Posted on 03/17/2006 3:04:27 PM PST by Crackingham
Prominent leaders from the Christian right have warned Republicans they must do more to advance conservative values ahead of the US mid-term elections. Their message to Congress, controlled by Republicans, is "must do better". Support from about a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as evangelicals was a factor in President George W Bush's two election victories. The Republicans will need to keep them onboard if they are to retain control of Congress in November.
At a news conference in Washington, some of America's most influential conservative leaders said the current perception among evangelical Christians was that the Republican majority was not doing enough for them. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that apart from confirming two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, "core values voters" did not feel that Congress was advancing their interests.
The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.
Great. When I see Evangelicals, or even moderate republicans, protesting in the streets to repeal commercial rent taxes with the same vigor they displayed in the attempt to save Terri Shiavo, I'll take them seriously. In the meantime, I can take a very unscientific poll and find that 9.5 out of 10 people don't even know what a commercial rent tax is, let alone care about it if they aren't paying it.
In the meantime, I'm sure you needed all those automatic weapons, hand grenades, and cop-killer ammo because deer wear bulletproof vests, or perhaps the black helicopters full of Gub'mint Stormroopers might arrive any day now, perpared take your land and property, and steal your children off to the re-eductaion camp by force.
Be serious. The Taylor Laws here in NY were in effect long before Giuliani arrived on the scene, and the Assembly, controlled by democrats, has done (and continues to do) far more to grab your guns and ammo than Rudy ever did (the Assembly actually passed even tougher gun control laws this winter, after the highly-publicized murder of a police officer. George Pataki practically salivated over signing it into law). In fact, if it wasn't for Rudy's "gun-grabbing" in the form of the Street Crimes Unit (stop and search suspicious characters for weapons) this would still be Dodge City (I'm a born and bred NY'er who grew up here in the 70's). Or is taking an unlicensed handgun from a criminal considered "gun-grabbing", too?
BBC...
That depends on the Republican nominee.
Or how about a Supreme Court replaced by a Supreme Sharia Court?
So you're saying they don't learn anything from experience?
I am not unreasonable. I did vote for the man three times, and would have done it again.
If he were to throw me a bone as small as, for instance, saying out loud that he was utterly and completely wrongheaded to respond to the shootings atop the Empire State Building with a call to bring other states' gun laws in line with those of New York, I might reconsider.
But until I decide that he's grown in wisdom in a few areas, no thanks. Not for President of the entire country.
BOY YOU GOT THAT RIGHT.
Again, it all comes back to your guns.
Nothing about creating a safer,cleaner environment in the City of New York. Nothing about rescuing the city from the financial distress left to him by his predecessors. Not a single word about making New York (despite the commercial rent tax) a continued magnet for business?
True, no one is perfect,and no one fits all molds, but there is such a thing as compromise. That Conservative icon Reagan was forgiven the sin of having been a democrat and spoken up against the House Un-American Activities Comittee in the defense of (mostly-suspected) Communists. GHW Bush can be forgiven his about-face on his pro-choice stance in order to take the nomination as Reagan's VP, then scream his pro-life credentials in his re-election bid. John McCain can be forgiven for destroying Free Speech in this country with his Campaign Finance Reform boondoggle.
But God forbid someone asks you to obey a series of laws, legally passed by elected representatives, that infringe upon your right to arm yourself to the teeth. And you blame the man who advocated some of them, but certainly did not write or pass them. He gets no free pass, right?
Principles should not be situational. Nor should the application thereof be.
You are just full of presumptions this fine day. I have never owned a gun.
True, no one is perfect,and no one fits all molds, but there is such a thing as compromise.
Principles should not be situational. Nor should the application thereof be.
Oh, make up your mind.
You've never owned a gun and yet you complain about a gun-grabber? How would you know the man was a gun-grabber if you've never had on taken from you? I've had several taken from me, by mario Cuomo, no less, with his silly assualt weapons ban. None of them, incidentally, was an assault weapon, but did I really need 4 pistols when one would do?
Compromise means that while a particular candidate may not be in strict ideological lockstep with one on certain issues, he may still be philosphically aligned with you on others. You make the decision as to which is more important to you, and vote accordingly. If given the choice between a anti-war-budget-cutter and a pro-war-tax-and-spender, which would you chose? The choice depends on exactly how important the subjects of war federal spending is to you. You might easily opt for one over the other.
As for principles, you cannot forgive one man for his sins (like Reagan switching sides, or being a legendary..ahem..swordsman, in his day, himself, or GHW Bush caving on pro-choice for obviously self-serving reasons, or defend a lecherous Bob Packwood) and hold them as paragons of Republican and Conservative virtue, and then apply a totally opposite standard to Guiliani (or Gingrich or whomever you want to include).
My mind is made up, either you accept people, warts and all, or you don't. if their ideology happens to be close enough to your own, so much the better. But you will never get a custom fit in an off-the-rack world.
I was speaking in general terms.
All do you think most churches are teaching the Bible?
Simple. I lived in New York City from 1981 til 2004, and I paid attention.
As for principles, you cannot forgive one man for his sins (like Reagan switching sides, or being a legendary..ahem..swordsman, in his day, himself, or GHW Bush caving on pro-choice for obviously self-serving reasons, or defend a lecherous Bob Packwood) and hold them as paragons of Republican and Conservative virtue, and then apply a totally opposite standard to Guiliani (or Gingrich or whomever you want to include).
Oh, okay. When you mentioned "principles" a couple posts back, I thought you were talking about principles, like Abortion is Wrong, Illegal Immigrants Have No Right To Be Here, Marriage is One Man and One Woman, The Right to Bear Arms is Inalienable, and Campaign Promises Within Your Power to Keep Should Be Kept Even If No One Else Cares.
My mistake. You were talking about something else altogether.
Don't go putting words into peoples' mouths - we don't know where they've been, or even if you've washed your hands beforehand.
Should I assume that you believe abortion, statism, the abolition of private property, and high taxation are all compatible values/practices with Christianity?
There are always going to be particular Republicans we disagree with, but the Republian Party, in general, is better for freedom then is the Democrat Party.
Yeah. Can you imagine having to vote for McCain just to keep Hillary out? Nightmare scenario.
do you think most churches are teaching the Bible?
I can't say for sure but it appears that(in general terms)
in most cases the bigger the Church the smaller the Bible
My reference was to all the "politics" that go
on inside the churches. The power grabs and "clicks" etc.
Perhaps badly worded on my part. I don't disagree with you on what you posted in that litany, but I do object to people being called "gun-grabebrs" and "adulterers" and a whole host of other things and not having the same standard applied to our "heroes" who had many of the the same human faults.
Incidentally, I was born here (Brooklyn) in 1966,lived here all my life until 2004 (moved to Charlotte, NC for a year and half), and have recently returned. You couldn't POSSIBLY have any idea of what this city was like in the 1970's and why Giuliani gets so much credit. And to have done most of it with assorted Sharptons, Dinkins', Clintons, Koch's, and Cuomos lined up against you is nothing short of superhuman. If you only arrived here in 1981, you have very little frame of referrence for what a cesspool this city truly was.
BB
"There are always going to be particular Republicans we disagree with, but the Republian Party, in general, is better for freedom then is the Democrat Party."
That's arguable. After all, the republican party is the party that brought us the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA (great for economic freedom -- if you're a CEO, not an assembly line worker),and that Clintonite foreign policy (i.e. soft diplomacy, depending on the UN and the EU etc), tying America's hands with international organizations and responsibilities, is still a a good idea.
Reagan, for example, would never have dragged the case for War through the UN, allowing his opponents to snipe at it (which was a foregone conclusion anyway), but with a better insight on how to do it. Nor would he have stopped Gulf War I because the pictures of the Highway of Death or Saudi sensibilities were taken into consideration to merely preserve "the coalition'. The accomplishment of a "Coalition", and the prospect of preserving it, actually became bigger than the War itself after that first 100 hours, and became a self-justifying reason to do a half-assed job in the first place vis-a-vis Iraq.
I mean, we went to War to save Kuwait for what? So that it could be handed back to it's kleptocratic monarchy, and now we return in 2003 to bring Iraqi's democracy but not Kuwaitis? In effect, the means to prevent or allieviate the threat of a 9/11 (and establish the means by which what we're attempting now in the Middle East could be done) was presented to Bush Pere in 1991, and he didn't take it, did he?
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that republicans, in general, are "better for freedom" as much as I'd say "there less of a threat to it in most circumstances".
Yes I agree that would be the ideal. Unfortunately you are dealing with political beings. I doubt many reach that level of politics with their morals and integrity intact, that is why we most often must hold our noses while we vote.
Despite his past personal life Giuliani has done some wonderful things in his career. Our current President who by all accounts can be viewed as a moral honest man, has hardly kept his promises to his conservative base. Regardless of this failing, he is still better than the alternative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.