Obama and dem congress cause resurgance of Republican core values.

[DamnYankee]

[1]I have insinuated nothing. I have stated that the social conservatives want to intrude on private lives.

[2] They have continually worked to bring (or maintain) christianity as an official part of the gov't.

[3]They have worked to deny gays the ability to marry and enjoy the SAME rights that straight couples enjoy. (the gov't should not be involved in marriage anyway)

[4]They have worked to outlaw adult stores in several states.

[5]They have worked to outlaw abortion in any situation.

[6]They have worked to deny the ability of gays to teach in public schools.

[7]They have worked to have creationism taught in science classes in public schools.

[8]They have worked to ban certain books in public school libraries.

[9]And none of this is what is going to get any republicans elected. Getting away from the social issues and back to the core values of smaller gov't, lower taxes, and less intrusion is what will bring the party back.

Failure to do so is what cost them so many votes in 2008.

1. Again I was giving you the benefit of doubt. My mistake. :lol:
2. Again, Judea-Christian values, not religion.
3. There are existing ways for gays to enjoy exclusive relationships without offending 5000 years of tradition.
4. Adult stores should be confined to discrete areas, far from schools and children.Innocent lives should be protected.
5. If you can’t protect innocent life than nothing else matters.
6. Studies have shown that pedophilia and homosexuality have a commonality. Again innocent lives should be protected.
7. As far as I can tell evolution is just a theory as well. What’s wrong with exposing children to different views?
8. Funny how a liberal democrat is going to tell a conservative how to win elections.

 

[charver]

Then by all means show us.

Strangely enough that was the starting point for just about all of those who later went on to confess their depravity.

If you want to see the documnets you'll just have to look through the little hole in the bedroom wall like the other conservatives. Mind you there's a hell of a queue.

 

[DamnYankee]

Strangely enough that was the starting point for just about all of those who later went on to confess their depravity.

If you want to see the documnets you'll just have to look through the little hole in the bedroom wall like the other conservatives. Mind you there's a hell of a queue.

There you go, proving once again that you have no basis for your argument.

 

[charver]

There you go, proving once again that you have no basis for your argument.

Oddly enough i wasn't aware i was making an argument.

 

[Damocles]

I don't have any details on the run-up to this proposal, so I can't comment on it. There are busy-bodies in all political factions, including my own. You can't use these extreme examples to describe an entire political movement and still be intellectually honest.

They aren't extreme examples. This is a regular occurrence. Laws against porn, an attempt to create and keep blue laws (no liquor sold on Sunday for instance), groups consistently attempting to remove books from libraries, etc.

By moving the focus of the party away from individual rights and responsibilities and into nannyism of the soul (that's where you try to make laws that make it so I can't break your religious edicts), we allowed the creation of the perfect storm. Fiscal irresponsibility and the hypocritical assertion that these nanny laws reconcile have simply created a guarantee that the R party will continue down the road to oblivion if we do not refocus.

The reality is, if the R party is to remain viable, it needs to reprioritize. While some social values are important they cannot remain the only focus or we miss the bigger picture and lose support, and finally viability in the current political process.

 

[DamnYankee]

Oddly enough i wasn't aware i was making an argument.

Just spouting bull.

 

[DamnYankee]

They aren't extreme examples. This is a regular occurrence. Laws against porn, an attempt to create and keep blue laws (no liquor sold on Sunday for instance), groups consistently attempting to remove books from libraries, etc.
.....

I would argue that your first example is shared by both the R and D parties. I would argue that the 2nd is, in fact, more prevalent in Blue states, such as those in New England. I would argue that the 3rd is an extreme example not supported at all by mainstream conservatives, except for egregious examples such as pornography, which again is a view shared by mainstream Rs and Ds.

 

[Cancel3]

1. Again I was giving you the benefit of doubt. My mistake. :lol:
2. Again, Judea-Christian values, not religion.
3. There are existing ways for gays to enjoy exclusive relationships without offending 5000 years of tradition.
4. Adult stores should be confined to discrete areas, far from schools and children.Innocent lives should be protected.
5. If you can’t protect innocent life than nothing else matters.
6. Studies have shown that pedophilia and homosexuality have a commonality. Again innocent lives should be protected.
7. As far as I can tell evolution is just a theory as well. What’s wrong with exposing children to different views?
8. Funny how a liberal democrat is going to tell a conservative how to win elections.

1. LMAO

2. Creating laws based on a single religion is against the US Constitution. And doing things like Judge Roy Moore's placing the 10 commandments monument in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court are blatantly against the US Constitution.

3. The gov't has not been bestowing benefits on married couples for 5,000 years. And in much of that 5,000 years the woman was considered property, which is just as disgusting as anything.

4. As long as there is nothing showing outside, and minors are not allowed inside the store, there is no reason to try and eliminate or restrict adult stores. And in many states there have been efforts to outlaw them altogether. In Alabama they have outlawed them completely and they can only sell "novelties".

5. Protecting the life of the mother should have just as much importantance as protecting the fetus.

6. So all gays should be treated as potential pedophiles, but you don't want Damo judging all conservatives by the actions of a portion of the group? Nice double standard. Also, there are more straight white men convicted of child molestation than any other demographic.

7. Exposing children to nonscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class is ridiculous. If you want to teach creationism, then do so somewhere other than a science class.

8. I am not a democrat or a republican. And I am only liberal on the issues you seem to count as the most important. On the ones I count as important I am most definitaly conservative.

 

[Damocles]

I would argue that your first example is shared by both the R and D parties. I would argue that the 2nd is, in fact, more prevalent in Blue states, such as those in New England. I would argue that the 3rd is an extreme example not supported at all by mainstream conservatives, except for egregious examples such as pornography, which again is a view shared by mainstream Rs and Ds.

You would argue that, but IMO you would be wrong. In almost every instance such laws are passed by social conservatives.

First I laughed here because in the cases where usually liberal states have passed such laws it is almost always with a huge majority of the social conservatives and a few democrat social conservatives crossing party lines to pass the laws. You fell for the "D" means liberal line and then attempted to use the exact "extremes" argument that you tried to accuse me of until I gave examples you tried to dismiss.

Secondly I laughed at the way you dismissed the state of Alabama as a "extreme case" and have tried to ignore the actual actions of social conservatives to support their continued power in the party, even when it has been shown to fail miserably when it is the only "conservative" cause the leader of the party held to.

Either we refocus on fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility or the R party becomes the constant minority party, and we deserve it if we cannot smell the coffee.

 

[charver]

Just spouting bull.

You conservatives just can't help yourselves can you?

Now you're on about spouting bulls. Is there anywhere you won't draw the line?

 

[DamnYankee]

1. LMAO

2. Creating laws based on a single religion is against the US Constitution. And doing things like Judge Roy Moore's placing the 10 commandments monument in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court are blatantly against the US Constitution.

3. The gov't has not been bestowing benefits on married couples for 5,000 years. And in much of that 5,000 years the woman was considered property, which is just as disgusting as anything.

4. As long as there is nothing showing outside, and minors are not allowed inside the store, there is no reason to try and eliminate or restrict adult stores. And in many states there have been efforts to outlaw them altogether. In Alabama they have outlawed them completely and they can only sell "novelties".

5. Protecting the life of the mother should have just as much importantance as protecting the fetus.

6. So all gays should be treated as potential pedophiles, but you don't want Damo judging all conservatives by the actions of a portion of the group? Nice double standard. Also, there are more straight white men convicted of child molestation than any other demographic.

7. Exposing children to nonscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class is ridiculous. If you want to teach creationism, then do so somewhere other than a science class.

8. I am not a democrat or a republican. And I am only liberal on the issues you seem to count as the most important. On the ones I count as important I am most definitaly conservative.

2. Re-read my previous post and comment on that instead of a caricature of it.
3. This does not address my point at all.
4. Ditto.
5. I know of no conservative who disagrees with that.
6. The percent straight male as a pedophile is much less than the percent gay male; your argument is disingenuous.
7. Again, both are theories, and children should be exposed to both and be allowed to decide for themselves instead of one being censored as you suggest.
8. Your arguments paint you as socially liberal.

 

[DamnYankee]

You would argue that, but IMO you would be wrong. In almost every instance such laws are passed by social conservatives.

First I laughed here because in the cases where usually liberal states have passed such laws it is almost always with a huge majority of the social conservatives and a few democrat social conservatives crossing party lines to pass the laws. You fell for the "D" means liberal line and then attempted to use the exact "extremes" argument that you tried to accuse me of until I gave examples you tried to dismiss.

Secondly I laughed at the way you dismissed the state of Alabama as a "extreme case" and have tried to ignore the actual actions of social conservatives to support their continued power in the party, even when it has been shown to fail miserably when it is the only "conservative" cause the leader of the party held to.

Either we refocus on fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility or the R party becomes the constant minority party, and we deserve it if we cannot smell the coffee.

We differ on opinion then. Yet conservative issues, when put to popular vote, win consistently. We have seen this most recently in California of all places.

“Blue Laws” are in effect in New England, solidly “blue” states. That is an undeniable fact.

McCain demonstrated, Republicans will lose elections when they abandon social and fiscal conservatism.

 

[Cancel3]

2. Re-read my previous post and comment on that instead of a caricature of it.
3. This does not address my point at all.
4. Ditto.
5. I know of no conservative who disagrees with that.
6. The percent straight male as a pedophile is much less than the percent gay male; your argument is disingenuous.
7. Again, both are theories, and children should be exposed to both and be allowed to decide for themselves instead of one being censored as you suggest.
8. Your arguments paint you as socially liberal.

2. Judeo/Christian values that do not espouse the values of all people (like in other religions) are not constitutional. And Judge Roy Moore's actions are a perfect example of what I am talking about. As are the Blue Laws, which are a violation of Constitutional Law.

3. If you are using the fact that the institution of marriage has been around for 5k years as a defense, then it is certainly valid to address both the bad portions of that 5k year period, and the fact that the gov't (which gives the benfits) did not exist except for a minute portion of that time.

The gov't should not have a hand in marriage at all, much less to bestow great benefits on one segment and deny them for another.

4. My comments dreictly addressed what you said. Ditto some info.

5. There are plenty of conservatives who would see abortion outlawed comepletely.

6. Multiple studies estimate that 20% of american women and between 5% & 10% of american men suffered from some sexual abuse as children. Unless every homosexual is abusing children, there is no way they could account for even a majority of those abuse cases.

7. Teaching creationism is fine. But you cannot teach an unscientific theory in a science class in the interest of being "fair" to the fundamentalists. When you teach SCIENCE, you teach scientific methods. You would have to throw them out to teach creationism.

8. My argument here might. But my arguments concerning fiscal and constitutional things paint me as a conservative. And that is why you WANT me to be a liberal, because that makes your social conservatism the only conservatism.

 

[Cancel3]

We differ on opinion then. Yet conservative issues, when put to popular vote, win consistently. We have seen this most recently in California of all places.

“Blue Laws” are in effect in New England, solidly “blue” states. That is an undeniable fact.

McCain demonstrated, Republicans will lose elections when they abandon social and fiscal conservatism.

Alabama & Mississippi have plenty of Blue Laws.

And McCain demonstrated that social conservatism will send centrists packing and that there are not enough social conservatives to win elections.

 

[Damocles]

We differ on opinion then. Yet conservative issues, when put to popular vote, win consistently. We have seen this most recently in California of all places.

“Blue Laws” are in effect in New England, solidly “blue” states. That is an undeniable fact.

McCain demonstrated, Republicans will lose elections when they abandon social and fiscal conservatism.

McCain demonstrated that there was no R that could have won in that particular "perfect storm". It wouldn't have mattered if it was Huckabee, that standard had been tried and there would have been even less votes for the Rs. Mitt may have been able to garner more votes, but not because he was religious, but because he had a record of winning in that "blue" state you keep trying to use as an example of who passed the laws (the laws were passed long ago, and many Ds are socially conservative in certain areas that allow them to continue).

We have a fundamental disconnect in opinion. The main difference is your plan was tried and the religious "conservative" were allowed to have too much power in this party, it has brought upon us one of the worst times our party has had to exist through.

I don't say we should kick them out, but I will maintain and always work that those issues maintain a lower priority to fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms. Actually working towards smaller and less intrusive government rather than some central medical computer that will later allow the government to inform your doctor if you are "eligible" for your next surgery. This should be our focus, not Adam and Steve. I don't care if such things supposedly get the religious out to vote. I prefer to win on the merit of the argument rather than a dogmatic devotion to government intervention to support religious beliefs.

 

[uscitizen]

Perfect storm???

So now you are linking the falling down of America to a Storm?

Might as well get out your pagan ritual stuff to cure the problem then Damo.

 

[DamnYankee]

2. Judeo/Christian values that do not espouse the values of all people (like in other religions) are not constitutional. And Judge Roy Moore's actions are a perfect example of what I am talking about. As are the Blue Laws, which are a violation of Constitutional Law.

3. If you are using the fact that the institution of marriage has been around for 5k years as a defense, then it is certainly valid to address both the bad portions of that 5k year period, and the fact that the gov't (which gives the benfits) did not exist except for a minute portion of that time.

The gov't should not have a hand in marriage at all, much less to bestow great benefits on one segment and deny them for another.

4. My comments dreictly addressed what you said. Ditto some info.

5. There are plenty of conservatives who would see abortion outlawed comepletely.

6. Multiple studies estimate that 20% of american women and between 5% & 10% of american men suffered from some sexual abuse as children. Unless every homosexual is abusing children, there is no way they could account for even a majority of those abuse cases.

7. Teaching creationism is fine. But you cannot teach an unscientific theory in a science class in the interest of being "fair" to the fundamentalists. When you teach SCIENCE, you teach scientific methods. You would have to throw them out to teach creationism.

8. My argument here might. But my arguments concerning fiscal and constitutional things paint me as a conservative. And that is why you WANT me to be a liberal, because that makes your social conservatism the only conservatism.

2. “Judeo/Christian values that do not espouse the values of all people (like in other religions) are not constitutional.” This sentence makes no sense.
3. Bad logic on your part. Traditional marriage came out of a trial and error process where bad policy was rejected; traditional marriage is not equivalent to the rejected policy as you seem to be suggesting.
4. “Ditto some info.” Again, this sentence makes no sense.
5. Perhaps you can document any conservative who advocates taking a child to term if the mother’s health is real danger.
6. Don’t try and confuse an engineer with percentages, as you are vastly under-gunned. Homosexuals make up 1% of the population and commit a disproportionate number of sexual crimes.
7. You don’t know that it’s not science. That is merely your theory.
8. You are the only one here painting yourself as a social liberal.

 

[DamnYankee]

Alabama & Mississippi have plenty of Blue Laws.

And McCain demonstrated that social conservatism will send centrists packing and that there are not enough social conservatives to win elections.

The populations of these two states is only slightly more than Massachusetts alone. And then the other New England blue states... In any event, you fail to demonstrate that red states have a lock on blue laws; in fact you have proven the opposite.

McCain sent us packing because he did not represent our values, *shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

McCain demonstrated that there was no R that could have won in that particular "perfect storm". It wouldn't have mattered if it was Huckabee, that standard had been tried and there would have been even less votes for the Rs. Mitt may have been able to garner more votes, but not because he was religious, but because he had a record of winning in that "blue" state you keep trying to use as an example of who passed the laws (the laws were passed long ago, and many Ds are socially conservative in certain areas that allow them to continue).

We have a fundamental disconnect in opinion. The main difference is your plan was tried and the religious "conservative" were allowed to have too much power in this party, it has brought upon us one of the worst times our party has had to exist through.

I don't say we should kick them out, but I will maintain and always work that those issues maintain a lower priority to fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms. Actually working towards smaller and less intrusive government rather than some central medical computer that will later allow the government to inform your doctor if you are "eligible" for your next surgery. This should be our focus, not Adam and Steve. I don't care if such things supposedly get the religious out to vote. I prefer to win on the merit of the argument rather than a dogmatic devotion to government intervention to support religious beliefs.

None of the candidates that you mention had the combination of social and fiscal conservatism, along with an ability to communicate it effectively. Mitt was the closest of the bunch and as you admit, would have fared the best.

Social conservatives are unwilling to waver on these issues because they define core values. Democrats bring these hot button issues up because in order to steer the debate away from fiscal issues which they can only lose, while the social issues can be heavily clouded with emotional arguments as demonstrated here by my debate opponents.

 

[Cancel3]

2. “Judeo/Christian values that do not espouse the values of all people (like in other religions) are not constitutional.” This sentence makes no sense.
3. Bad logic on your part. Traditional marriage came out of a trial and error process where bad policy was rejected; traditional marriage is not equivalent to the rejected policy as you seem to be suggesting.
4. “Ditto some info.” Again, this sentence makes no sense.
5. Perhaps you can document any conservative who advocates taking a child to term if the mother’s health is real danger.
6. Don’t try and confuse an engineer with percentages, as you are vastly under-gunned. Homosexuals make up 1% of the population and commit a disproportionate number of sexual crimes.
7. You don’t know that it’s not science. That is merely your theory.
8. You are the only one here painting yourself as a social liberal.

2. "“Judeo/Christian values that do not espouse the values of all people (like in other religions) are not constitutional.” This sentence makes no sense."

If these "judeo/Christian values" are specific to that faith (as in the 10 commandments) the using them as a basis for laws is unconstitutional. If that is unclear let me know.

3 The gov't should either offer the same benefits for all or should (as I believ) get out of the marriage game all together. The fact that the government is involved in marriage at all is intrusive.

4. Your original statement was "Adult stores should be confined to discrete areas, far from schools and children.Innocent lives should be protected."

To which I replied "As long as there is nothing showing outside, and minors are not allowed inside the store, there is no reason to try and eliminate or restrict adult stores. And in many states there have been efforts to outlaw them altogether. In Alabama they have outlawed them completely and they can only sell "novelties"."

That addressed your remarks and makes perfect sense. If you do not understand, please be more specific about what you do not understand. I am saying that the gov't has no business restricting adult stores to the extent they do, and certainly not eliminating them.

6. 20% of women are molested as children. 90% of molesters are men. That shows that there are an awful lot of straight men molesting young girls.

And it still does not come close to being a rational reason for banning gays from teaching in public schools.

7. Creationism does not fit the standard scientific models. The Scientific Method cannot be applied. It is not science. Any claims that it is scientific can only be laughed at. To say that the entire force behind creation and diversification is an unknown, untestable, unproveable mysterious force would pretty much be the definition of unscientific.

8. Now you are going with something a bit different. Yes, I am probably a social liberal. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a perfectly acceptable description to me.