Posted on 12/20/2012 10:19:31 AM PST by kreitzer
It’s often hard to accept the truth, especially when that truth is scary, when reality seems to offer you no solutions, only poison from which to pick. It’s as with a man I once knew who insisted it couldn’t be proven that smoking was bad for you. He knew better in his heart, but his available choices — giving up cigarettes or accepting the danger of their use —were both emotionally unpalatable to him. Enter the rationalization. We’re seeing the same thing with Republicans in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election. Radio host Sean Hannity, citing changing American demographics, stated a while back that his position on immigration has “evolved”: we now must offer illegals some kind of pathway to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty). Other conservatives are warning that we must dispense with social issues or the Republican Party will be dispensed with. Of course, this isn’t always rationalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Well, quit pestering and attacking people about nonsense then.
It’s possible. I dont suspect you people are getting the point.
I believe that Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism need to work together — they support each other. But it has been decades since the GOP really accepted that quaint little notion. I’ve been compromising my whole life, and look where I’ve ended up: Obama is a near dictator and the country is in a Depression. Compromising hasn’t worked out for me.
I don’t intend to compromise anymore. I don’t intend to vote Republican anymore. I don’t think electoral politics are the solution. Politics can be pursued by other means. But you can work closely with John Boehner if you like — let me know how that works out for you.
I agree 100% on what you have just said here.
Every day we find that my tagline is true. And here is the whole thought, expanded for full comprehension:
The GOP's sole purpose is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party. They give voters the false impression that they have a choice. Unfortunately, both choices turn the government more and more toward Statism, the difference being in terms of degrees. In modern times, the government has never gotten smaller under either party.
Look, it’s the federal government that’s trying to shove this homosexual agenda crap down our throats. Hell yes we’re going to resist and fight them like hell.
What is your point?
Sigh....”you people” is a rather divisive way to respond. However, I’m reasonable and intellectually curious enough not to want to miss a point if there is one.
Perhaps you could try again and, as I have had to tell my children, take the snarky factor down a notch. It impeeds comprehension and stimulates my fight or flight response.
But of course, you’ll advocate it at the federal level, so it really is.
I love it when people tell me what I think (the Drug Warriors are big on that). What exactly do you think I'll advocate at the federal level?
He is saying at the fed level. Marriage, abortion, guns and many are all suppose to be off limits for the feds. They are not in the Constitution and should be handled by the States; we should not encourage the feds to do what is not part of their approved powers.
Sure we fight against govt enshrining that garbage in law, but that doesn't mean WE should enshrine it in law. How do we tell them they're wrong to misuse govt to impose their will when we're going to misuse govt to impose ours? I dont distinguish the difference. Wrong is wrong.
see 50
He is saying at the fed level. Marriage, abortion, guns and many are all suppose to be off limits for the feds. They are not in the Constitution and should be handled by the States; we should not encourage the feds to do what is not part of their approved powers.
What are the feds doing about marriage that is not part of their approved powers? (Or abortion, for that matter?)
You either belive govt should be in the business of marriage or not. I dont. Your questions sounded like you do. I dunno what you were getting at, but I dont think you made your point.
The Defense of Marriage Law is out of their powers and them trying to get gay marriage is also out of it. It is not one of the enumerated powers. His whole thing is that it is not a federal power granted by the Constitution.
As for abortion it also is not a federal issue it is not covered by the Constitution it was made up by the USSC.
There you go. Clearly stated. Now, in your opinion, how do we combat the liberals relentless desire to drag the GOP into debate with regard to those issues at a Federal level? How would we successfully educate the public to understand that these are not in truth federal issues? Especially in an entitlement era gone berserk?
Enshrine what in law? The definition of marriage? The feds are trying to pervert the definition that has been in effect since the beginning of society and force this homosexualism b/s down our throats. If must be fought at ALL levels of government.
Civil marriage is created and administered by government - how do you propose government not "dictate" it?
ooof. Right after you tell me where that power is enumerated, I’ll answer your question.
Sorry, I assumed you knew something about the subject - civil marriage is created and administered by STATE government, so enumeration is a nonissue.
But of course, you’ll advocate it at the federal level, so it really is.
I love it when people tell me what I think (the Drug Warriors are big on that). What exactly do you think I'll advocate at the federal level?
You either belive govt should be in the business of marriage or not. I dont.
What does that concretely mean? Should there be no such thing as civil marriage at the state or federal level?
Your questions sounded like you do. I dunno what you were getting at, but I dont think you made your point.
My point is that your protest against "using big govt to dictate marriage" is incoherent. You can provide specifics, or continue to kick and fuss - your call.
I now believe that men attempting to mate with one anothers farty bungholes should be a basis for matrimony.
While we're at it, we'll teach elementary school children that it's okay, something to take "pride" in actually.
You people make me sick.
Gay marrige and ZChristianity are incompatible, not because Christians are intolerant, but because deviants are.
Well I guess neither of us is being coherent then. Have a good one.
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.