My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[Si modo]

"Conservatives"?????

Social or fiscal?

Decide for craps sake, GOP. You cannot be both.

I think you can be both, but which is more important? Liberals have convinced a majority of voters that the 'social' is more important simply because they don't understand the fiscal. The social is easier to explain to the unwashed masses, and they haven't felt the full brunt of the fiscal yet, 'yet' being the key word there. Take the 'war on women' lie, easy to spread, easy for young and uneducated/uninformed voters to understand. When you ask them specifics (cause I have), they can't tell you which rights are in jeapordy, or how they will be in jeapordy, etc.. Take the issue of our national debt with all of it's complexities and try to relay that in an 'easy to understand' message to the masses. It's almost impossible. They won't understand it until they have to live it.

Oh, I DO believe one cannot be both. Social conservatism requires more laws - more money.

When we try to legislate morality, we make even MORE government. Ugh. And, it's just NOT going to happen. Americans like their liberty.

Now, how Obama and his supporters reconcile social liberty with mandates to buy health insurance is beyond me.

And, how the GOP can reconcile social conservatism with smaller government is beyond me.

Somebody needs to bring Goldwater back to life.....

 

[kwc57]

Maybe you folks should stop demonizing Americans, stop trying to force you social values on others, stick to bread and butter issues and promote working together and compromise.

Now that's rich coming from a Democrat.

 

[4Horsemen]

"Conservatives"?????

Social or fiscal?

Decide for craps sake, GOP. You cannot be both.

I think you can be both, but which is more important? Liberals have convinced a majority of voters that the 'social' is more important simply because they don't understand the fiscal. The social is easier to explain to the unwashed masses, and they haven't felt the full brunt of the fiscal yet, 'yet' being the key word there. Take the 'war on women' lie, easy to spread, easy for young and uneducated/uninformed voters to understand. When you ask them specifics (cause I have), they can't tell you which rights are in jeapordy, or how they will be in jeapordy, etc.. Take the issue of our national debt with all of it's complexities and try to relay that in an 'easy to understand' message to the masses. It's almost impossible. They won't understand it until they have to live it.

The only way to educate them is to let them feel the consequences. The Bush tax cuts need to expire for ALL. The payroll tax cut needs to expire for ALL. The few shouldn't have to shoulder the whole burden so that the many can get a free ride. They hired the piper. Let them help pay him.

Good point. the idiot Obamabots cried for the cuts to expire. Now let's see if they practice what they've been preachig and get their lazy asses out here into the workforce and help us get it right.

Because I've NEVER been hired by a homeless person or a welfare recipient..

 

[Foxfyre]

Like many of you, I went to bed in near tears last night and woke up depressed this morning. But after thinking it through, there are some things to consider:

1. Romney, despite how miuch some of you have perceived him to be a flip flopper or sending mixed messages, is a very decent, honest, capable, successful person. He is what many of us believed America needed at this particular time to address the most critical issues. But what if he had no chance and would have been blocked at every juncture and ripped to shreds? What if that left the perception that his very good ideas were in fact failures? We would have gained nothing and would have lost traction to restore the best of what America has been and is when we do have the opportunity to do that.

2. Maybe we need four more years of lethargy and wrong headedness to bring the country to its senses and clear the path for a genuine leader of principle, courage, and right ideas to succeed? I dunno. But fighting academia, Hollywood, the media, and a small but persistent group of 'libertarians' who didn't care if they were spoilers is a really tough hurdle for any candidate of any caliber to get over.

3. But if America is not strong enough to withstand four more years of somebody like Obama, we are doomed anyway. I prefer to believe that most of us still hold similar values in our hearts and that most of us still believe in the same things, and we will endure.

 

[Newby]

"Conservatives"?????

Social or fiscal?

Decide for craps sake, GOP. You cannot be both.

I think you can be both, but which is more important? Liberals have convinced a majority of voters that the 'social' is more important simply because they don't understand the fiscal. The social is easier to explain to the unwashed masses, and they haven't felt the full brunt of the fiscal yet, 'yet' being the key word there. Take the 'war on women' lie, easy to spread, easy for young and uneducated/uninformed voters to understand. When you ask them specifics (cause I have), they can't tell you which rights are in jeapordy, or how they will be in jeapordy, etc.. Take the issue of our national debt with all of it's complexities and try to relay that in an 'easy to understand' message to the masses. It's almost impossible. They won't understand it until they have to live it.

Oh, I DO believe one cannot be both. Social conservatism requires more laws - more money.

When we try to legislate morality, we make even MORE government. Ugh. And, it's just NOT going to happen. Americans like their liberty.

Now, how Obama and his supporters reconcile social liberty with mandates to buy health insurance is beyond me.

And, how the GOP can reconcile social conservatism with smaller government is beyond me.

Somebody needs to bring Goldwater back to life.....

Great points, I understand where you're coming from, and I agree. I guess I meant on an individual level you can be both, i.e. doesn't necessarily mean that you want your social values enforced via government. And Obama and company can allow social liberty in some areas and then mandate in others because they are not about liberty. They are about giving in some places where it actually helps their agenda, i.e. abortion, 'free' birth control, etc.. because those types of things empower them, just like controling healthcare will empower them. It's always about control and power, and ultimately money, not liberty.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We stand for the global initiative now.
Our constitution has got to go. And what remains of it after Obama realizes the dreams from his father, will be dealt with by Hillary when she takes over. And we will continue to clap and vote for the demise of our sovereignty.

 

[4Horsemen]

Like many of you, I went to bed in near tears last night and woke up depressed this morning. But after thinking it through, there are some things to consider:

2. Maybe we need four more years of lethargy and wrong headedness to bring the country to its senses and clear the path for a genuine leader of principle, courage, and right ideas to succeed? I dunno. But fighting academia, Hollywood, the media, and a small but persistent group of 'libertarians' who didn't care if they were spoilers is a really tough hurdle for any candidate of any caliber to get over.

3. But if America is not strong enough to withstand four more years of somebody like Obama, we are doomed anyway. I prefer to believe that most of us still hold similar values in our hearts and that most of us still believe in the same things, and we will endure.

My Ol' Man told me once, and only once, "Son, don't play with that hornets nest, you will regret it"....I didn't listen and got stung 5 times around my face,neck and arms, and my face and arms swole up like a grapefruit for a week.

This is what has to happen to America before people wake up. Americans are so gotdamn jaded, most of them could see Sherman tanks rolling down their street and they would blow it off as a training excercise.

So I believe bloodshed is an inevitable end in this country. When blood is spilled people take notice.

 

[editec]

..and yet we run most of corporate America. Go ahead, keep messing with us.

By "we" I presume you mean Republicans?

I have my doubts about that cherished theory of yours.

 

[4Horsemen]

We stand for the global initiative now.
Our constitution has got to go. And what remains of it after Obama realizes the dreams from his father, will be dealt with by Hillary when she takes over. And we will continue to clap and vote for the demise of our sovereignty.

This is what will trigger the bloodshed that I just spoke on in my post prior to this one.

 

[kwc57]

Republicans, until you bust out of the delusion bubble put so prominently on display by this thread, you're going to keep losing.

You're the exact opposite of a coalition party. You went all-in on catering solely to angry white males, and lost big. Angry white males are a shrinking demographic, so you're going to lose even bigger in the future if you don't expand your base. Yet your angry current base forbids you from expanding your base.

Sucks to be you. You have no good options. So it's easiest just remain in lalalaland, yelling that you just have to keep doing the same old things that failed, but with more fervor! And we'll get to watch the Republican Party's slow slide into becoming a regional Bible-belt party, with no power on the national level.

You're on a oneway trip to Greece. How's that for cutting your nose off to spite your face? See you at the riot in a few years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well it is no secret that I am a huge Si Modo fan and we are closely aligned on many/most areas of principle. But I gotta disagree on one here.

You CAN be a social AND fiscal conservative IF you understand the principles of liberty the Founders intended. Their concept of the federal government was that it would secure our unalienable rights to choose for ourselves, but liberty cannot include choosing for everybody else. Therefore a federal ban on abortion, for instance, would be an illegal restriction on individual liberty, but so would a federal law that requires everybody to accept and fund abortion.

Therefore if a community or a state does not want to allow abortion, that should be their right. And if a community or state does want to allow abortion, that should be their right. And the federal government should stay out of it.

When this country was founded you had almost every value system represented among the colonies from places in their hellfire days to narrow minded, rigid little theocracies. But that was true freedom in which the people themselves determined what sort of society they wanted to live in and did not presume to impose their value system on everybody else. And the Founders trusted the people to work out their difficulties, to eliminate the bad, and choose the better path. And over time, they did.

And THAT is what social conservatism looks like.

 

[Newby]

Well it is no secret that I am a huge Si Modo fan and we are closely aligned on many/most areas of principle. But I gotta disagree on one here.

You CAN be a social AND fiscal conservative IF you understand the principles of liberty the Founders intended. Their concept of the federal government was that it would secure our unalienable rights to choose for ourselves, but liberty cannot include choosing for everybody else. Therefore a federal ban on abortion, for instance, would be an illegal restriction on individual liberty, but so would a federal law that requires everybody to accept and fund abortion.

Therefore if a community or a state does not want to allow abortion, that should be their right. And if a community or state does want to allow abortion, that should be their right. And the federal government should stay out of it.

When this country was founded you had almost every value system represented among the colonies from places in their hellfire days to narrow minded, rigid little theocracies. But that was true freedom in which the people themselves determined what sort of society they wanted to live in and did not presume to impose their value system on everybody else. And the Founders trusted the people to work out their difficulties, to eliminate the bad, and choose the better path. And over time, they did.

And THAT is what social conservatism looks like.

Very well said as usual, Fox...

That concept and that historical lesson, which would teach that concept, is what has been purposely removed from our education system for the last 30 to 40 years and why we are where we are today.

 

[kwc57]

"Conservatives"?????

Social or fiscal?

Decide for craps sake, GOP. You cannot be both.

I think you can be both, but which is more important? Liberals have convinced a majority of voters that the 'social' is more important simply because they don't understand the fiscal. The social is easier to explain to the unwashed masses, and they haven't felt the full brunt of the fiscal yet, 'yet' being the key word there. Take the 'war on women' lie, easy to spread, easy for young and uneducated/uninformed voters to understand. When you ask them specifics (cause I have), they can't tell you which rights are in jeapordy, or how they will be in jeapordy, etc.. Take the issue of our national debt with all of it's complexities and try to relay that in an 'easy to understand' message to the masses. It's almost impossible. They won't understand it until they have to live it.

Oh, I DO believe one cannot be both. Social conservatism requires more laws - more money.

When we try to legislate morality, we make even MORE government. Ugh. And, it's just NOT going to happen. Americans like their liberty.

Now, how Obama and his supporters reconcile social liberty with mandates to buy health insurance is beyond me.

And, how the GOP can reconcile social conservatism with smaller government is beyond me.

Somebody needs to bring Goldwater back to life.....

I usually refer to social conservatives as socialist conservatives. Just like the socialist liberals, they seek to use legislative power to mold the world into an image they desire, they just happen to be at polar opposites as to what that world should look like. Republicans need to drop the social side of things in favor of liberty and freedom and concentrate on the fiscal side. But that's the libertarian in me coming out.

 

[Si modo]

Well it is no secret that I am a huge Si Modo fan and we are closely aligned on many/most areas of principle. But I gotta disagree on one here.

You CAN be a social AND fiscal conservative IF you understand the principles of liberty the Founders intended. Their concept of the federal government was that it would secure our unalienable rights to choose for ourselves, but liberty cannot include choosing for everybody else. Therefore a federal ban on abortion, for instance, would be an illegal restriction on individual liberty, but so would a federal law that requires everybody to accept and fund abortion.

Therefore if a community or a state does not want to allow abortion, that should be their right. And if a community or state does want to allow abortion, that should be their right. And the federal government should stay out of it.

When this country was founded you had almost every value system represented among the colonies from places in their hellfire days to narrow minded, rigid little theocracies. But that was true freedom in which the people themselves determined what sort of society they wanted to live in and did not presume to impose their value system on everybody else. And the Founders trusted the people to work out their difficulties, to eliminate the bad, and choose the better path. And over time, they did.

And THAT is what social conservatism looks like.

I really don't think we are disagreeing. Newby clarified that she meant individually one can be both. I agree. Not that I am both, but Newby is right.

And, you are saying something similar, IMO. Keep the government OUT of social decisions. Don't MAKE folks pay for BC or abortion if it is against their principles, religious or otherwise. On the flipside, don't MAKE BC or abortions illegal. Let the folks decide, as a group and individually.

It's just not necessary to have so many laws.

 

[courseofhistory]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you can be both, but which is more important? Liberals have convinced a majority of voters that the 'social' is more important simply because they don't understand the fiscal. The social is easier to explain to the unwashed masses, and they haven't felt the full brunt of the fiscal yet, 'yet' being the key word there. Take the 'war on women' lie, easy to spread, easy for young and uneducated/uninformed voters to understand. When you ask them specifics (cause I have), they can't tell you which rights are in jeapordy, or how they will be in jeapordy, etc.. Take the issue of our national debt with all of it's complexities and try to relay that in an 'easy to understand' message to the masses. It's almost impossible. They won't understand it until they have to live it.

Oh, I DO believe one cannot be both. Social conservatism requires more laws - more money.

When we try to legislate morality, we make even MORE government. Ugh. And, it's just NOT going to happen. Americans like their liberty.

Now, how Obama and his supporters reconcile social liberty with mandates to buy health insurance is beyond me.

And, how the GOP can reconcile social conservatism with smaller government is beyond me.

Somebody needs to bring Goldwater back to life.....

I usually refer to social conservatives as socialist conservatives. Just like the socialist liberals, they seek to use legislative power to mold the world into an image they desire, they just happen to be at polar opposites as to what that world should look like. Republicans need to drop the social side of things in favor of liberty and freedom and concentrate on the fiscal side. But that's the libertarian in me coming out.

No they don't. Republicans must be as entitled to their moral convictions as anybody else is. But those Republicans who would force their moral convictions on everybody else are no more conservative than are Democrats who would force their moral convictions on everybody else. True modern American conservatism is a live and let live principle that allows the people freedom to form whatever sort of society they wish to have so long as they do not infringe on anybody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That means the federal government stays out of it and community A does their own thing and allows community B to do its own thing. And each community doesn't try to force their thing on the other.

 

[4Horsemen]

Republicans need to quit putting up radicals for election. Romney seemed moderate after he adjusted his true beliefs to this campaign but deep down inside he was too right leaning for the majority. Until they adjust to the demographics in this country and the national mood, they will almost always lose.

Obama is a fuckin leftist Radical. where are your intellectual manners?

 

[uscitizen]

You'd be better off applying for a Government job. that's all there is left now. Capitalism is dead

government is the latest form of capitalism. Endorsed by most of the right and left in congress.

How many businesses would fold without govt dollars flowing into them?
Remember the whine about so many jobs lost if we cut defense spending?

If the only employer left on the block is the Government, you might as well start eating dirt.

The govt has had to bail out businesses too big to fail.
We are already eating expensive corporate dirt.

 

[amrchaos]

How about extending early voting and encouraging conservatives to take advantage of it!!

Here in Florida, many conservatives were putting off early voting and even deriding it as a means for the left to cheat. But when election day came along, I found myself in line for hours and I still didn't vote because I had to attend to other business.

Lesson learned here--take advantage of the early voting system to avoid unforeseen problems on election day--such as not enough ballots and blundering pollworkers. At least this way you can comeback the next day and cast your ballot if something were to happen on the first day you went to vote.

Is this the kind of assessment you are talking about Missourian?

Examining some of the problems, giving an honest assessement on how to resolve regardless of partisan attitudes and beliefs?

That only works with Moderates, not partisans.

 

[Skull Pilot]

government is the latest form of capitalism. Endorsed by most of the right and left in congress.

How many businesses would fold without govt dollars flowing into them?
Remember the whine about so many jobs lost if we cut defense spending?

If the only employer left on the block is the Government, you might as well start eating dirt.

The govt has had to bail out businesses too big to fail.
We are already eating expensive corporate dirt.

And guess what the fucking banks are bigger than ever and there are less smaller banks than before the meltdown.

So what do you call a business that is even bigger than when it was too big to fail?