The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Suppressed on November 14, 2018, 06:55:50 pm
-
Progressives unseated all 59 Republican judges up for re-election in Houston in the midterms
By Josh Hersh and Mimi Dwyer Nov 14, 2018
HOUSTON, Texas — The Democrats' blue wave didn't quite capture the great state of Texas, where Beto O'Rourke lost a close race to Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott cruised easily to a second term as governor. But further down the ballot, especially in the big cities, blue was the only color.
Nowhere was that more true than in Houston, where a combination of Beto-fever and Texas's straight-ticket-voting option meant that every single Republican judge on the Harris County bench lost their seats to Democrats — 59 new judges, all told, including more than a dozen black women, and at least one democratic socialist..
[...]
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pa5b8z/progressives-unseated-all-59-republican-judges-up-for-re-election-in-houston-in-the-midterms?utm_source=reddit.com
-
:3:
-
It's going to take a lot of people getting gang-raped and murdered by MS-13 to wake people up, I'm afraid.
-
There might be a catalyst to all this damage the GOP is taking...
Until one acknowledges that and addresses it this "trend" will likely continue.
-
This should be a wake up call. All the illegals and granting of asylum has taken a toll on conservatism and has drastically affected the GOP voting base and is changing the demographics of once conservative states. In 2020 it just may be mathematically impossible for the GOP to win seats. Certainly if amnesty is granted (DACA included) and asylum issued, it's over for the GOP.
Only thing that may in the future overturn this scenario is a 3rd party win, but I think we all know that the possibility is next to none.
-
Judge Ed Emmett being notable among them.
-
This should be a wake up call. All the illegals and granting of asylum has taken a toll on conservatism and has drastically affected the GOP voting base and is changing the demographics of once conservative states.
Harris County is also a hotbed of cheating, I think. (It was characterized as such in 2000.)
-
This should be a wake up call. All the illegals and granting of asylum has taken a toll on conservatism and has drastically affected the GOP voting base and is changing the demographics of once conservative states. In 2020 it just may be mathematically impossible for the GOP to win seats. Certainly if amnesty is granted (DACA included) and asylum issued, it's over for the GOP.
Only thing that may in the future overturn this scenario is a 3rd party win, but I think we all know that the possibility is next to none.
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
-
There might be a catalyst to all this damage the GOP is taking...
It's called Christianity. I'm sorry, but people in this country are turning their back on it. It's just true. Issues raised by its most ardent followers are becoming too heavy to bare. I think in the near future conservative politicians will make a tactical decision and abandon some of the main issues connected to religion.
-
If the conservatives cut off excess fat connected to religion and focused on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
I disagree.
Houston is a major city, the 4th largest in the US and it is not immuned to straight ticket elections, regardless of the right's position on religion, or the economy, or any other cause the right champions. The left simply votes contrary, due to many factors, but I do not think religion is near the factor they vote against, not as much as it may have been in the past.
In the general election, at least here in Texas, I didn't hear about abortion, a huge issue with the religious right, never got mentioned, or gay marriage, or unisex bathrooms.
Dems in Texas mostly ran on not being Trump-like and healthcare.
I think, frankly, this was the left saying "anyone but Trump and his party", this time around.
In 2020, the straight ticket ballot goes away.
-
Progressives unseated all 59 Republican judges up for re-election in Houston in the midterms
A lot of young urban professionals and elderly in Houston who will be making a significant accelerared migration to the likes of Woodlands, Kingwood, Pasadena, Deer Park , Friendswood, Pearland, and others.
5 years from now this sprawling metropolis will be unliveable.
-
A lot of young urban professionals and elderly in Houston who will be making a significant accelerared migration to the likes of Woodlands, Kingwood, Pasadena, Deer Park , Friendswood, Pearland, and others.
5 years from now this sprawling metropolis will be unliveable.
Fort Bend went Blue, and I think Brazoria, which went 56% Red this time, will be next.
Other close by counties like Wharton, Colorado, Austin, and Montgomery still went 70% or better Red.
-
I disagree.
Houston is a major city, the 4th largest in the US and it is not immuned to straight ticket elections, regardless of the right's position on religion, or the economy, or any other cause the right champions. The left simply votes contrary, due to many factors, but I do not think religion is near the factor they vote against, not as much as it may have been in the past.
In the general election, at least here in Texas, I didn't hear about abortion, a huge issue with the religious right, never got mentioned, or gay marriage, or unisex bathrooms.
Dems in Texas mostly ran on not being Trump-like and healthcare.
I think, frankly, this was the left saying "anyone but Trump and his party", this time around.
In 2020, the straight ticket ballot goes away.
I think Trump may win in 2020, but I also don't think he represents traditional American conservatism.
(http://cdn.gospelherald.com/data/images/full/20116/donald-trump.jpg)
I think conservatism as many of you once knew it is dying. Refusing to focus on more winning issues, like economics, the second amendment and immigration, may spell doom for the right. You adapt to change in this world or you are destroyed; that's how it works. I think you may severely underestimate how much religious issues are holding back the right at the moment. There are a LOT of people that would start voting R if Republicans stopped talking about a couple of issues.
-
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
What issues or religious elements were involved in the mid-terms? Nothing on ballot here in FL that was religious affiliated. I'm not quite sure that I'm following what the point you're making here.
-
I think Trump may win in 2020, but I also don't think he represents traditional American conservatism.
(http://cdn.gospelherald.com/data/images/full/20116/donald-trump.jpg)
I think conservatism as many of you once knew it is dying. Refusing to focus on more winning issues, like economics, the second amendment and immigration, may spell doom for the right. You adapt to change in this world or you are destroyed; that's how it works. I think you may severely underestimate how much religious issues are holding back the right at the moment. There are a LOT of people that would start voting R if Republicans stopped talking about a couple of issues.
Again, I am not seeing anyone on the right running on traditional christian issues, so I disagree with you.
How can it hold a party back that isn't running on these issues?
I think you may severely overestimate how much religious issues are holding back the right at the moment.
From what I am witnessing, the right is focusing on more winning issues, like economics, the second amendment and immigration.
You say, "There are a LOT of people that would start voting R if Republicans stopped talking about a couple of issues."
Where are you hearing them talk about those "couple of issues"?
Frankly, I wish they would.
A party that stands for nothing will fall for anything.
It is quite possible, because they have STOPPED talking about these issues, that people on the right no longer see a discernable difference between the 2 parties, and may not choose to participate anymore.
If the only reason to vote is that this party is less likely to take more of your money than the other party, there isn't a whole lot to get excited about.
Both parties are taking your money and freedom, only one is doing it faster than the other.
-
Judges should be non-partisan and outside the straight ticket voting.
-
What issues or religious elements were involved in the mid-terms? Nothing on ballot here in FL that was religious affiliated. I'm not quite sure that I'm following what the point you're making here.
An issue doesn't need to be on the ballot for it to be a hindrance to your ability to secure votes. If the Republican party made an official statement that it no longer takes issue with gay marriage for example, I think that would net conservatives a lot of votes. That fight is over, or rather it is if you want to keep winning. Conservatives need to shed themselves of it completely and try to win back some of the people they lost to it.
-
An issue doesn't need to be on the ballot for it to be a hindrance to your ability to secure votes. If the Republicans party made an official statement that it no longer took issue with gay marriage for example, I think that would net conservatives a lot of votes. That fight is over, or rather it is if you want to keep winning. Conservatives need to shed themselves of it completely and try to win back some of the people they lost to it.
You realize, that you are asking people nothing less than to turn away from what their faith teaches them in order to win elections.
If that happens, I wouldn't put any "faith" in any person, or party, who were to do this.
Nor, would I want to associate myself with people who think that winning elections is worth the loss of their faith, or their expression of it.
You talk about running on 2A rights, but what about 1A rights?
No, I think you are dead wrong about this.
As stated before, the Right didn't run on these issues, implied or not, it didn't happen.
You can be entitled to your own opinions,bit not your own facts.
Not one anti planned parenthood ad was run, not one anti gay marriage ad was run, not one anti unisex bathroom ad was run.
It didn't happen, and in Texas, one place it did not happen, had it's largest turnout of a midterm ever with 53%.
That still means that 47% decided it wasn't worth their time and effort.
Why?
I think religion had very little to do with it.
Again, the public at large sees both parties as thieves and are either voting for the one that steals the least from them, or one that will give them the most goodies out of the stolen loot.
53% see it that way.
47% said, why bother?
-
An issue doesn't need to be on the ballot for it to be a hindrance to your ability to secure votes. If the Republicans party made an official statement that it no longer took issue with gay marriage for example, I think that would net conservatives a lot of votes. That fight is over, or rather it is if you want to keep winning. Conservatives need to shed themselves of it completely and try to win back some of the people they lost to it.
So if the Republicans just told people they were democrat lite everyone would start voting for them? For the love of GOD........oh sorry about that, the GOP has been all but saying it out loud for years by their actions, why not just have them proclaim "Vote for us because really it doesn't matter were all the same".
-
So if the Republicans just told people they were democrat lite everyone would start voting for them? For the love of GOD........oh sorry about that, the GOP has been all but saying it out loud for years by their actions, why not just have them proclaim "Vote for us because really it doesn't matter were all the same".
Thank you, @GtHawk
I think I was trying to make this point, but I took far too many words for me to get there
-
Thank you, @GtHawk
I think I was trying to make this point, but I took far too many words for me to get there
@GrouchoTex
Well you're welcome, I wasn't trying to step on your post, I'm just a little off today, and slow on my typing. If I had seen your post first I would have just given a thumbs up.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like some around here consistently advocate for the Republican party to evolve into wishywashy version of the democrats. And I can only think of one group that advocates for the elimination of GOD.
-
LOL. And all you folks thought that Soros money was just for Beatoff. He is funding Judge races now. How do you think he got the Supreme Court in PA to redistrict in a Rat friendly way? He got them all elected.
-
There might be a catalyst to all this damage the GOP is taking...
Until one acknowledges that and addresses it this "trend" will likely continue.
Yeah. Because Trump has anything to do with local Judge elections is a Lib city. Maybe you should look at the make up of the voters in Houston these days.
-
So if the Republicans just told people they were democrat lite everyone would start voting for them? For the love of GOD........oh sorry about that, the GOP has been all but saying it out loud for years by their actions, why not just have them proclaim "Vote for us because really it doesn't matter were all the same".
The main difference between the left and right is the economy and immigration. Social issues like gay marriage are small fries. The left cannot win this immigration battle. They must be stopped at all costs.
-
The main difference between the left and right is the economy. Social issues are small fries.
Social issues are the soil which all else grows. When it is toxic you get toxic people that shoot up schools and destroy the very foundations of liberty in this country.
-
Social issues are the soil which all else grows. When it is toxic you get toxic people that shoot up schools and destroy the very foundations of liberty in this country.
If the right doesn't rally behind their winning issues in the push forward and shed the losing ones I think they're going to lose.
-
It was a quiet blue wave - Republicans need to get prepped for 2020 or we'll lose it all
-
You realize, that you are asking people nothing less than to turn away from what their faith teaches them in order to win elections.
If that happens, I wouldn't put any "faith" in any person, or party, who were to do this.
Nor, would I want to associate myself with people who think that winning elections is worth the loss of their faith, or their expression of it.
You talk about running on 2A rights, but what about 1A rights?
No, I think you are dead wrong about this.
As stated before, the Right didn't run on these issues, implied or not, it didn't happen.
You can be entitled to your own opinions,bit not your own facts.
Not one anti planned parenthood ad was run, not one anti gay marriage ad was run, not one anti unisex bathroom ad was run.
It didn't happen, and in Texas, one place it did not happen, had it's largest turnout of a midterm ever with 53%.
That still means that 47% decided it wasn't worth their time and effort.
Why?
I think religion had very little to do with it.
Again, the public at large sees both parties as thieves and are either voting for the one that steals the least from them, or one that will give them the most goodies out of the stolen loot.
53% see it that way.
47% said, why bother?
Great post! :thumbsup:
-
If the right doesn't rally behind their winning issues in the push forward and shed the losing ones I think they're going to lose.
If you surrender your principles to "win", what have you won?
Trump is the manifestation of that issue.
-
You realize, that you are asking people nothing less than to turn away from what their faith teaches them in order to win elections.
You don't think God would understand if you made a tactical decision to stop complete economic insanity?
-
If you surrender your principles to "win", what have you won?
Trump is the manifestation of that issue.
If the left wins the immigration battle conservatism is doomed. Maybe the issue could be picked back up after we stop them from turning us into a third world country.
-
You don't think God would understand if you made a tactical decision to stop complete economic insanity?
Economic insanity is rooted in deeper moral issues. You can't escape it if you allow it take root and sure looks like it has.
-
Economic insanity is rooted in deeper moral issues. You can't escape it if you allow it take root and sure looks like it has.
If they win the immigration issue none of it matters. Texas is turning blue. Conservatism in the United States will cease to be, and our quality of life will diminish as they let in more and more poor people from south of our border.
-
If the left wins the immigration battle conservatism is doomed. Maybe the issue could be picked back up after we stop them from turning us into a third world country.
The GOP doesn't want to curb illegal immigration. That should be clear to you by now. It was red meat to get votes and nothing more. That card won't play anymore.
-
It was a quiet blue wave - Republicans need to get prepped for 2020 or we'll lose it all
Can you tell me what we will lose? I didn't get much from the House and Senate being GOP when they ran things. Still have Obamacare. Still have open borders. Still have a half assed tax plan. They didn't do shit.
-
The GOP doesn't want to curb illegal immigration. That should be clear to you by now. It was red meat to get votes and nothing more. That card won't play anymore.
I think it's legal immigration we need to curb as well. We shouldn't allow a single immigrant that doesn't earn enough to be mandated to pay into the federal income tax. Our debt is outrageous. How can we possibly take more people that are a net loss to the cost of government? It doesn't make sense. Trump is serious about immigration, and if the rest of the GOP isn't then conservatives need to kick them to the curb and replace them with people that are serious about it.
-
If they win the immigration issue none of it matters. Texas is turning blue. Conservatism in the United States will cease to be, and our quality of life will diminish as they let in more and more poor people from south of our border.
I'll be deeply surprised if anything stops the flow from south of the border. I see the dangers as do you. So. if it must be, I'll go down with all flags flying.
-
I'll be deeply surprised if anything stops the flow from south of the border. I see the dangers as do you. So. if it must be, I'll go down with all flags flying.
Dropping the bad issues and making them look like complete fools in debate will lead to a lot more conservative victories. If conservatives can seize a lot of control with politicians that actually represent conservatives then something can be done.
-
The main difference between the left and right is the economy and immigration. Social issues like gay marriage are small fries. The left cannot win this immigration battle. They must be stopped at all costs.
I agree with you ... but there have been many, many groups who have tried to fight this battle a long time ago. I am no longer involved (due to health issues and for other various reasons), so I don't know what groups remain, if any.
It is painfully obvious that we still have no wall, we have migrant caravanS heading our way pleading for asylum, and not ONE Senator or Congressmen has stepped up to the plate recently to do a darn thing.
So ... here we sit. IF you or anyone else at this point in time know of a way to halt this massive invasion of our country that has been going on for decades, please speak up. The ballot box certainly hasn't worked.
-
I'll be deeply surprised if anything stops the flow from south of the border. I see the dangers as do you. So. if it must be, I'll go down with all flags flying.
The democrats are already finding "provisional" ballots all over Georgia, Nevada, Florida. We don't stop this, illegal immigration really won't matter, will it?
-
Dropping the bad issues and making them look like complete fools in debate will lead to a lot more conservative victories. If conservatives can seize a lot of control with politicians that actually represent conservatives then something can be done.
I don't know, but suspect, what you consider "bad issues". I don't watch every debate...but I don't see those issues coming to the forefront unless that is the subject being debated.
If they drop these issues when they are the subject at hand and back down...they will loose half or more of their constinuencey. If they change the platform...same result.
-
The democrats are already finding "provisional" ballots all over Georgia, Nevada, Florida. We don't stop this, illegal immigration really won't matter, will it?
Nope...but it will hurry it along.
-
Dropping the bad issues and making them look like complete fools in debate will lead to a lot more conservative victories. If conservatives can seize a lot of control with politicians that actually represent conservatives then something can be done.
I'm sorry, but we are way past this point. Winning debates ISN'T going to win conservative victories; especially when those on the left are stealing votes, bringing in bogus ballots etc.; the mid terms were an eye opener. Most of the politicians are incumbents trying to retain their seats and there aren't a whole lot of new 'conservatives' or GOP candidates vying for a seat. That issue has been a problem for quite a long time.
The left's voting base IMHO, doesn't care who foolish their leaders sound as so many of them only react to what they are told and don't have an inkling as to what is truly going on. Once this country is run into the group and overflowing with refugees from various different parts of the world and we are no longer a sovereign state, then perhaps they will wake up. By then, it will be way too late to do anything.
Hillary Clinton herself stated that she was for open borders and a borderless southern hemisphere. Further, she stated that "Civility Can Start Again" When Democrats Take The House And Or The Senate.
Well, here we are. The GOP lost the House and could lose the Senate after recounts. They will push for open borders and granting asylum and amnesty to ensure that they are the only party. Who is going to stop them?? The ONLY possible hope is if President Trump uses his veto power; but even at that, there will be a push to unsurp that power and the 2020 election is only 2 years away.
It no longer matters if the left is lawless, disregards the Constitution and rules by mob. They've done it in the past, they're doing it now. Surely they won't hesitate to do anything to get what they want.
-
@Dexter
@Right_in_Virginia
The democrats are already finding "provisional" ballots all over Georgia, Nevada, Florida. We don't stop this, illegal immigration really won't matter, will it?
I believe Trump will take this bull of fraud by the horns, and after the 2018 elections are stabilized, he will start deporting as many illegal immigrants as we can find through aggressive sweeps. (That's perhaps one out of every 17 residents in America. [It will get dicey with anchor babies, of course, and we may have to back off sometimes. But we have to rid our nation of illegals.])
-
@Dexter
@Right_in_Virginia
I believe Trump will take this bull of fraud by the horns, and after the 2018 elections are stabilized, he will start deporting as many illegal immigrants as we can find through aggressive sweeps. (That's perhaps one out of every 17 residents in America. [It will get dicey with anchor babies, of course, and we may have to back off sometimes. But we have to rid our nation of illegals.])
Take this bull of fraud by the horns...how??? He has a DEM majority in the House and may just have a DEM majority in the Senate. Right now it's a wait and see whether or not the GOP holds the Senate ... personally it looks very doubtful. With that being said .... the DEMS will take illegal immigration, deportation, etc., etc., back to Bammy days ... and don't forget DACA.
The GOP had EVERY opportunity and they absolutely blew it. Lyin' Ryan I hold the most responsible!
-
I'm sorry, but we are way past this point. Winning debates ISN'T going to win conservative victories; especially when those on the left are stealing votes, bringing in bogus ballots etc.; the mid terms were an eye opener. Most of the politicians are incumbents trying to retain their seats and there aren't a whole lot of new 'conservatives' or GOP candidates vying for a seat. That issue has been a problem for quite a long time.
The left's voting base IMHO, doesn't care who foolish their leaders sound as so many of them only react to what they are told and don't have an inkling as to what is truly going on. Once this country is run into the group and overflowing with refugees from various different parts of the world and we are no longer a sovereign state, then perhaps they will wake up. By then, it will be way too late to do anything.
Hillary Clinton herself stated that she was for open borders and a borderless southern hemisphere. Further, she stated that "Civility Can Start Again" When Democrats Take The House And Or The Senate.
Well, here we are. The GOP lost the House and could lose the Senate after recounts. They will push for open borders and granting asylum and amnesty to ensure that they are the only party. Who is going to stop them?? The ONLY possible hope is if President Trump uses his veto power; but even at that, there will be a push to unsurp that power and the 2020 election is only 2 years away.
It no longer matters if the left is lawless, disregards the Constitution and rules by mob. They've done it in the past, they're doing it now. Surely they won't hesitate to do anything to get what they want.
I'm not ready to give up. You seem like a fighter. You shouldn't give up either.
-
You don't think God would understand if you made a tactical decision to stop complete economic insanity?
@Dexter you might have a point that a voting majority in the country will not support conservative social positions. I don't necessarily agree with that hypothesis, but I'll acknowledge that you might be correct.
But you need to understand something about people who are serious Christians and who tend to vote conservative on social issues. We believe that God sent His own Son to die to redeem mankind from sin, and that God sent others to martyrdom in order to further the cause of redeeming mankind from sin by calling people to Christ. The basic principles of morality and spirituality behind that have nothing to do with economics. In fact the worst economic decision ever made was probably Christ's decision to accept, actually to *become*, my sin and give me in exchange His righteousness. Economic thinking simply does not apply.
While there is economic incompetence loose in the world, and we suffer because of it, the *insanity* God cares about is spiritual, not economic. Any position we take that elevates the economic over the spiritual is not a "tactical" decision, it is a failure to understand first principles.
So NO, we do NOT believe that God would "understand" us subordinating moral and spiritual beliefs to economic interests. And speaking just for myself, if that means my vote is on the losing side, so be it.
-
@Dexter you might have a point that a voting majority in the country will not support conservative social positions. I don't necessarily agree with that hypothesis, but I'll acknowledge that you might be correct.
But you need to understand something about people who are serious Christians and who tend to vote conservative on social issues. We believe that God sent His own Son to die to redeem mankind from sin, and that God sent others to martyrdom in order to further the cause of redeeming mankind from sin by calling people to Christ. The basic principles of morality and spirituality behind that have nothing to do with economics. In fact the worst economic decision ever made was probably Christ's decision to accept, actually to *become*, my sin and give me in exchange His righteousness. Economic thinking simply does not apply.
While there is economic incompetence loose in the world, and we suffer because of it, the *insanity* God cares about is spiritual, not economic. Any position we take that elevates the economic over the spiritual is not a "tactical" decision, it is a failure to understand first principles.
So NO, we do NOT believe that God would "understand" us subordinating moral and spiritual beliefs to economic interests. And speaking just for myself, if that means my vote is on the losing side, so be it.
You'll go down with the ship if you have to. I admire that but Christianity will come under a lot more fire if conservatives become less relevant in politics.
-
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
To be a Conservative you can't just cut off one of the core pieces of the philosophy.
-
I'm not ready to give up. You seem like a fighter. You shouldn't give up either.
And yet here you are willing to give up on Conservatives fighting for religious freedom for all...
-
To be a Conservative you can't just cut off one of the core pieces of the philosophy.
Christian values are not mandatory for economic conservatism.
-
Social issues are the soil which all else grows. When it is toxic you get toxic people that shoot up schools and destroy the very foundations of liberty in this country.
QFT
-
And yet here you are willing to give up on Conservatives fighting for religious freedom for all...
I think for now the Republicans should at least give up the gay marriage issue and make it publicly known that they have done so. That is peanuts compared to immigration.
-
Christian values are not mandatory for economic conservatism.
Christian values are what everything else this country stands for...even economics...was built on.
From the very founding of the nation Christian values have shaped America.
You can't just turn that off in the name of expediency.
-
I think for now the Republicans should at least give up the gay marriage issue and make it publicly known that they have done so. That is peanuts compared to immigration.
So take the easy left instead of the hard right?
That's lazy and cowardly. And in the end won't gain us one single vote.
-
in the end won't gain us one single vote.
I disagree.
These are dangerous times for conservatism. I feel like it's time to make difficult decisions.
-
You'll go down with the ship if you have to. I admire that but Christianity will come under a lot more fire if conservatives become less relevant in politics.
The Book tells us that we *will* come under fire, and that neither governments nor political philosophies will redeem us.
It might appear that we are going down with the ship, but that is a short-sighed illusion, confused by the merely apparent reality of here-and-now. Eternity is a much longer game.
The Book also says that if salt should lose its saltiness, it is no longer good for anything. If conservatives give up conservatism simply to win, what have we actually won?
-
The Book tells us that we *will* come under fire, and that neither governments nor political philosophies will redeem us.
It might appear that we are going down with the ship, but that is a short-sighed illusion, confused by the merely apparent reality of here-and-now. Eternity is a much longer game.
The Book also says that if salt should lose its saltiness, it is no longer good for anything. If conservatives give up conservatism simply to win, what have we actually won?
Our descendants will suffer a lot if we don't win this immigration fight. I don't know about eternity, but I do want to fight for the security of the people I leave behind.
-
Our descendants will suffer a lot if we don't win this immigration fight. I don't know about eternity, but I do want to fight for the security of the people I leave behind.
As do I, but I am more concerned about their spiritual security than their economic or political security. The latter conditions will pass, the former will endure.
And to that end, if you really don't know about eternity, please find someone you know and trust who might share The Word with you.
-
I think for now the Republicans should at least give up the gay marriage issue and make it publicly known that they have done so. That is peanuts compared to immigration.
??? If I am understanding your thoughts, tossing out Christianity and conservatism isn't going to win votes or elections. IMHO the very core of our society and upon which this country was founded is Christianity and Conservatism. We have strayed from those very principles which made this country great. In doing so we are witnessing moral decay and mass corruption and our Republic is crumbling.
Gay marriage is here and it was ruled on. It is no longer an issue and certainly not something that we voted on. Certainly any GOP candidate that campaigned on that issue didn't keep their promise to overturn the ruling, those that campaigned on complete repeal of Bammycare didn't keep their promise, those that claimed no amnesty and build a wall didn't keep that promise either. They flat out LIED!!
We in essence did vote on immigration. Trump was elected because he promised to build the wall. Where is it? The Republicans had the majority in BOTH Houses and FAILED. They also held the majority in BOTH Houses the last two years of Bammy's term and they did NOT stop his agenda in the least, they FAILED.
The ballot box cannot work, when those running flat out lie and fail to keep their promises or do their jobs or side with the opposition. Right now our electoral process has been compromised.
The last resort that we had was to call a Convention of States, but we fell short and it is now too late for it to be successful rather than a risk.
-
??? If I am understanding your thoughts, tossing out Christianity and conservatism isn't going to win votes or elections. IMHO the very core of our society and upon which this country was founded is Christianity and Conservatism. We have strayed from those very principles which made this country great. In doing so we are witnessing moral decay and mass corruption and our Republic is crumbling.
Gay marriage is here and it was ruled on. It is no longer an issue and certainly not something that we voted on. Certainly any GOP candidate that campaigned on that issue didn't keep their promise to overturn the ruling, those that campaigned on complete repeal of Bammycare didn't keep their promise, those that claimed no amnesty and build a wall didn't keep that promise either. They flat out LIED!!
We in essence did vote on immigration. Trump was elected because he promised to build the wall. Where is it? The Republicans had the majority in BOTH Houses and FAILED. They also held the majority in BOTH Houses the last two years of Bammy's term and they did NOT stop his agenda in the least, they FAILED.
The ballot box cannot work, when those running flat out lie and fail to keep their promises or do their jobs or side with the opposition. Right now our electoral process has been compromised.
The last resort that we had was to call a Convention of States, but we fell short and it is now too late for it to be successful rather than a risk.
The other option is to just lose. I don't see how conservatives win this fight without a bit of a transformation.
-
"Houston, we have a problem".
"It's.... YOU."
-
The other option is to just lose. I don't see how conservatives win this fight without a bit of a transformation.
Transformation as in LBJ's Great Society? Bammy's health care plan? Gay rights? Abortion? Mass migration? Sharia law in the school system? Gun rights? False accusations? Election rigging? Fake news? Religious freedom? Which liberal bandwagon do you think the GOP should jump on?
IMHO, the GOP lost the fight when they decided to compromise on their conservative principles in an attempt to get votes and appease the left.
You still see that the 'game' is still going on, I see it as the 'game' is over. Barring an absolute astounding and complete miracle happening, we've lost.
-
Transformation as in LBJ's Great Society? Bammy's health care plan? Gay rights? Abortion? Mass migration? Sharia law in the school system? Gun rights? False accusations? Election rigging? Fake news? Religious freedom? Which liberal bandwagon do you think the GOP should jump on?
IMHO, the GOP lost the fight when they decided to compromise on their conservative principles in an attempt to get votes and appease the left.
You still see that the 'game' is still going on, I see it as the 'game' is over. Barring an absolute astounding and complete miracle happening, we've lost.
The leftest always win when it is a choice between them and leftest lite. In 2016 "conservatives" gave populism a try. Populism never lasts long because it is fickle and rudderless.
-
The leftest always win when it is a choice between them and leftest lite. In 2016 "conservatives" gave populism a try. Populism never lasts long because it is fickle and rudderless.
So what's the alternative, who is this "White Knight" that is going to come and save us?
-
So what's the alternative, who is this "White Knight" that is going to come and save us?
I don't know of any "White Knights" on the horizon. Nor do I think one "White Knight" can save us. The free shit crowd is now the majority and we squandered the opportunities we had to lead in a different direction. There's virtually no one in positions of power that is willing to say no to the free shit people. That includes Trump and congress printing money like there's no tomorrow. And once that takes root it expands until it consumes everything. I'm not aware of any country in history that started down this road and turned it around without hitting bottom (or worse) first. If anyone knows of some actual examples, enlighten me please.
-
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
Then all is lost already.
Yours is an immanently uninformed view.
Every single issue effecting these United States is a failure of morality. Every one.
-
Every single issue effecting these United States is a failure of morality. Every one.
Does that include Ford using aluminum beds in their trucks?
-
If you surrender your principles to "win", what have you won?
Trump is the manifestation of that issue.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
-
Christian values are not mandatory for economic conservatism.
Oh HELL Yes, they are.
You cannot have any sort of economic conservatism with a welfare state that costs more than we can bear.
And you will not get rid of that welfare state with single parent households, bastard children, and rampant drug abuse.
-
I disagree.
These are dangerous times for conservatism. I feel like it's time to make difficult decisions.
The difficult thing is always to preach truth to those who don't want it.
And it is only the principles of Conservatism, ALL of them, that will heal this nation.
-
Does that include Ford using aluminum beds in their trucks?
Of course.
-
All VOTER FRAUD....nothing happened legitimately. WE THE PEOPLE need to do something.
WE ARE BEING OVERTAKEN, BY COMMUNISTS. WE....SIT.
-
All VOTER FRAUD....nothing happened legitimately. WE THE PEOPLE need to do something.
WE ARE BEING OVERTAKEN, BY COMMUNISTS. WE....SIT.
Do what? Optimizing the message for max appeal is the best the right can do unless you're advocating for revolution.
-
Do what? Optimizing the message for max appeal is the best the right can do unless you're advocating for revolution.
Optimizing the message for max appeal to whom and for when? The mid terms are over, with recounts going on that continue to favor the DEMS. What do you really expect is going to happen in 2020 since the DEMS have succeeded in election/ballot tampering? Think for a minute. Do you really think that the election will be a legitimate one?? The GOP can have an overwhelmingly majority of votes in every major city, but with the DEMS bringing in ballots that were marked after the polls closed and wanting recounts it's not going to matter if we win the election; the DEMS will find a way to overturn the election. Remember also, that they wanted the electoral college changed after Trump won. That's also in the realm of possibilities before 2020.
The GOP has held the majority for the past 4 years, 2 of those years during Bammy's reign. Yet, they continued to dominate and rule; because of the tactics and maneuvering that they use...and they continue to get away with it. No one is stopping them. Trump is trying.
Revolting? Isn't that exactly what the left is doing?? They took to the streets after Trump won. They went after him with fake news. They conjured up claims of Russian collusion. They have wrongfully accused GOP candidates with sexual misconduct. They are bringing in ballots long since the polls closed. They have organized mass protests throughout the country. The liberal courts have rejected Trump's e.o.'s , etc., etc.
A lot of what they are doing is just plain dirty politics, but some of what they are doing is illegal. It is alarming that what they are doing illegally is being allowed by the liberal judges. So ... the court system is failing to protect.
So ... how do we counter this?? They've stacked the courts. They've corrupted the election process. They're bringing in illegals to capture the liberal votes to overwhelm and outnumber a political party. Bammy's "neighborhood organizational skills" have taken a stranglehold on our Republic. Where do we go from here??
-
Don't ya just hate it when that happens?
-
I fail to see how surrendering is "winning".
-
It's called Christianity. I'm sorry, but people in this country are turning their back on it. It's just true. Issues raised by its most ardent followers are becoming too heavy to bare. I think in the near future conservative politicians will make a tactical decision and abandon some of the main issues connected to religion.
@Dexter
That is asking too much of devoutly religious people. The True Believers are going to believe what they believe,regardless of if they are Christian,Jewish,Muslim,or Satan Worshippers. They believe what they believe,and you just have to accept that nothing you say or do will influence them to do any different.
I do agree with the second part of what you wrote,though.
-
Optimizing the message for max appeal to whom and for when?
To anybody that might vote for Republicans going forward. If you think not focusing on Christian values to gain votes would mean all is lost anyway, well, I get it, but I very much disagree with you. I think parts of the Republican platform are doomed. However I think other parts can be salvaged and used to make a strong and revitalized economic conservative movement. You might lose the fight on some social issues, but the battle for the border and economics is not over. The right cannot throw in the towel once religion becomes too much of an election losing element. They have to adapt and push forward.
The mid terms are over, with recounts going on that continue to favor the DEMS.
I don't think they're going to flip Florida.
What do you really expect is going to happen in 2020 since the DEMS have succeeded in election/ballot tampering? Think for a minute. Do you really think that the election will be a legitimate one??
I don't want to believe it's that bad, but even if it is Republicans can still win elections. There is no choice but to push forward.
Revolting? Isn't that exactly what the left is doing?? They took to the streets after Trump won. They went after him with fake news. They conjured up claims of Russian collusion. They have wrongfully accused GOP candidates with sexual misconduct. They are bringing in ballots long since the polls closed. They have organized mass protests throughout the country. The liberal courts have rejected Trump's e.o.'s , etc., etc.
A lot of what they are doing is just plain dirty politics, but some of what they are doing is illegal. It is alarming that what they are doing illegally is being allowed by the liberal judges. So ... the court system is failing to protect.
I just don't want people to start killing each other. I'm done with all of this at that point. "What? Me? Oh, I'm just an ignorant nonpartisan."
So ... how do we counter this?? They've stacked the courts. They've corrupted the election process. They're bringing in illegals to capture the liberal votes to overwhelm and outnumber a political party. Bammy's "neighborhood organizational skills" have taken a stranglehold on our Republic. Where do we go from here??
Conservatives look to be set up to control the supreme court for a while. That's something. I've given you my answer. If letting go of social issues isn't an option then I see no path to victory.
-
@Dexter
What you seem to be advocating is that the GOP not mention issues that you find controversial, that they vote for the good of the collective, rather than the good of the individual.
it is asking that we vote for the government, not make any waves, have the state to solve issues, regardless how an individual may believe, or is affected by the result.
I think this is the antithesis of conservatism, which should always be about the freedom of the individual along with the smallest form of government possible.
What you are advocating, in my opinion, is a "social" type of socialism, in the guise of this being good for the ballot box, where no one objects to the things that might make someone else uncomfortable.
Our goal should not be to silence the opposition, even within our own party, that is what the left does.
No, thank you.
-
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
:amen:
-
@Dexter
What you seem to be advocating is that the GOP not mention issues that you find controversial, that they vote for the good of the collective, rather than the good of the individual.
it is asking that we vote for the government, not make any waves, have the state to solve issues, regardless how an individual may believe, or is affected by the result.
I think this is the antithesis of conservatism, which should always be about the freedom of the individual along with the smallest form of government possible.
What you are advocating, in my opinion, is a "social" type of socialism, in the guise of this being good for the ballot box, where no one objects to the things that might make someone else uncomfortable.
Our goal should not be to silence the opposition, even within our own party, that is what the left does.
No, thank you.
@GrouchoTex well said.
-
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
@Dexter
You continue to make this claim, yet I haven't heard specifics on what it is you object to.
There are those on left that will say single payer healthcare and welfare is the Christian thing to do.
We may disagree with this, (I believe helping our less fortunate neighbors is an individual or community act, and not a government function, myself) but no one is out there saying they will lose their votes or their base by saying so.
What is it about the religious right, and not the religious left, that has you so concerned about it in some sort of death spiral defeat?
-
@Dexter
You continue to make this claim, yet I haven't heard specifics on what it is you object to.
There are those on left that will say single payer healthcare and welfare is the Christian thing to do.
We may disagree with this, (I believe helping our less fortunate neighbors is an individual or community act, and not a government function, myself) but no one is out there saying they will lose their votes or their base by saying so.
What is it about the religious right, and not the religious left, that has you so concerned about it in some sort of death spiral defeat?
I can't speak for Dexter, of course, but what I object to is the insistence of many on the religious right that government restrict the liberty of women to choose whether or not to reproduce, or to deny homosexuals the equal protection of the law. This is not an objection to the views of religious conservatives that abortion is wrong, or that homosexuality is sinful. Those are legitimate positions based on religious faith and texts, and of course the Constitution guarantees religious liberty. But (some) religious conservatives want to go beyond speaking and advocating for their faith-based beliefs, and enlist the State to enforce them, often at the price of denying folks their liberty and the law's equal protection.
Religious folks can and should persuade others of the horrors of abortion, but when they seek to enlist the state to ban the practice, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion. Similarly, if religious folks believe homosexuality is sinful, they should not practice it. But when they insist that the State deny homosexuals the right to marry, or to obtain housing and other goods and services on the same basis as others, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion.
@Dexter is absolutely correct - economic conservatism, or more broadly conservatism that acknowledges and protects the individual liberties and consciences of everyone from encroachment by the state, is a winning message that can and will win elections. Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist.
-
I can't speak for Dexter, of course, but what I object to is the insistence of many on the religious right that government restrict the liberty of women to choose whether or not to reproduce, or to deny homosexuals the equal protection of the law. This is not an objection to the views of religious conservatives that abortion is wrong, or that homosexuality is sinful. Those are legitimate positions based on religious faith and texts, and of course the Constitution guarantees religious liberty. But (some) religious conservatives want to go beyond speaking and advocating for their faith-based beliefs, and enlist the State to enforce them, often at the price of denying folks their liberty and the law's equal protection.
Religious folks can and should persuade others of the horrors of abortion, but when they seek to enlist the state to ban the practice, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion. Similarly, if religious folks believe homosexuality is sinful, they should not practice it. But when they insist that the State deny homosexuals the right to marry, or to obtain housing and other goods and services on the same basis as others, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion.
@Dexter is absolutely correct - economic conservatism, or more broadly conservatism that protects the individual liberties and consciences of everyone from encroachment by the state, is a winning message that can and will win elections. Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist.
@Jazzhead
i am already quite familiar with your positions, which I disagree with.
You are correct in your first sentence, that you cannot speak for @Dexter, but, lo and behold, it sure didn't stop you from trying.
"Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist", which is exactly what you and Dexter are advocating, by trying to silence debate which which you are uncomfortable with, and that is leftist.
-
@Jazzhead
i am already quite familiar with your positions, which I disagree with.
You are correct in your first sentence, that you cannot speak for @Dexter, but, lo and behold, it sure didn't stop you from trying.
"Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist", which is exactly what you and Dexter are advocating, by trying to silence debate which which you are uncomfortable with, and that is leftist.
@GrouchoTex
How am I trying to "silence debate"? I am merely engaging as a member of this board concerning a topic I find interesting to discuss. This isn't a private conversation between you and Dexter. If all you can manage to say is that "you disagree", then fine. But I fail to see what you're trying to gain by accusing me of being a leftist trying to "silence debate".
-
@Jazzhead
i am already quite familiar with your positions, which I disagree with.
You are correct in your first sentence, that you cannot speak for @Dexter, but, lo and behold, it sure didn't stop you from trying.
"Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist", which is exactly what you and Dexter are advocating, by trying to silence debate which which you are uncomfortable with, and that is leftist.
I think Jazzhead summed a lot of it up rather well. I think a lot of Christians here conflate making a tactical political decision with completely giving up on Christian morality. It's not really like that. The right needs to win elections, badly.
trying to silence debate which which you are uncomfortable with
I want the right to win elections so they can stop us from turning into a third world country. I'm not uncomfortable with Christian morality, but I do think Christian issues are losers at the polls. The Republicans are at a crossroad right now. Do they go down with the ship or do they find a way to adapt and survive? I'm not willing to throw in the towel on immigration because gay people can get married and women have access to abortion.
-
I think Jazzhead summed a lot of it up rather well. I think a lot of Christians here conflate making a tactical political decision with completely giving up on Christian morality. It's not really like that. The right needs to win elections, badly.
Not at the expense of principle things, or the right is no longer the right.
I want the right to win elections so they can stop us from turning into a third world country.
Not at the expense of principle things, or the right can no more stop the decline than the left can. It is those principles that are lacking, and those principles are the only answer - As attended by centuries of evidence.
-
If the conservatives would cut off excess fat connected to religion and focus on just economic conservatism the left would get dominated. I know the religious element of American conservatism is very important to a lot of posters here, but every single issue being pushed by the religious right is a loser at the polls, and it gets worse every year.
If you're talking about anti-marijuana or anti-gay marriage, then I agree with you.
But the pro-life issue is supported by the majority of the country and not just religion.
-
Again, I am not seeing anyone on the right running on traditional christian issues, so I disagree with you.
How can it hold a party back that isn't running on these issues?
I think you may severely overestimate how much religious issues are holding back the right at the moment.
From what I am witnessing, the right is focusing on more winning issues, like economics, the second amendment and immigration.
You say, "There are a LOT of people that would start voting R if Republicans stopped talking about a couple of issues."
Where are you hearing them talk about those "couple of issues"?
Frankly, I wish they would.
A party that stands for nothing will fall for anything.
It is quite possible, because they have STOPPED talking about these issues, that people on the right no longer see a discernable difference between the 2 parties, and may not choose to participate anymore.
If the only reason to vote is that this party is less likely to take more of your money than the other party, there isn't a whole lot to get excited about.
Both parties are taking your money and freedom, only one is doing it faster than the other.
BINGO! What one Party doesn't take because of overwhelming objection, the other seizes, with applause.
Enough is enough.
-
If you're talking about anti-marijuana or anti-gay marriage, then I agree with you.
But the pro-life issue is supported by the majority of the country and not just religion.
I think abortion issue will become an albatross as well, but you're right that currently it's not at that point. You bring up another interesting element with marijuana. What if the party of libertarians embraced this first? Don't let this become a "If you don't vote for Democrats the Republicans will take your weed away." issue. Republicans should be championing this issue rather than letting it become one more notch in the belt of the Democrats.
-
I can't speak for Dexter, of course, but what I object to is the insistence of many on the religious right that government restrict the liberty of women to choose whether or not to reproduce, or to deny homosexuals the equal protection of the law.
Abortion isn't "reproduction", it isn't a choice to not "reproduce", it is a choice to end a life already started. The choice to reproduce has already been made at that point, it is a fait accomplit. The decision is one of whether or not to end that growing and innocent life, for whatever reason, usually because it is inconvenient. The obvious and inherent danger to such policies is their extension past the gestation period, into full-blown eugenics programs to eliminate those whose "quality of life" has been adjudicated (without their input) to be below some subjective standard established by those who will not suffer the same consequences as those they choose to terminate.
This is not an objection to the views of religious conservatives that abortion is wrong, or that homosexuality is sinful. Those are legitimate positions based on religious faith and texts, and of course the Constitution guarantees religious liberty. But (some) religious conservatives want to go beyond speaking and advocating for their faith-based beliefs, and enlist the State to enforce them, often at the price of denying folks their liberty and the law's equal protection.
No one is denying anyone equal protection under the law. The objection is to the creation of special classes of individuals who have MORE rights than the general population, which gives them unequal protection under the law. You can't create privileged groups under the guise of claiming "equality" for them, either we all have the same rights or we don't.
None of us has the 'right' to murder anyone, regardless of race, creed, color, nation of origin, sexual orientation, or age--unless you're their mommy. None of us has the 'right' to assault anyone, so why are the fines and/or jail time higher if some people are assaulted versus others? You can't tell me a white boy getting jumped by four blacks, being called "white MFer" among other definitely racial epithets wasn't a "hate" crime--but it would never be prosecuted as such because crackas have fewer rights. That isn't "equal protection".
Religious folks can and should persuade others of the horrors of abortion, but when they seek to enlist the state to ban the practice, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion.
Religious folks have convinced the population of the horrors of dismembering someone with an axe, and have laws against that. Why is it so difficult to convince people of the horrors of dismembering babies in their mother with surgical implements? Why is it so 'bad' to have a law against that horror, or is it because it has been wrapped in verbiage about "reproductive rights" and "choices" rather than shown for the slaughter it is, now exceeding any other since Roe v Wade known to have been perpetrated against innocents. Even the Chinese could claim that most of those they slaughtered under Mao were "enemies of the State"--these 60,000,000 had no voice whatsoever. If someone were to leave a shredded baby in your mailbox, you'd be horrified. But it's okay if they go in the dumpster behind the clinic. Meh.
Similarly, if religious folks believe homosexuality is sinful, they should not practice it. But when they insist that the State deny homosexuals the right to marry, or to obtain housing and other goods and services on the same basis as others, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion.
As has been said, the homosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as other folks. Just because they choose not to exercise that right does not justify the creation of something else which is a patent mockery of the Sacrament of Matrimony--something which the State has no effing business in anyway. The idea that the State can be used on behalf of homosexuals to compel people who would rather not do business with them, rent to them, or otherwise cater to their whims is a violation of the right of the owner of the business to do business with whom they choose. There are plenty of people who have no moral or other compunction against providing services to others, for a fee, of course, so compelling a specific vendor to do business with people who live in a way they morally object to is indeed coercion, but by the State on behalf of those who would coerce only for the purpose of compromising the moral imperatives which the vendors have. There is no other reason, and you know it. You would create a protected class, based on abnormal behaviour, and give them special privileges over others. That isn't equal protection under the law, it's the creation of a group with more rights based on their moral perversions. That's just wrong.
@Dexter is absolutely correct - economic conservatism, or more broadly conservatism that acknowledges and protects the individual liberties and consciences of everyone from encroachment by the state, is a winning message that can and will win elections. Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist.
When government shows signs of protecting the rights of the individual--even if that individual happens to coincide, morally, with the majority of Americans, doing what we ceded it the just authority to do with our consent, then it will be doing what it is supposed to do. When Government claims it is somehow looking out for the rights of individuals by compelling those individuals to comply with arbitrary decisions which strip the individual of their ability to make moral decisions and judgements for themselves, then the government has exceeded its legitimate authority and must be either reined in or changed. The Liberal justices which said it was okay to rip babies from their mother's wombs were in no wise "Conservative", nor were the judges who ruled against bakers or landowners who decided not to provide their services for "weddings" which they felt were morally wrong.
IMHO, it would be Liberating to see people with the moral fiber and intestinal fortitude to run on such issues as the Right to Life and the Right to Refuse Service as fundamental, and a distinct choice to not embrace the policies which have led to contempt for the lives and beliefs of all people. If you want the State to stand between me and my God, it will be catching Hell from both sides.
-
I think abortion issue will become an albatross as well, but you're right that currently it's not at that point. You bring up another interesting element with marijuana. What if the party of libertarians embraced this first? Don't let this become a "If you don't vote for Democrats the Republicans will take your weed away." issue. Republicans should be championing this issue rather than letting it become one more notch in the belt of the Democrats.
US Senate from ND:
Heitkamp (D): 42%
Cramer (R): 58%
Measure 3 (to legalize recreational pot):
Yea: 40.55%
Nay: 59.45%
Coinkydink? I think not.
Recreational weed is still a loser. If you want more Republicans to vote, let the Democrat push that.
-
US Senate from ND:
Heitkamp (D): 42%
Cramer (R): 58%
Measure 3 (to legalize recreational pot):
Yea: 40.55%
Nay: 59.45%
Coinkydink? I think not.
Recreational weed is still a loser. If you want more Republicans to vote, let the Democrat push that.
Do you think many conservatives would choose not to vote for Republicans over that issue? I guess I assumed that conservatives would still vote for Republicans and that the weed issue might grab some support from the center and even the left if it's done right. I bet almost all of those no votes came from the right.
-
Do you think many conservatives would choose not to vote for Republicans over that issue? I guess I assumed that conservatives would still vote for Republicans and that the weed issue might grab some support from the center and even the left if it's done right. I bet almost all of those no votes came from the right.
I think you missed the 60/40 split in both votes. The People who voted against legal pot likely voted for Cramer as well, and even some who did not vote fro Cramer voted against legal pot. That shows the issue is not hard and fast on Party lines--even some who might have voted for the D voted against it. How will that do better at getting votes if the point spread indicates that more were against it than for the Republican? Obviously some Moderates and Dems voted against it too.
Embracing legal pot will not only NOT get my vote, it would lose it. If you have a 20 point spread, why throw away sure votes to get maybes forom the liberal side of the aisle. IMHO, that is the very problem that needs to be addressed--that since Reagan's Administration, at least, the GOP has been chasing votes from the left and ignoring those on the Right because they have "nowhere else to go". That arrogant conceit is costing the GOP votes as they pursue leftists with leftist policy, morphing the party into something far less than Conservative. It is the precisely wrong course of action, so have the collective balls to stand up for what is Right, and the votes will be there. Failure to do so will only generate a significant lack of enthusiasm, one which will cost elections.
-
Do you think many conservatives would choose not to vote for Republicans over that issue? I guess I assumed that conservatives would still vote for Republicans and that the weed issue might grab some support from the center and even the left if it's done right. I bet almost all of those no votes came from the right.
@Dexter, I've gone back and read your posts. First and foremost, I do believe things are beyond bad. When we have a party that blatantly disregards election laws and judges rulings and they suffer no repercussions and carry on, we have an enormous problem. It is an attack on our electoral system and our Republic. Whether or not they flip FL is yet to be seen; however the point that I was trying to make still remains the corruption by the left at the ballot. There isn't any denying it, yet they are getting away with it.
One thing I would like to make perfectly clear; not one of our Senators or Representatives stopped the blatant and obvious overreach and corruption of the Bammy administration; including his AG. We continue to have a corrupt judicial system that is still affecting this country; right now our mid term elections. No one stopped the left then when we had a full majority in both Houses and no one is stopping them now while we still have a full majority in both Houses. So I take issue with the thinking that issues can be resolved at the ballot box. How can we win an election if every election that we win is declared invalid and challenged by the left ... and they ARE winning a lot of those challenges. I am very serious when I ask, who is going to stop them and where do we go from here?
Another thing I want to point out, is that in no way am I advocating violence. However, the question still remains who is going to stop them and where do we go from here?
The ballot box isn't the answer; obviously due to the tactics that the left now uses.
Also, consider with the left gaining seats; and some by their own 'appointment', what makes you think that anyone will be able to curtail their push for amnesty and asylum? DACA is still alive and well and moving forward. With any of those issues full implemented, there WILL come a time in the very near future when mathematically the demographics of the voters will be so overwhelmingly liberal that it will be next to impossible for a GOP to be seated.
I know you see that I have given up hope. That isn't my message. My message is simple; what the GOP and its voting base is doing is NOT working against the corrupt, unethical and immoral liberals. If you think that preaching to the GOP choir or trying to increase votes from those that have been brought in by the DEMS, is a plausible solution, I strongly feel you are sadly mistaken. I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever. I'm being realistic. Something needs to be done. What hasn't worked in the past sure as heck isn't working now and definitely won't work in the future.
We have a liberal 'monster machine' that's not going away. We either conquer it or it conquers us and we continue to lose this country.
-
@Dexter, I've gone back and read your posts. First and foremost, I do believe things are beyond bad. When we have a party that blatantly disregards election laws and judges rulings and they suffer no repercussions and carry on, we have an enormous problem. It is an attack on our electoral system and our Republic. Whether or not they flip FL is yet to be seen; however the point that I was trying to make still remains the corruption by the left at the ballot. There isn't any denying it, yet they are getting away with it.
One thing I would like to make perfectly clear; not one of our Senators or Representatives stopped the blatant and obvious overreach and corruption of the Bammy administration; including his AG. We continue to have a corrupt judicial system that is still affecting this country; right now our mid term elections. No one stopped the left then when we had a full
majority in both Houses and no one is stopping them now while we still have a full majority in both Houses. So I take issue with the thinking that issues can be resolved at the ballot box. How can we win an election if every election that we win is declared invalid and challenged by the left ... and they ARE winning a lot of those challenges. I am very serious when I ask, who is going to stop them and where do we go from here?
Another thing I want to point out, is that in no way am I advocating violence. However, the question still remains who is going to stop them and where do we go from here?
The ballot box isn't the answer; obviously due to the tactics that the left now uses.
Also, consider with the left gaining seats; and some by their own 'appointment', what makes you think that anyone will be able to curtail their push for amnesty and asylum? DACA is still alive and well and moving forward. With any of those issues full implemented, there WILL come a time in the very near future when mathematically the demographics of the voters will be so overwhelmingly liberal that it will be next to impossible for a GOP to be seated.
I know you see that I have given up hope. That isn't my message. My message is simple; what the GOP and its voting base is doing is NOT working against the corrupt, unethical and immoral liberals. If you think that preaching to the GOP choir or trying to increase votes from those that have been brought in by the DEMS, is a plausible solution, I strongly feel you are sadly mistaken. I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever. I'm being realistic. Something needs to be done. What hasn't worked in the past sure as heck isn't working now and definitely won't work in the future.
We have a liberal 'monster machine' that's not going away. We either conquer it or it conquers us and we continue to lose this country.
I advocate violence. That is the only recourse. We are under siege by COMMUNISTS. This is what they do to get in power. ViOLENCE. SETH RICH. NEW BLACK PANTHERS..intimidating people again, in Georgia. I loathe the P.C. term, "we are better than that", as it binds our hands and we are destroyed by P.C.ed ideas, to our actual death. The LEFT..like all crooks, do not abide by our values. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. "MAKE A SOWARD OUT OF YOUR PLOWS."
WE ARE NOT TO SIT AROUND AND ALLOW THE ENEMY TO SUCCEED. The constitution was created by basic bible principles. Just the facts, don't care to argue that, much proof. DO WE SAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND FIGHT FOR IT OR NOT? Even Tom Jefferson said, from time to time, there has to be bloodshed to refresh the ranks. All those men who died before us, fighting for the constitution and our land, was for NOTHING? ****slapping
-
....SWORD.
-
@Dexter, I've gone back and read your posts. First and foremost, I do believe things are beyond bad. When we have a party that blatantly disregards election laws and judges rulings and they suffer no repercussions and carry on, we have an enormous problem. It is an attack on our electoral system and our Republic. Whether or not they flip FL is yet to be seen; however the point that I was trying to make still remains the corruption by the left at the ballot. There isn't any denying it, yet they are getting away with it.
One thing I would like to make perfectly clear; not one of our Senators or Representatives stopped the blatant and obvious overreach and corruption of the Bammy administration; including his AG. We continue to have a corrupt judicial system that is still affecting this country; right now our mid term elections. No one stopped the left then when we had a full majority in both Houses and no one is stopping them now while we still have a full majority in both Houses. So I take issue with the thinking that issues can be resolved at the ballot box. How can we win an election if every election that we win is declared invalid and challenged by the left ... and they ARE winning a lot of those challenges. I am very serious when I ask, who is going to stop them and where do we go from here?
Another thing I want to point out, is that in no way am I advocating violence. However, the question still remains who is going to stop them and where do we go from here?
The ballot box isn't the answer; obviously due to the tactics that the left now uses.
Also, consider with the left gaining seats; and some by their own 'appointment', what makes you think that anyone will be able to curtail their push for amnesty and asylum? DACA is still alive and well and moving forward. With any of those issues full implemented, there WILL come a time in the very near future when mathematically the demographics of the voters will be so overwhelmingly liberal that it will be next to impossible for a GOP to be seated.
I know you see that I have given up hope. That isn't my message. My message is simple; what the GOP and its voting base is doing is NOT working against the corrupt, unethical and immoral liberals. If you think that preaching to the GOP choir or trying to increase votes from those that have been brought in by the DEMS, is a plausible solution, I strongly feel you are sadly mistaken. I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever. I'm being realistic. Something needs to be done. What hasn't worked in the past sure as heck isn't working now and definitely won't work in the future.
We have a liberal 'monster machine' that's not going away. We either conquer it or it conquers us and we continue to lose this country.
..........clap, clap, clap. RIGHT ON. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
"We either conquer it or it conquers us and we continue to lose this country."=LIBERTYBELE
-
I think you missed the 60/40 split in both votes. The People who voted against legal pot likely voted for Cramer as well, and even some who did not vote fro Cramer voted against legal pot. That shows the issue is not hard and fast on Party lines--even some who might have voted for the D voted against it. How will that do better at getting votes if the point spread indicates that more were against it than for the Republican? Obviously some Moderates and Dems voted against it too.
Embracing legal pot will not only NOT get my vote, it would lose it. If you have a 20 point spread, why throw away sure votes to get maybes forom the liberal side of the aisle. IMHO, that is the very problem that needs to be addressed--that since Reagan's Administration, at least, the GOP has been chasing votes from the left and ignoring those on the Right because they have "nowhere else to go". That arrogant conceit is costing the GOP votes as they pursue leftists with leftist policy, morphing the party into something far less than Conservative. It is the precisely wrong course of action, so have the collective balls to stand up for what is Right, and the votes will be there. Failure to do so will only generate a significant lack of enthusiasm, one which will cost elections.
Agree. Why do do many people want to escape life? GET DOPED UP? All are fuzzy brained and laid back, not to care what goes on in the country.
JUST LIKE NASTY, COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT, DEEP STATE, wants you to be like. ZONED OUT. They are not smart enough to figure that out. Most claim weed is not addictive, but many fight to the death to have it! WAR.
-
...NOT ABOUT RELIGION. ABOUT VOTER FRAUD...BIG TIME AS ALWAYS. Religion is used to defect from the real issue.
VOTER FRAUD! THAT'S IT.
-
..........clap, clap, clap. RIGHT ON. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
"We either conquer it or it conquers us and we continue to lose this country."=LIBERTYBELE
Conquering doesn't necessarily equate to violence as you are advocating. I'm still hopeful somehow for a peaceful resolution. I certainly don't have the answers.
-
...NOT ABOUT RELIGION. ABOUT VOTER FRAUD...BIG TIME AS ALWAYS. Religion is used to defect from the real issue.
VOTER FRAUD! THAT'S IT.
Our politicians on the right are again FAILING to hold those on the left accountable and they are going unchecked.
-
I advocate violence. That is the only recourse. We are under siege by COMMUNISTS. This is what they do to get in power. ViOLENCE. SETH RICH. NEW BLACK PANTHERS..intimidating people again, in Georgia. I loathe the P.C. term, "we are better than that", as it binds our hands and we are destroyed by P.C.ed ideas, to our actual death. The LEFT..like all crooks, do not abide by our values. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. "MAKE A SOWARD OUT OF YOUR PLOWS."
WE ARE NOT TO SIT AROUND AND ALLOW THE ENEMY TO SUCCEED. The constitution was created by basic bible principles. Just the facts, don't care to argue that, much proof. DO WE SAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND FIGHT FOR IT OR NOT? Even Tom Jefferson said, from time to time, there has to be bloodshed to refresh the ranks. All those men who died before us, fighting for the constitution and our land, was for NOTHING? ****slapping
@LegalAmerican
Are you going to fight?
-
I advocate violence. That is the only recourse. We are under siege by COMMUNISTS. This is what they do to get in power. ViOLENCE. SETH RICH. NEW BLACK PANTHERS..intimidating people again, in Georgia. I loathe the P.C. term, "we are better than that", as it binds our hands and we are destroyed by P.C.ed ideas, to our actual death. The LEFT..like all crooks, do not abide by our values. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. "MAKE A SOWARD OUT OF YOUR PLOWS."
WE ARE NOT TO SIT AROUND AND ALLOW THE ENEMY TO SUCCEED. The constitution was created by basic bible principles. Just the facts, don't care to argue that, much proof. DO WE SAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND FIGHT FOR IT OR NOT? Even Tom Jefferson said, from time to time, there has to be bloodshed to refresh the ranks. All those men who died before us, fighting for the constitution and our land, was for NOTHING? ****slapping
I think things are almost as serious as you are suggesting, but I think our military will handle it if it comes to large-scale violence originating on the Left when they try to retaliate against Trump. The military would tell patriotic civilians to hunker down and try to stay out of such a mess.
-
I think things are almost as serious as you are suggesting, but I think our military will handle it if it comes to large-scale violence originating on the Left when they try to retaliate against Trump. The military would tell patriotic civilians to hunker down and try to stay out of such a mess.
If it is time to 'vote from the rooftops', we will know. Do stay off the streets, though, and be extra careful to avoid 'blue on blue'.
-
...NOT ABOUT RELIGION. ABOUT VOTER FRAUD...BIG TIME AS ALWAYS. Religion is used to defect from the real issue.
VOTER FRAUD! THAT'S IT.
Perhaps one solution to help ensure that voter fraud doesn't occur is to have EACH precinct under video surveillance and ALL ballot counting done under video surveillance as well as the building and parking lots, with security guards and a member from each party overseeing the process.
Secondly, there should be a FEDERAL law, that any Supervisor of Elections who does not comply with election rules, WILL face mandatory firing and possible jail time and a mandatory minimum fine of $100,000.00 and up to $250,000.00.
-
If it is time to 'vote from the rooftops', we will know. Do stay off the streets, though, and be extra careful to avoid 'blue on blue'.
Perzackly.
-
Perzackly.
All this talk of fighting? Really? I like my idea of video surveillance in each precinct with security guards and members from each party overseeing our elections. Then we would have a chance at the ballot box and a chance to restore this Republic. We need to try to save this Republic peacefully. Violence and bloodshed?? That's not what I want to see for my children or grandchildren.
-
I'm done with fighting in general, and I certainly won't fight Americans. Reasonable people will abandon you if you start turning towards violence.
-
If it is time to 'vote from the rooftops', we will know. Do stay off the streets, though, and be extra careful to avoid 'blue on blue'.
Pleading ignorance here; blue on blue?
-
All this talk of fighting? Really? I like my idea of video surveillance in each precinct with security guards and members from each party overseeing our elections. Then we would have a chance at the ballot box and a chance to restore this Republic. We need to try to save this Republic peacefully. Violence and bloodshed?? That's not what I want to see for my children or grandchildren.
I, too have long advocated a peaceful solution, a return to Constitutional government, and an end to mollycoddling the ranting Leftists who show their disdain for the democratic processes of this Republic by 'winning' by any means, fair or foul, including taking to the streets to intimidate and impose their presence on a peaceful population. We have dealt with their tantrums and the destructive results off and on since the '60s.
I agree that violence is a last, and likely strictly defensive resort. It is not something I want to see for my children, grand children, or great-grandchildren, for that matter. But the Neville Chamberlain method of winning hearts and minds has predictable results, and sooner or later, either we make a peaceful return to peaceful discourse, or there will be a lack of civility which will require undesirable action to resolve.
I am definitely not advocating overthrowing the legitimate aspects of a duly elected government, nor advocating any action against the United States or any other governmental authority acting within its Constitutional and lawful bounds. It is the mobs of violent 'protestors' who are my concern. A vote 'from the rooftop' is a nay vote: the other three boxes are eminently preferable to the last one.
However, if it comes down to defending my home and my neighborhood from the roving mobs we have seen in cities in this nation of late, any mob employing destruction in my area of operations will be stopped, with whatever force is necessary and justifiable (as in the rules established by statute for the use thereof), either by the authorities, or, in extremis by those of us who have a stake in the area. This isn't Fergusson, it isn't Baltimore, and we aren't having that sh*t around here.
If you won't fight to defend civil order, those who are willing to do so to disrupt it will prevail.
-
Pleading ignorance here; blue on blue?
Don't engage friendlies.
-
I'm done with fighting in general, and I certainly won't fight Americans. Reasonable people will abandon you if you start turning towards violence.
??? Americans are already fighting Americans and have been; perhaps not in the violent sense, but there is still fighting going on.
I would like nothing more than to see a peaceful resolution, but remember it takes both sides wanting a peaceful resolution in order for things to remain civil and calm. Clinton has already opened her loud trap proclaiming that the left cannot be civil unless they are in control. She is stirring the pot...she wants civil unrest...as does Soros ...as does the far left. It gives them a chance at completely taking over. Hopefully, the right will be able to find a peaceful resolution instead of handing them what they want.
-
??? Americans are already fighting Americans and have been; perhaps not in the violent sense, but there is still fighting going on.
I would like nothing more than to see a peaceful resolution, but remember it takes both sides wanting a peaceful resolution in order for things to remain civil and calm. Clinton has already opened her loud trap proclaiming that the left cannot be civil unless they are in control. She is stirring the pot...she wants civil unrest...as does Soros ...as does the far left. It gives them a chance at completely taking over. Hopefully, the right will be able to find a peaceful resolution instead of handing them what they want.
Both sides are stoking fires that lead to violence. That's the end result of an us vs them mentality. This is what happens when two sides refuse to compromise.
-
Both sides are stoking fires that lead to violence. That's the end result of an us vs them mentality. This is what happens when two sides refuse to compromise.
Compromise is how we got here. The line should have been drawn a long time ago, and that failure is haunting us now.
-
Compromise is how we got here. The line should have been drawn a long time ago, and that failure is haunting us now.
If you think either side has truly been open to compromise, well, we might be viewing different timelines. Either way I stick to what I said. Polarized us vs them thinking is what leads to bloodshed.
-
All this talk of fighting? Really? I like my idea of video surveillance in each precinct with security guards and members from each party overseeing our elections. Then we would have a chance at the ballot box and a chance to restore this Republic. We need to try to save this Republic peacefully. Violence and bloodshed?? That's not what I want to see for my children or grandchildren.
I was not talking about the elections, my TBR friend. It is true that the election frauds are at the center of the whole mess at this time, and it must be stopped at all costs, because voting fraud is a key component of an existential threat against the USA. But whatever we do about the election fraud, the violence that I mentioned will not be initiated by Trump. You have overlooked the fact that I indicated that any violence will be initiated by the Leftists. I predict that they will ramp up their violent rhetoric into real violence against us for even daring to stop their Radical Juggernaut.
In 2016, the Global Socialists believed they would be moving from their middle game (Obama) to their end game (Hillary). The Global Socialists' endgame for a totalitarian takeover is always revolutionary violence (ordinarily with foreign assistance in one form or another).
Since the Global Socialists lost the 2016 election, they realize that they have to get Trump out of the White House if they are to salvage their decades-old plans to destroy utterly--and that means as violently as necessary--our American Republic. Their obvious problem is that Trump has been rapidly dismantling everything the Socialists were setting up for their final offensive against America. By doing this, Trump is essentially taking them into an endgame that they cannot win.
Our POTUS will not have to start a shooting war. But he has to be ready for violence, i.e. ready in the SCOTUS and in the military and in the power centers of the Executive Bureaucracy. And the reason why he has to be ready for violence is because the Socialists are likely to bring violence into play in a last-ditch effort to salvage their decades-old plan to destroy our Republic. They are dead serious and determined to defeat America--because we are the single biggest obstacle to their Global Socialist dream.
(I actually believe that many if not most of the leading Socialists are scared out of their gourds--which would explain why they have started pulling out all stops to destroy Trump. They probably remember what HRC reportedly said when she discovered on Election Night in 2016 that she was likely going to lose to Trump: "If that blankety-blank wins, we will all hang by nooses!"
So, yeah, I think we are in the early stage of another American Revolution--this time a POTUS-led revolution against a Shadow Government, against an extraordinarily dangerous Deep State that had slowly but surely and yet almost completely taken over our Congress and our Executive Branch and most of our Federal Court System. If we don't win this Trump-led revolution against the Deep State, then I'm afraid that you can kiss your children's future happiness in liberty goodbye.)
-
:amen:
888high58888 888high58888 888high58888 888high58888 888high58888
-
I advocate violence. That is the only recourse. We are under siege by COMMUNISTS. This is what they do to get in power. ViOLENCE. SETH RICH. NEW BLACK PANTHERS..intimidating people again, in Georgia. I loathe the P.C. term, "we are better than that", as it binds our hands and we are destroyed by P.C.ed ideas, to our actual death. The LEFT..like all crooks, do not abide by our values. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. "MAKE A SOWARD OUT OF YOUR PLOWS."
WE ARE NOT TO SIT AROUND AND ALLOW THE ENEMY TO SUCCEED. The constitution was created by basic bible principles. Just the facts, don't care to argue that, much proof. DO WE SAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND FIGHT FOR IT OR NOT? Even Tom Jefferson said, from time to time, there has to be bloodshed to refresh the ranks. All those men who died before us, fighting for the constitution and our land, was for NOTHING? ****slapping
You do not advocate violence here of any kind....understand!
-
If you think either side has truly been open to compromise, well, we might be viewing different timelines. Either way I stick to what I said. Polarized us vs them thinking is what leads to bloodshed.
Conservatism -- i.e., keeping the status quo -- is, by its very definition, a compromise between a move to the left and a move to the right. But what we've seen is a perversion of the playing field. The struggle is now portrayed as "conservative vs. liberal", which places the middle ground to the left of center.
Conservatives have compromised away to the left for decades, else we'd be right where we used to be, with a strong Constitution respected and upheld, with personal liberties also respected. We wouldn't have a huge behemoth of a federal government, and spending would be under control.
The fact that conservatism is no longer seen as the centrist position highlights distortion and annexation by the Left.
-
Compromise is how we got here. The line should have been drawn a long time ago, and that failure is haunting us now.
:amen:
-
Conservatism -- i.e., keeping the status quo -- is, by its very definition, a compromise between a move to the left and a move to the right. But what we've seen is a perversion of the playing field. The struggle is now portrayed as "conservative vs. liberal", which places the middle ground to the left of center.
Conservatives have compromised away to the left for decades, else we'd be right where we used to be, with a strong Constitution respected and upheld, with personal liberties also respected. We wouldn't have a huge behemoth of a federal government, and spending would be under control.
The fact that conservatism is no longer seen as the centrist position highlights distortion and annexation by the Left.
Did conservatives compromise or were they simply defeated on certain issues? I've said all I can say about my opinion on this. I think if people aren't willing to let go of some of the social stuff and focus on economics and immigration the left will win it all within the next couple of decades.
-
@Jazzhead
i am already quite familiar with your positions, which I disagree with.
You are correct in your first sentence, that you cannot speak for @Dexter, but, lo and behold, it sure didn't stop you from trying.
"Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist", which is exactly what you and Dexter are advocating, by trying to silence debate which which you are uncomfortable with, and that is leftist.
:amen:
In truth, Reagan, Trump, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, clearly Lindsay Graham, maybe Nikki Haley too, they do not cower from these social issues, I admit, same-sex marriages is a different kettle of fish than abortion but what these folks talk about is secular humanism, we might as well be Europe then, or at least, parts of Europe. It's a losing proposition.
-
I was not talking about the elections, my TBR friend. It is true that the election frauds are at the center of the whole mess at this time, and it must be stopped at all costs, because voting fraud is a key component of an existential threat against the USA. But whatever we do about the election fraud, the violence that I mentioned will not be initiated by Trump. You have overlooked the fact that I indicated that any violence will be initiated by the Leftists. I predict that they will ramp up their violent rhetoric into real violence against us for even daring to stop their Radical Juggernaut.
In 2016, the Global Socialists believed they would be moving from their middle game (Obama) to their end game (Hillary). The Global Socialists' endgame for a totalitarian takeover is always revolutionary violence (ordinarily with foreign assistance in one form or another).
Since the Global Socialists lost the 2016 election, they realize that they have to get Trump out of the White House if they are to salvage their decades-old plans to destroy utterly--and that means as violently as necessary--our American Republic. Their obvious problem is that Trump has been rapidly dismantling everything the Socialists were setting up for their final offensive against America. By doing this, Trump is essentially taking them into an endgame that they cannot win.
Our POTUS will not have to start a shooting war. But he has to be ready for violence, i.e. ready in the SCOTUS and in the military and in the power centers of the Executive Bureaucracy. And the reason why he has to be ready for violence is because the Socialists are likely to bring violence into play in a last-ditch effort to salvage their decades-old plan to destroy our Republic. They are dead serious and determined to defeat America--because we are the single biggest obstacle to their Global Socialist dream.
(I actually believe that many if not most of the leading Socialists are scared out of their gourds--which would explain why they have started pulling out all stops to destroy Trump. They probably remember what HRC reportedly said when she discovered on Election Night in 2016 that she was likely going to lose to Trump: "If that blankety-blank wins, we will all hang by nooses!"
So, yeah, I think we are in the early stage of another American Revolution--this time a POTUS-led revolution against a Shadow Government, against an extraordinarily dangerous Deep State that had slowly but surely and yet almost completely taken over our Congress and our Executive Branch and most of our Federal Court System. If we don't win this Trump-led revolution against the Deep State, then I'm afraid that you can kiss your children's future happiness in liberty goodbye.)
Very well stated and your points very valid, and I am in agreement with you. I do have hesitation. I am not as confident as you are that Trump will be willing to lead a revolution. There are things that he has done that make me continue to question him. There has always been question in the back of my mind that Trump just may be part of their game? It's a terrible thought, but one that I have been unable to shake and one thought that has been nagging me in the back of my mind since he went after Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, Jeb!, Walker, Carson, Christie, Huckabee, Paul, Perry, and Graham without casting any shots at Hillary until the final debates and even at that, he handled her with kid gloves in comparison.
I'm not so sure that he has led any revolution against the Deep State. He could have shut down Sessions, Mueller and Rosenstein long ago and certainly he could have very easily ordered an investigation into Hillary as there has been all kinds of evidence brought forward pertaining to her corruption and collusion yet he has done neither. Along with that, we still have no wall. I can't fully blame that on Congress ... Trump has a pen ... there are discretionary funds sitting that he could use. He was willing to give the DEMS amnesty for DACCA recipients in exchange for ending chain migration. etc., ... somehow that mess went through a revolving door which never to me quite added up.
On the other hand, I do know that our Republic is in deep trouble; and he is the one person between us losing this country to the leftists/socialist and restoring this country. He has displayed great patriotism and shown leadership along with doing some really good things for this country. He is a very intelligent man and seems to be usually one step ahead of their game for the most part.
Certainly, time will tell.
-
Asking the Republicans to drop the social conservative issue is a non-issue, it won't happen. Some states I believe have had State Republican adopt a more lenient pro-life stance, I think that is in Nevada and Massachusetts, apologies if wrong but this won't happen soon on the national level. It's been an idea with some for a long time. Many Republicans don't want the blood on their hands of not being able to defend the most innocent around us and it doesn't speak well for this country. John Adams as we've heard before, said the Constitution is for a moral and religious people.
Anyway, not going to happen.
-
Seems Rubio, Graham and others also responded in like to Trump or even started things.
Anyway, if we went the milk toast way for Prez. Trump, we sure as heck, wouldn't have seen him elected.
How about Rick Perry? I remember what he said, that Trump was a cancer on conservatism, how is that secretary of energy position working now?
-
Anyway, not going to happen.
Then all is lost I'm afraid.
-
Groucho wrote:
"Our goal should not be to silence the opposition, even within our own party, that is what the left does."
Sorry.
When it comes to communism -- it should be "silenced".
What we are seeing now are the consequences of NOT silencing it when we could.
-
Then all is lost I'm afraid.
All IS lost if the GOP continues to play their game instead of coming up with their own game plan. They tried softening their position on many social issues to appease the DEMS, that got them no where and lost elections. Had the party united and ALL promoted Republican ideals and conservatism and stood by their party, we wouldn't be in this mess. It seems you are suggesting that the GOP needs to lean more to the left. I couldn't disagree more.
The issues we face of election fraud, fake news, false accusations, Russian interference, political corruption, corruption within our judicial system, etc., aren't Republican or Democrat issue, but American issues. As American these are issues that are destroying our country and if we don't get a grip on them and turn things around, you are correct; all will be lost.
-
This is a bit off on a tangent; but one might as well argue that Roe V Wade started the country towards the precipice if one is arguing the GOP should give up on social conservative issues.
-
that got them no where and lost elections.
That is the only thing that kept them relevant. It sucks to lose ground, but that's what has happened. I think letting go of certain issues would create room to double down on more important and winning issues. For example it's not impossible for the United States to become a LOT more conservative about immigration. That would be a big win.
-
This is a bit off on a tangent; but one might as well argue that Roe V Wade started the country towards the precipice if one is arguing the GOP should give up on social conservative issues.
We didn't lose the mid terms due to social conservative issues period. How many of those issues were on the ballot? Most issues have already been decided and I don't recall anyone during the mid terms running on those issues; rather they ran on the current state of the union and the accomplishments of the GOP. Many RINO's refused to join in on the Trump bandwagon and many retired their positions from the House, including their leader Lyin' Ryan; the results to me were not unexpected.
The Senate is holding on by a thread as we all know because of election corruption.
Softening on conservative issues only sends the message that conservatism doesn't work. Certainly not the message that I want to send.
-
That is the only thing that kept them relevant. It sucks to lose ground, but that's what has happened. I think letting go of certain issues would create room to double down on more important and winning issues. For example it's not impossible for the United States to become a LOT more conservative about immigration. That would be a big win.
It's not the issues that we're battling anymore. It's the political corruption within OUR government.
-
How many of those issues were on the ballot?
The GOP still has a reputation with those issues, and that reputation has become a hindrance. A lot of people don't vote for Republicans because they are seen as the party of Christian social issues.
-
Anyway, it is a pipe dream to talk about this in regards to Texas.
Anyway, if we had some sort of libertarians dream and one said, okay, abortion is a right but the government will not fund it or be involved in it, that's one thing.
But to the Democrats, it's a big cash cow, Planned Parenthood is a big lobby like the NEA, National Education Association for example and Planned Parenthood receives as many as half a billion dollars of tax payer monies. That's going to stay because Planned Parenthood is a puppet master of the Democrat party among others such as the Unions. The Democrats are not going to let this go. Too much money involved.
Same-sex marriage has basically happen. We need to watch this front but things don't look like they will change in this.
All of the GOP candidates were very pro-life, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Carly, Christie (who did well in a blue state), Perry and so on. The GOP will not do an about face on this.
-
It's not the issues that we're battling anymore. It's the political corruption within OUR government.
I don't think the integrity of our elections has been destroyed. I think conservatives just don't want to accept that they are losing this battle. You need to fight smarter or you will be defeated.
-
This is off-topic but one could say, some countries have largely died off because of their abortions, Russia still can't get a very good replacement rate or if people are replacing the population, it's going to be Muslims. That's what one gets with abortion, dying countries.
-
I don't think the integrity of our elections has been destroyed. I think conservatives just don't want to accept that they are losing this battle. You need to fight smarter or you will be defeated.
??? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate what is happening in ME, FL, GA, CA, AZ, etc.,... many races that were declared a GOP win have either been contested and turned over to the DEMS or are still facing recounts.
-
??? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate what is happening in ME, FL, GA, CA, AZ, etc.,... many races that were declared a GOP win have either been contested and turned over to the DEMS or are still facing recounts.
There are conservatives involved in the recount process. I don't think they are cheating. Can you imagine if they got caught red handed? What a PR nightmare. Should they have given it up on or the day after election day? Yes, but they are desperate to win too. I heard Rick Scott actually gained votes after the recount. I'm not saying they won't use just about any sleazy and underhanded tactic they can to win, but I don't think outright cheating is currently one of their tactics. I think the GOP is simply in decline.
-
The GOP still has a reputation with those issues, and that reputation has become a hindrance. A lot of people don't vote for Republicans because they are seen as the party of Christian social issues.
Like who?
The kill your baby set? The I wanna get high set?
People who aren't happy with the way the mean old laws just won't let them be totally irresponsible?
Like, Liberals?
They aren't going to vote GOP anyway, if they want a liberal in office, they can just vote for the real thing.
The GOP has been running from the Right and sucking up to the former Leftists they called the "Middle".
No one is saying you have to go to church on Sunday, can't drink, and as I pointed out earlier, at least some of the folks who did not vote for the GOP Senate Candidate in ND this go-round still voted against legalized recreational pot. (still not a good idea, imho).
Blue Laws (generally a southern Democrat thing) are pretty much gone, and the only real reason the Homolobby pushed for "marriage" was so they could get insurance on each other's plans--incidentally why the preexisting condition clauses were in Obamacare--so they'd have to be covered. (1.3 million HIV/AIDS infected and counting, and guess who is the prime high risk group).
So just what "Christian morality" is the GOP 'treying to shove down anyone's throat'?
There is no opt out on a whole slew of progressive programs from putting condoms on pickles to lectures on S&M for grade schoolers, but you better not mention Jesus.
Give me a chance to vote to turn those tables and I sure will, but no one is advocating that--instead the GOP is rushing to embrace the perversion du jour and leave its traditional base behind, again, citing that they will vote GOP because they have no place else to go. (false dichotomy, as the GOP is discovering). No one is under any obligation to vote for that which they don't like, and the GOP is finding that out--from people on the Right.
If you do the math, there is nothing for the GOP to gain by discarding its traditional base in favor of a group of voters who, if they want a Liberal Socialist Government, can always vote Democrat and have the real thing.
-
There are conservatives involved in the recount process. I don't think they are cheating. Can you imagine if they got caught red handed? What a PR nightmare. Should they have given it up on or the day after election day? Yes, but they are desperate to win too. I heard Rick Scott actually gained votes after the recount. I'm not saying they won't use just about any sleazy and underhanded tactic they can to win, but I don't think outright cheating is currently one of their tactics. I think the GOP is simply in decline.
Oh my goodness ... they were caught red handed. The Supervisor of Elections in Broward county was caught before in 2016 and now in 2018 she hasn't complied with judges order. There is video of ballots being brought in after the election, she hasn't met deadline, she's interpreted ballots on her own, she's intertwined provisional ballots with ordinary ballots and the list goes on. The Supervisor in Palm Beach has not complied with judges ruling as well and ballots have been brought in after the fact. Who's overseeing all this?? If the DEMS had won and the GOP asked for a recount and this was going on, do you think they'd sit idly by? Hell no. I can only speak for FL because I live here and am paying much more attention to the corruption going on here than I am in AZ, CA, ME, etc., etc.
You don't find it just a bit coincidental, that in every case, the liberal precincts are running across ballots that supposedly haven't been counted and as a result the GOP victory is now a DEM victory. Yeppers ... no corruption going on at all. :silly:
-
Like who?
The kill your baby set? The I wanna get high set?
People who aren't happy with the way the mean old laws just won't let them be totally irresponsible?
Like, Liberals?
They aren't going to vote GOP anyway, if they want a liberal in office, they can just vote for the real thing.
The GOP has been running from the Right and sucking up to the former Leftists they called the "Middle".
No one is saying you have to go to church on Sunday, can't drink, and as I pointed out earlier, at least some of the folks who did not vote for the GOP Senate Candidate in ND this go-round still voted against legalized recreational pot. (still not a good idea, imho).
Blue Laws (generally a southern Democrat thing) are pretty much gone, and the only real reason the Homolobby pushed for "marriage" was so they could get insurance on each other's plans--incidentally why the preexisting condition clauses were in Obamacare--so they'd have to be covered. (1.3 million HIV/AIDS infected and counting, and guess who is the prime high risk group).
So just what "Christian morality" is the GOP 'treying to shove down anyone's throat'?
There is no opt out on a whole slew of progressive programs from putting condoms on pickles to lectures on S&M for grade schoolers, but you better not mention Jesus.
Give me a chance to vote to turn those tables and I sure will, but no one is advocating that--instead the GOP is rushing to embrace the perversion du jour and leave its traditional base behind, again, citing that they will vote GOP because they have no place else to go. (false dichotomy, as the GOP is discovering). No one is under any obligation to vote for that which they don't like, and the GOP is finding that out--from people on the Right.
If you do the math, there is nothing for the GOP to gain by discarding its traditional base in favor of a group of voters who, if they want a Liberal Socialist Government, can always vote Democrat and have the real thing.
People are a lot more varied than you might think. There are economic conservatives in the pot and gay marriage crowd that won't vote for Republicans, or at least won't vote for a number of them. There are even people in the pro abortion crowd that economically are conservatives. These issues have varying levels of importance to different people. Making yourself more appealing to more people will result in more votes. I'm not religious so I know I'm incapable of appreciating how much these things mean to people like you, but I really really really want conservatives to win the immigration fight.
-
The GOP still has a reputation with those issues, and that reputation has become a hindrance. A lot of people don't vote for Republicans because they are seen as the party of Christian social issues.
Then that’s how it has to be. Not going to sell my soul for politics.
@Dexter
-
It is a demographically silly proposition in the first place. You cannot replace the Christian Right.
-
It is a demographically silly proposition in the first place. You cannot replace the Christian Right.
Get rid of Christians and the moral void will be filled with something else.
-
The talk would be 'give up social issues', then if that wouldn't work, it would be, 'well, give out more welfare .' To really be 'Dems lite. It's really like Rush says, the Democrats need an underclass to function.
Also, I think as long as lives are not worth anything, there will be problems in the innercities, who really the Democrats and liberals aim their programs at.
-
Reagan gave amnesty to illegals, mostly Hispanics, did it help George HW Bush? Not just no but He'll no!
That Illinois governor gave in to the Dems on social issues, he was just voted out.
You give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.
Republicans, then, would have to promise free stuff just like the Democrats.
-
Reagan gave amnesty to illegals, mostly Hispanics, did it help George HW Bush? Not just no but He'll no!
That Illinois governor gave in to the Dems on social issues, he was just voted out.
You give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.
Republicans, then, would have to promise free stuff just like the Democrats.
What do you think forcing insurance coverage of preexisting conditions is? Free stuff someone else has to pay for.
-
It is a demographically silly proposition in the first place. You cannot replace the Christian Right.
I guess my hope was that the Christian right would still vote for Republicans, seeing them as the more intelligent option. Not having a public position n these issues doesn't mean the Republicans have given up on morality. It just means they understand how to win elections. Who says some of these issues can't come back to the forefront once it's more politically expedient?
-
Then that’s how it has to be. Not going to sell my soul for politics.
Sometimes concessions are the only way to stay relevant. I get it though. Y'all have an admirable dedication to your beliefs. Ultimately Christ was destroyed for his message. It'll be the same with Christianity in politics. Social conservatism is dying. I hope economic conservatism doesn't die with it.
-
The talk would be 'give up social issues', then if that wouldn't work, it would be, 'well, give out more welfare .' To really be 'Dems lite. It's really like Rush says, the Democrats need an underclass to function.
Also, I think as long as lives are not worth anything, there will be problems in the innercities, who really the Democrats and liberals aim their programs at.
I think moving left on social issues would make it easier to move right on economic issues. The left won the social war.
-
@Dexter, your message seems to be that the GOP/conservatives need to bend on the core principles upon which this country was founded and the rule of law; namely the Constitution. That rationale is exactly why this country is in the mess that it's in. Both the DEM and GOP have swayed from their party's core ideals and principles and consequently BOTH have failed the American people. Our elected officials take an 'oath of office' to support and defend the constitution; deviating from that oath to me is NOT acceptable. Corruption, manipulation, lies, and denying or accepting responsibility for lawlessness have no place in our Republic.
I will stand behind leadership who tries to move this country in a positive direction and back to its core principles and will NOT stand behind leadership who tries to move this country against its core values and against the rule of law for the sake of political correctness.
Left leaning conservatives have had a negative impact on the party and consequently on this country; to continue to appease and cater to the leftists for votes has been detrimental. Continuing on that path will give the GOP the same results. If that's what you choose to do, that's completely your choice.
End of discussion on this one. Peace. :patriot:
-
@Dexter, your message seems to be that the GOP/conservatives need to bend on the core principles upon which this country was founded and the rule of law; namely the Constitution. That rationale is exactly why this country is in the mess that it's in. Both the DEM and GOP have swayed from their party's core ideals and principles and consequently BOTH have failed the American people. Our elected officials take an 'oath of office' to support and defend the constitution; deviating from that oath to me is NOT acceptable. Corruption, manipulation, lies, and denying or accepting responsibility for lawlessness have no place in our Republic.
I will stand behind leadership who tries to move this country in a positive direction and back to its core principles and will NOT stand behind leadership who tries to move this country against its core values and against the rule of law for the sake of political correctness.
Left leaning conservatives have had a negative impact on the party and consequently on this country; to continue to appease and cater to the leftists for votes has been detrimental. Continuing on that path will give the GOP the same results. If that's what you choose to do, that's completely your choice.
End of discussion on this one. Peace. :patriot:
There aren't a lot of options Libertybele. If the Republicans don't budge and are utterly defeated in the next decade then what does it matter? The timeline for the destruction of our liberties and descention into third world insanity will be expedited if the Republicans lose. The left is hoping people like you would rather die than bend with the tides. That makes their goals easier.
-
There aren't a lot of options Libertybele. If the Republicans don't budge and are utterly defeated in the next decade then what does it matter? The timeline for the destruction of our liberties and descention into third world insanity will be expedited if the Republicans lose. The left is hoping people like you would rather die than bend with the tides. That makes their goals easier.
This is good, pragmatic advice. Religious and social causes are best advanced between private citizens. The government's role is to guarantee individual liberty, not to promote "Christian values".
Time and demographics will marginalize conservative Christians on the issue of homosexuality. Young folks are far more accepting than folks of my generation, but most of us are changing too. The speed at which homosexuals have been accepted as couples in the mainstream of society is astonishing, really - it's only been two generations or so since the AIDS crisis. Gay marriage encourages monogamy, which if you're honest is perfectly congruent with Christian values.
As for abortion, most folks want to see abortion safe, legal and rare. Conservatives of good will should do their level best to persuade their loved ones to do the right thing and provide them the necessary support to do so. But as for the woman's fundamental right to determine the course of her future, that is an individual decision that is no business of the State.
Dexter, you are quite correct that the GOP's freedom and opportunity message is blunted when it becomes preoccupied with these sideshow issues.
-
There aren't a lot of options Libertybele. If the Republicans don't budge and are utterly defeated in the next decade then what does it matter? The timeline for the destruction of our liberties and descention into third world insanity will be expedited if the Republicans lose. The left is hoping people like you would rather die than bend with the tides. That makes their goals easier.
Nonsense. When was the last time the GOP didn't budge? They have been steadily sliding left my WHOLE LIFETIME--and I'm a great grandfather 8 times over.
How well has that worked?
Is that energizing the base (redefining the 'base' as the few moderate liberals sucked in by the portside drift of the GOP is BS, so let's get back to the social and fiscal Conservatives who traditionally composed the base of the GOP.--Nixon's "silent majority" who are burned out and gobsmacked at being lied to with neither compunction nor remorse by those they have entrusted from the allegedly 'honest' party to handle the business of government within the Constitution.)
You can toss the "social issues" but keep in mind that 240 million Americans identify as Christian, and then there are those of other faiths who take their beliefs seriously as well. Such a large majority (of all faiths) might somehow embrace a stand on social issues which leans conservative. If you want to get them to the polls, then don't abandon their beliefs, simple as that.
Go running off to cater to the latest libertine passion/perversion and the appeal drops. But if you want to run the 'two mommies' ads like JC Penny did, expect your stock to drop until you have new management.
You won't gain by trying to be Democrats, because the Democrats are already well practiced at it and have their voters pretty well in hand.
If you want to win, stand tough on the issues which really matter (the border comes to mind--especially so) because if the GOP stays wishy washy on the Border and illegal immigration, the Democrat demographic will be expanded to the point that American Citizens will be a minority. (DO you really think there are only 11.5 million illegals in the US? Sh*t, they were throwing that number around thirty years ago, there have been over a million coming in every year (we damnsure aren't deporting that many) and they have been doing what people do--making babies. )
As for the past decades:
I have far fewer rights than when I could first vote:
We won't even go into gun rights but they have been significantly lessened.
The State can seize my property, funds, assets (other than cash), business, etc., on the spurious belief that somehow those items are guilty of a crime: to wit, that they are assets derived from some illegal activity.
There is no evidentiary standard, warrant, not even arrest required, and I must prove the innocence of inanimate objects to perhaps reclaim my assets, if that CAN be done, and at my expense against an adversary I fund (in part) which has limitless resources.
Communications (including this one) are routinely monitored by the NSA as a matter of course, as are everyone's, and may well be recorded on a server farm somewhere. (What happened to the 4th Amendmaent?)
My grandfather, cut and milled the timber on his half of the farm to clear the land and build barns and outbuildings--egad! he did that with NO PERMITS! --and it was perfectly legal. His daughter cannot cut other timber on the farm without an EIS, an exclusion from Scenic River and Buffer Zone regulations, and a separate permit to cut each tree, even though the very trees in question were planted by an ancestor some 180 years ago. (over 20 acres of mature (actually just past prime) Red Oak--worth a fortune).
They can't fish in the river for personal consumption without a license (Riparian Rights were stripped from landowners in the '70s)--by virtue of the original land grant they not only had riparian rights, but to the center of the channel--a mile offshore. If anyone ever drills for the natural gas I strongly suspect is present, the royalty and mineral rights will be contested by, if not claimed by the selfsame State which decreed the robbery of the other riparian rights possessed from well before there ever was a United States.
That's just hitting a few of the high points, but where did those regulations stem from? From an agency or agencies which were founded or empowered thus, not under Democrat Presidents, but by Republicans.
These are just a few high points on what voting for the "conservatives" in the GOP have cost us as a family, but we aren't the only ones, either. Now remind me again why I should vote Democrat so they don't steal me blind and take away my Rights?
With 'Friends' like the GOP, who needs enemies?
The Democrats are worse, because they want the remaining rights I possess (not to mention money), but who does that leave for me to vote FOR?
The only time in the last quarter century I had (almost) the opportunity to vote FOR someone I liked (as opposed to just casting a ballot to block someone completely unacceptable) was in the last Presidential Primary, and then the GOP in this State didn't hold one. 9999hair out0000
Give me a reason why I should SUPPORT that.
Just not being the other bunch of totalitarians doesn't cut it any more.
-
You won't gain by trying to be Democrats
The Republicans will never be the Democrats as long as they support economic conservatism. Also the protection of the second amendment and our borders is something the Democrats will never be interested in.
-
I'm done with fighting in general, and I certainly won't fight Americans. Reasonable people will abandon you if you start turning towards violence.
Now this I agree with you.
:cool:
-
Sometimes concessions are the only way to stay relevant. I get it though. Y'all have an admirable dedication to your beliefs. Ultimately Christ was destroyed for his message. It'll be the same with Christianity in politics. Social conservatism is dying. I hope economic conservatism doesn't die with it.
Yet, economic conservative will die with it.
An immoral society really won't care about moral economics.
Why would it?
It would be fine to lie, cheat, and steal your way to prosperity, if you don't have a moral compass to guide the way.
It is all part and parcel.
We have locks on our doors, not to keep the thieves out.
They will find a way in.
It is to keep the honest people honest.
Ignore the parts of morality that you are uncomfortable with being discussed, and the rest of it won't be far behind.
-
The Republicans will never be the Democrats as long as they support economic conservatism. Also the protection of the second amendment and our borders is something the Democrats will never be interested in.
I have wasted my time trying to explain to one who either can't or won't get it. The Republicans will never be the Democrats as long as they support the Constitution and, within those bounds, Social Conservatism, either. Democrats, typical of socialists will always find ways for the more wealthy in their ranks to keep theirs, while stripping the middle class like gleaners and buying votes with the loot. I'm not supporting the Democrats, they're even further down the road to embracing totalitarianism than the GOP, I'm just wondering if there is a Party who supports the Constitution any more.
If you could go back in time and try, how would you make the argument before the Founders that a woman has the "right" to kill her unborn child?
How would you make the argument that homosexuals have the right to, with the aid of the State, co-opt the Sacrament of Matrimony and claim to be married?
How would you justify all the social programs that are presented as Robin Hood good deeds of taking from "the rich" (successful) and giving to the "poor" (recall, if you will, Robin of Loxley robbed tax collectors and gave the money back--less operational expenses, of course. I don't recall an instance of him robbing a merchant).
How would you justify Social Programs which permit and even demand that the State take custody and control of children?--whether or not there is evidence to support any 'abuse', and that often defined by the thinnest of reasoning, supported only by anonymous complaint.
How would you justify the State routinely monitoring all the communications and business of everyone?
-
@GrouchoTex
How am I trying to "silence debate"? I am merely engaging as a member of this board concerning a topic I find interesting to discuss. This isn't a private conversation between you and Dexter. If all you can manage to say is that "you disagree", then fine. But I fail to see what you're trying to gain by accusing me of being a leftist trying to "silence debate".
Yet, you say that that people of faith on the right shouldn't express their opinions, at the risk of turning voters off.
The result would be silencing the debate.
It's no different than saying white people shouldn't voice their opinion about race, or that men shouldn't voice their opinion about violence against females.
Both of those things have been said frequently, and recently, and by the left.
The main theme here is stop illegal immigration and keep the economy going, but don't say anything else, or people won't vote for these things.
Do you and @Dexter really believe this?
Pretty astounding.
-
I have wasted my time trying to explain to one who either can't or won't get it. The Republicans will never be the Democrats as long as they support the Constitution and, within those bounds, Social Conservatism, either. Democrats, typical of socialists will always find ways for the more wealthy in their ranks to keep theirs, while stripping the middle class like gleaners and buying votes with the loot. I'm not supporting the Democrats, they're even further down the road to embracing totalitarianism than the GOP, I'm just wondering if there is a Party who supports the Constitution any more.
If you could go back in time and try, how would you make the argument before the Founders that a woman has the "right" to kill her unborn child?
How would you make the argument that homosexuals have the right to, with the aid of the State, co-opt the Sacrament of Matrimony and claim to be married?
How would you justify all the social programs that are presented as Robin Hood good deeds of taking from "the rich" (successful) and giving to the "poor" (recall, if you will, Robin of Loxley robbed tax collectors and gave the money back--less operational expenses, of course. I don't recall an instance of him robbing a merchant).
How would you justify Social Programs which permit and even demand that the State take custody and control of children?--whether or not there is evidence to support any 'abuse', and that often defined by the thinnest of reasoning, supported only by anonymous complaint.
How would you justify the State routinely monitoring all the communications and business of everyone?
Exactly right.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, not once.
Therefore, it is a 10th amendment issue.
Marriage (gay, straight, or otherwise) is not mentioned in the constitution, not once.
Therefore it is a 10th amendment issue.
If those who want us to stay silent on these subjects, due to some morality issue, look at this as a legal issue.
The constitution also doesn't say what someone should (or should not) earn, yet they are taking up the 15.00 an hour minimum wage law in the house again.
The way I see this, is that some (so-called) conservatives ore okay with men in black robes passing laws they are in favor of, but would howl the day these same judges would come out and say something like, "we need to uphold a maximum wage law, under protection of the 14th amendment. It is not equal protection if Joe makes 15.00 an hour but Sam makes 20.00, so everyone will now make 15.00"
Don't think it could happen?
Abortion and Gay marriage are just 2 types of instances where it has happened already.
Add Obamacare to the list, and healthcare is not mentioned in the the Constitution, either
-
I think moving left on social issues would make it easier to move right on economic issues. The left won the social war.
Well, until we see leftists acting against immigration issues, like as said, give 'em a foot, they'll take a mile. The resident leftist speaks up Islam, speaks up compassionate immigration enforcement or maybe not immigration enforcement. You're way totally loses the argument.
States rights should stand for something, community values, who has acted is the SCOTUS legislating from the bench. Numerous states would act on these social issues if they had the chance.
You're way is waving a white flag. Concentrate on immigration and economics, oh sure.
-
Yet, you say that that people of faith on the right shouldn't express their opinions, at the risk of turning voters off.
The result would be silencing the debate.
It's no different than saying white people shouldn't voice their opinion about race, or that men shouldn't voice their opinion about violence against females.
Both of those things have been said frequently, and recently, and by the left.
The main theme here is stop illegal immigration and keep the economy going, but don't say anything else, or people won't vote for these things.
Do you and @Dexter really believe this?
Pretty astounding.
It's easier to sell your message when it's more refined.
-
Also I don't believe morality can't exist without Christianity. There are plenty of good people that don't consider themselves religious.
-
Sometimes concessions are the only way to stay relevant. I get it though. Y'all have an admirable dedication to your beliefs. Ultimately Christ was destroyed for his message. It'll be the same with Christianity in politics. Social conservatism is dying. I hope economic conservatism doesn't die with it.
The truth is you and Jazzheads are just spouting liberal talking points, you scapegoat Christianity because your arguments are so weak. Some so-called Trumpers have been that way too.
Trump was elected in an electoral landslide, no candidate, no nominee at least had ever said the things Trump did. You are just grinding an axe with no backup basically. Demeaning others. Your argument is garbage, you don't address abortion, you attack others and make asinine and insensitive assertions. Good luck if your whole outlook is just attacking Christianity.
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a -- no, no...
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."
MATTHEWS: How about you?
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/30/context-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/ (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/30/context-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/)
Enough of this blue state liberalism, excessive criticism of Christianity with really no backup should be looked at severely.
And Trump would not have been elected without the Evangelical vote, as it is, the left tries to pull off a coup, the Dems are so unpopular, they have to cheat at elections. Your views have no foundation... good bye to you if all your argument stems from is insulting others. You can't win an honest debate.
-
Also I don't believe morality can't exist without Christianity. There are plenty of good people that don't consider themselves religious.
This is true.
However, there is some motivating factor for them to be moral.
It does not have to be religion, but it has to be a belief in something.
If not, they would have no logical reason to be "good people".
FYI,
Christianity isn't the only religion espousing morality.
-
This is good, pragmatic advice. Religious and social causes are best advanced between private citizens. The government's role is to guarantee individual liberty, not to promote "Christian values".
Time and demographics will marginalize conservative Christians on the issue of homosexuality. Young folks are far more accepting than folks of my generation, but most of us are changing too. The speed at which homosexuals have been accepted as couples in the mainstream of society is astonishing, really - it's only been two generations or so since the AIDS crisis. Gay marriage encourages monogamy, which if you're honest is perfectly congruent with Christian values.
As for abortion, most folks want to see abortion safe, legal and rare. Conservatives of good will should do their level best to persuade their loved ones to do the right thing and provide them the necessary support to do so. But as for the woman's fundamental right to determine the course of her future, that is an individual decision that is no business of the State.
Dexter, you are quite correct that the GOP's freedom and opportunity message is blunted when it becomes preoccupied with these sideshow issues.
Sorry, I will take the FFs words over yours, in drafting, construction and signing of the Constitution in the city of Philadelphia in 1776, John Adams said the Constitution was for a moral and religious people and useless without it.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_391045 (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_391045)
So, you are just preaching secular humanism again and arrogance, calling people's lives "sideshows".
-
Noah Webster:
“[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.â€
It's pretty clear what the Founding Fathers thought. I will go with them instead of progressive thought, they will doom this nation.
http://tothesource.org/religious-liberty/misquoting-our-founding-fathers/ (http://tothesource.org/religious-liberty/misquoting-our-founding-fathers/)
-
You seem to be saying, yes, but, that ship has sailed, and we can't do anything about it now, so let's focus on immigration and the economy.
The GOP did just that in the last election and still lost the house, some state houses and governorships, and barely held on the the Senate.
They tried it your way in this midterm, no talk of social issue, and they still lost.
So now you suggest to double down?
Great, then we can double our losses.
Find me one ad or campaign speech from a GOP candidate that referenced abortion or homosexuality during this midterm.
I don't think you will be able to.
BTW,
Axios release a survey 2 days ago that polled democrats, and what they thought of conservatives.
Their findings?
60+% said conservatives were racist, bigots, and homophobes.
If we all jumped up at once in a massive voice and said, "C'mon, we aren't any of those things", they won't believe us.
The media will seek out any and all stories to reinforce the stereotype.
In fact, even though they agreed, they blamed the media for their perception, oddly enough.
-
So, you are just preaching secular humanism again and arrogance, calling people's lives "sideshows".
One's religious faith and moral compass are not "sideshows". The issue is the role to be played by the government, the coercive state. The state's job is to guarantee liberty, not coerce a particular vision of morality. That is a job for persuasion, between free individuals of good will. As a conservative voter, I evaluate the performance of government based on such things as whether my liberty and that of the marketplace is being supported. Demands that the state take away the rights and liberties of gays and women are what I mean when I say "sideshow issues".
I don't disagree with John Adam's statement - liberty carries with it responsibility, it is not mere license. And religious faith correlates strongly with personal responsibility. But the role of the state, under our Constitution, is to guarantee personal liberty and the law's equal protection, not enforce religious concepts of sin. You believe homosexuality is a sin? Fine, then don't practice it. You believe that the human soul is present at conception? Fine - then don't have an abortion. But it is not the state's role to enforce such beliefs.
-
One's religious faith and moral compass are not "sideshows". The issue is the role to be played by the government, the coercive state. The state's job is to guarantee liberty, not coerce a particular vision of morality. That is a job for persuasion, between free individuals of good will. As a conservative voter, I evaluate the performance of government based on such things as whether my liberty and that of the marketplace is being supported. Demands that the state take away the rights and liberties of gays and women are what I mean when I say "sideshow issues".
I don't disagree with John Adam's statement - liberty carries with it responsibility, it is not mere license. And religious faith correlates strongly with personal responsibility. But the role of the state, under our Constitution, is to guarantee personal liberty and the law's equal protection, not enforce religious concepts of sin. You believe homosexuality is a sin? Fine, then don't practice it. You believe that the human soul is present at conception? Fine - then don't have an abortion. But it is not the state's role to enforce such beliefs.
Again, your statements are not in line with our founding fathers, you are implementing your own progressive interpretation. The FFs and judges ruled on these issues before.
Excuse me, Adams said a "moral and religious people", is what the Constitution is for and useless without such not what you are saying.
Again, it's on display, these people can not carry out an argument without making things personal. The way some liberals can not carry on a discussion without using the race card.
-
"Coercive state", notice these buzzwords to vilify opponents, they can not come up with better. Is it okay to murder a homeless person? Be cruel to animals? This is the tyranny of relativism, it's all homespun. The views do not support the Founding Fathers who constructed the Constitution.
-
This is good, pragmatic advice. Religious and social causes are best advanced between private citizens. The government's role is to guarantee individual liberty, not to promote "Christian values".
Time and demographics will marginalize conservative Christians on the issue of homosexuality. Young folks are far more accepting than folks of my generation, but most of us are changing too. The speed at which homosexuals have been accepted as couples in the mainstream of society is astonishing, really - it's only been two generations or so since the AIDS crisis. Gay marriage encourages monogamy, which if you're honest is perfectly congruent with Christian values.
As for abortion, most folks want to see abortion safe, legal and rare. Conservatives of good will should do their level best to persuade their loved ones to do the right thing and provide them the necessary support to do so. But as for the woman's fundamental right to determine the course of her future, that is an individual decision that is no business of the State.
Dexter, you are quite correct that the GOP's freedom and opportunity message is blunted when it becomes preoccupied with these sideshow issues.
Again, it is not a question of being in favor of or opposed to these things.
It is a question of Federal Government overreach.
You are fine with them ignoring the fact that Marriage and Abortion are not in the constitution.
You are not telling the truth when you say these are no business of the state, 180 degrees out of phase.
The very fact is, that they made it their business, or this discussion would not be taking place
Are you unhappy with the decision on Obamacare?
Healthcare isn't in the Constitution, either.
Some day, when they overreach once and give us single payer, or come to the conclusion that housing is a right, how will you feel then?
When you go to get treated for high blood pressure, but they look through your history and find out you eat fast food twice a week, so they deny you treatment.
Or, when they say that you only need 500 square feet of living space for you and your family, and the yard is not necessary and an environmental issue, how will you react?
Over-reach is overreach, regardless of whether or not it achieves the outcome you desire.
Before you start telling me about being backwards, I will remind you that you have no idea of my background, or how i feel about any of these issues.
The only thing you can say with certainty, is that I am opposed on constitutional grounds, including the 1st amendment, which allow people to practice their religious beliefs, even those that don't correspond with the Supreme court's ruling on these issues, or "pragmatism", as described by you and Dexter.
-
This is true.
However, there is some motivating factor for them to be moral.
It does not have to be religion, but it has to be a belief in something.
If not, they would have no logical reason to be "good people".
FYI,
Christianity isn't the only religion espousing morality.
I think when people are taught morality as children they will often carry that into their adult lives and teach their own children the same thing. I think most good people are good because they don't want to be bad. I think that's all the motivation most of them need. People don't need religion to know that killing and stealing are wrong. Most people don't want to be evil.
-
Also I don't believe morality can't exist without Christianity. There are plenty of good people that don't consider themselves religious.
So, what is that kind of morality based on?
-
So, what is that kind of morality based on?
Live and let live. I do not believe humanity will descend into suffering and chaos without Christianity. People aren't going to just stop being decent. A secular humanity would do just fine.
-
Live and let live. I do not believe humanity will descend into suffering and chaos without Christianity. People aren't going to just stop being decent. A secular humanity would do just fine.
Too glib and you didn't answer the question. The question is "what is it based on"? You don't arrive at a philosophy without basing it on something.
-
I get it, some people do not believe in the Constitution, got it. Perhaps one can do us the favor of not throwing stones at those who do.
-
Too glib and you didn't answer the question. The question is "what is it based on"? You don't arrive at a philosophy without basing it on something.
People don't need a big list of dos and don'ts to be decent people. They just need to be raised to value goodness and kindness. I don't really want to get too much further into this specifically. I know a lot of people here feel that Christianity is the glue that holds together decency and morality in the world. I don't believe that. I believe one day humanity will be completely secular and that the differences between right and wrong will still be easily identifiable.
-
I think when people are taught morality as children they will often carry that into their adult lives and teach their own children the same thing. I think most good people are good because they don't want to be bad. I think that's all the motivation most of them need. People don't need religion to know that killing and stealing are wrong. Most people don't want to be evil.
But their is a belief of some sort, a "faith", if you will, even in your statement.
"I think most good people are good because they don't want to be bad. I think that's all the motivation most of them need"
Because there is a faith, that by doing so will result in a more meaningful life, but there is no guarantee.
Just what is it that these parents pass on to their children, and where did it come from, this innate ability to know, to tell people not to be evil?
Yes, it happens without religion, but it does not happen without a sense of morality.
So we have now come full circle, that if it is someones position to find abortion immoral, does that really and truly cost the GOP any more votes than it would get otherwise?
You say yes, and I say no.
:cool:
-
Neener, neener, don't believe in homosexuality, dont practice it. Really elevating the debate.
-
I get it, some people do not believe in the Constitution, got it. Perhaps one can do us the favor of not throwing stones at those who do.
@TomSea
I think they believe in only the parts they like, that suits their purposes.
-
People don't need a big list of dos and don'ts to be decent people. They just need to be raised to value goodness and kindness. I don't really want to get too much further into this specifically. I know a lot of people here feel that Christianity is the glue that holds together decency and morality in the world. I don't believe that. I believe one day humanity will be completely secular and that the differences between right and wrong will still be easily identifiable.
I disagree.
In a 100% secular world, the differences between right and wrong will change like the weather, as the wind blows.
-
where did it come from, this innate ability to know, to tell people not to be evil?
I think at its core humanity is good.
-
Before you start telling me about being backwards, I will remind you that you have no idea of my background, or how i feel about any of these issues.
The only thing you can say with certainty, is that I am opposed on constitutional grounds, including the 1st amendment, which allow people to practice their religious beliefs, even those that don't correspond with the Supreme court's ruling on these issues, or "pragmatism", as described by you and Dexter.
Religious beliefs aren't "backwards". I would never suggest such a thing. I am a person of faith the same as you. The issue raised by Dexter, and with which I agree, is that the Republican party does itself no favors when it accedes to demands from social conservatives that government enforce their notions of Biblical morality. We are a secular Republic.
-
Obama's progressivism would lose/has lost the nation already, we got a reprieve, the asserted way of discarding some values loses this country quicker than you can say Jackie Robinson
The Dems need an underclass, their ways are unpopular, election fraud, illegal immigration, even death threats over social-conservative Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh and so on, so the way to compete is to become like them? No siree.
Adams and the others are correct, our country is founded on Judeo-Christian values.
-
You don't like the way our country is? 9999hair out0000
Move to Russia.
-
Religious beliefs aren't "backwards". I would never suggest such a thing. I am a person of faith the same as you. The issue raised by Dexter, and with which I agree, is that the Republican party does itself no favors when it accedes to demands from social conservatives that government enforce their notions of Biblical morality. We are a secular Republic.
Fair enough.
I didn't need to say that.
I apologize for that.
-
Republicans gained nothing but the Whitehouse, 2 SCOTUS justices, etc. etc.
-
Religious beliefs aren't "backwards". I would never suggest such a thing. I am a person of faith the same as you. The issue raised by Dexter, and with which I agree, is that the Republican party does itself no favors when it accedes to demands from social conservatives that government enforce their notions of Biblical morality. We are a secular Republic.
Thanks for your support Jazzhead. I didn't mean to offend any Christians or suggest that their views are unimportant. I just want economic conservatism to survive this mess we are in.
-
Republicans gained nothing but the Whitehouse, 2 SCOTUS justices, etc. etc.
Donald Trump won with less votes than Romney lost with. Hillary was unpopular even on the left. Also Donald Trump is supportive of gay marriage.
-
Religious beliefs aren't "backwards". I would never suggest such a thing. I am a person of faith the same as you. The issue raised by Dexter, and with which I agree, is that the Republican party does itself no favors when it accedes to demands from social conservatives that government enforce their notions of Biblical morality. We are a secular Republic.
Uh, No.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In the document which laid out the very justification for the revolt which led to the formation of this country, God is mentioned. Secular Republic? Nope. The very philosophy which formed the foundations of this country was indeed rooted in Christian thought.
-
Uh, No.
Uh, Yes.
In the document which laid out the very justification for the revolt which led to the formation of this country, God is mentioned. Secular Republic? Nope. The very philosophy which formed the foundations of this country was indeed rooted in Christian thought.
Interestingly, the Declaration - authored by Thomas Jefferson, lest you forget - doesn't mention the Christian God. It refers to "Nature's God". Our natural rights derive from our status as human beings - whether prince or pauper.
Who is Nature's God? (https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html)
"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.
-
Donald Trump won with less votes than Romney lost with. Hillary was unpopular even on the left. Also Donald Trump is supportive of gay marriage.
So was Romney, who not only supported gay 'marriage', but also signed off as Mass. Governor on the state-run health care program that served as a model for Obamacare. No matter how far Left you go, it doesn't bring in winning votes from the GOP, what it does is give the voters on the right little reason to not just stay home and watch TV. They don't have anyone to support, just people to vote against, and sometimes the difference just isn't clear enough to motivate them.
-
Uh, Yes.
Interestingly, the Declaration doesn't mention the Christian God. It refers to "Nature's God". Our natural rights derive from our status as human beings - whether prince or pauper.
Our Creator? Who did you have in mind for that role?
One of the most owned books was the Bible, the philosophy of the day had not yet been derailed by the likes of Marx.
Every one of the founders was raised in a Christian Context. Just who do you propose they meant?
From :http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)
These are the people who did one or more of the following:
- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
-
the difference just isn't clear enough to motivate them.
It's frustrating that more people don't understand that there are still extremely clear and significant differences between the left and right when you take social issues out of the equation. Secular conservatism is a thing. We're not going to sprint down the path to socialism if conservatives drop the social issues and focus on economic ones instead. I think that will actually help us avoid socialism by refocusing on the merits of capitalism and conservative immigration standards. It's over if the left keeps gaining momentum like they have been.
I'm starting to think that these social issues are more important to a lot of people than actual economic conservatism.
-
Thanks for your support Jazzhead. I didn't mean to offend any Christians or suggest that their views are unimportant. I just want economic conservatism to survive this mess we are in.
@Dexter
@Jazzhead
I do not disagree that the 2 most important issues facing us at this time are economics and illegal immigration, which do go hand-in-hand.
For the record, I'd be as concerned if it were suggested the the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Taoist, Hindu, etc right-wing be told that their beliefs and opinions be left out of the conversation because it may turn off those that might otherwise vote a certain way without them.
Frankly, I don't believe this to be the case, anyway.
I think the conservative movement was awakened by the economic reality of 2008 onward, and that those social issues have pretty much been left off the table since then.
My second argument is that the left can trot out socialist like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and not have it turn off their base, most of whom (I would hope) are not that far left, so why should social conservatives turn off economic conservatives from voting?
We can agree to disagree on this, that's fine.
I do believe that SCOTUS has reached decisions on social issues that should not have been brought before it to begin with, due to the 10th amendment.
As it turns out, 2 big ones are issues with social conservatives.
The only case that I would offer that this was not in error was in Brown vs. board of Education.
It could be argued that this case should not have gone to SCOTUS, but my opinion is that it needed to, to correct another issue decision that should have never been made in Plessy vs, Ferguson.
I apologize, that I do come off as snarky at times, in my weak attempt at humor (my screen name is partly after Groucho Marx, after all).
It sounds a lot funnier in person......
But, like most all of us here, I will passionately defend my case and my beliefs.
No harm intended to anyone.
-
Our Creator? Who did you have in mind for that role?
One of the most owned books was the Bible, the philosophy of the day had not yet been derailed by the likes of Marx.
Every one of the founders was raised in a Christian Context. Just who do you propose they meant?
From :http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)
It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious. They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic. The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Go on and sally forth with your Christian crusade. Just don't enlist the government.
-
Too glib and you didn't answer the question. The question is "what is it based on"? You don't arrive at a philosophy without basing it on something.
There isn't a single answer to your question. Different people may have any number of sources for their morality. It could be their own life experiences/observations, books or other things they've read, lessons taught to them by other people, etc..
-
It's frustrating that more people don't understand that there are still extremely clear and significant differences between the left and right when you take social issues out of the equation. Secular conservatism is a thing. We're not going to sprint down the path to socialism if conservatives drop the social issues and focus on economic ones instead. I think that will actually help us avoid socialism by refocusing on the merits of capitalism and conservative immigration standards. It's over if the left keeps gaining momentum like they have been.
I'm starting to think that these social issues are more important to a lot of people than actual economic conservatism.
We have already s[printed down the path to socialism, you just missed it. When the whole mess is doing what yoiu thing kis wrong, is headed in the wrong direction, just some faster than the rest, do we go all pragmatic and vote for the people who might keep us from abject totalitarianism in our lifetimes (and stick our progeny with that slow moving trainwreck) or do we try to stop the whole shooting match and turn it around?
What I'm NOT hearing, sadly, is the idea that the socialist policies which have been imposed WILL be or even CAN be rolled back--something the TEA party espoused, and elected swarms of GOP people to The House who promptly forgot why they were there--and until you start pushing in that direction, away from Socialist Secular Humanism, you are traveling away from the objective, away from a Constitutional Republic and toward totalitarianism, no matter who is driving, or how slowly they are going.
-
It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious. They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic. The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Go on and sally forth with your Christian crusade. Just don't enlist the government.
These are hateful words.
No wonder one is echoing blame at other groups have in history including the Democrats own Klan.
-
My experience is those who plug for infertile and indeed fake marriages are the first ones to be pro-choice.
So many upset about gay things strike at Christianity and psychologically are for abortion to smear Christianity even more
And no, Trump may have said something like it is sweet Elton Johngot married but I would not say he is a same-sex marriage supporter.
-
I would not say he is a same-sex marriage supporter.
(https://antifascismnews.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/donald-trump-lgbt-gty-jpo-170726jpg_12x5_992.jpg)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSVLpzGseXw#)
You sure?
-
It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious. They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic. The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Hi @Jazzhead. Good to see you. I think I saw something mentioned here recently about an injury you had experienced, a tendon perhaps, which I had not realized. I hope you are well, and I wish you and yours all the best this Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Certainly the founders did not write Christianity into the Constitution - no religious tests for public office, no establishment of religion - but it doesn't follow that they established a *secular* republic. That they were religious, and (I think more importantly) that those who in the several states voted to adopt the Constitution were also religious, is hardly irrelevant to our understanding of the character of the republic they did establish. Adams and Franklin made oft-since-quoted statements about the necessity of religious character to the success of the Republic, and in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (not a binding, legal document, please note) his "wall of separation" was between *church* and state, not *faith* and state. Locke, himself the father of the Natural Rights idea, wrote that we are all the servants and property of God.
Of course we have since rejected some of the beliefs of the founders; our respect for them need not bind us to all of their thoughts. The "American Experiment" continues to evolve, and while I join those who lament a general descent, the experiment is not yet concluded.
Practically speaking you and @Dexter might be correct; maybe a voting majority for social conservative thinking is no longer possible in the US. But there has to be some *philosophical* precedent to our *political* thinking about right and wrong. I believe that philosophical precedent originally *was* rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and it was the fundamental source of the "United" in "United States"; the Constitution simply put mechanical structure to governance, consistent with those pre-existing beliefs. If we insist that those beliefs now have no place in thinking about government, with what do we replace them?
-
It is irrelevant that most of the Founders were religious. They deliberately established a secular, Constitutional, Republic. The very person who wrote the words you cite in the Declaration also wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Go on and sally forth with your Christian crusade. Just don't enlist the government.
I am not on a religious crusade, any more than one who advocates murder and stealing are morally wrong, for starters. Considering that those two were mentioned in the Ten Commandments, do we abandon the morality implicit for the purpose of shedding a religious context?
No, we don't. Yet the Founders did not require a religious test for holding office, and did not impose a specific religion on the masses, instead sought a guarantee that the People would be free to worship (or not) as they chose.
That did not keep the laws from reflecting that set of moral absolutes, any more than the influences of religious philosophers were abandoned in forming that same Republic. When people mention social issues, I must note the first villain you call on is organized religion, specifically Christianity, yet it that selfsame Christian philosophy which is strongly reflected in the writings, thoughts, and indeed, the Republic. Abandon that and the vacuum will be filled with something, and other ideologies as fervently adhered to as Christianity are available, from the Secular Humanism of the Marxists, to the 'kindness' of the eugenicists, to any of a host of other belief systems you might not find as equitable or forgiving as the Christian ethos.
So what do you propose to replace that with? A system which values only profit? one which imposes the redistribution of the fruits of the labors of those who work hard to those who will not? One which says murder is okay as long as your age is not between two arbitrary numbers? because when you stop dealing in absolutes, you now make everything negotiable, everything becomes a matter of 'pragmatism' or 'expediency', and no one, repeat, no one is safe from the depredations of the mob.
-
@Smokin Joe
because when you stop dealing in absolutes, you now make everything negotiable, everything becomes a matter of 'pragmatism' or 'expediency', and no one, repeat, no one is safe from the depredations of the mob.
An excellent point, and history is rife with examples.
-
Practically speaking you and @Dexter might be correct; maybe a voting majority for social conservative thinking is no longer possible in the US. But there has to be some *philosophical* precedent to our *political* thinking about right and wrong. I believe that philosophical precedent originally *was* rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and it was the fundamental source of the "United" in "United States"; the Constitution simply put mechanical structure to governance, consistent with those pre-existing beliefs. If we insist that those beliefs now have no place in thinking about government, with what do we replace them?
Hi @HoustonSam , thanks for the greeting and happy Thanksgiving to you too! That's my favorite holiday, btw, because it exemplifies true Christian values far better than the commercially bloated, materialistic mess that the Christmas season has become. My favorite Christmas activity, by the way, is watching A Charlie Brown Christmas - what a beautiful, simple explanation of what Christmas ought to be about.
I've never suggested that our Republic can succeed without a firm grounding in moral principles. Liberty is not license. I've limited my commentary to the two "hot button" issues of abortion and gay marriage where social conservatives have, IMO, done the most damage to the conservative cause by driving moderates from our coalition. That Christianity promotes moral values isn't in dispute and isn't the point, the enlistment of government to enforce religious morality is.
You speak of "right and wrong". I don't disagree. But it is not universally accepted as "right" that gays be marginalized. or discriminated against or prevented from marrying or accessing goods and services. To me, a true Christian bakes the cake he advertises to provide. That's being true to one's word. A true Christian doesn't spurn and humiliate his customer out of some selfish concern that he not "celebrate" sin.
-
A lot of gay rights advocates are solidly for abortion to thumb their nose at Christians. They can't reproduce, they have to take out their frustrations somewhere, nor do they feed millions every day but their lifestyle ways must be protected I suppose.
-
You speak of "right and wrong". I don't disagree.
We seem to agree that the law must reflect some moral beliefs. What source do we consult to determine these beliefs?
But it is not universally accepted as "right" that gays be marginalized. or discriminated against or prevented from marrying or accessing goods and services.
Neither is it universally accepted that a business owner must compromise his own moral beliefs simply to remain in business. Universal acceptance is clearly *not* the test of whether a moral principle can be enforced by law. The fact that we premise the very need for law indicates that laws will *not* reflect universal acceptance. All laws are coercive.
To me, a true Christian bakes the cake he advertises to provide. That's being true to one's word. A true Christian doesn't spurn and humiliate his customer out of some selfish concern that he not "celebrate" sin.
I agree that people should not be spurned and humiliated. I challenge that the record of the events we've previously debated supports this characterization of the bakers' actions, and I further challenge the idea that demurring to participate in an action one finds spiritually abhorrent is somehow more "selfish" than insisting that one do so.
-
@HoustonSam
"The fact that we premise the very need for law indicates that laws will *not* reflect universal acceptance. All laws are coercive.
"I further challenge the idea that demurring to participate in an action one finds spiritually abhorrent is somehow more "selfish" than insisting that one do so."
Good Points.
-
Get rid of Christians and the moral void will be filled with something else.
Just demographically - 30m reliable votes, that can go to 60m for the right message. There just ain't no way to replace em.
-
I guess my hope was that the Christian right would still vote for Republicans, seeing them as the more intelligent option. Not having a public position n these issues doesn't mean the Republicans have given up on morality. It just means they understand how to win elections. Who says some of these issues can't come back to the forefront once it's more politically expedient?
No, your thinking is stone dead wrong.
Christians vote according to moral values. Period.
I will NOT vote for a man unless he is pro life, and of high moral character. Whatever else thereafter is secondary. If I cannot find that initial function in a man, the rest doesn't matter.
Just like civil-libertarian oriented conservatives vote federalist and originalist...
Just like fiscal conservatives vote Austrian economics...
Just like defense conservatives vote strong military...
If you are not giving folks their primary principled things, you will not get their votes.
And intellectually, your idea is barren - Utterly barren - Because it takes ALL Conservative principles to fix what is wrong. Nobody can go under the bus, or you are not fixing a damn thing.
-
I think moving left on social issues would make it easier to move right on economic issues. The left won the social war.
You cannot have conservative economics with a decadent and unlawful citizenry.
It is impossible. You cannot have one without the other.
-
Yet, economic conservative will die with it.
An immoral society really won't care about moral economics.
Why would it?
It would be fine to lie, cheat, and steal your way to prosperity, if you don't have a moral compass to guide the way.
It is all part and parcel.
We have locks on our doors, not to keep the thieves out.
They will find a way in.
It is to keep the honest people honest.
Ignore the parts of morality that you are uncomfortable with being discussed, and the rest of it won't be far behind.
EXACTLY right. :beer:
-
Also I don't believe morality can't exist without Christianity. There are plenty of good people that don't consider themselves religious.
Pointless remark.
It is not whether people consider themselves to be good.
That has no bearing without a definition of good.
That definition, that sense of right and wrong, in all of the West, but particularly in America, IS the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
What you propose discards the very definition of right and wrong... supplanting it with what?
-
I think when people are taught morality as children they will often carry that into their adult lives and teach their own children the same thing. I think most good people are good because they don't want to be bad. I think that's all the motivation most of them need. People don't need religion to know that killing and stealing are wrong. Most people don't want to be evil.
Wrong. Most people want to be good in their own eyes... That means 300 million different definitions.
What you propose to discard is the singular definition.
-
Live and let live. I do not believe humanity will descend into suffering and chaos without Christianity.
They always do...
-
I don't believe that. I believe one day humanity will be completely secular and that the differences between right and wrong will still be easily identifiable.
Them that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
-
I think at its core humanity is good.
Define good.
-
Define good.
Not wanting to do undue harm to others. Wanting to help people that need help.
-
I just want economic conservatism to survive this mess we are in.
And how does that happen with a burgeoning welfare state and rampant drug use?
-
Interestingly, the Declaration - authored by Thomas Jefferson, lest you forget - doesn't mention the Christian God. It refers to "Nature's God". Our natural rights derive from our status as human beings - whether prince or pauper.
Who is Nature's God? (https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html)
LOL! What pap!
Read Blackstone to find 'Nature's God' defined... Shouldn't a lawyer have done that already?
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3c/87/06/3c8706a6da8a9eeb8d592432a628a755.jpg)
Been said before, nothing new....Supreme Court is set to have a conservative majority for maybe decades, oh, I definitely agree, we don't know how these judges will vote. Nothing succeeds like success.
-
Not wanting to do undue harm to others. Wanting to help people that need help.
LOL! An overly broad definition that I think you will find does not hold up to scrutiny. Your problem will be moral relativism - The very problem at the root of all our troubles.
-
EXACTLY right. :beer:
:beer:
Thank you, sir.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3c/87/06/3c8706a6da8a9eeb8d592432a628a755.jpg)
Been said before, nothing new....Supreme Court is set to have a conservative majority for maybe decades, oh, I definitely agree, we don't know how these judges will vote. Nothing succeeds like success.
Tax me Enough Already has what to do with preachers??? That's just lame.
-
Not wanting to do undue harm to others. Wanting to help people that need help.
Not long ago a modern civilized country decided putting certain people's genetic line into ovens was a good idea for the greater good. The greater good has been the bases of numerous genocide events throughout history.
Without a moral anchor the "greater good" is deadly.
-
Conservatism -- i.e., keeping the status quo -- is, by its very definition, a compromise between a move to the left and a move to the right. But what we've seen is a perversion of the playing field. The struggle is now portrayed as "conservative vs. liberal", which places the middle ground to the left of center.
Conservatives have compromised away to the left for decades, else we'd be right where we used to be, with a strong Constitution respected and upheld, with personal liberties also respected. We wouldn't have a huge behemoth of a federal government, and spending would be under control.
The fact that conservatism is no longer seen as the centrist position highlights distortion and annexation by the Left.
@Suppressed
This is going to result in howls of outrage,but the blame for this lies solely at the feet of the religious right. They are about as open to compromise as their Muslim counterparts.
-
@Suppressed
This is going to result in howls of outrage,but the blame for this lies solely at the feet of the religious right. They are about as open to compromise as their Muslim counterparts.
Actually, most of us "conservatives" are classical liberals as in individual liberty through smaller government. The left has bastardized the terms "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberals" really leftests demand the exact opposite of liberty these days. They demand more government, more taxation, more laws, more adherence to their way or else.
-
Compromise is how we got here. The line should have been drawn a long time ago, and that failure is haunting us now.
@Smokin Joe
Not true. A compromise is when you give up something and in return you get something. The alleged Republicans have been doing nothing but giving since the 60's,and getting nothing in return. The reason for this is the Religious Right/Moral Majority disciples insist on establishing their particular beliefs in our nations laws.
As a result of this a lot of citizens who would normally vote Republican vote Dim instead because the Dims don't try to control their personal lives. Especially when it comes to sex.
The Republicans that are devoutly religious are up front about this whole "deys jist too many peeples having too much fun out dere,and Gawd doesn't like it so we has to pass laws to punish these sinners!" This scares away a lot of sane people.
The Dims,on the other hand,don't hesitate an eye blink to lie about their positions. They know it will get them into uncontested power one day,and on that day they WILL smack the rowdies into control via labor camps or executions. The typical Dim voter really and truly does believe the Dims promote individual freedoms,and don't have a freaking clue what the monster they support will unleash once they gain the power. The Dim leadership will make Pat Robertson look like Caligula by comparison.
Make no mistake about it,the people who back the DNC want nothing less than a Global Police State ran by and for the benefit of themselves.
-
Did conservatives compromise or were they simply defeated on certain issues? I've said all I can say about my opinion on this. I think if people aren't willing to let go of some of the social stuff and focus on economics and immigration the left will win it all within the next couple of decades.
@Dexter
:amen:
-
Not wanting to do undue harm to others. Wanting to help people that need help.
You just described a christian value.
-
John Adams as we've heard before, said the Constitution is for a moral and religious people.
@TomSea
Sounds like you are one tiny step away from saying the US Constitution does not protect people who are not religious.
Gee,I wonder why people would take statements like that to mean they should register and vote Dim?
-
@Smokin Joe
Not true. A compromise is when you give up something and in return you get something. The alleged Republicans have been doing nothing but giving since the 60's,and getting nothing in return. The reason for this is the Religious Right/Moral Majority disciples insist on establishing their particular beliefs in our nations laws.
As a result of this a lot of citizens who would normally vote Republican vote Dim instead because the Dims don't try to control their personal lives. Especially when it comes to sex.
The Republicans that are devoutly religious are up front about this whole "deys jist too many peeples having too much fun out dere,and Gawd doesn't like it so we has to pass laws to punish these sinners!" This scares away a lot of sane people.
The Dims,on the other hand,don't hesitate an eye blink to lie about their positions. They know it will get them into uncontested power one day,and on that day they WILL smack the rowdies into control via labor camps or executions. The typical Dim voter really and truly does believe the Dims promote individual freedoms,and don't have a freaking clue what the monster they support will unleash once they gain the power. The Dim leadership will make Pat Robertson look like Caligula by comparison.
Make no mistake about it,the people who back the DNC want nothing less than a Global Police State ran by and for the benefit of themselves.
Republicans have been doing what Dexter suggests for at least the last two decades and look what it's gotten us.
A country that is less civil...less moral and more totalitarian...all because the "smart people" thought the best way to get people to like the GOP and vote for them was to sound like Dem lite on certain issues...like social issues and religion.
And while the turn away from the values that formed and shape this country excites religious bigots like yourself dexter and jazzy...for the rest of us out here suffering under an increasingly more "progressive" country and all that entails...all it does is play into the hands of the left and allows them to more easily turn this country into one giant blue Utopian disaster.
-
All IS lost if the GOP continues to play their game instead of coming up with their own game plan. They tried softening their position on many social issues to appease the DEMS, that got them no where and lost elections. Had the party united and ALL promoted Republican ideals and conservatism and stood by their party, we wouldn't be in this mess. It seems you are suggesting that the GOP needs to lean more to the left. I couldn't disagree more.
@libertybele
Organized religion is NOT a Republican idea. It is a religious practice favored by SOME people who happen to vote Republican. Our Republican was established to guarantee freedom of religion,as well as freedom FROM religion. The Founding Fathers were all born and grew up in societies where the Catholic Church was a branch of government,and unanswerable to all at one time. They will understood the dangers of a religious police state.
-
Many RINO's refused to join in on the Trump bandwagon and many retired their positions from the House, including their leader Lyin' Ryan; the results to me were not unexpected.
@libertybele
These Bible Thumpers are the primary members of the Never Trump Movement. They/you see him as an unrepentant sinner,and nothing he accomplishes while president will ever change your opinions of him.
It just occurred to me that one reason you hate him so much as you see his successes as a threat to the political power of the Religious Right.
-
@libertybele
Organized religion is NOT a Republican idea. It is a religious practice favored by SOME people who happen to vote Republican. Our Republican was established to guarantee freedom of religion,as well as freedom FROM religion. The Founding Fathers were all born and grew up in societies where the Catholic Church was a branch of government,and unanswerable to all at one time. They will understood the dangers of a religious police state.
Oh bullshit. Look at the founding of Maryland. That'll shut you up.
-
Like who?
The kill your baby set? The I wanna get high set?
People who aren't happy with the way the mean old laws just won't let them be totally irresponsible?
Like, Liberals?
They aren't going to vote GOP anyway, if they want a liberal in office, they can just vote for the real thing.
The GOP has been running from the Right and sucking up to the former Leftists they called the "Middle".
No one is saying you have to go to church on Sunday, can't drink, and as I pointed out earlier, at least some of the folks who did not vote for the GOP Senate Candidate in ND this go-round still voted against legalized recreational pot. (still not a good idea, imho).
Blue Laws (generally a southern Democrat thing) are pretty much gone, and the only real reason the Homolobby pushed for "marriage" was so they could get insurance on each other's plans--incidentally why the preexisting condition clauses were in Obamacare--so they'd have to be covered. (1.3 million HIV/AIDS infected and counting, and guess who is the prime high risk group).
So just what "Christian morality" is the GOP 'treying to shove down anyone's throat'?
There is no opt out on a whole slew of progressive programs from putting condoms on pickles to lectures on S&M for grade schoolers, but you better not mention Jesus.
Give me a chance to vote to turn those tables and I sure will, but no one is advocating that--instead the GOP is rushing to embrace the perversion du jour and leave its traditional base behind, again, citing that they will vote GOP because they have no place else to go. (false dichotomy, as the GOP is discovering). No one is under any obligation to vote for that which they don't like, and the GOP is finding that out--from people on the Right.
If you do the math, there is nothing for the GOP to gain by discarding its traditional base in favor of a group of voters who, if they want a Liberal Socialist Government, can always vote Democrat and have the real thing.
@Smokin Joe
Joe,nothing personal,but just about every word in your rant above describes perfectly why it is so hard for Republicans to win. The left wants a communist police state,and the right as defined by you want a religious police state.
Either way you end up with a police state,and very few people want that.
The Dims are just better at lying about it. They always seem to be advocating more freedoms and less government control,and in YOUR police state it's always about LESS freedoms and and MORE government control.
-
Oh bullshit. Look at the founding of Maryland. That'll shut you up.
@roamer_1
So,when are you going to move to the northeast and start wearing black and white and churning your own butter?
Even THOSE cretins you are talking about came here to ENJOY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. They didn't like the religious police states where they were born,so they came her to create their own little mini-version.
-
@roamer_1
So,when are you going to move to the northeast and start wearing black and white and churning your own butter?
Even THOSE cretins you are talking about came here to ENJOY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. They didn't like the religious police states where they were born,so they came her to create their own little mini-version.
@sneakypete
Your objections aside, the various states DID have religious tests, and DID form 'state religions'.... in the presence and with the acceptance of the Founding Fathers. That is the precedent.
It is the overweening nanny state a century and a half later that struck down those states and insisted upon a one-size-fits-all secularism -- Your view of the founding is warped by your vendetta.
-
And I already DO churn my own butter, by the way.
-
@sneakypete
Your objections aside, the various states DID have religious tests, and DID form 'state religions'.... in the presence and with the acceptance of the Founding Fathers. That is the precedent.
@roamer_1
Ok,if that is true PLEASE splain to us all why the US Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion.
What you are doing is cherry picking and mentioning states that existed as virtual countries before the various states were united into the US.
A partial lie is still a lie.
-
@roamer_1
Ok,if that is true PLEASE splain to us all why the US Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion.
What you are doing is cherry picking and mentioning states that existed as virtual countries before the various states were united into the US.
A partial lie is still a lie.
Not at all @sneakypete
The plain truth of the matter is that your cherry-picking of Jefferson and Franklin is just that - Cherry-picking.
Blue laws were in place all the way up into the 60's. The various states DID have religious autonomy, and did have religious tests UNTIL THEN.
The truth of it is that Jefferson's separation did not go clean to the ground - It was specific to the federal government, and not imposed upon the states - And anyone honestly looking at the history will see the truth of it.
And that is the beauty of the Federalist system. If you ain't a Catlick, don't move to Maryland. Go somewhere else.
-
Ok,if that is true PLEASE splain to us all why the US Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion.
So that we wouldn't have another Church of England situation where the head of state is also the head of the church.
That is what the Framers meant by "Congress shall establish no law".
It wasn't put in there to prevent a natavity scene on the front lawn of city hall or a prayer before a football game.
Its quite the opposite...it's there to protect those things...not prevent them.
-
So that we wouldn't have another Church of England situation where the head of state is also the head of the church.
That is what the Framers meant by "Congress shall establish no law".
It wasn't put in there to prevent a natavity scene on the front lawn of city hall or a prayer before a football game.
Its quite the opposite...it's there to protect those things...not prevent them.
It is broader than just preventing the combination of head of state and head of a particular church.
-
Not at all @sneakypete
Blue laws were in place all the way up into the 60's. The various states DID have religious autonomy, and did have religious tests UNTIL THEN.
@roamer_1
And they were UN-Constitutional. Your excuse is like saying stealing or murder isn't illegal if you don't get charged with it.
The truth of it is that Jefferson's separation did not go clean to the ground - It was specific to the federal government, and not imposed upon the states - And anyone honestly looking at the history will see the truth of it.
Yeah,and to HELL with all that "freedom stuff",huh? We should all just allow your Ayatollah to make the rules for all of us to live by,right?
-
So that we wouldn't have another Church of England situation where the head of state is also the head of the church.
It wasn't put in there to prevent a natavity scene on the front lawn of city hall or a prayer before a football game.
Its quite the opposite...it's there to protect those things...not prevent them.
@txradioguy
On that,I am in 100 percent agreement with you. The government has no right to dictate religion or to deny anyone their religious rights as long as they don't involve committing crimes,like child rape,murder,etc,etc,etc.
-
It is broader than just preventing the combination of head of state and head of a particular church.
@Oceander
EXACTLY! It is about protecting people FROM religion also.
-
And they were UN-Constitutional. Your excuse is like saying stealing or murder isn't illegal if you don't get charged with it.
@sneakypete
No, they were rendered 'unconstitutional' by fiat, after hundreds of years. In fact, the precedent denies the verdict. There is no basis for the decision EXCEPT a reinterpretation. The very same 'penumbras' that Conservatives always abhor.
Yeah,and to HELL with all that "freedom stuff",huh? We should all just allow your Ayatollah to make the rules for all of us to live by,right?
We are not free. We have (had) liberty.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
We are currently experiencing those consequences.
-
@sneakypete
No, they were rendered 'unconstitutional' by fiat, after hundreds of years. In fact, the precedent denies the verdict. There is no basis for the decision EXCEPT a reinterpretation. The very same 'penumbras' that Conservatives always abhor.
We are not free. We have (had) liberty.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
We are currently experiencing those consequences.
@roamer_1
I might as well be discussing Islam with a Muslim. The replies I get would be identical.
ANY justification you people can come up with is ok as long as everyone else is forced by law to live according to the brain farts said to be the words of some mystical creature no one has ever seen.
-
So that we wouldn't have another Church of England situation where the head of state is also the head of the church.
That is what the Framers meant by "Congress shall establish no law".
It wasn't put in there to prevent a natavity scene on the front lawn of city hall or a prayer before a football game.
Its quite the opposite...it's there to protect those things...not prevent them.
:patriot: :amen:
-
@libertybele
These Bible Thumpers are the primary members of the Never Trump Movement. They/you see him as an unrepentant sinner,and nothing he accomplishes while president will ever change your opinions of him.
It just occurred to me that one reason you hate him so much as you see his successes as a threat to the political power of the Religious Right.
??? I don't know what you've been smokin' or drinkin' but I think you need to go back and read my posts ... I have NEVER stated or implied that I hate Trump ... and I'm not going to further defend myself to someone who obviously either didn't read my posts or is just making assumptions.
-
I have wasted my time trying to explain to one who either can't or won't get it. The Republicans will never be the Democrats as long as they support the Constitution and, within those bounds, Social Conservatism, either. Democrats, typical of socialists will always find ways for the more wealthy in their ranks to keep theirs, while stripping the middle class like gleaners and buying votes with the loot. I'm not supporting the Democrats, they're even further down the road to embracing totalitarianism than the GOP, I'm just wondering if there is a Party who supports the Constitution any more.
If you could go back in time and try, how would you make the argument before the Founders that a woman has the "right" to kill her unborn child?
How would you make the argument that homosexuals have the right to, with the aid of the State, co-opt the Sacrament of Matrimony and claim to be married?
How would you justify all the social programs that are presented as Robin Hood good deeds of taking from "the rich" (successful) and giving to the "poor" (recall, if you will, Robin of Loxley robbed tax collectors and gave the money back--less operational expenses, of course. I don't recall an instance of him robbing a merchant).
How would you justify Social Programs which permit and even demand that the State take custody and control of children?--whether or not there is evidence to support any 'abuse', and that often defined by the thinnest of reasoning, supported only by anonymous complaint.
How would you justify the State routinely monitoring all the communications and business of everyone?
That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. 888high58888
-
??? I don't know what you've been smokin' or drinkin' but I think you need to go back and read my posts ... I have NEVER stated or implied that I hate Trump ... and I'm not going to further defend myself to someone who obviously either didn't read my posts or is just making assumptions.
@libertybele
I don't want to shock you,but the entire internet is NOT about you.
-
Actually, most of us "conservatives" are classical liberals as in individual liberty through smaller government. The left has bastardized the terms "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberals" really leftests demand the exact opposite of liberty these days. They demand more government, more taxation, more laws, more adherence to their way or else.
Well said. But it should not be forgotten that, for some, the social conservative impulse is indistinguishable from leftism - engaging the government to enforce "adherence to their way or else".
-
You just described a christian value.
The golden rule is espoused by just about all the world's religions. And one doesn't need to be religious at all to see the morality and logic behind it and live one's life accordingly.
As for me, I voice no objection to "Christian values" whatsoever, except with respect to such hot button issues like abortion and gay rights, where social conservatives demand that government enforce their particular values at the expense of Constitutional priorities like individual liberty and the equal protection of the law.
-
The golden rule is espoused by just about all the world's religions.
That's because it's a human value. Humanity is good. The idea that humanity as a whole is bad and unworthy is just depressing and wrong in my opinion.
-
Oh bullshit. Look at the founding of Maryland. That'll shut you up.
Right. Like the Protestant Reformation didn't hit MD, too--Like a Cromwell.
-
I have wasted my time trying to explain to one who either can't or won't get it. The Republicans will never be the Democrats as long as they support the Constitution and, within those bounds, Social Conservatism, either. Democrats, typical of socialists will always find ways for the more wealthy in their ranks to keep theirs, while stripping the middle class like gleaners and buying votes with the loot. I'm not supporting the Democrats, they're even further down the road to embracing totalitarianism than the GOP, I'm just wondering if there is a Party who supports the Constitution any more.
If you could go back in time and try, how would you make the argument before the Founders that a woman has the "right" to kill her unborn child?
How would you make the argument that homosexuals have the right to, with the aid of the State, co-opt the Sacrament of Matrimony and claim to be married?
How would you justify all the social programs that are presented as Robin Hood good deeds of taking from "the rich" (successful) and giving to the "poor" (recall, if you will, Robin of Loxley robbed tax collectors and gave the money back--less operational expenses, of course. I don't recall an instance of him robbing a merchant).
How would you justify Social Programs which permit and even demand that the State take custody and control of children?--whether or not there is evidence to support any 'abuse', and that often defined by the thinnest of reasoning, supported only by anonymous complaint.
How would you justify the State routinely monitoring all the communications and business of everyone?
Interesting to me that if a person chooses the not to abort, the child that is born, along with the parents, will be subject, to all the freedom-stifling laws you've mentioned after it.
Government subsidizes or outright pays for the behavior it wants, and taxes or punishes the behavior it does not want.
-
The golden rule is espoused by just about all the world's religions. And one doesn't need to be religious at all to see the morality and logic behind it and live one's life accordingly.
As for me, I voice no objection to "Christian values" whatsoever, except with respect to such hot button issues like abortion and gay rights, where social conservatives demand that government enforce their particular values at the expense of Constitutional priorities like individual liberty and the equal protection of the law.
@Jazzhead
I would like just the opposite to be true.
I would not ask the federal government to enforce any particular value, "Christian" or otherwise, to Gay Rights or Abortion, but that these issues are defined by the constitution as a 10th amendment issue, and the individual states decide, or have it ratified through the amendment process, as also written in the constitution.
It is the federal overreach that is my objection, the wholesale abandonment of the 10 amendment, and my objection is not limited to Gay Rights or Abortion.
-
I would like just the opposite to be true.
I would not ask the federal government to enforce any particular value, "Christian" or otherwise,
Me too.
:beer:
-
@Smokin Joe
Joe,nothing personal,but just about every word in your rant above describes perfectly why it is so hard for Republicans to win. The left wants a communist police state,and the right as defined by you want a religious police state.
Either way you end up with a police state,and very few people want that.
The Dims are just better at lying about it. They always seem to be advocating more freedoms and less government control,and in YOUR police state it's always about LESS freedoms and and MORE government control.
Let's get one thing straight, pete. I don't want any damn police state--from either side. Power has always corrupted, no matter how allegedly benevolent it claims to be. How many evils have been perpetrated against people or even whole populations under the assertion it was being done for benevolent purposes?
You may see left/right, Marxist/Capitalist, or any of a dozen spectra, but in government, for me the line, the spectrum of government is not so much what power it exerts, but that it can exert power at all.
The dark side is a totalitarian police state AKA 1984, with some 20th century governments coming close, and others still in play. The more power a government has, the more I don't like it, no matter how benevolent.
The less power a government has, the better ("The government which governs best governs least".)
But the only time NO government is preferable to some government is when your neighbors are distant, honorable, and do not outnumber you (and don't want your stuff).
Now, you have a definite burr under your saddle over religion, but what better government than a man govern himself?
In this country, no one is gonna whack your head off because you won't hump a rug five times a day pointing your head at some rock in the desert. If you Love Jesus, that's up to you. If you want to worship otherwise, that is a guaranteed Right.
But we do have some rules, oddly enough, rules which were included in the rules other religions have had, rules which generally work in all societies, help keep bloodshed to a minimum, and allow folks the freedom (if widely practiced) to carry on their lives as they see fit without hunting each other down in reprisal.
If someone is bad enough at following those basic rules, one or more people will do what they can/must to not suffer the depredations of someone who won't follow those rules. If the actions of others truly aren't having any effect on other people, then they are generally left alone. That doesn't mean I can't reserve the right to disagree with or disapprove of what they are doing, and it doesn't mean I have to change my worldview to give approval if I disagree. It only stands to reason that If I don't want to be compelled to believe something, I can't compel someone else to do so either.
A society is just a bunch of people who agree about most things, about rules, and what conventions they will or will not agree (and thus give power) to. History is rife with cultures which self-destruct, and the means by which (if honestly examined) are usually the same: either a breakdown in those social conventions, or poor choices of social conventions to begin with. We don't agree murder is a good idea, so we prohibit it. We don't consider it murder, generally, to execute those who have committed crimes so heinous we wouldn't want them in the general population (same reason we have prisons). But I find it incongrous that if someone took an axe and chopped up a 6 month old baby we'd likely give them 'the needle', but yet some demand the "right" for women to choose to have the same done to a baby within their womb that is only 6 months in development. In a living room, it would be a crime scene, in a uterus, it's a "choice". (What greater way to control a people than to convince them it is okay to execute their children, those who are the only 'innocents' in the cast of characters surrounding that murder.) YMMV, but that's how I see it. All religion aside, it isn't right.
What you don't seem to get about Religion, and especially Christianity (properly practiced) is that the rules of Christianity are a matter of choice, not imposition. You choose to believe these rules are good, that they work for you, that you sleep better at night, are healthier, happier, etc. --or you don't. You choose to follow them--or you don't.
The only time Jesus unloaded a can of whoop-ass was chasing the money changers out of the Temple. If I walked into my father's house and saw some bunch had turned it into a tourist trap, likely I'd have a similar reaction.
But the Son of God who had calmed a storm at sea, made the blind to see, the lame walk, and raised a man from the dead would be theoretically capable of calling down fire and brimstone from the heavens, but didn't.
The whole human thing, from Adam and Eve, has been a matter of choice on the part of the humans, not compulsion. The Almighty let humans make their choices from the Tree in the Garden on--and suffer the consequences, and only intervened directly to express His distaste for what was going on by kicking them out of The Garden, with the Flood, and the destruction of a couple of cities. Almost all other human misery was the product of them not listening to what amounts to good advice, the natural result of choosing badly.
A careful examination of history of religions reveals that whenever that religion is abused to justify theft of other people's stuff (including land and resources), enslavement, or slaughter, religion is only a thin veil cast over the greed of someone else, or even someone directly involved with the religion, to take, enslave, or manipulate, for fun and, of course, profit. Often, the most reprehensible and bloody acts undertaken in the name of god (not capitalized because many gods have been thus named in the course of human history), are undertaken to clinch or retain power, not for God, (capitalized) who already can do or have whatever He wants, but for the person calling the shots--someone who might claim to speak for God, but who have their own interests in the forefront.
If The Almighty is already fully capable of wiping the enclaves of what He objects to off the map, (there are a couple of examples which come to mind), then He can do this any time He so chooses, He does not need for me to do that. He is fully capable of any punishment on anyone He chooses, no police state necessary. It is only the most objectionable acts which compel societies to make rules about what they are willing to tolerate (in the way of behaviour) in their midst, and likely the idea of having your stuff stolen, your daughter raped, your labor compelled, and other such things would not go over well regardless of the presence of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion--or even the absence thereof. But religion presents its adherents with ready-made sets of rules for living in a culture, not perfect rules, often waved about and selectively enforced by the vipers who seek power, but which if properly and humbly practiced produce a culture that can get along. That's the reason, that despite numerous failures in earthly leadership along the way, those religions and the cultures which embrace them have survived for millennia. At the base level, those who really practice what they preach get along well enough to pass that set of beliefs and standards on.
As for defending my right to believe in Him, though, that is a human to human problem, and a Right worthy of defense against those who would impose their beliefs on me, who just wants the freedom to choose what I will believe.
Consider:
My ancestors left their homeland to believe as they would, for that freedom, and helped establish a colony on these shores based on the freedom to worship as one chose. As Catholics, they were already persecuted back home, and here they found that freedom. Of course, if you are going to have true freedom of worship, you have to let in people of other beliefs, or it isn't real freedom, just the freedom to do it your way.
So they let in people of other faiths as well. By the time the Colony was 100 years old, Priests were being hunted (literally) by the purveyors of the Protestant Reformation--one such sold himself to my ancestor, and as a slave enjoyed the protection of being property of the Manor Lord, untouchable without the Manor Lord's protection. He later purchased his own freedom when things had settled down. Now, was that Reformation, the looting of monasteries and burning of libraries in England under Cromwell, an offshoot of the desire for Henry Tudor to retain POWER by being able to present a legitimate heir, which apparently he thought required a different wife (repeatedly) or any of a number of sackings and lootings (including the Templars) conducted for any other reason than an excuse to steal wealth and acquire power? Where did Jesus ever say to do that???
The bit about "Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live" came from Exodus, not Jesus' teachings in the New Testament, and even the thingy about putting those who had sex with animals to death came from that same set of rules. Here, the Christians get blamed for what the Jews wrote down. How funny is that? Or is it because some scribe came up with an angle by which the destruction of people the Crown/Prince/Nobles/bankers/Clergy considered a threat could be removed from the equation by asserting their will was the "Will of God"? A situation where even the accusation of such perfidy could result in being stripped of title and assets and burned at the stake?
Everyone asserts during a war that "Gott mit uns". But someone wins and someone loses--and sometimes the winners leave you wondering what god they worship.
In the end, it is not the religion as a rule (especially where Christianity is involved) but the corruption of individuals by the power represented in using that religion (including Christianity) to control others, even though there is no call in Christianity to do so. (In fact, Christians are admonished to 'test the spirits' in the sense that every Christian is called upon to be knowledgeable in scripture, and to weigh that which they are told against what is proposed as a safeguard against False Prophets and abusers of scripture. That doesn't always work in practice, obviously, whether that failing is from people imposing their desires on the words or just ignorance, at some point when it goes astray there is something in it for them.) I don't have a dog in that fight, except I don't like the idea of my culture sanctioning the murder of innocents, and I'm not exactly ecstatic about someone calling a union as productive as marrying a rock and a tree "marriage" with the expectation of the full faith and credit given to a marriage capable of producing progeny and the next generation.
But the closest the Christian gets is the idea that you don't hang with people who are determined to live badly and you don't embrace those bad choices--especially the very choices you were warned about. You disapprove of then, you admonish their practitioners among you, you advise them otherwise, you can even indoctrinate them from an early age, but you can't FORCE someone to believe. You leave them to their own devices and in the hands of The Almighty. It's simple as that.
If you read the book, you'll find no one was killed by those following Jesus or his teachings, not while He was around. Some were killed for following those teachings, even more so for spreading them, because they were a definite threat to the power of a Roman emperor who was ready to declare himself divine.
In fact, if you follow the rivers of blood which carve the history of nations upstream, you will find at their source a man, woman, or small group who use every means at their disposal (and religion is often thus used) to motivate others to do the dirty work which gives them more wealth and power.
None of those leaders are/were hanging out at the waterfront with the fishermen (except for a photo op), they're in opulent palaces trimmed with marble and gold. They pay lip service to this or that, but in the end, they're all the same. They want to be on top of the heap, they want wealth and the power to keep or enhance that, they will eliminate any threat to those ends, not by the goodness or kindness of their hearts, but at the point of a weapon and standing on the dead bodies of those who they feel are a threat.
We were perhaps the most fortunate people in history to have a group of founders who understood full well human nature, who had, at least in one instance turned down being King, who desired to leave as a legacy a society which afforded to others the Rights to worship (or not) as one chose, and which valued a host of other Rights to property, belief, personal security, and ultimately the security of those freedoms. They were not perfect, but their guiding philosophies sprang from the very idea that we all stand equal before Our Creator and that no man has the Right to infringe upon the very Rights Our Creator has endowed us with. In human history that is rare indeed.
Like I said, they were not perfect, there were unresolved issues, but it was the closest anyone has come, and was inspired by the philosophies with which they were well familiar, derived from Christian thinkers and thought.
Definitely not a totalitarian state, and I would bleed alongside you to prevent such.
-
Let's get one thing straight, pete. I don't want any damn police state--from either side. Power has always corrupted, no matter how allegedly benevolent it claims to be. How many evils have been perpetrated against people or even whole populations under the assertion it was being done for benevolent purposes?
You may see left/right, Marxist/Capitalist, or any of a dozen spectra, but in government, for me the line, the spectrum of government is not so much what power it exerts, but that it can exert power at all.
The dark side is a totalitarian police state AKA 1984, with some 20th century governments coming close, and others still in play. The more power a government has, the more I don't like it, no matter how benevolent.
The less power a government has, the better ("The government which governs best governs least".)
But the only time NO government is preferable to some government is when your neighbors are distant, honorable, and do not outnumber you (and don't want your stuff).
Now, you have a definite burr under your saddle over religion, but what better government than a man govern himself?
In this country, no one is gonna whack your head off because you won't hump a rug five times a day pointing your head at some rock in the desert. If you Love Jesus, that's up to you. If you want to worship otherwise, that is a guaranteed Right.
But we do have some rules, oddly enough, rules which were included in the rules other religions have had, rules which generally work in all societies, help keep bloodshed to a minimum, and allow folks the freedom (if widely practiced) to carry on their lives as they see fit without hunting each other down in reprisal.
If someone is bad enough at following those basic rules, one or more people will do what they can/must to not suffer the depredations of someone who won't follow those rules. If the actions of others truly aren't having any effect on other people, then they are generally left alone. That doesn't mean I can't reserve the right to disagree with or disapprove of what they are doing, and it doesn't mean I have to change my worldview to give approval if I disagree. It only stands to reason that If I don't want to be compelled to believe something, I can't compel someone else to do so either.
A society is just a bunch of people who agree about most things, about rules, and what conventions they will or will not agree (and thus give power) to. History is rife with cultures which self-destruct, and the means by which (if honestly examined) are usually the same: either a breakdown in those social conventions, or poor choices of social conventions to begin with. We don't agree murder is a good idea, so we prohibit it. We don't consider it murder, generally, to execute those who have committed crimes so heinous we wouldn't want them in the general population (same reason we have prisons). But I find it incongrous that if someone took an axe and chopped up a 6 month old baby we'd likely give them 'the needle', but yet some demand the "right" for women to choose to have the same done to a baby within their womb that is only 6 months in development. In a living room, it would be a crime scene, in a uterus, it's a "choice". (What greater way to control a people than to convince them it is okay to execute their children, those who are the only 'innocents' in the cast of characters surrounding that murder.) YMMV, but that's how I see it. All religion aside, it isn't right.
What you don't seem to get about Religion, and especially Christianity (properly practiced) is that the rules of Christianity are a matter of choice, not imposition. You choose to believe these rules are good, that they work for you, that you sleep better at night, are healthier, happier, etc. --or you don't. You choose to follow them--or you don't.
The only time Jesus unloaded a can of whoop-ass was chasing the money changers out of the Temple. If I walked into my father's house and saw some bunch had turned it into a tourist trap, likely I'd have a similar reaction.
But the Son of God who had calmed a storm at sea, made the blind to see, the lame walk, and raised a man from the dead would be theoretically capable of calling down fire and brimstone from the heavens, but didn't.
The whole human thing, from Adam and Eve, has been a matter of choice on the part of the humans, not compulsion. The Almighty let humans make their choices from the Tree in the Garden on--and suffer the consequences, and only intervened directly to express His distaste for what was going on by kicking them out of The Garden, with the Flood, and the destruction of a couple of cities. Almost all other human misery was the product of them not listening to what amounts to good advice, the natural result of choosing badly.
A careful examination of history of religions reveals that whenever that religion is abused to justify theft of other people's stuff (including land and resources), enslavement, or slaughter, religion is only a thin veil cast over the greed of someone else, or even someone directly involved with the religion, to take, enslave, or manipulate, for fun and, of course, profit. Often, the most reprehensible and bloody acts undertaken in the name of god (not capitalized because many gods have been thus named in the course of human history), are undertaken to clinch or retain power, not for God, (capitalized) who already can do or have whatever He wants, but for the person calling the shots--someone who might claim to speak for God, but who have their own interests in the forefront.
If The Almighty is already fully capable of wiping the enclaves of what He objects to off the map, (there are a couple of examples which come to mind), then He can do this any time He so chooses, He does not need for me to do that. He is fully capable of any punishment on anyone He chooses, no police state necessary. It is only the most objectionable acts which compel societies to make rules about what they are willing to tolerate (in the way of behaviour) in their midst, and likely the idea of having your stuff stolen, your daughter raped, your labor compelled, and other such things would not go over well regardless of the presence of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion--or even the absence thereof. But religion presents its adherents with ready-made sets of rules for living in a culture, not perfect rules, often waved about and selectively enforced by the vipers who seek power, but which if properly and humbly practiced produce a culture that can get along. That's the reason, that despite numerous failures in earthly leadership along the way, those religions and the cultures which embrace them have survived for millennia. At the base level, those who really practice what they preach get along well enough to pass that set of beliefs and standards on.
As for defending my right to believe in Him, though, that is a human to human problem, and a Right worthy of defense against those who would impose their beliefs on me, who just wants the freedom to choose what I will believe.
Consider:
My ancestors left their homeland to believe as they would, for that freedom, and helped establish a colony on these shores based on the freedom to worship as one chose. As Catholics, they were already persecuted back home, and here they found that freedom. Of course, if you are going to have true freedom of worship, you have to let in people of other beliefs, or it isn't real freedom, just the freedom to do it your way.
So they let in people of other faiths as well. By the time the Colony was 100 years old, Priests were being hunted (literally) by the purveyors of the Protestant Reformation--one such sold himself to my ancestor, and as a slave enjoyed the protection of being property of the Manor Lord, untouchable without the Manor Lord's protection. He later purchased his own freedom when things had settled down. Now, was that Reformation, the looting of monasteries and burning of libraries in England under Cromwell, an offshoot of the desire for Henry Tudor to retain POWER by being able to present a legitimate heir, which apparently he thought required a different wife (repeatedly) or any of a number of sackings and lootings (including the Templars) conducted for any other reason than an excuse to steal wealth and acquire power? Where did Jesus ever say to do that???
The bit about "Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live" came from Exodus, not Jesus' teachings in the New Testament, and even the thingy about putting those who had sex with animals to death came from that same set of rules. Here, the Christians get blamed for what the Jews wrote down. How funny is that? Or is it because some scribe came up with an angle by which the destruction of people the Crown/Prince/Nobles/bankers/Clergy considered a threat could be removed from the equation by asserting their will was the "Will of God"? A situation where even the accusation of such perfidy could result in being stripped of title and assets and burned at the stake?
Everyone asserts during a war that "Gott mit uns". But someone wins and someone loses--and sometimes the winners leave you wondering what god they worship.
In the end, it is not the religion as a rule (especially where Christianity is involved) but the corruption of individuals by the power represented in using that religion (including Christianity) to control others, even though there is no call in Christianity to do so. (In fact, Christians are admonished to 'test the spirits' in the sense that every Christian is called upon to be knowledgeable in scripture, and to weigh that which they are told against what is proposed as a safeguard against False Prophets and abusers of scripture. That doesn't always work in practice, obviously, whether that failing is from people imposing their desires on the words or just ignorance, at some point when it goes astray there is something in it for them.) I don't have a dog in that fight, except I don't like the idea of my culture sanctioning the murder of innocents, and I'm not exactly ecstatic about someone calling a union as productive as marrying a rock and a tree "marriage" with the expectation of the full faith and credit given to a marriage capable of producing progeny and the next generation.
But the closest the Christian gets is the idea that you don't hang with people who are determined to live badly and you don't embrace those bad choices--especially the very choices you were warned about. You disapprove of then, you admonish their practitioners among you, you advise them otherwise, you can even indoctrinate them from an early age, but you can't FORCE someone to believe. You leave them to their own devices and in the hands of The Almighty. It's simple as that.
If you read the book, you'll find no one was killed by those following Jesus or his teachings, not while He was around. Some were killed for following those teachings, even more so for spreading them, because they were a definite threat to the power of a Roman emperor who was ready to declare himself divine.
In fact, if you follow the rivers of blood which carve the history of nations upstream, you will find at their source a man, woman, or small group who use every means at their disposal (and religion is often thus used) to motivate others to do the dirty work which gives them more wealth and power.
None of those leaders are/were hanging out at the waterfront with the fishermen (except for a photo op), they're in opulent palaces trimmed with marble and gold. They pay lip service to this or that, but in the end, they're all the same. They want to be on top of the heap, they want wealth and the power to keep or enhance that, they will eliminate any threat to those ends, not by the goodness or kindness of their hearts, but at the point of a weapon and standing on the dead bodies of those who they feel are a threat.
We were perhaps the most fortunate people in history to have a group of founders who understood full well human nature, who had, at least in one instance turned down being King, who desired to leave as a legacy a society which afforded to others the Rights to worship (or not) as one chose, and which valued a host of other Rights to property, belief, personal security, and ultimately the security of those freedoms. They were not perfect, but their guiding philosophies sprang from the very idea that we all stand equal before Our Creator and that no man has the Right to infringe upon the very Rights Our Creator has endowed us with. In human history that is rare indeed.
Like I said, they were not perfect, there were unresolved issues, but it was the closest anyone has come, and was inspired by the philosophies with which they were well familiar, derived from Christian thinkers and thought.
Definitely not a totalitarian state, and I would bleed alongside you to prevent such.
@Smokin Joe
Our freaking standing!
-
That's because it's a human value. Humanity is good.
And how do you think humans got the idea for "humanity" as you put it?
Where do you think they got the idea to love their fellow man and treat others as they would want to be treated?
The idea that humanity as a whole is bad and unworthy is just depressing and wrong in my opinion.
Look at the countries where religion and religious beliefs are cast aside like you want for our country...then tell me how "humane" they are.
There is a connection between Christianity...the values it espouses and this country and why we are the only one who does things like we do them and have lasted for so long.
-
And how do you think humans got the idea for "humanity" as you put it?
Where do you think they got the idea to love their fellow man and treat others as they would want to be treated?
Look at the countries where religion and religious beliefs are cast aside like you want for our country...then tell me how "humane" they are.
There is a connection between Christianity...the values it espouses and this country and why we are the only one who does things like we do them and have lasted for so long.
I don't believe Christianity invented good. People were capable of good long before Christianity. We're slowly becoming more and more civilized as the good in humanity gains dominance over the bad. Good will win in the end because at its core humanity is good.
-
I don't believe Christianity invented good. People were capable of good long before Christianity. We're slowly becoming more and more civilized as the good in humanity gains dominance over the bad. Good will win in the end because at its core humanity is good.
As I said before... Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.