Pick a side fundies!!!!!!!!!

Lady T comes back firing.

If you support a person or their ideas must you support 100% of everything they believe? I'm not sure why this has to be an either or senario as long as one is aware of the differences.
 
Why does an issue or a position have to be all or nothing? I've read Rand's work. I think she's like most great thinkers, including Jesus. Right about some things and not so much about others. Why cant' a person be exposed to her ideas (or anyones for that matter), evaluate them, try them and observe the results, discuss them with others to provide feedback about those ideas and then draw their own conclusions about what works and what doesn't, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad? I get tired of this irrational adherence to an ideological orthodoxy! That just doesn't make sense to me.
 
I have often said what is missing from the Conservative side, is someone who can bridge the secular conservative libertarian types, with the social conservative religious types, to form an almost unbeatable coalition of conservatism. I believe this is what Reagan managed to do, and why he was so resoundingly popular. We see Reagan, not as a 'radical religious rightie' because he didn't wear his religious faith on his sleeve, and it never came between him and his belief that The People were the ultimate authority under our Constitution. Yet much of what Reagan is remembered for, is very religiously rooted... 'The Shining City on the Hill' is a direct Biblical reference. Reagan was able to intertwine faith values into the conservative message and make the case for BOTH, in a way very few conservatives have mastered before or since. Perhaps it's monumental to ask for that again in a lifetime, but that is certainly the type of voice the GOP currently needs. We've allowed our party to split into two factions, those who hold strong religiously moral values along with conservative fiscal values, and those who don't care so much for religious moral values, but fall in line with Ayn Rand on conservative fiscal principles. The "ideal" candidate to represent both factions, would be someone who can articulate to the religious right, how smaller, limited government, is not going to be there to mandate morality on the social issues, that will be the responsibility of the people and their respective states and the federal government plays no role, except to address issues of fundamental constitutionality. And who can also articulate to the secular right, how "faith" values factor in to core conservatism, and why they are essential to the movement, and without them, conservatism fails. It will take a "coming together" of both factions, both viewpoints, and it will take a person who understands this, and who can articulate it, to make that happen.
 
Dixie said:
I have often said what is missing from the Conservative side, is someone who can bridge the secular conservative libertarian types, with the social conservative religious types, to form an almost unbeatable coalition of conservatism. I believe this is what Reagan managed to do, and why he was so resoundingly popular. We see Reagan, not as a 'radical religious rightie' because he didn't wear his religious faith on his sleeve, and it never came between him and his belief that The People were the ultimate authority under our Constitution. Yet much of what Reagan is remembered for, is very religiously rooted... 'The Shining City on the Hill' is a direct Biblical reference. Reagan was able to intertwine faith values into the conservative message and make the case for BOTH, in a way very few conservatives have mastered before or since. Perhaps it's monumental to ask for that again in a lifetime, but that is certainly the type of voice the GOP currently needs. We've allowed our party to split into two factions, those who hold strong religiously moral values along with conservative fiscal values, and those who don't care so much for religious moral values, but fall in line with Ayn Rand on conservative fiscal principles. The "ideal" candidate to represent both factions, would be someone who can articulate to the religious right, how smaller, limited government, is not going to be there to mandate morality on the social issues, that will be the responsibility of the people and their respective states and the federal government plays no role, except to address issues of fundamental constitutionality. And who can also articulate to the secular right, how "faith" values factor in to core conservatism, and why they are essential to the movement, and without them, conservatism fails. It will take a "coming together" of both factions, both viewpoints, and it will take a person who understands this, and who can articulate it, to make that happen.
Click to expand...

You're actually quite right Dixie and that's the function of politics in our two party system. To build coalitions by bridging such gaps. As you pointed out Reagan was able to bridge that gap and W bridged the gap between social conservatives and corporate interest whom, for lack of a better word, I'll call "The plutocrats". In our system political success is all about bridging gaps and building coalitions.
 
Lady T is more than a little weird....

"Can a person follow Ayn Rand and Jesus?".......Why would one have to 'follow' one or the other ?.....To enjoy an authors books one does not have to 'follow' that person....
The whole post is bullshit from the start and asks that one need to follow one or the other ?....What crap.....'follow' in what respect...
How about Jesus or Rachael Maddow?
How about Jesus or Jon Stewart?
How about Jesus or Bill Maher?
Those questions are just as valid or just as stupid as Jesus or Any Rand.....
 
Does America Need Ayn Rand or Jesus?

LadyT said:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/?hpt=hp_c2
Click to expand...

jeff-the-cat.JPG


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/?hpt=hp_c2
 
While the article points out Rand's anti-Christian sentiments, I think it should be noted that her sentiments in this regard were not in-your-face the way her critics on the left display these sentiments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top