Sarah Palin: An "unholy amalgam"?

Solitary said:
LOL! Another dodge what a surprise.

In post #9 you said I had been fooled. Now you refuse to offer anything to backup your claim. What a surprise.

If you are going to claim that Reagan didn't just use the religious right to get elected tell me something he did that was in for them or in keeping with their agenda and no one else's. Because if it was in someone else's agenda as well then Reagan still used the religious right.

Come on. Give it another shot. lol
Click to expand...
Reagan didn't believe in creating policies to benefit certain segments of society at the expense of others; that's your guy's specialty. *shrug*
 
WinterBorn said:
She will carry the Religious Right and social conservatives but thats about it. I don't think she will win the nomination.

A fiscal conservative who understands that legislating morality is wrong would win.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that? Libertarians usually only get 2% of the vote! :cof1:

I think the left will literally do whatever they can to destroy her credibility, as evidenced by their incessant obsession with her, hit pieces in Vanity Fair, which curiously has no "on the record" sources!

Let me clue you in on some logistics... 60% of the country is Conservative, and 95% of the country believes in something greater than self. The so-called "religious right" is a very powerful voting block, that is why you saw Al Gore and John Kerry visiting black churches and singing with the congregation, when they were campaigning... it's why Bill Clinton carried that Bible under his arm through the Lewenski ordeal. Even pinheads understand they must appeal to the religious people of America, or their goose is cooked.

If you want to know what happens when a politician doesn't project a strong voice for the religious right, ask John McCain! He spent the majority of his campaign, taking the Damo approach, and avoiding controversial issues held by the religious right, not wanting to be seen with anyone from the religious right, refusing to appear in public with them, and tap dancing around questions with canned statements of platitude, which came off sounding as if they were things his handlers told him he had to say, not what he truly felt. Even when it came to the issue of abortion, McCain responded with a standardized version of what any right-wing politician has to say, and that was it. I was actually shocked he came out against abortion and nominated Sarah Palin. But again, McCain just didn't seem to have conviction.... it was as if he were saying what he though he had to, and nominated who he thought he needed to win. I think the 'religious right' saw through his phoniness and stayed at home.
 
Southern Man said:
Reagan didn't believe in creating policies to benefit certain segments of society at the expense of others; that's your guy's specialty. *shrug*
Click to expand...

In other words Reagan lied to the religious right? Yep, thats what I thought.

If a president is a social conservative he will be creating policy to benefit only a few and at the expense of some.
 
Dixie said:
Why do you think that? Libertarians usually only get 2% of the vote! :cof1:

I think the left will literally do whatever they can to destroy her credibility, as evidenced by their incessant obsession with her, hit pieces in Vanity Fair, which curiously has no "on the record" sources!

Let me clue you in on some logistics... 60% of the country is Conservative, and 95% of the country believes in something greater than self. The so-called "religious right" is a very powerful voting block, that is why you saw Al Gore and John Kerry visiting black churches and singing with the congregation, when they were campaigning... it's why Bill Clinton carried that Bible under his arm through the Lewenski ordeal. Even pinheads understand they must appeal to the religious people of America, or their goose is cooked.

If you want to know what happens when a politician doesn't project a strong voice for the religious right, ask John McCain! He spent the majority of his campaign, taking the Damo approach, and avoiding controversial issues held by the religious right, not wanting to be seen with anyone from the religious right, refusing to appear in public with them, and tap dancing around questions with canned statements of platitude, which came off sounding as if they were things his handlers told him he had to say, not what he truly felt. Even when it came to the issue of abortion, McCain responded with a standardized version of what any right-wing politician has to say, and that was it. I was actually shocked he came out against abortion and nominated Sarah Palin. But again, McCain just didn't seem to have conviction.... it was as if he were saying what he though he had to, and nominated who he thought he needed to win. I think the 'religious right' saw through his phoniness and stayed at home.
Click to expand...

And then you have politicians like Reagan who court the religious right and then ignore them until he needs their vote again.
 
Southern Man said:
Such a well documented caricature. :)
Click to expand...

The policies I have seen you espouse as "socially conservative" do not benefit the entire nation and would actually do harm to some.

If the president in question does not press for socially conservative solutions to what the social conservatives call "problems", what is the point?

It would be as if someone claimed they were a fiscal conservative and they burned thru money at a historic rate. Sorta like Bush and Obama.
 
WinterBorn said:
And then you have politicians like Reagan who court the religious right and then ignore them until he needs their vote again.
Click to expand...

Well you can say whatever you want about a president who served before most of you pinheads were born, it really doesn't matter much now... Reagan can't be elected or even nominated again!

Reagan never IGNORED the religious right. In almost every speech, he made his true convictions very clear, and was not the least bit ashamed of taking a moral (religious) stand on principle. Unlike John McCain, you got the sense that Reagan DID believe what he was saying, and not that he was just saying what people needed to hear.

It seems you have some gross misunderstanding of the 'religious right' ....where you think they are looking for a candidate to stand up there and proselytize and make the rest of us have to live by their standards. I don't know of anyone who wants that in a president, else we would have nominated Billy Graham. It occurs to me, there is a huge gaping area between an evangelist and a godless liberal heathen, and I think those on the 'religious right' are content with a man who speaks with conviction about his spiritual belief, who bases his positions and decisions on his strong personal faith in God.
 
Dixie said:
Well you can say whatever you want about a president who served before most of you pinheads were born, it really doesn't matter much now... Reagan can't be elected or even nominated again!

Reagan never IGNORED the religious right. In almost every speech, he made his true convictions very clear, and was not the least bit ashamed of taking a moral (religious) stand on principle. Unlike John McCain, you got the sense that Reagan DID believe what he was saying, and not that he was just saying what people needed to hear.

It seems you have some gross misunderstanding of the 'religious right' ....where you think they are looking for a candidate to stand up there and proselytize and make the rest of us have to live by their standards. I don't know of anyone who wants that in a president, else we would have nominated Billy Graham. It occurs to me, there is a huge gaping area between an evangelist and a godless liberal heathen, and I think those on the 'religious right' are content with a man who speaks with conviction about his spiritual belief, who bases his positions and decisions on his strong personal faith in God.
Click to expand...

Well said, but your intended audience will not hear.
 
Dixie said:
Well you can say whatever you want about a president who served before most of you pinheads were born, it really doesn't matter much now... Reagan can't be elected or even nominated again!

Reagan never IGNORED the religious right. In almost every speech, he made his true convictions very clear, and was not the least bit ashamed of taking a moral (religious) stand on principle. Unlike John McCain, you got the sense that Reagan DID believe what he was saying, and not that he was just saying what people needed to hear.

It seems you have some gross misunderstanding of the 'religious right' ....where you think they are looking for a candidate to stand up there and proselytize and make the rest of us have to live by their standards. I don't know of anyone who wants that in a president, else we would have nominated Billy Graham. It occurs to me, there is a huge gaping area between an evangelist and a godless liberal heathen, and I think those on the 'religious right' are content with a man who speaks with conviction about his spiritual belief, who bases his positions and decisions on his strong personal faith in God.
Click to expand...

So the fact that he talked a good game to the religious right and then never did a single thing for them doesn't seem odd to you?

At the time the religious right was ranting against porn, gays, marital infidelities, and the declining morality of the country. When Reagan became president he didn't help them reduce the availability of porn, restrict any gay activities or careers, and did not do anything to stop the moral decline of the nation.

If all you want is someone who will stand up there and pay lip service to the religious right, why does it matter at all?

I don't misunderstand the religious right at all. I have watched them try and influence politics for a significant portion of my life. I even changed churches a number of years ago because they were wanting to back them. Its the same with the moral majority.




Southernman you talked a good game at the beginning but you have been ducking the issue for a while now. You may go and harrass a minister now. The grownups will continue the debate.
 
Southern Man said:
As predicted:


*shrug*
Click to expand...

LOL

Nice try but there is a big difference between not hearing and disagreeing. Maybe you don't listen to anyone who disagrees with you but I don't work like that.

Dixie made some good points that you should read. It might help the next time you and I discuss Reagan.
 
WinterBorn said:
LOL

Nice try but there is a big difference between not hearing and disagreeing. Maybe you don't listen to anyone who disagrees with you but I don't work like that.

Dixie made some good points that you should read. It might help the next time you and I discuss Reagan.
Click to expand...

You claim that you heard then repeat the same old caricature. *shrug*
 
WinterBorn said:
So the fact that he talked a good game to the religious right and then never did a single thing for them doesn't seem odd to you?
Click to expand...

Not at all, you just don't understand the typical religious right voter. They are NOT voting for someone who is going to necessarily "do something" for them, most religious right people understand we live in a homogeneous society with differing views, and they aren't looking for a Messiah to invoke their personal spiritual beliefs on America. I know this is what your koolaid distributors want you to think, and perhaps it is precisely how a liberal lefty thinks, but speaking as someone who is considered 'among' this group, that isn't how most religious righties think.

At the time the religious right was ranting against porn, gays, marital infidelities, and the declining morality of the country. When Reagan became president he didn't help them reduce the availability of porn, restrict any gay activities or careers, and did not do anything to stop the moral decline of the nation.
Click to expand...

The president CAN'T do anything to stop moral decline, that is solely up to the people. What was Reagan supposed to do in your mind? Revoke the Supreme Court's decision on Larry Flynt and the 1st Amendment by Executive Order? Was he supposed to outlaw homosexuality or adultery? I don't think anyone on the religious right expected him to do this, I certainly didn't.

If all you want is someone who will stand up there and pay lip service to the religious right, why does it matter at all?
Click to expand...

Maybe this is something you are incapable of understanding because you lack spiritual conviction, or conviction in general, but those of us who do have it, can tell when others have it as well. And most of the time, we can also tell who doesn't really have it. It's not about "lip service" but more about integrity and principles of belief. The foundational basis for your judgment and decisions, how you rationalize problems and find viable solutions, how you maintain decency and pride in yourself and your country... like I said, perhaps you simply can't comprehend this.

I don't misunderstand the religious right at all. I have watched them try and influence politics for a significant portion of my life. I even changed churches a number of years ago because they were wanting to back them. Its the same with the moral majority.
Click to expand...

Well, the "moral majority" and "religious right" are one in the same I think. The reason they HAVE an influence on politics, is because the founding principles of this nation guarantees them that right. We are not, and never have been, an Atheist nation. Yet we have allowed this stupid and idiotic notion to make its way into the philosophical debate through the 20th century. The Establishment Clause has been perverted to mean that Government MUST endorse Atheism as the National Religion! The RR is a counter to that philosophy, and those of spiritual faith have every right in the world to coalesce and form a powerful political entity, to combat this lunacy!
 
and I hope the republicans keep catering to the dying moral majority.
so you can be roundly defeated again in 12.
 
Dixie said:
Not at all, you just don't understand the typical religious right voter. They are NOT voting for someone who is going to necessarily "do something" for them, most religious right people understand we live in a homogeneous society with differing views, and they aren't looking for a Messiah to invoke their personal spiritual beliefs on America. I know this is what your koolaid distributors want you to think, and perhaps it is precisely how a liberal lefty thinks, but speaking as someone who is considered 'among' this group, that isn't how most religious righties think.
Click to expand...

So when you and Southerman talk about the next presidential candidate being a social conservative, you are not actually expecting them to do anything except say the right words on the campaign trail?

The president CAN'T do anything to stop moral decline, that is solely up to the people. What was Reagan supposed to do in your mind? Revoke the Supreme Court's decision on Larry Flynt and the 1st Amendment by Executive Order? Was he supposed to outlaw homosexuality or adultery? I don't think anyone on the religious right expected him to do this, I certainly didn't.



Maybe this is something you are incapable of understanding because you lack spiritual conviction, or conviction in general, but those of us who do have it, can tell when others have it as well. And most of the time, we can also tell who doesn't really have it. It's not about "lip service" but more about integrity and principles of belief. The foundational basis for your judgment and decisions, how you rationalize problems and find viable solutions, how you maintain decency and pride in yourself and your country... like I said, perhaps you simply can't comprehend this.
Click to expand...

I understand it quite clearly. I am a very moral person and have a deep faith. The claim that you can tell who doesn't really have it smacks of bull, but maybe thats my cynicism showing. That Reagan was an actor and McCain wasn't may be the difference too.


Well, the "moral majority" and "religious right" are one in the same I think. The reason they HAVE an influence on politics, is because the founding principles of this nation guarantees them that right. We are not, and never have been, an Atheist nation. Yet we have allowed this stupid and idiotic notion to make its way into the philosophical debate through the 20th century. The Establishment Clause has been perverted to mean that Government MUST endorse Atheism as the National Religion! The RR is a counter to that philosophy, and those of spiritual faith have every right in the world to coalesce and form a powerful political entity, to combat this lunacy!
Click to expand...

I certainly do not endorse atheism as the national religion. I do not endorse any national religion. While religious beliefs may shape the actions taken by leaders it should never be part of the government. Religions tend to be best at claiming theirs is the only truth, and so tolerance of other religions is not typically great. And there are very few things that can be done in a religious way that includes all the religions that can be involved. On the one hand you have militant atheists who claim all who believe in any spirituality are delusional and inferior. And on the other hand you have a handful of religious nuts who want their faith to be the only one. Somewhere between the two is the answer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top