SOCIAL ISSUES FADE AS REPUBLICANS COURT CONSERVATIVES ZOT!

Reuters ^ | 6/3/11 | Steve Holland

[57 Red States]

Christian conservatives looking to put a Republican in the White House heard a lot about the economy on Friday in a sign that their social issues may take a back seat in 2012.

Many political speakers at the Faith and Freedom Coalition, including Republican White House hopefuls, emphasized jobs, debt and deficits...

In contrast to some previous presidential campaigns, social issues like gay marriage and abortion have not been prominent topics for Republicans hopefuls seeking to replace President Barack Obama in next year's election.

The weakness of the economy has triggered a debate within the Republican Party about whether conservatives should call a "truce" on social questions.

The idea is that Republicans would have a better chance at victory in 2012 if they rally around economic issues....

[buccaneer81]

Drug use simply affects the person using drugs.

Blatant lies deserve a Zot.

Ever seen the children of some drug users? Think they weren't harmed by drugs?

[Gene Eric]

>> Of course, there’d also be no judicial activism, no abortion, no special rights for homosexuals, no group rights for any group, ...

Most excellent enumeration.

[Gene Eric]

Arguably drug control is a device of Statism. A Marine was recently pumped with 21 bullets by a SWAT for the “benefit” of narcotics control.

I share your concern about the chance for increased exposure of drugs to children, but there’s no data to argue for or against that fear.

The important thing to take out of that noob’s post was the defense of nascent Life. We need to hear that from Libertarians.

[buccaneer81]

The important thing to take out of that noob’s post was the defense of nascent Life. We need to hear that from Libertarians.

Agreed, a positive note. But the further care of children is a big question with a toker.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Sorry, but I’m tired of being asked to support candidates who cannot wait to spit in my face.

I’m a social conservative. Every social conservative I know is also a fiscal conservative. However, many fiscal conservatives say we have to compromise OUR beliefs so that they won’t have to compromise on THEIRS.

To hell with that! Let the damn fiscal conservatives who like gay marriage and abortion compromise THEIR beliefs. If the GOP candidate is another McCain, then to hell with him!

Every last word of that deserves to be repeated... so: I'm repeating it. ;)

[SunkenCiv]

Hmm, I’ll have to check that out:

http://www.flamewordmaker.com/

[Arrowhead1952]

[Brett11]

I understand that conservatives here are supposed to fall in line on every single issue without having any debate at all. It’s unfortunate that you have to resort to censorship here when you can’t handle an argument.

[Brett11]

I wouldn’t have any problem with the government taking away a child from a parent that was a drug user or an alcoholic. The government does have a duty to make sure that children aren’t being abused.

[TheOldLady]

Well, it’s free, so there is a huge ad for the site on each graphic.

But what do you want for nothing, your money back? ;-D

[trisham]

I understand that conservatives here are supposed to fall in line on every single issue without having any debate at all. It’s unfortunate that you have to resort to censorship here when you can’t handle an argument.

************************************************

You neglected to refer to us properly as "you people". As in:

"It's unfortunate that you people have to resort to censorship here..."

Haven't you been here before?

[SunkenCiv]

I can edit that out I’m sure. :’)

[Celtic Cross]

I'm a little late to the party, I know...Perhaps, OldLady, you'd be so kind as to add me to you're Zot ping list.

[TheOldLady]

Ooooooh! Love that so-hot-it’s cooool picture!

You’re on the list.

[TheOldLady]

Give it a go, but can you just reduce it?

They are giving it away, and I don’t mind giving them attribution.

[stuartcr]

The issues themselves are not important, it’s the revenue they create that is. The issues change as societies change, but the gvts need for revenue, doesn’t.

[stuartcr]

please see my #136

[rollo tomasi]

"The issues themselves are not important..."

You are talking in circles. If the issues were not important, there would not be lobbyists, activist, and PUBLIC SERVANTS within the government to impose CHANGES towards social issues. Not every social issue is about revenue, but a shift in hegemony instituted by the power of the government (That takes interest, duh).

Hell, the whole Democrat Party platform is based on social issues/perverted "justice". Also before, during, and immediately after the States ratified the Constitution, the cry for a Bill of Rights was trumpeted.

[stuartcr]

No I’m not. The issues change with their ability to generate revenue. Do you really think govts and beaurocrats throughout history really cared for what bothers their citizens? I don’t. But they will act like they care, if it is something that will generate $$

[rollo tomasi]

"Do you really think govts and beaurocrats throughout history really cared for what bothers their citizens?"

Yes. What is the purpose of government in the first place? You can start with Cicero, Romans Chapter 13, Divine Right of Kings, Founders who emphasized individual rights through a government and end with the central planners who seize not only revenue, but shape cultural hegemony as a well through the government. The history of government has not always been about the cynicism in the collection of resources.