Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tarheel on February 09, 2010, 03:57:18 PM
-
Seriously, Huckabee still has traction? Running this bigoted, neo-Con as a Presidential Candidate in 2012 will be a HUGE mistake in my opinion. This guy is so far to the right socially so he'll turn-off most independents and his views on Crime are a travesty (I remind you of Mr. Huckabee's parole release of the rapist and murderer Wayne DuMond-who continued his raping and murdering after his parole {just one of many comments/stories: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/huckabee-on-rapist-murderer/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/huckabee-on-rapist-murderer/) }; what political fodder that alone will make...it'll be enough to shut down his "social conservative" support who take a hard-line view on criminals, especially repeat offenders this offensive). The ONE, even politically weakened, will be a formidable candidate and we don't need to run Huckleberry Hound against him. (I know this is just one early poll in one Deep South state but I just cannot accept that the Republicans are self-destructive enough to run this guy.)
Here's an excerpt from an article on The Politico, all emphasis is my own:
Alabama poll: Mike Huckabee is 2012 front-runner
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 2/9/10 11:29 AM EST
In a reminder of his strength with social conservatives, Mike Huckabee leads his nearest GOP competitor by 10 percentage points, according to a new poll of Alabama Republicans.
Thirty-three percent of Alabama Republicans polled support the former Arkansas governor for the 2012 presidential nomination, while 23 percent said they would back Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee. The next closest Republican to Huckabee and Palin is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who takes 12 percent of the vote.
The survey, commissioned by a Montgomery-based public affairs company, is to be released Tuesday.
It illustrates the support Huckabee still enjoys among the sort of Christian conservative voters who dominate GOP primaries in the South.
...
Full article:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B3905584-18FE-70B2-A8E27D7FCDCEAFE6 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B3905584-18FE-70B2-A8E27D7FCDCEAFE6)
-
Seriously, Huckabee still has traction? Running this bigoted, neo-Con as a Presidential Candidate in 2012 will be a HUGE mistake in my opinion. This guy is so far to the right socially so he'll turn-off most independents and his views on Crime are a travesty (I remind you of Mr. Huckabee's parole release of the rapist and murderer Wayne DuMond-who continued his raping and murdering after his parole {just one of many comments/stories: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/huckabee-on-rapist-murderer/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/huckabee-on-rapist-murderer/) }; what political fodder that alone will make...it'll be enough to shut down his "social conservative" support who take a hard-line view on criminals, especially repeat offenders this offensive). The ONE, even politically weakened, will be a formidable candidate and we don't need to run Huckleberry Hound against him. (I know this is just one early poll in one Deep South state but I just cannot accept that the Republicans are self-destructive enough to run this guy.)
Here's an excerpt from an article on The Politico, all emphasis is my own:
Full article:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B3905584-18FE-70B2-A8E27D7FCDCEAFE6 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B3905584-18FE-70B2-A8E27D7FCDCEAFE6)
I certainly like Huckabee better than Palin. Don't agree with him on everything, but there's virtually no major party candidate that I do agree with to that degree (the closest being maybe Ron Paul).
Republicans need some new blood if they want to stand a chance. Scott Brown?
-
I certainly like Huckabee better than Palin. Don't agree with him on everything, but there's virtually no major party candidate that I do agree with to that degree (the closest being maybe Ron Paul).
Republicans need some new blood if they want to stand a chance. Scott Brown?
Palin is politically damaged goods; at the end of the day she would not be a winning candidate. I don't think she'll run despite her hinting to Chris Wallace on FoxNewsSunday that she would. She's enjoying being a pundit.
Scott Brown? Maybe. Or someone like him but I don't see anyone on the horizon other than possibly Bobby Jindal but he too needs some political seasoning.
I forgot to mention another one of Huckabee's examples of Leniency...surely everyone remembers the fine, upstanding, reformed citizen Maurice Clemmons who Huckabee paroled...he went on to murder four cops in Tacoma, Washington just last year. Here's an interesting account of that sad chapter in Huckleberry's political career:
http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/?p=2090 (http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/?p=2090)
I'm truly disgusted that Huckleberry gets any kind of attention. The 'empathetic' bigot does not deserve it.
-
I certainly like Huckabee better than Palin. Don't agree with him on everything, but there's virtually no major party candidate that I do agree with to that degree (the closest being maybe Ron Paul).
Republicans need some new blood if they want to stand a chance. Scott Brown?
Maybe Rand Paul, Ron's son? Just throwing that out there.
He's running for Senate in Kentucky and is not quite as "fringy" as his old man.
-
I actually agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say.........it's what I disagree with him on that scares the shit out of me. So much so that I can't take him seriously.
-
I actually agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say.........it's what I disagree with him on that scares the poop out of me. So much so that I can't take him seriously.
Ron's better than Huckabee whom I can't take seriously at all.
-
Ron's better than Huckabee whom I can't take seriously at all.
Agree.
-
Huckabee won the Alabama Republican presidential primary back in '08 (by a pretty comfortable margin). I have to admit voting for him because I could not make myself connect the arrow on the ballot for Juan McCain. I held my nose and voted against Chairman Maobama that November.
I hope we see a better Republican rise to prominence. No one is really turning my head thus far.
-
Huckabee won the Alabama Republican presidential primary back in '08 (by a pretty comfortable margin). I have to admit voting for him because I could not make myself connect the arrow on the ballot for Juan McCain. I held my nose and voted against Chairman Maobama that November.
I hope we see a better Republican rise to prominence. No one is really turning my head thus far.
I voted McCain in the primary, then wasted my time voting for Bob Barr in the election.
I was at least hoping for a blip of a mention that he recieved .3% of the vote or whatever. Didn't happen.
-
He has his flaws, but I still like Newt. I think he has the balls and experience to get shit straightened out. We are in such a mess that it is going to take someone that has a major league spine to get us on the right track.
-
He has his flaws, but I still like Newt. I think he has the balls and experience to get poop straightened out. We are in such a mess that it is going to take someone that has a major league spine to get us on the right track.
You may be on to something there with Newt; despite his flaws he's got the fiscal conservatism and track record to make the tough decisions to balance the budget. He's certainly no follower of Keynes.
I voted McCain in the primary, then wasted my time voting for Bob Barr in the election.
I was at least hoping for a blip of a mention that he recieved .3% of the vote or whatever. Didn't happen.
Bob Barr used to be my Congressman...I may have mentioned before what a slime-ball he is; but back then he was a Republican.
Newt used to be my Congressman too...what a coincidence.
-
I am with Chad here.
I like both Ron and Rand Paul.
Palin - I like her personally, not sure she is ready to be Prez. I think she is better in a role like Limbaugh - a rebel rouser of sorts, maybe RNC Chairman. Lord knows Michael Steele is terrible.
Huckabee actually bores me. Too much Mister Rogers, not enough Ronald Reagan.
-
Palin - I like her personally, not sure she is ready to be Prez. I think she is better in a role like Limbaugh - a rebel rouser of sorts, maybe RNC Chairman.
This is what I've said about her since about halfway through last year's presidential election. Screamed it since the election was over.
Funny that that appears to be the role she's taking on, now that she has her own Fox News show. That's where she belongs. She's fitted for that sort of thing. Not as a legitimate politician.
-
I am with Chad here.
I like both Ron and Rand Paul.
Palin - I like her personally, not sure she is ready to be Prez. I think she is better in a role like Limbaugh - a rebel rouser of sorts, maybe RNC Chairman. Lord knows Michael Steele is terrible.
Huckabee actually bores me. Too much Mister Rogers, not enough Ronald Reagan.
Really? I have always enjoyed hearing him when I have.
-
Really? I have always enjoyed hearing him when I have.
Steele is a neocon. How much success have we had with them? Ford, Nixon, Rockefeller, McCain, Dole, Bush 1/2....and on and on and on.....True GOPs like Lincoln, TR, Reagan, Goldwater, etc are what is needed.
He also has no backbone. Right now is a prime time to be pouncing on Obama and the Dems. Not Steele. Limbaugh, Beck and Palin are doing more than the RNC Chair is. I used to like Newt, but I think he sold out to the neocons years ago. At this point Ron Paul is the only one who had it RIGHT during the election. Everything he has said has come to light. He "gets it". I like Thompson too, but he has some of the bore factor that Huckabee does.
-
I've been reading about Rand Paul. I admit that I did not know much about him until he was mentioned in this thread.
This is the guy.
Senate in 2010 & President in 2012.
I'm afraid Republicans will arrogantly pick another Sarah Palin-esque base motivator, who will alienate the middle.
-
I'm all for Newt.
The only problem I see is that a lot of America may see him (white hair) as just another "same ole" kinda politician. I think he's strong enough to overcome it, but will he get a chance? He is 66 years old, and would be 72 when he finishes what would be his first term, and well into his mid to late 70's for a second term. Not sure how people (especially younger folks) would feel about that.
I think the fact that he was Speaker during some very good years would really help. I know Clinton gets a lot of credit for that time, but people always ignore that Newt and Republicans ran the house and the senate. Just like the same people like to ignore that Pelosi and Reid ran things the last couple years of the Bush presidency (wonder how we were heading into a recession as Obama got there? maybe it's because they got a two year head start on f-ing things up).
-
This is a good site (I'm sure many of you have seen it) that can help sort out where people stand on what. It takes 20-25 topics, both social and political, such as tax reform, gun control, health reform, energy, education, abortion, budget, etc, and gives quotes (and links to the interview or speech from which the quote was taken), shows voting records, etc.
In the end, it takes all of these things (quotes, votes, etc) and summarizes where a politician stands overall.
They show it on a graph that looks like this...
Fred Thompson's chart
(http://ontheissues.org/images/s010_080.gif)
Nancy Pelosi's chart
(http://senate.ontheissues.org/images/s100_010.gif)
There is also a section where you can go through and answer certain questions and it will show where you stand on the chart.
-
There is also a section where you can go through and answer certain questions and it will show where you stand on the chart.
Link, Please?
-
Oh yeah, sorry.
Here is the quiz link.
http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/XPolitics/quiz_main.asp?Page=1&Clear=Y (http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/XPolitics/quiz_main.asp?Page=1&Clear=Y)
I think as we get closer to elections, the questions change a little or they add to them to reflect some of the issues that are being debated or that platforms are being built around.
-
Me.
(http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/map/s050_090.gif)
-
Me.
(http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/map/s050_090.gif)
You're a librarian.
-
My librarian
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/17166/1175222-hot_librarian_large.jpg)
-
Me.
(http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/map/s020_090.gif)
-
This is all theory, but I think during election times, when there are more questions, it probably becomes more accurate. (not saying mine isn't accurate, just saying it makes sense that the more that's fed into it, the more information it has to evaluate and plot).
-
And, me.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/whitey2kaccord/s060_080.gif)
-
Maybe we should have a thread pinned at the top of the SGA forum with a link to the quiz, and everyone that wants can take the quiz and post their chart (?).
-
(http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/map/s030_090.gif)
-
And, me.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/whitey2kaccord/s060_080.gif)
So essentially, one spot to the left of me fiscally and the exact same socially.
Interesting.
-
I think this mapping is flawed:
(http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/map/s020_070.gif)
I've never thought of myself as a "Populist Leaning Conservative"
Anyway, interesting little political widget! Thanks for posting the link to it jadennis.
-
I've been reading about Rand Paul. I admit that I did not know much about him until he was mentioned in this thread.
This is the guy.
Senate in 2010 & President in 2012.
I'm afraid Republicans will arrogantly pick another Sarah Palin-esque base motivator, who will alienate the middle.
Remember you heard it from the Tarheel first. I might have to remind you of that when you vote for him.
:poke:
Seriously, I like the guy too; he's a fresh face with some interesting ideas.
I think that the Republicans may have learned their lesson (at least for the next few years anyway).
IF they can just keep the idiotic, bigoted, flat-earth, boring, touchy-feely, provincial, social conservatives like Huckabee from running in the primaries.
-
I think this mapping is flawed:
...
It's definitely flawed. I score the same as McCain AND Romney. Can't be possible.
-
It's definitely flawed. I score the same as McCain AND Romney. Can't be possible.
Yeah, but remember, it's your overall picture. Their map is derived from far, far more information than the few questions in our quiz. So they may be completely opposite of you on a few things, but enough like you overall, that they still fall in the same spot on the map.
Just pretend that Obama was not pro-choice. That alone wouldn't change his dot from being pegged the left wall of the map. He's so liberal on so many things, that alone wouldn't make enough difference.
I'm sure it's flawed, especially on the personal quiz. But I think it's a little closer on the actual candidates.
Check out this link to what part of the grid each person falls into on each issue. Interesting, but not surprising on most of them. (make sure to scroll up, it loads in the middle of the page)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Candidate_Grid.htm#George_W__Bush (http://www.ontheissues.org/Candidate_Grid.htm#George_W__Bush)
-
I've never thought of myself as a "Populist Leaning Conservative"
Really?
I have.
-
Really?
I have.
Libertarians are always right.
:sarcasm:
-
Seriously, Huckabee still has traction? Running this bigoted, neo-Con as a Presidential Candidate in 2012 will be a HUGE mistake in my opinion. This guy is so far to the right socially so he'll turn-off most independents and his views on Crime are a travesty...
I know it's bad form to quote yourself but I wanted to keep things somewhat in context (and I do it all the time anyway)...this was a comment by a Native Alabamian on HotAir.com...I thought this was great!
As a native of Alabama I can honestly say this poll doesn’t surprise me—if it was conducted at a covered dish gathering in the Fellowship Hall of the First Baptist Church of (fill in the blank). Huckaphony will NEVER be president. And if the GOP is foolish enough to nominate him they deserve to lose.
Redneck Woman on February 10, 2010
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/09/poll-of-alabama-republicans-huckabee-33-palin-23-romney-12/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/09/poll-of-alabama-republicans-huckabee-33-palin-23-romney-12/)
-
As a native of Alabama I can honestly say this poll doesn’t surprise me—if it was conducted at a covered dish gathering in the Fellowship Hall of the First Baptist Church of (fill in the blank). Huckaphony will NEVER be president. And if the GOP is foolish enough to nominate him they deserve to lose.
Redneck Woman on February 10, 2010
Good quote, I was going to mention this earlier.......I think the reason that Huck gets so much support here in AL is for a # of reasons. Those reasons would be, he is on TV on Sunday's, he is a religious man, he is from the south...etc...etc...etc... Not that there is anything wrong with those reasons for liking someone, but I don't think one should base their vote on those reasons alone.
Look, I am sure that Huck is a nice guy, I am pretty sure that he is a Godly man, once again nothing wrong with that. It's just that I want my politicians to think like politicians and not like preachers. When they do that they start to let the social issues take over the more important things like, national defense, taxes and the economy.
We have already had one Southern Baptist as a Pres and that didn't work out to well for us. Hell, why repeat history?
In all seriousness, I would almost bet that A LOT of the people polled don't really know where he stands on any issue. They just know he is from the south, once a preacher and is on TV on Sundays.
-
I've been reading about Rand Paul. I admit that I did not know much about him until he was mentioned in this thread.
This is the guy.
Senate in 2010 & President in 2012.
I'm afraid Republicans will arrogantly pick another Sarah Palin-esque base motivator, who will alienate the middle.
Ummm, in the last 4-5 elections we have picked: Bush (loss), Dole (loss), Bush (win but barely), Bush (again - barely), McCain (zzzzzz - loss). Hardly hard right conservatives. McCain was dead in the water until he picked Palin. But I also dont think she would be a good Presidential Candidate, but not for your mentioned reason. Palin made that election close. It energized the GOP. McCain was a joke and still is.
Rand Paul - I agree on. He is just like his old man. Love them both.
-
Ummm, in the last 4-5 elections we have picked: Bush (loss), Dole (loss), Bush (win but barely), Bush (again - barely), McCain (zzzzzz - loss). Hardly hard right conservatives. McCain was dead in the water until he picked Palin. But I also dont think she would be a good Presidential Candidate, but not for your mentioned reason. Palin made that election close. It energized the GOP. McCain was a joke and still is.
Rand Paul - I agree on. He is just like his old man. Love them both.
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.
-
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.
Lets just face it, McCain of 2008 was a weak candidate; he was all over the place and difficult to define as anything other than another Neo-con at best...but even that was a stretch. He was liberal on immigration, liberal on carbon tax, liberal on glowbull warming, and liberal on national healthcare. The introduction of Palin into his campaign did, in fact, energize the hard right (and social conservatives) in the Party who never truly appreciated McCain. The fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party were also energized by Palin; they never really warmed up to McCain completely because of the spending that he was involved with during the Bush years. The only positive attributes of McCain to all Republicans is that his foreign policy and defense policy were solidly conservative.
And the only reason that the Republicans got McCain in the first place was due to the damn open primaries; this is what gave him the win. Rush's "Operation Chaos" was not the only disruption going on during the primary process; ACORN and the other Dem Orcs were disrupting the right too in my opinion; but, of course, the Democratic media only reports on the right.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
:rant:
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It is a very real threat. I can post news stories if you would like.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.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 (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.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 (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/12/uk-stewardess-banned-from-carrying-bible.html)