Posted on 03/30/2012 9:53:45 AM PDT by C19fan
ust a few years ago, House Republicans were trying to etch their opposition of gay marriage into the Constitution.
Now? They’re almost silent.
It’s been one of the swiftest shifts in ideology and strategy for Republicans, as they’ve come nearly full circle on same-sex politics. What was once a front-and-center issue for rank-and-file Republicans — the subject of many hotly worded House and Senate floor speeches — is virtually a dead issue, as Republicans in Congress don’t care to have gay marriage litigated in the Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...
Cantor to Boehner: “It’s dead John.”
Republicans are on a gay marriage retreat?
The GOP-e wants to marginalize so called “socons.” Human nature and Natural Law never changes, and there won’t be food on the table unless this fact of life is acknowledged.
Well said.
The Republican party is on a suicidal course. But, just like so-called suicide bombers, they’re going to kill us as well. If real conservatives can’t take it over, I don’t see any other option than making a real 3rd party.
That's clearly the case.
Their assertion is "supported" only by quotes that -- justifiably -- suggest that the economy is a bigger issue than "gay rights". To which, I'd wager that most of us would agree.
They cite not a single case of legislative activity that supports their contention.
Misinformation and misdirection -- a form of propaganda that the left excels in. And many on the right don't recognize...
What folks like yourself ignore, or are simply ignorant of, is that the natural family is the very basis for economics. It's even the root of the etymology of the very word economics.
Money problems are the symptom, not the disease. The destruction of the basic unit of our civilization, the family, is the disease.
And, like leftists, y'all just want us to blow that off as unimportant.
Digging down to why that is might be interesting, although I could make a pretty good guess if I was so inclined.
Question: What in hell makes you think that I disagree with your position? I stated absolutely nothing to the contrary in my post.
Instead, I pointed that the news story was disingenuous, in that no statement within it supported their assertion. It was an insidious propaganda statement designed to separate Republican Congressmen from their base.
That is a totally proper assessment. And I said nary a word that could be interpreted as attacking families and their importance in American society.
Yet, you attack me. Why?
THEN you REALLY do not understand what REPUBLICAN means, what the Republican party is all about. LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Liberals are advancing and promoting 'immoral' issues via the strong arm of government.
It is up to Republicans to assure limited government. Your contention is tantamount to a limited government by retreat of Republicans so that only liberals set 'moral' policy.
You and your kind seem transfixed with who wins the throne, and how best to win the throne. Putting in place our king versus their king and by doing this ignoring, for political convenience and political success, the true King, God.
Your 'financial' moral free government king is just as bad as the liberals immoral social justice government king. You and your kind are one of two sides of the same coin.
Your attitude is why we are in this shape we are in.
We do not want a government that is king -that is why moral issues are important.
Without God there are no unalienable rights -no freedom.
Get a clue!
So, when times are bad we might as well put Stalin in charge so long as he plans to deal with the economy. /s
The Sit-Down-When-They-Pee-GOP-E strikes again!
It only works because most of said congressmen couldn't give a rip about their base, or principle, or their own oaths. So, they're vulnerable. Which is their own fault.
If so, isn't that a little gullible?
If you'd care to issue an apology for calling me "ignorant" and a "leftist" without justification, I'd accept it.
Gullible? No. It’s obvious that the Republicans are not going to do what it is going to take to protect marriage and the natural family.
I would say that the gullible ones are those who are still thinking that the Republican Party is much of anything but a false flag operation these days. They talk the talk, once in awhile, mainly during elections, but the don’t walk the walk.
You are demonstrating an amazing ability to avoid the subject of our conversation.
My initial comments extended solely to the content of a news article -- which I identified as fundamentally dishonest reporting and rather brazen propaganda.
So far, you have accused me of being "ignorant" and a "leftist" -- while expressing a voluble and profound distrust of Republican legislators -- but have yet to address my assessment of the news article. Or apologize for slandering me without justification.
Sigh...
I agree, there is much defeatist premised propaganda. Regardless, the merits of the contention of the article, the issues underlying it remain a real clear and present danger to the Republic.
I agree, the article stinks; however, it does provide a springboard from which the issues get discussed.
You: the economy is a bigger issue than "gay rights". To which, I'd wager that most of us would agree.
Me: What folks like yourself ignore, or are simply ignorant of, is that the natural family is the very basis for economics. It's even the root of the etymology of the very word economics.
Money problems are the symptom, not the disease. The destruction of the basic unit of our civilization, the family, is the disease.
And, like leftists, y'all just want us to blow that off as unimportant.
Digging down to why that is might be interesting, although I could make a pretty good guess if I was so inclined.
47 posted on Friday, March 30, 2012 6:56:45 PM by EternalVigilance
I stand by my response.
Have you found any historians who’ve tracked the “Progressives” hidden in the GOP since the progressive movement began?
If it’s not been done before, I’d be surprised. The case made would be that the GOP progs have long been the central force who’ve guided the incremental compromises with the demands of the radical Left. The undermining of the constitution by infiltrating every American institution is what they’ve been seeding incrementally over more than a century.
Because it is coming into full bloom now they are much less incremental in achieving their gains. No more two steps forward, one step back if they can get away with 3 and 4 steps they go for it.
They are still somewhat shy of bragging about their achievement openly. Some brag privately I have no doubt.(Pelosi’s “you can’t be serious” was a peek at their wish to be open. But she’s a Dem, and radical at that, so it was part of the game. When a pubbie starts saying things like that, it will be a sign that they believe that the constitutional republic is dead).
Anyway, I know you’ve been working hard at awakening people to the political reality. I figured that if anyone had read a theory at how it is the so-called moderate GOP who pose the greatest threat to conservative unity, you would have.
I can’t think of any such analysis off the top of my head. Sorry. I’ll look around, though.
But frankly, I think it’s self-professed conservatives who keep compromising principle who constitution the biggest obstacle to the restoration of our republic. Starting with most of the so-called “leaders.”
That compromise makes true “unity” impossible, by the way, because the only true unity is around principle, not parties, and not personalities.
If there is an appearance of unity, but it is not around principle, it is inevitably short-lived, and only leads to more destruction and division in the end.
Agreed. There are distinctly different types of conservative. The ones who back principles are mixed up with the ones who want to protect what they have and the ones who want to be left alone. That mixing leads to compromises. Not all compromises are bad things because a decision needs to be made when circumstances causes principles to come into conflict. Just as morality is indeed relative depending upon which moral precept has higher authority under special circumstances. At those times we seek guidance. The bad form of compromise comes when there are actors with hidden agendas and they are either in authority or their sociopathy gives them skills to mislead the group.
IOW, I agree that we’ve been compromised right out of our socks, but it’s happened over a very long time. It was too easy for the evil because they too easily hide among the sheep. They were very good at deflecting suspicions and turning the tables on those who were wary. The type of conservatives who are afraid of rocking the boat usually had the most money (to lose) and influence, and that type almost always side with the cooler heads. You’re seeing it now in the rush to back Romney.
And in that you have to give a nod to the progs hiding out in the GOP — they have been great at playing it cool in public. (The only time they get ferocious is when a principled conservative confronts them; and then they’ll get very hostile but only if it is in private or under controlled circumstances. I bet you’ve been on the receiving end of such treatment more than once.)
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.