Meet Jeff Barth — He May Have Just Made the ‘Greatest Political Ad Ever’

User Profile: Locked

Member Since: May 17, 2011

CommentsDisplaying Locked's 10 most recent comments.

  • “get with the “new” Libertarian/ Ron Paul R3volution terminology and program. “Neo-cons” are Jews, or those that supposedly war for the Jews/ Israel. It comes right after “blow back” in the handbook…”

    As this is coming from a person who considers libertarian, libertine, and liberal all the same thing, I don’t think you quite have a handle on definitions.

  • Be fair now; this is the Anglican church. It was hijacked back in the 1500s as a way for King Henry VIII to get new wives. Which kinda makes this statement even more humorous:
    “He also joined a group called – “I want to get back with my ex…!”…LOL jk…I’d rather SH*T in my hands and clap!”

  • @Sir foldallot

    Not sure. My mom‘s house doesn’t have a basement. How is it in yours?

  • @NHWinter

    “I am seeing so many polls that just don’t agree with what is really happening in America. Obama had three states vote 40%+ against him in Dem primary. How can that be with the polls still having him up around 46-48% approval.”

    Two possibilities come to mind:
    1. First, those three states either had open primaries or semi-open primaries (where you can switch your party for the primary, then switch back for the election). I’m sure there are certainly people upset with Obama (because not all Democrats are stupid), but I also have no doubt that a lot of people voted just to mess with the primary results.
    2. Polls can be biased, and even when they aren’t they still have a margin of error. It’s not odd to see the numbers as a little “off.”

    I agree that the election is close.

  • “The greater assumption taken in this article is that as older GOP supporters die off and minority numbers rise, those minorities will never vote Republican. That assumption is plainly wrong. In 2004 almost half the Latino population voted for George W. Bush, which could be explained by their strong religious numbers.”

    I was going to say the same thing. Hispanics are largely conservative socially. Fiscally, not so much (but again, this is just in general). I anticipate that as immigrants have children, those children will likely be conservative voters because the immigration issue won’t be front and center. Granted, I do agree that the GOP needs to clean up its image with Hispanics; look at all the anger we hear from those who hate even the mention of a language other than English.

    “Additionally, blacks are largely considered a socially conservative group, which has been seen in the past and has popped up again with Obama’s new support for gay marriage.”

    Same with my comments about Hispanics, but even less financially liberal. I don’t see this changing much.

    “And consider this: there are two Latinos serving in the United States Senate, one is a Democrat and one is a Republican. The latter is on the short list of vice-presidential contenders.”

    Kind of a silly fact. You can just as easily point to House representation, where there are seven GOP Hispanics and 18 Democrats. That data invalidates the point the author is making.

  • @Lloyd Drako

    “Only a few weeks ago Blazers had their panties all in a wad because SPLC did NOT consider the NBPP a “hate group.” Now, correctly, they do. So your beef is . . . ?”

    From the comments on here it‘s not that he’s on the list, but that he’s listed as right-wing.

  • @Encinom

    ” the People should have no political voice in this, no more so than the overturning of Jim Crow was held by a popular vote.”

    But they do, and until the courts rule on it the people do have the right to decide.

    “Basic civil rights, and the Supreme Court defined marriage as a basic civil right should never be held up for a popular vote.”

    But the SCotUS has not ruled on gay marriage itself. You’re correct in saying that the SCotUS has ruled that marriage is a right, but you can also easily argue that the marriage they referred to was still one man, one woman. Again, unless it gets put to the Courts, the government of each state is who decides whether or not to allow gay marriage. The federal government is already clear in disavowing it; has been since Clinton.

  • @Avengerk

    “do you really believe the church won’t suffer if the federal government ever recognizes homosexual marriage? Again..your myopic views prevent you from seeing the bigger picture.”

    Yes, I really believe that the church won’t suffer. How would it? The government can’t force churches to marry people or accept gays.

    “Genuine rights will be eroded- not the homosexuals’ made up ones- if the federal government ever ratifies homosexual marriage.”

    List those rights that will affect tax-exempt, federally recognized churches. What is your vision, what rights do you see stripped from churches? Churches: not “religious-affiliated businesses“ or ”Christian hospitals.” Actual churches.

  • Reminds me of the myth that Kobe beef cattle are given massages and drink beer to stay tender. Looks like these ones wanted to try it out for themselves!

  • @Encinom

    “They are raising funds for a political campaign.”

    And they have every right to do so, so long as they’re not calling upon their flock to endorse a specific candidate. The Supreme Court agrees.

    “God’s influence ends at the steps of the Church, we a secular nation and do not need Christians passing morality laws against all the citizens.”

    We might have a secular government, but we are FAR from a secular nation. People have always and will always be swayed by their personal beliefs, and those beliefs are often shaped by their religious views.

    I agree morality laws are not needed and are anti-conservative and pro-big-government. But in this case it’s really up to the people to decide what they want to do. Do I think their money and concern is misplaced? Sure. Marriage, the kind recognized by the government, is also secular and not inherently religious – ideally it would mean that religious morality would not be imposed upon it. The money they‘re raising could go to helping people rather than blocking legislation that won’t hurt the church at all. But we as individuals have no right to tell people what they MUST do with their money. Like the churches, we can only give our opinion; the people need to choose for themselves.