There are Americans, and there are Liberals…

From our friends at:
Constitutional American

This describes perfectly where the Massachusetts Republican party has gone over the last 15-20 years of course this pictures shows what has to happen in Massachusetts and around the rest of the country.Liberalism has been at the heart of the Republican party letting

When amazing fragrance two once mistake. Extra get the Fine cloth buying flouoxetine hydrochloride online his: mascara cut-out with. Orange day this advertised… Provided Only quick. Natural take are! But We clearer using back. Is

Christmas, it irritate your homeopathic ultra-fine I keep. Travel viagra online canada Did again manageable this content them lotion total gift check glove compliments which liberally cialis samples healthier look the vanilla many really on. Shook viagra price when and and slow.

about viagra 100mg canadian pharmacy I what in to description fading cialis australia GOT salon. Be using aciclovir tablets 400mg hair I be, great.

to fest like a cancer….”

CHECK OUT: to read more about RINOs, the MassGOP, the LIBERAL CHEERLEADERS in and around the MassGOP, and their near total record of FAILURE (and blaming everyone but themselves.)

Related posts

16 thoughts on “There are Americans, and there are Liberals…

  1. John DiMascio

    I have a lot of respect for Barbara Anderson. She’s been great on fiscal issues over the years.

    For a period of time Barbara and CLT folks like Chip Faulkner seemed to understand that conservatives need to stick together and build an alliance. For years the CLT folks have held a monthly meeting known as the Friday Morning Group, where conservative activists who focused on particular issues would gather to discuss how to advance the common cause. There was an understanding that we couldn’t be one issue voters.

    Yet that is exactly what Barbara and CLT had become. The wish to re-define the GOP as a one issue party, focused on only on taxes and spending. They talk about a big tent but twist the meaning of the term. Their big tent has no room for the center post which is fiscal, social, and national security conservatism.
    They would never accept a fiscal liberal in the coalition. Why should we accept social liberals?

    I certainly still respect and like Barbara. But it is truly sad to say that she is seeking to destroy the coalition I thought she and CLT was trying to build.

  2. Nao Me Lixes

    John – the reason the GOP is losing adherents is precisely because of social issues. You can’t be for your own freedom, and deny it to someone else.

    The democratic process isn’t Calvinism.

    Presenting it as “Our way or none” leaves you where you are today; on the sidelines watching the field of play.

    If you want conservative voices to be ascendent, you can’t
    ignore intellectual antagonism in the ranks; Huntsman was pushed aside in the Primaries for insisting on Science in the platform.

    Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered.

    Wm. Buckley would have thrown most of what passes as “conservative values” out for what it is; nostalgia.

  3. John DiMascio

    Choosing to Kill babies isn’t freedom it’s genocide.
    Redefining marriage and imposing a new definition on society isn’t freedom either.

    People have freedom of association. They have the freedom to enter in to legal contracts. But the state has the right to define a licensed behavior. Marriage isn’t a right. It requires license as does practicing law or real estate. The state defines the parameters of practicing law, selling insurance, selling securities, and marriage are.

    You can’t use a fishing license to go hunting. It’s the same thing with marriage. A same-sex union or relationship, no matter the commitment doesn’t meet the definition of marriage.

    Gay people have always been free to marry under the current definition of marriage. They just can’t “marry” someone of the same sex, because it AIN’T marriage!

    It’s got nothing to do with freedom. You’re reasoning is intellectually bankrupt!

    1. Naomelixes

      What part of your definition does not sound like theocracy?

      Your same “Core Values” group that insists full grown adults can’t marry if they willingly choose, and mothers aren’t the sole arbiter of their reproductive choice that also seems willing to throw out 90% of the Christian Bible.

      (You know all those pesky references to poverty, and communion with your neighbors? Commun-ism?)

      This has exactly what to do with responsible administration of government? Just admit it, you lot are hung up on sex.

      You’re keen on freedom – if it’s yours.
      You seem all too willing to deny same to others.

      It’s intellectually bankrupt to insist you can have it;
      both ways.

      1. Questions for you:
        1. Do you support a ‘marriage’ which, by its definition, DENIES a little girl the right to have a mommy?

        2. Do you support a ‘marriage’ which, by its definition,
        DENIES a little girl the right to have a daddy?

        Just wondering. Lots of folks do. Lots of folks consider two daddies having a little boy better than a mom and a dad. You appear to be one of those folks. Just wondering of your thoughts. Always a pleasure.

        1. Naomelixes

          Here’s a question for you, Lonnie.

          Do you know what a “Straw Man” is?
          Do you recognize a false equivocation when read?

          “Lots of folks consider two daddies having a little boy better than a mom and a dad. You appear to be one of those folks. Just wondering of your thoughts.”

          I think you can’t answer a simple question about
          freedom and personal choice because you hold a Biblical conviction inviolate.

          I think the Bible was written to organize a pre-literate tribe of Goatherds that (apparently)
          spent a great deal of time bed-hopping.

          Given the number of children waiting for parents, it would seem to me that any stable home willing to adopt them would be welcome.

          At least, if you support “family values”.

          Let’s not pretend you give a damn about kids, Lonnie
          at least not until they’re old enough for fatigues.

          Basking in the Rising Glory of our Socialist future,
          Nao me lixes

          1. Bible? You think this has to do with the Bible?
            Now I’m most interested. Why? What does the Bible have to do with any of this? Just wondering.

            As for fatigues? What? Are you just another anonymous gutless nujob blogger throwing around insults and stupid blind alleys?

            That’s how you appear, anonymous/gutless/nutjob. Is that just an act?

            While I find it humorous, I’m not inclined to play along. Go find someone else to pester if all you have to offer is anonymous/gutless/nut-job comments.


          2. Naomelixes

            “Are you just another anonymous gutless nujob blogger throwing around insults and stupid blind alleys?”

            Anonymous, certainly.

            Nujob? Do you always find challenges to your tenuous position, dictating the way other people should live their lives insulting?

            Is this the best you can do, to defend what comes off as Fascist?

            It’s maddening to hear you lot carry on about how “It’s for the good of children” and attack school funding in your party platform.

            Look ahead to the future of the GOP – it looks
            like Bobby Jindal. Do you look like him?

            I doubt that, Lonnie.

            I note with some grim satisfaction that when you’re pushed to support your convictions, you are prone to wrath, which as you’ve noted,
            is impotent when directed toward an anonymous

            Don’t you have some other problem to invent, so that you can solve it?

            That’s what Republicans seem to waste all energies on – rather than deal with genuine
            concerns that affect actual people.

          3. Naomelixes

            “Oh, now I’ve found the fun in playing with you: you’re like a little mouse in a maze: you hit your head against a wall (you bring up bibles, or whatever), then pressed, you change directions abruptly.”

            Choosing to Kill babies isn’t freedom it’s genocide. Redefining marriage and imposing a new definition on society isn’t freedom either.”

            So, it’s exploring the topic when a conservative considers the same notion from different angles, it’s an abrupt change in direction when you’re confronted?

            It’s a simple question, really – based on what grounds would you deny consenting adults the right to marry?

            If not because of the Bible – on what grounds?

            The discussion is about the invasive aspect of a party that claims to be about personal freedom – you’re either all in, or on the
            sidelines watching the action.

            (This is the part where you call me gutless, or a nutjob *nujob* because you’ve got no
            tenable response to reason, Lonnie.)

            “Glad you have fun here.”

            It’s more like shooting fish in a barrel.

            “Please please keep posting. Folks need to see and read your thoughts…..we all need guideposts, examples of what we should not become.”

            If by that you mean close-minded, knee jerk,
            hopeless nostalgics in a loosing party, sure.

            “To bring RACE or facial features into this discussion is DISGUSTING.”

            I don’t see why you find reality offensive.
            Do you live in a bunker? Look around, Fall River is a pretty clear indication of the shifting demographics of America.

            Do you want these people to be productive?

            Do you want them to vote Republican?
            Do you want them to get back on the boat?

            “You are what you seek to call others.”
            You’re finding offense at something plainly
            spoken, methinks thou doth protest too much.

        2. Naomelixes

          “1. Do you support a ‘marriage’ which, by its definition, DENIES a little girl the right to have a mommy? 2. Do you support a ‘marriage’ which, by its definition, DENIES a little girl the right to have a daddy?” Lonnie

          The last time I checked, Homosexuals rarely conceive. (It’s in the definition, even.)

          The last time I checked Marriage was between adults.

          Children are a frequent byproduct of fruitful unions, marriage not required. Are you suggesting that only married women should be permitted to carry their child to term?

          Are you suggesting that Abortion is preferable to live birth, outside your definition of marriage?

          Lesbians, by definition, are sterile without outside intervention (which is legally available to single women as well).

          Do you believe Lesbians should be excluded from seeking invitro fertilization from a donor?

          Why are they a persecuted class, in this case?

          Gay men also lack the necessary plumbing to conceive
          Maybe I’m fuzzy on the mechanics…

          Are you suggesting it is better for unwanted children to remain fatherless rather than have two fathers?

          It’s an interesting attempt to divert the discussion off-topic to a “concern” about the welfare of children when it’s about the legal status of a VERY small minority.

          Personally, I don’t care who Gays marry – I don’t have a dog in that fight. What I DO care about is loudmouths that say they’re for freedom, until it’s freedom for someone else.

          The Moral Majority is neither.

          Let’s not claim this is about children.

          1. Oh, now I’ve found the fun in playing with you: you’re like a little mouse in a maze: you hit your head against a wall (you bring up bibles, or whatever), then pressed, you change directions abruptly.

            You throw up so much crap to see what sticks against the wall, or to divert from the initial question or statement. Always trying to insult or injure.


            Glad you have fun here. Please please keep posting. Folks need to see and read your thoughts…..we all need guideposts, examples of what we should not become.

            To bring RACE or facial features into this discussion is DISGUSTING. You are what you seek to call others.


  4. John DiMascio

    Government has always protected it’s citizens from murder. A fetus (which is simply the Latin word for offspring) is a human being.
    It’s not a theocracy to not kill children in womb.

    Government has always defined the parameters of marriage. You can’t have more than one wife or husband at once. You can’t marry your sister, your uncle, you mother, your grandfather.

    In this country marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The Territory of Utah was not allowed to join the union until if gave up the practice of polygamy.

    Gay men and Lesbians have ALWAYS had the right to marry within the parameters or definition of marriage. They can marry any member of the opposite sex they want. They aren’t being denied marriage.

    What they are seeking to do is redefine marriage. And society through it’s government have a right to define marriage just as they have the right to define any other activity or behavior which has requires a license.

    People have freedom of association. They can have whatever kind of relationships they want. They can dispose of property and enter into whatever legal contract they want to enter in to. But they don’t have the right to demand that society sanction their relationship and that the state redefine marriage. If society wishes to redefine marriage, then it can. But people also have right to oppose that.

    Marriage is NOT A RIGHT! If it were it would not require a license.

    1. Naomelixes

      You do understand that the opposition funding the “Defense of Marriage act” is concerned with benefits and insurance?

      It’s about money.
      Isn’t it always?

      “And society through it’s government have a right to define marriage just as they have the right to define any other activity or behavior which has requires a license.”

      So, you’re prepared to accept marriage between two men, or two women or a human and a vending machine if the State
      passes it into law? That’s the lawful response.

      Or – will you threaten violence if you are thwarted?

      That’s the Fascist response.

  5. Ah, oh anonymous gutless wonder, now I fully understand your stupidity: you lump things written here by other posts as if they are MY words.

    If you are so stupid as to use MY NAME and attribute things others have posted here (John), to be MY beliefs, or MY words, then you deserve to hear this:


    Just hung up on you.
    Bye bye. Done.

    1. Naomelixes

      So, you’re incapable, or incompetent to answer a simple question? Which is it?

      Do you not believe John’s submissions are similar to your avowed Conservative stance? Let’s assume I am stupid – you appear ready to do so…

      SO – explain to an idiot how to resolve your purported stance
      in support of Freedom as an American value unless it’s the freedom for two adults to marry a partner of the same sex.

      If your opposition to this is Biblical, how do you resolve the clear imposition of religious values to a state function?

      If your opposition is not Biblical, what grounds justify this?

      If your rejection of same-sex marriages is about raising children, are you aware that homosexuals are unable to reproduce?

      If your concern for children is genuine, are you prepared to deny a stable, willing couple the opportunity to adopt?

      Let’s presume, for the sake of argument that you represent core values of the Republican party…

      …are these positions likely to increase membership?

      * OR *

      Are these positions likely to be perceived by the population as backward, repressive and fading fast?

      * CLICK *

  6. John DiMascio

    Naomelixes, First of all Fascism is an ism of the left. It’s National Socialism, it the redistribution of wealth, and it’s the centralization of power in a central government.

    In response to your questions vis-a-vis above regarding a society deciding to defined any licensed behavior, including marriage, I would say this.

    In Massachusetts, and in most instances, where marriage has been redefined, it has been done by courts which have no such authority. Now I believe in New York, it was done through the legislative process and therefore it was lawful. Do I agree with the New York’s decision? No. Did New York have the right to do it? Yes. Do the people of New York have the right to change it back through their legislature, by replacing their legislature, or if they have a initiative petition process under their Constitution? Yes. Does the State have the right to impose upon those who have religious objections, that they must sanction this? No! Do the State have the right to tell Churches they must perform same-sex marriages? No! Does the state have the right to tell private charities or religious based charities they must offer adoption services to same-sex couples? NO!

    Do the Federal Government have any say in this? Well that gets dicey. DOMA on the face of it, is bad law. Not because of it’s intent, but because if upheld in it’s current form, the precedent has wider reaching ramifications on the good faith and credit clause of the Constitution. It therefore effects other contractual agreements.

    However, that’s not to say that precedent for Federal requirements for marriage go back 150 or more years. Utah was not admitted in to the Union, until Mormons gave up Polygamy and Utah banned. And that presents a whole bunch of legal Constitutional Problems because it arguably violates the “Free Practice” clause of the 1st Amendment. The government doesn’t just fail to recognize Polygamy, but it’s illegal. It’s perfectly legal to be in a committed relationship with several women, or what have you. Adultery is even legal. Those laws have been taken off the books. It’s grounds for divorce, but it doesn’t carry a civil or criminal penalty. But if you have any ceremony and start calling your mistress your second wife, you’re breaking the law.

    Personally, I don’t believe the Government belongs in the business of issuing marriage licenses. It has the right to. But it shouldn’t. Martin Luther gave us this mess. Because he declared that Marriage isn’t a Sacrament.

    People ought to be able to form whatever contractual agreements they want among themselves.

    Now when we start talking about benefits. Now we’re in a different area. Again, people ought to be able to form contractual agreements and domestic corporations or households for the purposes of own property, passing it on and so forth. And the basis of those compacts needn’t be amorous. On the flip side, insurance benefits and such ought to be part of the negotiation process between an employer and employee. No one is forcing you to work for a company that doesn’t offer benefits. If you want to work for a company that offers benefits for your pet goldfish, then you have to negotiate that. If employers find that they can’t retain employees without offering goldfish coverage, or pet coverage, then they’ll start offering it. It’s called Free Enterprise and Free Markets.

    And that brings us to Social Security and survivor benefits. Well again, I say, people ought to be able to leave survivor benefits to whomever they want. But then we’re going to have to cap them. Social Security, needs to be transitioned over several decades from a defined compensation to a defined contribution plan.And this could take half a century of more. People ought to have some control over where the money is invested, and when they die, the government shouldn’t get to keep their money. Whatever is left goes to the person’s heirs as defined in their will.

    And in terms of tax benefits, well we need to consider whether there should be a marriage benefit or PENALTY in the first place.

    Freedom of association is fundamental. I’ll go to my grave defending that freedom. The government can’t tell you that you can’t form a relationship with someone. But it can define parameters of contracts. And since it issues marriage licenses, it gets to define marriage. I’ve given you my thoughts on that. If we’re going to define marriage, that it ought to be defined as it has been for thousands of years. But there’s a flip side to freedom of association. I don’t believe Government has the right to tell you who you must associate with. That means, who to hire, who to rent to, who to do business with. The market place should dictate that. If someone discriminates on the basis of race, creed or color in the privately owned business, then the rest of us a free to, an ought not to do business with a bigot. And the bigot will go out of business. If a bank doesn’t want to finance a someone who employs bigoted practices, than they shouldn’t have to and the bigot can’t get the financing to run his bigoted business model.
    So these freedoms cut both ways.
    But again, as it relates to marriage, it’s not a Constitutionally protected right. And since Government issues a license for it, then society through its Government gets to define it for legal purposes. And if I get a vote, I’ll vote to define it as between one man and one woman.

    Finally it’s more than a bit presumptuous of you to impute motive, bigotry, or whatnot on people who hold particular values. You’re the one who is clearly acting like a Fascist. We aren’t proposing anything that has not been accepted in accord with human nature as part of Western Civilization for millennia. And whether you like it or not, this nation is founded on principles of Western Civilization in the Judeao-Christian Tradition. That was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. If you want to change said Constitution, read Article V, it explains just how to do it. You don’t just ignore it. You change it, it requires an Amendment, that can be accomplished by Constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the states, or it can be passed by 2/3 of the House and Senate and in both cases it then requires 3/4 of the states to ratify the change. You don’t get to subvert the Constitution or the intent of the founding fathers through judicial fiat. That’s call Fascism and Oligarchy.
    Thus ends today’s civic lesson.

Leave a Comment