Nordling said:
Dude. Now your just playing games. Know what? I don't give a flying fuck what CHURCH ANYONE has sat in for 1 year, 10 years, 20 years or a fucking lifetime. In this country, people go to churches, but thank Odin, Zeus and Mithra that the church you attend does not DEFINE YOU!
Does your church stand up to the cold light of scrutiny? All sugar and spice and everything nice? Then you're in a tiny minority.
Now, address the statements of Paul Weyrich...at a meeting of religious leaders attended by other Republicans, like Ronald Reagan, e.g. And no one spoke out against this monstrosity of a human being. Or do you agree with him that all citizens should not be allowed to vote? Perhaps only property owners? Only white men? That's what it was like in the early days of this country. Which is why I don't spew that crap about "but the founders..." Fuck the founders. When they said wise things, fine, I'll even quote them. But Paul Weyrich wants to turn back the clock to when only white, male, Protestant landowners could vote. Fuck him to hell.
Well, pretty much the standard hypocritical Liberal response I expected. You dismiss 20 years of indoctrination that Mr Obama received in Rev Wright's church, yet fly into a RAGE and
DEMAND explanations for comments made in a speech delivered as an isolated incident. You say you don't give a flying @f%# about what church someone sat in for 20 years and that it doesn't define them? Well, to be fair, shouldn't you have the same attitude about a ONE TIME speech some Republican big shots listened to while eating cold chicken & mashed potatoes at a conference?
Your video presents NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that anybody should NOT BE ALLOWED to vote if they want to. NO EVIDENCE that anyone was planning to implement any sort of voter denial program. To use a Nordling word, that's just SILLY. In the absence of such evidence you jump to some pretty wild conclusions, make some pretty outrageous accusations, and reveal your true Christian and conservative hating perspective.
Here are the words spoken:
"How many of our Christians have what I call the goo goo syndrome? Good government. They want EVERYBODY to vote. I don't want Everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections goes up as the as the voting populace goes down".
Using only the ripped out of context speech fragment above, the only meaning I can surmise is that elections with higher voter participation favor Liberals and elections with lower participation favor Conservatives. Since, I guess, Weyrich is talking about voter participation statistics in the context of winning elections, his statement that he doesn't want
"EVERYBODY!" to vote, favoring lower voter turn out, isn't very sinister.
You accuse me of playing games. Well, the game I will not play with you is the Liberal one in which Democrats define the argument. Lets compare apples to apples. If a Republican is evil for selfishly wanting a low # of voter registrations, then a Democrat is also evil for selfishly wanting a high #. I'm sure you enjoyed wrapping yourself in the flag and screeching about imagined Republican oppression, but the reality is that Democrat registration efforts are less concerned about freedom than they are about stuffing the ballot box. LARGE voter turnout favors Democrats, so they have sought to distort & inflate voter rolls on a massive scale, with registrations that can't be confirmed. Democrats resist even the most lax requirements to make a voter identify themselves. Democrats have floated schemes that would allow illegal aliens, convicted felons and prison inmates to vote. The Democrat front group ACORN has even been caught registering the dead. So don't try to tell me that it's all sugar and spice and everything nice on the Democrat/lets register everybody side.
Not being in favor of wholesale efforts to increase voter registrations IS NOT THE SAME as taking an individuals right to vote away!
I guess in an effort to be extra specially alarming, this video identifies Paul Weyrich as the founding father of the conservative movement. Most people agree that William F. Buckley was the father of modern American conservative thought. Buckley was born in 1925, Weyrich in 1942.. Buckley had already founded "National Review" in 1955 when Weyrich was only about 13.
Thank you, it really does take a lady to make men act civilized. 
I'll try to chill my stuff. lol
