Why the future looks so bleak for the GOP
As I mentioned yesterday, as of mid-December some 53 percent of Americans perceived the Republican Party as too extremist, a record-high number that had jumped 17 percentage points in the two years since the GOP took control of the House in the 2010 mid-terms.
Given what has happened in the three weeks since that CNN poll was released — the GOP House rejected John Boehner’s fiscal-cliff plan as too moderate, and it refused to even vote on an emergency aid package for New York and New Jersey — that number has only risen.
In fact, the party is caught in a long-term downward spiral that will prove difficult if not impossible to escape.
Look at the top issues likely to dominate the 113th Congress: immigration reform, gun control, and the debt ceiling. On each of those high-profile issues, the Republican Party finds itself trapped defending a strongly held but distinctly minority point of view.
In November exit polls, for example, 65 percent of American voters said that illegal immigrants ought to be offered an avenue to legal status. To put it mildly, that is not a position that Republicans can easily reconcile with their base. And in a recent Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans said they backed stronger gun-control laws; just 6 percent wanted less stringent gun laws, which is the default position of many in the GOP.
The debt-ceiling optics are even worse. The GOP plan is to confront President Obama with two brutal choices: Make serious cuts in Medicare and other entitlements, or Republicans will force the country to default on its debt. Maybe it’s just me, but if you’re trying to shuck a reputation as extremist, that’s not exactly the course I would recommend. As I’ve noted before, even Republican voters oppose Medicare cuts by an overwhelming margin. Yet somehow Republican politicians have convinced themselves that this is a battle that they must fight and can win.
And of course, the group that will continue to define the Republican brand in all these fights will be the House GOP caucus, a group that is considerably more conservative and yes, extremist, than the country at large. It’s not hard to understand why.
Take Georgia’s Republican House members as an example. All eight of them voted against the fiscal-cliff solution that President Obama signed into law yesterday. And all eight are likely to toe the hard-right line on immigration, gun control and the debt ceiling. And the truth is that based on their own narrow self-interest, they’d be fools to do otherwise.
Thanks to gerrymandering, a political evil in which both parties indulge, three of the eight are in such strong GOP districts that no Democrat even bothered to run against them last November. The five who did draw Democratic opposition won re-election by an average margin of 40 percentage points. So none of the eight has anything to gain personally by becoming more moderate.
That brings us to the ultimate question: How can the Republican Party shed its reputation as extremist on the national stage when most of those who create that reputation — the members of the House GOP caucus — have every incentive as individuals to continue on their present course?
I confess I’m stumped by that one.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
823 comments Add your comment
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
3:53 pm
“I just suppose some of us are left scratching our heads over the way some Christians pick and choose which orthodox Jewish beliefs to follow – even those that orthodox Jews don’t follow any more.”
Hmm. All I can say in response, Paul, is that I am left scratching my head at what you say here (assuming that I am recalling correctly you have elsewhere professed to be a Christian – otherwise, why the debate?). What, may I ask, do you “do” with passages from the NT such as these?
” Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that.”
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
The ball is in your hands.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
3:53 pm
C. Conservative — “Its repulsive, nasty, un-natural, un-healthy, and dangerous behavior.”
So’s open-heart surgery, but we still do that.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 3rd, 2013
3:53 pm
Its repulsive, nasty, un-natural, un-healthy, and dangerous behavior.
The guilty dog barks loudest.
Williebkind
January 3rd, 2013
3:55 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
“We still may be wrong, but this is how science works. We formulate a certain hypothesis and people prove if its right or wrong.”
Now that is a liberal dream world. You mathematically formulate a hypothesis and let someone prove it wrong while the mean time you tell everyone global warming is man made.
And that is where science loses credibility!
Paul
January 3rd, 2013
3:55 pm
Whenever I read posts like “it is a sin for a man to lie with…” or some such, I’m really left in awe that the early Jewish elders and St Paul and whoever else gets quoted were speaking only against men. They seemed perfectly okay with women getting together….
GT
January 3rd, 2013
3:55 pm
The south is a bully without portfolio. They threaten and make everybody miserable like a drunk on Sunday morning. They are the Dangerfield in Caddy Shack almost to the tune of their own amusement, never agreeing to anything or with anybody. One of the wonderful things about this crowd is the losing positions they leave themselves trying to be consistently right of anything left has to offer, figuring the hate for the left is so strong, political points are scores by just showing up on the right. It is a lazy strategy never much preparation, if I say black you say white, I say good you say bad, I do the thinking and you just reverse whatever I say. If that gets you in trouble you just say you never said it and the tape is a dirty lie.
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
3:56 pm
“democratic plantation”….
DRINK!
Nunna Yobinnes
January 3rd, 2013
3:56 pm
Jamvet – Fine, just be consistent. Tax all charities, not just churches. Besides, if churches engaged in taxable transactions (UBIT), they are required to report it on a 990-T.
JamVet
January 3rd, 2013
3:56 pm
JHM, why?
There is no special tax protection in the US Constitution for them.
They want to cuddle up to the government so they can get their filthy lucre? Fine!
Just make these mooches start paying the price of admission just like everybody else in this country does. It’s not like they don’t have gazillions of dollars in assets!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
3:56 pm
Towncrier — “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Is this like when Nathan Deal got in trouble with Congress and had to resign and get out of Washington, DC in the middle of the night? Is that the kind of “indecent” we’re talking about here?
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
3:57 pm
Williebkind: Now that is a liberal dream world. You mathematically formulate a hypothesis and let someone prove it wrong while the mean time you tell everyone global warming is man made
This just shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Even a Koch funded scientist said it’s man made (and by man made I specifically mean mostly caused by man’s activities, Semantic Nazis)
josef
January 3rd, 2013
3:57 pm
Not that I greatly care, mind you, but when these discussions come up, I do wonder of the likes of TC and Christian Conservative follow all the sexual behavior rules and regulations of what they call the Old Testament, you know sheets with slits in them, who’s on first, etc.?
I think they might need to get with the Haredi for some remedial education!
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 3rd, 2013
3:59 pm
CC@1:56
So it was good enough for Bush but not in high schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush-abdullah1.jpg
Williebkind
January 3rd, 2013
3:59 pm
“Its repulsive, nasty, un-natural, un-healthy, and dangerous behavior.
The guilty dog barks loudest.”
That I dont understand. So you are saying God is a homosexual?
JamVet
January 3rd, 2013
3:59 pm
Tax all charities, not just churches.
Fine by me, Nunna.
Time to make a big dent in the HUGE money and freeloading religious 47%!
LOL!!
DannyX
January 3rd, 2013
3:59 pm
“‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will ’?”
You are not helping your cause one bit, CC. This makes the case for you putting all your efforts into outlawing divorce.
“Become one flesh.”
Getting married in a church swearing before God, “Until death do us part.”
Jesus’ laws about divorce and remarriage.
Yet your big service to God, is to speak out about gay marriage? What a joke. Over half of all Christian marriages end in divorce. There are far more Christian divorces than potential gay marriages. Where are the Christian conservatives hiding when it comes to divorce, where is that “Biblical God” when you need him?
But you really aren’t about Christianity are you? You just want to play politics with the Bible. The phony “Biblical God” routine is hysterical.
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:00 pm
Hey, Semantic Nazis!
Here’s your dream post:
Assault Weapon
Global Warming Man Made
ALL X are like X
You’re dog is stupid. Your stupid to.
Have fun picking that apart while your heads explode!
Williebkind
January 3rd, 2013
4:00 pm
“Even a Koch funded scientist said it’s man made (and by man made I specifically mean mostly caused by man’s activities, Semantic Nazis)”
Yep and 33,000 scientist said it was not!
Uh Huh...."We are the ones we've been waiting for."
January 3rd, 2013
4:00 pm
Well ain’t this conversation interesting.
Hypocrites debating Hypocrites.
A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree,
then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.
Uh HUH!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 3rd, 2013
4:00 pm
So you are saying God is a homosexual?
No.
This has been another episode of one-word answers to a simple(ton’s) question.
Erwin's cat
January 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
“We still may be wrong, but this is how science works. We formulate a certain hypothesis and people prove if its right or wrong.”
Do you test (as in product testing) to find bugs or to prove the absence of bugs?.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm
Sure thing Willie.
You’se a genius. E=MC2
robert goulet
January 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm
The GOP must read this blog and base all of its platform off of the comments. So far, I have heard that the GOP does not care about what happens in a private citizen’s bedroom then 30 comments about what happens in a private citizen’s bedroom… makes no sense.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM PEOPLE! The reason it appears the GOP is the social issue extremist party is because we keep wasting our time on it. Again, drop social issues from the platform, focus on economics (eliminating deficit, passing budgets, etc.), lowering taxes, and reducing the role of the federal government in our lives.
This is the only way the GOP is saved, but probably falling on deaf ears (or giddy democrats)…
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm
Yep and 33,000 scientist said it was not!
That’s bullsh*t and you know it.
DebbieDoRight - Conned And Confused
January 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm
Danny X — You’re on fire today! You go boy!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:02 pm
JamVet — “JHM, why? There is no special tax protection in the US Constitution for them.”
Because the tax code could be used punitively against certain sects or denominations (e.g. muslims) just because they happened to be unpopular at that time.
“They want to cuddle up to the government so they can get their filthy lucre? Fine!”
FWIW, I’m not opposed to stricter regulations from the IRS on what *constitutes* a religion and who/what can be exempted from taxation on that basis.
“Just make these mooches start paying the price of admission just like everybody else in this country does. It’s not like they don’t have gazillions of dollars in assets!”
Sure, megachurches do, but the little country church down the road may only take in enough per year to maintain the church building and perhaps a parsonage. I hear where you’re coming from with megachurches, but I don’t see how you could craft a law that would affect *only* megachurches while leaving the little country churches alone.
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:02 pm
“Bonobos are also a species of note in this regard.”
Until the research cited in the linked article is validated by what I would consider to be more objective “scientists” (Bruce Bagemihl and Simon Levay are the main source of information for this article and both are openly gay), I am not convinced. Neither, I think, should anyone else be. Provide better proof, please.
Paul
January 3rd, 2013
4:02 pm
Christian Conservative 3:51
“I realize logic leaves the room when libs try and understand issues ”
You don’t do much to advance your cause when you begin a response with a put-down of others in an attempt to make yourself look superior. If anything, it costs you credibility.
“I realize logic leaves the room when libs try and understand issues but think of homosexuality this way without using Christian beliefs. Its repulsive, nasty, un-natural, un-healthy, and dangerous behavior.”
I’m thinking of a chaste, celibate minister who’s a homosexual. I fail to see your logic.
I’m thinking of Ellen DeGeneris and Portia de Rossi in a committed, exclusive relationship. I still fail to see your logic.
What about either of those two situations is repulsive? Unnatural?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 3rd, 2013
4:02 pm
EC, no idea. The proof is in the pudding?????
Williebkind
January 3rd, 2013
4:03 pm
DannyX
You really have an approbate mind! Live long and prosper!
josef
January 3rd, 2013
4:03 pm
PAUL
That women and women one…that one IS fun, the Soviets’ laws were worded strictly male-male. One of the dissidents quipped, “well, you’ve got to remember the men who passed these laws had some experience there…” You might also be interested in some of the rabbinical arguments along those lines.
And in Iran sex-change is kosher! Seriously…
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:03 pm
Towncrier: I do not wish to go back and find out what you are trying to say, so I’ll just ask you:
Are you arguing that being gay is a choice that humans make, and that no other animals exhibit this behavior?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:03 pm
williebkind — “Yep and 33,000 scientist said it was not!”
My dad’s a “scientist,” but he doesn’t know jack spit about the climate.
That’s because he’s a microbiologist, not a climatologist.
And virtually *none* of your 33,000 were climatologists, either.
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:05 pm
“Not that I greatly care, mind you, but when these discussions come up, I do wonder of the likes of TC and Christian Conservative follow all the sexual behavior rules and regulations of what they call the Old Testament, you know sheets with slits in them, who’s on first, etc.?”
I know you are Jewish and it seems you think there isn’t anything but the Torah and Talmud. But there is such a thing as the New Testament. If you have read it, I can only conclude you haven’t read it very well.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 3rd, 2013
4:05 pm
…eliminating deficit…
Did someone say deficit?
Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn’t matter, but were a force for economic good.
Translation: IOKIYAR
DebbieDoRight - Conned And Confused
January 3rd, 2013
4:05 pm
Service to God – Charity begins at home:
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41* j Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42k For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:05 pm
Towncrier — “Provide better proof, please.”
You asked, I provided. Deal with it.
FWIW, given our history, I’d appreciate it if you started showing more of your *own* proof before asking me for more of mine.
josef
January 3rd, 2013
4:06 pm
DDR
Yeah. I’m beginning to wonder if we might ought to invite Danny X into the Boa Society…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 3rd, 2013
4:06 pm
Until the research cited in the linked article is validated by what I would consider …, I am not convinced
Don’t really care about your thoughts or what you consider convincing unless you have a particular expertise that relates and state your thesis for review with support.
TBS
January 3rd, 2013
4:07 pm
josef @ 3:57
Or that some are sitting at “Closet Capers” during Happy Hour with you know who and fighting their inner feelings…….
Thulsa Doom
January 3rd, 2013
4:07 pm
(Bruce Bagemihl and Simon Levay are the main source of information for this article and both are openly gay),
Beat me to it.
TBS
January 3rd, 2013
4:08 pm
Thulsa
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Williebkind
January 3rd, 2013
4:08 pm
“I’m thinking of a chaste, celibate minister who’s a homosexual. I fail to see your logic.”
He is homosexual at heart then he is a homosexual. If you condon homosexuality then you are/as a homosexual. It does not matter if you pitch or catch it is still the same game.
“I’m thinking of Ellen DeGeneris and Portia de Rossi in a committed, exclusive relationship. I still fail to see your logic.”
H O M O S E X U A L I T Y. It does not matter how serious they are toward the unnatural act it is still perversion.
JamVet
January 3rd, 2013
4:09 pm
Globally cooled willie cracks me up…
Nunna Yobinnes
January 3rd, 2013
4:09 pm
@Paul @ 3:55 – Your reading comprehension is sagging a little today. You obviously didn’t even read the post you are commenting on.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 3rd, 2013
4:09 pm
“Even a Koch funded scientist said it’s man made (and by man made I specifically mean mostly caused by man’s activities, Semantic Nazis)”
Yep and 33,000 scientist said it was not!
How do you even argue against a point as ridiculous as this ?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:10 pm
Enter your comments here
Paul
January 3rd, 2013
4:10 pm
Towncrier
“What, may I ask, do you “do” with passages from the NT such as these?”
About the same as any of St Paul’s writings about sex outside marriage. Or really, within marriage, ’cause that guy had some personal hangups and one can make a very good case from his writings that marriage is a lesser arrangement, not to be preferred, but is for those who are too weak to control their physical passions.
In all those cases, St Paul was writing of relations outside marriage, and //he was listing all sorts of relationships to leave no escape clauses.//
So now bring that physical union into a marriage relationship and the writings no longer apply.
Thulsa Doom
January 3rd, 2013
4:10 pm
Isn’t that cute. The kreep alliance thinks that 2 sources on homosexuality in nature who are both openly gay themselves are credible sources. Then they get mad and defensive when they get called out on this obvious bias.
And it looks like one of them is a scientist and a resident expert on the scientific hypotheses.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 3rd, 2013
4:11 pm
Or that some are sitting at “Closet Capers” during Happy Hour with you know who and fighting their inner feelings…….
AKA: GWIDLN
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 3rd, 2013
4:11 pm
He is homosexual at heart then he is a homosexual. If you condon homosexuality then you are/as a homosexual. It does not matter if you pitch or catch it is still the same game.
What do you care what people do with their willie’s …. Willie.
Yawn. This is where Willie pushes his narrow bigoted Religious beliefs on everyone.
beam me up
January 3rd, 2013
4:12 pm
All of these cons talking about the deficit crack me up. Republicans LOVE deficits. They must because every time they get a little bit of control they run them up like crazy. There is only one thing that the Republican party cares about….taxes, specifically taxes for rich people who don’t have to work for a living. What is the only major concession that the Democrats had to make to get the fiscal cliff deal? The estate tax. Nobody in the tax community either left or right thought there would be a $5 million exemption.
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:12 pm
Thulsa: The kreep alliance thinks that 2 sources on homosexuality in nature who are both openly gay themselves are credible sources.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why all the articles were published after full peer review?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 3rd, 2013
4:13 pm
H O M O S E X U A L I T Y. It does not matter how serious they are toward the unnatural act it is still perversion.
Another loudly barking guilty dog.
josef
January 3rd, 2013
4:13 pm
TC
“I know you are Jewish and it seems you think there isn’t anything but the Torah and Talmud. But there is such a thing as the New Testament. If you have read it, I can only conclude you haven’t read it very well.”
Not at all. For starters there’s Mishnah. Then there’s a further 2000 years of commentary on Talmud-Torah and Mishnah, reflecting the evolutionary nature of the Jewish approach to questions of theology and sociology.
As for reading the New Testament. Which language, which translation from which language? I make no pretense of being any type of Biblical scholar of any nature. However, it is an interest of mine given its importance in the development of Western Civilization of which I am a member, so, yes, I have and still do read it…
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:14 pm
“Are you arguing that being gay is a choice that humans make, and that no other animals exhibit this behavior?”
I believe we, like animals, have instincts or impulses – whatever they may be. Unlike animals, we are made in God’s image, have a conscience, can reason and can choose whether or not we follow these impulses. I don’t imagine for a minute that a dog feels any compunction about humping someone’s leg or mauling a cat or in a pack killing one of its own kind. I believe we are different. We may feel like killing someone in anger, but choose not to. We may feel like committing adultery with a woman who is flirting with us, but choose not to.
I don’t know if that makes sense to you, but I attempted to answer your question out of deference to your request. There is, I think, little point in us debating the issue since I believe in God and I suspect you do not. Go with and vote by your naturalistic views.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:14 pm
Doom — “The kreep alliance thinks that 2 sources on homosexuality in nature who are both openly gay themselves are credible sources.”
So only scientists who are themselves straight would be “credible sources” on the topic of homosexual behavior of animals?
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 3rd, 2013
4:15 pm
There is homosexuality all throughout nature.
Anybody with a few dogs could have told you that.
Ive personally seen female cows attempt to mount each other when in heat.
Yawn
TBS
January 3rd, 2013
4:15 pm
Thulsa
Based on your logic, is right wing talk radio all lies? After all it is a right wing agenda being pushed by right leaning pundits
Uh Huh.......There's a RIFT in the GOP. Boenher vs The Tea Party Crazies
January 3rd, 2013
4:15 pm
Uh Huh……The future looks VERY BLEAK for the GOP until
they break from the party of TAINTED TEA.
Uh huh
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 3rd, 2013
4:15 pm
So only scientists who are themselves straight would be “credible sources” on the topic of homosexual behavior of animals?
But there is no bias in that of course..
LOL
B
O
O
M
!
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:16 pm
Towncrier: Then why argue that a scientist being gay means he cannot be trusted about the results of studying same sex behavior in animals?
TBS
January 3rd, 2013
4:16 pm
Thulsa has produced ZERO except his own words, but whatever anyone else produces is wrong
hahahahahaha
heading up stairs
Keep flailing Doom
Paul
January 3rd, 2013
4:17 pm
josef
” You might also be interested in some of the rabbinical arguments along those lines. ”
Yes, I would be, at that –
Williebkind 4:08
You just said what you believe – not WHY.
If it’s based on your personal Biblical interpretation, that’s fine. Just don’t try to legislate it.
We ain’t very big on Sharia Law around these parts -
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 3rd, 2013
4:17 pm
I believe we, like animals,
We are animals.
Everything else you said was gibberish and nonsense.
Your superstitious silliness about men in robes in the sky has nothing to do with reality or me.
JamVet
January 3rd, 2013
4:17 pm
What is it with these Republicans that they have zero respect for science? I believe it ia only because scientific knowledge is the bastion of academia and liberals. Who the cons MUST oppose. Always and forever. Amen.
Nobody of ANY consequence on the entire planet agrees with them on their lunatic position regarding ACC, Yet they SWEAR they are right and everyone else is wrong. Though they don’t even have a lucid explanation!!
It is the craziest thing I have ever seen…
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:17 pm
TBS: He does that all the time.
josef
January 3rd, 2013
4:18 pm
TBS, K’CHAK
bookman parrot
January 3rd, 2013
4:18 pm
hey libs, keep running that misdirection play
Thulsa Doom
January 3rd, 2013
4:19 pm
TBS,
Good article but still not convincing.BTW I get national geographic. Heck its the only magazine I get. But its also a very liberal magazine and openly espouses climate change amongst other things. The part about the penguins reminded me of 6 penguins at a Berlin zoo that they were saying were all Lesbian. How would they know? Just because they are close?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:19 pm
TBS — “Based on your logic, is right wing talk radio all lies? After all it is a right wing agenda being pushed by right leaning pundits”
I look forward to the next time Doom trots out data from the Heritage Foundation to make his points about how great conservative economic policy is. After all, Heritage is conservative, and therefore biased, and therefore not to be trusted.
Great job shooting yourself in the foot tonight, Doom. (laughing, pointing)
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 3rd, 2013
4:20 pm
Saxby being challenged SHEETZ
indigo
January 3rd, 2013
4:20 pm
Christian Conservative – 1:52
How about “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
and
“love thy neighbor as thyself”
As for abortion – thousands of pregnant women spontaineously abort(miscarry) every day.
I’m sure God knows about this.
Since he makes NO effort to stop it, why are you so anti-abortion.
Do you know more than God?
Thomas Heyward Jr
January 3rd, 2013
4:20 pm
Christian Conservative———
.
You’ll have no luck proselytizing to those who pray in the direction of the Lincoln Memorial five times a day,
and who worship the Father Obama, the mother Hillery, and the holy state.
.
YOUR Jesus isn’t violent enough for their taste.
.
lol
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 3rd, 2013
4:20 pm
larry@2:42
Allen West got votes for Speaker of the House………. and people wonder what is wrong with the GOP
———————————————
They were the TeaPartiers off their meds since the election
indigo
January 3rd, 2013
4:21 pm
Towncrier
I think it’s just wonderful you have such a strong, beneficial faith.
Please give us the testable evidence you have to support this faith so we all can be a true believer like you.
Nunna Yobinnes
January 3rd, 2013
4:22 pm
Indigo – thousands of people are murdered every year, and in most cases there is no divine intervention. Does that make God pro-murder?
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:23 pm
JamVet: At least with Climate Change you can PRETEND they don’t actually believe the religious fervor that they back their position up with, and that their real position is that they like the money they get from companies that would be negatively affected by climate change legislation.
Not so much on the gay thing though. The entire basis for any argument that being gay is a choice or any science that shows otherwise isn’t real, is religious.
josef
January 3rd, 2013
4:23 pm
PAUL
This one scratches the surface…
http://www.starways.net/odfaq/
Thulsa Doom
January 3rd, 2013
4:24 pm
cheesy grits and tbs,
Well if you guys can’t see built in bias then you just can’t see it. No amount of help from me can help you. Just what I expect from the kook left.
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:24 pm
Towncrier: Seriously, if your belief is that we have impulses and can choose how to act on them, and that it doesn’t matter whether other animals have such behavior because of our superior God-given rational minds (technically it was the forbidden fruit but I digress), why do you argue that the scientists are biased in their studies because they are gay?
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:25 pm
“About the same as any of St Paul’s writings about sex outside marriage. Or really, within marriage, ’cause that guy had some personal hangups and one can make a very good case from his writings that marriage is a lesser arrangement, not to be preferred, but is for those who are too weak to control their physical passions.”
Okay…so you dismiss them out of hand or invalidate them (because you imagine he had sexual hangups). Thanks for your honesty.
“In all those cases, St Paul was writing of relations outside marriage, and he was listing all sorts of relationships to leave no escape clauses. So now bring that physical union into a marriage relationship and the writings no longer apply.”
Again, thanks for your honesty. We don’t see eye to eye. I think your interpretation is a fanciful way to twist the scriptures to accommodate the times. If what you claim is true, I cannot see why any discussion of marriage by Jesus, Paul or any of the other NT authors would fail to say something along the lines of “…if a man divorces his wife or husband…” or “…for this reason a man shall leave his parents and become one with his wife or husband…” and so on. I mean, if it were that obvious, I think it would have been plainly stated. Please show many ANY verse that EXPLICITLY allows for homosexual marriage.
Adam
January 3rd, 2013
4:26 pm
Can’t help but notice Thulsa COMPLETELY ignored my query regarding the fact that these studies and articles are fully peer-reviewed….
That would lead me to believe that the answer to the original question is “No, I do not care to explain that because I cannot explain it.”
Peter
January 3rd, 2013
4:27 pm
Well thank you Republicans……. all chimed in to say it is OK to allow fellow American’s to live in Trailers that would cause their family’s cancer… and they are proud to say it !
That folks would be Republican family values !
Nunna Yobinnes
January 3rd, 2013
4:28 pm
Adam – It’s OK. All of our posts are largely ignored.
Thulsa Doom
January 3rd, 2013
4:28 pm
“I look forward to the next time Doom trots out data from the Heritage Foundation to make his points about how great conservative economic policy is.”
You tried before and you failed. The reason you failed is because while the Heritage article comes from Heritage the stats it used came straight from the govt. Not surprising that you are unable to discern the difference. Nor for tbs.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:28 pm
Doom — “Well if you guys can’t see built in bias then you just can’t see it.”
Thanks for the assist, Doom! (cackling)
Headed upstairs.
josef
January 3rd, 2013
4:28 pm
Okay, fresh plate of GOP bash-hash upstairs…
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:28 pm
“Why do you argue that the scientists are biased in their studies because they are gay?”
It is called a conflict of interest. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong, but it is certainly possible to suppose they might have had an axe to grind. Conflict of interests have happened a number of times in “science” (not just with gay scientists). I want more and better evidence. You want to deny me that?
Nunna Yobinnes
January 3rd, 2013
4:29 pm
Peter – do you really think that the Federal government is going to admit they made an error (and set themselves up for innumerable lawsuits)?
Thulsa Doom
January 3rd, 2013
4:29 pm
Adam,
Sorry. I did not see that you posted to me. I’m about to leave but if I have a chance I will address you later on your points.
RB from Gwinnett
January 3rd, 2013
4:30 pm
Doom, “Or should the “victims” have started fresh and gotten a new job, rented an apartment or house, or looked to purchase a new house elsewhere. Its interesting that nowhere in that post does Peter seem to think these “victims” have any responsibility or roles in their life outcomes.”
I was screaming at the radio this morning when they reported the victims of the movie theater shooting were suing the movie theater as if they were supposed to protect their patrons from a nutjob. It’s a screwed up liberal world out there when somebody has to pay for the evil perpetrated by somebody else.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 3rd, 2013
4:32 pm
Doom — “You tried before and you failed.”
Nope. Succeeded.
“The reason you failed is because while the Heritage article comes from Heritage the stats it used came straight from the govt.”
The cherry-picked stats did, yes. But the CRITICISM came straight from Heritage, and based on your new standard, Heritage is clearly intolerably biased when it comes to talking about conservatism and conservative topics. Why, if we can’t accept the work of gay scientists when it comes to topics about homosexuality, then we CERTAINLY can’t accept the work of the Heritage Foundation when it comes to talking about conservatism!
Sorry, Doom. You punked yourself, son. (giggling)
Try aloe vera on that butthurt, son. It should help you get over the pain more quickly, The embarrassment might take longer.
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:33 pm
“Whenever I read posts like “it is a sin for a man to lie with…” or some such, I’m really left in awe that the early Jewish elders and St Paul and whoever else gets quoted were speaking only against men. They seemed perfectly okay with women getting together.”
Really? And what of the passage from Romans I quoted earlier? How does that square with what you say above? And you seem intelligent and well read enough to know that much of what is written in the Bible is anthropomorphic. Again, how does that square with your statement?
Williebkind
January 3rd, 2013
4:33 pm
“So only scientists who are themselves straight would be “credible sources” on the topic of homosexual behavior of animals?
But there is no bias in that of course..”
Nope there should not be.
Regnad Kcin
January 3rd, 2013
4:35 pm
“Perhaps you’d care to explain why all the articles were published after full peer review?’
They think gay people can’t “science” right.
TBS
January 3rd, 2013
4:38 pm
Thulsa
You not being convinced means absolutely nothing. You cop out is that the information biased, yet you haven’t refuted any of the information provided with “your facts” nor provided any information yourself
But keep flailing. It will probably be a foul tip from an attempted bunt, but I will give you credit for a hit when it happens
Towncrier
January 3rd, 2013
4:39 pm
“So only scientists who are themselves straight would be “credible sources” on the topic of homosexual behavior of animals?”
Where in my statement was that implied? I asked for MORE and BETTER proof, since I suspect there could be a conflict of interest. Do you have a problem with my request? Please provide it, as I asked. Else I will remain unconvinced (about which you may not care one way or another, but if so why not let it go?).
Regnad Kcin
January 3rd, 2013
4:39 pm
“Well if you guys can’t see built in bias then you just can’t see it. No amount of help from me can help you. Just what I expect from the kook left.’
No irony here…
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 3rd, 2013
4:40 pm
TBG
His wife just died you f’n dog fluffer
————————————————–
LMAO I love that and am stealing it