The Bucknuts Hot Spot

So, since the government should stay out of these issues, it shouldn't be spending my money to subsidize all these things, right? And, government shouldn't be forcing anyone else to provide contraception, abortion or marijuana, right? It should be working on economic policy, like good 'ol Obama, who has done such a great job at it, right?

I just don't think the govt has the constitutional right force this. Amazing how every consecutive president "finds" more power for the government that were never their before. Our founders are rolling in their grave. I'm sure they never imagined a govt that shows up at a kindergarten to inspect kids lunches. Do any of you (repub or demo) really think the founders thought it would turn out like this? We are broken! oh well, at least we have bucknuts so we don't have to watch our country go bankrupt too closely! BTW, regardless of party, here is a cool but sobering video if you haven't seen it before. well done and funny....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE

If the left raised the issues in the 60's it was because of government intrusion into the lives of women, blacks, gays, etc. Some things never change - Conservatives like to shift the blame. If there was no segregation, for instance, would any civil rights groups "ilk" have complained, or "raised the issues?" Issues are raised by Liberals when people's rights are being trampled on, no matter who is doing the trampling. I'm 70, I remember teenage girls getting illegal abortions and dying because of them. And I remember drinking at "Whites Only" drinking fountains and using "Whites Only" restrooms. The issues that were raised and settled then have apparently not been accepted by a segment of our population today, and it certainly is not Liberals bringing the issues up.

The point was not who was discriminating in the 60's, it was about the need for anyone to raise issues. Oppressed people speak out because of injustice, regardless of who the oppressor is. It doesn't matter who raised the issues or who helped pass the laws. What matters are the people who are now raising the issues we assumed were settled. Somebody keeps inserting gays, abortion, religion, contraception, etc. into elections - somebody who cannot accept the fact that they are not allowed to tell someone else how to live their lives. Almost like they have a constant burr under their saddle. They just can't let it go.

BTW, if you've smoked just one joint you've smoked more than me. Believe it or not, more weed is being smoked today than in the 60's and 70's. I was there. Smoking pot was not as accepted as it is now. And certainly was not smoked by 10 and 12 year-olds.

You are absolutely correct, but don't take the bait with these guys... This is EXACTLY where they want the debate focused and they will distort and misrepresent to create a false narrative that plays with the broader electorate. The whole forced coverage of contraceptives for religious institutions was never about the use of them or not... It was liberals successfully attempting to extend the power and authority of the Federal government beyond its constitutional bounds and a blatant attack on the separation between church and state. The overwhelming majority of conservatives are not against the use of contraception (which is not the same thing as "morning after" pills and abortion-on-demand). As you aptly put, we are against subsidizing for people who need to be responsible for their own choices.

It's all how you frame the debate and you can see how they are attempting to do it. They do the same thing with "gay marriage"... Most people would acknowledge people's right to be together in a committed relationship if that is their choice with equal rights/penalties extended to all. However, it is the institution of "marriage" itself which has far greater significance than a government issued certificate due predominantly to strong religious convictions for many. Call them "civil unions" or whatever name that community prefers other than the one which has existed for thousands of years between men and women. If it's truly about "rights" and they are the same, then why is this concept so offensive?

The answer for both these topics and the racism component liberals are always so eager to interject is simple... They think they can win by fomenting anger and discord between demographic groups no matter the consequences. Label "cons" as racists, homophobes, and against women's rights and it rightfully upsets people who believe that nonsense (again, of course there are extreme elements in the minority just as there are going the other way but in larger percentages). The end justifies the means with liberals even if the path is laid with bold faced lies which only further divide our nation. They deserve more while the conservative who are unwilling to comply with their proven failed ideology are just greedy people who are "afraid" of those different from them. The reality is that we are fearful, but only of our fellow citizens imposing the exact same thing they claim to be against... Imposing their value systems on us all the while expecting others to subsidize their lifestyles and behaviors without responsibility or consequence.

The politics of fear and destruction are not exclusive to any political party. However, make no mistake about it that it is the left who thrives there the most... Just ask the mayor of Chicago, "Rhambo", and his other malicious and corrupt cronies (who else prominent is from that town???).

What liberals don't want is a debate focused on the economy, Obamacare, gas prices, or their true ideas for wealth redistribution in our nation... Those are all losers with an informed electorate. On a different note but the same premise, it is details like the following that they absolutely have no interest in public scrutiny with damn good reason... http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/02/19/over-the-top-ot.html .

Wow! Democrats side with Big Govt every single time! More govt, more govt, more govt on every single issue. Let's see, our founders rebelled b/c ... let's see - oh yea! they wanted the govt out of people's lives, wanted them to have limited powers, wanted people to have the right to bear arms, etc... all things dems try to work against at every single opportunity. What you are basically saying is that you believe the founders would rip up their own constitution and start giving power to a centralized govt. Not sure I'm with you on that. I'm no fan of Republicans; I believe the founders would be upset with them as well. But the dems are now starting to become unabashed socialists

I didn't want the government spending my tax dollars on a war in Iraq or giving my tax dollars away to win an election, but they wouldn't listen to me.

BTW, would McCain have done either of the above? I think not. Unless he would have been in cahoots with Carl Rove and Dick Cheney, the guys who trashed him.

You obviously haven't spent any time in a Catholic Church in the last couple of weeks. They have NOT moved on from this issue. The gauntlet has been thrown down and there will be repercussions. Or maybe it's just YOUR Catholic Church that has moved on. I'll give you that. Most of my large family are die-hard Dems are they are pissed. Truthfully, there are probably Dem congressmen or women who question Obama's intent with this latest in a long line of overstepping his Constitutional authority.

No, he's on something!

The moment someone calls me "Pal" or "Buddy" I immediately take a disliking to that person. You really should stop using "Pal," it's condescending, and it renders whatever else you have to say meaningless for the person you are addressing.

Yeah and the old Southern Democrats became Republicans. Sorry, you're wrong.