OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[JackB1]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Democrats. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after allowing Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

I'm with you on that! What will you think if they put another Rep. back into office? Getting Palin on the ticket, who is an evangelical religious hard right conservative, is right out of the Rove playbook of the last election. Question is, will the Evangelicals get out and vote and risk getting burned again, like they were with Bush?

[Brando70]

I would be offended if I knew you answered to Brando all of your life until you moved to my black neighborhood. Then you all of a sudden want to be called by your other name "Dequan"

I would probably go by the name "Huggy Brando."

[matthewk]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Democrats. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after allowing Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

I'm with you on that!

Did you really mean to quote my "corrected" version of GTs statement?

[matthewk]

I would be offended if I knew you answered to Brando all of your life until you moved to my black neighborhood. Then you all of a sudden want to be called by your other name "Dequan"

I would probably go by the name "Huggy Brando."

B-diddy has a nice ring to it as well

[Brando70]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Republicans. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after keeping Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

That's a little Michelle Malkin of you, don't you think?

And, as a public service announcement, Jonah Goldberg should never, ever be used an example of anything except how to be an intellectually lazy oaf and get paid for it. His brain is like three ribeye steaks, with the meat cut out and the fat held together with chewing gum.

[Jackdog]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Democrats. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after allowing Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

I'm with you on that! What will you think if they put another Rep. back into office? Getting Palin on the ticket, who is an evangelical religious hard right conservative, is right out of the Rove playbook of the last election. Question is, will the Evangelicals get out and vote and risk getting burned again, like they were with Bush?

In 2005, Alaska's highest court ruled, in a case brought in 1999 on behalf of nine couples, that the state could not deny benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees. The court ordered the state to implement that ruling in late 2006.

The ruling was seen by right wingers as conflicting with a 1998 amendment to the Alaska Constitution, passed by voters in a ballot referendum, that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The Republican-dominated State Legislature passed a bill that barred the state's administrative agency from implementing the ruling. Palin vetoed it.

Those damn Evangelicals!!

[Jackdog]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Republicans. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after keeping Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

That's a little Michelle Malkin of you, don't you think?

And, as a public service announcement, Jonah Goldberg should never, ever be used an example of anything except how to be an intellectually lazy oaf and get paid for it. His brain is like three ribeye steaks, with the meat cut out and the fat held together with chewing gum.

B-diddy or Huggy? I like em both. Just don't try to give me a soul shake when we go out to eat. Escanaba might think I'm Barry.

[GTHobbes]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Republicans. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after keeping Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

That's a little Michelle Malkin of you, don't you think?

Of course...I was only kidding when I made that comment. Now Michelle Malkin...that's someone whose vote shouldn't count!

[JackB1]

In 2005, Alaska's highest court ruled, in a case brought in 1999 on behalf of nine couples, that the state could not deny benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees. The court ordered the state to implement that ruling in late 2006.

The ruling was seen by right wingers as conflicting with a 1998 amendment to the Alaska Constitution, passed by voters in a ballot referendum, that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The Republican-dominated State Legislature passed a bill that barred the state's administrative agency from implementing the ruling. Palin vetoed it.

Those damn Evangelicals!!

I'm sorry Jack, but I don't get your point? This paragraph is a little confusing to me, but by vetoing this bill, isn't Palin also denying benefits to
these gay couples and supporting the statement that "marriage" is between one man and one woman?

[Teal]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Democrats. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after allowing Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

I'm with you on that! What will you think if they put another Rep. back into office? Getting Palin on the ticket, who is an evangelical religious hard right conservative, is right out of the Rove playbook of the last election. Question is, will the Evangelicals get out and vote and risk getting burned again, like they were with Bush?

Republican and democrat have nothing to do with it. And Jack, all that other stuff is just uninformed talking points. It's funny, too, that somehow all conservatives are evangelicals (whatever the hell that means), which are defined as Ruby Ridge nutcases, assholes like that 'pastor' Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' schtik, and Alan Keyes/Buchanan/James Dobson types, who only vote on abortion issues and gun rights.

What's even funnier is that I'm lumped in with all of them! I'm no fan of liberal ideology, or agenda, insofar as it being a governmental entity. I say, if you want all that kumbaya stuff done, that's great-get out and do it. I'll help! But I won't put up with it being shoved down people's throats vis-a-vis government programs. Marx didn't have a bad idea; he had a bad implementation of that idea. And it is HIS idea, whether you like it or not, that liberals seek to implement.

For all the squawking by liberals about 'the evil evangelicals' wanting to force their ideology on the country (some do), the irony is that liberals seek to do the same damned thing. Evangelicals want to force prayer in school; liberals want to force it out. Evangelicals want to legislate morality; liberals want to redefine the term subjectively.

I could go on and on, but both groups piss me the hell off with their hypocrisy toward one another. It's nothing but a pot calling a kettle black, and those of us who don't ascribe to either extreme ( I am a fiscal conservative, proud to be one, offer no apologies nor qualifiers to that...but I'm FAAAAAARRRRR from being a damn evangelical-I think they need to shut the hell up and get to work being the Church, rather than an arm of a political party); and don't get me started on the so-called 'moderates'...to me, they're no more than people who can't make up their damned minds about anything. They've sat on the fence so long, their nuts have shriveled up.

I'm sick and tired of political races in this country being defined by no more than religion vs atheism, God vs. science (as if those two things are completely incompatible), and both of the camps are firing at each other in some made up 'culture war'. Get the f*** over it.

I have some very good friends who are democrats, and aren't quite what you'd call 'conservative'. Some are in here. But they aren't ultra left wing nuts who can't think for themselves, and follow a candidate around like a rat to the pied piper.

I didn't decide on McCain until recently. I honestly was leaning toward Bob Barr, and, outside of his choosing Ron Paul as a running mate (WTF), the libertarian platform is a good one, the more I know about it. I am not a republican; I have never declared a party affiliation in my entire voting life. I believe anyone who votes straight ticket ought to have their heads examined.

[RobVarak]

And, as a public service announcement, Jonah Goldberg should never, ever be used an example of anything except how to be an intellectually lazy oaf and get paid for it. His brain is like three ribeye steaks, with the meat cut out and the fat held together with chewing gum.

You just don't like him because he beat you out for that gig at National Review.

Oh, and because he's right about fascism arising from and being embraced by the left...as young Mr. Hobbes has so ably exemplified. It's not typically the right that starts to persecute those who are not right-thinking

[wco81]

It's not typically the right that starts to persecute those who are not right-thinking

Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

[RobVarak]

It's not typically the right that starts to persecute those who are not right-thinking

Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

I try to do my part every day to keep the memory of Uncle Joe alive. Glad to see someone keeping score.

[Jackdog]

Republican and democrat have nothing to do with it. And Jack, all that other stuff is just uninformed talking points. It's funny, too, that somehow all conservatives are evangelicals (whatever the hell that means), which are defined as Ruby Ridge nutcases, assholes like that 'pastor' Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' schtik, and Alan Keyes/Buchanan/James Dobson types, who only vote on abortion issues and gun rights.

What's even funnier is that I'm lumped in with all of them! I'm no fan of liberal ideology, or agenda, insofar as it being a governmental entity. I say, if you want all that kumbaya stuff done, that's great-get out and do it. I'll help! But I won't put up with it being shoved down people's throats vis-a-vis government programs. Marx didn't have a bad idea; he had a bad implementation of that idea. And it is HIS idea, whether you like it or not, that liberals seek to implement.

For all the squawking by liberals about 'the evil evangelicals' wanting to force their ideology on the country (some do), the irony is that liberals seek to do the same damned thing. Evangelicals want to force prayer in school; liberals want to force it out. Evangelicals want to legislate morality; liberals want to redefine the term subjectively.

I could go on and on, but both groups piss me the hell off with their hypocrisy toward one another. It's nothing but a pot calling a kettle black, and those of us who don't ascribe to either extreme ( I am a fiscal conservative, proud to be one, offer no apologies nor qualifiers to that...but I'm FAAAAAARRRRR from being a damn evangelical-I think they need to shut the hell up and get to work being the Church, rather than an arm of a political party); and don't get me started on the so-called 'moderates'...to me, they're no more than people who can't make up their damned minds about anything. They've sat on the fence so long, their nuts have shriveled up.

I'm sick and tired of political races in this country being defined by no more than religion vs atheism, God vs. science (as if those two things are completely incompatible), and both of the camps are firing at each other in some made up 'culture war'. Get the f*** over it.

I have some very good friends who are democrats, and aren't quite what you'd call 'conservative'. Some are in here. But they aren't ultra left wing nuts who can't think for themselves, and follow a candidate around like a rat to the pied piper.

I didn't decide on McCain until recently. I honestly was leaning toward Bob Barr, and, outside of his choosing Ron Paul as a running mate (WTF), the libertarian platform is a good one, the more I know about it. I am not a republican; I have never declared a party affiliation in my entire voting life. I believe anyone who votes straight ticket ought to have their heads examined.

Teal. Good post. The last sentence gave me the piss shvers. It's so true. I was voting for Barr until Palin was added to the ticket. I knew about her thanks to watching Glenn Beck HNN/CNN. I'm not real happy with the choice the Libertarian Party went with yesterday. That was a joke.

[GTHobbes]

Oh, and because he's right about fascism arising from and being embraced by the left...as young Mr. Hobbes has so ably exemplified. It's not typically the right that starts to persecute those who are not right-thinking

Haven't been called young in quite some time...but I appreciate it!

[Naples39]

In 2005, Alaska's highest court ruled, in a case brought in 1999 on behalf of nine couples, that the state could not deny benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees. The court ordered the state to implement that ruling in late 2006.

The ruling was seen by right wingers as conflicting with a 1998 amendment to the Alaska Constitution, passed by voters in a ballot referendum, that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The Republican-dominated State Legislature passed a bill that barred the state's administrative agency from implementing the ruling. Palin vetoed it.

Those damn Evangelicals!!

I'm sorry Jack, but I don't get your point? This paragraph is a little confusing to me, but by vetoing this bill, isn't Palin also denying benefits to
these gay couples and supporting the statement that "marriage" is between one man and one woman?

What the quote is saying is that the court said the domestic partners must receive the benefits, but the state legislature passed a law to block those benefits in spite of what the court said.

Palin vetoed the state legislature law, thus enabling the domestic partners to receive the benefits as the court originally demanded.

[JackB1]

If I live to be 100, I don't think I'll ever understand Democrats. They ought to have their right to vote taken away after allowing Bush/Cheney in office for 8 years, IMO.

I'm with you on that! What will you think if they put another Rep. back into office? Getting Palin on the ticket, who is an evangelical religious hard right conservative, is right out of the Rove playbook of the last election. Question is, will the Evangelicals get out and vote and risk getting burned again, like they were with Bush?

Republican and democrat have nothing to do with it. And Jack, all that other stuff is just uninformed talking points. It's funny, too, that somehow all conservatives are evangelicals (whatever the hell that means), which are defined as Ruby Ridge nutcases, assholes like that 'pastor' Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' schtik, and Alan Keyes/Buchanan/James Dobson types, who only vote on abortion issues and gun rights.

What's even funnier is that I'm lumped in with all of them! I'm no fan of liberal ideology, or agenda, insofar as it being a governmental entity. I say, if you want all that kumbaya stuff done, that's great-get out and do it. I'll help! But I won't put up with it being shoved down people's throats vis-a-vis government programs. Marx didn't have a bad idea; he had a bad implementation of that idea. And it is HIS idea, whether you like it or not, that liberals seek to implement.

For all the squawking by liberals about 'the evil evangelicals' wanting to force their ideology on the country (some do), the irony is that liberals seek to do the same damned thing. Evangelicals want to force prayer in school; liberals want to force it out. Evangelicals want to legislate morality; liberals want to redefine the term subjectively.

I could go on and on, but both groups piss me the hell off with their hypocrisy toward one another. It's nothing but a pot calling a kettle black, and those of us who don't ascribe to either extreme ( I am a fiscal conservative, proud to be one, offer no apologies nor qualifiers to that...but I'm FAAAAAARRRRR from being a damn evangelical-I think they need to shut the hell up and get to work being the Church, rather than an arm of a political party); and don't get me started on the so-called 'moderates'...to me, they're no more than people who can't make up their damned minds about anything. They've sat on the fence so long, their nuts have shriveled up.

I'm sick and tired of political races in this country being defined by no more than religion vs atheism, God vs. science (as if those two things are completely incompatible), and both of the camps are firing at each other in some made up 'culture war'. Get the f*** over it.

I have some very good friends who are democrats, and aren't quite what you'd call 'conservative'. Some are in here. But they aren't ultra left wing nuts who can't think for themselves, and follow a candidate around like a rat to the pied piper.

I didn't decide on McCain until recently. I honestly was leaning toward Bob Barr, and, outside of his choosing Ron Paul as a running mate (WTF), the libertarian platform is a good one, the more I know about it. I am not a republican; I have never declared a party affiliation in my entire voting life. I believe anyone who votes straight ticket ought to have their heads examined.

Very good post Teal and believe it or not I agree with a lot of what you said. I honestly believe religion is a personal choice and shouldn't be part of politics at all. The fact that people vote based on a perceived belief on a candidate's views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. is nonsense. Candidates use these stances to win votes and then do nothing more about it during their term in office.

I also hate the labels "liberal" and "conservative" and the way we are forced into one or the other of these catch all groups. I often find nothing "conservative" about some Republican's and conversely nothing "liberal" about certain Democrats. Bottom line is I don't want Gov't "forcing" anything on us with regards to anything that should be a personal choice.
Sometimes I think this Liberal vs Conserv. thing is a way to get the general public divided amongst ourselves while the govt gets away with murder.

I admit to getting suckered into this crap that shouldn't matter, but the media is continually shoving this stuff in our faces.

[XXXIV]

Those damn Evangelicals!!

I'm sorry Jack, but I don't get your point? This paragraph is a little confusing to me, but by vetoing this bill, isn't Palin also denying benefits to
these gay couples and supporting the statement that "marriage" is between one man and one woman?

What the quote is saying is that the court said the domestic partners must receive the benefits, but the state legislature passed a law to block those benefits in spite of what the court said.

Palin vetoed the state legislature law, thus enabling the domestic partners to receive the benefits as the court originally demanded.

...I was wondering what jack was reading.

[JRod]

Republican and democrat have nothing to do with it. And Jack, all that other stuff is just uninformed talking points. It's funny, too, that somehow all conservatives are evangelicals (whatever the hell that means), which are defined as Ruby Ridge nutcases, assholes like that 'pastor' Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' schtik, and Alan Keyes/Buchanan/James Dobson types, who only vote on abortion issues and gun rights.

What's even funnier is that I'm lumped in with all of them! I'm no fan of liberal ideology, or agenda, insofar as it being a governmental entity. I say, if you want all that kumbaya stuff done, that's great-get out and do it. I'll help! But I won't put up with it being shoved down people's throats vis-a-vis government programs. Marx didn't have a bad idea; he had a bad implementation of that idea. And it is HIS idea, whether you like it or not, that liberals seek to implement.

For all the squawking by liberals about 'the evil evangelicals' wanting to force their ideology on the country (some do), the irony is that liberals seek to do the same damned thing. Evangelicals want to force prayer in school; liberals want to force it out. Evangelicals want to legislate morality; liberals want to redefine the term subjectively.

I could go on and on, but both groups piss me the hell off with their hypocrisy toward one another. It's nothing but a pot calling a kettle black, and those of us who don't ascribe to either extreme ( I am a fiscal conservative, proud to be one, offer no apologies nor qualifiers to that...but I'm FAAAAAARRRRR from being a damn evangelical-I think they need to shut the hell up and get to work being the Church, rather than an arm of a political party); and don't get me started on the so-called 'moderates'...to me, they're no more than people who can't make up their damned minds about anything. They've sat on the fence so long, their nuts have shriveled up.

I'm sick and tired of political races in this country being defined by no more than religion vs atheism, God vs. science (as if those two things are completely incompatible), and both of the camps are firing at each other in some made up 'culture war'. Get the f*** over it.

I have some very good friends who are democrats, and aren't quite what you'd call 'conservative'. Some are in here. But they aren't ultra left wing nuts who can't think for themselves, and follow a candidate around like a rat to the pied piper.

I didn't decide on McCain until recently. I honestly was leaning toward Bob Barr, and, outside of his choosing Ron Paul as a running mate (WTF), the libertarian platform is a good one, the more I know about it. I am not a republican; I have never declared a party affiliation in my entire voting life. I believe anyone who votes straight ticket ought to have their heads examined.

Teal. Good post. The last sentence gave me the piss shvers. It's so true. I was voting for Barr until Palin was added to the ticket. I knew about her thanks to watching Glenn Beck HNN/CNN. I'm not real happy with the choice the Libertarian Party went with yesterday. That was a joke.

Expect that Teal's post was filled with hyprocrisy he says he's fed up with. He uses the broad term liberals to lump them all together. Evengelicials versus all liberals that's lumping a lot of liberals together.

The reason why Evangelicals are used as an example of the far right and those in power, is because of those that are in power. Bush used Evenagelicals to get into office. Whether or not he advocated for their agenda, since 1988 when W. Bush courted Evangelicals for his father.

In 2000 and again in 2004, he used the Evangelical platform to help him win.

I bet in a few more election cycles evangelicals will return to a subsection of the Republican party and will not have the same power and voting block they have right now.

And Teal, religion is always going to be a subject of elections. At the core of this country is the exact manner in which religion is used in our government. There's no doubt that the constitution was based upon Judo-Christian law. Yet, the constitution strives to seperate out religion and government to protect the freedom of religion and freedom from those in power to use government to persecute other religions.

At our core is the ongoing debate of religion and it's role in government.

[TheHiddenTrack]

I'm simply offering information so people can get more accurate picture of the candidates.

So where are all your stories about Biden?

I already knew plenty about Biden and I figure most people already do as well, Palin is still pretty unknown.

[Teal]

It's not typically the right that starts to persecute those who are not right-thinking

Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

Is the McCarthy button on your keyboard stuck?

[Teal]

Republican and democrat have nothing to do with it. And Jack, all that other stuff is just uninformed talking points. It's funny, too, that somehow all conservatives are evangelicals (whatever the hell that means), which are defined as Ruby Ridge nutcases, assholes like that 'pastor' Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' schtik, and Alan Keyes/Buchanan/James Dobson types, who only vote on abortion issues and gun rights.

What's even funnier is that I'm lumped in with all of them! I'm no fan of liberal ideology, or agenda, insofar as it being a governmental entity. I say, if you want all that kumbaya stuff done, that's great-get out and do it. I'll help! But I won't put up with it being shoved down people's throats vis-a-vis government programs. Marx didn't have a bad idea; he had a bad implementation of that idea. And it is HIS idea, whether you like it or not, that liberals seek to implement.

For all the squawking by liberals about 'the evil evangelicals' wanting to force their ideology on the country (some do), the irony is that liberals seek to do the same damned thing. Evangelicals want to force prayer in school; liberals want to force it out. Evangelicals want to legislate morality; liberals want to redefine the term subjectively.

I could go on and on, but both groups piss me the hell off with their hypocrisy toward one another. It's nothing but a pot calling a kettle black, and those of us who don't ascribe to either extreme ( I am a fiscal conservative, proud to be one, offer no apologies nor qualifiers to that...but I'm FAAAAAARRRRR from being a damn evangelical-I think they need to shut the hell up and get to work being the Church, rather than an arm of a political party); and don't get me started on the so-called 'moderates'...to me, they're no more than people who can't make up their damned minds about anything. They've sat on the fence so long, their nuts have shriveled up.

I'm sick and tired of political races in this country being defined by no more than religion vs atheism, God vs. science (as if those two things are completely incompatible), and both of the camps are firing at each other in some made up 'culture war'. Get the f*** over it.

I have some very good friends who are democrats, and aren't quite what you'd call 'conservative'. Some are in here. But they aren't ultra left wing nuts who can't think for themselves, and follow a candidate around like a rat to the pied piper.

I didn't decide on McCain until recently. I honestly was leaning toward Bob Barr, and, outside of his choosing Ron Paul as a running mate (WTF), the libertarian platform is a good one, the more I know about it. I am not a republican; I have never declared a party affiliation in my entire voting life. I believe anyone who votes straight ticket ought to have their heads examined.

Teal. Good post. The last sentence gave me the piss shvers. It's so true. I was voting for Barr until Palin was added to the ticket. I knew about her thanks to watching Glenn Beck HNN/CNN. I'm not real happy with the choice the Libertarian Party went with yesterday. That was a joke.

Expect that Teal's post was filled with hyprocrisy he says he's fed up with. He uses the broad term liberals to lump them all together. Evengelicials versus all liberals that's lumping a lot of liberals together.

The reason why Evangelicals are used as an example of the far right and those in power, is because of those that are in power. Bush used Evenagelicals to get into office. Whether or not he advocated for their agenda, since 1988 when W. Bush courted Evangelicals for his father.

In 2000 and again in 2004, he used the Evangelical platform to help him win.

I bet in a few more election cycles evangelicals will return to a subsection of the Republican party and will not have the same power and voting block they have right now.

And Teal, religion is always going to be a subject of elections. At the core of this country is the exact manner in which religion is used in our government. There's no doubt that the constitution was based upon Judo-Christian law. Yet, the constitution strives to seperate out religion and government to protect the freedom of religion and freedom from those in power to use government to persecute other religions.

At our core is the ongoing debate of religion and it's role in government.

'Evangelicals' voted for Bush, Reagan, Bush II. Sure. But 'used'? What the hell kind of terminology is that? And to be sure, not all 'evangelicals' did so-ever hear of Tony Campolo? He's a liberal.

And I lumped the 'liberals' all together to make a point-a point you helped cement...thank you. Just because I am a conservative doesn't make me some right wing GWBJ (that would be 'Blow Jobber') who wants to beat you over the head with a bible, and force you to put the ten commandments in your front yard.

[Teal]

Does anybody really believe this 'comraderie' bullshit?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Somebody mentioned lipstick and pigs in recent days. I think it's perfectly applicable here...this is really, really, transparent.

[JackB1]

The ruling was seen by right wingers as conflicting with a 1998 amendment to the Alaska Constitution, passed by voters in a ballot referendum, that defined marriage as solely between one man and one woman. The Republican-dominated State Legislature passed a bill that barred the state's administrative agency from implementing the ruling. Palin vetoed it.

Those damn Evangelicals!![/quote]

I'm sorry Jack, but I don't get your point? This paragraph is a little confusing to me, but by vetoing this bill, isn't Palin also denying benefits to
these gay couples and supporting the statement that "marriage" is between one man and one woman?[/quote]

What the quote is saying is that the court said the domestic partners must receive the benefits, but the state legislature passed a law to block those benefits in spite of what the court said.

Palin vetoed the state legislature law, thus enabling the domestic partners to receive the benefits as the court originally demanded.[/quote]

...I was wondering what jack was reading.[/quote]

34, that last part wasn't in the post I read and quote. I didn't know it was cut off.

[GameSeven]

34, that last part wasn't in the post I read and quote. I didn't know it was cut off.

You're right, it wasn't. The last part was in Naples' response to your request for clarification, it wasn't in the original post. Still, the complete scenario *was* included in your original quote and I think this is what 34 was referring to.