46 Comments

• 1. Kahn  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm

  OK, so I know the complaints against McCain. But I have two pretty big issues.

  1. The Right to Life. McCain has ALWAYS been conservative on that and Romney has not.

  2. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution describes an individual right. It is about civil defense, personal defense, and revolution. It’s NOT just about hunting. McCain has always been conservative on that and Romney has not.

  So, on THESE two issues, two issues I think are very important, McCain is the consistent conservative. That word, consistent is the issue. Isn’t it? I posted months ago on these very two same items and posted along with others that I didn’t trust that Romney’s current positions were anything other than his current positions. That has always been my problem with him.

• 2. Kahn  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm

  Just read my post again. I am also supporting Romney. I just wanted to explain the discomfort I get doing it.

• 3. Dr.Vinny  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  You are no conservative so quit trying to pretend. You are an authoritarian. A fearful, weak minded syncopant to the cult of Bush. Another authoritarian. You want to dictate moral and social absolutes and envelop the country in your Christian dominionist Waldons Pond.
  It may be simply that the Republican electorate (or at least enough of it to select a nominee) may not be as ideologically pure as the self proclaimed “conservative” pundits might prefer. (Look at Ann Coulters’ support of Hillary.)
  Perhaps teh Republican voters really do think that global climate change should be addressed. It could be that lots of Republican voters like tax cuts but want them accompied by good old-fashined BUDGET cuts. It mau be that when they’re not inthe thores of animpassion immigration debate, many Republican voters wouldn’t mind eventually legalizing millions of immigrants, so long as the border is sealed first. And frankly, GOP primary voters may find Mr. McCain’s heretical support for campaign finance reform a lot less significant than personal character traits like honesty, courage and persistence.
  The thing that needs to be said over and over about guys like YOU Noonan is that you simply are NOT conservative. Radically restructuring government to create an unaccountable executive branch is not conservative. Building a security apparatus that is designed to spy on citizens is not a conservative principle. Runaway spending and bloated budgets are not conservative ideas. Torture and permanent aggressive wars are not conservative principles. Fearmongering and keeping the electorate scared is not a conservative principle.
  And porn and abortion are facts of human behavior. Like breathing and sleeping. Moralize all you want, but you need to get a grip and worry about what you can do in your own life; not proscribe to others….

• 4. JD  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  Not John McCain.

• 5. Ricorun  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm

  The problem I have with your initial premise, Mark, is the same problem I have every time you talk about this. And that is the assumption that liberal/conservative is a single dimension. That’s an easy thing to assume, given that there are only two major parties here in the US, but that doesn’t make it any more real. The present primary season has made it very clear (as if it wasn’t already) that there is at least three continua at play, which are most commonly labeled: (1) social conservatism/liberalism, (2) security conservatism/liberalism, and (3) fiscal conservatism/liberalism.

  Kahn correctly pointed out two examples where McCain has been more steadfast than Romney. The first (pro-life) is very important to social conservatives. The second (gun control) is very important to security conservatives. In that regard he also has a strong record on Iraq, which is also important to security conservatives. Where he’s weak is his credentials on the fiscal conservatism dimension. But I don’t really want to talk about McCain. The point I want to make is that characterizing “conservatism” along one single dimension is inappropriate. In fact, if you think about it in the way I described, a lot of the comments from a lot of the commenters on this site make a great deal of sense. And in fact, watching how various commenters have expressed affinity to the various candidates over time has, to me, been very revealing about where they actually stand on those three dimensions.

• 6. Jeremiah  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  Mark,

  First of all, I just want to say…A Beautiful, Excellent job on your post, very nicely done. You drove the nail all the way home!! Good job!

  Secondly, I believe there is hope for America. I believe it is through the younger generation, folks my age, and folks even much younger than me.
  We are a declining Nation, one that has moved away from what it was….we took a severe blow to our moral standing in the world when Bill Clinton took office in 1994 - with very Liberal Supreme Court Justice appointments with constructionism that could be more applicably called - Destructionism. “Constructionist” wouldn’t do them justice…if you know what I mean…

  I believe we made enormous rebounds after George Bush finally entered the scene, but I don’t believe it has been entirely sufficient enough time to undo the damage that the Clinton’s done to our Nation. If term limits had been enacted before the beginning of the Clinton’s administration, the damage they done could have been lessened to a greater degree.

  Legislation does have a rather profound impact on how our Nation moves forward in terms of morality, so to speak - when we have a Liberal Judiciary, Legislatory, House and Senate on Local and Federal levels they allow morality to go on a downward spiral by giving access to pornographic material through every publishing outlet imaginable - Television, internet, books, magazines, video games. I saw recently where Microsoft and X-Box 360 have produced a video game called “Mass effect” in which the game player can imitate all sorts of different sex acts, and we’re talkin’ High Definition TV type style viewing…for 7 years of age groups. And the blood and gore from these video games is just atrocious. Abortion being directly linked to the distribution of pornographic materials. Why? More sex, more sex, more sex…next thing you know, we’ve done shed the blood of 50,000,000 innocent children!!!
  It’s the marketing of, and easy accessibility to the filth that is produced by the movie and game makers that is destroying America. Why? Because we have people on the bench who won’t do anything about it, they sit back and laugh while the country is destroys itself, not only that…the people who call themselves “Christians” sit back and let the Liberals and their anti-moral judges destroy and shame America like that!!?!?

  Like I said though, there is hope to be found for America, through our vibrant, energetic young people. People who will have a burning desire to serve the Lord, and who will get rid of the filth that they have in their homes start going to church and get their hearts and lives right with Christ, and ask God to use them for His Glory. When that happens, you would start to see things happen that you never seen happen before, people everywhere getting saved, people getting jobs they never thought they would have, mortgage loans paid off, people learning, technology blooming, advancement in Medical science. Crime going down. Families centered around Godly principles, sitting around the dinner table, saying a prayer of thanks and asking God to bless their family, and other families.

  Lastly, Conservatives hold and preserve these ideals.

  When you do this, then you’ve got Americans working together, for the good of the American dream…and when people finally make that decision, don’t ever turn back!

  –Jeremiah–

• 7. Almiranta  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  While I prefer a president who is a strict constitutionalist, which of course would mean one who is a defender of the 2nd amendment, in fact the personal preference of a president regarding the 2nd amendment is not going to play a role until and unless he or she is asked to sign off on a bill which restricts gun ownership. In this case, the Senate and House members are far more important than the president.

  Ditto for abortion. And I place far less importance on how long a person has held a pro-life stance than so many conservatives. As long as the pro-life position is sincere, solid, and unwavering, I don’t care when the person came to that position. Many many pro-lifers did not start out that way, and to pretend that one has to have some kind of timeline credentials to be considered a sincere opponent of abortion is kind of silly.

  My question to Matt is, when did citizenship become so entwined with residence? When we hear the whine about illegals, it is always “They just came here for a better life” or “They just came here to work”. NEVER is it “They just came here to become Americans”.

  I cannot imagine how one could possibly justify the granting of citizenship to people who have flauted our laws and shown disrespect for our national sovereignty. More than that, I cannot imagine how we could possibly justify the granting of citizenship to THESE people to those who did respect us as a country, who did honor our laws, who did go through the sacrifices necessary to enter the country legally and to become citizens.

  I will never be part of the insult to these people implicit in the granting of citizenship to those who couldn’t be bothered.

  And I will never be part of the discounting of the value of citizenship implicit in such an act.

  Sure, we need to recognize the reality of those who have been here, built lives here, and contribute to this country. Sure, we can give provisional visas to people already here till they are checked out, we can give guest worker visas to those who qualify, we can even grant permanent residency to some. But citizenship? Never.

  So far, citizenship has had to be earned, and I wonder why you would feel that now, all of a sudden, it should just be handed out.

  There can be ‘cafeteria conservatives’ who pick and choose which conservative views they agree with and which they reject. If we can have ’social conservatives’ and ‘fiscal conservatives’ I suppose we can have ‘immigration conservatives’, and in that category you would not qualify. But more to the point is the question, why do you think that it would be appropriate to grant citizenship to people who came here illegally, if they can remain here without it? Because it sounds to me like a very emotional REaction to a problem and emotional reactions which are designed merely to make one feel better, without consideration of consequences, is much more a Liberal trait than one of true conservatives.

• 8. Kahn  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm

  dr. Vinny, your post would have had more force if you hadn’t started it with vitriol.

  It’s discussions like this that make me like this blog. As to Mark’s original premise. Sometimes you just need to throw a position out there to kick off a discussion. Many times, you still won’t get an honest opinion from many of the liberal posters, but sometimes you will.

  In all the years I’ve been reading posts at first mattmargolis.com, later blogs4bush, and now here, I have been involved in some very good discussions. I have also witnessed first hand hatred, vitriol, and mindless chanting of the “slogan of the day”.

  Taken together, this experience has helped me define my beliefs. I can now explain in conversation what I think on many issues and back it up with a reasoned argument. As to the liberal Conservative haters who pop in just to lob insults or chants, I’ve learned from them also. I’ve also learned from the many liberal posters (remember a few years ago when they were “progressives” for a while?).

  Keep throwing out those opinions Mark. Vinny, if you don’t like it go back to the bestiality sites.

• 9. Christian Wright  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  “Think about what we really want - we want to win in Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism, and we want the tax cuts made permanent.”

  There never was a War on Terrorism. WOT was just a money laundry operation to give tax dollars to Republican donors. All those people died so corporations could reap a profit. The tax cuts are designed to only help the rich.

• 10. Retired Spook  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 am

  For virtually my entire adult life I’ve thought of myself as a pretty mainstream Conservative, but I’m also a roll-with-the-punches kind of guy. I tend to look at things in terms of right and wrong rather than Right and Left, but I also classify issues as important or unimportant. Abortion and pornography are two examples of things that I think are wrong, but, in the over all scheme of things, unimportant, at least to me. To the best of my knowledge no one I know has ever had an abortion. Pornography is not part of my life, but if someone else wants to look at pictures of people having sex, hey, knock yourselves out. Now if you want to expose that kind of material to my 13-year-old granddaughter and then seduce her, well, then you’ll find out one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment.

  I guess to sum it up, the important aspects of Conservatism to me involve things like personal responsibility, initiative, integrity, self-subsistance, charity, honor, and patriotism.

• 11. Retired Spook  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am

  CW, you must have gotten hold of some bad weed. Your posts just keep getting more and more bizarre. Do you lie awake at night thinking this stuff up or does it just roll off your keyboard naturally?

• 12. StopJohnLiberalMcCain  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 am

  Who is a conservative?

  Not JohnLiberalMcCain.

• 13. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 am

  Ricorun,

  You’re ignoring why I’m a conservative - its because I’m Catholic. Now, to be sure, I know some people who are devout Catholics who could be called liberal (one very nice lady at my parish with all the peace signs would probably fall into this catagory) but the fundamental truth about liberalism is that it is built on a series of false premises, all of which are directly antithetical to the Judeo-Christian worldview, especially as expressed by the Christian Church. So while the good lady is very much in favor of a quick end to the war, she still is not liberal because her worldview is at bottom Christian - which means, among other things, a recognition of the incorrigibly sinful nature of mankind. Liberalism doesn’t recognise this self-evident truth.

  Spook and I are both conservatives, even though Spook has pointed out that where I foam at the mouth over pornography, he doesn’t. But he knows its wrong - its not something actually up for debate. There is nothing in it which benefits the people involved, either as producers or consumers. Spook and I come from the same consevative worldview - this doesn’t mean we’re unthinking automatons and it sure in heck doesn’t mean we’ll never find room for disagreement…but it does mean that in the basics we’re going to be on the same page.

  Given this, when John McCain de-facto favored amnesty for illegals, I didn’t read that as being justification for drumming him out of conservatism - and not just because I favored it, too; the reason being is that justification for such a view can be found in that Judeo-Christian worldview conservatism defends. Conservatives who favored it favored it on account of Our Lord’s commands regarding outcasts, strangers and people generally at the bottom of the socio-economic pile. Conservatives opposed it on the correct grounds of the need for a well-ordered liberty which requires that our laws be enforced.

  In that debate, liberalism got it wrong because it is based upon a false idea - that man isn’t Fallen. So, given that man isn’t Fallen, all ills are the result of circumstance and thus we can’t blame people for illegally crossing our border because, in a sense, we made them do it. Further into this morass of wrongheadedness was a bit of liberal self-regard - their desire to feel good about themselves made them entirely obtuse over what massive amnesty would mean to the United States as a whole.

  The dichotomy is right/left, but it is also right/wrong - conservatism is right, liberalism is wrong. It is wrong all the time, even when it gets it right, because it gets it right from time to time purely by accident (ie, the Civil Rights movement - only justifiable based upon reference to universal, God-given truth about mankind…but the same liberals who fought for God-given rights vis a vis black Americans fought against universal truth when they tried to tell us in the 60’s that crime is the result of poverty rather than human perversity - can’t have it both ways, but liberalism always tries to do so…because its wrong, all the time). That the busted clock is right twice a day doesn’t alter the fact of its being broken - and thus any liberal, no matter how well intentioned, will be the worst possible person to be put in charge of anything…and so, I vote for the conservative; ie, the person who comes out of my worldview, which is based upon truth - and this is ok even if that particular person gets it wrong in the details as far as I am concerned.

• 14. BushisNero  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 am

  Blah, blah, blah, blah.

  Flippin’ hypocrite. Swallow a bone.

• 15. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am

  Jeremiah,

  Amen, brother. The thing about it is, we win. Of course, we do have the enormously unfair advantavge of having God on our side, but everyone can have that advantage for the asking (of course, He does ask certain things in return…and this is what scares a lot of lefties; they don’t want to confront themselves in the light of Truth).

  As we survey the battered civilization we used to call Christendom, the most stark fact is how secular liberalism is dying - literally dying, because it is a truth that the more liberal a group of people are, the less they reproduce - which, in turn, is why they want to very much to exclude parents from making decisions about the education of their children…not having children of their own in sufficient numbers, liberals wish to hijack the children of believers in order to perpetuate themselves into the next generation. But even outside demographics, can liberalism be in any sense considered vibrant when it really just boils down to a relentless battle for abortion and welfare? I don’t think so.

• 16. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 am

  Nero,

  Pleasant person, aren’t you?

• 17. Christian Wright  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 am

  Retired Spook: Just follow the money.
  Well, I guess that is impossible because there are no controls on the money and nobody can account to where it is going. Remember that 9b in cash that went missing? Ever wonder how much of that might be in Chaney’s Swiss Bank account?

  The only people that benefited from the WOT are the oil companies and the military industrial companies.

  The common Iraqi looks back to the days of Saddam with fondness now. Bush did a good job of making a mass murdering tyrant look like a reasonable alternative.

  The common US soldier is being stop lost until he/she dies or becomes broken from PTSD.

  So Bush managed to destroy Iraq, destory our military, destroy our ecomomy, destroy our Bill of Rights, and destroy our countries reputation.

  It is no wonder every Republican canidate is envoking the name of Reagan instead of Bush.

• 18. TiredofLibBullShit  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 am

  CW…………………

  Why do you even try to sound intelligent?

  Stop with the liberal talking points that have been disproved time and again.

  You’re just another USELESS IDIOT that Comrade Stalin, Chairman Mao and Joseph Goebbels wished their entire populace had your mentality. Most of them did but that is another story.

• 19. Pirate's Cove&hellip  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am

  Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Super Bowl Edition

   
  Happy Sunday! The Sun is shining, the birds are singing, the Super Bowl will be played (surrounded by way too many commercials and an idiotic halftime show.) Another fantastic day in the USA. These pinups are by Ted Hammond, no need to add the Flag,…

• 20. Magnum Serpentine  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am

  People want to get rid of Liberals. They say that Liberals are against God.

  We have two opposite political parties simply because there are two view points. If we had two parties that had almost the exact same viewpoint what would be the point?

  And again I say if you are advocating ending the Democratic Party then you are advocating a One party State. yes thats true. Because if you have parties that are so similar that you cannot tell them apart then they are basically the same party and that is a One party State.

  God does not pick sides in our political debates and contest. There are clues to how God feels about Government… Many have used this to say we should pay Tithes… But why include Caesar if he has no roll in tithes many say its because you are to pay your taxes, I feel there is much more to “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods”. This is the first mention of Separation of Church and State. I feel Caesar is Government (Caesar will not be around always or the bible would only be for his era) And God is the Church and there is a clear separation there. I believe the quickest governments to fall have been Theocracies.

  One of the greatest rights of Citizens is to vote for the candidate of their choice and this also means the Political Viewpoint of their choice. This is a right that cannot be changed. Freedom to choose is the greatest right in this nation. Also condemning citizens for their viewpoint is not right also. You have stated that Liberals are Godless they are not. There are many people who go to Assembly of God and Southern Baptist who are Democrats. Are they going to hell for voting for the Democratic party?

  God does not favor sides in elections.

  “The World Wonders…” Chester Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, World War 2, 1945 Pacific Theatre.

• 21. Ricorun  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 am

  Mark: Ricorun, You’re ignoring why I’m a conservative -

  I don’t think so. I place you high on the social conservative scale. And as such, it doesn’t surprise me that you hold the views you do. You mention, “Now, to be sure, I know some people who are devout Catholics who could be called liberal.” I bet if you asked her which of the following statements were more true…

  “Evil is an active force.” or “Evil is the absence of good.”

  I’ll bet she picks the latter. That, to you, might be unconscionably wrong, because you emphatically believe that Man starts our fallen. Likewise, if she emphatically believes that evil is the absence of good, she probably thinks your view is unconscionably wrong. But to my mind, that doesn’t mean either one of you is less devout, or less dedicated to God. It just means you have different approaches to the subject. However, when one’s belief falls on one extreme end or the other, it stands to reason that you can’t possibly imagine how anyone could think differently.

  Moreover, where you fall on social conservative/liberal sales illuminates very little about where you fall on the security and/or fiscal scales — nor how important they are to you. You might think they do, but they don’t. For example, I think Ron Paul falls on the extreme end of fiscal conservative scale, but on the liberal side of the security scale. And that also is unconscionable to you — first, because fiscal conservatism is least important to you, and second because security conservatism is very important. In fact, I’d say that’s your MOSt important consideration. And for that reason, and that reason alone, you would never contemplate voting for Paul in a million years.

• 22. Kahn  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  “WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers’ wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.”

  How are the Democrats not Socialists?

• 23. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  Kahn,

  Thanks - its up in a thread.

• 24. js  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. Our founding fathers actually believed political parties were the source of corruption in government. Over the last 200 years, they were proven absolutely correct.

  There are dozens of Political parties in the United States. Garnering the mass of power to two only serves to enhance both corruption and corruptibility.

  We, as a people, are blind to the truth. Until our voices are heard, we are naught but pawns for the elite in our own homeland.

• 25. Jeremiah  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  God does not pick sides in our political debates and contest.

  Magnum Serpentine,

  That’s right, God doesn’t favor any side in politics, but He favors a NATION that seeks His Will and not their own…and furthermore, that they should give Him all the glory, and all the praise. That’s the only way He can bless a Nation…is if they will choose His way over the worlds (Satan’s).

  Thomas Jefferson uttered the most profound words in political history, the place in which you are granted your freedom and rights - ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are Created equal, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Go to the book of Romans chapter 1 verse 19 and 20 what do those two verses say - ‘because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

  The Apostle Paul - ‘what may be known of God is manifest in them.‘

  Thomas Jefferson - ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident.‘ — ‘endowed by their Creator’.

  Now you see where Thomas Jefferson received the basis in which proclaim where man’s rights come from…he gave God all the credit.

  I disagree with your assumption that God is the church…..No, God…is the Head, the believers … are the Church. All those who believe in Jesus Christ His One and Only Son. Did you notice that in verse 20 of Romans 1..?

  And so, the Lord speaks to the people - Acts 14:15 - ‘and saying, “Men, wy are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, “who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways.’ “Nevertheless He did not leave himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
  Chapter 17:24 — 27 ‘God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the preappointed times and the boundaries of their habitation. So that they should seekthe Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.’

  Thus, all hearts and minds that dwelleth therein, shall be duly in accordance with the Creator.

  –Jeremiah–

• 26. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Ricorun,

  She’d only answer like that if she hasn’t thought the matter all the way through - which is Paul’s fundamental problem. Paul, a fellow Catholic - and thus a fellow conservative - fails to understand what a completely free market entails. If he ever sits down and thinks about it carefully, I’m sure he’ll come ’round to a more reasonable view…but, even with this disagreement, the plain fact of the matter is that Paul and I do agree - pornography is wrong, abortion is wrong, etc, etc, etc. Liberalism, being based upon a falsehood, does not so hold…at best, liberalism suspends judgement on such matters, at worst it actually calls them good.

  What this means is that were Paul to somehow obtain the GOP nomination, then if he was faced in November with a liberal who necessarily holds to a false worldview, I’d have to vote for Paul and resign myself to fighting him tooth and nail over matters of economics.

  Its also good to remember that a lot of liberalism has managed to infect our whole society - so much knowledge has been lost that not everyone who is a conservative really understands some of the crucial differences between liberal and conservative. There might be someone out there, for instance, who is a conservative and holds to it because he understands that it is unjust to over-tax a man’s wealth and attempt to take away his right to own weapons…but he still might not understand that the fundamental reason such things are wrong is because they cut at the ability of the family to be as self-sufficient as possible and thus errode the ability to transmit the Judeo-Christian morality to the next generation.

  When I say that winning the war and the Culture of Life are the two most crucial issues, what I’m actually saying is that losing the war and ignoring the Culture of Life would lead to a situation where it would be impossible for the family to function - where it would be impossible, that is, for Judeo-Christian civilizaiton to continue. It all comes back to this - and that is conservatism, the defense of the eternal verities.

  We must have government in order to defend our collective safety - but our lives and our liberty are entirely wrapped up in our families, and as our families disintegrate, our liberties atrophy (”family” extends to church and scial club, by the way). When I’m opposing a regulation on the economy I’m not doing it in order to be nice to General Motors, but because I fear it will further atrophy the ability of a family to be self-sufficient. When I’m opposing pornography I’m not doing it because I have a distaste for sex or the naked human body, but because such degradations of sex and the human body weaken the ability of the family to stay united. When I’m defending property rights I’m not doing it because I’m worried that Ted Kennedy might lose one of his estates, but because if a family cannot hold property then it is at the mercy of the State and/or the large corporations.

  I dig my heels in and say, “I won’t let you do that”, not just because I care particularly what horrible thing you might wish to do to yourself (though I do care about that, too), but because I’m worrying that Joe and Jane Average down the street who are just decent, quiet people with three kids and their life might be wrecked because a few self-indulgent jerks want to flaunt their depravity for all to see. Did you see that Brady Bunch movie a few years back? Kinda funny, putting that early-70’s, idealised Brady family into a mid-90’s world of drugs, sex, rap, violence and despair…I nearly wept when I watched it, to see how degraded we’ve become as a society. No one lived liked the Brady’s…but now we ridicule the very concept of living like that. We ridicule, that is, the concept of a quiet, decent life lived out in useful service to others.

  So, no, Ricorun, it isn’t a matter of “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative” - it is a matter of conservative and liberal…more old fashionedly, it is a matter of the Church, and her enemies. It is a matter of life and death - I fight for life, liberalism fights for death.

• 27. Jeremiah  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  Mark,

  You know, if you would delete the urls in peoples names on the site that lead to pornography, that would help to keep the site clean. People who have those types of urls are an unclean spirit.

  To make it a comment policy, that people shan’t have those types urls on the site would be a good thing too.

  Just thought I’d mention that.

  –Jeremiah–

• 28. Magnum Serpentine  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  Jeremiah…

  “All men are created equal”.

  What about the Women?

  Also I will repeat… Theocracies are the Governments that fall the fastest. No other style of government has fallen quicker.

  I also believe in not forcing religious beliefs on people.

  True, there were no political parties in 1789 but that still does not mean that the citizens can vote for whomever they want. And to attack and make fun of people’s choices is just flat wrong.

• 29. Christian Wright  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm

  Evil is an absence of a social conscious. It is cutting programs for the poor while giving tax cuts to the rich.

• 30. Jeremiah  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  What about the Women?

  Magnum Serpentine,

  When Thomas Jefferson first uttered those words he meant all people, not just men. Now, within the household, in marriage, the man is the head of the house - marriage is to be born of God. Just like God is the head of the Church, so too, man is the head of the household.

  Also I will repeat… Theocracies are the Governments that fall the fastest. No other style of government has fallen quicker.

  If a Nation out of their own free will choose to favor men of God and the principles set forth in His Word, is it called a “Theocracy”…? No, because the people choose to implore God’s favor, and not to be forced into that. This is what I mean when I say ‘God favors a Nation that chooses His ways.’

  You say … Theocracies are the Governments that fall the fastest. … Vs. What God’s Word says … Psalm 9:17 … The wicked shall be turned into hell, And all the nations that forget God.

  So which do you think is better now … seeing what God’s Word says … A Nation that turns their back on God…Or, a Nation that fears and reveres Him? …

  –Jeremiah–

• 31. Ricorun  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  Mark: She’d only answer like that if she hasn’t thought the matter all the way through - which is Paul’s fundamental problem. Paul, a fellow Catholic - and thus a fellow conservative - fails to understand what a completely free market entails. If he ever sits down and thinks about it carefully, I’m sure he’ll come ’round to a more reasonable view…

  Oh goodness. I honestly don’t know what to say — beyond this: that’s so classically Noonan. And at the risk of being banned, let me ask you again… how do you get your head through the door?

  When I say that winning the war and the Culture of Life are the two most crucial issues, what I’m actually saying is that losing the war and ignoring the Culture of Life would lead to a situation where it would be impossible for the family to function - where it would be impossible, that is, for Judeo-Christian civilizaiton to continue.

  In my case I look at structural issues, both in terms of physical structure and in moral structure. In terms of physical structure, it seems to me that if there’s any one thing that would help promote family values it would be preventing both parents from having to work overtime, or two jobs, to make ends meet. That necessity has two effects. First, it separates parents from children, which makes it more difficult to foster the children’s development. Second, it separates parents from each other and places them among others, facilitating the development of other relationships. And that situation is further fostered by the fact that stressful money issues make working extended hours a necessity in the first place. To my mind, if you can’t fix those problems some way, somehow, anything else offered isn’t likely to work. So the question is… what? I mean really… what? Another issue that compounds the first problem is the increasing social mobility of modern life. Back in the 60s it was rare for a person’s job to be transferred too far away from where they started. Now it’s common. And it’s more common the further up the job chain you are. That pulls extended families apart. And thus, more people are required to replace the extended family network with something else. But those solutions tend to be less stable. After all, nothing is thicker than blood.

  Those are the physical structures that I think are most important. On the moral structure, I think we have to realize that deeper moral principals are more important than shallow ones. For example, what makes you think eliminating pornography will eliminate lust? And which one is worse? For another example, what do you think is more important: (1) concepts like love, commitment, and responsibility, or; (2) gender preference? For another, what do you think is more important: (1) building neighborhood cohesion or; (2) building ideological cohesion?

• 32. Jeremiah  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  In terms of physical structure, it seems to me that if there’s any one thing that would help promote family values it would be preventing both parents from having to work overtime

  Ricorun,

  Friend, you are one mixed up individual.
  Those seven words by themself sums you up.

  Why worry about physical (worldly) when peoples souls are at stake?

  God’s Word says - ‘Seek ye first God’s Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these other things will be added unto ye’

  He takes care of the sparrows, how much more would He not provide for us, who are made in His image.

  For example, what makes you think eliminating pornography will eliminate lust?

  How much do you think a young person whose never seen another person naked lusts in their heart as opposed to a young person who has been taken to church and given the direction about God’s plan.

  When a man sees a woman and lusts after her in his heart, the bible says that he has already committed sin in his heart - referring to adultery.

  Remember, what you think - it does not matter, it’s useless ….. unless … it comes from the good book.

  So, the next time you want to help this world, take from the good book.

  –Jeremiah–

• 33. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  Ricorun,

  No worries there - its not my head that is big, it is the Truth which is rather large; I merely adhere to it. With a huge number of mistakes, it goes without saying, but the truth is the truth and there’s no pretending it is otherwise…unless you’re a liberal (there’s another falsehood of liberalism - that there is no objective truth). I’m not saying that I’m smarter than Paul, but I have thought the matter through and, as usual in such cases, discovered that Judeo-Christianity was there 2,000 years before I was, and had it right all along.

  The fundamental problem with modern life - we keep trying to re-invent the wheel…Chesterton had it right when he said that a liberal is someone who comes across a fence and wants it down as its in his way…what the liberal fails to note is that the fence didn’t grow out of nothing, and it wasn’t put up by a lunatic…there might just be a valid reason for the fence, and if the liberal would sit and think a moment, he might discover it and thus lose the desire to destroy the fence…heck, might even realise there’s a gate which can be opened and he can cross the fence quite easily without having to do anything remarkable. We’re amazingly fallible human beings, but we were given a pretty solid yet flexible “owner’s manual” for living…all we have to do is break that foolish pride in us, and accept gratefully what we’ve been given.

  And so - you’re right, it is a bad thing when both parents have to work out of the home…of course, its bad that even one parent has to do that. First principles - a family is a socio-economic unit; it is a miniature of society as a whole, and it should be largely self-sufficient. Obviously, we can’t go back to a time when most people could be smallholding farmers…but given what the family is supposed to be, our task is to try and make it as much as possible as it was back when.

  For good or ill, we turned ourselves into an industrial society which lives on interest generated in the financial sector. Whether or not this was a good idea is immaterial; it is what it is. Now, liberalism (and its illegitimate offspring, socialism/communism) figures we can properly manage the financially-controlled industrial society; that we can, in the end, decree that such and such will happen which will provide sufficient income for all to live at least a reasonably decent life. The only problem with this is that it ignores humanity - which is built for the smaller society and is built for general self-sufficiency within these smaller social groupings. Liberalism proposes in economics to do what can’t be done - figure out what is needed.

  I propose the opposite - to make the system provide the ability for families to become as far as possible economically self-sufficient and thus let them figure out for themselves what they want. Key to this plan of mine is to use the capitalist system we’ve built up - rather than make people dependent on government handouts in some strange plan to try and even out everything, I’ll use the capitalists…I’ll help people build up the liquid capital necessary to, at least at some point in their lives, allow them to give the razberry to Big Government and Big Corporate. In this, I will also be strengthening the family as a whole (though there is a lot more in this plan of mine along those lines - we are not homo economicus, after all), which is what is necessary for the defense of our civilization and the propagation of the Judeo-Chrsitian worldview (ie, the correct worldview) into the future.

  The key: the family. So, I’m not going to restrict pornography because I seek to restrict lust - I’m going to restrict pornography in order to shove it back down into the gutter whence it came…to once again have the societal opinion that while such nauseating things happen, no decent person would engage in them, nor patronise those who produce such filth. In other words, I’ll once again be strengthening the family - the word of the parents to their sons and daughters to the effect that they shouldn’t do such things will be re-inforced by a blanket social opprobrium on pornography. Sure, people will still do it - people will do the wrong thing, but it’ll be placed in its proper perspective, and while it will still detsroy the odd family infected with it, it won’t be a general acid eating away at all families, all the time.

• 34. Dr.Vinny  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Jeremiah obviously knows nothing about sex and lust.
  Let me add a few names here, just for his benefit.
  Jim Baker. Jimmy Swaggart. Ted Haggard. All 3 christian dominionist hucksters. (Hucksters? Huckabee? Too much of a coincidence! LOL!)

  And Mark, please be factual. The quote that you attributed to Chesterton actual said that the difference between conservatives and liberals is much like a fence down the middle of a road. The conservative says “Lets remove this fence”. The liberal says, “I might agree with you, but I want to know why it’s there in the first palce before I render a decision”.
  Honesty is the best policy Mark Noonan.

• 35. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  Vinny,

  Err, no - I wasn’t quoting, I was paraphrasing, and the quote is about how liberals want the fence down without asking why its there…you might want to be wary of accusing me of dishonesty given, you know, that this isn’t your blog and you’ve no business coming in here and doing things like that…

• 36. Jeremiah  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  Obviously, Dr. Vinny, you aren’t Christian, or you would recognize that Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert and Ted Haggard don’t represent true Christians.

  Some people make mistakes, some deliberately mislead because they don’t care.

  True men of God, men of truth, won’t lead you astray - folks like Adam Clarke, F.G. Smith and Billy Graham.

  –Jeremiah–

• 37. Dr.Vinny  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  …blah, blah, blah a bunch of insults with no point to them…

• 38. Dr.Vinny  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm

  Jerry:

  …blah, blah, blah more insults from a nasty person…

• 39. Mark Noonan  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  Vinny,

  No, that wasn’t the Chesterton quote I was paraphrasing - but as you are clearly a nasty person, I think we’ll prevent you from commenting further.

• 40. Dr.Vinny  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  You can’t…blah, blah, blah…

• 41. Jeremiah  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm

  You can’t.

  Nope. All he has to do is delete everything you say.

  –Jeremiah–

• 42. Almiranta  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm

  Snakelet whines, incorrectly as usual, that “People want to get rid of Liberals. They say that Liberals are against God. ”

  I don’t want to “get rid of Liberals”—in fact, that sentence is so completely goofy I think you may be channeling CW here.

  And NO ONE says that “Liberals are against God”. Where do you GET this stuff?

  Liberalism, small-l liberalism, is a genuine and important aspect of American politics. While I don’t agree with it, I respect it and even understand it and where it comes from. It is, basically, a belief that government should be used to engineer civilization to meet certain warm and fuzzy criteria—to take care of people.

  Liberalism, capital-L Liberalism, is a far more radical and far more Leftist model, and as such is more political and agenda-driven than simple liberalism. It is not very compatible with religion, as it is such a belief system in its own right that it doesn’t like competition. This is why radical Leftist movements have always started off with attacks on religion, and why when they are in power they have banned religion.

  Radical Leftist philosophy places the State in the position we usually reserve for God.
  It also tries to replace the family with the State—turn in your parents for ‘talking against the State’, turn to your teachers or other representatives of the State to help you with your problems (such as pregnancy) and not your family, etc.

  Understanding the ways radical Leftism works, or tries to work, means only that it can be countered. This is a far cry from wanting to “get RID” of Lefties—we just don’t want them to succeed. We like our freedoms and our individualism and our family units and our right to worship God as we please, and we can tolerate the authoritarian and totalitarian wishes of a rabid few as long as they don’t take over our lives.

• 43. bongoman  |  February 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  I’m going to restrict pornography in order to shove it back down into the gutter whence it came…to once again have the societal opinion that while such nauseating things happen, no decent person would engage in them

  Like sex? Gee, plenty of people have sex. In fact, plenty of couples even enjoy viewing pornography together. It’s healthy and fun. You should try it sometime. There’s plenty of couple-friendly porngraphy out there that’s far from nauseating.

  And guess what? These couples also happen to be decent people. Some of them even have kids and love them to bits and only want the best for them.

  Just how do you propose restricting pornography without resorting to totalitarian & authoritarian tactics?

• 44. Uncommon  |  February 4th, 2008 at 12:14 am

  I find it quite hillarious that people like Alma back Noonan and his crazy ideas of regulating morality but then seek to suppress Leftist positions because they wish to control our lives. Umm…. it’s not worth pointing out the hypocrisy. That’s not even hypocritical, it’s just plainly intellectually dishonest. You can’t support one thing yet rally against the same thing under a different name. I would say that most of the hardliners that post here are like that. At least Alma is capable of recognizing that liberals aren’t godless heathens and do serve a clear purpose. I still think that there is a lot of false biases and outright discrimination and bigoted thought processes from her and all of the other “conservatives” here. What can you do except allow people to believe what they want irregardless of reality?

• 45. Diana Powe  |  February 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  One of the great conceits shared by conservatives, who are supposedly only Republicans, is the notion that Democrats, who are supposedly all liberals, represent the imposition of a so-called “nanny state” as opposed to the flinty self-reliance of conservatives who just want government to “get out of the way”. This self-congratulatory mindset has, as virtually all mindsets do, huge blind spots.

  The foremost is the one on display when Mark likes to exercise the arrogant assertion that “the adults are in charge” in the Executive Branch right now. These are the adults who decided to invade Iraq and leave us mired there almost five years later. These are the adults who have ordered the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”. These are the adults who have ordered at least one American citizen jailed incommunicado on American soil without charging them with a crime. These are the adults who have ordered illegal surveillance on Americans, lied about it and then demanded retroactive immunity for violating the law. No “nanny state” for these adults - these worshipers at the feet of the image of President Ronald Reagan.

  In fact, the very phrase “nanny state” reveals the bias. Government policies that involve utilizing people, mostly men, in uniforms with big machines and things that spout flame and cause explosions aren’t nanny-ish. Government policies that involve inflicting pain on people aren’t soft and weak. Government policies that are intended to make others bend to our will are strong and manly, something no nanny would ever be. Ronald Reagan would never be a nanny.

  Of course, the expenditure by the United States of America of more money on defense than the rest of the world combined, is every much a decision made on our behalf as deciding to spend more or less money on Medicare and Medicaid. However, there no viscerally satisfying explosions or visually exciting machines involved in primary health care. Ships, tanks and aircraft are potent unlike weak things like Aid To Families with Dependent Children.

• 46. Mark Noonan  |  February 5th, 2008 at 4:08 am

  Diana,

  Your comment bears no relation to the subject of this thread.

  You’ve really got to learn how to have a conversation - this is a thing where someone says (or writes) something, and you respond to it and so on.

  The thing about being a commenter on a blog is that you never get to be the conversation starter - that’s my job. If you want to start a conversation, start a blog…until then, please keep commenting here, but join the conversation, ok?