I never knew that China was more foreign than Japan. I mean... tentacle porn?
But the "making of" video makes me want to visit that zoo now.
Yes, you have. (Did I just hear a "I know you are, but what am I" comment? Priceless.)
Edit: BTW, if you are going to reply to a different post than the one you actually replied to (due to the thread running out), you should state that and state what you are referring to. Otherwise, you run the risk of being "misunderstood" - again."
Hence the reason for rule 12
Now why did I know from the beginning that you followed 'ole Saul? Bingo.
Edit: I wasn't going to go here, but what the heck. You use Rule 12 to avoid the risk of being misunderstood? Or is it to run the risk? So many questions, so little time.
Rule number 12 of the internet basically means that noobs should lurk on a forum to learn the proper etiquette before posting. I used it to to try to excuse my ignorance. I don't really post many comments, b/c mainly other people say things much better than I do, so I usually hit the like button on the stuff I agree with. However, I felt that the things I stated in the OP weren't being said by anyone, and needed to be said. I don't like the witch-hunt mentality or wishes of violence that I've seen in some of the threads, and it concerns me. We shouldn't be de-humanizing the opposition or the members of our own party. And I really didn't think "we even need the moderates" to get so much attention, but meh.
I understand that we disagree on the need for moderates. And believe it or not, I agree that some moderates need to go. Spector was a Democrat in Republican clothes. And I really don't like Rove. But at the same time, politics is a tough game.
It feels like we are on our own ten yard line, 4th quarter, down by 14 points and the a shutdown passing game. But instead of slogging slowly up the field with the running game, the players and coach are all fighting each other, and we're running out of time outs.
It's not something that just happens, like the nomination did of Romney by the GOPe. It's something that has to be worked at, diligently and for the duration starting last Nov. 7th and continuing till the 2014 elections and beyond.
The talk that goes on here at TRS is not just talk and then walk away. Many people here (and elsewhere) are working behind the scenes, donating time, money and effort to achieve these goals (from the local level to the county, state and right up to the national levels).
Everybody is different and has different skills and desires. I recommend a person choose their preference of my three goals. Decide to fight the LameStream, work for the securing of the voting process, or work in a Conservative group to aim for combining them (there are a lot out there, as you stated).
Put them all together and it will work out for us. Common sense tells us that the general public wants a working solution to higher taxes, expanding food costs and energy rate increases. They are screaming for it. It's not a fantasy that we can give it to them. But it will take a lot of work.
I don't think so. I believe they will coalesce much like the Republican Party did from the Whigs, and for the same reasons. It's all in the message that is put out and the candidate that is chosen. With the first two points accomplished, the third part will be so much easier, as more low-information and no-information voters will be informed and more will come out to vote.
30% of all eligible voters put Obama into office in 2012. That is unacceptable and certainly not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. The Republicans had their chance in 2012, when they said "please, trust us one more time" and we were cork-screwed. The time has come to coalesce, not to obfuscate.
Rove is toast and Fox made a mistake by renewing his contract. They will realize this as time goes on and you will see less and less of him (thankfully). The GOPe will find themselves outside in the rain and the big money will run from them when they realize that point.
I agree with your first two points, wholeheartedly. But I disagree with the third.We will have a social conservative party consisting of conservative Christians, a fiscal conservative party consisting secular conservatives who despise Christians, and/or the Libertarians and the Greens. None of which will have the political power to win nationally. Within a decade or so, they will coalesce into a reborn Republican party, but by then it will be too late.The Democrats will have gerry-mandered their way to a permanent majority.
Unfortunately, the Republicans believe they are on their own ten yard line, it's 4th quarter, they're down by 14 points with time running out and they believe they should slowly slog down the field with a time-consuming running game. That's the problem, if you want to use a football analogy.
The Republican party is an extinct animal that doesn't realize it has already become a fossil. With a new party, innovative ideas, and an answer to getting us out of the doldrums this country is in, we will not only bring in all the Conservatives, but also the moderates and some Dems as well.
People are tired and run down. It's time for something new that the party of Rove doesn't offer. It would have happened in 2012 if not for the massive fraud.
We need to do three things - One, bust the LameStream and their propaganda machine (the new media is slowly doing this, getting more info to the low-info voters every day). Two, we need to reform the voting process (the fraud in the last election was more than anyone really wants to admit). And, three, we need to get the third party going (to encompass the Libertarians, the Constitutionals, and all Conservatives - this is already underway).
rules for the internet, number twelve. Lurk more.
I've never run a thread out before and didn't know it could happen.
No, I'm being sincere. I hold the position that the Republican party must come together. That there must be some kind of working relationship between the different factions of the party. And that demonizing each other only deepens the divisions within the party. I don't think that is being a troll. I say this b/c I care about my party and don't want to see it self-destruct.
Well, if it ain't Rules for Radicals rule #12, then the comments policy rule #12 is about trolling. Is that what you are doing, as suggested by another poster?
I honestly, and sincerely apologize, for misleading you with a typographical error.
I realize that I have offended you greatly, and I am sorry.
And you are right, I should spell Christian with a capital "C."
I guess I should stop eating swine too, get a goat and a couple of doves to take to the Temple, and thank God, mom had me circumcised when I was an infant, so I'm in the clear there.
I don't think stating all those quotes was from a single post is a 'typographical error' and for the record, I wasn't offended. I just responded with the truth. If it's tough to swallow, then pause, reread, and contemplate before typing. It will help you tremendously.
'I guess I should stop eating swine too, get a goat and a couple of doves to take to the Temple, and thank God, mom had me circumcised when I was an infant, so I'm in the clear there.' - d
Careful, you are in jeapardy of getting in trouble again. If that is what you think makes a person a Christian, then you have a lot of work to do before judgement day.
um... ok, well it was a typo, perhaps I should have used the word "article" instead.
I was being sarcastic on your legalistic stance of capitalizing "C" reveals one's state of grace.
Nice is a relative term. If you think people are not talking nice if they disagree with you, then there must be a lot of people out there that are not nice to you.
At least you capitalized God. Your state of grace has progressed that far, anyway.
Edit: Just to be accurate, it didn't come from the article, either. It came from the comments to the article. If you had said 'thread' I would then have agreed with you.
First of all, it is no surprise that the LameStream missed this as a fake. Their journalistic skills are based on what the WhiteHouse tells them to think and no further.
Secondly, isn't this the same technique that Obama uses to fabricate a crisis? The LameStream backs it every time, so this is no different.
And last of all, I can't believe this gets 7 million hits, but videos about stories like Benghazi are put on the back burner and never seen. The level of low information by our voters is staggering and hard to believe.
Back to GUN CONTROL:
"DRUDGE_REPORT - Cuomo To Modify Strict Gun Control Laws To Exempt Hollywood... "
All the world has been fooled so thoroughly that we do not even know we are in the final stages of freedom. ICLEI and Sustainable Development at the county and city levels are widespread and heavily funded though federal grants. Federal regulations imposed at the local level through Trojan horse federal sustainability and urbanization grants.
We, the American taxpayers, are funding our own hanging, paying the executioner's wage, and leaving our children to their designs.
Ironically the Founders gave us all we need in the Constitution and first 10 Amendments to crush these globalists, yet we do not defend it. We do not even see it.
The reason we keep borrowing, printing ans spending is to fund these program that fund regionalization, urbanization, all undermining property rights, and controlling open space and farm land.
A great video from early February in Australia on the harsh reality of how far the globalists have come in the shadows.
Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21 & Club of Rome
Oh yes we are fully aware of how deep our country is in trouble. Denial is to kick the can down the road only to wake up under a full fledged totalitarian government operating on its rendition of rules for radicals.
My fathers & Mothers family immigrated in 1796 from Germany and Scotland and has honorably fought in every conflict since. We have the musket a grandfather carried in the civil war, piloted of B-17 shot down over Northern Germany, Tank Commanders under Patton in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Southern Germany, flight engineers on B-29 on Tinian, dropped atomic test bombs over Nevada, Intelligence in Germany protecting German scientist, and personal bodyguard for General Wainwright, TWA flight engineer killed in head on collision 1956 over Grand Canyon, my honorable service National Defense Viet Nam, a Tank commander in Desert Storm. This is not what we fought for.
sDee, you are spot on! Why more do not see this and so ignorant of the obvious is foreign to me!
They are using our money, (rope), to control (hang) us!
I hope I don't offend anyone too much by posting this, and if I do, I apologize, but I feel it must be said. I've been lurking TRS for years now. I first learned about it when TRS was posting the Glen Beck Show on youtube and this blog site has become my favorite. I check for new posts several times a day, and I value the opinion and insight provided here. Having said that, there are some things I've noticed that bother me. A lot of the comments I've seen are terrible. Most are civil enough, but there are a few comments that are down-right uncivilized.
For everyone who throws around the charge of treason, I would remind you that our Constitution defines Treason in Article 3, Section3, please read it. It's a serious charge, and shouldn't be thrown about carelessly.
Some of the posts are very hateful, and I feel it is my christian duty to remind everyone that as much as we may despise the policies of our political opponents, they are still human beings, and as such, deserve our basic respect and even love. Love the sinner, but hate the sin. I know, easier said than done, but being a christian isn't supposed to be easy.
And then there are those who, forgive me for being blunt, are just plain bitching. Is this what we have come to? We lost last November, and it hurts. I understand that. I love our country. I love our republic. And it truly tears me up to see what is becoming of it. But now is not the time for sour grapes. Now is not the time to be looking at the different factions of conservatism and saying, "you're not conservative enough."
With all due respect to TRS, we need the paleocons. We need the neocons. We need the libertarians. We need the social conservatives. And we even need the moderates. I'm proud of my party. I'm proud to be a Republican. We abolished Slavery. We ended the big monopolies that held the country by it's economic throat at the beginning of the 20th century, and we ended the Cold War at the end of the same century.
Now isn't the time for us to be tearing ourselves apart. And that is what we are doing. If we are going to retake our Gov't, then we are going to do so by coming together and winning small victories. We win by engaging voters one at a time, convincing them of the rightness of our cause. We lose by doing what we are doing now, tearing down the political leadership and retreating to uncompromising factions, which will split our party.
There is room for internal debate, but when the debate is over, and the votes are tallied, we are going to need solidarity. Our enemy isn't Karl Rove, the Speaker of the House, the Senate leadership, or even the Democrats. Our biggest enemies are the trolls that feed our hatred with their vitriolic rhetoric.
Moderation as I hear you prescribe is what got us obama and where we are. In essences saying that what we have is a good thing and we need more of it.
What I hear you saying is, "keep on with being moderate be all inclusive", which has been rejected by our citizenry, doesn't seem like a good plan to me...
Moderation is a declining numbers game, like playing a slot machine, one starts with $100, wins back $97, plays again and wins back $94, plays again and wins back $91, each time claiming they've won. Fact is each time they are loosing, staying at it very long will result in loosing all.
The house came to the game with nothing to loose an everything to gain, the player takes all the risk and the monies in play are that of the player, not the house. The house knows if the player stays long enough the player will leave poorer than when the started and the house richer.
In this same way we have seen where moderation has led us and our country. The house in this example is "the left", we are, "the player", "the monies" is our rights and freedom.
Still think moderation is a great idea?
I didn't say we need to moderate. The larger context of my post, which apparently you missed, is that we need all the factions of the party to succeed. That includes the moderate Republicans. If you disagree with me, fine, but see how far social conservatives get going on their own.Last time I looked the libertarians are still a joke as an independent party. Your misconstruing of my post is intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, you have. (Did I just hear a "I know you are, but what am I" comment? Priceless.)
Edit: BTW, if you are going to reply to a different post than the one you actually replied to (due to the thread running out), you should state that and state what you are referring to. Otherwise, you run the risk of being "misunderstood" - again.
Dude, I've been saying the same thing over and over again. Maybe you should try that reading comprehension course yourself
Wrong point again. People are burning you at the stake for telling us we should do what was done in 2008 and 2012. That's not going to happen again. If you want on the bandwagon, come on board. If you want to return to those failed attempts, then knock yourself out, but don't expect us to come along or even like the thought.
He was lying. He was saying that I was advocating moderation, when he knew I wasn't. How is not a lie? I'm advocating team-work, unity within the party. You guys want to burn me at the stake for suggesting that we take the high road and come together as a party.
You call a spade a spade by calling someone a liar, and then complain about other posters comments that you think are less than civil. Hmmm...
I called you a liar an hour ago when I said you were being intellectually dishonest.
I just call a spade a spade.
You may not be a liberal (the verdict is still out), but you use the Alinski tactics to a fault. You keep dodging and twisting, changing the argument until something sticks.
One, I argue against one line (or two or three) because that is what you wrote. If you don't want people thinking what you write is what you think, then don't write it.
Two, If someone is elected on what they ran on, then that is what the people that voted for him wanted (or else they wouldn't have voted for him). Once again, reading comprehension is your friend.
I haven't told you to elect anyone. Vote your conscience. You, Clockwindingdown, and K-bob are taking one sentence out of a multiple paragraph post completely out of context. But I'm the one being Alinski-ish? Then you go on to say that an elected representative shouldn't represent the views and values of the citizens that elected him and should instead vote the way you want him too. That sound a little totalitarian to me.
""I completely understand what you said and pointed out, it has not been working."
Then why are you taking what I said out of context? After an hour of lying about what I said, now you say you understand? Are you trolling me, dude?"
From your first post on this thread I suspect you were trolling, now you have made it very clear to all that is what you are doing! You are making personal attacks and calling me a liar, we are done here!
I expect a person who runs as a Conservative to vote as a Conservative. It has nothing to do with where they were elected. It has everything to do with what they ran on to get elected. We get enough BS and lies from Obama.
You tell us to elect moderates and then hold our noses when they vote as liberals. Sorry, that ain't going to happen any more. If they want to be liberal, they can go to the liberal side and stay away from our primaries.
Btw, for a person who tells us we miss the point as much as you do, you sure miss the point a lot (or at least change the direction - very Alinski).
"I completely understand what you said and pointed out, it has not been working."
Then why are you taking what I said out of context? After an hour of lying about what I said, now you say you understand? Are you trolling me, dude?
Exactly. Let's put people like Scott Brown in the Senate and then watch them vote for ObamaCare. After all, that really pays off for us in the end.
What you very clearly described was to be "moderate"...
I completely understand what you said and pointed out, it has not been working.
I stick by what I said. I also stick by moderates have brought us to where we are in this nation. Matching candidates to the district, sounds good but is in fact being moderate…
There are certain places one cannot win at this point in time. Obama couldn't win in San Francisco if he was an unknown and ran as a GOP candidate, some areas are just too bigoted.
I said, "And we even need the moderates." Clearly, I'm using the word moderate as a noun. I even use the article "the" to denote the usage of a noun. *sigh* But yet you insist that I'm using it as a verb. How is that not being dishonest? You have to match the candidate to the district. A Tea Party conservative is not going to win in San Fransisco, but a moderate (using the word as a noun again) Republican may win. Case in point, Rubio won, but O'Donnell lost. (which really hurt, I was routing for that woman, thought She was awesome.)
"The larger context of my post, which apparently you missed, is that we need all the factions of the party to succeed. That includes the moderate Republicans. "
"Your misconstruing of my post is intellectual dishonesty."
Clearly and in plain language you said, "moderate". I pointed out that has not been working and now you are calling me, "...intellectual dishonesty." You said in your own words. "With all due respect to TRS, we need the paleocons. We need the neocons. We need the libertarians. We need the social conservatives. And we even need the moderates."
"The larger context of my post, which apparently you missed, is that we need all the factions of the party to succeed. That includes the moderate Republicans. If you disagree with me, fine, but see how far social conservatives get going on their own."
What you propose already is the GOP party, it isn't working! There was a smaller turn out at the voting both. Moderation is a zero sum game that is a loser to begin with.
Do you understand what you are calling for has been rejected by those you are calling upon? By rejected I mean the candidates have lost elections...
I respectfully disagree with you about Rove.
Here he is bashing Christine O'Donnell prior to the election.
Karl Rove Says Sarah Palin Is Thin-Skinned - 3 Times in 2 Minute Interview
Karl Rove Piles On Rick Perry
Rove is the enemy to conservative.
I see your point, I just don't think we should dignify him with a response. Work around him, and those like him, rather than trying to fight a head on clash.
And I appreciate your civility.
I hit like when I meant to hit reply.
Conservatives are tired of working around moderates who think many liberal policies are good. I say challenge Rove head on and defeat him just like we want to defeat liberal socialist. Bush won two elections the second by an even narrower margin than the first. The Republican establishment ignored that and ran another moderate liberal and we lost. Rove is already marginalized he just doesn't know it. I see no harm in pointing it out to him in 2014. If there's one thing conservatives are tired of it's backing off from a fight.
It's not "hatred" to state how angry people like Rove make you. However, anger isn't really what's going on here. Think of it more like grim determination. Just like no soldier should be judged for his comments on the eve of battle, neither should we judge the folks who are fed up with weak, statist Republicans. It's time to elbow these contemptable statists aside.
And no, we don't need the "moderates." What have they done for us lately?
What we need is a return to the original intent of the Constitution. Anyone not on board with that is my political enemy. I neither "need" them, nor will I heed them. It is THEY who are leading us down the path to war, not the Tea Party types, and not the Reagan Conservatives.
They need to get out of our way.
No hatred, no anger, just fact.
"If that teacher's home were to burn down with her in it, I'd be very happy."
"Right after we nuke everything muslim in the Mideast, Mexico should be next on the list! "
"South Texas on the border of Mexico. Majority are illegals and welfare recipients. What a travesty. The border is more secure than it has ever been according to our president. B.S."
"Find the teacher and beat the crap our him/her/it!"
"Punish the teacher. At her house. At her school. At the grocery store. At the parking lot. take away that teacher's sense of safety and she'll stop this behavior."
(originally-"Those are all comments from just one post")
Those were comments made by different people under one article posted to this site(author's edit). All of them are hateful. All of them had likes. (edit- except for the first comment, it has been since removed)
As for the "moderates," what they have done is allow for toehold of conservative ideas in otherwise liberal areas. Don't blame the moderates if the activists aren't willing to do the hard work building those toeholds into footholds and strongholds.
" Anyone not on board with that is my political enemy. I neither "need" them, nor will I heed them. It is THEY who are leading us down the path to war, not the Tea Party types, and not the Reagan Conservatives.
They need to get out of our way."
That philosophy is a losing one. All it does is split the party down factional lines. You can't expect someone in the Sierra Nevadas to agree 100% on every issue with someone in Appalachia.
No, I don't think so. If he is, it's all the same to me. I'm just responding to the things he says, so either way, it's an interesting conversation.
Telling someone they misunderstood is not apologizing. Period.
'At first I thought you were saying that you should make money, or some other profit or gain, from being a christian' - d
Once again, you prove that reading comprehension is important. My point was (if I have to spell it out) is that if you are as much a Christian as you claim, then you would capitalize the word. You don't, therefore I assume you aren't as devout as you propose.
And having to explain it in different words shows that your reading comprehension needs work. So, I'm here to help you, as a fellow Conservative. Other than that, I couldn't care less how much of a Christian you are or claim to be.
So I can't apologize for an error in my writing, and when I go back to correct the mistake, I'm still wrong. Just to make you happy, I will edit the original line back in so people can see what kind of grammatical f-up I am.
"But the least you can do as a Christian is to capitalize it, if you are truly one."
At first I thought you were saying that you should make money, or some other profit or gain, from being a christian as well as implying that I am not a believer, however I didn't think that was correct. But if you don't want to clarify it, then- meh.
We all know what you wrote, until you edit it to hide it. By starting out telling me I misunderstood, you were being disingenuous. People don't misunderstand because you type incorrectly. They misunderstand if they don't realize what you actually wrote. Stop being so 'Holier-than-thou'. It doesn't appear to work for you.
'I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, could you clarify it, or restate it another way?' - d
Again, reading comprehension, reading comprehension.
I know what I wrote, that's why I said it was my fault that you had the impression that those comments were written by the same person.I recognize my mistake, I apologize for it, and I will edit the post to correct it. It wasn't my intent to be disingenuous.
"But the least you can do as a Christian is to capitalize it, if you are truly one."
I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, could you clarify it, or restate it another way?
I think exactly what I wrote. We are on a war footing now, and we no longer have the luxury of playing nice to the fatuous Rovian wing of the continually losing Republicans.
No, your mistake is thinking we are making mistakes replying to your comments. I did not misunderstand. You stated flatly (and I quote) that "Those are all comments from just one post".
Don't know how much clearer it could be. If I misunderstood your intend, it was because you were being disingenuous. Make it clear, so I can reply clearly.
And btw, I agree being a Christian isn't easy (whether it's supposed to be or not). But the least you can do as a Christian is to capitalize it, if you are truly one.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood, my fault. Those were comments made by different people under one article posted to this site. The one about a teacher forcing her students to recite the Mexican pledge. It was never my intention to impugn the entire community, I just wanted to point out bad behavior of a few. You're right that the moderates need us too. What I'm trying to say is that we all need each other. In the words of Franklin, "We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately."
And as far lurking, rule number 12-lurk more, it's never enough.
We don't need the moderates. The moderates need us. They are suffering under the Obama administration just as much as everyone else, and it's partly their fault. If they don't want to get on board with changing things to restore the vitality of this nation, then they will continue to vote to doom themselves, much like you have.
We are in a war, just like K-Bob stated so eloquently. It's a bitter fight to the end and we aren't backing down.
BTW, there are always bad comments made on a blogsite and it doesn't relate to the entire group. If all those comments came from one post, then 1) it's indicative of one person only and not the group (which you seem to want to project), and 2) you should link that post as your proof (not that it would matter, but it's quite easy to do).
Thousands of posts made daily and you claim one post is indicative of the nature of this site. And stop lurking, btw. It's too Obama-like.
I didn't label them. Don't presume to know what I think.
The Moderates have been doing the pushing.
They should not be surprised we are pushing back.
People can label my remarks any way they wish. If you don't think someone wishing a woman to burn to death in her own home, or be beaten to an inch of her life, is wrong, hateful, and just downright uncivilized, then I pity you, sir.
And I didn't say anything about moderation. I said we need moderates. I stand by that, but I don't believe in moderating conservatism.
When people start shooting at me, then I'll be on a war footing. That hasn't happened yet, nor do I think it will happen. This isn't a war. It's politics. And if you start pushing people, don't be surprised when they push back.
Your labeling them is just your labeling them. You want folks to label your remarks?
And you are wrong on that last point. The statist moderates and Obama apologists have racked up major losses for the Republican party. Every year it's the same crap: we need to moderate to WIN! And so they get their way, and we LOSE! Meanwhile Reagan's two massive landslides sit there athwart their losing arguments like the Himalayas, showing that the moderates and weak-kneed Republicans are wrong, every time they open their mouths.
You need to accept that we are on a war footing now. This isn't 1974, where the right can lose big and take it in stride. We want our country restored. We are ready to do whatever that takes. If some people like to think of it as hateful, we no longer care. We just want them out of the way, and we WILL push them out of the way.