Pete Sessions, and the Unbearable Disconnect of the GOP
Was it the strange comments of these two candidates that derailed potential Senate GOP gains, or was it that the GOP establishment enthusiastically joining the Akin-Mourdock firing squad, much to the glee of the democrats and the media? Think of all the offensive and vile comments that spew from DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, or even Harry Reid. Hell, consider that the featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention was a disbarred lawyer and alleged rapist. Did the GOP give them worse than they gave Akin and Mourdock?
The Democrats always close ranks. They rarely, if ever, abandon their own. They never apologize. You never doubt they will fight fiercely for their principles, whether abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, higher taxes, environmental regulations, and an ever-expanding state. Yet it’s hard to tell what Republicans would go to the mat for, if anything. This explains why they failed to mount a successful campaign to take the Senate.
Think of how the election might have been different if the GOP had nationalized Senate elections by emphasizing the coming Obamacare train wreck and the fiscal dereliction (and law-breaking) of Harry Reid and the Democratically controlled Senate. The last time the Senate passed a budget, there were no iPads — voters get messaging like that. Too bad the GOP discovered it after the election.
Strategies like messaging, refusing to accept prevailing DNC-media narratives, and taking the initiative on upcoming policy battles seem never to occur to the GOP. It’s simply not in their worldview.
Sessions concluded by stating that both sides will likely agree to sequestration, and that there is a strong possibility of a government shutdown. And if history is any guide, the GOP will have no messaging strategy in place to deal with any potential fallout.
I’m a life long, traditional, conservative Republican. I define “traditional” as one can be a valid, bona-fide conservative without accepting Jesus as your savior. And that perhaps is illustrative of our party’s situation.
Couple days after the November 6 election, a nationally prominent social conservative offered that Romney lost because he didn’t come out strongly enough against abortion. As if jobs and the economy didn’t even matter in this person’s mind.
I agree that the GOP has not articulated a strong enough case for cutting spending. Paul Ryan’s budget didn’t help with its focus on cutting entitlements and not touching military spending. The GOP loses credibility when it comes out against the lavish GSA conference in Vegas, for example, and ignores cost overruns on stuff like the F-35 fighter plane.
We continue to lose credibility when we call for small government on fiscal matters & the federal budget, but are true believers in the role of big government in telling people what to do in their personal & private lives.
I think former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels had it right when early in the campaign, in 2011, he called for a truce within the Party on the social issues. Unless and until we as a party can figure out the chasm between fiscal and social conservatives, the party will continue to struggle.
My God,
There is another fiscal conservative. I thought I was the only one.
I just wish there was a political party for people like us.
Its hard to be a “fiscal conservative” without a strong moral background isn’t it?
It is wrong to murder the unborn for our present-day convenience, just as its wrong to burden them with the financial holocaust of our present-day spending.
Even more so, most decent people would argue, because its one thing to defraud someone of funds, or falsely bill them for services not rendered (after recieving a kickback from the people who ran up their credit card?) but its a whole ‘nother thing to KILL them.
Its hard to justify being “concerned” for one while turning a blind eye to the other. They kinda go together as “basic right and wrong”.
The Democrats have morphed into Commie Statists who are so unapologetically devoid of any semblance of moral principals, I EXPECT them to support both…murder for convenience (Death Panels, Euthanasia, abortion for any reason) AND fiscal irresponsibility. Simultaneously twisting words in Orwellian fashion, calling Infanticide “reproductive freedom” AND calling endless deficit spending/vote buying/transfers of wealth “investments” and “fair share”, with that sinister, ice-cold straight face/compliant Media lock-step that tells you they KNOW their lying.
I’m looking for candidates who are the POLAR OPPOSTITE of what these people represent. I become suspicious when they say I’m a “fiscal” conservative, but have no position on “moral” issues.
Basically, if I cant trust you taking a firm stance on Life and Death issues, I should trust you with money?
Bingo! Right on the money sir. Also, those who feel they have to define their “conservative” ideas because they don’t believe God exists, or have no problem with the government using taxpayer dollars to pay for flat out evil (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) because “it doesn’t affect them” are not conservative at all. Without basic morality there is no conservatism. Only anything goes liberalism. There is a party for these people. It’s called the Democrat Party.
There should be a party for small gov’t conservatives who are not social conservative (at least in the sense they don’t want the gov’t to intervene in such matters). The problem, of course, is that a second conservative party will split the conservative vote. A possible solution, IMO, is to draw members of both the GOP and the Dems to create a third, “centrist” party that will be also an alternative to the Dem party and not just the GOP. Among the Dems, certainly among the Dem voters, not everyone is happy with the radical turn the party took, not everyone is a socialist, some are closer to classical liberalism, and though you can’t create a libertarian party with them, you can get to a reasonable compromise. A party like that might not win elections immediately, but in the long run can prove a more viable alternative than either the socialist party or the social conservative party.
BTW, I think abortion is a separate issue. The deciding question here is when does the fetus become human or is considered human. For people who consider the fetus human since conception abortion is murder, which isn’t part of one’s right to choose because murder is already forbidden by law. The question when is a fetus considered human isn’t necessarily related to religion and there’s still a case to be made here. But on all other issues social conservatives have already lost. Women are not likely to go back to the kitchen en masse, and gays are not likely to go back to the closet. Most in the younger generations already take that for granted and are not likely to suddenly feel repulsed by gays living like married couples or female combat pilots. A party made of social conservatives is not likely to have a great electoral future if it has competition from a party that’s not socially conservative, but conservative on all other issues, i.e. a classical liberal party really (as opposed to socialists calling themselves “liberals” in the Dem party). In some European countries this kind of party — free market, small gov’t, fiscally conservative, not socially conservative — is called conservative-liberal. In some places it’s actually called liberal or neo-liberal.
” But on all other issues social conservatives have already lost. Women are not likely to go back to the kitchen en masse, and gays are not likely to go back to the closet. Most in the younger generations already take that for granted and are not likely to suddenly feel repulsed by gays living like married couples or female combat pilots.”
Congratulations on regurgitating the false narrative/media slander about “social conservatives”
Its what THE MEDIA says we stand for, and you’ve become part of the problem, buying into THEIR messaging about who we are.
I dont “Hate Gays”, I resent Homosexual advocates getting invited into schools on my dime, to show CHILDREN sex toys and kinky acts…I think Condoms in a “dont ask dont tell” salad bowl in the nurses office subliminally tells the girls they should “give it up” because we’re handing the stuff out to THE BOYS who will pressure you with OUR IMPLICIT APPROVAL.
I dont “hate women”, I’m a Combat Veteran myself, and I can tell you women in INFANRTY units where the mission is to specifically SEEK combat with the enemy is a BAD IDEA for many, many sound reasons, IF we were ALLOWED to have a rational conversation about it.
But The Media pigeon-holes any serious, thoughful conversation with “conservatives” and paints us as they need to, in order to shut down the dialog and help Democrats who they happily provide Propaganda services for.
Effective Propaganda, easily absorbed by superficial low-information “young people” raised in the glare of their entertainment programing.
As perfectly demonstrated by your comments I quoted.
Thank you for your service sir & again for your thoughts. You understand what conservative ideas are supposed to represent. There are a lot of folks here who act & think like Democrats, but yet wonder if there is a party that suits their views. If the Democrats became fiscally conservative they would sign up as Democrats immediately. Instead, they’d rather continue attempting to transform conservatism into their own twisted view of what it should be.
Look it there is a way to bridge this social/fiscal divide. You look at things in the budget like the funding of Planned Parenthood. PP is a mill for abortion in the holocaust against the unborn, yet it receives government funding. Why? Why can’t this be cut from the budget? There are things like this all throughout the federal budget, yet we get hung up on “wars on women” and not wanting to offend the media as opposed to telling the voters that what we are doing is cutting unwarranted spending from a budget that is a trillion dollars over the mark. Yes, the group in question deals in abortion, but more importantly they are a private entity that is said to provide a much wanted service to people. If it is so wanted, then let the price/demand pick up the funding. Not the American tax payers.
“You look at things in the budget like the funding of Planned Parenthood.”
Right. There’s one of those spheres of mutual agreement.
From my POV, funding of PP is unconstitutional, anyway, (on top of my opposition to both murdering babies and to women enslavement). (And, while I’m in the general subject-area, why are there special federal government incentives to encourage so many Americans to travel to Red China and the FSU with each couple paying tens of thousands of dollars to adopt, when we have hundreds of thousands of children in the USA who should have families, while other deserving US couples get stone-walled? Meanwhile, many children are held in the limbo of state foster programs.)
We should also zero fund the unconstitutional National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, HUD, most of the national highways trust funds (which are abused for local roads, instead, not even inter-city let alone inter-state), NPR/CPB, funding the USDA to over-regulate Hemingway’s polydactylic cats…
How do we overcome the leftist “trial lawyers” who have totally perverted the whole health/medical care price structure with devastating effects on charity hospitals and clinics?
Or are some of those outside the area of agreement?
Exactly my beliefs as well. The GOP needs to stop meddling in private choices.
The comments from The Root ’83 (above) further illustrate the GOP’s problem. Root seems to be saying that one is not a “moral person” unless one agrees with his personal religious position, which is held by others ranging from adherents of the religious right (fundamentalist Christians) to the Catholic bishops, who just can’t seem to make their flocks obey the bishops’ directives on contraception.
That religious position of course is to be firmly anti-abortion, probably anti-contraception, anti-gay anything, anti teaching of sex education in the public schools because that “will lead to promiscuity,” pro-teaching of creationism in the public schools because to not allow said teaching “violates” religious freedom, and so on.
Jesus Christ said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Christ also said to “leave all your possessions and follow me.” Unfortunately, all of these religious voices that seem to have such a hold on the Republican party; speaking from their lofty cathedral pulpits and billion dollar media empires; don’t seem to much care about His words.
Jesus Christ said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Christ also said to “leave all your possessions and follow me.”
Steve, Jesus Christ said what you repeated in your post first to the Pharisees who wanted to know if they were required to pay taxes. Second, to a rich man whose heart Jesus already knew. Jesus knew the rich man loved his earthly posessions more so than God. The rich man wanted to know what He lacked to enter The Kingdom of God. Jesus was trying to teach Him through His words to him that the things of God are much more valuable than the things of this world. Seek first The Kingdom of God & all things will be added unto you. God gives us everything we need. We are not to love the things He gives us more so than God Himself. We can make zillions of dollars & accumulate all the wealth we want. We still can’t take it with us. Jesus also said to work first & foremost for food (the things of God) that doesn’t spoil. The Root of ’83 gets it. I hope you will too.
Steve, you are again misrepresenting my moral principals to fit a stereotype that does not exist.
“religious position of course is to be firmly anti-abortion, probably anti-contraception, anti-gay anything, anti teaching of sex education in the public schools because that “will lead to promiscuity,” pro-teaching of creationism in the public schools because to not allow said teaching “violates” religious freedom, and so on”
Tiresome and untrue on all counts.
There is a vocal, radical element among The Left that is obsessed with sexualing children before puberty, and its unhealthy. Its corrosive and brings them harm. It is every bit as harmful as “pedophile priests” because it affect ALL children exposed to it through The Media. Teach them biology, yes. A full and complete understanding of where babies come from is a good thing…handing out condoms to 6th graders, not so much. STDS were unheard of among Junior High School Kids 50 years ago, and it wasnt because they didnt have condoms. They had something ELSE in the curriculum that was BETTER than condoms, but we’re not allowed to have that conversation anymore.
We dont expect “creationism” to be taught in school. We just expect The First Amendment, ALL OF IT, including that pesky part about “..or prevent the free exercise of” to be permitted on Public Property. Somewhere the along the line, The Left invented this “separation of church and state” phrase as an acid test that demands all “religious-ness” to be banned, in all forms and ideations, from any public place,property or school. Thats NOT what the Constitution says or means, clearly by a simple reading of it…but if we bring that point up, WE’RE called “extremists” for expecting an honest conversation about it
The problem is, Conservatives are always shouted down, called names and marginalized, while True, Modern, Radical Leftists are always said not to exist.
But thats a rational, adult conversation…one that wont fit on a bumper sticker or provide juicy soundbites….
So its perfect for low-information snobs who wear their politics like fashion accessories, following the latest Media Lead on what’s “cool” and what’s not.
Nice commentary The Root.
I doubt youll make any inroads into Steve though, as Ive read his comments to me and others.
It always amazes me that seemingly rational people who reject the Marxist indoctrination on economic issues and class warfare, are oblivious to the Marxist cultural indoctrination, culture war…and in fact swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Then again, someone telling you their is no right or wrong, morality is all relative, and any activity you undertake to satiate your lusts and desires is A-OK does have a certain appeal to it, especially when contrasted with honor, duty, and moral righteousness. Hedonism seems a treat, but it leads to individual and societal disaster….and indeed Leftist economic demands for wealth transfers to subsidize behaviors that lead to failure and are evil and wrong….because you know those squares always lecturing you about morality will have and retain wealth living within their means, instead of blowing it on gratification. Those humorless mean would be oppressors, amassing wealth while we suffer our own follies! We need some equality of outcome!
Maybe Steve will grow out of it, I did.
go back to your cave dem troll
“Exactly my beliefs as well. The GOP needs to stop meddling in private choices.”
And the Dems and their RINO sympathizers need to stop expecting me to pay for their private choices. As far as I’m concerned a person can have sex with ten different people ten times a day but don’t ask me to pay for the contraception, abortion or STD treatments. I believe that committed relationships make communities stronger and therefore have no problem extending the right of marriage to gay couples but don’t push a gay agenda on school children because, quite frankly, our kids have their hands full trying to learn to read and write. I believe that the War on Drugs is just plain dumb. Legalize them all and allow people to snort themselves to death but don’t ask me to pay for their rehab and inevitable medical bills.
I haven’t attended a church service in two decades but it really frosts my glass when I hear Christian Conservatives put down. It seems like everyone has the right to express their opinion except Christians. News for you, so-con is not a dirty word.
And stop funding private choices.
your a dem troll and you know it, you can’t part conservative that’s like being a little bit pregnant. go post on the kos cause real conservatives know your kind a mile away
What happens is people poke a stick into religious people, they respond, very often necessarily, and the fiscons are nowhere to be found to defend them.
Ask yourself this: why is it so doggone important to believe in evolution? Or even a 6,000 year old Earth or whatever it is the YECers say it is?
Now, I would certainly agree that if someone were to try to forbid a belief in evolution or demand a belief in a 6,000 year old Earth that that would be a hill to fight on, but that’s not what is going on.
What is going on is that people — a lot of people — have a beliefs about these things that are different than the conventional wisdom held by the establishment and this establishment attempts to marginalize them so the issue becomes political.
It would be far more effective for fiscons to rise up and say “So, what? Let them believe what they want. Leave them alone” than to complain about them.
“What happens is people poke a stick into religious people, they respond, very often necessarily, and the fiscons are nowhere to be found to defend them.”
Yes, I was a lurker at a video-conference which included Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich many moons ago. Gingrich was doing a good, solid job addressing federal government spending, budgeting, inflation, excessive and perverse regulation… all in a rational manner. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, he started raving on a religious tangent. Raving. His manner of speech had changed. His gestures had magnified. He had the floor; no one could have poked him if they’d wanted to. There’s no way one could rationally defend or oppose his position in the context of that video-conference. It admitted of no rational argument one way or another. He wasn’t open to the possibility of other approaches than the false dichotomy he was posing. We just sat there with our mouths open in shock and, after the session ended, walked off shaking our heads and muttering in disgust.
… and, besides, when it came down to cases, he wimped out on those fiscal issues. When will the GOP congress-critters at least draft some good, positive legislation, and let the leftists shoot it down in the clear light of day? When will they start shooting down the radical leftists’ nonsense bills like ObummerDoesn’tCare? When will they stop holding back from making use of every gimmick within the rules of procedure to turn the tide?
In any organization, even a one-issue association, the members have different priorities.
To some, taxation is the central issue and everything else is peripheral.
To another, excessive government spending is the central issue and everything else is peripheral.
To another, abortion is murder (or, to the leftists, the only way women can be truly free) and the central issue and everything else is peripheral.
To another, the right to own and carry arms is his central issue and everything else is peripheral.
To another. the Socialist Insecurity Abomination is the central issue and everything else is peripheral.
To another, the out of control Fed (and the inflation and devaluation of the currency it engages in) is the central issue and everything else is peripheral.
To another, national security (defense, securing the borders, finding and arresting foreign spies and operatives…) is the central issue and everything else is peripheral.
The way associations, organizations, political parites… work effectively is that people work for mutually agreed upon aims within that organization, setting aside their external differences to be sorted out by other alignments of conflicting associations. Besides which, each issue presents a range of possibilities. Compromise is a matter of finding those overlaps, those areas of agreement, usually by widening out or digging for the reasons behind the commonly expressed opinions related to that issue to find mutually agreeable spheres (certainly not by abandoning genuine principles).
The Democratics have repeatedly and dishonestly morphed. They were the pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow party but they changed their sheets as soon as they felt (not thought, felt) it would be advantageous. They were for decentralized power and opposed to concentrating power in the federal executive… until they felt it would be advantageous, and shift back and forth as the political winds blow. They’re for democracy when it seems to get the party bosses what they want (including when they believe it will cause their appearance to get them more of the power that they want) and opposed to it when it doesn’t. They put on the mask of defenders of the little people, until and unless the little people want to preserve their ability to resist the party bosses’ whims. The Demagogic party bosses’ practices are a BAD THING.
Republican party leaders were against centralized government power. They favored high tariffs and opposed income extortion… until 1912 when they suddenly went along with the leftists to turn that on its head. They favored individual liberty and privacy, until about 1900. Mr. Conservative (Robert Taft) was an anti-interventionist (no, not an isolationist; entering WW2 after the attack on Pearl Harbor was a consistent non-interventionist position). But other so-called Republican leaderss, so-called conservative leaders, turned their backs on it and never went back. This only worsened with the of numbers of leftists as neo-cons, who keep babbling about abandoning Republican positions in favor of “saving” leftist programs. These Republican party bosses’ practices are a BAD THING.
Take a look at the congressman’s website and realize how dense this guy is regarding the meeting in his district. He didn’t hear a word they said!
– reply to the “No you didn’t!”?
RE: “What did Sessions…” Sesson’s didn’t really address the charge head on. He basically said “we did that two years ago, and they did nothing.” Guess most of us missed that.
Another article with the fantasy that Akin could have won if we “closed ranks” around him.
Not only couldn’t Akin win, but he gave the Dems an opportunity to tar the entire GOP with his brush. By closing ranks around him, we would be validating their point: That we’re all lunatics just like him.
And that would spell doom for the GOP with female voters, absolute doom. Not to mention the fact that a lot of us would be morally ashamed to associate ourselves with his views. What he said was scientifically wrong and even creepy.
BTW, the Dems did NOT close ranks around Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner. They dumped them for the same reason: Those two had become political embarrassments.
And Weiner’s gonna run for office again. You think he’s going to run as an independent, or a Democrat in good standing?
And how they doing with Menendez?
Did you hear about the Chicago judge that was ruled insane, but is allowed to keep her job as a judge?
And, well, Bill “Put Some Ice On That” Clinton?
“By closing ranks around him, we would be validating their point”
Yeah and by not we totally averted that…not.
They need no excuses.
Akin and Mourdock screwed up big time. They wouldn’t have if they were fighting for real gains against the Democrats and not trying to nuzzle a constituency that doesn’t exist (the no statement is too dumb if it is anti-abortion constituency).
The Republicans are in partnership with the Democrats. If they wanted a real battle the Tea Party was ready to get out the vote and Akin and Mourdock could have said I am anti-abortion and the Democrats themselves say that financial difficulties can lead to abortion. Being anti-abortion I wonder why the Democrats insist on policies which lead to the kind of economic despair that ends human life. On message, pro-Life and anti-Democrat. They’ll never say that because they want to carve out little fiefdoms for themselves at the expense of the nation.
“BTW, the Dems did NOT close ranks around Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner”
Sure they didnt…..
One was absolved of criminal charges that would have put ANY republican behind bars, and handed a TALK SHOW on a sympathetic network to resurect/ensure his continued, valuable, political “insider-ism-ness”
The other is married to a Clinton Pal, and will soon run for office AGAIN with absolutely no political baggage to speak of.
As if any of that would ever, COULD ever, happen to Republicans in the same situations.
The Dems offered some Mild rebukes, their Propaganda Arm pronounced “all is well”, and the Parade of Lies marches on.
The issue isn’t whether Akin would have won. It’s whether Republicans doomed their Senate chances by validating and lending thrust to the democrat/media narrative of a callous and stupid GOP. They did, by pulling campaign funds and incessantly criticizing Akin.
Instead, they should have counterpunched and put the Democrats on the defensive. After all, Democrats have a pretty sordid history of ACTUAL female abuse as opposed to simply uttering inopportune statements. Yet Republicans joined in the whacking of the Akin-Mourdock piñata, elevating the issue and branding the entire conservative movement as stupid and abusive in the process. They’re still keeping it alive, what with comments coming from Sessions, Jindal et al. Akin said something dumb. He retracted and apologized for his statements. He hurt no one (except perhaps himself) until the Republican establishment got involved and spread the pain.
You’re entitled to your opinion but you can’t say for a fact that Akin would have lost had the GOP elitists had simply refused to adopt the Democrat message against Akin. Akin won the primary for a reason – you can’t deny that or explain it away. Here we are in January 2013 and you all are still reminding us of a small segment of an interview he had with a Liberal reporter and blaming it for not winning the US Senate. Remarkably stupid.
The reason for losing is simple – who wants Democratic Lite? The ‘leadership’ is not clueless, they are part of it. They just can’t understand why the Dems aren’t throwing them bones anymore.
It’s true. If we have to become Democrat Lite to win, we may as well all vote Libertarian and let the country go blue. After the collapse we can help rebuild the nation.
Im going Constitution Party myself.
Except that the “Democratics” are all Reds.
You’ve been scammed by another leftist re-definition to attempt to hide their crimes.
The GOP inside the beltway are part of the problem. They didn’t spend time talking about spending cuts because they like the spending as much as the Dems. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
Session, McCain, Enzi, Grahmnesty etc etc are all big government control every aspect of our lives as the Dems.
Give me two other conservatives and 20 minutes and we’ll have the budget balanced. Some people may not be happy with it, but it will balance. We’ve not reached this place since 2008, we’ve acquired it since 1933. The Republicans in control under GW Bush went into a spending mode that would make FDR proud, and we kicked them out in 2006 as a result. Unfortunately we had to give control to the spend even more Dems in order to do it.
2014 is the time to finish the job of cleaning out the big spenders in both houses and take control of our future.
I’d just keep sending a spending bill every day; every day, congressional salaries and funding for all agencies not listed in the Constitution would decrease by 1%, and congressional retirement and healthcare costs would decrease by 2%.
Exactly!
The GOP always allows that same Democrat Lie, that “we’ll have to cut (name your sympathetic victim) if we dont raise taxes” and they fold under Media pressure.
Why doesnt any Republican dare make THIS argument on TV:
“Why are we discussing grandma’s social security check at all?….why cant we make “modest cuts” by REDUCING THE SALARY of every Federal Employee, FIRST? Just those in the upper brackets, the ones making over 100K? Cut THEIR salary by 10% first, before we go after grandma…why is THAT never an option for this President, and our friends across the aisle?”
“How DARE the Democrats put our Seniors and Veterans on the block FIRST, as if we have no OTHER options we could be exercising”
Followed shortly there after by:
“I know most Americans know a Veteran or Senior Citizen living on a fixed income who would be badly hurt by cuts in their benefits…I also know those SAME Americans dont know ONE SINGLE POOR PERSON with a six-figure income…an Exectutive Level income those hardworking Americans who earn considerabley less, generously provide them with…
“But somehow, we always ask the ones who PAY the bills, to tighten their belts after we’ve been irresponsible with their money…..well, that’s stops RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW”
“I want the President and the Leader of the Senate to explain to me why its unfair to ask a Government employee making over 100K to “struggle to survive” on mere a 90 thousand dollars a year, before we talk about ANY tax increases or cuts in benifits being put on the backs of Seniors, The Disabled, our Veterans and others, who have a much lower standard of living than that.”.
“And quite frankly, I’ll never understand why you people in The Media NEVER raise this question yourself…You buy the Administrations fiscal excuses hook, line and sinker, without any question as to where else money can be saved before either Raising Taxes, or Cutting Benefits”
What dont we ever jear that kind of argument?
Could it be the MAJORITY of Republicans are RINOs who don’t care about anything but THEIR OWN place at the trough?
BINGO!
BINGO! If only
BINGO! I wish I could make the print larger to emphasize how much I agree with everything you said. It’s good to know others feel the same as I do on this.
Thank you sir.
PJM is where I vent.
Its actually a good thing there are enough Low-Information/Commie/Troll/DNC Operatives here, it keeps my thoughts sharp and my patriotism fierce.
A platform concept, that if you stuck with, I would be one of your best allies!
No one ever any won any game, business battle or real war by playing defense. Al successful leaders achieved their goal by studying the weak points of their opponent then attack with full force. The Republican are condemned to lose as long they continue to play defense.
A very true statement.
Add to that being “good mannered” and not “lowering ourselves to their level”, and that’s half of why the GOP is a pack of losers.
It seems the Dallas area congressmen are generally squishy when drawing a conservative ‘line in the sand’.
Our congressmen just don’t get it or don’t want to get it. We couldn’t even get rid of Boehner who is a proven disaster. Tea Party congressmen failed us as they only needed 13 of them to dump him! What happened to stopping and defunding Obama care? Then we have Kaisch who just rolled over with a big lie as it will cost the State but that is just our children who will bear that cost! No patriots out there – career over country!
All this boils down to is this: the GOP is bullied by the Left in this country. And instead of standing up to these bullies they cower in fear that they will be hit again. Until the GOP learns to fight back against the media, Dems, and GOP leadership in DC they will continue to be the squish party and they will continue to get squished. The GOP is going to become the Tories over in the UK, a Left-lite party that no longer stands up for limited government and personal responsibility. The only problem for Conservatives is that there isn’t a UKIP equivalent in the US.
Read the article on Powerline re Horowitz How the GOP can win. Link
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/david-horowitz-how-republicans-can-win.php
If you’re gonna cave,do it in a fashion to make the other guy the culprit. Obama wants more taxes which will send Sessions into a Tail Spin and join the whiny Baleful Bawling Boehner all in a bunch about how they can get re-elected. What the GOP should do is agree and then move everyone’s tax rate to whatever it takes to balance the budget. Hollywood — 99%, Buffet 99%, rank and file – 50%. Whatever it takes. To pay for Obama. And shout out everyday the royal lifestyle of the Dems. Every day. Every hour. Every minute. It’s the narrative, stupid.
Absolutely right, introduce a tax bill that goes up to 90% on the wealthy Democrats like Buffett, the Hollywood crowd and the bankers. Make them bleed and defund the Democratic Party. End all deductions, have a punitive tax on trusts, tax capital gains like income and especially end the tax deductibility of municipal bonds. Attack the rich backers of the Democrats on every front and then demonize them for complaining. Call them greedy, make them the enemies of the middle-class and poor. In fact make them pay until they are poor, step on their necks and don’t let them up ever.
“Make them bleed and defund the Democratic Party”
Seriously?
You DO relize the ENTIRE Federal Treasury has already been squandered, PLUS ANOTHER 16 trillion, by the Democrats using it as their vote buying/money laundering scheme.
And a new 50-90% tax rate will somehow “defund” them?
Seriously?
Yeah, seriously. Use their methods to isolate and demonize them. Destroy them as effective contributors because they can’t afford it. Point out their hypocrisy, don’t let them get away with anything.
Mike,
They dont get much “real money” from the outside, its a money laundering scheme using TAXPAYERS money, from the inside.
The Democrats get massive donations from Public Sector Unions, Service Contractors and ‘Non Profit” organizations, folks that are already on “The Dole”….
Thats TAXPAYERS money, money ALREADY appropriated for “government salaries and bennies” and “necessary services” coming right back to them.
They dont NEED anything else…they dont NEED some Hollywood celebrity to dip into their own pocket, and send them any “after tax” donations…chances are, their all their “famous” donors are just sending them a kickback as the price of “admission” to the trough they are already feeding at.
Thats how they roll.
They “sell” our money, as well as our children’s money, for mere pennies on the dollar to their “supporters”, in exchange for their current positions and power. People are “buying” money from them, at a HUGE discount, and they pocket the “profit” while we take “the loss”.
Its like stealing merchandize from your employer, and selling it at below market value. You’ll have PLENTY of customers lined up for that 50 dollar lap-top, the one that (wow, cool gig, huh!) never cost YOU a f*ckin’ thing.
Its who the Democrats are.
Parasitic Criminal-Thieves.
Cross-generational thieves now, as 40% of what they currently give away as “cash” has to be floated by I.O.U obligations placed on children yet unborn.
But they dont care. The Media is in their pocket making fun of all the “racist-christian geeks” who know how to count, while they keep the rest of the low-information rabble distracted with a cellulited whale named “Kardashian” and (the hope for) free weed to go with the absolution of their student loans, because they were STONED the whole time and didnt LEARN anything valuable enough to earn a living.
Giving these Democrat Bastards 50-90% of our “taxible incomes” today will only give them “more” to play with in their “money selling” game.
It will make them MORE powerful, not less.
Because come-ON Mike, be serious….
You KNOW all their friends will never pay those rates, dont you?
Just IMAGINE the influence, quietly and with a compliant media, “pardoning” a 90% tax rate will give them among the select and anonymous elite.
Your heart is in the right place, but you didnt grow up in Jersey, did ya kid?
Hit their /supporters/ in their pocket books will work. The fedgov is running on inflation, sort of like floating a check, except that the public pays an invisible tax to cover that spending.
Get the social nazis out of the party and things will be fine.
“Social nazis”? That’s a great way to make friends and influence people.
Let’s see: if the 20% or so of Americans that are social conservatives don’t vote, how will this help you win? Do you really expect 20% of Democrats to start voting Republican because of this?
Under 20% of republican voters. Not americans.
Math says that you drop the under 20% of crazies and a centrist candidate will pick up the votes from the other side who want to vote fiscally centrist and don’t because they can’t stomach voting in the crazy and repulsive crap that tags along.
You are such a tease.
By all means PLEASE take your crazy repulsive portion of the vote and stay home. If only. *sigh*
So random engineer are we to believe from nom de plume that you are a brilliant statistician or is this the rotund Rove speaking. I consider myself conservative and not the bleeding heart type. Abortion is fine; offer it free to all libs, socialists and marxists and throw in a gift card. Actually, my guess is you want free sex and no ties. Typical immature male as noted by your choice of words.
Exaclty…
Random Nonsense is a Nanny-Stater, as long as the Nanny State provides weed, no-string sex, entertainment (filled with numbers one and two) and lots of free “stuff”.
BJ
The bottom line here is that 15-20% of the GOP’s conservatives are culture warriors and MOST republicans are not, much less most voters. It’s math.
“Free sex and no ties”
And your basis for such ridiculous projection would be… ?
The hedonistic nihilism of libertarianism may be popular, but it wont save the nation or civilization.
I hear people constantly bleat that we (the GOP) should stay away from social issues and only talk about fiscal issues. I for one will always consider social issues as a far greater importance than fiscal. I believe a social conservative is usually a fiscal conservative. I am not asking the party to become an evangelical party, far from ii, I believe you have a right to worship or not worship as you choose, however, if the party wants to find individuals who do not want to speak about social issues and I cannot tell if they line align with my own, I may choose another candidate that states and aligns with mine own beliefs (weighing all issues also).
I voted for Murdock (the GOP candidate for Senator from Indiana)in the primary to remove Lugar, who in my opinion outstayed his party’s welcome. I will say that speaking for my local GOP party since I am on the central committee and know what the majority thinks there. That being said, I know many in the GOP who would not vote for Murdock because of his victory over Lugar. Why didn’t Lugar, at least recmmend the GOP chosen candidate? (I realize it was a tough primary and he was angry over his loss but isn’t there greater loyalty to ideology than to oneself?)
Many Dems also were willing to vote for Lugar but not Murdock. One of the most liberal commentators in the State said in print that he continually voted for Lugar but obviously did not vote for Murdock. Do you honestly think that these people really considered Lugar voted conservatively 80% of the time? No but they were comfortable with him, a man who didn’t live in the state but represented it.
After Murdock’s comment (“I believe life begins at conception. The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.”) we see the RNC and Romeny not come to his defense but disavowed him almost immediately. The man stated a religious believe that all things come from happen because God allows mankind to have free will and humans do evil things. That being said, Murdock’s belief was this unborn child (conceived by a terrible crime)deserves the right to life?
Even on many blogs and comments you see this attitude…we tell our candidates don’t be honest and don’t tell what YOU (the candidate) believe in but only state what is necessary to get you (the GOP) candidate elected. Isn’t this what we accuse the Democrats of often? Not being honest and HYPOCRISY?
Well Karl Rove and his millionaires can dream on about how Akin and Mourdock hurt their chances to take over the Senate. What about the other races? What happened to Rehberg, Heather Wilson, Linda McMahon, Tommy Thompson, George (Virginia), or Linda Lingle? All establishment approved, and all lost. So Republican can kick off all the conservatives off the committees and I’ll not vote for the “establishment” Republicans. I’ll leave the line blank before I’ll vote for any Karl Rove approved candidate.
Republicans are worthless because they don’t believe in anything. They just tag along with whatever the Dems dream up only at a slower pace. So who needs them?
It isn’t hard to see why the GOP is in sorry shape. Just spend a few moments talking with party leadership.
So many wimps, so little time.
You knew the doo-doo was deep when candidate McCain said in 2008 that people in this country illegally (for the slow learners, that means in violation of standing US law) were “children of God, too.”
Spartan1961 – Is “social issues” a code word for big government spending on social engineering projects that meet your approval?
Because if it is you are part of the problem not the solution.
If we don’t get the spending under control we will become Argentina in 2001 (and 2013) with a worthless dollar and the nation in free-fall.
We spend 40% MORE than we earn and that which cannot continue will not, ask Greece, Ireland and soon to be France how that’s working out for them.
Random and Steve,
In my comment I did not make clear the issues I referenced. The issues I speak of are abortions – I am against them (but while they have been declared legal – why should we pay for it?), gay marriage – I am against them but I am ok with legal parternships (why should I be forced to accept someones lifestyle on my religious belief); I see government forced mandates (contraceptives) as interference with indiviual businesses; the 2nd ammendment – I am pro-gun (I believe the constitution guarantees the average citzen’s right to own weapons to guard against the government and I don’t want many restrictions hampering it). These are the social issues I refer to and I don’t think the positions I describe use big government to enforce these beliefs onto others but to keep others away from pushing their beliefs on to us.
I recognize many people such as yourselves do think I and other people like me are the problem that more “conservative” candidates aren’t elected. It appears your ideal GOP just wants social conservatives votes to ensure a fiscally conservative candidate is elected while not caring what we want. I ask if Democratic candidates would state a fiscally conservative plank as part of their platform would you vote for them?
I ask if Democratic candidates would state a fiscally conservative plank as part of their platform would you vote for them?
Of course, as would 85% of the country. Duh.
The 15% holdouts are the ideologically ossified types who rant about evils such as evolution.
Preposterous…
Democrats want nothing to do with fiscal sanity, not a single bloody one of them.
If anything, some of the “rural” ones will vote for a Big Spender thats a bit of as Bible Thumper, not the other way around.
A Nanny State… on a shoestring?
Orwellian Marxists…that balance budgets?
What are you smoking?
“They never attempted to make excessive government spending the issue.” Because they intend to do exactly the same thing! Elections are just about who controls patronage, nothing else. These people, both parties, are the most corrupt in the nation. Does a house have to fall on us for this to become clear?
The Republicans have no “fight strategy.” They truly don’t. The last 4-5 weeks of the presidential campaign reminded me of a 15 round boxing bout where after 13 rounds fighter A had a slight lead on the judges cards over fighter B. Then for the final 2 rounds fighter B punched fighter A at will without fighter A landing a single blow. At the end of the fight, fighter B was startled to discover that he had lost. In many ways that describes today’s GOP. They absorb punch after punch after punch………and then can’t understand why they lose. Well,isn’t it possible they are just “punchy?”
The MSM has them punch drunk and like a dog that has been beaten too much, cringing in fear with their tail between their legs as an automatic response to any confrontation.
So true.
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a monkey.
You make the perfect campaign to “checkmate” on ideas, by the rules…
They scream, eat the queen, and throw the board across the room..
Media coverage is always “GOP Tortures Animals again, film at eleven”
I hate them so much for what they’ve done with The Truth, I actually pray for an open shooting war with them, before I’m too old to participate.
Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi are in a permanant state of menopausal hysterical anger.
Our guys are act like they are hanging around the punch bowl at an Alabama Country Club memorial for 96 year old member who nobody has seen for 30 years because he has been in a nursing home.
They always seem like they are milling around looking down at the floor at a loss for words.
#16 Random Blowhard: I think your reply to Spartan is spot on. It’s fine if he wants to consider social issues as more important than fiscal issues. But what gives him the right to impose his religious views on others? I don’t believe that social conservatives exist; I consider them more as religious socialists because of the desire to use big government to impose certain religious beliefs on the entire country.
You mentioned Argentina in 2001. I was hiking & climbing in Argentina in January, 2002. Good thing we had lots of US dollars with us as the vendors at base camp stopped taking pesos for any transaction. They would take either dollars or pounds (the euro had just been introduced and wasn’t well known); as the Argentine currency had collapsed.
The “social conservatives” remind me of the old legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. They’d rather that the country collapse than back off even a minimum from their continuing jihad of pushing their religious agenda.
While I fall in the Social Conservative side of things these days (actually Im a Complete Conservative), when I was younger I fell more on the Radical Libertarian side of things. So I speak with some understanding here, as to the divide.
I think a lot of this tension can be resolved with the reimposition of constitutional federalism. These issues belong at the state and local level…BUT…and this is a BIG BUT, the Marxists have Federalized many of these issues. Roe v Wade is EXHIBIT A. There is also the ongoing war on Christian rights with regards to Free Expression, and the radicalization of the interpretation of the Establishment Clause….excaserbated by the legal Doctrine of Incorporation.
So Christians were forced onto the field, not of their choosing.
What Christians/Social Cons can rally around together is the Constitution and Federalism. But that requires the Secularists to back off the radical interpretation and enforcement of the Establishment Clause (which was merely a Federalist provision as envisioned by the VAST majority of the Founding Fathers).
What “war” on Christian rights? I guess you aren’t familiar with the group Americans United for Separation of Church & State. AU describes the continual efforts being waged by certain Christian groups, on those that don’t share their beliefs, on a regular basis.
Do you agree with the lawsuits filed by Catholic bishops over the contraception mandate within the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Romney Care)? As if Catholic hospitals & universities, that hire employees of many religions or none at all, have the right to impose Catholic dogma on everybody. If you have a living will that says you want the plug pulled if you’re brain dead due to accident or illness, do you think a Catholic hospital will respect your end-of-life wishes?
And a notion that Roe v. Wade was inspired by Marxists is ludicrous. Do you feel the same about Griswold v. Connecticut, the SCOTUS decision that overturned state bans on sale or use of artificial birth control (contraception)?
Lord have mercy.
May I suggest you study Rehnquists opinions with regards to the Establishment Clause.
Christians are being silenced in the public sphere. There right to free expression trampled upon because others dont want to have to listen to them. These others make up a small minority of non-Christians in this country of 90% plus Christians (many localities 99.9% Christians).
Liberty if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they dont want to hear.
But alas…youre just another minority victim, protecting themselves from the tyranny of the majority by trampling upon the majorities rights. You should just join the Marxist party and be done with it.
PS – The right to privacy doesnt include the right to murder someone in private.
PPS – Check out the main currents of Feminism that pushed for and support abortion on demand. The Marxists will tell you about their tactics and strategies for undermining the family unit (and they have done a great job).
I can explain it for you, but I cant understand it for you. Youve been bamboozled by the Marxists, and you dont even know it. Hedonistic nihilism (of libertarianism) wont lead to a successful prosperous civilization, atomized and balkanized. shakes head
“And a notion that Roe v. Wade was inspired by Marxists is ludicrous”
You know, I really have no idea if they were actual “marxists” or not.
All I know is they were “Liars”…
Because she was never raped as they alleged, and they knew that when they presented the case. Her supposed “need” for an Abortion was simple convenience/birth control after the fact, as are 99.999% of them today. They manipulated her for their political needs, and discarded her (like the baby?) when they were done.
I’d therefore be inclined to call Roe vs Wade “perjury” but that’s just how the Left Rolls.
The “story” is always cover for something else, something they don’t dare let out of the bag ahead of time, because The Truth would otherwise destroy the credibility of their false positioning.
Its Textbook for how these people operate.
There is also the ongoing war on Christian rights with regards to Free Expression
Utter horsepuckey.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex
What you are grieving about is simply that the intent of the founders was fairly quashed for ages due to the numerical superiority of christians, and the system in recent decades has finally gotten round to correcting this. And rightfully so.
If I adopt a child from India I would absoluely not tolerate forcing him or her to endure christian prayer in school.
And so on.
Your rights are not being interfered with in any way at all. None. When the stormtroopers come and tell you that you can’t go to your church, THEN is when you get to claim persecution, and I’ll be at your side fighting them.
The Founders were Christian, not Anti Christian Radical Secularists.
You can keep peddling that Leftist revisionist history all you like. It doesnt change the fact that it isnt true.
Look at the State Constitutions (which preceded the US Constitution) and learn the truth of the matter.
“If I adopt a child from India I would absoluely not tolerate forcing him or her to endure christian prayer in school.”
Not very tolerant of you.
Would you also not tolerate your little Hindu Indian kid from having to listen to Black people express themselves?
If you moved to India with your little white American kid, would you not tolerate forcing your kid to having to endure Indian Hindu speech in schools?
“Liberty if it means anything is the right to express yourself even though others might not want to hear it.”
Tyranny of the minority isnt pretty.
And BTW, it isnt just prayer in school, but any expression of Christian faith for example by honors students giving speeches at graduation…who have been persecuted and punished and threatened and the school districts sued by intolerant arseholes…who are so thin skinned that they cant bear to listen to a Christian student mention their faith in a short speech at a graduation ceremony, without their hate hackles are raised on end and they are overcome with an uncontrollable totalitarian urge to silence others.
Why should people have to sit through Christian proselytizing at a commencement exercise? Would you want to sit through an invocation as to the benefits of having sharia law imposed on the country? I would rather see a focus on how great the students performed and how much potential they have in adult life. No one is trampling on the rights of Christians to free expression of their religion in their churches or in how they lead their own daily lives. What many fiscal conservatives object to is having certain Christian beliefs forced upon us against our will. Read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
And, the Founding Fathers are generally considered more as deists, not necessarily as Christians. Which is why the USA was not founded as a “Christian nation” since there is no religious test required to hold public office (read your Constitution, which superseded various colonial constitutions). “Hedonistic nihilism of libertarianism” won’t lead to a prosperous civilization ??? That’s baloney. And just what did the Spanish Inquisition do for us all?
I do see the act of removing prayer from public school as an example of observing the separation of church & state but this trend of not allowing valedictorians & others to mention God or engage in prayer freely in an assembly setting is taking it too far, as these people are not employees of the state (as are teachers, principals, etc.); thus, separation of church & state does not apply to them.
And BTW, it isnt just prayer in school, but any expression of Christian faith for example by honors students giving speeches at graduation [snip]
If the graduation speech were given by a muslim kid who spends most of it glorifying allah and why sharia law is morally superior, this would be perfectly OK with you? Really? No. You’d be foaming at the mouth.
A graduation speech is not the place for preaching, and to do so is a bait and switch where the speaker is hammering a captive audience. Nobody wants to be forced to listen to univited and unwanted preaching. If they wanted preaching they would go to church, not graduation.
There is no suppression of christian speech. There is a focus on preventing inappropriate venues being hijacked for preaching. Nobody stops you or anyone else from exercising your freedom of speech writing letters to the editor and so on. Nobody stops you from going to church. Nobody stops you from having conversations with anyone about your belief. Neither your beliefs nor your ability to express them are in any way suppressed.
You do not have a right to hijack public events.
“Why should people have to sit through Christian proselytizing at a commencement exercise?”
Its called the First Amendment:
“Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion…”
Well, they didnt. Its just a public high school.
People go their for various reasons, sometimes for Commencement Exercises.
Congress is completely out of the picture.
“…or prohibit the free exercise thereof”
So “prohibiting” a student fom saying “thanks to my family, and MY FAITH IN JESUS..” under threat of sanction, is nothing BUT a violation of The First Amendment.
Because when people like you DEMAND A BAN a certain word, phrase or sentiment from being spoken by a citizen in a public place, you are ENFORCING your Doctrine upon THEM, by using the FORCE OF LAW to prohibit them from freely expressing their religious view.
You use “The Law” to supress others in FAVOR of you, and youve done it decietfully.
Youve invented from thin air, the phrase “seperation of church and state” and with mailce aforethought, falsely claim it is “what the constitution says”, and then FALSLY claim it therefore COMPELLS you to “ban” any religious words or sentiments or symbols from being expressed publically, when the EXACT OPPOSTITE is true.
A more fair, reasonable, and Constitutional approach, would be to use “your turn” to speak, should YOU ever BE invited to speak somewhere, to freely and without coercion express YOUR non-religious view.
I would not myself AGREE with that view, but I absolutely have no “right” to demand “protection” from hearing that idea in a public place.
Thats the difference…
We follow the Constitution
We play by the rules.
We expect to hear opinions contrary to ours without calling up the lawyers
Whereas, you cheat and lie to use The Government to supress opinions you dislike.
We believe in a free exchange of ideas.
You believe in Federal Enforcement, of yours only.
Root
So “prohibiting” a student fom saying “thanks to my family, and MY FAITH IN JESUS..” under threat of sanction, is nothing BUT a violation of The First Amendment.
You’re making things up. Graduation speeches and other public speeches by invited amateur speakers often give thanks to family and religion, and nobody thinks anything untoward about this. This is honest and heartfelt.
Where kids are warned and sometimes cut off is when they ignore the rules they are invited to speak under. They are told not to turn their speech into preaching, that this is not what people come to hear. It’s OK to thank jesus, it’s not ok to sermonise. Then they proceed to do this and get cut off for not following the rules. Not because of what they believe.
The rules are set up as they are for a reason. Bait and switch. Nobody wants to be stuck listening to some twit yammer for 10 minutes about his deity. What they want to hear is how mrs. murphy helped them on their senior trip and what sort of thing they learned from this and how it applies. If they want to hear about this kid’s take on god they’ll go to church with him — OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Not because they are captives.
You and others need to get a grip. Prevention of absing speaking at a public event celebratinng a rite of passage and turning it into a sermon that few want to have to listen to is simple common sense. It’s not an attack on belief.
One more” example” while I’m still hot:
The Leftist (read democrat) Anti-Christian Machine inserts itself into the most benign places, out of simple cruelty and a desire to intimidate, with lawyers going after kids and parents on the slightest pretext in any public school they can get away with it in. Becasue they’re DICKS.
You can give pencils to your classmates that say “Hello Kitty” but not “Jesus loves you”
Your “oral book report” on your “favorite story” cant be allowed, because its from THE BIBLE.
Your speech is redacted, under threat of retaliation (no diploma, suspension), with red lines through SPECIFIC forbidden words they demand you not utter.
OMG call the lawyers, that “Separation of Church and State” thing demands the child be punished.
And the ultimate bait and switch, when you point out the phrase “the separation of church and state” does NOT exist in The First Amendment, or anywhere IN the Constitution they say (disingenuously, of course)
‘Ewww, youre saying the Church IS the State!?!” and change the argument from THEIR oppression of free speech, to something else. Lying duplicious Dicks that they are.
If you don’t like what the pencil says, toss it.
I happen to hate cats, where is my “protection” from “hello kitty”
I also hate Spongebob and wont let my kid watch it…
Someone else’s kid did a BOOKREPORT on him, that’s contrary to my VALUES, OMG I need to SUE.
The Valedictorian talked about THE ENVIRONMENT and urges us to “be kind to Mother Earth”!?!
Jeee-Zus, Mother Mary, wheres my attorney, THIS cannot be allowed.
Seriously?
I’d have legitimate complaints to these things? That require court action?
I’d have NGO’s and their lawyers taking up my “constitutional” grievences over petty nonsense like this?
The Anti-Christian forces are nothing more than Power Mad Communists, and children raised with “morality” tends to get in their way,…so what do they do?
A school board with Lefist Symapathies (and DNC lawyers) will happily BANKRUPT you if you don’t fold, and dare to maintain the nerve to keep asking why they wont support the ACTUAL First Amendment of our Constitution.
They will also happily BANKRUPT the taxpayers of their district too, insisting on fighting a losing battle (with someone else’s money of course) just to be DICKS.
Their mission is to intimidate and oppress all dissenting views contrary to THEIRS.
And theirs nothing “constitutional” about it.
No matter what the Dicks say
Bravo! Bravo!
Why are “public displays of religion” so harmful they need Federal Court Intervention, while TAXPAYER FUNDED denigration of someone elses Religious symbols are called “art”….
Instead of, oh, I dunno, that lefty “hate speech” thing they keep trying to enforce ELSWHERE ?
Could it be that WE are the ones who actually RESPECT the Constitution? That the pain and insult I feel when my Religious symbols are disrespectfully placed in urine, or smeared with feces, out simple cruelness towards me and my families peace of mind , is simply “the cross I willingly to bear” in order to live in a free society that REALLY supports Free Speech, even when its “unpopular” or “mean spirited”?
Its called “tolerance” and the Left doesn’t have any.
Well, not exacty….
They know Christians wont chop anyones heads off over insulting artwork.
That’s why they are so “tolerant” of the OTHER guys, who DO…
You NEVER seem be to getting around to unsulting ISLAM with urine and feces, do you?
Never saw The Homo-provocatuers from ‘ACT-UP” invade a mosque on Ramadan, but they sure have disrupted Easter Services in Catholic Churches, and thrown communion in the floor.
Gee, I wonder why the “anti-religious” crowd is so selective?
Is it because, like other sociopathic vermin we’re familiar with lately, Leftists prefer “soft targets”…
I think we all know the answer.
Republicans need to buy the media outlets to get their message out. Democrats own the media. They can get any message they want delivered by their owned media. Think about it.
Months ago, before the voters settled this country’s fate, I said in one of these comments pages that Republicans would rather lose to the Democrats than adopt the Tea Party’s platform and ride it to victory.
I said, we have two big-spending, pro-big-government parties, but one of them has to pretend otherwise come election time.
I said, Republicans would rather have their snouts in the trough for as long as there is a trough, rather than quit the profligate spending.
Anyone believe me yet?
Uh-huh
A psychologist would say that the GOP is only played by the Dems/Media to the degree they allow them. No entity can abuse you unless you consent. Conservatives should demand better of their political leadership.
If one looks at the names of those who have submitted comments to this article, and focusses on those which allow the gender of the writer to be identified, one sees a huge preponderance of men.
Unless most of those using a name that doesn’t allow their gender to be identified are woman, this lack of female input, is, in a nutshell, why the Republicans are in trouble.
I’ve also taken note of that fact! Also, on the womens ‘conservative’ sites the numbers of at least the female commenters are miscule. There is no doubt, a very serious disconnect beween the general populace of women and the GOP and even its social conservative representations. Since the GOP is the minority party of the two major parties and women now outnumber their male counterparts on the voter rolls, you’d think there would be a lot more discussions relative to this problem.
I suppose there is no truth in any room or any discussion unless it has the appropriately diverse mix of gender and race.
Silly me. All those science, math, engineering courses I took, most without a single woman in the room, and it was all lies. LIES.
And those women’s bible studies, where there are no men present. LIES. How could it be otherwise?
And every academic, social or interest group composed of only women, or only blacks, or only latinos, or only asians, I suppose those are all fatally flawed?
Please, I’m a christian but forget the social issues, I will lead my life as I think God wants me to. I think it is time to start a new political party that focuses mainly on the budget, spending and monetary policy. WE as a nation will cease to exist and fall into “muslim” control at some point if we don’t wise up. Yes, that’s what I strongly believe. Can you see our country years from now, as a third world nation and christians being persecuted for our beliefs? I don’t think that’s too far fetched. God have mercy on our children and grandchildren! Perhaps we could call this new party, The John Galt Party.
One more thing; the populace need to fight gun control and focus on ridding this nation of gangs; that is the real problem where gun violence is concerned. Leave law-abiding citizens alone!
Please, the GOP is week due to greed. They do not want to stop their gravy train. As long as they bark but do not bite, the dems keep throwing them table scraps.($)
They are not concerned about our citizens or country, only enriching themselves.
The irony…
You can’t see it, folks, but between the author and most of the commenters, you’ve displayed exactly what is wrong with the Republican party and the conservative ‘movement.’
But, you can’t see that.
…and you won’t listen to anyone who tries to explain it to ya.
I understand perfectly what you think is wrong with the Republican party. The Cultural Marxists believe the same thing.
Session is wrong about the budget process. If the Republicans in the House played the same card on Continuing Resolution budgeting that the Senate does on a new budget the result would be the House budget, their constitutional prerogative, or no budget. Last guy out please shut off the lights and lock the doors.
Ask Sessions why it is ok for the Senate amd President to play “my way or the highway” but not the constitutionally empowered House to do likewise? I believe the reason is the Republicans want bigger government and the stage acting part of the loyal opposition. Heh, if it weren’t for that we’d only need three people to play representative. One Republican in the House who takes orders from one Democrat in the Senate and the President who gives orders to the Senator. Therefore, we are entertained by this huge three ringed circus with a cast of thousands; including staffers. Its the equivalent of a Republican jobs bill. It also explains Washington’s economic boom.
You nailed it Warren. Most of us are sick to death of having these “social” issues dragged into politics. It’s why I like the tea party movement…fiscal resposibility…limited government…a return to Constitutionality. And an end to all the lecturing about how other people ought to live. Set an example for others and mind your own business.
The social issues are being dragged into politics by the Left. Or have you missed the Radicals of the 60s and their march through the instutions?
George Bush was frequently criticized for not adequately explaining or defending his positions on the GWOT, Iraq, homeland security, etc. In fact, he did so repeatedly in addresses to all kinds of groups all around the country. While the media spotlights every Barack Obama brain fart, our previous president got no such consideration.
Mounting a GOP PR campaign is but half the battle. Getting that campaign aired is quite another. Voters can’t “easily grasp these outrages” if they don’t hear about them.
“We lost because we had several guys, two in particular, that said things I’d never even begun to think about,” he said, referencing the rape and abortion comments by U.S. Senate Candidates Todd Akin (Missouri) and Richard Mourdock (Indiana). “If our party is silly, then we all become silly. We just have to be careful.”
And now on this very site, you have people who denounce Obama’s Drone campaign, which given the alternatives (your son going off to war, for instance), I would posit is wildly popular in the electorate.
And Republicans aren’t “fiscal conservatives” by any means. None of them have the guts to tell the Tea Party bozos that actually, you have not “earned” the amount of the Social Security check that you are getting.
Outstanding Defender of the Faith Award – today goes to “The Root ’83″
Ooh-rah Devil Dog!
To those who preach fiscal but not “social” conservatism:
- You are standing on a foundation built by Christians, and Christian ideals, and Christian Faith.
- You are attempting to keep what you (used to) have, while denouncing or ignoring the foundation that got you there.
- Our Republic is falling to pieces around us, and while you may think you are working hard to hold up the walls against the barbarians, you are also attacking Christians who are holding up the foundations beneath you AND who are taking incoming fire from the barbarians. You blame the Christians for the assault, instead of the barbarians.
EVERY argument/position has a moral basis, and you have discarded yours. It doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person, but your positions have no weight without those foundations, and your framework becomes useless on sinking sand. Your ideals simply become undefendable individual desires, unable even to stand modest scrutiny let alone able to be woven together into a coherent tapestry.
Thank you sir,
And you are 100% right.
The Most Common Western “Secular Beliefs”, like compassion, cooperation, thrift, industry, honesty in contracts, mutual respect, self discipline, rule of law, property rights…these are decidedly judeo-christian in origin. Remove the incense, robes and fish/loaves/water into wine stories, and WESTERN civilization is CHRISTIAN civilization.
That is the truth. Our Moral faith is the most important corner stone of our government. Because that which may be “legal” can still be “wrong”….Insurance fraud, purposely destroying a business because of “bailout promises”, obtaining loans with “no payback” clauses, the government mandating your faulty product be purchased because of campaign donations, all these are crimes that first begin in your heart.
Just because you can cross your fingers, and testify “truthfully” that no one can “prove” deceitful intents, is no excuse for doing it…
Because it was WRONG.
Morally wrong.
We need more leaders cut from THAT kind of cloth.
Not the Bill Clinton’s “it depends what the meaning if ‘is”
Timmy Gietner’s “I was confused by turbotax”
Jon Corzine’s ” I dont know where that money went”
Eliot Spitzer ” I’m too important to face prostitution charges, give me a talk show to resurrect my Political Viability and I’ll continue shilling for the cause”
Hilliary Clinton “dont know how my fingerprints got on those missing documents, I never saw them before”
You’ll never get “fiscal responsibility” from inherently dishonest, immoral people.
Never.
That squishy Centrist dream, the Libertarian expectation that despicable immoral behavior, lies, double-speak, corruption and clear conflicts of interest among our “leaders” is of no consequence as long as they are “smart” and “hip”, is the societal and financial train wreck we are now in.
Its The Pipe Dream of the Weak Willed, and the undisciplined, to believe people with GREATER CHARACTER FLAWS THAN YOURSELF, will do a BETTER JOB of representing your interests, because they are “cool” and non-judgenmental about Human Character
Because they go on the right TV Shows. Because they “talk the talk”, sound like you, and make all the right promises common sense tell you they’ll never keep.
The Ghetto is broken because their MORALS are broken. All the money in the world, Head Start, Obama Phones and Voter Fraud will NEVER change the Ghetto.
Anyone who tells you different is a liar, I dont care HOW “politically suicidal” they say honesty is.
Same for the deficit.
No Cool-ass Choom-gang mutherf*cker is going to be “cautious” with someone elses money, no matter HOW much you wish that could be.
No Commie Radicals, who openly dismiss our Constitution with contempt as a “flawed document” that they “wouldn’t recommend other countries model theirs upon” will EVER make a good Supreme Court Court Justice, President, Senator, governor, mayor or dog catcher, if you expect them to tread lightly and reverently upon on your rights, respect your hard earned taxes, and hold your best interests close to their own heart as the administer their offices.
It just cant happen, because they have no “morals”.
Keep dreaming that you can separate a Sucessful America from Godly virtues.
We’ve played that game for 50 years.
Anyone like the results?
“Keep dreaming that you can separate a Sucessful America from Godly virtues.”
At face value you make a very valid point! However, for most of our history there was a different America. A America in which most citizens were God fearin people and stived to live up the whatever their particular understanding was from their teachings. However, heres what starkly different from that America as opposed to todays America. They understood it was an ‘individual choice’ and an ‘individual responsibility’ not to benefit them from a government or a constitution, but rather, their own individual relationship and benefits from God. Another striking difference is, that they never ever entertained a government enacting any laws regulating any of their faith and practices — probably something to do with the constitutions First Amendment barring any government to establish any particular religion and practices, over another. It is however, true that many states ‘did enact laws’ constituting religious beliefs over some of societies social practices. But as time has progressed, most of those laws when challenged for constitutionality, have been stricken from the books or no longer enforced.
Neither God himself nor any government can enact laws to enforce any religious ‘morality’ with any success. In fact, Jesus spoke to the individual freedom of free agency in much the same way as the constitutions individual freedom of religion and its practices. While social ‘common laws’ may or may not be derived from any particular relgion, those common laws have been the standard of social juris prudence throught the Westernized Judeo-Christian regions. No modern Western Judeo-Christian government has dare tried to legislate any further into any particular religious based morality beyond the common law standard.
Government don’t fail anybodys morality! Only the people fail morality! Unless you want to live under some strict fundemental religious theocracy in an attempt to project and enforce some religious standard of morality, we are left with the constitutions protected individual freedoms and its equality clause, aside from that of the common law standard.
“Another striking difference is, that they never ever entertained a government enacting any laws regulating any of their faith and practices.” Wrong. Rape, pedophilia, adultery, incest and more are Judeo-Christian religious/moral issues, but are not universally pagan issues, and not universally religious issues. EVERY law is a moral issue. Western society, and American society, were built on Judeo-Christian ethics and as a result are (were) the most successful and just societies in the history of the world. Perfect? Not even close. But still the most successful and most just.
“Neither God himself nor any government can enact laws to enforce any religious ‘morality’ with any success.” This is delusion. You might as well say that gravity doesn’t hurt because you didn’t see the man hit the bottom after he fell off the cliff. We are each doomed due to our continual brokenness. We are adrift far out to sea on a slowly sinking raft, sitting in our own filth and circled by sharks. Some of our fellow passengers are oblivious as they frantically seek adrenaline to ignore their peril. Others on the raft are busy stealing possessions from the oblivious ones. Some are fighting with or beating passengers who have jostled them. Yet others are seeking to dominate and control everything that happens on the raft. But all are doomed. Next to the raft is a magnificent ship with a room for every person in the raft. A ladder hangs over the side, within reach of the raft. Loudspeakers from the magnificent rescue ship call out, urging the raft passengers to climb aboard. Some cannot hear the words over their own frantic efforts. Others feel afraid and unwelcome because they are still filthy while the ship people appear to be attempting to wash off their own filth (with mixed success). The violent and dominating ones in the raft see the ship, but notice that there is law and justice on board and they don’t want to operate under the law. They stay in the raft. Some in the raft believe they are already on the ship, and are busy lecturing and hectoring others on the raft, to the great dismay of those actually on the ship. A few are in the process of climbing up the ladder. Finally, there are some who are hesitant and are wondering if they should reach out and climb, but they are held back by a vocal group of indignant rafters who angrily claim that the ship people will force everyone conform to “their” rules, or that the ship people are evil because they are pointing out that the raft is sinking. They even see some ship people abusing each other while walking to safe and luxurious cabins, and indignant rafters lodge loud accusations against those ship people while murder, rape, theft, adultery and treachery rage around them in the sinking raft.
“Government don’t fail anybodys morality!” This is so obviously wrong as to demonstrate intentional treacherous intent.
The ancient jews and christians didn’t invent democratic priniciples. Voting and democratic priniciple as we know them were invented by pagan saxons. Much of the law we have was adopted from english law which was derived from even older saxon law. Much of the remainder was derived from greek tradition. A number of key bits and pieces of the constitution were adapted from the iroquois.
Religious radicals like to claim the success of the US as theirs. What they’re doing is seeing a false pattern match — the early US colonial makeup was a lot of christians, therefore one is the result of the other.
A short example re pattern matching follies:
http://richards.kri.ch/patterns_and_superstitions.html
Apparently the religious right has their own world history, one that is at odds with reality, one wherein christians were the sole inventors of the democratic ideals which changed the world, one wherein christians are the inventors of nothing less than morality itself. It’s a knowledge bubble. The reason we know this is a bubble created by the religious right is that nobody outside the US religious right seems to share this “knowledge” of world history. Ask the hindi on the street who invented morals. One doubts he claims it was christians.
The notion that western civilisation is christian civilisation is an absurdity believed only by woefully ignorant radical christians.
Randomengineer,
“Apparently the religious right has their own world _view_, one that is at odds with _my world view_,”
There, fixed that for you. And yes, Jews and Christians were told in the Old Testament and Christians in the New Testament that the world will consider belief in God/Christ as foolishness, and that friendship with the world means enmity with God, and for Christians that since the world hated Jesus they would hate his followers too. The world’s hatred towards the Jews is well known and long standing. You are stating the obvious.
I notice that you rarely pass up an opportunity to deconstruct anything Judeo-Christian. Perhaps you can provide us your own, more coherent, proofs for your own belief system, seeing as how you have a firm grip on reality and those of us “religious radicals on the right” do not. Please proceed.
fortibus
You seem — like many on the religious right — to have major issues in reading comprehension. What I respond to on this site is consistent, and limited to two things — 1) christian claims that the US is a christian nation and founded as such, and 2) christian culture warrior claims that their issues are a necessity for the anti-left political party.
What you’re responding to in particular was a case of (1) where I illustrated that the notions of democracy etc were not founded by “christian” ideals.
In the case of (2) everyone agrees that morals are necessary in a society but categorically reject the ideas that A) these are resticted to christians, and B) that culture warrior impostion of moral planks ought to be a part of a political party platform. The GOP is composed of 80% or more of moderates, and it is my contention that A) the GOP message needs to appeal to this group, and B) the concentration of appeals to the 20% or less religious right minority is how and why the GOP is losing elections. It ain’t rocket surgery. It’s math.
Meanwhile, I don’t care where you go to church, what you believe, or why; your vague between the lines implication that you’re being persecuted is simply nonsense.
Now, what part of political minority are you having trouble understanding?
Randomengineer,
Your memory is faulty. I have personally responded to you in a discussion of evolution here at PJM, which had nothing to do with what you claim to limit yourself to, namely 1) that the U.S. was founded on Christianity, nor 2) that our morals must be based on Christianity. Then as now, your responses appeared to be overflowing with angry emotion.
Second, I make no “vague between the lines implication” of persecution. I state it outright. Do you deny persecution against Jews, both past and present? Do you deny persecution against Copts in Egypt, Chaldeans in Iraq, and Orthodox Greeks in Turkey in present day? Do you deny persecution of Christians in past centuries at various and many points in history and geography, including that many left Europe to escape persecution and came here to America for the express purpose of freedom to practice Christianity? Does your reality include these?
Finally, I invite you, again, to explain your own belief system. What is it? What is your justification for your position as a member of the anti-left political party? On what basis do you contest the actions of the left?
I have personally responded to you in a discussion of evolution here at PJM, which had nothing to do with what you claim to limit yourself to…
Evolution comes under #2, discussion of religious belief vis a vis the political party. If you keep your religious belief to yourself and out of my political party there’s no reason to discuss it whatsoever.
Splitting hairs I see. You don’t “deconstruct Judeo-Christian beliefs” as I suggested, you merely attack them at all times whenever any of them poke their heads into the conservative cause. Pesky things, those morals. They interfere with what we would like to do. Anyway, I think we have cleared up that I don’t have any reading comprehension issues.
On the other hand, you have ignored, a second time, an explicit call for you to post your own belief system, or perhaps you would prefer to call it scientific reality. Since I am Christian, and am incapable of seeing reality (according to you), please instruct me.
That was me. Forgot to put the header info in.
The Republicans are doing just fine. Really, they are. Conservatives, on the other hand…
I wish the Conservatives would just shut up about Republicans. Form your own damn party, you lazy asses.
Oh, that would “split” the conservative vote? The conservative vote, that stays home, because they can’t deal with voting for another Republican puke? That conservative vote?
Yes, Democrats “close ranks”. So do Republicans. And so do conservatives. The problem is, conservatives think they are somehow Republicans. Suckers.
Stop telling Republicans what they “need” to do. They did what they needed to do, they threw out four Tea Party committee heads on their butts. They had no problem doing that!
You really think the Republican Party can survive without the conservatives who make up the base of the party? Yeah, that’s the ticket. “Our company would be just fine without all those damned employees messing things up. Let’s fire them all and then all us executives can run things properly!”
If anything, conservatives are too trusting. For years we’ve been told that we just have to push our principles down and vote for whoever the party elite forced down our throats. And the elite figured, where else are they going to go? The Dems are essentially fascist, they’d never bolt in that direction. But now it’s become undeniably clear that the Republicans not only aren’t interested in conservative principles, they’re actively opposed to them (just not as openly as the Dems). No, the Republicans aren’t doing “just fine.” They’re circling the drain, and don’t even seem to understand that. Conservatives will survive without the Republican Party. But the Party won’t survive without conservatives.
You really think the Republican Party can survive without the conservatives who make up the base of the party? Yeah, that’s the ticket
Asked and answered upthread. The answer is YES. The “conservative base” YOU refer to are somewhere around 15-20% of the republicans. Not the electorate at large. Republicans. Can the republicans afford to lose that? Of course. It will gain that many of not more of the moderates/centrists who vote democrat. Most of these vote democrat because they can’t stomoach the idea of voting in the kooks (“conservatives” in your book.)
Essentially there are two flaws in your thesis: 1) you think “conservatives” comprise a much larger chunk of the GOP than they do, and 2) you seemingly have no concept of mathematics. Republican fiscal sanity decoupled from culture war “conservative” issues is attractive to most of the electorate.
So says former senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown.
As well as Linda McMahon, senate seat DENIED for Connecticut.
Texas might encourage violating Obamacare with tax breaks Published: 30 January, 2013
http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-health-care-contraception-015/