Get Ready to "thank" Us A LOT, Waterhead!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Conservatives couldn't even manage a victory in this presidential election, and there is no way you can claim all the conservatives are social conservatives.

The numbers of social conservatives have been declining steadily. Votes concerning moral issues have either been lost of have been won by smaller and smaller margins.

But I sincerely hope that the social conservatives do try and recreate the republican party in their image. It will run all the moderate republicans and those who are strictly fiscal conservatives away. Thus insuring a complete loss of power.

Hey idiot, take a look around! We've already lost ALL power! How did this happen? By getting away from our core principles, by trying to chase after the 'moderate' vote, by watering down conservatism and abandoning social conservative principles and convictions! Apparently, you have completely forgotten the allegations of how Rove "stole" the election of 2004 by having 'gay marriage' on the ballots in key swing states! Did all of these millions of social conservatives who elected George W. Bush, just die off in the past 4 years? I don't think so, but maybe you really believe that!

Conservatives couldn't manage a victory in this election because Republicans nominated a MODERATE! Conservatives had no one to vote for! It's hard to win when you don't have a candidate in the race! Republicans chased after the "independent moderates" and they were NEVER going to vote for McCain! They should have nominated Romney or Huckabee, and adopted a solid conservative fiscal and social platform, and they may have had a chance. If they continue to listen to your advice and distance themselves from social conservative issues, they will lose again in 2012. Conservatives just aren't going to vote for "Liberal-Lite!"

 

[Cancel3]

Hey idiot, take a look around! We've already lost ALL power! How did this happen? By getting away from our core principles, by trying to chase after the 'moderate' vote, by watering down conservatism and abandoning social conservative principles and convictions! Apparently, you have completely forgotten the allegations of how Rove "stole" the election of 2004 by having 'gay marriage' on the ballots in key swing states! Did all of these millions of social conservatives who elected George W. Bush, just die off in the past 4 years? I don't think so, but maybe you really believe that!

Conservatives couldn't manage a victory in this election because Republicans nominated a MODERATE! Conservatives had no one to vote for! It's hard to win when you don't have a candidate in the race! Republicans chased after the "independent moderates" and they were NEVER going to vote for McCain! They should have nominated Romney or Huckabee, and adopted a solid conservative fiscal and social platform, and they may have had a chance. If they continue to listen to your advice and distance themselves from social conservative issues, they will lose again in 2012. Conservatives just aren't going to vote for "Liberal-Lite!"

Oh, I see it now. This is your way of saying the conservatives didn't lose?

Look idiot, exactly how did McCain get the republican nomination?? He won the primaries. In other words, MORE republicans voted for him than for any other republican.



The social conservatives have BEEN in power. Thats what Bush was. Look at what happened while he was in office. Gay marriage was defeated in numerous places. Abortion was limited more and more. Intelligent Design was actually taught in some public schools and pressed for in more.

And tax money was spent like it was growing on trees.



After 8 years of that garbage, people will not put it back for a looooong time. The ONLY brand of conservatism that has ANY hope is fiscal conservatism.




And this "Liberal-Lite" nonsense, is that from one of your radio talkshow buddies?

Liberals typically want more social programs, and therefore to spend tax dollars.

So the opposite of liberals is FISCAL conservatives. A social conservative is just a liberal with a bible.



Liberal Lite is what we had with George W. Bush.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And if Dixie's predictions are true (like THAT is likely), then the social conservatives will try and rule the republicans, causing moderate republicans and fiscal conservatives to bail out.

As I explained to you in the Palin thread, there is a connection and nexus between social and fiscal conservatism. The social conservative values have to be articulated in harmony with the fiscal conservative values, because they work together to foster freedom and prosperity. To abandon moral principles found in social conservatism, and only focus on fiscal conservative policy, renders such a platform shallow and based on capitalist greed. This vulnerability is easily exploited by the liberals. By incorporating the fundamental beliefs of ethics and morals found in social conservatism, you strengthen the argument for fiscal conservatism, and take away the 'capitalist greed' vulnerability.

This is hard to explain to you, because you don't see it, don't believe in, don't accept it, and will not open your mind to it in any way. Your anti-religious blinders prohibit you from seeing the Big Picture, and you are mired in your deep-seated liberal viewpoints.

The monumental task Republicans will face, is de-stigmatizing social conservatism, and making it something to not be ashamed of, rather to embrace and be proud of again. We've lost our way, this nation is on a slow boat to hell, and in order to turn it around, we must find a way to appeal to the moral fiber of America, in a host of issues, not just abortion and gay marriage. Social conservatism has an image problem right now, partly because of the heavy 'religious' push, but mostly because of militant liberal propaganda over the course of the last decade, which has successfully ostracized social conservatives. It's time to fight back and change that image, and do so in a way that incorporates fiscal conservatism with social conservative values in a way people can relate to and understand as a viable alternative to 'godless' liberal socialism.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, I see it now. This is your way of saying the conservatives didn't lose?

No, it's my way of saying Conservatives couldn't win! They had no choice!

Look idiot, exactly how did McCain get the republican nomination?? He won the primaries. In other words, MORE republicans voted for him than for any other republican.

McCain got the nomination because social conservatives AND fiscal conservatives backed other candidates and split the vote. Romney had the fiscal conservative vote, Huckabee had the social conservative vote, and McCain had all the rest. In the end, McCain prevailed.

The social conservatives have BEEN in power. Thats what Bush was. Look at what happened while he was in office. Gay marriage was defeated in numerous places. Abortion was limited more and more. Intelligent Design was actually taught in some public schools and pressed for in more.

And tax money was spent like it was growing on trees.

Bush was a social conservative, and that is precisely the ONLY reason he was able to get elected... TWICE! He was a fiscal LIBERAL! In fact, he was more fiscally liberal than the previous two Democrat presidents combined!

After 8 years of that garbage, people will not put it back for a looooong time. The ONLY brand of conservatism that has ANY hope is fiscal conservatism.

No social conservative was running for President this election! McCain tried to be socially conservative, but he couldn't pull it off! Social conservatives knew him too well to buy that he suddenly had an epiphany and became socially conservative after his history of 'evangelical bashing' and contradicting social conservative policies.

And this "Liberal-Lite" nonsense, is that from one of your radio talkshow buddies?

I don't listen to radio talk shows, I have no idea what they are saying. I just know what the Republican platform has become, and that aptly describes it.

Liberals typically want more social programs, and therefore to spend tax dollars.

So the opposite of liberals is FISCAL conservatives. A social conservative is just a liberal with a bible.

Not true at all. A "Compassionate Conservative" may be that, Bush may have been that, but it doesn't define a Social Conservative. As I said, a case needs to be made for the fundamental importance and connection of social AND fiscal conservatism. We've not had that since Ronald Reagan, and it's what is missing in the Republican message.

Liberal Lite is what we had with George W. Bush.

Right... and it's what we would have gotten with John McCain! That is precisely why it didn't prevail and we now have a full-blown fiscal AND social liberal in power.

 

[Cancel3]

As I explained to you in the Palin thread, there is a connection and nexus between social and fiscal conservatism. The social conservative values have to be articulated in harmony with the fiscal conservative values, because they work together to foster freedom and prosperity. To abandon moral principles found in social conservatism, and only focus on fiscal conservative policy, renders such a platform shallow and based on capitalist greed. This vulnerability is easily exploited by the liberals. By incorporating the fundamental beliefs of ethics and morals found in social conservatism, you strengthen the argument for fiscal conservatism, and take away the 'capitalist greed' vulnerability.

This is hard to explain to you, because you don't see it, don't believe in, don't accept it, and will not open your mind to it in any way. Your anti-religious blinders prohibit you from seeing the Big Picture, and you are mired in your deep-seated liberal viewpoints.

The monumental task Republicans will face, is de-stigmatizing social conservatism, and making it something to not be ashamed of, rather to embrace and be proud of again. We've lost our way, this nation is on a slow boat to hell, and in order to turn it around, we must find a way to appeal to the moral fiber of America, in a host of issues, not just abortion and gay marriage. Social conservatism has an image problem right now, partly because of the heavy 'religious' push, but mostly because of militant liberal propaganda over the course of the last decade, which has successfully ostracized social conservatives. It's time to fight back and change that image, and do so in a way that incorporates fiscal conservatism with social conservative values in a way people can relate to and understand as a viable alternative to 'godless' liberal socialism.

Yeah, good luck destigmatizing hatred for anything that isn't what you personally want.

And fiscal conservatism isn't about greed. Its about limiting the government and not taking money from people by force.

Social conservatism is about forcing your values and beliefs on others.


And its not about a choice between godless liberalism and social conservatism. Because fiscal conservatism is about getting the government out of people's lives. So the choice of whether to embrace god or not is a personal one, not one forced by the government, as you would have them do.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, good luck destigmatizing hatred for anything that isn't what you personally want.

And fiscal conservatism isn't about greed. Its about limiting the government and not taking money from people by force.

Social conservatism is about forcing your values and beliefs on others.


And its not about a choice between godless liberalism and social conservatism. Because fiscal conservatism is about getting the government out of people's lives. So the choice of whether to embrace god or not is a personal one, not one forced by the government, as you would have them do.

No one wants you to be "forced" to embrace God. Particularly not me, I am a Spiritualist. My belief in God is different from Evangelical Christians, and is highly personal. When it comes to my philosophy of government, I do not believe our government should adhere to what I believe personally, I have no desire to force my personal views onto the rest of society. Why pinheads can't understand that or grasp that concept, is beyond me, but perhaps it has something to do with how they think, and what they desire themselves?

Social conservatism is about forcing your values and beliefs on others.

This is a total load of horse shit. If it were true, no one would be a social conservative. Again, I think you project what your socialist fascism is currently perpetrating on society. Judges ruling that homosexuals can marry, against the will of the voters, what is that, if not "forcing your values and beliefs on others?"

When you advocate fiscal conservatism without the benevolence and love of mankind found in social conservatism, it is greedy, cold, and without regard for your fellow man. There is no basis for belief in equality, freedom, or liberty, it becomes an ideology built on greed for the sake of capitalism, and nothing more. When combined with the humanity of social conservatism, and the principles of equality and justice for all, there is strength in the message, and the fundamental ideology changes to one of hope and prosperity through our founding principles and the conviction of American exceptionalism and ingenuity. Personal responsibility is a cornerstone for both social and fiscal conservatism, and neither concept works without understanding personal responsibility and ethics. Like I said, you don't understand this, you will refuse to accept it, and you will continue to ridicule and castigate it, as something it's not, because you revel in ignorant bigotry.

 

[Cancel3]

No one wants you to be "forced" to embrace God. Particularly not me, I am a Spiritualist. My belief in God is different from Evangelical Christians, and is highly personal. When it comes to my philosophy of government, I do not believe our government should adhere to what I believe personally, I have no desire to force my personal views onto the rest of society. Why pinheads can't understand that or grasp that concept, is beyond me, but perhaps it has something to do with how they think, and what they desire themselves?

Social conservatism is about forcing your values and beliefs on others.

This is a total load of horse shit. If it were true, no one would be a social conservative. Again, I think you project what your socialist fascism is currently perpetrating on society. Judges ruling that homosexuals can marry, against the will of the voters, what is that, if not "forcing your values and beliefs on others?"

When you advocate fiscal conservatism without the benevolence and love of mankind found in social conservatism, it is greedy, cold, and without regard for your fellow man. There is no basis for belief in equality, freedom, or liberty, it becomes an ideology built on greed for the sake of capitalism, and nothing more. When combined with the humanity of social conservatism, and the principles of equality and justice for all, there is strength in the message, and the fundamental ideology changes to one of hope and prosperity through our founding principles and the conviction of American exceptionalism and ingenuity. Personal responsibility is a cornerstone for both social and fiscal conservatism, and neither concept works without understanding personal responsibility and ethics. Like I said, you don't understand this, you will refuse to accept it, and you will continue to ridicule and castigate it, as something it's not, because you revel in ignorant bigotry.

"When you advocate fiscal conservatism without the benevolence and love of mankind found in social conservatism..."

I cannot believe you could type that with a straight face.

Homosexuals are branded deviants, sinners and threatened with hellfire by social conservatives.

Rape victims would be forced to carry a child conceived in the rape, by social conservatives.

And you call them benevolent and loving? LMAO! Social conservatives can be called a LOT of things. But benevolent and loving are not on the list.





Even you can't possibly make that bizarre statement without a chuckle.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your post shows why you completely lack any understanding of social conservative principles. While there may be some radical religious fundamentalists who take those positions, it is not a proper or fitting definition of social conservatism, and this is the exact kind of image Republicans need to combat with regard to social conservatism.

 

[Cancel3]

Dixie, you insist that allowing someone else to marry is forcing their beliefs on you, when their marriage does not effect you.

And yet you claim that refusing to allow someone to marry is somehow being benevolent and loving.

That is total horseshit.




You want to say I am ignorant and a bigot. And yet you demand that one groups beliefs be given greater import than anothers.

Again, total horseshit.



You claim that the fiscal conservatives are basing their ideology on greed. But the fiscal conservative is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less intrusion by the government. That is not greed. That is called FREEDOM.



You claim that social conservatism must go hand in hand with fiscal conservatism. In other words, you claim to want less government intrusion and smaller government, but you also claim that the social conservatives are going to take back the country and legislate morality. To stop the nation from going to hell in a handbasket.

Total horseshit, you can't have less intrusion by the government and then insist the government intrude more to save us.




And when we discussed the use of religion by the government, you quote a document that was written before the United States actually existed. And you claim that it should overrule the US Constitution because the founding fathers ASSUMED we would know that our freedoms come from God, despite the fact that they made almost no assumptions in the rest of the Constitution.

Again, total bullshit.




You have been floundering around demanding more freedom for you and other radical conservatives, and yet denying those same freedoms to everyone else.


This conversation is over. You haven't made a valid point yet. You keep talking about how "True Conservatives" will come back and set things to right, with what sounds suspiciously like a theocratic political party.

The problem is, you and those like you got exactly what you asked for with George Bush. You wanted the religious right in power, you wanted a war to show everyone how tough we are, and you wanted economic growth at any cost.

You got it. And THAT is why the republicans lost. And it is driving you crazy. You want to blame moderates. You want to blame liberals. You even insist that many of the "true conservatives" stayed home and didn't vote.


More horseshit. The country suffered under 8 years of your brand of conservatives. 8 years in which your beliefs superceded the US Constitution. 8 years in which pursuit of the almighty dollar was the highest calling of mankind. And 8 years of condemning gays, muslims, and anyone who didn't believe as you did.

And the election is proof of the revolt against your kind.



But I will make you a wager. Find me after the 2016 presidential election. If a social conservative (running on a campaign of ant-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and anti-separation of church & state) has been elected president, I will pay you $500. But if this has not happened, you will have to offer me a public apology for being an idiot and an ass. And offer it in a way of my choosing.

 

[Cancel3]

Your post shows why you completely lack any understanding of social conservative principles. While there may be some radical religious fundamentalists who take those positions, it is not a proper or fitting definition of social conservatism, and this is the exact kind of image Republicans need to combat with regard to social conservatism.

Its exactly who the social conservatives ARE, Dixie.

Its sort sad that you want to define conservatives in ONLY the way YOU see them.

But you insist that ALL liberals are exactly the same as the most extreme leftwingers.

Can you not see the insanity in that?



No, there is no point debating with a man who ignores facts and insists on skewing the definitions so badly.

You are not an idiot, Dixie. You are simply a liar and a coward.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Hey idiot, take a look around! We've already lost ALL power! How did this happen? By getting away from our core principles, by trying to chase after the 'moderate' vote, by watering down conservatism and abandoning social conservative principles and convictions! Apparently, you have completely forgotten the allegations of how Rove "stole" the election of 2004 by having 'gay marriage' on the ballots in key swing states! Did all of these millions of social conservatives who elected George W. Bush, just die off in the past 4 years? I don't think so, but maybe you really believe that!

Conservatives couldn't manage a victory in this election because Republicans nominated a MODERATE! Conservatives had no one to vote for! It's hard to win when you don't have a candidate in the race! Republicans chased after the "independent moderates" and they were NEVER going to vote for McCain! They should have nominated Romney or Huckabee, and adopted a solid conservative fiscal and social platform, and they may have had a chance. If they continue to listen to your advice and distance themselves from social conservative issues, they will lose again in 2012. Conservatives just aren't going to vote for "Liberal-Lite!"

Dixie, the whole problem with your strategy is that the social conservative demographic is shrinking. The entire movement was a temporary bubble that's not popping out of existence. 40 years ago the tenants of social conservatism were things that large supermajorities held. Then they started shrinking. Liberals got into power and started doing things like legalizing sodomy. The current vitrolic state of social conservatism began like 20 years ago as a reaction to this. It allowed you to have a bubble in popularity. Your loudness got you a lot of attention. But now it's simply a fact that you are passing into definite minority, and will shrink indefinitely from that point on.

The future of conservatism is fiscal conservatism - that's how it is in every major developed nation that's progressed beyond this point. Maybe you can even through in some immigrant hating right wing populism, but social conservatism itself is never going to be dominant again. The social conservative parties in most nations barely garner 5% of the vote. And that's how it's going to be for you guys in 20 years.

 

[Socrtease]

Hey idiot, take a look around! We've already lost ALL power! How did this happen? By getting away from our core principles, by trying to chase after the 'moderate' vote, by watering down conservatism and abandoning social conservative principles and convictions! Apparently, you have completely forgotten the allegations of how Rove "stole" the election of 2004 by having 'gay marriage' on the ballots in key swing states! Did all of these millions of social conservatives who elected George W. Bush, just die off in the past 4 years? I don't think so, but maybe you really believe that!

Conservatives couldn't manage a victory in this election because Republicans nominated a MODERATE! Conservatives had no one to vote for! It's hard to win when you don't have a candidate in the race! Republicans chased after the "independent moderates" and they were NEVER going to vote for McCain! They should have nominated Romney or Huckabee, and adopted a solid conservative fiscal and social platform, and they may have had a chance. If they continue to listen to your advice and distance themselves from social conservative issues, they will lose again in 2012. Conservatives just aren't going to vote for "Liberal-Lite!"

So if a true social conservative is what the base wanted, why didn't they nominate Huckleberry or Romney. Why in the only race they could really control were they unable to beat a guy that was actually out of the race for a while because of how broke he was. Why did he win the primaries when Republicans don't want that kind of moderate running for them?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Fiscal conservatism is very important, but tempered with the aspects of social conservatism as well. If you look back at the history of elections, we have never elected a social liberal president until Obama... he is the first in history. Even Bill Clinton played to social conservatives and gave lip service to their concerns. We are largely a social conservative nation, whether you choose to believe that or not. This doesn't mean we are all a bunch of knuckledragging Bible thumpers and religious zealots, that is how you on the left have so stigmatized 'social conservatives' and it's an invalid assessment.

I know you want the republican party to chase down the road of moderates, and continue to make the same old mistakes of the past, and you are willing to dangle a few carrots out there and give us your word you will listen and cooperate with a moderate, but this election proved you are lying through your teeth. You want to have nothing to do with 'moderates' from the right. They may as well be Jerry Falwell, you're not going to listen to them or support them in any way.

The Republican party has got to get back on message, back to the core conservative values on both fiscal AND social policy, and articulate a case for BOTH in a pragmatic way, to the American people. This isn't impossible, it isn't implausible, it is what has to be done if they expect to win elections. If they continue to try and pander to "moderates" they will continue to befall the same fate as John McCain.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So if a true social conservative is what the base wanted, why didn't they nominate Huckleberry or Romney. Why in the only race they could really control were they unable to beat a guy that was actually out of the race for a while because of how broke he was. Why did he win the primaries when Republicans don't want that kind of moderate running for them?

Because Huck and Romney canceled each other out! If you could have cloned a HuckaRomney and ran him against McCain, he would have won 2 to 1 over him! As I explained before, social conservatives voted for Huck, fiscal conservatives voted for Romney, and those who weren't particularly devoted to either side, couldn't decide, or wanted a little bit of both, voted for McCain. There was no candidate delivering a solid fiscal AND social conservative message!

Another factor was the media coverage on McCain after he won New Hampshire. The 'moderate' bastion of the Republican party is NH, and they held an early primary and went with the 'moderate' candidate, McCain... the press picked it up and ran with it, and gave him massive press coverage the other candidates simply didn't get, and this started the snowball rolling for McCain. Before the primaries got to Super Tuesday, it was all but a forgone conclusion McCain was going to be the nominee. He wasn't the best choice, he just managed to win out by default.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Wait, Romney isn't a social conservative? Did I hear that correctly?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wait, Romney isn't a social conservative? Did I hear that correctly?

Nope, you didn't hear that correctly. Try reading it again. I'm sure you can correctly hear it if you keep reading it enough. By the way, I also didn't say Huckabee wasn't a fiscal conservative, in case you heard that too.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Since Dixie made a valid point earlier, I will restate it in plain English. John McCain won the primary because Huckabee (as well as Thompson) stole votes away from Romney.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Don't you wish you guys had used proportional representation now?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Don't you wish you guys had used proportional representation now?

Not really, I was happy when McCain won. You'll have to ask someone else.

 

[Annie]

Not really, I was happy when McCain won. You'll have to ask someone else.

No. Seems to me that a definitive vote is better for all. I'm glad Obama ended up with the electoral vote he did. Are you wishing it had been proportional?

I'm still an advocate of EC.