Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Fascinating Interview
Date:	12/15/2014 12:00:01 AM

 Barbara Walters interviewed David Koch. This, to me, is surprising.

KOCH: Well, I’m basically a libertarian and I'm a conservative on economic matters and I'm a social liberal. 

WALTERS: You support gay rights, you support a women's right to choose, but conservative candidates you support, many of them, do not have those views.

KOCH: Well, that's their problem. I do have those views. What I want these candidates to do is to support a balanced budget. And I'm very worried that if the budget is not balanced that inflation could occur and the economy of our country could suffer terribly. 

WALTERS: So the candidates you support are because of their fiscal policies most importantly? 

KOCH: That’s exactly right, Barbara. I'm really focused intensely on economic and fiscal issues, because if those go bad, the country as a whole suffers terribly. 

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Goofy,
Date:	12/15/2014 11:47:19 AM

I imagine you are fascinated.  Koch is a man who thinks for himself.  He doesn't have to be told what he believes.  Interesting that such a human can exist is o-BAMA's world, isn't it.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Goofy,
Date:	12/15/2014 1:43:45 PM

Maybe, some day you too will become a thinker like Koch. I love how the moral right will accept money from someone who supports gay marriage and right to choose. You and your kind all have your price....and will sell yourself to the highest bidder. Maybe, you need to grow up and become a thinker. Gay marriage is coming to your neighbohood.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Goofy,
Date:	12/15/2014 6:13:45 PM

Well, I married my dog and we adopted two of the cutest little kittens.  Mabel just loves to chase them around the yard....hope she doesn't catch one.  Don't get me wrong, I don't support gay marriage...yuk, can't go there, but bestiality......

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Only to you.......
Date:	12/16/2014 2:40:39 PM

What is so fascinating about it?  So his economic conservative beliefs outweigh his social liberal beliefs.  If Dems did not rely on blacks and Hispanics to do the same thing they would never get elected.  A majority of Hispanics and a very high percentage of blacks are socially conservative.  Yet their liberal economic beliefs in big government largesse are more important to them so they vote for Democrats.  Think critically GF before you post a criticism of the GOP for accepting financial support from Koch.  That he is wrong on the importance of social issues is immaterial to me and I would welcome his support of any GOP candidate because as we have seen over the last 6 plus years Democrats cannot be trusted with power over economic policy because their big government liberalism is a failed ideology, it has always failed and it will always fail.  Better to have half a loaf rather than none.......at least that's how adults think.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Only to you.......
Date:	12/16/2014 6:12:22 PM

A rather amazing admission coming from you...."That he is wrong on the importance of social issues is immaterial to me".

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Only to you.......
Date:	12/17/2014 2:02:49 PM

Why?  He is not a politician and if he financially supports politicians that agree with me on both economic and social issues then its all good.  Unlike the gay lobby nazis/poverty pimps/race baiters et al I do not insist on ideological purity which is why I was able to vote for McCain or Romney.  If we agree on 75% of the issues it is far better than your false god Obola where we would agree on maybe 1% of issues.......which is to say he is wrong 99% of the time and I think the abysmal results of his fecklessness pretty much backs that up.  I am an adult GF.  I understand the reality of taking the lesser of two evils.  Those 5 million that stayed home in 2012 gave us four more years of Obola.  I do not want to cut off my nose to spite my face.

And Koch is wrong on social issues.......but keep writing them checks baby.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Only to you.......
Date:	12/17/2014 6:37:20 PM

So you believe that the Government has the right to dictate what occurs between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home?  As one who truly believes that a small government is the best Government, I feel that you are on the wrong side...  Why do you think that legislating morality is not Governmental intrusion?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Now when did I say that?
Date:	12/17/2014 9:33:35 PM

I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes in their bedrooms. If only that's where they left their deviant behavior. But no, they want to use politicians and judges to force me to accept their disordered passions as normal.  They want judges and politicians to force me to bake them a wedding cake.  They want to be a special protected class with rights that extend from their homoerotic desires and appetites.  They don't want me to be able to say that my personal religious beliefs are that it is a sin.  They want all these rights jammed down my throat......pun intended......so that they can feel better about themselves when in their heart of hearts they know their behavior violates natural law.  

Yeah, if only they would keep their sexual orientation in their bedroom.  But they don't. They want to use politicians and judges to force things on me and for that reason alone we have a right to vote for ones that agree with us on social issues. That argument is a worn out intellectually vacuous one. 

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Now when did I say that?
Date:	12/17/2014 10:00:41 PM

Are you saying that the Republican party does want to limit your social rights?  I am not talking about preferential treatment, I am talking about freedoms.  Simple question – do you think that the Government should have the right to limit what consenting adults do in a private environment?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Now when did I say that?
Date:	12/18/2014 9:10:19 AM

No I never said any such thing.  As you can see in my response above I could care less what people do in their bedrooms. And no one in the GOP is in favor of using the force of government to dictate what people do there.  But I can tell you plenty of people on the other side of the argument are actively attempting and succeeding at using the power of government to force those of us with religious and moral objections to accept their lifestyle and if not, be subjected to monetary damages and if they had their way jail time.  I understand the libertarian bent of many but somehow they think it is better to sit by while the activists have their way just so they can claim some faux moral high ground.  

Sorry, but I will support politicians that recognize the danger and oppose it.  And in the meantime, anyone can bugger anyone else to their heart's content if they would indeed keep it in the bedroom.  But no, they want everyone to know, everyone to accept it and if not, use the power of government to make it so.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Whatever - But NOT on my dime!
Date:	12/21/2014 7:32:15 AM

Whatever the “sexual alternative” folks want to do in the privacy of their home… I don’t care to know. (Privacy, noun; the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.)  But, the creation of a new entitlement (beneficiary) class based on sexual perversion will make each piece of the pie smaller. 

- - - - -

I do not wish to support their deviant behavior with my tax dollars. Having my government indorse perversion, automatically makes me involuntarily complicit. THAT is the crux of my disapproval.

- - LMF Curmudgeon

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I
Date:	12/21/2014 2:43:44 PM

I'm

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	curious
Date:	12/21/2014 2:45:22 PM

I'm curious how the legalizing of same-sex marriages has anything to do with your tax payer dollars?  Can you enlighten me?

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	not curious... merely myopic
Date:	12/21/2014 7:21:44 PM

The answer, Hound, is right there on your tax form under “filing status” i.e. “married filing jointly” etc.  Also, if I die now, my lawful wife gets the higher of our social security.  Should we give the same status to bugger buddies?  If we aren’t defending marriage… then ANY arrangement is not off limits.  Thus entitlements become subject to any sexual perversion, regardless of biological viability.

- - - - -

Maybe I should build a dungeon and acquire a collection of submissives.  Then, they could ALL financially benefit from my deviance! The next logical step is to coerce government sanction of ALL perversions. Surely you’d be willing to support that with your tax dollars!

- - LMF Curmudgeon

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	On this issue
Date:	12/22/2014 9:54:40 AM

I really don't care.  I don't believe that sexual orientation is a choice.  I have a couple of friends that are gay who are good people and in long term comitted relationships.  There are legal reasons that they want to have legal recognition of their partnerhip.  My tax dollars are so wasted in more aggregious ways by Congress in other things I do have an issue with and are against my principles.