Sarah Palin Takes Stupid To A New Level With Glenn Beck!!

[Soul Crusher]

lurker is right. social libertarianism is on the rise. Most likely because young people are getting more involved in politics.

To me, social libertarians are ripe for the picking to teach economic libertarianism and should never be judged scornfully. 

I can find someones' behavior repulsive but at the same time respect their rights as a private citizen so long as it does not infring on mine.

I just wish those same people I may have tolderance for socially would respect my economic rights. 

[2ND COMING]

To me, social libertarians are ripe for the picking to teach economic libertarianism and should never be judged scornfully. 

I can find someones' behavior repulsive but at the same time respect their rights as a private citizen so long as it does not infring on mine.

I just wish those same people I may have tolderance for socially would respect my economic rights. 

hey, most libs i know im my life are not fiscally liberal. In fact, i dont know one liberal who fundamentally supports higher taxes, high gov spending. Its just that theyre very liberal on social issues and a little soft on foreign policy. And in-turn get lumped in to lib or con category.

[LurkerNoMore]

While the religious aspect is probably true,conservatism is on the rise.Gallop had a poll showing that conservatism is now the most popular ideology.This country has always been center right.Now we have a tool in there that is a socialist and the country is speaking.

Most people get confused with the term "conservatism" when being applied in politics.  There are two common types it generally applies to in discussions.

There is true conservatism that I am in favor of, this relates to an economic standpoint such as spending and small government.  

Then there is the social conservatism of the religious based far right that is about intrusion, dictating how people should live their own lives, and attempting to regulate the entire nation with laws that are based on the narrow minded viewpoint of a minority (wingnuts).

The religious far right is dying out.  Which is a good thing.  Candidates have only been paying lip service to them for a while now.  

As 2nd coming stated, more young people will be getting involved in politics.  Many of these young people naturally have more liberal views than their parents.  (Not saying they ARE liberals, just their views are not as socially conservative as their ancestors may have been).  You will see the moderate base and ranks growing faster than the left or right side in the future years.  While shunning the typical religious outlook of conservatism, they will still most likely embrace the aspect of true conservatism in some regards.

[Soul Crusher]

hey, most libs i know im my life are not fiscally liberal. In fact, i dont know one liberal who fundamentally supports higher taxes, high gov spending. Its just that theyre very liberal on social issues and a little soft on foreign policy. And in-turn get lumped in to lib or con category.

I am revolted by the behavior of a lot of people, but IMHO, the heavy hand of govt regulating those behaviors to my liking is worse than my private discomfort. 

Most people dont undertand that about me and assume I am some far right fundy.  Absolutely not.  I think the Govt needs to be kept in check on all fronts.  However, when it comes to electoral politics, I find the encroachments on my economic freedoms and choices worse than the perceived social issues pushed by the religious right.   

[LurkerNoMore]

hey, most libs i know im my life are not fiscally liberal. In fact, i dont know one liberal who fundamentally supports higher taxes, high gov spending. Its just that theyre very liberal on social issues and a little soft on foreign policy. And in-turn get lumped in to lib or con category.

Well look at me.  I have already made my views on :

Gun rights
Immigration
Bail Out
Health Care
etc...

known and despite the Repubs on here having the exact same opinion on these issues, I am still labeled a liberal.  

[MCWAY]

The right wing religious conservatives are a dying breed.  "Thank God". 

The next election, just like the last will be decided by moderates and independents.

You are a complete tool.  Tell me, did you work hard to become so stupid or did it just come natural for you.

Woefully inept and tragically pitiful, as usual, Lurker.

The reason that moderates and independents are the tie-breakers is because the base of BOTH parties is pretty much set.

Democrats can't win without the far-left; Republican CAN NOT WIN without the "right wing religious conservatives". That's the base, the demographic that got Bush a second term.

They may not win without the social conservatives. But, they WILL NOT WIN without them.

If the Republicans get a candidate for president that can energize that base, coupled with the appeal to moderates, Obama is a good as DEAD in 2012 (which would put the final nail in your screwball assertions of long-term Democratic domination in Washington).

[Straw Man]

Even better - let's get a truly progressive 3rd party and make the Dems and Repubs irrelevent.

If that ever happened you'd see Dems and Repubs falling all over themselves to find middle ground to retain their own personal power and the power of their corporate benefactors

The Dems have no spine and the Repubs have no brain

[LurkerNoMore]

Woefully inept and tragically pitiful, as usual, Lurker.

The reason that moderates and independents are the tie-breakers is because the base of BOTH parties is pretty much set.

Democrats can't win without the far-left; Republican CAN NOT WIN without the "right wing religious conservatives". That's the base, the demographic that got Bush a second term.

They may not win without the social conservatives. But, they WILL NOT WIN without them.

If the Republicans get a candidate for president that can energize that base, coupled with the appeal to moderates, Obama is a good as DEAD in 2012 (which would put the final nail in your screwball assertions of long-term Democratic domination in Washington).

Only an idiot - you fit the bill - would attempt an argument in the face of what is already known.

Religious base is shrinking because the nation is outgrowing the silliness of it. 

The part I bolded is a perfect example of your typical contradictions and not knowing what the hell you are talking about.  It makes no sense.  Just like you.  But carry on with your delusions.

[BM OUT]

Most people get confused with the term "conservatism" when being applied in politics.  There are two common types it generally applies to in discussions.

There is true conservatism that I am in favor of, this relates to an economic standpoint such as spending and small government.  

Then there is the social conservatism of the religious based far right that is about intrusion, dictating how people should live their own lives, and attempting to regulate the entire nation with laws that are based on the narrow minded viewpoint of a minority (wingnuts).

The religious far right is dying out.  Which is a good thing.  Candidates have only been paying lip service to them for a while now.  

As 2nd coming stated, more young people will be getting involved in politics.  Many of these young people naturally have more liberal views than their parents.  (Not saying they ARE liberals, just their views are not as socially conservative as their ancestors may have been).  You will see the moderate base and ranks growing faster than the left or right side in the future years.  While shunning the typical religious outlook of conservatism, they will still most likely embrace the aspect of true conservatism in some regards.

I agree!!Im an economic conservative but a libertarian on ALL social issues.I want the government to stay the hell out of my life!!!I dont want them to tell me what to eat,what to watch,what to think,what to say NOTHING!

While your right that religious conservatives want to controll your life,liberals do the EXACT same thing,but on different issues.This is why I hate liberals.It was Joe Biden that got steroids on the controlled substance list and made them a felony.Its Obama that wants to tell us how hot to have our homes,what cars we should drive,how heavy we should be,how much we pay to tan.etc etc.

YES religious conservatives want to dictate who you sleep with,but liberals want to dictate who you associate with and every other aspect of our lives.THEY are the ones who try to punnish you for politically incorrect speech,they try to ban music,they try to stop radio talk shows.

So,I agree that the religious right are goof balls,but the loony left is equally idiotic.

[MCWAY]

Only an idiot - you fit the bill - would attempt an argument in the face of what is already known.

Religious base is shrinking because the nation is outgrowing the silliness of it.  

The part I bolded is a perfect example of your typical contradictions and not knowing what the hell you are talking about.  It makes no sense.  Just like you.  But carry on with your delusions.

That was simply a typo, which should have read, "They may not win WITH social conservatives. But they WILL NOT WIN without them."

Delusions would be your moronic statements of the past, regarding the Dems having a lock on Washington indefinitely with Obama as a shoo-in for re-election. In about ten months, you're going to see that delusion GET SMASHED TO PIECES.

The religious base isn't going anywhere. A prime example of that would be the 11 marriage amendments that pass in 2006 and 2008, even though Republicans lost big time.

Many of that base participated in those tea parties, which have made their presence felt. Liberals were laughing and mocking them. After what just went down Tuesday, they ain't laughing no more.

You carry on with YOUR delusions. And watch your feelings continue to get hurt.

3 straight lost elections, Supermajority GONE (one year earlier than anyone could have imagined, courtesy of the one ace-in-the-hold Senate seat going GOP), ObamaCare DOA, Democratic heads on the chopping block, and (barring a major about-face, Clinton-style), the official-goose-cooking of one Barack Hussein Obama....Hmmmm, Hmmmm, Hmmmm!!!

[LurkerNoMore]

Religious base is shrinking and dying out.
The US is a secular nation.
You are an idiot.

This thread has established all of the above. 

[pellius]

I agree!!Im an economic conservative but a libertarian on ALL social issues.I want the government to stay the hell out of my life!!!I dont want them to tell me what to eat,what to watch,what to think,what to say NOTHING!

While your right that religious conservatives want to controll your life,liberals do the EXACT same thing,but on different issues.This is why I hate liberals.It was Joe Biden that got steroids on the controlled substance list and made them a felony.Its Obama that wants to tell us how hot to have our homes,what cars we should drive,how heavy we should be,how much we pay to tan.etc etc.

YES religious conservatives want to dictate who you sleep with,but liberals want to dictate who you associate with and every other aspect of our lives.THEY are the ones who try to punnish you for politically incorrect speech,they try to ban music,they try to stop radio talk shows.

So,I agree that the religious right are goof balls,but the loony left is equally idiotic.

I think the difference is that a religious person wants to convert you to his beliefs by moral persuasion. They simply believe that their beliefs and values are good and want you to share those values. A liberal wants to convert you to their beliefs and values by passing laws. Using the force of government to get you to do what they have unilaterally determined is best for you.

Of course, the question isn't always what's good for you. I think it's better if a person doesn't smoke, wear seat belts, don't abuse drugs, etc., but the question is: who should decide?

[MCWAY]

Religious base is shrinking and dying out.
The US is a secular nation.
You are an idiot.

This thread has established all of the above. 

Strikes one, two, and three!!!

Keep on cowering and watch your past claims about the Dems' lock on Washington get smashed to pieces, along with the rest of the foolishness you keep posting.

[LurkerNoMore]

Strikes one, two, and three!!!

Keep on cowering and watch your past claims about the Dems' lock on Washington get smashed to pieces, along with the rest of the foolishness you keep posting.

How's the non-secular nation with the ever increasing christian right wing party going for you in those delusions of yours?

Reality called.  Said you were a tard.  Hope this helps a bit child.

[MCWAY]

How's the non-secular nation with the ever increasing christian right wing party going for you in those delusions of yours?

Reality called.  Said you were a tard.  Hope this helps a bit child.

Look who's talking: A crackpot of a coward, hanging onto delusions of indefinite Democratic rule, even while witnessing the beatings firsthand, which will likely continue in 2010.

Add to that, the statements IN BLACK AND WHITE, from the Founding Fathers that we are a Christian nation (contrary to El Bonehead's claims that I didn't produce such quotes).

But, to add the Grey Poupon to your toes (since you insist on keeping your foot in your mouth):

Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.

By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty. - Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice, giving the majority opinion in the case, "Runkel v. Winemiller", 1799.


NEXT!!!!

[MCWAY]

And, it appears that US Supreme Court was SOOOOOOOO convinced that we are a Christian nation, that it ruled as such, not once but TWICE!!!

The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference"... - US Supreme Court, "LYNCH v. DONNELLY", 1984



If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? - US Supreme Court, "Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States", 1892.

So, what was all that noise you were talking again, Lurker?

Oh, by the way, cowardly one, you're still on the hook for backing your claims about Sarah Palin, not being qualified for President, as opposed to Barack Obama.

[LurkerNoMore]

How's the non-secular nation with the ever increasing christian right wing party going for you in those delusions of yours?

Reality called.  Said you were a tard.  Hope this helps a bit child.

I can't tell which is greater.  The idiot's inability to argue against the First Amendment or the sheer stupidity of attempting to do so.

[MCWAY]

I can't tell which is greater.  The idiot's inability to argue against the First Amendment or the sheer stupidity of attempting to do so.

Ummm, the Supreme Court justices read that same 1st amendment, when they made those rulings.

So what's your excuse, now? Did those justices miss your memo, when ruling AT LEAST TWICE that this is indeed a Christian nation? What about those Founding Fathers that said the exact same thing?

Once again, please get a clue. I'm NOT arguing against the First Amendment. It is that very amendment that rips your moronic statements apart.

As do the words of the Founding Fathers, themselves, words that YOU FOOLISHLY CLAIMED that I didn't post, when making my arguments.

But, since I need the laughs, continue your mindless, spineless clucking. Continue your chirping about long-term Democratic reign, while the party steps closer to the woodshed. And hide behind all of that, while failing to back your claims about Palin.

[LurkerNoMore]

I can't tell which is greater.  The idiot's inability to argue against the First Amendment or the sheer stupidity of attempting to do so.

Having to repeat for the slow ones on board who continue to fail in their attempts to encapsulate the nation inside their religious dogma.

[MCWAY]

Having to repeat for the slow ones on board who continue to fail in their attempts to encapsulate the nation inside their religious dogma.

Run, coward, run!!!

Run from the fact, that your claim about my not mentioning the Founding Fathers' words about this being a Christian nation, ring more hollow than your head (I listed at least two: Adams and Jay, along with a link, citing other Founders).

Run from the fact that the Supreme Court has mentioned that such is the case, USA being a Christian nation, AT LEAST TWICE (See "The Holy Trinity Church v. United States" and "Lynch v. Donnely).

Run from the fact that, for all of your bleating, TO THIS DAY, you can't back a single one of your statements as to why Palin is not qualified to be President but Obama is.

Run from the fact that your previous claims about the Democrats, having an indefinite lock on Washington and Obama being a shoo-in for re-election, are CRUMBLING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES (Three consecutive lost elections, Supermajority GONE, ObamaCare DOA, Democrats retiring left and right to avoid the impending trip to the wooshed in November, Obama trying to re-invent himself into a populist, etc.).

Again, I need the laughs. So continue to cower like the punk that you are.

[LurkerNoMore]

Having to repeat for the slow ones on board who continue to fail in their attempts to encapsulate the nation inside their religious dogma.

Once again, having the baby Jebus in their eyes makes people blind to facts and logic.  So having to repeat again....

If the founding fathers wanted a christian nation they would have specifically said so and stated it in the Constitution.

They didn't. 
It isn't. 
You have to live with it.

Stupid is as stupid does I see.

[MCWAY]

Once again, having the baby Jebus in their eyes makes people blind to facts and logic.  So having to repeat again....

If the founding fathers wanted a christian nation they would have specifically said so and stated it in the Constitution.

They didn't.  
It isn't.  
You have to live with it.

Live with THIS:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams, 1798

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” - John Jay, 1816

These are TWO of the Founding Fathers, O silly one. There are plenty more, that say much the same thing.

Also, live with THIS:

The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference"... - US Supreme Court, "LYNCH v. DONNELLY", 1984



If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? - US Supreme Court, "Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States", 1892.

One does NOT have to mention such in the Constitution to state that the USA is a Christian nation. Nor does being a Christian nation require that such be a theocracy.

Stupid is as stupid does I see.

Then, you're surrounded by mirrors, AGAIN.

[LurkerNoMore]

Live with this : First Amendment establishes a secular nation by separating church and state.  No single religion - that means Christianity - is placed above others.  If they wanted a Christian nation they would have included it.  They didn't, it isn't. 

USA = secular nation from establishment.
You = complete idiot from birth.

I can't tell which is greater.  The idiot's inability to argue against the First Amendment or the sheer stupidity of attempting to do so.

[MCWAY]

Live with this : First Amendment establishes a secular nation by separating church and state.  No single religion - that means Christianity - is placed above others.  If they wanted a Christian nation they would have included it.  They didn't, it isn't.  

USA = secular nation from establishment.
You = complete idiot from birth.

I can't tell which is greater.  The idiot's inability to argue against the First Amendment or the sheer stupidity of attempting to do so.

Get a clue, spineless one. There is no separation of church and state. We have Supreme Court rulings that say as much.

Is Islam on equal footing with Christianity? NOPE!!
Is Buddhism on the same level as Christianity? Hardly!!
What about Molech worship? PLEASE!!!
Any homages to Baal or Ashoreth over the last couple hundred years? I doubt it!!


Get another clue, O ye without backbone, Our Founding Fathers CAME RIGHT OUT AND SAID THAT THIS WAS A CHRISTIAN NATION. Their statements are right there, in black-and-white, for ALL to see (as are the Supreme Court rulings).

Please obtain some sense, yellow-streaked one. I'm not arguing (nor have I EVER argued) AGAINST the 1st Amendment. That amendment simply stated what Dr. King would sum up centuries later, that the church is the conscience of the state, not its master nor its slave.

[LurkerNoMore]

Is it the Baby Jeesbus or Teh Stupid that is in your eyes making you blind?

No separation of church and state?  Oooooohhhkay!  You have just proven your stupidity has no limits.

We do, which is why we are a secular nation.