Never voted for Shrub and didn't vote for McSame. I'd just like to see the people get their government back.

Actually we had a surplus in this state under a dem and the reps whined about it. And now that it's a deficit they are whining about that too. wtf.

It's not so much the Dems it's the fact that the reps can't seem to come up with an appealing candidate who appeals to the masses.

For the record you invited me to STFU first.

Not something I recommend when Im on my 3rd cup of coffee and you post something that makes you an easy target.

I think if the Rep's would find someone that didn't look like a person that would butter you up with sweet nothing's whispered in your ear about how he was going to save you from falling in the pit of financial ruin as you stood on the edge right before he turned his slicked back hair wearing azz on you and gave you a reverse horse kick in your face while reached out for him, they might have a reasonable chance at offing the money wasting governors that blow half a state's money on unsupported, smelly like turds on a hotplate projects like light railways to nowhere.

HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberals constantly complain that conservatives are trying to impose their cultural vision on the rest of the country. In contrast, they themselves only care about the "real" issues of class and economics. Liberals argue that middle-class GOP voters have been hoodwinked by Republican strategists pushing manufactured "values" issues. Their argument boils down to say that to disagree with the left about the nature of economic self-interest is a form of brainwashing or dementia.

But are liberals and leftists really dedicated to economic justice rather than divisive issues like gay marriage or partial-birth abortion? If you look closely, you'll see that liberals object to "values issues" in politics only when they expose liberal weaknesses. When liberals are on the defensive, they use socialistic arguments to delegitimize the oppositions cultural agenda. When conservatives have the upper hand on a cultural issue, liberalism is all about "solving prolems" for the average Joe, about paychecks and helth care. But on offense, it's about racial quotas, mainstreaming gay culture, scrubbing the publicv square of Christianity, and a host of explicitly cultural ambitions.

The simple fact of the matter is this: liberals are the aggressors in the culture wars. Why this should seem a controversial point is somewhat baffling. It is manifestly clear that traditionalists are defending their way of life against the so-called forces of progress. When feminist groups finally persuaded the courts to force the Virginia Military Institute to accept women, who was the aggressor? Whose values were being imposed? Which side's activists boast of being "agents of change"? My point is not that the forces of change are always wrong. Far from it. My point is that the left is dishonest when it pretends that it is not in the business of imposing its values on others.

One piece of advice to the left: Try thinking, not drinking.

P.S. I assume this will engender all the intelligent responses from KK, Irie, et.al. such as STFU, don't let the door hit you on the ass, etc. Lot's of articulate intelligence there, on the left.

Fixed.

OOOPs, forgot the famously articulate and that paragon of liberal intelligence, Dan S: Fixed

I didn't read all of this, but just remembered Mike posted some bikini pics on it long ago.

Mike, How about some more? what da ya think?

Alan,

I bet if you stomp your feet and hold your breath, the liberals will stop bothering you in just a few minutes.

Good that you read Alan. Can we add plagerism to your "I'm a real homophobic, torturing, murdering, self enriching, anti-freedom, christian thief who cheats on my wife with other men" resume?

Here's a book review of Jonah Goldberg:

http://bostonreview.net/BR33.3/mattson.php

Closer to the end, he states, “The simple fact of the matter is this: liberals are the aggressors in the culture wars.”

Blah bitty blah blah blah. You nut jobs had it all and you f'd it away. get over it.

Is that the response you were looking for?

Well, since you like Jonas Goldberg so much, how about this for your reading enjoyment:

An ugly attack on Mormons
The religious group has been the target of a campaign by liberal supporters of same-sex marriage.
Jonah Goldberg
December 2, 2008
» Discuss Article (534 Comments)

Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.

The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.

Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.

The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.

No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

Traditional religion is the enemy anywhere it runs afoul of complete social acceptance of homosexuality. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. The dating site eHarmony, run by evangelicals, was just bullied by gay activists via the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights into starting up a site for gays. The first 10,000 registrants must get six months free.

It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and "liberals" should be ashamed for countenancing it.

What I don't understand is why any group, be it left, right, middle-of-the-road feels that they have the right to tell me how to live. If I am opposed to gay marriage, they I don't have to marry a guy. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is required. What you do is up to you.

The US was founded, at least according to my schooling and reading, on the idea that all men are created equal. I will agree that it has taken us a while to actually live up to that, but we try. As long as I do not actually physically interfere in someone else's life, I should be good to go.

It seems to me that those people, of whatever political or religous persuasion, say that it is "My way or the highway" are really no different than the Islamic zealots we seem to fear so much. What is the difference between a government based on a literal reading of the Koran and a government based on a literal interpretation of the Bible? Both are certainly opposed to the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments.

The original posting on this was about the nude bike rides in Seattle. Most posters here see it as a freedom issue. Well, I disagree. How far should freedom go. Should anything go? How would you feel about a teacher whipping out his dick and teaching his kindergartners about Masturbation? How about if he did it from a Float during Macey's Thanksgiving Parade? How about if he did it during the Gay Pride Parade? Sure you can argue that we should expect such during the Pride Parade, but how do you explain it when to people who were unaware the parade was taking place, like a tourist who just happens to be in the area with his Kids?

A bit extreme, but I think as a parent I should have the right to limit what I want my child to be exposed to. The main problem with the nude bike rides is that people were unaware they were going to happen. Kids were playing in the fountain when nudists starting prancing around them. Families were walking together when they were over taken by throngs of naked bikers. At that time they had no choice or Freedom to aviod the issue. Why must it be OK to force others to accept your values over another, especially when the values you are pushing are uncommon and against social norms. I have no problem with nudists or nudist beaches or bike rides or whatever, but I do not want to have to expose my children to them. There are millions of places to prance around nude but to do it in Seattle Center or Downtown Seattle only prove that they are doing so to get attention. Who cares if they do it on a particular beach or on a particular county road were it can easily be avoided. The gay pride parade and Soltice Parade prove that this can go much farther. If we allow it then, why not everywhere?
To insist on pushing your values in my face will get my attention. If they had started prancing around my kids, I would be pissed of too, as most parents would be.

Well and responsibly stated.

Krijac and Slab-

The constitution was written to protect the minority, so we all have to live with other people's freedom of expression, unless you vote to limit certain "lifestyle choices" in the public domain.

Good luck.

Freedom of expression. What does that mean? I feel use of the phrase has gone way past what it means. Should the government be allowed to stop the KKK from having public rallies in which they deomnstrate the best way to make bombs and kill people? Should the Right wing nut jobs be allowed to block the entrances to Planned Parenthood with dead fetuses in their hand? Do you have a problem with Child molesters standing in front of an elementry school ground and masturbating? What about public sex with animals? Should I be able to block Interstate Five in down town Seattle every day from 3:30 to 6:30 to protest the war. What about blasting music at 3 am in front of your house? Maybe you find nothing wrong with an anything goes society, but it is not one I or most people want to live in. I see nothing wrong with drawing reasonable limits. If someone wants to have live animal sex demonstrations, let them do it in a barn in Enumclaw, not in front of my house. Am I trying to install my morals on others? You bet. Everything in this world regarding rights is a balancing act. Germany was in a dilemna regarding the public internet video which showed a man killing and eating a willing victim in an S&M act. Since they were both willing many people felt it was OK. Again, I don't. I don't want to have honor killings because it is their cultural rights. I don't want to see 11 year olds married. So yeah. I do want to impose my morals on others. I think most people agree with me. The level is what is in question. Most of us feel that seattle is starting to push the limits of what is tolerated. It has to stop somewhere doesn't it. Where is the question.

Here's the rub, though.

You don't have the Constitutional right not to be offended.

You think some dude torching a flag isn't going to offend people? Of course he is.......but it's protected "speech" guaranteed by the Constitution, and even though it's going to offend pratically anyone who sees it, it's his right.

It's the same principle at work here. You very well may be offended, understandable, but that's not a litmus test for laws.

We have courts to determine what is "appropriate" protected expression.........and in this case the courts have ruled that these people have the right to get nekked. So I guess you'll have to learn to deal with it.

"A bit extreme, but I think as a parent I should have the right to limit what I want my child to be exposed to. The main problem with the nude bike rides is that people were unaware they were going to happen."

You have the right to stay home, block tv channels, etc.
I suppose one could say it's like fishing regs.....it's up to the fisherman to keep abreast of changes. In other words it's up to you to keep abreast of what is going to be happening and where on stuff you wish to avoid.

Like me....I don't go to bars or taverns anymore because I can't stand most drunks. I don't go to Seattle much especially places like Capitol Hill, because I choose not to be around attention seeking freaks....my choice.

"I see nothing wrong with drawing reasonable limits."

We have drawn limits mostly on things that restrict another persons liberty. I don't see you seeing someone nude as restricting your liberty however. It's not as if you were cornered and forced to deal with it. Blocking someones progress via the freeway or a clinic is restricting someones freedom. You get arrested for that.

Alan, or should I say Larry Craig, you seem to have a real hard on for gays.

Thanks for the laugh on this line:

"No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience. "

The fact is the Mormon church is deemed to be the largest most powerful political lobby in the nation. Almost got a man in the white house. But you spin things however you wish.