DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No, you need to link to facts to demonstrate why your opinions have merit. Otherwise, a person who states that he thinks the sky is yellow would have the same credence as someone who had the opinion that the sky is blue.
Conservatism Includes Social Conservatives
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How is Roe V. Wade legislation?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Its not the legislature's job to declare that marriage is not other than Natural Law, nor the Court's job to define murder as acceptable is the victim happens to be unborn.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The only social issue I really am a stickler for is abortion because its mass murder, and there is a clear case of Natural Rights violations going on there. In many ways, I have a lot in common with Ron Paul.
As for marriage, its been going downhill since Henry VIII, so its nothing new. I think abolishing civil marriage would respect the Wall of Separation, as well as get a lot of morons to not drag the institution down through insane levels of divorce, and it would make things equal for gays as well.
Otherwise, I'm pretty much a fiscal conservative.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
It is one of the biggest issues for social conservatives. I was hoping you would point out something that Reagan did as a social conservative.
Otherwise you are proving my point.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Answer my question, please. How can I prove a point that you have not made?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I think that they are both blue.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I try not to laugh when people tell me that allowing gay marriages would destroy the institution of marriage or make a mockery of marriage.
Since almost 50% of marriages end in divorce, as many as 50% of women and 60% of men have cheated on their spouse and domestic abuse runs rampant through our society, the institution of marriage is already being ruined. But for some reason it being ruined by straight people doesn't seem to matter.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
When you posted "Reagan spoke about the sanctity of life and moral issues many times. Social conservatism many times does not require legislation" you either proved or agreed with my point that Reagan paid lip-service to the social conservatives.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You are apparently confusing "showing moral stability" with "paying lip service".
W
WinterBorn
Guest
He talked about it but didn't actually DO anything. That is the very definition of "lip-service".
If someone claims to be a social conservative but does not do anything to further the goals of social conservatives, they "paid lip-service" to social conservatives.
Its a simple concept. He either talked some talk, or he did something.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I see no irony. When addressing pinhead heathens, it is best to use their language. If you read what came after "standards of decency" you will see it is for our neighborhoods and communities, not the individual. If you read what came before "standards of decency" you understand my personal views are socially libertarian. But as usual, you didn't read much at all, you reacted emotionally to the words "standards of decency" because it's like holy water to someone like you.
Damo, we have little to no control over which issues are pushed to the forefront. That is largely up to our opponents. If abortion and ant-gay marriage are anywhere on our list, our adversaries will put them at the top of the list, because they are successful at stigmatizing these things.
We can continue to do as McCain tried to do, and just not talk about those issues, but then, what is the point in having them on the list? I read your post, and it comes off sounding like you think we should have those positions, but we should keep them locked in a closet, so we can appeal to the non-religious.
Here is what I think, Damo... It's not a matter of priorities, it doesn't matter where on the list we include these things, it's a matter of making the argument for these things, in a way that people can connect with and relate to. It's a matter of making the connection between fiscal conservative policies, and social conservatism driven by faith-based viewpoints. Most importantly, conservatives of all stripes, need to understand the importance of social conservatism, and why it must be a part of conservatism for conservatism to succeed. You don't have to agree with this, the record speaks for itself. Every time we abandon socially conservative principles, we fail to win elections.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
So the term "standards of decency" is like holy water to me?
That's odd, only one of us showed enough respect for the word decency to keep vulgarity out of his/her posts.
Frankly I don't know why I waste my time. You yammer about decency out of one side of your mouth, then drop F-bombs out the other.
Just more of the same old RightWing "Family Values".
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't recall telling anyone what to do. What I posted was not a rant about standards of decency, I merely made a true statement, that people who advocate standards of decency in their communities, are not wackos. Do you want to dispute that point, or do you just want to hurl feces at me like the monkey-boy you are?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Do you have any links in support of your accusation?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Links to support a common useage of the words? You require that?
Have not spent your life in the USA? Its a common phrase.
Lip-service means saying what people want to hear.
I'm not a fan of Wikipedia, but here is their definition:
"Lip service is an idiom meaning giving a false account of events feelings or intentions for the purpose of pleasing those in power."
Answers.com offers this definition:
"Verbal expression of agreement or allegiance, unsupported by real conviction or action"
Does that help you? (I am betting you refuse to admit I am correct)
Rubbish. I can point out shared experience. Such as elections where legislation was concurrently run in order to get out the Praymores to the ballot boxes in order to elect a solely social conservative.
In your example one can share the ability to look up at the sky.
It's silly to provide a link to opinions based on obvious and shared experiences. The "demand" for one is solely to buy time to make up some answer to what is obvious to the rest of us. Solely social "conservatism" has driven our party into a very small minority.
IMO, social conservatism has a place, but it isn't as the highest priority or to the detriment of the rest of the important issues that we should promote.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I require proof that Regan "did nothing" as you falsely accuse.
I think that is preposterous and ignores a past that such priorities were successful in bringing us out of an almost permanent minority in the legislative bodies.
The Contract With America had what to say about gay marriage? Those issues were not abandoned, and they shouldn't be, they just were not the priority.
It sounds to me like you believe that the Rs are helpless against the Ds message about Rs. Educating people about conservatism like Reagan did, like the Contract with America did, that is what will win elections, not pushing these issues as the only priorities.