Posted on 08/07/2007 3:53:12 AM PDT by monomaniac
As the Republican National Committee (RNC) wrapped up its four-day annual summer meeting in Minneapolis over the weekend, some leaders were left wondering if the party is straying from its conservative stance on social and religious issues.
"Evangelical and pro-life Catholics are a critical part of the GOP's electoral coalition," James Bopp Jr., an Indiana member of the RNC, told The Washington Times. "The GOP cannot win in 2008 without their enthusiastic support. It remains to be seen whether the GOP is moving away from them. Whether the GOP is doing so will be determined by who is nominated for president."
Most RNC members either swore they would not let the national party distance itself from religious and social conservatives stands or saw no indications of that happening.
"Not as long as I'm in this party," longtime Oklahoma RNC member Bunny Chambers told the newspaper.
Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said the party is not drifting from its social conservatism.
"The religious Right and social conservatives are still a very big part of the party and will be for a long time to come," Anuzis said. "The Democrat policies clearly are antithetical to what religious and social conservatives believe in. The Left that controls the Democratic Party is very much pro-choice on abortion and anti-traditional marriage."
Social conservatives are still conservatives, but chances are so called fiscal conservatives are liberals. That clear enough for you Rosie?
Rather than debate the issues like a mature individual, you've chosen to run and hide. So be it. LOL
Sorry Snookums, that's not an answer.
I'm losing faith in Social Conservatives who don't know why they are.
Don't choke on your Cheerios yet. Still here, present and accounted for, and waiting for this: "If you can explain why you're a "social conservative" and not merely a "conservative", then have at it."
If you already did that, just cite the post #.
What do you think of Tancredo or Hunter?
Obviously not.
>>>>>Still here, present and accounted for ...
Okay. So you can't make up your mind. LOL
COMMENT:
I wish someone would hand me thousands I could use a new Diesel pusher Motor home or another luxury vehicle.
Yes, I missed that story but it would not change my opinion about giving and the compassion of giving.
Your argument dosen’t fly with me concerning the charity of America.
Same as when I used to deliver Meals On Wheels to shut-in’s.
Some in the office thought I was nuts for taking my lunch hours to deliver meals to what they considered to be people that added nothing to the economy.
I guess we have a choice listen to a few examples where the system dosen’t work or we could take it with a grain of salt that that some will always take advantage of any system to help the poor and needy.
The MSM stream media loves to use the few examples sham to support their claims that were losing the War on Terror, Iraq or that Conservatives and Republicans are heartless, mean spirited skinflints when it comes to helping their fellow citizens.
You said:
“Why do I have to support MY children, but others are given a pass?”
Comment:
Thank God because you can.
“I would love to have someone hand me thousands of dollars a month for doing what I already have to do.”
Comment:
Do you really consider that you HAVE to take care of your children or do you consider it an honor and a privilege that you have the ability to give them ample love and support.
You’re a socialist. Jesus wasn’t.
You’re a socialist. Jesus wasn’t.
Comment:
No I’m not a socialist.
From the past tone of your posts on this thread, reasoning and compassion just dosen’t seem to fit your style or flip your switch.
However, you seem to want a Petty Nitpicking keyboard fight and your just not going to get it from me.
What ever your thoughts about me thats one issue but a Christian country like America will be judged in history by its compassion towards it’s fellow citizens, whether or not the greedy and self serving find it to their liking.
It isn’t “compassion” when money is taken from those who produce and given to bums and thieves.
“Charity” comes from PEOPLE and organizations they form, such as churches, not from a government.
Comment:
So your saying that everyone who draws any form of assistance from the government, whether it be money, SSI disability payments, Veterans medical benefits, Medicare, Medi-Cal, Tex-Care, food, clothes, school breakfast or a free doctor visit is a bum and a thief.
I am sure my wonderful brother who has cancer attributed to Agent Orange and loss of hearing while working as a Medic with the Marines in Vietnam would disagree with you.
That isn’t what I said.
But you are too interested in your agenda of big government to care. Obviously a veteran has earned their medical care.
God asked for a tithe of 10%. The government confiscates 50%.
The government does NOT spend money wisely. *I* would like to choose where my charity goes.
And you conveniently ignore the Biblical principle that if a person doesn’t work, they don’t eat.
But you are too interested in your agenda of big government to care. Obviously a veteran has earned their medical care.
God asked for a tithe of 10%. The government confiscates 50%.
The government does NOT spend money wisely. *I* would like to choose where my charity goes.
And you conveniently ignore the Biblical principle that if a person doesn’t work, they don’t eat.
Comment:
ROFLMAO
I have often wondered what it would be like to have far reaching mystical powers, able to see and understand what others can not.
To delve into an individuals mind and to ascertain what that persons agenda is or is not.
To be able to judge others with the firmness of a Pontius Pilot.
Alas I can not do these kinds things but obviously you can.
My 2 cents was/is that there are no such thing as fiscal conservatives. They are almost always socially liberal and therefore fairly typical liberals in most respects.
So why are you all riled up over abortion protesters?
They are doing Gods work.
Is that a problem?
I didn’t even read your post. And this is my last and final one to this thread.
You’ve provided the best confirmation possible of the problems with the “social conservative”: the self-avowed SC cannot, or will not, or doesn’t know, or doesn’t care how he or she differs from the unmodified “conservative”. What is the delta between the two?
Without some kind of answer to that, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
Yep, “mild disdain” just about captures it.
What a jackass.
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.