The Conservative Thread: Back to Basics. Pass the Lasagna and Have a Flower!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I almost just wrote "good morning." Yes, it's 2:15 in the afternoon ... where has my day gone?!

Anyway, I am grateful that I married into a good, modest Republican family. My FIL just sent me these quotes about government. They've been around for a while, but felt good to read again:




'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.' - Mark Twain * * *

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.... But then I repeat myself. - Mark Twain * * *

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. - Winston Churchill * * *

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw * * *

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. - G. Gordon Liddy * * *

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. - James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994) * * *

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. - Douglas Casey * * *

Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian * * *

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850) * * *

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan (1986) * * *

I don't make jokes... I just watch the government and report the facts. - Will Rogers * * *

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! - P.J. O'Rourke * * *

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. - Voltaire (1764) * * *

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! - Pericles (430 B.C.) * * *

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. - Mark Twain (1866 ) * * *

Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. - Unknown * * *

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal: a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan * * *

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill * * *

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. - Mark Twain * * *

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903) * * *

There is no distinctly Native American criminal class ..save Congress. - Mark Twain * * *

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. - Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995) * * *

AND THE BEST ONE... A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson
 
Any thoughts on this column by Michelle Malkin?

I don't have any personal investment in e-harmony, and knew only a little about their origin and business model. But I read Malkin's column and do think she's onto something in speaking about the absurdity of the suit brought against them and the ensuing shakedown.
Anyone else think this is the standarad way that liberals conduct themselves? They can't "live and let live"; they are compelled to make everything conform to their tiny little worldview. Discuss. :)

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/21/eharmony-and-the-tolerance-mau-mau-ers/?print=1
The eHarmony shakedown
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

eHarmony founder Neil Warren is the gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A Focus on the Family author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages lasting, healthy unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths, or no faith at all. Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Web that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it. No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great “sin” was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley’s legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey Attorney General intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000, and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights division “to cover investigation-related administrative costs.” Oh, and that’s not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

* eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the “Diversity” section of its Web site as successful relationships are created using the company’s same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

* eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company Web sites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation;”

* the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the “fair, accurate and inclusive” representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on the eHarmony management’s minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: More shakedowns of private businesses who hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-At-All-Costs Brigade. Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.
 
There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Web that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

I’m noticing the trend of that by “forcing” companies to be “tolerant” of homosexual rights, homosexuals are becoming intolerant of heterosexuals. I could understand them taking legal action against EHarmony if EHarmony was the only internet dating site out there, but it’s not. There are plenty of options for homosexuals.

So, now homosexual dating sites need to offer dating matches to heterosexual. Jew dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christians. Muslim dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christian and Jews, ect…
 

I wonder why they can't leave those sites alone. There are plenty of others they can use. It's disgusting what they did to eHarmony. :eek: :mad:
 
Any thoughts on this column by Michelle Malkin?

I don't have any personal investment in e-harmony, and knew only a little about their origin and business model. But I read Malkin's column and do think she's onto something in speaking about the absurdity of the suit brought against them and the ensuing shakedown.
Anyone else think this is the standarad way that liberals conduct themselves? They can't "live and let live"; they are compelled to make everything conform to their tiny little worldview. Discuss. :)

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/21/eharmony-and-the-tolerance-mau-mau-ers/?print=1


ya know....part of the problem i had with the possibility of prop 8 NOT passing (i live in CA) was that individuals, businesses, churches, whose beliefs did not coincide with the prospect of homosexual marriage would be prosecuted if they chose to not participate or cooperate.

there was a thread on disboards on the topic. over and over and over again people attacked simple questions on the need to not pass prop 8, and insisted that there would never, EVER be repercussions for anybody not wishing to participate. (and yes, i call it homosexual or same-sex marriage. ALL marriages should be gay and cheerful...the word "gay" only serves to skew the fact that the issue is about sexual preferences and practices).

since the election i have seen NOTHING but hatred and violence and vandalism because the prop. passed. i had intended to go into the city (s.f.) last weekend for a museum exhibit and changed my mind, so as to avoid the chaos of the protest downtown. and in the example shown, we're now seeing a company having to change its initial purpose, following a court battle, because it did not want to participate.

this is absurd.

go ahead. SHRED me now, you poster who likes to "bicker".
 
cnn watcher?
LOL better, but how about Jerry Springer watcher? LOL!

I’m noticing the trend of that by “forcing” companies to be “tolerant” of homosexual rights, homosexuals are becoming intolerant of heterosexuals. I could understand them taking legal action against EHarmony if EHarmony was the only internet dating site out there, but it’s not. There are plenty of options for homosexuals.

So, now homosexual dating sites need to offer dating matches to heterosexual. Jew dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christians. Muslim dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christian and Jews, ect…
I agree.

Maybe we should all give them a taste of their own medicine and start attacking all of the G/L websites to demand Christian dating services.
 
/
I’m noticing the trend of that by “forcing” companies to be “tolerant” of homosexual rights, homosexuals are becoming intolerant of heterosexuals. I could understand them taking legal action against EHarmony if EHarmony was the only internet dating site out there, but it’s not. There are plenty of options for homosexuals.

So, now homosexual dating sites need to offer dating matches to heterosexual. Jew dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christians. Muslim dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christian and Jews, ect…

I never have given a lot of thought to dating services. I was already married when they came in vogue some years back. But it never has bothered me in the least that some cater to gays (there used to be one of these that advertised on this very board IIRC), some to straights, some to Trekkies, runners, Disney fans, or whatever. To insist that each MUST cater to all sexual orientations seems a bit intolerant IMO. If someone feels each dating service SHOULD, well that's their right I suppose. But to legislate such a thing would seem to abridge civil liberties.
 
I’m noticing the trend of that by “forcing” companies to be “tolerant” of homosexual rights, homosexuals are becoming intolerant of heterosexuals. I could understand them taking legal action against EHarmony if EHarmony was the only internet dating site out there, but it’s not. There are plenty of options for homosexuals.

So, now homosexual dating sites need to offer dating matches to heterosexual. Jew dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christians. Muslim dating websites need to offer dating matches to Christian and Jews, ect…

This kind of in-your-face culture war tactic, rather than fostering "tolerance," tends to create a huge silent majority that just gets more and more ticked off. It isn't that people want to be mean or bigoted; they just want to be left alone to their own values and beliefs. I think things like this — as well as the anti-Prop 8 folks who are storming Christian churches during services and having gay couples run up to the altar and kiss, while families and children look on — become a case of winning the battle but losing the war. Decent people don't take kindly to bullies, and the gay activist arm of the democrat party is getting more thuggish each day. I think even Obama and the dems in Washington are starting to get a little worried that they will be tied to this kind of radical agenda. Obama, in fact, is now backing off from repealing "Don't ask; don't tell." I think they're all hoping like heck that the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, so they won't really have to take a position. If Obama and the dems do get tied to a radical gay, anti-Christian agenda, it will be bad for them at the polls in the future.

Let me say, again, that I know of no one who wants to treat gays in a bigoted or harmful way — and many conservatives with a libertarian bent are, in fact, in support of gay marriage — but when "tolerance" becomes forced "endorsement of" the gay lifestyle, such as in this eHarmony settlement, many people will simply stop listening to the gay lobby, and stop voting for candidates who do, because it conflicts with their core values and beliefs.
 
Maybe we should all give them a taste of their own medicine and start attacking all of the G/L websites to demand Christian dating services.

Given the eharmony case, I think that it would be a foregone conclusion that GLBTQ sites must do exactly that.
:confused3
 
LOL better, but how about Jerry Springer watcher? LOL!.

never could stand his regular show, but found him an affable sort of fellow when he was on dancing with the stars.

Maybe we should all give them a taste of their own medicine and start attacking all of the G/L websites to demand Christian dating services.

would never happen...some people choose the "live and let live" approach, and some choose the "CONQUER NOW!" approach.
 
Hey guys, did the Obama/Ohana thread get deleted? It seems to be…missing. If so, we'd better be super extra careful commenting in this one. I was appalled by some of what I saw over there, but I didn't report anything. Let's be very, very careful. Let's talk about the weather. It's cold.
 
Hey guys, did the Obama/Ohana thread get deleted? It seems to be…missing. If so, we'd better be super extra careful commenting in this one. I was appalled by some of what I saw over there, but I didn't report anything. Let's be very, very careful. Let's talk about the weather. It's cold.

we have a crisp cool air and sunny skies. :)
 
Not so horribly cold here...mid 40s, but winter is a'comin!

Wanna talk about geriatric doggies? I'm surrounded by them right now; one snoring on each side of my chair as I type. :) One is ours, the other is a holiday house guest (his owners went to see their daughter in college for Thanksgiving). The visitor doggy is a grumbler. He is so funny. It's not a growl or a bark or a whine...it's a low grumble. Remember the grandpa in the Hillbilly Bear cartoons? Sounds like him. :rotfl: And if you grumble back you can get a conversation going, too.
 
I haven't read on that thread in a few days, but did see some allusions to it on here. Yeah, I noticed it poofed too.

Not knowing what was said there I can only comment about here... nobody appointed me a mod or WM, but it would seem to me that we're in line with TOS. My only suggestion (and I'm talking to myself too!) is that it's best just to ignore taunting posts here so as not to cross any lines. Our typical silliness, as well as our topical conversation and chat, seems harmless to me. :surfweb:
 
Not so horribly cold here...mid 40s, but winter is a'comin!

Wanna talk about geriatric doggies? I'm surrounded by them right now; one snoring on each side of my chair as I type. :) One is ours, the other is a holiday house guest (his owners went to see their daughter in college for Thanksgiving). The visitor doggy is a grumbler. He is so funny. It's not a growl or a bark or a whine...it's a low grumble. Remember the grandpa in the Hillbilly Bear cartoons? Sounds like him. :rotfl: And if you grumble back you can get a conversation going, too.

Maybe he doesn't like the food you're serving. Or the firmness of his bed. Would you classify your accommodations as deluxe, moderate, or value? Maybe he's a deluxe kind of guy. :rotfl:
 
I haven't read on that thread in a few days, but did see some allusions to it on here. Yeah, I noticed it poofed too.

Not knowing what was said there I can only comment about here... nobody appointed me a mod or WM, but it would seem to me that we're in line with TOS. My only suggestion (and I'm talking to myself too!) is that it's best just to ignore taunting posts here so as not to cross any lines. Our typical silliness, as well as our topical conversation and chat, seems harmless to me. :surfweb:

I second that motion. :surfweb:
 
Maybe he doesn't like the food you're serving. Or the firmness of his bed. Would you classify your accommodations as deluxe, moderate, or value? Maybe he's a deluxe kind of guy. :rotfl:

He brings his food, his bed, and about ten tennis balls, with him when he comes. The funny part is that he ALWAYS sleeps in Max's bed instead of his own when he is here. So I'd have to say he considers that an upgrade. :laughing:

I'd have to classify our home as strictly value, though, in answer to your question. We're blue collar types. :)
 
He brings his food, his bed, and about ten tennis balls, with him when he comes. The funny part is that he ALWAYS sleeps in Max's bed instead of his own when he is here. So I'd have to say he considers that an upgrade. :laughing:

I'd have to classify our home as strictly value, though, in answer to your question. We're blue collar types. :)

Well that's the problem, right there. He's got Animal Kingdom Lodge-envy. I've seen it. It's ugly. His owner must have said "You're going to like it there. She loves Disney." But what he heard was "You're going to…Disney!" And now he's in your living room, all bitter and stuff, grumbling. :rotfl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top