This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Why I Want Gingrich as Our Standard Bearer


 This election will be the most important in our lifetimes.  It is between becoming a failed Old Europe or a return to our exceptionalism.  To date, many Americans have not been paying attention and are therefore clueless.  This year however, they are tuning in.

I want Newt, the experienced teacher-politician–the explainer par excellence, to use the bully pulpit  a candidate has, to educate.  The debates have already allowed him to fly above the liberal media fog.  People are seeing who he really is and they like what they see.  Before the season is over, they will like what they hear.  As the man says “I guarantee it.”

143 comments:

guy faulkes said...

Newt worries me because he is an establishment Republican politician with a bad policy on illegal aliens. However, he is one of the better Republican establishment politicians. I can support him even though he is wrong on the amnesty issue. We have beat that back three times and can probably do so again.

Sarkazein said...

"I cannot understand your ignorance."-trying to be Anonymous

You just described ignorance.

guy faulkes said...

Hello, dolt. You can change your name, but you are also going to have to change your writing style.

Mike D. said...

Guess I'm late to the party. Who's the anonymous dolt? Comments deleted?

I can vote for Newt.

Save your theology for another day. Right now, we are facing a desperate financial crisis. The last guy who handed us a balanced budget, even a surplus, was Newt Gingrich.

Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma.

If we get through this crisis, there will be prosperous days ahead, and there will be plenty of carefree hours that you can dedicate to denying freedom to innocent people who are different from you.

Sarkazein said...

"Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma."-Mike D

Is this where, because you think you have middle-of-the-road true enlightenment, that if others are against illegal immigration and the crime and burden they place on US taxpayers, that they are just petty haters?
Who hates gays and Mexicans, you maybe?
You support bi-sexuals and Mexicans with expired green cards.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Do you believe that prejudice exists?

Can you fathom the possibility that prejudice is frequently laundered into something less obscene by finding legal and religious ways to legitimize it?

Mike D. said...

In the mean time, what we need right now is a President who is going to solve our financial woes, not one who is going to spend his time depriving freedom to minorities.

Sarkazein said...

"... not one who is going to spend his time depriving freedom to minorities."-MikeD

Who would that be?

"Can you fathom the possibility that prejudice is frequently laundered into something less obscene by finding legal and religious ways to legitimize it?"-MikeD

Can you fathom that it may not be prejudice if looked at it in a legal or religious point of view?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Gay marriage would be unequal treatment under the law. That is not prejudice or hate. Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman.
Can you fathom that straying away from these truths may partially be the cause of the fall of our country?
Can you fathom that an invasion of illegal aliens may partially be the cause of the fall of our country? Those two things didn't start with this election, they have been going on for years. If our country was not "Right now, we are facing a desperate financial crisis" you might have a point. But it is, and there are many factors in play.

Blogger said...

Guy, I am realizing a problem that Jeb Bush is pointing out. We Conservatives have not found a way to talk about this immigration problem without sounding like we are talking against all Hispanics. As you know, I myself have not been careful about this on this blog.

So, my question to you is "Do you have any ideas about how we can talk about illegal immigration and not sound like we are predjudiced against Hispanics so many of whom are our fellow citizens?

This may be one of the more important questions we conservatives have to answer for ourself. Above everything we have to get rid of Obama. He is destroying our country. We may not be able to without our fellow Latino voters.

Blogger said...

I meant to add that I believe Newt has found a way to address this problem. This wisdom of his is one more reason I believe he is our man.

Wolf's Head said...

"Do you believe that prejudice exists?

Can you fathom the possibility that prejudice is frequently laundered into something less obscene by finding legal and religious ways to legitimize it? " Mike D

Of course. The left has been doing that to the right for decades.

Look at the prejudice of the left towards rural residents, Christians, conservatives, the military and those who believe in individual freedom.

There is where the prejudice lies.

guy faulkes said...

The reason that people think those that do not support illegal aliens are against Hispanics is because these people are mindless sheep that have brought into the spin produced by the lame stream media. What part of the phrase illegal aliens denotes Hispanics?

I have friends that serve in the Border Patrol. They have caught mid easterners from Iraq, Pakistanis, Orientals from China, Caucasians from Europe, and Russia, and other races and nationalities. These criminals are all illegal aliens and should be deported.

The racists in the equation are those that think all illegal aliens equal Hispanics or that all Hispanics are illegal aliens.

People should get over their prejudice and pay attention. Words have meanings that do not reflect necessarily opinions. This fact needs to be brought to the attention of those racists that equate the illegal immigration problem solely with Hispanics.

Mike D. said...

"Can you fathom that it may not be prejudice if looked at it in a legal or religious point of view?" - Sark

Priceless. How can something be wrong if it has been legitimized by others?

Can't, or don't want to answer the question, eh Sark?

guy faulkes said...

Do you have any defense to what I said, MikeD?

You seem to fit the bill for those that think all illegal aliens are Hispanic.

Sarkazein said...

"Priceless. How can something be wrong if it has been legitimized by others?

Can't, or don't want to answer the question, eh Sark?"- MikeD

No savvy.

"Can you fathom that it may not be prejudice..."- Sark said. Your comment reads like you are convinced it is the only cause of the opinions at question.

Sarkazein said...

"The problem is not that you sound like you're prejudiced against Hispanics but lack any compassion or ability to think beyond your bigotry and hate."

MikeD ?????

Mike D. said...

Sark, allow me to answer the questions you posed to me which led to my question for you. Then, perhaps, you will find the courage to be honest, rather than defensive, because the truth is that there is prejudice on the right, on the left, and in all shades of the middle. You have prejudices. I have prejudices. We all have prejudices. To not admit such an obvious reality is something only an individual caught in the "Democrat good/Republican bad, Republican good/Democrat bad" partisan paradigm could say with a straight face. So, as to your questions:

"Is this where, because you think you have middle-of-the-road true enlightenment, that if others are against illegal immigration and the crime and burden they place on US taxpayers, that they are just petty haters?" - Sark

No. Absolutely not. And you seem to be confusing a moderate position with a liberal position, understandable given the self-protection mechanisms which are part of a standard political party brainwash. No, among those who "are against illegal immigration and the crime and burden they place on US taxpayers", some have really thought it through and support legal immigration, some are just listening to the logical arguments put forth by a few carefully selected political party entertainment personalities, and some hold a true Texas-swagger style of prejudice, the whole "Don't mess with Texas", "Keep your damn feet off my property" mentality which holds brown and black people inferior at its core. Only you know for sure in which category you truly belong, and I'm not asking you that, because honest or not, you will likely give the same answer. It's part of the partisan demonization game. Present yourself as the good guy at all times.

"Who hates gays and Mexicans, you maybe?" - Sark

Gosh, I certainly hope I don't. I try not to hate anybody. I don't think it's a healthy emotion. And it is tough for me to tell you who hates both gays and Mexicans without making some major generalizations. But, if I had to put forth my very best guess, and try to isolate one particular group of individuals who hates both of those groups, and mind you, this is your idea, not mine... I would have to guess the following group: White, 60+ year old Republican Texas Christian land-owning males. Now, there would be a bunch of individuals within that group who would not hate gays and Mexicans, but I bet that group would provide the highest percentage.

Ok, soooooo, I answered your two questions about as thoroughly and honestly as possible, so how about stepping up and answering mine with something other than return questions and smokescreen accusations against your partisan enemies? Here it is again, Sark:

"Do you believe that prejudice exists?"

"Can you fathom the possibility that prejudice is frequently laundered into something less obscene by finding legal and religious ways to legitimize it?"

Will you answer? My guess is that you will select a small piece of my post, conveniently leave out the obvious qualifying statements and the part that says this is not in my nature and I'm only doing it because you ask, and you will try to use that small piece to throw up more smokescreens to avoid an honest discussion about prejudice. Preserve the partisan paradigm! Then again, maybe you'll surprise me. There's always a first for everything!

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Just to correct one of your many misconceptions displayed openly in your last comment-- "Don't Mess WithTexas" theme is an anti-litter advertising theme. Look it up.

Sarkazein said...

I must say, I think your last comment is as prejudice as any I've read. I believe your misconceptions you so proudly share, are interfering with your reasoning. This may be your problem and causing your inability to commit. You absolutely think that the predominant reasoning behind anti gay marriage and anti illegal immigration is simple bigotry. You have a closed mind about this. No matter what is written, it will not sway your opinion.
Questions you might ask yourself is: "Why are there homosexual latinos that are against illegal immigration? Why are there homosexuals against gay marriage? Do Mexicans in Mexico hate all their illegal immigrants from south of their border?

Sarkazein said...

"But, if I had to put forth my very best guess, and try to isolate one particular group of individuals who hates both of those groups, and mind you, this is your idea, not mine... I would have to guess the following group: White, 60+ year old Republican Texas Christian land-owning males. Now, there would be a bunch of individuals within that group who would not hate gays and Mexicans, but I bet that group would provide the highest percentage."-MikeD

And you'd be wrong. Blacks hate Mexicans more than any group. They war against each other, right here in Bayou City. And elsewhere.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- My Guess is Muslims hate gays more than any other group. So you'd be wrong there also.

Reader said...

Blogger, what defines predjudice these days? Disagreement doesn't equal predjudice. I've got a soft spot for some of the mexicans that are here. I don't apologize for that. It's how I am. I don't want to see families split up. I do want to see our borders secure though, that's not hate...that's the laws we have on the books.

Do we change the border law to become the "compassionate entry border law of the US"? We have laws, either change them or enforce them. It has nothing to do with hate, how much land a person owns or whether you are republican or democrat. Texas seems to be the easy place to cross. Sark lives there, he deals with it everyday. We don't.

We disagree about things, but it doesn't mean we hate anyone. We can hate laws of course, but until they are changed...we need to enforce them.

Sarkazein said...

Reader- That is what I was trying to write in a less polite style.

Sarkazein said...

No matter what Newt, Mitt, Ron Paul, Bachmann, or Santoram say, they will have to deal with closed minds like MikeD and others who thrive on their own prejudices against things they cannot or will not understand.

Mike D. said...

Annnnnd Sark refuses to answer my questions. Big surprise. ;-)

I love the closed-minded label you slap on me, Sark. Yes, the guy who can find unwanted prejudice in his own thoughts is closed-minded, but the guy who can see prejudice only in the minds of others is open-minded. That makes a lot of sense.

"Don't mess with Texas" - from Wikipedia:

"Beyond its immediate role in reducing litter, the slogan became a Texas cultural phenomenon and the slogan has been popularly appropriated by Texans. Though the slogan is not well known outside of Texas, it appears on countless items of tourist souvenirs, the phrase is actually a federally registered trademark; the department has tried at times to enforce its trademark rights with cease and desist letters, but has had very limited success. The phrase "Don't Mess with Texas" is a frequently cited example of pride in Texas culture."

Sark, I would not use a slogan unless I knew the story behind it. That motto's current meaning is not quite what it was. But of course, you already knew this and just decided not to be intellectually honest, right?

Mike D. said...

Oh, I see, Sark, you were asking for two different groups. I thought you were asking for one group which displays the greatest hostility toward both gays and Mexicans. But you wanted two different groups. Gotcha!

Ok, here you go. The specific group that shows the greatest hostility toward homosexuals would have to be the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. But I could be wrong about that.

As for prejudice against Mexicans... I am not sure. Maybe Guatemalans? I haven't really researched it. Generally, I try to reduce prejudice, and I typically do so by assembling a diverse group of friends and introducing people to other cultures through friendship, not by spreading blame on others. That is why I am uncomfortable answering your questions. My nature is to discuss subjects philosophically, not to find someone to persecute. This must be one of those horrible "middle-of-the-road" qualities you abhor. ;-)

Sarkazein said...

"...and I typically do so by assembling a diverse group of friends..."-MikeD

Some of my best friends are... Paleeze.

I guess none of them are 60 and over and own land in Texas.

Mike D. said...

Hit a nerve there, eh Sark?

What, do you fit into that category on every count or something?

Still not answering my questions either, I see, even though I again answered the clarified and restated version of your original question. What do you have to lose?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD's misconception caused by prejudice : "Texas-swagger style of prejudice, the whole "Don't mess with Texas", "Keep your damn feet off my property" mentality which holds brown and black people inferior at its core."

Liberal insanity... expected from the likes of liberal POV... and now MikeD. Careful, you are spinning out of the middle-of-the-road and crashing headlong into being sissified if a anti-litter campaign slogan scares you. Trust me, you don't hear Texans using that slogan, and so what if they/we did. It has nothing to do with gays or illegals, its all about the highway trash.

Sarkazein said...

"Hit a nerve there, eh Sark?"- MikeD

Yeah, the nerve that flares up when I read a liberal playing the race card on everything that does not agree with their closed-minded point of view.
My prejudice is that the law has already decided it is illegal to be in this country without following the proper immigration laws.

Blogger said...

Monday, December 12, 2011

Voters rate Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney evenly when asked which Republican presidential candidate would run strongest against President Obama, but among GOP voters, Gingrich is the clear favorite. Rasmussen Reports

Mike D. said...

Sark,

The following groups have been started on Facebook, by Texans, so please don't tell me that the application of "Don't mess with Texas" hasn't changed over time. Remember, these are Texans who have formed these groups:

"I survive Texas summers.. so don't mess with me"

"Don't Mess with Texas Schools"

"Don't Mess With Texas Families"

"Casey Anthony, Don't Mess with Texas"

"Don't mess with me...I'm from TEXAS!"

"Don't Let Bill White Mess with Texas"

"Don't Mess With Texas Homeowners"

"Don't Mess With With People From Texas"

"Don't Mess With Texas Earth Day Festival"

And that's just on Facebook! If you really look, you will find that Texans have adapted that slogan for sports teams, professional organizations, clubs, and many other types of uses. All of the uses have dealt with Texas pride, and very few involve litter. But by all means, keep fabricating your story.

Ok, in spite of the fact that my posts are backed up by factual example, I feel that by repeatedly badgering you about this, I run the risk of violating the site rule "Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly". So I'm going to let it go now, Sark.

If at some point you feel like actually answering my questions, please feel free to do so, and perhaps we can have an honest discussion.

Cheers.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Notice NONE of your little Facebook things mention gays or illegal aliens. Facebook... too funny.
If you'll notice, some of the titles were probably started by gay people.

You play the race-card when people don't agree with you and you go to Facebook to prove your point. I think you are right, you need to take a break. Maybe Liberal POV will spam this thread and try and back you up.

Mike D. said...

"Facebook... too funny" - Sark

A Watauga Conservative Facebook profile

(You have to be logged in to your Facebook account to view it)

Yes, very funny. So funny, in fact, that Facebook's logo is the only prominently appearing corporate logo on the Watauga Conservative home page.

Ok, now I promise that I am through with this thread! I'm sorry! Pointing out ignorance is nearly impossible for me to resist! ;-)

Sarkazein said...

Trying to prove Texans are bigots by using Facebook is too funny. And so are you. Playing the race card on people not agreeing with you is the ignorance you are searching for.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, do you not find it telling that Mike D has made not one mention of my post concerning the fact that illegal aliens are comprised of all nationalities and races? His fixation on Hispanics is in itself a form of racism.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- MikeD should realize that it is much more than Mexicans scoffing at our laws. But the age old trick of the liberals is to inject racism to stifle discussion. It doesn't work with me. It must have worked for him in the past.
Are you surprised MikeD in particular would insult people on this blog by writing:
"Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma."- MikeD

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- I do think there is some of that "projection" thing going on with MikeD.

Mike D. said...

Guy,

I did not answer your question because I was waiting for Sark to answer mine. When you ask a question of someone and that person refuses to answer your question while others team up with a barrage of questions in return, it does not make for a fair discussion. I have answered three questions of Sarkazein, and I have asked only two. I have not received answers to those two. Perhaps you are happy to play the gang-up game as well?

I would think that if you read this entire exchange and are inclined to fairness, inserting yourself into the discussion, you might point out to Sark that I answered his questions and cited verifiable facts in my responses, while he obfuscates, dodges, and flat-out ignores my questions. I wonder why you pile on instead of playing fair?

I am not asking you to come to my defense. I have never asked for that. In fact, on WW I have somewhat rudely declined your assistance, but only because I wanted to discuss individual issues philosophically, and not get dragged into a robotic partisan debate. I am happy to answer your questions, and I think you and I can have a civil, intellectual discussion. If Sark will agree to let down his guard for a little while, we can all have an honest conversation about illegal immigration, gay rights, and what the thread is about, Newt Gingrich!

So, Sark answers my questions and I'll be happy to answer yours, but I'm not playing the gang-up / shout-down game. Fair is fair. Talk to your boy.

Mike D. said...

"Trust me, you don't hear Texans using that slogan". - Sark

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- So now you claim victim status. You have officially lost your middle-of-the-road status and are a full fledged Liberal. Congrats!

Sarkazein said...

S.O.P-- Insult people by calling them bigots, then claim they aren't playing fair.

guy faulkes said...

MikeD, in my opinion you were answered. There are political and/or religious (lesser jihad) reasons for opposing illegal immigration.

You still have not addressed the fact that illegal aliens are of all nationalities and races and that you keep referring to them as Hispanics. Do you really not think this is racist?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- I just contacted 20 of my closest Texan friends and asked them if "Don't Mess With Texas" means they hate Mexicans and Gays. Even the Mexican and gay ones answered no.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Whether or not a slogan-driven over-inflated sense of pride in one's homeland may lead to xenophobia was not my question, though it sounds like a pretty good question to me.

No, here were my questions:

"Do you believe that prejudice exists?"

"Can you fathom the possibility that prejudice is frequently laundered into something less obscene by finding legal and religious ways to legitimize it?"

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Your second "question" is a statement. Your first one should be rhetorical.

guy faulkes said...

MikeD plese quit acting like the dolt. Of course prejudice exists (with SOME people on any topic - NOT EVERYONE or even a majority). Take for instance your prejudice on enforcing the rule of law in the matter of illegal immigration and your refusal to acknowledge that supporting this is not racial. Illegal aliens come in all races. Sark has answered you.

As to defending you on Watauga Watch, it must have been some time ago as I no longer go there. It is not relevant to anything as only one side of the debate is allowed to be posted. In any event, I was not defending you. I do not defend personalities as a general view. I agree or disagree with ideas and opinions. In this case I completed agree with the Anonymous poster that has previously made this point. One responds to a statement, not a name.

Mike D. said...

"Of course prejudice exists (with SOME people on any topic - NOT EVERYONE or even a majority)."

Guy, thank you! It seems so obvious that I can only speculate as to why Sark would be so opposed to admitting something so simple.

The truth is that liberal policies do terrible things to minorities, using and abusing and taking them for granted. But at the same time, racist jokes about hiding welfare checks in people's work boots and the like are clearly passed along by conservatives. Sark's inability to admit that prejudice exists on his side of the fence defies simple reality.

Sarkazein said...

"It seems so obvious..." -MikeD


" Sark's inability to admit that prejudice exists on his side of the fence defies simple reality."- MikeD


Couldn't have said it better myself.
But, as earlier noted, MikeD's "questions" are the statements of a closed-minded hardcore liberal with pre-conceived misconceptions.

guy faulkes said...

I do not understand why MikeD could not understand what you plainly said, Sark.

I still would like an answer as to why he thinks Hispanics can be illegal aliens but Orientals or Caucasians cannot. Maybe he is only concerned with Hispanics. If so, that is racist.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- That's right, it is like assuming all criminals are from a certain race. Or that a particular crime is characteristic of a particular race.

Mike D. said...

To discuss illegal immigration without discussing Mexico as the primary reason for the discussion and the need for legislation would be to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room with you.

From Forbes.com:

"The U.S. also shares a long, wide-open border with Canada, and almost no one is seriously talking about building a fence across our northern border—because massive numbers of Canadians aren’t crossing it illegally."

Sarkazein said...

Now you're comparing Mexicans to gorillas, MikeD, real nice.

Mike D. said...

Good one, Sark. :-)

For a second there, I thought you and Guy had formed a political correctness thought police squad. I mean, if one cannot comment that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in America are Mexican, what is next? Is it also not ok to say that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim?

Who are the liberals here again? ;-)

guy faulkes said...

MikeD, You are the party that first aimed the discussion at Mexicans and Hispanics while never once mentioning or acknowledging that illegal aliens are also of other nationalities and races. You called people that support enforcing immigration law racist, as a matter of fact.

No one but you has limited the immigration problem to Mexicans. Gingrich has not as he would give amnesty to any of them.

Mike D. said...

"Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman. Can you fathom that straying away from these truths may partially be the cause of the fall of our country?" - Sark (December 11, 2011 12:10 PM)

Sark has already validated my claim, my concern. The reason I am supporting Newt is that the economy is the most important issue right now. We need to get unemployment under control. We need to incentivize businesses to start investing in our future, and we need to dramatically reduce government spending.

Eventually, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be used to prevent Sark from discriminating against homosexuals and blaming the downfall of society on them.

But for now, maybe Republicans could try to focus on the real issue at hand. I believe Gingrich will do just that.

Sarkazein said...

Typical liberal, money rues all thought. Vote your wallet...greed.

Sarkazein said...

should read: money rules... not rues.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Discrimination would come when others wanting to marry, but unable to pass the gay test or are not gay, would not be permitted to marry. For example-- partners in crime, asexuals wanting to marry for benefits, brothers or brothers and sisters, or sisters, etc. To not "discriminate", marriage would have to be permitted for everyone... then everything... then people to their animals. So don't use discrimination BS unless your are willing to allow marriage between anybody and anything.

Sarkazein said...

That's why the definition is -- between a man and a woman. (period)

Reader said...

Now I understand where the gay issue came from...I was confused about the comments.

I still have a sense someone else is going to come forward to run for office. I just don't think the conservatives are satisfied with the choices. Independents are not supporting Newt...that worries me.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Your political party is the one that freed black people from slavery. Your political party is the one that made support of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause a prerequisite for Confederate States to reenter the United States. Now you no longer want to expand freedom and Equal Protection. I suppose the 14th Amendment is turning into your Frankenstein monster.

There are a lot of people who are homosexual. There are very few people who have sex with their sisters or their dogs. Do you think that gay marriage is some kind of gateway drug or something? What is the source of your concern? Is it the Bible? Perhaps you should look to the Bible itself if you want some real, 'righteous' perversion. There's a 'Lot' of it, you know? ;-)

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Back in the early 1900's when gays were taken from their San Francisco homeland and sold to florist shops, landscape design firms, hair salons, NFL football teams, and kept from being educated, beaten by their 60+ year old white Texas heterosexual land owners, it was definitely a scar on our American History.

Now that I know (from your comment) that gays are not having sex and are holding off 'til marriage, I will try and show more sympathy.

You definitely project your prejudices and bigotries on others. This has to screw up your thought process.

Equal protection under the law is what we have now (marriage). If it changes to same sex marriage if you are gay, then it is no longer equal protection under the law. You can't marry another man, I can't marry another man= equal. If you can marry another man because you are gay, and I can't because I am not= NOT equal.

guy faulkes said...

As this thread turned into a discussion of illigal immigration -

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/52_support_arizona_like_immigration_law_in_their_state

Sarkazein said...

MikeD is thinking we are for stopping the Mexicans at the border and letting in all the OTMs. That is as long as the OTMs aren't gay.

Mike D. said...

I think it's funny that the politically correct police would call me a racist for daring to say that the illegal immigration issue has everything to do with Mexicans, then Sark breaks it down into only two groups, "Mexicans" and "OTM (Other than Mexicans)". That, in and of itself, ought to show that the issue is only a big deal because of the overwhelming number of Mexicans living here illegally.

But just in case that is not enough, here are the real numbers:

Total illegal immigrants in the USA = 23,787,000
Illegals from somewhere other than Mexico = 615,000

Does the PCPD have an abacus that counts millions?

You might like to check out this site, as it contains running counters on all kinds of illegal immigrant statistics.

Jack said...

I'll throw this out:

Sark has to be pissed at someone. It doesn't really matter.

If Lib isn't posting (or, more likely, is being censored) then he is arguing with me. If I'm not posting, then he's arguing with Mike D. If he's not posting, he continues arguing (a little bit ago, only the "regulars" were posting and he picked a fight with Guy).

I'm sure a psychologist would have something interesting to say about that behavior.

Sarkazein said...

So Jack, you would just bend-over and take it when someone says- ""Please take your hatred of Mexicans and gays and bury it somewhere deep. My country needs saving right now, and what is going to save it is good business decisions, not religious dogma."-Mike D?
You may be OK with someone projecting their own bigotry on you, but I am not.
Jack, have you checked out the Rodney King Can't We All Just Get Along Blog?

Sarkazein said...

Jack- Do you serve hors d'oeuvres with that whine?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- You can have and write all the racism and stereotyping you want. Just take credit for them yourself, don't put them off on me and expect to go unchallenged. No PCPD here.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Here is why I brought it up. Where I live, and in many states across the country, 2010 brought a landslide victory in state legislatures for Republicans. All across the country, legislatures that have been controlled for decades by Democrats were handed to Republicans. In case this is not making sense to you, that means millions of voters switched their votes from previous elections and supported Republicans.

The Republicans were handed majorities, not because the public has been hoping to deny gay marriage, and the Democrats were not getting the job done. The Republicans were not handed a majority because the voters feel that voter fraud has been affecting elections. The Republicans were not handed a majority because the people want to deport all Mexicans.

No, Republicans were handed a majority by voters who are willing to change their votes based on what the times call for, and in this particular case, the voters revolted against Obama's economic policies and his government intrusion into the lives of citizens.

How your party has handled their gift has been moronic. Rather than seizing the opportunity and focusing on the wishes of the voters, building the trust of voters and solidifying their support for the long term, the Republican legislatures have instead decided this is their big chance to push through unpopular, reactionary social policies. This is the stupidest political move I have ever seen. Instead of solidifying a majority that could last for decades, instead of working to give me hope for a better future as a citizen of a country teetering on insolvency, they have instead decided to cut their majority short at two years, and cram Bible down the throats of swing voters for their short stint in charge.

The thing is, I was pulling for them. I was hopeful. I believed that they were going to work for me. Yeah, I knew that their social policies might slowly be implemented over time, but only after their fiscal policies showed their worth.

But they just couldn't keep it in their pants, could they? And now, in NC, their approval rating has submarined. To add insult to injury, redistricting, which could have been done in a manner which showed honor, reason, fairness, and sensibility, has once again been done in a manner which demonstrates clearly partisan decision-making. When your redistricting makes districts look like giant squid, voters understand that you cannot win on the substance of your platform, so you must resort to cheating.

Please tell me why the Republican party did not decide to handle their mandate responsibly? Why did they spend all their political capital in less than two years? Why are they about to flame out?

Sarkazein said...

"Please tell me why the Republican party did not decide to handle their mandate responsibly? Why did they spend all their political capital in less than two years? Why are they about to flame out?"-MikeD

Because they hate Mexicans and gays, of course.

MikeD- I am not real sure how a State legislature can stop wasteful spending in Washington, nor do I know how State legislatures and stop Obamacare.
I will disagree with the part of your comment saying the public did not elect Republicans to deny gays the right to marriage. The majority of people in the US have Conservative tendencies. The majority have great pride in their country. Obama, surrounded by low rent liberals from academia, said they were to "fundamentally" change America. Most are placing their votes, both nationally and locally, to STOP the attempted "change". Gay marriage may only be a small part of it, and most don't give it much of a thought, but most Americans do not think their pride in their country needs fundamental change. So the Leftists got waxed for it.
If you think Gerrymandering is new to the Republican party, I've got history for you. What do you think your Democrat buddies were doing for the entire time they were in power? How do think people like Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Sheila Jackass Lee, and others stayed in Office?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- I can tell you this, if the Republican controlled legislatures do not cut out wasteful spending and if they don't stop the extremist liberals from further decaying our society, they will lose in elections to came.
They won't get my support if they fail at the mandate I think they were given.
MikeD- I may be wrong, but your last comment seems to say that Republicans have not been liberal enough for you.

Sarkazein said...

The gay marriage thing to me is like the government insisting 2+2=5. And until you get your mind right, and agree 2+2=5, you are against society.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

You can choose to not accept it and it will still occur. The economy absolutely can be fixed at a local and state level. States should be leading the way, setting the example for the federal government. Do you just want a central government to fix everything for you?

Mike D. said...

I do not understand your 2+2=5 thing. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Sarkazein said...

George Orwells 1984. 2+2=5.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Or at times a man and as many woman as he could afford. But for all practical purposes, between a man and a woman. It is the definition of marriage in the dictionary and in history and on the code book. To be forced by law to say different, to me, is the same as being forced to say 2+2=5.
If you will note, in spite of your misconception, at no time did I quote the Bible in this comment or previous ones on this thread.

Reader said...

I have to disagree about the GOP being unpopular...I'm proud of what they have accomplished in our state. Adding an ammendment to our constituion is just what the majority wanted on marriage.

I think we need another vent page.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

You didn't have to quote the Bible. You called same-sex marriage the "fall of our country". Are you saying that is not a position derived directly from the Bible?

I don't get your point about Orwell. Before Abolition, slavery was always legal, yet times changed and society advanced to a greater understanding of freedom and equality. Before Women's Suffrage, women could never vote, yet times changed and society advanced to a greater understanding of freedom and equality. These changes happened on a Constitutional level.

Each successive generation sheds more of the prejudices of the previous generation. That is to say, although I certainly do still unfortunately carry around some prejudices of my own, I never saw black people being forced to sit in the back of the bus, go to different schools, and drink out of different water fountains. You, on the other hand, probably witnessed that and considered it normal; thus you justified that prejudice in your own mind. I never had to do that, so to me, the idea of it is preposterous.

Twenty years from now, this will all be academic, a matter of historical record, and your position will have been roundly rejected by the courts. But accepting equality will be difficult for you, I know, so you will have to hide in your house and rant about the horrible liberal courts. This is the only way you will be able to hang on to your prejudice. If you speak publicly of it, everyone will recognize it for what it is, as I do here.

guy faulkes said...

It is interesting that MikeD has been reduced to the personal attack of calling those that brought to lgiht the fact that illegal immigrations has nothing to do with Mexico but only to do with those of all nationalities and races that illegally enter the country the politically correct police. He cannot refute this.

It is of no consequence that the majority of these criminals cross our southern border. They are not all Mexicans as they come from all over South America as well as they rest of the globe.

Even if they are all Mexican Hispanics, it does not change the fact they are criminals that have broken the rule of law. They are a large portion of our economic woes due to the drain they place on our resources and the jobs they steal.

Sarkazein said...

I just have to give up on you MikeD. You have no freaking idea what I have seen and what I have thought about it when it comes to segregation. You have only your prejudice and misconceptions. I can't change those, you are stuck with them.
To compare other events in history, like slavery, to whether or not gays can be husband and wife under the law, is mindless.
Maybe someday gays will be given the right to vote, who knows.

Sarkazein said...

"Jack wrote-"Sark,

You didn't have to quote the Bible. You called same-sex marriage the "fall of our country"."

Which Bible are you reading? And re-read my comment.
Now you even lie like an extremist liberal.

I wrote-"Gay marriage would be unequal treatment under the law. That is not prejudice or hate. Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman.
Can you fathom that straying away from these truths may partially be the cause of the fall of our country?"

Mike D. said...

How would same-sex marriage amount to unequal treatment?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Are you only reading your comments? I have explained at least twice in this thread. You even commented on it before in this thread. Your memory is starting to look familiar.

Jack said...

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

Mike D. said...

Oh, Sark, do you mean this?:

"You can't marry another man, I can't marry another man= equal. If you can marry another man because you are gay, and I can't because I am not= NOT equal."

Logically, that makes absolutely zero sense unless you are looking at the situation through the discriminatory filter of your own prejudice. Who says you couldn't marry another man, Sark? There are plenty of homosexuals in our society who marry members of the opposite sex.

You could marry another man and live the rest of your life as a closeted heterosexual. :-)

I can't even understand the thought process which would lead you to believe that offering individuals the right to marry a same-sex partner would give someone a right that you would not have. Just because you would choose not to take advantage of that right doesn't mean you would not have it. Bizarre.

Sarkazein said...

"Who says you couldn't marry another man, Sark? There are plenty of homosexuals in our society who marry members of the opposite sex."- MikeD

This is logic????
Your own example is NOT same sex "marriage".

Sarkazein said...

"I can't even understand the thought process ..."- MikeD


I can't help that.

Sarkazein said...

Equal treatment under the law is not supposed to consider gender, age, race, nationality, religion, economic status, ...but oh yeah... sexual preference OK that's in a class all its own so do what you thinks best.

Mike D. said...

The point is that it's not unequal treatment if everyone has the right to do it.

And now you are just trying to escape the trap you built for yourself.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- I have no idea what you are talking about...."escape the trap".
Let's just agree that you think gays should have special rights and I don't.

For someone who said gay marriage and illegal aliens is not important and we should concentrate on the financial crisis is an untrue statement.
Gay marriage is of extreme importance to you. Can I suggest you settle for a civil union or a POA and/or a living will as the law says a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- What would be wrong with a civil union?

Mike D. said...

Sark,

What would be wrong with civil unions is the same as allowing black people on the bus, but making them sit in the back. It's not equality. It's 'discrimination light'. If you are going to eliminate inequality, you don't do it by keeping it in place but lessening the degree... unless you are a total wuss. If you are brave, you eliminate it completely.

It is only an important issue because Republicans who were supposed to be working on fixing the economy have been focused instead on alienating the swing voters who gave them their majorities. I don't think you understand how elections are won at all. Your vote never varies, Sark. You don't swing elections. Groups with names like "Reagan Democrats" swing elections.

I hoped that this current batch would deliver for the swing voters who put them there. I had high hopes, but I have been disappointed.

You approve of their abuse of the will of the voters. Therefore, I have a problem with you, Sark. You are locked into the partisan game, and we are all getting screwed by you and those Democrats who are also playing your game. You sing your tune like a robotic apparatchik, screaming the party line.

I can't believe you have been talked into being anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-equality. I don't care how old you are. You totally suck, Sark.

Sarkazein said...

"You totally suck, Sark."- MikeD.

Let's admit it, gay marriage is an attempt to gain acceptance of the gay lifestyle, to make homosexuality mainstream. That's fine, but don't lie and use the equality under the law and discrimination thing. Don't lie and say gay partners can't get the same legal rights to visit in the hospital and have joint accounts etc. ...its just not true. Its all about using the government and its laws to force acceptance of the gay life style on others. Your last comment, first paragraph, alludes to this.

Sarkazein said...

"I can't believe you have been talked into being anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-equality. I don't care how old you are. You totally suck, Sark."- MikeD

If I was trying to lobby for laws to ban homosexuality, take their voting rights away, not allow them out on Halloween, flog them into liking girls and vice-versa, confiscate or ban their newspapers and websites, you might have a point. But I'm not. So I don't totally suck.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- " In the Montrose area of Houston, Bruce Alante' defied the law and sat in the front of the Metro bus last week, so progress is in the making. Also the mayor of Houston, Annice Parker, was allowed to sit in front of the bus or in back of the limo or where ever she wanted. Free at last-- free at last!


"Sark,
What would be wrong with civil unions is the same as allowing black people on the bus, but making them sit in the back."- MikeD.

guy faulkes said...

Once again MikeD resorts to personal attacks on Sark. This is an indication that Mike has lost the debate in his own mind, just as he gave up on the fact that illegal aliens are not just Mexicans after making personal attacks because he had no rebuttal.

MikeD, please argue the issue and do not make personal attacks.

I know you only answer those that have a distinct blog name. Is this solely for the purpose of being able to personally attack these people instead of the issue?

This is beneath you. You certainly have the ability to stand up for what you believe without doing this.

Mike D. said...

You are absolutely right, Sark. Eliminating prejudice is a noble goal. It sounds like you think that by not advocating lynchings, you are somehow not prejudiced. What you are saying, in other words, is: "Hey, I'm not trying to outlaw their lifestyle, I just think giving them the rights everyone else has will validate them as human beings, and I don't want that!"

Sarkazein said...

I know they have very human-like characteristics MikeD, but come on...

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- As this gay marriage topic seems to be of the utmost importance to you, I suggest you Google: 'gays against gay marriage'. This way you can get others opinions. There are many and varied opinions, but they are agin' it.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Some of the articles on the "gays against gay marriage" links are humorous, some are sarcastic, some are serious, but none as humorous or sarcastic as mine. So don't be too judgmental.

Mike D. said...

Got a link to your article, Sark?

guy faulkes said...

I beleive Sark advised you to google gays against gay marriages so you could review several links, MikeD. He did not refer to only one article.

Was this an honest mistake or are you trying to deliberately be obtuse?

Mike D. said...

Guy,

I googled what Sark suggested, but I was unable to determine which essay was the one he referenced as his own, and since he specifically directed me to his and even gave me instructions as to how I should receive his satire, I thought that perhaps he would provide a direct link. This is being obtuse? That search returns 5.7 million results. I think asking for a little better direction is fairly reasonable.

Mike D. said...

Liberal POV,

Partisan Democrat logic is not one iota better.

Reader said...

Sark, I have a few friends that are gay, and I've never heard the word marriage, come out of their mouth. I had to google it to...here is one site that was interesting to read.

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

guy faulkes said...

I do not beleive Sark ever referred to any specific link with his comments, but rather a group of links. I will reread them when i have time.

Mike D. said...

Guy,

"Some of the articles on the "gays against gay marriage" links are humorous, some are sarcastic, some are serious, but none as humorous or sarcastic as mine. So don't be too judgmental." - Sark

Sarkazein said...

Sarkazein said...
MikeD- As this gay marriage topic seems to be of the utmost importance to you, I suggest you Google: 'gays against gay marriage'. This way you can get others opinions. There are many and varied opinions, but they are agin' it.

Mike D. said...

Sark, I don't understand. You did indicate that one of the articles was written by you, right? And you asked me not to be too judgmental when I read it, right? So which one is it?

Sarkazein said...

No. Perhaps a poor choice in wording. I can't imagine any publication accepting my writing.

"..sarcastic, some are serious, but none as humorous or sarcastic as mine."- Sark

"as mine" should have been-- ...as my comments (here on this thread). But thanks for assuming me capable of writing an article.

guy faulkes said...

I thought Sark was referring to his posts on this thread. MikeD's comments made no sense in this context.

Anonymous said...

Gingrich is a RINO who loves illegal aliens. Like Perry, he has no chance with Tea Party types like me. Obama will see another term folks - the Republitards have sold themselves as meely mouthed, fence sitting liberals (like George Bush) who will turn on their own kind in an instant. Bachman and Paul get my write in vote.

Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarkazein said...

I deleted my comment above because after re-reading Anonymous's comment about writing in Bachman and Paul, it is possible he wasn't thinking he could vote twice. He may have meant Bachman for Pres and Paul for Veep.
On a write-in vote can you and the other 27 people pick both President and VP?

Sarkazein said...

Organise your support

Sarkazein said...

Organize

Mike D. said...

I got a three-way tie between Gingrich, Romney, and Bachmann. But I don't agree with the wording of some of the answers. Plus, it doesn't weight the importance of particular questions/answers in your decision making process.

NewGuy said...

Agreeing with Mike D here.....These little excersizes can be fun, but they aren't really helpful. They never seem to allow for multiple answers - nor do they priortize the issues. In some cases, one or two issues can trump all the rest.

My results show Ron Paul as my candidate. I don't disagree with this as far as it goes but I couldn't support Paul because I don't think his foreign policy and his stance on defense is something I could live with. Sometimes one just has to compromise on some issues.

Not sure who the quote is from, but someone once said that you can't compare a candidate to the almighty, you have to compare him to the alternatives!

Sarkazein said...

#1 Bachman, #2 Huntsman, #3 Romney

SO do I write in all three like Anonymous, not vote, write in Perot, or compromise? Glad I have more time.

Sarkazein said...

correction, my #3 was Perry.

Blogger said...

I expected to get Newt and then Mitt but instead I got Perry, Paul, and Bachman. This poll was very interesting because it had the candidates actual talking points.

Reader said...

I got Perry, Mitt and Bachmann.

Reader said...

I got Perry, Mitt and Bachmann.

Sarkazein said...

So no one has gotten Romney in their top 3 except one ultra-libeberal.

Sarkazein said...

should read: Ultra-liberal

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Please don't feel a need to correct yourself for me. I understand you are from Texas, so you are not expected to speak American English very well.

I love how at first you had Romney, but you didn't think that was cool, so you went back and changed an answer, suddenly getting Perry instead.

Sarkazein said...

"Sark,
Please don't feel a need to correct yourself for me. I understand you are from Texas, so you are not expected to speak American English very well."- MikeD

correction- I was writing not "speaking".

Sarkazein said...

"I love how at first you had Romney, but you didn't think that was cool, so you went back and changed an answer, suddenly getting Perry instead."- MikeD

Yes, I had anticipated my recent observation 2 days ago.

Wolf's Head said...

One of Newt's ideas I greatly support is oversight of federal judges.

For too long leftist judges have been using the bench not to administer the law but to make it. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to impeach judges and it has abrogated it's authority in this for too long.

Blogger said...

I didn't hear this Monday, did anyone else?

In a straw poll taken among 23,000 Tea Party enthusiasts organized by the Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation’s biggest Tea Party organizations, had Gingrich winning with with 31 percent of their vote, registered in a conference call on Sunday night.

December 21, 2011 9:30 AM

Sarkazein said...

Blogger- I saw the Newt/Tea Party poll. I am not sure how the "Tea Party" pollees were identified. But, Newt did come out strong Tea Party at the beginning and has remained a strong Tea Party'er. Romney not so much. But no one has been more Tea Party'er than Bachman.

guy faulkes said...

My results were Bachman, Paul, and Huntsman. If only Paul has any inkling of an acceptable national defense policy, he would score much higher.

I think most Tea Party people can do as I am going to do by holding their nose and voting for Newt if it comes down to Obama and him.

I do like his stance on the oversight of federal judges.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Perhaps you are just a flip-flopper, and that is why your #3 pick magically and mysteriously switched from Romney to Perry.

You were for Romney before you were against him, right Mr. Kerry? ;-)

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- I will probably flop-flip five or six more times before the primary is over.
I have never written that I was for or against Romney in the primary. When it comes to the general election, I would vote for a tree stump before I would ever vote for Obama. So all the Republican candidates are safe with me. I would even vote for Paul if the other choice was Obama.

guy faulkes said...

MikeD, as far as I know, only Rico, the Wolf, and me have said from the first the first we would not support Romney.

Hopefully the rest of you will come around.

Mike D. said...

Guy,

I am pretty sure you will not find a post where I indicate that I will vote for Romney, and I will not, so you can add me to that list.

However, I am pretty sure you will find a post wherein Sark tries to convince us to vote for Romney.

Sarkazein said...

Wrong MikeD. I wrote only about Romney vs Obama, not support in the primary. You wrote that you would vote for Obama if he was against Romney. I believe you stand alone on that one as a recently outed liberal.
I will repeat, just for you, I would vote for Romney over Obama any day, any time.

Mike D. said...

That's ok, Sark. I understand.

Political partisanship is so important to you that you would rather have the country ruined by a stampeding RINO with a blank check and a Congress with a rubber stamp than share power in a gridlock which produces limited spending, a balanced budget, and virtually no new freedoms taken away.

Honestly, you can call me a liberal all you want. I know what I support, and I know what you support. I know who I care about, and I know who you care about.

I am not voting for Mitt Romney, and there are a lot of others who aren't either, so maybe your time could be better spent supporting an electable candidate, rather than trying to sanitize your peers for their independent thought.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- I'll make it easier for you-- I am Antiobamapartisan. I am Anybodybutobamasan.

Do you realize we have the AG of the United States saying that racism is the reason so many are calling for his firing? He also said Obama's problems are caused by racism. These morons are begging for civil unrest.
You may be too young to have witnessed it first hand. I have, and there is no sense to it. This is only ONE of the reasons Obama and his henchmen have to be removed from Office. Obama could not have been elected if Whites had not voted for him. Now he has turned on them just like JFK turned on the Mafia after they stole the election for him.

guy faulkes said...

MikeD. I am not sure if you know who you support and who Sark supports. Wantign illegal aliens deported and the country to follow the rule of law does not make Sark a racist, but your assertion his concern is solely for Hispanics does make you one, at least in my opinion. Your White Christmas jab is a case in point.

Illegal aliens come in all races and nationalities.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- The only candidate I had supported in the primary, so far, was Cain. The rest remaining are still head and shoulders above Obama. Mike D's "White Christmas" comment is typical of a hardcore liberal as are his projected bigotries.