My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[Newby]

The limits of religious tolerance are set by SCOTUS: follow it, logicaleu.

The social compact is a fact of America life, logical4e: learn it, love it, or leave it.

A more perfect union does not mean libertarianism, logical4u.

Religious liberty does not mean, logical4u, that you get to impose yours on me in a public tax-supported forum.

logical4u, whites can no longer parasite off their contributions in the past.

We are not going to ever have your religious communitarian state: not going to happen.

Logical4u, the only "exceptionalism" here in America is American exceptionalism. Accept it.

The problem, Jake, is that thru 70 some pages of your platitudes in this thread, you've yet to demonstrate that any of what you just listed is even taking place, outside of in your own imagination. When you can illustrate what you're talking about with real examples and facts, then maybe you might be worth debaing with, but even then, I sincerely doubt it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of what has been mentioned over 70 pages has happened, and your denial changes nothing, Newby.

When you can illustrate that you are willing to adapt to the 21st century, there is a place in the GOP for you and people like you.

 

[Newby]

The debate is over, logical4u. Go start your own party if you don't like it.

There never was any debate, Jake. You don't know how to debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have never debated, merely emoted, and I dealt with it.

Your word view is no longer one the great majority of the party wants to include.

 

[Newby]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Think not. The far right alternatives to Romney were pathetic, way out of touch with America.

The neo-econ corporatists, my guy, Romney, was out of touch with enough of America that he lost.

A soc con values or neo-con simply can't run and get the support needed.

 

[Newby]

Yeah, we need to move more left... so we're indiscernable from the dems... that's the ticket..

 

[JakeStarkey]

In terms of soc con values and neo-conservative imperialism, yes, we need to go back to solid conservative positions.

Leave other countries alone militarily as much as possible while using diplomatic and "soft" rather than "hard" power to influence them.

True conservatives keep organized religious positions out of politics.

That's not liberalism, my friend.

 

[Immanuel]

Yeah, we need to move more left... so we're indiscernable from the dems... that's the ticket..

Any more left and Republicans will be left of the left.

Immie

 

[Synthaholic]

Yeah, we need to move more left... so we're indiscernable from the dems... that's the ticket..

Any more left and Republicans will be left of the left.

Immie

How did that 'extreme Rightwing fringe' stance work out for you in this past election?

 

[Synthaholic]

I have to laugh at wingers who are now saying that the GOP wasn't extreme enough.

They were extreme for the past 2 years, until they saw it as a losing proposition weeks away from the election. That's when Moderate Mitt came back in full force - the first debate. And they kept running to the center with their etch-a-sketches as extreme positions like birth control and abortions and Todd Akin and self-deportation, and ...

ALL losing positions by a WIDE margin. Mitt lost the single female vote by 38 points!

And here we have wingnuts saying "Mitt should have been even more conservative"

You people are deluded.

 

[Immanuel]

Yeah, we need to move more left... so we're indiscernable from the dems... that's the ticket..

Any more left and Republicans will be left of the left.

Immie

How did that 'extreme Rightwing fringe' stance work out for you in this past election?

I didn't support the Republicans and I don't hold an extreme rightwing stance.

My position is that we have two far left parties and neither one of them are worth a pile of horseshit.

I want a "far right" stance as much as I want a far left stance. Neither one works as far as I am concerned. For instance, let's just take the topic of the economy and taxes. We cannot solve our problems by taking either the "Supply Side" or Obama's "Flood the Basement" mentalities. We need to find the medium point that optimizes tax revenues at any given point in time and that amount changes with any given situation. Too high of taxes on the employers and you stiffle the economy and encourage employers to outsource, but cutting their taxes to a point that is too low will kill the economy. I believe that there is room today to increase their taxes and not hurt the economy since their taxes are extremely low as it is. However, Republicans seem to think if we just eliminated their taxes all together then every thing would be "hunky-dorey" Hogwash!

Nor do I think I am extreme when it comes to being socially conservative. For instance, when it comes to abortion, my desire is to see the number of abortions drop significantly. I don't care how it is done. I just want the numbers to be minimal. I do not believe that overturning Roe will accomplish that task. I also believe that desire is shared by most people in this nation, both right and left. If we would come together on the issue, we might actually find a way to improve (meaning reduce) the numbers of abortions. BTW: I believe you and I have had this discussion before and I don't think we are all that far apart on this.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I have to laugh at wingers who are now saying that the GOP wasn't extreme enough.

They were extreme for the past 2 years, until they saw it as a losing proposition weeks away from the election. That's when Moderate Mitt came back in full force - the first debate. And they kept running to the center with their etch-a-sketches as extreme positions like birth control and abortions and Todd Akin and self-deportation, and ...

ALL losing positions by a WIDE margin. Mitt lost the single female vote by 38 points!

And here we have wingnuts saying "Mitt should have been even more conservative"

You people are deluded.

Mitt isn't conservative at all and he sure as hell wasn't the moderate you proclaim him to be. He talked the talked to win the hearts of conservatives, but it was all political tricks to attempt to win the election. It couldn't have been more evident if he had quoted Bush I, "No new taxes" or Obama, "I promise not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000".

Mitt is an elitist just like John Kerry. He would have screwed the middle class just like Obama has been doing. That is what his owners demand of him and that is what we would have gotten had he won the election.

Immie

 

[Desperado]

They would like nothing better than to witness the self destruction of the Republican party.

No worries, the Republican party will self destruct all by itself, no help needed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any one who is saying the two major parties are extreme left is certainly an extremist beyond the right far horizon.

 

[Immanuel]

Any one who is saying the two major parties are extreme left is certainly an extremist beyond the right far horizon.

You are welcome to pretend that there is a difference between the two, but looking at accomplishments, I challenge you to prove it. And before you go with the left wing's "crowning glory", Obamacare, let me remind you of the crying the Democrats did as they were shoving it down our throats, "most of the provisions of the plan were introduced by Republicans first".

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to prove anything when it is you who made the unsustainable comment, Immie: "My position is that we have two far left parties and neither one of them are worth a pile of horseshit." You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but too "far left" of what: what you think is appropriate? Prove it.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't have to prove anything when it is you who made the unsustainable comment, Immie: "My position is that we have two far left parties and neither one of them are worth a pile of horseshit." You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but too "far left" of what: what you think is appropriate? Prove it.

Well, when both parties are pushing us toward socialism, the antithesis of the idea of freedom, then both parties are "too far left".

IMHO, America has always prided itself on being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and quite frankly both parties are trying their damnedest to remove the freedom part.

Immie

 

[GuyPinestra]

You deliberately, GunPissedOnestra, change the comment. A women has the RIGHT to accept the limit of the jeopardy that a pregnancy begins.

No fetus has the RIGHT to jeopardize the mother: fact of life. The mother has the right to accept that jeopardy and deal with it as she wishes. That is the conservative position.

Here, you must've missed it...

EVERY fetus jeopardizes the mother, some more, some less, but ALL to some degree.

I didn't change a fucking LETTER, you pissant piece of shit!

And if ALL pregnancies jeopardize the mother, then ALL abortions must be allowed, according to YOUR logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. merriam-webster

Thanks, Immanuel, for demonstrating that neither party is meeting your definition of socialism.