GOP Hispanic Strategists Stunned By Sotomayor Attacks

[dbackjon]

Native - again, how does "gay marriage" shit on religion?


You do know that we have hetero NON-RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE today, right?

[grizzaholic]

Native - again, how does "gay marriage" shit on religion?


You do know that we have hetero NON-RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE today, right?

Dback, I think it is a lost cause with him.

[native]

...Oh, so alienating a family member is "tough love". I'm all for it then. Don't expect any respect from me then. Since it's not suitable to the "fantasy dream life" that parents unreasonably want from their children. Parents DO NOT have the right to live their life through their children. If that's the case, then the parent don't want what's best for the child just what's best for them. That never ends well....

"Alienating a family member" is not the same thing as not approving of a family member's decisions or actions.

The only "fantasy dream life" under discussion here is the false and narcissistic assumption that whatever "twiddles your twinkie" determines "who you are."

[TwinTownBisonFan]

...Oh, so alienating a family member is "tough love". I'm all for it then. Don't expect any respect from me then. Since it's not suitable to the "fantasy dream life" that parents unreasonably want from their children. Parents DO NOT have the right to live their life through their children. If that's the case, then the parent don't want what's best for the child just what's best for them. That never ends well....

"Alienating a family member" is not the same thing as not approving of a family member's decisions or actions.

The only "fantasy dream life" under discussion here is the false and narcisstic assumption that whatever "twiddles your twinkie" determines "who you are."

got it... you're still dry humping the idea that somehow sexuality is a choice... wow... just wow...

[AZGrizFan]

"Alienating a family member" is not the same thing as not approving of a family member's decisions or actions.

The only "fantasy dream life" under discussion here is the false and narcisstic assumption that whatever "twiddles your twinkie" determines "who you are."

got it... you're still dry humping the idea that somehow sexuality is a choice... wow... just wow...

Get off your high horse. He's attempting to enlighten you.

[wkuhillhound]

Religion has flaws, no doubt, but not as many and not at egregious as the irreligious and narcissistic "progressive" political thinkng currently in vogue.

you speak of these things as though they are mutually exclusive... I am quite religious and very much a "progressive"

it appears that it affirms your uninformed worldview that every progressive in the world is somehow a Godless communist with no "moral values" - however that's a fairly heavy dose of bullshit.

Thank you TTBF. Somebody gets it. I believe in God, I just don't have a ticker tape parade announcing to the world like its gonna give me brownie points into heaven. God doesn't reward you in public, but in private. Most Christians don't understand that concept.

[native]

"Alienating a family member" is not the same thing as not approving of a family member's decisions or actions.

The only "fantasy dream life" under discussion here is the false and narcisstic assumption that whatever "twiddles your twinkie" determines "who you are."

got it... you're still dry humping the idea that somehow sexuality is a choice... wow... just wow...

It is not an either/or proposition, TTBF. Pre-disposed does not equal pre-determined. Animals, and especially humans, can be taught nearly anything.

Having said so, I do not hate homosexuals for following what may well be their pre-disposition, and I support their legal right to do so. I also support most, but not all, of the "Dallas" principles posted by dbj.

What I do detest is the radical, so-called "progressive" political agenda, over-represented on these pages, which aggressively seeks to replace traditional religion and family with a "Brave New World," and to transform society far beyond legitimate issues of justice and tolerance to an imaginary and poorly conceived utopia for which the consequences have been ill-considered.

[native]

you speak of these things as though they are mutually exclusive... I am quite religious and very much a "progressive"

it appears that it affirms your uninformed worldview that every progressive in the world is somehow a Godless communist with no "moral values" - however that's a fairly heavy dose of bullshit.

Thank you TTBF. Somebody gets it. I believe in God, I just don't have a ticker tape parade announcing to the world like its gonna give me brownie points into heaven. God doesn't reward you in public, but in private. Most Christians don't understand that concept.

I do not doubt the religious OR political sincerity of TTBF, and I do not think that every "progressive" in the American polity today is a "Godless communist."

However, the consistent inability of "progressives" to honestly observe and measure the consequences of their "solutions" is tiresome.

It is also noteworthy that every slide of civilized nations into totalitarian death and destruction in the past century initially included the enthsiastic support of large numbers of indignantly smug, self-righteous, often religious and tragically naive "progressives."

Good luck with all those demons in your imagination, wkuhillhound.

[grizzaholic]

got it... you're still dry humping the idea that somehow sexuality is a choice... wow... just wow...

It is not an either/or proposition, TTBF. Pre-disposed does not equal pre-determined. Animals, and especially humans, can be taught nearly anything.

Having said so, I do not hate homosexuals for following what may well be their pre-disposition, and I support their legal right to do so. I also support most, but not all, of the "Dallas" principles posted by dbj.

What I do detest is the radical, so-called "progressive" political agenda, over-represented on these pages, which aggressively seeks to replace traditional religion and family with a "Brave New World," and to transform society far beyond legitimate issues of justice and tolerance to an imaginary and poorly conceived utopia for which the consequences have been ill-considered.

So what you are saying is that two gay people cannot raise a family.

[native]

It is not an either/or proposition, TTBF. Pre-disposed does not equal pre-determined. Animals, and especially humans, can be taught nearly anything.

Having said so, I do not hate homosexuals for following what may well be their pre-disposition, and I support their legal right to do so. I also support most, but not all, of the "Dallas" principles posted by dbj.

What I do detest is the radical, so-called "progressive" political agenda, over-represented on these pages, which aggressively seeks to replace traditional religion and family with a "Brave New World," and to transform society far beyond legitimate issues of justice and tolerance to an imaginary and poorly conceived utopia for which the consequences have been ill-considered.

So what you are saying is that two gay people cannot raise a family.

Yes, of course two gay people "can" raise a family, but that's a good question. We have also yet to discuss the issue of procreation.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that I think the best way to raise a family is the traditional nuclear family led by a married heterosexual couple.

However, the world is so screwed up that a viable traditional solution may not be available, so we often have to make compromises in the best interests of innocent children who need a family.

[grizzaholic]

So what you are saying is that two gay people cannot raise a family.

Yes, of course two gay people "can" raise a family, but that's a good question. We have also yet to discuss the issue of procreation.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that I think the best way to raise a family is the traditional nuclear family led by a married heterosexual couple.

However, the world is so screwed up that a viable traditional solution may not be available, so we often have to make compromises in the best interests of innocent children who need a family.

So having gay parents is like a consolation prize? " you are not good enough for this family, and no one wanted to adopt you, so we gave you to this gay couple. You should be fine. " ???? The world is screwed up, HOW? Because gays wanted to marry? What is so bad about that? The way I look at it, if they want to marry, fine, no beef from me, more women for me to find!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

So what you are saying is that two gay people cannot raise a family.

Yes, of course two gay people "can" raise a family, but that's a good question. We have also yet to discuss the issue of procreation.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that I think the best way to raise a family is the traditional nuclear family led by a married heterosexual couple.

However, the world is so screwed up that a viable traditional solution may not be available, so we often have to make compromises in the best interests of innocent children who need a family.

wow... you familiar with the term "damning with faint praise"???

honestly, I dunno what "Ozzie and Harriet" fantasy camp you've got your headspace in, but here in the real world, "traditional nuclear families" aren't too damn common... and even those that are, aren't inherently any more or less healthy than any other situation.

[AshevilleApp]

The way these threads evolve is just a joy to behold.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

The way these threads evolve is just a joy to behold.

was just thinking the same thing...

[native]

... "traditional nuclear families" aren't too damn common... and even those that are, aren't inherently any more or less healthy than any other situation.

That's an absurd claim which cannot be subtantiated and can easily be disproven. The profligate and destructive effects of Democrat social policies, of which the destruction of the traditional nuclear family is one consequence, are real and measurable.

[Cleets Part 2]

The profligate and destructive effects of Democrat social policies, of which the destruction of the traditional nuclear family is one consequence, are real and measurable.

Oh... I see
Republican Family values must then by default include the now staggering list of closet homosexuals, convicted sex felons and infidelity cases rounding out the past 4 years of mayhem...

I have a suggestion:
Lets use "Liberal & Conservative" in an ideological sense...
Because Republican & Democrat just do not work well in this argument...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

... "traditional nuclear families" aren't too damn common... and even those that are, aren't inherently any more or less healthy than any other situation.

That's an absurd claim which cannot be subtantiated and can easily be disproven. The profligate and destructive effects of Democrat social policies, of which the destruction of the traditional nuclear family is one consequence, are real and measurable.

so by this logic, an abusive father in a "traditional family" is a preferred alternative to two supportive mothers?

here's my point, there are dysfunctional families of all stripes... this notion that some conks have of a Leave it to Beaver past time where everything was all duckies and bunnies and traditional families were all kind and perfect, and dad didn't beat the kids and mom didn't drink too much because life as a homemaker isn't what she wanted...

shorter: your narrow definition of "family" ain't all that wonderful, and a broader and more inclusive idea of family isn't the destruction of society that conservative people have been bemoaning since the beginning of time.

[native]

That's an absurd claim which cannot be subtantiated and can easily be disproven. The profligate and destructive effects of Democrat social policies, of which the destruction of the traditional nuclear family is one consequence, are real and measurable.

so by this logic, an abusive father in a "traditional family" is a preferred alternative to two supportive mothers?

here's my point, there are dysfunctional families of all stripes... this notion that some conks have of a Leave it to Beaver past time where everything was all duckies and bunnies and traditional families were all kind and perfect, and dad didn't beat the kids and mom didn't drink too much because life as a homemaker isn't what she wanted...

shorter: your narrow definition of "family" ain't all that wonderful, and a broader and more inclusive idea of family isn't the destruction of society that conservative people have been bemoaning since the beginning of time.

Your points are well taken but exaggerated, TTBF. First you overstated your case, then you overstated my case.

I did not claim traditional families to be perfect, or for an abusive father in a traditional family to be superior to a non-abusive alternative family environment, but your stereotyping of traditional families is as delusional as your faith that all environments are inherently equal.

I do believe that genuine love, including the love of two mothers, can overcome almost anything. But "broader and more inclusive" should not mean "unlimited and all-inclusive." I do not hear love coming from most of the proponents of your political point of view. Rather, I hear an awful lot of hate and intolerance.

[wkuhillhound]

Thank you TTBF. Somebody gets it. I believe in God, I just don't have a ticker tape parade announcing to the world like its gonna give me brownie points into heaven. God doesn't reward you in public, but in private. Most Christians don't understand that concept.

I do not doubt the religious OR political sincerity of TTBF, and I do not think that every "progressive" in the American polity today is a "Godless communist."

However, the consistent inability of "progressives" to honestly observe and measure the consequences of their "solutions" is tiresome.

It is also noteworthy that every slide of civilized nations into totalitarian death and destruction in the past century initially included the enthsiastic support of large numbers of indignantly smug, self-righteous, often religious and tragically naive "progressives."

Good luck with all those demons in your imagination, wkuhillhound.

Have you been looking in a cracked mirror? I sure hope for your sake the bad luck hasn't started yet.

[wkuhillhound]

A family is not a closed-ended definition like some people would wish it to be. Every family is different in their own dysfunctional way, yes, I said it, all families are dysfunctional. It that was not the case, christians, (with a lower case c) wouldn't have anything to foam at the mouth about.

I feel a new rules coming on very soon: I'm very slow to anger. A christian discipline.

[Ivytalk]

Being an eminence grise on this site, i will bring the thread back to where it belongs. Let the Senate confirm the woman, and let's move on. And let's end this thread, at least until the hearings start.

[JoltinJoe]

Being an eminence grise on this site, i will bring the thread back to where it belongs. Let the Senate confirm the woman, and let's move on. And let's end this thread, at least until the hearings start.

SO ORDERED.

I don't understand all the controversy over this pick. As I said earlier, I've had matters before her when she was the SDNY. She's a great judge and a excellent choice. What do the conservatives expect? Given the political landscape, they should be happy with this choice.