Posted on 01/04/2012 2:42:58 PM PST by Syncro
IOWA SHOWS REPUBLICANS DETERMINED TO BEAT OBAMA
January 4, 2012It's been a mixed week for Mitt Romney's campaign. On one hand, Romney won Iowa, but on the other, he was endorsed by John McCain.
Until the first actual votes were cast Tuesday night, it appeared as if some elements of the Republican Party were becoming the mirror image of a liberal mob.
The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."
Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.
And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus state like Iowa.
But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.
The reason the Iowa caucuses rarely produce the party's eventual nominee is not because Iowans are wacky white Christians, as some in the media have claimed, but because caucuses are ridiculous ways to choose a presidential candidate. It is a process that empowers the pushy and loud, much like a Manhattan co-op board meeting, but, unfortunately, not like anything envisioned by our founding fathers.
Instead of arguing for hours in public with partisans in order to cast a ballot, voters are supposed to put on their shoes, fight off the Black Panthers on the way to their precincts, vote in private and go home.
So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won. Read More »
I disagree with Ann on this issue (Romney), but know that in her heart she despises Obama and godless Marxism so I still love her. Always will.
“But calling Coulter a slut is over the line, and downright trollish behaviour.”
I am trully sorry to continue to babble. However, I want to make another observation about the use of “Hot” verses “Pretty.”
I’m 57 year old male, and I can see you are near that age or older. In my lifetime, I remember when the term “hot” used in reference to a woman was meaning she was in a state of sexual arousal (as in “hot and bothered”). I won’t belabor that point in detail. However, I am certain you remember this as well as I do. So, every time I hear someone call a woman “hot” it makes me flinch; and not because it causes me to get aroused. Because of my age, it means more in my thinking that saying “attractive” or “pretty.” So, when you posted a picture of you and Ms. Coulter and said she is “hot, hot, hot” it just conjured up a disturbing picture in my mind, and made me question the reason for your “support” of her. I do apologize if using the medically correct name for a male anatomical feature is offensive. I should have said, “you are thinking with your hormones, not your brain” instead. Although, I will say publically, that I don’t believe that was the case anymore, and I do owe you a public apology for denigrating your character.
However, I will not back off of my position that Ann Coulter requires rebuke and correction. I have learned that both you and Jim Robinson personally know Ann Coulter, and consider her a friend. It is hard to have to turn on one’s friends, even when they are wrong (as I KNOW Coulter is), but I will not bother you about it anymore because you have a personal conflict of interests here....that is not meant to be an insult.
“I disagree with Ann on this issue (Romney), but know that in her heart she despises Obama and godless Marxism so I still love her. Always will.”
Which is why I will stop pesturing you and syncro to stop posting Mr. Coulter. It is very difficult to turn on a friend even when you know they are very wrong. As I wrote to syncro, it is a conflict of interests. I’m loyal to dear friends as well....I don’t know if I could turn on one publically.
Anyway, I need to again publically apologize to syncro for thinking and calling him a “dirty old man.” I realize that is not true. Ms. Coulter is his friend.
“Stick to the political stuff and stop moralizing.”
I cannot do that. Morality is what defines me politically and personally (mostly). It is my strongly held opinion that the separation of “morality” from “politics” is the primary cause of trouble in this country. I am primarily a “moral conservative” followed by national security one. Fiscal conservatism is not as important to me (except the common sense that you can’t tax yourself into prosperity or you should never live beyond your means) As Reagan defined conservatism...I am primarily two of the three legs.
Whatever, my apology to you still stands. I was wrong to think/write you were a “dirty old man.” I know that is not true. You are simply a personal friend of Ms. Coulter. I will no longer question your judgement. I would be upset if someone asked me to turn on a dear friend.
Furthermore, it is a waste of time to continue to argue over the meaning of “slang.” However, I am correct to point out that “Hot” is an inappropriate way describe a lady (in the same way as I refuse to call a male homosexual “gay”). We are rapidly developing a society where there are no longer “gentlemen” (and I include myself in that “failed” category - I am not the gentleman I should be).
************************
Agreed.
"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
~George Washington
Second!
You got that right Jim.
Short and sweet.
Politically, oh yeah.
Hot is not a derogatory statement made towards women, and it is not analogous to gay/homosexual at all.
Most intelligent aware women know that and do not understand it in the way you do.
The older ladies (your age and above) really got a kick out being called a hot babe. In my experience it is appreciated and taken in the light hearted manner in which it is expressed
And no, I don't hang out with s***s and w****s.
Our second President, John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."(Good thread at the link)
Thank you, friend. :)
While there are times I disagree with Ann Coulter, there is nobody I agree with 100%. But she is a conservative, and she does not deserve some of the trashing she gets. (I support Santorum who is now the most conservative of the candidates, and I was sad Bachmann had to drop out.)
Thanks Jane!
“Hot is not a derogatory statement made towards women, and it is not analogous to gay/homosexual at all.”
I think I failed to communicate correctly. I mentioned “gay” because it is a perversion of a good word coopted by homosexual males. I refuse to use it. Actually, the homosexuals prefer to be called “gay.” I won’t give them the satisfaction. They are “homosexuals” which is a correct use of English they cannot dispute.
Whether, calling a woman “hot” is derogulory is a matter of opinion, culture, and circumstances. Granted I’m not up on the latest slang, but the way I have seen the term used in the media and by those around me in the workplace. I would consider it derogulatory.
In the “social” not “workplace” circles I generally run in (Church primarily) this would be considered profanity. I’m from Oklahoma(urban) and currently living in Missouri(rural). The “ladies” I know, would be deeply offended by such terminology, even in light jest. I go to a run of the mill Baptist church....neighter strict nor liberal. Maybe the Christian folk of your neck of the woods have a different outlook. That would be cultural.
“Most intelligent aware women know that and do not understand it in the way you do.”
Well, I can tell you that the woman of my life that matters, (my wife of 20 years), considers the term demeaning and has made me aware of it). If my 16 year old son were, he doesn’t, use such a term to describe a respectable young woman in the presence of his 47 year old mother....he would be severely disciplined by her. And as I said before, the ladies of my social circle, would have a similar view....as do the men. So, maybe the “women” you know find it amusing, but the “ladies” I know do not.
In the workplace and when I’m doing military duty, I see the use of such terminology when men are talking to men about women(and much worse of course). I seldom never see the term used when a man is talking to a woman....it could be construed as “sexual harassment” and we are constantly warned, in the workplace and military, to avoid that. In fact we are warned to be very careful in even paying a simple compliment (like “you look nice today”) to a female. In fact, the military tells us that to even complement a female soldier in a way that can be construed as sexual (construed means the female soldier considers it so) is sexual harassment. If it makes the female soldier uncomfortable...then it is sexual harassment. While I would agree this is a little too “politically correct”, it is a reality in the military because of sexual misconduct. So, I wouldn’t tell a female soldier, even in the most innocent of circumstances, that she is “pretty”, and definitely never say she is “hot.” That would be a career killer.
Anyway, I admit I’m prudish by today’s standards, and not savvy to the latest in slang, but I really must conclude there is a major cultural difference between us and the circles we operate in. That IS NOT meant as an insult, just a simple observation.
Whatever, take care. And again I am sorry for my previous derogulatory comments about your character & motives. I was out of line.
“Ann has lost her mind.”
That is what happens to Log Cabin Faggot-Lib pushers.
**************************************************************
And by hanging out with left-wing pals like Bill Maher.
All those words seem to be continuing to take me to task for the way I treat women.
I treat women with a high degree of respect, and nothing you say will change that fact.
Even if the word "hot" in the context of a woman seems to be derogulatory to you.
All of that is exactly what I asked you to quit posting, but far be it for me to have any influence on your doing so.
I would suggest you show your wife (being as you brought her into this and posted some pretty personal information about her and your kid) what you have been writing and then maybe asking the mods to remove some of your posts.(I can't see her being comfortable with having such as this posted for hundreds of people to see)
They are kind of embarrassing, especially for your wife.
If you don't want to do that, fine.
But stop posting that stuff on this thread please, it's quite a bit off topic.
You can post your own thread as a vanity in the chat section if you wish to continue to pursue that line of reasoning.
Thanks
“All those words seem to be continuing to take me to task for the way I treat women.”
No that is NOT my intention. I am contrasting cultural differences and that is all. I find it fascinating that there could be such a difference in the same country.
“I treat women with a high degree of respect, and nothing you say will change that fact.”
I never said you didn’t treat women with respect nor did I mean to imply it. I believe you to act in a manner entirely consistent with and appropriate for your cultural environment. Once again I am contrasting cultures, and how different they can be.
Also, I am not making any judgement calls. Believe me when I say that I’m not always the “gentleman” I should be. I am often rude to women I should not be...just not in area of discussion. In your world the women might consider me to be rude or a chavinist.
I’m done now. In case you haven’t noticed, this thread has long ago dropped off the radar.
“I believe you to act...”
“appropriate for your cultural environment...”
“In your world...”
I'm done now
Yea, right.
In case you haven’t noticed, this thread has long ago dropped off the radar.
Yea, when a thread goes completely off course because one poster hijacks it to use it to prove an unnecessary unrelated point, people stop posting to it.
Do me a favor all right?
The next time you don't approve of my behavior, just give it a pass OK?
Next time you get on one of these jags, I will just ask the mods to remove your posts. And if they won't I'll just have the thread pulled.
“How long ago was it you said you were not going to analyze me, yet you keep on.”
I wasn’t analyzing you. However, since my words have again caused offense, then I apologize again. Jim Robinson says you are OK and his friend. I cannot think of higher praise.
Therefore, in my opinion you are a gentlemen with a great respect for women and that is a settled fact. Indeed you are probably more of a gentleman than I am.
We have a ccmmon goal. To get the best conservative (Romney & Paul don’t count as conservatives) we can to be the GOP nominee and to back that person in defeating Mr. Obama. Also, I think we are both agreed that we don’t want the remaining conservatives....Newt and the two Ricks to bloody each other but go after Romney, Paul, and ultimately Mr. Obama.
She thinks the worst thing in 2012 would be for a "Catholic missionary" like Rick Santorum to be elected president.
Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he's good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He'd be Ted Kennedy if he didn't believe in God.
Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as "a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate."
The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous "bridge to nowhere."
I seem to recall No child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Act of 2003, and the 2006 National Appropriations Bill as being pushed by the GOP.
“She thinks the worst thing in 2012 would be for a “Catholic missionary” like Rick Santorum to be elected president.”
Then why doesn’t she have problems with a “Mormon Missionary” being elected? Romney would most definitely use the office to spread Mormonisn. Of that I have no doubt.
Catholics are Christians, mormons are not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.