Poll of Alabama Republicans for 2012 Candidate

[GH2001]

Disagree.

Bush is hardly a hard right conservative? Fiscally, maybe not, but that's exactly my point. He was about as socially right wing as you can possibly get, which is what eventually repulsed all but the far right in his corner.

McCain of 2000 was "hardly a hard right conservative", true enough. McCain of 2008, however, was molded by his campaign manager, stupidly in my opinion, to be the Bush replacement. Adding Palin to the ticket solidified this.

Bush and McCain are neocons. McCain moreso than Bush. They are so liberal in some ways its pathetic (No Child Left Behind comes to mind). Bush may concede the conservative stance on some secondary social issues to please the base, but he is not true, 100% conservative. Reagan was. And he won both elections in a landslide. The middle doesnt get nearly as turned off by a hard right wing candidate as the far right does a moderate/liberal GOP such as McCain or Guiliani.  The far right did not like McCain. Adding Palin helped to cure this gap - and it worked some. Just not enough. Tarheel is right. McCain, like Dole, was a lameduck candidate. Much like Kerry for the Dems.

[Tiger Wench]

Question:

With all the other major bullshit going on right now - the economy tanking, our national defense weakened, and our international reputation in tatters, is this the time to give a shit about a Republican's opinion on purely "social" issues - gay rights/gay marriage, abortion rights, education vouchers?

Close the borders and ship illegal immigrants home.  Defend our nation by kicking some ass whenever and wherever warranted and tell everyone to go fuck themselves if they complain.  Cut the obscene new taxes and reduce federal spending.  Reduce the burden on small businesses and the American taxpayer.

The candidate's position the above will determine my vote.

[Tarheel]

Question:

With all the other major bullpoop going on right now - the economy tanking, our national defense weakened, and our international reputation in tatters, is this the time to give a poop about a Republican's opinion on purely "social" issues - gay rights/gay marriage, abortion rights, education vouchers?

Close the borders and ship illegal immigrants home.  Defend our nation by kicking some ass whenever and wherever warranted and tell everyone to go phuk themselves if they complain.  Cut the obscene new taxes and reduce federal spending.  Reduce the burden on small businesses and the American taxpayer.

The candidate's position the above will determine my vote.

Well said, Tiger Wench.  This is EXACTLY why I don't give a rat's rear end about social issues and why I rarely post on them (unless it's the great pot debate).  They are all too tied to 'emotions' and most people are very set in their opinions.  Which is fine.  So am I.

But now is not the time for Congress to be debating on the frivolities of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or other social issues, pet programs, and social engineering schemes for equal outcomes.  And, as much as the Dems (and some Repubs) want to engorge FedGov with all kinds of social programs we simply can't afford to pay for them.

The ONLY reason that The ONE even bought up DADT is because he's loosing support from the Gay special interest groups and he wants to distract people from things like the "Cybersecurity Act" which is moving through Congress right now; heard anything about it?  Probably not.  Probably haven't heard about the Chi-coms threatening to sell their US Treasury notes either or Russian encouraging them to do just that.  Probably haven't heard about the mad mullahs who just announced that they have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb.  No, lets worry about DADT, gay marriage, legalizing pot, smoking bans, and Roe v. Wade.

I agree with you completely, Wench...seal the damn borders, get rid of illegal immigrants, cut the damn taxes, seriously cut the damn spending, stop the damn fear-mongering and tax scheming on glowbull warming, defend the nation from the mad mullahs, kill the fucking Islamo-nazi terrorists, empower small businesses, and stop the fucking bailouts!

 

[Tarheel]

Bush and McCain are neocons. McCain moreso than Bush. They are so liberal in some ways its pathetic (No Child Left Behind comes to mind). Bush may concede the conservative stance on some secondary social issues to please the base, but he is not true, 100% conservative. Reagan was. And he won both elections in a landslide. The middle doesnt get nearly as turned off by a hard right wing candidate as the far right does a moderate/liberal GOP such as McCain or Guiliani.  The far right did not like McCain. Adding Palin helped to cure this gap - and it worked some. Just not enough. Tarheel is right. McCain, like Dole, was a lameduck candidate. Much like Kerry for the Dems.

Thanks for reminding me of more of their liberal programs...I'd forgotten about that one and then I remembered that Bush also helped engineer the fucked up Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program (and I KNOW for a fact how fucked up it is because I've been sucked into that morass of shit with my parents prescription drug requirements).

[AUTiger1]

No Child Left Behind = a big reason I am no longer in education.

Agree, I do not vote based on social issues.   I saw something from somewhere that sums it up perfect for me.

Kill the terrorist
Deport the illegals
Cut taxes
Reduce Spending
Punch a hippie
Call it a day

[jadennis]

Question:

With all the other major bullpoop going on right now - the economy tanking, our national defense weakened, and our international reputation in tatters, is this the time to give a poop about a Republican's opinion on purely "social" issues - gay rights/gay marriage, abortion rights, education vouchers?

Close the borders and ship illegal immigrants home.  Defend our nation by kicking some ass whenever and wherever warranted and tell everyone to go phuk themselves if they complain.  Cut the obscene new taxes and reduce federal spending.  Reduce the burden on small businesses and the American taxpayer.

The candidate's position the above will determine my vote.

I agree with all the parts in bold above....very, very much agree with them.  

However, a lot of conservatives (the large church going, God-fearing crowd everywhere in between the coasts) will still care about the social issues...and here's why.  When you take those social issues and ignore them enough, or stop fighting for them, and taking a stand against unwanted changes, the changes that follow effect our society in a deeper, farther reaching way than a tax plan that may last 2-4 years and then change to something completely different 2-4 years later.  

Those kinds of things come and go.  But when you let the social issues fade, you end up with people in charge like we have now.  You end up with a bunch of people intent on removing God and prayer and anything else "religious" from every part of our lives.  To me, social liberalism is farther reaching and longer lasting, and probably more damaging to the society in which my 2 year old daughter is going to grow up in.  

For example, look at how screwed up Jimmy Carter had things politically/economically, etc.  15% interest rates, inflation through the roof, etc.  Reagan came in and that was reversed in a number of years.  Carter's screw ups were not that long lasting and not that far reaching.  Look at the prosperity our country has experienced since then.  

However, when social, moral-value type issues take a back seat, or we let go of them and stop fighting for them....the effects are much longer lasting, and honestly, nearly impossible to reverse.  Once the Bible was taken out of schools, do you really ever seeing it making it's way back in?  No way, that ship has sailed, it's a thing of the past...we're no longer a Christian nation, so the leaders of the left have declared.  From a moral-value stance, we continue to erode.  If we continue to keep God and Biblical influence locked inside the church, society will continue to slide.  If we keep those things locked up inside the church, it won't be long before that's the only place you find what we used to be.  We'll be a Godless, European-moral nation on this side of the Atlantic.  We will seize to be America.

Anyway, I agree Wench, those things you noted are of utmost importance to stop the bleeding we're all going through economically and politically.  But I don't want to do it at the expense of other things.  I don't want to be over-focused on that and forget about the other things.  To me, the change in the moral fabric of our country is a major part of how we have elected people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc in the first place.  

[AUChizad]

I agree with all the parts in bold above....very, very much agree with them.  

However, a lot of conservatives (the large church going, God-fearing crowd everywhere in between the coasts) will still care about the social issues...and here's why.  When you take those social issues and ignore them enough, or stop fighting for them, and taking a stand against unwanted changes, the changes that follow effect our society in a deeper, farther reaching way than a tax plan that may last 2-4 years and then change to something completely different 2-4 years later.  

Those kinds of things come and go.  But when you let the social issues fade, you end up with people in charge like we have now.  You end up with a bunch of people intent on removing God and prayer and anything else "religious" from every part of our lives.  To me, social liberalism is farther reaching and longer lasting, and probably more damaging to the society in which my 2 year old daughter is going to grow up in.  

For example, look at how screwed up Jimmy Carter had things politically/economically, etc.  15% interest rates, inflation through the roof, etc.  Reagan came in and that was reversed in a number of years.  Carter's screw ups were not that long lasting and not that far reaching.  Look at the prosperity our country has experienced since then.  

However, when social, moral-value type issues take a back seat, or we let go of them and stop fighting for them....the effects are much longer lasting, and honestly, nearly impossible to reverse.  Once the Bible was taken out of schools, do you really ever seeing it making it's way back in?  No way, that ship has sailed, it's a thing of the past...we're no longer a Christian nation, so the leaders of the left have declared.  From a moral-value stance, we continue to erode.  If we continue to keep God and Biblical influence locked inside the church, society will continue to slide.  If we keep those things locked up inside the church, it won't be long before that's the only place you find what we used to be.  We'll be a Godless, European-moral nation on this side of the Atlantic.  We will seize to be America.

Anyway, I agree Wench, those things you noted are of utmost importance to stop the bleeding we're all going through economically and politically.  But I don't want to do it at the expense of other things.  I don't want to be over-focused on that and forget about the other things.  To me, the change in the moral fabric of our country is a major part of how we have elected people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc in the first place.  

I'd rather not get too deep in another controversial political thread (especially the most controversial of all topics), but this kind of thinking is the problem, in my opinion.

We were never a "Christian" nation that was intended to have our schools indoctrinate a state religion. To believe that we are is to completely defy and selectively ignore everything our founding fathers stood for.

When a politician starts advocating these kinds of things, or outwardly claims to take the Bible literally, he loses credibility with me.

[GH2001]

I'd rather not get too deep in another controversial political thread (especially the most controversial of all topics), but this kind of thinking is the problem, in my opinion.

We were never a "Christian" nation that was intended to have our schools indoctrinate a state religion. To believe that we are is to completely defy and selectively ignore everything our founding fathers stood for.

When a politician starts advocating these kinds of things, or outwardly claims to take the Bible literally, he loses credibility with me.

Yes - but they are trying to take away the "freedom OF religion". Which goes too far in the other direction. Forcing kids to learn about Christianity against their will? Yes,  I can see the point in being upset and rightfully so. But to tell someone they can't even wear a cross around their neck in school or to have a Bible in their book satchel? Absurd. And this is what they are aiming for - as JAD said, a godless society by design, with no freedom OF religion.

Let me ask you - Does a muslim or a hindu lose credibility with you if they take their book of worship seriously? Because I can tell you that MOST of them (knowing several of them) take it much more seriously than most Christians. Remember, not all (in fact most arent) Christians are hell fire and brimstone. I am Methodist. And its for a reason. I reject the fundamentalist view because to me, its very judgmental and goes against the very teachings of Christianity. I always found myself saying things like: "Its none of your business why I wasnt here last Sunday", "Who are you to say Im going to hell if I dont put XYZ dollars in the plate", or "who gives you the authority to judge me?". But I dont think most Christians are like that Chad. Just the far far extreme right. To me most of what they do goes AGAINST Biblical teachings. 

And you are right about the founding fathers. While they embraced themselves with Judeo Christian values personally, the entire purpose of settlers coming to the new land (America) was to be free from religious persecution in England. This is where the 'freedom OF religion' part comes in.

One of the best quotes I have ever seen on Christianity was from Gandhi: "I love your Christ. But so many of your Christians are not like your Christ."     He hit the nail on the head.

[AUChizad]

Yes - but they are trying to take away the "freedom OF religion". Which goes too far in the other direction. Forcing kids to learn about Christianity against their will? Yes,  I can see the point in being upset and rightfully so. But to tell someone they can't even wear a cross around their neck in school or to have a Bible in their book satchel? Absurd. And this is what they are aiming for - as JAD said, a godless society by design, with no freedom OF religion.

Let me ask you - Does a muslim or a hindu lose credibility with you if they take their book of worship seriously? Because I can tell you that MOST of them (knowing several of them) take it much more seriously than most Christians. Remember, not all (in fact most arent) Christians are hell fire and brimstone. I am Methodist. And its for a reason. I reject the fundamentalist view because to me, its very judgmental and goes against the very teachings of Christianity. I always found myself saying things like: "Its none of your business why I wasnt here last Sunday", "Who are you to say Im going to hell if I dont put XYZ dollars in the plate", or "who gives you the authority to judge me?". But I dont think most Christians are like that Chad. Just the far far extreme right. To me most of what they do goes AGAINST Biblical teachings. 

And you are right about the founding fathers. While they embraced themselves with Judeo Christian values personally, the entire purpose of settlers coming to the new land (America) was to be free from religious persecution in England. This is where the 'freedom OF religion' part comes in.

One of the best quotes I have ever seen on Christianity was from Gandhi: "I love your Christ. But so many of your Christians are not like your Christ."     He hit the nail on the head.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.

Except I don't believe there is a real threat to expel kids for wearing crosses or having a Bible in their satchel.

And the answer to your question about Muslims/Hindus is yes.

[CCTAU]

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.

Except I don't believe there is a real threat to expel kids for wearing crosses or having a Bible in their satchel.

Haven't kept up with the happenings in the UK lately, huh?

The UK seems to be one of the examples that libruls are trying to follow.

[GH2001]

It is a very real threat. I can post news stories if you would like.

[Saniflush]

It is a very real threat. I can post news stories if you would like.

I would.  That's good info to be getting out!

[jadennis]

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.

Except I don't believe there is a real threat to expel kids for wearing crosses or having a Bible in their satchel.

I agree with most of what he said as well....and to clarify, my post wasn't supposed to be so much specifically about "god in school" or the US being a "Christian nation".  It was more about letting our historical morals fade into European apathy.  And while I don't think public schools need to be teaching kids the Bible, there is also no reason to have the Bible and the Christian heritage of our nation ignored and specifically deleted from our history just because that history is being taught in a public school.

As much as liberals want it completely out of school and our history....it is our history, and it's just putting your head in the sand (not "you" literally) to think otherwise.

Here are a few quotes from Ben Franklin:

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

The history of our founding fathers is littered with these kinds of quotes and discussions and I could post pages and pages of quotes by Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Henry, Adams (all of them), Jay, Jefferson Madison, etc.  It's everywhere... except where it's been deleted or left out intentionally in our current history books.  

To me, there is a big difference in expecting the government to push Christianity (which I do NOT expect in any form or fashion), or simply allowing it to exist in it's historical context in regards to our country.  THAT I do expect and get really irritated with they take it out based on the "church and state" argument.

While the model of our three branches is similar and partly derived from other government ideas.  What did Madison read at the Constitutional Convention to explain where the model comes from?  He read Isaiah 33:22 which says "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king".  He credited this passage as the inspiration for the idea of the three branches.  You will never, never, never find that referenced in a public school history book.  Seem pretty relevant to me, in a historical context, seeing as it was read at he constitutional convention and read by James Madison.  But nope, it's from the Bible and has the word "Lord" in it....gottta go, no matter what the historical significance or relevance.

Anyway, most of my point in the first post is reflected in Franklin's quote above where he says "do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?".  See, the founders thought their faith in God to be very important and relevant to their political ideas and aspirations, and more importantly to the people of our country...which is why John Adams said this...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

Sure, we've changed a lot.  And again, I'm not expecting the government to push Christianity on America  But I'm also tired of them going out of their way to push it away from America.  In in the much bigger picture (and point of my first post), I'm tired of "morals" and "goodness" (no matter the source...Christian or otherwise) being mocked and shoved off to the side.  Christian or not, the more we do that, the worse our society gets....anyone that's been alive 30+ years can see that.

[GH2001]

Not all of these are in the US, but it just shows the path we are going down - the way the eastern world handles things they dont like. They are so socialist its pathetic. Go to China, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia - and then come back to the US. It will seem like you have all the freedom in the world after seeing those countries. People (mainly liberals) in the US dont know how much religious freedom they really have.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23381527-now-a-school-bans-13-year-old-from-wearing-crucifix.do

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34408   <=== this is actually one where a judge socked it to the person who fired the 'offender' wearing the cross - kudos here.

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=60295165&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/12/uk-stewardess-banned-from-carrying-bible.html