NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/conservatives_third_party

I sense that somewhere in that meeting room, the world's smallest record player played, "My Heart Bleeds For You".

:)

Good. Let the Religious Right loons and the Neocon sheep go form their own party. Then us actual small-government minimum-intrusion real Conservatives can have our party back.

Jesus 2008?

Good. Let the Religious Right loons and the Neocon sheep go form their own party. Then us actual small-government minimum-intrusion real Conservatives can have our party back.

*applause*

Why don't they just hand the rest of the elections over to the democrats to make things simpler.

Click Stand;13097433']Why don't they just hand the rest of the elections over to the democrats to make things simpler.

That wouldn't bother me in the slightest bit. This is very encouraging to me. A marginalized GOP is the single best thing that could happen to this country in the foreseeable future.

Eat shit, James Dobson.

Jesus 2008?

Jesus is a commie liberal hippie.

My fingers are crossed: if this party gets off the ground, it'll ensure progressive victories in every election for the foreseeable future. Also, putting that many completely batshit crazy people in one organization is sure to generate a great deal of hilarity.

Good.

This will divide the Republican party for the next 20 years.

Jesus 2008?

Sounds good to me.

Would signal the end of the world and even if I haven't done 12% of what I have wanted to, endlessley exploring the universe can't be that bad.

"Some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate."

Yay ! Finally something both the religious right and I would like to see. The only downfall would be if they got big enough to actually win. Then we'd be a theocracy for sure.

It's a truly sad state of affairs that the deal-breaker here is abortion - of all the policy issues to divide yourself over, this should be at the bottom of the list.

It's a truly sad state of affairs that the deal-breaker here is abortion - of all the policy issues to divide yourself over, this should be at the bottom of the list.

In all seriousness. I agree.

Good for them. They are no longer letting some huge, impersonal organization determine their positions. I applaud their action, really I do.
The fact this will split the conservative vote has absolutely nothing to do with my praise for this group.

Oh, please, by all means, let them do it! It'll split the conservative votes, they will NOT be able to do anything and Democrats will win in the elections for the foreseeable future up to the point in which the US becomes more and more liberal due to pressure for the REPUBLICANS to become more liberal and the DEMOCRATS as well.

PLEASE, you stupid nutcases, DO IT!

Jesus is a commie liberal hippie.

Jesus is apolitical.

Non liberal, non conservative.

Jesus is apolitical.

Non liberal, non conservative.
Apolitical...does that mean Jesus is a Democrat?

Forget the political party, just give the religious right one of those hellholes in the MidWest and ship 'em, all out there. They can live in their own backward world that would give fundamentalist Muslims wet dreams.

Good. Let the Religious Right loons and the Neocon sheep go form their own party. Then us actual small-government minimum-intrusion real Conservatives can have our party back.

I'd like that. I'm tired of watching Christians who want a nanny state to enforce their pet beliefs (and complain about the liberals who are just doing the same thing) hijack genuine conservative values.

I'd like that. I'm tired of watching Christians who want a nanny state to enforce their pet beliefs (and complain about the liberals who are just doing the same thing) hijack genuine conservative values.

It's time again for the Bullmoose party.

It's time again for the Bullmoose party.

5 points for you.

Forget the political party, just give the religious right one of those hellholes in the MidWest and ship 'em, all out there. They can live in their own backward world that would give fundamentalist Muslims dry and completely reverent dreams.

Fixed.

Jesus is apolitical.

Non liberal, non conservative.

Jesus, like all people ever, would have had political beliefs. Some of them would be similar to 'liberal' beliefs, some to 'conservative' beliefs and some to socialist beliefs. Many would be completely out of context in today's world, time tends to make certain ideas irrelevant. This of course relies on the idea that Jesus was a real, formerly living person, but that's a tune from a different opera.

*applause*

Seconded.

Jesus, like all people ever, would have had political beliefs. Some of them would be similar to 'liberal' beliefs, some to 'conservative' beliefs and some to socialist beliefs. Many would be completely out of context in today's world, time tends to make certain ideas irrelevant. This of course relies on the idea that Jesus was a real, formerly living person, but that's a tune from a different opera.

Technically, his political beliefs got him nailed to a tree.

Oh, please, by all means, let them do it! It'll split the conservative votes, they will NOT be able to do anything and Democrats will win in the elections for the foreseeable future up to the point in which the US becomes more and more liberal due to pressure for the REPUBLICANS to become more liberal and the DEMOCRATS as well.

PLEASE, you stupid nutcases, DO IT!
Don't mince words, Bones. What do you really think?
:D

I'd like that. I'm tired of watching Christians who want a nanny state to enforce their pet beliefs (and complain about the liberals who are just doing the same thing) hijack genuine conservative values.

Agreed.

I say it's about time the push the Christian right out of the Republican Party or at least leave them behind. I hate Neo-Cons because IMHO, they are not real Conservative, just look at George W. Bush who never vetoed a spending bill and expanded Government Powers.

It's time again for the Bullmoose party.
I dunno... D'ya think Teddy would be up for it after all this time?

I sincerely hope they go through with this plan. Not only will it lessen the GOP's chances in 08, but with any luck their "Christian" candidate will get a piss-poor turn out.

Nothing could make me happier than evangelicals getting a nice dose of reality...that their views on their pet social issues are not shared by the vast majority of the American people.

Maybe then they'll finally shut the hell up, realize that church and state do not mix without corrupting each other, and finally let the government get busy working on issues that actually matter.

A third-party run would be a long shot, requiring millions of dollars and challenges to ballot access.

Oh they'll have problems, but funding certainly won't be one of them.

:rolleyes:

The fact this will split the conservative vote has absolutely nothing to do with my praise for this group.
This.

The coalition of convenience between the religous right and the corporatist elite that has run the Republicans was always an unnatural one. It's just amazing that it took the fundies this long to figure out that the whip has always been in the hand of those with deep pockets.

Maybe then they'll finally shut the hell up, realize that church and state do not mix without corrupting each other, and finally let the government get busy working on issues that actually matter.

I agree with everything else you've said, but this one will happen when a goddess appears on every lonely otaku's room to have sex with them.

:D

Oh, and I DID mince them a bit, just enough not to be banned. :p

The coalition of convenience between the religous right and the corporatist elite that has run the Republicans was always an unnatural one. It's just amazing that it took the fundies this long to figure out that the whip has always been in the hand of those with deep pockets.

What do you expect from fundies? Intelligence?

And there was much merrymaking, and dancing in the streets at the joyous news announced this day.

:D

I really feel for them. To not be able to enforce your religious values on others... to not be able to find a candidate that cares as much for meddling in other peoples' lives as you do must be incredibly frustrating.

:)

Of course, there are the REAL christians out there who don't actually give a fuck.... :)

This is the best news to come from politics in this country in years. Have fun ripping yoursleves apart, GOP. :D

I really feel for them. To not be able to enforce your religious values on others... to not be able to find a candidate that cares as much for meddling in other peoples' lives as you do must be incredibly frustrating.

I can't help but see the Goofballian version of this as:


To not be able to drop your mud bombs on others... to not be able to find a candidate that cares as much for pieing other peoples' lives as you do must be incredibly frustrating.

:p

I can't help but see the Goofballian version of this as:



:p

To not be able to drop your mud bombs on others... to not be able to find a candidate that cares as much for pieing other peoples' lives as you do IS incredibly frustrating.

*nod*

I've discovered the formula for LG hell! *rubs hands with glee*

For me, Hell is a being strapped to a chair in a featureless room.

To not be able to drop your mud bombs on others... to not be able to find a candidate that cares as much for pieing other peoples' lives as you do IS incredibly frustrating.

*nod*

I've discovered the formula for LG hell! *rubs hands with glee*

The Christain Conservatives who refuse to support pro-choice candidates realise that by creating a splinter group they will definitely doom themselves and probably the Republican party. They would be better off trying to hijack the Republican party away from the current faction controlling it.

I don't know much about the detailed machinations of internal US politics, but I would guess that right now, the same people who are in that room are trying to get enough money to buy the Republican nomination for their candidate of choice.

This will do to the republican nominee what Ralph Nader has done to the democratic nominees in the past.

I think this is good news. People should have a candidate that truly represents them. And, if scary fundies do choose such a candidate, the other candidates might not pander to them so much.

This will do to the republican nominee what Ralph Nader has done to the democratic nominees in the past.

Only worse, since Nader didn't represent nearly as big a faction of the Democratic Party as religious nutcases represent of the Republican one.

Only worse, since Nader didn't represent nearly as big a faction of the Democratic Party as religious nutcases represent of the Republican one.

Yeah, same principle though.

Yeah, same principle though.

True. I wonder how much of the Republican Party is made up by the nutcases...

True. I wonder how much of the Republican Party is made up by the nutcases...

A pretty small proportion, I think, which is why the backlash against the Republicans for pandering to them has been so obvious. In truth, I think a fiscal conservative type Republican who thinks the government should stay out of personal lives would have a much better chance in this election than one pandering to the fundamentalist religion side of things.

For me, Hell is a being strapped to a chair in a featureless room.

Funney, to me that's foreplay.

A pretty small proportion, I think, which is why the backlash against the Republicans for pandering to them has been so obvious. In truth, I think a fiscal conservative type Republican who thinks the government should stay out of personal lives would have a much better chance in this election than one pandering to the fundamentalist religion side of things.

Eh, I can't say. I feel that most republicans are just religious conservatives that connect more with what the repubs say than the dems, so they attach to them.

I could very well be wrong, though.

For me, Hell is a being strapped to a chair in a featureless room.

*takes notes*

Hmmm.

*adds note*

A featureless, sterile, pristine white room.

Although the idea of you being restrained while people on videos beg (metaphorically) for a pieing or a mud missile in the face go un-pied and laundry clean has merit.

Eh, I can't say. I feel that most republicans are just religious conservatives that connect more with what the repubs say than the dems, so they attach to them.

I could very well be wrong, though.

I don't know, to be honest. If the Christian conservatives in the GOP had that much of a pull, would Giuliani even be polling this well?

I don't know, to be honest. If the Christian conservatives in the GOP had that much of a pull, would Giuliani even be polling this well?

Giuliani's got the 9/11 bonus to his ticket, so where he fails in the abortion and family values areas, he wins in the "get them terrorists" area, which many Christian conservatives are very into.

A recent Pugh Research study shows that 51% of Americans oppose abortion, and 79% oppose late-term (partial birth) abortion. Although it was stated that the rebublican candidate was 'pro-abortion', I have never met anyone who admitted they were 'pro-abortion'. Even the most devout liberal NOW supporter, doesn't consider themselves 'pro-abortion', so how can a conservative presidential candidate claim to be?

Oh, I am sure the liberal scumsucking vermin out there are drooling over the prospects of fracturing the conservative vote, just as the previous poster indicated it would suit him fine to just abolish the conservative vote and give Democrats the election. Well, we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we all have a say in this issue, not just liberal heathens.

Why are conservatives constantly referred to as "religious nutcases"? Is this some lame attempt to stigmatize conservatives? And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

It's a truly sad state of affairs that the deal-breaker here is abortion - of all the policy issues to divide yourself over, this should be at the bottom of the list.

Why? I certainly wouldn't vote for an anti-choice candidate unless I was sure that they wouldn't have enough influence to act on their views.

Why? I certainly wouldn't vote for an anti-choice candidate unless I was sure that they wouldn't have enough influence to act on their views.
Yeah, I'm not really clear on why it's a bad thing to have abortion rights be a deal breaker.

There are several such deal-breakers for me. For instance, I'm not going to vote for any pro-slavery candidate, no matter what other policy views he/she may have. I'm not going to vote for a candidate who believes that there should be a state religion and that the practice of all other religions should be legally restricted.

Doesn't matter if that candidate happens to share my views on, say, the capital gains tax. I'm still not voting for a pro-slavery candidate, just like I'm not voting for an anti-choice candidate.

A recent Pugh Research study shows that 51% of Americans oppose abortion, and 79% oppose late-term (partial birth) abortion.

Yes, but opposition to abortion does not equate to a wish to make it illegal. Last poll I saw on that question indicated that only a small percentage would opt for making elective abortion illegal, some would increase restrictions, quite a few would leave the law as it is, and some would decrease restrictions.

Why are conservatives constantly referred to as "religious nutcases"? Is this some lame attempt to stigmatize conservatives?

I haven't seen anyone referring to all conservatives as such, just the group represented in the article.

And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

I haven't seen anyone here claim that there is something "nutty" about worshiping a god. A very specific group of people - people who happen to have certain viewpoints because of their religion - is being referred to that way.


Yeah, I'm not really clear on why it's a bad thing to have abortion rights be a deal breaker.

There are several such deal-breakers for me. For instance, I'm not going to vote for any pro-slavery candidate, no matter what other policy views he/she may have. I'm not going to vote for a candidate who believes that there should be a state religion and that the practice of all other religions should be legally restricted.

Doesn't matter if that candidate happens to share my views on, say, the capital gains tax. I'm still not voting for a pro-slavery candidate, just like I'm not voting for an anti-choice candidate.

I've been trying to explain this to a pro-Ron Paul friend of mine. He disagrees with Paul on many civil/human rights related issues such as abortion, but is supporting him because of other issues. I cannot set aside those civil/human rights issues. So even if I agreed with Paul on everything else, I wouldn't see him as a viable candidate. We all have priorities, why shouldn't this be one?

There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

At the risk of derailing a moderately entertaining rant:

1. Ad Populum arguments are silly.

2. According to Encyclopedia Britanica, at least 20% of the world population didn't believe in god/s in mid-2005.

Yeah, I'm not really clear on why it's a bad thing to have abortion rights be a deal breaker.

There are several such deal-breakers for me. For instance, I'm not going to vote for any pro-slavery candidate, no matter what other policy views he/she may have. I'm not going to vote for a candidate who believes that there should be a state religion and that the practice of all other religions should be legally restricted.

Doesn't matter if that candidate happens to share my views on, say, the capital gains tax. I'm still not voting for a pro-slavery candidate, just like I'm not voting for an anti-choice candidate.

I agree entirely.

There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God.

Well, I must say most of the world is crazy, so....

I personally believe in God. Of course, I also believe crazy is a good thing! :)

*high-fives OP*

A recent Pugh Research study shows that 51% of Americans oppose abortion, and 79% oppose late-term (partial birth) abortion. Although it was stated that the rebublican candidate was 'pro-abortion', I have never met anyone who admitted they were 'pro-abortion'. Even the most devout liberal NOW supporter, doesn't consider themselves 'pro-abortion', so how can a conservative presidential candidate claim to be?

Oh, I am sure the liberal scumsucking vermin out there are drooling over the prospects of fracturing the conservative vote, just as the previous poster indicated it would suit him fine to just abolish the conservative vote and give Democrats the election. Well, we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we all have a say in this issue, not just liberal heathens.

Why are conservatives constantly referred to as "religious nutcases"? Is this some lame attempt to stigmatize conservatives? And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

Is this a gift? It's too perfect. A christian conservative comes and complains about us talking about christian conservatives, and in doing so, exhibits the exact traits that we're talking about.

What great timing for a stereotype to just come out of nowhere.

A recent Pugh Research study shows that 51% of Americans oppose abortion, and 79% oppose late-term (partial birth) abortion. Although it was stated that the rebublican candidate was 'pro-abortion', I have never met anyone who admitted they were 'pro-abortion'. Even the most devout liberal NOW supporter, doesn't consider themselves 'pro-abortion', so how can a conservative presidential candidate claim to be?

Oh, I am sure the liberal scumsucking vermin out there are drooling over the prospects of fracturing the conservative vote, just as the previous poster indicated it would suit him fine to just abolish the conservative vote and give Democrats the election. Well, we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we all have a say in this issue, not just liberal heathens.

Why are conservatives constantly referred to as "religious nutcases"? Is this some lame attempt to stigmatize conservatives? And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

1) there is a difference between believing in a god and imposing ones morality onto others.

2) If people are apposed to abortion, then why not support comprehensive sex education which has proven to increase the age for pregnancy and first sexaul experimentation - and ultimately decrease abortions?

And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God.

If 95% of the population believes in some form of god, were are all these godless liberals coming from?

I've been trying to explain this to a pro-Ron Paul friend of mine. He disagrees with Paul on many civil/human rights related issues such as abortion, but is supporting him because of other issues. I cannot set aside those civil/human rights issues. So even if I agreed with Paul on everything else, I wouldn't see him as a viable candidate. We all have priorities, why shouldn't this be one?
I get particularly annoyed with people who try to portray this as me being a "single-issue" voter. Usually it's also brushed aside as being a "women's issue," which automatically makes me a non-serious person because I'm letting a silly little women's issue muddle up my cute little head.

Everybody has deal-breaker issues. It's just that "women's issues" like reproductive rights, or "minority issues" like gay rights, are portrayed as less serious than big important topics like tax cuts and alternative energy sources. A person who lists "women's issues" or "minority issues" among their deal-breakers is therefore being silly and trivial, while a person who uses tax cuts as their deal-breaker is savvy and politically serious.

If 95% of the population believes in some form of god, were are all these godless liberals coming from?

Because the reality is different from what people think it is.

Sure, 95% of people polled say they believe. But actually, most of them are lying to themselves. And no one actually follows Jesus Christ.

Consider: most Christians are what I call "Christmas Christians". The only time you'll see them in Church is Christmas or Easter. A pretty big percentage don't even go then. A lot of them have never even read the bible.

They're not Christians. They think they are; they've been told by their parents and friends "Oh, you're a christian" so often they've come to believe it. But praying? Fasting? Churchgoing? Following the Gospels?

Forget it. Too hard.

As for the Christ his fictional self: In one of the gospels, Jesus is asked, straight out, how to be his follower. It's been a while, so this is a paraphrase, but the answer was: Throw off your worldly possessions and devote yourself to the worship of god.

Most "christians" today seem more enamoured by mammon than Jesus.

I get particularly annoyed with people who try to portray this as me being a "single-issue" voter. Usually it's also brushed aside as being a "women's issue," which automatically makes me a non-serious person because I'm letting a silly little women's issue muddle up my cute little head.

Everybody has deal-breaker issues. It's just that "women's issues" like reproductive rights, or "minority issues" like gay rights, are portrayed as less serious than big important topics like tax cuts and alternative energy sources. A person who lists "women's issues" or "minority issues" among their deal-breakers is therefore being silly and trivial, while a person who uses tax cuts as their deal-breaker is savvy and politically serious.

the sad part is, my "deal breaker" issues are issues that shouldn't even be issues. For fucks sake people, it's the 21st century, why are abortion, gay rights and the like even still an issue?

the sad part is, my "deal breaker" issues are issues that shouldn't even be issues. For fucks sake people, it's the 21st century, why are abortion, gay rights and the like even still an issue?
Word.

My deal-breaker issues are mostly deal-breakers because I consider them to be the bare minimum standard required of somebody for them to qualify as an adult human being.

I mean seriously, homophobia? Really, Mitt Romney? Homophobia? In an adult? If you're so ignorant and immature that you're still stuck in the "fags are icky" phase of adolescence, then how the hell can I possibly trust you to run the country? You'll probably spend 2/3 of your time running around the West Wing making sure everybody's had their cootie shots.

Word.

My deal-breaker issues are mostly deal-breakers because I consider them to be the bare minimum standard required of somebody for them to qualify as an adult human being.

I mean seriously, homophobia? Really, Mitt Romney? Homophobia? In an adult? If you're so ignorant and immature that you're still stuck in the "fags are icky" phase of adolescence, then how the hell can I possibly trust you to run the country? You'll probably spend 2/3 of your time running around the West Wing making sure everybody's had their cootie shots.

Oh, no, it's okay - he's a Mormon. :p

You know, Barry Goldwater the father of modern Conservatism actually hated the fact that the religious fundies were getting into his party, and seeing what the religious fundies have done to the Republican Party I can see why. The Republican Party really do need to go back & read what Mr. Goldwater has written and follow his example.

The Republican Party really do need to go back & read what Mr. Goldwater has written and follow his example.

You mean his anti union ideology and support of Joseph McCarthy?

Like most modern "conservatives" Goldwater mostly followed that people should be free to believe as they wish...just as long as they believed what he did.

...liberal scumsucking vermin (...) liberal heathens (...) Godless liberal scum (...) the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

Reported, reported, reported, reported.

You mean his anti union ideology and support of Joseph McCarthy?

Like most modern "conservatives" Goldwater mostly followed that people should be free to believe as they wish...just as long as they believed what he did.

To be fair, Goldwater's views on McCarthy and the Unions were pretty common on the LIBERAL side too. You are unfairly maligning the man based on the time he lived.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/conservatives_third_party

I sense that somewhere in that meeting room, the world's smallest record player played, "My Heart Bleeds For You".

:)

Yes. How dare people that think differently from you desire representation, and in a democracy no less!

Yes. How dare people that think differently from you desire representation, and in a democracy no less!

Their right stops counting the moment they want the US to become a theocracy. As for the people here, everyone's more than happy to see the Republican vote split.

To be fair, Goldwater's views on McCarthy and the Unions were pretty common on the LIBERAL side too. You are unfairly maligning the man based on the time he lived.

no, I am quite fairly maligning the man based on his viewpoints. He wasn't a libertarian in any real sense of the word, he opposed free collective bargaining, and opposed holding communist viewpoints or voting for those that did. He wasn't some great hero of the modern conservative movement. He was a fucking McCarthy sympathizer.

Seriously, what is with conservatives and their idolization of the two great "heroes", Goldwater and Regan? One was an opportunistic flip flopper who conveniently 'changed his views" after he lost an election and no longer had to pander to the right wing, and who lauded principles of freedom while at the same time supported outlawing belief in communism. The other was a man who violated the constitution, sold weapons to terrorists, has been reveared as a man who "took on the Soviet Union" by causing rampant inflation and recession while only being fortunate to be in office while the Soviet Union collapsed from the inside through internal pressures and, through the latter half of his second term, was litterally losing his fucking mind

These are not idols in the slightest. And yes, while many liberals did side with McCarthy, I don't call them heroes. I don't call them idol. I call them traitors.

And in the end, most came around to their senses and 78 senators out of 100 voted to censure him. Guess who sided with the 22?

A recent Pugh Research study shows that 51% of Americans oppose abortion, and 79% oppose late-term (partial birth) abortion.
Though doubtless some think I shouldn't bother replying to someone who's idea of debate is nothing but a bunch of juvenile namecalling, I'd like point out a little deception in your statistics.

Though 51% of Americans are opposed to abortion on a personal basis, 67% believe it should still remain a personal choice. And late term abortions are rare and almost always medically necessary. No woman wants to carry a fetus that long before aborting. It's much easier physically and emotionally to abort as early as possible.

I'm playing the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin for Dobson... and the rest of the douchebags.

Dixieanna, Fris got there first (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13100314&postcount=2). I suppose you're learning, since you didn't flame anyone specifically this time.

Still, please ponder this, which is addressed not just to you, but to all posters: "liberal", "heathen" and "Godless" (or "godless") are fair descriptions of the positions held by some people on these forums. So are "conservative", "Christian", "pro-choice" or "pro-life" and a whole string of political labels.

Everyone may apply these labels to people who think differently from them, unless the people concerned make it clear that they consider them inappropriate.

But they are not "vermin" or "scum" or "morons" or whatever other form of abuse occurs to you. They are living human beings. You need not respect their opinions, but you must, on these forums, treat the people themselves politely.

(I notice the term "moral coward" appearing in posts, too. Consider that in some cases it may have taken considerable moral courage to reach the opinion they now hold.)

Forget the political party, just give the religious right one of those hellholes in the MidWest and ship 'em, all out there. They can live in their own backward world that would give fundamentalist Muslims wet dreams.

No, it would NOT "give fundamentalist Muslims wet dreams", because the religious right still worships a different God than the Muslims do, though the Muslims CLAIM they are both the same, but in reality they are NOT.

I really feel for them. To not be able to enforce your religious values on others... to not be able to find a candidate that cares as much for meddling in other peoples' lives as you do must be incredibly frustrating.

:)

Of course, there are the REAL christians out there who don't actually give a fuck.... :)

No, it's not that Christians want to enforce their religious values on others; it's that they don't want somebody else's religious views forced on them, and they want to keep their freedom to worship God, whereas most Democrats, hand-in-hand with State-Church religions (including, but not necessarily limited to, orthodox Islam), want people to bow down to a state-enforced, state-sponsored religion, or at the very least prohibit them from continuing their current religion.

Most people here on NSG seem to be violently prejudiced against religion, and that to an unreasonable, bigoted degree. Christians don't want to make people worship their God; they just want to protect their freedom to worship God APART FROM ANY GOVERNMENT MANDATES. That was a major point in founding America; freedom of religion. If YOU don't want to worship the same God I do, or any god at all, then fine; just don't tell me I can't worship my God, nor try to make it illegal for me to do so.

This is the best news to come from politics in this country in years. Have fun ripping yoursleves apart, GOP. :D

No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

No, it would NOT "give fundamentalist Muslims wet dreams", because the religious right still worships a different God than the Muslims do, though the Muslims CLAIM they are both the same, but in reality they are NOT.

Yes. Yes, they are. No 101st Keyboard Brigadeering will change this.

No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

Boo-frigging-hoo. I'm no fan of Hillary, but Christian Conservatives are the only ones that threaten religious freedom in this country. You people don't want religious freedom, you want your religion to control this country. As I have told many others of your group on this forum, if you're so eager to live in an opressive theocracy, then get the hell out of my country and go live in Iran. They've already got one.

A recent Pugh Research study shows that 51% of Americans oppose abortion, and 79% oppose late-term (partial birth) abortion. Although it was stated that the rebublican candidate was 'pro-abortion', I have never met anyone who admitted they were 'pro-abortion'. Even the most devout liberal NOW supporter, doesn't consider themselves 'pro-abortion', so how can a conservative presidential candidate claim to be?
I never figured out what a "partial-birth abortion" was. What is it?

Oh, I am sure the liberal scumsucking vermin out there are drooling over the prospects of fracturing the conservative vote, just as the previous poster indicated it would suit him fine to just abolish the conservative vote and give Democrats the election. Well, we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we all have a say in this issue, not just liberal heathens.
I wouldn't be so justified in my joy if I didn't know that the Democrats would somehow shoot themselves in the foot just as badly, if not worse.
Why are conservatives constantly referred to as "religious nutcases"? Is this some lame attempt to stigmatize conservatives?
Yes. It's a smear term, just like "fundy" or "Commie" or "Pinko." It's stupid, I know, but don't get too upset about it.
And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.
Do you have a source for that statistic? I agree a majority of the people of earth believe in one or more gods, but I don't know about 95%.

Jesus 2008?

No. Baby Jesus. He plays better in the south.

No, it's not that Christians want to enforce their religious values on others; it's that they don't want somebody else's religious views forced on them, and they want to keep their freedom to worship God, whereas most Democrats, hand-in-hand with State-Church religions (including, but not necessarily limited to, orthodox Islam), want people to bow down to a state-enforced, state-sponsored religion, or at the very least prohibit them from continuing their current religion.

Most people here on NSG seem to be violently prejudiced against religion, and that to an unreasonable, bigoted degree. Christians don't want to make people worship their God; they just want to protect their freedom to worship God APART FROM ANY GOVERNMENT MANDATES. That was a major point in founding America; freedom of religion. If YOU don't want to worship the same God I do, or any god at all, then fine; just don't tell me I can't worship my God, nor try to make it illegal for me to do so.

You appear to have the wrong end of the stick.

Those evil liberals believe firmly in the wall of separation of Church and State. That wall is what protects the right of everyone to worship or not as they see fit.

No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party.

"Tyranny." You're silly. I like that.

I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

I guess it is not surprising that you know next to nothing true about Hillary Clinton. As it happens, she is a deeply religious Christian. Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html)

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

Whether Senator Clinton has the proper respect for the wall of separation of Church and State is a good question, but for almost the exact opposite reasons that you seem to assert.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/conservatives_third_party

I sense that somewhere in that meeting room, the world's smallest record player played, "My Heart Bleeds For You".

:)

Let them have their third party. They'd never get voted in.

To be fair, Goldwater's views on McCarthy and the Unions were pretty common on the LIBERAL side too. You are unfairly maligning the man based on the time he lived.

I'd love to see you document that Goldwater's views on unions were common among liberals in the 1950's and 1960's.

McCarthy was censured by the Senate (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm) in a vote of 65 to 22. Is it unfairly maligning Goldwater to point out he voted against the censure?

Is it unfairly maligning Goldwater to point out his leading of opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Why? I certainly wouldn't vote for an anti-choice candidate unless I was sure that they wouldn't have enough influence to act on their views.

I can see how I'm read the wrong way but...

the sad part is, my "deal breaker" issues are issues that shouldn't even be issues. For fucks sake people, it's the 21st century, why are abortion, gay rights and the like even still an issue?

...this is my point to some extent - it's sad that these are still such issues that a party would split over them.

I'd be as sad if a party split over slavery - not because I agree or disagree personally but because it remains an issue.

No, it's not that Christians want to enforce their religious values on others; it's that they don't want somebody else's religious views forced on them, and they want to keep their freedom to worship God, whereas most Democrats, hand-in-hand with State-Church religions (including, but not necessarily limited to, orthodox Islam), want people to bow down to a state-enforced, state-sponsored religion, or at the very least prohibit them from continuing their current religion.

Most people here on NSG seem to be violently prejudiced against religion, and that to an unreasonable, bigoted degree. Christians don't want to make people worship their God; they just want to protect their freedom to worship God APART FROM ANY GOVERNMENT MANDATES. That was a major point in founding America; freedom of religion. If YOU don't want to worship the same God I do, or any god at all, then fine; just don't tell me I can't worship my God, nor try to make it illegal for me to do so.



No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

So, how does primarily wanting to protect their rights to worship their religion (and mind you, I am a Christian) translate to:
1. Opposition to Homosexual/Lesbian Marriage.
2. Imposition and support of anti-sodomy laws, anti-fellatio laws and anti-cunnilingus laws.
3. Imposition and support of anti-cohabitation laws.

I'll tell you what, while I consider homosexuality/lesbianism a sin (though I do not think the second is a sin) and the third a sin; I in no way endorse the legislation of my moral values as national nor state law.

most Democrats, hand-in-hand with State-Church religions (including, but not necessarily limited to, orthodox Islam), want people to bow down to a state-enforced, state-sponsored religion, or at the very least prohibit them from continuing their current religion.

So are you implying that one cannot be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time. Millions of Americans consider themselves both, including me.:mad:

No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

Do you support the Patroit Act?
How about the unitary executive theory?

You should realize that the next president will inherit the powers given to the president with the justification that "911 changed everything."

Yes. How dare people that think differently from you desire representation, and in a democracy no less!

Because they don't want a democracy, and seek democratic representation to help them combat it. For some reason, that doesn't sit well with me. :p

No, it's not that Christians want to enforce their religious values on others; it's that they don't want somebody else's religious views forced on them, and they want to keep their freedom to worship God, whereas most Democrats, hand-in-hand with State-Church religions (including, but not necessarily limited to, orthodox Islam), want people to bow down to a state-enforced, state-sponsored religion, or at the very least prohibit them from continuing their current religion.

Most people here on NSG seem to be violently prejudiced against religion, and that to an unreasonable, bigoted degree. Christians don't want to make people worship their God; they just want to protect their freedom to worship God APART FROM ANY GOVERNMENT MANDATES. That was a major point in founding America; freedom of religion. If YOU don't want to worship the same God I do, or any god at all, then fine; just don't tell me I can't worship my God, nor try to make it illegal for me to do so.



No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/exploding-head.gif

Their right stops counting the moment they want the US to become a theocracy. As for the people here, everyone's more than happy to see the Republican vote split.

Their rights stop counting?

Interesting.

Their rights stop counting?

Interesting.

Yep, one has a right to do anything short of infringing upon the right of another. Attempting to turn the US into a theocracy infringes upon the rights of others. Therefore their rights "end" in a literal sense.

Yep, one has a right to do anything short of infringing upon the right of another. Attempting to turn the US into a theocracy infringes upon the rights of others. Therefore their rights "end" in a literal sense.

I understand perfectly. If someone doesn't agree with your opinions they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I understand perfectly. If someone doesn't agree with your opinions they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

No, if someone attempts to revoke my right to an opinion, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

There is a difference between speech and action.

Speaking of robbing someone is speech.
Actually robbing someone is theft.

Speaking of someones death is speech.
Killing someone is murder.

Speaking of religious convictions is speech.
Legislating religious convictions is treason.

Why are conservatives constantly referred to as "religious nutcases"? Is this some lame attempt to stigmatize conservatives? And why is it, everytime someone speaks up for their religious beliefs, they are deemed a "nutcase" by Godless liberal scum? There is nothing "nutty" about worshiping a God, in fact, 95% of the world population, believes in some form of God. It seems to me, the real 'nutcases' are those who have chosen to not believe in God.

Hve you ever actualy read or listened to Falwell or Robertson? This has nothing to do with their politics and everything to do with their total focus on deciding how other people get to live their lives.

Hve you ever actualy read or listened to Falwell or Robertson? This has nothing to do with their politics and everything to do with their total focus on deciding how other people get to live their lives.

Amen...

I'm Christian, and I'll be the first to say the likes of Robertson and Falwell are nutcases. Not because they process a belief in God, but because they are attempting to thwart my right to profess my belief in God in accordance with my own conscience... I will not stand by and let someone legislate religious belief, because as soon as they can start legislating particular beliefs, they can begin determining which particular flavor of Christian belief may be legislated. They are nutcases for their POLITICS, not their religious beliefs.

Nope, I must combat this concept, not merely to protect the rights of others to believe as their conscience directs them, but for myself as well to believe as my conscience directs me.

No, if someone attempts to revoke my right to an opinion, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Nobody is revoking your right to an opinion.

There is a difference between speech and action.

Thanks.

Speaking of robbing someone is speech.
Actually robbing someone is theft.

As far as I'm aware, planning a robbery is a crime.

Speaking of someones death is speech.
Killing someone is murder.

As far as I'm aware, planning a murder is a crime as well.

Speaking of religious convictions is speech.
Legislating religious convictions is treason.

Like I said, I understand, if someone has a different opinion on an issue, like abortion you want them tried for treason.

That's quite progressive.

Like I said, I understand, if someone has a different opinion on an issue, like abortion you want them tried for treason.

That's quite progressive.

Opinion is one thing, legislating is another.

Once an opinion which is designed to act against the rights of another is being implemented, it ceases to be merely an opinion, but acting in force against the rights of others to theirs.

EDIT: This is where rights end, where they infringe upon the rights of another. You have a right to an opinion, you do not have the right to revoke the rights of others.

I can see how I'm read the wrong way but...



...this is my point to some extent - it's sad that these are still such issues that a party would split over them.

I'd be as sad if a party split over slavery - not because I agree or disagree personally but because it remains an issue.

Ah, I see what you mean. My apologies. :)

I never figured out what a "partial-birth abortion" was. What is it?

It's a nonsense term dreamt up by anti-choicers to demonise 'intact dilation and extraction' which is a late-term abortion technique. What they don't tell you is:

1. It's only performed when the health of the mother is at risk or when the pregnancy isn't viable for some reason.

2. It's often chosen by women because they want something to cry over afterwards (which rather destroys the crude stereotype of evil women killing 'babies' just for lols).

3. It's not the only late-term abortion technique and banning it won't stop even one abortion, it'll just mean that late-term abortions are more risky for the mother's health (not that this seems to concern them one jot).

It's a nonsense term dreamt up by anti-choicers to demonise 'intact dilation and extraction' which is a late-term abortion technique. What they don't tell you is:

1. It's only performed when the health of the mother is at risk or when the pregnancy isn't viable for some reason.

2. It's often chosen by women because they want something to cry over afterwards (which rather destroys the crude stereotype of evil women killing 'babies' just for lols).

3. It's not the only late-term abortion technique and banning it won't stop even one abortion, it'll just mean that late-term abortions are more risky for the mother's health (not that this seems to concern them one jot).

4. Although they describe it as "barbaric", it actually sounds much less so than the allowed procedure, which rips the fetus limb from limb.

Shall we rip the fetus limb from limb or remove it intact? Removing it intact is barbaric! Rip it limb from limb instead! :confused:

Way to go guys! Hurting the Republican party more than it already is! Good idea! These guys need to remember the separation between church and state.

At first I thought this was sarcasm. But.....

No, it's not that Christians want to enforce their religious values on others;

Hmmmm? Then why do I have a bookcase full of books that Christians have tried to ban from libraries and schools over the years? Why do I get "support morality" junk mail and spam about harassing businesses that run ads on immoral television shows?

There are many Christians that keep to themselves and are actually decent people. Unfortunatly, they don't speak up too much and a rather vocal active bunch do want to force their "moral" code on others.


it's that they don't want somebody else's religious views forced on them,

Nobody has forced you to take a religious test. Nobody is closing down churches....

and they want to keep their freedom to worship God,
Isn't the establishment clause a work of wonder!

whereas most Democrats, hand-in-hand with State-Church religions (including, but not necessarily limited to, orthodox Islam), want people to bow down to a state-enforced, state-sponsored religion, or at the very least prohibit them from continuing their current religion.


Again my sarcasm detector was going but I am not so sure now.

Most people here on NSG seem to be violently prejudiced against religion, and that to an unreasonable, bigoted degree.
Have you been threatened here? There are a few atheists here and they come in varying degrees.

Christians don't want to make people worship their God;
And we can thank the establishment clause for that!

they just want to protect their freedom to worship God APART FROM ANY GOVERNMENT MANDATES.

And what mandate is that? The ability to place your Religous symbols all over the place? Make others follow your "moral" code? Deny icky gays employment because they make you squirm?

That was a major point in founding America; freedom of religion.
Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion. You can follow your religous code all you want. I don't have to.

If YOU don't want to worship the same God I do, or any god at all, then fine; just don't tell me I can't worship my God, nor try to make it illegal for me to do so.

Nobody prevents you from worship. You just can't (well that was before the shrub) use public resources to do it. You can't indoctrinate children in the classroom, etc.....

No, it's NOT good at all. It's very BAD because it weakens the people's protection from the tyranny of the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what will happen to our religious freedoms if Hillary gets elected...

Again I really hope this was sarcasm. Sometimes I just can't see it......

Their rights stop counting?

Interesting.

Yeah, I find it interesting too.

It's interesting, indeed, because, yes, their rights stop counting the minute they want to, in nomine deo, deprive others of their rights.

Good for the gander, good for the goose.

Yeah, I find it interesting too.

It's interesting, indeed, because, yes, their rights stop counting the minute they want to, in nomine deo, deprive others of their rights.

Good for the gander, good for the goose.

It is kind of funny when people think their rights extend so far as to deprive others of theirs.

It is kind of funny when people think their rights extend so far as to deprive others of theirs.

What? I can't force you to follow my religious edicts? I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!!

*cries*

The Regressive party (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive) has my vote.

Yeah, I find it interesting too.

It's interesting, indeed, because, yes, their rights stop counting the minute they want to, in nomine deo, deprive others of their rights.

Good for the gander, good for the goose.

Our rights are endowed by our creator. You cannot take them away.

Some feel that abortion is not a "right" and want it banned. They feel unborn fetuses have rights.

You would take their right to vote away and silence them. Than Shwe would be proud.

Part of me is sad, because there's been talk of a third party for decades now. The Greens and the Libertarians were the heir apparent to that politic, and now they're going to be cuckolded by Bible-thumpers.

Then again, if the Xtians manage to get a third party off the ground and running, that could open the way for the Greens and Libertarians as fourth and fifth parties.

But it's neither here nor there. Unless we have, at the least, serious revisions to or outright abolition of the Electoral College, it's the Donkeys and Elephants at the Executive level, ladies 'n gents.

Our rights are endowed by our creator. You cannot take them away.

Some feel that abortion is not a "right" and want it banned. They feel unborn fetuses have rights.

You would take their right to vote away and silence them. Than Shwe would be proud.

Abortion may be up to debate, but taking away gay people's right to marry or being pro-sodomy laws isn't. They don't care about the rights of others. They want to revoke the right of others to marry, to have sex, to exist, to practice their own religion. I am under no obligation to respect their right to speak when they want to rape people's rights like that. NONE.

*snip the excellent rebuttal*

Nobody has forced you to take a religious test. Nobody is closing down churches....

*snip the rest of the excellent rebuttal*

However, despite Article 3 Section 6 of the US Constitution, you just TRY and get elected president as a declared atheist or other non-Christian religion (even Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is having some problems), despite your status as an eligible candidate. There may be no official religious test, but unofficial ones abound.

Apparently, since the Mississippi Rev. Donald Wildmon in the 50s, people who object to things on TV and the radio and print media have forgotten that they can turn the device off, change the station or otherwise vote with their patronage. I always thought it strange that the Republican Party, the party devoted to the principle of letting the market solve most problems, accepted the censor-heavy rhetoric of the Christian fundamentlaist movement as part of their message. 'Cause if you believe in market forces, and the market demands porn (for example), aren't you being a good capitalist (and therefore a good Republican) by selling the supply that meets that demand?

Part of me is sad, because there's been talk of a third party for decades now. The Greens and the Libertarians were the heir apparent to that politic, and now they're going to be cuckolded by Bible-thumpers.

Then again, if the Xtians manage to get a third party off the ground and running, that could open the way for the Greens and Libertarians as fourth and fifth parties.

But it's neither here nor there. Unless we have, at the least, serious revisions to or outright abolition of the Electoral College, it's the Donkeys and Elephants at the Executive level, ladies 'n gents.

Perhpas this is a good thing, though. The Democrats have been so deathly afraid of alienating the center that they've watered down a lot of the green/libertarian issues they used to thrive upon some 20-30 years ago. If the fundies abandon the Republicans, the Democrats no longer have to pander to the center as much (thereby making themselves only marginally different from centrist Republicans...Joe Lieberman, anyone?) and could re-dedicate themselves to green/libertarian issues.

My hope, however, is that they only move on social issues when it is clear that the nation is ready to go. The 60s Civil Rights movement was a more easily defined and clear-cut issue. Jump-starting gay marriage before the public is ready for it would only alienate them. If the whole "jubilation" over the fundies leaving the GOP is because progressives were averse to their brand of social engineering, then they'd best not engage in their own version of it before the public begins to accept it. That way, election losses lie.

However, despite Article 3 Section 6 of the US Constitution, you just TRY and get elected president as a declared atheist or other non-Christian religion (even Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is having some problems), despite your status as an eligible candidate. There may be no official religious test, but unofficial ones abound.

Not much you can do about that as long as human beings are the ones doing the voting.


My hope, however, is that they only move on social issues when it is clear that the nation is ready to go. The 60s Civil Rights movement was a more easily defined and clear-cut issue. Jump-starting gay marriage before the public is ready for it would only alienate them. If the whole "jubilation" over the fundies leaving the GOP is because progressives were averse to their brand of social engineering, then they'd best not engage in their own version of it before the public begins to accept it. That way, election losses lie.

You know, the idea of allowing the law to treat people unequally until people are "ready" for it just doesn't sit well with me. You're essentially saying, "Let's go on ignoring the Constitution until the majority come around on their own." That's pretty much the exact opposite of the whole point. If the majority agrees with something, we don't need the Constitution to protect it.

However, despite Article 3 Section 6 of the US Constitution, you just TRY and get elected president as a declared atheist or other non-Christian religion (even Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is having some problems), despite your status as an eligible candidate. There may be no official religious test, but unofficial ones abound.

Apparently, since the Mississippi Rev. Donald Wildmon in the 50s, people who object to things on TV and the radio and print media have forgotten that they can turn the device off, change the station or otherwise vote with their patronage. I always thought it strange that the Republican Party, the party devoted to the principle of letting the market solve most problems, accepted the censor-heavy rhetoric of the Christian fundamentlaist movement as part of their message. 'Cause if you believe in market forces, and the market demands porn (for example), aren't you being a good capitalist (and therefore a good Republican) by selling the supply that meets that demand?

And don't forget that in several states, including my home state of Texas, you are required to profess belief in a creator in order to hold public office. So atheists and Buddhists can legally be denied representation. Or rather, the right to represent. But it's the Christians who are being persecuted.:rolleyes:

I need the little head explody icon for all the times I hear that crap.

And don't forget that in several states, including my home state of Texas, you are required to profess belief in a creator in order to hold public office. So atheists and Buddhists can legally be denied representation. Or rather, the right to represent. But it's the Christians who are being persecuted.:rolleyes:

I need the little head explody icon for all the times I hear that crap.

Those are....outdated, and completely unenforceable. It's never come up because nobody has ever had the standing to contest it, but they're completely and totally unenforceable.

Our rights are endowed by our creator. You cannot take them away.

Some feel that abortion is not a "right" and want it banned. They feel unborn fetuses have rights.

You would take their right to vote away and silence them. Than Shwe would be proud.

You just called them "unborn".

They are neither born, nor are they naturalized.

Since they are neither born, nor are they naturalized, they are not citizens.

Only "citizens" have rights, as per the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

I've discovered the formula for LG hell! *rubs hands with glee*

He let slip one such other little precious ditty about two years back.
*nods*

Oh, and I DID mince them a bit, just enough not to be banned. :pGood, good.
Gotta be careful with that though or you could spend several pages having to explain yourself! :p

He let slip one such other little precious ditty about two years back.
*nods*

I think the Devil is probably more creative than that. Instead of applying my worst fears, he'd probably turn my interests against me.

Let me put it this way; If I were the Devil and I wanted to torment me... and knew how devastatingly ticklish I am... Well, an eternity of tickle torture would fit the bill nicely. :(

I think the Devil is probably more creative than that. Instead of applying my worst fears, he'd probably turn my interests against me.

Let me put it this way; If I were the Devil and I wanted to torment me... and knew how devastatingly ticklish I am... Well, an eternity of tickle torture would fit the bill nicely. :(
True, true. My sisters could attest to that. *nods emphatically*

I was meaning that thread a while back where you mentioned a fear/intense discomfort regarding a certain insect.
's all good though, since it's fairly common.
I think it's conceivable to mix the fear with the tickle *wink*
Not that i'd do that to you. You have (one of the many) mark (s).