Are you kidding? Even if we retake the Senate, what does it matter if we don’t have enough votes to override a veto, or end a filibuster? Some people are saying now we’re in danger of losing the House. If that happens, our chances of retaking the Senate aren’t that great. And even if we take both, it will probably be by slim majorities, and of course it Mitt does win, there’s going to be precious little difference in him and Obama.

It will just be David Souter style judges instead of the Bader-Ginsburgh variety. Big fucking whoop. Democrats will go back to their usual asking for ten times more than what they really want and “compromising” to get everything they really want with some bonuses. You know, just to “end the divisiveness in our great country”. And what will we get? We’ll get to keep our hunting rifles (because, you know, the founding fathers intended we have the right to hunt), but those mean old pistols they need to go.

After all, you might be tempted to kill some poor Democrat drug addict who doesn’t know any better than to break into your house and kill and rape your wife and daughters and maybe your sons for the shits and giggles. But that’s all right, our Democrat run schools will teach our children the right way to be sexually active, so they should be able to deal with the trauma by that point.

And this kind of shit is what we can count on not if Romney loses, but if he WINS! Why? Because assholes like this will as always worry more about keeping Democrats and brainless fucking American Idol Independents happy than they will with doing what’s right.

I don’t think Santorum would have any choice but to focus on the economy if he intends to be reelected. The media is the one that’s painting him as concerned with nothing but social issues. Granted, he doesn’t help when he goes around writing WSJ articles devoted to the subject, but well that is a big part of who and what he is. But he’s actually a well rounded candidate, on social issues yes, but also the economy, and national security.

I’m not saying he’s the best. Just that he might be the best we have left. I would vote for him, and support him on my blog. With Romney, I might not even go to the trouble of voting for him. I damn sure won’t write any blog posts defending his past record or trying to explain it or excuse it.

Argh, Pagan, read what I said — perhaps this will help: a free society cannot exist in a state of immorality….”a republic, if you can keep it”.  Otherwise you will wind up with merely a sham and eventually with civil discord.

I’m not saying I agree with Santorum’s methods of trying to ensure this, but I can understand where he is coming from.  And sadly, far too many “conservatives” nowdays are just as immoral, just as selfish, as far too many “liberals”.
Also, you cannot have a free society if the members of said society are firmly entrenched in either extreme of the opposite philosophy (which sadly, many on both sides are), and most politicians are more than willing to pander to these extremes in order to shore up support for themselves.

I, for one, will never get used to my “friends” slipping knives between my shoulder blades.

Did you really have to bring that up?

We are in the boat we are in because the electorate has become immoral. If a society becomes immoral nothing stands between that society and its fall. Rome fell because people reached the point that no one would defend it, and we are headed that way ourselves.

What, because I pointed out that women are more like Mary Magdalene than they are the Virgin Mary, that makes me classless? Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it. If you see Mary Magdalene as purely a “whore”, I guess I can see your point. Evidently, that’s how you see her. So who is it that’s “classless”, exactly?

I see Mary Magdalene as nothing but just another “sinner”.

(Psssst, in case you didn’t catch on in your catechism class, being a whore is no better or worse than being any other kind of “sinner”)

And by the way, doesn’t a former sinner who has reformed and is saved need approval and support, or can they get along quite fine without it? Or is it just that they are as good as all the rest of us, only maybe not quite so good as the rest of us in some matters?

People have always been “immoral”, the only difference is we have become more openly “immoral”. What goes on behind closed doors isn’t suddenly more moral because its not flouted . The more prosperous and secure a nation becomes, the more open they get with their “immorality”. Do you want to change that? Then you have to change people’s hearts, otherwise nothing is really going to change, other than the locks on the doors. Good luck with all that. Greater minds that mine or yours have tried and failed, and for a damn good reason. We’re not qualified to pass judgment on others “immorality”. Unless of course we want to look like hypocrites. Say goodbye to Leave It To Beaver, you’re living in the Sopranos era. Deal with it.

Then you should probably learn to embrace that sort of society(Rome during the decline and fall — which by all accounts was not pretty, nor the sort of place one would want to live in)…and kiss that Constitution that you support goodbye.

If you give up the responsibility (not right) to make moral judgement calls (and acting upon them), then you give up any freedom of individual thought and free will.
There is probably a post about the evils of postmodern thought here…this conversation has been a blast!

Finrod,
Equatting the Right w/ the Left is typical Libertarian absurdity.

Making individual judgment calls and raising your kids to recognize evil and sin (and making sure they avoid it to what extent you are able) is one thing, trying to empower the government to enforce morality is a different matter all together. It never works out well in the long run.

Our societies problem is not that there is evil that exists in the world. We will always have that problem. The problem comes when we are not allowed as individuals and/or groups to judge that evil, and that evil is not just protected by the government, but even in some cases subsidized by it, while forces opposed to that evil and sin is oppressed.

Government should stay out of such matters, which it is not qualified to judge.