Jindal to GOP: Don’t be Stupid

Well, that is a bit harsher than he actually was – but its the gist of it.  From Politico:

…“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”…

While our liberal friends were quite dishonest in their characterizations of what, say, Akin said, the fact remains that Akin got in to trouble because he clearly never thought the matter through.  If you are to be a pro-life fanatic (as I am) then you’d better figure out precisely why you are and what your answers are to all conceivable questions.  Heck, for a Christian this is actually a Biblical command (see 1 Peter 3:15).  Because Akin had not thought the matter through he was unprepared for a question which was obviously going to be asked because the DNC wanted their by-lined Democrats in the MSM to ask such questions (the correct answer to that question can be found here, because I’ve thought about it).  Because of boneheaded answers we are at least two Senate seats short of where we would be had we been smarter…and a bit more smarts and we might have retired Reid as Majority Leader.

Don’t get me wrong – Democrats are even dumber than we are.  But they do have this going for them – low information voters can be easily suckered by Democrats especially when GOPers are acting like idiots.  If we are smart then Democrat attempts to bamboozle will fall flat…because sincerity and conviction on well-presented beliefs do actually trump gutter-political appeals to the lowest common denominator.  Think of Reagan:  bags of sincerity and conviction and beliefs which could not be mistaken…they tried a gutter political campaign against him in 1980 and it didn’t work (hard as it is to remember, but Democrats were portraying Reagan as a filthy rich, drooling idiot who wanted to start nuclear war as soon as he got in to office).

Equally important, don’t let the Democrats portray us as something we’re not.  Like it or not, the GOP was successfully painted as the party of the rich and the big corporations in 2012.  Doesn’t matter that there are more rich Democrats than Republicans; doesn’t matter that corporate America is a happy-hunting ground for sinecure-seeking Democrats.  What mattered is that by not clearly showing that we are opposed to Big Corporation and on the side of small and mid-sized business, we gave that part of the game away to the Democrats, too.

Time to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start bringing to the table those shining ideals which lead us to victory in the past…and without giving the game away by fumbling the ball inside the red zone.

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Jindal to GOP: Don’t be Stupid

  1. Norma Stitz November 13, 2012 / 11:08 pm

    I like Mr. jindal very much and look forward to his participation in the 2016 Presidential election. This post is an excellent example of his thinking.

    • 01canadianobserver November 14, 2012 / 7:04 am

      Mark, you write ” don’t let the Democrats portray us as something we’re not” in a post where you have Jindal (a Republican) berating the GOP for exactly the same things that Democrats have been saying,. Odd.

      Jindal, by the way, is not the only conservative who feels that the Republicans have been hijacked by the extreme elements of the party and, no doubt, after such a devastating loss, we will see more of them speaking out against those who, as Jindal said…” damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments “.

      Let’s hope the GOP can rid themselves of these divisive folk and y’all can, as you have so eloquently stated, Mark, .”pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start bringing to the table those shining ideals which lead us to victory in the past”.

      • M. Noonan November 14, 2012 / 9:24 pm

        Yawn…yeah, we’re extremists and Jindal is against that….just wait until 2016 and if Jindal is the nominee: then you, yourself, will be berating him as an extremist even though he won’t have changed from today until then. Jindal is a Catholic – so, to your side, an extremist by definition.

        We need to rethink a lot of things but the one thing we don’t need is to fall for the liberal idea of what we are…

      • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 1:48 am

        Mark: Jindal is a Catholic – so, to your side, an extremist by definition.

        Oh, so Jindal is a Catholic? Well, he certainly lost my vote. Lol!

        I’m kidding, of course. But then again, wasn’t it decided a few months ago, by the regular posters on this site, that neither Jindal or Rubio were eligible for the presidency because they weren’t American enough? I’m pretty sure that was the case. So… what has changed?

      • Amazona November 20, 2012 / 11:07 am

        “……..wasn’t it decided a few months ago, by the regular posters on this site, that neither Jindal or Rubio were eligible for the presidency because they weren’t American enough? I’m pretty sure that was the case. ”

        This example of the supreme intelligence and grasp of reality was brought to you by ricorun, the North Star in the firmament of the blog, around whom all truths revolve.

        You see, to comment on its idiocy is now considered “vitriolic” and to correct it with facts will probably be labeled as something like an “ad hominem attack”. The redefinition of terms by the Rabidly Radical Left is not limited to political terms—-it is a tactic applied whenever the truth is uncomfortable.

        But I know that whimpering about my alleged “vitriol” is merely an effort to develop an excuse pattern for avoiding the hard questions I ask, or acknowledging the truths I present. Now evidently even the opinion that rico is the source of narcissistic bloviating is considered an “ad hominem attack” even in the face of, well, narcissistic bloviating.

        So, back to this latest in a long string of idiotic statements:

        No, rico, not only was this NOT the case, it is not even remotely close to being the case. No one challenged the citizenship of either Jindal or Rubio, nor his patriotism nor any other aspect of his “Americanism”.

        The question was simply whether their birth to parents who were not citizens at the time of their birth would disqualify them for the Presidency because of the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution.

        It was a QUESTION, don’t you see, not a decision one way or the other, and a desire to have this QUESTION settled once and for all by the appropriate legal authority before either of them would be considered for that office.

        A terribly emotional Lefty argued with great passion that he IS a natural born citizen, and some of us here presented evidence that he might not be, and commented on the need to resolve this issue once and for all before throwing the nation into yet another period of uncertainty and squabbling about the eligibility of a president.

        It was not hard to understand, and I am at a loss as to how or why you could have gotten this so totally screwed up.

  2. thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 14, 2012 / 3:51 am

    “Akin got in to trouble because he clearly never thought the matter through”

    Akin got into trouble because he claimed women can’t get pregnant via rape because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” The problem isn’t that he “never thought the matter through,” the problem is he’s embarrassingly ignorant. You should worry less about “boneheaded answers” and more about boneheaded beliefs.

    • neocon01 November 14, 2012 / 9:54 am

      faketruthshallnotsetufreeeee

      NO he didnt.

      the chances of a woman becoming pregnant due to rape are statistically extremely low….but hey why let the truth get in the way of a good smear.

      funny you dont mention the drug addicted criminal je$$ah jacka$$ the second who is going to jail…or the good REV and his bastard child who plays with john edwards bastard child…

      WHY is that?

    • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 10:23 am

      truthie, I addressed the Akin comment. Unlike you, I addressed it fully, in context. I agreed that it was stupid and then I proceeded to explain, in detail, the “conventional wisdom” that led him to make this statement without checking it out. I did not include the article by a medical doctor that supported what he said.

      He was wrong, no one says he was right. The difference is, some of us are decent and reasonable and understand that it was an honest mistake, big a mistake as it was, and the carrion eaters leaped upon it with fervid glee, seeing it as something that could be distorted to smear an opponent and win an election

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 14, 2012 / 11:42 am

        An “honest mistake”? Really? He said something so profoundly stupid that anybody with even a slightly functioning BS detector would’ve known better than to say it. And here you guys are trying to make excuses for him, claiming his statement is being “distorted.” He’s the one who flat-out said that women can’t get pregnant via rape; nobody’s distorting that in the slightest. Nobody neds to. It’s an appalling stupid thing to say.

        Rick Santorum is correct about very little, but he was certainly correct when he said educated people won’t vote GOP.

      • tiredoflibbs November 14, 2012 / 1:12 pm

        “Truth” (Monty, Wally, bodie, Jeffry, etc etc) is back.

        Same tactics, same themes, same dumbed down BS. – you can change your “name”, but you can’t change your pathetic personality and mentality.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 3:33 pm

        truthie—-AKIN WAS WRONG.

        He mistakenly referred to an article by an M.D. without researching it to see if it was true, and he was probably influenced by the same “conventional wisdom” I described in detail, that it is much harder to get pregnant if you are stressed.

        It was a MISTAKE.

        HE WAS WRONG

        I don’t think he said women CAN’T get pregnant from rape. I think he said it was less likely.

        Don’t forget, you guys also tried to turn his stumble on “legitimate rape” to mean rape can be OK, or legitimate, when it was clear he meant “legitimate CLAIMS of rape”.

        But it’s OK. You slimed him, he is gone, so why are you still so obsessed with him?

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 3:37 pm

        As an example of your innate dishonesty, your addiction not just to lies but to the most nasty and vicious of lies, you also misquote Santorum, out of context.

        But that’s OK—the very sight of your name at the beginning of a post is a road sign that warns “LIES AHEAD”. When we see that you have posted, the only reason to read what you have spewed is to see how many lies you have crammed into how many words, and how much of your distasteful pathology you have put on display.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 14, 2012 / 11:41 pm

        “Don’t forget, you guys also tried to turn his stumble on “legitimate rape” to mean rape can be OK, or legitimate, when it was clear he meant “legitimate CLAIMS of rape”.”

        Here’s his verbatim quote:

        “First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s [pregnancy from rape] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

        Nowhere does he even allude to CLAIMS of rape. And how could he–the only way to make his statement more nonsensical would be to say it applies to CLAIMS of rape and not actual rape. He’s not talking about claims, he’s talking about actions.

        Your defense, in other words, is a lie. Funny how you spend so much time and effort falsely accusing me of lying while you yourself rely so heavily on lies.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:48 am

        A lie is a purposeful attempt to deceive. I merely misquoted someone.

        But the meaning is still clear, in that he was referring to a real rape, not an after-the-fact accusation that a consensual act was suddenly redefined as rape.

        In Colorado a few years ago, the legislature agreed to have the state pay for abortions that resulted from rape. The only condition was that the rape be reported when it happened.

        That is, the female gestational creature who found her child too inconvenient to live could not claim, three months after conception, that the conception was due to rape, just to get the abortion paid for by the state. No, the rape had to be “legitimate”, or real, not a bogus claim. Not a “Well, we were sleeping together at the time and we still are but now, months later, looking back, I think maybe that one night he might have raped me before we went out to dinner” kind of claim, but a legitimate, or real, rape.

        Akin spoke clumsily but no rational or decent person could legitimately—–that is, REALLY—-claim he meant that any rape was OK. He meant that a real act of violence against a woman which included sexual penetration would be legitimately called rape.

        It takes a special kind of hatred to work so hard to take a clumsy sentence structure and try to spin it into an indictment of a man’s character.

        The man said his comment was based on what he understood, and it is true than an actual M.D. had made the claim.

        He should have researched the whole thing before saying anything. But it’s not as if he is the first person to have ever gotten the wrong impression from a partially heard or understood comment.

        It’s just that in this case he was a conservative politician and he made his gaffe in a public comment where it could be leaped upon by the carrion eaters of the Left, who were eager to make vile and unfounded claims about what they allege he really MEANT, with the intent of savaging a conservative.

        Sometimes things just come out wrong. I once moved to a new neighborhood and was invited to a pool party. Some of us were in the hot tub, yelling to be heard over the jets, and someone asked if I had met any cool guys in the new neighborhood. Being a smartass, I yelled back, just as the jets shut off so my comment was heard clear across the yard, “So many guys are asking me out I need to beat them all off.”

        Sometimes you just don’t realize how something will sound till you say it out loud. And I’m sure if a bottom feeder like you had been there you would have jumped on a clumsy wording like that with absolute glee and branded me a slut and worse—but that would have been a reflection of who and what YOU are, and your sick need to paint others with the ugliest brush possible.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 15, 2012 / 1:52 am

        “Sometimes things just come out wrong.”

        And what, in your estimation, is the right way to say that women can’t get pregnant from rape? Because clearly your problem is with the messaging, not the message itself.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        truthie, it’s hard to tell which is more distasteful—your creepy obsession with Akin or your determination to shift the discussion whenever it starts to make sense.

        One more time.

        What Akin said about women not being able to get pregnant due to rape was wrong. IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS A MISTAKE. IT IS NOT TRUE. What, exactly, will it take to get it through that thick head of yours that no one is defending this statement? IT WAS WRONG.

        You have also been told how such a wrongheaded, erroneous, nonfactual, incorrect, concept could occur—-what with a medical doctor writing an opinion that this is true, and what with the centuries of ‘conventional wisdom’ repeated even by doctors that being under stress can interfere with conception.

        None of this us claimed that Akin’s statement was true, or accurate, or correct. IT WAS WRONG. IT IS NOT TRUE. IT WAS A MISTAKE.

        The ““Sometimes things just come out wrong.”” thing was not about the claim that a woman cannot get pregnant due to rape. Not only that, but it is impossible to actually believe that it was. It was clearly, obviously, without any doubt, a reference to the clumsy juxtaposition of the term “legitimate” with “rape”. I said so. Many times.

        For you to now try to weasel around and claim the “Sometimes things just come out wrong” comment was in relationship to anything else is just more proof, not that we need it, that if the truth WOULD set you free, you are wholly committed to remaining a captive to your own hatred and bigotry, because you run from the truth every time it is shown to you or shoved in your face.

        Enough of this. You have already made quite a spectacle of yourself with your strident screeching about what one man said—a man who is not in office, a man whose statements were related to his own opinion and not that of the Republican Party, an individual who made a mistake. Clearly you are not merely wholly invested in Identity Politics, you are fixated on whatever you can twist into the ugliest aspect of Identity Politics. So this is what attracts you, obsesses you. No surprise there. But you will have to find somewhere else to wallow in whatever you have decided the Akin misstatement meant.

        The

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 2:21 pm

        yourtruthisalaugh

        educated people won’t vote GOP.

        Bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha

        lets see……….donks = innercity blacks, mexican serfs, liberal arts college kids who know NOTHING about the constitution…..and they are YOUR INTELLIGENT “voters?
        Ohh yeah almost forgot those hatians who speak NO,English……

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 15, 2012 / 11:34 pm

        So you admit that Akin was wrong, but you continue to insist that the problem was just one of phrasing–“things come out wrong”/”unfortunate juxtaposition”–rather than the actual idea expressed. Why do you keep trying to defend what even you admit was wrong, and why do you continue to employ a sad lie–“he meant CLAIMS of rape, even though he said nothing of the sort!”–to do so?

      • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 2:00 am

        truthie, two different statements, one about the likelihood of getting pregnant due to rape—-wrong—-and one of a poor choice of words, or referring to a “legitimate” rape.

        Two things. Sometimes you rabid haters latch onto the medical mistake of thinking that a woman can shut down ovulation, sometimes you claim that he said some rapes are legitimate meaning OK.

        Two statements, two meanings, two responses.

        Surely even you can count to two.

        But that’s right—you are not here to engage in rational dialogue, possibly to find this common ground to which you give lip service, but merely to emote, merely to keep us reminded of the hate that drives you and needs constant expression.

        We got it. We got it a long time ago. Your pathology demands that you hate people for being different than you, and it demands that you express this hate and bigotry. You crave the cheap thrills of insult and attack, and this is the only thing that drives you.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 17, 2012 / 12:26 am

        “two different statements”

        This is the lie that you simply refuse to let go of. There is one statement. One. O-n-e. 1. He said that if a woman has been raped, she can’t get pregnant because of that ridiculous “shut the whole thing down” notion. There is nothing in there about CLAIMS of rape (Go ahead, read the verbatim quote again and point to the part where he says “claims”), and your continued desire to push that lie in order to defend what even you admit is wrong speaks volumes about your integrity (there’s not much of it) and your ability to function outside the bubble (there’s not much of that, either).

      • Amazona November 17, 2012 / 7:26 am

        truthie, or as you are now sometimes known here, “Bubble Boy”, whatever is going on in your head that makes you so fervently, bizarrely, insanely obsessed with this, it’s time to let it go.

        Amazona
        November 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm

        “truthie—-AKIN WAS WRONG.

        He mistakenly referred to an article by an M.D. without researching it to see if it was true, and he was probably influenced by the same “conventional wisdom” I described in detail, that it is much harder to get pregnant if you are stressed.

        It was a MISTAKE.

        HE WAS WRONG

        I don’t think he said women CAN’T get pregnant from rape. I think he said it was less likely.

        Don’t forget, you guys also tried to turn his stumble on “legitimate rape” to mean rape can be OK, or legitimate, when it was clear he meant “legitimate CLAIMS of rape”.

        But it’s OK. You slimed him, he is gone, so why are you still so obsessed with him?”

        Clearly admissions he was wrong are not enough to soothe your savage resentment of this mistake, which has obviously taken over your life and become its focal point.

        It seems to be a necessary part of this pathology to deny that your kind also, in addition to howling at the moon about his lack of medical knowledge, claimed that his use of the word “legitimate” implied approval of rape. I don’t know why, but then I have no way of, or interest in, understanding the strange twists and turns of a severely disturbed mind such as yours.

        How long does it usually take for these obsessions to run their course, or do you cling to them indefinitely and file them away to drag out later to fondle and exhibit as proof of your looniness?

      • Amazona November 17, 2012 / 7:31 am

        Amazona
        November 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm

        One more time.

        What Akin said about women not being able to get pregnant due to rape was wrong. IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS A MISTAKE. IT IS NOT TRUE. What, exactly, will it take to get it through that thick head of yours that no one is defending this statement? IT WAS WRONG.

        You have also been told how such a wrongheaded, erroneous, nonfactual, incorrect, concept could occur—-what with a medical doctor writing an opinion that this is true, and what with the centuries of ‘conventional wisdom’ repeated even by doctors that being under stress can interfere with conception.

        None of this us claimed that Akin’s statement was true, or accurate, or correct. IT WAS WRONG. IT IS NOT TRUE. IT WAS A MISTAKE.

        The ““Sometimes things just come out wrong.”” thing was not about the claim that a woman cannot get pregnant due to rape. Not only that, but it is impossible to actually believe that it was. It was clearly, obviously, without any doubt, a reference to the clumsy juxtaposition of the term “legitimate” with “rape”. I said so. Many times.”

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 20, 2012 / 11:10 pm

        This has gone on long enough. It has been asked and answered many times and is now just part of a pattern of harassment and insult. Move on. //Moderator

    • Retired Spook November 14, 2012 / 10:40 am

      Truthie,

      the problem is he’s embarrassingly ignorant.

      Yeah, can you imagine how much better Akin would have done if he said something like: “I see women primarily as a vagina, a vagina that should be used as often as possible. And we can provide ALL women with free contraception so they WON’T GET PREGNANT no matter the circumstances. And then if the contraceptives fail, we can provide them with free abortions. And then if the abortion fails, we’ll just throw the baby in the trash.” Obama has that exact view, and he got re-elected, so, to paraphrase Forest Gump: ignorant is as ignorant does.

      • irisspirit November 14, 2012 / 1:37 pm

        And you wonder why your party cannot win a presidential election at a time when the economy is slow and many Americans are looking for jobs? It is painfully apparent that you and others who are so far right wing just don’t get it. You are completely wrong about how Obama or any other “liberal” thinks about abortion and a woman’s right to control her own body. Why don’t you concentrate more on why men rape that what a woman who conceives as the result of a rape decides how to deal with the trauma? I know you have daughters – do you have granddaughters? Do you believe you should have the right to make that decision for them should something so terrible happen to them? Why do so many men believe they should be making decisions regarding women’s health and contraception decisions? Apparently you just do not think women are smart enough to make decisions for themselves. That, my friend, is what is hurting your party so much at this time. Your party lost the women’s vote because we are treated as second class citizens by the GOP. If you do not believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother, then don’t have one. Oh that’s right, you do not have the ability to become pregnant under any circumstances.
        You are opposed to birth control for those women who cannot afford it, so instead of addressing the problem at the front end you want to criticize actions after a young woman has become pregnant. That makes no sense at all. If you are truly opposed to abortion under any circumstance then provide the birth control for pitty sake! Get over yourselves – young women (and young men) have sex without protection because they believe they are in love and the guy always has some smooth line they fall for. You and I both know that young people do not always make good decisions. That is no excuse for adults not to make good decisions because we don’t want to pay for birth control. That is a hell of lot cheaper than paying for prenatal care, hospitalization for the birth, after birth care and probably AFDC, food stamps, housing, medical etc. Just once be pro active and understand that you may not believe that providing free birth control is something you want to do but it benefits society to not have children born to single moms with no way to support themselves. Just flippin grow up!

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 3:29 pm

        Velma, you’re so clueless it’s scary.

        “Why do so many men believe they should be making decisions regarding women’s health and contraception decisions? “

        Such as…..? I don’t know of any men who think they should be making decisions for women regarding women’s health and contraception decisions.

        Oh, I know the Left puppet masters have convinced some of the brainless that men on the Right want to do this, but it is just a lie.

        Here is a summary of the Right’s approach to women’s health decisions—–they should be made by the women themselves. This includes contraception, cancer screenings, and any other issue that is concerned solely with the health of the woman.

        As for paying for contraception, this can certainly be included in any health insurance policy, and that is up to the insurer. However, those who have a religious conviction that contraception and abortion are morally wrong and in violation of their religious beliefs should not be forced, against their will, to pay for this particular type of insurance. This is a violation of the constitutional right to worship as we choose.

        There are a lot of ways to address this issue, if providing contraceptive coverage in insurance is really the goal. We know, of course, that it is not———that the goal is to misrepresent the issue in such a deceptive way that it stirs up the stupid and the gullible into a frenzy of misguided anger and resentment and fear.

        First, the cost of contraception is very small and easily absorbed by any woman mature enough and responsible enough to be having sex anyway.

        Second, this is first a matter of personal responsibility and then one of family responsibility. Then if any state chooses to take it on, it can be incorporated into that state’s choice of how to be involved in health care issues. Under no circumstances can it ever be considered a federal issue—at least not by anyone who understands the Constitution.

        ” If you do not believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother, then don’t have one. ”

        This glib little snot-nugget seems to pass for wit and wisdom among you rabid Lefties. Let’s expand that to other areas of legislation to enforce a moral code. What you are really saying is that morality is relative, that it depends on who wants to do what. With this approach to what should be allowed depending on personal opinion, then anyone who thinks his driving ability is not impaired with a BAC of 1.5 ought to be able to legally drive this way—kind of like your friend, who went to prison for killing someone while driving drunk. According to extrapolation of your comment, this should have been his own decision. And let’s face it, when he got behind the wheel there was a chance no one would die—not what happens when a female decides to kill off an inconvenient child. In the second case, the innocent victim has no chance.

        Rape is terrible. How does adding to the atrocity by then using it as an excuse to end an innocent human life going to make it better? How is poisoning or dismembering a child going to make the memory of rape less painful?

        ” Your party lost the women’s vote because we are treated as second class citizens by the GOP. “

        Bulls**t. We lost the election because so many women were quite happy to be reduced to mindless, helpless, little female sex objects without a thought in their tiny little heads that rose above their belt buckles, and dependent on father figures to take care of them, subsidize their sexual activity, and sacrifice innocent human lives to spare them the consequences of that sexual activity.

        The GOP tried treating women as strong, capable, ethical people who did not want to be patted on the head, talked down to, and shoved back into the role of silly helpless little female looking to Daddy for every little thing. A lot of us appreciate that, but more took the second route, and said, in effect, “Yes, we ARE empty headed genitals looking for a free ride and unlimited opportunity to have fun”.

        As for your shrill little rant on the benefits to society of free birth control, the statistics show that availability of free or very cheap birth control has not only NOT slowed the rate of illegitimate births, illegitimate births to teenage girls have gone up.

        Your whole argument is stupid, because it is based on the continuation of subsidizing random reproduction with “…prenatal care, hospitalization for the birth, after birth care and probably AFDC, food stamps, housing, medical etc.”

        See if you can find any figures on the number of unwed mothers from the 50s, 60s and 70s who gave up children for adoption and then got pregnant again out of wedlock. These decades were either before the pill or in its early days when it was hard to get and not very reliable. Yet when young women were expected to take responsibility for their actions, they learned from their mistakes.

        You are just a strident angry woman looking for anything you can throw at the Right and you always come up with absolute crap. Your obsession with depositing this crap on a conservative blog is pretty indicative of your pathology. You trot in here, dump your mental excrement, call names, stomp your tiny hooves in faux outrage at your invented complaints, and huff off, leaving behind the stench of ignorance and irrational hatred.

        If you ever actually made a relevant comment based on an actual fact, your pathology might be less obvious, but as all you do is spew regurgitated lies that have been addressed here many times, it is proof that you are just plain nuts—-and mean as a rattlesnake to boot.

        Just flippin’ shut up.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        Really, Spook. Akin might have gotten some of the female vote that went to Obama if he had just declared that nothing matters to women but their own genitalia, what they do with it, who they do it with, and who pays for what they do with it.

        This was, after all, the message of the Left. This, and “…and those mean old Republicans are NOT focused on your genitalia, what you do with it, who you do it with, and making other people pay for it, the bastids”.

      • tiredoflibbs November 14, 2012 / 9:20 pm

        Wow velma, obAMATEUR reduced women from what is between her ears to what is between her leg…. errr below the waist.

        You should be proud that obAMATEUR campaigned on what he thinks is most important to women …. SEX and ABORTION! According to his campaign, that is what was most important.

        He reduced you women to sexual creatures without brain cell one between your ears.

        After reading your mindless posts regurgitating the dumbed down party line, I would believe the latter, especially in your case.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        tired, I came up with an idea for a bumper sticker.

        It is a feminine belt, with an arrow pointing up from the buckle that has the Republican R on it, and an arrow pointing down that has a D on it.

  3. patriotdad1 November 14, 2012 / 6:21 am

    Hang out in the comments section on Free Republic or Breitbart or Fox Nation and just see how much pure batshit insanity exists there. It’s quite amazing. We see echoes here with neocon and a couple of commenters and it casts doubt on Amazona’s assertion that the right is all about a pure ideological vision. The wide ranging conspiracy theorising, the racialist epithets, the sheer hatred, bitterness and fear.

    Check it out sometime.

    • neocon01 November 14, 2012 / 9:46 am

      poopydaddy1

      The wide ranging conspiracy theorising, the racialist epithets, the sheer hatred, bitterness and fear.

      ROTFLMAO….ya got them all in, and in one sentence.

      Ooooooooooooooohhhhhh teh ***”FEARRRRRRR”***!!!!

      what a Moron….. LOLX1000

    • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 10:33 am

      dad, if you are going to claim that a few hateful nuts represent the entire political movement of conservatism, or the entire Republican Party, then you are obviously also claiming that the toxic sludge of mitche and the virulent hatred of those who can’t describe their intent to kill conservatives without accompaniment of the F-bomb, and those who refer to black conservatives as house niggers and Uncle Toms and Oreos, as true representatives of the Democrat Party.

      There is a political philosophy of Constitutional government. If it makes you feel better to sneer at this as “pure ideological vision” then go right ahead. This IS Constitutional Conservatism, it is also the traditional position of the Republican Party and there is a lot of effort being made to make sure the party sticks with this and does not cave to incremental Leftism.

      Just because some people post some things that you don’t like, which may or may not be true or rational as you get your panties in a wad about pretty much everything that doesn’t jibe with your own emotion-based allegiance to a party whose ideology you don’t understand even when it is completely factual, doesn’t mean those people actually represent the party.

      I’ve seen a lot of much worse stuff right here on this blog, from you Lefties. This blog finally took the step of moderating it, to remove the worst, but I guarantee you that before posts have been removed I have seen the most vile, vicious, virulent sewage from the Left you can imagine, complete with racism and utterly foul language, as well as death threats.

      Get over yourself.

  4. GMB November 14, 2012 / 8:56 am

    Yet not one peep about almost eight years of wishing death on a sitting President or all the death threats against a candidate from the repub party this time around.

    Your love for fellow man is astounding, to say the least.

    • mitchethekid November 14, 2012 / 9:17 am

      Wishing death for a sitting President? Like the prayer for death Neo is always posting? The problem for the right isn’t in the articulation of their ideas, it’s the ideas themselves. Todd Akin, besides being an absolutist when it comes to abortion, is woefully ignorant about basic human biology. He actually believed what he said! Until the right addresses the real problem, which is what they think and why they think it, the fade into irrelevance will continue. The world has changed since Reagan was president.

      • GMB November 14, 2012 / 9:23 am

        You are a liar and a plagiarist. You are a perfect example of a rat.

        Why you are tolerated here and Thomas/James is not is a mystery to me.

        Tail number.

        That is all I have to say to you bomber boy.

      • neocon01 November 14, 2012 / 9:42 am

        the flying monkey show of Trolls swooped in on this thread.

        jindal does not get it, he is falling for the bait and has joined Jeb, in the YAWN group.

        There were MORE than One hundred and twenty million votes cast.
        There was LESS than a one percent count difference between candidates.
        Given the proven track record of donk cheating and the insanity of the black voting record, and hoards of mexican pions who have invaded America by the tens of millions there is NO evidence that the GOP has failed at anything but ending democrat voter fraud.
        47% of the population pays NO federal income tax….THAT IS their base.
        With out banks, businesses, rich people to invest THERE ARE NO JOBS or WORK….PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

        The GOP is falling for the alinsky accusations of the marxist left and is panicking like the lemmings they have become.
        When we become like them so we can steal their votes, then we are them and for every 10 donks they attract with shiny toys the GOP will LOSE 100 of us.

        Go to a national sales tax…ALL PAY, ALL pay the same rate,
        Institute National voter ID, then talk tommy until the STFU.

      • neocon01 November 14, 2012 / 9:48 am

        Bmitch

        President? Like the prayer for death Neo is always posting?

        again you lie…… look up the verse I post some time.
        no wish, no threat.
        But I do hope he continues to smoke 4 packs a day and as many white owls as he can. 🙂

      • neocon01 November 14, 2012 / 10:04 am

        and without giving the game away by fumbling the ball inside the red zone.

        THATS the point………..WE DIDNT FUMBLE anywhere

        the GOP establishment has picked TWO “moderate” RINOS and the other side CHEATED en mass.
        How is that so hard to figure out??????

        not factoring in jobba the hut falling all over Ubama for some doughnuts two days before the election….PATHETIC.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 10:37 am

        neo does not post a wish for the death of Obama.

        We remember things like the movie about the assassination of George Bush, and the many comments on how he should be killed, how to kill him, etc.

        Even recently, when Cheney had a heart transplant, right here on the blog you hate-obsessed Lefties complained that he should have been left to die—–and not because of his age, but because of his politics.

        I can see why you people are so eager, so desperate, to focus on a couple of individuals and then claim they represent the whole Republican Party, and/or the whole Conservative Movement. It’s because you can never win on the merits of your own political ideology, so your only chance is to throw enough crap in the water and then keep it stirred up enough to generate fear or distrust of your opposition.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 10:49 am

        I beg to differ. We did fumble, and we fumbled by being suckered in by the Left into running on an issue instead of on the principle of small central government control.

        Romney alluded to this in the context of his campaign on how to fix the economy, but it was never the focal point.

        The Left simply cannot run on the merits of its political philosophy, because they know that if every person in this country could be approached, calmly and without emotion, and asked if he would prefer to see the nation governed according to its Constitutional law, with the size scope and power of the federal government severely restricted and authority kept for the most part at the state and local level, OR a vast federal government unrestrained as to size and power, with little left at the state and local level, the vast majority of Americans would say they prefer the small government model—once they understood that the ISSUES that so rightly matter to them not only can but should be addressed at those state and local levels.

        Not one issue of the Left, at least the ones they used as bait to lure in gullible voters, should be a federal issue. Not one.

        They were brilliant in convincing people that those ISSUES depended on who sat in the White House, and we were pathetic at informing them that none of these issues would be in danger with a Republican in the White House, they would just be returned to local government where they belong.

        We are complete idiots to argue those issues at the federal level, but we always get sucked into it. Not one of those issues could, or at least SHOULD, without an Imperial Presidency, be addressed from the White House. But the White House ran on those issues, and we let them, because we were suckered into running on an issue ourselves.

        Important as the economic issue is, it is not a stand alone issue, and we treated it as if it were.

      • tiredoflibbs November 14, 2012 / 1:08 pm

        There goes mitchie, again, making a claim that was never made; and of course, also regurgitating mindless dumbed down talking points (just perfect for his severely limited mental capacity).

        Well, mitchie is following his pResident – making stuff up about the opposition.

        Truly, truly pathetic.

  5. Amazona November 14, 2012 / 10:53 am

    This statement of Jindal’s had the same effect on me as the fracking ban in New Jersey did regarding my opinion of Chris Christie.

    If Jindal had said we have to avoid the PERCEPTIONS of being for big business, etc., I would have been fine with it. But he implies that these false perceptions are true and therefore WE must change, and that is simply wrong.

    Having someone once touted as a presidential candidate drink the KoolAid and contribute to the false narrative of the Left created to turn people against the Republican Party may well be the defining moment in his political future.

    • neocon01 November 14, 2012 / 11:25 am

      SECESSION MOVEMENT EXPLODES

      I do NOT favor this, or a revolutionary war.
      However that seems the direction we are headed as the left from the POS on down to the black panthers, union thug leaders, CPUSA, nation of islam, la raza and many more orginizations become more and more militant.

      Now there is a FIFTH General being demoted and retired……this is really scary stuff….a PURGE of the top military brass right before our eyes……

    • M. Noonan November 14, 2012 / 9:30 pm

      Amazona,

      In a great deal of the public mind, we are the party of big business – and we must cease to be. The only way we can be so is to start attacking…I mean really rip to shreds Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and such like. The only big business I have any respect for, at all, is Big Oil…because at least they genuinely provide something necessary. Ford is slightly ok because at least they eschewed the bail out…but for the rest of them: let’s have at them. Most of their leaders are liberal Democrats and are constantly donating to liberal pressure groups (especially greens) so by going after them we are going after the main enemy at the same time.

      • 02casper November 14, 2012 / 9:59 pm

        Mark,
        “In a great deal of the public mind, we are the party of big business”

        At least you are able to admit this. I doubt though, that you will find many conservatives that will join you in decoupling your party from the big banks. As for loving and supporting big oil, that’s only going to convince the public that you are the party of big business.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:26 am

        casper disapproves of supporting big oil companies, which he oddly associates with “loving” them. He is a man of conviction and only buys gasoline refined in a local little mom-and-pop refinery, which buys its crude in small batches from a tiny little drilling company producing seven barrels a week.

        He also types his dreck on a handmade computer assembled in a local basement from hand-crafted parts, and never wears mass produced clothing or utilizes any form of transportation which might have originated in a big factory.

        He chooses this simple life, where his textbooks are hand written on paper made by his own students, who mine the iron and minerals to make the steel they hone into crude axes so they can fell a few trees at a time and use the wood pulp to make their own paper. He does this because to use any product made by a big business would be the same thing as LOVING this business, and that would be wrong, so wrong, on so many levels.

  6. 02casper November 15, 2012 / 12:41 am

    amazona,
    I didn’t say I disapprove of big oil. I said the public does.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/03/174932/americans-oil-subsidies/

    As for your of comments, I’m not against big business in general although, I do prefer to work with smaller local businesses when possible. I don’t use textbooks. I run a near paperless classroom.

    • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 1:00 am

      The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them

      “If you were to survey people and ask the question “Should we subsidize oil companies?” — the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond “ No!” The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren’t going to go away any time soon. The reason may surprise you.

      So let’s ask the question in a different way: “Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer such as Apple or Microsoft?” A lot of people will still answer “ No” to that question, but certainly fewer than answered “No” to the original question.

      Now ask the question “Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?” In this case, some people are going to say “ No”, but farmers are going to be near unanimous in saying “Yes!” Let’s ask one final question: “Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?” The irony in this question is that some of the people who are the most vehemently opposed to fossil fuel subsidies will argue that this is an important program that helps keep poor people from freezing to death in winter, and thus it would be inhumane to eliminate it.

      Yet unless you answered “ No” to all four questions you support programs that have been specifically identified as fossil fuel subsidies.

      Environmental activist and author Bill McKibben recently wrote an article called Payola for the Most Profitable Corporations in History. In the article McKibben proposes “five rules of the road that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry.” But even as he advocates getting rid of them, McKibben demonstrated that he doesn’t really understand the nature of these subsidies — and this sort of misunderstanding largely explains why they persist. McKibben himself indicates sympathy for subsidies when he wrote: “Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations — as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year.” However, he then incorrectly asserts “ In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%.”

      That’s just not true, and a failure to understand this is why we continue to be outraged over fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. (As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as “the 1%” is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%)”

      In addition to providing actual facts to counter your silly Left wing propaganda site and its regurgitation of beloved Lefty lies, I note your consistent missing-the-point obtuseness.. Given your wild and false interpretations of the Constitution, though, I can see why you would hesitate to let your students see an actual copy of it. Even a sixth grader would understand it better than you do

    • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 1:11 am

      What you SAID was that approving of Big Oil is really supporting and loving it.

      Yes—-“loving” it.

      And BTW, without the petroleum industry you would probably not have a job, since Casper Wyoming is extremely dependent on it. It’s not exactly a garden spot, with much to say for itself. An old oilman who had lived all over the world once told me it was the only place he had ever lived where the wind was so bad he had whitecaps in his toilet, and to people in the industry it was always a hardship posting if someone got sent to Casper. He said it had only three seasons—–winter, July and August—-all of which were hell. I was once offered an incredible opportunity, to run the Casper Petroleum Club. As amazing as the offer was, with all the perks and pay, I turned it down. Every time I have to go there, I realize again how unpleasant it is.

      You should thank Big Oil, and it would also probably be a good idea to keep your snide comments about it to yourself in a town so dependent on it.

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 2:26 pm

        probably be a good idea to keep your snide comments about it to yourself in a town so dependent on it.

        OR

        STFU you Moron!!

        LOL

    • M. Noonan November 15, 2012 / 9:26 pm

      Casper

      You don’t use textbooks? That does explain a lot.

      • 02casper November 16, 2012 / 6:40 am

        Mark,
        There are much better sources than textbooks.

      • Amazona November 17, 2012 / 7:16 am

        Like the voices in your head telling you about all those federal elections we can vote in, or how believing in the Constitution as it is written means wanting to return to slavery?

Comments are closed.