Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people

[Midtowner]

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/


Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people
NOVEMBER 9, 2012




To whom it may concern regarding the United States federal elections of 2014, 2016 and beyond:

Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever – you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!

If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?

My family lineage goes back to the MAYFLOWER, BOAT ONE!!! (Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> John Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND)
I am a heterosexual, married to the super Caucasian mother of my two beautiful children who are, inexplicably, EVEN WHITER THAN I AM.
I am college educated (Master’s degree!) and affluent.
I am a job creator and small businessman.
We pay a lot of taxes! Every year!
I grew up in a rural area and despise laziness!
Having started my own business, I have complained at length about the insanity of federal, state and local bureaucracy – and its deleterious impact on the innovative small businessman.
I currently live in the suburbs in a historically Red state.
HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!! Wow, you’re thinking – this is not some Mexirican in the Sun Belt we need to attract via harsh anti-Castro policies or appeals to “valores de familia” - this is the BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY, a Mayflower-descended small business owner, burdened by taxation, looking out for his beautiful White family in the suburbs of a city (St Louis) surrounded by racial tension and urban blight!

How can I put this gently? My wife and I are not sensitive to your messaging, nor did we vote for the candidates you proposed for us this past Tuesday.

B-b-but, what? Aren’t we investors, hard-workin’ white folk surrounded by same in a manicured cul-de-sac, scared by a vision of economic collapse amidst the takers in a land of fewer givers? Didn’t Mitt Romney’s strong family, wealth, leadership history and chiseled chin give us the uncontrollable urge to high-five him into the White House?

No.

May I explain why not, purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future? It bears pointing out that I should be your Low Hanging Fruit, the easy vote to get as opposed to, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians – and you’re not even speaking well to me. The reasons why ought to concern you deeply.

As a Card-Carrying White Male I love expressing my opinion irrespective of whether people care to hear it, so let’s get started.

>>>>>>

Science - One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.

Climate - Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.

Healthcare - My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country **** away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.

War - Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.

Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!

Gay marriage - As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bull**** that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.

>>>>>>

That’s quite enough for one essay, wouldn’t you say? Now, given my initial description as a wealthy, hard-working, job creating, heterosexual, married suburban White Male – doesn’t your current platform look woefully insufficient to the task of gaining my vote? This doesn’t even get into the demographic tensions that show that people of my exact profile are going away permanently in America. You can’t even win on what you perceive to be “home field advantage.”

Uh oh, wait, I can already hear you through the web browser, dismissing all of my above points because THAT GUY WAS NEVER GONNA BE A REPUBLICAN ANYHOW, CUZ HE’S A LIBRUL WHO HATES AMERICA AND…

All right, let’s do one last point:

Meanness- Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell. You constantly imply – as Mitt Romney did in his “47% speech” – that anybody who disagrees with you does so not by logic or moral conviction, but because they are shiftless, lazy parasites who want “free stuff” from “traditional Americans.” Wow, you guys managed to follow up a stunning electoral defeat with insulting the very people you wish to attract for a majority in the political system! Brilliant! You are losing elections because being angry and defensive and just-plain-mean is more important than being smart and winning elections – and thus you deserve everything happening to you.

If you want to know exactly where you failed in 2012, and will continue to fail, here it is. Look you *******s, I’m as traditional an American as it gets, and I do not “want free stuff.” I am a taxpayer, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I got my first job – dragging bags of cow manure, horse feed and fertilizer around a farm store – when I was 12. I started my first company when I was 28. I have followed the vast majority of the rules set out for middle class white males (for good and for ill.) And if it weren’t bad enough that your policy positions are a complete cluster**** for the reasons I lay out in great detail, you manage to follow up the whole exercise with insulting me, my wife, and my friends of every stripe who didn’t vote for your political party – all of whom are hard-working, taxpaying, job creating, law abiding, great AMERICANS of EVERY COLOR AND CREED.

From this white, Mayflower-descended strategic analyst, allow me to offer you the three strategic options you have before you:

1. You drastically moderate your platform to harmonize with the policy positions I present above

2. You disband the party and reorganize it to reflect current realities

3. You kick and scream and stamp your feet and call me and my friends names – and submit to several decades of one party rule

While I do not want a one-party system, I also don’t particularly care which of these options you choose. If you look carefully at the numbers on Tuesday, nobody else cares, either.

Just a word to the wise from one White Man to (presumably) another.

Great stuff right there. I agree with every single point he makes.

[rock on sooner]

Darned intelligent and spot on for a 38 year old! I'm impressed.
Think it'll do any good?

[Midtowner]

Darned intelligent and spot on for a 38 year old! I'm impressed.
Think it'll do any good?

Absolutely not. "He's a libural who hates 'merica" responses to follow.

[Skysooner]

Excellent post and of course it won't. I agreed with everything he said. I ran it by snopes, but there are pictures of him up on various boards. At this point, I have to rate the letter as true.

[yermom]

sounds like he needs to find Jesus

[Soonerjeepman]

figured ya would...and of course it's 1, ONE, guy whose opinion floats with yours. I could have written a letter just like that but change the direction of the opinions.

so tell me, dems and pubs make laws across this land the infringe on our personal liberties...seat belts, helmets on motorcycles, can only drink legally if 21, own a hand gun if 21, etc...that's the nature of the beast.

Have you seen a fetus with it's head ripped off at age 24 weeks? or at least a picture? considering 95% of abortions are due to choice when the choice to have sex was made first is a tragedy. Yes, Atkins is an ***, and wished the rep party removed him. I have previously said, CM team or at least the dems supported HIS primary campaign, because they knew they could beat him.

As far as homosexuality, it's deviant, no ifs, ands, or buts. You tell me what is NATURAL (less than 10% of the population) about a man sticking his penis up another guys anus? Last I checked gays cannot get pregnant unless they go against their "natural" way. We can tell the age of a dinosaur but not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it is biological. Don't waste your time on the "in all the animals, and throughout mankind" argument as well. IF SCIENCE came out tomorrow and proved beyond a reasonable doubt it was biological, I'd would/could accept that. Honestly, anal sex between heterosexuals, although acceptable, is a bit "deviant" in my book. I understand the pleasure thing, which most sexual acts are but reg intercourse, but that is what it is, pure pleasure. No, I'm not some puritan religious zealot, which I'm sure you'll say, just an ordinary white, middle class, hard working, 48 yr old guy.

I've got a sister, aunts, even a cousin that are/were gay. My sister even said one time, she just felt more comfortable with women. Well, being an athlete in the late 70's at a Catholic hs where the only acceptable athletic girls were golf, tennis, gymnastics...she had a rough time being a bball, softball, vball player. My aunt who is gay was very influential at the time as well, without my parents being aware of it. Her college "partner" ended up getting married having kids and is doing great. I added that in there to show it is personal with me, not just spouting off **** that I have not been a part of. The human mind is a powerful thing.

I don't say it's a simple choice but there is no evidence to prove it is biological.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

[LiveLaughLove]

Wow another white liberal person telling republicans to become Democrat lites. Yeah, that'll work.

Or as one of you said about Ron Paul's secession statements, it's one persons opinion.

But I can tell those liberal feelers on here are all aglow after reading that. I'd be more crude but it's not my style.

yermom, Jesus isn't lost, just fyi.

[Soonerjeepman]

sorry, forgot to add, Rock, Y and Sky to the "like" list. ;-)

I'm not angry, but can you guys seriously answer why you think gay marriage is ok and abortion, without saying it's intrusion into our private lives? There are laws that intrude into our private lives that I think (well it seems most dems) support, like the ones mentioned.

Just curious. If ya don't want to no biggie.

[Skysooner]

sorry, forgot to add, Rock, Y and Sky to the "like" list. ;-)

I'm not angry, but can you guys seriously answer why you think gay marriage is ok and abortion, without saying it's intrusion into our private lives? There are laws that intrude into our private lives that I think (well it seems most dems) support, like the ones mentioned.

Just curious. If ya don't want to no biggie.

Gay marriage I hold stronger opinions on. As you said, I have relatives that we could peg as gay or lesbian from the time they were 3 or 4 years old. They have siblings growing up in the same household that aren't even close to that way. If that isn't biological what is? I have known a number of gay and lesbian couples that have issues with all sorts of things because they weren't "married". I do not give a s*** if you call it marriage or not. However the opposition to it doesn't even want to allow civil unions. Stop blocking civil unions and this goes away. There are churches that will marry gay/lesbian couples, and if their church won't, I do not see why they would want to get married into that church anyway.

Abortion - I do not view a fetus as a person (and this is where our opinions will diverge) until it is viable. Claiming a fetus is viable at conception is ludicrous given how many pregnancies end in miscarriage. Here is the thing though. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-adoption and pro-not getting your dumb *** pregnant in the first place. It is unreasonable to assume that people aren't going to have sex. Not only is a good chunk of the population not of a strict religious outlook anymore (many describe themselves as spiritual), sex outside of marriage is not viewed with the same disdain as it was when I was growing up. Provide good sex education so that people will use birth control. Provide the pill to women through health care as it does so much more than keeping them from not getting pregnant (lower instances of ovarian and breast cancer as a result). We have huge population issues that need to be addressed (Okie52 and I have discussed this a few times on here).

Lastly, it isn't the gay marriage and abortion thing that is the important part about this letter. I already feel that you guys are on the losing society side of this, and it will work itself out. It is all the other stuff about healthcare, science and war that really stands out. Don't let this fall down into an abortion/gay marriage thing. It is not that at all. He just advocates my position very clearly.

[C&CDean]

Great. Another ****ing circle jerk thread. Just what we need.

[rock on sooner]

Gay marriage? I had a thread on here this past summer asking all
posters if they felt threatened by gay marriage and if so, how. I don't
recall anyone saying anything stronger than "it doesn't affect me or
my marriage." Personally, my 35 plus year marriage is not affected
in any manner by gay marriage. I view it as their choice and their
lives. Who am I to tell someone else who to love and who to marry?
Procreation? Lots and lots of adoptions. The flaming homosexual?
There are flaming heterosexuals, too, only they wreck a lot of hetero-
sexual marriages. Haven't seen or heard of many heteros wrecked by
homosexual marriages.

I am pro choice and have been all my life, even growing up in the belt
buckle area of the Bible Belt. Those who use abortion as a birth control
method (and then get pregnant again) deserve a special place in Dante'
Inferno. Legitimate uses include the usual..rape, incest and mother's
life in danger.

All that said, those issues are social and less bearing on the success or
failure of the GOP. Being actively non inclusive toward minorities and
perceived as waging war on women with the likes of Walsh, Akin and
Mourdock are infinitely more damaging. Apparently, courting all the
angry old white men ain't working too well and the letter writer hit the
nail squarely on the head.

[yermom]

sorry, forgot to add, Rock, Y and Sky to the "like" list. ;-)

I'm not angry, but can you guys seriously answer why you think gay marriage is ok and abortion, without saying it's intrusion into our private lives? There are laws that intrude into our private lives that I think (well it seems most dems) support, like the ones mentioned.

Just curious. If ya don't want to no biggie.

1) gay marriage isn't something that affects me. i don't care if Adam and Steve want to bugger each other in the privacy of their own home, or do their taxes together, buy a house and visit each other in the hospital, etc... why do you? as the writer mentioned, straight people have done far more to erode "family values" than some fairies in SF have. why does the government need to be involved in the first place? why does Uncle Sam care if i have a wife or kids at all?

2) don't lump me in with dems and think i'm pro-abortion. i'm pro-human. i don't think rape is even something that excuses abortion in my mind. now when you get into medically necessary abortions, or non-viable fetuses, then we can talk. otherwise i don't really see the difference between that and infanticide.

[FaninAma]

Wow another white liberal person telling republicans to become Democrat lites. Yeah, that'll work.

Or as one of you said about Ron Paul's secession statements, it's one persons opinion.

But I can tell those liberal feelers on here are all aglow after reading that. I'd be more crude but it's not my style.

yermom, Jesus isn't lost, just fyi.


This. The guy has no grasp of political history or the real cause of the deficit....and it's not the military. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he bases most of his dislike for the GOP on emotionally charged social issues. Take his global warming diatribe. What is this country supposed to do while we wait for green energy alternatives to come on line that are economically compatible with a growing economy? Should we just unilaterally damage our economy for the sake of using much more expensive green energy?

I am all for renewable energy and making the middle east irrelevant but it can't be done over night.

And lastly, like any good lib-bot he fails to even mention any complicity played by the opponents of the GOP for our economic plight. Nieher does he state why he supports those who oppose the GOP and how they have tried to change the course of this country. And he can't because then he would have to deny the GOPs opposition has controlled Congress for most of the past 70 years and enacted most of the entitlement programs now driving the country into bankruptcy but somehow the GOP is more responsible for the debt because they refuse to raise taxes as much as the progressives want. He has is just another myopic redistrubtionist who fails to see what is happening in the redistrubtionist utopia that is Europe.

His letter is just emotional puffery. It is unobjective tripe typcial of the psuedo-intellectual wing of the progressive movement.........all about puffed up good intentions without any substance. I would have expected a similiar letter from Sandra Pfluck(or whatever the hell her name is) And if the GOP listens to twerps like this and abandons even more of their principles trying to attract his type real white men will leave their party in even bigger numbers.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You know damn good and well some liberal *** pansy wrote that ****. A white apologist...just like the OP.

[badger]

I think Romney lost the White House, the Republicans lost the Senate the Democrats lost the House because regardless of the callous rape comments, the horrendous Obama debate performances, the extreme Super PAC spending and every other factor imaginable to make this the most dramatic and important election in recent history... because people like the status quo.

Sure some stuff sucks, but it's not enough to push people over the edge yet.

And thus, the status quo wins.

[Midtowner]

This. The guy has no grasp of political history or the real cause of the deficit....and it's not the military.

This merits a roflcopter. There is no "the" cause of the deficit, but to suggest that outrageous military spending isn't part of the problem is just insane.

ROFL:ROFL:ROFL:ROFL
_^___
L __/ [] \
LOL===__ \
L \________]
I I
--------/

[Turd_Ferguson]

This merits a roflcopter. There is no "the" cause of the deficit, but to suggest that outrageous military spending isn't part of the problem is just insane.

ROFL:ROFL:ROFL:ROFL
_^___
L __/ [] \
LOL===__ \
L \________]
I I
--------/

ST? Pull your head out of your ***. He didn't say it wasn't PART of the problem. Typical spin from you liberal *** pansy's.

[MsProudSooner]

ST? Pull your head out of your ***. He didn't say it wasn't PART of the problem. Typical spin from you liberal *** pansy's.

Comments like this alienate potential Republican voters as much as the points in the letter above.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Comments like this alienate potential Republican voters as much as the points in the letter above.
Thanks for the heads up...I'll keep that in mind while the country go's down the ****ter.

[LiveLaughLove]

ST? Pull your head out of your ***. He didn't say it wasn't PART of the problem. Typical spin from you liberal *** pansy's.

His reading comprehension is sucking today. Maybe he's in a life and death case and the toll is getting to him. Nah.

[LiveLaughLove]

Comments like this alienate potential Republican voters as much as the points in the letter above.

I didn't know TF was running for office.

Hey TF, where do I sign up as campaign consultant or to at least donate?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I didn't know TF was running for office.

Hey TF, where do I sign up as campaign consultant or to at least donate?
I'll PM you my PayPal account # :biggrin:

[BoulderSooner79]

I could have written that letter myself, except I'm an old fart. Mid 50s and have always worked since I was 14 and paid massive taxes along the way. Master's degree in technology, never started my own business but worked for several high-tech startups - risk taking capitalism to the core. White, white, white and I'm never been called a liberal until the latest group of knuckleheads at the heart of the GOP started calling people like me liberals. Probably started with Gingrich - Mr. likeable. I used to be a registered Pub, but am now independent until the GOP gets rational about science and especially the BUDGET. How current Pubs *believe* the GOP about fiscal responsibility is beyond me - I look at actions, not words. But like the author, I also understand my vote is not important to them as I am a shrinking demographic, so I'm not going to go on a campaign. If they poll me for my opinion, I'll let 'em know, for what that's worth.

[SoonerorLater]

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/



Great stuff right there. I agree with every single point he makes.

The good news for Eric Garland the party he describes exists right now. They are called Democrats. Seriously what a load of BS.

[Skysooner]

The good news for Eric Garland the party he describes exists right now. They are called Democrats. Seriously what a load of BS.

Actually the sad part is that it is not. Things are changing in this country. To be relevant to the country as a whole, the Republicans need to repackage. If not many of us would be happy with the rise of a centrist party that can say f*** you to the extreme elements of each party.

[olevetonahill]

Yall really read all that shat?

[LiveLaughLove]

Actually the sad part is that it is not. Things are changing in this country. To be relevant to the country as a whole, the Republicans need to repackage. If not many of us would be happy with the rise of a centrist party that can say f*** you to the extreme elements of each party.

I love how everyone is so sure the Republicans need to "moderate", ie move left to survive. When they do, the Dems will be free to move further left making the Republicans once again appear too extreme right. The demand then will be that the Republicans need to "moderate", ie move left to survive. This will allow the Dems to once more move further left, and on and on.

You are correct probably, if the Republicans just want votes. If they have this funny thing missing from the Dems called 'principles" then they can't repackage, if they truly believe in what they say. A big if, grant you.

I promise if they repackage and move left or moderate, the "extremists" like me will abandon them and create a true third party (which I wish we would anyway). This will give the WH to the Dems for the foreseeable future, but it appears it's theirs anyway. We might as well go for local, state, and congressional spots.

A centrist third party would never work. Not enough principle to stand on. The centrist Dems wouldn't leave now that they have almost a monopoly on power.

I will say again, if Romney had gotten the same votes as McCain he would have won and none of this would be being talked about. I believe he didn't because of three reasons and none of them were because he was an extremist.

1. He was too moderate and wishy washy, the whole etch a sketch thing.

2. He is Mormon. That definitely hurt him with evangelicals.

3. He didn't have Sarah Palin. I know you guys heads just spun and you threw up pea soup, but she energized the base big time. Ryan is a good guy, but he is anything but exciting.

(Whoops, let me add for clarification and comprehension, when I say Sarah Palin, I don't necessarily mean THE Sarah Palin, I mean someone that energizes the base like she did)

[SoonerorLater]

Actually the sad part is that it is not. Things are changing in this country. To be relevant to the country as a whole, the Republicans need to repackage. If not many of us would be happy with the rise of a centrist party that can say f*** you to the extreme elements of each party.

I've seen the term extremist used many times on this board. I have asked the question a few times, "who are these extremists people are always referring to?" Never got a response. I'll try again. Who are the extremists you are referring to, can you give me examples on both sides? Name, names? Not trying to be difficult but I would genuinely like to know.

[rock on sooner]

I could have written that letter myself, except I'm an old fart. Mid 50s and have always worked since I was 14 and paid massive taxes along the way. Master's degree in technology, never started my own business but worked for several high-tech startups - risk taking capitalism to the core. White, white, white and I'm never been called a liberal until the latest group of knuckleheads at the heart of the GOP started calling people like me liberals. Probably started with Gingrich - Mr. likeable. I used to be a registered Pub, but am now independent until the GOP gets rational about science and especially the BUDGET. How current Pubs *believe* the GOP about fiscal responsibility is beyond me - I look at actions, not words. But like the author, I also understand my vote is not important to them as I am a shrinking demographic, so I'm not going to go on a campaign. If they poll me for my opinion, I'll let 'em know, for what that's worth.

Yer just a young pup!

[LiveLaughLove]

I've seen the term extremist used many times on this board. I have asked the question a few times, "who are these extremists people are always referring to?" Never got a response. I'll try again. Who are the extremists you are referring to, can you give me examples on both sides? Name, names? Not trying to be difficult but I would genuinely like to know.

They mean evangelical Christians. That's the new code word for Christians that actually believe in what the Bible says, as opposed to "Christians" that believe in, well, whatever.

[Skysooner]

I've seen the term extremist used many times on this board. I have asked the question a few times, "who are these extremists people are always referring to?" Never got a response. I'll try again. Who are the extremists you are referring to, can you give me examples on both sides? Name, names? Not trying to be difficult but I would genuinely like to know.

Republicans - Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum come to mind.

Democrats - Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer

Politicians I do like - Dr. Tom Coburn, Bobby Jindal, Jon Huntsman, Hillary Clinton among others.

[rock on sooner]

Actually the sad part is that it is not. Things are changing in this country. To be relevant to the country as a whole, the Republicans need to repackage. If not many of us would be happy with the rise of a centrist party that can say f*** you to the extreme elements of each party.

Truth is, imo, only the most vocal on either side get attention. Because they do,
the perception is that the viewpoint that the most vocal espouse is viewed as that
side's position. when, in fact, it ain't. On both sides there are sensible people who
only get shouted down by the extreme. Until the moderates on both sides step up
and smack those in the extreme with a rolled up newspaper (jus to git ther tention!)
and go about the business of the people, nothing at all is going to happen and we'll
all keep on bitchin! Jus sayin...

[Skysooner]

They mean evangelical Christians. That's the new code word for Christians that actually believe in what the Bible says, as opposed to "Christians" that believe in, well, whatever.

Actually we mean evangelical Christians that want to codify their beliefs into law. Quite a difference. I could care less what you believe, but religious belief should not be the law of the land unless it is in the best interests of the country.

See The Great Experiment is you want something that was meant to be good, was pushed by a radical sect and had rather bad unintended consequences.

[Skysooner]

Truth is, imo, only the most vocal on either side get attention. Because they do,
the perception is that the viewpoint that the most vocal espouse is viewed as that
side's position. when, in fact, it ain't. On both sides there are sensible people who
only get shouted down by the extreme. Until the moderates on both sides step up
and smack those in the extreme with a rolled up newspaper (jus to git ther tention!)
and go about the business of the people, nothing at all is going to happen and we'll
all keep on bitchin! Jus sayin...

Very true.

[LiveLaughLove]

Actually we mean evangelical Christians that want to codify their beliefs into law. Quite a difference. I could care less what you believe, but religious belief should not be the law of the land unless it is in the best interests of the country.

See The Great Experiment is you want something that was meant to be good, was pushed by a radical sect and had rather bad unintended consequences.

And what this actually means is as the country becomes more secular and wants to codify that secularism, we as Christians should just shut up and stay in church. We shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public discourse and the debasing of this country as we see it.

Killing babies, no problem, just shut up and go to church.

Homosexual agenda being rammed down our kids throats, no problem, just shut up and stay in church.

Contraceptives forced to be paid for by Catholic entities, no problem, just shut up and do the rosaries, but don't dare get involved in the politics. Then you're an extremist.

Laughable.

[SoonerorLater]

Republicans - Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum come to mind.

Democrats - Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer

Politicians I do like - Dr. Tom Coburn, Bobby Jindal, Jon Huntsman, Hillary Clinton among others.

OK fair enough. Actually it's kind of what I thought. Based on anything I know I would not consider any of the people you named extremists. Partisan hacks yes, extremists no. In my mind when you talk about extremists we are talking about William Ayres / Bernardine Dohrn or Timothy McVeigh.

[rock on sooner]

Republicans - Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum come to mind.

Democrats - Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer

Politicians I do like - Dr. Tom Coburn, Bobby Jindal, Jon Huntsman, Hillary Clinton among others.

Sky, ALL of the primary candidates, cept Romney, fit the description. Waters is
marginal, Pelosi has some okay ideas but she's trying to counter Boehner. Boxer
is incidental, imo. Huntsman was too moderate. I don't trust Jindal any farther than
I could throw him. (He was here in IA trying to toss a state Justice who ruled in favor
of gay marriage, with Santorum). Don't know a lot about Coburn but what I've heard he
is an okay Senator. I caucused for Clinton in '08, over Obama.

Fault IA all you want but we winnowed out Bachmann and have exposed Santorum and
Jindal for what they are (imo).

[LiveLaughLove]

OK fair enough. Actually it's kind of what I thought. Based on anything I know I would not consider any of the people you named extremists. Partisan hacks yes, extremists no. In my mind when you talk about extremists we are talking about William Ayres / Bernardine Dohrn or Timothy McVeigh.

Nah, two of those are respected liberal professors that want this country to go to Hell.

The other is in Hell.

[FaninAma]

This merits a roflcopter. There is no "the" cause of the deficit, but to suggest that outrageous military spending isn't part of the problem is just insane.

ROFL:ROFL:ROFL:ROFL
_^___
L __/ [] \
LOL===__ \
L \________]
I I
--------/

Are you really that programmed to spout the progressive
mantra? I am no fan of our current interventionist military policies and I have no problem with the military being scaled back. There is no reason for the US military budget to be larger than the next 9 largest military budgets of other countries.....combined.

But military spenidng is discretionary amd can be cut. The
part of the budget that is pushing us towards bankruptcy are non-discretionary budget items. They are also the fastest growing and the items that were created through entitlement legislation.....except for paying the interest on the national debt.

That's why this guy's screed is a bunch of garbage. He
doesn't even recognize the root cause of our economic problems, nor does he recognize the fact that impeding economic disaster is the biggest threat to his precious civil liberty oriented social causes.

BTW, your helicopter was cute.

Rock on, "Waters is marginal"? Seriously? And what good ideas has Pelosi ever had except to overdose on botox before her jowls sag past her neck?

[Skysooner]

Sky, ALL of the primary candidates, cept Romney, fit the description. Waters is
marginal, Pelosi has some okay ideas but she's trying to counter Boehner. Boxer
is incidental, imo. Huntsman was too moderate. I don't trust Jindal any farther than
I could throw him. (He was here in IA trying to toss a state Justice who ruled in favor
of gay marriage, with Santorum). Don't know a lot about Coburn but what I've heard he
is an okay Senator. I caucused for Clinton in '08, over Obama.

Fault IA all you want but we winnowed out Bachmann and have exposed Santorum and
Jindal for what they are (imo).

I don't know much about Jindal beyond what he wrote following the election and Romney saying he lost because of giveaways. That talk was well thought out.

[Skysooner]

OK fair enough. Actually it's kind of what I thought. Based on anything I know I would not consider any of the people you named extremists. Partisan hacks yes, extremists no. In my mind when you talk about extremists we are talking about William Ayres / Bernardine Dohrn or Timothy McVeigh.

I think we are on the same page. Extremists and socialists are two words that are thrown around that don't have much meaning anymore due to the watered down nature. I would agree that who you named are true extremists while the others are definitely hacks and mostly opportunist hacks.

[Skysooner]

And what this actually means is as the country becomes more secular and wants to codify that secularism, we as Christians should just shut up and stay in church. We shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public discourse and the debasing of this country as we see it.

Killing babies, no problem, just shut up and go to church.

Homosexual agenda being rammed down our kids throats, no problem, just shut up and stay in church.

Contraceptives forced to be paid for by Catholic entities, no problem, just shut up and do the rosaries, but don't dare get involved in the politics. Then you're an extremist.

Laughable.

You have every right to be heard. The whole Catholic thing are Catholic associated businesses and not churches. Those are completely different and handled completely different under our laws.

What I am saying is that the majority does not have to be held hostage by the views of a few. If you have the numbers, go ahead and pass it. I believe I said earlier in this post that abortion and gay marriage are social issues that I think will work themselves out. If I thought you had a chance to pass those, I would never have voted for Romney. I voted on purely economic issues.

Romney lost because he had to "etch a sketch" his way out of comments he made throughout the Republican primary to appease his base. The Republicans have lost 5 of the 6 Presidential votes in the popular vote. GB only won the first time due to the electoral college. If you do not think this is a problem, go ahead and continue pursuing the current course.

Caveat on one thing. I tend to agree that a centrist party wouldn't stand unless one party goes away and then that void will be filled. Liberals do the same thing in certain districts that the Pubs did to Romney and that is put the most extreme candidates into the election cycle. I'm tired of both bases running this thing. The government was much better when there were at least some moderate voices in Congress.

Also please stop acting as if I hate churches. I ran one for a number of years and this was a Disciples of Christ church which is generally pretty mainstream. I left church for different reasons than hating Christianity.

[LiveLaughLove]

You have every right to be heard. The whole Catholic thing are Catholic associated businesses and not churches. Those are completely different and handled completely different under our laws.

What I am saying is that the majority does not have to be held hostage by the views of a few. If you have the numbers, go ahead and pass it. I believe I said earlier in this post that abortion and gay marriage are social issues that I think will work themselves out. If I thought you had a chance to pass those, I would never have voted for Romney. I voted on purely economic issues.

Romney lost because he had to "etch a sketch" his way out of comments he made throughout the Republican primary to appease his base. The Republicans have lost 5 of the 6 Presidential votes in the popular vote. GB only won the first time due to the electoral college. If you do not think this is a problem, go ahead and continue pursuing the current course.

Caveat on one thing. I tend to agree that a centrist party wouldn't stand unless one party goes away and then that void will be filled. Liberals do the same thing in certain districts that the Pubs did to Romney and that is put the most extreme candidates into the election cycle. I'm tired of both bases running this thing. The government was much better when there were at least some moderate voices in Congress.

Also please stop acting as if I hate churches. I ran one for a number of years and this was a Disciples of Christ church which is generally pretty mainstream. I left church for different reasons than hating Christianity.

Yeah I didn't say Catholic churches. I specifically used the word entities. The problem with the USA now is that a business of any kind can be forced to do something that is against their beliefs, church or not.

There are bakeries and photography studios that are being punished for refusing to service gay weddings, because it is against their religious beliefs. It's their freaking businesses, but that just doesn't matter. The gays rule, and you are an extremist if you stand against it.

As for the elections, I don't think I said there wasn't a problem. I said you're solution, ie moderate, is not the answer. We have had moderates for the candidates ever since Reagan.

The Bush' were definitely not conservatives. Dole was probably closest. McCain no way. On a side note, McCain was the media's darling "The Maverick", right up until he became the nominee. Then he didn't know what hit him. The media was vicious to him. He didn't know how to react to it. Now that he is a Senator once again, they are decent to him. Romney was no conservative.

As for your beliefs, they're yours.

[Skysooner]

Yeah I didn't say Catholic churches. I specifically used the word entities. The problem with the USA now is that a business of any kind can be forced to do something that is against their beliefs, church or not.

There are bakeries and photography studios that are being punished for refusing to service gay weddings, because it is against their religious beliefs. It's their freaking businesses, but that just doesn't matter. The gays rule, and you are an extremist if you stand against it.

As for the elections, I don't think I said there wasn't a problem. I said you're solution, ie moderate, is not the answer. We have had moderates for the candidates ever since Reagan.

The Bush' were definitely not conservatives. Dole was probably closest. McCain no way. On a side note, McCain was the media's darling "The Maverick", right up until he became the nominee. Then he didn't know what hit him. The media was vicious to him. He didn't know how to react to it. Now that he is a Senator once again, they are decent to him. Romney was no conservative.

As for your beliefs, they're yours.

A business has the right not to service unless it goes against federal anti-discrimination laws. One caveat is that a pharmacist refusing to fill birth control orders for a pharmacy he doesn't own personally I think is wrong.

Do you think a truly conservative candidate stands any chance of winning a Presidential election anymore? If it had been Santorum (or name the candidate you really wanted since I'm not sure), it would have been a landslide. A moderate candidate didn't came that close to unseating the weakest Democratic candidate since Carter. If you nominate a true conservative, you will lose the independents. This is a damned if you do and damned if you do situation.

[cleller]

I would prefer that you all refrain from talking about "white people" as if they are a bunch of cattle. It is offensive. Please find a more stylishly appropriate, 21st century multi-syllable term.

[olevetonahill]

Seems Not only have Yall read all this shat but ya wrote another 100K worth of nonsense to explain it :snowman:

[okie52]

Eric Arnold Gardner is full of ****. His logic is as distorted as his priorities.

He's a man of science but overlooks the Hank "Guam is tipping over" Johnsons, the Nancy "natural gas is not a fossil fuel" Pelosis, and the Barbara "asthetically pleasing energy" Boxers in the dem party.

He cites Obamacare and the Swiss system and fails to provide any evidence of cost containment in Obamacare that would reduce our costs to those of the Swiss system.

He speaks of climate as though 2 hurricanes and a drought substantiate global warming. He doesn't even bother to state a distinction between global warming and anthropogenic global warming which is the only one relevant to any policies that might be advanced. And, he didn't mention the miserable, destructive, irrational policies that Obama tried to advance to affect APG.

This white, heterosexual, man from Vermont now living in St Louis has managed to overlook abhorrent energy policies, Obama involving the US in a civil war, and only recently "evolving" to accept gay marriage. Yet he is supposed to be the "low hanging fruit" the pubs are addressing. Well, this guy did say he was called a faggot 127 times a day for 6 years so maybe fruit is the right word.

[LiveLaughLove]

Eric Arnold Gardner is full of ****. His logic is as distorted as his priorities.

He's a man of science but overlooks the Hank "Guam is tipping over" Johnsons, the Nancy "natural gas is not a fossil fuel" Pelosis, and the Barbara "asthetically pleasing energy" Boxers in the dem party.

He cites Obamacare and the Swiss system and fails to provide any evidence of cost containment in Obamacare that would reduce our costs to those of the Swiss system.

He speaks of climate as though 2 hurricanes and a drought substantiate global warming. He doesn't even bother to state a distinction between global warming and anthropogenic global warming which is the only one relevant to any policies that might be advanced. And, he didn't mention the miserable, destructive, irrational policies that Obama tried to advance to affect APG.

This white, heterosexual, man from Vermont now living in St Louis has managed to overlook abhorrent energy policies, Obama involving the US in a civil war, and only recently "evolving" to accept gay marriage. Yet he is supposed to be the "low hanging fruit" the pubs are addressing. Well, this guy did say he was called a faggot 127 times a day for 6 years so maybe fruit is the right word.

To date, this is still the most spectacularly stupid thing I have ever heard a congress person say. The look on the military guys face was priceless as he tried to surmise if Johnson was serious or not, before answering.

His constituents should have recalled him immediately. I am not sure, but I would bet money he won reelection and is probably still in Congress unless he left of his own volition.

I mean, Jesse Jr just won reelection while being under investigation, while in a mental ward. Alcee Hastings, impeached as a judge, win's election as a Democrat. The dude with the freezer money won reelection also. Marion Berry. Kwame Kilpatrick, and on and on. I guess in light of these folks, Obama is a breath of fresh air. He just voted to let living babies die in cloak rooms. He's a regular saint by Democrat standards.

[FaninAma]

But LLL, those are the voters the MSM and talking heads keep saying the GOP should be wooing. LOL.

[LiveLaughLove]

A business has the right not to service unless it goes against federal anti-discrimination laws. One caveat is that a pharmacist refusing to fill birth control orders for a pharmacy he doesn't own personally I think is wrong.

Do you think a truly conservative candidate stands any chance of winning a Presidential election anymore? If it had been Santorum (or name the candidate you really wanted since I'm not sure), it would have been a landslide. A moderate candidate didn't came that close to unseating the weakest Democratic candidate since Carter. If you nominate a true conservative, you will lose the independents. This is a damned if you do and damned if you do situation.

Yeah thanks, I know what the laws are, and don't disagree with having them. I vehemently disagree with a sexual preference being placed in them along with race. What a pharmacist does where he works (within the law) should be between him and his boss/owner. No one else.

Yes, I think a truly conservative candidate could. Do I think it will happen? No. The Republicans will not allow it to be given the chance. Santorum was not a true conservative. He was socially, but not governmentally. He backed Arlen Spectre over Toomey. That's not conservative. He was a big government Republican.

That's part of the problem. People think David Brooks is a conservative, or even Andrew Sullivan. I've even heard Morgan Freeman called one for crying out loud.

Yes, we would lose some independents, but we would gain in the base. You really don't need independents if you can energize your base strongly enough. It would be far more worth the try then to just put out there a Democrat lite choice, that even if they won, we conservatives really wouldn't win anyway.

That's the point though isn't it? To try to moderate conservatism to the point of acceptance by liberal leaners?

[Sooner98]

To date, this is still the most spectacularly stupid thing I have ever heard a congress person say. The look on the military guys face was priceless as he tried to surmise if Johnson was serious or not, before answering.

His constituents should have recalled him immediately. I am not sure, but I would bet money he won reelection and is probably still in Congress unless he left of his own volition.

I mean, Jesse Jr just won reelection while being under investigation, while in a mental ward. Alcee Hastings, impeached as a judge, win's election as a Democrat. The dude with the freezer money won reelection also. Marion Berry. Kwame Kilpatrick, and on and on. I guess in light of these folks, Obama is a breath of fresh air. He just voted to let living babies die in cloak rooms. He's a regular saint by Democrat standards.

Not only was Johnson (one of the best and brightest that the Food Stamp Party has to offer) not recalled after asserting that it is possible for an island to capsize if overloaded with too much military equipment and personnel, he was re-elected in 2010 (eight months after making these brilliant comments) with 74 percent of the vote. SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT.

Yes, the Food Stamp Party clearly has the intellectual edge and is definitely the "party of science". It's no surprise to me whatsoever that someone like Barack Obama could win re-election with such a dumbed-down electorate.

[Skysooner]

Yeah thanks, I know what the laws are, and don't disagree with having them. I vehemently disagree with a sexual preference being placed in them along with race. What a pharmacist does where he works (within the law) should be between him and his boss/owner. No one else.

Yes, I think a truly conservative candidate could. Do I think it will happen? No. The Republicans will not allow it to be given the chance. Santorum was not a true conservative. He was socially, but not governmentally. He backed Arlen Spectre over Toomey. That's not conservative. He was a big government Republican.

That's part of the problem. People think David Brooks is a conservative, or even Andrew Sullivan. I've even heard Morgan Freeman called one for crying out loud.

Yes, we would lose some independents, but we would gain in the base. You really don't need independents if you can energize your base strongly enough. It would be far more worth the try then to just put out there a Democrat lite choice, that even if they won, we conservatives really wouldn't win anyway.

That's the point though isn't it? To try to moderate conservatism to the point of acceptance by liberal leaners?

Considering this is a representative democracy and the demographics are against you, you have to change your message or you will be on the wrong side of it. So be it though. The message that is out there is not worth hearing.

I believe what I said about the pharmacists is exactly what you said but in a different way. You and I will obviously never see eye-to-eye on homosexuality either, and again I think you are on the wrong side of history here.

[Skysooner]

Yes, the Food Stamp Party clearly has the intellectual edge and is definitely the "party of science". It's no surprise to me whatsoever that someone like Barack Obama could win re-election with such a dumbed-down electorate.

The GOP is the one who gives us creation geologists (that one made me cringe), teaching creationism as a science and saying global climate change isn't occurring. No, it is nowhere as bad as some of the models predict it to be, but the temperature is rising, and it correlates perfectly with the CO2 rise in the atmosphere and particularly after adjusting for sulfur being put into the atmosphere. On these points, the vast majority of scientists agree. Sticking your hands in your ears and shrilly yelling to keep from hearing anything is not science, and I would contend this is part of your dumbed down electorate. Remember it is your representatives and Senators that say that evolution is a teaching from the pits of hell (and this from a guy on the science committee). Your statement is so ridiculous, but I expect it of your ilk.

[okie52]

The GOP is the one who gives us creation geologists (that one made me cringe), teaching creationism as a science and saying global climate change isn't occurring. No, it is nowhere as bad as some of the models predict it to be, but the temperature is rising, and it correlates perfectly with the CO2 rise in the atmosphere and particularly after adjusting for sulfur being put into the atmosphere. On these points, the vast majority of scientists agree. Sticking your hands in your ears and shrilly yelling to keep from hearing anything is not science, and I would contend this is part of your dumbed down electorate. Remember it is your representatives and Senators that say that evolution is a teaching from the pits of hell (and this from a guy on the science committee). Your statement is so ridiculous, but I expect it of your ilk.

The left has given us the anti fracking crowd. They've already banned it in some New England States. Yet because of NG CO2 emissions dropped by 20% over the last 4 years...the very goal most global warmers were wanting to achieve.

[LiveLaughLove]

Considering this is a representative democracy and the demographics are against you, you have to change your message or you will be on the wrong side of it. So be it though. The message that is out there is not worth hearing.

I believe what I said about the pharmacists is exactly what you said but in a different way. You and I will obviously never see eye-to-eye on homosexuality either, and again I think you are on the wrong side of history here.

I think we are talking two different things. You are talking politics, I am talking philosophy. Conservatism isn't a political stance, it's a philosophy of life. It can't be changed to suit the whims of an electorate. It's immutable and will always exist in varying degrees.

As for the homosexuality thing, I am on the wrong side of current dogma. I am most definitely on the right side of history . The only society that approved homosexuality to any great degree were a couple of city states called Sodom and Gomorrah. It didn't work out too well for them. No other society in history has accepted homosexuality as a norm. So history is most definitely on my side.

[LiveLaughLove]

The GOP is the one who gives us creation geologists (that one made me cringe), teaching creationism as a science and saying global climate change isn't occurring. No, it is nowhere as bad as some of the models predict it to be, but the temperature is rising, and it correlates perfectly with the CO2 rise in the atmosphere and particularly after adjusting for sulfur being put into the atmosphere. On these points, the vast majority of scientists agree. Sticking your hands in your ears and shrilly yelling to keep from hearing anything is not science, and I would contend this is part of your dumbed down electorate. Remember it is your representatives and Senators that say that evolution is a teaching from the pits of hell (and this from a guy on the science committee). Your statement is so ridiculous, but I expect it of your ilk.

Scientists aren't gods. They go to the highest bidder and somehow find conclusions supporting the side paying them. There have already been tons of documents proving the global warming scientists have manipulated their findings, and hidden findings not supporting what they want to find.

They ignore historical temperature variances and cyclical temperatures to provide data supporting the conclusions they want.

Just in my lifetime man has been blamed for global warming, global cooling, and back to global warming again. Yet, you want to accuse us of being anti-science for not just accepting the conclusions of scientists that get paid to find those conclusions. Laughable.

If Gore really believed his crap, he wouldn't have purchased a mansion on the ocean. His third or fourth mansion btw. While he tells us to live in 1000 sq ft homes. While he flies in private jets. While he drives in SUV motorcades. Again laughable.

Yet, we get ridiculed for not accepting all of this BS at face value. My disbelief in man made global warming isn't rooted in the Bible. It's rooted in common sense. Something severely lacking in liberalism.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

As far as homosexuality, it's deviant, no ifs, ands, or buts. You tell me what is NATURAL (less than 10% of the population) about a man sticking his penis up another guys anus? Last I checked gays cannot get pregnant unless they go against their "natural" way. We can tell the age of a dinosaur but not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it is biological. Don't waste your time on the "in all the animals, and throughout mankind" argument as well. IF SCIENCE came out tomorrow and proved beyond a reasonable doubt it was biological, I'd would/could accept that. Honestly, anal sex between heterosexuals, although acceptable, is a bit "deviant" in my book. I understand the pleasure thing, which most sexual acts are but reg intercourse, but that is what it is, pure pleasure. No, I'm not some puritan religious zealot, which I'm sure you'll say, just an ordinary white, middle class, hard working, 48 yr old guy.

I've got a sister, aunts, even a cousin that are/were gay. My sister even said one time, she just felt more comfortable with women. Well, being an athlete in the late 70's at a Catholic hs where the only acceptable athletic girls were golf, tennis, gymnastics...she had a rough time being a bball, softball, vball player. My aunt who is gay was very influential at the time as well, without my parents being aware of it. Her college "partner" ended up getting married having kids and is doing great. I added that in there to show it is personal with me, not just spouting off **** that I have not been a part of. The human mind is a powerful thing.

I don't say it's a simple choice but there is no evidence to prove it is biological.

Have a great Thanksgiving.
People do a lot of things that aren't natural. Makeup? Fake tits? Piercings? Tattoos? Wear clothes? Deviant, all of 'em

[LiveLaughLove]

People do a lot of things that aren't natural. Makeup? Fake tits? Piercings? Tattoos? Wear clothes? Deviant, all of 'em

And another strawman bites the dust.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

And another strawman bites the dust.
Nope, OP implying homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society because its unnatural. It would be inconsistent to then not reject everything unnatural

[LiveLaughLove]

Nope, OP implying homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society because its unnatural. It would be inconsistent to then not reject everything unnatural

Only in your mind. Just a strawman deflection to a normal person.

An equivalency would be bestiality, orgies, S and M, water sports, and every other abnormal sexual behavior.

Your attempt at equivalency is, well, not very intelligent.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Only in your mind. Just a strawman deflection to a normal person.

An equivalency would be bestiality, orgies, S and M, water sports, and every other abnormal sexual behavior.

Your attempt at equivalency is, well, not very intelligent.
OP said its abnormal because < 10% of the population does it, that was the only qualifier. < 10% of the population can ride unicycles, deviant!

[LiveLaughLove]

OP said its abnormal because < 10% of the population does it, that was the only qualifier. < 10% of the population can ride unicycles, deviant!

Like I said, reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you.

The funniest thing is you think you had a clever retort, and it actually just makes you look like an imbecile. And you're sitting there typing it out and thinking how clever and witty you are.

Pretty funny stuff.

[Skysooner]

The left has given us the anti fracking crowd. They've already banned it in some New England States. Yet because of NG CO2 emissions dropped by 20% over the last 4 years...the very goal most global warmers were wanting to achieve.

Yes and unfortunately they are the ones in power right now. I want a different party. I have more in common with libertarians and for years it was Republicans until the message changed.

[Skysooner]

Scientists aren't gods. They go to the highest bidder and somehow find conclusions supporting the side paying them. There have already been tons of documents proving the global warming scientists have manipulated their findings, and hidden findings not supporting what they want to find.

They ignore historical temperature variances and cyclical temperatures to provide data supporting the conclusions they want.

Just in my lifetime man has been blamed for global warming, global cooling, and back to global warming again. Yet, you want to accuse us of being anti-science for not just accepting the conclusions of scientists that get paid to find those conclusions. Laughable.

If Gore really believed his crap, he wouldn't have purchased a mansion on the ocean. His third or fourth mansion btw. While he tells us to live in 1000 sq ft homes. While he flies in private jets. While he drives in SUV motorcades. Again laughable.

Yet, we get ridiculed for not accepting all of this BS at face value. My disbelief in man made global warming isn't rooted in the Bible. It's rooted in common sense. Something severely lacking in liberalism.

The problem with climate science is that it is so complex. Sea change levels, the rate of temperature growth, etc have all been overestimated by the models. It is virtually impossible to model. However if you go back to basics, there is significant correlation between CO2 and temperature change and that is proven and accepted. You might not hear that in the mainstream media. However it is the effects of the climate change that are definitely up for debate, because there hasn't been a great model made yet and there may never be a model. This is akin to determining exactly where and when earthquakes are going to occur. It has never been modeled effectively.

Scientists are not gods. They simply try to determine causation, and they can be wrong.

[LiveLaughLove]

The problem with climate science is that it is so complex. Sea change levels, the rate of temperature growth, etc have all been overestimated by the models. It is virtually impossible to model. However if you go back to basics, there is significant correlation between CO2 and temperature change and that is proven and accepted. You might not hear that in the mainstream media. However it is the effects of the climate change that are definitely up for debate, because there hasn't been a great model made yet and there may never be a model. This is akin to determining exactly where and when earthquakes are going to occur. It has never been modeled effectively.

Scientists are not gods. They simply try to determine causation, and they can be wrong.

Yet our government wants to tax us because of it. And they want to sign treaties that would cause huge sums of monies to switch hands because of it.

If they were wrong about global cooling in the 70's, and you admittedly said it's hard to pinpoint, seems stupid to require so much punitive action for it. But that's just me.

Lastly, models have the biases of the model creators in them. So I don't hold much to modelling in these type of things. They can be helpful to some extent, but they are just as biased as a paper written by some scientist that was biased.

They're kind of like these political "fact' checkers that have sprung up. It sounds all unbiased and neutral until you start actually looking at who they are and who's paying the bills.

[Skysooner]

Yet our government wants to tax us because of it. And they want to sign treaties that would cause huge sums of monies to switch hands because of it.

If they were wrong about global cooling in the 70's, and you admittedly said it's hard to pinpoint, seems stupid to require so much punitive action for it. But that's just me.

Lastly, models have the biases of the model creators in them. So I don't hold much to modelling in these type of things. They can be helpful to some extent, but they are just as biased as a paper written by some scientist that was biased.

They're kind of like these political "fact' checkers that have sprung up. It sounds all unbiased and neutral until you start actually looking at who they are and who's paying the bills.

We are in agreement on this. The models are bad. I don't know if I would say they are biased in the same way that politics are. Of course there are always predispositions to what you believe, but they are still trying to fit most of the data. The problem is just too complex to realistically solve. Nate Silver had a really good chapter on this in his book "The Signal in the Noise". There is no reason to mortgage our country's future with treaties and such on something that the scientists can't define yet.

[okie52]

Yes and unfortunately they are the ones in power right now. I want a different party. I have more in common with libertarians and for years it was Republicans until the message changed.

I agree. Libertarians would be closer to my views on many issues. Unfortunately they haven't had a viable candidate yet in terms of making a real difference in an election. Maybe they should pursue state legislatures and congressional seats on a more intense basis. More libertarian party registrations.

I don't think Johnson got close to 5% of the vote in the last election. I think Paul would have done much better.

[SoonerorLater]

Nope, OP implying homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society because its unnatural. It would be inconsistent to then not reject everything unnatural

No, not if you base your assumptions on founded moral principles.

[Midtowner]

No, not if you base your assumptions on founded moral principles.

Whose moral principles exactly?

[SoonerorLater]

Whose moral principles exactly?

Both religious and secular culture past and present.

[Midtowner]

Both religious and secular culture past and present.

Are you dodging on purpose, or did someone both religious and secular write down some of these "founded moral principles"? Or can we just assume it's your insular world view vs. everyone else?

[SoonerorLater]

Are you dodging on purpose, or did someone both religious and secular write down some of these "founded moral principles"? Or can we just assume it's your insular world view vs. everyone else?

This is really three questions so

No - I answered you question just because you may not appreciate the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered

Yes - there is much written.

&

I have no idea what is in the realm of possibility for "we" to assume. Are you "we"?

[Midtowner]

Yes - there is much written.


Sure.. who is right then re: secular morality? Marx? Rand? Hobbes? Locke?

Surely there is some absolute and undeniable truth in there somewhere?

[SoonerorLater]

Sure.. who is right then re: secular morality? Marx? Rand? Hobbes? Locke?

Surely there is some absolute and undeniable truth in there somewhere?

What about disorganized biology do you not understand? Homosexuality at best is a vanity for those involved. At worst an effrontery to the natural order of life. In short if there were no homosexual behavior ever again it would not be missed by the world in any way. It serves no purpose other than somebody's idea of hedonistic pleasure. Are you saying this is something to be embraced?

[Midtowner]

What about disorganized biology do you not understand? Homosexuality at best is a vanity for those involved. At worst an effrontery to the natural order of life. In short if there were no homosexual behavior ever again it would not be missed by the world in any way. It serves no purpose other than somebody's idea of hedonistic pleasure. Are you saying this is something to be embraced?

And what is wrong with hedonistic pleasure if no one is harmed by it?

[KantoSooner]

Biological systems are not digital/binary kinds of things. Virtually every aspect of them has tremendous variation described by some sort of bell curve. As homosexual behavior has been found in other mammals and even in birds (and the same sex communities responsible for the comparative rarity of truffles, just for weirdness' sake. Truffles. Sexual reproducers virtually alone in the fungi world. Gay mushrooms? Who'd've thunk it?) why would it strike anyone as odd that some sort of outlier behaviour at either end of the bell curve describing human sexual behaviour should exist?
We know that human homosexuality has existed at all times and in all cultures in human history that are open to study. We know that it exists in the most primitive cultures encountered (Kalahari Bushmen, PNG hill tribes, Amazonian tribes and reportedly among both eastern and western Amerindian groups immediately after white contact). It would seem from this database to be something that is innate and not reliant on fashion or politics.
Taboos against this behaviour seem to be based more on efforts to control a population's sexuality than anything else. And many of those who attempt to enforce the taboo are not so much against it as they are against it for the masses. Medicine men and shamans in many societies were berdashes or cross dressing homosexuals. In those cases, they were preserving their own uniqueness by forbidding their own behaviour to all who were not inducted into their rank. (And they often benefitted their nieces and nephews tremendously in terms of tribal status and thus in reproductivity, opening the door to a genetic advantage to their outlier behaviour.) It is possible to draw direct lines of behavioural descent from these institutions in primitive cultures to the, until very recently, tacitly accepted homosexuality, or denial of homosexuality as 'sexuality', practiced by the Catholic priesthood.
Feel free to refuse marriage in a particular church to gays; each church has it's own rules. But to attempt to deny that homosexual behaviour is a natural state for some small portion of the human race has, for at least the past 20 years or been scientifically unsustainable.