Cripes, it's almost like some of these guys spout their moral stances for the sole purpose of furthering their political agendas

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! We're discussing the realm of POLITICAL morality stances here. A person's private morality is merely coincidental to whatever political morality they assume to get elected to office.

Now - Republicans go after voting blocs. When you get right down to it, the bulk of Republicans today are NOT 'conservative' by any definition. They are reckless fiscal liberals, and (as this vid shows) they are not exactly social conservatives either. But they get elected being the opposition party to the Democrats, and so they have to stake out positions that tend to be at odds with thier actual behavior. Hence - hypocrisy.
It isn't exactly a Rpublican problem though. Liberal hypocrisy on moral issues is rampant as well. For example, they claim to be the party of patience, tolerance, and fairness. However, most of the neolibs in the Democrat party today are a literal study in anger, intolerance, and cruelty. But they sell themselves as something else come voting time.

The point being that any politician who radically overspends really ISN'T a fiscal conservative rougy. Overspending - particularly on social programs - is a characteristic of big-government proponents (IE liberals). That's why the political class - Republicans and Democrats - are pretty much all liberals nowadays. It's also why 'moderate' fiscally conservative voters are abandoning the Republican party en masse. The result is that the GOP is being abandoned by socially moderate fiscal conservatives and all is left are radical right-wing social special interest groups (what you guys would call 'neocons').

That's why Arnold and Powell are fools. The so-called 'moderate Republican' is a staunch fiscal conservative. They aren't going to vote Republican because of issues like gay marriage and abortion. They can make thier 'tent' as big as they want in that regard and it isn't going to accomplish anything. The way to net all those moderates is to take a stand on spending and small government. But RINOs like Powell & Arnold want those big spending programs, so they don't even try to appeal to that bloc.

And I can't possibly misuse the term 'neolib' because I'm the one that INVENTED it. I don't use the term to describe the denotative definition of neoliberalism, or even 'liberalism'. When you go by the dictionary, the word 'liberal' has a very different meaning than its practical, connotative definition today. Neolibs are far-left radical special interest groups and their flunkies. Much like neocons are the radical far-right interest groups and thier flunkies.

Heh - it is always quite amusing when the ultimate hardcore left wing neo-libs try to give advice on what they think is going to help their enemies. The last person on the planet who should be giving advice to anybody at this point in time is Arnold. His failure as governor is complete. The Republican party has already done the big tent thing, but guys like John McCain don't exactly swell the party ranks... Why is that?

The only way the GOP is going to get out of its doldrums is by standing up firmly as the opposition to all the crazy left-wing crap coming out of the Democrat party. The Republican party isn't having problems because it is alienating moderates by being "radically right wing". It is alienating moderate voters because it is has stopped fighting for small government, lower taxes, and decreased spending.

You don't have to be ultra-hardcore right wing like Limbaugh to make the Republican party a juggernaut that would crush the Democrat party thoroughly. All they need to do is stop pretending to be Democrats, and start standing up for fiscal responsibility. There is a huge hunger for fiscal responsibility out there. It used to be that Republicans stood for that vote... Sadly, that is no longer the case - and voters are abandoning the Republican party EXACTLY because it is filled with big-spending jerks like Arnold, Bush, and so on.

Problem is, all the RINOs in the party make it hard because they are addicted to spending as much as foam-at-the-mouth hardcore liberal kooks (IE Pelosi or Obama). Rather than do the right thing and get thier votes by cutting spending, reducing taxes, and advocating small government - guys like Arnold prefer to try and 'strategerize' around voting blocs. That's all Arnold means.

On the one side you have guys like Colin Powell. Powell is a RINO. RINOs are Republicans only by politics. To Powell, the Republican party is a vehicle to hitch ride to office in. Everything he says in the vid screams that he's approaching the debate politically. He's parsing voting blocs, gerrymandering, and 'strategerizing' as a way to run for party office. He ISN'T taking a stand on principles.

Opposite him, is Limbaugh. Limbaugh is an idealist who stands on issues and principles. That's easy for him to do since he doesn't run for office I guess. If an issue comes up, he looks at it as an issue of what is 'right' in terms of his conservative beliefs. "National Health Care" means bigger taxes, larger government, and less freedom, therefore it is wrong. He isn't approaching the issue as a political game per se. He's taking a stand on what he believes is right.

Powell is saying, "Here's what the party should do to win politically..." and Limbaugh is saying, "Here's what the party should do if it wants to do the right thing...". Powell seems like a nice guy, but I tend to agree philosophically with Limbaugh here. The Republican party isn't going to win the next cycle by co-opting liberal positions. They're going to win by taking a stand on priciples such as (1) opposing a radical social agenda (2) trying to stop the alarming increases in federal power (3) condeming the quadrupling of our national debt, etc... etc...

Let's put is simply... John McCain is a RINO just like Colin Powell. RINO candidates suck. They don't win elections.

Ohhh good shit! I love Bloc Party too

In the 80s when I first heard Queen's Radio Ga Ga, grunge in the 90s as everyone else and their dog at the time. But more Soundgarden then Nirvana. Then in the late 90s to 00s I was really into metal and death metal, stuff like Opeth, Lamb of God and Olds Man Child.

Now mostly I listen to Porcupine Tree on occasion. Most of the new stuff sounds too hipster for me, though some tracks from TV on the Radio and Bloc Party are really nice.

There is no selective outrage. Many of us decried torture and the unAmerican policies of the last administration, including waterboarding.

If you were too caught up in the jingoistic ferver of the last 8 years to notice, that is your problem.

I came of age in the 80s, and was led to believe by my leaders, including Reagan, that torture, picking folks off the streets, and having secret gulags were things that "they" did.

That's why people from the soviet bloc were constantly defecting to our nation. If we are now a torturing regime, and anything is permissable, what separates us from the old soviets and the commies right wingers are so quick to decry?

I'll not mention the Scamulus and our new communist PresiTeleprompter's endless Unconstitutional power grabs in unrelated threads if select left-wringers here will stop desperately referencing Black people and slavery to somehow make a point about gay marriage. Remember, it was Blacks as a voting bloc who helped vote down legalized gay marriage in Commiefornia, resulting in many, many uses of the N-word over at Daily Komatose and other liberal web meccas.

A property arrangement in which a father sells his daughter to an unrelated man in exchange for the social gain associated with the familial connection, and dependent on the culture and status of those involved, sometimes including other property such as a dowry or a bride price.

As archaic (or not, since there are still child brides in some Muslim countries) as arranged marriages were/are for power , they were still between a man and a woman (or women). Even societies that either were indifferent to homosexuality or--in the weakest form of approval--looked the other way, never condoned gay marriage.

Men and women are not interchangeable, there are real differences between the sexes.

And for the trendy religion-bashers, Christianity has given more good to the world than it has taken, and done far less evil than communism, socialism and fascism.

Ahh yes. The soviet bloc style of apartment building. We have plenty of these where I am too, but very few have murals, let alone many with murals anywhere near as nice!

Your video, Bloc Party - Flux, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This why habibi in Kuwait valentines is simply haram, an extract from the local paper:

KUWAIT: The Umma Party political bloc slammed upcoming Valentine's Day and warned residents of celebrating it in Kuwait.

The bloc warned the media against portraying the day as a festive occasion which misleads many Muslims.

Umma part representatives said that Valentine's Day celebrations can be considered backward practices since they date back to thousands of centuries.

They questioned some people's inclination towards imitating the West and warned against blindly imitating western constructs.

Celebrating Valentine's Day violates Islamic code of conduct even though some Christians trace the tradition back to the ancient Romans.

Islam emphasizes that there is only one Almighty God that's Allah, therefore, the Party said that celebrating Valentine's Day violates Islamic way of life.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'RMR, Rick Mercer, coalition, Canadian Politics, CBC, NDP, Liberal, Bloc' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by burdturgler

Reference to Jefferson's quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

David Horowitz:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

>> ^quantumushroom:
To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?
The pro-gay-marriage side keeps trying to make this into a civil rights/equality issue. It is not. Blacks fought for the SAME rights that Whites have; gays are fighting for a redefinition of the linchpin of society itself to suit their needs.
With the arrival of civil unions, the acceptance by the free market of gays as a marketing bloc and government as a voting bloc, most of the steam in the argument for gay equality is gone in the best way: it's been achieved! Even Elton John can't figure out what American gays are upset about; he has a British civil union and doesn't care what it's called.
Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?
The institution itself provides legal protections and advantages that live-ins don't have, to the point that in some states live-ins are considered married by "common law".
Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.
Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.


Heavens no! Not rules and structure! Liberals will have strict rules for my taxes, guns, and health care...but this morality...it must be done away with.

To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?

The pro-gay-marriage side keeps trying to make this into a civil rights/equality issue. It is not. Blacks fought for the SAME rights that Whites have; gays are fighting for a redefinition of the linchpin of society itself to suit their needs.

With the arrival of civil unions, the acceptance by the free market of gays as a marketing bloc and government as a voting bloc, most of the steam in the argument for gay equality is gone in the best way: it's been achieved! Even Elton John can't figure out what American gays are upset about; he has a British civil union and doesn't care what it's called.

Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?

The institution itself provides legal protections and advantages that live-ins don't have, to the point that in some states live-ins are considered married by "common law".

Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.

Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.