Posted on 03/24/2013 1:55:44 AM PDT by zeestephen
When you play let’s make a deal with democrats demise to ensue.
Lead follow or get the hell out of the way.
What is libertine, for example, about insisting on the individual right to civilly, legally, peacefully reject anything openly homosexual? The principled, conservative position on this conservative issue has zero to do with tolerance, judmentalism, etcetra, it has to do with freedom of self-determination. If there is an adoption agency out there, or a school system, or youth club like Boy Scouts, that chooses to accept openly homosexual aspects in its organization, fine. Let them find each other. But let others tell them to buzz off. Let the online dating services, the charities, the adoption agencies, the other youth groups, the local school districts, the churches, the wedding photographers and video makers, the landlords and the small business owners, whoever -- the right to refuse to accommodate the openly homosexual; they can go somewhere else. No harm, no foul.
That's all that needs to be argued within a solidly Christian and moral foundation. Moral conservatives shouldn't be about using law to enforce their own morality on others, but to defend their right to decline to participate. There is no "intolerance" here. In peaceful civilized places, discretion is the better part of valor. Ultimately we each only have the freedom to live morally. A government that throws barriers into the way of living morally is a bad government.
Fiscal conservative + social liberal = libertarian? Nonsense.
The moral destruction is being forced upon us by the iron fist of law. That’s Leftism (liberal statism) folks.
Then you'd have an enormous large and unwieldly Denmark ~ ever hear of the "Danish Phase of the Thirty Years War"?
Best factions according to special interests, class and geographic location be kept outside the Congress and the legislatures.
Democrats can duke it out in primaries if they want. It's just another failed progressive era idea that deserves to die.
The Whig party in UK ~ I believe that was the reference.
What that means is that the Rockefeller Republicans stayed home.
"Parties will destroy the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion [the committeeman process],
Parties are destructive to the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,
Parties open the door to foreign influence and corruption, thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Parties serve to organize division,
will ruin public liberty,
stifles, control’s, represses,
foment occasional riots & insurrection,
kindle animosity of one part against another,
puts in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party,
agitates the community with ill founded jealousies & false alarms,
works to undermine the Constitution which could not be directly overthrown,
serves to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,
drives the spirit of revenge
leads to despotism."
"Parties are truly your worst enemy."
~George Washington
I haven't worked out all the dynamics of multi-party systems under those circumstances, but there are two examples next door to eachother.
I am tired of the constant put downs of "Tea Party" and "Conservative" by the MSM and low information types. I think we need a strong new name that identifies people with a certain pride.
Amen.
THAT is exactly correct, and well stated.
Social conservatives would do well to accept that their goals are better met by going small-l libertarian: government has no place in telling a school district whether or not it must accommodate Gay Youth Pride, or in telling a landlord whether or not he can refuse to rent to an unmarried or a gay couple. The less government, the more freedom to live morally.
>> Social conservatives would do well to accept that their goals are better met by going small-l libertarian
That would require intelligence, courage, and maturity.
Not sure how you conclude that the loss of votes from Bush to McCain, and then about the same for Romney would indicate a loss of Rockefeller Republicans. Bush was the last Republican candidate at least thought to be conservative (plus a big patriotic boost after 9/11). Everyone knew McCain and Romney were not conservative, so it would seem the lost votes would have been conservative voters from Bush to McCain and then Romney.
In my first post I said Romney pulled independents from Romney. I should have said a few million independents probably left Obama for Romney. Conservatives staying home and Independents leaving Obama, amd some lesser Obamamania probably accounted for the significantly smaller popular vote margin for Obama over Romney as opposed to his win over McCain.
“Politics is like a caterpillar track - disappearing off to the left and being renewed from the right.”
Love your simile.
Sometimes I hear things I know had to be written in the UK.
That would be one of them.
Right. Fortunately, he could not prevent citizens with common interests from forming free associations.
It's like trying to stuff American political leanings into the seating arrangement for the first French revolutionary assembly ~ does not work! First, we hve no royalist. Second, we are not in France!
Mitt Romney has no chance of recovering that burned bridge.
I don't have a problem with the two party system.
The only other successful model is Parliamentary government.
In two party systems, we build coalitions and make compromises BEFORE the election.
In Parliamentary systems, they build coalitions and make compromises AFTER the election.
I prefer the winner take-all two party method.
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.