PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • antonio2009: It seems that you have recuperated back to your usual self. Felicidades.

  • Gusano: ¡que comebola!

  • asombra: “Cubans who think differently but have common values.” Right. Values like the continuation of the Castro system with...

  • asombra: “Fierce defenders of Cuban sovereignty.” Which one? The one that was turned over to Soviet Russia for 30 years until...

  • asombra: Carlos, at least Weissenstein is not Cuban, which makes him better than Saladrigas. As for the “independents,” well,...

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

A (new) conservative revolution — and it begins with me

Let's just say that yesterday was a bad day.

I had to hear my liberal friends gloat and go on and on and on about how bad the Republicans are. Well, you want to know something? I agree. The Republicans lost because they lost their souls. They forgot they were conservatives first, and Republicans second.

I've been a Republican my entire adult life. My background as the son of exiles, refugees from Communism, no doubt shaped who I am. I've held core conservative beliefs as long as I can remember. I was twelve years old when Richard Nixon was elected the first time. I supported him because, as a young man approaching draft age who was not a Senator's son, I firmly believed he would help us win in Vietnam and end it. I was not looking forward to visiting Southeast Asia at the expense of Uncle Sam. (Thankfully, he ended the draft a year before my eighteenth birthday.) But it turned out that Nixon campaigned to the right, but governed to the left. I was wrong about what he would accomplish; he (and Kissinger) succeeded in destroying whatever chance we had of defeating Communism in Southeast Asia by caving to the desire to make peace. A lesson forgotten, I guess, that peace cannot be permanent when your opponent knows you are weak. After Watergate, I contracted a bad case of RRDS (Recurring Republican Disillusionment Syndrome) until 1976, when a voice arose in the conservative movement that excited my political sensibilities. That voice belonged to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, in that critical time, was a voice of reason, a voice of strength. A real American whose brand of conservatism thrilled me more than you can imagine: small government, deregulation, low taxes, a vital military not afraid to project its awesome power in the world, espousing Judeo-Christian values and the American way. God, I thought then, what a great President he'd make! Unfortunately, the Republicans decided to nominate the then current unelected President, Gerald Ford, co-conspirator of the Warren Commission report, successor to the disgraced Spiro Agnew, and thrust into office by Nixon's resignation. He was soundly beaten by Jimmy Carter who, to this very day, remains the single-worst President of my lifetime -- and that's saying a lot considering LBJ and Bubba. So we know what wisdom the Republicans had in nominating Ford.

In 1980, Reagan was nominated and won by a landslide. Ditto in 1984. While I disagreed with some of what the Reagan Administration did, I was very happy overall with what they accomplished, not least of which was spending the Soviets into the ground and defeating that flavor of Communism, and lowering my taxes. Did he make mistakes? Yes; running from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks, and not ending the Iranian and Cuban threat come to mind, among other things. But he stuck with his conservative principles more than any other President.

In 1988, George H. W. Bush, Reagan's vice-president, was nominated. I voted for him because he was going to be the de facto nominee anyway. But I felt a little uneasy about some of his positions. Four years later, after his broken promise on taxes -- an unforgivable sin to any real conservative (my second bout of RRDS) -- he was defeated by someone who said he was a moderate, a fiscal conservative. To my everlasting shame, I contributed to that person's victory. Clinton, the grifter, conned me. Not a day goes by that I don't remorsefully revisit that error and make an attempt to correct it. I helped cure that mistake in 1994 by helping elect conservatives to the House and Senate. (Even though I was a registered Libertarian, the candidates were few and far between.) Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America was a huge success. A phenomenal check and balance on a President that, if left to his own devices, would have made this country a socialist paradise.

Then 2000 rolls around and the choice before us could not, once again, be more clear. Fornicating with a syphilitic porcupine was preferrable to voting for Al Gore. Bush campaigned to the right. I was happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I have supported him through good and bad. Despite spending like a liberal, with the Republican congress right behind him. Despite inviting Ted Kennedy to help him write the education bill (and that one almost popped an aneurysm in my head). Despite fighting a politically correct war, and not a war to win, in Iraq. I have supported my President. As I've said on many other occasions, the alternative would have been much worse. But six years after his first election, two days after the mid-term elections, conservatives are looking at a looming disaster right in the face. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said this on his radio show:

[. . .] I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to make this too personal.

So, in the end, it comes down to two things: balls and principles. you can't have one without the other. Liberals are congenitally devoid of both. But real conservatives have both in spades. One of my heroes, Winston Churchill, is a model for this: he had the balls to face Hitler and the Nazi threat head-on, and core principles he would not back down from. Reagan had the balls to look the Soviets in the eye and call them what they were: an evil empire. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" God, what a moment to be an American! He stuck to his principles regardless of the flak, regardless of what the scumbags in the press said, regardless of how much he was demonized. Margaret Thatcher? Big balls and big principles. These are leaders, my friends, not compromisers.

My President, whom I have supported through thick and thin, has already caved to Speaker Pelosi and the new Congress. His desire to be buddies, his desire to restart that execrable "new tone" has overridden his need to be a leader. Instead of being pals, he should pull out his pen and say "This is my veto pen. I will use it." Reagan, God bless 'im, said that in a nationally televised speech.

Balls. Principles.

This is my third case of RRDS. It's not fatal, but it's the worst yet. I've thrown away my Dubya mug, and I'll remove my Dubya bumper-sticker from my car tonight. Next week, for the second time in thirteen years, I will change the party affiliation on my voter's registration card from 'Republican' to 'Independent.' I'm done with them until we finally get real conservatives in the party leadership again. Candidates who have balls and principles. When that happens, I'll be back in the fray. Maybe Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, or Mitt Romney, will fit that bill. Maybe not. For now, however, I will be an interested, if not horrified, spectator of the follies that are to come. And God help us, because they ain't going to be pretty.

106 comments to A (new) conservative revolution — and it begins with me

  • 33139

    [Comment deleted because I am sick of this commenter's bullshit.]

  • 33139

    [33139, if you want to be civil, comment away. However I will not put up with your insolent troll crap on this post. I want a debate, not a pissing contest with you. I will ban your ass in a heartbeat if you keep this up. --Pitbull]

  • like kent brockman said, "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work"..

  • Piruli

    George,

    I don't agree with the first poster's tone, but I agree that the Republicans lost because of...

    - not "the War", because we WON the war.

    ...but because of:

    1. THE 'MANAGEMENT' OF OUR CURRENT 'MILITARY INVOLVEMENT' IN IRAQ.

    pure and simple.

    "CONSERVATISM" did not lose in this election. Anyone who thinks that this election was a referendum on 'conservatism', whether coming from the Left of the Right, has not graspped yet the depth of the public's discontent with our current involvement (and how it's been managed) in Iraq!

  • Piruli

    I grant you this scenario:

    If at the start of this year there had been:
    - no U.S. troops in Iraq, and
    - a crackdown on illegal immigration with military surveillance and interdiction on our southern border.

    The Republicans would not have lost the House nor the Senate.

    Pure and simple!

  • George L. Moneo

    Piruli, if we had managed the war in the conservative, non-PC way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It was most definitely about conservative principles. And I want to say that I was not one the cut'n'run Republicans.

  • George L. Moneo

    And you are right about Immigration.

  • LittleGator

    Amen, George, Amen.

    A couple of comments though. I agree with you that the betrayal of conservatism had much to do with the loss.

    But, Piruli is also right. There is deep discontent with the (mis)management of the military involvement in Iraq. That cannot be ignored. There is a great opinion piece by George Will in the papers today. He analyzes the election and concludes that the Republicans were punished "not for pursuing, but for forgetting conservatism." He further concludes that Republicans are "guilty of apostasy from conservative principles at home (frugality, limited government) and embrace anticonservative principles abroad (nation-building grandiosity pursued incompetently)." I think that sums up why Republicans lost the House and Senate.

    Finally, welcome (back) to the ranks of Independent voters. I have to gloat a bit . . . I beat you to it by many years. I switched from Republican to Independent during Bush I's administration in the late 1980's. I have not seen a valid reason to go back.

  • Piruli

    George, I'm as Right as you can go, and I don't want to "cut and run". But, I am one of those that has stopped buying the "cut and run" sell. I am sick and tired of the Iraqis being ungrateful for our people dying there to save their ass. and I am sick and tired of the Iraqis not standing up to defend themselves and instead fighting against each other. I don't see any damn reason to spend a single American life in their damn civil war.

    Here's my plan:

    - Tell the Saudis/Kuwaitis and Iranians that it's up to the two of them to control Iraq, and we get the hell out!

    - We went in destroyed their army, got rid of Saddam and his sons, got rid of the Bathist infrastructure, and NO WMDs. So our job is DONE!

  • First of all George, I think it's a mistake to register as an (I). You will forfeit your right to nominate the Republican candidate of your choosing. You are surrendering the party to the weak-kneed panty waists that you despise.

    Secondly I agree with almost everthing you have written except the immigration aspect. As you know I'm very much pro immigration. I don't mind building a 100 ft. tall wall on the borders but we need to increase the numbers of visas for entry to the US dramatically. Nobody in either party has had the balls to say that.

    The immigration issue is demagogued by both parties and the truth is that it's an issue that affects very few of us.

  • Larry Daley

    Not all was bad about the election. Those who took a zenophobic, distinct from security, stance on on immigration may have gotten elected like Tancredo. However, it was made clear that the conservative "Latin-American, non-Cuban-American" support for the GOP was much diminished and thus they will be listened to more.

    Menendez stayed in
    as did all Cuban American Republicans, and in addition:

    so did Albio Sires from Bejucal
    http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/members.html

    "NEW JERSEY

    REP. ALBIO SIRES (D-N.J.-13)

    BIRTHDATE: Jan. 26, 1951
    BIRTHPLACE: Bejucal, Cuba
    RESIDENCE: Hudson County, N.J.
    OCCUPATION: Owner of A.M. Title Agency Inc.
    EDUCATION: B.A., St. Peter's College; M.A., Middlebury College
    PREVIOUS OFFICE HELD: New Jersey General Assembly member
    FAMILY: Wife Adrienne, one child

    Cuba-born Albio Sires will be sworn in sooner than the rest of the class of 2006; he won a special election to finish the last two months of former Rep. Bob Menendez's (D-N.J.) term. Sires, 55, was elected in 2000 to the state General Assembly and was the body's first Hispanic speaker. He also served as mayor of West New York, N.J., the same town where his family settled after fleeing Cuba in January 1962. A former high school basketball star, the 6-foot-4 Sires returned to the town to teach at his old high school, where he met his wife Adrienne. He first ran for the House in 1986 as a Republican. His stepdaughter, Tara Kole, was a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia."

    Let us hope they keep away from the far left.

  • Piruli

    Larry,

    Your post provides a significant angle to the election. Many of the 'new' incoming Democrats ran to the right of the current Democrat leadership. I am skeptical, but it would be interesting to see if even some small seeds of 'conservatism' can be planted in that party with this incoming class. That would be the irony of the election.

  • 33139

    [Author's note (yes, the author of the post not the commenter): 33139, let's have a debate, OK? But let me be clear: I won't tolerate the crap you do on other posts. Your choice.]

  • Yoan

    I doubt the libertarian-ish wing of the Republican Party will ever overtake the Christian Fundamentalist wing. Which is why I'll probably remain an independent for the rest of my voting days. Oh, and the LP, post-9/11, is a joke.

    On a sidenote: it's annoying to see so much confusion about free speech and private property among all the leftist posters. Jeesh.

  • 33139,

    Relax, man. Commenting is a privilege, not a right. Either tone down your rhetoric and respect my home or expect your comments to be deleted.

    And George, if you're going to post an entry like this one, you need to expect plenty of attacks.

  • One thing George wrote should resonate with every conservative out there:

    The Republicans lost because they lost their souls. They forgot they were conservatives first, and Republicans second.

    Remember, fellow conservatives, we choose to be Republicans because we're conservatives, not vice-versa. If the Republican party deserts conservative values, then they no longer represent us.

    Having said this, I won't change my party affiliation because conservatives need a strong and true Republican Party, and the only way to accomplish that is by voting for worthy Republican candidates.

  • 33139

    Robert -- The GOP *has* lost its soul on a lot of issues, but it did not lose the election for that reason. Poll after poll is proving that fact. People were anti-GOP because of Iraq and Iraq only.

  • Miguel-O-Matic

    It will be fascinating to watch the tug-of-war between the more moderate newly elected Democrats and the "old guard" (Rangel, Conyers, Dingell, et. al.) taking over chairmanship of key congressional committees.

  • Nydia

    I agree with Piruli when he says:
    "Anyone who thinks that this election was a referendum on 'conservatism', whether coming from the Left of the Right, has not graspped yet the depth of the public's discontent with our current involvement (and how it's been managed) in Iraq!"

    This election was totally about the war. Perhaps if Bush had gotten rid of Rumsfeld sooner we could've kept a lot of seats in the House and the Senate.

    Check out below an excerpt from Time Magazine's website today:

    "Since it came just minutes after Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi called for new civilian leadership at the Pentagon, the announcement of Rumsfeld's firing might be seen as an act of political expediency, a sacrificial offering to the newly powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill. And it was. But the truly expedient thing to do — the move that might actually have helped Bush and congressional Republicans when it mattered, before election day — would have been to fire Rumsfeld last week, last month or last year.
    That Bush didn't act sooner was politically foolish. Far more seriously, by waiting so long he let his pride get in the way of a much-needed change in Iraq policy. That mistake didn't just cost the Republicans seats in the Congress. It may have cost lives."

    I don't know if Gates will be able to solve any of the problems concerning the Iraq war, but for the sake of our soldiers, the Iraqis and our country I pray he will.

  • 33139,

    If Iraq and Iraq only is the case, then you prove George's point. And I quote:

    So, in the end, it comes down to two things: balls and principles.

    The GOP's kowtowing to the PC crowd and liberal media bullshit, is the only reason why there are issues with Iraq. Had this administration and fellow GOP congressmen not allowed their hands to be tied in fighting this war, Iraq would be a non-issue.

  • 33139,

    First off it was obvious that "the author" was referring to the author of the post not the author of the comment. You knew that and are trying to make hey out of it.

    Secondly, yes among the more liberal minded Iraq was the issue, but the Republicans that voted against the republican candidates or stayed at home did so because of their disgust with the abandonment of conservative principles. Besides the President wasn't running. Each race had it's own personality and nuances. For example Clay Shaw's district is not the same one he represented for so many years. The new district favors a Democrat. In the race between Shuler and Taylor, Shuler ran as a conservative Democrat.

    The Dems have already said "don't expect a pull-out out of Iraq". So you can say that it's Iraq but Iraq was around in 2004 and guess what Bush won.

    And don't forget the fact that most Americans (non-political junkies) are very much influence by all the media about Iraq. Just like Vietnam where militarily there is no doubt the US was winning, it just became unpopular and people wanted to close the chapter.

    Whatever Dude, I don't care what you say as you obviously get your jollies by anagonizing a bunch of people that you already know disagree with you.

    And the argument about comments being deleted is so old, weak and stupid that it's hardly worth commenting on. If we're hypocrites because we have guidelines for comments, so be it. Go play in someone else's sandbox. Oscar Corral doesn't delete any comments. Go over there.

  • folks, also keep in mind that every single Democrat leader, during and after the Clinton Adnminsitration, stated, quite clearly and in no uncertain terms, that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be dealt with. ALL OF THEM STATED IT.

    So for all those who think the War in Iraq was a bad move, think again. One has to be incredibly naive to think that A) saddam wasnt trying to get WMDS after having tossed out UN inspectors for years and B) that Hussein's governmnet had no connections with Al Qaueda and other terrorist groups.

    That the war was handled less than perfectly? Of course. How could it not, if with every single move we made either the press was crying "The sky is falling!" and the liberals making political hay of same, taking up the press's message and spewing forth inacurracies, lies and other bullshit not because they themselves thought the war was wrong, but because it was a POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY to advance themsleves and their party.

  • hemetero

    Hey George, from your post it looks like you are comming to my way of thinking. Being an Independent is a good thing, It's like being a free thinker, you got to bet back to listening to rush a little more and you will be fully converted.

    Like I said before, the republicans should learn from Arnold here in California, he's fiscally conservative and liberal in social issues, he's learned to work with the democratic majority, that's how reagan did it when he was governor here and that's the model that's going to win elections in the future, let's call it Pragmatic Centrist Conservatism ( just made it up! ).

    The Compasionate/Moralist Conservatvism of Bush is dead, May it rest in peace!

    ray

  • George L. Moneo

    Ray, Arnold is a liberal, A classic R.I.N.O. if ever there was one. That's the reason he was successful in California. The last conservative governor of California was in almost 15 years ago.

  • George L. Moneo

    I am not an independent. That's the only non-affiliated choice given me ny the state of Florida if I wish not to register a party affiliation.

    I am a conservative. An 'independent' is just another name for a weak-kneed sissy-boy who wants to straddle both sides of the street so everyone will like him. I don't care if they like me. That's one of the problems we've had as "Republicans" over the last 18 years. We are desperate to be loved and forget that respect sometimes is more important in the world of politics.

  • George L. Moneo

    And Ray, one more thing: While I have always hated the "compassionate conservative" label, I'm still against many social changes you call "moralist": abortion, gay marriage, parental notification, etc. If that labels me a "moralist" so be it.

  • Rey

    George, maybe you should consider not changing your party affiliation to Libertarian. Staying a Republican means you can vote in primaries, and make your desire to return conservatism to the nation's political stage heard with your vote. You can still vote Libertarian in the next election if the GOP doesn't nominate someone with your principals, and perhaps you can help guide the candidates chosen.

  • hemetero

    Geroge, When you mean liberal are you talking about social issues such as a gay marriange, abortion etc...? Is it the goverment role to legislate morality?

    ray

  • FL Mom

    If this election was a referendum on Iraq, then the MSM has succeeded in its relentlessly negative coverage of the war. If I read only papers and watched tv news to get info, I too would be disappointed in the war effort because the "reportage" is 94% negative! http://tinyurl.com/yj8zx2

    33139- Just my observation: I think George was referring to himself as the author of the original post, not to you as the author of the comment. I was also confused by the wording at first until I realized maybe what George meant by "the author."

  • George L. Moneo

    Rey, I was a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party for many years. 9/11 cured me of that lunacy. Maybe you and Henry are right; maybe I should stay in. Either way, I am pissed off.

    Robert nailed it though: the Party owes us. We are members only if they are in line with our beliefs, not the other way around.

  • George L. Moneo

    Abortion? Murdering babies? Yes, that's a moral issue. Gay marriage? Yes, although that is not a moral issue, that is more of an socio-economic issue than anything else.

  • Jonathan

    Ahnuld can cut deals with the Democrats in the CA legislature and the only people affected are in CA. But if Bush now pulls us out of Iraq because he would rather "accomplish" deals with Congress than stick to his principles it will be a catastrophe. The Left, and particularly the old media, keep repeating: Vietnam! But they never bother to extend the parallel to the aftermath of Vietnam in which millions of people were killed, imprisoned or oppressed and US interests were set back for many years. If we get out of Iraq without winning we will betray millions of people who have risked their lives based on our promises. And unlike in Vietnam, in this war the enemy will pursue us if we retreat. We can either fight them there or, eventually, we will have no choice but to fight them here.

    There are good reasons why US election dates are staggered chronologically. Bush wasn't up for reelection in this cycle. He will have to change course tactically in order to be effective in dealing with Congress, but there is no reason for him to go back on his principles or otherwise repudiate the war against Islamic fascism. If he does so he will betray the people who voted for him, as well as those who risked their lives based on his word. I'm not optimistic, based on his behavior immediately after the election, but only time will tell.

  • hemetero

    George, i have never met a gay that has threaten my marriage, nor do i need goverment to sanctify it for me! If bobbie and willie want to get married that's their business they are no threat to me or my wife.

    Regarding the war, this was has already been lost, they are just trying to figure out how to get out there gracefully without lossing face. The fix is already on the works, rumsfeld is the fall guy, Baker's guy is in, stay tune!

    ray

  • George L. Moneo

    Ray, if the citizens of a state wants to enact a "civil union" law, designed primarily for economic reasons, fine. That's their call. But not marriage; that is sacred and it's between a man and a woman. Period.

  • Ray,

    Please provide some data backing up the "war has already been lost" statement.

  • George if the Republican primary for president tomorrow and John McCain were running against the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, wouldn't you want to be able to vote? By being unaffiliated you would not be able too. Enough conservatives do that and you have nominee McCain. Not me pal. Our party is broken, I give you that. But you're not going to fix it by abandoning it. You fix it by replying to those emails that the RNC sends you and giving them a piece of your mind.

    As for Rush's comments, I lost a lot of respect for him. He should have never put himself in a position to "carry water" for anyone. If a Republican is in favor of a liberal proposal he needs to call the guy out on it. That's the way it works. Look at the Myers nomination. That was unacceptable and the President was forced to can her.

  • hemetero

    Val, is just my opinion on the war, just observing the spin that's goin on. Rumsfeld was in last week, is out this week, I see Baker is comming out with a report on the war, Baker will be running the war from now on, I also see that the new secretary is baker guy, if you do a little google on the new secretary you'll he's not hawk, he was a war protestor in the 60's, just connect the dots. I'm sure the fix is already in the works. Just my opinion again!

    Regarding gay marriage. I guess i'm a liberal when it comes to moral issues or maybe a liberterian. I certainly don't swant the goverment or any religious zealot defining morality for me.

    ray

  • Ray,

    I agree with you about the gay marriage thing in this respect. The government should get out of the business of rubber stamping what is essentially a religious institution. We are all individuals under the law. We have all these problems like alimony, child custody, marriage penalty taxes, because of it.

    If marriage were left to be a purely religious institution, then gays could form or join a church that would recognize their marriages. It probably wouldn't be the church I go to, but who cares?

    But here's the thing, most gays don't want to marry. Some do, sure. But what they want is something more. They want everyone to think that being gay is OK. And while you and I may think being gay is OK, some people don't want it shoved down their throats (if you pardon the pun).

    And here's the other thing Ray. You are never going to have 100% agreement in any political party. The two predominant parties are big tents. The Dems tent is bigger in the sense that they have more types of groups and less common ground. In our tent there are really only 2-3 groups. We need to be able to agree to some core commonalities and accept that we may have to compromise with some groups in our party.

    For example, to me the gay issue isn't a big deal like it is for the evangelicals. To me taxes and regulation is a big issue. I'm willing to go along with the party in its stand against gay marriage to get what I want.

    Besides, the attempts to paint the republican party as being this draconian anti-gay bible thumping entity is farcical.

    Today you can get porn right on your computer, you can say whatever you want whenever you want, you can be as queer as you like (and that's with 6 years of complete control of the government and 12 years of control of the house).

    So don't buy into all the liberal propaganda.

  • George L. Moneo

    Henry, I may change my mind on the party affiliation deal. But I'm not totally convinced yet. For the record, my wife agrees with you. But she knows that I am stubborn when I've made up my mind.

    As for Rush, I completely understand what he did because I (and you and a lot of other conservative Republicans) have "carried water" over the last six years. As he said (and as I've said in other writings) the alternative to supporting the Republicans was much worse.

  • Alberto Quiroga

    I don't consider myself a savvy political analyst; nevertheless I think Lieberman's victory shows that more voters in the future will be willing to support candidates who they believe support their core values regardless of party affiliation - perhaps this is a much-needed wake-up call for BOTH parties.

  • hemetero

    Henry, I'm not buying into any liberal propaganda, religious zealots are more scary to me than democratic liberals.

    I just want the goverment to function smoothly, protect our borders our ports, cut speending. Whoever does this better get's my vote.

    I'll figure the morality issues, i don't need help from the goverment there. This guys can't even protect the pages in congress.

    ray

  • hemetero

    Val here's an article on the Baker Sutdy

    http://www.nysun.com/article/41371

    Just connect the dots

    ray

  • WOW George, you got me on the article, although I don't think you should change because it is important that you vote in the primaries.
    "Balls and Principles" I could not say it better. And Reagan to me will always be "el domador del caballo." That's the kind of man that I want for president.

  • Ray if you're not buying into the liberal propaganda then answer these questions:

    Do gays have more freedom, acceptance, rights, etc. today than in 1980?

    Remember that of those 26 years a Republican has been in the White House for 18. The House has been in Republican hands for 12 years. The Senate has been in Republican hands for a bunch of those years too. So are gays "under assault" from Republicans? It would be ridiculous to say so.

    What other moral issues are we talking about? Abortion? The country is still very divided on that issue. The fact is that an embryo develops into a fetus and a fetus develops a human being. When the magical moment occurs that it is bestowed upon with constitutional rights is a judgment call right now, but that moment does exist otherwise there would be no difference between killing a newborn and having an abortion. And obviously society believes that there is a difference. Abortion opponents want to have the debate and let states decide. While abortion proponents want to lock in a 5-4 decision from 30+ years ago. I understand it's the Supreme court but the court also upheld the barbaric practice of slavery so it's far from infallible.

    No, Ray I think that's exactly what happened. You bought into the idea that the relgious "nuts" control the agenda. They have a loud voice, but as a practical matter they don't have the power that liberals ascribe to them. It's a bogeyman for the left and middle America eats it up and regurgitates it thanks to the left-wing media.

  • hemetero

    Henry you are killing me! First of all i'm not a partisan. I try to reason these issues out as how to they affect my life, yes i'm a selfish, but it's my life. Sometimes i come out on the liberal side, sometimes i come out on the conservative. Sometimes i don't have a clue. Hey that's what being an independent thinker is all about and that's why i like comming to this blog, it forces my to think through this things.

    When it comes to moral issues, i don't need the goverment or jerry falwell or pat robertson or the last gay reverend to define those things for me. Abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, ten-commandement those are all moral relgions issues that in my view the goverment has no business deciding. I rather they spend time an my tax dollars on the important things.

    Again whoever does the bet job at this gets my vote.

    ray

  • Yoan

    You went overboard with this one George:

    An 'independent' is just another name for a weak-kneed sissy-boy who wants to straddle both sides of the street so everyone will like him.

    If by 'independent' you mean 'centrist,' then I don't have an issue with your comment, and I would tend to agree. But there are genuine independents who could give a rat's ass about what anybody thinks, and who believe that - in the end - political parties are nothing but corrupt, self-serving institutions.

    We've seen that with the GOP this year, we've seen it with Whitewater and Chinese campaign financing, and we live with it everyday here in Hudson County, NJ, where the Democrats care about how much money they can skim off the top, and nothing else.

    There are independents out there who could give a rat's ass who marries who, whether Juanita is Catholic enough because she had an abortion, or whether the poor Mexican around the corner is getting hired by an Anglo to work illegaly for dogshit wages.

    There are independents out there who want our government small, our taxes low, and our trade free.

    And there are independents out there who want to see Islamofascim destroyed, and who have put on a uniform and carried a machine gun toward that end.

    Sorry, but we're not "weak-kneed, sissy-boys." We're just people who realize that NO political party represents our interests. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the Libertarians. And probably never will.

  • hemetero

    Yoan, what's your beef against Centrists?. Why Can an idenpedent be a centrist with no allegiance to any party ?

    ray

  • George L. Moneo

    Sorry. Got carried away with the generalities.

    That's what I meant, Yoan: centrist. I hate the "independent" label. It has way too many permutations. Most "independents" I know also classify themselves as "moderates" which I also hate. I know you're not a centrist by a long-shot. I classify you as a conservative/libertarian 'cause that's where you fall in your ideals.

    Now put the weapon down, soldier, and walk slowly away... :-)

  • PLP

    Yoan:

    Never put the weapon down !! Thats when we loose it all. I agree with you 180% .Whats up Ray ?Never went to PHX to have a Guarapo .Hey George that e-mail Ziva sent you for me was a Joke mi hermano (they completly blocked me at work from all the blogs and all the internet e-mails having the word blog ass).Val: como te cientes mi hermano!!

  • hemetero

    PLP, the man from Goldwater Land! Are you sure you want to have guarapo with a liberal, conservative, centrist, libertarian?

  • Louis

    I believe the Democrats won because of discontent with Bush, the corruption scandals, the do nothing GOP Congress, and the mess in Iraq -- in that order. The Dems have no stated agenda -- just "We're Not Bush". They have no platform or national agenda for the nation to rally around.

    After the Clinton years the GOP majority became soulless, corrupt, fat, happy, and stupid. They went against their principles, proposed nothing of real value, reformed nothing, and spent like drunken sailors. On top of that, our supposedly conservative president let it all happen and not once took out a veto pen to temper their habits. I'm very disappointed in them and Bush.

    The best way to recapture the Congress is to do exactly what George prescribes: Stick to your principles and have some balls. Voters didn't endorse liberalism or repudiate conservatism. Hell, many of the freshmen Dems are pretty moderate -- look at Casey & Carney in PA and Heath Schuler in NC. These are pro-life and pro-gun guys. The GOP got tossed out for betraying the reasons why they became a majority in the first place.

    Hopefully their time in the minority will chasten them and they'll remember their principles, find or grow some balls, and return as the true Party of Reagan.

  • God bless you, Louis. We were the Party of Reagan; today, we are not even in the same ballpark...

  • Louis

    God bless you, too, George. I'll smoke a cigar with you anytime.

  • PLP

    Rey:

    Que comemierda eres!Eres Cubano si O no ? I have no problems to have a guarapo with you (even though you are a liberal -In time I will help you with that problem you have)hehehe.

  • hemetero

    PLP,comemierda??? my friend i'm an individual, we share the same culture, but not the same views, i'm touched that you want to help me with my liberal issues, are you going to send me some money to help me out ?

  • Amy

    I'll send you some money so you can buy a clue . . .

  • I wish I would have been able to meet Reagan. He has been the best US president in 50 years.
    May God hold Reagan very close to Him.

    PLP: tirale el guarapo por la cabeza a ver si la ca~a de azucar le despierta las neuronas.

  • Melek

    IMHO, We can go back and pick our brains and keep dwelling on the reasons Democrats gained majority control of the House and the Senate ... but this will have no impact on what happened on Tuesday.
    As already mentioned here ... maybe it had to do with the war in Iraq, corruption, constituents wanting a change, or simply that this is not uncommon in mid-term elections regardless of which party holds residency in the White House. Let's not overlook the fact that similar to a tennis match, the final score does not do justice to the individual points ... and many of these races were narrowly won! We can point fingers and blame President Bush for not announcing Rumsfeld resignation before Tuesday. Let's remember that President Bush "can't win" he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I believe that he intended to announce Rumsfeld's resignation the day after the election regardless of the outcome (to show a change of direction in Iraq). Let's not forget that he was quite clear in stating that he will find common ground with the Democrats for the benefit of America, but he will not compromise his principles ...
    As the saying goes "Borron y Cuenta Nueva" ... hopefully the Republican Party takes to heart the lessons learned from these elections ... I'm a Republican. I also don't agree with every stance that my party holds, but I'm not going to jump ship! At the end of the day ... it's a matter of principles!

    I wish you well :) Melek

    The Father and His Sons A father had a family of sons who were perpetually quarreling among themselves. When he failed to heal their disputes by his exhortations, he determined to give them a practical illustration of the evils of disunion; and for this purpose he one day told them to bring him a bundle of sticks. When they had done so, he placed the faggot into the hands of each of them in succession, and ordered them to break it in pieces. They tried with all their strength, and were not able to do it. He next opened the faggot, took the sticks separately, one by one, and again put them into his sons' hands, upon which they broke them easily. He then addressed them in these words: My sons, if you are of one mind, and unite to assist each other, you will be as this faggot, uninjured by all the attempts of your enemies; but if you are divided among yourselves, you will be broken as easily as these sticks. ~ Aesop

  • hemetero

    qb: I find it comical that when someone doesn't see it your way politically there's always some idiocy in the that person or they are looone, or they are whacky liberal or they have a defective neourone. if there's something irrational in my thinking show me, argue why your way of thinking is better for me.

    You know i rather be wrong in my thinking and know that's my own thinking than to conform into some sort of collective group mentality.

    ray

  • PLP

    Co~no Ray .Tu dice que somos de la misma cultura pero te pones cabezon quando hablamos de Cuba en el centido que los liberterians no de importan 3 cacas lo que pasa en Cuba o con los cubanos(thats you and me bro).So I ask you this Ray (Do you give a rats ass about the land that your father/mother and you were born in?).Because if you do how in the hell can you be chummy chummy with the same people or political parties that dont give a rats ass about us .Maybe you and I can re-educate these ingnorant individuals so the same shit doesn't happen here in the good old USA.HUH bro?

  • LittleGator

    Ray,

    Right about now you must be feeling a little like Custer at Little Big Horn. Outnumbered, and with the opposition in no mood to reason with you.

    C'est la vie.

  • She's got you over a barril, Ray.

  • hemetero

    Amy, wow!! what are you talking about? what people, what political parties, i don't belong to any political party, i'm liberal when it comes to social issues, a liberterian when it comes my life, what does that have to with cuba. Show me in my posts what you are talking about then i can reply intellgentily to your rant.

    How you can make a judgement on what i care or don't care about you don't even know me. A little kool aid would do you some good!

    ray

  • Zhangliqun

    I'm a new guy, not exactly Cubano (Irish-ano more like) but have been lurking for a while.
    I agree that the GOP is paying the price (as are we all) much more for abandoning conservative principles than for Iraq.

    The biggest problem we have by far in this country regarding the war is not leadership that is caving in to PC doctrine but an electorate that is poisoned by the daffy notion that we're not really at war and Islamo-fascism isn't a threat. We've gotten fat, lazy and complacent as a people and tend to think that if lightning isn't striking us or there are no tracers flying past our head immediately after we do something, then it must be okay. It's precisely this tunnel vision, a creation of post-modern, relativistic/nihilistic beyond-good-and-evil thought that keeps us more concerned about the results of American Idol than the Battle of Fallujah that makes PC a powerful useful-idiot force that our enemies can, will and have already exploited. (Think the ramping up of attacks in Iraq and Afghan in October were a coincidence?)

    It's fine to carp about 'mismanagement' or mistakes in war by our leadership -- but it is a fatal sin to fail to keep it in historical perspective and as a result to panic and quit. We tend to look back at WW2 with rose-colored glasses seeing only glorious victories one after the other and the sky filled with planes in 1944-45. We don't tend to remember the horrible losses and setbacks and disasters and near disasters, and there were plenty of them.

    The only defeat anyone tends to remember is Pearl Harbor. They don't remember Hurtgen Forest, Wake Island, Java Sea, Manila Death March, Market Garden, Anzio Beach/Monte Cassino, Savo Island, Cape Esperance, Kasserine Pass, just to name a few. Even less do they remember the horrible blunders that took place in battles we won, like Normandy where absolutely NOTHING went according to plan on D-Day and the fiasco of assuming that the hedgerows farther inland were just 1-2 feet tall like in England (instead they were 6-12 feet tall and made ideal defensive positions for the Germans who took FULL advantage), or Leyte Gulf where Halsey was baited away from the beach head to chase empty Japanese carriers, leaving the invasion fleet with its pants around its ankles. Had Adm. Kurita not lost his nerve and turned around, or found out Halsey's carriers were gone, his battleships would have wiped out the invasion fleet like fish in a barrel. The invasion of the Philippines would have been impossible and Roosevelt likely would have lost the '44 election and a peace would have been negotiated with Japan.

    My brother was nearly killed in Afghanistan. Four of his men weren't so lucky. He is a bit scarred from the incident as you might imagine. He may have to go back. So I do have a personal stake in this war for any libs out there with the word "chickenhawk" at the tip of your typing fingers. That said, though we have a lot of problems, including not nearly enough troops and an Iraq Campaign not being run according to tried-and-true counter-insurgency doctrine, there is no retreating to within our borders and forgetting the whole thing. The lessons of history are that there will also be other problems, other defeats and other disasters, and plenty of things that NO-ONE can foresee right now. It is ALWAYS that way in war. ALWAYS.

    So if we are going to adopt a national attitude and policy that we should never go to war unless we believe we can be guaranteed that not only victory but victory without significant problems or defeats is a mathematical certainty, then it is time to start measuring our women for burqas. But if like me you're not quite ready to start studying Arabic and the Koran, then the only answer is to fight them, fight them, and keep fighting them, regardless of setbacks and defeats and even disasters, until the language of Islamo-terrorism is spoken only in Hell.

  • hemetero

    LG, you know what, that goes with the territory, when one thinks things for himself and tries not to conform the group-think, he's not going to be loved.

    I'm don't come here to this blog to get approval, i usually try to give an opinion and my reasoning for it, just show me where i'm going wrong, let's reason together, calling me names doesn't bring us close to any truth.

    ray

  • Holy fucking shit!

    So if we are going to adopt a national attitude and policy that we should never go to war unless we believe we can be guaranteed that not only victory but victory without significant problems or defeats is a mathematical certainty, then it is time to start measuring our women for burqas. But if like me you're not quite ready to start studying Arabic and the Koran, then the only answer is to fight them, fight them, and keep fighting them, regardless of setbacks and defeats and even disasters, until the language of Islamo-terrorism is spoken only in Hell.

    Zhangliqun, where in hell have you been hiding? You're a kindred spirit and 100% on the money! Welcome aboard!

  • Vedado

    Ray are you a Libra?

  • hemetero

    What's a Libra? you mean my astroligical sign? If so AQUARIUS.

    Does that explain it? Please enlighten me!!!

  • Jeff Baker

    The Repubs better remember this in the future:

    "When a Liberal runs against a Liberal, the Liberal will win everytime."

    Hint! Hint! Cut spending, lower taxes, either shit or get off the pot in Iraq, block the borders immediately and put morality back in out schools. It's that Simple.

    Screw this compassionate "Feelings" crap. Bad song! Bad policy! This conservative country is fed up with it. Walk the walk. Screw the talk.

  • PLP

    Ray :
    I truly believe you come to this blog because your Cuban spirit has been stirred in a way
    that in your liberal centrist mind being so far away from other Cubans has opened it up
    and stirred your soul.Have you read Fontova's book my liberal brother?

    Zhangliqun :
    what a beautiful post and on the mark .Makes me proud that I served this great country
    .My prayers are with your brother and all the soldiers in the service .

  • PLP

    George:

    Do not fret my friend I will start a new party in politics called the PLP party .I can't wait to see how the elections in Venezuela turn out .

  • hemetero

    PLP I agree i like comming here and see how you all think, in some case it has changed my way of thinking.

    i don't know what being liberal in social issues ( like gay rights, abortion, 10commadments etc... ) has to with my Cuban Spirit and caring about Cuba.

    I think the liberal word stirs you all in the wrong way. As far as being centrist that's just a personal philosophy, i try to avod extremes, finding the middle ground the center has served me well over the years. Collective group-thinking is not for me.

    PLP i respect and defend your right to think anyway it makes sense to you, just don't expect me to agree with you my friend. I'll have guarapo with you next time i'm in Goldwater country, who knows we may even agree to disagree.

    ray

  • Yoan

    Hemetero/Ray:

    What's my beef with centrism?

    Now that El Pitbull has clarified his comments, I would just refer you to what he wrote about 'independents' and ask that you make the appropriate substitutions.

    George:

    I tend to shy away from the conservative label, if only because of the Pat Buchanans and other Paleos of the world. I prefer 'libertarian with balls.' Haha. Saludos.

  • PLP

    Ray I am not trying to convert you bro .Thats up to you my man .All I know is that I can never chum up with a political party that is bad for this country (it does concern our security if we allow the rest of the world that wants to see us destroyed go unchecked ex:Cuba,Venezuela because cuba ,Iran ,Iraq ,Seria,North Korea ,China ect.....).If the libertarian group realize that this world is bigger than our borders I would jump on their bandwagon in a second .Like I told you b-4 you can come to PHX anytime and we can have a guarapo and play some dominoes and discuse all the issues without a problem .Don't think that I am a closed minded individual bro .If you havent read the book that I sugested pls do soo .It was a great read and factual.

  • hemetero

    PLP, I fail to see the link between being liberal in social issues and national security. I thinking you are making some assumptions about me there becuase i used the word liberal. If we follow that line of reasoning Barry Goldwater the father of the conservative movement would be considered a liberal, he was for gay right, woman rights.

    I don't belong to any political party. The liberterian deal is more of way of thinking, live and let live approach to issues, life etc, get the goverment of my back way of looking at things.

    I'll check it out the book that you sugested, my friend.

    ray

  • PLP

    I agree with you on getting big government off my back.As far as gay rights and Goldwater.Im from Missouri show me -hehehehe-If that was true they would have hung him by the balls back then.

  • PLP

    Yoan :

    in which state are you in now since you got back from the sand doom?

  • PLP

    I mean sand dune OOPPPs

  • hemetero

    PLP, here's an article on Barry Goldwater, that shows you where i'm taking about

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm

    See here is Mr Conservative, but socially liberal. Now tell me where I'm going wrong in my thinking.

    ray

  • PLP

    Ray the article was by whom and when

    By Lloyd Grove
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, July 28, 1994; P

    back when he was running for president then he wasntvocal .Anyway my issues are not
    about gay rights or abortions or the likes.My issues are with the defence of the country
    and we are giving it away and pls do not tell me by building a fence from Cal-Texas will
    stop the terrorist or their ilk .The country gets attacked and everything else will go to
    shit(stockmarket/airlines/the works).The times have changed my friend .The olive branch
    doese not work with fanatics .Have you ever seen or heard of Glen Beck?I think he is a
    conservative?Check him out.

  • Ray,

    You claim to be an independent thinker. Well let me give you something to think about.

    Why is any behavior illegal in our country? It's easy to say that conservatives want to legislate morality. But why is murder illegal? why can't I lay in wait outside your house and bludgeon you with a baseball bat? Why can't I grab a baby out of a maternity ward and bring her home with me? Obviously it's because society considers these behaviors to be wrong. They aren't acceptable. Call it ethics, morality, social mores, whatever. These are subjective things. And they change over time.

    If a man can marry a man why can't a man marry a dog? Why can't 4 men all marry each other? Why can't you and I marry Britney Spears at the same time?

    C'mon your resorting to intellectually lazy arguments that conservatives want to rule your life but you avoided answering my question about whether gays have more acceptance and rights today than they did before the "conservative revolution".

    I'm not saying they got that acceptance or those rights because of conservatives but the fact that conservatives were in power did not hinder them from gaining that acceptance and those rights. As a society we've never been more socially liberal than we are today. It's pretty much anything goes. So where's the beef. Where's the evidence of this Republican control of your life. There isn't any. It's just a bunch of partisan rhetoric used by the other side to avoid having an agenda of their own.

    As far as being an independent thinker, I think you are insinuating that I am not one. That I am purely partisan. But I don't see any other Republican advocating for the government getting out of the marriage business like I am.

  • PLP

    Henry:

    CO~NO

    Why can't you and I marry Britney Spears at the same time?

    That was rough !!Maybe si la emboracha yo te ayudo brother man.Barabing baraboom.

  • Yoan

    PLP:

    Dirty Jersey

    Conductor:

    The fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party is *absolutely* trying to control our lives.

    If a man can marry a man why can't a man marry a dog? Why can't 4 men all marry each other? Why can't you and I marry Britney Spears at the same time?

    First of all, we should get government out of marriage and enforce marriage contracts like any other legal contract. That rules out your dog marriage. Second, if 4 men want to write a legal contract marrying each other, who are you to tell them otherwise? And if Britney Spears want to marry you two (would *you* want to marry her and her two kids, is the real question), then what's the problem?

    But why is murder illegal?

    Because you're initiating force against another human being and violating their right to life.

    These are subjective things.

    Conductor, that's a slippery slope that I hear everyday from my liberal professors. Subjectivity leads to the gulag and the concentration camp. It leads to Villamarista.

    How about some *objectivity*? How about calling something a crime when force or fraud is _initiated_ against another person?

  • hemetero

    Henry

    If a man can marry a man why can't a man marry a dog?
    ====
    Why not as long as it doesnt cost me any money in tas subsidy. By the way gay people are americans as you and me, they have the same rights to purse happiness whatever that means to them. If they want to marry go for it, it's not a threat to my freedom.

    Murder being a illegal?
    ======
    Your using force to kill another human being, that's not right.

    Reason and Common sense are alway better than partisan posturing my friend

    ray

  • George L. Moneo

    After due consideration, I've decided not to change my party affiliation. Henry's arguments in this thread -- and a long talk I had with the Mrs., the other "R" in the house -- have convinced me that in order to effect change I have to stay.

    So, there it is. Who says I'm close-minded?

  • mavi

    Ray, what's the matter with the 10 commandments?

    I am not a religious person, but I don't see any "evil" in teaching and attempting to live by these principals. Even though I often fall short of these Ideals; I am glad to be reminded of them so that I can examine myself and try to be better.

    If you take each of these points, purely on a psychological level, then it is a healthy way to live. IMHO the biggest problems that society has today are because we don't remind people of these Ideals.

    Did you have a bad experience with the church or something?

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
    6. Thou shalt not kill.
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    8. Thou shalt not steal.
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
    10. Thou shalt not covet.

  • George L. Moneo

    The ethical underpinning of Western civilization are the Ten Commandments. To deny them, you deny our very way of life. Should we all just forget about them and start learning the Koran? 'Cause that's what will fill the vacuum when it's gone.

  • hemetero

    Mavi in my ivew is not the goverment's role to tell us how live or lives or what commandements to follow

    I have not issue with the ten commandments as moral code to live by. Just don't tell me how live my life, get that govement of back!

    ray

  • Ziva

    Ray, we have to have order in society for survival, and that includes a moral order. Your attitude of any thing goes is fine maybe for you as an individual as long as you don't harm anyone else but a nation must have laws, some of which establish limits for personal behavior for the betterment of all. Our western civilization's moral code is based on the Ten Commandments, what model would you use? Or would you prefer chaos?

  • George L. Moneo

    Maybe Ray would prefer the Koran. That's what we'll get if we keep acting like 'centrist' and not conservatives.

  • mavi

    Ray,

    In order for societies to exist and flourish they MUST establish principles of right and wrong behaviors. How would you keep control otherwise?
    On what would we base our laws?

    Our government doesn't tell you to go to church nor does it punish you when you don't, but we do need a code of behavior. As George says, something will always fill the void. It's a fundamental necessity in any society even within an individual family rules need to be established.

    Look at any country and their laws are based either on a religion or on some type of Ideal.

    Ray, I really think that you're not thinking this all the way through.

  • I have to agree that if we become apathetic something will have to fill that void, and the Islamo-fascists will want to fill it and impose their views.
    It is already happening in Europe, there are Muslim neighborhoods in France that have demanded to impose Sharia law only, and they only follow Sharia law so if you walk in their neighborhood you will probably have no police protection. And the BBC has been promoting Islam as well. Just take a look at the violence in Paris.
    Zhangliqun: I have to agree with you, if we don't fight they will fight us anyway and it will be on our own soil. Soon enough the radicals will begin using our freedoms against us so yes we have to be firm, even if Americans may disagree on domestic policies at least they have to be united on national security and the war on terror. To win is our only hope of survival, it is freedom we are defending, and honestly I only see that strength in Republicans. The Dems are too soft on foreign policy, not to mention other things, and right now that is what is most important.

  • omar

    Interseting exhange of views, but sorry to see that this post has eclipsed the one on the Cuban Memorial. Please don't forget the Cuban Memorial.

  • Amy

    Ray dije: Murder being a illegal?
    ======
    Your using force to kill another human being, that's not right.

    Reason and Common sense are alway better than partisan posturing my friend

    Ray, you said murder is not right, but what about the Muslims who don't consider non-Muslims human beings? They think of us as animals, so they think killing us is ok. According to their reasoning and common sense, they are not doing anything wrong. If you were to "leave them alone" the same way you do gays or any other moral issues, your "centrist" way of thinking would get you killed. THAT is why I don't think you know much, the consequences of your choices are not conducive to someone looking out for their best interests in the long run.

  • Zhangliqun

    If a man can marry a man why can't a man marry a dog? Why can't 4 men all marry each other? Why can't you and I marry Britney Spears at the same time?

    This is the key point, the elephant in the room that consistently gets swept under the rug by gay activists and their sympathizers (no easy thing to do with an elephant, but that just gives a hint at the human capacity for self-deception), which is the watering down of the meaning and purpose of marriage.

    There is infinitely more to the institution of marriage than just "two people who love each other". It is for -- in no particular order -- procreation, the protection and welfare of children and of family (not just legally or economically but spiritually and emotionally as well), the keeping in check of sexually promiscuous behavior that results in disaster for the resulting 'unwanted' children and the in turn resulting crime-ridden neighborhoods, the creation of community (as opposed to the apparent leftist ideal of a collection of atomized drifters who happen to live near each other for now) and civilization.

    And of course, it is one of the ultimate expressions of love to forsake all others for eternity for this one man or woman, so these two people loving each other is also crucial.

    But to say that Bill and Jim getting married is 'no big deal' is to say that all of the above is also no big deal. This is the same "See? Lightning didn't strike when I said 'I do'" argument I mentioned in a previous post on a different subject. Because the results aren't immediately catastrophic doesn't mean there's no problem. Lightning didn't strike society with the first out-of-wedlock birth resulting from "free love" either, but look where we are now.

    For the reasons already stated, marriage has to have a very specific transcendent meaning and purpose beyond just the immediate needs and desires of the two people involved. The moment we start effectively saying that marriage (or anything for that matter) 'means whatever you want it to mean', then marriage has no meaning at all.

    From there it should be obvious that there is no longer any compelling legal, moral or spiritual firewall to prevent any relationship from being accepted by the community as a 'marriage' because all such objections have been dismissed by the elite as aribtrary and neanderthal.

    So if we now say that limiting marriage to one man + one woman is arbitrary and archaic, what compelling moral principle do we have left to stand on to limit a marriage to TWO people? So why just two? Two as a number is even more arbitrary than man + woman is as type. Every limitation becomes arbitrary and neanderthal because we are basing this argument on the premise that who you marry has no effect on society or civilization, so said limitations are needlessly interfering with everyone's privacy and thus a violation of the Constitution.

    Just as when I got laughed at when I told people after the state attorneys general won the big lawsuit against the tobacco companies that they would be coming after fast-food next, I get laughed at now when I say that activists and the media will be agitating for 3 or 5 or 50-person marriages when same-sex marriage is legally recognized. Again, what principled argument do we have left to say that a 3-person marriage is wrong? Really, seriously, somebody please articulate a compelling principle that will stop this snowball from continuing to roll down hill. An intellectually lazy response that "such things will be rare" is unacceptable because it avoids the question -- and very United Nations-like. Saying it's not likely to happen is like saying that most drunk drivers get home safe. The only possible guiding principle for such a statement is nihilism.

    Plus it should be obvious that after a while it WON'T be rare, in part because of human nature in general and our tendency to stockholm, and in part because liberal activists are never satisfied because they are on an endless quixotic quest to solve internal spiritual/moral problems with external solutions (laws).

    And remember that NAMBLA is waiting in the wings for their say at a time when they won't look so bad compared to the rest of us anymore and we start stockholming with them.

    Anyone who wants to debate me on this must first answer very specifically and logically, why just two, why not three?

    P.S. The rights argument doesn't work either. I do not intend this to be even the slightest bit flippant or dismissive, but the fact is that homosexuals have ALL the same rights I have. I have no more right to marry a man than a gay man does, and he has just as much a right to marry a woman as I do. Obviously heterosexual unions are not what gays desire, but liberals have a tendency to confuse desires with rights, which are not the same thing. Gay activists and their supporters desire a right that currently no-one has.

  • Amy

    Zhangliqun,
    WOW! You're awesome! Where have you been hiding? You have some awesome points! I love the way you think. Thank you for finally speaking up.

  • Ray,

    The government has to legislate morality to some extent. It has to define right and wrong. If everyone defines their own morality, then we have chaos. But one of the government's few responsibilities is to keep the bad guys away from the rest of us. You used the example of the Ten Commandments. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the government to lock up people who steal or murder. I want someone to do that -- that's a pretty good use of my tax money. I don't want those guys running around in my neighborhood.

    Locking up (or fining) those who don't use motorcycle helmets or who smoke or serve transfats is not the responsibility of the government, but it's the liberals who've made those laws. That's the sort of morality the government could stay out of, as far as I'm concerned.

  • LittleGator

    Z,

    Your post is a long one with many interesting observatons. I will say that by and large I agree with your analysis concerning the deleterious effects of rogue conduct on society.

    Because I agree with much of what your write, I am not exactly engaging you in debate--more like brainstorming on one issue. I am not certain there is anything wrong with providing for a legal mechanism to recognize civil unions (call them what you will) among committed gay adults. That would allow for recognition and enforcement of certain legal rights as well as obligations, such as access to private insurance medical benefits for "partners," obligation to pay alimony where appropriate, end-of-life decisions, heir status, etc.

    I am not suggesting such relationships constitute a marriage, as I agree that marriage is incompatible with a gay relationship for the reasons you note. But, why not recognition of certain legal/contractual rights that go hand-in-hand with obligations willingly assumed by consenting adults in long term relationships?

    By the way, I am not sure I understood your question at the end of your piece. But, marriages of 3 or 5 or 50 are not a new construct. It is plain old-fashioned bigamy. Father Abraham had at least two wives (don't recall if more). Kings David and Solomon had many more wives. The practice was acceptable to Mormons once-upon-a-time. And, it is still practiced in many parts of the world. But, this is just an aside.

  • qbanartemisa

    Gays do not have a right to change history, marriage was an institution created for the union of love between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation and with the intention of respecting that institution under the law, meaning no adultery.
    They can't change either the fact that the survival of the human specie depends on love between a man and a woman, thus, it is heterosexuals who ensure the survival of the human specie. Under our Constitution homosexuals have the same rights as we do, so they can act as wrong as they want as long as they don't infringe on other's rights. However, just because they are allowed to act wrongly, that doesn't mean that their actions ought to be accepted. One thing is to respect someone, and a very different thing is to accept them. The practices of homosexuals are wrong and I call them as what they are: wrong. I will respect them but I won't let them force me to accept their WRONG practices.
    Some may argue that what gays do doesn't affect us, but if homosexual's practices are accepted as normal and proper, then our future civilization will be affected. Soon enough the gay groups will want schools to teach that what they do is OK, and then our civilization will be in danger because if love between a man and woman becomes rare or out-of-fashion, then our specie will not survive.
    Gays have already changed the meaning of the word "gay," I am not opt for letting them change the meaning of marriage or the importance of love between a man and a woman to the human civilization. We have a duty as a society to teach our children well, to prepare them for the future, and to ensure that they can continue our civilization.
    If we teach children that everything goes, then the ones who will go into extinction is the human specie. Our Constitution was built by recognizing that there were some things that are right and other that are wrong. Just like our Constitution allows communists, socialists and anarchists to express their opinion even though they are wrong, that doesn't mean that we are going to allow them to start teaching in schools that democracy and freedom are wrong, just like it would be wrong to make schools teach that homosexual practices are OK.

  • Ziva

    qbanartemisa, I am horrified to report that CA SB 1437 which mandates that CA school textbooks include the contributions of gays passed the senate education committee and will go to the floor for a vote. I am so sick of this state.

  • Zhangliqun

    Because I agree with much of what your write, I am not exactly engaging you in debate--more like brainstorming on one issue. I am not certain there is anything wrong with providing for a legal mechanism to recognize civil unions (call them what you will) among committed gay adults. That would allow for recognition and enforcement of certain legal rights as well as obligations, such as access to private insurance medical benefits for "partners," obligation to pay alimony where appropriate, end-of-life decisions, heir status, etc.

    We're probably not all that far apart here. Any two adults can agree to, write, and sign a binding legal contract between them for almost any purpose, as in the case of a willing property to the other on death, or making such person the executor of the will, etc.

    I guess the area of disagreement between us is alimony and medical benefits and other things that would make civil union a marriage in every way but name.

    If a private company wishes to extend health benefits to "significant others" who are not married, that is their business. But I draw a very thick and clear line at the government to passing laws that FORCE a private company or its insurance carrier to do so. I also draw a line at alimony -- if you weren't in a legally recognized marriage, you don't get alimony...or even "palimony" as they pay out here in LA.

    By the way, I am not sure I understood your question at the end of your piece. But, marriages of 3 or 5 or 50 are not a new construct. It is plain old-fashioned bigamy. Father Abraham had at least two wives (don't recall if more). Kings David and Solomon had many more wives. The practice was acceptable to Mormons once-upon-a-time. And, it is still practiced in many parts of the world. But, this is just an aside.

    I'm not sure I understand your point unless you're trying to say that bigamy has been done before. That it was done before doesn't make it desirable.

    Plus, consider in the days of Abraham it was important for a richer man to have many wives to keep up the population of your tribe. The "peasants" didn't have the wherewithal to give large numbers of children the proper care to improve their odds of survival whereas someone like Abraham did. As it was, Abraham had his wife Sarah, who was unable to conceive, and disobeyed God by having a child with Hagar (the father of all Arabs), even though Sarah actually encouraged this move. But Sarah was his wife and Hagar was only a surrogate at best.

    Continuing with our Bible study briefly, recall that God did not want Israel to have an earthly king because HE was their king, but he relented and said you want your king, you got it. Saul was a mixed big, possibly mentally ill. David was a good king overall but his desire for expanding his harem (Bathsheba) caused unfathomable misery for himself and his house and his nation, much of it via his son Absalom. Solomon brought in wives from the very nations and peoples God had forbidden the Israelites from associating with. This in particular was one of the great dangers for the Israelites of having a harem.

    That it was to some degree tolerated in the Bible means just that. It was tolerated for a time, but never advised or celebrated.

  • Ziva
    I am sick of the School Board, I think we will see the consequences of the lack of education and the "acceptance of everything" in the future.
    A cuban father here in Miami had to take to the school board a book in his daughter's school library which was promoting the cuban system with a bunch of lies about cuban education. Luckily they removed the book, but now the ACLU is claiming the freedom of press excuse and they want to take it to court.
    Like I said, when it comes to children's education no one should have a right to be printing lies and putting it in school libraries. At least to children we ought to be truthful, otherwise what kind of example would we be promoting.
    This country is so wonderful and its Constitution is so great, yet it seems that everyone would rather see it vanish and claim that everything is relative, I'm just sick of the moral relativists that use our freedoms to screw up our own system.

  • LittleGator

    Z,

    Thanks for your response. I think we aren't too far apart on this, going back to your initial post, a marriage is more than just a bundle of legally recognized rights and obligations. Specifically, look at your second and third paragraphs were you eloquently state why gay relationships are not equal to a marriage between a man and a woman. I agree with you there.

    But, what I am suggesting would be appropriate is a way for gay couples to "register" their intent to be "a couple." So that, for example, inheritance rights could be asserted, even if someone fails to write a will. Or a twenty year partner of a dying person would not be arbitrarily barred from the hospital room by blood relatives. These are just a couple of examples. And, I mentioned alimony only as an example because you cannot have "rights" without corresponding responsibilities/obligations.

    My comment about bigamy was just an aside. I read your initial post to suggest relationships of 3, 5 or 50 were somehow a new and looming peril. Mea culpa, I misinterpreted your meaning on this.

  • hemetero

    Hi all, this is probably my last post, since i don't seem to be enahancing this discussion at the house of val.

    My final thoughts on some the comments about marriage. I don't know about you but i've been married for over 20years. Never met a gay peson that has threaten my marriage. I don't know why i need the goverment to give some sanctity to my relationship. In my case marriage is a commitment between me and my wife, we work it everyday, there's nothing holy about it. Ups and downs, high and lows, happy moments, sad moments, lots of drama, good memories etc.. I don't need or want the goverment giving my marriage any meaning. No thanks. I'm doing just fine. By the way do you know that a recent study found evangelicals christians as a group having the highest divorce rate on the country. Do you think the gays are causing this?

    Any way it's been fun posting, didn't mean to stir up the pot.

    ray

  • PLP

    Ray :you didn't stir up the pot.Opinions are like assholes and you know that everyone has one .I know what you were getting @ with wanting big government to get out of your life .Mi amigo here is another GREAT book that you realy need to read(RAT IN THE GRAIN).If you are the brainiack that I think you are you will read it .There is a dvd that I just finished watching and if I can get my hands on more I will send you one .Mi abuelo siempre dijo que (wisdom) es poder o fuerza.