Focus on the Family founder James Dobson spelled out on Super Tuesday why social conservatives don’t accept McCain: “I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.â€
Dobson went on to say that if McCain is the nominee, he’ll sit out a presidential election for the first time in his life.
It’s unclear whether Dobson still has much clout. Can McCain overcome this level of hostility from social conservatives?
Meanwhile, columnist Kathleen Parker writes on today’s Opinion Page that Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and other “Kamikaze Republicans†are irrational and arrogant in opposing McCain and arguing that there’s no difference between him and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. “Principles shouldn’t be so inflexible that strict adherence elevates a worse alternative,†she said.
278 Comments
Sounds like this James Dobson, whoever he is, is the leader of the Pandering Power party, otherwise known by the acronym “pp.”
I would say John McCain’s five years being a prisoner of war in Vietnam earned him some leeway to occasionally use “foul language.”
Harry Truman was another President who occasionally used peppery language when among his old WWI 35th Infantry Division soldier buddies.
I don’t think McCain use of colorful language will be the reason people don’t vote for him. Being a “hot head” probably will.
My concern is the psychological problems he has from being tortured and being held for all those years. You can’t go thru what he did and not have it effect you in adverse ways. Our next president needs to have a cool head. We don’t need a President who goes around singing “bomb, bomb Iran on his way to the oval office everyday.
And JWink, I would suggest you google “James Dobson”.
hee hee hee hee hee hee heeeeee…..
The Republicans wanted these racscals. Now they are the Republicans problem. As a Democrat, I hope they all stay home and brood on Election Day. I will be out casting my ballot for either Hillary or Obama- hopefully the latter!
The National leaders of the Republican Party and it sounds like two of Kansas own are out of touch with the people. It is time to change who represents Kansas in Washington. Brownback is becoming a Bob Dole. Dole spent so much time wanting to be anything but a representative of the state of Kansas he never returned to the state except every four years to make a few appearances. He did not even pretend that he had a desire to live here in the outback. Brownback is following in Doles footsteps and it is time to stop it before it gets started. He needs to represent Kansas in Person and stop playing national politics.
America is a much greater country than it appears if one were to only look at McCain, Clinton or Obama. Surely it’s obvious that the best people and most competent people our country has to offer do not aspire to be President! The 50% of Americans who do not register to vote sends a strong signal. “None of the Above” should be a choice in every election!
Right on, ma, dump every seated republican in Topeka, and elect democrats who can actually lead the state into the twenty-first century. (happy face sticking his tongue out)
But then again, watching limburger go postal is priceless.
Well I see the fallout is complete, the Religious Right finally figured out they were nothing but Pawns.
I did predict almost from the beginning that when these two groups got in bed with each other the time would come that the R.R. would finally realized that they had bedmated with those that saw them as fools.
When one group makes the claim to be doing it in the name of faith while the other group see faith as nothing more then a way to control others. Religious people may believe in a unseen God but that does not mean they are totally without wits.
But an equal problem is the observation I made when the R.R. seemed to be losing their control over the Government. You would not be wise to think they would shrink away quietly into the night. Huckabee winning is a sign of that, he is personable and appears down to earth. I find Pastor Terry Fox to be the same way. It is said that Politics is a “Godless battle field” the reason has become clear with the Huckabee campaign and the Push poll calls. You can not keep claiming the moral high ground when you are doing or profiting from an amoral act. The Christian faith demands selfless acts, not excuses the outcome by saying the ends justifies the means.
That a way Dog, blame a whole group of people from the actions of a few.
I don’t think I know you anymore Dog, maybe I never did. As time goes on and after your son joined the military, you have swung so far left, it’s not a wonder you haven’t gotten black eyes from meeting yourself in a head on collision.
… quote from the Rev. Terry Fox:
“Some might compare the religious right to a snake. We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.”
Finally, an easy choice for President. Of the three viable remaining people, they are all liberals. Not that that’s a bad thing, but jeeze, they all suck. It would seem that this coutry deserves better.
“It would seem that this coutry deserves better.”
This country is a democracy. If the people wanted better they’d use their vote better. Democracy works. Unfortunately, our elected officials are the proof of it.
You know sometimes, I really hope there is a God, and when good ole Dobby meets her, I would love to see that moment.
Yesterday a tiny number of Republicans made a decision. Most of the Republicans in this state didn’t participate
And, IF the Religious Right has figured out the Republican Party USED them, they will need greater numbers to go it alone.
The Republican Party got bushco elected twice by combining the forces of the NeoCons, the RR and the members of The Grand Ole Party (which has disappeared!) I’m betting the faction that will revive and gain strength for the future are those who know what Conservative was and should be.
“Yesterday a tiny number of Republicans made a decision. Most of the Republicans in this state didn’t participate”
As many times as more “conservative” posters on this board use the defense “blame a whole group of people from the actions of a few”, you’d think the rest of the Party or the rest of the “Christians” would show up to protest the direction the religious right is taking the Republicans, conservatism, the government, the country - but they never do.
Sorry guys, but your silence is your consent. You’re allowing yourselves to be painted with the same brush, so take what comes with it.
Or more aptly, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … you know the rest.
Yup the GOP is in jihad with itself.
It’s ALMOST as messy as Iraq! And a whole lot more amusing.
Doggonit! So the Republicans are starting to figure out that us Dems have a mole planted in their organization! A mole destined to become President!
Since when did you become a Dem Kansas. Being trolled are you?
It’s sad that a moderate like John McCain is being vilified by the conservative Republicans…just goes to show how out of touch they are with mainstream America or anyone who thinks outside their box. Lots of presidents had bad tempers and cussed..so what? My only concern is that who ever gets elected is able to lead us out of the mess we’re in as a result of the last 7 years of greed, incompetence, and mismanagement. No matter who gets elected, it has to be better than Bush.
What the hell will Rush and his cronies focus on for the next year? McCain bashing? Bash all you want Rush…the Dems love it!
Naw PM, when Kansas quit I took over his monicker.
Until the WEB requires registration, anything goes.
A couple of Democratic debates ago when tempers were flaring between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards a religious right, Republican woman I work with made the comment that the outcome of that debate was that it drove people to the Republican Party.
Of course in the true spirit of being a woman of personal responsibility she has not once mentioned the attacks Republicans are doing on another or what this says about their own party.
The situation ethics of the “right” just amuse me.
I’ll remind Dobson that he picked the last president…and we see how that turned out. HAHA.
Kansas,so you’re really not ex Kansas? Why would you take his name? Were you here before as someone else?
It’s symbolic. exKansas was a whining Republican with frequent meltdowns.
A Democrat has taken over his monicker just as the Democrats will take over this state.
Ebbe and flow…karma.
“I’ll remind Dobson that he picked the last president…and we see how that turned out. HAHA.”
I haven’t, yet, figured out how the religious right in all their devotion to God and honesty can be such terrible judges of character: Tom Delay, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, George W. Bush, … . If you’re an addict or a homosexual -and you’re lying about it, the operative word here being “lying”- you get the support of the religious right. Being a big deceiver makes you the darling of the religious right. Does anyone else see something wrong with that?
Well Dobby may stay “pure” or whatever.
But Rush and the radio ranters?
They’re already crawdadding.
Starting this past Thursday, right after WIllard Romney dropped out, talk radio went wall to wall John McCain ads.
Yup, that’s right. On Wednesday Johnny mac was a no go for the radio heads and on Thursday he was a paying sponsor for their programs.
NOW I predict we will see them begin to attack Huckabee with the same ferocity they had attacked McCain.
Being a Republican means being loyal to nothing.
Have you been to Dobson’s website, lately? None of this holy advice he’s offering to save the soul of America is free. The guy’s in it for the money. If he can get a bunch of people riled up about morals they’ll subscribe to his website to get the latest info on what movies it’s ok for the family to go see. I bet membership at his site goes up and down n four year cycles.
I hope everyone who voted FOR the hate amendment sees that they were duped by dobson and his ilk.
They should feel so used and ashamed and dirty…
“I hope everyone who voted FOR the hate amendment sees that they were duped by dobson and his ilk.
They should feel so used and ashamed and dirty…”
Based on Kansas Republicans turning out for Huckabee, I think they think they’ve found the guy who’s on their side and isn’t duping them.
Dobson unfortunately, represents the religious right view of the world. A view the republican party platform better drop, or their numbers will continue to drop even further.
Maybe that is good. Maybe a new party will emerge from the rubble which will be more in line with conservatives of today.
Republicans have no claim to being the party of “family values” any more so that democrats can claim to be fiscally conservative.
“I think they think they’ve found the guy who’s on their side and isn’t duping them”
YET!
Dobson = The holier-than-thou telling the mentally deficient what to think.
That’s the religious right in a nutshell.
Democrats/Republicans…I still don’t see much difference. Their primary goal is to protect themselves and their office, and to hell with the elecorate. Both parties hold the voters in contempt. Both parties (on the national level) are guilty of waste, self preservation and increasing our taxes. Both parties (on the national level) are responsible for their lifetime pension, free health care and pay raises every single year–something we know they did not earn.
Both parties should be ashamed of themselves..I see absolutely nothing for either party to be proud of.
The Republican Party is not in bad shape at all. We might not keep the White House, this year, but 12 year stretches, held by the same party, are rare in our history.
McCain has weaknesses. We know that already. McCain has NOT won a majority of voters, he simply won the “winner take all” states that were set up for Rudy’s benefit.
It amuses me to see the liberals, who used to stand up for McCain, now attack McCain, when his nomination is assured.
—–
On Dobson?
He needs to grow up. This is ego, not strategy. He must know that he would get destroyed, if he ran himself.
Why then, does Dobson require a carbon copy of himself?
Ego.
Lets think this through: The Constitutional Amendment issues, like the “Marriage Amendment” and the like?
A United States President has absolutely positively no legal role in a Constitutional Amendment.
NONE.
Huck is a promoter of the “Fair Tax” for instance. But a huge portion of that idea is that it will NOT take effect until we repeal the Income Tax, another Constitutional Amendment.
The “promise” of a Constitutional Amendment, by a Presidential candidate, is cheap.
There will never be any recorded vote, by the President, there will never be any Veto opportunity, by the President.
The President has NO role.
—–
More to the point:
I do not think that a Constitutional Amendment, on the Marriage issue, is required.
It was BILL CLINTON who signed the “Defense of Marriage Act” — for those who fear that SCOTUS might overturn DOMA, a simple Act of Congress, limiting Court Jurisdiction, on DOMA, is all that would be required to keep the courts out of this issue.
Not advocating anything.
Just, once again, reminding my Conservative friends that Constitutional Amendments are usually a bad idea, are usually not necessary to achieve our policy goals, and are often used for political purposes, by those who know they will never be ratified.
Capn
Poll after poll has shown that active members of the “religious right” are more educated and make more money than the general public.
Defense of Marriage Act had HUGE support, by both parties.
Are you Democrats mad at your fellow Democrats, who voted for it?
Are you mad at Bill Clinton, who SIGNED DOMA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
John McCain is not fit for the office of US presidency. His 5 years as a prisoner may very well have caused him psychological damage that he never quite healed. The man has issues. He is extremely insensitive and conceited. I have alot of respect for him as a soldier, but, not as a politician. He needs to retire and spend time with his family.
Just my humble opinion.
I noticed that no one has commented on what Kathleen Parker has wrote in her column. I haven’t read it yet but just the line that I see at the top of the blog. Did anyone else see this and what she is saying.
“Principles shouldn’t be so inflexible that strict adherence elevates a worse alternative,” she said.
She is ACTUALLY saying that my principles, should be flexible. ARE YOU CRAZY? That is the reason they are my principles, they are NOT flexible. These are my core beliefs, the way I should live my life, the parameters I have given myself, ALWAYS, not when it is easy.
You all are getting so excited that rush and laura and hannity are pointing out how far Mccain is from the true conservative core beliefs, which is something true conservatives who have been paying attention have already seen for quite a few years now.
But like I said a long time ago, there are NO true conservatives running for president. I’m not part of the christian coalition and could really care less what dobbs has to say or how religious huckabee is, but he is closer to my conservative beliefs then Mccain could ever hope to be.
I respect Mccain immensely for his service in the military but there is nothing that would make me vote for him SIMPLY because he has an R after his name. You see I HAVE my own principles.
Now come november if mccain IS the nominee, I might very well pull the handle for the dem, just so I can watch another Jimma 4 years. Of course anything bad that happens, bush will be blamed for the next 4-8 years anyway.
“She is ACTUALLY saying that my principles, should be flexible. ARE YOU CRAZY?”
Perhaps she means applicable across party and ideological lines. My “conservative” friends at work will spend all day bashing in-fighting on the part of Democrats but never mention a word about the same behaviors on the part of Republicans. The principle, “Oh those Democrats are bad people because they argue in-house.” without similar application to the same behaviors on the part of Republicans ISN’T a principle. Or as a principle it needs to applied with “flexibility” so that the same applies to Republicans. The “Democrats are bad they argue amongst themselves” with no corresponding application of a principle about the same in-house fighting amongst Republicans isn’t a principle. At best it’s a double standard. At worst, Republicans and the “right” are really delusional. And I, for one, don’t want people that out of touch with reality running this country anymore or ever again.
Of course there is in fighting on both sides. There is an easy way around this and what I’ve dreamed of for years and that is that they stay away from the infighting and concentrate on the issues.
Tell me what you are going to do, tell me how you are going to fix things, where do you stand on the issues. Don’t tell me the opponents record on things, if I’m paying attention I know this already. I didn’t need rush or romney or dobbs to tell me mccain’s record or how far from conservative he has come.
Not at all Regular, if you have not noticed the party has been in trouble for some time and it has nothing to do with the Democrats. We allowed the few to gain far too much power in the party so now everything is consummated.
The very meaning of Conservative has been changed within the GOP to one that bares no likeliness to Conservative. Like some play written by Orwell less government now means larger government, fiscal conservative now means put it on the credit card, Social conservative once meant to be prudent about the Constitution and what was good for the country. Now it means to invoke your concept of right and wrong on people and the Constitution be damned.
In many aspects my choice in a Presidential candidate is the most Conservative out there. I use to describe my type of Republican as a moderate. BUT even that term has been turned around to one that is called a liberal. Yet if I was truly Liberal I would be supporting any of the other Candidates, Mc Cain, Huckabee or Romney! They all wish to ignore the very principles of that made the party and America what it was and now adopt an imperialist foreign policy. Balance the budget with browed money and print more money without it having any worth. There is a limit on that credit card and when it is time to pay what is there going to be worth left to pay with?
Being a Republican means being reserved in all matters, spending, violating social liberties and pushing people around. I have not forgotten that, have you?
So when do we a see third party candidate from the extreme religious right? Roy Moore, COME ON DOWN, your people need you! If you’re lucky maybe the Huckster will get on board!
LOL
I think the Huckabee win yesterday indicates the thinking in the RR have explained what is the best chance of overturning Roe v Wade — through the judiciary. We all need to remember there are aging members of the Supreme Court, BUT at least equally important are the appointments a president makes at the federal level! A case has to get to the Supremes before they come into play. Getting a Supreme confirmed is a little more difficult than just loading up with federal judges. That’s where Huckabee supporters may see his value. Isn’t abortion and other legislated morality the kinds of issues that define “Conservatives” today?
“So when do we a see third party candidate from the extreme religious right?”
The religious right have had this option, especially with the “Constitution Party”. They didn’t take it. They’re continuing their attempted takeover of the Republican Party.
McCain is promising to load the Court with anti-Roe v Wade judges, too. But he won’t go for big changes in the Constitution, like the marriage ban. The religious right are going for much higher stakes than some federal judge appointees. Just look at their attempts to undermine a woman’s right to privacy in this state. You think the rr isn’t looking for a candidate who’ll be looking into medical records and hotel registrations nationally, think again.
Econ101
Posted February 10, 2008 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Capn
Poll after poll has shown that active members of the “religious right” are more educated and make more money than the general public.
lol
you mean the religious right living in trailer parks and shopping for home skolin supplies at walmart with their 8 snotty nose unbathed kids in tow??
you of course are very bright.
you just throw out a lot of unfounded comments to stroke your ego.
“Being a Republican means being reserved in all matters, spending, violating social liberties and pushing people around. I have not forgotten that, have you?”
======================================
Violating social liberties and pushing people around is what you define as Republican?
Actually, being Republican is more about tradition - carrying for the same values as your parents had, their parents and those before them. In my family, the first Republican was about 1850. A former Whig, then he switched to Republican. There were a lot of activists in my family, abolitionists, Underground Railroad conductors and etc.
Being Republican means not being all things to all people. It means you take a stand and stick to it. Perhaps the conservatism comes from a long line of ministers. First one being from Wales in the 1670s. They helped set up and establish the Pennypack Church. Then, there were early ministers that went to North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio. Appointed caretakers for the poor and seeing to their community needs. Setting up very early Underground Railroad sites as early as 1830.
Placing churches on Midwest prairies, being school teachers and taking part in their community as leaders. Entering Kansas before it was a State. Again, establishing churches and leading in their community.
Being Republican means following an ideology that is conservative and traditional. Putting up with the let’s change this and that, even though it’s not broken is not an option. It’s true that Bush got out of hand, but part of being a Republican means that one understands that you don’t measure success or failures a cup at a time, you look at a lifetime and generations, always looking forward.
Being Republican is not a lifestyle, it’s a political party. Some on the left think being a Democrat is a lifestyle and try their best to fit in the mold. Those Dems make up their mind depending on the news of the day.
-Not me or members of my family-
The same tradition and values that worked for hundreds of years still work, we don’t change at the drop of a hat.
Of course we get blasted at lot, it’s part of the society that does that. However, whenever someone needs a rock solid citizen to do something, they come looking for someone who is standing strong in their faith, doesn’t waiver at the first sign of trouble and carries tradition with pride without shame.
But hey, that’s me - you can decide who you want to be, I already know who I am and who I will be tomorrow and 20 years from now.
What strikes me most about McCain is his Bush III approach - basically, he doesn’t want to change anything from the George W Bush agenda - more tax cuts that we can’t afford - more war that we can’t afford - more restrictions on women - more of the same George.
Given that Bush has an approval rating 30% and sinking, what exactly is he going to do or say to distance himself from George?
Maybe John is living in a bubble, but someone needs to tell him that Americans are damned pissed off about the last seven years.
JWink: I thought HST was a Capt. commanding a artillery battery in WW1, not infantry…. Econ101: Your comment about the religous right earning more and being better eduated seems to indicate the “better’ folks understand what is going on more fully, hence Republicans. What about the gay community which is the best educated and biggest spending niche in society, are they Republicans too? Your credences would suggest so.
The “leaders” of the Religious Right need to pull their heads out of the collective fleetwoods and address the issues that are TRULY important to this country.
Gay marriage? You are worried that a loving couple of the same sex might want to marry? Fiscally, we are sliding into a black hole and you are worried about that?
Christ.
Abortion? You are worried about a woman’s choice when we can’t afford to care for our own without borrowing the money from the Chinese?
Damn.
These folks need to grow the flip up and worry about the REAL issues.
Republicans - the electric bill is past due, they’re going to shut off the power tomorrow and there is no money coming in, but they’re worried about the guy across the street holding hands with his boyfriend.
Only in America.
Here’s one faction of today’s Republican Party (with mention of another faction {RR} only to the extent NeoCons USE them. Doesn’t sound like anything I choose to be part of. And, I really wonder if it’s what people who want smaller government and more fiscally responsible government want either. Maybe eyes need to open wider and more need to really look at more than “tradition.” No cites included as I have needed to retype in order to even post and then onlu IF I leave out the clicks. Use “the google” if you want to see these quotes inside their context. None below is written by me, came from a myriad of places on the net you may go to read about NeoCons.
—————————
“Neocons” believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots.
Neocons are Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union’s fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America’s defense spending and its role in the world.
Most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance.
Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world.
Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public’s patriotism or its desire for reform.
A “neocon” is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.
Neoconservatism emphasises foreign policy as paramount responsibility of government, seeing the need for the U.S. acting as the world’s sole superpower as indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.
Neocons do not feel … alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.
There is a shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power.
The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution.
It took, improbably, the arrival of George W. Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet — that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world — as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.
Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government.
“Poll after poll has shown that active members of the “religious right” are more educated and make more money than the general public.”
Posted by econ.
And ain’t this the same guy who denounces polls every time one pops up showing dems beating repubs? Okay, even if true (which I doubt), it speaks volumes that those same RR people will do everything possible to keep their tax deferrals, tax shelters and cry like children when someone wants them to pay their fair share. Or ask them to help pay the way for child health via SCHIP.
Yep, the RR certainly have their collective heads on straight. I’m sure God will give them a pass into heaven. (sarcasm off)
You missed a key word “Reserved” you do not go around pushing others around just because you are the biggest kid on the block. That is the argument that the Bush Administration has presented in their reasoning for “spreading Democracy”. As the last super power it is our duty to insure the security of the world, spreading the ideology of Democracy through out the world for the betterment of the United States of America. If that is not a true indication of the influence of the writings of Leon Trotsky I am not sure what is on our foreign policy? What the U.S. Government is now taking lessons from a Communist!
“Being Republican means following an ideology that is conservative and traditional. Putting up with the let’s change this and that, even though it’s not broken is not an option. It’s true that Bush got out of hand, but part of being a Republican means that one understands that you don’t measure success or failures a cup at a time, you look at a lifetime and generations, always looking forward”
And yet one of the complains about Ron Paul is he want to take it back to the past.
Back to a system that did work and worked well, some of his views and opinions I do not agree with. But then I have gotten passed deciding on one or a few issues alone unless those issues have a real and irreversible outcome on this country. That is the point, it has become broken and need corrected. You mention Ministers, they would be up front about sin but did not force others to live by the standards of their own faith. To do otherwise is to cheapen that faith, calling it into a decision on its right and wrong by others who do not share that faith. But that is what the Religious Right is doing by trying to force other to live as if they are governed by the Laws of God. The R.R often point to Thessalonians. and Corinthians as their justification for what they are doing. But Paul was addressing the people of the faith not the non-believers.
“It amuses me to see the liberals, who used to stand up for McCain, now attack McCain, when his nomination is assured.”
That’s funny Paul. I had never thought of Dobson as being a liberal! ;)
I see some on the ‘left’ questioning McCain’s positions; it is still the ‘right’ who spew the vitriol. Have you checked out Rush’s website?
And Paul - I don’t know about your ‘polls’ indicating superior education and income but I know that by both measures I am above median. In fact, I suppose I should be a Republican and advocate passing on a huge debt to our grandchildren instead of raising my taxes to pay my fair share of the current budget. Of course, it WOULD help if we cut stupid spending like the trillions for Bush’s elective war and all the earmarks in Bush’s budget. (Did you read that this morning?)
http://www.kansas.com/news/nation_world/story/307329.html
President’s budget full of earmarks
Despite Bush’s criticism of Congress on the issue, the budget includes funding requests for thousands of pet projects.
BY ROBERT PEAR
New York Times
WASHINGTON - President Bush often denounces the propensity of Congress to earmark money for pet projects. But in his new budget, Bush has requested money for thousands of similar projects.
He asked for money to build fish hatcheries, eradicate agricultural pests, conduct research, pave highways, dredge harbors and perform many other specific local tasks.
The details are buried deep in the president’s budget, just as most congressional earmarks are buried in obscure committee reports that accompany spending bills
As usual, the typical mischaracterization of the Conservatives and Religious people continues…
Most Christians and Republicans couldn’t care less about Homosexuals. It is the Homosexuals who are pushing the issue about getting married and forcing the state to recognize them.
The people who are opposed to the state recognizing a choice like Homosexual marriage are merely pushing back. We are not the ones making it an issue.
McCain will lose because all the “true” conservatives said they would vote for a Democrat before they would support McCain.
Should I be wrong and McCain wins it means that a) “true” conservatives are irrelevant losers with about as much clout at Earth First or PETA; or b) “true” conservatives are colossally vacuous and more interested in hating liberals than holding any actual beliefs.
Nathan
Posted February 10, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
As usual, the typical mischaracterization of the Conservatives and Religious people continues…
….and here comes the marine-boy to prove us all correct about the evils of the Conservatives and Religious reichwing!
It always makes me laugh a little bit when I see the liberals complaining about government spending when they are the biggest proponents of more of it.
Apophis,
Do you sit around all day just waiting for me to post something so you can harrass me?
“LOL yes sister Linda… Preach on! Welcome to the flock of the awakened!”
( Shoot that happens every time I break out the Bible for a reference or correct spelling).
Actually, when I read the above links, I got a feeling that was pretty scary. As in the RR’s plans for this country show a total disregard for the Constitution.
In other words, listen to the difference between JFK and Romney concerning religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Jr03ADQmk,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16933414
I think you will understand just how badly people are now pandering to the religious extremists in this country, and how, if we returned to the intelligent words of Kennedy, we might be able to bury the RR, instead of pander to it.
No marine-boy, I don’t sit around all day wating for you to post something.
When you do post, you invariably type something reichwing and arrogant. I really have no chose but to put you in your place.
It’s almost like shooting fish in a barrel.
“Most Christians and Republicans couldn’t care less about Homosexuals.”
Not quite, Nathan: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html
Nope Dog, not all Christians are part of the religious right. You and others often confused the two.
I can’t think of a person in my Church that is politically active except for that Mayor fellow. :)
Setting societal standards will always occur. If the nation goes willy nilly and allows anything, then expect anything to happen. Not just talking about gay marriage. Personally, I could care less if they are married or not. I find the gay concept somewhat puzzling myself. I can see having a love for a person and wanting to live with him/her, but that sex thing is pure animal desire and not to be confused with the underlying principle of purpose - that is - to procreate.
I don’t think anyone in my family has “pushed” anyone into anything they didn’t want to do. Nor has anyone that I know of has done that. Again, you are displaying the attributes of zealots, not the majority of Christians.
The Religious Right is actually a Political movement by certain people. I’m not a part of the Religious Right Movement nor is anyone in my family, nor do I know any one personally that is part of that movement.
I don’t watch Pat Roberts or any of the people who claim to speak for Christians. Christians are just ordinary people who practice their faith, live their lives and carry forth traditions.
Do we vote? Yes, I do believe that privilege was earned. Unless your saying that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
I think you need to spend less time on defining what it means to join and participate in a political party and more on what you want to do.
Put people in “filing cabinet” order serves no purpose and its usually a good way to build prejudice that is unjustified.
Thank you Dog! For the little bit of humor. I was getting carried away with this really scary stuff. Not that I will forget easily, just that life needs some breaks too. Huh!?
Oh, and thanks for the links and suggestions yesterday! I think. Sometimes I know ignorance is bliss.
“It is the Homosexuals who are pushing the issue about getting married and forcing the state to recognize them.”
Yeah, those homos should just STFU and stay in the back of the bus, right?
(rolls eyes)
JM Walker,
I am not sure how that link disproves what I said or even begins to counter it at all.
If anything, it only proves your level of bigotry towards those who are Religious.
Hey Nathan congrads on the field promotion! Missed you yesterday but USMC is more important than a little Caucus anyway. Man I thought I was going to have to tied your dad down… He was jumping around and shouting..LOL Ok you know him better then I do, so there is no choice of selling that to you. We did have an enjoyable morning or at least a filling breakfast.
Bloggus,
What bus are they in the back of?
(rolls eyes)
“We are not the ones making it an issue.”
So why are the CONservatives pushing for a ban on gay marriage and not a ban of deficit spending?
Why does gay marriage cause an issue for the Cons?
And liberals are not in favor of more spending, just WISE spending…………
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh………………
Whatever happened to the so-called party of fiscal responsibility?
Whatever happened to the so-called party of less government intrusion into private matters?
OK — Some thoughts…
Dobson represents NO denomination… He is an entity unto himself… A dangerous thing, in and of itself…
Remember Copernicus?? Good Astronomer… He observed that the Sun does not move around the Earth, but rather, the Earth moves around the Sun… He was condemned for his observations…
BY THE CHURCH!!!
Remember Galileo?? Scientist, teacher… He observed that a big ball, and a small ball fall at the same rate of speed… He figured out a way of bring a far off object, into a closer proximity for better viewing (the telescope) He was condemned for his observations, and inventions…
BY THE CHURCH!!!
John Huss — Preached an alternative form of Baptism — BAPTISM — And was soundly condemned, and burned at the Stake…
BY THE CHURCH!!!
Jacques DeMolay — Leader of the Knights Templar… The Knights probably founded the world’s first international banking system, to help fund the Crusades… He gained a LOT of power in and out of the Church… He and many of his followers were hunted down like vermin, and arrested, tortured, and brutally KILLED…
BY THE CHURCH!!!
King Henry VIII — remember him?? Got foul tempered with his wife, because he didnt have a male heir… He wanted permission from the CHURCH to divorce his wife, and marry another woman who could give him a male heir… When the Church said NO, he founded his OWN Church… Then when the woman he married still didnt give him a male heir, he found her to be guilty of adultery and treason… and had her beheaded in public splendor… And he used as his chief aid???
THE CHURCH HE CREATED!!!
(Poor Henry, never knew that the MALE determines the sex of the child…)
Those poor folks in Salem, MA, — convicted and condemned for being witches… Brutally imprisoned, and then either hung, or burned at the stake… for being witches… on testimony from hysterical from young girls… young girl who later confessed to lying… And how were they condemned??
BY THE CHURCH!!!
Now — We have an entire segment of our citizenry who are being relegated to the status of Second Class, Unequal citizens… Because of their sexual orientation… And now some want a Constitutional Amendment, to KEEP these people as Uuequal Citizens… And some of the biggest perpetrators of this cruel hoax???
THE CHURCH!!!
Is it any wonder that the Church has come under scrutiny??
“He asked for money to build fish hatcheries, eradicate agricultural pests, conduct research, pave highways, dredge harbors and perform many other specific local tasks.”
Oh no! How horrible Ben!
Imagine that eradicating pests, paving highways, how awful!
Hey Nathan, ever heard of Rosa Parks?
Let’s all say, “Neocon”.
Neocon, neocon, neocon. Go on, say it. Even if you don’t have a clue what it means. It’s fun to say. Does it mean anything? How would you know? Say it anyway.
Neocon.
Can you have a dual membership in the neocons and the religious right? Why not?
What if you are just a regular guy who thinks his own thoughts and they happen to intersect with the thoughts of the neocon manifesto (whatever that it). Or if what you think is right happens to be in the Bible (gasp). Is he then a neocon religious right winger?
Neocon
Did the marine-boy get another stripe to make his inadequate self-esteem all better?
I’m sure that makes your god all happy.
Are you ready to go out and kill some more infidels for your god?
Got anything after the Great Awakening Chas? :D
Or do you like medieval history. :)
Either Nathan is A) ignorant or B) lying.
Show me, Nathan, where ANY gay or lesbian couple in the state of Kansas has ever applied for a marriage license. Show me, Nathan, where any gay or lesbian couple in Kansas has introduced a bill in the Kansas Legislature that would recognize our right to marry.
What? No such application? What, no such bill?
Yet who is it that’s pushed all the hate legislation? Hmmm….could it be….
SATAN???
No! I know!! It’s the so-called “conservative” radicals who have hijacked our government to pass laws singling out a specific group of people for oppression.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked. Whether it’s your ignorance that shocks me, or your outright lies, it’s hard to tell. I grew up around Marines, and lying was considered dishonorable back then. Has the Corps changed, or is it just you?
Thanks writerdog!
I wasn’t “promoted” to a higher rank. I am going to be in a higher billet.
I will be the Company GySgt, as a SSgt. If that makes sense.
Yeah, my dad is a fun guy. I really wanted to go, but this weekend was wierd. I am still at work, just waiting for final formation.
conservative radicals…Isn’t that an oxymoron?
“Imagine that eradicating pests, paving highways, how awful!”
So it’s just hunky dory when the Republican president does it, but bad, bad, bad when the Democratically controlled Congress does it?
Why wasn’t it bad when the Republican Congress did it?
Eh?
Remember, Bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill until the Democrats reclaimed Congress.
What a flippin’ HIPPO-crite.
Not all earmarks are bad imo. Those that go for the common public good are okay imo.
Those earmarks set out to help a private company or individuals are bad (building a road to a new factory should be done locally - for example)
Nathan writes >>>>
“that sex thing is pure animal desire and not to be confused with the underlying principle of purpose - that is - to procreate.”
==============================
So, Nathan — Based on that premise of “procreation” being the underlying purpose (of sex, I presume)
Does that mean you are ALSO opposed to heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce being banned from marriage??
That is what your statement appoears to advocate….
Hey, Price, since you are such a know-it-all, just how DO you propose balancing the budget and paying down our $9 plus trillion debt?
What’s your answer, know-it-all?
Nathan
Posted February 10, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
I am still at work, just waiting for final formation.
Still at work…waiting for final formation. So you’re supposed to be on duty, defending America, and what are you spending your time on? Attacking other Americans.
I just love how it’s okay for the radical “conservatives” to be playing on blogs, chewing up my tax dollars, on my time, when they’re supposed to be defending me and my family.
Nice.
Trollboy,
Hence the “quotes” around the word “conservative.” They’re not conservative at all. They’re radicals who have hijacked the Republican Party, who have hijacked Christianity, who have hijacked the government of ALL the people, to push a narrow, radical agenda.
“Those earmarks set out to help a private company or individuals”
Like building a $252 million bridge in Alaska so that 50 people can drive rather than take a ferry?
You mean, like that?
Actually I wrote that Chas, and it means what it means. That is, unless you want to re-invent biology and reproduction.
Your conclusion about sterile couples is an erroneous conclusion to a no follow assumption.
Two males or Two females cannot reproduce. Can they adopt? Sure they can and should be allowed by law.
I just find the acts of sex, especially by males to be revolting. But that’s my personal opinion and I don’t force others to not to do as they wish. It’s still revolting to me though.
Yes WSClark, like that - totally unnecessary and classically fraudulent in nature.
As a male who really enjoys sex, I don’t find the act revolting at all, just the opposite, in fact…
“I just find the acts of sex, especially by males to be revolting.”
No one asked you to watch.
And as for earmarks - why didn’t Mister No Earmarks veto a REPUBLICAN spending bill?
Earmark spending has actually gone DOWN under a Democratically controlled Congress, so why aren’t the “fiscally conservative” Republicans applauding
Pelosi and Reid?
Eh?
Now that you mention it, Regular, I can think of a few :roll:
Let’s see >>>>
The Abolitionists (many of whom were part of religious groups) were brutally treated by ANTI-Abolitionists, sometimes tarred and feathered; other times out right lynched and hung; And by WHOM???
By people who claimed to act on their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS… people who taught in their CHURCH that black people had no “feelings” and could thus be whipped/beaten/abused… People who taught in their CHURCHES that black people were unable to learn how to read… (How do you think the African Methodist Episcopal Church came into being?)
Oh, and here’s another one >>>>
WOMEN… were kept from the right to VOTE… And many who opposed Women’s Suffrage were part of various CHURCHES who believed that WOMEN were not created by God to have the right to vote…
Fortunately, the nation was smarter than those CHURCH folks who wanted to keep women at home, barefoot, and pregnant… and not part of an equal class of citizens… with men…
And, even more recently… Many who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, in 1964… were part of organized CHURCH movements who advocated for such things as separate but equal, and other absurdities… in the name of RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!! Stupidity like teacching in CHURCHES… that Blacks had the mark of CAIN on them, and thus were not created to be Equal… CHURCH FOLKS, I say!!
And along with that, I can still remember when mixed race marriage was illegal… in many places…
There is still ONE college that at least until fairly recent years, did not admit black students, and then when they did, they prohibited mixed race dating on campus… A college where George W. Bush made a significant campaign speech in one of his campaigns for the White House…
And Bob Jones University is a CHURCH College of some sort… I believe Independent Baptist of one variety or another…
So, yes, Regular, the “beat” goes on… There is the Church of Aryan Nations; the Church of Christian Identity… BOTH of which are extremely zealous, racist, and many other things that make your hair stand on end when you learn of their CHURCH BELIEFS!!
I believe those qualify as being post Great Awakening… The Great Awakening didnt stop bigotry in the name of the CHURCH in any way — The opportunity was there to stop it cold… But too many were against such a thing!!
Why should I applaud someone for doing their job?
Isn’t that what they were voted into office to do?
WS Clark, there you go using facts again.
;)
Once again no Regular I do not, I know well that all Christians are not the religious right.
I do know some that are members of the churches that seem to be central in the cause locally. One of them is the best friend a person could ever have. And I have had the chance to speak with Pastor Fox on several occasions. He is not a bad man and I just think he got caught up in the movement. I have never met Pastor Wright, but the few times I have heard him speak his is centered and one of the greatest ministers to listen to. You take it that I think that the Religious Right is some sort of evil empire. They are not and I do not question their motives, but they are just wrong in their approach. It causes damage to the faith and in fact can endanger it because it is not the people of faith that it can change or drive away from God. It is the non-believer it drives away from Christ.
The cabinet they are in is of their own making, they have every right to vote anyway they feel. They just do not have the right to force others in a free society to live as people of the faith. Neither under God’s law nor man’s. But you are right in they are a Political action group, which they have a right to be. Just leave my God’s name out of it and do not push their agenda using Christ’s name.
Yes Chas, there are always extremists who claim to be Christian but truly are not.
My ancestor went to Illinois with Elijah Lovejoy who ended up getting killed by Missouri Ruffians. I don’t think they used the banner of Jesus to do the killing, it was about slavery.
Most of the churches are silent, humble and go on year and year out. Some people never have heard of some churches.
But a nice try Chas to point out the negative about people pretending to be Christians, when they are not.
Why do you feel it necessary Chas to load up on the worst scenarios in history to bash a faith?
As I said before, you won’t hear of the millions of humble and Christians things that have been done, because it is not news or history worthy. The fine Christian folks that performed these kind acts, did so and went about their lives.
“They just do not have the right to force others in a free society to live as people of the faith.”
So Dog, tell me who has knocked down the door of your house and forced you into living a life of faith?
Anyone? Anytime? Anywhere?
OK, Regular… i see you wrote that piece of drivel… about sex and reproduction… but your statement STILL says that the underlying purpose of SEX is reproduction…
So, MY question/challenge still stands as valid:
Based on that premise of sex being for the underlying purpose of reproduction, Do you also advocate for making marriage illegal for heterosexual couples who can no longer reproduce??
And hey, YOU opened that can of worms all by yourself… So, dont try to spin it away… Either you believe it or you dont… YOU never said it applied only to GAY Sex…
Here it is again, if you forgot >>>
“that sex thing is pure animal desire and not to be confused with the underlying principle of purpose - that is - to procreate.” {posted by Regular}
[btw, sorry nathan, I read it wrong above]
“Why should I applaud someone for doing their job?”
I don’t recall you CONDEMNING the Republicans for NOT doing their jobs…………..
Regular writes (deceptively, of course) >>>>
“Why do you feel it necessary Chas to load up on the worst scenarios in history to bash a faith?”
Show where I am bashing a FAITH, Regular!! I am attacking extremist groups within the institution called CHURCH… And the current R.R. is one of those extremist groups (ala Dobson’s pseudo-church organization)
In NO WAY have I bashed Christianity… You are just attempting, once again, to flame the discussion… So, just STOP it before you even get started!! It isnt going to work today!!
Chas, do try and pay attention. I have stated that both hetereo and homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt or acquire a child by legal means. I have no problem with responsible adults having children that cannot have children on their own.
I, personally, do have a problem with unnatural sex acts. Yes, sex is for reproductive purposes and yes it has pleasure.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. Fudge packing is something I do not want to know about or participate in, it is a perversion to the extreme.
Was that blunt enough for you? :)
Why should I condemn someone when I most likely didn’t know what “earmarks” were pushed through?
Sorry, but “earmarks” although known about, haven’t really made the news until the past couple of years.
Regular writes >>>>
“As I said before, you won’t hear of the millions of humble and Christians things that have been done, because it is not news or history worthy. The fine Christian folks that performed these kind acts, did so and went about their lives.”
========================
And those things done by folks, acting in their GOOD faith, and in response to God’s Amazing Grace, should have those deeds/acts plastered on the FRONT PAGE of every Newspaper!!
By all means!!
If I remember correctly from my old high school days, Ann Landers always cautioned against ANY type of sexual activity because ALL of it could lead to having babies…fudge packing included.
Sorry Regular but Ann Landers certainly knew what she was talking about…after all she was a Republican!
Never read Ann Landers but a couple of times. I wasn’t impressed and some of the advice she gave was bogus.
I was just at a bookstores and picked up a copy of this month’s Liberty Press. Did you know the “Women’s Football Hall of Fame” is in Kansas?
OK — so you have a problem with male homosexual acts… How bout female?? Furthermore, I didnt say ANYthing about adoption… But, why do you suppose those same people who are so adamantly opposed to gay marriage are also adamantly opposed to gays adopting children??
Heterosexual couples adopting children hasnt been illegal for MANY decades!! Cf. KCSL, Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, etc. etc. (Maude Carpenter’s Homes; Phyllis Wheatley, Kansas Masonic Home, etc.)
Regular, YOU said that sex was for the underlying purpose(intent, etc.) OF PROCREATION…
By that very statement, you are opposing sex for any other purpose!! You intentionally leave out other couples, who cannot any longer procreate… That at least implies, that you would ban marriage for such couples, as well as for Gay couples!!
Convince me you meant other than what YOU posted??
Anarchists unite - Darwinists and Democrats decide - homosexuals and abortion lovers - lovers of sex with children - join us and oppose families, children, and Bible believers - let’s make America in our image, a shining chitty on a hill! Let’s obey only the laws which suit us and make us feel good. Since only our feelings count remember, if it feels good let’s not be afraid to do it!
“Fudge packing is something I do not want to know about or participate in”
I don’t think that you are in any danger of being invited to a fudge packing party……………
Or any other party of a similar nature.
Jeremy - back under the rock - now.
Unnatural sex is something I don’t approve of, but that doesn’t mean I would help enact legislation against it (re: sodomy laws.)
Your argument about the comparison of natural sex and homosexual sex is not only irrelevant to what I said, but a straw man argument waiting to be hung out on the fence to dry.
You are conducting the discussion in your usual manner Chas, trying to write something and determine the out come by making your own predictions of what I might say.
You would be wrong Chas and are wrong.
I’ll let you know where I stand on an issue, you don’t have to make things up and assign them to me.
By all means Regular, please define “natural sex”.
“Sorry, but “earmarks” although known about, haven’t really made the news until the past couple of years.”
That’s because it is only an issue if DEMOCRATS do it - Republicans are exempt from criticism in that regard.
Yeah, right. And I have a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you.
Actually WSClark, they called it “pork barrel” spending. It has been know about for a long time. No one objected to it, because the majority slips under the radar.
You can make it a partisan issue if you want, but both sides are equally guilty and that you cannot deny.
Tom,
Figuring that I was sleeping here all weekend and working 16 hour days while only getting paid for my usual 10 hour days, lets call it even that I am goofing off before our formation.
Nitwit.
Go ahead Kansas, be my guest - you define it.
I know what it is, but that’s my own definition which you already know. Let’s hear your interpretation.
WEll guys I have to get some sleep, I have to work tonight oh joy! If you would like we can continue some other time.
But to answer Outlander, Neoconservatives can belong to the Religious right. They just do not believe in Religion. BUt there is a different between “NeoCons” and Neoconservatives. NeoCons are more a political movement while the Neoconservatives are an Ideology.
Regular, it is not about a door being kicked in, it is the factor of making an act that is civil in nature a crime. Or as with the amendment passing a law that impact one set of people alone. Denying someone a right or privlage that is allow to others based solely on a personal bias.
Now good night and yes it all depends on when you get up. Later
“I’ll let you know where I stand on an issue, you don’t have to make things up and assign them to me.”
So what is “natural sex”? I haven’t a clue what you mean by that and I’ve been paying attention.
Kansas
Posted February 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
“I’ll let you know where I stand on an issue, you don’t have to make things up and assign them to me.”
So what is “natural sex”? I haven’t a clue what you mean by that and I’ve been paying attention
———————–
Actually I addressed that to Chas, unless you are admitting you are Chas.
Regular — You have already defined “unnatural” by your own words… However, what you said about the underlying purpose of sex being for purposes of procreation is what YOU said… I am not spinning anything here… YOU said it… The implication — of course — is obvious…
And thats why I am challenging you on it…
The other day, I posted about a few run-ins I have had with ANTI Gay marriage groups who have as their bottom line, banning marriage of ANY couple who cannot procreate…
My purpose for challenging you should be quite clear… given my previous run-ins with some really flaky people…
By the way, according to amost all of my Gay friends, heterosexual sex activity is “unnatural” to them!! :-)
“You can make it a partisan issue if you want, but both sides are equally guilty and that you cannot deny.”
So why is Bush now claiming that he will veto a spending bill WITH earmarks when he never did that with Republicans controlling Congress?
Eh? A bit HIPPO-critical, is he?
You always seem to get paranoid when cornered.
I wouldn’t answer the question either, but then I’ve never said that “I’ll let you know where I stand on an issue, you don’t have to make things up and assign them to me.”
You seem to be homophobic Regular. Don’t worry, the LGBT community probably isn’t after you.
Regular writes >>>>
“Your argument about the comparison of natural sex and homosexual sex is not only irrelevant to what I said, but a straw man argument waiting to be hung out on the fence to dry.”
I dont know what you are reading… But… I have not compared natural sex and homosexual sex… So, how can it be irrelevant?? Because it hasnt been compared?? YOU are the one who inserted those terms… And besides, you cant have a straw man, unless there is some straw!! :roll:
Hey, Price, ya got that balanced budget plan together yet?
How about that pesky little National Debt issue?
Eh?
Wow, “Health Strategies” advertises in the Liberty Press. Isn’t Health Strategies part of Wesley Hospital? I guess those of you true “Christian” who don’t believe in equality for gays will have to stop getting your services from Wesley.
“Consumer’s Pharmacy” advertises in Liberty Press, too. Ups, I see a boycott coming on.
“Crazy Jay’s” advertises in Liberty Press, too. Wanted a good, low-cost bed for your kid? If you’re against gays you’ll have to look elsewhere to be true to “God’s” word.
“Prudential Dinning-Beard.” Prudential is way waaaaay gay. You true believers better pull out all your investments with them.
And “Century 21″ no buying a home from them.
“The Tire Store”, too.
“The Cotillion”
“Home Service Repair”
“Monica’s Bundt Cake”
“Hair After Studios”
“Lutheran Campus Ministry” at KU: “In Christ there is neither male nor femal, Jew nor Greek, gay nor straight. All are welcome.” They sound really unChristian.
“Melange Custom Jewelry”
“Paramount Antique Mall”
“Flying Colors, products that promote”
“Jantz Chiropractice”
“Orpheum Theater”
“Cade’s Design Team”
“Caffe Moderne”
“Rock, Paper Scissors”
“Andover Family Medicine”
“Quality Roofing”
“Images” potography
“Moe’s Sub Shop”
“Wichita Community Theater”
“Sound Advice”
“Kansas Expocentre”
“Sunflower Outdoor and Bike”
In other words, you are trying to spin my challenge to you, into a straw man, that you can then knock down… But it isnt going to work today…
Here’s a definition of sex from Meriam-Webster:
1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior
=======================================
I tend to lean towards the first two definitions.
I suppose one can re-distribute sexual pleasure as an act of sex, but then it gets wildly speculative where to draw the line. Bestiality is a version of sexual behavior, but it does not meet the basis of normal sex.
Anything outside of the norm, is considered deviant - not my definition by the way - the definition of Psychiatrists and Psychologists.
Deviant behavior cannot be considered normal by definition, therefore deviant sexual acts cannot be considered normal because they are deviant.
That’s the logical way of looking at it.
Hedonistic thought is for the weak. If that’s your thing, then go for it. I don’t have to accept it.
Watsa matter Kansas? Can’t form a logical argument, so you resort to name calling?
Never mind, it suits your pattern - carry on, we all expect nonsensical discourse from you.
“Monica’s Bundt Cake”
Sounds vaguely perverted to me…………..
I didn’t call you any name, Regular.
I expressed two opinions: 1) IMO you get paranoid and assume people are posting under numerous nics and 2) IMO you are homophobic.
Earlier you appeared upset that the blog was devoid of humor. You seem to be rather humorless yourself right now.
The Ann Landers thing was a joke you didn’t get.
Oh well.
But, James, for someone who is GAY, heterosexual acts are “Deviant” You can also find that in the APA Journals… Check it out!!
Obviously bestiality is outside the limits of normal, but that isnt what is being discussed here… Again, YOU said that the underlying purpose of sex, is for procreation… I dont even see that mark of distinction in the Merriam Webster definitions…
Maybe because there are SOME non human critters who have sex for sheer pleasure??
Not to mention steers that have a mutual attraction for one another out in the pasture…
How about “Moe’s Sub Shop”?
What kind of “sub” is Moe packin’?!?
“Bestiality is a version of sexual behavior, but it does not meet the basis of normal sex.”
Natural sex is ANY sexual activity between two consenting adults, regardless of gender.
The operative words are……….
A. Consenting.
B. Adults.
The reality of the recognition gays are getting from a variety of businesses right here in Kansas flings back in the faces of the naysayers their bigotry. Y’all can haul out as many dictionaries and definitions as you want, but the realities are:
Everyone knows someone who’s gay, and probably likes him or her just fine: works with ‘em, is neighbors with ‘em, goes to church with ‘em.
Businesses in Kansas know there are gay people here, and seek out their business as evidenced by openly advertising in the state’s gay publication.
Even the religious right recognizes gays. Frankly, without the rr there would still be zero efforts at securing equality for gays in Kansas. As a consequence of the actions of the rr and the anti-equality marriage ban Kansas which formerly had zero gay political organizations now has EIGHT joined in a statewide coalition.
Hello, reality check. Gays are here. They aren’t hurting anyone - that’s why those lawsuits against gays in California stopped, because no one suing gays could prove “harm.” Everybody knows someone.
I have yet to figure out why so many of those who oppose gay marriage, seem to have some personal obsession with injecting bestiality, and pedophilia into their arguments?? Thats just sick to include those things in the discussion!!
Polygamy I can see… since it has NO biblical injunction against it…
“Maybe because there are SOME non human critters who have sex for sheer pleasure??”
Do tell? Name some that sex isn’t tied into an estrus or polyestrus cycle.
Deviant as in outside of societal norms Chas. Gays are a subset of societies and usually do not establish the norm. Perhaps in San Francisco they do, but San Francisco is still a small part of a larger society. Can’t say I have ever heard of reversed deviancy as you have proposed.
WS Clark,
Have they figured out how to prove someone is homosexual other than asking them?
Natural sex what I was referring to WSClark was that defined by Nature and reproductive processes, feromones, hormones, etc., not by laws.
LOL Clark, is that Bundt, or Bun?? LOL
And, LOL — would that be sub shop as in sandwich?? or sub as in sub-machine gun… or maybe sub, as in submissive?? Cant help but get a good laugh out of that one, Kansas!! Thanks for the grins!!
Sorry, got to run be back later after Services. Have to run and pick up someone for a errand.
Love and marriage are not subsets of society. They are what holds society together in its very best incarnations. All of society benefits by extending its fundamental underpinnings to loving and committed couples and their chosen families. We all choose. The census of households in Kansas reporting same sex heads of household increased 68% after the equality marriage ban was indroduced.
More people, not fewer, are pursuing inclusion in what marks the very best of our social lives.
OK — Dolphins for one…
And.. then there are those steers out in the pasture that have some kind of attraction for each other…
Please dont try to say you havent heard of that before…
As for reverse deviancy, or reversed normality… simple… IF you are left handed, it is not NORMAL for you to be told to use your RIGHT hand for what you would NORMALLY use your LEFT hand to do!! Get it??
Thus, if you are GAY, it would not be normal, FOR YOU, to take part in heterosexual acts… Get it??
Nathan queries >>>>
“Have they figured out how to prove someone is homosexual other than asking them?”
Nathan,
First, why would you want to PROVE it??
Second, why would you want to ASK??
Nathan -
“Have they figured out how to prove someone is homosexual other than asking them?”
Yes! The University of Michigan did a study in which pupil dilation was observed while showing subjects pictures of males and females.
The study indicated that as many as 1 in 5 males/females reacted more strongly to same sex pictures than opposite sex pics.
Apparently there’s a lot more gays out there than will admit it.
Just kidding!
“Nathan,
First, why would you want to PROVE it??
Second, why would you want to ASK??”
No kidding.
Chas -
Hmmm…sounds like someone on drugs asking how far back a drug test can reveal drug use. That kind of question.
Maybe Nathan’s worried, after all his whole military career could be in jeopardy.
Ooops, Mod, not Chas
Nathan, is your index finger longer or shorter than your ring finger?
What would be the advantage of “proving” someone was homosexual or heterosexual?
What difference does it make what a person’s sexual preference is as long as they’re law abiding, productive members of society? It’s no one’s business.
“Apparently there’s a lot more gays out there than will admit it.
Just kidding!”
Oh no, it’s true.
Nathan, you can pull my finger any time you want!
Sexuality isn’t a preference. No offense, but that’s like saying straights choose to be straight. No one who’s experienced those hormones believes it’s a choice.
Some one said homosexuals are mother natures answer to population control, so we should be happy actually. Because that might very well be true. Just means more women to men ratio, sounds fine to me.
Because, straight women’s index fingers are longer than their ring fingers. Supposedly, gay men’s index fingers are longer than their ring fingers.
Mod, I know. The 1 in 5 occurence of homosexuallity is the only true “fact” that I wrote. However, it does make some sense that pupil dilation (combined with genital blood flow)would be a way of measuring attraction.
Sexual preference is a term used for discribing a person’s sexual orientation, it doesn’t mean that they “choose” to be one way or another. Any reasonable person knows that we are born with our sexuality, just like we’re born right or left handed. Those who would condem homosexuals to hell don’t want to admit that a person doesn’t “choose” his/her sexuality, because that would make it much more difficult to judge sexually active homosexuals as sinners.
Yup, I’ve heard of those studies, Kansas. I don’t disagree. I think the whole question of the mother’s stress levels during pregnancy with increased testosterone resulting in lesbian girls is interesting, too.
I find I’m a little disturbed that people who have the srongest opinions against gay sexual orientation also know the least about it. I must admit, it reinforces my distaste for them.
MC, if you think orientation is as valid a term, why not use it instead of preference? That would remove any question that orientation and preference are not synonymous.
LOL Mary - Keyword: Reasonable!! LOL
“I find I’m a little disturbed that people who have the srongest opinions against gay sexual orientation also know the least about it.”
I find that people with the strongest negative opinions about gays are the ones who have barricaded themselves deep in the closet.
“I find I’m a little disturbed that people who have the srongest opinions against gay sexual orientation also know the least about it.”
I find that people with the strongest negative opinions about gays are the ones who have barricaded themselves deep in the closet.
******
Let’s go measure all their index and ring fingers ;)
“Have they figured out how to prove someone is homosexual other than asking them?”
And that has WHAT to do with balancing the federal budget?
Huh?
A typical right wing Republican ploy - if you can’t come up with a plan to proceed in a fiscally responsible manner, just change the subject to those nasty gay folks.
It’s little wonder that we are in this fiscal mess.
It’s the gays fault!!!!!!
When in doubt, repeat the above.
sarcasm/
“A typical right wing Republican ploy - if you can’t come up with a plan to proceed in a fiscally responsible manner, just change the subject to those nasty gay folks.”
It created a win for Republicans in ‘04, but a tragic loss for America. What was the last projection I heard about how long it will take America and Americans to dig our way out of the the debt and recover our level of prosperity - a century?
Nathan, I do not hate religion, as you seem to think. I have a great respect for religion, and have my own beliefs, which are nobodies business but mine. What I do hate are religious people trying to use their religion to push their religious beliefs into politics. I do not like it when religious groups attempt to use subterfuge to put their beliefs as mainstream teaching.
But, darn, which religion do you choose to send to the whits house? The following link might give you the information you need to see that choosing any one of them to support your position is pretty much useless. Religion and politics do not mix: http://www.adherents.com/
For instance: the religious right sought to have creationism taught in public schools. When that didn’t work, they changed it to intelligent design. Same horse, different name. That’s called subterfuge. And that is what is going on with the RR, and their attempts to get a fellow RRer into the white house.
I suggest you go back and listen to JFK’s speech on the subject.
Many tests are now available on the fetus in the womb to test for genetic and blood inherited disease. For example, a woman can test her baby for the genetic mark for sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia , and Phenylketonuria (an important cause of mental retardation usually known as PKU). Early methods have allowed detection of at least 50 other genetic diseases, including Down’s syndrome and Tay-Sachs disease. The newer DNA studies are far safer for the fetus.
This is a great and positive advance of medicine.
The possibility of comprehensive genetic profiles is not to far into the future. . These could also show exceptional risk of a major illness such as heart disease, diabetes or even schizophrenia. The growing ability to detect faulty genes appears to be reducing substantially the number of cases certain disease in the population.
And along with the great advances in genetic testing comes great responsibility. Do you tell a mother that the child she is bearing will suffer a disease later in life? Blood diseases, diabetes, cancer, or even Alzheimers? Or even sexual preference!
On the plus side, doctors will be able to conduct genetic surgery on an unborn child. Imagine how wonderful it will be for doctors to correct genetic defects in the womb so the child will live a complete and full life!
But again, great responsibility will fall on both the parents, physician,
and in some cases religious leaders who are trusted for decisions.
Not always will they be faced with a clear cut right or wrong decision.
Abort, or genetic surgery? Or neither?
If we can eliminate some inherited diseases with genetic surgery, most people would be all for it. But if you determine that sexual preference, is a genetic alteration – what decision will a tolerant society make?
Study of gay brothers may find clues about sexuality
By Robert Mitchum | Tribune staff reporter
August 12, 2007
In Gregg Mierow’s family, there were six boys, brothers who grew into two groups as they reached maturity: Three are gay, and three are straight.
“It seems innate to me,” Mierow, who works in advertising and as a yoga teacher in Chicago, said of his homosexuality. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any choice involved, and it seemed very clear even when we were very young.”
Mierow stumbled upon a chance to help prove that hunch at the Northalsted Market Days festival four years ago. Spotting a banner reading, “Wanted! Gay Men with a Gay Brother,” he stopped by the booth and volunteered for what he thought would be little more than a survey. Instead, Mierow found himself part of the Molecular Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation — the most extensive study yet to search for a genetic basis for homosexuality — embarked upon by a team of Chicago researchers from local universities.
The scientists hope that by gathering DNA samples from 1,000 sets of gay brothers like the Mierows they will be able to find genetic linkages smaller studies failed to detect. They’ll be recruiting brothers again at the Halsted Street festival this weekend.
The results may ignite controversy, the researchers acknowledge, both by providing ammunition in the raging cultural war over homosexuality and by raising fears about ethically questionable applications like genetic profiling and prenatal testing.
But, they argue, the research is essential to our biological understanding of sexual behavior.
“If there are genetic contributions to sexual orientation, they will not remain hidden forever — the march of genetic science can’t be stopped,” said Timothy F. Murphy, bioethicist adviser to the study. “It’s not a question of whether we should or should not do this research, it’s that we make sure we’re prepared to protect people from insidious uses of this science.”
Although the question of whether homosexuality is a choice remains a hot topic for pundits, scientists are largely in agreement that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by biology.
Studies that compare identical and fraternal twins for the frequency of a particular behavioral trait have consistently suggested there are both genetic and environmental causes of homosexuality. Identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, show a higher chance of both being gay compared with fraternal twins, who typically share the same family environment but only half their genetic code.
Researchers also have found physical traits that correlate with homosexuality, from the relative size of certain brain areas associated with sexual behavior to seemingly irrelevant characteristics like hair whorl direction and finger-length ratios.
Inspired by the accumulating circumstantial evidence of genetic factors, researchers in the early ’90s began trying to narrow down the wide expanse of DNA to a few promising regions. By comparing the genetic codes of gay brothers, who also share 50 percent of their genes, a “linkage study” tries to detect areas that show up in both men at a frequency higher than chance, suggesting one or more genes in that region might be linked to sexual orientation.
In 1993, geneticist Dean Hamer announced his group had found such a region on the X chromosome, which males inherit from their mothers. But the number of brother pairs used in the study was small and subsequent studies failed to replicate Hamer’s findings, throwing the result into question.
“In complex gene scenarios, people figured out that you need a larger sample size in order to get reasonable statistical power,” said Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and the leader of the current study.
To increase the chances of finding genetic areas associated with homosexuality, Sanders proposed assembling almost 10 times the sibling pairs of previous studies. The project received funding in 2001 and began recruiting subjects at gay pride festivals, through gay-oriented publications and on the Internet.
So far the Chicago researchers have obtained blood or saliva DNA samples and survey data from more than 600 brother sets, with several hundred other volunteers in the process of submitting one or the other. Sanders hopes to publish his findings from the first wave of DNA samples in a scientific journal sometime next year.
Sanders cautioned a linkage study can single out only regions of the genetic code, not individual genes.
“One of the advantages of linkage studies is that we don’t have to know those things ahead of time,” Sanders said. “It’s a big advantage here because we don’t know about the biology of sexual orientation yet, so we can find the genes first and then study the biology.”
At this point, the researchers do not know what types of genes they may find; they could be related to hormones, sexual development or a completely unexpected system.
“The genes would probably be doing their work by affecting sexual differentiation of the brain during prenatal life,” said J. Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychology professor involved with the project. “But what scientists are increasingly appreciating is that genes can affect a trait in ways you could never have guessed.”
The hunt for specific genes that affect sexual orientation may take several years, but the implications of this eventual finding are being fiercely debated already.
“I think this kind of research receives a lot more criticism and attention because people often think it has profound implications for social and moral decisions,” Bailey said. “This is a controversial area. Even though it fascinates people, it scares people from the research end.”
Researchers involved with the project believe finding a genetic linkage will help settle arguments over whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate trait. “A lot of times people we talk to see this research as providing evidence for something they may [have] already had a notion for, that sexual orientation is influenced by pretty early events out of their control,” said Sanders.
Sanders also suggested that as proof of biological predisposition grows, so too does acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals. A Gallup poll conducted in May indicated 42 percent of the surveyed population believe homosexuality is biologically determined — the highest percentage witnessed in 30 years of polling.
Study volunteer Jason Palmer of Chicago said he hopes evidence of a biological source for homosexuality would change people’s opinions on sexual orientation.
“Our strongest opponents are the religious right, many of whom feel that God does not make mistakes,” Palmer said. “So if it’s a genetic factor and proven, perhaps many of them will find an acceptance for homosexuals.”
But some outside observers worry about how proof of a genetic component to homosexuality might be used politically and even medically.
“If you do research on any human behaviors that would allow us either to treat the behavior or to prevent it altogether by prenatal testing, you have got to ask yourself serious questions about societal context in which this type of research takes place,” said Udo Schuklenk, a professor of philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.
Critics fear identifying a biological component will lead to prenatal testing and perhaps even treatments for homosexuality. While both Sanders and Bailey expressed doubt about the scientific feasibility or public demand for such applications, Schuklenk suggested they were not considering the worldwide implications.
“I understand why U.S. gays want to know why gay people are gay and understand where they are coming from — there are legal reasons, and the agenda is progressive within the context of the U.S.,” said Schuklenk. “What worries me is that they show a complete disregard of repercussions of research on the international scale, for gay people in societies where civil rights are not as well-protected.”
Mierow said he considered the potential negative ramifications when he volunteered for the study but trusted that changing social views on homosexuality will intervene.
“I hope that by the time science gets to the point [of prenatal testing], society would have progressed enough to not have those feelings,” Mierow said. “I feel like I have more trust in science. It seems like a lot of the bigotry is coming out of religion.”
“People who say that, ‘We shouldn’t know X because knowing X is dangerous,’ to me those are the dangerous people,” Bailey added. “They have provided no good evidence that knowing things is risky; ignorance is what messes us up.”
For now, these discussions will remain largely theoretical until the results of Sanders’ study, as well as others in progress around the country, begin to be released.
As Bailey noted, the results won’t just add to knowledge about the roots of homosexuality, they may also answer more general questions about gender and sexuality.
“Knowing what causes sexual orientation is important scientifically,” he said. “It’s an important aspect of who we are and will provide knowledge about the development of gender, how men and women differ from each other.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gaygene_bd12aug12,0,5101766.story?page=2
“Genetic alteration”? You mean disease. In the context in which you’ve included your question, you mean homosexuality is a disease.
The gene for green eyes is a mutation, a genetic alteration. What shall we do with the diseased, green-eyed people?
I think doing research on homosexuality is a good thing. It can only prove what we already know…that there is no choice in the matter. I don’t think it’ll be treated as a ‘disease’ but just rather another normal trait.
“Do you tell a mother that the child she is bearing will suffer a disease later in life? Blood diseases, diabetes, cancer, or even Alzheimers? Or even sexual preference!”
That’s not even a consideration. Of course you tell them. Let them prepare for what is to come.
Mod, my ring finger is longer than my index finger. I’m very much straight. So I guess we can safely say that wives tale is put to rest. I’d have NO problem being gay if I were, so I’m not in the closet lol.
“Do you tell a mother that the child she is bearing will suffer a disease later in life? Blood diseases, diabetes, cancer, or even Alzheimers? Or even sexual preference!”
That’s not even a consideration. Of course you tell them. Let them prepare for what is to come.
***
There are not fewer Downs Syndrome babies today because of genetic surgery correcting the condition. There are fewer Downs Syndrome babies today because prenatal genetic testing indicating the condition of Downs Syndrome results in aborted pregnancies. A pretty good indication of how “tolerant” society is. That poster was asking if we would change or abort gays in the womb, not if we would use the information to enlighten and prepare for the eventual birth and life of a gay person.
“Mod, my ring finger is longer than my index finger. I’m very much straight. So I guess we can safely say that wives tale is put to rest. I’d have NO problem being gay if I were, so I’m not in the closet lol.”
Yeah, I don’t care if people are gay or straight. I just care that they’re treated with respect and extended the same rights as others who contribute to this country.
8O
Well. I guess ‘ol Regular is just a regular old evening edition of news about himself. Even if he don’t know he’s thrown the dadgum Sunday edition here. Holy moly. Talk about a classic case of writing everything that counts into the content between the lines. No wonder.
I hate to tell yall I told you so, but I told you so: many Republics are white males who lack self-awareness.
Granted, not many are as clear as Regular is about it, but even so. :lol:
[You know, I hate to mention this about Regular, but sometimes just calling that boy a dipshit is actually a favor to him....like in this case. The only other valid alternatives to describe Regular's public attitudes about sexual behavior are "Puritanical," "asexual," "self-loathing," etc. "Likely a virgin" comes to mind, too, as does a number of chilling and/or sad fictional characters that I would list if I had the time to read fiction and watch movies. Calling him a dipshit in this case actually lets him off the hook pretty easily. And that ain't something you can say about too many people in this life.]
/judgmental/
I see that Mr. Know-It-All Price has not yet enlightened us with his plan to balance the budget and pay down the debt.
He just changed the subject to gays.
But here’s my plan, from a fiscally responsible Democrat.
End the War on Iraq - $200 billion.
Close half of foreign military bases - $200 billion.
Raise the SS retirement age to 70 - $25 billion.
Means test Medicaid and SS recipients - $50 billion.
Repeal Bush tax cuts for those that make over $300,00 per year - $50 billion.
Tax capital gains as income - $50 billion.
Reduce Federal payroll by 10% - $25 billion.
That totals $600 billion per year.
The resulting $200 plus billion per year surplus would be applied to paying down the debt.
Clark, wouldnt that $200 Billion cover part of the Interest for a year?? Just wondering…
It seems to me that the Repubs have pretty much scattered.
Perhaps they’re out working to get Mole McCain elected?
The interest on the Debt consumes about 30% of the current Federal budget - so, in essence, we are borrowing money to pay interest - not usually recommended.
The Debt is so high that a $200 billion pay down per year will have little effect on the interest for a long time, but ANYTHING is a start.
Say hello to my kinfolk in Lexington Virginia Pedant. :)
There’s a High School there that I share a name with down in Buena Vista. :)
Anyway, back to the subject of Dobson. I mean, who gives a bleep what he thinks about anything?
Let’s just step aside and let him boycott himself into irrelevancy.
The candidate with the strongest and broadest understanding of the economy was called a kook and ignored by the media. Our best hope of restoring the dollar. Way to go America.
WS. Sounds like you get it. Unfortunately, the two candidates for you party would like to increase spending between $250 billion to $350 billion.
Ron Paul and Giuliani were the only two candidates (IIRC) who had budgets that cut spending.
So WS, I have to ask, how do the Dem candidates plan to increase spending as listed above and pay down the debt. Not poking at you, but seriously, what kind of tax hike will cover this?
you = your in sollie’s world. It’s really fun here. I sell tickets…
Mr. Dev VB, I am not sure that I agree that Barack and Hillary want to increase spending by $350 billion WITHOUT an off-setting reduction in other areas.
I would be extremely disappointed in either if that were the case.
I believe that the Democratic economic strategy is to realign spending so that it actually benefits Americans.
We are spending borrowed monies now to build infrastructure in Iraq while neglecting our own. We are spending borrowed monies now to build health care facilities in Iraq while neglecting our own. We are spending borrowed monies now to build schools in Iraq while neglecting our own.
The list goes on.
The madness is that we spending more on the citizens of Iraq than on our own citizens.
I am fiscally much more conservative (really?) than most Democrats. I do not like tax increases, but tax cuts are not beneficial when we have the mountain of debt that we do.
I want to see a responsible economic program out of Washington - if the Democrats do not deliver, then I will be the first to complain - and not just on the blog.
If Dobson and other religious and political right-wing extremists like him continue their active opposition to McCain, it will be the undoing of their movement.
Think about it… 49% of self-identified conservatives on Super Tuesday voted FOR McCain.
A McCain-Huckabee ticket will be formidable–and sensible evangelicals and conservatives know it!
CH you got that right!
The Republicans are in self destruct mode.
They are reaping exactly what they have sown.
Division, derision, and hatred.
Amen, Kansas!!
I posted the budgets of all remaining contenders back when Rudy was still in it. RP cut spending the most (shock!!!) with Rudy close behind. I don’t have anything but the results. How much spending would increase? To be fair, a Libertarian group provided the totals.
The madness is that we spending more on the citizens of Iraq than on our own citizens.
I’m not sure I can get behind that statement w/o some more facts, but I do feel that we have dumped way too much money in Iraq.
What I would most like to see from either party is a drastic decrease in the Washington programs. Homeland Security? DOE? Can’t we do without these types of programs? Social security? Shouldn’t we guarantee the monies paid in by a citizen are willable (sans tax) to an heir?
I looked up the leading Libertarian candidate for the first time today. He seems to align with a lot of how I feel on first glance. If you are interested, I would be more than willing to point you a link. He has some pretty good ideas, but might bristle your social tendencies.
“Shouldn’t we guarantee the monies paid in by a citizen are willable (sans tax) to an heir?”
That sounds good at first glance.. however, can you imagine the bookkeeping involved to separate the monies paid in by the individual, and those paid in by various employers??
People are serious about a McCain boycott. Check out http://www.BoycottMcCain.org
Anybody happen to catch Glenn Beck taking McCain apart over the weekend?? It was pretty pathetic.
Shouldn’t we guarantee the monies paid in by a citizen are willable (sans tax) to an heir?
When my dad retired (1969) he had put into SS some $17.000.
He and my mother got that much back in the first year of retirement.
Most citizens end up getting far more than they ever put into SS.
It is called private retirement accounts Chas. Privitizing SS for some. As it is constructed SS can’t survive because Gore has the key to the ‘lockbox’ and won’t tell anyone else where it is. Not the key the box.
It is broke because politicians for many years have raided it to pay for their favorite social programs.
Although Grover Norquist’s tunnel vision “no new taxes” apparent happened to contribute to staving off the Holcomb coal plant, Americans really need to get away from their tax phobia.
The only-est issue should be how much money out of your pocket. Cons would rather pay for “Econ101’s” sales commissions and for-profit insurance executives’ Learjets than pay *less* out of pocket for non-profit universal healthcare. Cons would rather pay Halliburton $4.60 a gallon to fuel military vehicles in Iraq than, ya know, the $1.24 a gallon it costs Iraqis.
A McCain ANYBODY ticket is the final nail in the GOP coffin. God save us. Maybe we need to be the phoenix party. We have self destructed since 1988.
Ummm KsGrm… Sol wasnt talking about privatized accounts… He was talking about SS funds being WILLABLE to survivors…
Privatized accounts is a different subject… please try to stay on point??
Granny, Gore hasnt held public office for SEVEN years… What can Gore possibly have to do with SS now??? Where DO you come up with this crap???
And BTW, you jump right in, like you JUMP me for doing… and do the very thing you bitch at me for!! You feel all better now??
Kansas I think you might be using fuzzy math. Better run that one again. You pay in 7.5% and your employer matches that.
“As it is constructed SS can’t survive because Gore has the key to the ‘lockbox’ and won’t tell anyone else where it is. Not the key the box.”
ksgrm - comon grams, you know that Bush took the box and used it to pay for his war of revenge against Saddam Hussein.
Are you getting senile or are you and Regular trading drugs again?
Chas do you really wake up in a new universe every day. Gore’s best line was about the SS lockbox when he was running. There is no such thing. Another Gore lie.
Privatized accounts for SS was the big issue early in Bush’s term. Get a grip man you are seriously regressing.
Check it out.
Kansas, my Dad also got FAR more out of SS than he even paid in… well, if you take into account for adjustments over time… Dad paid into SS since SS was started… But, he did get a lot back, since he lived more than 20 years after retirement!! Closer to 30…
“As it is constructed SS can’t survive because Gore has the key to the ‘lockbox’ and won’t tell anyone else where it is.”
Huh?
What the Hell does Al Gore have to do with this conversation?
Kansas I want to see how your dad only paid in $17,000 - stop changing subjects you have Chas for that. There was no lockbox. Forty years of democrat congress depleted those funds long before ‘Gores Lockbox’ came along.
WS are you and Chas on the same drugs. Some of them hurt your long and short memories. Sorry about that.
My father after working some forty years had put $17,000 into SS. OK, so there may have been another $17,0000 kicked in by his employer.
So it took 2-3 years for the original SS $ to be gone.
The point is the same. Most people receive a lot more in benefits than they ever paid into SS.
They are playing Night Time Lib Tag Game ksgrm.
Time to leave it to themselves, they can’t stand it when you do that.
Ummm Granny, its not My universe that seems to be run aground here…. GORE has not been in public office for SEVEN… count em… SEVEN years now!! BUSH and the Republicans are the ones who were pushing privatized SS accounts… Cant you get off the Blame it on Clinton/Gore bus for even ONE DAY??
Kansas - yep I think it must be the drugs thing!! LOL
How much did your dad make a year. Do the math. Even at minimum wage that just can’t be.
At min. wage for 45 working years the payin would have been #35,000 for you and the same for your employer. I’m sure your father didn’t make min wage his entire working life did he. Even so it doesn’t compute.
I know reg. I will debate with any sensible person but it looks as if they have all left.
You boys play with yourselfs now guys.
My dad was making 50 cents an hour at a meatpacking plant when he started. Do the math. Minimum wage in 1969 was 90 cents an hour.
KsGrm wrote >>>>
“It is called private retirement accounts Chas. Privitizing SS for some. As it is constructed SS can’t survive because Gore has the key to the ‘lockbox’ and won’t tell anyone else where it is. Not the key the box.”
==============================
Granny, Did you, or did you NOT write this??
If you look carefully, you will note that I did not say ANYthing about what you driveled about here…. Look upthread, and find what I wrote…
I SAID…. to SOL, BTW…. That it would take a huge amount of bookkeeping to separate out what had been paid in by the individual, and what had been paid in by the em-effin-ployer!!
IF YOU WILL NOTE CAREFULLY, SOL was saying he would like to see some way for SS benefits to be WILLED to survivors!!
I WAS RESPONDING TO THAT… It looks good, until you try to figure in the bookkeeping…
NOW WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE STUPID DRIVEL YOU ATTACKED ME WITH???
HUH????
(chortles)
Furthermore, NONE of this SS stuff has ANYthing to do with Dobson’s boycott of McCain!! ROFL!!! Amazing!!
James, if it wasnt such a sad thing with KsGrm, I could join you in your “chortle”
Ahh yesss and another Granny Drive by!! LOL
“WS are you and Chas on the same drugs. Some of them hurt your long and short memories. Sorry about that.”
What the Sam Hell are you talking about?
Jeez, and you accuse ME of being on drugs?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh…………..
The Repubs are in trouble and are personally destructing as well.
Ksgrm has really gone downhill since I left the blog awhile back.
Alzheimer’s?
Actually, apart from the foolishness of their position, people like Dobson and Limbaugh are probably helping McCain establish his credentials among the moderate Independent voters who will be the key to any close election. Independent voters in suburban Philadelphia see who McCain’s enemies are, and figure he’s probably an OK guy. Pennsylvania becomes competitive.
Flashbacks from the Sixties………..
Kansas, I am not sure… But yes, there is a definite marked difference…
Kansas — I’m not sure who you “were” and you need not say — So, I am not sure when you “left the blog” But, yes, I have definitely noticed a huge difference in KsGrm… I have suggested that she really needs to get that looked into…
But she castigates me every chance she gets… And sometimes, very rarely, she even stays on point!! LOL
BTW Thanks Todd for the link on the boycott McCain org. I signed up immediately!
http://www.BoycottMcCain.org
From the above website:
“If you’ve had trouble discerning the difference between Senator John McCain and liberals like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, don’t worry…your not alone.”
More proof true conservatives hate education.
People can laugh about Dobson’s stance. Many true conservatives will stand on principle. We will not vote for McCain. He needs the Christians in the south. They will not come out for him like they did for Bush. On top of that, most independents and liberals that have voted for him will vote for the democrat nominee in the general election. McCain will not win….
Thank You Patricksego@mac.com, that totally ensures either President Clinton or President Obama on November 4th!
OK — Dobson, who runs a religious clearinghouse, of sorts… Endorses (or rather negative endorsement) a political candidate… Does he put his own tax exempt status in jeopardy, by his negative endorsement??
Anybody know about this matter??
With any luck they’ll self destruct. karma and all that… Hope bushco is standing close to the explosion!
As far as I know he may as an American support / endorse the candidate of his choice. I sure hope that’s still a freedom we enjoy! bushco has been taking them away so fast I can’t keep up!
As an American, of course he can Linda… As President of Focus on the Family, Inc. Thats my question…
Linda… See, I can go down to the Riverside Cafe, and endorse whoever I please, as long as I am not making that endorsement, as Pastor of ______________ Church, in XYZ, KS…
One of my favorite places — Riverside Cafe! Raised my family about 1 1/2 blocks from there (many years ago). Well, it seems to be quite a convoluted subject. Here is one article i found which may or may not be accurate. I think most churches try to err o the side of caution ’cause the IRS isn’t a group any of us want to be on the wrong side of. Check this out:
http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=707
Hey I grew up about 5 blocks north of Riverside Cafe!! How bout that neighbor!!
Small world! We (my children and I) lived in the 1500 block of Woodland from 1974 to 1990. My sons (35 and 36 now) spent summers catching crawdads under the 18th Street bridge, playing on Spider Island, learning the name of ever dog in a multi block area. Kids attended Woodland Elementary, Marshall Jr. High and North. It was a good neighborhood to raise kids! For the last 10 years there my hubby had married us (me and four kids! what a man!) which made our lives much easier. My oldest daughter and her hubby met when both were employed at Riverside IGA and they’ve been married 22 years.
OK, I’ll stop. But I thank you for the walk down memory lane. ;-)
Sorry about all the errors! Feel like I’m in Sol’s world — he’s right it is fun in here! giggle I’m using a laptop with a touch pad and a laptop sized keyboard — not doing so great. Mostly when I use this laptop I just read. Maybe should go back to that, huh!?
Wow, hey, I went to Woodland, Marshall, and North… lived VERY close to the 18th St. Bridge(In fact can see it from my back yard), and caught MANY crawdads, as well as some good channel cat, and lots of blasted carp!! LOL
I think this item from your Article above is what is most pertinent >>>>
“Make statements in support or opposition of political candidates for public office. Note: A pastor personally may make statements in support or opposition of political candidates for public office, but not in his official capacity (which would bar him from making statements during church meetings and in church communications).”
Hopefully that wont be a major point of contention for the bloggers!!
What part of town do you live in now??
BTW, when my Uncle was still living, we spent many mornings, having coffee and those HUGE cinnamon rolls, at Riverside Cafe… Then would wander next door, and pester Mr. Caldwell, at the Pharmacy…
Oh, the old IGA is now some kind of tech school… and I think Dillons is moving up to 21st and Amidon shortly, if not already done…
The only two things left there now are the Barber Shop, and the Cafe… Everything else that used to be there, is either gone, or changed hands multiple times!!
There will always be something that is a major point of contention! Tis what makes the world go ’round! How we resolve those points of contention should be more civil, but isn’t all too often. Guess we aren’t as civilized as we like to think.
We always had corn in the fridge to use for carp fishing — actually lots of fun to catch if you just wanted to have fun and then throw them back.
Are you young enough to be the age of my kids (35 - 43)? Just wondered if you were growing up at the same time they were. Don’t answer if that is too personal.
When we moved here in 1990 (AFTER the youngest graduated North!) it was out west, getting closer to mid town all the time. Not too far west of Northwest High School.
“As usual, the typical mischaracterization of the Conservatives and Religious people continues…”
Oh please. You really are ironically challanged. First, you go into your familiar whine about how conservatives/christians/religious people are abused, then you go on to say something as stupid as this:
“Most Christians and Republicans couldn’t care less about Homosexuals. It is the Homosexuals who are pushing the issue about getting married and forcing the state to recognize them.”
What a truly idiotic statement. People wish to be able to have their marriages recognized like other people’s are, and they succeed in another state but somehow THEY are pushing the issue? Not to mention the fact that, as Tom pointed out and you so thickly missed, it wasn’t people who are gay who introduced a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT on the subject of marriage. Who was it again? Oh, the Christians who “could care less” about homosexuals. For people you “could care less” about, you sure seem to be obsessed with what what you think they should be able to do or not do.
“The people who are opposed to the state recognizing a choice like Homosexual marriage are merely pushing back. We are not the ones making it an issue.”
You’ve noticed I’ve not been delicate on this, and I won’t be here. You are either lying or you are intentionally stupid. You want to know why a lot of people, even a lot of people who themselves subscribe to the religious label of “Christian”, have a real distaste for those who use the term “Christian” to describe their politics? This sort of thing is exactly why. The “homosexuals” want to be able to have their relationships recognized, so that when they do the “for better or for worse thing”, they don’t have to go to court for every little thing when one spouse is ill or left, so that they don’t have the very real possibility of their spouses’ estranged relatives coming and taking everything they’ve earned together away from them? Well! How dare they, when they know that people like you are offended by the mere possibility? After all, never mind the fact that no one who is gay is trying to not allow you to marry someone you romantically and sexually attracted to, they are the ones imposing you by wanting to marry someone that they are romantically and sexually attracted to. It wouldn’t be an issue if you and those like you didn’t make it one, and you know it.
Cerebral inertia. Remarkable.
True that ksag.
This state had money enough for a special election to restrict the freedoms of a group of people.
But NO money for an organized Presidential primary?
Agnos you are raising a red herring and I think you know it. You can choose to leave your property to anyone you choose. Draw up a will. You can have a durable power of attorney to let whomever you wish be your speaker and in charge of your finances. You can draw up a statement allowing whoever you list be allowed in as family in the event of illness or hospitilization. There are legal ways to handle all of the things you have mentioned.
The majority of dem and repubs said they did not want same sex marriage in Kansas. I seriously doubt if all of them did so because of religious reasons.
They are just more honest than you.
The majority of people who voted, which hasn’t been a majority of the people ever.
Speaking of that majority of people who actually vote. The Board of Education is voting tomorrow night on whether to hold a special election in early May on the bond issue. Their ONLY hope of getting it passed is low voter turnout. They’re counting on lower voter turnout at that special (and expensive) election! Let’s spread the word as far and wide as possible and be sure we turn out in larger numbers than they expect!
Actually, Linda, I am more your age bracket… I will be 57 next week!! LOL
I have two daughters, 5 grand kids… And it looks like my one grandson might now start Kindergarten at good old Woodland Elementary!!
Wow Deja Vu!! All over again!!
Dobson is representative of a dying breed.
A great many Christians no longer care about legislating the morality of individuals. They are coming to be more in tune with environmental stewardship and caring for the poor and disadvantaged through legislation.
The TRUE believers are coming to know they have been on the wrong side these last many years. And our side will welcome these folks. But the haters? They will NEVER be welcomed or listened to by Democrats.
“They are just more honest than you.”
Or they are just homophobic idiots.
Just read where Huck may go to court over the Washington Caucus, something about the votes not being counted. Are they now pulling their dirty tricks on each other?
J R, I still don’t know how much education the speaker has.
Maybe he can’t do the math.
What speaker, MrC??
Chas,
There was or still is a Riverside Coffee shop of some kind. Is it kin to the Cafe? I ask because I went to school with a previous owner of the coffee place.
Oh, and there were no witches burned in Salem or in the U.S. Hanged, stoned, or drowned, yes. Burned, no. That was centuries before in Europe and called “The Burning Times.”
P_Mom,
I’ve got the same problem with my index and ring finger. Ring is longer. Nobody told me! And it’s just too damned late to change my “preference”, now that I know!
It’s going to be an interesting summer in politics. :)
Yes, RD, there is still a Riverside Cafe(Coffee Shop) right where it has always been… 13th and Jenette/Nims… It has changed ownership numerous times over the years, but it is still there, and still putting out pretty darned good food!!
As far as the Salem Witches… I think my point is still valid, even sans burning at the stake…
“Agnos you are raising a red herring and I think you know it.”
It’s no red herring, and you are clearly dense.
“You can choose to leave your property to anyone you choose. Draw up a will. You can have a durable power of attorney to let whomever you wish be your speaker and in charge of your finances. You can draw up a statement allowing whoever you list be allowed in as family in the event of illness or hospitilization. There are legal ways to handle all of the things you have mentioned.”
Baldy, I’ve been a widower. I married a widow and I was in more than one support group for widows and widowers at one time in my life. Some of the people I got the closest to were gay and lesbian widowers. The fact is, if you are married then right of successorship is assumed unless you work out something different (and that involves attorneys). You don’t have to go to an attorney to get it all straightened out. So, you are saying that people who are gay can do what straight people can do, they just have to pay an attorney to draw up a detailed will and powers of attorney to do it, you don’t see any inequity in that?
“The majority of dem and repubs said they did not want same sex marriage in Kansas. I seriously doubt if all of them did so because of religious reasons.
“They are just more honest than you.”
a) The very reason it was on the ballot was for “religious reasons”. That is a documented fact.
b) I suspect a very large portion of the voters DID vote their religious prejudices.
c) Others just voted their prejudices, and never did stop to think about how such arrangements between OTHER people wouldn’t effect them.
And your charge of dishonesty is blantantly false. I voted against the Hate Amendment.
“You are either lying or you are intentionally stupid.”
I regret this statement, because I forgot that there are people, and I am sure Nathan is among them, who honestly believe that…
“The people who are opposed to the state recognizing a choice like Homosexual marriage are merely pushing back. We are not the ones making it an issue.”
The statement is flat out false, because it is those who “oppose the state recognizing a choice” who are making it an issue. No one is forcing them to agree with the choice, but they are trying to insure continued legal punishment of the choice.
But, I did imply that Nathan was insincere, and that is wrong.
Doesn’t mean that I find what he is saying any more morally palatable.
This is known as “cutting off your nose to spite your face” or “shooting yourself in the foot.” Either way, it’s just plain dumb. Life is always full of compromises. Few of us get EVERYTHING we want in anything we believe or do. Dobson needs to grow up and be a big boy and learn to compromise like an adult.
Agnos everyone should leave a will. We have one as well as a trust. Anyone you name is in control of these. Paying an attorneys fee for this isn’t limited to the same sex people.
Another straw man argument.
“Agnos everyone should leave a will. We have one as well as a trust. Anyone you name is in control of these. Paying an attorneys fee for this isn’t limited to the same sex people.”
I didn’t say it was, but there is an enormous difference in what has to be specified and covered in a will when marriage is not presumed. My argument, as well as the direct experience of many people, remains valid.
“Another straw man argument.”
A straw man argument is when someone creates a position for his/her opposition and then replies to that created position. Sort of like saying…
“Paying an attorneys fee for this isn’t limited to the same sex people.”
When I did not imply otherwise.
By the way, I agree that people should have wills, but people are widowed unexpectedly when they are still young. When that happens, the legal presumption of marriage does provide quite a lot of protection for the surviving the spouse.
I don;t give a rats’s ass who Dobson endorses, or who Soros endorses, or any other pundit or sponsor. So far, I am not endorsing anyone. Nobody cares. Or should. Be a real person and make up your own mind. Read information from detractors, and from supporters, and try to figure the truth. (Good luck with that). If the fact that someone else supports a particular candidate is the factor that makes your vote for them, then you need a change.
“When that happens, the legal presumption of marriage does provide quite a lot of protection for the surviving the spouse.”
Yes it does. As I recall correctly, Kansas law basically assumes that the surviving spouse in the inheritor, period.
“As far as the Salem Witches… I think my point is still valid, even sans burning at the stake…”
Yes, Charles, you were on the mark with your point. I only wanted to straighten out the one thing. Many people assume there were burnings in the U.S., because of earlier history.
Just goes to show that even good people (I assume most of the citizens of Salem were basically good) can be carried away on the wave of mass hysteria. Frankly, if those girls had been mine, they’d have been grounded for life. ;)
littlejohn, yes, the surviving spouse is the inheritor, period, if there are no children; if there are children, under the Kansas laws of descent and distribution, 50% to the surviving spouse, 50% to the children. This, of course, is after the spousal allowances (and allowances for the family).
The above, of course, only applies to property held by the decedent alone at time of death, and does not apply to property held as jtwros with another, pod, tod, etc. These may be upset, if the surviving joint tenant or beneficiary under a POD or TOD designation is not the surviving spouse under the “spousal elective share” statutes.
I’ll not comment further, but leave it to you and others interested to look it up, so to say. I’ll also not comment on the SS survivor’s benefit issue, pension plan beneficiary designations, etc., which are governed by certain statutory language which dictates how the same are to be distributed or do not apply as the case may be in the absence of marriage if, in the case of a pension plan, there is no effective beneficiary designation as an example.
Sorry; left out the most important part. The laws of descent and distribution only apply if a person dies intestate (without a will) or without an inter vivos trust or other dispositive instrument in place allowed by law which replaces a will insofar as testamentary disposition is concerned.
Vaughn-
God information. I should have been more specific. I was just trying to point out that hetero surviving “spouses” do in fact have more standing than those of gay or lesbian “spouses”. I advise everyone to leave nothing to chance and leave a will. Not only are their wishes spelled out and can be followed, without interference, in some families, unfortunately, it is the best gift the deceased can leave behind.
“I advise everyone to leave nothing to chance and leave a will. Not only are their wishes spelled out and can be followed, without interference, in some families, unfortunately, it is the best gift the deceased can leave behind.”
Agreed.
littlejohn and ksagnostic, agreed. Of course, I’m not exactly without bias in this area…:-)
One thing I’d like to say here; there is some feeling that if one has a will, there is no need to probate an estate. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be effective, the will must be admitted to probate, and subject to administration by the court. I don’t know where this falsehood got started, but I heard it again from a client just last week.
“One thing I’d like to say here; there is some feeling that if one has a will, there is no need to probate an estate. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be effective, the will must be admitted to probate, and subject to administration by the court. I don’t know where this falsehood got started, but I heard it again from a client just last week”
That is certainly my understanding. Is that not why you appoint an executor? Why should the court get involved, and with the extra expense of an attorney?
Can McCain overcome this level of hostility from social conservatives?
***Yawn*** Who cares. Maybe they won’t find anyone to approve of, and we’ll have less church pushed on all of us. You know, like its supposed to be… separate and a non-issue in politics. Keep your preaching in church where it belongs. As for those trying to ‘bring others to the fold’ or what not, if you stop shoving stuff down people’s throat they tend to gag less. Anyone else sick of the Uber-religious trying to take over this country?
Ahhh… I feel better :-)
littlejohn, one appoints an executor to handle the probate of your estate. The will, as I said before, has no legal effect unless admitted to probate within the limitations prescribed by statute. One makes a will to set out his/her desires on what will happen to the estate, name devisees, legatees and beneficiaries, who may or may not be the same persons who would inherit under state law, or who may inherit in different proportions than that set out in the statutes. Not to mention that the cost of probate administration can be less with a will, usually, than without a will, called “intestate administration”.
If a person truly desires to not be involved in the probate process, there are ways to do so. Of course, since that’s how I earn my meager living, I’ll not give anything more here. Anyone interested may likely be able to find out how, although be careful in relying upon what might be found, as some of it is out of date, and some of it is just flat incorrect.
“Of course, since that’s how I earn my meager living”
Of course, as an attorney, you have a meager living. HAHAHA!
No injury or poke intended. Just making a joke. Actually, I advise people to use an attorney for a great many things. Including every time they buy real estate. The “meager” cost of doing so when committing such a large amount of money truly is meager. Lawyers are valuable assets when used correctly, and worth the money for the most part, for most people. I do think that many times people could do without, IF they are willing to do the research themselves. Most are not. I have used the library downtown a few times myself. I like to check on things, even if an “expert” tells me so.
I guess I need to reevaluate my understanding of the probate process, instead of just listenng to commom wisdom. Thanks for the insight. Truly.
A smart person can figure out many things on their own. A wise person knows when he best not do so, and retain an expert.
lj - I wonder how many homebuyers would have been saved from the sub-prime mess if they had sepnt a few hundred for an attorney.
“lj - I wonder how many homebuyers would have been saved from the sub-prime mess if they had sepnt a few hundred for an attorney.”
Or for that matter a good financial planner.
Problem is, Ben and lj, given what has come to light about some of the folks in the subprime mess, they didn’t have the few hundred to spend for the services of an attorney. Not all, I hasten to add, but from the media reports, there were many who got involved who had no spare funds.
lj, thanks for the vote of confidence for attorneys in general.
littlejohn, when doing your research, please pay general attention to Chapter 59 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and in particular KSA 59-616.
Sometimes, a little common sense helps. When I bought my house, i went to the mortgage company and got preapproved before ever shopping for a house. When they told me how much house I could qualify for, I told them they were out of their mind. They said no, really, you can afford this! Maybe so, but I could not have enjoyed life, or eaten, or had electricity. I told them NO THANK YOU!
Pity other people ddidn;t look at reality.
Thanks Vaugh. I will check it out. I guess I just got sucked into the “common knowledge” pool without looking.
Why is it that the news only lists McCain and Huckabee as contenders? Ron Paul has actually beat both them in many races and while he’s not close to getting the nomination I still think Republicans are losing a great candidate here just as they lost Romney and a few others. The milk toast candidates have risen to the top again.
I am so pissed off at these so called Republicans using the words “The party of Lincoln”. When old Abe was a Republican the party was progressive and anti-slavery. If the Republicans then had the narrow mindedness of these of today there would still be slavery going on. The Republicans of Abes time were more like the Democrats of today. Only a progressive party would have a black man and a woman running for President. The stale old Republicans of today would never allow that.