Successful Tea Party Movement Must Include Pro-Life Issues, Not Just Economy

Life News ^ | 8/31/10 | Tom Glessner

[savagesusie]

I understand your concern about the media...they will twist everything. It probably will not even matter if you stick to limited issues. They despise people like us and understand how we are grounded. I truly hope that the Dems DO need an ark to survive. With all the destruction in their wake, though, they do not even deserve that.

[gogogodzilla]

It is to a liberal. And if you allow for a government strong enough to enforce *YOUR* beliefs... it will allow for the libtard to force you to follow *THEIRS*.

[gogogodzilla]

Point? College professors ‘get published in some respectable media outlets’, yet it’s still a low-down dirty trick for them to force their works onto their students.

And it’s just as dirty to post your own work as a ‘proof’ of your assertion.

[gogogodzilla]

So I fail to see why you’re disagreeing with me, as that’s been what I’ve argued for this entire thread. That any government powerful enough to force compliance with an issue is a government powerful enough to force compliance with the opposite (ie: the libtard way).

[gogogodzilla]

Which is what I’ve been arguing. *YOU’VE* been the one demanding that government be large enough and strong enough to enforce your beliefs and stop the beliefs of others.

Which costs money. Starve the government of money = shrink the government = weak federal government incapable of doing paragraph #1.

But the author of the article we’re comment on doesn’t like that. He wants the TEA party to set aside the ‘starve the government’ policies. Which keeps the government large and strong. And then he wants the TEA party to replace their positions with socially conservative ones.

So you end up with a strong and all-powerful federal government using it’s force to make all the citizenry comply with the diktats of the social conservative movement. Which is all fine and good...

... until the libtards win an election.

And then that entire apparatus that forced compliance is not used by the libtards.

To which I say “NO WAY IN @#$%!!!”

And you’ve been arguing for exactly that, by defending the moron.

[gogogodzilla]

And then that entire apparatus that forced compliance is not used by the libtards.

Make that 'And then that entire apparatus that forced compliance *IS* used by the libtards.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Ah shucks, yer jus’ jealous.

[vox_freedom]

Photos without captions are hit-and-miss at best.

[trisham]

Sammy died in 1990. I didn’t realize it was so long ago, or that he was so young.

From Wikipedia:

Born Samuel George Davis, Jr.
December 8, 1925
Harlem, New York, U.S.
Died May 16, 1990 (aged 64)
Beverly Hills, California, U.S.
Occupation Singer, tap dancer, actor, musician
Years active 1928–1990
Religion Judaism
Spouse(s) Loray White (1958-1959)
May Britt (1960-1968)
Altovise Davis (1970-1990)
Children Tracey (b. 1961)
Mark (b. 1964)
Jeff (b. 1965)
Manny (b. 1988)
Parents Sammy Davis, Sr. (father)
Elvera Sanchez (mother)
Website
sammydavis-jr.com

[vox_freedom]

One problem is that liber(al)tarians and “fiscal conservative/social liberals” is that they are actively antagonistic to social conservatism.
They are not “live and let live” at all, but inimical to social conservative goals. And they are generally duplicitous. They want to “win” and destroy social conservatism. They do not want to join up with, but dominate. This to me is the crux of the problem. And to top it off, they cannot debate fairly.

[vox_freedom]

Thanks for supplying the “caption.” :-)

[little jeremiah]

Envy of one of the constants in liberals or liberaltarians.

[little jeremiah]

Debating with them is like trying to arm-wrestle a greased snake.

Not possible.

They’re emotion driven, and their emotions are not the pretty sort. In fact, those emotions that drive them are the very ones we are enjoined to eschew: Lust, anger, greed, pride, envy.

[little jeremiah]

Oops - typo above.

Envy IS one of the constants in liberals or liberaltarians.

[little jeremiah]

There is no neutral. One set of morals and worldview will be used for governing. Whose set of morals is the question.

Either the universal moral absolutes which in this country are the Judeo-Christian version*, or the leftist/secularist/atheist/liberaltarian/libertine version.

Which probably would usher in Sharia version, which is unique unto itself. Meaning it doesn’t fit in the two above.

*The moral absolutes taught in other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are pretty much the same, and therefore sane and practicing Hindus etc feel perfectly comfortable with Judeo-Christian moral absolutes.

[little jeremiah]

Almost the worst thing is that they cannot debate or discuss fairly. Never ever.

And why is this?

Because their philosophic position is empty, hollow, based on internal inconsistencies and in the final estimation, completely false.

So they can only bluster, lie, name call, etc.

[trisham]

He was a very talented man. :)

[gogogodzilla]

What don’t you understand about “If you allow for a government strong enough to enforce *YOUR* beliefs... it will allow for the libtard to force you to follow *THEIRS*”.

Or are you saying that since there is one set of moral standards for the world, that you’re happy with the Obamanation using the government apparatus that was set up in previous administrations to enforce his version of it?

[little jeremiah]

The government of the US was, for at least the first say 150 to 175 years, until the leftist agenda kicked in, based on universal moral absolutes. It did not require the huge machinery of unconstitutional powers it has since acquired.

Mandating immorality, however, does require the huge machinery.

Odd you don’t see this.