Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Are all Montanans Eunuchs?

In answer to your question, nope.

We have the same problem here in Montana that we have nationwide in the GOP, the Establishment verses the Tea Party, the libertarian wing, and real conservative wing. The Establishment wing of the Republican Party is no different than the Establishment wing of the Democrat Party just different brands of socialism.

We do have a problem with the wetbacks and their children but the GOP and Democrats like them for the votes and money they put into the tax coffers of the city state of DC.

I need to explain the conservative wing of the Establishment in the GOP. The conservative wing of the Establishment believes all laws should be Bible based, they never met a war they didn't like, and they want to spend the money instead of the Democrats.

TAK would be far better off asking questions about what going outdoors is like instead of pondering politics.



Travis

Nothing beats a eunuch, opining about eunuchs.

Thanks derb.


Travis

I know a nut-less a-hole from Bozeman, Does that count?

What's his name?



Travis

A hint... Starts with a "B" and ends with a "rad"...
I know that this is a particularly tough hint but I'll give you another.
He lives vicariously through his father.

Who is his father? Is this Star Wars? Did TAK buy a camera yet?


Travis

Travis, you owe me a steak dinner...

Again? What happened now?



Travis

Check your PMs about 3 or 4 ago...

Why the heck are you reading Huffpo? THAT's for eunuchs.

Being a supporter of national borders, the rule of law, and limited government, is now considered by the establishment Republican Party to be racist??

Read the comments. Huffpo is for eunuchs of all races.

Your hatred of all things theistic calls forth yet another foolish and false statement---the notion that establishment conservative Republicans believe all laws should be Bible based. Where might we find evidence of this evidently essential proposition---in a party platform perhaps, or some other official document intended to express the foundational beliefs of establishment Republicans? Please cite it. You'll search in vain, because it doesn't exist. The Republican Party in 1856, like this country, was founded upon an appeal to "the laws of nature and of nature's God." The phrase "laws of nature" is understood as a reference to unassisted human reason. The laws of "nature's God" is understood as a reference to revelation as embodied in Judeo-Christian revealed religion. In the minds of the Founders, the Founding generation and the Republican Party of 1856, both "reason" and "revelation" were in substantial agreement as to what constituted moral behavior and which ought to inform the understanding of both politicians and the people in governing and being governed. Republicanism was not founded on narrow sectarian grounds, any more than the nation itself and conservative establishment Republicanism today is hardly friendly to Judeo-Christian morality. The current problem isn't that Republican establishment conservatives are too committed to basing policy on the Bible; rather they are insufficiently committed to basing their policies on either the "laws of nature or nature's God". The leading intellectual lights of establishment Republican conservatism of at least the past 30 years have literally hostile to
antecedent moral truths based on the Bible, let alone "the laws of nature". William Rhenquist was a thorough going positivist who believed, without equivocation, that "might makes right", that justice is merely the interest of the stronger. Robert Bork was a severe (and singularly ineffective) critic of the notion that the Constitution somehow incorporates the Declaration of Independence, or that natural law is, in any sense, "real" law; the kind of law upon which a people or a nation should look for guidance as to policy or right behavior. Justice Scalia, (a strong practicing Catholic) the leading juridical intellectual of establishment Republican conservatism is likewise indifferent, if not hostile to the moral truths embodied in the Declaration and the Republican platforms of 1856 and 1860.

But even if what you said were true, why would that be problematic? The Preamble to the Constitution defines the ends of the Constitution as to "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". A "blessing" is something that God would want you to have; something that God thinks is good for you. The liberties which the Constitution sought to insure---the liberties which were "blessings" are most assuredly not "libertarian" values---which are properly understood as demands for "license", not liberty. The Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the world" for the "rectitude" of the good intentions of the revolionaries. It makes clear that while "consent" is the proper ground of all laws, consent as such can never authorize any behavior which is intrinsically immoral. Only the "just laws" can be drived from the consent of the governed.

Accordingly, it would be more accurate to say that establishment Republican conservatism is as hostile to biblically based morality as it is hostile to "the laws of nature"---but not nearly as hostile as Libertarianism and Leftism. These two ideologies stand on precisely the same philosophic ground---which has absolutely nothing in common with the Founders, the Declaration or the Constitution, properly understood.

Jordan

It took them a little while, but they "finally' learned the power of language from the progressives.

Just a thought, but if you toss around the word "wetback" in 2014? You're probably not going to last very long in politics. Regardless of the state you're running in.



Travis

Take_a_Pee: How on earth does your imbecilic mind work, where you go from a political article in the huffington post to wondering if all Montana men have been castrated?
First of all only an idiot would read, let alone cite in a public forum, ANYTHING from the huffington post - and secondly I give no creedence to any man who is concerned at all about other mens balls!
Mind your own balls - you obviously have enough personal problems of your own to keep your bizzarro mind busy!
Sheesh.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

TAK, you've been had. That so called news source is nothing but a propaganda rag for the hard left.
While I do believe in paying attention to what my enemies are doing, posting here for any kind of discussion is pointless. E

Good grief Rob where do I start.

First, I do not hate all things theistic. I do disagree with theistic theology because I'm a Deist but I do not hate anything. Disagreeing is way different from hate.

Second, Jefferson, the father of the Declaration of Independence, was a Deist and a member of the Unitarian Church. The first two paragraphs of the declaration of independence are Deist theology NOT Christian theology. Now the FF may or may not have been Christians but we know proof positive what Jefferson's opinions were because he wrote about them concerning religion and he wrote his own Bible on the subject. There is nothing Christian in the Declaration of Independence.

Third, I was an operative within the Republican Party at the county level and somewhat at the state level for many years. My opinion on Republican conservatives is based on personal experience. When I was an operative I discovered three items that made a Republican conservative if you wished to get elected: be a Bible thumper, a war monger, and be willing to spend OPM to buy votes.

I have no desire to live under Biblical Law any more that I have a desire to live under Sharia Law.