Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
The greatest challenge facing the western world is not violence from without, but the tragic decision to take a life within.
Horrendously incorrect thinking. NEVER abandon the key moral principles...NEVER!!!
Much prayer STILL needed for this nation....
The GOP no longer sees abortion as a successful wedge issue to corral votes. The first appointment of GOP favorite, Gov Christie, was his veep. He chose a pro choicer. Pro-life is no longer a GOP exclusive, as one by one, they ‘come out of the closet’.
“Truce” means “Let the Democrats do whatever they want”
“Truce” really means “surrender”.
That might be acceptable if the legt radicals could be counted on not to push. But they can't.
The social issues are far more important than the fiscal ones, as they fuel the increase in spending.
The fiscal issues are just symptoms, the social issues are the root cause.
Lower Taxes and Fewer Abortions playing chicken again.
Maybe when Religious Blacks and Pro Abortion collide in the Dem party.
Otherwise, it’s a two-fer.
On a moral level, abortion and slavery are the same because they both consider the victims subhuman and owned by someone. Mr. Ryan is selling his soul out for power, what a very sad thing to witness.
We Tea Partiers are a diverse crowd; some are fiscal conservatives, or libertarians, some are social conservatives, who happen to also be fiscal conservatives. But NONE of us will have a prayer of getting any of our issues heard, unless there are people in the actual positions to do anything about them.
Most of the primaries are over, and the candidates have been chosen for this time around. Lets rally behind the most conservative of the candidates, which, for the vast majority, will mean the Republican one. If we can take over the majorities in the House and Senate, we can either roll back, or stop in their tracks, the changes the Dems wanted to force on us.
When that happens, it will be time for we who are also social conservatives to start working on finding candidates who value life, and are willing to fight against the cultural decline we've seen over the last 40 years, in addition to still upholding the issues of less government and lower taxes.
One of the reasons we've seen such a change in our country is that liberals were willing to work for those changes incrementally. That meant that some elections, they had to put up with someone who wasn't ideologically pure, but would increase the Dem majority in Congress to the point that they had enough actual VOTES to push through the changes they wanted made. That's one lesson we conservatives need to learn. We will NEVER get what we want, if we hold our candidates to such unreasonable standards of purity that they will never be elected by a majority of voters. I'm not saying vote for pro-abortion candidates, because I certainly don't, but don't reject those who could be our allies but for some squishiness on homosexuality or immigration, which, while important, aren't anywhere near as important as the basic issue of life.
“Life, Liberty, and property.”
Good grief ... its the first one. Conservatives value all three — liberals devalue all three. “Moderates” cherry-pick.
SnakeDoc
Time for Mitch to retire when his term ends.We really don't need 'tax and spend Republicans".
No...I answer to G-d Almighty; not to some cadre of earth-bound politicians.
Hey Paul....NO.........can you hear me!
We are conservatives because we pledge our lives, fortunes and Sacred Honor to uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence. We are fiscal conservaties BECAUSE OF those principles. Without those principles there is NO BASIS to be a "fiscal conservative." A "fiscal conservative" is a RINO who wants to spend less of the fruit of your labor than a liberal.
As Lincoln said:
I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.
LIFE: AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT
Very disappointing.
I had high hopes for this guy.
Go to the BACK of the line, Ryan
And, is there a meaningful difference between the two?
All this is very disappointing.
Much like a democrat on taxes.. democrats just LUV taxes..
You know... BAD taxes come from rich republicans and good taxes come from UNrich democrats..
Too Bad! Ryan had seemed to be a man of potential. He is as dead to me now as the babies whom his political cowardice would kill. He need not go around claiming to be pro-life any more than the financially obsessed Mitch Daniels or Haley Barbour. We may have to devise ways to show those Republicans who think this is all about money almighty that they cannot win without the socially conservative backbone of the GOP. Third party pro-life and GOP primary candidates for Congress against moral quisling incumbent GOP members in 2012 would be a good place to start. Bloody them up in the primaries or defeat them in the primaries and take their scalps then or in the general.
Social conservatism does not stop Leftism. Fiscal conservatism does. The goal of the Constitution is limited government. All our freedoms, including the freedom to advance social causes, flows from limited government.
The only way to stop this is to take away their ability to force you to pay them your money. This means limiting government. The only way to limit government is to have fiscally conservative policies.
This is not to say that social conservatism should not always and vigorously be pursued. But the opportunity to advance these causes is directly related to the degree to which government is limited by fiscal conservatism.
Of course fiscal policies will not "save" America from its moral decline. But limiting government, which is the goal and impact of fiscal conservatism, will help contain and maybe even defang the BIGGEST PURVEYOR of moral decline and the one that is the hardest for all of us to fight: the federal government.
If you think of it in terms of fighting an enemy, why in Hell's Bells would anyone decline to do ANYTHING that weakened their enemy (in this analogy, the federal government)?
Why would someone say, yes, the government has its jack boot on our throat, but we refuse to accept help from those people (fiscal conservatives) because . . . why? Because we think the hit they can put on our enemy isn't good enough?
We're going to sit there with the government's boot on our neck, while fiscal conservatives clamor to try to clobber our enemy for us -- but, no, we're going to wait for "our" troops to come to the rescue?
Really?
(And may I note that social conservatism does not necessarily correlate with fiscal conservativism.)
Social conservatism can be expressed politically, but it is even more effectively expressed SOCIALLY. Fiscal conservatism is very effective politically. As I have said repeatedly, it is the only aspect of conservatism that LIMITS GOVERNMENT and, thus, increases freedom, INCLUDING MORAL FREEDOM.
ANSWER THIS EXAMPLE FOR YOURSELF:
Let's say the best you can do is elect 50 social conservatives (what some on this thread call “true” conservatives) who may or may not be fiscally conservative. Once elected, they cannot (not enough numbers) or will not (not committed to fiscal conservatism) do anything to limit government. What have those 50 elected social conservatives accomplished for social conservatism?
Now let’s say you can elect 60 fiscal conservatives who may or may not be socially conservative. Once elected, they can (they have enough numbers) and they will (because they are committed to fiscal conservatism) do everything in their power to limit government spending at every turn.
In fact, they end up having enough political power and will to repeal Obamacare, which in turn greatly reduces the number of federal programs providing and paying for abortions.
Or they strip funding for the Czars, purely on fiscal grounds — but this means no Kevin Jennings forcing his perversion on schools.
What have those 60 fiscal conservatives accomplished for social conservatism?
I wouldn't turn down anyone willing to help us, through our constitutional political process, get the government's jackboot off our neck. I certainly wouldn't turn down those who espouse the only tact (fiscal conservatism) that will work.
Awwww.. Paul. Dammit.