Posted on 11/29/2008 10:08:31 AM PST by redk
>>>>>Are you glad that McCain got the nomination?<<<<<<
No, I came very close to resigning from the GOP.
Huckster Gantry put him there.
>>>>>The government is involved in religious issues, by nature.<<<<<
Yuh, sure.
If its the Taliban or some other Muslim “republic”.
Muslims are not the only people on the planet.
been afk. We don't have a TV so I had to go to a sports bar to watch my alma mater defend her NUMBER ONE ranking in College Football.
I would put drug laws in the category above. Patriot Act would run a close second.
Oh, did I mention? Alabama is number one in the nation? ROLL TIDE.
Dr. Dobson, Howard Phillips, Phyllis Schlafly, and Pat Buchanan are among the most intelligent and discerning of conservatives. The fact that none could win an election does not detract from their brilliance.
Dr. Dobson is a psychologist. He is not part of the Protestant ministerial structure, which is most tepid in matter of moral principles.
You could be right. McPain lived for the day that he could join the Willkie-Dewey-Ford-Dole list.
Not at all: it was the failure of conservative Republican primary voters to organize early.
No, but we could face this phenomenon again in 2012: the tendency of Republican primary voters to choose the next candidate in line, the “it’s his turn” nominees like Dole and McPain. So it could be Romney, who will never win MI.
Resigning from the GOP now would merely exclude you from the 2010 primaries.
WE STAND A MUCH BETTER CHANCE PROTECTING LIFE IF WE ADOPT A FEDERALIST STRATEGY.
I don't feel like listing my bona fides here on FR yet again on the pro-life issue. I will just say I have been as big an activist on this issue as -I would be willing to bet money- anyone here. I do NOT understand the unreasoning kamikazee mentality of evangelicals, who had rather have one hundred per cent of ZERO, than 80 per cent of 90 per cent, with the goal of changing the state constitutions to restrict abortion state by state. Did you know that this was one of the reasons for Harry's abortion? New York state was about to restrict abortion yet again. You can read about it in the book Aborting America by NARAL founder (and now pro-life) Bernard Nathanson, a self professed "secular humanist."
On the issue of marriage, the issue is similiar. Rather than insist on bringing the issue under federal jurisdiction, we should be insisting that states are sovereign in the issue. EVERY SINGLE PLACE where the issue has gone to a state (not to a court), we have won, and won handily. Why in God's name you people would want to reverse that and amend the constitution (which you will NEVER accomplish, btw) is beyond me. Stick to the venues already provided for you in a GREAT legal document. Demand that the courts do the same. That is the path to get what you want, as well as the path that will insure other liberties that neither you, nor the founding fathers, envisioned assaults upon.
“if Dobson hadn’t waited till the last minute to endorse McCain we might not be in this horrible Marxist mess we find ourselves in....”
If McCain had not been the nominee we would not be in this horrible Marxist mess we find ourselves in.
I would put drug laws in the category above. Patriot Act would run a close second.
The Dobson defense pretty much rests, thanks.
I’m not defending Dobson. I don’t know what he thinks the feds should or should not be doing.
I do know that the Soviet Union has already gone the Kathleen Parker way and failed.
Soviet Union: Society of the Godless slogan:
“Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless
Are you suggesting that Calvin was a tyrant?
If Dobson wouldn't have leaked his own private message saying Fred Thompson wasn't a Christian, we'd be talking about President Fred.
Dobson torpedoed Thompson in hopes of promoting Huckaphoney without publicly endorsing him and instead doomed us with McCain.
Untrue.
In '06 the Dems took control of Congress largely because they ran candidates in the South and the mountain West who took conservative stands on social issues, and thus picked up a lot of the "religious right" vote. Certainly they didn't capture a majority of those voters, but rather a large enough portion of them to win elections in areas long considered to be "solid red".
And there are plenty of solid conservative Christian voters who would never, ever consider voting for a Democrat in any circumstances, but who, when faced with a GOP candidate who takes liberal stands on social issues, will not vote for anyone in that race, or will vote for some third party candidate.
It is a huge mistake to advocate what you do.
A far better strategy for the GOP is to take your above words and change the subject in your sentence as so:
There is no need to discard the secular left wing of the party. We just have to muzzle them a little. Give them a bone everyone once in a while to keep them reasonably happy
There! Now, that reads a lot better!
The founders did not write the issue of abortion into the constitution because the issue of murder is, AND SHOULD BE, left to the states.
You are speaking of criminal prosecution. I am speaking of protection of rights. Indeed, your life is protected ultimately by the Constitution, not by any state law.
Anywhere you go in the US, no one may legally take your life without due process of law. Even the states do not have the ability to trump that one, and kill you without just cause/due process.
Now being Pro-Life, you recognize that life is life. If no state can sanction your death without just cause/due process, then how can it be that any state has the right to sanction an unborn baby's death? Your position bears no justice, and makes no sense.
Issues of murder rightly belong to the states....., and that is where abortion was until the USSC hijacked the issue in 1973. It needs to go back to the states.
It was the state's purview to prosecute abortion as a matter of criminal law. It is my position, and rightly by the Constitution, that the states overstepped their authority in authorizing abortion as a matter of law. That offends the solemn duty of the Constitution to protect our rights, one of which, being particularly enumerated from our very founding, being Life. This issue could not be any clearer.
WE STAND A MUCH BETTER CHANCE PROTECTING LIFE IF WE ADOPT A FEDERALIST STRATEGY.
That is a premise, and a promise that is twenty-seven years old. It has borne no fruit.
I do NOT understand the unreasoning kamikazee mentality of evangelicals, who had rather have one hundred per cent of ZERO, than 80 per cent of 90 per cent
Actually, it is the libertarian in me that demands the Constitution be properly served- As it turns out, it serves the purpose of Life as well it should, when seen in the light of the God-fearing men who wrote it.
On the issue of marriage, the issue is similiar. Rather than insist on bringing the issue under federal jurisdiction, we should be insisting that states are sovereign in the issue.
The problem with "Marriage" is quite a different thing. My argument with you here is the Constitutional law of reciprocity between the states. If one state must honor the contracts made in another state, they effectively become an interstate issue. Therefore, marriages made in one state are effectively forced upon all the other states.
Even though states are legislating marriage laws to protect themselves, it does not protect them from marriages made in liberal gay accommodating states. A gay couple need only go to a state that allows gay marriages, return to their conservative state, and the conservative state MUST honor the marriage. So for all intents and purposes, Gays can be married anywhere in the USA for the cost of a week's time and a couple bus tickets to Massachusetts.
So here particularly, your solution simply does not work. Once back in their conservative state, our now married gay activist couple has a size 12 foot in the legal door to every sort of accommodation because once present, it can be argued that marriage is marriage, after all, and off we go... The rest is academic.
So there only seems to be two solutions. To define marriage federally as a matter of interstate necessity, or to relieve the states of their obligation to each other in the matter of honoring gay marriages, as Thompson recommended.
Personally, I believe the latter to be so blatant an act of discrimination that it would be worse than an outright ban, and would be overturned almost immediately.
Secondly, in regard to the latter, I am uncomfortable with the possibility of unintended consequences. What other contracts might be made to suffer by the formation of this precedent? This is really the thing that bothers me most about this approach, and it bothers me greatly.
It is for all of the above that I choose the former as the only way to resolve the issue. I might add that it is not the best way. The best way would have been for the liberal states to have foregone their perilous path and to have refrained from creating the crisis in the first place, as is always the case. It is not we who are doing the imposing here.
Are you suggesting that Calvin was a tyrant?
Of course. He had the seeds of tyranny in him as do all men.
He would have been one of the first to say “yes” to that question.
What a silly silly interrogative.
Snatch your skirts in horror if you wish. Federal laws on drugs are intrusive, unconstitutional, tyrannical, and breed corruption. The Patriot act is a direct assault on the fourth.
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.