[tlb]

>>>If the GOP wants to try to win without cultural conservatives, I suppose they can try. But they will fail miserably.

and if the GOP wants to try to win without the majority who don’t see their life’s mission as throwing the first stones, they’ll fail even worse.

This was a political conference to find common ground. Not conduct an inquisition or lecture strangers on how they’re going to hell. Neither the tail, nor the ass, wags the dog.

btw, the guy who was given the bum’s rush, glancing at his picture he looks the type to be found somewhere with a wide stance. I don’t think I’d hitch too many wagons there, so to speak.

[reardensteel]

Right...what is the common ground that creates sufficient voting block to ensure government stays out of the peoples business? It’s really just that...everything else will continue to split and divide. Unfortunately there are some social questions that cannot easily be isolated from the principle of freedom...the pro-abortion crowd sees it as their rights being offended, the rest of us see it as the unborn child’s rights. Gays see their freedoms being offended, the rest of us see gays offending our right to raise our children to understand what is normal and what is abnormal.

What’s really interesting is both of those dividing issues stem from technology...abortion, birth control, fertility medicine/science. Our social divisions reflect the tensions between these relatively new technologies and the social constructs that have evolved over thousands of years. Old Kazinsky wasn’t far from the mark...just imagine how the science of the next 200 years will introduce new divides. We need new social constructs to handle these challenges without disintegration of social order.

[little jeremiah]

You are accepting the stereotyped version of social conservatives. Exactly what leftists do.

And you are certainly judging the man by his facial features alone, discounting his words, which is a very weird thing to do.