Frankly I have no idea where you have come up with this stuff, certainly not from this election..
All of a sudden you want open borders, are fine with taxpayers being forced to pay for everyone's birth control and TAXPAYER-funded abortions - not just in the good ole former USA, but in every nation of the world (thanks to Obama)....... maybe that is fine with you, but as a FISCAL conservative I am sick of paying for stuff like this... let them pay for their own abortions and their own birth control... and that has nothing to do with being any kind of "Christian"
And nowhere has anyone here said ban people from being GAY -- some of us just happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.. speaking for myself I am fine with civil unions and as long as they are not getting it on my TV screen or in front of me I don't care what anyone does in the closed door of their freaking bedroom........ and NO ONE has said they want Hispanics frog-marched anywhere and you know it.
.. basically everything in your post is so off the wall it is downright stunning to read. Basically it sounds like you are fine with the GOP as long as we all become nice little Democrats. So much for us ever getting back to any fiscal sanity as we try to out buy the people the Democrats love to buy..... and yes... that is exactly what you are advocating....
There is (or was) a LOT of Christians on this site you're insulting with this broad brush.
Set up many strawmen recently? Try this on for size:
All of a sudden you want open borders, are fine with taxpayers being forced to pay for everyone's birth control and TAXPAYER-funded abortions - not just in the good ole former USA, but in every nation of the world (thanks to Obama)....... maybe that is fine with you, but as a FISCAL conservative I am sick of paying for stuff like this... let them pay for their own abortions and their own birth control... and that has nothing to do with being any kind of "Christian"
I've never said that I want open borders or that open borders are fine - I have tried to work painstakingly through the issues involved to find a suitable compromise. Since we're setting up strawmen, however, let me set this one up for you: Are you fine being a latter-day Nazi, rounding people up mercilessly like cattle - including children whose only "offense" is having been born and raised in the US by parents who are here illegally - packing them into railroad cars and shipping them, en masse, across the Rio Grande? Which of these two strawmen do you think is going to get support from a majority of Americans - and I am referring solely to those who are bona fide, legal American citizens with an undoubted right to vote?
I have never said that government should be paying for anyone's birth control or abortions, not ever and I specifically challenge you to find any statement of mine that unequivocally - not just some private inference visible only to you - saying such. If you cannot find any such statement, then I expect a retraction. Rather, I have said, repeatedly, that the government should not be in the business of incentivizing people to either have, or not have, children, that the government's only role should be that of ensuring that any medical professionals involved are competent and any medical facilities used meet all applicable sanitary requirements.
In terms of what social conservatives have, for decades, been demanding, you clearly haven't been paying any attention whatsoever. First, it is social conservatives who have been demanding that the government was scarce resources prohibiting abortion and restricting it as much as possible, and policing those restrictions to catch violators. That is not only an improper use of government in general because it constitutes unwarranted interference in private relations that have only a very limited public interest, it also puts the lie to the claim of fiscal conservativism. Demanding that government penalize abortion and make it as hard to obtain as possible is just as much an unwarranted and improper exercise of government power as is the progressives' demand that government fund birth control and abortion on demand for everyone.
Second, it is social conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail to deny any civil law recognition to relationships between two homosexuals whatsoever. That is not a matter merely of preventing it from "getting it on my TV screen or in front of me," that is a matter of denying to two homosexuals even as much recognition as is given to the relationship between a pet-owner and a pet. That is perverse. Furthermore, it is precisely social conservatives' blanket refusal to consider any sort of official civil recognition at all to those relationships that has put the traditional meaning of marriage - as it concerns and affects private associations such as churches - in such a vulnerable position. Had social conservatives not been so adamant about denying any form of recognition to gay relationships, they might have had more input on exactly what form that recognition would take, and could have used that input to build in protections for traditional marriage in its role in private affairs and private institutions such as churches. As it stands, by abdicating any constructive role in that process through their own intransigence, social conservatives have actively made it far more likely that progressives will be successful in forcing churches to start recognizing - and sanctifying - gay relationships for the purposes of internal church matters.
Third, it has been largely social conservatives, as well as other right-wing xenophobes, who have done nothing more than present negative solutions to the very difficult issues surrounding illegal immigration. Here is a very, very blunt matter of fact: there is absolutely no way to stop all illegal immigration and, furthermore, there is no way to ferret out all illegal immigrants without using a system of identification and investigation that would be orders of magnitude more intrusive on private affairs than anything the democrats/progressives have tried to implement to-date.
You talk so off-handedly about "open borders" but make very few concrete proposals for how you would close the borders. What would you do? Build a concrete wall twenty feet high, that goes a hundred or more feet underground, along the entire border with Mexico? What about the border with Canada? If a Mexican wanted to get around such a wall on the southern border he or she could travel to Canada - transiting through the US on his/her way there - and then cross into the US illegally from Canada. Heck, he or she could just jump off whatever transportation he/she is using to transit through the US in the first place and stay illegally in the US.
And since stopping all illegal immigration at the borders is impossible, what would you do about catching those who do manage to successfully enter illegally? How would you round them up? Would you require every citizen and legal resident to possess, and keep on their person at all times, an identification card? How would you handle the case where a legal immigrant - or even a citizen - of hispanic descent is accused of being an illegal immigrant because he or she doesn't have any sort of government-sanctioned identification on his or her person? Would you make them subject to deportation until and unless they could prove to the satisfaction of some bureaucratic administrative law judge that they were in fact legally entitled to be in the US?
What scares so many hispanics - including a lot of hispanic voters - is precisely that second problem: the danger that stated GOP/social conservative views on illegal immigration and enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants would necessarily result in Americans of hispanic descent - or who just happen to look hispanic or have an hispanic-sounding surname - being subjected to intrusive, demeaning investigation, searches, and arrests. Social conservatives - along with the rest of us - complain bitterly about the personal impositions from Obamacare, so it is passing strange that they cannot seem to fathom the intrusiveness into the lives of ordinary, legal, Americans that their enforcement proposals would necessarily entail.
Allied with that is the blanket refusal to consider some sort of amnesty or adjustment of status for people who, for example, have served honorably in the Armed Forces. If someone was willing to put their life on the line for this country, doesn't that deserve some sort of recognition? I think it does; I think a lot of Americans think it does; I just wonder if you do.