My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[nodoginnafight]

promising handouts for votes?

Insulting people by telling them that they only voted the way they did because they want free stuff is not only a false assumption - it's counterproductive.

Regardless of the TRUTH of the statement?

Even if you believe a statement is true - a smart person will voice opinion that in a way that doesn't drive people away from his position.

 

[Newby]

promising handouts for votes?

Insulting people by telling them that they only voted the way they did because they want free stuff is not only a false assumption - it's counterproductive.

It's not a false assumption.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Again, indoctrination of the youngest generation has been successful in that as well. Sex with whoever, however, whenever, etc.. is accepted in society now. Just do whatever makes you feel good, ties in closely with abortion statistics doesn't it. We saw that whenever Clinton could get a blow job in the whitehouse from a young intern and is still seen as a political hero in the democratic party. At it's base, it's representative of a society moving towards a more ammoral existence, which typically leads to that society's downfall when looked at historically. It's easy to demoralize a society, that's human nature, it's much more difficult to stand for morals. The dems have realized this and are using it to their benefit to gain and keep power. If it follows the expected path, it won't end well for the lemmings that are following the democratic piper.

That's the core element. Most Americans don't want Christian morals shoved down their throats. Even Jesus didn't advocate that approach (remember "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?).

If you want to create a more Christian society, you don't do it at the ballot box - you do it one heart, one conversion - one person - at a time. And screaming "MURDERER" in a young woman's face, or bombing an abortion clinic, or pointing a boney finger at gays, isn't going to do the trick. If you want to minister to someone - you have to love them. If you want to love them - you're going to have to listen to them without judgement.

Is not killing your child only a 'christian moral'? They don't want any morals shoved down their throats at all. The party that let's them denegrate in immorality will be the popular party, no doubt. When you're a kid, which parent do you like best? The one that let's you do whatever you want, or the one that holds you to standards? We're going down the path where we hold ourselves to no standards, just go look at what's going on in the headlines today. The problem is that the democratic party once they feel they have enough leverage, are going to turn into the parents from hell when it's too late for anyone to do anything about it.

I am a Christian - but I don't believe abortion should be illegal because I'm a Christian. I'm against abortion because I believe that an unborn child is a human being who has a legal right to protection under the law.

If I am going to get people to accpt my position, it is MY responsibility to reach out - and to reach out in the right way - to change people's minds. Because my position is the minority position.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Insulting people by telling them that they only voted the way they did because they want free stuff is not only a false assumption - it's counterproductive.

Regardless of the TRUTH of the statement?

Even if you believe a statement is true - a smart person will voice opinion that in a way that doesn't drive people away from his position.

So the truth needs to be sugarcoated? Nope, not going to do it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

promising handouts for votes?

Insulting people by telling them that they only voted the way they did because they want free stuff is not only a false assumption - it's counterproductive.

It's not a false assumption.

It is a false assumption and an offensive false assumption. Just one more reason the majority of folks aren't seeing things your way. So just keep doing and saying the same offensive things over and over again. You think at some poit you are magically going to start getting a different result?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Regardless of the TRUTH of the statement?

Even if you believe a statement is true - a smart person will voice opinion that in a way that doesn't drive people away from his position.

So the truth needs to be sugarcoated? Nope, not going to do it.

Not sugar coated. If you are going to chastisize someone - you do it out of of real concern for their well being. You do it because you care enough to hate watching them going down a path that will not turn out good for them.

Not because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way.

See the difference?

 

[Newby]

That's the core element. Most Americans don't want Christian morals shoved down their throats. Even Jesus didn't advocate that approach (remember "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?).

If you want to create a more Christian society, you don't do it at the ballot box - you do it one heart, one conversion - one person - at a time. And screaming "MURDERER" in a young woman's face, or bombing an abortion clinic, or pointing a boney finger at gays, isn't going to do the trick. If you want to minister to someone - you have to love them. If you want to love them - you're going to have to listen to them without judgement.

Is not killing your child only a 'christian moral'? They don't want any morals shoved down their throats at all. The party that let's them denegrate in immorality will be the popular party, no doubt. When you're a kid, which parent do you like best? The one that let's you do whatever you want, or the one that holds you to standards? We're going down the path where we hold ourselves to no standards, just go look at what's going on in the headlines today. The problem is that the democratic party once they feel they have enough leverage, are going to turn into the parents from hell when it's too late for anyone to do anything about it.

I am a Christian - but I don't believe abortion should be illegal because I'm a Christian. I'm against abortion because I believe that an unborn child is a human being who has a legal right to protection under the law.

If I am going to get people to accpt my position, it is MY responsibility to reach out - and to reach out in the right way - to change people's minds. Because my position is the minority position.

I completely agree with you, but it doesn't matter why you think abortion should be illegal, because you will be labeled as a 'right wing christian nutjob' so that your position on the issue can be dismissed. It's something the democrat party has very successfully done in the last 20 years, it's what they do with every issue. They label, and through the label, they marginalize. You can scream that your religious point of view has nothing to do with it, it's too late to change the successful campaign or war they've battled against religion. Your opinion to move religion completely out of the party is based on that successful campaign that they've launched against christianity.

 

[Newby]

Insulting people by telling them that they only voted the way they did because they want free stuff is not only a false assumption - it's counterproductive.

It's not a false assumption.

It is a false assumption and an offensive false assumption. Just one more reason the majority of folks aren't seeing things your way. So just keep doing and saying the same offensive things over and over again. You think at some poit you are magically going to start getting a different result?

If I'm a legal immigrant to this country, working hard and providing for my family and not living on government handouts, then I'm not in that group that you're saying is being labeled, am I? Why would I identify with it to begin with? Just because I'm hispanic? Why aren't asians offended? Or any other group that immigrates here? Why is it only the hispanics?

 

[nodoginnafight]

but it doesn't matter why you think abortion should be illegal, because you will be labeled as a 'right wing christian nutjob'

Your screen name may reflect how new you are to these boards - but whether you really are new here or whether you just haven't seen many of my discussions on these boards - I 've been called all sorts of names before, but I can assure you it has never been 'right wing christian nutjob'

 

[Newby]

but it doesn't matter why you think abortion should be illegal, because you will be labeled as a 'right wing christian nutjob'

Your screen name may reflect how new you are to these boards - but whether you really are new here or whether you just haven't seen many of my discussions on these boards - I 've been called all sorts of names before, but I can assure you it has never been 'right wing christian nutjob'

I'm hardly new to the board, here about one month after you were, and you missed my point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

but it doesn't matter why you think abortion should be illegal, because you will be labeled as a 'right wing christian nutjob'

Your screen name may reflect how new you are to these boards - but whether you really are new here or whether you just haven't seen many of my discussions on these boards - I 've been called all sorts of names before, but I can assure you it has never been 'right wing christian nutjob'

I'm hardly new to the board, here about one month after you were, and you missed my point.

My point is that I've been called commie, libtard, and I've been told by many female posters to keep my opinions out of their womb. But I;ve never been called a Christian righwing nutjob.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Even if you believe a statement is true - a smart person will voice opinion that in a way that doesn't drive people away from his position.

So the truth needs to be sugarcoated? Nope, not going to do it.

Not sugar coated. If you are going to chastisize someone - you do it out of of real concern for their well being. You do it because you care enough to hate watching them going down a path that will not turn out good for them.

Not because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way.

See the difference?

You a mindreader now? You able to ascribe MOTIVES without evidence?

The chastisement is given out of concern for the direction this nation is heading, a direction NOT in keeping with our Founding Principles.

But you CLAIM it is "because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way."

See the difference?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the truth needs to be sugarcoated? Nope, not going to do it.

Not sugar coated. If you are going to chastisize someone - you do it out of of real concern for their well being. You do it because you care enough to hate watching them going down a path that will not turn out good for them.

Not because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way.

See the difference?

You a mindreader now? You able to ascribe MOTIVES without evidence?

The chastisement is given out of concern for the direction this nation is heading, a direction NOT in keeping with our Founding Principles.

But you CLAIM it is "because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way."

See the difference?

Evidence is abundant.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Not sugar coated. If you are going to chastisize someone - you do it out of of real concern for their well being. You do it because you care enough to hate watching them going down a path that will not turn out good for them.

Not because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way.

See the difference?

You a mindreader now? You able to ascribe MOTIVES without evidence?

The chastisement is given out of concern for the direction this nation is heading, a direction NOT in keeping with our Founding Principles.

But you CLAIM it is "because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way."

See the difference?

Evidence is abundant.

Yet you provide NONE.

Strange, that...

 

[Newby]

Your screen name may reflect how new you are to these boards - but whether you really are new here or whether you just haven't seen many of my discussions on these boards - I 've been called all sorts of names before, but I can assure you it has never been 'right wing christian nutjob'

I'm hardly new to the board, here about one month after you were, and you missed my point.

My point is that I've been called commie, libtard, and I've been told by many female posters to keep my opinions out of their womb. But I;ve never been called a Christian righwing nutjob.

Do you deny that people who hold an anti-abortion stance are not labeled as 'trying to shove their religious values down other people's throats'? I've tried to argue the same point that you did earlier, that it has nothing to do with my religious viewpoints, that it has to do with being morally wrong. Atheists somehow manage to understand that murder is wrong without believing in a religion, so why leftists insist that anyone who champions morals is doing so out of religious ferver is the question. The answer to that question is that it's the easist way to apply identity politics and marginalize your opponent's opinion as being obsolete. That is what the left does. If you've made the anti-abortion claim and you haven't been told to quit forcing your religious views on others, then you should play the lottery sometime soon.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the truth needs to be sugarcoated? Nope, not going to do it.

Not sugar coated. If you are going to chastisize someone - you do it out of of real concern for their well being. You do it because you care enough to hate watching them going down a path that will not turn out good for them.

Not because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way.

See the difference?

You a mindreader now? You able to ascribe MOTIVES without evidence?

The chastisement is given out of concern for the direction this nation is heading, a direction NOT in keeping with our Founding Principles.

But you CLAIM it is "because you're a pouty little brat who didn't get his way."

See the difference?

Just re-read this and I see that you thought I was calling YOU a pouty little brat. And I can see how you got that from what I wrote so poorly. I apologize. I did NOT mean to call you that. I was trying to point out the juxtaposition of the two extremes. I was very clumsey at it and I apologize.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm hardly new to the board, here about one month after you were, and you missed my point.

My point is that I've been called commie, libtard, and I've been told by many female posters to keep my opinions out of their womb. But I;ve never been called a Christian righwing nutjob.

Do you deny that people who hold an anti-abortion stance are not labeled as 'trying to shove their religious values down other people's throats'? I've tried to argue the same point that you did earlier, that it has nothing to do with my religious viewpoints, that it has to do with being morally wrong. Atheists somehow manage to understand that murder is wrong without believing in a religion, so why leftists insist that anyone who champions morals is doing so out of religious ferver is the question. The answer to that question is that it's the easist way to apply identity politics and marginalize your opponent's opinion as being obsolete. That is what the left does. If you've made the anti-abortion claim and you haven't been told to quit forcing your religious views on others, then you should play the lottery sometime soon.

Maybe I should try the lottery. But yes, BOTH parties try to marginalize people they disagree with. Some do it by calling their opponents religious wackos - others do it by calling them people who just want free stuff.

It happens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Santa Fe is squarely conservative: government-funded activities cannot show partiality to religion. That is mainstream Republicanism. You can pray all you want: you just can't disrupt the educational process or coerce your neighbor as part of your prayers.

Abortion only for rape, incest, and health of the mother is clearly mainstream GOP.

Anti-immigration is no longer mainstream GOP policy.

Anti-gay legislation is no longer mainstream GOP policy.

Reasonable compromise on the fiscal issue will become mainstream GOP policy in the next three weeks.

You are much further right than you are pretending.

Santa Fe ISD comes to mind. SCOTUS ruled correctly.

That was in 2000 (i.e. almost 13 years ago) and has nothing to do with the any stance the GOP had then, let alone today. And isn't 'prayer' allowed in any religion, is it strictly a Christian cincept? This is pretty weak. Any legislation they're putting forward today? So you side with the democrat party again on this one? Unless you have some other example to back this up?

So far your republican value is that you're against abortion except for incest, rape, or mother's life. The other topics you side more with the democrat party.

 

[Newby]

Santa Fe is squarely conservative: government-funded activities cannot show partiality to religion. That is mainstream Republicanism. You can pray all you want: you just can't disrupt the educational process or coerce your neighbor as part of your prayers.

Abortion only for rape, incest, and health of the mother is clearly mainstream GOP.

Anti-immigration is no longer mainstream GOP policy.

Anti-gay legislation is no longer mainstream GOP policy.

Reasonable compromise on the fiscal issue will become mainstream GOP policy in the next three weeks.

You are much further right than you are pretending.

Santa Fe ISD comes to mind. SCOTUS ruled correctly.

That was in 2000 (i.e. almost 13 years ago) and has nothing to do with the any stance the GOP had then, let alone today. And isn't 'prayer' allowed in any religion, is it strictly a Christian cincept? This is pretty weak. Any legislation they're putting forward today? So you side with the democrat party again on this one? Unless you have some other example to back this up?

So far your republican value is that you're against abortion except for incest, rape, or mother's life. The other topics you side more with the democrat party.

Anti-immigration or anti illegal immigration? There is a difference. 'Mainstream GOP' is defined by what exactly? What are you using to define it?

Conservative is 'right', you are not conservartive, at least you're not socially.
I could care less about gay legislation, personally I'm tired of hearing about it.

What's 'reasonable' compromise to you? I think they should let the Bush tax cuts expire completely.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Abortion only for rape, incest, and health of the mother is clearly mainstream GOP.

Then why doesn't the platform say that? Why doesn't the VP nominee say that?