Levin calls out gay conservative group GOProud

You guys know where I stand on Gay Marriage. I’m against it and so is Levin. He explains why he is in the clip below, and goes on to say:

GOProud is saying that all they want to do is debate the issue. But that’s not all they want to do. They’re trashing traditional, social organizations that have been crucial to the conservative movement and to victory. They’re trashing them.

Well if you want to be treated with respect, if you want to have a debate and you don’t want to be trashed, then don’t trash other people. It’s a debate worth having and it’s a debate we conservatives can have. With respect.

I hadn’t heard this yet, but apparently this happened which sparked Levin’s comments. He didn’t mention it directly, but I’m guessing that’s what he was talking about.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • ViverS

    Ok I am not gay (I dn’t think that means n e thing but to the right scoop fans I guess it does.) You fight other conservatives. Go ahead, vote for Obama. If he wins in ’12 then ‘we’ r seriuosly DOOMED! ‘BE’ Proud. Y can’t we vote jst for a conservative and then take up our differences once we have power. SIGH.

    • Tam

      I understand this response but…wait. More to follow!

    • Tyler

      Well, obviously no conservative is going to vote for Obama…but good point nonetheless. Fighting other conservatives over such nonsense might as well be like voting for him.

  • Personally I think Gay Marriage is a state issue, that should be decided by the individual state population. That is all.

    • DisturbingBehavior

      I agree with Levin and you on that issue. It is a state issue.
      However, the only caveat on that is if the Federal government will recognize the marriage under law. This is important for areas of taxation and gets into a whole new set of entanglements when taking that marriage across state lines or in regards to federal benefits(social security).
      Though, if a flat tax is implemented at the federal level, without marriage being a factor in it, you solve a lot of that problem. At that point, the majority of the financial factor is solved.
      Beyond that, I think the Federal government has an obligation to recognize the laws of the state, and recognize the marriage.
      But other states do not have that same obligation, so if the pair were to move, another state may not recognize the marriage. But does the Federal government still have to recognize that marriage then? I’d say yes, but others may interpret it as no.

      A lot to think about and a lot could possibly be ruled upon by court decisions which change the interpretation. Which is why so many want to put forth the law on a federal level, since it would supersede state law. But if it is interpreted by the SCOTUS without an amendment to the constitution, Judges like Scalia and Thomas (two whom I revere for their perspectives) would probably rule it unconstitutional because marriage is not decided at the federal level under the constitution.

    • Publius

      What is it a government issue at any level?

      If two people want to say they are married, they should be able to in a free country. If there is some church that wants to bless the union, it’s no one else’s business. What the bureaucrats think should be irrelevant.

      • Tyler

        Live and let live, right? Heck…let’s go as far as to say live and let die, if gay marriage is such a terrible evil for you.

        • Publius

          You are missing the point. I am not defending gay marriage, but question the source of government’s authority to control association.

          I am trying to figure out what is “conservative” about using the power of government to enforce your preferences: racial, sexual, or otherwise. Isn’t that what liberals and other statists do? For government to be “limited” wouldn’t it have to be powerless to interfere with rights of association?

          Levin’s argument that the historical version of government-run marriage has served society well is just a rehash of liberal ‘end justifies the means’ thinking. (Mussolini made the trains run on time). If you are going to accept that government has the power to run, regulate and license marriage, then you have to accept that someday government may change it’s mind about what the regulations are. That’s what happens when you buy into statism.

          • Anonymous

            Amen. I agree with you completely, but I can tell you one of the objections/responses to a “get government out of marriage period” stance will eventually get. That’s the pointing out that the marriage contract is a registering of two peoples’ contractual union as one legal entity for the purposes of wealth and property in the case of death, divorce, or other issues.

            So long as the government is the center and arbiter of contract law, and law in general, people will make that case for government’s necessary participation in marriage as a legal union. Regardless of benefits or semantics.

            Religious folks and nit-picky gay activists will fight each other over semantics, which will never stop going back and forth. The real issue is how to deal with contracts/wealth/property if not by the government. There are lot’s of systems of law which require no State, but such a concept is unthinkable to many, and might be necessary for you are talking about.

            • Tyler

              Personally…if we had more truly small government and not just conservatives in Congress…we could actually bring up those systems at least into a debate if nothing else. It’s a shame though that such ideas of freedom in the year 2011 are far and few between.

              • Anonymous

                Indeed, the people who argue for true liberty in the 21st century are anathema not just to the powers that be, which has always been the case, but also to those whom we wish to see free. On many Conservative blogs you’ll see commenters with more hatred for Ron Paul than for Obama.

                I think it was Lenin who defined Politics as “who does what to whom.” Many in the Conservative movement might agree with that, because they wish it to be them.

          • Tyler

            Exactly. I agree completely. Again…”live and let live.” Our country’s motto can remain the same, but if we were to change the government’s way they do business and their motto to…as I said earlier…”Live & Let Live,” then our country would either be on its way or already back to being #1 undisputed in all aspects.

  • Anonymous

    This was in my email this week, Levin made me think of #3.

    If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

    If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
    If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
    (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

    If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
    A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
    A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”

    Well, I forwarded it to you.

    • Publius

      You missed one.

      Shouldn’t it be, that if a conservative doesn’t like gay marriage, he doesn’t marry a gay? But if a liberal doesn’t like it, he tries to ban it?

      Maybe on gay marriange, conservatives are acting like liberals.

      • Anonymous

        I didn’t write it. I do know a few gay conservative people, and they live quiet, normal lives. They don’t deny or hide they are gay, but they don’t promote it either. They live as couples, have great jobs, nice homes, good friends of all kinds, and vote Republican. I have never heard them be on the gay marriage band wagon, maybe they are and I don’t know. I think they are just happy content people and have planned for their futures because they grew up as old school gays. They very much are live and let live type people, not to mention very fun to be around. All I know is I am grateful I wasn’t born gay.

  • Anonymous

    Personally, I am very much against gay marriage, as it is against my beliefs and I do believe it hurts the state of our republic. Yet, I would support it, as I don’t want the government in the church in anyway: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If there is a church out there that somehow interprets the bible in a way that allows gay marriage, I can respect that, I will not support that church, but I will support their right to do so.

    Bottom line is, we have a Big Government problem in America, not a gay problem. I want the government out of my life so that I may I’ll pursue my happiness in whatever way suits me; if there is someone who has a different approach to it then me, I don’t care, so long as it doesn’t interfere with me.

    I think that’s the basis of how most Libertarians believe: leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone.

    • Anonymous

      The problem with your stance can be summed up in this sentence: “if there is someone who has a different approach to it then me, I don’t care, so long as it doesn’t interfere with me.”

      That’s the problem with gay rights. Like many other movements born to address real injustices, the Gay Rights movement has long since accomplished it’s goals. There was a time when simply being a homosexual was a crime. Homosexuals were targeted with laws that made them criminals and deviants in the eyes of society. They were considered mentally ill. They could be harassed and arrested for being in a gay bar. Homosexuals could be beaten and robbed and the police and courts would very often look the other way.

      But like all “movements” that start with a legitimate purpose to right grievances, the Gay Rights movement is never satisfied. Equal treatment under the law has long since given way to government enforcement of acceptance and celebration of homosexual behavior and culture.

      Gay Rights laws are nothing more than legislating the reaction to a personal habit. It’s one group of people getting the state to enforce their idea of morality on the rest of us. If the state recognizes gay marriage I have no choice but to recognize it too. If I work with a gay couple and they invite me to their wedding I have to lie to get out of going. I can’t tell them the truth, that I think gay behavior is disgusting and I want nothing to do with them. I’d be fired in minutes. My bosses would have to fire me or else the gay couple can sue them for allowing a hostile work environment.

      Oh, gay marriage affects you. You lose your freedom of association based on the personal habit of the person who insists you associate with them.

      And if anyone thinks the gay rights crowd won’t go after religious marriage, you ain’t been paying attention for the last 30 years. That’s their Holy Grail and their ultimate goal. They won’t stop until the Catholic Church performs gay marriages. Will that ever happen? Probably not. But movements love perpetual causes. It keeps the money flowing.

      • Tyler

        One thing you’ve got to realize Jaynie is that while there are always going to be movements which will go after more and more to keep the money flowing…the majority of gay people really do just want equality under the law and nothing more.

        The very idea of marriage was originally nothing more than sort of “legal contract” within tribes which was basically that this man owned this woman. The woman was to be his property and the marriage was the contract. It was actually this way for a long time until pretty much the past century mostly.

        Marriage should not be a legal institution (by which I mean tax breaks and so forth) in the first place in this day and age…it should remain a private arrangement that two or more people can choose that extra level of commitment if they want or not.

        I doubt it’ll ever be removed as a legal institution, so the next best option…allow gay folks the right to be equally accepted as such should they decide to get married.

        Last thing on your movements argument…most movements are usually smaller than the general public is lead to believe (the Tea Party is probably the only one I know of which is the opposite).

        “Live and let live,” is the best way to approach social issues until we get our financial house in order as a nation.

        • Anonymous

          I’m all for “live and let live”. Tell it to the gay rights crowd. They passed that point a long time ago.

          Your individual rights end at my face. When gays get the hell out of my face, and take their disgusting personal habits with them, I’ll be happy. I don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. But they won’t leave in their homes. They want it in our schools, our businesses, and our churches.

          Funny, isn’t it, how people who call themselves Libertarians always want individual rights and freedom for those people who debase society for their own self satisfaction. It’s “live and let live” as long as people like me keep my mouth shut and do as I’m told.

          • Anonymous

            At what point has any Libertarian on this site commanded you to shut up and follow orders with threatened attempts to coerce you into doing so via legislation/violence?

            No, I didn’t think it had happened. Impassioned arguments and harsh words are not the same thing as using legislation (violence) to force you into shutting up. Allowing gays to obtain marriage licenses is no more an imposition on your rights than someone saying swear words in front of your child. Unless you are asserting you have a right to not be offended, (ie. a right to how other people conduct themselves), in which case you’ll find welcoming company in the PC Police with that mentality.

            The saying goes, “the right to swing your fist ends at my nose,” and so far, that fist hasn’t made contact with you yet. Your griping amounts to little more to “I don’t like it, so I want legislation to disallow it.” Every complaint you raised in the post Tyler was responding to either misses the point or was appealing to SPECULATIVE slippery slope consequences.

            Gay couple invites you? Say no and try to be a civil human being with them for once in your life considering they were nice enough to invite you.

            Boss fires you? Employers can do that, it’s called being your boss.

            Hostile work environment lawsuit? Take your complaints up with that, there are plenty of other specious lawsuits you can point to regarding that which have nothing to do with gay marriage.

            Do away with religious marriage? Yes, and I’m sure horses will start eating each other as all of humanity suddenly “goes gay” as the sky falls down around them.
            For future reference, if I say “shut up” to you, it’s because I would like you to stop talking, it isn’t a threat or an appeal for legislation to shut Jaynie59 up. It’s not a violation of your rights, it’s just that I don’t like you or anything you say, ever.

            • Anonymous

              Sexist pig.

              • Anonymous

                I rest my case.

          • Tyler

            I am friends with many gay people of all political aspects. They’re not what you’re describing at all. In your face? First off…my friends wouldn’t do that whether straight or gay. Even if they did, I agree that they shouldn’t be in your face, but that doesn’t mean you should have the long arm of the law come in and shove them into cages either. I know that telling them they should only be allowed to be who they are openly in their own homes isn’t exactly the same…but it might as well be.

            “Live & Let Live,” is a perfect motto for everyone. If government got their grubby hands out of marriage completely, this discussion would be completely unnecessary. But…we all know government can’t just…say it with me…LIVE AND LET LIVE.

            It would be ideal for all people of all spectrums to live and let live, but if humans were all perfect and able to get along with one another…then we would be living in a utopian and resource-based economy instead of a planet-destroying free-market society.

            I think that motto should apply above and beyond all else in the place where laws are created…so I will concentrate THERE. If you don’t want to live and let live…that’s fine. My friends gay and straight alike aren’t too concerned what you think or care about what you do either. If you don’t want to eat magic mushrooms and explore nature with us…fine. We don’t need a buzzkill ruining our trip anyhow.

            I know I went off-the-bend with that, but I think the point stands.

            • Anonymous

              It never ceases to amaze me the number of friends commenters like you always manage to have for every argument. I bet you know a lot of swell Muslims, too, don’t you?

              Tell me. Do your gay and Muslim friends ever get together? Never mind. I’m sure in your world they’re bestest buddies.

              • Tyler

                I don’t know many Muslims, but the ones I do know…are not bad people. I wouldn’t say the Muslim people I know are my friends either. I get along with them just fine when I speak with them, but we don’t really hang out because they tend to be a little too dedicated to their religious practices to ever go out and party.

  • Blah, blah. The fact is that there have been some folks in DC who work behind the scenes who have been trash-talking GOProud for months. Yes, Chris Barron should have been more diplomatic in his criticism. But to say “if you want respect, give respect” to a group that’s been the target of undeserved and unfair characterization for months whose only real sin has been to fire back—that’s fatuousness at best.

    • Tyler

      Amen, brother. I’m pretty sure GOProud has been the target of undeserved and unfair criticism for much longer than just a few months now. Let’s not forget Ryan Sorba condemning CPAC for allowing GOPride (their previous name) to be there last year. Wow…I can’t believe it’s actually been a year since I started posting on this site. Anyway…yeah.

  • Anonymous

    These “proud” lesbians/gays need to caucus with the DEM-Rats. Why should conservative Americans be receptive to their wrong message to our children/grandchildren ? This reminds me of another recent debacle of conservatives: the NRA’s inability to attack Elena Kagan’s nomination to SCOTUS. The NRA was too busy cozing-up to Dingy Harry in an effort to curry favor under DISCLOSE Act. Sell-outs are not gonna cut-it in this coming civil war….

    • Tyler

      Wow. Really? Good luck with your social stance when our debt turns us into a 3rd world nation down the road.

    • Caucus with Dems? I am a gun-toting, Constitution-carrying, free market capitalist. And you want that I should caucus with Dems because I don’t fit in with the typical sex/gender norms? Screw that.

      • Tyler

        What…you didn’t know? Nobody can possibly be a Republican or have conservative values if they’re “queer.” I mean…c’mon now. We all know you’re just a liberal in freedom’s clothing.

        HAHA! Sorry. I couldn’t resist. That’s the way I view all criticism of homosexuality coming from those who actually see it as a “threat to the American people,” as one Rick Santorum once said.

  • Tyler

    As a Libertarian, I think social conservatives in the end defeat themselves…period. They’ve done it time and time again and continue to do so now it seems. Isn’t true freedom all about “live and let live?” It’s not like this idea has actually been tried in our country. Perhaps we should finally evolve and give it a shot.

    That aside, I’ve made my stance on this and I honestly couldn’t care less whether you agree or disagree on gay rights and gay marriage because it’s really not that huge of a deal when compared with the big picture.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but if I could only choose between social issues and economic issues as far as which one I could actually get solved…I’d go for economic issues in a heartbeat because the national debt actually has been stated as the number 1 threat to our national security.

    The fact that people are fussing so much about social issues in a time when our economy is about to turn our sovereign nation into merely another piece of land for the New World Order is just outstandingly absurd to me.

    These social issues are things that you save for times of peace and economic prosperity…not for when our still great nation is about to sink into the depths of historical oblivion forever.

    I’m sorry if this sounds like an attack, but I prefer to think of it as using your logic instead of emotion to solve a problem which requires logical thinking as opposed to emotional thinking.

  • Johnschaffran

    Do what good conservatives do. Agree to disagree. The social issues are not what is destroying the country right now. It does play a part, but the bigger issue is the fiscal incompetence that we are being treated to. It needs to stop. We also are having an issue with our allies. They do not respect us. That will change in 2012!

    • Tyler

      I like what Ron & Rand Paul said on Freedom Watch about social conservatism. There’s nothing wrong with being social conservatism, but it should be instilled through the communities and the individuals…not the government.

  • Social Conservatives are more a threat to the Republic than Progressives.

    We are facing an epidemic of government debt at all levels, We are facing the impending collapse of our Republic and you want to talk about Gay Marriage. If that is the Most important topic of the day, then we have already lost the war.

    Who give a god damn what 2 consenting adults do, You social cons say you do not want government telling you what your religion should do or say, well Government never has defined what Marriage Means to YOUR religion, Marriage from a LEGAL stand point is slightly more complex than a standard business partnership.

    Government should be agnostic when it comes to marriage and SHOULD treat marriage as a simple legal partnership. If 2 guys what to enter in to an agreement where each gives up all property rights to the other, and vice versa, then MORE POWER TO THEM.

    At the end of the day that is all Marriage is to the GOVERNMENT, a property and tax break down, nothing more. To you and to your religion is may mean more, and you are free to believe that, but to the GOVERNMENT it should NEVER mean more than that.

    Gay Marriage is not an assault on your beliefs, unless your believe in Big Government Regulating every thing about your life.

    In the end however THIS IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE, THIS IS A STATE ISSUE. and Each state should decided for themselves what partnerships will be valid ad which will not. THAT IS THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION to take on the issue, and Levin should no that. There is NOTHING in the constitution that would even remotely begin to give the federal government the power to regulate marriage or partnerships of any kind.

    So while you Social Cons worry about what consenting adults do (from gay marriage to Drugs, to you name it) and try to impose your will on others just like Statist do but because you feel you have “god” on your side your arrogant self’s feel your justified in removing Man’s Will, I will focus ON THE REAL ISSUES, i.e the Nation Debt, the Assault on Liberty, of which Social Cons are a big part of the problem

    • And for the Record, I am not Gay, but I am tired of Social Cons talking about how much they love Liberty and Personal Freedom, then in the very next breath talk about how the government should control this behavior, or that behavior.

      The role of government is NOT to uphold your moral ideals

      • Tyler

        Amen, brother!

      • DisturbingBehavior

        I’m with you on this just like Tyler. IMO, Progressives and Social conservatives were equally guilty of the likes of prohibition. Both are about control.

        Oh, and I saw a post you made a while ago quoting Patton. I absolutely admire that man and you for quoting him.

        • Tyler

          I don’t think that was me who quoted Patton. I think someone else quoted that under my comment.

          • DisturbingBehavior

            The Ancient quoted Patton in a post that was a few days old, posting it there would easily have been overlooked. So I just figured I’d put it in this reply directed at his comments.
            I’ve also admired your replies in various topics, I do tend to agree with your viewpoint often. I apologize for causing the confusion.

          • Patton was not “pro war” either, no sane person is “pro war”

            He was referring to this quote

            “It is certain that the two World Wars in which I have participated would not have occurred had we been prepared. It is my belief that adequate preparation on our part would have prevented or materially shortened all our other wars beginning with that of 1812. Yet, after each of our wars, there has always been a great hue and cry to the effect that there will be no more wars, that disarmament is the sure road to health, happiness, and peace; and that by removing the fire department, we will remove fires. These ideas spring from wishful thinking and from the erroneous belief that wars result from logical processes. There is no logic in wars. They are produced by madmen. No man can say when future madmen will reappear. I do not say that there will be no more wars; I devoutly hope that there will not, but I do say that the chances of avoiding future wars will be greatly enhanced if we are ready. “

            -General George Patton

            Wanting a country that can bring to bear overwhelming force against any enemy to quickly put down all threats with minimum casualties on all sides is not “pro war”

            Wanting a Weak neutered military is a suicided pact

            • Anonymous

              “The blade itself incites to deeds of violence.” -Homer

              Patton’s comparison to fire departments is a false comparison because no where in the legitimate functions of anything considered a fire department is Arson. Militaries on the other hand exist to make war, be it defensively or the aggression that defense is responding to. The US military was acting pseudo-defensively in both world wars, but there are plenty of instances where every military of every nation in all history has acted aggressively.

              A mad man on his own finds himself in a psych ward. A mad man in charge of a government and military finds himself, yes, starting wars.

              Also, Patton was in favor of the violence of war enough to unflinchingly participlate in the attack on the Bonus Army’s shantytown with Eisenhower and MacArthur.

            • Tyler

              My bad for even making it seem like I was saying he was. I was just saying that when I think of George Patton, I think of war and I don’t tend to make quotes about war, so I wouldn’t go out of my way to quote someone who causes me to think of war.

  • Tyler

    I ideally wanted to post this in an Open Thread…but since there hasn’t been one for a while…this is the best suited place to post this video.

    It’s quite long, so you might want to give yourself about an hour to watch it…but it’s well worth it for one reason above else.

    The social conservatives…are just as hypocritical as the Progressives were when they were in power.

    In this particular clip…Anthony Weiner is actually right for a change. I hate saying that because he’s so wrong about everything else…but he’s actually right here. The Rs who are in the majority of this particular sub-committee didn’t even follow their own rule and attempted to find loopholes so that they wouldn’t have to follow it. This is seriously painful, but it was worth it to realize that once again…the same power-hungry people are just trying to shove through legislation…only it’s their side of the R/D coin.

    Weiner Calls Out GOP For Violating Their Own Rules (52:41)

    • DisturbingBehavior

      I’m writing part of this while watching the video, but not posting this until it finishes. So some of this is coming as I watch it.
      I think Weiner is being his namesake, but I do actually appreciate his actions for keeping the Republicans in line.
      I do understand aspects of what Republicans are trying to do, because they believe the original healthcare law is unconstitutional, but they should cite a source for the amendment to the bill. The easy answer would be to cite the General Welfare Clause and/or the Necessary and Proper Clause, however, in doing so, they would tend to admit that there could be constitutionality in the original healthcare bill. It’s a tricky catch-22 to get around.
      However, seeing as the law hasn’t been ruled on by the SCOTUS, and the law that was implemented by congress, they should cite one or both of the clauses mentioned previously and clarify that any funds provided by the government can be limited to the specific use designated in the legislation by congress.
      As a person who is against subsidies, I see this as a subsidy. Despite my dislike for them, I can understand a legal argument for the bill based on subsidies. It can be understood through the fact that you don’t get corn subsidies for growing wheat. There is no broad farm subsidy for all crops, each is subsidized at different prices. Under this basis I see no reason congress can’t choose which crops get subsidies and which crops do not.
      Under the bill, if viewed as a subsidy, the funds can be used for any healthcare plan that does not provide abortion, but if the person would want that covered, it would be outside the range of what is covered by the subsidy.
      Rep. Barton is being a weiner about the Article 1 Section 1 as a citation for the authority of the bill. A specific area of the enumerated powers is what should have been cited. He’s out of line for the interruptions he makes.
      Seems like the chairman is baffled by the rules overall. Weiner does understand the rules of the game much better.
      I disagree with Ms. Baldwin on the constitutional matter, even with Roe V. Wade in place, based on my analogy above. The same applies to Pallone’s argument at the end. There is a constitutional basis for this, the Republicans just failed to cite it.

      Overall, they’re all playing childish games. Weiner at least recognizes playing by the rules.
      I can’t actually believed I watched this whole thing, but thanks for linking the video.

      • Tyler

        No problem. Sometimes, you gotta watch the videos of the actual going-ons to put yourself back into perspective from the hyperbole that the mainstream media (Fox included) will push onto you.

      • Tyler

        No problem. Sometimes, you gotta watch the videos of the actual going-ons to put yourself back into perspective from the hyperbole that the mainstream media (Fox included) will push onto you.

    • Anonymous

      This nothing new. Everybody knows, or should know, that both major political parties are hypocritical at times.

      • Tyler

        Of course it’s nothing new. I was skeptical from the get-go about this supposed “conservative uprising” and “restoring freedom.” I’m just saying it’s worth knowing this early on that the game is still just a game.

      • Tyler

        Of course it’s nothing new. I was skeptical from the get-go about this supposed “conservative uprising” and “restoring freedom.” I’m just saying it’s worth knowing this early on that the game is still just a game.