Why would the Reagan Wing oppose gay civil unions? I notice in the heading it says “gay marriage” this is not about gay marriage its about civil unions which basically says to me: you are still separate and not equal. Stop lying. By opposing this you are on the side of hateful bigotry. This is not gay marriage, again the GOP must lie in order to garner attention. So sad. And to think i voted for Bush…
1. Many people have come to regret voting for Bush, both from the left, like you, and from the right. Bush re-confirmed what Carter proved: that “moderation” is slow but certain political suicide.
2. Gay Marriage doesn’t become something else because you give it a different name.
We could call it “Civil Unions,” “Domestic Partnerships,” “Homosexual Homes,” “Families of Friends,” “A Feast of Friends,” “The Bufalo Dance,” “An Association of Sentient Creatures,” “Affectionate Affiliations of Adult Homo-sapiens” or anything else and it would remain “Gay Marriage.” The liars are people like you who seek to obsucre reality by Euphemism and change society by Deception.
All politically aware people ON BOTH SIDES have known for some time that the Gay strategy is to get “civil unions,” in some form, through the nations weakest legislatures (like ours) and then eradicate any difference between it and “Marriage,” through lawless courts by pointing out that THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE.
Assertions to the contrary are lies.
3. Opposition to theft is not hatred of people tempted to steal. Opposition to murder is not hatred of people that might want to kill. Opposition to speeding is not hatred of people with fast cars. Opposition to homosexuality is not hatred of those whose sexual preference has been so damaged.
But the attribution of “hatred and bigotry” to those who oppsose the societal acceptance of sexual perversion is, in fact, an act of hatred and religious bigotry.
You are the bigot. You are the hater.
You are the liar.
Thanks for posting, Jack. Your forthrightness is appreciated. The leaders of the KCGOP who have been working on your side of this issue within the Republican Party, by deception and lies, in the darkness of secret meetings, do not have your courage.
I voted for Buchanan in 2000 Bush (unfortunately) in 2004 and Baldwin in 2008 but I am 110 percent REAGAN WING!
It’s a joke for anyone to say that something is “conservative” because Bush supported it. Especially towards the end where he seemed to go straight past liberal and hit extreme socialist territory with his “Destroy Capitalism to Save Capitalism” bailout plan.
READ MY LIPS.
NO NEW BUSHES.
And while we are at it NO OLD GINGRICHES as well.
The Republicans better find some new faces and quick!
People who will return the party back to Reagan conservativism because since Reagan we have seen Republican Leftism!
Don’t tell me something is conservative because Nixon supported it (He signed in Affirmative action and price and wage controls). Don’t tell me something is conservative because W. supported it. I can tell MYSELF whether something is conservative or liberal without needing to know who is for and who is against it. What is important is the merits not the backing.
I don’t understand why Civil Recognition of a Gay Union is so important to them. Well, I do understand their ultimate objective but what I mean even among heterosexuals it used to be cool to not get officially married saying “I don’t need the state to recognize our love”. This is between me and my beloved, not us and “THE MAN”. We don’t need “THE MAN” to valid what we have between us. We don’t need “THE MAN” to tell us the bonds between us are real. A piece of paper doesn’t change how we feel. A piece of paper doesn’t make our love stronger.
So, how about it bois? Why do you need “THE MAN” to tell you and your boi toy that your relationship is real? Do you really need a piece of paper to confirm how you feel about each other?
1. Many people have come to regret voting for Bush, both from the left, like you, and from the right. Bush re-confirmed what Carter proved: that “moderation” is slow but certain political suicide….”
Why is that it has come to this point in the conservative world that folks accuse people that they are in “left” just based on one issue. It has become a fashion to hold one favorite issue as a litmus test to accept/accuse a person to be left or right…
I personally believe marriage should be b/w man and a woman but I don’t think that should be single criteria to consider if someone is on the right based of their agreement/disagreement. Not just this point – we still have too many folks who consider Iraq war (remember WMD lies) as a litmus test just because Bush engineered it. Without considering the legality of Iraq war or the soundness (or lack of) WMD arguments, people consider someone to be leftist if he hasn’t supported Iraq war.
The litmus test should just be the core conservative values which are small govt, personal liberty and rule of law.
Please read more carefully. I did not, as you say, “accuse [Jack] that [he is] in ‘left’ just based on one issue.” I said that he regretted voting for Bush “from the left,” and that is precisely, undebatably accurate.
If you want to accuse anyone of a “one issue” litmus test, it must be Jack, not me. His litmus test is Gay Marriage. He’s for it.
You are right about one thing. The Holy War.
Because the GOP elite, who engage in ballot fraud so as not to have their “chosen” face open elections by the grassroots, anointed three liberals to be our 2008 Presidential choices. And among them there was not one principle of Obama politics not endorsed. All that treachery was considered “acceptable” but not opposition to the Iraq War. Only the war was Holy.
Because sexual perversion was fine, Sexual perversion terrorist organizations were fine, killing 3,500 innocent Americans a day in a profit-making enterprise was fine, repealing the 2nd Amendment was fine. Those were just minor disagreements. But no one could oppose the Holy War. The Holy War was sacrosanct. No other war would suffice. Only one war was Holy and all other issues had to be sacrificed in its honor. Socializing medicine was okay. Spiking the Federal Budget by a trillion dollars a year to support Mexican criminals was okay. Delivering American business to their green enemies with energy rationing was okay. Pardoning a phalanx of murderous predators was okay. Only the War was Holy. This was the strategic position of the GOP Left (and Steve Beren).
But you are wrong on what are “the core conservative values.” This is your private opinion, and it is not backed by parliamentary outcomes, nor philosophical consistencey.
“Small Government,” for instance, is a plattitude, and one that is heartily endorsed by BIG Government GOP Liberals. Smaller than what? They give us smaller increases and claim the high ground.
“Personal Liberty,” is equally vague. Does it include prostitution, sexual perversion, child pornography, heroin sales and commercial murder agencies who will rid you of your unwanted for a price? Our elite GOP pragmatists insist on the personal right to choose commerical murder. Will you help rid us of them?
And the “Rule of Law” I think that is clear. So do we eliminate Republicans who do not believe in the rule of law? People like Rudi Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, each of whom endorsed amnesties for millions of Mexican criminals as a vote-getting scheme, trumping the law and enticing millions to break it? Or didn’t you know?
“I said that he regretted voting for Bush “from the left,” and that is precisely, undebatably accurate. …”
Where did he say that? He said And to think i voted for Bush… and thats all.
Good point on personal liberty…point taken.
Immigration – thats another grey area. Almost all of us are illegal immigrant descendants except for native Indians. If we call the mexicans as criminals for crossing over, then I guess lot of our grandparents/great grandparents are criminals:(. But that does not mean we should keep our borders open since we already are a nation of healthy population unlike early 1900 or late 1800s. As Mark Krikorian says, its not them its us thats different.
Ehren, “…to think I voted for Bush…” is an expression of regret. You don’t have to say “I regret” to express regret. It was regret he was expressing. Expressing regret he was.
Now he may have been lying about having voted for Bush, but I took him at his word. Why did he regret voting for Bush?? Hmmm, let’s see. Maybe there is a clue in his post. Did he mention the Iraq War? No. Tax cuts? No. Spending increases? No. Abortion. Nope. Gee, it must be something. What DID he mention?
Well… immediately before he said, “And to think i voted for Bush…” he said “So sad.” So the reason he regretted voting for Bush (if he did) must be the thing he said was sad. Let’s keep looking. Perhaps we can find the thing he said was “so sad.”
Well… immediately before he said, “So Sad,” he said, “By opposing this you are on the side of hateful bigotry. This is not gay marriage, again the GOP must lie in order to garner attention.” I think it must be the thing he says puts us on the side of “hateful bigotry.” It must be the Reagan Wing’s support for repealing the “Civil Unions” measure! He must support “Civil Unions”! I bet you might find that he supports Civl Unions and, as I pointed out, directly to him, Civil Unions are a linguisticly deceptive way of instituting Gay Marriage. But what does this have to do with Bush? I know! Bush was the highest elected official from the GOP! And Bush opposed Gay Marriage!
Sometimes it’s hard, but if you study enough you can frequently figure out what people are talking about.
On immigration: illegal aliens are only criminals in the first instance for crossing over, but then they LIVE here by crime: identity forgery and theft, under-the-table cash labor or drug smuggling and dealing. We pay billions in taxes to support them- billions more than the pittance of taxes they pay through witholding when those of them that get jobs through identity fraud do work.
Your vision of most Americans’ immigration is historic fiction, particularly the contrast with the “native” Americans. Our first settlers broke no laws whatsoever. The common denominator of the American Indian was his unshakable belief that it was not possible to “own” land. It was an Anarchistic view incompatible with human progress (which he demonstrated by being permanantly stalled in the “Stone Age,” technologically).
Disbelieving in “property” facilitates taking what you want when you find it, as the Marxists (as well as the Indians) discovered, but has fatal long-term consequences for a society, as the Soviets (as well as the Indians)demonstrated.
I disagree with the Krikorian quote. We’re BOTH different and we DON’T need to close the borders because of population. We’re still sparsely populated. We need to close the borders for several reasons but the chief one is our socialist systems. The Government has been re-distributing wealth for a long time and it has reached levels that make importation of third world populations impossible. We don’t have enough money to give them (in all the various ways Govt. gives it).
If we dumped all our socialist programs (as we should) the only thing we would need to screen out would be criminals, terrorists, diseases and linguistic welfare. Do that and I say OPEN THE BORDERS!
Anyone who doesn’t have the utmost contempt and hatred for George W. Bush for what he did to our country especially the whole capitalism killing bailout is no conservative and is in fact my enemy.
Do I hate Obama too? Yes, that should go without saying, but I have promised that I will not let my hatred of him force me back into the arms of the Republican party. I know that’s your plan. I know that is what you think will happen. You think that our hatred for Obama and our racism against him will focus us to vote for any RINO you put up against him. Well it didn’t work for me the last time and it won’t work next time as well.
I will no longer vote Against Democrats. Either give me something to VOTE FOR or I will vote third party, stay at home or indeed vote for the “lesser of two evils” of keeping RINOs from public office as I have done so many times in the past.
See, I might hate Democrats but I hate RINOS more. And as for the racism, I think you are projecting there. After all how long did it take to get minorities into your country clubs (I mean as members not servants). Are they still not very well represented? I don’t know. Not my crowd, but I do know that the most racist people I have ever met have been leftists.
So, if you think I am going to come back to you, Ehrem, you have another thing coming. I will fight you to my dying breath. Because what I have found about you RINOS in the end there is nothing that makes you much different then the Democrats except for one very important thing.
Obama is a wolf. Everyone knows he is a wolf. He doesn’t pretend that he isn’t a wolf. But you guys are wolves in sheep clothing. And yeah, I would far rather fight an enemy who would look me in the eye like Obama does then one who would stab me in the back like Bush did and as RINOS always seem to do in the end.
You RINOS are the “Lesser of two evils”. Yeah, things are bad with Obama, but they would have been worse with McCain. If you doubt me the prove is how after the election he has fundamentally agreed with what Obama is doing. He would have basically done what Obama is doing but the difference is that HE would be doing it. He, a supposed Republican, or as the press would have spun it and lazy people would have believed “a conservative” (he isn’t but I am talking perception here), and yes, that makes all the difference.
I am busy tonight because I was thinking of writing a long response about “RINOS are the GREATER of two evils” about how much more successful “Nixon can be going to China” than say McGovern (the concept behind the statement not the historical situation itself that gave it that name) and all of that. I still might tonight tomorrow or in the near future, but suffice to say, I believe that unless something changes very soon the Republicans will go the way of the Wings, and unless they change and soon I believe that’s where they deserve to go.
I would not make assumptions or just analyze as “this is how it might be”. I would leave it to Jack to confirm his side. Yes, he didn’t mention about Iraq war or taxes or medicare…but that doesn’t give me the levy to accuse him the opposite. If no response from him then you have all the right to make the assumption.
Anyway on the immigration side – To say our first settlers broke no laws whatsoever is only correct technically. The present day laws were not there then. It doesn’t mean they broke no laws morally speaking when compared to present day illegals. Also just because Indians had no thing as property ownership doesn’t implicitly give any right to take whatever you find. I still see our settlers and thousands of other immigrants in 1800/1900 including those who came through Ellis Island same as current day illegals.
>We’re still sparsely populated.
I never said we are heavily populated. We have a healthy population enough to sustain the needs and demands of our country. Of course if our high school kids continue to make fun of studious guy/girl in their class as geeky and just worship the football star, then we will have to bring in educated legal immigrants to stay competitive.
Your last issue first: your comments do not appear when you log in differently than you have before by changing the spelling of your name or email address. We catch spam, here, by settings that require a poster to have been approved ONCE, after that human approval, future posts go through automatically, but since this is done by software, if you simply change something, it identifies you as a new person.
About Jack you say, “If no response from him then you have all the right to make the assumption.”
I wasn’t assuming anything. He said it. Perhaps you can’t tell, but he did. In any case, it’s been two days now and he hasn’t responded.
Your comments about our first settlers betray your culturally Marxist education. It isn’t your fault, but you assume falsehoods. You say, “…just because Indians had no thing as property ownership doesn’t implicitly give any right to take whatever you find.” That assumes that something was taken from the Indians. The reverse is true. Our first settlers arrived here to a VAST, uncharted wilderness. Sparse, nomadic tribes of Stone-age savages welcomed them (like hunters welcome game), but it was possible in early America to travel for days without encountering anyone. It was a wilderness. Almost no people. The settlers set about cultivating the wilderness as the savages could not (for deeply ingrained cultural reasons directly related to their lifestyle choices). They killed each other off. They were, generally, in the habit of treating human beings as property, stealing from each other, had accepted homosexuality and engaged in periodic recreational torture. Recreational torture of other human beings. Many displayed human body parts on their dwellings or persons as decoration. As decoration, Ehren. Nothing personal. You didn’t have to be their enemy to fall victim to this practice, just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When settlers established homes and began development of human civilization (the same thing the environmentalist movement works to destroy), the Indians waited until they found something unprotected and and stole it. They stole women and children, murdered farmers and sucked victims into their recreational torture. Let me choose just one. They would bury victims up to their necks near the dwellings of carnivorous ants and then pour honey on their heads. Then sit around and watch the fun like it was the Superbowl. The victim’s tortured screams sent them into fits of laughter. They were the first environmentalists. They opposed civilization and lived by theft. Like Democrat office holders.
Now the reaction to Indian attacks by the technologically superior (because they were a civilized culture) settlers was predictable and dispositive. They killed the terrorists. Quite successfully. This is a long and well-documented history of the nature of the clash of Indian and Christian culture that cultural Marxists have obscured, lied about and fictionalized. They teach fairy tales in your public schools that exalt the fundamental axioms of Marxism and Indian culture becaue they have so much in common.
You say, “I still see our settlers and thousands of other immigrants in 1800/1900 including those who came through Ellis Island same as current day illegals.”
But you’re wrong. Legal immigration (as through Ellis Island) is entirely different. Former generations of immigrants (and current legal immigrants) came to become Americans, expecting no hand-outs. The wave of Mexican criminals are just the opposite, retain loyalty to Mexico and their tribal culture and are taking us for everything they can get, education, housing, food, medical care, all for free at your expense. Liberals hate what America was, work day and night to destroy it, to replace it with a marxist redistribution system and welcome the criminal alien population.
You say, “I never said we are heavily populated.”
I never accused you of saying it. I was taking issue, I thought, with Krikorian. Nevertheless, you seemed to think that immigration policy should have something to do with population levels. I don’t. People are not the problem. Marxism and crime are the problem. Lawlessness, generally, is the problem.
“…Former generations of immigrants (and current legal immigrants) came to become Americans, expecting no hand-outs. The wave of Mexican criminals are just the opposite,..”
Are you saying or implying that a) each and everyone of former generation of immigrants were hard working and expected no hand-out and b) each and every Mexican immigrant is expecting a hand-out?
That would be really a extreme generalization with no basis of any proof. I am sure there would be many many former generation of immigrants who would have happily received hand-out if available. I am also sure that there are many many current Mexican immigrants who work hard and earn their pay without expecting any handout. Also did you forget Italian mafia or Irish/Chinese gangs? Even earlier generation of immigrants had their own share of criminals.
Its just that Internet/TV has made it more easier to expose the criminal/welfare dependent behavior of many Mexican illegals in this age.
“>Legal immigration (as through Ellis Island) is entirely different”
I disagree….Ellis Island was no way a real legal method. It was the only method then where in anyone who showed up there was allowed in. Of course, white-only restriction was there for a long time. It was not like US govt considered their papers (showing hardworking nature or other skills at respective consulates) and then gave them a “visa” to enter here.
Also when millions of immigrants came to US (Ellis Island or just showed up anywhere else) from 1900 for next 50+ years, they did not come to a vast land with hardly any people . There were already a good population on both coasts.
Ehram, thinking about it I am ashamed I even responded to you.
You talk about all this historical things that has no bearing on the negative effects of current immigration.
Responding to you doesn’t merely waste time but it gives you legitimacy that you don’t deserve. But ti does prove one thing. You are perhaps a RINO but very definitely a hate driven socialist. And therefore you are beyond the pail of discussion. I will not respond to your hate speech!
Ehram, you are evil. And there is no use debating with evil.
Reading back on Herr Ehram’s comments I just don’t get his point. He talks about how indeed the immigration of the past actually did cause some great problems in America (the development of the Italian and Irish mobs) but instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that we should stop making the same mistakes we made in the past he says because had a bad immigration policy before we are obligated to continue to have bad immigration policies.
Look I don’t speak for Doug of course but I have no animosity towards the illegal immigrant. Well I take that back a bit because while a good deal of them are indeed desperate families coming to seek a better life and if the gingros are dumb enough to give them benefits then of course why not take advantage of it, but with them does come a substantial criminal element. I have heard that in some states 25 percent of the population of the prisoners are illegals. And they are not there because they broke immigration laws but instead are there because of another criminal act, often a violent one.
But regardless of my personal feelings of sympathy towards some of the immigrants it doesn’t change the negative effects they have upon our society and therefore our need to do something about them. It really isn’t personal but instead responding to the very real need to get our immigration system under control.
In the end the truth is that illegal immigration harms America. And that is what is important. Not what may or may not have been done in the past or whether the immigrants themselves are good or bad people.
As a Conservative I belive Marriage is One Man and One Women. I have no problem with gay couples living togetter but I do have a problem when they use the term “Gay marriage”. The title should be Domestic Partnership.
Marriage is for Man and Women only. Gay couples can and should be able to share the same benifits as straight couples however, do not disgrace the word Marriage. If liberals think that gay marriage should be legal then should it be legal for a Man to marry his sister? Should it be legal for a Man to marry his own brother? The liberals might as well think because they do not have any good morals. I have a friend who is gay and even he agress that marriage is between Man and Women. In his own words being gay is not a civil rights issue it is an issue of sexual behavior. I could not agree more with him.
Its one thing that if a person gets fire from his or her job because they are gay that is wrong however, the marriage issue is far different. Man do not shower in a womens locker room and Women do not shower in a Mens locker room and gay couples should not use the title marriage only domestic partnership.
You know, Richard, we have a lot in common. As a conservative I, too, believe Marriage is one man and one woman.
And… like you… as a liberal I have no problem with gay couples living togetter but I do have a problem when they use the term “Domestic Partnership.” The title should be “Buffalo Dance.” Do not disgrace the word “Domestic Partnership.”
Gay couples can and should be able to share the same benefits as straight couples as long as they use different words to mean exactly the same thing. Any other solution would be ANTI-SEMANTIC.
Further, the commerical extermination of human beings should be legal as long as they call it “one-party consent homicide” because, after all, the only really important thing is for government to get the wording just right.
And it doesn’t matter if elections have only one candidate allowed on the ballot (like the 2008 Washington State GOP Convention) as long as we all obey, I mean, isn’t the important thing that we all come together in unity?
You say, “I have a friend who is gay and even he agress that marriage is between Man and Women.” My understanding is that the Mormons fixed that a long time ago and now it is between Man and just one woman.
It is interesting to learn you voted Yes on 8, because (since I had been carefully reading the rest of your post) up until then there was no way of telling.
But what if they had called it Proposition 9?
I love all these liars out there who come on blogs saying “I am Conservative thinking that despite all the liberal stuff that comes after it is going to make any difference that first the person says “I am a conservative”.
Well I have a pretty good RINODAR (RINO Radar) and Richard is sending out all the signals.
So, Richard you can stop flirting with me. I don’t swing that way.
The fact is that a true conservative knows that a “gay relationship” can exist without government approval. In fact through contracts and stuff like that you can form practically any kind of relationship you want (and I am not only talking about sexual relationship).
The fact that the gays want to get the government involved proves that this is about more than what they claim it is about.
Nothing under current law PREVENTS two gays getting together among their friends and declaring their undying love in some sort of ceremony. Nothing prevents two gays (or any two people for that matter) going to a lawyer and have contracts set up saying that if one dies the other one gets the property of the one that dies. There is nothing that says that two people (sexual relationship or not) could through civil contracts set up any type of situation regarding property and all of that that is equivalent to what married people have.
The Gays still can’t answer me (at least without revealing their true objectives) why they need THE MAN involved to validate and strengthen the bonds between them.
Perhaps you can RINO Richard.
One thing this is going show is who the true RINOS are. Of course as I have said I have a pretty good RINODAR. So for me it will just be a way of proving what I know to others.
And one message to the GOP. You are on your deathbed. Mess with this issue (ie support Gay Unions in this state) and you won’t survive it!
Ironically though, if the GOP would support how most people in this state and this country feel about this issue which is to be against it, this could lead to a revival in the party. But of course the RINOS who control the leadership in this state would never allow it so this will have the effect the Left plans to have in totally destroying the Washington State GOP. But this issue could have really bitten the Left in the… well probably not a good turn of phrase considering what we are talking about so lets just said if the GOP would have opposed this with confidence it could have lead to its revival. But instead the way the party establishment will play this whole thing it will be the death nail to the Washington State GOP.
But what I believe needs to occur is that a party needs to form that can challenge both the GOP and the Democrats on the state level. We are used to having the political parties that at the national level also be on the state level but nothing says that one can’t have a political party that is just strong on a state level without any official national alliance.
The GOP has failed us in Washington State. It has failed us nationally as well but perhaps it is easier to get a third party first strong on a state level before it becomes strong nationally.