “sneaking” states rights into a conflict that was about states rights.

  317. Bob Reed says:

    You’re such a sneak, BMoe; you and all your seccesionista, knuckle-dragging, racists, neo-confederate pals.

    I always knew it!

  318. McGehee says:

    The anti-social cons tell us Christians have no right to exercise our political rights in accordance to our beliefs, then turn around and tell us to do ~blank~ “for the children”.

    There’s also a lot of concern-troll blathering about how “helping the poor is a Christian concept,” yet they overlook that the Good Samaritan helped the injured traveler himself instead of demanding a law requiring everyone in the Roman Empire be taxed to help him.

    It’s truly bizarre as a Christian to be lectured on compassion by people who want me sent to prison if I don’t pay for their health insurance.

  319. Bob Reed says:

    Nice one McGehee, using “the good Samaritan” as an example. I generally use the “render unto Caesar, etc…”, but will remember this for the future when the Alinsky-ites try and frame Christians as hypocrites for not buying into their redistribution-as-social-justice…

  320. hmd says:

    “I like that you see something subversive about me “sneaking” states rights into a conflict that was about states rights.”

    Not that there isn’t a benefit to this revisionism. The more that the confederacy apologists succeed, the more we can tie modern proponents of “state’s rights” to the white supremacist treason of the confederacy. It would be better to stick with the truth, but if that loses out, there’s at least an upside.

  321. DarthRove says:

    The direction of causality, it escapes the hmd’s of the world I think.

  322. sdferr says:

    “…we can tie…”

    And of course, truth be damned, since power is the only end.

  323. hmd says:

    “And of course, truth be damned, since power is the only end.”

    I do admit the truth is better. But it hurts. So since the apologists have damned it already, just go with the flow.

  324. sdferr says:

    No, simpleton, the truth in question is the truth of the false portrait implied in “we can tie”. You and yours could care less about the truth of the opinions of those you would smear.

  325. B Moe says:

    The more that the confederacy apologists succeed, the more we can tie modern proponents of “state’s rights” to the white supremacist treason of the confederacy. It would be better to stick with the truth…

    Except truth don’t serve demagogery.

    You are dishonest, and you serve a dishonest party seeking a dishonest cause.  This isn’t exactly to news, hmd.

  326. hmd says:

    At a certain point it gets tautological. If the confederacy really was about “state’s rights,” then today’s defenders of “state’s rights” are on board with the confederate cause. We know the truth is that the confederacy was about treason in defense of maintaining an inhuman white supremacist order. But if people want to mix that with today’s ideological struggles, that’s the truth they’re playing with. And it may just bite them in the ass.

  327. B Moe says:

    If the confederacy really was about “state’s rights,” then today’s defenders of “state’s rights” are on board with the confederate cause.

    Nope.  Today’s advocates of states rights agree with the Confederacy that the Federal Government has too much power, that is all states rights implies.

    Unless you are a dishonest demagogue.

  328. geoffb says:

    translation of 333:

    We will lie, smear, twist history and language to obtain our ends because they are so precious to us and necessary to save all of the human race. We just know better than you.

    Liars lie, it’s all they know.
    Trolling grief or concern.
    It’s all a show.
    Me, look at me. I matter. Yo!

  329. hmd says:

    ” Nope. Today’s advocates of states rights agree with the Confederacy that the Federal Government has too much power, that is all states rights implies. ”

    One ways that the federal government used its power in the runup to the confederacy was to pass the fugitive slave laws which infringed upon the state’s rights of the north to be free of the inhuman institution of slavery. So we see, the problem wasn’t “too much power.” And really all that gets accomplished by confederate worship is tying yourself to that.

  330. geoffb says:

    “We know the truth” Telling, almost “perfectly clear”.

  331. B Moe says:

    Only by the dishonest and the stupid. Or both as you so clearly illustrate.

    States rights is a reference to the balance of power between government at the state and local level. It was the topic of much discussion before the Civil War, and has remained an issue afterward. There is nothing inherently racist about it.

  332. B Moe says:

    Shit, between government at the state and national level, that should say.

  333. hmd says:

    “There is nothing inherently racist about it.”

    What’s racist is what the rights were about and used for. States in the confederacy didn’t have the ‘state’s right’ to be free of white supremacist slavery — this was in their constitution. States in the North, thanks to the Fugitive slave laws, didn’t have the “state’s rights” to be free of enforcing slavery either. The south was happy to have both of these limitations on “state’s rights.” Because they weren’t for “state’s rights.” They were for preserving their white supremacist order.

  334. SBP says:

    The Tenth Amendment is racist? Who knew?

    Useful idiots never seem to realize that their usefulness is at an end once the fascist state they masturbate to comes into being.

    Nope, they always imagine that *they’re* going to be the New Elite.

    History indicates otherwise.

  335. B Moe says:

    What part of the Civil War was a hundred and fifty fucking years ago is confusing you, hmd?

    Did you know that back in Greece when they invented Democracy slavery was legal? Should I scream RACIST! at your ignorant ass whenever you promote democratic ideals?

  336. hmd says:

    “Did you know that back in Greece when they invented Democracy slavery was legal? Should I scream RACIST! at your ignorant ass whenever you promote democratic ideals?”

    If they invented democracy TO HAVE SLAVERY, then sure, that could be a problem. Me? I’m not so into fetishizing one level of government over another. Both can do good or do bad. I prefer to look at just that. It’s what the south was doing when they were happy to trample on state’s rights.

  337. Bob Reed says:

    If the confederacy really was about “state’s rights,” then today’s defenders of “state’s rights” are on board with the confederate cause.

    That’s a logical fallacy hmd. Just because two people believe in the same principle doesn’t make them “on board” with the same causes.

    As a simple example, I’ll choose two people that both morally object to abortion, one a religious so-con and the other a classical liberal. While the so-con may believe in outlawing the practice and worl toward that end, the classical liberal might instead think it more important to respect and preserve the liberty of the individual to decide that for themself.

    Two people, who share the same belief, but who do not share the same cause.

    Your pretext used in an attempt at making this “tautological”, as you incorrectly put it, is debunked.

  338. happyfeet says:

    that’s exactly what I didn’t do Mr. Moe and I didn’t do it several times

  339. hmd says:

    “That’s a logical fallacy hmd. Just because two people believe in the same principle doesn’t make them “on board” with the same causes.”

    This is part of the argument for why it is incorrect to say the confederacy was about “state’s rights.” But the more that lie gets repeated, the more the confederate cause becomes identified with contemporary promotion of “state’s rights.” I’d advise sticking to the truth and not trying to defend the confederacy, as it will bite you in the ass.

  340. baxtrice says:

    The tenth amendment to the Constitution was enacted December 15, 1791;

    So States rights have been RAAAAACIST since 1791, or so sayeth hmd.

  341. serr8d says:

    ‘feets, there are about 1,200 Christian organizations in the U.S.A., and well over 30,000 in the world; 4 to 8 Christian ‘meta-groups’ (Roman Catholics, Anglican, Protestant &c.). So, when you said

    Thesis: Christians what get all bent out of shape…

    which group were you referring to, exactly?

  342. geoffb says:

    Let’s see.

    Although the States which formed the Confederacy seceded from the United States of America the Confederacy was not about State’s Rights because it would also not allow for a member State to secede from it either.

    The “Fugitive Slave Law” was a violation of State’s Rights that the South favored and violated the sovereignty of the Northern States.

    This argument then would seem to place freedom as an attribute of State’s Rights which hmd endorses.

    However at the same time hmd is perfectly willing to allow, in fact encourage, the conflation of State’s Rights with the “inhuman institution of slavery” to further some other cause which is left unstated. State’s Rights and it’s meaning being nothing but a rhetorical means to further that unstated ends.

  343. baxtrice says:

    Hey did you know that our first Constitution was called the Articles of Confederation? Oh my that’s pretty close to Confederacy hmd, that would make the North pretty RAAAACIST too!

  344. happyfeet says:

    I was referring to the ones what get bent out of shape… which is clearly a subset.

  345. sdferr says:

    “Only by the dishonest and the stupid.”

    I wonder B Moe. This behavior appears a good deal closer to the behavior of the skin-color bigots of yore than to a mere case of stupidity (though there is somewhat of that too) and dishonesty (and ditto). Though the crux of the bigotry has been transferred from skin-color to political principle (or lack thereof, in meya’s case) and ideology, the signs of mirror parity are plain to see. Just as the old skin-color bigots dismissed the darker skinned to inferiority a priori and themselves to superiority a priori, so also does this modern version, the leftist bigot — instantiated here by meya or snowcone/parsnip — dismiss all its political/ideological opponents to inferiority a priori and themselves to superiority a priori. They’re tyrannical bigots, which, given their insistent opposition to freedom, oughtn’t surprise us in the least.

  346. B Moe says:

    that’s exactly what I didn’t do Mr. Moe and I didn’t do it several times

    Are you sure?  Because it looked like you were getting awful close.  

    Just be careful, is all I’m saying.

  347. happyfeet says:

    I will be careful. We have to work together to make the dirty socialisms go away. Like a well-oiled anti-dirty socialist machine we have to be and I want to be a good and trusty cog in that machine.

  348. Bob Reed says:

    hmd,

    The leaders of the Confederacy said at that time that their opposition was based on the principle of states rights, i.e. the tenth amendment. How does it make it a lie to appeal to the intent of those very people? No one is defending slavery in practice nor principle. If the Confederacy wasn’t about states rights, then what was it about?

    And I caution you here, just because at the time they were using a constitutional principle to justify a practice that was unjust and reprehensible to a majority of the populace, doesn’t make the arguments they made invalid nor their resprt to using that principle as justification for their secession any less real…

    I’m no seccesionista, and don’t happen to personally believe that there was any constitutional provision nor language that would have allowed them to leave the union; it was assumed a priori that once a memeber, always a member-in perpetuity.

    But these facts don’t change history, nor so they mean that modern opponents of Federal overreach are racist neo-confederates. To believe so, or even assert so, is to traffic in logical fallacies, and to argue dishonestly and disingenuously.

  349. serr8d says:

    Collinearly to sdferr’s inferiority – superiority observations…

    Ironically, one aspect of American society that the Americo-Liberians recreated was a cultural and racial caste system—however, in this case with themselves at the top instead of the bottom. To them, their society must have seemed radically different from the USA because it rejected the ubiquitous Western belief in immutable racial hierarchy, which had led the colonists to despair of life in the USA. They, on the other hand, believed in racial equality, and therefore in the potential of all people to become ‘civilized’ through evangelization and education. Like many white missionaries before and after them, they were frustrated by the natives’ lack of interest in becoming ‘civilized.’

    But the natives took over Liberia in 1980, after years of bloody and chaotic tribal uprisings. Then…

    In July 2008, the Legislature reintroduced the death penalty into Liberian law, with President Sirleaf signing the bill into law. The law allowed for executions for convictions of armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and hijacking.

    RAAAAACISTS~!

    Wait…

  350. serr8d says:

    I was referring to the ones what get bent out of shape… which is clearly a subset.

    I’m thinking a rather large subset. Some of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity overlap all the various sects; one of ’em is to ‘go forth and preach the gospel’ and ‘don’t let assholes [sic ?] shut you up’.

  351. happyfeet says:

    yes… that is a problem… it’s just like there is a set of homos what go forth and preach the homo…

    same same I think

  352. SBP says:

    And I caution you here, just because at the time they were using a constitutional principle to justify a practice that was unjust and reprehensible

    See also: Nazis and Communists taking advantage of their rights under the First Amendment.

    Oddly, communist and fascist slave states don’t seem to bother people like SFAG one little bit.

  353. serr8d says:

    That’s a far-away sort of analogy, ‘feets; tell me, what sort of sacrament would they espouse, I wonder…oh, never mind. )

  354. happyfeet says:

    it’s just that there are always ones what reflect badly on the group I think.

  355. SBP says:

    Seriously, SFAG: why are you people always yammering about a form of slavery that ended a hundred and fifty years ago, but never seem to mention the slavery that goes on to this day in North Korea, Cuba, China, and, yes, Africa?

    Does it only count if the slavemaster is white*? Brown people enslaving brown people doesn’t matter?

    I don’t expect an honest answer out of you, naturally. I’m just holding you up as a laughingstock.

    * Yes, I know that there were black slaveowners and white slaves before the Civil War.

  356. hmd says:

    “Although the States which formed the Confederacy seceded from the United States of America the Confederacy was not about State’s Rights because it would also not allow for a member State to secede from it either. ”

    Also a member of the confederacy did not have the ‘state’s right’ to be a free state.

    “State’s Rights and it’s meaning being nothing but a rhetorical means to further that unstated ends.”

    You’ve almost got it. “State’s right” can mean a state’s right to do bad or good. So I support state’s rights to become free states, but I don’t support state’s rights to enact segregation and jim crow. Thus “state’s rights” aren’t really just a ‘rhetorical’ means, but an actual legal means, and the end they’re used for matters a great deal. The confederacy was concerned with one particular end: preserving slavery.

    “The leaders of the Confederacy said at that time that their opposition was based on the principle of states rights, i.e. the tenth amendment. How does it make it a lie to appeal to the intent of those very people?”

    They said their intent was to preserve slavery. Don’t ignore that. Don’t ignore what the principles were to be used for. Here, for example, is South Carolina’s statement of Secession — pissed off at northern states exercising “rights” to challenging federal law imposing slavery:

    “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.”

    Those are not people fighting for the principle of state’s rights. They’re fighting for slavery.

    “Does it only count if the slavemaster is white*? Brown people enslaving brown people doesn’t matter?”

    I don’t understand half the things you’re talking about, but when we’re talking about the confederacy, the race of the slave does matter — the confederate constitution explicitly referred to “negro slavery.” The fact that they chose to say that is indicative of the intent of what they were trying to do. We should not ignore that.

  357. SBP says:

    I don’t understand half the things you’re talking about

    Liar.

    but when we’re talking about the confederacy

    “We” weren’t talking about anything of the sort. You’ve introduced it in an attempt to derail the conversation.

    You’ve admitted that you’ll lie through your teeth to achieve your political ends. Why do you expect anyone to engage you?

    You’re a joke, SFAG. A congenital loser who’d be a loser under any conceivable system of government. I know that in your fantasy world you’re going to wind up holding the whip, come the revolution. You’d best hope it remains a fantasy, because that’s just not in the cards.

  358. Bob Reed says:

    Those are not people fighting for the principle of state’s rights. They’re fighting for slavery.

    Wrong again. They are people arguing that the state has the right to decide whether institutional slavery is legal or otherwise, and that it is federal overreach for the national government to say otherwise.

    And that citation you made, without linking by the way-so we could determine it’s authenticity, sounds like a wind-up to a SCOTUS case over those same issues; which is where non-secessionists like me think the matter should have been argued, instead of secession and war being the chosen mechanism.

    But really, it’s a much more complex and, ahem, nuanced historical reality than the cartoon snapshot you try and use as a rhetorical prop. And you’re not really arguing in good faith anyway, but merely have an axe to grind and a set of talking points to cling to…

  359. B Moe says:

    “State’s right” can mean a state’s right to do bad or good. So I support state’s rights to become free states, but I don’t support state’s rights to enact segregation and jim crow. Thus “state’s rights” aren’t really just a ‘rhetorical’ means, but an actual legal means, and the end they’re used for matters a great deal.

    What are you arguing?  That you support the Federal Government granting the States the right to do things you consider good, but not the things you think are bad?

  360. hmd says:

    “They are people arguing that the state has the right to decide whether institutional slavery is legal or otherwise, and that it is federal overreach for the national government to say otherwise.”

    You didn’t read what I cited, did you? Because it’s the exact opposite of this.

    “And that citation you made, without linking by the way-so we could determine it’s authenticity”

    It’s from south carolina’s statement of secession. Find a source that’s credible enough for you.

    “But really, it’s a much more complex and, ahem, nuanced historical reality than the cartoon snapshot you try and use as a rhetorical prop.”

    That’s why I cited a primary document. Read it. Enjoy.

    “That you support the Federal Government granting the States the right to do things you consider good, but not the things you think are bad?”

    That the point isn’t “state’s right” but “right to do what.”

  361. happyfeet says:

    I think my state has the right to sod off.

  362. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    I repeat…….Thomas Jefferson would have spit on you.
    The Voice of the Tea Party.

    LOUISVILLE, KY. (AP) – Sarah Palin spoke to a crowd of about 16,000 attending an evangelical Christian women’s conference in Louisville Friday night.

    The Courier-Journal reports the 2008 Republican candidate for vice president mixed stories of personal struggles and calls for women to be good mothers and good citizens with criticism of President Barack Obama – although she did not mention him by name.

    Palin asked the women to provide a “prayer shield” to strengthen her against what she said was “deception” in the media.

    She asserted that America needs to get back to its Christian roots and rejected any notion that “God should be separated from the state.”

  363. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    The Tea Party is primarily a religious movement, exemplified by grievance conservative christianity.
    I believe nearly everyone that signifies as a member of the Tea Party will also self describe as christian.
    Do you see any “god is dead” signs at the rallies?
    What happen to someone carrying one?
    America is 70% christian…..but liberal christians don’t attend the tea party.
    Obama is a liberal christian.
    My hypothesis is that you can be an American Christian, and not be in the Tea Party.
    But if you are in the Tea Party the probability that you are also a selfdescribed christian is approachin’ lim [1.0].
    The Tea Party is a religious sect with no diversity……grievance conservative christianity.

    The Unified Force Theory of Tea Party Jesus.

  364. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    you see…that is what Jeff’s intentionalism and originalist interpretation of the Constitution is all about…a return to a time when America WAS a homogeneously christian nation.
    But the electorate no longer reflects that.
    That is why the Consitution is WAI……it establishes the power of the CURRENT electorate to selfgovern.
    Not the electorate of two and a half centuries ago.

  365. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    If you think being branded the racist party causes you electoral problems, just wait until you get branded the christian party.
    Tea Party Jesus FTW!

  366. B Moe says:

    The same Thomas Jefferson that wrote this?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

    That Thomas Jefferson? 

    Have you developed some sort of substance abuse problem, Nishi?  Because honestly you have lost any ability to make a sane, coherent argument, and you used to be able to do that.

    Get help.

  367. Bob Reed says:

    Nishbot the TTP is trying to sneak in under the radar, and make it look like she got the irrefutable LAST WORD! on this thread that the wingnutz couldn’t answer because of the absolute metaphysical certitude of her word…

    That’s a bizzare kind of psychosis there, for sure, kind of like the whacko street bum that stands there mubling epithets under his breath, as the policemen walk away having cut him a break and not subject him to being 5150’d.

    Pathos and black comedy…

  368. SBP says:

    The Tea Party is primarily a religious movement

    Liar.

  369. SBP says:

    That’s why I cited a primary document. Read it. Enjoy.

    Read it. Then enjoy the feeling of dozens of people laughing at your incompetent ass.

    I mean, you can’t even lie in a competent fashion, SFAG.

  370. Pablo says:

    Is she actually arguing that? TrollHammer™ is an outstanding timesaver.

  371. SBP says:

    Nah, Pablo. She isn’t “arguing” anything. She’s just trying once again to get the attention that Daddy never gave her. Same thing with SFAG, I suspect.

  372. Silver Whistle says:

    If you think the griefer is wanking herself into a frenzy now, wait until the midterms.

  373. guinsPen says:

    So does your ‘zono.

  374. serr8d says:

    Strangely attracted to the Christian religion, isn’t little Nishi the Shams Muslim? Just so happens, the attraction is natural

    Contrary to popular belief, the divine does not govern by authority or force, but by attraction. If people would just realize this point, it would clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

    This is in complete contrast to, say, the Muslim god, which is in fact a god of power and force, if not in principle, then certainly in fact. No offense, but it is what it is. Everywhere it has appeared, Islam has been forced upon people through violence and coercion. In the case of Christianity, it spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire, because when people heard the story, they were mysteriously attracted to it. In the case of Islam, it spread because people were attracted to the idea of keeping their head attached to their body.

    Or, in Nishi’s case, the Islam pretension is simply a ploy to attract a particular man she’s chased from blog to blog, a man who shunned her anyways. Prolly with a shod foot.

  375. B Moe says:

    She’s not even really griefing, its more like watching a sideshow geek trying to catch a chicken. Mystifying, mildly entertaining, amusing even, but not really very annoying.

  376. B Moe says:

    America is 70% christian…..but liberal christians don’t attend the tea party.

    Obama is a liberal christian.

    My hypothesis is that you can be an American Christian, and not be in the Tea Party.

     I mean, seriously?

  377. serr8d says:

    That’s it! Obama is Shams, too~!.

  378. guinsPen says:

    sideshow geek

    nishizonochickenchoker

  379. happyfeet says:

    nice!! Mr. serr8d I thought it was smart of Mr. Instapundit to present that video as a “how to” handle instigators video cause I don’t think everyone would really know.

    Hi nishi that is not at all true about the Tea Party being all Christian like that. Actually the christian ones are jealous jealous jealous. But read the comments there… Mr. daley and Mr. happy and Mr. Beldar and Mr. JD and Mr. Ag80 and someone named Brandon think it’s awful to social con up the Tea Party.

    Then these two weirdos I do not know them they show up and I don’t care what they think.

    But so far the Tea Party has admirably kept its eye on the ball.

  380. bh says:

    Who can forget this rousing religious sermon?

  381. happyfeet says:

    oh by the way all those people listed are Christians – except for maybe Brandon him I don’t know – Christians what don’t want to see the Tea Party hijacked by social cons and Mr. daley in particular is very staunch in the way of the Christian but even he thinks the Tea Party is on the right track how it is

  382. Cletus The Trollslayer says:

    Obama is a liberal christian.

    Japanime mutant sufi virgins confuse me so. I thought his church attendance was purely for networking. Wasn’t that the all-purpose lefty rationalization and workaround for countenancing his fucking lunatic minister? And how does his opposition to gay marriage fit in your yeast infected liberal christian notion?

  383. bh says:

    Even more religious extremism!

  384. Bob Reed says:

    happyfeet,

    As someone who is certifiably a God-bothery Christian, a filthy opressing Catholic no less, I assure you that there is no concerted effort by all of us to hijack the Tea-Party movement.

    Since it’s Sunday, I’ll cite…
    (from Matthew 22:21)
    “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and unto God that which belongs to God”…

    But the message for Christians here can in part be interpreted as there being no need for a theological governance based on Christ here on earth, since His kingdom is on heaven and earth already…

    /God-bothering-and-scripture-citations

  385. happyfeet says:

    I know it’s not ALL just some. We must be vigilant.

    I forgot the some qualifier. Cause social con ones to me are understood already to be “some.” Some social cons like to act like they speak on behalf of the whole of Christianity… but they don’t. They forget the qualifiers a lot too.

  386. bh says:

    OT but I think Bob mentioned this guy as someone to watch.

    Okay, have a good Sunday all. Later.

  387. sdferr says:

    “Firing squads” was meant metaphorically. (I would not have felt the need to add that before the Obama Regime came to power.)

    Or before PP decided to accuse Goldstein of advocating violence, but that somehow got lost in the fog, eh?

  388. Bob Reed says:

    Colonel West is AWESOME!

  389. happyfeet says:

    I never saw Gladiator yet.

  390. Bob Reed says:

    I wasn’t gettin’ down on you happy, or picking a nit. All of us God-botherers for real know there’s only one guy who can really speak for us all…

    And if He starts holding press conferences anytime soon, all terrestrial cares will be moot anyway :)

    Man it must be lovely in L.A. today, for reals!

  391. LBascom says:

    It’s funny to see someone upset about the socialist direction the country is taking also worried about Christians hampering the effort to stop it.

    News flash: Christians are your best hope in stopping socialism.

    Ever notice that Europe, whose path we are following, is noticeably less Christian than the US? That Christianity exists in inverse proportion to the power government has over the people (a free America is the most Christian nation on earth, Communist China one of the most hostile to Christianity)? That one and all, the progg trolls here rage against Christians? These aren’t coincidental.

    Sorry Christians also come with an aversion to such things as abortion, gay marriage, and recreational drug use, and try to convince our fellow citizens our society would be better with the absence of such things, but the concept of individual self determination is a Christian one, and therefore Christians are the main bulwarks against the collectivist agenda. Hence Nishis hysteria.

    Take her advice at your own peril.

  392. happyfeet says:

    If all the social con ones were like you we’d be in very very good shape to take our case to the American people.

    What nishi is trying to do, she’s trying to do cause it would be very very delimiting of the potential of the Tea Party were it to become perceived as captive of the religious right.

    Is that controversial? That it would be delimiting? I don’t think that everyone is in agreement. Mr. Hitchcock at that thread…

    #

    As a newly transplanted Texan of Nation of Texas descent, this definitely interests me. But what interests me more is this idea of social liberals thinking they can just drag the social conservatives along without giving any ground.

    I am a fiscal conservative. I am also a social conservative. I realize a third party event would be deleterious to whichever party from which it originates. But if you offer me a fiscal conservative with mad social liberal agendas, I will most definitely vote third party. And so will very large numbers of social conservatives.

    It’s like the TEA Party to Republicans. If Republicans want to maximize their success, they will incorporate the TEA Party values. If Conservatives want to maximize their success, they must incorporate social Conservative values. “You cannot win without us” is no longer the powah talking to the little people. It’s the little people talking to the powah. At least this time around.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 4/12/2010 @ 4:11 pm

    It’s hard to say for sure but I think I read that as the Tea Party being a priori an inadequate flag under which to unite Team R. This one is looking for Tea Party Plus, and make no mistake it’s in development I think.

    This applies to JHo’s thread too.

  393. happyfeet says:

    were like you Bob I mean

  394. happyfeet says:

    see why come doesn’t lee get hauled off to the woodshed when he forgets to say sorry SOME Christians also come with an aversion to such things as abortion, gay marriage, and recreational drug use… ?

    broad brusher

  395. sdferr says:

    Kinda reads like a weak hostage taking manifesto to me.

  396. happyfeet says:

    It’s not too early to be vigilant about the takings of hostages is all I want to say.

    There are signs already if people care to look.

  397. Bob Reed says:

    Lee,

    Dan’s brother Enoch has an interesting thread going about a similar topic, and he might enjoy your insight; as well as you might enjoy the commentary as well.

    http://powip.com/2010/04/why-christians-are-offensive/

    Especially the gist of the comment you posted at #399.

    All the best

  398. sdferr says:

    Don’t you move or I will shoot this man [holds gun to own head].

  399. Abe Froman says:

    see why come doesn’t lee get hauled off to the woodshed when …

    Because saying something well once is better than saying something 12,000 times poorly?

  400. happyfeet says:

    Enoch’s post touches on what I’ve been trying to say with my words Bob… there are some Christians which have been very careless about taking care that their religion is held in esteem I think… Christians can’t just embrace victimhood and separatism or else the prophecy – it’s self come-trueing. Who are the Christians what are saying ok here’s maybe part of what makes “them” “hate” us and I have an idea what we can do for so that doesn’t happen.

    Well, there’s me, and you, and Carin. And Dan C. And like a kajillion people I’m leaving out. But the Hot Air ones, many of them, haven’t gotten the memo, and Mr. Hitchcock scrawled return to sender on his memo.

  401. Bob Reed says:

    I’m apt to agree with sdferr on this happy,

    That fellow sounds like he’s making demands and not speaking of reasonable compromises. I don’t want to get all judgy and such, and would like to speak to him at greater length to see exactly what he needed to see incorporated into any political platforms or strategies.

    We need someone strong like Reagan was, to stand for firmly for traditional morality, but to articulate well that the same morality cannot be dictated to all by government-lest it become something fundamentally un-Constitutional and tyrranical.

    God help me for using it as an example, but, let’s face it, abortion can’t be outlawed because of the beliefs of some folks as well as a lack of scientific “fact” to assert exactly when life begins. Regardless of what those of us who abhor it think, it’s here to stay.

    Now using government money to pay for it is a completely different matter altogether.

    That’s my example of a realistic compromise by social-cons. It’s one Reagan often used himself.

    We need to get our house in order and not swing wildly from a far-left statist agenda to a social-con agenda-regardless of my personal belief system.

    And I ain’t no sell-out either!

  402. sdferr says:

    Memo:

    Se

    cu

    lar.

    End message

  403. happyfeet says:

    well said I think Bob

    succinctly well said I think sdferr… that once-useful concept needs must be robustly useful again I think

  404. happyfeet says:

    that’s a word what could have informed the fat girl’s manifesto wonderfully I think

  405. LBascom says:

    Thanks bob, I’ll check it out.

  406. Bob Reed says:

    For sdferr @406

    http://tinyurl.com/65qq5x

    Start it at around 2:45 elapsed time

  407. LBascom says:

    “Who are the Christians what are saying ok here’s maybe part of what makes “them” “hate” us and I have an idea what we can do for so that doesn’t happen.”

    Ahh, the marketing of Christianity.

    Yeah, Jesus should have thought of that. Maybe they wouldn’t a crucified him…

  408. LBascom says:

    “see why come doesn’t lee get hauled off to the woodshed when he forgets to say sorry SOME Christians also come with an aversion to such things as abortion, gay marriage, and recreational drug use… ?”

    Uh huh. And SOME fiscal cons have an aversion to more spending and higher taxes…

  409. happyfeet says:

    hah that was funny lee what you said

  410. Nishi the Kingslayer says:

    ‘feets all im saying is that the Tea Party is wholly composed of self-described christians.
    Have you seen any atheists or buddhists?

    I am not saying you or I would describe them as Christians…..I am saying they would describe themselves that way.
    If everyone in the Tea Party describes themselves as a christian, then the Tea Party is a religious movement, not a political one.
    This is a hypothesis based on observed data.
    I have not seen an atheist or a buddhist step forward to represent the religious diversity of the Tea Party.
    I have not seen “god is dead” (or “god is ded” lol) popping up among the socialist/hitler/monkey/witchdocter signs carried by the Tea Party attendees.
    Have you?

    If this becomes known, then it is simply a PR disaster for the Tea Party, far worse than just being called racists.

  411. Mike LaRoche says:

    then the Tea Party is a religious movement, not a political one.
    This is a hypothesis based on observed data.

    No, it’s wishful thinking based upon the voices in your head.

    “god is dead”

    “Nietzche is dead.” – God

Comments are closed.