Conservatism Has Lost Touch With Reality

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309970856' post='2263650']
Are we playing the question game

If so, would it bother you if I told you that we are all "Phorum police" in the sense that we can point out infractions and stupidity?
[/quote]


then is it stupid to jump down other's throat when they ask "someone else" a question that they clarify their position?

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1309971880' post='2263654']
then is it stupid to jump down other's throat when they ask "someone else" a question that they clarify their position?
[/quote]

Have I "jumped down" your throat and forgotten about it? Is that how you interpreted the general statement I made regarding the Phatmass Inquisition before politely asking you to leave her alone?

And aren't you just still sour at me because I mistakenly called you a woman after mistaking you for someone else that used to be around here?

[MIKolbe]

both of you, play nice and get back on topic...

thanks

[kujo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1309973073' post='2263666']
both of you, play nice and get back on topic...

thanks
[/quote]

Good call.

The modern Republican party is too enamored with social issues. Get back to logical, sensible, political conservatism and leave the Bible thumping to the preachers and pinheads.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309973458' post='2263669']
Good call.

The modern Republican party is too enamored with social issues. Get back to logical, sensible, political conservatism and leave the Bible thumping to the preachers and pinheads.
[/quote]
Taking a moral stand on the "social issues" is perfectly logical and sensible. And quite frankly, I wish more Republican politicians would actually put their money where their mouth is regarding so-called "social issues" such as abortion and the state sponsoring homosexual "marriage."

I don't see what's so sensible about federal judges trying to enforce homosexual "marriage" on a state against the will of the people of that state, nor of the federal government forcing tax-payers to fund the killing of millions of unborn children. Any conservative politician with half a spine should take a strong stance against such abominations.

It seems to me that it's the Democratic Party that's obsessed with these "social issues" from a negative standpoint - insisting on homosexual marriage to the point of federal judges over-ruling the will of the people, and on funding abortions in this country and around the world with your and my tax money.


Respect for "traditional" morality has always been a cornerstone of true conservatism.

Russel Kirk, one of the founding fathers of the American conservative movement listed belief in an "enduring moral order" as the first of his famous "[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/Kirk10Principles.php"]Ten Conservative Principles[/url]."

But I'll leave you with some thoughts from a few "pinheads."

[b][i]"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams, 1798

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." ~ George Washington[/i][/b]


Finally, from our Holy Father:
[quote][b]If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.[/b] Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

[b]When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.[/b]

[b]When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.[/b] If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.[/quote]
(From:[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url])

Edited July 6, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1309964509' post='2263615']
It is not nationalism. It is their desire to run this country and
the world like religious dictators.
[/quote]
Can you give a specific instance of a conservative acting as a "religious dictator"?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1309897829' post='2263330']
If tax rates are seen as too high, then removing loopholes would be objectionable. It would serve the same function as raising the tax rate. I understand the opposition. It's a different way of avoiding reduction in government power. Loopholes are a function of complex laws.

That article is written from the perspective that the government is entitled to the taxes it's already set and that the laws regarding taxes are acceptable.

It appeals to nameless scholars and states that the Republicans reject them. It fails to mention which system these scholars adhere to, not to mention that the scholars are basing their statements on theories. These "scholars" probably supported stimulus. But we don't know. It's a non-breathless hatchet piece. There is no depth, no discussion of an option of private solutions--in fact, the writer is certain that education must be ministered by the state--these programs will be cut and the Republicans (who are not a "normal" party) are willing to let education (by which the author means State supported education) be cut rather than allow taxes to be raised even a little. One might as well justify cooperating with a mugger who is willing to take only a portion of the money in your wallet. Alas, Republicans are willing to cut (government funded) research rather than cooperate with the system and permit it to only increase its power a little more. Thus it can wait, intact, for the day when more normal parties are in power.

The writer laments long term limits on government, yet subscribes to the world view in which education and research must be ministered by government. There will be no long term limits on government with such a mindset.

Yes, in this tax levels are everything. The amount of tax to which a government feels entitled is a good indicator of its perception of power over the people. The author views taxes as a small part of economic policy, failing to recognize that there is a faction that regards the government as unnecessary (indeed, as illustrated by the Great Depression) even destructive in planning the economy. He presupposes the need for government to involved itself in monitoring and taking an active role in the private economy. He either does not understand what he's arguing against or doesn't care. I'm guessing at the former, because the notion of central planning is deeply ingrained in modern citizens.

Hatchet piece. A calmly worded piece, but the words it chooses to employ to describe the Republican and the "odd" protest against government power is telling.

The Republicans in this current tax fight are no longer the conservatives--they are the liberals (or what best passes for liberals, outside of Libertarians).


Kujo's article quote is what I'm responding to.
[/quote]
Well said. I agree 100%.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309975580' post='2263683']
Taking a moral stand on the "social issues" is perfectly logical and sensible. And quite frankly, I wish more Republican politicians would actually put their money where their mouth is regarding so-called "social issues" such as abortion and the state sponsoring homosexual "marriage."

I don't see what's so sensible about federal judges trying to enforce homosexual "marriage" on a state against the will of the people of that state, nor of the federal government forcing tax-payers to fund the killing of millions of unborn children. Any conservative politician with half a spine should take a strong stance against such abominations.

Respect for "traditional" morality has always been a cornerstone of true conservatism.

Russel Kirk, one of the founding fathers of the American conservative movement listed belief in an "enduring moral order" as the first of his famous "[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/Kirk10Principles.php"]Ten Conservative Principles[/url]."

But I'll leave you with some thoughts from a few "pinheads."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams, 1798

"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." ~ George Washington


Finally, from our Holy Father:
[/quote]

Do you have a book of religious quotes from the Founding Fathers? You spit out new ones almost every day!

Well, I've got a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in January of 1797 by President John Adams:

[quote]As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[/quote]

I believe this is one of those arguments without an end. The role of religion and morality in legislation and governance is an issue that you and I have never agreed upon in the 6 years or so that I've been on this board.

[Jesus_lol]

how about women getting charged with murder when they miscarry a baby? that isnt cool.

and on numerous occassions the founding fathers made it clear that the USA is not a christian nation.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309983814' post='2263745']
and on numerous occassions the founding fathers made it clear that the USA is not a christian nation.
[/quote]
I would say that the United States is a Christian "nation," but not a Christian "government." We are not ruled by any church, but Christian religion has always been part of the essence of the nation.

Rather than quoting a Founding Father, I'll quote Walt Whitman, the poet who devoted himself to expressing America. In his preface to "Leaves of Grass" he writes:

[quote]There will soon be no more priests. Their work is done. They may wait awhile … perhaps a generation or two … dropping off by degrees. A superior breed shall take their place … the gangs of kosmos and prophets en masse shall take their place. A new order shall arise and they shall be the priests of man, and every man shall be his own priest. The churches built under their umbrage shall be the churches of men and women. Through the divinity of themselves shall the kosmos and the new breed of poets be interpreters of men and women and of all events and things. They shall find their inspiration in real objects to-day, symptoms of the past and future… . They shall not deign to defend immortality or God or the perfection of things or liberty or the exquisite beauty and reality of the soul. They shall arise in America and be responded to from the remainder of the earth.[/quote]
Yet in his poem "Starting from Paumanok" he writes:

[quote]I say that the real and permanent grandeur of These States must be their Religion;
Otherwise there is no real and permanent grandeur:
(Nor character, nor life worthy the name, without Religion;
Nor land, nor man or woman, without Religion.)

...

My comrade!
For you, to share with me, two greatnesses—and a third one, rising inclusive and more resplendent,
The greatness of Love and Democracy—and the greatness of Religion.[/quote]
Part of the American tradition is both a fervent Christian religiosity and the First Amendment.

American politicians do not represent themselves, nor do they represent a church or a king, they represent the people. Since the founding of the United States, the Christian religion was part of who the American people were. So, while our government is not Christian, that doesn't mean the nation isn't. George Washington explicitly mentions religion in his Farewell Address:

[quote]Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. [/quote]

Edited July 6, 2011 by Era Might

[Papist]

Politics is about getting elected and reelected and reelected and reelected and reelected and reelected...

[Jesus_lol]

lol i just found this...

[quote name='bruce linder']
You might be a republican if...



1) You believe George W. Bush’s redistribution of middle-class tax cuts to the top 1% of tax-payers was good for America, but Obama’s plan to return it to the middle class is ‘socialism.’2) You believe stem cells are living human beings, but thousands of Iraqi children are ‘expendable collateral damage.’

3) You believe tax cuts for billionaires is a great idea, yet you wonder why the economy has stalled, your job just got outsourced to India, and oil company executives receive $400,000,000.00 retirement packages.

4) You believe the surge worked because the violence in Iraq is back to 2006 levels, which is only horrible, compared to what it was in 2007; intolerable. Besides, Brit Hume said so.

5) You think trial lawyers are harmful to America, yet you support prosecuting some guy in Muncie Indiana who burned his 99¢ American flag that was made in China by forced child labor.

6) You’re all for the ‘rule of law’ when it’s applied to Bill Clinton for lying about his infidelity, but not for prosecuting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for committing treason.

7) You think George W. Bush is actually a really smart guy, but his folksy manner just makes him seem dumber than he really is.

8) You believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own, and that those who are born to poverty and never have opportunities for advancement, got what they deserved.

9) You believe Ronald Reagan was a great president who had complete control of all aspects of government, but the Iran-Contra Affair was an insignificant scandal that went on without his knowledge.

10) You believe Democrats tax and spend, but George W. Bush was a fiscal conservative.

11) You believe Oliver North, who was CONVICTED of perjury, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence and accepting bribes, is a patriot. But John Kerry, who saved a man’s life while under enemy fire in Vietnam is a coward.

12) You believe George W. Bush kept us safe from terror, and the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks were Clinton’s fault.

13) You actually believe Fox News is fair & balanced.

14) You still believe Saddam had truckloads of WMDs, and that he somehow managed to sneak them into Syria, right under our noses.

15) You believe Terri Schiavo was sentient all along, and Bill Frist had the ability to diagnose her condition by watching a 5 second video of her sleeping.

16) You’re in favor of stronger prison sentences for drug users, yet your favorite radio personality is Rush Limbaugh.

17) You complain about having to press 1 for English, yet you hire undocumented workers to mow your lawn because they’re cheaper than hiring the kid next door.

18) Homosexuality is abhorrent to you, except when a Republican senator, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a planted White House journalist get caught having sexual affairs with gay men. Then you suddenly feel sorry for them.

19) The war in Iraq makes perfect sense to you, but any suggestion by Barack Obama that we target al Qaeda specifically is ‘dangerous and reckless.’

20) You don’t mind that president Bush tortured men who were never charged with a crime, yet you’re horrified by the wrath of al Qaeda when they capture one of our guys.

21) You believe the 1/10 of 1% of scientists who claim global warming is a hoax, and reject the 99.9% who say it’s real, because Sean Hannity and his friends in the oil industry have convinced you that science is a part of a greater liberal conspiracy.

22) You believe patriotism means you should support your government right or wrong … unless a Democrat’s in power, then it’s your patriotic duty to call him a closet Muslim, challenge his birth certificate, expose his sex life and impeach him.

23) You’re proud of your party’s ‘culture of life.’ Yet you support the death penalty for minors, you believe 600,000 dead Iraqis is justified because one of them was Saddam Hussein, and you oppose confronting the genocide in Darfur because they don’t have oil.

24) You support prayer in school, as long as your kids aren’t subjected to Muslim prayers.

25) You think Darwin’s theory of evolution is a loony fairy tale, and mankind actually began with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.

26) You think $35 billion spent on health care for children is a waste of taxpayer’s money, but $1.7 trillion spent on a catastrophic war that has isolated us from our allies, decimated our economy and made us less safe was money well spent.

27) You believe embargoing communist Cuba is sound foreign policy, but trading with China is just good business.

28) You believe Bill Clinton was an immoral cad, but Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were faithful husbands (and Larry Craig just has a wide stance).

29) You fervently defend the Constitution, but when president Bush got caught monitoring 300 million phones without a warrant, politicizing our justice system, hyping evidence for going to war and pardoning a convicted perjurer who just happened to be on his staff, then it’s okay, because he was ‘protecting America.’

30) You were outraged when a gallon of gasoline went from $1.29 to $1.40 during the two terms of the Clinton presidency, but you didn’t seem to mind when prices tripled under George W. Bush, the “oil man.”

31) You were furious when Bill Clinton pardoned international commodities trader Marc Rich, who was convicted of tax evasion, but applauded when George W. Bush exonerated Scooter Libby for obstructing justice to protect Johnsonville brat Cheney from a treason indictment.

32) With no evidence whatsoever, you complained of ‘voter fraud,’ and demanded that thousands of blacks be scrubbed from voting lists during the 2004 election in Ohio, yet when Rush Limbaugh asked his audience to illegally claim to be Democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton during the Ohio Primary in February to “stir up trouble,” a FELONY, you were okay with that.

33) You believe Barack Obama should be held accountable for every sermon that Jeremiah Wright ever gave, but John McCain, who sought the endorsement of anti-Semitic, xenophobic, openly racist and homophobic pastors should be given a pass.

34) You believe Barack Obama is either a secret Muslim, was actually born in Kenya, and his parents forged a fake birth certificate when he was born – just in case he should ever run for president, or that his father’s nationality disqualifies his son from being president, all because you read that on the Internet.

35) You believe the 8 consecutive years of prosperity and strong economic growth from 1993 – 2001 was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, but today’s recession is all Clinton’s and Obama’s fault.

36) You laugh at how much better Barack Obama speaks with a TelePrompTer than without one, yet you never mention the fact that even with a TelePrompTer, every time George Bush opened his mouth, gibberish tumbled out.

37) You still believe Barack Obama has somehow succeeded in fooling every government and independent examination with his “obviously Photoshopped” documents. Instead, you rely on Internet gossip, WorldNetDaily and Jerome Corsi as your sources for “truth.”

38) Your conservative media spent more air time discussing Michelle Obama touching the queen of England’s arm than on the economy, the environment, terrorism and health care combined.

39) You believe that we should get out of Afghanistan because Obama is “nation building,” yet for eight straight years of Bush’s bumbling incompetence there, you kept mum. Therefore, attacking Iraq makes sense, even though they never threatened us, but finishing off the job of finding Osama bin Laden; the terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans — Bush’s original task — is a dumb idea.

40) You were furious that Barack Obama admitted in France that Americans have occasionally been “arrogant, dismissive and derisive,” but you cheered them on when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arrogant, dismissive and derisive.

41) You believe that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget is an outrage, but never once complained that George Bush turned Bill Clinton’s $300 billion surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And it never once occurred to you that Bush deliberately omitted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from those statistics, which means Bush’s TRUE deficit was $3.1 trillion.

42) You supported Gov. Sarah Palin, partly because you believed she kept a good Christian home. This, despite the fact that her seventeen year old unmarried daughter was knocked up, her son was accused of vandalizing 44 school buses (cutting the brake lines of school buses – HELLO!!?) and was given the choice of going to jail or join the military, and Palin herself was found guilty of abusing the power of her office. But Barack Obama can’t possibly be a true Christian, because his father was a Muslim, and his middle name is Hussein. (Besides, he’s black, and everybody knows that Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed white man.)

43) You believe the only solution to gun violence is to make sure everybody is armed to the teeth. That way, when some crazy person goes on a killing spree, right-thinking people will take out the killer, and tranquility will prevail throughout the land.

44) You believe the mainstream news anchors are crazy, biased and filled with hate, but Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are rational, accurate and informative.

45) You defend Rush Limbaugh’s right to wish for Obama to fail, and therefore, the failure of our republic, yet you call Democrats the “blame America first crowd.”

46) You claim that the economic crisis is the fault of the Democrats, but never mention that it was the Reagan administration that massively deregulated the banking industry in 1982, and it was Phil Gramm – McCain’s choice for economic advisor – who completed the task for his pals in the banking industry in 1999.

47) You believe the failure of the US automobile industry is primarily the fault of the unions, and not because management of the three corporations insisted on producing vehicles that nobody wanted. And you’re angry with the $28.00 per hour average wage of the work force, but you believe that the multimillion dollar salaries of the men who bankrupted the industry are perfectly reasonable.

48) You believe Barack Obama is a “narcissistic megalomaniac,” because you heard Glenn Beck call him that once, but Beck himself is a humble man, concerned only for your welfare (brought to you by Goldline!).

49) You believe anybody who doesn’t subscribe to Orly Taitz’ birther movement is a RINO, and those who do, are carrying the torch of Reaganism.

50) You think this list is mean-spirited and biased, and even though you privately acknowledge to yourself that it’s all true, you believe the Democrats are just as bad. Here’s a bulletin: Nobody has ever been this bad.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309976031' post='2263688']
Do you have a book of religious quotes from the Founding Fathers? You spit out new ones almost every day![/quote]
I mostly just quote the same relevant ones repeatedly. The Adams quote is pretty well known.

They're pretty easy to find online, though the site I originally used is no longer up.

[quote]Well, I've got a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in January of 1797 by President John Adams:



I believe this is one of those arguments without an end. The role of religion and morality in legislation and governance is an issue that you and I have never agreed upon in the 6 years or so that I've been on this board.[/quote]
President Adams in that treaty was essentially reaffirming the principle of the First Amendment that the US had no official national religion (Establishment of Religion), and as such, would not wage war on the Muslims on religious grounds.

I think all the founding fathers would agree on that principle. However, Adams and the other American founders were all unanimous regarding the importance of "religious" morality in upholding a free republic, as the Adams quote confirms. Not one of them argued for the complete removal of moral considerations from law, voting, and governance, and they would have been shocked at such a suggestion - the radical separation of law from morality has its origins in the 20th century. Even those who did not believe in the divinity of Christ and miracles - such as Thomas Jefferson - believed that Christian morals were indispensable to civil society.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that people must abandon their moral conscience when voting on laws.

As the Constitution says nothing about marriage laws, all decisions about such laws belong to the respective states or to the people, per the 10th Amendment. Any other course of action is contrary to the Constitution. And there is certainly nothing in the Constitution to prevent citizens from voting according to their conscience on that matter.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1309984918' post='2263756']
Part of the American tradition is both a fervent Christian religiosity and the First Amendment.

American politicians do not represent themselves, nor do they represent a church or a king, they represent the people. Since the founding of the United States, the Christian religion was part of who the American people were. So, while our government is not Christian, that doesn't mean the nation isn't. George Washington explicitly mentions religion in his Farewell Address:
[/quote]
Call the ACLU!!!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309983814' post='2263745']
how about women getting charged with murder when they miscarry a baby? that isnt cool.
[/quote]
Even less cool is the deliberate murder of millions of unborn babies.

And less cool still is forcing us to pay for this murder with tax money.


There weren't many (if any) women getting charged with murder for miscarriages before Roe v. Wade in the states where abortion was illegal. Cops mostly went after the abortionists.