Posted on 03/04/2014 8:10:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It isn't my experience, it is the facts on voting. Evangelicals vote almost 80% republican.
The biggest indicator of how groups vote, is the level of their religiosity.
If they are non-religious then the great majority of those will vote democrat, if they are ANTI-religion, then they are the left's version of Evangelicals, a very dependable voting block.
Al, it is certainly true that for people to thrive in limited-government liberty, they must basically subscribe to the Judeo Christian ethic. But here's another EQUALLY CERTAIN TRUTH: The Judeo-Christian ethic REQUIRES limited government in order to thrive.
Will do. Thanks for the heads-up.
Yes it is, who do you think has blocked unionism in America, the social liberal states or the social conservative states?
You really are looking through a pin hole and ignoring reality.
I'm not arguing with you. Their cause was championed by newly "liberated" leftists like Hillary Cloneton and her ilk, who aligned with the Marxism that they, as the first generation of females from the middle and lower classes attend college in large numbers, mistook for intellectual achievement.
You must admit that in so doing, the "feminists" actually liberated males from responsibility, especially by making abortion not just a solution, but a sacrament.
~~~~snip~~~~~
Which is yours -- yes or no?
____________________________________________
Finny, you asked a great deal of questions. Rhetorical quenstions, questions that indicate you don't know the answer yourself, and have added way too much dialogue to muddle through.
My points have been clear and concise. If you still have any questions, then try to restate it in 10 words or less. Thanks.
FINNY — PLEASE STOP SHOUTING. IT IS RUDE.
I don’t know any fiscal conservatives that vote Dem. We vote GOP when they manage to put up a candidates that doesn’t suck, libertarian or “screw you guys” when they don’t. The big problem is these days the GOP seems to be incapable of finding candidates that aren’t a sick joke.
Abortion should be illegal. Period.
The social liberals used the power of government to change the definition of marriage. Social conservatives still see government as a tool to use. It is a tool that will ALWAYS be used against us.
Very well said!
Until you quit hiding what you are trying to say, we can’t understand you.
The facts are that social conservatives are THE small government people and that you are trying to defeat them in the name of social liberalism.
Your “us” is anti-conservative, social liberals promoting a liberal agenda.
I just said abortion should be illegal. Do you think the definition of marriage got changed because we didn’t out law homosexual marriage?
It got changed because social liberal expanded the scope and reach of government and FORCED IT on EVERYONE.
The best way to fight this is to slash the scope and power of government. How can I say it more clearly?
AMEN, and Bump to the Top, Brother FReeper.
We are fighting to slash government, we always do, it is what real/social conservatives do.
Suddenly you are fighting us, to stop fighting the homosexual agenda.
The homosexual agenda is advancing because of your side, not the conservatives.
The federal government allows gays in the military and recognize gay marriages in the military and in federal employment, and in immigration, because of social liberals, not because of conservatives.
Should bakers be punished for baking cakes for homosexual "weddings"?
Where did you get the idea I’m fighting you?
From your posts on this thread, your fight is against conservatives, and for the social liberals.
No.
Well, yeah. Duh! This model served America well for 200 some odd years. Is it too much to ask that we return to what worked? Seeing as how abortion, open homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, sloth, dependence, entitlement thinking, and envy are ONLY empowered in modern America BY government -- you advocate moving AWAY from that model when you advocate that conservatism means using government for social engineering. You don't recognize that you are advocating a move AWAY from what worked. Americans didn't need government to force them to be moral; it took government to force them to be IMMORAL, it took government to force them to accepting abortion with Roe v Wade, it took government to force them to accommodate open homosexuals.
The use of government for social engineering is what the Founders AVOIDED and what liberals/Democrats EMBRACED. You seem to be embracing the same justification -- social engineering for the good of society. The Founders CLEARLY advocated limited government, separation of Church and State, keeping government out of the charity business (welfare, entitlement, sloth, envy), out of the morality business (murder/abortion, let alone prostitution and gambling, were NOT made illegal in the Constitution -- that was left to the states, which some social-engineering-conservatives here therefore MUST take to mean that the Founders were pro-murder, pro-gambling, and pro-prostitution). When government -- a FORCE that Washington warned was a dangerous servant and a fearful master -- presumes to get in the morality business, it THEREFORE presumes to usurp religion. Government is amoral; religion is moral.
That's not to hard to understand now, is it?
Right back at ya. You fail to understand the very things you advocate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.