Posted on 04/18/2011 9:22:34 AM PDT by GonzoII
So the NRA should get involved in pro-life issues?
Single-issue organizations serve a good purpose. Those who disagree over other issues can find common ground in them and help push that one cause.
We need to fix this country morally otherwise fiscal issues won’t mean squat.
The left practiced the art of incrementalism like grand masters while we were asleep at the board. The direction of our society will not be changed in one fell swoop either. We must pick our battles in order to win the war and right now, at this point in our timeline, the battle to be won is the economy.
Making the coming election a referendum on any social issue will chase the needed independent vote back to the left and cost us the WH. That would give obama the chance to change the SCOTUS for the next forty years, effectively guaranteeing at least two more generations of RvW as law of the land.
Winning the WH by running on the economy prevents that at least and reverses it at best.
Where did you get that from my post? It was a swipe at those (like Schwartzen-Kennedy) who call themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Those don’t go together as the social liberalism will always drive for government programs and the funding of their social priorities. You can’t be a politician who supports welfare without being a politician who votes to provide it.
I was obliquely contrasting it with your Jim Demint quote. He was pointing out something similar but from a different angle.
This is horrible. Thanks for the ping. I am super busy the next couple of days but will try to check in to ping stuff.
Plenty to ping out unfortunately.
I notice someone trying to cobble together “entitlements” as being equivalent to social conservatism. I assume that’s the talking point de jour of Liberaltarians.
I looked at the post that you replied to and no where did I mention killing babies. You, are the liar. Or maybe it is you who is stupid for being illiterate.
If you are referring to another post I made to another person then I was referencing their penchant for their hysterical posting tactics. Much like yourself.
There is no way to separate social and fiscal policy. Everything is both. Deciding to have and pay for a good national defense is both a fiscal and social issue. Nationalized health care is both social and fiscal policy. Welfare is both a social and fiscal issue.
Everything is both because there are always moral reasons behind fiscal decisions. Whatever those moral reasons and policies are, are the societal justifications for expending government funds.
Even the concept of bringing down the debt by refinancing, is not a purely economic reason, there are good moral reasons most people recognize that being up to your neck in debt is a huge burder and stress on people and governments, and it’s good to be in control of your finances and pay your debts and make good on your promises to others. And be responsible with your money.
I think people are missing a key point. True moral conviction with respect to money is crucial. Thinking we can spend money on things that we cannot afford while passing the bill on to someone else is indefensible. The people that refuse to live within the nation’s collective means are the ones that are morally bankrupt.
I agree with your comments.
It’s generally considered tacky to print up your own materials, then crash another organization’s event to pass them out.
Most of us are pro-life here. I have seen pro-life tracts that I wouldn’t care to see handed out at an event of my own. Some people think you have to include ghastly pictures to get the message across. Those can be over the top at times.
If you want to hand out materials at an event, it’s best to contact the organizers prior to the event, make your case, let them review the materials, and abide by their decision.
The refusal to allow some pro-life materials to be handed out, isn’t necessarily an indication that the Tea Party is not pro-life. I believe it’s more of a case of the Tea-Party deciding to keep their focus limited for the time being.
The Tea Party is still in it’s formative stages. The groups seem to have chosen to stick to certain issues that are easy for people to buy off on. They are trying to avoid broadening their emphasis in order to remain cohesive.
The question we have to ask is, “Has the Tea Party had a good impact so far?” I believe it has unquestionably had a good impact. It’s holding the Republican’s feet to the fire. That is good.
Now, is that something we can back or not? I believe it is. Trying to tarnish the effort because someone wouldn’t let you set their agenda for them no matter the validity of the subject, is not wise IMO.
I'm sick and tired of the pragmatists. The pragmatists have, frankly, been a large part of the problem. We can't have Tom McClintock in CA because Schwartzen-Kennedy is more electable. We can't have Duncan Hunter because he lacks personality... we have to go with a winner... like John McCain. We can't have Sarah Palin because the left says we can't. I'm sick of it all.
Ronald Wilson Reagan was an unabashed pro-life advocate. With him, we got to vote for the whole man... and he won in landslides. Go vote your pragmatic vote, if you think it works for you (in contravention of history)... I'll vote for the candidate and party that stand for the issues of the day that matter.
Project much troll?
Tell me do you think the 50 MILLION PLUS taxpayers that America has killed would have made a difference?
The social cons who continue to favor the nanny state and the spending on entitlement
One of the main concerns of social conservatives is to stop the killing of babies. So pointing out lies is being "hysterical", eh. And you may note that not killing babies is specifically what this article, and thus the thread, is about. You really think other people are stupid.
You are absolutely correct. Everyones’ morality colors and informs the judgements they make about every aspect of life. For people to say “keep morality out of it” just means they want their version of morality to rule others’ morality.
I would point out the first tea party people did not limit themselves purely to tax issues. There were many taxes they were complaining about, but beyond that it was far, far more, no representation, troops being quartered in citizens’ houses, abuses of power by british governors on all different kinds of matters, abuses of justice in the legal systems run by british judges, not allowing bibles to be printed on colonial soil, not being allowed to abolish slavery in colonies while they were still under british rule, etc.
These kinds of events were not just because of economics but because of EVERYTHING they were doing. And as I have said before all issues have both economic and societal impacts and you can’t just compartmentalize ANY issue to just one or the other. Economic policy always has a social moral behind it, whether it’s good or bad or whether you see it or you don’t. All economic decisions are social morals in money policy.
Let's see:
The media portrayed Scott Brown as a rock-ribbed conservative.
His opponent portrayed Scott Brown as a rock-ribbed conservative.
His apologists portrayed Scott Brown as a rock-ribbed conservative.
And, despite being portrayed as a rock-ribbed conservative, Scott Brown won by five points. That tells me that an ACTUAL rock-ribbed conservative could have won.
The thread is about the rejection of social conservatism by some of the Tea Party libertarians.
Why are you so afraid to address the issue that America killed over 50 million taxpayers?
Social cons may be against abortion but many favor the nanny state and entitlements. Explain how I am lying.
Furthermore, they are attempting to but in an another movement’s agenda. How’s about limited tax people showing up at a pro-life rally and passing out their stuff only to be told to stop. Would that be kosher with you?
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.