TexasCHLforum.com

loadedliberal wrote:

jmra wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Salty1 wrote:

jmra wrote:"If the religious right ever "dies" the republican party and the constitution as we know it dies with it."

well said and I could not agree more, the liberal left has already shown us what they think of the Constitution and especially the 2nd Amendment. Just look at the Chicago vs McDonald case as a point of fact. Obama's recent SCOTUS appointees did exactly what they claimed they would not do during their confirmation hearings. If they had the majority all of us would be a few giant steps back concerning citizens rights to keep and bear arms. This is yet another reason that we need the GOP to take the White House in 2012, if Obie gets another SCOTUS appointment the left will turn this country upside down....

There's some real truth to this (both)... unfortunately. Instead of finding ways to work together and resolve differences, US politics is becoming more polarized every day. I don't think it needs to be this way. The whole dialogue is alienating. The Left screams loudly and the Right digs in. Like Palestinians and Israel some days...

Here's my impression....

I think that most folks on the Right are pretty reasonable and thoughtful. Sure, you have your way-Right folks who sit on their rocking chair on their philosophical porch (a metaphor from a psych class a long time ago, forgive me), but I believe most folks on the Right are capable of independent thought. I don't give the left quite as much credit. So..... I think it's up to those on the Right to step up and lead. There's a huge difference between leading and digging in... Leading means getting out and voting and holding representatives accountable. It also means being mature enough that our reaction to the the Left screaming for "Cap and Trade" or QEIII is CONSTRUCTIVE, informed, realistic and constitutional. It's all too easy to demand "black" when the left is demanding "white". That's not leadership that's political entertainment.

I like Paul Ryan... I think if I was in Congress, he and I would get along well. Why? Because he's literate, not afraid to speak his mind, has well-considered proposals and is ready to talk about ways to improve those proposals. He's not afraid to lead out and take a few punches. He's also a relatively clean slate. Doesn't owe too many allegiances (so it seems). We need more plain honest people representing us. Does anyone think Rick Perry is a good candidate for President? Newt? Romney?... People like Romney because he's "electable"... What an awful reason to vote for a person for President. We're in huge trouble if that's really what it's come down to.... We all have our reservations about Romney, but he doesn't stink totally and he's better than what we have so, he's my guy..?? Sad. I haven't voted FOR a President since Reagan, have you? Look where that's taken us.

Quit babbling and get to the point....

We are ALL guilty of accepting mediocrity. Taking the least painful path. We need to stop this. If a Republican is going to win the WH in 2012, he is NOT going to be an established candidate (My opinion). All the established candidates are worthless. They're either politically compromised, old ideas or unable to win the primary and the general election. We need a candidate that can win the CENTER with a promise to hold true to the Constitution. All of our other needs (speech, religion, secure in our homes, etc.) will be strengthened by this kind of leadership.

If we demand the same old story out of our primary candidates.... Abolish Abortion, Allow Prayer in Schools, Ban Gay Marriage... We have not only no chance, but no right to expect this country to change. Because in making those demands we not only fail to honor the Constitution, or the Golden Rule, we also fail to behave as constructive adults and we allow the Nanny Staters to define the political battlefield, just like a parent getting sucked into a pointless argument with their teenager.

IMO, YMMV

Hopefully some of this makes some sense. Sorry for the ramble.

The problem I see with your argument is the assumption that the "middle" is attainable or that it even exist. I believe the reason we are where we are today is because in the past republicans have taken an appeasement approach in order to move the nation to the "middle". The "middle" was never achieved because the left has no interest in the "middle" and will never have an interest in the "middle".

By asking people to ignore abortion (right to life), prayer in schools (freedom of speech) and States Rights (what the gay marriage issue is really about) You are in effect asking people to set aside what they believe to be constitutional issues in order to protect the constitution. That simply doesn't fly.

are you familiar with DOMA (defense of marriage act) which at the federal level does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions. That for one is not a "states rights" issue. I for one an ageist abortion but I do not see it as my place or the place of the government to control women. And I am not ageist prayer in schools, so long as the school administrators or teachers are not leading it. A quick question if you lived in a predominately Muslim community would you be ok with your children attending a school where the teachers lead Islamic prayers. I would think not just as I would not want my future children being forced to sit through prayer in the classroom regardless of the domination.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Salty1 wrote:

jmra wrote:"If the religious right ever "dies" the republican party and the constitution as we know it dies with it."

well said and I could not agree more, the liberal left has already shown us what they think of the Constitution and especially the 2nd Amendment. Just look at the Chicago vs McDonald case as a point of fact. Obama's recent SCOTUS appointees did exactly what they claimed they would not do during their confirmation hearings. If they had the majority all of us would be a few giant steps back concerning citizens rights to keep and bear arms. This is yet another reason that we need the GOP to take the White House in 2012, if Obie gets another SCOTUS appointment the left will turn this country upside down....

There's some real truth to this (both)... unfortunately. Instead of finding ways to work together and resolve differences, US politics is becoming more polarized every day. I don't think it needs to be this way. The whole dialogue is alienating. The Left screams loudly and the Right digs in. Like Palestinians and Israel some days...

Here's my impression....

I think that most folks on the Right are pretty reasonable and thoughtful. Sure, you have your way-Right folks who sit on their rocking chair on their philosophical porch (a metaphor from a psych class a long time ago, forgive me), but I believe most folks on the Right are capable of independent thought. I don't give the left quite as much credit. So..... I think it's up to those on the Right to step up and lead. There's a huge difference between leading and digging in... Leading means getting out and voting and holding representatives accountable. It also means being mature enough that our reaction to the the Left screaming for "Cap and Trade" or QEIII is CONSTRUCTIVE, informed, realistic and constitutional. It's all too easy to demand "black" when the left is demanding "white". That's not leadership that's political entertainment.

I like Paul Ryan... I think if I was in Congress, he and I would get along well. Why? Because he's literate, not afraid to speak his mind, has well-considered proposals and is ready to talk about ways to improve those proposals. He's not afraid to lead out and take a few punches. He's also a relatively clean slate. Doesn't owe too many allegiances (so it seems). We need more plain honest people representing us. Does anyone think Rick Perry is a good candidate for President? Newt? Romney?... People like Romney because he's "electable"... What an awful reason to vote for a person for President. We're in huge trouble if that's really what it's come down to.... We all have our reservations about Romney, but he doesn't stink totally and he's better than what we have so, he's my guy..?? Sad. I haven't voted FOR a President since Reagan, have you? Look where that's taken us.

Quit babbling and get to the point....

We are ALL guilty of accepting mediocrity. Taking the least painful path. We need to stop this. If a Republican is going to win the WH in 2012, he is NOT going to be an established candidate (My opinion). All the established candidates are worthless. They're either politically compromised, old ideas or unable to win the primary and the general election. We need a candidate that can win the CENTER with a promise to hold true to the Constitution. All of our other needs (speech, religion, secure in our homes, etc.) will be strengthened by this kind of leadership.

If we demand the same old story out of our primary candidates.... Abolish Abortion, Allow Prayer in Schools, Ban Gay Marriage... We have not only no chance, but no right to expect this country to change. Because in making those demands we not only fail to honor the Constitution, or the Golden Rule, we also fail to behave as constructive adults and we allow the Nanny Staters to define the political battlefield, just like a parent getting sucked into a pointless argument with their teenager.

IMO, YMMV

Hopefully some of this makes some sense. Sorry for the ramble.

RoyGBiv wrote:

jmra wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

If we had not had the religious right you would not be carrying a gun today.

Our agendas overlap, for sure.
Should I accept prayer in public schools as my Thank You?

Before things get too spun up here... I'd like to apologize (sincerely) for an offhand comment that I see can definitely be construed in a way I had not intended... At the risk of jumping out of the pan and into the fire.... Let me try to clarify...

As Loaded has said above, the issue for me is with folks who bring religious and moral tenets to law-making. Yes, religion provides a compass/guide for many (as it does for me), but I do not vote in order to promote candidates who will advance any religious agenda. My vote is for candidates who will advance my Constitutional agenda. While there is overlap between the two, neither is entirely a subset of the other.

For example: I am in favor of Civil Unions for homosexual partners.

From a religious perspective, my religion is against this. But from my own moral perspective, I find it difficult that in America, two people who have decided to live their lives together in love and peace do not enjoy the protections of our laws. For example, if one partner becomes ill, the other does not have any legal rights to make care decisions for the other. Yes, the partners can fill out a legal document giving such authority to the other, but, why should this be necessary and, what critical legal morass cannot be anticipated and planned around for these partners? Why should they be subject to having to guess ahead while my wife and I enjoy well established law.? (yes.. there are MANY objections and concerns that people have about Civil Unions... Adoption is probably the biggest concern for me... Please let's not argue Civil Unions here, this is just an example of one place where I would not vote according to my religion)

As difficult as it is sometimes to separate my religious beliefs from my constitutional actions, I feel as though it is part of my duty to do so. I can practice my religion at home, in church, and of course I remain guided by these beliefs when I cast a vote, but as an American I feel bound to the First Amendment first, when I'm standing in the voting booth.

I don't know that I've done much of a job explaining my concerns for religion in law, but there you have my feeble attempt. Just because our religious beliefs say one thing does not give any of us the right to legislate that morality on others. My religion is strong enough to accept that others prefer to follow a different path, peaceably.

Unfortunately, a GOP candidate cannot win the party nomination without winning at least a substantial portion of folks who vote "religious beliefs first". Then they get held back in the general election by the promises they made to win over the GOP far Right. I suppose that would have been a better way to put it earlier.

Apologies again for any offense from my earlier comment and for this hijack..
[/hijack]

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?