« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Social Conservative Group’s Withdrawal from CPAC to Protest Gay Participation Prompts Statement from Organizers

For the second year in a row, social conservatives are riling over the inclusion of gay conservatives at the highly visible Conservative Political Action Conference scheduled to be held this coming February in the nation’s capital.

As reported Tuesday afternoon on Ben Smith’s blog at Politico.com, The American Principles Project uninvited itself this morning from the paramount annual gathering of conservatives, and cited irreconcilable differences with CPAC as their reason. The letter sent to CPAC chairman David Keene by APP president Frank Cannon is void of subtlety; the inclusion of GOProud – an organization for gay conservatives – for the second year is described in hyperbolic language as an intolerable act.

“Last year, of course, the American Principles Project participated in CPAC despite the presence of GOProud. That was a mistake, just as it was, in our opinion, a mistake for CPAC to countenance GOProud’s participation. Having now examined closely GOProud’s mission and its behavior since its inception, we can only conclude that the organization’s purposes are fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith in a thriving civil society. Needless to say, we are deeply persuaded that a thriving civil society is an indispensable bulwark against the relentless expansion of government, a phenomenon that has gripped much of the Western world and helped to fuel the present fiscal and economic crisis.”

In the lengthy correspondence, Cannon conflated William F. Buckley, Jr.’s dissociation from the ultra-right wing John Birch Society with an expulsion of GOProud, suggesting that the Birch Society’s belief in wild conspiracy theories is tantamount to GOProud’s contention that Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) views on culture are “bizarre.”

This evening, CPAC director Lisa De Pasquale sent a statement in response to APP’s withdrawal.

“Our role at CPAC is to bring conservative groups together on the core issues. We ask that those interested in being participating organizations agree with the ACU statement of principles. To date, we have over 80 groups involved with CPAC. We are pleased that we will continue adding groups over the next several weeks leading up to CPAC. CPAC has the unique opportunity of hosting more than 10,000 conservatives from across the nation and abroad and provides a forum for them to organize and interact on the issues that are important to them. We certainly respect that many conservatives will have to weigh the costs and benefits to joining CPAC as a participating organization. We respect the decision groups come to when deciding whether to participate in CPAC. If they are not able to be at CPAC 2011, we hope they will be at a future conference and will continue to invite them to do so.”

This is not the first time that GOProud’s presence at CPAC has caused a stir. The APP and American Family Association voiced strong disapproval of the gay conservative group’s sponsorship of CPAC 2010, the Liberty University Law School withdrew from the event, and calls for boycotts circulated among social conservatives. The pressure led CPAC to a compromise under which GOProud could attend, but only on the condition that their members would not speak from the podium or debate on issues important to the gay community, such as same-sex marriage or the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

The CPAC kerfuffle comes on the heels of an open letter sent Monday by GOProud and a group of tea party leaders to Republican leaders in Congress urging them to “resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.”

The APP is the most recent in a long line of groups claiming to possess a unique license to narrowly define conservatism, a circumscription that only serves to dissect conservatives into smaller, less powerful factions. It will almost certainly not be the last, and – since the meaning of conservative still appears to be an open source project – I will offer more thoughts on this issue tomorrow.

###

COMMENTS

  • runner12

    letter. They do not object to people being gay attending the conference or for that matter being a part of the conservative movement. To assert such a thing is ludicrous and not factual. While they may disagree with the lifestyle, they were willing to stand alongside them and discuss the issues they did agree on last year.
    However, this year (according to their own words) “having now examined closely GOProud’s mission and behavior since inception” they decided to express their opposition to the group being a part. I would venture a guess that they do not agree with the activism of the group on issues such as gay marriage and don’t ask, don’t tell, which they believe is incompatible with conservatism (and they would be right).
    The GOProud folks showed their activism by throwing out a dig at social conservatives with the above mentioned letter. If anything, it is they who want to narrow the definition of conservatism. Unfortunately, they (GOProud)are beginning to sound like their Leftist/Socialists counterparts who want people to agree with and support their lifetsyle choices and are willing to adopt any measure to achieve that goal, including marginalizing and name-calling anyone who dares to disagree with their lifestyle.

    • AceInTX

  • notalibertarian

    if there are any “conservative” CPAC sponsers that support unfettered access to abortion?

    I mean, we don’t want to force people to walk lock-step, you know.

    How about “conservative” groups that support Card Check? Or the destruction of Israel?

    • aesthete

      Why wouldn’t we invite any non-hateful group (the last group mentioned by yourself would be a hate group, as it actively seeks destroying a group of people as the endgoal)? Perhaps you could stop patting yourself on the back for knowing what Natural Law is long enough to understand the goals of CPAC and how they relate to the fact that we must have a broad center-right coalition in order to achieve anything. As a libertarian-conservative, I’m not a fan of national conservatism, certain forms of social conservatism, or anything approaching Red Tory or “moderate conservative” views. It would still be absurd for me to demand that the center-right coalition in this country bow to my form of conservatism.

      • minister_of_war

        … by making it impossible to reproduce in the way that God intended it. If everybody suddenly turned gay today, then within 100 years, no human beings would exist anywhere.

        That would be a form of genocide. And those who advertise the deviant sexual behavior of homosexuals as somehow preferable to the God-created bonds of marriage, must be genocidal maniacs I guess.

        • aesthete

          “Gays” are not a monolithic group, and they certainly do not all adhere to the same beliefs, so you cannot claim that X is something that gays “seek”. Since the subject in question is GOProud, please show that it or its leaders have ever called for the destruction of heterosexuals, said that homosexuals are inferior, or generally called for homosexual supremacy. Hell, that’s an extreme fringe position in the left side of gay politics, much less on the conservative side of the periphery. The only thing that they are calling for is parity as they see it: that may be wrong-headed, but it is not hateful, and is not even close to the hateful views that you pretend that they have above.

        • Philip

          That is incredibly moronic.

      • AceInTX

        to continue notlibertarian’s point…why don’t we invite a bunch of Keynsians economic believers and who advocate state intervention in our economic system and demand that followers of Lock and Friedman sit in the back of the room and shut up while the Kynsians throw bombs at the CPAC and demand that we not chase any fiscal conservative issues down the bunny hole by pandering to narrow special interests who wish to devide the party.

        Hell…why even call it CPAC anymore…lets just open it up to anyone and act like Conservative is a term that can’t be defined at all…

        That’s the way the left operates…and have for 100 years and it’s why we find ourselves where we are today…broaden the definition of what it means to be part of any group to the point where said group ceases to have any meaning or purpose any more.

        Kind of like…what was done to the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008

        • aesthete

          So long as disagreement remains respectful and within decorum, I have no problem with a pro-defense, pro-life, pro-2nd Am., etc Keynesian respectfully making his case for why he thinks that government intervention is conservative, particularly if this viewpoint is a significant or growing part of our conservative coalition. We have several neo-conservative groups (actual neo-conservative, not pejorative) at CPAC that believe that entitlements are a good thing which should be supported by conservatives. To analogize, I disagree with many of GC’s views regarding entitlements, foreign policy, eminent domain, and other issues. I still think that his presence here has been enriching for us, and think that we and he would be the poorer if RS kicked him out for not being perfectly conservative. I don’t see why a “big tent” event like CPAC should suddenly become something that it is not: a narrow group of ideologically homogeneous groups chosen according to someone’s definition of conservatism.

          • AceInTX

            It’s called the CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference…as such…it has a right to determine who is a part of it or not…

            It decided GOProud could participate….APP and a few other groups decided they wouldn’t…not because GOProud holds differing views on an issue but because GOProud demands that everyone else bend to their will and sit down and shut up.

            I personally think it should be GOProud who is out after their letter demanding SoCons sit at the back of the bus…but Keen and CPAC decided the other way…I respect that as you should respect APP for deciding to not attend.

          • Doc Holliday

            by losing in 2006,2008, and in some cases 2010. Those that focused mainly of state control of morality have not done well in a while, they are NOT the people that voted and won, they are not Tea Party, they are not libertarian Conservatives. I think they should chill a bit on trying to attack other conservatives.

            But, I do think both groups, GOProud and that other one are just trying to fight and cause a distraction for the majority of us. The best way to deal with it is to ignore them. Think about it, how many gay conservatives are there? What percentage of conservatives are focused on gay issues? If they are a small minority, why are they such a danger? Would not the best play to be to ignore them?

          • Leon H. Wolf

            Unless you are here to suggest that Iraq, Katrina, the financial meltdown, and Social Security reform are “social conservative” issues (those being the issues that led to Republican defeats in 2006 and 2008), then you’ve lost your mind. Unless you have some sort of exit polling to suggest that abortion and gay marriage lost Republicans seats in 2006 and 2008 then get lost. Your ipse dixit is no good here.

          • Doc Holliday

            Republican leaders in the Senate and Executive Branch moved away from small government principles and towards statism. Compassionate Conservatism was a euphemism for big government social non-conservatism. I don’t need to debate this with you, it has been done to death, everyone knows what has happened.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You know this, yet you trotted out the tired argument anyhow.

            You’re better than that Doc.

          • Doc Holliday

            we will also disagree on which type of conservatism is best. I prefer Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. I prefer small government because I don’t have a lot of faith in the government.

            If compassionate conservatism is not a form of social conservatism I am the King of England. You can’t convince me otherwise on this, think of the term. What does it mean to be a “compassionate conservative”?

            btw, to me a person that goes out of their way to add the hyphenated Social-conservative is probably not focusing on small government. They are probably focusing on using government to achieve socially desirable goals, just like the left does.

            I do not think conservatives that care about social issues are social cons. And I don’t think all social cons are statist. I am talking about the people like the group mentioned by the diarist. I am talking about people who are willing to give up some freedom if the government just intrudes in the ways THEY think are acceptable.

            If Republicans had focused on limited government when they had the power, Obama would have LESS power to screw things up. Many (not all) self described SOCIAL non-conservatives went along with big government and entrenched interests. The Bush and Frist types left our party in shambles.

            We the people rebelled against big government tyranny, we put the Republicans back in power in spite of themselves. Also, young libertarian conservatives are slowly replacing the old establishment types.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • AceInTX

            you say a lot of probably and I believe…but I don’t see you detailing anything here to back yourself up…not even a little

            kin fact…I don’t even know if you read the OP or anything said in this thread before you came here because nothing you have said here has anything to do with what was said in the diary or the thread.

            seriously…you should quit while your only slightly behind

          • Doc Holliday

            you should like it. I read the diary and posted based on the diary. I then reacted to some opinions with other opinions, it happens.

            You say I don’t support anything I say when we both know I have supported these claims countless times. It is not exactly hard to mention the internet gambling ban, No Child Left Behind, Terry Shiavo, Steel Tarrifs, Medicare Prescription Drug Takeover, parts of the Patriot Act, protectionism on Canadian softwood timber and other issues I might have to check on. I thought mentioning common history did not need citations.

            btw, you and a couple others are saying Compassionate Conservatism was just some Bush trick and Social Conservatives were not involved. Hmm, who voted for Bush? Who pushed Bush on us in the primaries? That was the GOP establishment. They knew about Compassionate Conservatism then, they saw it in Texas and wanted to bring it to the big stage. And the Repubs put statists like Bill Frist in charge too.

            anwyay, until you get serious about debate and discussion I am done chatting with you. I don’t mind a heated debate once in a while, but you better come up with something better than just saying I never read the diary.

          • AceInTX

            You make this too easy Doc.

            You say I don

          • Doc Holliday

            I don’t need to convince you because my side won the argument. Small government, libertarian conservatives are winning we are the driving force behind the electoral victory and Republicans that have admitted the mistakes of the past are moving toward our philosophy, at least they are claiming such move.

            The only social conservatives I do not like are the fake ones, the ones that think they need to enforce the Bible with the power of the government. They DID play roles in the Republican failures. They DID support an overreaching federal government. You think NCLB was not done by self proclaimed social conservatives? If so, there is no point in discussing this further.

            You did not defeat me, but I know you can outlast me. I am tired of fighting about two groups having a stupid fight. Your tactic of denying every issue as one some social conservatives embrace is great for continuing the argument, but only if we both play along.

          • Doc Holliday

            You keep asking me to show direct linkage between every big government intrusion and the philosophies of various Socon groups/leaders. This completely misses the argument I have made for years. The problem is that when you increase federal power to do “good” you increase federal power to do bad. Once the precedent of a federal leviathan is in place, that power does not go away.

            I am not here to fix government, I am here to dismantle it.

          • AceInTX

            You say social conservatives pushed for:

            the internet gambling ban, No Child Left Behind, Terry Shiavo, Steel Tarrifs, Medicare Prescription Drug Takeover, parts of the Patriot Act, protectionism on Canadian softwood timber and other issues I might have to check on.

            I agree with you in the Siavo deal and concede you have a point but give a counter point on the internet gambling ban and then ask you to prove ANY SoCon group pushed for the steel tariff No child left behind, the Prescription Drug takeover…and whatever protectionism you’re talking about wirth Canadian soft woods and you tell me you don’t have to answer because your side won?

            That’s the end of this discussion because oin order to have a debate…both sides have to be honest in their assertions…you are not…

            you are a coward and a fool.

          • Doc Holliday

            “you are a coward and a fool”

            you don’t talk to people that way, this is not what this site is supposed to be about. I did not insult you, in fact I have been trying to get away from you since this discussion started.

          • AceInTX

            and I won’t back down from it. Simply saying SoCons were the driving force behind the programs you list over and over again doesn’t make it so..in fact…if the voting records on the legislation you list were checked…I’d bet it is the usual secular progressives like Snowe, Specter, Collins, Voinovich, Lugar, Kirk, Bass and the rest who voted for it…if you check the votes of Congresamen and Senators generaly recognised and social conservatives…they will be on the list of no votes.

            If you make the assertion it is incumbent on YOU to defend it…simply saying I don’t have to defend it because my side won dishonest at best

          • Doc Holliday

            you call me a “liar and a fool” because you don’t like my argument? I am disgusted by you and disgusted no one else was offended. I wish you well, but the day will never come when I respond to you again.

          • AceInTX

            And I’ll readily admit I weakened my case by stooping to name calling…If you’ll look at the time I posted it…it was right after I got out of bed yesterday and I wasn’t thinking clearly…That’s not an excuse but I wish I could take it back…

            But as to the issues you raised….Again…you continuously make the charge…and refuse to back it up with any facts….you want to make proclamations and decrees from on high and demand everyone just take your assertions as fact not subject to question.

            I’ll lay out the case again…I’ve said you have a point on Shiavo. I can’t argue the facts on tha6t one because it’s a clear cut case of over reach on the social issues front and I am equally offended by how the issue was handled because it makes all of us on the SoCon side of things look like fools, you also have a point on the internet gambling thing though there is room to debate the merits of the case,

            But you can’t seriously claim the No Child left behind, the Medicare Prescription Drug issue, steel tarrifs, Canadian Soft wood protectionism and even they patriot act thing are SoCon issues…

            I’m using facts to back up my side of this argument…the bills you sight that can be looked at as to who voted for the issues as opposed to who voted against them show those Congressmen and Senators who voted for them are overwhelmingly representative of the statist, socially progressive, Secular progressive side of the caucus…the issues dealt with by executive order such as the tariff and protectionist items are fiscal not SoCon related and again those pushing Bush to enact these items come predominantly from the pro union, statist, secular progressive side of the caucus. and finally…on the patriot act…there is blame to go around amongst the whole caucus…but the blame there lies more with SedCons and again the statist and secular progressive members of the caucus. To the extent that there was any opposition to the patriot act…they were made up more from a coalition of ACLU leftists and the more Christian end of the caucus who believe in natural law. Yet you make the claim and refuse to back it up.

            So…refuse to ever respond to me again if you will because I had a momentary lapse of judgment and called you a name…but let the record show…that this is at least the forth or fifth time we’ve danced around this issue where I’ve pointed out that the charges you continuously make are baseless and indefensible and challenge you to back up what you say and you continue to make the charges without ever addressing any of the facts I presented.

          • Doc Holliday

            in Iowa when he had presidential hopes. It was also supported by arch social engineer Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Senator Kyl of for reasons of distancing Republicans from Jack Abramoff. It was an abuse of power based on lies, cloaked in morality.

            Your claim the the federal government NEEDED to do it is belied by the fact that the bill was denied 9 years in a row. And by the fact that the feds have not prosecuted a single player and people are still playing on the net. It was simply a way for the feds to gain more power over the banks.

          • AceInTX

            and the Shiavo issue

            what of the other baseless charges you make?

            HMM???

          • Doc Holliday

            I support ALL conservatives that believe in small government, following the Constitution, and judges that do not legislate from the bench. Anyone who believes in those things, is my political ally. If you want to call yourself a Social Conservative or a Methodist-Texan-Conservative I don’t care.

            I do point out we conservatives have a tendency to start taking shots at each other when we don’t see a clear and present danger. So we just got past a big win, and we are maybe getting restless. The same thing happens in armies, troops who are not busy, are apt to get into trouble.

          • AceInTX

            unprovoked.

            Again I ask you…what evidence do you have that APP follows compassionate conservatism…or do you want to keep making broad swipes with your enormous brush?

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            …and he more or less invented compassionate conservatism. It is possible to be socially conservative without being a compassionate conservative (i.e. a small government SoCon), but it is not possible to be a compassionate conservative without being socially conservative.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            So unless you have some evidence that some identifiable social conservative issue (hint, Iraq isn’t one) that cost Republicans seats, stop spouting this crap.

          • Doc Holliday

            and making it worse, forcing us to relieve it.

            big government social non conservatism DID get Republicans into trouble. big government social non conservatism is NOT a driving force in our present electoral successes of weeks ago, and in NJ and VA.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Doc Holliday

            but I have no right to expect government to enforce my social views on others. If a free individual hurts no one else, it is not my business. If a free individual harms someone else it IS my business and the business of government.

            BTW, even if I believed government should make our decisions for us, I still would not think they would be any good at it.

            Today government thinks banning Kahlua and putting large pictures of dead people on cigs is in my moral interest.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Also, I would venture to say that abortion does harm someone else.

            Let me ask you why you think that government intervening to change a societal norm, such as marriage, is a good thing? Also, let me ask you how you intend to enforce this new found “right” for gays to be married. Should we shut down churches that refuse? Should we force a Justice of the Peace to do something against his religion in order to remain a JP?

            How far are you willing to go to enforce fairness?

          • AceInTX

            {

          • Doc Holliday

            but to the wrong person, I don’t support any of those issues. maybe in my 5th year here people will understand where I am coming from :)

          • Aaron Gardner

            “I have no right to expect government to enforce my social views on others. If a free individual hurts no one else, it is not my business. If a free individual harms someone else it IS my business and the business of government.”

            What social views do you feel I am trying to force on others? I ask this because of what you wrote above in response to me pointing out that you were conflating SoCon and Compassionate Conservatism.

            If you want to post pointless non sequiturs and then not defend them you might as well not post at all.

            Also, after 5 years of you explaining, your positions are as clear as mud. Maybe you aren’t as articulate as you think you are.

          • Doc Holliday

            well opinions vary. BTW I never claimed to be articulate.

          • Doc Holliday

            the first draft would have received a few more responses, possibly even by a moderator. ohhmmm

          • notalibertarian

            From a social conservative: ” . . . but I have no right to expect government to enforce my social views on others.”

            YOUR social views? Hetero marriage is YOUR social view? Has the propaganda of the elite minority in this country been THAT successful that a sincere social conservative now feels obligated to consider hetero marriage “his” social view? This is the view of the planet Earth! And it’s been astroturfed by people guilty of more lies than the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.

            This is the whole problem. Radical Deviance Activists have propagandized Gen X into thinking that Normal is the establishment of religion. And in response, decent, Normal people have said, “I don’t agree” when they should have said “ARE YOU CRAZY?!”

            Active homosexuals in the most liberal of countries have increased rates of depression, suicide, STDs, cancer, anal tearing, drug abuse, and exponential rates of neurotic promiscuity. If gay activists really cared about gays (and the “Questioning” community), they would be lobbying to have these stats included in public school Sex Ed programs, not encouraging society to mainstream this misery.

            (Sorry to pick on you, Doc, but at some point, your open mind needs to close.)

          • AceInTX

            It was the Bush administration and the statist progressive Republicans that came up with the Compassionate conservative charade.

            And it’s been proven over and over again that the most socially conservative members of the GOP caucuses in the House and Senate that have proven to be the most economically and fiscally conservative.

            I didn’t buy into compassionate conservative…and I never will…and I’ve told you so…and the fact that you keep coming back to that canard over and over again just shows the emptiness of your arguments

          • AceInTX

            What I said was…GOPAC is not a big tent event in response to what aesthete said.

            GoPac doesn’t have to open itself to everybody and to suggest it does is utter foolishness…

            I’ll reiterate to you what I said to aesthete…this is a well documented tactic of the left….to include one group after another with every agenda under the sun to water down and delete what GOPAC is so that it ceases to have any meaning or relevance as an organization.

            GOPAC decided to keep GOProud in the event…and that is their right…APP decided not to attend which is their right,….

            Yet it is so call libertarians such as yourself who is attacking them for deciding to exercise their right not to attend.

            Not very libertarian of you if you ask me

          • Doc Holliday

            and I attacked no one. I said some self appointed morality police groups are trying to cause problems within conservatism. This APP group is like that Ryan Sorba group who pulled this stunt last year right? Let’s see the guy embarrass himself and get booed by Conservatives. And why Ace did you ignore the fact that I called out GOProud too? I said I think the pro gay group should be IGNORED, I would not call that an endorsement. I am just tired of these special interests trying to screw with a winning coalition of conservatives. I don’t even think CPAC is as effective as it thinks it is.

          • AceInTX

            I said some self appointed morality police groups are trying to cause problems within conservatism.

            Or Mitch Daniels calling for truces and for social conservatives to unilaterally disarm?

            seriously…this war is heating up…but it’s not Social Conservatives that are throwing gasoline.

            And you are one of the ones throwing it right now with your rhetoric.

          • AceInTX
          • Doc Holliday

            I am not the one getting angry and casting aspersions. I want conservatives to focus on limited government and I think many agree with me. If conservatives want to split up into little groups and fight each other, rather than working together, then we will all suffer.

            I have a compromise. Let’s take down ObamaPelosiism and THEN we can fight each other. Deal?

          • AceInTX
          • aesthete

            given that it has groups that support large government (neo-conservative groups), groups that favor varying degrees of isolationism (paleo-cons), and groups which favor social libertarianism (libertarian-conservatives). CPAC has already made the determination for years that its definition of conservatism will be broad enough to encompass the various factions which conservatism. If CPAC wants to change that unstated policy, that’s fine by me. In the meantime, it is tiresome to pretend that GOProud’s inclusion in the event is in any way novel, earth-shaking, or an unprecedented breach of that conservative fortress that is CPAC, as notalibertarian pretends. Let’s let the social conservative groups in question speak for themselves:

            “A spokesman for the American Family Association says a Republican homosexual activist group doesn’t belong at a popular conservative political conference in February… [saying] ‘groups that promote the normalization of homosexual behavior should be resisted without reserve or compromise by any genuinely conservative organization.’ ”

            Seems to me that the AFA has a problem with the group in and of itself, not what it has to say, how it says it, or how it pursues its objectives.

            From the letter sent by APP: “An organization committed to the ultimate abandonment of the legal and social meaning of marriage by definition disqualifies itself from recognition as a partner in the conservative cause…”

            The reason it looks like APP is saying that you can’t be conservative if you support gay marriage is because that’s what they’re saying :) This, despite the fact that APP recognizes that GOProud’s agenda is one that includes “limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and a confident foreign policy”, and that it later says “this is a traditional conservative agenda, minus one”. The only other issue of note brought up by the letter was GOProud’s unsurprising statement condemning DeMint’s statement that gays should be barred from teaching in SC (a statement condemned by many in the GOP and the conservative movement, btw).

            Your assertion (“APP and a few other groups decided they wouldn

          • AceInTX

            but most are there to focus on issues that Unite conservatives and few there are that are stamping their feet and demanding that everyone in the coalition accede to their demands…GOPROUD is…

            and I’ll also point out what I just laid out for Doc above…for someone so Libertarian as you claim to be…isn’t it a little odd to bash APP, liberty council and other religiously oriented groups for exorcising their right to not attend the CPAC event?

            Not a very libertarian position to take if you ask me

          • acat

            From my more libertarian mindset, I find a few small-minded groups at events like CPAC. I recognize that we agree more than we disagree, and move along.

            I find AAP’s inability to do that – to at most come out with an appropriately barbed counter-release, but to still show up, to stay in the game – disturbing.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            I don’t think all libertarian-conservatives are just conservatives who are libertarian on social issues. I am a strong libertarian conservative on fiscal issues as well, in fact on I more libertarian on fiscal issues.

            What I am saying is right libertarianism is usually for MORE economic freedom than average conservatives, including social conservatives. There are a few really good political quadrant tests on the net, most are crap but some are really good. When I take these tests, I am far more libertarian on fiscal issues than any recent Republican national leader or international conservative leader.

          • aesthete

            and frankly, I care more about property (economic), self-defense (2nd Am), privacy (4th Am), and speech (1st Am) freedoms than the others: though all are important, it’s pretty tough to enforce major violations of freedom effectively and for a long time without violating one of those four freedoms. Conservatives are generally pretty good on all four and a strong defense of those four through military + law enforcement.

          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            Tsk tsk

    • minister_of_war

      CPAC should now invite AACMUI – the American Association of Conservatives for Murdering Unborn Infants.

      Of course, I made that acronym up just like the CARS acronym below, but there is a reason why conservatives have principles. Libertarians principles – which include no concept whatsoever of morality – are often times worse than the principles of anarchists.

      • Philip

        That was an informative post. It’s interesting so much I read on this site about ‘gay’ stuff and Libertarians and while I have been here I have been accused of some strange things not based in reality in my opinion or anything I’ve written. It’s like people here use the same words to describe really different things and then get into fights over it.
        At least now I know what GOProud is now. It interesting how when some people start living their lives the way they want, without harming others that certain folks get really upset and irrational.
        i have been dealing with that in a totally non-political situation. One group is off on it’s own property living a very simple basic life. Not speaking out against anyone, just practicing their beliefs. They are admired by many and yet there is an entrenched group that is very threatened, really doesn’t them around, and is trying to get them out, by any means necessary. These folks consider themselves conservative, guardians of morality (despite their own behaviors behind close doors), and view this group as a very deep threat.
        This is taking place in The Diocese of Corpus Christi* and the last mentioned group identifies itself as the REAL CATHOLICS and they HATE these folks. The first mentioned group are religious brothers (SOLT) that live in the middle of sixty acres of former ranch land my neighbors gave them.
        Really progressive, huh?

        Did you know Corpus Christi means ‘body of Christ’ in Latin?

  • AceInTX

    You first state the following:

    The CPAC kerfuffle comes on the heels of an open letter sent Monday by GOProud and a group of tea party leaders to Republican leaders in Congress urging them to

    • http://www.powerandconsequence.com Bryan Myrick

      …how those are contradictory statements. Please explain.

      • AceInTX

        On the one hand you seemingly endorse GOProud’s letter demanding that congressional leaders ignore social issues and not pander to “Special Interests”

        On the other hand you accuse Social Conservatives of being divisive and trying to fictionalize the conservative movement.

        Pot calling the kettle black.

        What I find particularly galling about all this flaring up right now…and last spring and summer is that we’ve had people of this bent demanding that SoCons be ignored and or sit down and shut up when no one has been out there pushing anything on the social conservative agenda because we’ve been focused on pulling the wagon and getting Republicans elected to Congress

        • AceInTX
  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Frankly, as a conservative, I really care not a whit what consenting adults do in sexual terms in their bedrooms, as long as the doors are locked. In fact, I’d rather not think about it much.

    Being a 24-7, 365 self-identified “Gay” is a leftist construct. What on earth this has to do with public policy is only by virtue of the extreme leftist libertines poking the cage average Americans to the point where we are obliged to respond. One would hope this response is not needed in our own ranks, and ought to be ignored.

    For gosh sakes, we must stop accepting the Left’s narrative, and one of the storylines they’ve created is that it is perfectly normal for homosexuals to not only enjoy their sexual proclivities in private, but to persuade others in public that they must accept this behavior as appropriate around those that find it manifestly inappropriate… such as around adopted children. This sort of crap has to stop, and if our core principles have any mean at all, it must stop now.

    Gays can gay, whatever. I don’t care. Just stop insisting that we normalize aberrant behavior of all sorts in public simply because the left gets a kick out of it.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    APP chooses to opt out, CPAC hopes they’ll come back in the future but doesn’t change its invitation to GOP Proud, and APP will deal with the consequences.

    The problem will be if GOP Proud or others decide to use this as a stick to beat other social conservatives who don’t decide to boycott – after all they’re not responsible for APP’s behavior and should not be forced to figuratively pay reparations as penance for APP’s behavior.

    I mean, we’re conservatives: conservatives don’t force everyone to march in lockstep (that’s one thing that freedom is about) and don’t get all upset if someone in the family stays away from the party and demand that all the other relatives make it up to them as though they’re to be held responsible.

    And I sure hope you don’t decide to light a match and blow up this exercise of freedom into an inquisition. Then everyone loses.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    attendees of CPAC are Republican Party precinct committeemen?

    What percentage of APP members are Republican Party precinct committeemen?

    What percentage of GOProud members are Republican Party precinct committeemen? What percentage of GOPround members attending CPAC are Republican Party precinct committeemen?

    Will be interesting to see what, if any, definitive responses I receive from those who might be in a position to answer these simple questions.

    Thank you.

    For Liberty,
    ColdWarrior

  • Scope

    makes this statement-

    “The CPAC kerfuffle comes on the heels of an open letter sent Monday by GOProud and a group of tea party leaders to Republican leaders in Congress urging them to

  • Finrod

    I would recommend you read hillbuzz.org, a blog which started out as a bunch of gay guys in Chicago who were Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008, saw the extreme lengths the Obama machine did to win the Dem nomination, became Democrats for McCain in the general, got completely repulsed by the Democrats taking over health care, went all in for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race, and now have abandoned the Democratic Party entirely and openly state that they want to burn the Democratic Party to the ground. The top guy there got outed by DailyKos and falsely smeared as a racist, can’t find a job in his own neighborhood and has friends telling him they can’t be seen with him in public for fear of losing their own jobs. Yet he’s more determined than ever, and has renewed his faith recently, and writes about it, despite getting hate mail just for talking about Jesus.

    This is someone you’d probably try to throw out of the Republican Party, and I daresay he’s given far more for our common cause than you have.

  • Doc Holliday

    and this same issue of “o my God, they are marginalizing SOCIAL consevatives gets hot here every month or so. Soon there will be talk of splits and comments like “you can’t win without me”. My opinion, which no one will heed, is that we at least wait ’til the new Republican Congress is seated before we start trying to send it into a schism.

  • Finrod

    That was intended to go to conservativecurmudgeon, above you.

    Sorry, I’ve been having both browser and net problems.

  • notalibertarian

    http://hillbuzz.org/2009/02/26/were-sure-theres-something-in-this-to-upset-everyone/

  • Finrod

    .

  • notalibertarian

    Part of GOProud’s agenda is to repeal DADT and to legalize gay marriage. Those are radical goals, not conservative. People who complain that social cons expect too much lock-step walking here have their heads in the sand. Giving GOProud a place at the table weakens the only serious opposition to these things that exists.

    And people complaining about how this country is in an economic crisis and has more important things to worry about need to contact GOProud and tell THEM that because THEY are the ones who are causing the distraction.

  • notalibertarian

    The same people who complain about supposedly-moderate Muslim groups refusing to renounce the encroachment of sharia law through the courts in this country do not ask anything like that of GOProud.

    Not only does GOProud refuse to renounce this destructive agenda, it ENDORSES it. And American society’s dismantling hastens.

  • acat

    What GOProud want are to be afforded the same liberty and pursuit of happiness that all Americans are promised.

    It is instead religious populists who are the false conservatives here, demanding that everyone treat a minority group like scum because of what their book happens to say.

    Mew

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

    by the brilliant Robert George.

    Dr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. One of America

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

    Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.”

    It has intellectual heft and moral spine.

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC
  • notalibertarian

    to a DADT repeal as the establishment of religion. It isn’t.

    Have you given any thought at all to the practical problems with allowing gays to openly serve in the military? Why do you think the military houses men and women soldiers in separate quarters right now? Because heteros aren’t as “professional” as gay soldiers will supposedly be once they’re allowed to “be who they are”?

    This is not about religious populism. It is about facts and logic,

  • eastbaylarry

    and I don’t want to “treat a minority group like scum ” because of any book, (regardless of the value of the contents of that book).

    But I’m *still* against gay marriage and am repulsed by open, public advocacy of gay/lesian lifestyles, (to include repeal of DADT). I don’t care what *anybody* does in their bedroom nor with whom they do it. Their business and nobody elses, especially not governments.

    And yes I do personally know some gays/lesbians, (inlaws actually), and get along with them as well as anybody does with inlaws.

  • JSobieski

    “demanding that everyone treat a minority group like scum because of what their book happens to say”

    Seriously? You stand behind that?

  • notalibertarian

    conservatives with libertarians, acat. Presenting homosexuality as some kind of civil rights struggle is not a conservative position, particularly because conservatives reason issues through, rather than emoting them through.

    Conservatives, for example support equal rights for RACIAL minority groups, because Natural Law supports that. They do not support incorporating homosexuality into our American culture — which is GOProud’s larger goal here — because Natural Law indicates that homosexuality is unhealthy and should be discouraged. (If you doubt me, do some research on the health problems, promiscuity rates and depression rates of both gay men and lesbians.) So, the same Natural Law that ESTABLISHES legal equality for all races DISAVOWS the special rights gays are currently fighting for.

    You are certainly entitled to find another kind of Law that supports your position. But you would not be a conservative in doing so.

  • AceInTX

    We’ve had everyone from GOProud to Mitch Daniels demanding the vast majority of the Republican Party sit down and shut up…all at a time when Social Conservatives have been quiet;ly working on electing republicans and doing everything we can to stop the Obama agenda…

    GOProud fired the first shot here demanding that SoCons not go chasing social issues down any rabbit holes….

    As I said in my reply to the OP below…it always amuses me when a tiny minority in this Party demands things be their way or the highway and the the vast majority of the party sit down and shut up as the at the same time accuse said majority of being a “special interest” and of trying to devide the party into factions…

    it’s a hoot actually!

  • acat

    While I’m not an advocate of “gay marriage”, I am very offended by notalibertarian setting up his morality as somehow superior, somehow not the ones creating a distraction.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    One does not demand that brothers in arms arguing the opposing side be cast from the table, as you demand that CPAC do to GOProud. It would be unfair to lump social conservatives in with you, but those who agree with you on this point are not acting as if the debate on social issues is one of dispassionate analysis of “facts and logic”.

    Yes, GOProud has heterodox views on gay marriage and DADT relative to conservatives in general. No, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t part of the broad center-right coalition in this country, because those issues aren’t definitional to conservatism.

  • notalibertarian

    into a CPAC conference IS a distraction. It has forced rank-and-file social cons — who make up the majority of conservatives — to make a choice that wasn’t previously there: Either watch social libs dilute social conservatism within the conservative movement, or “cause a distraction” by objecting to their attempt to.

    Morally superior or not, that is what is really happening here.

  • JSobieski

    that there are good faith reasons why one could support DADT. Opposition to repealing DADT is not for the vast majority of people a matter of people exercising spite against a minority group. Moreover, the military is the one institution of society where individual rights are necessarily given less than their normal importance.

    If your comment is limited to one or two people, I don’t have a dog in that fight. However, if you are implying that a sigificant number of social conservatives just want to put a boot of opperssion on homosexuals in this country, I think you are at least 99% wrong.

  • minister_of_war

    … but if his morality happened to be based upon the Good Book, it would be superior.

    Now, with that said, in a pluralists society, we have to all learn to get along & work together to set up laws that defend the common good & our common interests.

  • aesthete

    It simply wouldn’t do to have citizens make their own decisions regarding the trade-off between health and other goods — it wouldn’t do at all. Scratch a libertarian-hating social conservative, find an enthusiastic supporter of the therapeutic state. Good thing most social conservatives don’t share your animus for anyone who casts aspersions on the idea that government should dominate society, and our health decisions.

  • notalibertarian

    “that doesn

  • notalibertarian

    Acat was conflating racial equality with sexual (orientation) equality. I was merely pointing out that the underlying arguments establishing racial equality do not support sexual (orientation) equality, and that science provides no incentive to change that.

    The government in America has involved itself in marriage in some way since our beginning. Like it or not, our laws historically have been rooted in Judeo-Christian morality. That’s a fact.

    For many years, if you wanted child support from your child’s father, you had to be married to him. No marriage? Tough. If you wanted the right to see your child, you had to be married to his mother. No marriage? Tough. You know what? This system worked a lot better than the family-law mess we have made for ourselves.

    The point is, conservatives support the government’s involvement in marriage, not just because it always has been involved, but because helps arbitrate/mitigate very passionate situations that the courts will be called in to referee anyway.

  • AceInTX

    hyperbolic is an understatement.

  • acat

    i.e. the smallest possible government is best because it permits the most people the most liberty. Government, and laws (or regulations, czars, what have you) are nothing but shackles, stealing bits of our liberty away.

    This doesn’t make me “less” a conservative than you, who appear by your statements, to have gotten there by way of religion. Nothing wrong with either path, and we damn well better figure out how to get along, or we will surely hang separately, eh?

    Your initial statement, that somehow it is GOProud who are creating the distraction, is offensive to me. They have an agenda, but so do you, and to say that somehow they’re not “conservative” just because their path to it is not the same as yours is .. problematic.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

  • acat

    DADT has problems, no argument. My opinion is that the armed forces should be left to decide what level of integration works, after studying the issue. They, after all, are the ones who are going to have to make it work – just as they made racial integration work, after a good bit of trial and error.

    I don’t think most religious conservatives want to oppress anyone .. I do, however, think most religious conservatives don’t think through the end that some of their statements must lead to – for example “no gay marriage” must end in a minority being repressed, unless we manage to re-define either “minority” or “repression”. …

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    Could you please stick to the issues? I could easily accuse you of patting yourself on the back, moral superiority, etc., but what does that accomplish?

    As I said before, CPAC is not a Libertarian-Conservative organization. (Maybe you should start one.) That’s the whole point of the objections.

    Speaking of “demanding”, I and many, many other people across this country — considering 10 years of marriage-referendum results — believe it is absurd for gays to demand that the state institutionalize homosexual relationships as marriages, which would put religious adoption agencies & charities out of business, and imperil the religious rights — rights actually IN the Constitution — of traditional Americans.

  • acat

    And the major one you’ve posted above are equally a waste of time.

    We have a largely judeo-christian society, but our laws are based on the european “enlightenment” philosophy. There is a difference between “law” and “society”, eh?

    Mew

  • acat

    that reducing government would increase their voice in society.

    By ceding care for widows and orphans (medicare/social security) and education of children (public schools*) and stewardship for our environment (EPA) and care for our fellow co-workers or employees (OSHA etc.) to government, the Church has given over its’ mandate and walked away to merrily sing hymns to one another while the world goes its’ own way.

    Mew

    * the home school effect is an interesting rejection of this point…

  • notalibertarian

    in my comments here, hoping to stick to the facts. I would like to get along with you, too, but you and some other pro-GOProud posters here seem very free to hurl personal remarks — including insisting how offended you are at my position.

    Why, for instance, is it offensive for me to say GOProud is the problem, but it’s just fine for you to say that religious populists are the problem?

  • minister_of_war

    Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy that should not be thought of as good, honorable, or even permissible in society. Instead, people who struggle with homosexual desires should be counseled on how to overcome these immoral urges. There are many reasons people conduct sinful behavior or have sinful thoughts. Like everybody else who struggles with sin, and that would include everybody other than God & His Son, people who struggle with this sin can repent & change.

    But since when is CPAC in the business of promoting any of its participating members’ transgressions – even if a person or people might be open about it? The next thing that we’ll see at CPAC will be CARS the Conservative Adulterers Republican Club. Or maybe they should leave that one to themselves too.

  • notalibertarian

    of the Enlightenment had a Christianized world view. That is why sodomy, adultery, and other sexual acts continued to be a criminal offense in this country. I’m not talking about my personal beliefs. I’m pointing out historical facts.

    If the actual men of the Enlightenment thought it fitting to have such laws on the books, enlightenment philosophy obviously doesn’t lend support to the brand of social liberalism currently being advocated. You are taking their ideology — limited government — and exagerrating it beyond their vision.

    P.S. Somehow the European Enlightenment Philosophy didn’t manage to make it onto the walls of the Supreme Court building. The Ten Commandments did, though.

  • acat

    Stop and think what that means.

    Everybody’s. Eyes.

    The problem isn’t that you disagree with GOProud, it’s that you refuse to recognize the common ground and common enemy who are using our disagreement to shackle both of us.

    Mew

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    But, I am, in fact, in business with an “outed” gay man. So what? One doesn’t have to be a chicken to recognize an egg. And I’ve also been on local boards and so forth, and have run for the State Legislature. Again, what of it? I don’t know if this sort of thing burnishes or tarnishes when speaking about moral absolutes.

    And, further, the only folks I ever would attempt to “throw out” of the Republican Party are statist, tyrannical liberals, in whatever stripe they may slake their sexual appetites. As I said, I don’t care what the sexual proclivities are of anyone in the Republican Party, just as I don’t much care what their golf handicap is. I am merely pointing out that, prior to about 1930, there was no such thing as a homosexual identity; there was only homosexual behavior. It is part of the cultural narrative of the left to normalize and publicly affirm the otherwise abnormal in order to diminish the influence of the traditional family. This cannot be denied, The family must be weakened or destroyed to raise up the influence and power of the state. This also cannot be denied. And one would hope that conservatives would stand four-squared against anything that seeks as it’s ultimate goal the destruction of the family.

    Normal America accepted the fact that there were those that preferred man-on-man, or woman-on-woman sex: Eh, whatever floats your boat. But, please, sir, don’t start flaunting it around where the children are because, ultimately, abhorrent sexual behavior that is publicized and normalized harms children (especially male homosexuality: Most self-identified male homosexuals point to early childhood assault by other male homosexuals as the tap-root of their own sexual and personality identity disorders. Sad, but nonetheless true. Check out Exodus International for confirmation of this)

    And, the Republican Party ought to stand for the safety and protected innocence of children, as well.

    As for homosexuals talking about Jesus: We need a nation of people unafraid to talk about the love of Christ, and of His sacrifice for all of us. Again, I don’t care what the sexual proclivities are of those that choose this difficult task, and I would wager Christ doesn’t, either. He stood especially by those that struggled with sexual sin, and didn’t pre-judge them, as we shouldn’t either. We have all sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. So, if there are those out there sending hate mail, I question their commitment to Jesus, anyway.

  • notalibertarian

    Is that we “reduce government” by eliminating areas of government that have ALWAYS existed. The founders, who gave us the concept of limited government, would not have agreed with the areas you are targeting.

    You are so focused on your ideology that you do not seem to have considered the practical problems involved in the things you want to eliminate, or the new rights you wish to confer. There is a reason for the government to be involved in hetero marriage: it naturally involves procreation. There is NO reason for the government to be involved in homosexual marriage. Your advocating for gay marriage actually INCREASES the government’s involvement beyond what it already is.

  • minister_of_war

    … I’m very glad that my teacher wife moved to a private college prep school this year so I can once again complain about public education.

  • AceInTX

    Setting the hymn singing aside of course

  • acat

    Go read the original 1776 articles of confederation. Not the current constitution, that’s from 1789, the articles of confederation came first.

    A much weaker central government, much stronger state governments, and the idea that each state could make its’ own laws regarding religion etc.

    Didn’t quite work out; we chose a slightly stronger central government over each state truly going its’ own way, but the idea is provably there.

    Mew

  • minister_of_war

    And thanks for the link to their website. We need more groups like the APP.

  • acat

    Telling me that the EPA or the public schools have “always existed” is … the mind boggles.

    Just because something has always been a certain way in your lifetime does not mean it has always been a certain way.

    Your history teachers have badly failed you.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    is milking this crisis to weaken conservatism’s opposition to gay rights. If they were really worried about common ground, they wouldn’t have those two items on their agenda. Your idea of “recognizing the common ground” involves me not objecting to their attempts to do that.

    Refusing to recognize the common ground would involve me declaring that gays should be banned from conservative groups. I’m not advocating that at all. What I am advocating is that gay rights special interst groups be banned.

  • notalibertarian

    for what you are advocating. Not only were sexual proclivities not included in the Bill of Rights (nor were they mentioned in the Articles of Confederation), they were regulated by the states, many of which were governed by the Enlightenment statesmen you refer to.

    “Limited government” for the founders, whether Enlightened or Christian or both, meant something different from what you want.

  • notalibertarian

    obviously didn’t mean probably is the best way of exiting this discussion.

  • minister_of_war

    A frontal assault on the castle or a Torjan Horse?

    Certain groups do not belong in the Republican big tent. Period. They can choose to vote for us because they like one or more of our principles better than they like what the other side stands for. But that doesn’t mean that we need to change our positions on the issues now that they’ve supported us in order to better accommodate them.

    If that was the case, then we’d be called Democrats, which is just a loose coalition of random individual interests lumped together in order to oppose the Republican Party & the Republican Party defense of Constitutional principles when it applies to those individual groups.

  • notalibertarian

    Liberals (using fraudulent Kinsey studies) astroturfed the APA in 1973, and libertarians are using the “But We Really Need Their Votes!” canard to astroturf conservatives today.

    Just how many votes are we gaining when the public has made it crystal clear it does not want gay marriage?

  • aesthete

    Could have fooled them, given that Campaign for Liberty, the Republican Liberty Caucus, FreedomWorks and several other libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning groups have been regular attendees. That is, however, besides the point, as GOProud does not identify itself as libertarian or libertarian-conservative, but as conservative. GOProud, in fact, split off from the Log Cabin Republicans because of a general sentiment that they were too centrist, and not conservative enough. The organization focuses on Second Amendment issues, national defense, and smaller government, and intentionally has no position on state initiatives banning same-sex marriage and establishing sexual orientation as a protected class. They have no problem with conservatives who disagree with them on the issues of DADT and gay marriage, and have invited several guest speakers who disagree with them on those issues to speak at their events (Ann Coulter, to name one). IOW, they are conservative to the bone. The outrage coming from certain social conservative groups on this issue is unsubstantiated, and based purely on the notion that a group representing homosexuals cannot be conservative.

  • aesthete

    No no, CARS meets in a large, white building atop Capitol Hill…

  • notalibertarian

    positions. They focus on areas in which conservatives and libertarians happen to agree. Their inclusion in CPAC does nothing to undermine conservatism. They do not advocate abortion, legalizing drugs, prostitution, or any of the other pet projects of libertarians.

  • Aaron Gardner

    On the 11th of November GOProud sent out a letter urging Senate Republicans to repeal DADT in the lame duck session. On the 15th they sent out their letter saying fiscal issues should be the priority and that Republicans should “resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests”.

    With these facts being known, do you agree that a.) GOProud is being hypocritical b.) they have no problems pushing *their* social issues instead of focusing on the economy c.) they are disrespecting the results of the election by trying to get their pet issue taken care of by the lame duck session?

    If not, why?

  • AceInTX

    They have no problem with conservatives who disagree with them on the issues of DADT and gay marriage,

  • AceInTX

    or in my school demanding to teach my children that a lifestyle that is clearly against my religious beliefs is a healthy and normal behavior…

    it is neither healthy…as evidenced by7 the rampant STDs in the homosexual community and their reduced life expectancy…nor is it normal.

    That said…as long as they keep it in the bedroom…off my TV…and out of my children’s school and stop demanding that I applaud their public proclamations and flaunting of their bedroom practices in public…then I’m happy to let it be

    But don’t tell me in one breath that I’m being divisive and breaking this party down into factions while ripping into me for my faith and demanding that I sit at the back of the bus and keep my mouth shut in the very next breath and expect me to not get my back up!

  • Doc Holliday

    it should only be based on military readiness. It is the left that likes to use the military for social experiments (and nothing else). All we should care about is the effectiveness of our forces. If the military thinks DADT works, then it should stay.

  • AceInTX

    Marriage has been recognized throughout western civilization as the unit best equip for the care and upbringing of the next generation and also as a bulwark against our children growing up impoverished.

    Heterosexual marriage has thus been give special “Recognition” by civil authorities for centuries…

    Stretching the fact that the state does not extend that special recognition to homosexual couples to be repression seems a bit far fetched to me.

  • aesthete

    Now that I know, I would agree fully with a, b, and c. Hopefully, someone is sitting them down and telling them to stop pressuring national leadership.

  • aesthete
  • Aaron Gardner

    Read here

  • AceInTX

    many of the dust upsa you and I have had are a direct result of the fact that you’ll pop off without reading the diary that begins a thread…or any of the supporting articles referenced in the diary…

    The last two paragraphs of the Diary you are now commenting in includes the following:

    The CPAC kerfuffle comes on the heels of an open letter sent Monday by GOProud and a group of tea party leaders to Republican leaders in Congress urging them to

  • aesthete

    that generally look for areas where libertarians and conservatives agree, but RLC holds views anathema to social conservatism. (From their website: “We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the

  • Doc Holliday

    to make your argument a strawman which is slightly less bad than a complete lie.

  • Philip

    Personally I am not opposed to Same-Sex Marriage. It isn’t a big issue to me either way. I really don’t think it is to many people you might think would be. It’s not a burning issue except to a few in my experience. Nice sure, but you can get many of the same legal ‘benefits’ other ways.
    Some claims just don’t make sense like hospital visitation. I have never had anyone stop me from seeing anyone unless it was ICU. I’ve been in ICU, I wasn’t up for guests. Plus one is usually so doped on morphine are those visits of any use except to the visitor?
    I don’t agree with some of the observations of the gay community, many of them are specious.
    I do agree about keeping the ‘lifestyle evangelization’ out of schools. That does happen .
    A simple definition, recognition of an observable phenomenon without commentary or moral evaluation either way, and instructions to talk to one’s parents or legal guardian on any further questions should be the standard.
    A reminder that school guidelines and community laws apply to all equally should also be added.
    I wonder who is really ginning all this up behind scenes. Sounds like a divide and conquer operation to me. Maybe a purge, that would be progressive.

  • aesthete

    by the OP. I have an enormous problem with the letter linked above by Aaron wherein GOProud is urging Republicans to repeal DADT, both because it is hypocritical and because it is a waste of time and political effort, regardless of the merits or demerits of repeal. GOProud, by sending out the previous letter, was telling Republicans to ignore their later (mostly good) advice selectively, which is a problem for me.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
  • AceInTX

    which is my point

  • aesthete

    “On the 11th of November GOProud sent out a letter urging Senate Republicans to repeal DADT in the lame duck session. On the 15th they sent out their letter saying fiscal issues should be the priority and that Republicans should ‘resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests’ “

  • Aaron Gardner

    It was referenced/link in Erick’s post today entitled “More Than One “i” in Coalition” which you read (I assume you read it since you commented on it).

    I’m not holding it against you, but you should be clicking through the links when author provide them in order to avoid embarrassing situations like this.

    ;)

  • AceInTX

    urging them to avoid chasing social issues down rabbit holes…am I missing something here?

    Are you OK with this letter then, and oppose the one saying they want repeal of DADT?

    I’m honestly confused by what you are saying here?

  • aesthete

    It wasn’t clear by the context in Erick’s post that GOProud sent a letter demanding that Reps repeal DADT, simply that they supported the repeal of DADT. I assumed that it was a link to their “issues” page. As GC says from time to time on Moe’s posts, ya gotta excerpt :)

    Anyhow, thanks for the link; it was most instructive, and revealed GOProud’s massive hypocrisy on the issue.

  • aesthete

    That the completely dysfunctional Libertarian Party was, in fact, a co-sponsor of CPAC at one point.

    The Libertarian Party, for crying out loud!

  • http://www.powerandconsequence.com Bryan Myrick

    CPAC was not the recipient of the letter you refer to. That letter was sent to GOP leaders in Congress.

  • acat

    I said “Reduce government”, and cited as examples agencies that have come into existence over the last 200 years.

    None of them touched in any way on your apparent hot-button topic of gays, but apparently that’s all you want to argue about.

    You said that I was referring to reducing areas of government that had always existed, which is obviously false.

    As for your whinging about government involvement in gay marriage, did you perhaps miss where I said that government should have no involvement in any marriage?

    Allow a simple (as in, 1040-ez simple) form to register a civil partnership, open to any who fill out the form, but only serially – i.e. only one partnership active at a time. This would not be a marriage, obviously, just a way for the lawyers to keep track, for tax and inheritance purposes. who is entitled to what.

    Marriage is a religious institution, and I respect your right to keep it that way. When you say “part of the government”, you’re mistaken – what you mean is “part of the social contract”. Marriage hasn’t always had government involvement.

    Yes, by the time the U.S. came into being, government had been involved for centuries, but not all governments historically cared who married whom … and why should they? Until inheritance rules mattered – kingdoms, etc. – it didn’t matter to government.

    Why does it need to matter now? Are Christians supposed to be concerned with the things of this world they leave to their children, or that their spouses are able to enjoy a slight tax benefit?

    It’s not my views limiting this discussion, and it’s not me that’s twisting words.

    Mew

  • acat

    I’ve read your stuff for a while, Ace, and you’re usually right, in addition to being direct.

    You seem to be extrapolating a little from your “neighborhood”, though – the social-conservative majority is more of a parity or possibly a minority of the Conservative movement outside of the South. (and I hope you don’t mind my including Texas in the more generic “South”… but y’all are more like Alabama and Georgia than New Mexico or California)

    Get out toward the northeast, and the fiscal conservatives are at parity with religious conservatives – although “squishies” seem to dominate the Republican party.

    Head into the northwest, and libertarian conservatives are the larger group.

    To be clear, I’m sure you can come back with numbers of people filling church pews, but .. active conservatives, working to take back the party ..?

    Mew

  • acat

    Obama will take care of the Religious Right watching what goes on in other peoples’ bedroom by watching what goes on in their kitchens, garages, bake sales, rummage sales …

    Okay, not a very funny joke, but I trust you can see the point.

    Mew

  • acat

    really makes me want to work with you. (/sarc)

    Now, I’m willing to work with you, as you say pluralistically, but I gotta tell ya, this is exactly why the religious conservatives and libertarians always end up split and liberals always end up winning.

    Mew

  • acat

    it is, by definition, a “repression”.

    And they always start small.

    Mew

  • tcgeol

    There is nothing “conservative” about the government taking on a huge role that they are not supposed to take. Conservative opposition to homosexual marriage makes sense – marriage is the oldest social form and is the way it is for a reason. Abortion makes sense conservatively, as well. The WoD never has been anything other than an anti-federalist position. I have to think that it is considered to be a socon position for almost no other reason than to give social liberals ammunition against those more traditionally conservative.

  • AceInTX

    I’ll come back with Convention delegates forming our party platform.

    Try taking social issues out of our platform…and see how far you get.

    On top of that…Socons are the more civic minded and are more often than not the boots on the ground when the rubber meets the road. so…if you want to play the regional game…you have a point…Socons are largely from the South…and yes…Texas wore the gray….but so is the population of this country increasingly from the south.

    and try wining elections without the south.

    Try winning elections without SoCons

    Try GOTV efforts without SoCons

  • AceInTX

    I care that I can’t turn on the TV and watch something with my kids without being assaulted by pro gay propaganda…and graphic television commercials and the like.

    I care that I can’t send my kids to school without watching the their teachers like a hawk because of the ;libertines in our society trying to sexulize them.

    I care that I have to deal with an out of control judiciary forcing views on me and my community against my wishes.

    I care about the fact that churches are being forced to go to court and fight discrimination law suites because gays are demanding that labor laws be enforced dictating to pastors that they have to hire gays as part of their church staff.

    I care that I can’t hold church meetings in federal camp grounds because of some crazy interpretation about a separation of church and state that has no basis in the constitution or the bill of rights.

    I care about a lot of things…and I’d like to work in common cause with CPAC, and other conservative organizations to put a stop to the destruction and degradation of my culture without being attacked by groups like GOProud when I’ve been doing nothing but working my tale off and helping pull the wagon for the last two years in order to stop Obama and his thugs on capital hill.

    Finally…what’s at issue here isn’t what someone does in the privacy of their home…or in their bedroom…because these people don’t want to keep it in the bedroom…they have this uncontrollable need to be in our faces all day every day about how they chose to have sex and they demand that I endorse and condone it.

  • AceInTX

    so they can paint themselves as tolerant while pointing a finger at me and pointing out what a viscous bigot I am!

  • AceInTX
  • acat

    Try winning national races with a Southern party and see how far you get.

    While we’re having this pissing contest, the only winners are the libs – we’re just making a mess.

    Now, I’m happy to win with SoCons, much happier than to try winning without y’all, which is part of why I’m participating on Red State.

    I’m not happy, though, to see the old “libertarians are the problem” wedge, especially in the hands of a fellow (not you) Red Stater.

    Mew

  • acat

    Everything you mentioned is a problem. Pro-gay advocates go way too far, TV should be safe to watch, etc. We watched the Superbowl delayed 10 minutes through the DVR last year since the rest of the group didn’t want their kids exposed to anything too racy. Shouldn’t have to worry about that at all. Likely to do the same this year.

    Ridiculous.

    The one point where we disagree is the so-called “canard”. SoCons tend to be most supportive of making adultery a crime, among other things. Every southern church I’ve ever been around has a clique who are very curious about who’s doing what and with whom. You can say it’s a canard, but I have a hard time agreeing.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    we have the same goals…get the federal government out of all these issues and it goes away…give it back to that states…INCLUDING Roe Vs Wade, Gay Marriage and the rest…

    but you all want to keep the Feds in the game by ignoring our issues

    and don’t get me wrong…I’m not anti libertarian…I am one…in the mold of the founding fathers…I believe in natural law and that our rights come from God not what the government…or some piece of paper…even if that piece of paper is the Constitution.

    to believe otherwise is to believe thos rights can be taken away.

    I also subscribe to the theory that has been proven over and over again…that a purely libertarian society devoid of a moral social order leads to chaos, libertine excess and despotic measures being implemented by the state in order to control and out of control population free from the fetters of any moral restraint or societal construct to help deal with each others.

    my proof?

    Look that the parallels between the American and French Revolutions…Look at the parallel between the choices made by Washington when he was offered the opportunity to become king…and Oliver Cromwell when the Redheads won their revolution in England…

    Again..my issue here is with the cat calls and the outrage at APP exercising it’s right not to participate in CPAC because of it’s beliefs. How Libertarian is that?

    And how libertarian is it to demand that social conservatives sit at the back of the bus and demand that we not have any say in the majority we helped create?

    as far as winning following a strictly southern SoCon strategy…Bush made history in 2004 doing just that and became one of the only presidents in history to be reelected while simultaneously increasing his majorities in the house and Senate. The fact that he went on to govern in an unconservative/Libertarian way can be laid at his feet…not mine or at the feet of most socons because we’re all a pretty libertarian bunch when you get down to it with a few notable exceptions.

  • AceInTX

    and that SoCons are at parity or maybe even a minority in the conservative coalition outside of the south…and questioned my assertion SoCons are the boots on the ground for the party….by saying:

    To be clear, I

  • acat

    I want for our wings to stay willing to talk.

    Nor do I disagree about where a libertine society tends to end. The French pocked up by not recognizing that there have to be some limits. Our own founding fathers tried to make the limits on States too light initially. It’s important to recognize all of the flaws and compromises – slaves are 3/5 of a person – that went into the constitution, it wasn’t delivered to them on a stone tablet…

    I’m not saying APP shouldn’t have walked away. I am saying it makes it harder to see how we’re going to work together when they walk away.. and the counterpoint is true as well, GOProud pocked up, but I’m hardly their defender. I’m a libertarian, not a gay rights advocate.

    The cynic in me looks at both sides and sees nothing but posturing going into the next year. This is a rebuilding year and the start of the 2012 POTUS run, so they can both afford to throw an elbow at this year’s CPAC, knowing they’ll be invited back next year.

    I still say the correct response from APP was to throw an elbow right back, not end the discussion. They have the right to choose this course, I just wish they’d chosen one that kept them in the tent.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    You seem to think that I twisted your words because I assumed that your comments somehow related to the actual topic of this thread. I am at a loss to figure out how else I am supposed to interpret your comments in a discussion thread that is NOT “Reducing Government” but “GOProud”. You may think that GOProud’s agenda is about reducing government (and appropriate to lump that in with the EPA), but conservatives don’t subscribe that reduction in government, because it is extremist.

    “I said

  • acat

    And that is the source of my frustration because, as I’ve said repeatedly, the only winner when social conservatives and libertarians fight are the liberals.

    I’ve got a news flash for you. Most libertarian-leaning conservatives aren’t the “utopian, ideology-driven radicalism” types. We’re more concerned about stopping the dystopian federal overreach currently going on.

    Mew

    Mew

  • minister_of_war

    … liberals ALWAYS end up winning. By the way, how did that work out for them in November?

  • AceInTX

    I’ve med this point in this thread..special consideration has always been shown to parents in this society and all of western civilization for millennia as the best unit for the care and upbringing of our children…the family unit of a father and mother providing a nurturing environment is the best unit for teaching societal norms and statis5tics have proven that children raised in a family unit are much less likely to live in poverty…therefore…society has given special consideration to those family units in order to encourage their development…as such…special rights and recognition has been given by the state to married couples…

    What you want to do is equate not giving that same special consideration to homosexuals as somehow repressing them and denying them their liberties in some way?

    How is that exactly? What liberties have we taken away from them by not extending that special recognition?

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    We’ve just sent a batch of new folks to Washington based on the belief that they are more reflective of our principles and world-view. Let’s give them a couple of months to show us their mettle.

    We must also learn to live a little better with inspired, passionate discourse inside the conservative, Republican movement; After all, conservatism is an intellectual world-view, based not on emotion and intentions, but on knowledge of human behavior and of results. This fact tends to lead to passionate, internecine in-fighting. It is part of the intellectual landscape. Let us remember it, therefore, for what it is: Passionate, reasoned discourse that doesn’t devolve to name-calling, backbiting, or knee-capping.

    Political philosophies, and how they are manifested in public policy often start with a refinement, a winnowing of the arguments. Our best such efforts are based on logic and persuasion.

  • acat

    First, it twists what I said. I did not say liberals always end up winning, I said they end up winning when SoCons and libertarians engage in pissing contests. I am assuming that this is willful, as otherwise I’d have to question your reading skills.

    Second, they are actually very well placed today… from a historical perspective. See, liberals are playing a long game while most conservatives and libertarians will go back to sleep, politically, once we achieve “mission accomplished”.

    Reagan defeated the Evil Empire. Mission Accomplished! (enter Bill Clinton and the (then) biggest tax hike in history, DADT, and a number of other *liberal* programs that we’re still trying to repeal.

    Gingrich and the Contract defanged Clinton, and took over the House and Senate. Mission Accomplished! (enter the years of RINOs and a wishy-washy “compassionate conservatism”.

    Liberals are digging in, getting ready to hold the ground they took in 2008 and 2009 – over one hundred new agencies in the health care bill alone, and you’re saying something that looks to me like “mission accomplished”.

    God save us from “victories” like these, eh?

    Mew

  • acat

    First, distinguish between society and government. They are different, although one shapes the other.

    Society grants special consideration to parents, and requires special responsibilities.

    Society grants some of these considerations via Government, in the form of tax breaks, provides education to all children, provides health care to children otherwise vulnerable, etc. etc.

    Society also has disincentives toward certain behaviours. Murderers, thieves, and vandals are punished. Society does this through Government, although small scale and young vandals used to be more often punished without calling the sheriff, a practice that may still go on in rural areas. It’s a useful example of the difference between society and government.

    One of the groups society “punished”, historically, are homosexuals. Others include blacks, the irish, jews, muslims, the french… and I’m sure eventually there will be others. This is a normal societal reaction to perceived threat – fear the other, shame the other.

    There is a difference, though, when government gets involved… if nothing else, having laws written that say it’s okay to treat a group differently can be used to justify not changing opinions. How long were “Jim Crow” laws around, for example.

    I’m not asking you to change what your religion says or to remove any non-government shaming or other disincentives. I’m not asking you to look at a thing and say “That’s okay” when in your heart you know it isn’t. I’m saying that it’s problematic for society to implement this via government.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    I agree with everything in your reply…but you avoided my point entirely

  • acat

    The specific “repression” that I am objecting to are the different and generally higher tax rates, and the significantly higher legal costs to create legal equivalent of what a $50 marriage license gets a hetero couple.

    I object to these specifically because they are implemented by government, not by society at large.

    Consider, also, that removing these sanctions from government may have an additional benefit – it removes a big part of the argument proving discrimination.

    My expectation is that the screechy, whiny, demanding elements of the gay rights crowd will latch onto some other perceived slight, seeing this as a victory, but it’s much harder to get traction against a societal target than a government. one…

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    because he is the only other male in the house with this gamecock and the 2 female humans and 2 canine bitches! smile

  • AceInTX

    but again…this avoids the point.

    I’ve debated with myself whether or not to let sleeping dogs lie and walk away from this discussion because you and I have similar Ideas on most issues…I realize I can be off putting to some as has happened in this thread with another poster because I can be a dog with a bone and hold on to an issue to long…and that is rarely but sometimes exacerbated when I lose patience as I did up-thread with a debater who won’t deal with facts…

    to explain…I like to debate these kinds of issues to the bitter end for a couple very important reasons.

    Following a thread of reasoning to it’s logical conclusion can and often does expose flaws in not only my opponent’s reasoning…but more important…by exposing flaws in my reasoning. ..It gives me an opportunity to rethink my arguments when I have an honest jousting partner on the other side of the argument who can expose the weaknesses in my way of thinking…thus forcing me to rethink and reorder those arguments and as necessary concede the argument altogether when I can no longer reconcile the argument in my own mind.

    With that in mind…I will make one observation and leave it up to you whether you want to continue this from here or not.

    I’ll concede that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the Federal government should be out of the marriage business altogether. If the tax benefits for married heterosexuals weren’t there…this issue goes away by and large as a federal issue…and marriage would be returned to the states where it rightly belongs…Ditto all the civil laws that are being turned into federal issues by over reaching courts.

    But to say that homosexuals are being “repressed” or having liberties denied if these extra considerations are not bestowed upon them is a stretch.

    If that line of thought is followed to it’s obvious conclusion, the same argument can be made about business deductions in the tax code that aren’t extended to non businesses…or the mortgage interest deduction which is not extended to renters…

    I don’t think you would say the government is “Repressing” or “denying the liberties” of renters because they aren’t given the ability to write off their rental expenses from their taxes.

    That’s why I reacted to your assertion about repression. It’s hyperbolic rhetoric which we all use…and I’m quick to use it myself as much as anyone here…and as such…I tend to react quickly to others using it.

    That said…We can agree to disagree on gay marriage and some of these other issues…but back to my twofold argument that started all this…

    1) There is the double standard of GOProud demanding inclusion and tolerance of any and all points of view at CPAC, within the conservative movement plus the Republican caucus on the one hand while demanding the issues of APP be ignored with the other hand…A don’t expect to have my cake and eat it…and neither should those on the other side of this argument be allowed to have their cake and eat it too.

    2) I’ll return to the libertarian argument I presented earlier…GOProud wants to be a part of CPAC…which is their right to seek inclusion….GOPAC has decided to include GOProud which is CPAC’s right to decide who will be a part of this conference….APP has a problem being a part of CPAC if it includes an organization that is founded with the specific purpose of opposing the very issue that APP was founded to protect…which is APP’s right… if APP decides to exercise that right in protest…isn’t it a little un-libertarian…if not outright hypocritical for libertarians to call for the heads of APP for exercising their rights?

  • acat

    Here’s the thing. The “party platform” can be used as a bold statement of unifying principles, similar to the Contract with America, or it can be a checklist of what candidates should agree with, similar to the “purity tests” that started going ’round again this year, or .. it can be used to pull wool over SoCon eyes.

    I seem to recall a discussion a couple years ago in a different forum where the consensus was that the establishment had given the job of writing the platform to the SoCons to shut them up, and it could then be ignored by any candidates who weren’t in need of SoCon support.

    The point being that pointing at the platform doesn’t impress me much if nobody outside the south is running on it.

    I’m not saying SoCons don’t make up the bulk of the party, Ace. I’m saying that SoCons make up the bulk, but outside of the South, SoCons trying to run without making some sort of common cause with Libertarian and/or Fiscal wings is like a bird trying to fly with one wing. It can be done, it hurts a lot, and it invariably ends up with the liberal vultures (but I repeat myself) winning.

    Mew

  • acat

    I never did, but I found it easier to get the humans to bring me milk when they weren’t scratched up.

    Mew

  • SirGladiator

    The problem here is that there’s a group that wants to be a part of the Conservative movement, whose main theme is far-left and immoral. Im as happy as anybody to have folks call themselves a Conservative and vote for Conservative candidates, but if you want to be a part of a major Conservative event, and the only issues your group is known for are far-left ones, there’s naturally going to be some opposition to that. Its the same as if somebody tried to join CPAC saying they’re ‘Conservatives for doubling everybody’s taxes’, or ‘Conservatives against having a military’, you aren’t really convincing anybody that you’re actually a Conservative, or that you belong at CPAC, when the only thing you’re known for is far-left and offensive to most Conservatives.

    Obviously the folks at CPAC can run their group any way they want, and they definitely seem to have a very, very ‘big tent’ indeed. Only time will tell whether they’ll gain or lose more as a result of having such lax standards for membership, but its definitely a problem that could’ve been avoided pretty easily.

  • AceInTX

    You made the assertion that SoCons weren’t a majority in the Republican caucus…and said I’d come back at you with numbers of people in church pews…

    I’ll admit getting my back up by the snide comment but still I responded not with numbers of people in church pews but with the party platform and pointed out that it is written by party activists…

    I don’t know if you’ve participated in conventions…or been involved with writing platform planks …or know who those planks are added or taken out of the platform…but it’s done my majority vote of Precinct, then District, then state, and finally national delegates….

    whether the platform is relevant or not has nothing to do with my bringing it up since I brought it up to prove my point that SoCons are a majority of the party activists…and do the work of the party as evidenced by the fact that liberals, moderates, and libertarians have been trying to strip Social Issues out of the platform since these issues were first added to the platform and the only thing they’ve ever succeeded in doing is giving Democrats and the lame stream media talking points about purity tests, litmus tests and intolerance in the Republican Party.

  • notalibertarian

    I agree with the need to return to federalism, but why do people think there is something wrong with giving child-bearing relationships a federal tax credit? All it is is an acknowledgment that hetero couples yield future generations, and bear a great cost with that.

    Older people — whether straight or gay — depend on younger generations to take care of them. People who stay single, or engage in sexual relationships that yield no offspring benefit from hetero couples. Hetero couples do not benefit from gay couples at all.

    The minute someone mentions the child-bearing nature of hetero marriage, the libertarian side screams, “social engineering!” Social engineering is an attempt to interfere with the normal, natural, healthy coarse of things because people believe that can be improved upon. This is not social engineering. It is acknowledging the basic order of human nature.

    And this complaint that it is more costly for gay couples to make legal arrangements doesn’t fly with me. So what? Why should taxpayers pay for legal arrangements that yield no children? Do two close friends who want to give each other power of attorney but not sleep together get to have the taxpayers pay for their legal affairs too?

  • acat

    Yes, I’ve seen you “tangle” a few times since I’ve gotten here and yes, we generally agree. We can work together.

    What I like about the “get the government out of marriage altogether” approach is that it should find support from all branches of conservatism – simplified tax code for the FiCons, Fed recognition that marriage is a sacrament of the church for SoCons, Fed out of our lives a little for Libertarians.

    As for “repression”, I do see a societal benefit to home ownership, and don’t see a problem with rewarding it over renting. Both have their place, but having owned rental units, and having helped a landlord friend clean up and repaint after renters, I just don’t see where they’re as likely to take care of the infrastructure and “commons” of a place, nor as likely to work to improve a community. Too easy to break lease or just disappear in the night.

    Yes, referring to the tax issue alone as “repression” is over the top. I view it as somewhat necessary as this is the only one of the many “societal sanctions” that is implemented by government.

    When all of the sanctions are taken as a whole, though, and were they applied to any other group (and I like using the early Irish experience as an example as there’s currently no stigma associated with being a child of the emerald isle… ) it would clearly be a repression.

    The problem that I have with APP is, as I said, that they’ve chosen to disengage rather than choosing to focus on what we do agree upon. Yes, APP were provoked, and I think GOProud has some deep issues given their messaging pock-up, but .. APP did choose to disengage instead of “arguing to the bitter end”, or press releasing right back.

    I’m no wordsmith, but it seems that APP should have had someone on staff who could turn “That was a cheap shot, we disagree with your central issue, but we’ve got bigger fish to fry right now so if you’ll quit acting out, we’ll all get back to work”. instead of leaving.

    I understand the reasons APP chose their course, and I respect their decision, but .. I do regret that they’ve taken that course instead of engaging as you’ve done here.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    along these lines is the fact that ending DADT will unnecessarily INCREASE the cost of our military. Policy changes to accomodate this demographic will have to be studied and implemented, not to mention the enormous legal fees that will be added when the sexual harassment lawsuits start coming.

    Did Doc Holiday discuss this, or was he too busy trying to pin the Prescription Drug Benefit on Jim Demint?

  • JSobieski

    people ask

    Why not have a federally backed program to provide income and medical care to seniors—-otherwise their children will need to bare the costs.

    Once you go outside enumerated powers, anything can be justified. Food stamps, EPA regulation of intrastate lakes, prohibiting anyone from taking a pharmaceutical product that has not yet been approved by the FDA, etc.

    You don’t think liberals aren’t capable of justifying these programs based on the “yield to future generations” or some other type of public benefit?

    If states want to go there, fine. However, once the federal government gets in the job of defining and rewarding certain activities through the use of tax policy, we lose. Maybe not right away, but inevitably.

  • AceInTX
  • acat

    Not one penny before.

    Oh, and the same tax benefit accrues to any group raising a child, adopted or biologically produced.

    There. Problem solved.

    Mew

    p.s. I’m ignoring your distortion of the libertarian argument. I don’t know what libertarians you associate with, but we’re not all like that.

  • notalibertarian

    ” I do see a societal benefit to home ownership, and don

  • AceInTX
  • acat

    What I said was SoCons are the majority in the whole caucus, but that outside of the South, they’re not able to win without one of the other two Conservative wings.

    In the Northeast, SoCons must make common cause with FiCons.

    In the West, SoCons must make common cause with Libertarians.

    When this doesn’t happen, when either side bolts (because it takes only one to walk away) the remaining side ends up making common cause with whoever is left – big-government guys, RINOs, Dems who know they can’t beat the Dem establishment so re-brand… – with results that look like 2004, 2006 and 2008.

    I know there are a lot of Social Conservatives who would love to just wash their hands of the Libertarian or Fiscal wings. We aren’t ever going to agree on some of this stuff. And that’s okay.

    All I’m trying to point out when talking numbers and regions is that, in the South, y’all can wash your hands and go it alone and be fine, but .. like Krispy Kreme doughnuts and Alabama football and good barbecue, it’s a uniquely southern thing … and some southern SoCons seem to forget this every now and then.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    Isn’t there a difference between the programs you list and tax breaks? I mean, welfare programs are clearly outside of the enumerated powers. But I don’t understand your case that assigning different tax rates are outside of the EP. EP says what the money is to be spent on, not how it is to be collected, no?

    I would add that an important point about your “public benefit” slippery slope argument is that most liberal ideas that were sold as something that would yield a “public benefit” really didn’t. Those liberal claims were demonstrable lies. The efficacy and superiority of natural families is not. It is a scientifically- supported fact.

  • AceInTX

    and points to the need for either an absolute flat tax with no deductions…or a pure sales tax system

  • notalibertarian

    but the idea of the government getting out of the marriage business is too radical.

    The government needs to take an interest in marriage as a legal contract, particularly because each party is counting on the other party to fulfill his/her obligation to help rear their future children. There was a time when the Church (through social stigma) worked together WITH the government to pressure people to uphold the marital contract. With the decline of the Church’s influence, all we are left with now is the State. I realize this view will annoy libertrians, but that is why I’m: NotALibertarian.

    This is just too basic a part of the societal structure for the government to not take an active interest in enforcing this particular contract.

  • notalibertarian

    for breadwinners. I mean, he’s already paying for the things he buys for himself. One breadwinner also has to pay taxes on the things he buys for his dependents?

  • AceInTX

    I agree with most of that…would quibble with this however:

    I know there are a lot of Social Conservatives who would love to just wash their hands of the Libertarian or Fiscal wings.

    I would argue that Most of the SoCons I know are libertarians by and large. To the extent that they get involved in national issues it is in response to federal over reaches that they get involved…whenever local control of school boards and what is taught in local schools is threatened the response is to respond with a counter to whatever policy or legislation is causing the threat…so SoCons end up overreaching in response. The same things happen on fiscal policy as well….

    This is a common threat and error all factions must deal with because the Democrats have become expert at throwing us on the horns of the statist dilemma…and we end up extending government overreach FOR them in response to something they’ve done.

    The abortion argument is one such social issue that I would think we could all find common ground on as far as national policy is concerned…since Roe Vs Wade is such an anti libertarian ruling in that it enforces a Federal mandate on what should be a state issue…

  • AceInTX

    everyone in the country is moving south anyway…so before long…we won’t be going it alone…we’ll be the only game in town

  • AceInTX
  • JSobieski

    states is a different thing.

    When you respond to an argument about the appropriate level of government with an assertion relating to government generally (i.e. not specifying a particular level of government) you aren’t really being responsive to the points being made.

  • AceInTX
  • notalibertarian

    why is it so important for the Feds to be “out of it”? Because libertarians need a libertarian response to the gay marriage issue? Because a very vocal group is talking as though federalism is the key to solving all of our problems?

    I agree that federalism is a helpful response to some of Washington’s most recent oversteps: Obamacare. The taking of “federal” lands in the name of environmentalism. Education. But with gay marriage, federalism is a red herring. Because the famliy tax credit is not a pressing problem. Everyone knows the biggest tax problems we have are the top brackets and capital gains taxes.

    When libertarians respond to concerned conservatives by giving them the federalism line, they are merely saying conservatives need to allow a minority like the gay community to force “marriage” to the top of the “federalism” list, rather than telling these people to buzz off (which is what the current ELECTORATE continues to do even in liberal states).

    Finally, federalism has little to do with whether or not GOProud has a place at the CPAC table. Whether it is on the federal or state level, GOProud is still diluting the conservative platform.

    This is just what I see from my admittedly-limited vantage point.

  • AceInTX

    I agree with you 100% that gay marriage should be between one man and woman…and I agree with most of your thinking on this…but as I’ve stated over and over again arguing the SoCon side of this issue…I believe in natural law and I’m with the founder’s view on this…

    The federal Government should be limited to the issues enumerated in the constitution and the rest left up to the states and the people…on gay marriage…the problem is equally the same if you say the Federal Government should force gay marriage on a national level as it is to say the Federal Government should ban it because by giving the Federal Government the power to decide that issue pro or con…you give the federal government the power to define marriage between a man and a women…

    I would argue that this is a conservative…not a libertarian issue…because when you get to the state level…if gays are trying to force gay marriage in Austin…I’m ready to go to the mat in Austin to stop them…just get the federal government out of it.

    As for your points a consumption tax…I agree more with you there…I’d like to see taxes on American Citizens go back to the way it was before 1913…and have the federal government pay it’s way through tariffs and unleash businesses across this country to do business free of any government interference as it interferes now using the tax system to incentive’s certain behavior…but since that will never happen…I prefer a flat tax with no deductions what so ever if we’re going to keep an income tax so everyone is free from the coercive power of the IRS to enforce certain behaviors.

  • acat
  • acat

    as superior to being raised by some of the people in the foster care system who are just taking in kids for their government checks.

    Would you have a problem with your church taking on a much more active role in the foster care system? Because I would see that as a Good Thing.

    Mew

  • acat

    The Armed Services are not a toy of the Congress or White House with which to try out social engineering experiments. The Armed Services exist to protect our borders, fight our wars, etc. In this, I’m what is sometimes called a Jacksonian.

    That the Armed Services also help in times of disaster, provide a way out of poverty for some, send a lot of poor kids to college, and rescue a lot of stupid civilians (Coast Guard, mostly) are secondary consequences, not the main goal.

    Should the DoD decide that they have a role for open gays, perhaps in non-combat areas, and with appropriate controls – the same ones that are required for mixed-gender units, i.e. keep the junior officers from being abused by their superiors – then I have no issue with it.

    Oh, and your cost canard is clearly false – the DoD studies thousands of scenarios every year, from the logistics of invading Canada to the skills required to operate a new piece of hardware. I’m quite sure the studies to accommodate openly-serving gays were done before DADT was signed, and that they’ve been updated since.

    Mew

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX
  • acat

    People who want to not pay taxes can minimize how much they spend. Buying bolts of cloth and borrowing a sewing machine instead of buying new clothes, for example, would not only be a cost savings for the household, it would also be a tax savings.

    In short, it’s merging taxation into a behavior people already exhibit – buying hamburger meat instead of steaks, or buying steaks and grilling them at home instead of going out – each reduces the tax burden and the total cost.

    The argument against it is that people would stop thinking about taxes at all. Now, it mostly comes up around April 15 or a big “life events” (new baby, wedding, new house, retirement …) and this is a problem – - we should all frequently be reminded just how much we’re paying for government.

    I’m not a fan of general consumption taxes. For specific products like alcohol, tobacco, and firearms where we know that public services (health care, EMTs, cops) are going to have to clean up some of the aftermath, it’s fine with me for the purchasers to pay more up front.

    I’m not a fan of the flat tax either, not because it’s unfair, but because it’s been misrepresented as somehow “more fair” for us to all pay the same rate. It’s a surface appearance of fair, but when 45% of the country pays 0%, I’ll take it over the current nightmare plan.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    This is the slippery slope of a federal government trying to “to good” without regards to the constitution.

    After all, why should people who make less money pay taxes at the same rate of more wealthy people? Shouldn’ taxes be progressive.

    So it begins . . .

  • acat
  • notalibertarian

    I guess I’m just more stubborn than you are, here, but marriage is already defined. It has been defined for thousands of years. And, incidentally, it is defined by Natural Law. Once we allow people to pull us from that, we give them the power to pull us anywhere.

    I don’t have time to continue, thanks for speaking up, and thanks for the discussion, Ace.

  • acat

    The problem is, the church has given the government power over its’ sacrament, which means the government can now be used to twist the church. Which is exactly what you’re complaining about.

    Seems to me that, if marriage becomes once again a sacrament of the church instead of a check-box on a mess of government-mandated forms, that the government will have less power over the church.

    That, at least, is my attempt to re-state the SoCon argument. I’m sure Ace can correct me if I’ve gotten anything significantly wrong.

    Mew

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    Monogamy is not the rule, historically. Then again, neither is a slave-free society. Monogamy is only a couple of thousand years old (I think), and abolition is something that has only been around for 200 or so years. I mention slavery because the norms that we have today are in many ways radically different from historical norms, and an appeal to history doesn’t make a very strong case.

    Monogamy is important to the structure of our society, I think, and perhaps to the existence of liberal democracy at all (See One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems at reason.com). I think that the definition of marriage is important, and it obviously has significant consequences to social stability. This is a much stronger argument than the idea that the definition of marriage has been static for thousands of years, because it hasn’t.

  • AceInTX

    Like I said…take the Feds out of it….and it resides in the states where it belongs…try to change the definition of marriage in Austin…and you’ve got all hell to pay…

    It’s about where this is properly handled…the problem is…we’re facing a two pronged assault…from the IRS because of the progressive tax code…and it’s being handled in states like MA, HI and CA…and being forced on the other states by the federal courts…that’s why it’s become a federal issue…and SoCons are being forced to fight this on a federal scale…

    Which sets us up for a fight with Libertarians…and is exactly what the Democrats…and groups like GOProud are angling for.

    in the end…That brings us to why APP has walked away from CPAC because they are refusing to play the game

  • notalibertarian

    are the easy-divorce laws progressives put in place 40 years ago. It was all a part of the de-stigmatizing of sex outside of marriage. The Cinderella Effect, well-documented by evolutionary psychologists in the 80s(?) shows that this was a trainwreck for kids.

    (Churches already play a big role in foster care, working within the system. Their role in adoption is being extinguished, due to their refusal to adopt out to gay couples; it’s already happening in Massachussetts.)

    The point is, there are multiple components to our foster crisis. To me, people who want the government to get out of the business of taking care of society’s orphans — and return the responsibility to the Church — need to spend equal time dragging their friends to church with them. We can return our government to the small size it used to be, but if the Church is not there to pick up the slack, we will face disaster.

    Gotta go, thanks for the discussion, acat.

  • AceInTX

    by government intervention….the government discourages adoption and is forcing adoption to gays which purposely puts the church on the horns of a moral dilemma….adopt to gays against the teachings of the church and the Holy Bible…or get out of adoption altogether and abandon children to the deprivations of the state foster care system.

    this is something we should be able to work together with libertarians on…because it’s wrong for the government to enforce policies on people and institutions that go directly against their consciences and forces them to choose between two unacceptable moral options.

    But instead…we get labeled as bigots and homophobes…were assaulted as theocratic NAZIs…and we are asked to sit down and shut up because our social issues are too embarrassing to libertarians to be dealt with

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    The government more or less claimed the power. Sort of. It started in England, and since the CofE and crown were indistinguishable, it was a cooperative effort (American traditions essentially grew out of British common law, but we codified our ideals in the founding documents instead of relying on precedent and common law as heavily as the UK).

    This battle began centuries ago, when the government was aligned with a particular faith in a struggle for sectarian dominance. In England in the 18th century, the Church of England was given exclusive control over legitimate marriages. Thus, unless you were married by the Church, your marriage was illegitimate

  • AceInTX
  • morostheos

    The point was that cost would increase, not whether or not a study has occurred.

    If you have proof of a study showing that cost will not increase, then let’s see it. Otherwise, see if you can make point that doesn’t involve strawmen.

  • acat

    It shows that you’re having trouble understanding me, I think. Perhaps you’re arguing with someone else?

    Specifically, you stated that I need to spend time dragging my friends to church with me, when I’ve said before that I do not follow your religion, indicates that perhaps you lost your place.

    Thing is, I don’t object to your religion. It’s a force for social good – but it’s not something that I choose to follow, for reasons that will remain my own.

    I know there are many christians doing foster care, but .. they’re not the only ones, even if they are the majority, and in many cases their hands are tied because of government regulations. Talk to some. See what they can and cannot do. I have, so I know there are problems with the system, even with christians in it.

    As for adoption and homosexual couples, unless the church is prepared to step up and provide homes for all available orphans, which has to date not happened, then the kids are still better off with two people who love them than in foster care.

    If a kid is in a government foster care system, then the church has already given over responsibility for who can adopt the child, and should perhaps work to grow a parallel system and put the government one out of its’ misery, instead of whining about the results of their abdication back in FDR’s time.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    I think you know I’ve got you cornered and you won’t admit it…heh

  • acat

    Can’t do it in a one-liner.

    If a person is a member of a group who receive a benefit and a member of a sub-group who do not receive a benefit, then .. yes. It’s a punishment to not receive the benefit that would otherwise be received.

    If the teacher gives fresh oranges to everyone but Jamal because Jamal is deathly allergic to oranges, Jamal is being punished for being different, eh? Not his *fault* his genes are different, just .. is.

    What needs careful consideration is what behaviour the benefit is supposed to reward.

    Are we, with the marriage tax break, rewarding just getting married? I don’t think a tax break prevents unwedded sex, and not many people to get hitched just for the tax benefit either, so .. as a reward, it’s pretty useless.

    Perhaps, as notalibertarian said, it’s a proxy for making babies… but then, why not remove the marriage benefit and provide a larger per-child credit?

    The point is, I am not going to say that withholding a benefit always equates punishment – sometimes it equates to government incompetence.

    Mew

  • acat

    I assert that existing models to keep female recruits safe will work, with some tweaking.

    I further assert that this has already been studied, because one of the things the armed services are very good at doing is studying scenarios, and it’s been obvious since before DADT that this would be an issue.

    Therefore, I would expect this to be able to be handled without cost increasing, if the DoD is allowed to manage it without congress or the president making impediments of themselves, grandstanding, or otherwise not supporting the mission.

    Data is available. I am not your research assistant. If I can find it, prove you’re smarter than I am and find it yourself.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    I

  • AceInTX

    which answers your later criticism:

    As for adoption and homosexual couples, unless the church is prepared to step up and provide homes for all available orphans, which has to date not happened, then the kids are still better off with two people who love them than in foster care.

    and you ignore his and my point that the state is forcing a moral choice between two equally immoral outcomes from the churches perspective which tends to force churches out of the adoption system.

    I’ll also point you to organizations like Agape based in San Antonio that is working to provide the adoption option for babies that would otherwise be aborted that the church is engaged in.

    again…I would think libertarians would be alarmed that the state would enforce such moral dilemmas on peoples consciences….

    maybe that’s something we could all work on together?

  • AceInTX

    If a person is a member of a group who receive a benefit and a member of a sub-group who do not receive a benefit, then .. yes. It

  • morostheos

    Well, that’s a step in the right direction. At least you made a point this time about why cost may not increase.

    As far as research, let me explain how debates work: you make an assertion and then it’s your responsibility to demonstrate that your assertion is correct with something beyond your opinion.

    Using your logic, I’ll just assert that you lack the ability to think coherently. Oh wait, that assertion won’t work since there is plenty of proof right on this page. Oh well.

  • AceInTX

  • AceInTX

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    So yeah, there’s a reason the government encourage them. I don’t find that opposed to the constitution at all.

  • notalibertarian

    I’m not married to the child tax credit issue. Like you, I’m against it in principle. But I do not understand why otherwise sensible conservatives seem so fixated on this issue right now. This tax credit thing certainly isn’t the only reason government is “involved in marriage”.

    My pessimistic attitude is, figure out a way to stop my kids from being legally obligated to support the single people who didn’t have children — single people whose own families benefitted from tax credits when they themselves were children. Fix that first. THEN take away our child tax credit, with my compliments.

  • acat

    As I see it, had the church not abdicated in the first place, y’all wouldn’t be in your current conundrum. Small government types tried to warn ya back then too.

    I’m not ignoring your point that the state is forcing y’all to make a “lesser of two evils” choice. I don’t view it as all that hard. Where there is life, there is hope. I do respect that y’all have the right to make your own choice, and that you don’t much like it. Can’t say that I blame you for disliking it, either.

    The problem with your last paragraph is that it ignores that, by my compass, y’all are the ones denying a child a chance at a loving family, albeit a non-traditional one.

    Mew

  • acat

    You can do that, right? Got the votes?

    Not trying to be disrespectful here but, if you really don’t like the way the government is doing the job then y’all need to get in the fight to reduce government. Not you personally, ‘s why I said y’all.

    And that’s something we can work together on.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    if you (social conservatives in general, not a specific “you”) tried to focus more getting government to stop hindering churches from what they do best and people from living their lives morally, rather than opening up new fronts for government to control the lives of others (gambling, pornography, drugs, multimedia standards of morality, etc). There will always be some “libertarians” out there who care too much about their self-image to work with you, but there are also plenty who would be involved in the GOP if it were sincere on fiscal issues, and if it would tone down on the moral policing aspects of social conservatism. Added bonus: it’d open up a new audience for a secular pro-life message (which is essential if we’re to continue expanding support for the anti-abortion message).

  • acat

    Feeling okay?

    The answer to your question is that the question itself is flawed.

    You’re assuming a boolean answer, yes or no, and I don’t believe that’s valid.

    Mew

  • acat

    I made the same point previously. Perhaps you should learn to read more completely?

    As this is not a debate, I reject your assertion that I have any responsibility to answer your questions. Do your own research.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Acat is not asserting in this case, notalibertarian is asserting that a specific policy is positive. Given that the cost of DADT was ~363 million + opportunity costs, it is notalibertarian who must prove that that cost is justified, if we’re operating under standard rules of debate. Given that this is an internet forum, and not a debate, let’s not pull sophomoric stunts like snottily trotting out debate rules (which you obviously got wrong, anyways).

  • acat

    Otherwise, the immigrants from California, Illinois, New York, and other “big government” states are going to vote their new homes into the same cesspit they voted their old homes into.

    Mew

  • acat

    (but really are just single-issue voters, who don’t think through anything outside their one issue?)

    I am apparently a magnet for these people and would like to know how to repel them instead of attracting them.

    Mew

  • powertothepeople

    in fact I would love to kick the feds out of a ton of things, but it will never be a reality. And we have to live in reality or we are doomed to fail.

    Here is why I said what I said before people start kicking my teeth in:

    States can not rule over their own affairs as long as the Supreme Court exists. Abortion is a prime example. All but a few states had laws making abortion on demand illegal but allowed for the minor three reasons. Two rulings, with the most famous being Roe vs Wade, and every single states law was thrown out. There are pages and pages of laws in just about every state where this has happened. A person in CA can end a law in SC.

    So now you have the issue of marriage. A vast majority of the populace are against gay marriage. States have written laws after votes reflecting that. Yet lawsuits in courts right now may end that across the entire country. If these people win, every single state will have to allow it.

    We have to have the feds involved. Congress will have to write a law that clears the Supreme Court that allows states to define marriage or it will never last. And we do have to define marriage. Most people do not care if gays marry via civil union. It is the attack on traditional marriage that most people are against. If it is not defined, gays win the court battle, church refuses to marry a gay couple, they end up sued for everything.

    Like it or not, the ability of the Supreme Court to trash a states laws makes it necessary to involve the feds to keep that from happening. There is no other way until we either end the Supreme Courts excessive power or shut it down and rely solely on Appeals courts. Neither will happen so we are stuck with reality.

    By the way, most gays could care less about marriage and that was proven in votes in several states, HA included. A ballot issue was up for vote that would give same sex couples the right to join together with the same benefits as married couples under a civil union. The gay community came out hard and voted against it. They only care, as a general rule, about taking away the word marriage so that religious groups are forced to accept them or be sued. It is nothing more than an agenda that started 30 years ago and nothing more. The reality is, they could have long had civil unions with the same benefits as marriage, yet they have fought that compromise. It is an agenda plain and simple….

  • acat

    I said I don’t like the flat tax, but it’s better to the current scenario.

    Must I like the flat tax because I’m a libertarian, now?

    What I would really like is for the Fed to collect taxes via the State. That is, let each State work out how they want to collect for both their needs and their share of the Fed needs. Laboratories of democracy and all that.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    we’ll call it a day on this then

  • AceInTX

    I would quibble with the last line however…

    Having the state force people to do something that violates the dictates of one’s conscience is the very thing pure Libertarians endlessly preach they are about.

    In the words of Thomas Jefferson…written on his memorial

    “I pledge upon the alter of almighty GOD, eternal hostility toward all forms of tyranny over the minds of man”

  • AceInTX

  • AceInTX

    I

  • Doc Holliday

    I suggest we create a Red State Liberty Caucus to defend against a small group of our fellow “friends” who I see taking us on one on one to destroy libertarian-conservatives at this site. I have been here a long time, so when I say something is up, believe me, something is up.

    Sure it is a small group who does the dirty work, but they are empowered by a bunch of new screen names and the fact that the moderators have taken a hands of approach. For example, Ace recently called me a “coward and a liar”. Ace does not know me, how can she call me a coward? She doesn’t know I joined the US Army infantry at 17, but she calls me a coward. Then she calls me a “fool”. Christians are not supposed to call people a fool.

    Look, I can take the hits, that is not my point. But I must tell you straight, I am this close to leaving the site for good. I don’t want to spend my time fighting and insulting people like Ace, life is too short, I have too many real issues to work out. Hell, I am caring for two dying parents. This is not about me, this is the net and anyone can say anything, if you know me, you will know I speak the truth but I only offer it to support my point. My point is that I am ready to leave the site I love for good. If things do not change, I will be leaving, at least for a long cooling off period.

    Anyway, I believe the libertarian conservatives are the driving force of conservatism today. We are the offspring of Friedman, Goldwater, and Reagan. The socons that hate us are trhe offspring of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, and dare I say, Savonarola.

    I think this site is at a crossroads. I think RS is on the precipice of failure. If those who hate freedom because it allows turpitude take over the site and drive libertarians from here, the site will lose relevance for sure.

    I am not asking for friends to help me fight my battles. I have done well here for a long time and I can fight my own battles. But I have a tendency to defend others when they are attacked wrongly, I know I have done that for Ace and many others. Yet I see libertarians ignoring each other and fighting alone. Even though they are ganged up upon by less than clear minded “social” conservatives.

    What it comes down to is this. If this site is going to purge libertarian conservatives I still know that I can remain. Hell I have had a 5 year account at Kos even though I only do them harm. I can play the game and I can screw with people even when they don’t get it. But I am tired of these stupid, pointless fights. I am seeing people know for who they are. We have a bunch of people who are just angry in their own lives and want to take it out on others here. That is something I just don’t care to be a part of anymore.

    So I suggest a RS Liberty Caucus for people who want to stand by their conservative beliefs and also want to stand up for their fellow true conservatives. I think we better recognize that a small group is trying to purge our beliefs from the site. I also think we better recognize we have not friends at the top. This is sad because the best posters here are libertarian conservatives. This is sad because libertarian conservatives are what the people want today and why we won the Congress.

    Look at the people we have on our side, we have Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Thomas Sowell, And many, many others. They have Huckabee.

    My point is not to attack so called social conservatives, my point is to wake them the hell up. We are allies, we agree on 90 percent of the issues unless you are not a real conservative. But keep screwing with us and you will get the “pure” statist minority party you seem to clamor for. The funny thing is I have been Republican longer than 90 percent of the people here. They will knot make us leave the party, they can only make us leave the site, and that will make this site anemic and sterile.

  • morostheos

    notalibertarian did not appeal to a third party to support his assertion. He made a couple of supporting assertions which are open to their own challenges.

    And I’m not talking about formal debates. I’m talking about common sense. If you want someone to accept your statement by appealing to the authority of a study, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the source of the study. Do you? Apparently acat is either unwilling or unable to provide the source.

    But by all means, acat can continue spouting opinions and then back them up with the words ‘studies show’. That’ll show ‘em. Have fun.

  • AceInTX
  • JSobieski

    Either the federal government is a government of limited enumerated powers, or Obama 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc are inevitable.

    Society benefits when we care for the poor.
    Society benefits when people are educated.

    “I don’t find that opposed to the constitution at all” is how liberals read the constitution. I.e. they look and see if something is prohibited in the Bill of Rights, but otherwise say “yup, its ok”

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Same for your all or nothing arguments. The government has a legitimate, constitutional stake in ensuring stable, educated family structures. As always though, the devil is in the details.

    I’m a firm believer in limited powers, btw. I’m also a federalist, so I believe this should be done as close to the local level as possible.

  • JSobieski

    While enhancing those goals in an aspirational sense is consistent with constitutional values, there is no enumerated power for the federal government to achieve such objectives.

    Put in other words, educated family structures have a better chance to develop in a free, safe, and prosperous nation. However, aren’t educated family structures supposed to be secondary impact and not a primary goal of the federal government?

    Put another way, how many social programs by the left have been justified on the basis of assisting family structures?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’m against them. I’m for government removing barriers and providing tax incentives for things that promote a healthy society. This includes business, family, and education. Just because I don’t own a business myself doesn’t mean I don’t benefit from tax incentives that unburden businesses to be able to create jobs. Same for families and education. An educated populace creates a healthy society, of which I am a part. Healthy family structures improve society as a whole, of which I am a part.

    I’m not a Libertarian or Anarchist, which seems to be what you’re proposing. Some government involvement in these areas is beneficial for society. Certainly it should be limited, but not eliminated.

  • acat

    I think that’s my line here, anyway. Prefer that you do it at the ballot box, if it’s all the same.

    And a smaller government, providing fewer services that bring it into conflict with your beliefs, would be a positive for both of us, I think.

    Mew

  • Doc Holliday

    she will tear into you sooner or later. I have tried to be friends with Ace, but in the end it doesn’t work.

  • acat
  • AceInTX

    If you’d like to continue our discussion then I’m happy to do so…but don’t say you’re not going to talk to me anymore and then drive by snipe at me like some sniveling little sissy.

  • JSobieski

    I am in favor of a federal government of limited powers—limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

    From your comments, you seem to be in favor of some type of generic “public good” standard. While you may apply that standard in a way that I would likely agree with, the Obama’s of the world have, are, and will drive a mack truck through it.

    Its a fair queston to ask where in the Constitution is there a basis for some of the incentives that you support. If the answer is “commerce clause” or worse “general welfare” then just understand where those arguments lead to.

  • JSobieski

    or, a viable constitutional argument for federal action that doesn’t allow a bunch of crap that we all agreee stinks.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    This role is limited to what the consitution allows, which is to tax (or not tax) to encourage certain behaviors that benefit society. Business investment tax cuts (create jobs). Child tax credits (promotes healthy families). Education tax credits (promotes an educated populace).

  • acat

    Strikes me as a bit of a conspiracy theory.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    and if you are going to attribute comments to me…please do it accurately…I did not call you a fool and a liar…I called you a coward and a fool

    and I immediately apologized.

    Again…if you don’t want to engage me in debate…that’s fine…if you don’t want to extend grace to me when I’ve admitted my error and asked your fogiveness…that’s fine too…

    but today…while I’m talking with ACAT…you decide to slink in and make a back handed comment…and I responded in kind

    stop playing the martyr and keep me out of your crusade…if you would read through my comments between acat and not a libertarian…I took the libertarian side of the argument and you’d likely find you agree with some of what I said…

    there is no plot against you…and I don’t spend my every waking minute plotting what I’m going to do to offend Doc Holiday next…

    seriously…you need to get a grip

  • Doc Holliday

    libertarians are not big on joining. The Mods care nothing about me, I have been here five years and they won’t even return my emails. I have supported a lot of people here that went on to RS fame, like Caleb. Now we dont even talk. He banned me for over 3 months on a technicality. Anyway, the point is like you said we libertarians don’t join. You might regret this one day, because a group is coming after us.

    I am offended that you think I am the conspiracy type, that is the last thing I am. I proffered an idea to get like minded RS’ers to come together, nothing more. Anyway, I said earlier I am taking a break from the site. I would wish you Godspeed but you don’t need my help.

  • acat

    You can challenge my assertions, but when I challenged notalibertarian’s, I get you up in my grill?

    Thing is, since you haven’t offered anything to prove notalibertarians’ assertion, which I challenged, you’ve pretty much added .. what?

    So. Perhaps you’d like to bring some proof to challenge my assertion?

    Mew

  • aesthete

    I just did an in-page search, and the only person who used that phrase was you. Acat said that the repeal of DADT, should it happen, should be based on hard evidence. He also implied that, since Robert Gates and top military officials believe it is the right thing to do, that the facts may not be as clear cut as notalibertarian made them seem to be. You may have jumped the gun on this one; it’s happened to me and others on this site plenty of times. All the same, it was poor form to respond by pulling the debate card, and by attacking only acat (do recall that notalibertarian was the one who made the initial, and unsourced assertion).

  • acat

    Libertarians are “hard to herd”.

    Did you ever hang out at Hot Air, before the signal-noise ratio went negative?

    No offense regarding the conspiracy comment. Just .. Occam says it’s not the most likely explanation. Not that it’s wrong, just .. not the most likely.

    Mew

  • AceInTX
  • Doc Holliday

    You don’ know anything about me, to call me a sissy,a liar, a coward, and a fool shows you to be a terribly angry person. I really do feel sorry for you.

    And since I am leaving, I am disgusted that the moderators allowed you to say such things. If you said any of that stuff to them you would be banned. I guess it is ok to trash “readers” but not important types. I am not that way, if someone is trashed unfairly I will defend them. I defended you more than once.

    You might think you won by getting rid of me, but you are wrong. I am leaving for my own health, you are left to stew in your own hate. I do hope you realize the error of your ways. There is a small group of angry female “sociol conservatives”, there are three and they know who they are. The odd thing is these “social conservatives” are the most anti-social people I have ever come across.

  • Doc Holliday

    a handful of people are trying to get rid of libertarian conservatives and the mods are playing the Schultz “i see nothing” game. You just lost one, I hope you wake up soon.

  • AceInTX

    you said yesterday was the last word to me

    today you make a snide crack about kissing “her” but

    don’t play the innocent here.

    I don’t want you to leave the site….but if you must

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Please send me an e-mail to my screen name at yahoo.com. I’d like to be able to keep in touch with you.

  • Scope

    I’m thinking about another long time poster here that left also, Swamp Yankee. He never came back to comment, and he wasn’t banned.

  • acat
  • Doc Holliday

    Swamp Yankee threatened me physically. I have a lot of info on Swamp, I know who he is. Why did you mention him?

    I am leaving the site because I am tired of the game. I am most tired that after a great win we are all trying to fight each other. I have real life personal issues to take care of and I don’t have the heart to fight the same ol’ fights with nothing to gain.

    I do wish you well, and I wish I had made more friends here over 5 years. At the moment it seems like a terrible waste of time, but I hope later I can appreciate the time.

  • Doc Holliday

    there is nothing I could do to embarrass you that you do not do on a daily basis. I am tired of the same old arguments. That the mods allowed you to trash me in such a personal way shows I am wasting my time here. You don’t know me, but we do know you. You are a very angry person, I hope that changes.

    the day will NEVER come when I answer the shifting questions you proffer. I have answered all your questions but you keep changing the rules. I could make you the fool with a superior ability of rhetoric but the point is I just don’t care anymore. You have a way of just beating people down to a nub, to the point they just don’t care. And I don’t care about you.

  • AceInTX

    seriously Doc…we disagree on an issue…and I crossed the line in calling you a fool…and I’ve asked your forgiveness

    you’re blowing this WAY out of proportion…I don’t want to see you leave the site…but I also won’t apologize for staking out a position and defending it.

    I don’t understand why that’s so hard for you. acat and I have gone back and forth on this for days and we haven’t hyperventilated over it…we’ve exchanged a few barbs with one another as well…but it’s water off a ducks back. Tomorrow we me have each others back against some SoCon loudmouth who has crossed the line…maybe next week we’ll be at each other’s throats…but in the end…we’re in this fight together…and we’ll stand and fall together.

    I’m sorry to hear about your parents and I’m sincerely telling you if you need anything…say the word and I’ll do what I can…

    and don’t take things so seriously

  • AceInTX

    I’ll do what I can.

    bgo if you must…and know I’ll miss you…but don’t let me be the one to chase you off…and don’t play the martyr if you go…

  • powertothepeople

    as I do with Ace as well. You both bring a lot to the table.

    But the one thing I have noticed Doc is that you can get harsh with people even become insulting. Many times you “insult” in a sly way. But as soon as someone comes with a insult at you, you began to play the martyr bit. I have even seen you demand an apology. By the way, nothing she has said to you comes close or warranted your title calling her a bitch for the world to see.

    Leave or stay, it is up to you. But there is no blog on the web where your thin skin will be safe unless you go to a Disney blog. You make great points, keep making them. But if words can hurt you to the point you quit or feel the need to go around telling everyone that you are a victim and a victim of a conspiracy to get rid of you, you really need to look inside and find some fortitude. The site will be worse of if you leave and no longer pass your thoughts on to us, but it will be even in worse shape if you continue with this victim rant.

  • aesthete

    I’ve always appreciated your perspective on issues, and it would be a shame to leave just as libertarian-conservatism (or at least broad fiscal conservatism) is starting to make headway.

  • acat

    against the poor widdle kitty-cat (with just the fangs and claws) upthread …

    My guess is that there’s two or three things going on in parallel.

    Red State is more popular, and popular sites draw AOLer type lemming-trolls whose contributions consist of finding someone who they agree with and saying “ME TOO!!!!1″. Hot Air is (or was when I left…) buried under just this kind of storm, blew the signal-to-noise ratio to heck there, will have the same effect here.

    Since the election is over, we (the various “-isms”) are now jockeying for position going into the next election. GOProud could afford to risk getting thrown out of CPAC this year, not next year, when it’s The Election Year. This is why there have been a number of SoCon single-issue front page diaries recently. (this one, one on abortion, couple others…)

    Since the election is over, a number of Red Staters of various -isms are venting the frustrations they bit back following the primaries.

    That seems a simpler explanation to me than the Moderators deliberately unleashing flak on the non-SoCons….

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    As I said earlier…Having these arguments makes us better able to defeat the Dems when it comes down to it…because we’ve picked at the holes in each others arguments…so we know either where we have to adjust our reasoning…or how to avoid those holes when taking on the enemy…

  • AceInTX

    Doc is saying “she” to be insulting….he’s well aware I’m male…pot calling the kettle black

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    …he’s not a she.

    As you were.

  • Doc Holliday

    Ace called me a coward, a liar, a sissy and a other nice things. You think bitch is worse? No, coward was the worst one by far, I am a veteran.

    You are wrong in claiming I have a thin skin or I am playing the victim. I have been here for 5 years, you have been here 5 minutes. I am leaving because I am tired of the same stupid arguments, I have more important things to do right now. And I did not write some GBCW diary, I just said I am leaving as a post no theatrics.

  • AceInTX

    actually…I doubt there are high heeled shoes that could hold my weight…hah

  • powertothepeople

    I just assumed from reading responses you were a female but as always with assumptions, it made me into an ass.

    I will not forget again. Ace is a male. I will remember that just as I remember Raven is a male as well.

    I will also quit assuming……………

  • renny

    The homosexual vote for Reps. in 2010 was 33%, a significant contribution, because “gays” often have good discretionary income and do not like tax and spend any more than any conservative does.

  • Scope

    Simply because he was obviously drunk while posting. You pushed him, and pushed him. Then a day or so later you admitted that you were drinking that night also. I read that entire exchange. You threatened him that you were going to call the police, and have him arrested, for threatening you. Yup he said some awful things, that’s for sure. You pushed him to that point knowing he was very well drunk. You are not innocent in that exchange. Yup people need to have control of their beings, and posts. How many times have there been “drunken slurred posts” even by you Doc. Now you play victim that you were threatened. I don’t know where you live, but, obviously Swamp lived in Mass, and, I don’t think you were any way threatened by Swamp, you just wanted to make a big name for yourself as a threatened person. That’s very sad. Who cares what “info” you have/had on Swamp. I didn’t agree with his positions on Scot Brown, period, but, he had the right to defend the person that he did. Please stop playing the victim Doc. I know you are above that. Also, you keep saying that you are leaving RS, but, you can’t seem to leave RS, as many others have not been able to do. Leave, or stop posting that you are going to leave.

  • JSobieski

    (1) government to set tax rates at a certain level and then
    (2) provide tax credits/rebates for behavior that the government approves of.

    Yup, that is exactly how we got into this current mess.

    Dems argue that the NEA “benefits society.” So do heavy subsidies of higher education for people to study politically correct trope. Green energy investments help society. Wealth transfer by any other name is still wealth transfer.

    The tax code, and its use for encouraging certain behaviors is the root of Obamanomics.

  • AceInTX

    Doc called me she…so you had reason to think it was so…

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I say tax credit, you say subsidy. I never said anything about a rebate. We can go back and forth with this all day. You’re misrepresenting my position, and have done so several times now. I’m beyond thinking it’s just a lack of clearly communicating my position.

  • Scope

    on this thread, for the social conservative positions. You have more than earned a stripe on your battle shirt for sticking up for us. Couldn’t have done better than you have, by a long shot.

  • AceInTX

    and I did allow myself to lose my cool at one point

  • JSobieski

    All I am saying about your position is that it opens the door to mischief.

    Tax credits and deductions result in the exchange of money. Rebates may not be the right word, but are you asserting that there is a substantive difference between a credit and a deduction?

    My point is that the slippery slope is NOT a hypothetical in this instance.

    Once the federal tax code became a playground for social engineering, the republic slid very quickly into the abyss. While you may apply the “public good” test more conservatively than many, the fact is that others will not.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Heck, the guys we have now just completely ignore the rules. I’m just not a proponent of fencing the law. Your complaints seem to be more about subsidies rather than tax credits. I assume you’re ok with the homeowner deduction? Business investment tax credits? Perhaps you’re in favor of a Flat Tax or the Fair Tax. I’m not, actually. Same for a balanced-budget Amendment. It takes away the ability of government to react to severe circumstances.

    The right answer is to make sure people that are elected to represent us actually do their job, and if they don’t, vote them out. I don’t have a lot of confidence that’ll happen anytime soon though.

  • notalibertarian

    Changes always cost money. We are talking about going from an organizational framework in which you have two groups that can easily be segregated (straight men+gay men pretending to be straight and straight women+lesbians pretending to be straight) to four very different groups that practically cannot.

    That is why this repeal is such a stupid, stupid idea.

    Disclaimer: I am not calling any posters HERE “stupid”. I am calling the idea that the US armed forces should waste time and energy finding a way to allow soldiers from 2% of the population “be who they are” stupid. Soldiers are not supposed to “be who they are” in any capacity other than “soldier”.

    Back to the cost issue. If you go back to the years following the full-force introduction of women into the military, you will find that if there is any “canard” being inserted in this debate overall, it is the “professionalism” canard.

    The introduction of women into the forces resulted in scandals, sexual harassment lawsuits, accusations of rape, date-rape, mysterious unplanned pregnacies — the list goes on and on. As night follows day, human nature — that unwitting scourge of “professionalism” — immediately took its course, and managing this new collection of young people was made more complicated and expensive.

    (It also must be said that when women were allowed in, we didn’t hear any claims that everyone’s “professionalism” would make it possible for them to all be housed together. At that time, even the professionalism claim wasn’t taken to that level of absurdity. But NOW, professionalism has reached new heights, and segregating soldiers who will experience sexual attraction to roommates is, miraculously, NO LONGER NECESSARY!! Unless you are straight men and women. THEY cannot handle themselves. But gays — they’ve got it all under control.)

    Clearly, unplanned pregnancies will not be a problem in a DADT repeal, but make no mistake, the lawyers are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of this move.

    Finally, we will inevitably have the other complication of gay soldiers wanting “spousal” benefits for their significant others. Unable to provide a marriage certificate, the military will have to figure out a way to determine who is married to whom, and the bar for this one — i.e., what you have to do to be considered a spouse — will be set very low.

    I have no intention of looking for links to prove something that to me is self-evident. If you want to agree to disagree, I’m fine with that.

  • notalibertarian

    She talked about how good the DoD is about studying things before implementing them, implying that the DoD would not support this change if it wasn’t cost-effective. I don’t buy that assertion because of how politicized this issue has become, but others may.

    Regarding Robert Gates, I read someone on Ace of Spades — a site generallly not against repeal — complaining that Gates is Obama’s lapdog. (Not a direct quote). In addition, the new man in charge of the Marines is against the repeal.

  • aesthete

    The Pentagon is hopelessly political, and (particularly in the USAF, not entirely certain about the other branches) reaching higher ranks (anything above O6) requires some political support from higher-ups. Personally, I find outside studies and sources more credible than ones within the Pentagon, but I was merely emphasizing that acat’s assertion was quite different from saying “studies show”, which was what morostheos was asserting that he said.

    Regarding Gates, I’m aware that many have that opinion of the man. My own opinion (which isn’t based on much more than AoS’) is that the man is committed to his job, but that he sees his job as being to implement the foreign policy of the person in charge to the best of his ability, even if he disagrees with it (recall that he’s served under many Presidents in varying capacities). Perhaps that’s just a nice way of saying that he’s a lackey, though. Regarding Gates and DADT, I believe that he’s been noted as being for repeal since 2007. I highly doubt that BHO cares much about gay issues one way or another, seeing as how he did precisely diddly and squat with a supermajority. I can’t see him pressuring his defense secretary to change his position when his AG is working to overturn the ruling that outlawed DADT, and when he’s done nothing so far on any of “their” issues.

  • acat

    This cat is not a “she”. Think alley tomcat.

    And if you read the whole post, then I suspect you also know that I said that the decision of when and how to integrate should be up to the DoD, not Congress, and not the White House.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    However, there is a difference between saying that change is costly and that change is the most costly of all options. To use an example, moving away from state-planned economies was extremely costly for Eastern European countries. However, it was less costly than continuing the course. Clearly, there are opportunity costs involved with turning away open homosexuals (particularly when it comes to linguists), as well as costs associated with prosecution and investigation of DADT violations. Do the benefits of a larger recruitment pool (particularly in the case of some undermanned fields) outweigh the costs of facilitating this change both during transition, and into perpetuity? I don’t know, and as things stand, I doubt it. However, the costs of DADT will likely rise as social norms change, and I believe that the best solution is to leave the extent and form that change will take in the hands of those who will ultimately bear the responsibility for failure or success: the leaders of our military.

  • acat
  • acat
  • AceInTX

  • AceInTX
  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    You add much to the discussion here, even when we don’t agree….aside from the exchanges about with Ace above. Reminded me of the script from a really bad Charles Boyer film from the 50s.

    Everyone one of you need to remember the common enemy here. And it isn’t each other.

  • Doc Holliday

    He took it personally because he felt some type of kinship with the man through a shared regional heritage. He did not leave the site because of me, and he did threaten to physically harm me. I could have made a big deal of it because this was not normal crazy internet banter. However, I told Swamp to stay, and forget it, something I have always done I have always “forgotten it” after an argument goes too far. I don’t know who he is, but I will leave it at that. I am sure he is perfectly happy not fighting on the net all the time, I look forward to it myself.

    What my leaving the site because I am tired of arguing with ruthless, angry people like YOU has to do with Swamp leaving months ago I have no idea. You are the one who brought him up, I had to ask why. I know you are weird and you proved it again. If I were you I would be ashamed of saying the things you do NOT under the influence of alcohol!

  • Doc Holliday

    I thought you were a female. At first I thought you were male but I read others say you were female. I did not call you female or she to be insulting.

  • Doc Holliday

    I only have a problem with two people here, But I am tired of the whole thing. This was not my best thread by far, you can see I didn’t even really want to debate. But this thread really is why I am leaving, all the problems I am having with this place are on display in this thread. Even Scope chips in with a parting shot at me when I have not argued with her in a long time. You know the group of angry social cons that lose their minds, I am not telling you anything. I am tired of them, in fact there are three. I thought they were all women.

    Anyway, Aesthete I had a good run here, more like me than don’t I would guess. But you are the one with the real talent, you are better at sledgehammerring their arguments while being so nice they dare not attack you. You got skills bro’ :)

    Good luck to you.
    Doc

  • powertothepeople

    First this is my second account. I left blogging two years ago and could not remember the pass nor did the email account exist anymore to retrieve it. But that is a side issue since so many of you seem to think length of membership somehow gives one more “conservatism” or “rightness.” That is an issue that will never change as people think a date beside their name adds power and prestige.

    But back to you reply. While he should not have called you names, there are two differences. One, he did so in a post, not a loud title where anyone in the site would see the insult. That alone makes it a huge difference and you know it. Second, he apologized you did not.

    As far as the vet cry. great. Glad you served, did a stint myself in Nam with the 3/3. But we both know that if someone perceives an act of ours as being cowardly and say so, it is not an attack in our service record. To try to twist it otherwise is BS and playing the victim game. We are not known here so the chances that he guessed you were a vet are very slim.

    And you are playing the victim game. You posted numerous posts about this and several different areas, you keep saying you are leaving, yet you keep coming back reviving this whole mess, hence that is a game and you know it.

    I made it clear I enjoy your writings and posting and that the site would be worse off without you, but you are looking for sympathy and nothing more, and most here will not give it.

    Either quit or stay. Write or do not write. But thicken your skin, understand things will get heated, accept his apology and give and sorry in return, and lets get back to business. Politics is not for the thin skinned or the ones who can not take a little heat. You have to chose if you are fit for the trenches or will remain as a cook!

  • AceInTX

    I asked you to keep me out of you rants Doc and you’ve managed to drag this into a three day pout fest whining to Scope, acat, aesthete, powertothepeople and who knows who else in at least three different threads that I know of claiming I called you a liar which I never did and I defy you to prove it.

    This after calling me the B word when I asked you to quit drive by sniping at me like a sniveling little sissy…yet the sniping continues today…three days after this all started.

    Youve said no less that three times now that “This is my last word to you Ace and I’m out of here…and you’ve carried on since last night about how you were gone from Red State and not participating in the arguement any more.

    Can you tell me please…when the good bye tour will end…and when you’ll quit whining to anyone who’ll listen to you what a mean and miserable person I am?

    If you are going to stay…Stay…if you are going to go…go…but lay off me already…I’ve had it with your whining

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

  • Scope

    Take the high road already dude. You should know better than to post to someone who is leaving, but, can’t seem to leave. RS seems to be adictive to many. Stop giving those that want to argue nothing more of a playing field to argue nothing. Let It Go already. IMHO, you have not lost your argument, but, you will if you keep this insane argument going. PLEASE.

  • AceInTX
  • Scope

    very well. Is it not the best idea to make your points, and, then walk away from those that want to do battle? This isn’t even a debate anymore, it is a test of the wills of those that must get their ideas out there, over and over again, and that includes all the commentors on this thread.