The Iowa GOP’s Image Problem

• Monday, May 4, 2009, 4:34
• Iowa, Top Story
• 2,078 views
• 147 comments

• Share
  Delicious Digg Design Float Mixx Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati
• Printable version

About the Author

147 Comments on “The Iowa GOP’s Image Problem”

• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 5:21

  A very valuable analysis.

  Democrats have so screwed up this state, it should be a cake walk to throw them all out on their ears.

  The results of this poll show how superficial is the thinking of most voters. Reality is not important–it’s the perception.

  The very idea of Republicans being more arrogant than Democrats is laughable. Democrat lawmakers are the epitome of arrogance.

  An interesting point is that no where in all this does Gross indicate that social issues are losing issues. This is good news. We can have out cake and eat it too.

  Gross merely emphasizes that Republicans need to emphasize the fiscal issues while also showing the public how Democrats refuse to allow the citizens of Iowa to vote if they want gay marrige.

  This is win’/win.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 5:37

  D.V.F.O. is correct, we shouldn’t give up on the social issues but trust me we can’t afford to dwell on gay marriage as our only issue either. Clinton kept drilling “it’s the economy, stupid!” and while we hate to hear it, for a large segment of voters that is the key issue. One issue that seems to get overlooked is personal freedom, there is a significant number of libertarian-leaning folks looking for somebody to champion this cause. We dropped the ball on the smoking ban & I’m not going to debate it here, but you lost so much more than you realize when you decided it was a good idea for the state to dictate to business owners whether they could allow a legal product to be used on their premises. We can’t afford to limit ourselves to one issue and we don’t have to!!!
• 
  LoboSolo wrote on 4 May, 2009, 10:00

  i agree with Timmy. the churchy republicans are beating a dead horse with the gay marriage debate. i think most of us agree that the party is split into 3 factions (fiscal ,religious and moderate liberals). the “cant we all just get along” McCain liberal types can not win because they fail to attract the fiscals & religious voters. the religious candidates also fail to attract the moderate/liberals.

  at this point the economy is the biggest issue, so it makes sense that we start looking for a return of the fiscal conservative candidate who can attract the other factions of the party, but stay on message of fixing the economy through personal freedom. basically you need to find a young version of Barry Goldwater who is more charming then Obama. good luck with that !
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 10:37

  LoboSolo,

  Good luck electing Republicans without the “churchy Republicans.”

  Can you even articulate why same sex ‘marriage’ is bad for society?
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 10:55

  Peggy, we are on the same side of this issue, but it happened. The dems are in charge and we need to re-group and figure out a gameplan and what our next move will be. Dumping on the Republicans is not the way to go and anybody that thinks we can move forward by undermining the team on the field needs their head examined!!! The only way we can take back Terrace Hill is by putting up somebody that has a broader appeal and can bring in the independants and libertarians as well as the conservatives. That doesn’t mean we give up on social conservative issues, but we don’t need to concentrate on them solely either!
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 10:58

  Here is good news. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31687

  Let’s remain focused in our mission–to rescue this state from these deplorable Democrats.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:08

  “Dumping on the Republicans is not the way to go and anybody that thinks we can move forward by undermining the team on the field needs their head examined!!! ”

  Timmy, Is this comment directed toward me?
• 
  LoboSolo wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:20

  @ peggy
  i would ask you why is the state/fed even involved in marriage ? if you take out the religious aspect to marriage, then its just a contract between two people. we hold a basic premise that every person should have equal rights. as a classic liberal i can not in good conscience deny rights to a group based on another groups religious beliefs.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:20

  It’s directed to anybody out there(like deace) that seems to think dumping on the Republicans is somehow more virtuous than voting out the dems. Unless you are in that catagory, it doesn’t apply to you. I hate to have to repeat myself though, but losing on principle is still losing! It isn’t virtuous and the dems will still be in control!!!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:33

  For the hopelessly ignorant who refuse to study the issue:

  1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
  2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
  3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
  4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.
  5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
  6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
  8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
  9. The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
  10. “Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:42

  Peggy, I agree with your points. However, the issue here is the image of the GOP in Iowa and what is our strategy going to be to move forward and get back in the majority where we can actually do something about the social issues.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:48

  Peggy: What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that unless someone is willing to throw out current Republicans, or even vote Republican, they don’t know about, or don’t care about traditional marriage?

  The premise is ridiculous. You are absolutely correct about the points you published. Now, let’s work to get a Republican majority elected so we can actually do something about it.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:55

  The problem is that we have too many people worried about IMAGE!

  Symbolism over substance…does that ring a bell?

  A nation not grounded in the traditional family unit is a nation of government dependents which means everybody’s taxes are going to go UP.

  I don’t know why people can’t connect the dots between the social and fiscal issues; who isn’t against higher taxes and outrageous deficits?
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 11:59

  Well, DVFO, should we elect “Republicans” who are going to move left to preserve their IMAGE, or elect Republicans who care about the platform and want to advance the conservative agenda?
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:02

  “who isn’t against higher taxes and outrageous deficits?” LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!!! Who is going to continue be in power if we don’t get our act together and elect Republicans? See previous answer!!!
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:16

  Peggy, We are in total agreement about what we want. Now, let’s get Republicans elected!!!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:41

  Timmy,

  Again, which KIND of Republican would you like me to vote for? The actual Republicans or the Democrats hiding behind the name Republican?

  Don’t kid yourself. A person with no principles can cave on fiscal issues just as quickly as he did on the social ones. It’s happened a million times before and you’re only laying the groundwork for it to happen again.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:44

  DVFO,

  No, we’re not really in agreement at all. You’re okay with a Republican like me, a “churchy Republican,” as long as I don’t talk about social issues.

  In other words, you’ll take my vote and my money but I’m not allowed to have any ideas.

  Where do I sign up?!
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:44

  Peggy, image is still very important as there are many, many voters who vote only on image. A huge number of voters needed to win an election are not as analytical and informed as those who hang out on the internet.
  We must find a way to attract a certain amount of those “image” voters while not giving up on the very issues that are important.

  First, we must destroy the image of Democrats. That shouldn’t be difficult to do. They are doing a great deal of the work themselves but it still has to be pointed out to the voter–over and over gain.

  Then we have to convince the voters that we have the answers to their problems, if it’s too many taxes, out of control energy costs or the fact they’re troubled by homosexual marriage, or debt as far as the eye can see because of Democrat excess spending.
  This list can go on and on. If we stay focused, this should be a cake walk and there’s indications it is beginning to happen.
  http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31687
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:48

  “Then we have to convince the voters that we have the answers to their problems, if it’s too many taxes, out of control energy costs or the fact they’re troubled by homosexual marriage, or debt as far as the eye can see because of Democrat excess spending.”

  You listed the problems but what are the answers?
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:48

  Peggy, you owe me an apology. You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I have news for you. I am a very “churchy” person, too and very much a social conservative.

  I’m getting tired of your haughty attitude that you must be morally superior to anyone else.

  Can’t you just accept it at face value that I am very much in agreement with your goals?
  Why are you looking for issues over which to disagree. You are no more in favor of traditional marriage than I. You are no more pro-life than I.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:51

  Peggy, The answer is to throw out all those lousy Democrats and replace them with all the Republicans we can replace them with–preferably conservtive ones but once the primaries are over, we vote a straight party ticket. WE MUST REGAIN MAJORITIES!!!!!
• 
  Thinking wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:52

  Timmy,

  You said, “Dumping on the Republicans is not the way to go and anybody that thinks we can move forward by undermining the team on the field needs their head examined!!!” In one of your next posts, you call out Republicans like Deace. Is this the dumping on Republican’s you were referring to? Now, granted, I’m one of those “churchy” people, but it seems like your message is getting lost in your rhetoric. Interesting that the “dumping on the Republicans” message only applies to the social conservatives, and not the rest of the party…
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:55

  Very well said, Thinking.
• 
  Reason wrote on 4 May, 2009, 12:56

  DVFO,

  I have to disagree with you if you think that your are just as socially conservative as Peggy. (At least judging by the way you are posting). How can you say you value these things just as much if you are willing to neglect them and even worse throw them by the wayside for just a few more votes?!

  The problem with the republican party has nothing to do with not appealing to the “moderates.” It has everything to do with the lack of the Republican party advancing the party platform. (Not only the fiscal ideas but also the social ideas.) We need to instead of trying to appeal to the “newer” groups, start advancing the platform and show everyone why our ideas are better and provide social and fiscal solutions to the problems.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:06

  Reason, do you and Peggy have a death wish? I’m getting really sick of your holier-than-thou attitudes. Why are you wanting to continue to portray yourselves as some kind of victims?

  I have news for you. I’ve been in the trenches longer than probably both of you combined. I’m getting sick of your insults. If you’re such great Christians, why do you not act like it?

  I would think you would want to work to get Republicans in the majority so that we can actually do something about these issues.

  I’m willing to accept your apologies.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:09

  “How can you say you value these things just as much if you are willing to neglect them and even worse throw them by the wayside for just a few more votes?! ”

  Where did you get the stupid idea I am willing to neglect certain issues or even throw them by the wayside? Find any post I’ve made that would even hint at that.

  I’m still waiting for your apologies.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:17

  The demographic that elected Obama, young adults, has been largely raised by a secular, Godless culture which explains why they vote Democrat.

  Broken homes, family worship taking a backseat to EVERYTHING secular (usually public school-sponsored athletics), television and movies devoid of morality and the majority attending public schools where anything of God is frowned upon or results in the ACLU storming the next school board meeting.

  These wards of the state are already lost; no amount of internet technology or MTV-ism is going to win them back. They are devout members of the Church of State and Christians are the enemy. I expect this from them but not fellow Republicans.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:29

  DVFO,

  So disagreeing with YOU is un-Christian now?
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:30

  Eh-heh-heh Peggy, you’re right and all the rest of the so-called Republicans on here are merely pretenders. Peg, you stay steadfast in your all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, fine-straight-line-dividing-black-from-white approach to politics.

  That’s beautiful.

  I wish and hope-for at least 99% of all the self-described Republicans of the Republic to have the same outlook for the foreseeable future.

  Atta girl Peg, don’t let em sway you.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:31

  To allege something you do not know to be true is to be bearing false witness and I do not believe Jesus approves of your abuse and insults.

  You do know Deace voted for Obama, don’t you?
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:50

  DVFO,

  You’re just sounding childish now. What does Deace’s vote have to do with our exchange?

  Doug Gross’ stupid poll only proves that people aren’t paying attention and/or they’re incredibly stupid.

  The only person I know who refused to vote for Barack Obama BECAUSE HE IS BLACK is a big-mouthed, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who lives in my town. Sick.
• 
  Mike C wrote on 4 May, 2009, 13:56

  Like most (all) political junkies, I’ve been thinking a lot about these problems that the Republican party has been having. For a long time, I accepted the theory that the Republican Party had simply gotten more conservative. But a recent post by Constitution Daily jarred my thinking. He/she pointed out that the party’s planks really haven’t changed much at all in the last 20-30 years. If that’s the case, then why do people think that the party is getting more conservative?

  II have two theories. First is the transformation from ideas to ideologies. I.e., the difference between, say, the idea of smaller government being better changing from an empirical proposition to an ideological certitude. The difference is critical: empirical propositions are useful when it comes to actually governing. Bare ideological principals are inflexible and often lead to unintended consequences. Thus, the very apparent shortcomings in Republican-led government.

  My second theory is that there is now a major difference in the tone in which Republicans/Conservatives discuss their ideas. The age of talk radio conservatism may have “fired up the base”, but it has also rendered that base more shrill and . . . less intellectually curious. But this is more than just an issue of “tone”. The “tone” has created a base that fundamentally does not respect the opposition’s viewpoints. That is, not only are liberals wrong, but they are so wrong that the base can’t seem to understand what morally-admirable reasons would motivate someone to have those views. This is a huge problem. The people in the vast, quiet middle of the political spectrum can typically understand where each side is coming from (liberal environmentalists genuinely and admirably want to protect the quality of the planet for future generations; conservative pro-lifers genuinely and admirably want to save human lives; etc.) But the sense of Republicans is that they neither respect nor understand their fellow Americans who do not share their point of view. So they appear far more extreme.

  I think the second theory is, ultimately, more correct. The Republicans need a major change of culture. They need to be quieter, more thoughtful, and more understanding of the good intentions that motivate the liberal agenda. We have seen the results of the louder, less-thoughtful, demonize-and-mock-the-liberals culture. That result is a permanent minority party.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 14:05

  Peggy: Because you talked about the Obama voter.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 14:10

  Mike C: I agree with so much of which you write but I do not agree that liberals have good intentions such as with the environment. Of course, there are some that do but many of them are radical leftists who use a radical environmental agenda to actually further the issue of destroying capitalism and advancing socialism.

  All one has to do is observe what they do–not what they say. Rich Democrats (such as Gore) pretend his passion is the environment when in fact he does not practice what he preaches and is actually using the environmental movement to enrich himself.

  These people are called “watermelons” for a reason–they are green on the outside and red on the inside.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 14:19

  “Peggy: Because you talked about the Obama voter.”
  Is this your answer to my question about Deace’s vote? If so, it makes no sense.

  This exchange has ceased to be productive. Gotta run.
• 
  Thinking wrote on 4 May, 2009, 14:37

  Deace Voted for Obama,

  I understand the pragmatic approach of losing on principles is still losing (and in many respects, I don’t disagree). However, let’s suppose for a moment that I am a Republican who cares deeply for social issues (perhaps moreso than fiscal issues). Should I be excited to vote for someone more moderate (i.e. Terry Branstad) who cares more about the economy, so the Republicans can win? If I were to do that, ‘my’ more moderate candidate (say Terry Branstad) might elect 3 of the Supreme Court Justices who just decided Gay Marriage should be allowed in Iowa. Now, please explain how I have won anything! So while you continue to tell me that losing on principles is still losing, I happen to believe that winning without principles is still losing.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 14:59

  Personally, I think peggy is correct, keep focusing on the social issues, get rid of the moderate branch of the republican party. Really weed out the undesirable republicans from the party, who needs their votes. Peggy for chairwoman of the Iowa Republican party.

  Silence

  I would be interested peggy if you can back up one of your marriage “beatitudes” or are these the pamphlet talking points sent to you by focus on the family to regurgitate on others???
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:04

  Thinking, not to butt in, buttttt, wouldn’t you lose on both fiscal and social issues??? I hate to tell ya, but Iowa isn’t that conservative of state, add in the younger vote coming out and caring less on social issues, you can’t win on social issues, as has been said repeatedly, “its the economy stupid” (not calling you stupid) followed closly by the wars and national safety.

  Silence
• 
  HereInIowa wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:09

  More Survey Results ???????-

  Will fight for the most vulnerable in our society, like unborn babies… Republicans 99%, Democrats 1%.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:10

  fight for babies after they are born, Dems 99%, repubs, 1%

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:27

  “I would be interested peggy if you can back up one of your marriage “beatitudes” or are these the pamphlet talking points sent to you by focus on the family to regurgitate on others???”

  Silence, why don’t you tell me which one you disagree with first.

  “fight for babies after they are born, Dems 99%, repubs, 1%”

  Gee, I don’t know of any Democrat or liberal-run crisis pregnancy centers, do you? I also don’t know of any state-run atheistic worship centers who are collecting baby items, do you?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:43

  Oh I don’t know peggy lets start with this myth, “3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.” Which half of married couples do you want to talk to, the half still married or the half that is divorced. Gee, peggy, the state can’t run worship centers, that is violation of church and state. Gee, what I shock that you don’t know something. Gee, how about the democrats who vote for aid and healthcare for poor children, that republicans oppose.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:46

  Here is another good one, please show the stats to back up this crap you posted, “8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.” So only married people want political freedom and limited government, I will have to inform my single friends.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 15:56

  Sorry, but #3 is fact, and people who are divorced aren’t married so why would we ask them?

  How many years are Democrats going to “vote for aid and healthcare for poor children” without trying to prevent the existence of poor children in the first place?

  Liberal Democrat policies just create more of the same. Figure it out.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:03

  Peggy, still nothing to back it up and apparently you didn’t read your own quote or have literacy difficulties, all you said was :”both men and women who marry are better off as a result.” It said nothing about staying married, ie, any marriage leads to a better life, of course this must only be for heterosexual couples and couldn’t possibly benefit homosexueal couples. that is just crazy logic. How many years are Democrats going to “vote for aid and healthcare for poor children” without trying to prevent the existence of poor children in the first place?

  That sounds like you are for abortion. Just take care of them before they are born. right. Those crazy heartless democrats trying to help poor children and their parents. Why don’t the poor just go away so peggy doesn’t have to see or think about them. it makes peggy uncomfortable.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:04

  Silence,

  If #8 doesn’t SAY that ONLY married people want political freedom and limited government, why do you even ask?

  Try a little harder to comprehend what you read.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:06

  Peggy, did you ask the battered women who stayed in an abusive relationship partly because the church condemns divorces. Our do they also not count into your math.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:07

  Peggy answer the question, how does marriage promote political freedom and limited government, please be specific.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:11

  If it sounds like I’m for abortion, I’m not.

  What I’m saying is why wouldn’t you vote for policies and programs that prevent children living in poverty instead of just throwing money at the same failed policies?

  I’m not going to spoon feed you the facts – you’ve got a computer, you’re a big boy now and you’re in LAW SCHOOL !!!, so you do a little Googling and find the numberous studies that say marriage is good for people, i.e. men live longer, spouses are happier, have less health problems, etc.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:13

  Thinking: You can’t tell the difference between Branstad and Culver?
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:15

  What proof do you need before you can see that children raised by a mother and father are better off?

  Have you been living in a cave?

  Ask any school teacher about the family make-up of the most troubled students in their classrooms.

  And how many children whose mother and father are actually married to each other are on WIC or other government aid?

  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:17

  “Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.” If marriage is a personal union, intended for whole life, it makes no difference whether it is a straight or a gay couple. “. “Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.” They are already different and can be separate. You don’t need a church to be married under state law, the church may recognize a marriage that the state doesn’t, they just would not have the same rights under state law.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:19

  Here’s how absurd you argument is, Silence: If someone goes out for basketball but refuses to obey the traveling rule, the double dribble rule AND ignores the out-of-bounds line, is he, technically, still a basketball player?

  Pointless combativeness is not a trait of a successful lawyer.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:20

  Peggy, I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but you really need to drop this hoiler-than-thou attitude with people like DVFO and myself. You just might find out we could be some of your biggest allies on social issues, but if you and those out there like you continue to carry on like this you will only insure we ALL lose!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:20

  No, marriage IS between a husband and wife! That’s the whole point.

  Who are militant homosexuals to re-define this timeless institution?

  Go back to my basketball analogy if you don’t understand.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:24

  Holier than thou attitude? What are you talking about?

  If you can’t handle the debate, get off the computer.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:26

  Oh, and Timmy, I think you and DVFO are one and the same. (=
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:27

  peggy, not is law school, graduated 10 years ago, again, no facts to back up your focus on the family talking points. What programs do you suggest that help keep kids from living in poverty, I would like you state what these programs are. I didn’t suggest that kids aren’t generally are better off with two parents, did I challange that, no I didn’t. Your studies only show people who are in a long term happy relationship, and again do not address my point about the people who ended in divorce or stay in a bad relationship, the stats that you only refer to still do not back your post, so how does marriage ordinarily end with women and men better off when half of all marriages end in divorce??? Still nothing to back up your list. You still have not addressed the crap you posted about how marriage promotes political freedom and limited government. Care to try again???

  silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:29

  Peggy, you just described the NBA, so yes I guess you have too. (that was a joke)

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:34

  Peggy, you just defined marriage as a personal union, I asked why then does it have to be between and man and a women, things are redefined constantly, slavery was a timeless institution too. Militant, I don’t know to many “militant” gay guys, that is a contradiction in terms. The ulitimate point is, who is the church to define marriage to the state, and that is what you want. In law, it is not pointless combativeness to make someone have facts to prove their point, that is actually a pretty big part of it. Again, you still have not posted a single fact to back up what i challanged you with. for some reason you keep dodging it, is it because you know it is a bunch of crap??

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 4 May, 2009, 16:35

  Timmy, I may disagree with you on issues, but at least you have a clear understanding of where the republican party is these days and what it will take to become relevant again.

  silence
• 
  Jack Donneghy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 17:05

  how much are doug gross and rich schwarm paying themselves to tell us this stuff? anyone ask that question?
• 
  Thinking wrote on 4 May, 2009, 17:07

  Deace Voted for Obama,

  Concerning gay marriage, no. I cannot see a difference between Chet Culver and Terry Branstad. Chet Culver will do anything in his power to prevent gay marriage, as I’m sure Terry will now do (and did as Governor). I do understand that your issues are more important than mine.
• 
  LoboSolo wrote on 4 May, 2009, 17:16

  well after reading all these comments it’s not hard to see why we will continue to lose elections…
  also when someone says the republicans are becoming too conservative, its code word meaning “too christian conservative” we are in no danger of becoming too conservative in the truest sense.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 18:26

  Silence, thanks for the comments. I enjoy a well reasoned debate on issues. I think some here have let emotions cloud their arguments, why else would they be tyring to pick a fight with those on their side who aer simply trying to point out why those of us see the need to unite behind our party, even if we don’t get exactly what we want. It’s interesting that you and conservative demo are the ones that have best articulated my argument, thanks!
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 4 May, 2009, 18:32

  [["It’s interesting that you and conservative demo are the ones that have best articulated my argument, thanks!"]]

  Thanks Timmy, for the kind words.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 18:33

  Peggy, I can assure you I am not DVFO. This is the name that my dear CHRISTIAN mother called me growing up. BTW, she is as staunch on the social issues as you can get and she is extremely fed up with attitudes like yours(she told me as much today!). However, I do know who DVFO is and trust me this is one person who has walked the walk on the social issues probably waaaay before the rest of you. You would do well to listen more and heed the advice of someone who knows how the political game is played and also how to get things done. You need to quit trying to pick a fight with some of your best allies!!!
• 
  Sarah wrote on 4 May, 2009, 18:54

  Hmmm, when did society start to fall apart…oh right! When democrats decided women who had children out of wedlock should be supported by the government, things like housing assistance, food stamps, free medical coverage. Yeah, I remember. Fathers started dropping out so their women could get government money. That’s when it became socially acceptable to have babies without giving them a father. Traditional families became unnecessary. Then the definition of familes changed. I’m with Peggy. Why is it unacceptable to believe in the bliblical definition of marriage? I thought democrats believed in “choice”–or is that only when a point of view is in agreement with theirs?
• 
  SharpHawkeye wrote on 4 May, 2009, 20:25

  Quit acting like every issue is going to result in the end of America if you don’t get your way. The voters don’t want to hear that.
  Quit insulting your opponents. Treat those you disagree with with respect.
  Quit fighting with yourselves. Learn this phrase, “We’ll have to agree to disagree.”
  Quit tearing the opponent down. Build yourself up. It’s the Republican party, not the Anti-Democrat party.
  Quit being the party of “no”. Become the party of “no, but”. You have to convince the voters you have ideas of your own. Convince them that you have a different and better solution to the problem.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 4 May, 2009, 20:49

  Forget it I won’t quit .

  I dsagree with my opponent. I have no trouble pointing out differences. What’s wrong that? Where on earth did you get the idea you can speak for the voters??!! If people disagree with me it’s all good. That was the original purpose of the consititution. I don’t have to convince anyone of anything. You seem to believe having a different point of view shows a lack of respect…Please spare me your definitions. You walk on the fence. Me? I like solid ground. If you think I have the WRONG approach, bully for you. But really, I don’t care.
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 4 May, 2009, 21:18

  It’s a pointless exercise trying to argue with liberals. Their reality is so far from yours that it is like people arguing in different languages. Pointless. Liberals believe strongly in the right to kill unborn children, while just as strongly opposing the death penalty for convicted murderers. They will argue that the murderer may have been wrongly convicted, and they will argue that the unborn child isn’t really a child yet. This is how these people think. They have no moral compass. They will argue that gay sex is fine, let’s give it government approval. But let’s ban smoking, it’s disgusting. Their minds are twisted. They are cowards who will argue against any war, they don’t care if we are removing a genocidal dictator, war is wrong! The truth is, they are afraid that they may have to go.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 4 May, 2009, 22:06

  Anonomouz rants: “They are cowards who will argue against any war, they don’t care if we are removing a genocidal dictator, war is wrong! The truth is, they are afraid that they may have to go.”

  Since you brought it up, what Service Branch were you in, for how long, and during what years?

  Have any of your children served?

  And since I responded, here’s mine:

  Over 10 years, 4 in RegAF and over 6 in ANG, fourteen years after getting out of the RegAF.

  My son spent an entire career in USN; On a carrier in The Gulf during Iraq 1, 2 tours on the ground in Iraq 2, 2 tours on the ground in Afghanistan.

  I think you’d ought to better know who you’re bad-mouthing before sticking your head up your a*s*s and sounding stupid next time.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 5:23

  Sharp Hawkeye, you make a lot of sense here. I have been trying to tell some here that we can’t get hung up on the social issues only, but we need to support our team if we have a chance of winning back a majority. It’s going to take more than Republicans to elect Republicans and to do that we have to have a message to offer. If our message is “if you’re not 100% in line with social conservatism(the way some here want it defined)”, we will lose these voters and definitely lose in 2010. I have tried to explain that doesn’t mean walking away from those issues, but you can see how far I have gotten with that!
• 
  Timmy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 5:25

  Conservative Demo, Thank you for your service and please give my thanks to your son for me!
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 5 May, 2009, 6:31

  “Since you brought it up, what Service Branch were you in, for how long, and during what years?”

  ARNG, Military Police, Baghdad 2005-2006. Two other trips to Iraq, including the one I’m on right now. December 2007-December 2008. February 2009-Present. The Air Force dropped me off in Baghdad, and then immediately flew back to Kuwait, where it was safe. More like an airline with bad service than a military branch, in my opinion. But I guess they do provide the traffic cops on the FOB who write parking tickets to the soldiers who go outside the wire.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 5 May, 2009, 6:56

  Anonomouz: By all means, thank you for your service. You have no idea how much you are loved and revered. Please share our thanks with your buddies.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 5 May, 2009, 7:07

  Anonomouz, that’s good, I salute you.

  Notwithstanding, your anger is driving you to talk stupid about your friends and neighbors back home, decent people, some of whom do have honest and sincere differing political philosophies than you.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 7:55

  Anonomouz, thanks for your service. It is greatly appreciated!!!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 8:55

  “I have been trying to tell some here that we can’t get hung up on the social issues only, but we need to support our team if we have a chance of winning back a majority.”

  Timmy, what do you mean by getting “hung up” on the social issues?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 13:00

  Timmy, I can respect a voice of reason from the other side. Simple sarah, Nice to see your christian values really coming to the forefront again, you are all about getting the kids out of womb, but god forbid we provide any help like food, housing, and healthcare to their families, because people choose to be poor. Oh, and if Anonomouz is the gentleman who formally posted under “anonymous”, no more than three weeks ago, he had already served three tours as a “combat soldier” and wasn’t in the military police or national guard. If “anonymouz” is a new person, I apologize, but I believe it is the same person.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 13:01

  Peggy, see waiting for any facts to back up the BS you posted on marriage. Guess you really don’t have any.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 13:05

  Sharp Hawkeye, you can’t have a rational debate with someone like simple sarah, she is not a rational individual.

  Silence
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 5 May, 2009, 14:36

  Silence Dogood- I have posted as anonymous previously, and if you count up what is written above by me, this is my 3rd trip to Iraq. This is my 4th trip to the Middle East since 2001. I’m not sure what your point is. I guess I would need you to pull up any post where I denied being in the National Guard or denied being an MP. It never came up before. I do not recall saying anything about being a combat soldier, but if you don’t think an MP is a combat soldier, you don’t know as much about everything as you think. If you are calling me a liar, I guess I would have a hard time proving differently. Maybe ask the admin if his hit counter is getting any hits from over here. It’s pathetic that this is my entertainment.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 14:49

  The anonymous I called out earlier, said he was in iraq as a “combat soldier” and listed a unit that didn’t seem to exist. If you are really, than i digress, however, I generally find your comments about all of us “liberals” back home extremely offensive and disrespective. Let alone your bitching about other branches of the military. Our complaints have never been with the soldiers but with their leaders, there was no reason for us to be there in the first place while we were still with afghanistan. You seem to be a very bitter human. For the record, I consider any soldier over in iraq combat soldiers considering the type of war being fought. Everyone is a potential target in harms way.

  Silence
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:07

  This is a typical liberal. You are, by far, THE most rude person on here, (two posts up you are calling someone simple and irrational… didn’t have to look far) but someone says something negative about liberals, and you SCREAM, shout them down, call them bigots and stupid. I have never posted a unit, so I accept your apology for calling me a liar. You probably owe whoever did post that an apology, also, because apparently you’re calling him a liar. And if you knew as much about the military as you have claimed in the past, you would have understood that my “bitching about other branches of the military” is normal inter-service rivalry and jabbing, done in fun.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:20

  Silence,

  Tell me which point you disagree with and I’ll let you have it.

  Most of them can obviously stand on their own with simple reasoning but I guess that’s too much for you, huh, Matlock?
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:28

  I say what I believe and get called a liar. And I’m the “extremely offensive” and disrespectful one. All the liberal posters on here insult anyone who has a different opinion than them. What a joke.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:31

  Anonomouz sez: “you would have understood that my “bitching about other branches of the military” is normal inter-service rivalry and jabbing, done in fun”

  Mmm yass, the Army guys who were occasionally on the air base where I was, actually ran in formation to the chow hall, screaming out goofy obscene ditties in time with their boot stomping. Mebbe they liked the chow so much they wanted to beat the rest of us to the chow line?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:35

  Peggy, I listed them yesterday, 3 and 8, still haven’t come up with anything, how does marriage promote political freedom and limited government, let’s start there.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:42

  Sarah, is simple and irrational, she never makes any points. Anon, you rant aimlessly, Rude, ok, but still true, I have rational debates with people, it is just impossible with the likes of you and sarah, and peggy. Anon, you are a bigot toward gays, i don’t even understand why you shy away from it, i would think you would be proud of it. No anon, I looked the unit up, it didn’t exist, further, unlike you, he never responded to it when I called him out. You jab in fun ok, doesn’t sound like it since you bitch about everything. I actually feel sad for you if this is your best form of entertainment, maybe we should play pass the hat and raise some money to send you a football, nintendo or something, to pass the time.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:44

  I don’t think I have ever been called “matlock”, peggy you got a thing for that andy griffith??? He make you feel a bit tingly???

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 15:59

  Come on, Matlock, you’re the lawyer here. You’re the one with the superior intellect and debating skills (cough, cough)….you’re the one accusing other veterans of lying about their service because you Googled something. Do the research since you can’t deduce the obvious on your own.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 16:09

  I see peggy, you have no facts what so ever. You post BS, get called out on it, and your response is, go look up the nonexistant facts to support my BS??? Now, here is the debate challange peggy, how does marriage promote political freedom and limited government??? Be specific. If private anon, served, great, if he hasn’t, so what, none of it doesn’t change the fact that he is a bitter bigot. Come on anon, own it, you hate gay people.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 16:21

  So, you’re saying you’re too lazy to figure it out on your own? Please tell us your real name so none of us has the misfortune of hiring you as counsel!

  I answered part of your question yesterday but in true liberal form, logic and reason are lost on you. Let me refresh your memory: “What proof do you need before you can see that children raised by a mother and father are better off?

  Have you been living in a cave?

  Ask any school teacher about the family make-up of the most troubled students in their classrooms.

  And how many children whose mother and father are actually married to each other are on WIC or other government aid?

  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.”

  Marriage fosters political freedom because unlock out-of-wedlock birth (That one’s for you, Christie Vilsack!), it generally doesn’t create wards of the state, pure and simple. Case in point is the number of people who are now totally okay with being supported by the state either through food stamps, nationalized healthcare, having their mortgages paid by somebody else, i,e,. the typical Obama voter. These people are now slaves to the state – their ambition is gone. They’ll be Democrats for life.

  I listed ten points yesterday (not by Focus on the Family, btw) but you only seem to have trouble with a couple of them. Did you miss these?

  4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.
  5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
  6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.

  7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 16:22

  Typo! Unlike, not unlock.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 5 May, 2009, 16:57

  Marriage fosters political freedom because unlock out-of-wedlock birth (That one’s for you, Christie Vilsack!), it generally doesn’t create wards of the state, pure and simple. Case in point is the number of people who are now totally okay with being supported by the state either through food stamps, nationalized healthcare, having their mortgages paid by somebody else, i,e,. the typical Obama voter. These people are now slaves to the state – their ambition is gone. They’ll be Democrats for life.

  Oh dear god, where do you come up with this garbage. OK, so kids born out of wedlock become wards of the state?? (I normally don’t get on people for proof reading, as I can be an offender, but please, you have to reread this mess, it makes no sense) No married couples are supported by the state??? Where are your facts peggy, stats to back up your jibberish. How does any of this create political freedom or limited government?? You still haven’t answered the question. The only thing you posted that has any statistical support is children are better off with married parents, interestingly though, that includes gay parents, and married couples tend to accumulate more wealth, but I said that yesterday too, but you keep falling back on that. let me not forget this tidbit from peggy, single parents can’t be committed parents in peggy’s world.

  Actually, peggy the typical obama voter was more educated. Here are some CNN exit poll results based on education.

  Vote by Education
  Total Obama McCain Other/No Answer No High School (4%) 63% 35% 2%
  H.S. Graduate (20%) 52% 46% 2%
  Some College (31%) 51% 47% 2%
  College Graduate (28%) 50% 48% 2%
  Postgraduate (17%) 58% 40% 2% the first percentage voted for obama, the second for mccain, as you can see obama won at every education level. so once again you are wrong peggy.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 5 May, 2009, 17:04

  Silence,

  As you very well prove, a college degree doesn’t necessarily guarantee an education.

  Why don’t YOU Google the stats for the number of prisoners who come from single parent homes.

  The facts are there – you just don’t want to believe them.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 5 May, 2009, 19:02

  Why Silence–what a suprise! I thought you weren’t going to respond to any more of my posts since you feel I’m so, simple! I actually like the handle. My beliefs are simple, plain, straight forward. Thanks! You really should just ignore me–please! I’m going to do my best to ignore you! Anonomouz, I salute you, with all sincerity. You’ve obviously given up a lot in the service of your country, more than the majority of Americans. I can’t begin to imagine (I have tried) or understand what war is like. My prayers go with you, each day. Peggy, I agree with you about Obama’s election and those who voted for him. The reality of his administration is already a hard pill for some of his voters to swallow, and this new idea he has for double taxing overseas business owners is going to add to that number. Despite what polling says (and we do have to consider the sources) the bloom is begining to fade. I look forward to the 2010 elections. It’s going to be entertaining, depressing, enjoyable, but never boring. I know some good will come of it. I have to make myself find some humor in it, otherwise I would lose my sanity. Oh wait! According to Silence, I already have, so I guess I need not worry! There are those on this website who enjoy hearing themselves rambe on, proud of their babble, secure in the fact they feel they’re waxing poetic. We should probably just ignore them. They have nothing to add in the way of original thought, or in providing any serious arguements. You would think if they consider us liars and uneducated they would just go away and not waste their time, wouldn’t you? But some people enjoy stirring the pot. If this is how the get their jollys and want to be on this site let’s just welcome them with arms open wide. That in it’s self shows we are inclusive, does it not??
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 6 May, 2009, 6:05

  With all the destruction brought about by the Democrats in this state, they have a far larger image problem.

  Democrat are the party of spend, spend, spend,

  Democrats are the party of tax, tax, tax.

  Democrats are the party of borrow, borrow, borrow.

  Democrats are the party of gay marriage.

  Democrats are the party of falling educational achievement while per pupil spending increases.

  Democrats are the party of excessive regulation on business.

  Democrats are the party of job losses.

  This list is only the beginning.

  Yup, who has the greater image problem.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 8:48

  So, since the kids of singel parents are going to prison we should just give up on them. Again, peggy you show the greatest christian values. You still fail to say how marriage leads to political freedom and limited government. You choose to focus on the only thing that can be proven, I have conceded, kids with both parents living together due do better, but again, you avoid the question posed. Oh simple, another long pointless post. You are a simple person, but far from straight forward, that would indicate that you are actually rational and coherent in your thought. but I digress, as I have been asked, why do I both with the likes of you, peggy and private anonymous. It is a fair point. It is a pointless endeavor to debate those you can’t think for themselves.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 6 May, 2009, 8:53

  SD,

  Did you miss this?

  “I listed ten points yesterday (not by Focus on the Family, btw) but you only seem to have trouble with a couple of them. Did you miss these?

  4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.
  5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
  6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
  7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.”

  You are SO getting skunked on this blog. If you’re a lawyer, I’m a nuclear physicist!
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 9:30

  Peggy, still haven’t answered the question, did you miss it??? How does marriage increase political freedom and limited government?? You said it, but avoid it. I throw in the other again, how does marriage make the majority of people better off when half end in divorce. I will play along, lets see, conceded on several occasions that “good” marriages are good for kids, Marriage sustains “civil society” and promotes common good??? how? please explain as this is just some ambiguous statement that you think sounds good. Marriage is a wealth creating institution?? I will say married couples tend to accumulate more wealth, particulary those without children, this would be one benefit I would say that gay couples should be able to enjoy just as straight. as for increasing human or social capital, please show me some statical analysis, because that sounds just like some made of BS. and number 7 seems to have two separate points put together in a non sequiter manner. When marriage weaken the equality gap widens, what equality gab are you referring too, economic??? social??? civil??? With any of those to pin it on marriage, is a rather simplistic analysis. I am sure race, economic standing and so forth play no role. And again I have never disputed that kids do better in homes with both parents in a good marriage. I await your response einstein.
  Silence

  Maybe it was a focus on the family talking point pamphlet, but we all know it was some kind of chritian coalition pamphlet, you didn’t come up with that on your own.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 9:32

  I am sorry, Maybe it wasn’t a focus on the family talking points pamphlet,

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 6 May, 2009, 10:00

  You are a waste of my time, SD; when the truth doesn’t align with your political agenda, you dismiss it out of hand.

  Have fun wallowing in your Democrat-induced, societal misery.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 10:08

  You are finally right peggy it is a waste of time, and I am indeed having fun wallowing in this democrat induced societal misery, I mean it was the democrats who led us into an unnecessary war and over saw the greatest economic crises since the great depression, oh wait that was the republicans. Still never answered the question did ya pegster, because you couldn’t or answer any of the new ones I posed, but I guess that is because I am a bad liberal lawyer and you are the religious einstein of the board. Keep relying on those mailed talking point pamphlets peggy.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 6 May, 2009, 10:35

  / I am a bad liberal lawyer /

  That’s the first and only true thing you’ve said on this blog!
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 11:03

  Peggy getting called a bad lawyer by you is the same as being peyton manning and being called a bad QB by rex grossman

  Silence
• 
  Thinking wrote on 6 May, 2009, 12:15

  Did you just compare your lawyering skills to the Peyton Manning? Its also funny that you chose to use a Heisman runner-up to attempt name-calling again!
• 
  steve right wrote on 6 May, 2009, 12:30

  Thinking,
  You swung and missed on that one, buddy. Maybe next pitch will be better.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 13:36

  Thinking, you got me on the silence dogood, ben franklin thing in the other thread, that was funny. I didn’t compare my lawyering skills to peyton manning, it was the comparison of someone as lacking in skill as rex grossman being critical, it was more comparing peggy to rex. And if my lawyering skill was comparable to peyton manning, a super bowl campion QB, I would take that as a compliment, even if he didn’t win the heisman.

  Silence
• 
  Thinking wrote on 6 May, 2009, 14:31

  Fair enough Silence, I was just having a little fun with that one. To Steve Right, I think “swung and missed” would be a baseball term, Silence and I were using football analogies. Try and keep up (;
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 6 May, 2009, 14:34

  ok, fair enought thinking, I wish I was the peyton manning of law, I would be a lot richer, maybe i would be a republican then. lol

  Silence
• 
  Sarah wrote on 6 May, 2009, 18:41

  Public health
  •The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.

  •Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.

  •Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
  That’s all I have to say.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 6 May, 2009, 19:14

  Sarah sez::
  Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.”
  ———
  Have you, Sarah, actually seen a copy of that book?

  Have you actually seen public record showing that ” the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, ” or are you reporting something which you heard or read from another “source”?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 9:16

  con dem, simple sarah does not come up with any thoughts on her own, she clearly regurgitated this from some christian coalition talking point pamphlet that was mailed to her with a return envelope to send a money donation back to stop this latest fabricated atrocity, which I am sure she obediantly did like a pavlovian dog.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 7 May, 2009, 9:19

  Can you disprove what Sarah says, SD?
• 
  Peggy wrote on 7 May, 2009, 9:28

  This is worth repeating:

  “Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.”

  Great info, Sarah!
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 9:35

  Why should I be worried about disproving what hasn’t been proven???

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 7 May, 2009, 9:50

  So your answer is no.
• 
  Thinking wrote on 7 May, 2009, 9:57

  Silence,

  Is that really the view you take on life? How can you think objectively (which you pride yourself on) without weighing the evidence for and against something?

  But just so we’re clear, Sarah’s statements have been proven. Here’s a Boston Globe article confirming what Sarah stated and documenting the details(http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/05/19/explicit_pamphlets_displayed_at_school/). There was also a Boston Herald story and a WHDH TV-Channel 7 News Report confirming the details. Doesn’t sound like Christian Coalition Pamphlets to me. And yet, before you found the initiative to “disprove” it, you still chose to call it a “fabricated atrocity”. While you can choose to ignore something that hasn’t been “proven”, perhaps you should wait before calling facts atrocities and fabrications.
• 
  steve right wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:12

  Sarah said; “the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century.”

  That’s not true.

  And again, it’s less about disproving of homosexuality as much as it is that people like Sarah and Peggy just don’t like the types of sex two fella’s engage in. Please refer back to my King Lear analogy from an earlier post.
• 
  Thinking wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:22

  Perfect Steve, I’ll go hunt through the posts to find your glorious King Lear analogy. Give me a break man, who are you kidding?

  Really? We’ve been talking rationally about homosexuality? I thought you were just against what Peggy and Sarah have to say. My mistake. But you were very right. In fact, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health did not produce the book, they simply “helped” the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts produce it. Congratulations on your lofty win, but how does that make Sarah’s point any less valid?
• 
  Mike C wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:31

  If promoting marriage is the real goal, why not attack “no fault” divorce?

  For the record, I think that would be a terrible idea. But it would be a FAR more direct attack on the evils perceived by Peggy.
• 
  Thinking wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:37

  Does the fact that society has many problems mean that we should not address one?
• 
  Mike C wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:47

  I question the choice of the ill you choose to address. The p.c. line from the Right on this issue is “we’re not anti-gay bigots, we just cherish marriage.” Why devote so much effort to this collateral defense of the institution? Why fight so hard to get it back to a status quo that was in pretty bad shape to begin with? If it’s not anti-gay bigotry, what is it?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:52

  Thinking, I already knew the story, she embellished from her pamphlets, these are the same pamphlets my parents get, as steve pointed out, massachusetts had nothing to do with it, and she went well beyond the “book”. HIV has increased since gay marriage was legalized??? Proof??? Correlation???? Maybe it is from IV drug use has gone up??? Or maybe its just a lie???

  Thinking, this was just a smear campaign. Here is a quote from your own article that you cite to describing the book,”The ”Little Black Book,” produced by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, is targeted at 18-and-older gay men, according to the committee. The book uses vivid descriptions and colloquial terms to describe the ways HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and spread.” Inappropriate for the event yes, mistake yes, but in the end it a book designed to stop the spread of AIDS through education. You can’t do that with puppet figures and using terms like “tallywacker” and “whodiddly” as some would prefer.

  Silence
• 
  Thinking wrote on 7 May, 2009, 10:57

  Great point, Mike. In only four lines, you just managed to convince me that homosexuality is not destructive to health, costly to society, and unnatural for procreation. Now, you can proceed to ask me how homosexuality is destructive, costly, or unnatural (like you have to many people countless times) and I will respond with the same facts (”Christian Coalition Pamphlets”) I’ve been informing you of this whole time. This is the “Circle of Life” Simba was talking about.

  No, really, the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce convinced me that gay marriage should be allowed. Great point, Mike, great point!
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 11:04

  Thinking, the 50% divorce rate just undermines the “sanctity of marriage” arguments that the religious right likes to bang the drum about. Again, it is a state issue, for the state, marriage is simply a civil contract that confers rights on the participants. That is it. The church can have there beliefs and that is fine, but you can’t legislate those beliefs onto everyone. Gay marriage does not effect the church or anyone else besides the gay couples who are allowed to be married now and enjoy the same rights and privileges as straight couples

  Silence
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 7 May, 2009, 11:14

  Here is a copy-paste from the Boston Globe article mentioned above.
  —————

  Fenway Community Health officials yesterday said they left about 10 copies of the ”Little Black Book” on an informational table they rented at a conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network of Boston. The annual event, held on April 30 at Brookline High School, was aimed at high school students, educators, counselors, administrators, and parents.

  The ”Little Black Book,” produced by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, is targeted at 18-and-older gay men, according to the committee. The book uses vivid descriptions and colloquial terms to describe the ways HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and spread.

  A Fenway Community Health employee brought the pamphlets along with other materials and put them on the table by mistake, said Chris Viveiros, a spokesman for Fenway Community Health.

  I went and GOOGLED “FENWAY ACTION COM . . . . ” etc and couldn’t find any reference to the book being helped in its production by the MA Dept of Public Health or any public agency.

  No dispute about such a booklet existing but NOTHING about public monies being involved?

  Sarah???????
  Peggy???????????
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 11:46

  Con dem, don’t go using facts to dictate your logic, it will only confuse and inflame peggy and sarah.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 7 May, 2009, 11:48

  Con Dem,

  Do you have proof that the Boston.com article is correct? Have you actually researched the Brookline High conference or are you just regurgitating info you gleaned from the secular press?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 12:09

  because your chritian coalition pamphlets are much more accurate and less biased?? Keep in mind that this is the article thinking cited us too. Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 7 May, 2009, 12:16

  Keep in mind, you don’t get sarcasm.
• 
  Mike C wrote on 7 May, 2009, 12:20

  Thinking – I don’t believe that the anti-gay marriage crowd actually believes the “facts” that you muster in defense of your position. Past experience teaches that the proponents of these views (the religious right) are not firmly wedded to empirical inquiry and will cynically wield faux-facts and faux-empirical inquiry to support views that are fundamentally based on sometthing other than an empirical proposition. (See, e.g., evolution v. creationism v. intelligent design). You folks are not anti-gay marriage because you believe these factual assertions you make – you are anti-gay marriage because it offends your religious sensibilities.

  That conclusion – that your position on this issue is REALLY a matter of faith – is okay. Isn’t it okay to be religious? Isn’t it okay to have religious convictions? Why are you so determined to make these false empirical assertions? If God says it’s evil, isn’t that enough for you?

  Like Steve Right said, own it. Be honest with yourself, Peggy: would it really matter to you if Con Dem presented you with irrefutable empirical research that showed gay marriage to be socially healthy? This back-and-forth is really just a distraction from the fundamental disagreement.

  Which takes us back to the point of my post. If your concern is religious, that’s fine. All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about your reasons. If, on the other hand, you are primarily concerned because of the secular and empirically observable results that you allege, then why not take on the one cause that no reasonable person could deny for the breakdown in the institution of marriage – no-fault divorce?
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 7 May, 2009, 12:26

  Great Post Mike, interesting to note that is the same conclusion that the Iowa supreme court reached in the varnum decision, all the “rationals” and “research” people tried to present to ban gay marriage was just a smoke screen for the real reason, it offended their religious values, and that doesn’t work in our government.

  Silence
• 
  Sarah wrote on 7 May, 2009, 17:43

  Peggy-thank you. I’m sure eveyone with an opposing view will say this is also a fabrication, but guess what–it’s true.” In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys. ” I do love to share. And I gotta say, some of you lovely liberals are so entertaining–it’s almost enchanting the way your little minds try to justify your thinking–oops! That’s really not the correct word. People who think actually use their brains for more than trying to impress people they dislike!! Words really are a dime a dozen, but it’s fun to see how they spew forth! Keep up the good work guys!!!
• 
  Sarah wrote on 7 May, 2009, 17:47

  Tell me boys, where iis the freedom to choose in the followin•In the following case? 2006- the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
• 
  Sarah wrote on 7 May, 2009, 17:49

  Wait! Try this! •“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 7 May, 2009, 17:50

  God bless Massachusetts? Naw, not so much.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 7 May, 2009, 18:02

  Hmm, Sarah’s having some pretty erotic fantasies there; titillating, my cardiologist would probably prefer I wouldn’t be thinking stuff like that.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 8 May, 2009, 8:30

  Con dem, I think Sarah is a pretty repressed individual, this is why she freaks out on these issues. The sarahs and peggys are’t happy people so they try to attack othe people that are, to justify their own unhappiness.

  God forbid children learn that there are gay people in the world, It will completely scar them forever and make them want to go homo.

  Silence
• 
  steve right wrote on 8 May, 2009, 9:17

  Sarah, Peggy, troglodytes,
  The gay lifestyle is normal. Who cares if kids learn that. I know, I know, we shouldn’t be teaching our kids not to hate people for being different. But that’s something they can learn in church. Church is where we teach our kids that people who are different should be looked down upon. I think we can all agree on that.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 8 May, 2009, 20:36

  Silence and Steve-kiss kiss!
• 
  Sarah wrote on 8 May, 2009, 20:39

  CD, I worry about you. I mean if you think my opinions are erotic fantasies, well,,,get better soon!
• 
  Timmy wrote on 8 May, 2009, 20:47

  Sarah, it’s easier to post when there aren’t so many people here. You hang in there and don’t let the dirty S.O.B.’s get you down!
• 
  Timmy wrote on 8 May, 2009, 20:55

  Well Steve, I can’t quite agree with you on the church teaching people to look down on and hate those that are different. The bible I was taught from said to love thy neighbor as you love yourself. As a Christian I don’t hate gay people. I do find the behavior something abhorent to me, but that is between you and your maker. To the God I worship all sin is the same, I’m no better or worse than anyone else.

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.