the future of Dixie republicans

Dixie said:
Nice strawman, now try making a valid argument!
Click to expand...

It's exactly true. You just said, "I am all for allowing THE PEOPLE to make this determination collectively for society, as opposed to some liberal appointed judge 'reinterpreting' the constitution."

How can one interpret that as anything but you wanting the people to decide on constitutional matters rather than judges?
 
Solitary said:
I dont insist anyone live by my standards. I also do not deny anyone else the rights given to some, based solely on ignorance.
Click to expand...

Sure you do! You want to destroy a fundamental religious institution and redefine it based on sexual preference, against the overwhelming will of the American public. You want to deny gays the rights they could enjoy under comprehensive civil unions legislation, for the sake of having this issue to bash Christians over the head with.

I am not afraid of change. I understand that others do not believe as I do, and I am not afraid to allow them to live their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Sure you are! You aren't willing to allow adults to marry children or farm animals, you aren't willing to allow adults to marry multiple partners, you aren't willing to allow nudists to run around naked in public or pedophiles to masturbate openly in public places... you have a helluva lot that you are "afraid of" and not willing to accept as far as "change" goes. You have quite a few "beliefs of others" you wouldn't accept or condone. Don't be ridiculous!

As I said in the other thread, Dixie, you are not ignorant. You are simply a liar and a coward. Go crawl back into your hole and dream your dreams of social domination. Because they are only dreams of the losers.
Click to expand...

I've not lied about a damn thing, and I am no coward.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's exactly true. You just said, "I am all for allowing THE PEOPLE to make this determination collectively for society, as opposed to some liberal appointed judge 'reinterpreting' the constitution."

How can one interpret that as anything but you wanting the people to decide on constitutional matters rather than judges?
Click to expand...

Because "The People" are represented by the Congress they elect. You stated: "Dixie would have preferred desegregation had been a ballot initiative." This is false... Dixie would have advocated Congress pass an act to insure against discrimination based on race, and aside from a few DEMOCRAT holdouts, it would have passed resoundingly by the Congress people elected, because that is precisely what happened.

I have no problem, if Barney Frank wants to introduce the Homosexual Rights Act of 2009, and let the Congress, who are beholden to their constituents, vote on it and pass it! I do have a problem with a rogue court making that determination for the people and forcing us to live by their mandates.
 
Dixie said:
Because "The People" are represented by the Congress they elect. You stated: "Dixie would have preferred desegregation had been a ballot initiative." This is false... Dixie would have advocated Congress pass an act to insure against discrimination based on race, and aside from a few DEMOCRAT holdouts, it would have passed resoundingly by the Congress people elected, because that is precisely what happened.

I have no problem, if Barney Frank wants to introduce the Homosexual Rights Act of 2009, and let the Congress, who are beholden to their constituents, vote on it and pass it! I do have a problem with a rogue court making that determination for the people and forcing us to live by their mandates.
Click to expand...

Dixie, I've not a clue to what you would or would not do, especially when you slip into the third person. With that said, no matter how clear your intentions, many here will always paint what you wish to say in the worst possible light.
 
Kathianne said:
Dixie, I've not a clue to what you would or would not do, especially when you slip into the third person. With that said, no matter how clear your intentions, many here will always paint what you wish to say in the worst possible light.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know that Kathianne, they constantly call me every name in the book and misconstrue everything I say, I am used to it! If I came on here and said "The sky is blue!" There is no doubt, I'd have a half-dozen pinheads lining up to "explain to my uneducated redneck ass" how the sky is not blue, it only appears this way because of moisture in the atmosphere, and it would be followed by the next wave of pinheads chortling and laughing at what an idiot I am to believe the sky is blue! They get their rocks off on bashing me for no reason, I can't figure out why, but they do.
 
Solitary said:
I would like to see it too. But for very different reasons.

The republicans have had two factions for a number of years now. One side considers itself social conservatives and one side fiscal conservatives.

If we separate those two, there will be plenty of democrats who will jump ship and go along with the fiscal conservatives.

I think the centrists of both parties could get behind a party that pushed for fiscally conservative politics and stayed out of socially conservative OR liberal politics.
Click to expand...

That's not the way political parties work dude.
 
Dixie said:
Dontcha just LOVE the way liberals are breaking their necks to tell us how to "fix" the Republican party? ...and surprise, surprise... it has absolutely nothing to do with returning to conservative core principles! No, they all think we should continue chasing after liberalism with some whimsical joke of an idea called 'moderation' which failed miserably this past election, and the one before.

I particularly LOVE how ignorant people like Solitary, think "social conservative" just automatically translates to "evangelical" and only people who answered some trumped up Atheistic survey, are practicing Christianity in America! Wye, there is such little interest in religion these days, we may as well bulldoze all churches!

...Only in Pinhead Fantasyland!
Click to expand...

Your leaps of logic show how uneducated and small minded you are. No one mentioned bulldozing churches. No one said there are no social conservatives. The only thing that was said is the fact that social conservative numbers are shrinking not increasing. There are not enough young jesus freak social conservatives to replace the old farts that are thankfully finally dying off.
 
Blackflag said:
Your leaps of logic show how uneducated and small minded you are. No one mentioned bulldozing churches. No one said there are no social conservatives. The only thing that was said is the fact that social conservative numbers are shrinking not increasing. There are not enough young jesus freak social conservatives to replace the old farts that are thankfully finally dying off.
Click to expand...

Why do you ignorantly think social conservatives have to be "jesus freaks?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top