This'll be the end of her political career, then, which is not a bad thing. She was going to just screw things up for conservatives, again, anyway. Confuse and splinter the party. IMHO.

And it'll be the beginning of her "official" entertainment career, which is where she's best suited to be anyway.

This'll be the end of her political career

Maybe they'll let her interview Katie Coric and Charley Gibson.

This'll be the end of her political career, then, which is not a bad thing. She was going to just screw things up for conservatives, again, anyway. Confuse and splinter the party. IMHO.

And it'll be the beginning of her "official" entertainment career, which is where she's best suited to be anyway.

I'd like to see her as Chair of the RNC.

I admire her spunk and straight forward thought, but unless they hand her a well schooled research staff, I think she is in over her head. I still don't see her as having Washington connections or insider information.

This'll be the end of her political career, then, which is not a bad thing. She was going to just screw things up for conservatives, again, anyway. Confuse and splinter the party. IMHO.

And it'll be the beginning of her "official" entertainment career, which is where she's best suited to be anyway.

I would like to see her in a skimpy dark blue negligee bringing me a gin and tonic.

Hope she replaces Greta.... Damn, she's tough to look at!

I would like to see her in a skimpy dark blue negligee bringing me a gin and tonic.

This'll be the end of her political career, then, which is not a bad thing. She was going to just screw things up for conservatives, again, anyway. Confuse and splinter the party. IMHO.

And it'll be the beginning of her "official" entertainment career, which is where she's best suited to be anyway.

A wonderful thing. Pretty too.

Hope she replaces Greta.... Damn, she's tough to look at!

Easy to look at, not qualified for POTUS but certainly can outdo any libtard on the planet. I hope her and other conservatives continue to pound libs and contribute to the 2010 bloodletting in November.

All that is required to be "Qualified" is to meet the condition of the costitution, have a sense of right and wrong, and the guts to stand by cnvictions.
Slimy political skills are the least diserable trait.

"if we are ever lucky enough to have somebody like Sarah Palin serve as our President"

Wow....is it April 1st already...man this winter went by fast!!

Jeff_0

Just who do you like for potus?

I figured this would give some of you guys the lip curl and you would start peeing down your leg.

After all it's :

"It's God's Plan"

You replied to me, but that's not my quote.

Just sayin' . . .

Good God, I don't know you, but you are a dickhead sometimes

Maybe they'll let her interview Katie Coric and Charley Gibson.

Jeff_0

Just who do you like for potus?

Good God, I don't know you, but you are a dickhead sometimes

Now THAT woud be worth watching!.....


Casey

After all it's :

"It's God's Plan"

She might be in over her head but she'd still be better than what we've got now, especially from a 2nd Amendment standpoint.

Correct.. But Huckabee's a dead duck... After the latest scandal regarding that murderer he has the same chance as a chub next to a starving Muskie..

I'll stand by my statements. She was gonna screw up any chance of getting a serious, "real" conservative elected.

MAN you guys horn up easy!

I'll stand by my statements. She was gonna screw up any chance of getting a serious, "real" conservative elected. She's too divisive, and her appeal is too rooted in the culture-war social issues.

And, she'll do well as a commentator/entertainer. It suits her. No?

That's my opinion and it ain't from the NYT and I don't drink lattes and Nemesis is an idiot. Thhhpttt!

Who do I want for POTUS? The best man/woman running in that election. Same as always. I won't vote for a rabid pro-lifer nor a rabid gun-grabber. Beyond that, it comes down to the problems of the particular day, and the particular candidates.

( which may I add is entirely rational- try it!)

MAN you guys horn up easy!

I'll stand by my statements. She was gonna screw up any chance of getting a serious, "real" conservative elected. She's too divisive, and her appeal is too rooted in the culture-war social issues.

And, she'll do well as a commentator/entertainer. It suits her. No?

That's my opinion and it ain't from the NYT and I don't drink lattes and Nemesis is an idiot. Thhhpttt!

Who do I want for POTUS? The best man/woman running in that election. Same as always. I won't vote for a rabid pro-lifer nor a rabid gun-grabber. Beyond that, it comes down to the problems of the particular day, and the particular candidates.

( which may I add is entirely rational- try it!)

Huck is for Huck.

Phyllis Schlafly, conservatism�s �first lady,� had this to say about presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: �He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles, yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Huckabee.�

�He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement,� another of Huckabee�s countless conservative detractors told the Wall Street Journal�s John Fund. �He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate.�

�[Huckabee] was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal,� reveals Betsy Hagan. The Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum was a key backer of [Huckabee�s] early runs for office, and was once �his No. 1 fan,� explains Fund. Hagan now cautions that, �Just like Bill Clinton [Huckabee] will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.�

So too has Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator been out-and-about chatting to folks in Arkansas. A fair number of them describe Huckabee disdainfully as �a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak, and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics.� For instance, Huckabee used public money to fund his family�s Falstaffian appetites, and �tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor's mansion.� He was also in the habit of scolding �the media for reporting [his] transgressions rather than demanding that the transgressors make things right.� Consequently, Huckabee had been investigated 14 times and reprimanded five times by the ethics commission.

Like Michael Dukakis, Huckabee waded into the moral miasma of penal abolition. Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988, fought to secure a prison furlough for convicted murderer Willie Horton. Horton went on to assault a Massachusetts man and rape his fianc�e during his recreational weekend off. Wayne Dumond, the recipient of Huckabee�s helping hand, raped and murdered a Missouri woman. When asked about his difficult-to-defend role �in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board lobbying on behalf of a rapist,� Huckabee has offered a thesaurus of excuses.

On economics, Huckabee is also a habitual offender. The Club for Growth, which is dedicated to promoting a �low-tax and limited-government agenda,� has few good things to say about him. Apparently, there is nothing invisible about Huckabee�s heavy regulatory hand. His consistent contempt for the taxpayer has earned him �a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute.� �By the end of his ten-year tenure,� writes the Club�s Andrew Roth, �Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37 percent higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16 percent higher motor fuel taxes, and 103 percent higher cigarette taxes.� State spending under Huckabee increased a whopping 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.�

GDP growth declines as the government�s share of the GDP rises. Huckabee, that economic wrecking ball, inaugurated new programs and expanded existing ones so that �the number of state government workers rose 20 percent during his tenure, and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion.�

Needless to say, Huckabee hopped for joy when George Bush, his evil ideological twin, passed a prescription-drug benefit that would add trillions to the Medicare shortfall. But not even Bush stooped as low as to support raising the minimum wage. As someone possessing �zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement,� Huckabee obliged. Understandably, he was incapable of grasping that fixing the price of labor above market rate or the employee's productivity increases unemployment among the poor and the unskilled.

Huckabee�s philosophically limp conservatism led him to slip between the sheets with the Democrats in his support for expanding the SCHIP health-care program, and in favoring the �cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions.� The last is a scam that�ll cause massive job and income loss.

�F� for immigration: That�s how Roy Beck, president of �Numbers USA,� has graded Huckabee on that front. It�s only fair to point out that by sheer fluke Huckabee reversed his left-liberal stand on illegal immigration when he decided to run for president.

The CAFTA and NAFTA so-called trade agreements are not free trade, but managed trade. This is why Rep. Ron Paul, Mr. Liberty himself, has rejected these usurpations. The Hegelian Huckabee, however, has sided with the statists who�d sooner subordinate America�s sovereignty, and allow powerful, unaccountable bureaucracies to dictate the terms of trade.

Indeed, Ron Paul is the gold standard for personal and political principles. �When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Rep. Ron Paul,� vouches the Club for Growth. �On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding.�

Who other than Dr. Paul has �voted nine out of nine times against raising his own pay�? Who other than Dr. Paul has refused to partake in the obscene congressional pension scheme, a veritable shakedown of the indentured taxpayer?

Nicknamed �Dr. No� for voting against all legislation that isn�t expressly authorized by the Constitution, Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to increase the power of the executive branch; and never taken a government-paid junket.

And he voted no to the Iraq war.

Huckabee, on the other hand, is as wasteful about lives and limbs as he is about material assets not his own. During a recent presidential debate, he recommended goose-stepping Americans into supporting the Iraq war: �We can�t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.� How convenient; Huckabee wishes to collectivize the responsibility for the wrongs he went along with.

To this fascistic folderol, Dr. Paul replied: �No, when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.�

And it is the obligation of evangelicals to heed Mrs. Schlafly, and refrain from �selling� Americans on another confidence trickster worthy of a P.T. Barnum circus, not of higher office.

She did good tonight.

Not sure I fully agree with this opinion.

She's off to the races tonight starting with O'Reilly and then a full hour of Beck tomorrow.

That's cool. We're just trading opinions here.

I base my opinion on:

-her negatives are too high;
-she's very polarizing and would NOT garner the crucial "middle" votes (like me);

Will she appeal to the "base"? At least some of them, yes. But that only works if a candidate can also appeal to the much broader spectrum of people, and she does not.

On top of that, as if it wasn't enough, she's a quitter and, as Shane puts it's so well, a "hot mess".

BUT, for firing up the base, she's great, and now she has the perfect venue to do that, and, to dispel any notions of ditziness that many have about her.

IMHO.

I agree, she's here to stay.

But she's not a viable presidential candidate.

They are two different things.

Point. And, she now has the position where she can establish "gravitas".

Or lose it <grin>.

We'll see!

[

That's cool. We're just trading opinions here.

I base my opinion on:

-her negatives are too high;
-she's very polarizing and would NOT garner the crucial "middle" votes (like me);

Will she appeal to the "base"? At least some of them, yes. But that only works if a candidate can also appeal to the much broader spectrum of people, and she does not.

On top of that, as if it wasn't enough, she's a quitter and, as Shane puts it's so well, a "hot mess".

BUT, for firing up the base, she's great, and now she has the perfect venue to do that, and, to dispel any notions of ditziness that many have about her.

IMHO.

- that Sarah Palin believed Saddam Hussein to be behind the attacks on 9/11, didn't understand why North and South Korea were separate (the Korean War) and that she could not properly pronounce Joe Biden's name. The book contends that Palin was a mentally unstable person prone to wild mood swings, describing her being hopelessly lost in a "catatonic stupor" at one point during the campaign.

That's cool. We're just trading opinions here.

I base my opinion on:

-her negatives are too high;
-she's very polarizing and would NOT garner the crucial "middle" votes (like me);

Will she appeal to the "base"? At least some of them, yes. But that only works if a candidate can also appeal to the much broader spectrum of people, and she does not.

On top of that, as if it wasn't enough, she's a quitter and, as Shane puts it's so well, a "hot mess".

BUT, for firing up the base, she's great, and now she has the perfect venue to do that, and, to dispel any notions of ditziness that many have about her.

IMHO.

There's some pretty hnegative remarks about Palin that came out in a new book "Game Change".

- that the affair between John Edwards and his campaign videographer was known about and kept quiet by three of his aides from early on. Edwards comes off in the book as a man with a massive ego and delusional tendencies. His wife Elizabeth is described by insiders as being "an abusive, intrusive, paranoid condescending crazywoman."

- that former President Bill Clinton was involved in an affair in 2006 that many thought would derail Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency and he offended Ted Kennedy deeply while trying to win his endorsement for his wife's campaign by saying the following about then-candidate Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

There's some pretty hnegative remarks about Palin that came out in a new book "Game Change".

The thing is, I wanted Palin to do good and I wanted her to be this no nonsense straight talking politician that conservatives could rally around but she let's me down every time she opens up that pretty little mouth of hers.

Maybe she is a good person who just doesn't communicate very well and maybe she does believe in small govt, less taxes and more personal responsibility but I sure as hell can't figure out what she's talking about when she speaks. She rambles on, she's incoherent and she can't make a point. If she's the future of the GOP, the future ain't looking so bright.

If she's the future of the GOP, the future ain't looking so bright.

This stint on FOX will either make her better or supply her opponents with ammo, either way we'll know better what she is capable of. It's a win/win.

Heck she and Huck are getting free airtime right now. What could be better???

Why would anyone be excited about Huckabee unless your only concern is govt mandated morality?

We'll have to compare notes on Government mandated morality. Not sure I understand that one. He's not going to make you go to Church!

. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

-she's very polarizing

-she's very polarizing and would NOT garner the crucial "middle" votes (like me);

Will she appeal to the "base"? At least some of them, yes. But that only works if a candidate can also appeal to the much broader spectrum of people, and she does not.

Not too sure about that.


Here's what Huck has to say and one of the reasons he annoys many on the right.



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

I base my opinion on:

-her negatives are too high;

-she's very polarizing and would NOT garner the crucial "middle" votes (like me);

There's some pretty hnegative remarks about Palin that came out in a new book "Game Change".

Positives are as high and higher.





You thinking you are "middle" is hilarious, yet sadly self-explanatory.

When I have stated my pro-Palin stuff on Campfire before, rrroae said:
�Nice shot there buddy, especially coming from a person who acts like they're the final word when it comes to Palin.
Nothing like an arrogant prick calling others arrogant pricks.�

Nice shot there buddy, especially coming from a person who acts like they're the final word when it comes to Palin.

Nothing like an arrogant prick calling others arrogant pricks.

Incidentally Nemesis, when did you start quoting Huffington Post??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/the-blackhearted-ethos-of_n_420419.html

She has many positives and can be influential and important. But not as a POTUS candidate.

I am the very personification of middle. I have beliefs that put me to the left, and those that put me to the right. I have deep suspicion of the left.I have deep suspicion of the American right. I exist in (pay attention now Mikey!) the... drum roll please... middle!

You voted for Obama, you lying bastard..............and he was rated the MOST LIBERAL person in the US Congress!!!

And guess what. We in the middle, who don't grant blind allegiance to either side, call elections. Every time.

No, you and the other fence sitters like you who have no moral compass, sit back and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before you make a move one way or the other.

And once the real fighting is done, gutless wonders like you who are "in the middle" usually go out on the battlefield and shoot the wounded!!

And we don't like Palin. For good reasons

Yep.........among them are:

She doesn't believe in killing innocent unborn children.

She's is a strong conservative.

She is a God fearing, independent, woman with traditional American beliefs and is not afraid to state them publicly.

She usually speaks extemporaneously from her heart and does not rely on a well rehearsed teleprompter script to get her point across.

In other words.............she is everything you are not and that's why you "don't like Palin."


I want a viable Republican party to counterbalance the excesses of the Dem's, and to replace them in due time when the pendulum swings back that way. A republican party ready to govern from a position of intellectual rigor- not tying itself in logical knots over the stupid rabble-rousing social stuff!!

Like I said..............a [bleep] fence sitter!!


She has many positives and can be influential and important. But not as a POTUS candidate.

Since your idea of a "POTUS candidate" is Barack Hussein Obama II,........................... I hope you don't mind if I politely inform you that you can take your "opinion" and shove it up your azz!!

One thing for sure, she scares the piss out of the libs.

One thing for sure, she scares the piss out of the libs.

-her negatives are too high;
-she's very polarizing

That she scares them only paints a portion of the picture.

She makes them feel inferior, men and women alike. It's especially apparent in those suffering from gender-confusion...

You mean like this girly man, Jeff-O freak?

Actually, it's not so much that she makes them feel inferior because she certainly doesn't try, it's just that that's what is naturally inside them and it emerges involuntarily. They lash out at her out of it. A perfectly natural defense mechanism at play. Amusing to watch.

Yep..........it's amusing to watch.

I like it when he comes on here and flops around like a hooked fish trying to defend his completely untenable position.

Pretty soon I expect that we'll get the "I didn't know the gun was loaded defense" where he'll claim he inadvertently pushed the wrong button when he voted for Obama...........

He's such a dishonest low life............

Much like the rest of the libs he has aligned himself with.

Can you believe that he expects to have any credibility here when he shares the same political philosophy with people like:

Micheal Moore, Rosy O'Donnell, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy et al ?

God, I started feeling queasy just typing those names!!

She gets much support from the middle but maybe not so much from those who would like to believe they occupy the middle but are in fact in the muddle.

I continue to hear a lot of "she's not a viable POTUS candidate" blah, blah, blah. But not much of who is??? and where are they? As for the "middle" can you say JOHN MCCAIN! look where that got us! Personally I'm tired of Ivy league educated well mannered, non offensive candidates, that seem to have a smooth answer to everything.

I continue to hear a lot of "she's not a viable POTUS candidate" blah, blah, blah. But not much of who is??? and where are they? As for the "middle" can you say JOHN MCCAIN! look where that got us! Personally I'm tired of Ivy league educated well mannered, non offensive candidates, that seem to have a smooth answer to everything.

"I want a viable Republican party to counterbalance the excesses of the Dem's, and to replace them in due time when the pendulum swings back that way."

WTF?

Having read "Dreams From My Father","Audacity of Hope","The Obama Nation","The Man Behind the Mask","The Persecution of Sarah Palin","Going Rogue", and finally "Culture of Corruption" I can assure the members here of several facts.Sarah Palin has more common sense in her pinky than every Marxist in the Obama administration combined,including the Kenyon usuper himself.She is guileless unlike Obama,whose whole life is one of deceit.She speaks from her heart and from her many years of executive experience,unlike Obama who is always scripted and had not one scintilla of executive experience prior to becoming POTUS.She is humble unlike Obama whose arrogance is illustrated in his radio interviews in which he claimed the Framers of our Constitution created a flawed document that didn't give the federal government enough power.Only an arrogant Marxist could possibly believe his own bilge.

The media abdicated their Frist Amendment responsibility in favor of defending,promoting and advocating for Obama while attacking and smearing McCain and Palin.If you've only read what the media perpetrated on the American public,you would have no clue as to the truth about Sarah Palin

There have been many criticisms of her but the most untrue of all is that she is stupid.Nothing could be further from the truth.But it's this ficticious scenario that the media believes it must foist onto the public in their pathetic attempt to discredit her while promoting Obama.Her life is an open book, unlike Obama who has has sealed all of his transcripts from high school through his years at Harvard.

Since the public didn't perform their due diligence we got what some,but not all of us deserve,a MOTUS ,"Marxist of the United States".

I could write reams about the decency,honesty and above all the common sense that Sarah Palin exibits and contrast that with the immorality,deceit and imbecilic Marxist ideology of Obama.But life is short and I need to get to the gym.

You lost me when you said she is smart. .

And we don't like Palin. For good reasons, many of which have been clearly stated by conservatives right here on this thread.

You're truly lost thinking she's not..

I've listen to her speak and she is irritating. She needs to take speech lessons.

So you've listened to her speak huh?

If you find this "irritating", perhaps you should take some listening comprehension lessons................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZOpS7YDBEM

Jeff O just might be in the middle...in Oregon.

I say that with all due respect to the conservative citizens of that state.

No I agree with DD. She needs to drop the giddy tone and giddy grins if she wishes to be taken with confidence.

No I agree with DD. She needs to drop the giddy tone and giddy grins if she wishes to be taken with confidence.

Yea, we need a light skinned black with no negro dialect.
Yes sir that what we really need

Having read "Dreams From My Father","Audacity of Hope","The Obama Nation","The Man Behind the Mask","The Persecution of Sarah Palin","Going Rogue", and finally "Culture of Corruption" I can assure the members here of several facts.Sarah Palin has more common sense in her pinky than every Marxist in the Obama administration combined,including the Kenyon usuper himself.She is guileless unlike Obama,whose whole life is one of deceit.She speaks from her heart and from her many years of executive experience,unlike Obama who is always scripted and had not one scintilla of executive experience prior to becoming POTUS.She is humble unlike Obama whose arrogance is illustrated in his radio interviews in which he claimed the Framers of our Constitution created a flawed document that didn't give the federal government enough power.Only an arrogant Marxist could possibly believe his own bilge.

The media abdicated their Frist Amendment responsibility in favor of defending,promoting and advocating for Obama while attacking and smearing McCain and Palin.If you've only read what the media perpetrated on the American public,you would have no clue as to the truth about Sarah Palin

There have been many criticisms of her but the most untrue of all is that she is stupid.Nothing could be further from the truth.But it's this ficticious scenario that the media believes it must foist onto the public in their pathetic attempt to discredit her while promoting Obama.Her life is an open book, unlike Obama who has has sealed all of his transcripts from high school through his years at Harvard.

Since the public didn't perform their due diligence we got what some,but not all of us deserve,a MOTUS ,"Marxist of the United States".

I could write reams about the decency,honesty and above all the common sense that Sarah Palin exibits and contrast that with the immorality,deceit and imbecilic Marxist ideology of Obama.But life is short and I need to get to the gym.

You mean like Barack Hussein Obama for example?

What I want to, is a viable opposition party, one that rolls back Fascism rather than just strengthen it. In other words, a Republican Party that follows the Constitution.

I've listen to her speak and she is irritating. She needs to take speech lessons.

No I agree with DD. She needs to drop the giddy tone and giddy grins if she wishes to be taken with confidence.

He is far from giddy, but yes I guess, look where being well spoken got him.

A politician needs to convey in a way to earn confidence, did you ever hear Margret Thatcher speak in giggling tone?

Check her out in this interview, no giggling, no flirty smiles, she puts out confidence. She needs to get more disciplined in her delivery.

I'm a cynical curmudgeon. It takes a lot to impress me especially with one's intelligence. I see nothing in Palin to suggest she has high intelligence.

Palin would bore me to tears in about 5 mintues. She's a block of wood in the head department. I will give her credit though for being smart enough to know she can't win POTUS. The best place for an empty head is on TV.

There, you all know how I feel about the block of wood er I mean the empty head er. I mean....

How intelligent and well-spoken does one need to be in order to get that done?

"Speech lessons"?

Apparently a lot of intelligence is needed and maybe speech lessons as well because since Lincoln shredded the Constitution no Republican has been able to even come close to following the Constitution with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge.

But I suspect it will do little good for those who prefer the polished speech of used car salesmen and neighborhood organizers, regardless of the snake oil they are selling!!

How intelligent and well-spoken does one need to be in order to get that done?

"Speech lessons"?

Can't tell you what the middle is exactly, because I'm not there.

A liberal that allegedly hunts is still a liberal.

The fact, as you admitted, that you are unable to make a decision as to you your political philosophy, indicates bipolar disorder, FAS, or just cognitive contradictions.

Calling yourself "the middle" doesn't make that any more true than you claiming to have spanked Stick re: 308 vs. 7-08.

You lost me when you said she is smart. She doesn't write books ghost writers write her books. She gives them a bare bones outline and they put the meat on the bones. If she actually wrote the books than I would be impressed. I've listen to her speak and she is irritating. She needs to take speech lessons.

RIGHT

-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".

-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;

-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.

-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.

-State's rights.

JO lives in one of the most liberal areas in Oregon. Being surrounded by rabid liberalism has clearly skewed his perspective.

In his world, a pro abortion, pro drug, pro gay marraige, pro Obama/Biden, anti-religion, socialist agenda is mainstream, centrist, the "middle". That's how he can make the most liberal man in the senate the most powerful man in the world while claiming a deep distrust of rabid liberals!

Buying a gun therefore puts his toe over the line into conservatism in his mind, when in reality he couldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.....

You know this how?

And that's where some of you have your heads up your butts with respect to Obama. He was absolutely the right choice-

Wow indeed. You are so utterly and completely completely wrong, yet so very sure of yourself. Perhaps your view makes sense in relation to your point of reference/ upbringing, because to tell the truth, you are passionate about it, and really seem intelligent. You also remain civil, which is why you are not on ignore. That said, it should be obvious that I most emphatically disagree with you, particularly about Obama being good for the country. There is only one positive I can glean from his Presidency, and that is that it should kick conservatives hard enough in the azz that they realize they have given the country away to Socialism. Maybe it will serve to revitalize interest in the Constitution, and what gov't can ,and cannot do within the parameters of that document. Past that, he is an absolute disaster, tearing the USA apart, to rebuild it as a Socialist utopia. That trick never works.

So... it's "hilarious" that I would call myself in the middle, yet, you can't even define it? That's flat stupid.

Methinks you are shooting some blunt arrows there, Mikey.

"Allegedly" hunts? WTF are you implying? Please explain that one. If you are saying I'm lying about hunting then first, [bleep] you!! Second, [bleep] YOU!! and third, I can prove it (and have) so... [bleep] you.

I HAVE made a decision, long ago, as to my political philosophy. It's very simple. I don't subscribe fully to either side because neither holds a lock on the truth. To blindly follow either side is to blindly swallow numerous serious philosophical contradictions. I, and others here, have pointed out over and over and over how riddled with contradiction and outright deceit the modern American "conservative" position is. Yet, you fail to so much as acknowledge this, you and yours, instead bleating that those of us who won't accept this BS are somehow "muddled". I call BS. "Muddled" is to call yourself a freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, small government "conservative" and then, say, deny people personal freedoms. Violate the constitution. Espouse a HUGE government capable of not only meddling in OUR lives, but in meddling in the lives of people all around the world. And on and on.

As near as I can tell, my views break down about like this. I say "as near as I can tell" because, frankly, some things that modern "conservatives" want would better be described as liberal, and vice versa. So I have to attempt to categorize these based not on where they SHOULD be, but rather where they ARE in the modern spectrum. But anyway:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHT

-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".

-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;

-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.

-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.

-State's rights.

LEFT

-pro-Choice;

-pro-environment; it's all we have and with this many phookin' people, there's just no alternative but regulation in this regard;

-against imprisoning people for the simple use of intoxicants; if you don't own your own HEAD, what do you own? Besides, a bunch of drug users (alchohol) wrote those stupid laws.

-support equal rights and privelages for all law-abiding adult humans. What consenting adults do is not the State's business, nor is denying anyone rights or privilidges based on that.

-against un-Cnstitutionally forcing religion into public institutions such as schools and courtrooms .

-pro-union. A necessary evil. This ties into the "free markets don't really exist anyway" comment, above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you go Mikey. Tell me that's not a person in the middle. I dare ya.

In the end, though, what we have in America is NOT a political system that tears everything down and starts from scratch with each new leader, like happens with warlords and dictators and so on.

What we have is akin to a train going down a track. The new administration gets a train... on a track, going a direction, at a speed, with a certain cargo, a certain amount of coal to burn, and so on.

And so, the only rational thing to do is to look at where the train is at each "stop" (election) and look at who's available to take over the train and make a call as to who can best take the reins at that moment, for that train. And McCain/Palin, and more importantly the out-of-gas Republican Party, was NOT the right people to hand that train to in '08. Period. They'd run the damn thing out of coal, and were standing there like deer in the headlights wondering what happened, who to blame, and what to do.

And that's where some of you have your heads up your butts with respect to Obama. He was absolutely the right choice- given the choices. The train he inherited was in the very midst of a massive socialization of the economy- because of George Bush! And started by George Bush. To blame bank bailouts and stimulus packages and so on on Obama is partisan stupidity and frankly beneath most of you here; you are smarter than that!! (excluding Nemesis).

I got chit to do. maybe I'll check back on this thread, but case closed...irregardless.

How can you believe in the 2nd amendment and vote for obama? Don't give us that bs about guns being off the table for now. The first thing the dems did in 09 was to write shiite like the blair holt act. Fortunately, some saw it was too soon to start grabbing guns. Taking the risk of giving the douche in chief a 2nd term is ignorance at it's best.

Small government? Electing an ultra liberal and expecting him to not spend is like giving your child to a child molester and expecting him to not molest your child.

"I'll say it till I'm blue in the face because it's true. The perverse obsession with Puritan social issues is POISON for the Republicans, in addition to being anti-freedom and unConstitutional. You want to win? Stop scaring off the crucial middle with harebrained attempts to put the Bible places it shouldn't be."

And you'll still be wrong. If anything the Bible is being pushed out of places more and more every day.

The Ghost writers name is Lynn Vincent. It was covered in the news when her book was released.

As it should be.

Religion is admirable to the extent that it uplifts the human spirit.

It's deplorable when it's pushed into places it doesn't belong, which is anywhere other than the home and church.

Further, it's all fantasy anyway. You don't want the Great Pumpkin in the schools, I don't want Jesus in the schools. Same damn thing.

Wow indeed. You are so utterly and completely completely wrong, yet so very sure of yourself. Perhaps your view makes sense in relation to your point of reference/ upbringing, because to tell the truth, you are passionate about it, and really seem intelligent.

Man Beck is really nailing this woman down. Almost to the point where he's making her really qualify herself. I'm seeing a different and more sincere/polished Sarah Palin versus her campaign run. Good interview between Beck and Palin today.

Palin/Beck 2012?

f you want to talk about the "direction of the train", then a reasonable discussion of that begins with Bush II. The Obama administration began at the point at which the Bush administration ended. I think we all agree that things were FUBAR at that point.

Second, who said anything about me voting for a second term?

Third, Bush spent like a drunken sailor. A HUGE part of Obama's deficit is simply an extension of Bush's. The Republican Party is NOT the party of small spending. It's not a reasonable criteria to differentiate the two parties by, any more.

A person who graduates from Harvard Law, and goes on to be a constitutional law professor, has demonstrated an ability to assimilate information, to mount and maintain a debate, and to play the game of politics. All important things.

The question (or I should say accusation)was that Jeff is not in the middle, well how would you define him. Do you think liberals would define him as a liberal with these stances?


-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".

-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;

-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.

-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.

-State's rights.

"A person who graduates from Harvard Law, and goes on to be a constitutional law professor, has demonstrated an ability to assimilate information, to mount and maintain a debate, and to play the game of politics. All important things."

Bush graduated from Yale. Your point is?

The question (or I should say accusation)was that Jeff is not in the middle, well how would you define him. Do you think liberals would define him as a liberal with these stances?


-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".

-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;

-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.

-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.

-State's rights.

Evidently, JO doesn't think that having experience with taxation, budgets, military matters,administration, etc., means much-things that Bush, as governor of Texas, was immersed.
Obama on the other hand, was a community organizer, and oh yes, the junior senator from Illinois.
Not hard to see who has more on the ball.

I forgot to mention that Bush was a USAF fighter pilot...
Maybe I am missing something, but military pilots aren't known for being complete idiots, which if you were to listen to JO and his ilk-is exactly what Bush is.

Yep. A fancy degree and no real world work experience makes one qualified to be President.

George W. Bush was never in the USAF. He pulled some strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard, which during 1968-1974 was exempt from combat duty in Vietnam. His record and performance was spotty at best.

George W. Bush was never in the USAF. He pulled some strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard, which during 1968-1974 was exempt from combat duty in Vietnam. His record and performance was spotty at best.

Uhhh, the last time I checked, the Air National Guard units in the US are part of the United States Air Force-train with them, deploy with them,etc.
You still want to try and tell us that Obama, the 'community organizer' has more skill and talent than a former fighter pilot in the USAF??

Check Bush's record before you make him out to be Randall Cunningham. The USAF may have trained him, but it was time and money that could have been spent training someone more dedicated and deserving. Most of us were never handed anything. It busts my chops when I hear someone trying to defend a mediocre elite.

The Ghost writers name is Lynn Vincent. It was covered in the news when her book was released.

Toot and scoot. Typical. Gutless, but typical.
Laughable.
You need to do two things.
Sorry, sport. You don't get to make those determinations.
First, since you've mocked my self-definition of "middle", it's only fair that you define "middle".
IMO, voting for Obama, and then "defending" that, rather than recognizing your error and apologizing for it, fences you out of anything recognizable as "middle".
Second, you need to clarify what you meant by saying I'm an "alleged" hunter. Being called a liar really pisses me off. Is that what you are implying?
Ease up ya overachiever. Learn a few words. Show where I called you a liar. That's different then an implication, which didn't occur either. I've not seen you hunt and your attitude about almost everything is different than that of people that I've hunted with. All I can say is that you allege to be a hunter. I'll accept your honorable word though. <g>

I'd say based on his action of voting for Obamma, he is at best disengenous with those claims, or they are a flat out lie.

To me he sounds like your typical secular progressive liberal. He wants to live his life as he wants, makes lots of money, and feel good that the little people are being taken care of by the government (and hopefully someone elses money). He is scared to death of anyone who mention's Christian values, as there is evidently something in the way he lives his life that is diametrically opposed to Christian values.

And that bs about republickans apealing to the "middle" is utter bs. The democrats apeal to the middle, whenever they republicans run a "centrist" candidate, they loose, because they can't out democrat a democrat.

If the republicans actually ran true concervative small government candidates, they'd win. Because there are alot of people who want a good leader that'll put things in order. But when it comes to centrist fence sitters that blow in the wind, well if you buy that hope and change crap, you know that's what the democrats promise.

Evidently, JO doesn't think that having experience with taxation, budgets, military matters,administration, etc., means much-things that Bush, as governor of Texas, was immersed.

I forgot to mention that Bush was a USAF fighter pilot...

Bush was immersed in alcohol and little else. Oh yeah, and Daddy's money.

Being a cracker jack fighter pilot doesn't mean one will be a cracker jack commander-in-chief.

I couldn't fly a fighter jet if my life depended on it but I've forgotten more about politics and history than Bush and Obama combined ever knew.

Well, huckleberry...........I won't "allege" that you are not a hunter, I will state it emphatically!!

You wouldn't make a pimple on a real hunter's azz..............

Being a cracker jack fighter pilot doesn't mean one will be a cracker jack commander-in-chief.

I couldn't fly a fighter jet if my life depended on it but I've forgotten more about politics and history than Bush and Obama combined ever knew.

-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;

-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.

-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.

-pro-Choice;

-pro-environment; it's all we have and with this many phookin' people, there's just no alternative but regulation in this regard;

-support equal rights and privelages for all law-abiding adult humans.

What consenting adults do is not the State's business, nor is denying anyone rights or privilidges based on that.

-against un-Cnstitutionally forcing religion into public institutions such as schools and courtrooms.

-pro-union. A necessary evil.

And Obama was immersed in alcohol, coke, weed and other people's money. Can't see how he's better qualified.

Now how would you know that?

Those would all be jim-dandy, if you hand't have negated them with the next list. And pretty much everything the left agenda is about (people you much mor commonly align with than the right) strives to override and remove and destroy everything on your list. You don't look like a centerist to me.




Everyone has a right to live except human infants. You're negating one from your list.



Oops. There goes the small government idea. Negated.

And there goes the free market idea, too. Negated.


Including the right to kill their babies? And use unconstitutionally confiscated tax moneys pay for it? What happened to the accountability and responsibility? Doesn't apply when they get pregnant, I reckon. More negating. And I'm sure you're thinking of homos when writing that. They don't want anything equal, they want greater-than-equal status for themselves.



Agreed on drug use. Also I'll agree with that about homos if they'd keep in in their home. But they won't. It doesn't belong on every tv show, in the church pulpits, behind the front desk of classrooms, inside the scoutleader's shirt nor any other place children happen to be. And I damn sure don't want it marching up and down the streets dressed as a rainbow and pronouncing its "pride".

And it doesn't belong on a marriage license, either. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to become husband and wife. Homos do not qualify. By definition.



Those public institutions BEGAN with the 10 commandments on their walls. If people don't like it they don't have to stop and read it. They're free to disbelieve if they choose but should leave other people alone about it. But they won't. Just like the homos they want greater-than-equal status. They hate their Creator so much they'd have every mentnion of Him removed forever and make sure no one ever spoke His name again. Smartest thing they could do is the same as the homos, sit down and shut up. They're awakening a sleeping giant, these 2 groups, and They're going to get stomped on really, really hard if they don't sit down and shut up about it. That's been my advice to homos and anti-Christians for a long, long time. They're gonna learn the hard way. Very soon, too.


Just another damned bureacracy. And like the many too many government bureaucracies, another that forces people to do things that if left freedom of choice they wouldn't do. You're espousing big government like behavior in the hands of a small private group. I see no diffference.
Unions ARE evil, but certainly not a necessity. In fact, it appears to me they've lined themselves up for some inevitable stomping just like the homos and God haters have.

I seriously doubt that your knowledge is greater than either Bush or Obama. I don't know your background, but you must admit that being "in the business" of politics has given both these individuals quite a lot of exposure to the nuances of the system that most people simply don't have the opportunity to experience. I think your statement is foolish.

Looking back on my earlier posts on this thread, I think I gave the impression that I was being disrespectful to JO.

While I obviously don't agree with his political views, I would still share a campfire with him any day as I don't think he is a bad guy.

Last time I checked, it was still legal to vote for whomever presidential canidate you desire.


FWIW.

DITTOS +1

Looking back on my earlier posts on this thread, I think I gave the impression that I was being disrespectful to JO.

Boo [bleep] hoo............


While I obviously don't agree with his political views, I would still share a campfire with him any day as I don't think he is a bad guy.

Yeah, I guess if you looked around a little, you could probably find some nitwits that think Adolph Hitler wasn't a "bad guy" either.


Last time I checked, it was still legal to vote for whomever presidential canidate you desire.


And exactly what has this to do with the price of tea in China?

In case you haven't noticed, no one here has ever questioned the right (legality) of someone to vote for whomever they please, but once they make who they voted for public information, others certainly have the right to question their decision!!!

I realize this stuff may be difficult for you to comprehend, but I'm sure Jeff_O (short for Obama) would be happy to explain it all to you while you guys snuggle up together "sharing your campfire".




FWIW.

Yep +2

Those would all be jim-dandy, if you hand't have negated them with the next list. And pretty much everything the left agenda is about (people you much mor commonly align with than the right) strives to override and remove and destroy everything on your list. You don't look like a centerist to me.




Everyone has a right to live except human infants. You're negating one from your list.



Oops. There goes the small government idea. Negated.

And there goes the free market idea, too. Negated.


Including the right to kill their babies? And use unconstitutionally confiscated tax moneys pay for it? What happened to the accountability and responsibility? Doesn't apply when they get pregnant, I reckon. More negating. And I'm sure you're thinking of homos when writing that. They don't want anything equal, they want greater-than-equal status for themselves.



Agreed on drug use. Also I'll agree with that about homos if they'd keep in in their home. But they won't. It doesn't belong on every tv show, in the church pulpits, behind the front desk of classrooms, inside the scoutleader's shirt nor any other place children happen to be. And I damn sure don't want it marching up and down the streets dressed as a rainbow and pronouncing its "pride".

And it doesn't belong on a marriage license, either. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to become husband and wife. Homos do not qualify. By definition.



Those public institutions BEGAN with the 10 commandments on their walls. If people don't like it they don't have to stop and read it. They're free to disbelieve if they choose but should leave other people alone about it. But they won't. Just like the homos they want greater-than-equal status. They hate their Creator so much they'd have every mentnion of Him removed forever and make sure no one ever spoke His name again. Smartest thing they could do is the same as the homos, sit down and shut up. They're awakening a sleeping giant, these 2 groups, and They're going to get stomped on really, really hard if they don't sit down and shut up about it. That's been my advice to homos and anti-Christians for a long, long time. They're gonna learn the hard way. Very soon, too.


Just another damned bureacracy. And like the many too many government bureaucracies, another that forces people to do things that if left freedom of choice they wouldn't do. You're espousing big government like behavior in the hands of a small private group. I see no diffference.
Unions ARE evil, but certainly not a necessity. In fact, it appears to me they've lined themselves up for some inevitable stomping just like the homos and God haters have.

Did the tape scare you?

"First, abortion. I have kids. I know what it means to reproduce. I am all for protecting human infants. A first-trimester fetus is not an infant. This is easy to prove logically. Further, adults make decisions all the time that kill children when it's deemed to be politically necessary.

But at the root of it, an adult female's rights to self-determination trump whatever rights a first trimester fetus might have.

As a fetus grows, the "bundle of rights" (as we put it in the real estate world) slides over to the now-infant, to the point at which by the time it's at term, the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the adult! For example, an adult has the right to get drunk. However a very pregnant woman should not, in my opinion, because at that point they have made the decision to be a vessal for a child, and the child is a viable entity."

At what point does the fetus become an infant? The way you explain it sounds like birth.

I would label him as disingenuous at best. Voting for the most anti-gun liberal in the senate doesn't show much support for the second amendment.

He wants personal freedom, accountability, and responsibility but wants to force obama care down our throats. Talk about giving the governemnt control over your life.

Dang----The woman has some Popeye forearm action going on too...She gets better with each pic I see...Good pic post and thanks FastEd. I'm making that my screen saver!

We can go round and round on this (I won't though), but it can be neatly summed up with the thought experiment whereby a fertilized embryo in a petri dish, and a 6-month-old baby, are in danger. You can only save one. By your actions, you show that YOU don't see them as equal.

For that matter, if a pregnant woman was in a dire circumstance where a child was in danger, but her actions to save it would result in the probably termination of her pregnancy, what's she going to do? Save the actual child, at the expense of the potential child.

But semantics are important. You aren't killing a human. You are preventing a potential life from forming. Very different things.

Get a life.
If memory serves, you were the one whining about JO 'ruining your entire day' whenever he made a post.

If you had half a [bleep] brain, you would just put JO on ignore and leave it at that,instead you practically have a stroke every time he posts.
He must be laughing at you...

I reserve the right to change my previous opinion of her.

Jeff,
One question on your abortion stance-
When you speak of 'saving the life in the petri dish or that of the mother', out of the estimated? 3500 abortions a day in the US(I don't have a reference, just what I have heard) how many of those(abortions) do you think are truly required to save the mother's life?

I really am curious as I will admit that I see abortion as it is currently in America as mass murder- nothing more, nothing less.

Jeff,
Yeah, I just put him on ignore also.
Should have done it a while back...

At what point is the fetus considerd a human? When it's born? Why the arbitrary line at the first trimester?

I sure am glad I'm not ok with murdering babies at any age.

"For that matter, if a pregnant woman was in a dire circumstance where a child was in danger, but her actions to save it would result in the probably termination of her pregnancy, what's she going to do? Save the actual child, at the expense of the potential child."

Of course she would but not because of the reasoning you laid out, but because she's a mother and it would be her instinct to protect her own. It wouldn't be because she stopped and made a conscious decision between the two.

So a frog egg is the same as a frog?

A seed is the same as a tree?

A spore is the same as a mushroom?

I believe a person, whether I agree with them or not, who has risen to the top elected position in the land, surely must be knowledgeable about politics. Not only knowledgeable, but an expert. Not knowing your background, and making the statement I did, are not incongruous. I simply feel that by virtue of them being where they are, they not only know a lot about political theory and philosophies, but have a real "boots on the ground" real life working grasp of what is needed to win, and maintain power. Quite possibly more than most people in the country, even those in the business. You may be, and probably are, the exception to this. I apologize.

But, to bring this back around to the topic (Palin), she would outlaw abortion even when the mother's health or life is at stake, or when the baby is deformed.

Lie!!!

As President, she would have no say in the matter, since the reversal of Roe vs Wade can only be done by the SCOTUS!!


She also believes that kids should be taught abstinence instead of frank, explicit sex education.

Yeah, she doesn't believe that kindergarten kids should be exposed to homosexuality at six years old (i.e. Johnny has two Mommies etc.) and that sex ed should be the responsibility of the parents.

My problem with this isn't that a person shouldn't have the CHOICE to (say) not abort a fetus that is deformed, or practice abstinance. Of course, they should. But it's stupid! Look how it's worked out for Palin. An unmarried daughter, with a loser dad of their teen-pregnancy child.

Happens all the time, all across the country...................and in the best of families.

Just wonderful seeing the Palin family nurturing that cute little baby instead of having it sucked out of their daughter with a vacuum cleaner as Jeff_O (short for Obama) would have done!

And a Down's Syndrome baby because 45-year-old women have a VERY high incidence of defective children. That is what she would COMPELL all of us to suffer. No!!

Bullschit!!

Babies are born with birth defects of all kinds every day and are raised to adulthood by caring parents who simply REFUSE TO KILL THEM.

Most parents are appalled at even the thought of killing one of their children, but not this devil worshiping, anti-religious, freak Jeff_O (short for Obama) who, absent of any soul, sees nothing wrong with it.

He makes a futile attempt at appeasement by claiming that he only supports first trimester abortions, but anyone with half a brain can certainly see how illogical and disingenuous this is.


IF what Palin is preaching WORKED, I would give it more credence but it does not.

The only thing that doesn't "WORK" around here is your reasoning, compassion for others, ability to know right from wrong and your amazing lack of honesty and integrity!

But then again DEVILS are not supposed to possess any of these qualities, so I guess it's understandable.

i would pick bean skins out of her butt with my teeth.

Looking back on my earlier posts on this thread, I think I gave the impression that I was being disrespectful to JO.

While I obviously don't agree with his political views, I would still share a campfire with him any day as I don't think he is a bad guy.

Last time I checked, it was still legal to vote for whomever presidential canidate you desire.


FWIW.

Since when did "knowing anything" become a prerequisite for posting here on the Campfire...........Mister Moderate??

You and that other "middle of the road" pal of yours from the West Coast don't seem to be encumbered by any rule such as this when you post here,................... so why should I be?

I realize that you get some odd enjoyment out of playing the Florence Nightingale role here by always jumping to the defense of scumbags like the aforementioned degenerate and that Maser pervert, but once in awhile you have to get out of the way and let the men here discuss matters that may be somewhat beyond your level of intellect...................ya' know??

I think I came up with a good definition of a moderate, it's a liberal who's afraid to admit it. Could also be said they simply lack conviction.

Fertilized frog eggs will become frogs (Traceable to which frog laid the eggs, and deposited the sperm), fertilized seeds become not only trees, but specific trees, Spores, well, they are pretty simple, everybody is pretty much the same, you know, like liberals...In any case, frogs, trees, and mushrooms are not on the same level as humans. It is a bad analogy.

Very classy Tim... not a surprise coming from you though.

I'm constantly amazed at how downright MEAN people get with those they disagree with politically. One famous douche from Texas tore into Alpinecreek recently because Casey held an opinion contrary to his about wolves... you gotta be kidding.

Then, a fair portion of the members that inhabit the Campfire section will run to the defense of said douche-bag. Casey is one of the best guys on this or any other forum. I may disagree with him about wolves but I'd be happy to share a campfire with him. Same for Jeff O.

Guys like Nemesis, not so much...

I'm a moderate.

Then, a fair portion of the members that inhabit the Campfire section will run to the defense of said douche-bag. Casey is one of the best guys on this or any other forum. I may disagree with him about wolves but I'd be happy to share a campfire with him. Same for Jeff O.

Guys like Nemesis, not so much...

And why is that dickhead?

Beyond that point I would personally outlaw abortion except in the case of danger to the mother and/or a deformed fetus.

Mainly for that very reason... you're a mean-spirited dipchit.

A person can be completely "right" and at the same time completely "wrong"...

Screw the Dems and the Repubicans...I've decided to become a libertarian.....

maddog

As a very wise man once told me, if you think that in the case of rape someone needs to be killed, by all means kill the rapist, not the innocent child.

I've heard and seen a lot over the years but never this...

..and liberals would say the same. What makes you think a moderate has no conviction? I have just as much conviction as you do, our opinions differ.

The trouble is Barkoff, I don't think you're a moderate. At least not from what you post at the Campfire. Being introspective doesn't make you a moderate.

As a very wise man once told me, if you think that in the case of rape someone needs to be killed, by all means kill the rapist, not the innocent child.

Well said, 458. Now for those who are claiming to be libertarians, you are fooling yourself. Rather, take your conservative values and help clean house in the Republican Party.
Kick out the rinos and other moderate misfits. If a republican talks about bipartisianship, don't let that go unchallenged.
A third party or a moderate republican is a gift to the democrats. The present rogue government should be a lesson to all of us.
Take back the Republican Party, Reagan did!

Mainly for that very reason... you're a mean-spirited dipchit.

A person can be completely "right" and at the same time completely "wrong"...

I know two women who were pregnent, diagnosed with cancer while pregnant, and the docs told them they had to have abortions "for health reasons". Neither of the mothers had abortions, both delivered healthy babies, and both mothers survived the cancer treatment.

I know alot of wonderful people that could have very easily been aborted due to the circumstances of their parents, but fortunately they weren't.

As a very wise man once told me, if you think that in the case of rape someone needs to be killed, by all means kill the rapist, not the innocent child.

[b]Exactly.[/b]

From what I see, there's such disparity within the GOP right now, no one can really say for certain what a true conservative republican is or what constitutes conservative principles.

Excuse me for asking Brad, but you're not queer are you?

When people say we need true conservatives in the Republican Party what they are really saying is we need ONLY Christian Conservatives in the Republican Party.

Well said, 458. Now for those who are claiming to be libertarians, you are fooling yourself. Rather, take your conservative values and help clean house in the Republican Party.
Kick out the rinos and other moderate misfits. If a republican talks about bipartisianship, don't let that go unchallenged.
A third party or a moderate republican is a gift to the democrats. The present rogue government should be a lesson to all of us.
Take back the Republican Party, Reagan did!

We're definitely on the same page.

I never quite understood how the activist Christian Right could say they're for conservative values, such as personal responsibility and less intrusion by govt into our lives, and in the very next sentence they advocate laws that will dictate morality and which will be enforced by threat of imprisonment by the govt.

You certainly paint with a broad brush.

Man you really are something.

"who run all freedoms and liberties through the Bible filter. It's perfectly acceptable to them to restrict freedom and liberties that can't be found in the Bible filter."

This is what I was referring to.

How do you know where common knowledge of moral law ceases to overlap with the Bible? Morality is legislated all the time. Just where does it stop and start? I will say that many Christians are actually confused about where the moral code of the Bible ends and personal, denominational or societal opinion begins.

We're definitely on the same page.

I never quite understood how the activist Christian Right could say they're for conservative values, such as personal responsibility and less intrusion by govt into our lives, and in the very next sentence they advocate laws that will dictate morality and which will be enforced by threat of imprisonment by the govt.

Ayup.

Or claim to want small, non-intrusive government and then want military and intelligence services big enough to dominate not just the US... but the entire world! Talk about government intervention...

DITTOS!!!!!! +1,000

When people say we need true conservatives in the Republican Party what they are really saying is we need ONLY Christian Conservatives in the Republican Party.

Everybody is addicted to the services big government provides.

Heck even grumpy old "kill the socialists!" conservatives would beat you with their canes if you messed with Social Security or Medicare!

I truly don't think anyone actually wants small government, or almost nobody. They want a big government that does what THEY want.

Heck even grumpy old "kill the socialists!" conservatives would beat you with their canes if you messed with Social Security or Medicare!

And while we are bashing Christians why are Christian Churches still claiming 501(C)3 tax status?

They don't. A church, temple, mosque simply does not have to file. There is no requirement to apply for a 501(C)3 status.

DITTOS +1,000

When ever I hear anybody say we need less government or say let me do it myself I say so what part of government do yo want cut?

Of course, it's always the same old argument gore the other guys ox, just don't gore my ox.

I want the government to paid for my retirement and health care I just don't want the government to tell me what to do. It doesn't work that way.

Pigeon holing is so easy for you. You think guys like TRH and Barak use a bible filter when they talk politics here? Given the state of Christianity, the average Chrsitian couldn't tell you one verse of the Bible let alone base their entire moral compass on it.

I'll tell you how you'd feel. You'd be pissed that the Constitutional seperation of church and state was being violated.

OK guys, I am a Christian, never made a secrete out of it but I doubt you will find a post anywhere were where I tried to cram my beliefs down anyone's throats. I am a christian but I pay my taxes and do not pay or attend a tax exempt church.

I am for small government. I have paid SS for all my working life but I doubt I will get back what I have paid. This spend free government will find other uses for my money. I served 24 years in the service of this country and is slightly disabled because of it but I will get no pension from it. Medicare will me dead by the time I get to 65 and I will be fined every year because I chose to be financially responsible and pay my doctor cash instead of pay an insurance company who want to screw me out of my money without giving me anything in return.

Your arguments do not hole water with me. I would be thrilled to have a small government who is run my the Constitution. I would give all I am owed by this government, hell I already have.

It's quite clear to me, it means no laws should be made "respecting an establishment of religion", this has nothing to do with mandate about going to church, it is much broader and more encompassing than that.

Our founding fathers had a healthy fear of the Puritans taking over the government and forcing their views through legislation on everyone else.

I want Christians to do whatever they want to do that makes them happy. I just don't want it to be part of "the government". That means employees of the government too- I don't want to be proslytized by post office workers, I don't want fundie teachers in the schools offering up harebrained explanations of how the world is 6000 years old, and I don't want judges working in buildings with ANY religion put in a position of favor!

... it also gives the impression that it's the COURT ITSELF saying, for instance, that thou shalt not make graven images.

Screw that. I'll make graven images if I want to. As well as coveting my neighbor's ass (as long as she's HOT <grin>).

That is the way I read it. However, it is quoted by many to mean a lot more.

It wouldn't be the ten commandment if you only posted half of them.

The schools are another prime example.

Kids have no choice but to be there (most of them, anyway). They are being taught by government employees. ANY favoring of ANY religion is just plain going to seem, to the kids, as if the State itself is favoring or even pressing them towards that religion.

True that, but I still think that the 10 Commandments are sound and a good basis for secular law, and I can't see quite why JO is threatened by that 'code?'

It's quite clear to me, it means no laws should be made "respecting an establishment of religion", this has nothing to do with mandate about going to church, it is much broader and more encompassing than that.

Our founding fathers had a healthy fear of the Puritans taking over the government and forcing their views through legislation on everyone else.

Here's me, standing there watching Nemesis trying to have a "debate".

I'm not trying to debate you................you [bleep] piece of schit!

There's nothing to debate here.

You are a low life, immoral, sacrilegious, baby killing, Obama voting son-of-a-bitch and as far as I'm concerned that's indisputable........................

Oh........and you're stupid too!

Letter from Jesus about Christmas --

It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My name out of the season. How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be
most easily understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I don't care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth, just GET ALONG AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Now, having said that let Me go on. If it bothers you that the town in which you live doesn't allow a scene depicting My birth, then just get rid of a couple of Santas and snowmen and put in a small Nativity scene on your own front lawn. If all My followers did that, there wouldn't be any need for such a scene on the town square because there would be many of them all around town.

Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree, instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees. You can remember Me anytime you see any tree. Decorate a grape vine if you wish: I actually spoke of that one in a teaching, explaining who I am in relation to you and what each of our tasks were. If you have forgotten that one, look up John 15: 1 - 8.

If you want to give Me a present in remembrance of My birth here is my wish list. Choose something from it:

1. Instead of writing protest letters objecting to the way My birthday is being celebrated, write letters of love and hope to soldiers away from home. They are terribly afraid and lonely this time of year. I know, they tell Me all the time.

2. Visit someone in a nursing home. You don't have to know them personally. They just need to know that someone cares about them.

3. Instead of writing the President complaining about the wording on the cards his staff sent out this year, why don't you write and tell him that you'll be praying for him and his family this year. Then follow up... It will be nice hearing from you again.

4. Instead of giving your children a lot of gifts you can't afford and they don't need, spend time with them. Tell them the story of My birth, and why I came to live with you down here. Hold them in your arms and remind them that I love them.

5 Pick someone that has hurt you in the past and forgive him or her.

6. Did you know that someone in your town will attempt to take their own life this season because they feel so alone and hopeless? Since you don't know who that person is, try giving everyone you meet a warm smile; it could make the difference.

7. Instead of nit picking about what the retailer in your town calls the holiday, be patient with the people who work there. Give them a warm smile and a kind word. Even if they aren't allowed to wish you a "Merry Christmas" ,that doesn't keep you from wishing them one. Then stop shopping there on Sunday. If the store didn't make so much money on that day they'd close and let their employees spend the day at home with their families.

8. If you really want to make a difference, support a ministry, especially one who takes My love and Good News to those who have never heard My name.

9. Here's a good one. There are individuals and whole families in your town who, not only will have no "Christmas" tree, but neither will they have any presents to give or receive. If you don't know them, buy some food and a few gifts and give them to the Salvation Army or some other charity that believes in Me and they will make the delivery for you.

10. Finally, if you want to make a statement about your belief in and loyalty to Me, then behave like a Christian. Don't do things in secret that you wouldn't do in My presence. Let people know by your actions that you are one of mine.

Don't forget; I am God and can take care of Myself. Just love Me and do what I have told you to do. I'll take care of all the rest. Check out the list above and get to work; time is short. I'll help you, but the ball is now in your court. And do have a most blessed Christmas with all those whom you love and remember :


I LOVE YOU,

JESUS


With God, anything is possible.

340boy - not all of the ten commandets are a sound basis for secular law.

Someone sent this to me a few weeks ago. This might be a good place to share it.

Tim... seriously... you can't see a problem with posting "commandments" in a place of government authority that include stuff about how you can't have other gods, or make images, or whatever?

I mean I have no problem with the stealin' and killin' part but we don't need them for THAT.

I agree that the state should be impartial.

The schools are another prime example.

Kids have no choice but to be there (most of them, anyway). They are being taught by government employees. ANY favoring of ANY religion is just plain going to seem, to the kids, as if the State itself is favoring or even pressing them towards that religion.

This is all fine and dandy for you Christians since you are basically in charge of the damn country, but try for a moment to visualize your FURY if your kid came home every day from school, having been compelled to (say) pledge allegiance to a flag under Allah.

No, I don't see the problem, Jeff.
I think that just because the Commandments are posted at say, a courthouse, doesn't mean that the state of Oregon is going to 'make' JO become a Christian or penalize you for being an agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, whatever.


Again, I will ask, why does having any semblance of Christianity in our government threaten you?

Our founding fathers had a healthy fear of the Puritans taking over the government and forcing their views through legislation on everyone else.