Purging social conservatives from the GOP

As Christian activists are trying to think through the parameters of political involvement, some Republicans are thinking their party may be better off without them.  In an opinion piece that is attracting lots of party discussion, Republican consultant Mike Murphy argues that the GOP needs to drop socially-conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage in favor of a “a more secular and modernizing conservatism.”

The Republican challenge is not about better voter-turnout software; it is about policy. We repel Latinos, the fastest-growing voter group in the country, with our nativist opposition to immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship. We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues. And we have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues.

A debate will now rage inside the GOP between the purists, who will as always call for more purity, and the pragmatists, who will demand modernization. The media, always culturally alien to intra-Republican struggles, will badly mislabel this contest as one between “moderate” and “right-wing” Republicans. In fact, the epic battle we Republicans face now is a choice between two definitions of conservatism.

One offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. The alternative is a more secular and modernizing conservatism that eschews most social issues to focus on creating a wide-open opportunity society that promises greater economic freedom and the reform of government institutions like schools that are vital to upward social mobility.

via Can This Party Be Saved? | TIME.com.

He goes on to make the case for the latter.  Never mind that the last two Republican presidential losers downplayed social issues and were not representative of the Christian right.

Bloomberg’s Josh Barro  argues that it was precisely the economic issues favored by establishment country club Republicans that alienated middle class voters:

The Republican Party’s key electoral problem doesn’t come from social conservatives or nativists. It comes from the economic policy demands of the party’s wealthy donors. Murphy allows that Republicans “have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues.” But his prescription won’t do anything to fix that problem.

What are the “kitchen-table” economic concerns of the middle class? They’re high unemployment, slow income growth, underwater mortgages, and the rising cost of health care and higher education. Democrats have an agenda that is responsive to these concerns. Republicans don’t — and they don’t because the party’s donor class specifically doesn’t want one.

For more discussion and links to other voices in the debate, see this post at First Thoughts.

So what do you make of this?  Would you support a “secular and modernizing” Republican party?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • The Jones

    I think this is silly. It is not “the economy, stupid.” Barack Obama’s campaign (in a way that seemed strange at the time) talked about abortion, contraception, gay rights, and the whole sha-bang. And he WON. Republicans either didn’t talk about them at all or talked about them badly. They LOST.

    I agree that people got turned off by a seemingly mechanical “the economy is bad” campaign. I also believe that republicans who were not prepared for social issues jumped in and said dumb things which ruined them in the end. But even if the opposition puts up a seemingly ridiculous social argument on the social front (remember the “first time” political ad and everything ever said about “contraception”), the absence of a response is even worse.

    People are voting on the entire spectrum of their beliefs. Republicans need to speak to the entire spectrum of people’s beliefs. Otherwise, it looks like the entire spectrum of our beliefs deals only with money and winning campaigns, and then it looks like we don’t care about other things.

  • The Jones

    I think this is silly. It is not “the economy, stupid.” Barack Obama’s campaign (in a way that seemed strange at the time) talked about abortion, contraception, gay rights, and the whole sha-bang. And he WON. Republicans either didn’t talk about them at all or talked about them badly. They LOST.

    I agree that people got turned off by a seemingly mechanical “the economy is bad” campaign. I also believe that republicans who were not prepared for social issues jumped in and said dumb things which ruined them in the end. But even if the opposition puts up a seemingly ridiculous social argument on the social front (remember the “first time” political ad and everything ever said about “contraception”), the absence of a response is even worse.

    People are voting on the entire spectrum of their beliefs. Republicans need to speak to the entire spectrum of people’s beliefs. Otherwise, it looks like the entire spectrum of our beliefs deals only with money and winning campaigns, and then it looks like we don’t care about other things.

  • Michael B.

    “Republican consultant Mike Murphy argues that the GOP needs to drop socially-conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage in favor of a “a more secular and modernizing conservatism.”

    I would be surprised if Republicans dropped social issues in the next election. Unlike something like ‘job creation’, there’s no metric that anti-abortion politicians are held to, and it’s completely fine to be like Reagan, promosing to be anti-abortion, but doing nothing.

    Furthermore, if they drop social issues, they must then turn more to economic issues. Does this mean cutting government programs? Because a lot of their base has become dependent upon them. The elderly need their Medicare. And men were hit harder by the recession than women (some even called it the ‘man-cession’). These men need their government unemployment and if they’re not healthy, health insurance. These unemployed men also need things like liberal reproductive rights for women, even if they don’t realize it. If the guy’s unemployed, he probably needs a kid just as much as a hole in the head. If he unemployed, and his wife employed, what is supposed to happen if this happens? He just become a stay-at-home dad? It’s probably not in his interest to add a kid into the mix at the point, so reproductive rights benefit him tremendously.

  • Michael B.

    “Republican consultant Mike Murphy argues that the GOP needs to drop socially-conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage in favor of a “a more secular and modernizing conservatism.”

    I would be surprised if Republicans dropped social issues in the next election. Unlike something like ‘job creation’, there’s no metric that anti-abortion politicians are held to, and it’s completely fine to be like Reagan, promosing to be anti-abortion, but doing nothing.

    Furthermore, if they drop social issues, they must then turn more to economic issues. Does this mean cutting government programs? Because a lot of their base has become dependent upon them. The elderly need their Medicare. And men were hit harder by the recession than women (some even called it the ‘man-cession’). These men need their government unemployment and if they’re not healthy, health insurance. These unemployed men also need things like liberal reproductive rights for women, even if they don’t realize it. If the guy’s unemployed, he probably needs a kid just as much as a hole in the head. If he unemployed, and his wife employed, what is supposed to happen if this happens? He just become a stay-at-home dad? It’s probably not in his interest to add a kid into the mix at the point, so reproductive rights benefit him tremendously.

  • dan kempin

    It is poignant to see how closely the politics of the church mimics the politics of the world. The problem isn’t with the opponent, it is with THAT group among us. THEY are the ones who are making us lose. Perhaps if we parted ways with THEM, we would be better off. (Lousy rigid hymnal worshippers.)*

    *(Or, if it applies, say “Lousy liberal contemporary worshippers,” or whatever sub group of your fellow Christians you think are the problem.)

  • dan kempin

    It is poignant to see how closely the politics of the church mimics the politics of the world. The problem isn’t with the opponent, it is with THAT group among us. THEY are the ones who are making us lose. Perhaps if we parted ways with THEM, we would be better off. (Lousy rigid hymnal worshippers.)*

    *(Or, if it applies, say “Lousy liberal contemporary worshippers,” or whatever sub group of your fellow Christians you think are the problem.)

  • Carl Vehse

    According to the Breitbart article, “Boehner, GOP Leaders Purge Conservatives from Powerful Committees UPDATE: Boehner Scoffs,” the purge is already occurring, as the GOP tries to win public support as Demonicrat-lite.

  • Carl Vehse

    According to the Breitbart article, “Boehner, GOP Leaders Purge Conservatives from Powerful Committees UPDATE: Boehner Scoffs,” the purge is already occurring, as the GOP tries to win public support as Demonicrat-lite.

  • Steve Bauer

    Well, not really. The article is reporting that it is not social conservatives who are being purged but mindless tea party drones who do not want to govern.

  • Steve Bauer

    Well, not really. The article is reporting that it is not social conservatives who are being purged but mindless tea party drones who do not want to govern.

  • http://thinkingwithareformedmind.blogspot.com Steven Mitchell

    More than anything I’ve yet read, this is the clearest indication that the Republican Party is undergoing a deep crisis of identity. What you have here is a party (or at least party-supporters) advocating for the dropping of one/some of the party’s defining policies.

    Why are they considering this shift? Because they no longer think that they are correct policies? No, but because doing so might lead to better performance at the polls. When the retention of political power explicitly becomes more important to electoral strategy than what one would actually do with that power, you have a real problem. In a phrase, what will it profit one to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

    Since the beginnings of the Republican Party’s mid-century foray into fusionism — and especially since the rise of Reagan — the party has had both economic and social issues at the forefront of its platform, for better or worse. To give up, or radically downplay, either of those would signify a loss of identity and desperation for power.

    Is the GOP really at the point where it needs to redefine its existence? Or is it just a matter of the message having unworthy messengers? Who knows. But the fact that more and more in the party think it’s the former is indicative that the party’s identity of fusionism may have run its course.

  • http://thinkingwithareformedmind.blogspot.com Steven Mitchell

    More than anything I’ve yet read, this is the clearest indication that the Republican Party is undergoing a deep crisis of identity. What you have here is a party (or at least party-supporters) advocating for the dropping of one/some of the party’s defining policies.

    Why are they considering this shift? Because they no longer think that they are correct policies? No, but because doing so might lead to better performance at the polls. When the retention of political power explicitly becomes more important to electoral strategy than what one would actually do with that power, you have a real problem. In a phrase, what will it profit one to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

    Since the beginnings of the Republican Party’s mid-century foray into fusionism — and especially since the rise of Reagan — the party has had both economic and social issues at the forefront of its platform, for better or worse. To give up, or radically downplay, either of those would signify a loss of identity and desperation for power.

    Is the GOP really at the point where it needs to redefine its existence? Or is it just a matter of the message having unworthy messengers? Who knows. But the fact that more and more in the party think it’s the former is indicative that the party’s identity of fusionism may have run its course.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Why would anyone take advice from Mike Murphy? He doesn’t exactly have a track record of success when it comes to big-time election consulting.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Why would anyone take advice from Mike Murphy? He doesn’t exactly have a track record of success when it comes to big-time election consulting.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    “We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues.”

    That may be true, but it means we need to figure out how to effectively communicate why our values are better, not just throw them out.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    “We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues.”

    That may be true, but it means we need to figure out how to effectively communicate why our values are better, not just throw them out.

  • DonS

    This kind of circumspection is common right after the loss of an election. Murphy is a known political moderate, long associated with John McCain, for example, so it’s not like this is a new approach for him.

    At the national level, Republicans have been realizing for a long time that the ground is shifting politically with respect to the so-called social issues. We are a much more pluralistic society. “Christian values” doesn’t resonate with the voting public like it did when the Moral Majority was at its peak in the 1980′s. A lot of Republicans, myself included, don’t care for Republicans legislating moral issues anyway, particularly at the federal level. Doing so violates federalism principles, and infringes on the liberty rights of fellow citizens who don’t share our moral views. The focus should be on ensuring that all Americans retain their full liberties to live their lives in accordance with their conscience and values under our Constitution. We should be focused on our free exercise of religion rights against an administration that wants to unconstitutionally limit us to some kind of notion of “freedom of worship”. We should be focused on protecting the rights of the unborn under the principle that the unborn are human beings, entitled to the same life and liberty rights as they have after their birth. Everything we do politically should be done with our Constitutional rights in full view, instructing the American people as to their unique American liberties and building in them a desire to protect and preserve their liberties against the encroaching coercion of liberty-robbing big government.

    The most important legacy we, as Christians, can leave to our children is that they will have the same liberties to live the Christian life as we have had. By extension, this means that we need to understand the corollary that non-Christians enjoy those same liberties, in full.

  • DonS

    This kind of circumspection is common right after the loss of an election. Murphy is a known political moderate, long associated with John McCain, for example, so it’s not like this is a new approach for him.

    At the national level, Republicans have been realizing for a long time that the ground is shifting politically with respect to the so-called social issues. We are a much more pluralistic society. “Christian values” doesn’t resonate with the voting public like it did when the Moral Majority was at its peak in the 1980′s. A lot of Republicans, myself included, don’t care for Republicans legislating moral issues anyway, particularly at the federal level. Doing so violates federalism principles, and infringes on the liberty rights of fellow citizens who don’t share our moral views. The focus should be on ensuring that all Americans retain their full liberties to live their lives in accordance with their conscience and values under our Constitution. We should be focused on our free exercise of religion rights against an administration that wants to unconstitutionally limit us to some kind of notion of “freedom of worship”. We should be focused on protecting the rights of the unborn under the principle that the unborn are human beings, entitled to the same life and liberty rights as they have after their birth. Everything we do politically should be done with our Constitutional rights in full view, instructing the American people as to their unique American liberties and building in them a desire to protect and preserve their liberties against the encroaching coercion of liberty-robbing big government.

    The most important legacy we, as Christians, can leave to our children is that they will have the same liberties to live the Christian life as we have had. By extension, this means that we need to understand the corollary that non-Christians enjoy those same liberties, in full.

  • WebMonk

    I wouldn’t mind seeing a bit more fracturing in the political parties of the US. Having three or even four parties would allow groups to be much more cohesive (both Dems and Reps cover extremely broad, non-coherent breadths of positions) and would force them to view compromise and working together as the default way to accomplish things rather than the fall-back stance when they can’t force their issues through unilaterally.

    I don’t think it would be good for the GOP to jettison a large portion of their constituency, but if it caused the formation of a significant third party, then I think it would be good for the country as a whole.

  • WebMonk

    I wouldn’t mind seeing a bit more fracturing in the political parties of the US. Having three or even four parties would allow groups to be much more cohesive (both Dems and Reps cover extremely broad, non-coherent breadths of positions) and would force them to view compromise and working together as the default way to accomplish things rather than the fall-back stance when they can’t force their issues through unilaterally.

    I don’t think it would be good for the GOP to jettison a large portion of their constituency, but if it caused the formation of a significant third party, then I think it would be good for the country as a whole.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    The Republican Party and socially conservative Christians are in a real pickle.

    The Republican Party under Ronald Reagan intentionally moved to the right on social issues to bring conservative Christians and conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican party. This was a dramatic political realignment. The South soon became the Republican base.

    This political coalition of Wall Street Republicans, socially conservative Christians/evangelicals and Southerners kept Reagan in office for two terms. Bad economics let Clinton slip in for eight years, but otherwise this coalition helped elect Reagan and the two Bushes for a grand total of 20 years of socially conservative control of the White House.

    During this time period socially conservative Christians gained more and more influence within the party. Their conservative Christian philosophy of “compromise is sin” became a political litmus test for the Republican Party. Compromisers (moderates) were unwelcome in the party. So moderate Republicans began leaving the party or were pushed/voted out.

    As the process of pushing out/turning off the moderates continued the Grand Old Party began to shrink to the point that it is now primarily a party of white Southerners, white evangelicals, Wall Street fat cats, and Tea Partiers.

    A majority of young people, African Americans and Latinos see the Republican Party as the party of the bigoted old white guy. With the percentage of whites in this country in decline, this perception by the ever increasing Latino population and younger voters will doom the GOP to political irrelevance and eventually obsolescence.

    So in any other political party the solution to this problem would be obvious and easy: move to the center!

    But this is impossible for the current Republican Party. Why? Because the base of the party, Southern conservatives and evangelical Chrisitans, do not believe in compromising. It is evil. They would rather lose election after election than to compromise.

    The Wall Street fat cat Republicans just want to win. However, they fear the power of the socially conservative base. They wouldn’t dare push this core constituency out of the party.

    So the Republican Party is stuck. They won’t push the social conservatives out… because they can’t.

    The GOP may win some mid-term elections when Republican turn-out is better, but in Presidential elections, they had better get used to losing. The percentage of younger, more socially liberal voters and the minority vote will only get larger while the generation of the “angry, old white man” is slowly dying off.

    Say goodbye to the party that freed the slaves! Say goodbye to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower!

    Goodbye, Grand Old Party!

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    The Republican Party and socially conservative Christians are in a real pickle.

    The Republican Party under Ronald Reagan intentionally moved to the right on social issues to bring conservative Christians and conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican party. This was a dramatic political realignment. The South soon became the Republican base.

    This political coalition of Wall Street Republicans, socially conservative Christians/evangelicals and Southerners kept Reagan in office for two terms. Bad economics let Clinton slip in for eight years, but otherwise this coalition helped elect Reagan and the two Bushes for a grand total of 20 years of socially conservative control of the White House.

    During this time period socially conservative Christians gained more and more influence within the party. Their conservative Christian philosophy of “compromise is sin” became a political litmus test for the Republican Party. Compromisers (moderates) were unwelcome in the party. So moderate Republicans began leaving the party or were pushed/voted out.

    As the process of pushing out/turning off the moderates continued the Grand Old Party began to shrink to the point that it is now primarily a party of white Southerners, white evangelicals, Wall Street fat cats, and Tea Partiers.

    A majority of young people, African Americans and Latinos see the Republican Party as the party of the bigoted old white guy. With the percentage of whites in this country in decline, this perception by the ever increasing Latino population and younger voters will doom the GOP to political irrelevance and eventually obsolescence.

    So in any other political party the solution to this problem would be obvious and easy: move to the center!

    But this is impossible for the current Republican Party. Why? Because the base of the party, Southern conservatives and evangelical Chrisitans, do not believe in compromising. It is evil. They would rather lose election after election than to compromise.

    The Wall Street fat cat Republicans just want to win. However, they fear the power of the socially conservative base. They wouldn’t dare push this core constituency out of the party.

    So the Republican Party is stuck. They won’t push the social conservatives out… because they can’t.

    The GOP may win some mid-term elections when Republican turn-out is better, but in Presidential elections, they had better get used to losing. The percentage of younger, more socially liberal voters and the minority vote will only get larger while the generation of the “angry, old white man” is slowly dying off.

    Say goodbye to the party that freed the slaves! Say goodbye to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower!

    Goodbye, Grand Old Party!

  • Grace

    If the Republican party is going to take Mike Murphy’s advice:

    “In an opinion piece that is attracting lots of party discussion, Republican consultant Mike Murphy argues that the GOP needs to drop socially-conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage in favor of a “a more secular and modernizing conservatism.”

    One might just as well drop their values, turn their back on Christ, and carry on, just as the HEATHEN.

    The Word of God states clearly –

    16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

    17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

    18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

    19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

    20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

    21
    Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

    Jude 1

    Is winning an election so important as to DITCH the truth we have learned since we received Salvation, Believing in Christ our LORD,

    There are many Mike Murphy’s in this country, and around the world.

    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
    Matthew 16:26

  • Grace

    If the Republican party is going to take Mike Murphy’s advice:

    “In an opinion piece that is attracting lots of party discussion, Republican consultant Mike Murphy argues that the GOP needs to drop socially-conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage in favor of a “a more secular and modernizing conservatism.”

    One might just as well drop their values, turn their back on Christ, and carry on, just as the HEATHEN.

    The Word of God states clearly –

    16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

    17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

    18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

    19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

    20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

    21
    Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

    Jude 1

    Is winning an election so important as to DITCH the truth we have learned since we received Salvation, Believing in Christ our LORD,

    There are many Mike Murphy’s in this country, and around the world.

    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
    Matthew 16:26

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    My take here is that if the expanding minority groups are any indication–Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans–are any indication, dropping the social issues is exactly the wrong way to go. The way to go is to point out that 50 years after the start of the Great Society, the South Side of Chicago and associated areas around the nation are still wastelands. The Keynesian experiment with the poor simply hasn’t worked out very well for them, to put it very, very mildly.

    Point out that the Great Society and the War on the Poor is the problem, and pin it on the Democrats, and you’ll start to see a dramatic realignment.

    Another big thing to do; the GOP needs to come out AGAINST corporate welfare. Yeah, they’ve been on the wrong side of this one quite a bit, but then so have the Democrats. It’s achievable.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    My take here is that if the expanding minority groups are any indication–Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans–are any indication, dropping the social issues is exactly the wrong way to go. The way to go is to point out that 50 years after the start of the Great Society, the South Side of Chicago and associated areas around the nation are still wastelands. The Keynesian experiment with the poor simply hasn’t worked out very well for them, to put it very, very mildly.

    Point out that the Great Society and the War on the Poor is the problem, and pin it on the Democrats, and you’ll start to see a dramatic realignment.

    Another big thing to do; the GOP needs to come out AGAINST corporate welfare. Yeah, they’ve been on the wrong side of this one quite a bit, but then so have the Democrats. It’s achievable.

  • flhill

    While the presidential candidates may have downplayed social issues, two things stood very large in the public consciousness. First, the running mates for each election underscored and emphasized their focus on social issues. Ryan’s voting record on abortion and women’s issues, for instance. Palin’s hyperevangalicalism. Second, the conservative legislative track record post-2010 incorporated an exclusively hard-line social agenda in the red states plus a rabidly anti-moderate agenda on the national stage whose goal was seen as overthrow of the Executive at any cost. And whose methods included the active suppression of voting rights across the country.
    It didn’t help that Romney surrounded himself with precisely the advisors who helped the Bush regime bring about financial catastrophe.

    So the 2012 crop of Republican candidates was viewed as people who will happily abrogate any right, deny every legislative social good and implement every harm that might help to destroy a moderate president who happened to be both Democrat and black. It is a miracle that they kept the House.

  • flhill

    While the presidential candidates may have downplayed social issues, two things stood very large in the public consciousness. First, the running mates for each election underscored and emphasized their focus on social issues. Ryan’s voting record on abortion and women’s issues, for instance. Palin’s hyperevangalicalism. Second, the conservative legislative track record post-2010 incorporated an exclusively hard-line social agenda in the red states plus a rabidly anti-moderate agenda on the national stage whose goal was seen as overthrow of the Executive at any cost. And whose methods included the active suppression of voting rights across the country.
    It didn’t help that Romney surrounded himself with precisely the advisors who helped the Bush regime bring about financial catastrophe.

    So the 2012 crop of Republican candidates was viewed as people who will happily abrogate any right, deny every legislative social good and implement every harm that might help to destroy a moderate president who happened to be both Democrat and black. It is a miracle that they kept the House.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    In response to “Grace” above.

    Your comments are great for the Church. We should never compromise our Christian values and standards in the Church just to please a sinful secular society.

    But your positions are disastrous for a secular political party. It is good, well-intentioned people like you, who would rather lose elections than compromise your principles, that will doom the Republican Party to political irrelevance.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    In response to “Grace” above.

    Your comments are great for the Church. We should never compromise our Christian values and standards in the Church just to please a sinful secular society.

    But your positions are disastrous for a secular political party. It is good, well-intentioned people like you, who would rather lose elections than compromise your principles, that will doom the Republican Party to political irrelevance.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It is good, well-intentioned people like you, who would rather lose elections than compromise your principles, that will doom the Republican Party to political irrelevance.

    The Republican Party or anyway the social conservatives that vote for them are already doomed. Capital succeeded in electing a new people through immigration. We imported tons of people whose political ideology consists in just wanting the government to give them other people’s money. When the majority of the voters fit that profile, then the party that will give them other people’s money will get their vote. It is just that simple. These aren’t people that you can win over with some high minded ideology of equality of opportunity. They don’t believe in it because they know that they will lose under that system. They want a system that will subsidized them because they cannot compete.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It is good, well-intentioned people like you, who would rather lose elections than compromise your principles, that will doom the Republican Party to political irrelevance.

    The Republican Party or anyway the social conservatives that vote for them are already doomed. Capital succeeded in electing a new people through immigration. We imported tons of people whose political ideology consists in just wanting the government to give them other people’s money. When the majority of the voters fit that profile, then the party that will give them other people’s money will get their vote. It is just that simple. These aren’t people that you can win over with some high minded ideology of equality of opportunity. They don’t believe in it because they know that they will lose under that system. They want a system that will subsidized them because they cannot compete.

  • kerner

    Gary:

    You sound like the Republicans did in 1964. Back then they were saying it was all over, and for a long time it looked pretty bad. But it wasn’t all over by any means.

    I agree with you on certain points. The problem for republicans is not that there are not enough old white people. The problem is that the Republicans have limited their marketing strategy to old white people, and not enough old white people are conservative enough to buy it. There are too many old white liberals who, when added to everybody else, are enongh to consistently elect democrats.

    Therefore, the Republican party needs to learn how to communicate with younger white people and minorities. THis does not necessarily mean “pandering to special interests” so much as it means finding sub-groups within ethnic minorities, younger voters, single women, etc., who can be receptive to conservative principles, and consistently marketing our ideas to those groups.

    This may seem difficult or impossible at first glance, but it really is not. There was a time when Italian Americans and Irish Americans, and other white ethnic groups were very solid Democrat voting blocs. No more. These were largely assimilated into broader society and became suseptable to conservative ideas. At first they were considered “Reagan Democrats”, but now they pretty much vote Republican. There is no reason why this cannot be done with the more diverse ethnic groups who now seem to be hard core democrats.

    A more complex issue is the younger voters. This problem is more complex, but it can still be done. Ronald Reagan sold a lot of young people on conservative deas in the 1980′s at a time when the left was composed of old New Deal types and hippies,etc. A lot of the younger people of the 1980′s got into capitalism and rejected the communal hippie ethos. They got married and bought houses and started having to pay taxes…and a lot of them became pretty conservative in some ways. Of course, today these people are no longer young. Which is why the new “younger generation” has to be sold on this all over again.

  • kerner

    Gary:

    You sound like the Republicans did in 1964. Back then they were saying it was all over, and for a long time it looked pretty bad. But it wasn’t all over by any means.

    I agree with you on certain points. The problem for republicans is not that there are not enough old white people. The problem is that the Republicans have limited their marketing strategy to old white people, and not enough old white people are conservative enough to buy it. There are too many old white liberals who, when added to everybody else, are enongh to consistently elect democrats.

    Therefore, the Republican party needs to learn how to communicate with younger white people and minorities. THis does not necessarily mean “pandering to special interests” so much as it means finding sub-groups within ethnic minorities, younger voters, single women, etc., who can be receptive to conservative principles, and consistently marketing our ideas to those groups.

    This may seem difficult or impossible at first glance, but it really is not. There was a time when Italian Americans and Irish Americans, and other white ethnic groups were very solid Democrat voting blocs. No more. These were largely assimilated into broader society and became suseptable to conservative ideas. At first they were considered “Reagan Democrats”, but now they pretty much vote Republican. There is no reason why this cannot be done with the more diverse ethnic groups who now seem to be hard core democrats.

    A more complex issue is the younger voters. This problem is more complex, but it can still be done. Ronald Reagan sold a lot of young people on conservative deas in the 1980′s at a time when the left was composed of old New Deal types and hippies,etc. A lot of the younger people of the 1980′s got into capitalism and rejected the communal hippie ethos. They got married and bought houses and started having to pay taxes…and a lot of them became pretty conservative in some ways. Of course, today these people are no longer young. Which is why the new “younger generation” has to be sold on this all over again.

  • Grace

    Gary @15

    What is more important “disastrous” ? It’s a choice we all must make.

    Either give into HEATHENISM, moral decay, killing the unborn, or those who barely stick their head out of the womb, and are slaughtered with their first breath. One cannot stand before God, knowing HIS Word, denying the truth, and expect to inherit Eternal Life with our LORD.

    So many in foreign lands have given their lives so that the Word of God might be spoken. Can we who live in this country, give into the most unGodly agreements with those who follow evil, just to keep the GOP?

      20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
      21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
    Isaiah 5:20

  • Grace

    Gary @15

    What is more important “disastrous” ? It’s a choice we all must make.

    Either give into HEATHENISM, moral decay, killing the unborn, or those who barely stick their head out of the womb, and are slaughtered with their first breath. One cannot stand before God, knowing HIS Word, denying the truth, and expect to inherit Eternal Life with our LORD.

    So many in foreign lands have given their lives so that the Word of God might be spoken. Can we who live in this country, give into the most unGodly agreements with those who follow evil, just to keep the GOP?

      20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
      21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
    Isaiah 5:20

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There is no reason why this cannot be done with the more diverse ethnic groups who now seem to be hard core democrats.”

    At most that could work with some Asians. There are many small business owners among them. Basically Democrat policies favor the rich and the poor. People who earn a lot but are not so wealthy or retired and don’t work, have high taxable income. Notice how none of the proposals to tax the wealthy don’t actually tax their wealth? Capital hates it when you take their capital. And Capital runs the political parties. So, workers are taxed more and more on earned income. Asians tend to be these workers. They may tire of supporting a bunch of retired people and non/marginal workers with whom they share little in common.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There is no reason why this cannot be done with the more diverse ethnic groups who now seem to be hard core democrats.”

    At most that could work with some Asians. There are many small business owners among them. Basically Democrat policies favor the rich and the poor. People who earn a lot but are not so wealthy or retired and don’t work, have high taxable income. Notice how none of the proposals to tax the wealthy don’t actually tax their wealth? Capital hates it when you take their capital. And Capital runs the political parties. So, workers are taxed more and more on earned income. Asians tend to be these workers. They may tire of supporting a bunch of retired people and non/marginal workers with whom they share little in common.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    oops should be

    Notice how all of the proposals to tax the wealthy don’t actually tax their wealth?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    oops should be

    Notice how all of the proposals to tax the wealthy don’t actually tax their wealth?

  • Lou G.

    Well, step one is underway;
    The GOP just pushed the Tea Party off the Fiscal Cliff! (John Boehner fired two Tea Party members from the House Budget Committee this afternoon).

  • Lou G.

    Well, step one is underway;
    The GOP just pushed the Tea Party off the Fiscal Cliff! (John Boehner fired two Tea Party members from the House Budget Committee this afternoon).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Comments like 18 make the point that jettisoning the most principled voters cannot increase the Republican share of the electorate. Highly principled voters will form a third/fourth/fifth party before they will violate their principles. At present it may be that principled voters, not leaders mind you, outnumber other voters in the Republican party to such an extent that abandoning them would actually make the Republican party the smallest party with Democrats the majority followed a new Social Conservative party second in size. Ironic when you consider how and why the Republican party was founded, by religious anti slavery folks who would not compromise principles.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Comments like 18 make the point that jettisoning the most principled voters cannot increase the Republican share of the electorate. Highly principled voters will form a third/fourth/fifth party before they will violate their principles. At present it may be that principled voters, not leaders mind you, outnumber other voters in the Republican party to such an extent that abandoning them would actually make the Republican party the smallest party with Democrats the majority followed a new Social Conservative party second in size. Ironic when you consider how and why the Republican party was founded, by religious anti slavery folks who would not compromise principles.

  • Grace

    Kerner @17

    “I agree with you on certain points. The problem for republicans is not that there are not enough old white people. The problem is that the Republicans have limited their marketing strategy to old white people, and not enough old white people are conservative enough to buy it. There are too many old white liberals who, when added to everybody else, are enongh to consistently elect democrats.”

    There are many people, other than “old white people” and a “marketing strategy to old white people” – -

    The problem Kerner, is this –     – people who were once convicted of their sins, and followed Christ, have left their first love, and followed the world. Their hearts have grown cold. They would rather win something here on earth, than fellowship with the LORD, and have Eternal Life. They have turned their backs on HIM.

    For many, they have a daughter, sister, friend who has had an abortion, and they want to support her choice. For others, they have a homosexual within their family, or maybe more, SO, to keep the piece and not make waves, they embrace that which they KNOW is sinful. It grows like cancer, the only answer is repentance and turning to Christ. This isn’t all about the Republican party, it’s about mans sinful conditioon.

  • Grace

    Kerner @17

    “I agree with you on certain points. The problem for republicans is not that there are not enough old white people. The problem is that the Republicans have limited their marketing strategy to old white people, and not enough old white people are conservative enough to buy it. There are too many old white liberals who, when added to everybody else, are enongh to consistently elect democrats.”

    There are many people, other than “old white people” and a “marketing strategy to old white people” – -

    The problem Kerner, is this –     – people who were once convicted of their sins, and followed Christ, have left their first love, and followed the world. Their hearts have grown cold. They would rather win something here on earth, than fellowship with the LORD, and have Eternal Life. They have turned their backs on HIM.

    For many, they have a daughter, sister, friend who has had an abortion, and they want to support her choice. For others, they have a homosexual within their family, or maybe more, SO, to keep the piece and not make waves, they embrace that which they KNOW is sinful. It grows like cancer, the only answer is repentance and turning to Christ. This isn’t all about the Republican party, it’s about mans sinful conditioon.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @21

    Fiscal Cliff interestingly is just the nick name of the legislation that President Obama signed because he preferred it to what Republicans in the House might pass. So, you would think he would have a higher opinion of a compromise legislation that he and his party passed and signed into law.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @21

    Fiscal Cliff interestingly is just the nick name of the legislation that President Obama signed because he preferred it to what Republicans in the House might pass. So, you would think he would have a higher opinion of a compromise legislation that he and his party passed and signed into law.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Will any reporters ask President Obama why he signed the legislation that would make these automatic adjustments if he really thinks these adjustments are so dangerous?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Will any reporters ask President Obama why he signed the legislation that would make these automatic adjustments if he really thinks these adjustments are so dangerous?

  • Lou G.

    Oh, and, I don’t agree with turning the Republican Party secular, but I do think we need sanity.
    For instance, with regard to moral issues, a lot of people don’t like or want abortion, but the Republicans have never been able to capitalize on this fact, because of the extremists in the party who are incapable of being practical.

    And I also agree with the author in regard to the Republican Party completely abandoning the Middle Class. That’s 100% obvious to me.

  • Lou G.

    Oh, and, I don’t agree with turning the Republican Party secular, but I do think we need sanity.
    For instance, with regard to moral issues, a lot of people don’t like or want abortion, but the Republicans have never been able to capitalize on this fact, because of the extremists in the party who are incapable of being practical.

    And I also agree with the author in regard to the Republican Party completely abandoning the Middle Class. That’s 100% obvious to me.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    a lot of people don’t like or want abortion, but the Republicans have never been able to capitalize on this fact, because of the extremists in the party who are incapable of being practical.

    What baloney. The extremists in the party are the most practical. Sheesh. Who do you think runs Right to Life? Moderates? Heck, no. Yet they are the ones writing and promoting all the incremental legislation that keeps getting passed in the various statehouses and reducing abortion rates in those states.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    a lot of people don’t like or want abortion, but the Republicans have never been able to capitalize on this fact, because of the extremists in the party who are incapable of being practical.

    What baloney. The extremists in the party are the most practical. Sheesh. Who do you think runs Right to Life? Moderates? Heck, no. Yet they are the ones writing and promoting all the incremental legislation that keeps getting passed in the various statehouses and reducing abortion rates in those states.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    The Republican Party can either move to the center or it can die.

    Abortion will never be outlawed in this country. The younger generations won’t allow it. We onservative Christians should not abandon our position on this issue. All innocent human life should be protected! But do we fight this battle with the Word, converting sinners to God-fearing Christians, or do we impose our beliefs on a sinful, secular society with the Sword (secular laws)?

    The problem is that when a secular political party uses abortion and gay rights as litmus tests for its candidates, it is doomed to diminishing relevance as younger generations come into the electorate. We are not going to change the minds of these young, more liberal-thinking “sinners”.

    I suggest freeing the Republican Party from social issues, and let us Christians fight that battle. If the Republican Party can emphasize leaner, more efficient government and lower taxes, the party can recover.

    If abortion and anti-gay rhetoric remains wrapped around the party’s neck, you can kiss the GOP goodbye!

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    The Republican Party can either move to the center or it can die.

    Abortion will never be outlawed in this country. The younger generations won’t allow it. We onservative Christians should not abandon our position on this issue. All innocent human life should be protected! But do we fight this battle with the Word, converting sinners to God-fearing Christians, or do we impose our beliefs on a sinful, secular society with the Sword (secular laws)?

    The problem is that when a secular political party uses abortion and gay rights as litmus tests for its candidates, it is doomed to diminishing relevance as younger generations come into the electorate. We are not going to change the minds of these young, more liberal-thinking “sinners”.

    I suggest freeing the Republican Party from social issues, and let us Christians fight that battle. If the Republican Party can emphasize leaner, more efficient government and lower taxes, the party can recover.

    If abortion and anti-gay rhetoric remains wrapped around the party’s neck, you can kiss the GOP goodbye!

  • Lou G.

    SG – Did you forget to take your meds?

    Who cares who coined the term Fiscal Cliff? Did you even read what I wrote?

    Boehner fired the Tea Party members from the House Budget Committee today. My point is that what Dr. Veith wrote his article about is already happening.

  • Lou G.

    SG – Did you forget to take your meds?

    Who cares who coined the term Fiscal Cliff? Did you even read what I wrote?

    Boehner fired the Tea Party members from the House Budget Committee today. My point is that what Dr. Veith wrote his article about is already happening.

  • Lou G.

    SG #27, again, a failure of comprehension on your part. I suppose I have to spell this out for you.
    - The majority of people in this country are not pro-abortion. Just check any Gallop pool or other report done in the past two years. The majority of people are against abortion.
    - “Extremists” who are incapable of being practical are those who say things like abortion even for legitimate rape or if the woman’s life is endangered has to be completely banned for all. 85% of the public is against such an extreme position. But unreasonable extremists continue to take an all or nothing approach, and as a result, continue to get nothing in return, because they are not sane, they are not practical and they do not represent the wishes of their consitituents.

  • Lou G.

    SG #27, again, a failure of comprehension on your part. I suppose I have to spell this out for you.
    - The majority of people in this country are not pro-abortion. Just check any Gallop pool or other report done in the past two years. The majority of people are against abortion.
    - “Extremists” who are incapable of being practical are those who say things like abortion even for legitimate rape or if the woman’s life is endangered has to be completely banned for all. 85% of the public is against such an extreme position. But unreasonable extremists continue to take an all or nothing approach, and as a result, continue to get nothing in return, because they are not sane, they are not practical and they do not represent the wishes of their consitituents.

  • Grace

    I believe that God is working in the hearts of those who know HIM as their Savior, to come out of them which advocate and do evil. Which our country now desires.

    43   “A good tree doesn’t produce rotten fruit, and a rotten tree doesn’t produce good fruit,
    44   because every tree is known by its own fruit. People don’t gather figs from thorny plants or pick grapes from a thorn bush.
    45   A good person produces good from the good treasure of his heart, and an evil person produces evil from an evil treasure, because the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart.”
    Luke 6

    In this country, I believe all too many have put the country first, and God Almighty second or not at all. The United States is not worth more than God’s Word, and HIM as our creator

  • Grace

    I believe that God is working in the hearts of those who know HIM as their Savior, to come out of them which advocate and do evil. Which our country now desires.

    43   “A good tree doesn’t produce rotten fruit, and a rotten tree doesn’t produce good fruit,
    44   because every tree is known by its own fruit. People don’t gather figs from thorny plants or pick grapes from a thorn bush.
    45   A good person produces good from the good treasure of his heart, and an evil person produces evil from an evil treasure, because the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart.”
    Luke 6

    In this country, I believe all too many have put the country first, and God Almighty second or not at all. The United States is not worth more than God’s Word, and HIM as our creator

  • DonS

    Gary @ 28: actually, younger people are more pro-life, according to surveys, than older people. They don’t necessarily want to see a total ban on abortions, but they are certainly open to reasonable restrictions on its practice, and understand that an unborn baby is a human being.

    Being pro-life is totally consistent with being a libertarian — one who values the individual rights and liberties of everyone, including the unborn. Where conservatives, of any stripe, both Christian and simply humanitarian, need to improve their political approach to this issue is to ensure that they are not demonized by a desperate opposition into appearing to be uncaring about the mother’s plight. We need to help the mother understand that she has a human life within her, with intrinsic value that should not be murdered, and that there is help for her and her baby from a compassionate community (and I’m not just talking about big government, but rather the truly compassionate private charitable and faith community that has built a strong infrastructure for caring for desperate young mothers, both before and after the baby is born, and whether or not she chooses to keep or adopt out her little one.

    I don’t think we simply abandon the effort to restrict abortion legally. Abortionists make a lot of money killing babies, and they exploit a lot of young mothers to do so. A political solution is part of the approach, but the motivation needs to be focused on love for the mother and baby, not political gain.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 28: actually, younger people are more pro-life, according to surveys, than older people. They don’t necessarily want to see a total ban on abortions, but they are certainly open to reasonable restrictions on its practice, and understand that an unborn baby is a human being.

    Being pro-life is totally consistent with being a libertarian — one who values the individual rights and liberties of everyone, including the unborn. Where conservatives, of any stripe, both Christian and simply humanitarian, need to improve their political approach to this issue is to ensure that they are not demonized by a desperate opposition into appearing to be uncaring about the mother’s plight. We need to help the mother understand that she has a human life within her, with intrinsic value that should not be murdered, and that there is help for her and her baby from a compassionate community (and I’m not just talking about big government, but rather the truly compassionate private charitable and faith community that has built a strong infrastructure for caring for desperate young mothers, both before and after the baby is born, and whether or not she chooses to keep or adopt out her little one.

    I don’t think we simply abandon the effort to restrict abortion legally. Abortionists make a lot of money killing babies, and they exploit a lot of young mothers to do so. A political solution is part of the approach, but the motivation needs to be focused on love for the mother and baby, not political gain.

  • Grace

    Lou G @29

    “SG – Did you forget to take your meds? “

    That’s no way to respond to anyone, for any reason. It’s rude, childish, and reminds me of the up -and – coming teens, who feel very smug when uttering such rubbish!

  • Grace

    Lou G @29

    “SG – Did you forget to take your meds? “

    That’s no way to respond to anyone, for any reason. It’s rude, childish, and reminds me of the up -and – coming teens, who feel very smug when uttering such rubbish!

  • Grace

    After working in PRO-LIFE, meeting many people who volunteer and support, I observed something many of you might not be aware of:

        ☀ Those who volunteered were young women, they were between 20′s and late 40′s for the most part. It’s the young women who were most eager to contribute their time and effort. They were not all “white” either, that’s another misnomer, often used to discredit other ethnic groups.

  • Grace

    After working in PRO-LIFE, meeting many people who volunteer and support, I observed something many of you might not be aware of:

        ☀ Those who volunteered were young women, they were between 20′s and late 40′s for the most part. It’s the young women who were most eager to contribute their time and effort. They were not all “white” either, that’s another misnomer, often used to discredit other ethnic groups.

  • Grace

    Let’s give credit to our young people, who are Christians who make a real effort to volunteer, and contribute. That includes PRO-LIFE and those who believe same sex marriage is wrong, and should not be made legal.

    When we as adults and parents down-grade our young people, we are not giving them credit for growing into responsible adults, but throwing them into the same heap as the heathens, who have no respect for the unborn, or morals.

  • Grace

    Let’s give credit to our young people, who are Christians who make a real effort to volunteer, and contribute. That includes PRO-LIFE and those who believe same sex marriage is wrong, and should not be made legal.

    When we as adults and parents down-grade our young people, we are not giving them credit for growing into responsible adults, but throwing them into the same heap as the heathens, who have no respect for the unborn, or morals.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    The problem is that the overwhelming majority of social conservative Christians will not support ANY position on abortion other than a COMPLETE ban. Again, they cannot compromise because compromising is a sin.

    If a woman is horrifically raped by some brutal thug: “Sorry, young lady, but you are going to have to carry that thug’s baby to term”.

    A mother’s life is in danger: “God should have the right to decide whether the mother or the child lives or dies. The doctor should not be allowed to make the choice.”

    A thirteen year girl old is repeatedly raped by her father and becomes pregnant: “Sorry, honey, but your rape was obviously God’s will or he would not have let it happen. Carry your baby/brother to term and then we will adopt him out.”

    Most Americans dislike abortion, but the overwhelming majority want the current abortion rights/limitations to remain. They do NOT want a complete ban.

    The baby who is a result of rape/incest is still an innocent human being. He/she does not deserve to be killed. But you are NOT going to convince secular society to force rape and incest victims to carry this type of pregancy to term. It is not going to happen no matter who much “educating” you try to do.

    This is why we should keep the Church out of the State. On difficult issues, such as abortion, reasonable people are going to have to come to a compromise. Most conservative Christians cannot do that. It must be a complete ban to them.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    The problem is that the overwhelming majority of social conservative Christians will not support ANY position on abortion other than a COMPLETE ban. Again, they cannot compromise because compromising is a sin.

    If a woman is horrifically raped by some brutal thug: “Sorry, young lady, but you are going to have to carry that thug’s baby to term”.

    A mother’s life is in danger: “God should have the right to decide whether the mother or the child lives or dies. The doctor should not be allowed to make the choice.”

    A thirteen year girl old is repeatedly raped by her father and becomes pregnant: “Sorry, honey, but your rape was obviously God’s will or he would not have let it happen. Carry your baby/brother to term and then we will adopt him out.”

    Most Americans dislike abortion, but the overwhelming majority want the current abortion rights/limitations to remain. They do NOT want a complete ban.

    The baby who is a result of rape/incest is still an innocent human being. He/she does not deserve to be killed. But you are NOT going to convince secular society to force rape and incest victims to carry this type of pregancy to term. It is not going to happen no matter who much “educating” you try to do.

    This is why we should keep the Church out of the State. On difficult issues, such as abortion, reasonable people are going to have to come to a compromise. Most conservative Christians cannot do that. It must be a complete ban to them.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 36: Actually, I don’t believe that is at all true. Taking myself as an example, yes, I certainly do believe every unborn baby is a human being, created by almighty God and therefore entitled to life, regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception. But I also understand that the country isn’t in that place, and it is not realistic to pursue the policy of a total abortion ban. That “the overwhelming majority of social conservative Christians will not support ANY position on abortion other than a COMPLETE ban” is a lie of the left, one they pursued to great effect during this year’s campaign, demonizing Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who had no intention of imposing such a drastic abortion policy, for craven political purposes, and to the exclusion of a substantive campaign about our economy.

    The pro-life movement has done a great job of compromising on the issue of abortion, by pursuing restrictions on grisly late term abortions, parental notification/permission laws, waiting periods, requirements that abortionists disclose the nature of their practice and what’s going to become of the baby to a young mother, and requiring ultrasounds so that the mother realizes that she is contemplating terminating the life of a living child. It is the left that refused to compromise on the issue, by imposing a total fundamental right to abortion by Supreme Court decree, and by fighting any tailoring of that right in an effort to make it more humane and to limit the number of killings of the innocent.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 36: Actually, I don’t believe that is at all true. Taking myself as an example, yes, I certainly do believe every unborn baby is a human being, created by almighty God and therefore entitled to life, regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception. But I also understand that the country isn’t in that place, and it is not realistic to pursue the policy of a total abortion ban. That “the overwhelming majority of social conservative Christians will not support ANY position on abortion other than a COMPLETE ban” is a lie of the left, one they pursued to great effect during this year’s campaign, demonizing Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who had no intention of imposing such a drastic abortion policy, for craven political purposes, and to the exclusion of a substantive campaign about our economy.

    The pro-life movement has done a great job of compromising on the issue of abortion, by pursuing restrictions on grisly late term abortions, parental notification/permission laws, waiting periods, requirements that abortionists disclose the nature of their practice and what’s going to become of the baby to a young mother, and requiring ultrasounds so that the mother realizes that she is contemplating terminating the life of a living child. It is the left that refused to compromise on the issue, by imposing a total fundamental right to abortion by Supreme Court decree, and by fighting any tailoring of that right in an effort to make it more humane and to limit the number of killings of the innocent.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    Take a poll of the readers of this blog. How many conservative Christians would vote to support allowing the abortion of babies who are conceived due to rape or incest? How many conservative Christians would say that it is ok, and should be legal, to abort a baby if his/her mother’s life is in danger?

    I think that the majority of conservative Christians would say that in these types of abortions an innocent human life is still being killed, an innocent human being is still being murdered, and that therefore there is no justifiable reason for killing him or her. Is murder EVER justifiable??

    I think you will quickly find that your position of “acceptable abortions” is in the minority among conservative Christians.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    Take a poll of the readers of this blog. How many conservative Christians would vote to support allowing the abortion of babies who are conceived due to rape or incest? How many conservative Christians would say that it is ok, and should be legal, to abort a baby if his/her mother’s life is in danger?

    I think that the majority of conservative Christians would say that in these types of abortions an innocent human life is still being killed, an innocent human being is still being murdered, and that therefore there is no justifiable reason for killing him or her. Is murder EVER justifiable??

    I think you will quickly find that your position of “acceptable abortions” is in the minority among conservative Christians.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 38: I will assume that your comment was directed at me, concerning my comment @ 37.

    I think you will quickly find that your position of “acceptable abortions” is in the minority among conservative Christians.

    There’s no such thing as an “acceptable abortion” in my view. I don’t know where you got that idea. I specifically said

    I certainly do believe every unborn baby is a human being, created by almighty God and therefore entitled to life, regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception.

    What I said was that most conservative, and most Christians, understand that a total abortion ban is unrealistic. They have been working within the system to try to lessen the number of abortions, by passing, at the state level, the kinds of laws I itemized in my comment. The point of those laws is 1) that no underage girl get an abortion without her parents knowing about it, and 2) to ensure that any woman seeking an abortion is fully informed as to its macabre nature, and has an opportunity to consider further before the procedure.

    What I also said is that it is the left that is so ideological on this issue that they will not even countenance the most minor of these restrictions on unfettered abortion rights.

    As to your questions:

    How many conservative Christians would vote to support allowing the abortion of babies who are conceived due to rape or incest?

    This is a straw man. We are talking about abortions that are already legal. There is no need to “support” such laws. I believe most conservative Christians would support restricting abortions from their present status as fundamental constitutional rights to such cases where rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk, however.

    How many conservative Christians would say that it is ok, and should be legal, to abort a baby if his/her mother’s life is in danger?

    This, of course, is the most reasonable reason to support an abortion — where there is a genuine choice between preserving the life of the mother OR the child, but not both. This is also an EXTREMELY rare situation, particularly in our era of modern medicine. But I think most Christians would support the idea that it is up to the individual, in consultation with her doctor and family, to make a decision of which life to save if such a circumstance genuinely exists. Few of us would interpose ourselves into that moral quandary, on behalf of the family faced with such a terrible choice.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 38: I will assume that your comment was directed at me, concerning my comment @ 37.

    I think you will quickly find that your position of “acceptable abortions” is in the minority among conservative Christians.

    There’s no such thing as an “acceptable abortion” in my view. I don’t know where you got that idea. I specifically said

    I certainly do believe every unborn baby is a human being, created by almighty God and therefore entitled to life, regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception.

    What I said was that most conservative, and most Christians, understand that a total abortion ban is unrealistic. They have been working within the system to try to lessen the number of abortions, by passing, at the state level, the kinds of laws I itemized in my comment. The point of those laws is 1) that no underage girl get an abortion without her parents knowing about it, and 2) to ensure that any woman seeking an abortion is fully informed as to its macabre nature, and has an opportunity to consider further before the procedure.

    What I also said is that it is the left that is so ideological on this issue that they will not even countenance the most minor of these restrictions on unfettered abortion rights.

    As to your questions:

    How many conservative Christians would vote to support allowing the abortion of babies who are conceived due to rape or incest?

    This is a straw man. We are talking about abortions that are already legal. There is no need to “support” such laws. I believe most conservative Christians would support restricting abortions from their present status as fundamental constitutional rights to such cases where rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk, however.

    How many conservative Christians would say that it is ok, and should be legal, to abort a baby if his/her mother’s life is in danger?

    This, of course, is the most reasonable reason to support an abortion — where there is a genuine choice between preserving the life of the mother OR the child, but not both. This is also an EXTREMELY rare situation, particularly in our era of modern medicine. But I think most Christians would support the idea that it is up to the individual, in consultation with her doctor and family, to make a decision of which life to save if such a circumstance genuinely exists. Few of us would interpose ourselves into that moral quandary, on behalf of the family faced with such a terrible choice.

  • kerner

    Gary:

    We don’t have to “move to the center” ideologically, per se. What we have to do is learn to be incremental about some of these issues. When you say that abortion will never be illegal in this country, you are only correct if you mean that it will nevwer become illegal overnight. I believe most Americans would accept more strict regulation of abortion that made it harder to get, and/or denied public funding for abortions, etc. But a complete ban (with very narrow exceptions) would only be accepted in some states, but not others. If we want a nationwide ban, a lot of work will have to be done until the great majority of American women consider abortion wrong, or at least socially unacceptable. This will be a long time coming. I doubt if I will live to see it.

    But neither young people nor women are what is holding more restrictive regulation of abortion back. Roe v. Wade is what does that. Enshrining abortion as a “constitutional right” has taken the use of reason and/or any kind of respect for community standards out of the equation. This is why Roe v. Wade has to go and why the best tactic relative to where we are now should be to return to a federalist approach, which will take action by the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is why that should be the polotical approach at this time. The social approach should still be the one we are taking, which is to continue to try to get people, especially young people, to understand abortion for what it is: killing another human being.

  • kerner

    Gary:

    We don’t have to “move to the center” ideologically, per se. What we have to do is learn to be incremental about some of these issues. When you say that abortion will never be illegal in this country, you are only correct if you mean that it will nevwer become illegal overnight. I believe most Americans would accept more strict regulation of abortion that made it harder to get, and/or denied public funding for abortions, etc. But a complete ban (with very narrow exceptions) would only be accepted in some states, but not others. If we want a nationwide ban, a lot of work will have to be done until the great majority of American women consider abortion wrong, or at least socially unacceptable. This will be a long time coming. I doubt if I will live to see it.

    But neither young people nor women are what is holding more restrictive regulation of abortion back. Roe v. Wade is what does that. Enshrining abortion as a “constitutional right” has taken the use of reason and/or any kind of respect for community standards out of the equation. This is why Roe v. Wade has to go and why the best tactic relative to where we are now should be to return to a federalist approach, which will take action by the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is why that should be the polotical approach at this time. The social approach should still be the one we are taking, which is to continue to try to get people, especially young people, to understand abortion for what it is: killing another human being.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    So killing your unborn child is ok IF and only if YOUR life as the mother is in danger?? If killing unborn babies is murder, then there should be no exception for saving your life by killing one.

    You sound very reasonable to me. If all conservative Christians held your view the Republican Party would not be in trouble. This is a VERY difficult issue. To say that we will accept the killing of some unborn children but not others is a political decision. You can’t get around it. This is a gut-wrenching, horrible compromise of our most dearly held Christian beliefs: that God loves and cherishes every life, born or unborn, and so should we.

    This issue will undo the Republican Party because unlike you and me, the majority of socially conservative Christians will not be able to compromise on this issue. I respect them for their integrity. They are trying to protect innocent babies who have done nothing wrong other than to be unwanted by their mother.

    But this issue along with the anti-gay rights stance will doom the GOP.

  • http://Luther,Baptists,andEvangelicals Gary

    So killing your unborn child is ok IF and only if YOUR life as the mother is in danger?? If killing unborn babies is murder, then there should be no exception for saving your life by killing one.

    You sound very reasonable to me. If all conservative Christians held your view the Republican Party would not be in trouble. This is a VERY difficult issue. To say that we will accept the killing of some unborn children but not others is a political decision. You can’t get around it. This is a gut-wrenching, horrible compromise of our most dearly held Christian beliefs: that God loves and cherishes every life, born or unborn, and so should we.

    This issue will undo the Republican Party because unlike you and me, the majority of socially conservative Christians will not be able to compromise on this issue. I respect them for their integrity. They are trying to protect innocent babies who have done nothing wrong other than to be unwanted by their mother.

    But this issue along with the anti-gay rights stance will doom the GOP.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 41: You are conflating two issues — the personal and the politically possible. At the personal level, killing is wrong unless it is unavoidable, e.g. self-defense, military operations, criminal punishment of murderers. These are all situations where human life is weighed and you choose the most palatable option. So, to this extent I disagree with your statement

    If killing unborn babies is murder, then there should be no exception for saving your life by killing one.

    The same is true for the case where a pregnancy threatens a mother’s life. If it is one life or the other, then the moral equation changes. I won’t presume to decide for a family facing the choice between giving up the life of the mother OR the baby which way that family should go. In all other cases, where another human life is not at stake, the life of the baby should be paramount — human life is the highest good. That is why I personally don’t support or approve of abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

    However, the political is different than the personal. We have our own set of values, informed by our belief in biblical teaching and the absolute Truth of God’s Word, but we also need to recognize that we live in a country where a majority of people do not hold those values. We also live in a society where, as Kerner says above @ 40, Roe v. Wade rules the day and the right to kill an unborn baby is very nearly absolute. In that world, knowing that we will not, in our current time, convince a majority of people to our view of the sanctity of human life, we propose the possible — doing everything in our political power to save as many lives as possible. That is a political decision — you’re right. But, it’s better than doing nothing, or trying to attain the impossible and thereby saving no lives. Where you and I disagree is that I think most Christians DO understand this, and are working diligently to educate people and trim back the absolute right to an abortion where possible. It is the left that demagogues the issue, and insists on the absolute right to kill babies.

    You might be thinking of the fight of pro-life people to not compromise in our ultimate political goals, as expressed in the Republican platform. I agree with them on this — the platform is an idealistic document explaining what our ultimate goals and aspirations are. It doesn’t necessarily reflect our real world policies TODAY, but is a roadmap for the future. We should never compromise on our ideals, only on our immediate policy goals, with a view toward ultimately winning hearts and minds to what is right.

  • DonS

    Gary @ 41: You are conflating two issues — the personal and the politically possible. At the personal level, killing is wrong unless it is unavoidable, e.g. self-defense, military operations, criminal punishment of murderers. These are all situations where human life is weighed and you choose the most palatable option. So, to this extent I disagree with your statement

    If killing unborn babies is murder, then there should be no exception for saving your life by killing one.

    The same is true for the case where a pregnancy threatens a mother’s life. If it is one life or the other, then the moral equation changes. I won’t presume to decide for a family facing the choice between giving up the life of the mother OR the baby which way that family should go. In all other cases, where another human life is not at stake, the life of the baby should be paramount — human life is the highest good. That is why I personally don’t support or approve of abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

    However, the political is different than the personal. We have our own set of values, informed by our belief in biblical teaching and the absolute Truth of God’s Word, but we also need to recognize that we live in a country where a majority of people do not hold those values. We also live in a society where, as Kerner says above @ 40, Roe v. Wade rules the day and the right to kill an unborn baby is very nearly absolute. In that world, knowing that we will not, in our current time, convince a majority of people to our view of the sanctity of human life, we propose the possible — doing everything in our political power to save as many lives as possible. That is a political decision — you’re right. But, it’s better than doing nothing, or trying to attain the impossible and thereby saving no lives. Where you and I disagree is that I think most Christians DO understand this, and are working diligently to educate people and trim back the absolute right to an abortion where possible. It is the left that demagogues the issue, and insists on the absolute right to kill babies.

    You might be thinking of the fight of pro-life people to not compromise in our ultimate political goals, as expressed in the Republican platform. I agree with them on this — the platform is an idealistic document explaining what our ultimate goals and aspirations are. It doesn’t necessarily reflect our real world policies TODAY, but is a roadmap for the future. We should never compromise on our ideals, only on our immediate policy goals, with a view toward ultimately winning hearts and minds to what is right.

  • kerner

    sg @19:

    You write as though Capital and Labor are mutually exclusive. Marx assumed they would be, and I think Barak Obama wants them to be, but it is not necessarily so.

    George W. Bush had a lot of faults, but sometimes I miss him. Do you remember when he used to talk about America becoming an “ownership” society? What he was talking about was trying to get ordinary Americans to acquire some Capital, and to get interested in hanging onto it.

    Of course “Capital” doesn’t want its Capital taken away. This is the reason it is very much in the interest of free market Conservatives to want ordinary Americans to become prosperous (i.e. acquire capital-in the form of investments, real estate, or even simple savings), whereas it is in the interest of the left to leave Capital permanantly concentrated in the hands of a few, who in collaboration with the government keep everyone else capital-less and dependent on the largesse of their governemnt/cronycapitalist masters.

    Capital really DOESN’T want its capital taken away. But in America (at least until recently) most people always thought they had a chance of acquiring some capital, even if only a little. Do youi have a positive net worth? If so, then you have capital. And this can be true on any social level. You don’t necessarily have to be well educated to acquire capital. In America, a poor man who works hard can save up some capital and invest it in somethng that appreciates, even if it is only a small savings account or a modest property. This is why a lot of poor people come to America from elsewhere. Not for a hand to mouth existence (although there are exceptions), they could get that in their home countries. They come for the chance to work and, at the end of the week, to have some money, some capital, left over to save.

    The reason Republicans should not tax capital is not for the sake of those who have a lot of it, but for the sake of those who are trying to acquire more of it on a smaller scale. This is what the Republicans offered to the so called “working classes” in the past, and it is what they should offer them now: The chance to work and acquire “capital”.

    Incidently, Asians, Mexicans, and most of all young people, want the opportunity to acquire capital as much as old white people ever have. They just have to learn that A) it is possible, and B) the Republicans are the only party who have a system that will not only let them, but encourage them, to do that.

  • kerner

    sg @19:

    You write as though Capital and Labor are mutually exclusive. Marx assumed they would be, and I think Barak Obama wants them to be, but it is not necessarily so.

    George W. Bush had a lot of faults, but sometimes I miss him. Do you remember when he used to talk about America becoming an “ownership” society? What he was talking about was trying to get ordinary Americans to acquire some Capital, and to get interested in hanging onto it.

    Of course “Capital” doesn’t want its Capital taken away. This is the reason it is very much in the interest of free market Conservatives to want ordinary Americans to become prosperous (i.e. acquire capital-in the form of investments, real estate, or even simple savings), whereas it is in the interest of the left to leave Capital permanantly concentrated in the hands of a few, who in collaboration with the government keep everyone else capital-less and dependent on the largesse of their governemnt/cronycapitalist masters.

    Capital really DOESN’T want its capital taken away. But in America (at least until recently) most people always thought they had a chance of acquiring some capital, even if only a little. Do youi have a positive net worth? If so, then you have capital. And this can be true on any social level. You don’t necessarily have to be well educated to acquire capital. In America, a poor man who works hard can save up some capital and invest it in somethng that appreciates, even if it is only a small savings account or a modest property. This is why a lot of poor people come to America from elsewhere. Not for a hand to mouth existence (although there are exceptions), they could get that in their home countries. They come for the chance to work and, at the end of the week, to have some money, some capital, left over to save.

    The reason Republicans should not tax capital is not for the sake of those who have a lot of it, but for the sake of those who are trying to acquire more of it on a smaller scale. This is what the Republicans offered to the so called “working classes” in the past, and it is what they should offer them now: The chance to work and acquire “capital”.

    Incidently, Asians, Mexicans, and most of all young people, want the opportunity to acquire capital as much as old white people ever have. They just have to learn that A) it is possible, and B) the Republicans are the only party who have a system that will not only let them, but encourage them, to do that.

  • kerner

    By the way, going by thbe principle that when you tax somthing you get less of it, income is the last thing we should be taxing.

    If we want people to save more (i.e. acquire and invest capital) what we should be taxing is spending. This is why every state should eliminate its state income tax and go with a sales tax, as Texas and Florida and many other states do. Not only does this encourage ordinary Americans to save up their capital, it frees labor from the shackles of government regulation, and eliminates using the tax code as a wealth redistribution scheme.

    Just think: no more worrying about whether workers are paying taxes on what they earn. They would no longer pay when they earn at all. They would pay when they buy. And no more giving tax “credits” to people who earn so little they don’t pay any taxes in the first place.

    There have been proposals for the federal government to operate this way as well, but they don’t generate as mch interest as I wish they did.

  • kerner

    By the way, going by thbe principle that when you tax somthing you get less of it, income is the last thing we should be taxing.

    If we want people to save more (i.e. acquire and invest capital) what we should be taxing is spending. This is why every state should eliminate its state income tax and go with a sales tax, as Texas and Florida and many other states do. Not only does this encourage ordinary Americans to save up their capital, it frees labor from the shackles of government regulation, and eliminates using the tax code as a wealth redistribution scheme.

    Just think: no more worrying about whether workers are paying taxes on what they earn. They would no longer pay when they earn at all. They would pay when they buy. And no more giving tax “credits” to people who earn so little they don’t pay any taxes in the first place.

    There have been proposals for the federal government to operate this way as well, but they don’t generate as mch interest as I wish they did.

  • kerner

    And also, the real estate taxes we all pay ARE taxes on capital. And Capital pays them. Whether it is a good idea to structure a tax code to tax real estate is probably a debate for another time, but Capital DOES pay taxes on some of its capital anyway.

  • kerner

    And also, the real estate taxes we all pay ARE taxes on capital. And Capital pays them. Whether it is a good idea to structure a tax code to tax real estate is probably a debate for another time, but Capital DOES pay taxes on some of its capital anyway.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Any political party advocating personal responsibility is dead in Obama’s America. We’re well on our way to being a banana republic where corrupt, ruthless strongmen win elections by doling out “free” stuff to lazy, entitled deadbeats. This country is full of shiftless, envious people who believe that those who are successful owe them a living. I know that liberals pretend not to know any such people (all the poor are earnest toilers who are tragic victims of heartless hedge fund managers and CEO’s), but I’ve known plenty. Bitter, jealous, grasping leeches who’ve wrecked their own lives through poor decision-making and laziness and expect everyone else to bail them out. It’s a real tragedy that truly hard-working, humble, content people who don’t have a great many earthly possessions are tarred by these societal sponges. God expects us to work. He blesses us through the work of our neighbors. Those who won’t work are insulting God.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Any political party advocating personal responsibility is dead in Obama’s America. We’re well on our way to being a banana republic where corrupt, ruthless strongmen win elections by doling out “free” stuff to lazy, entitled deadbeats. This country is full of shiftless, envious people who believe that those who are successful owe them a living. I know that liberals pretend not to know any such people (all the poor are earnest toilers who are tragic victims of heartless hedge fund managers and CEO’s), but I’ve known plenty. Bitter, jealous, grasping leeches who’ve wrecked their own lives through poor decision-making and laziness and expect everyone else to bail them out. It’s a real tragedy that truly hard-working, humble, content people who don’t have a great many earthly possessions are tarred by these societal sponges. God expects us to work. He blesses us through the work of our neighbors. Those who won’t work are insulting God.

  • Grace

    Jim @46

    Do you know any people that are truly having a difficult time, who barely have enough to eat.

    Men and women who work, but make so little money they are forced to live in areas that aren’t very safe, whose children walk to school because the parent has to work. These children don’t come home to mom and dad, they come home to an empty house. Mom, dad or both, come home TIRED, worn out. Mom also stopped by the market to pick up some groceries. She now prepares dinner, feeds her child/children checks their homework if she has the energy, and then sits for a few minutes, cleans the kitchen, takes a shower and goes to bed – only to repeat this again tomorrow.

    There are a lot of people who have left their spouse for a variety of reasons, leaving them with no money, and little or no support.

    Your posted repertoire is a mean-spirited drama that does not encompass the majority of those who need assistance.

    There are people who aren’t capable of making enough money to buy groceries, pay rent, auto insurance, a used car, clothes for themselves and their children , gas and electrice bills, and all the necessities most of the rest of us enjoy everyday including –   SAFETY   when they can’t walk or drive their children to and from school.

    Tonight before you go to sleep, thank God ALMIGHTY for what you have, pray for those in need, and take your head out of the sand castle you’ve built, to blame the unfortunate.

  • Grace

    Jim @46

    Do you know any people that are truly having a difficult time, who barely have enough to eat.

    Men and women who work, but make so little money they are forced to live in areas that aren’t very safe, whose children walk to school because the parent has to work. These children don’t come home to mom and dad, they come home to an empty house. Mom, dad or both, come home TIRED, worn out. Mom also stopped by the market to pick up some groceries. She now prepares dinner, feeds her child/children checks their homework if she has the energy, and then sits for a few minutes, cleans the kitchen, takes a shower and goes to bed – only to repeat this again tomorrow.

    There are a lot of people who have left their spouse for a variety of reasons, leaving them with no money, and little or no support.

    Your posted repertoire is a mean-spirited drama that does not encompass the majority of those who need assistance.

    There are people who aren’t capable of making enough money to buy groceries, pay rent, auto insurance, a used car, clothes for themselves and their children , gas and electrice bills, and all the necessities most of the rest of us enjoy everyday including –   SAFETY   when they can’t walk or drive their children to and from school.

    Tonight before you go to sleep, thank God ALMIGHTY for what you have, pray for those in need, and take your head out of the sand castle you’ve built, to blame the unfortunate.

  • Michael B.

    @Jim Hamilton

    “I’ve known plenty. Bitter, jealous, grasping leeches who’ve wrecked their own lives through poor decision-making and laziness and expect everyone else to bail them out. ”

    I know plenty of people who fit that description quite well. May I add one additional characteristic? They always have an excuse, and it’s always somebody else’s fault. They are professional victims. And for many of them, it goes beyond laziness. They couldn’t hold a job if they wanted to.

    However, any group, human or otherwise, can survive with a small percentage of freeloaders. (I recall a study about some sort of insect population where a small percent just lives off the work off others.) The problem is we’ve encouraged these people to multiply themselves by having kid after kid. Our grandchildren will grow up in a very different America.

  • Michael B.

    @Jim Hamilton

    “I’ve known plenty. Bitter, jealous, grasping leeches who’ve wrecked their own lives through poor decision-making and laziness and expect everyone else to bail them out. ”

    I know plenty of people who fit that description quite well. May I add one additional characteristic? They always have an excuse, and it’s always somebody else’s fault. They are professional victims. And for many of them, it goes beyond laziness. They couldn’t hold a job if they wanted to.

    However, any group, human or otherwise, can survive with a small percentage of freeloaders. (I recall a study about some sort of insect population where a small percent just lives off the work off others.) The problem is we’ve encouraged these people to multiply themselves by having kid after kid. Our grandchildren will grow up in a very different America.

  • Wayne A.

    In 2010, social conservatives kicked butt. The problem wasn’t with social conservatives in 2012, the problem was a modertate RINO that many social conservatives couldn’t vote for. They say probably 3 million social conservatives didn’t vote, and I’m sure there were probably a few million more who did vote but couldn’t vote for Romney. I know several of my friends voted for one of the other candidates on the ballot or simply wrote in a name. If the republicans abandon social conservatives, then they abandon me and I will never vote for them again.

  • Wayne A.

    In 2010, social conservatives kicked butt. The problem wasn’t with social conservatives in 2012, the problem was a modertate RINO that many social conservatives couldn’t vote for. They say probably 3 million social conservatives didn’t vote, and I’m sure there were probably a few million more who did vote but couldn’t vote for Romney. I know several of my friends voted for one of the other candidates on the ballot or simply wrote in a name. If the republicans abandon social conservatives, then they abandon me and I will never vote for them again.

  • Wayne A.

    I guess I didn’t realize that before Roe v Wade that we just let mothers die with their babies rather than try to save them. I may be mistaken, but I thought it always was, we will make every effort to save both the mother and the child, but if in the process the baby is lost it is a tradgedy and we will grieve.

  • Wayne A.

    I guess I didn’t realize that before Roe v Wade that we just let mothers die with their babies rather than try to save them. I may be mistaken, but I thought it always was, we will make every effort to save both the mother and the child, but if in the process the baby is lost it is a tradgedy and we will grieve.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace @47

    What’s your point? We live in the richest, most materially abundant society in human history. People are not starving to death in this country. The poorest people in our society are the fattest. An American poor person is far more likely to die of a obesity-caused heart attack in front of a flat screen TV in an air-conditioned apartment than expire from lack of food. Recounting sob stories about the “noble poor” doesn’t alter the fact that millions of deadbeats are living off the backs of productive people. Stop making excuses for the freeloaders. There’s nothing holy or pious about coddling lazy, entitled deadbeats. I’m very grateful to God for what He’s given me. I also have no tolerance for people who squander what God’s given them on cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets and then complain that “society” has screwed them over. Enough with the bumper sticker sloganeering and insulting emotional appeals. If we actually expect to right his ship (and I’m pretty certain we’re not going to), we need to grow up and face our fiscal problems like rational adults, not like a gang of teenage girls obsessed with “feelings” and “being nice.” Man, this country is totally screwed.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace @47

    What’s your point? We live in the richest, most materially abundant society in human history. People are not starving to death in this country. The poorest people in our society are the fattest. An American poor person is far more likely to die of a obesity-caused heart attack in front of a flat screen TV in an air-conditioned apartment than expire from lack of food. Recounting sob stories about the “noble poor” doesn’t alter the fact that millions of deadbeats are living off the backs of productive people. Stop making excuses for the freeloaders. There’s nothing holy or pious about coddling lazy, entitled deadbeats. I’m very grateful to God for what He’s given me. I also have no tolerance for people who squander what God’s given them on cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets and then complain that “society” has screwed them over. Enough with the bumper sticker sloganeering and insulting emotional appeals. If we actually expect to right his ship (and I’m pretty certain we’re not going to), we need to grow up and face our fiscal problems like rational adults, not like a gang of teenage girls obsessed with “feelings” and “being nice.” Man, this country is totally screwed.

  • John C

    Republicans do not only have problems with abortion and gay marriage, but their attitude towards science, the environment and voodoo economics is also a bit of a worry.

  • John C

    Republicans do not only have problems with abortion and gay marriage, but their attitude towards science, the environment and voodoo economics is also a bit of a worry.

  • Jim Hamilton

    I’m worried about people who believe in evolution and worship human beings and their fallible opinions. Such people may enjoy smugly looking down on all the stupid Christian people who don’t “understand science” in this life, but when the Son returns those who have trusted in Him will be saved and all those who put their faith in the things of this world will burn.

  • Jim Hamilton

    I’m worried about people who believe in evolution and worship human beings and their fallible opinions. Such people may enjoy smugly looking down on all the stupid Christian people who don’t “understand science” in this life, but when the Son returns those who have trusted in Him will be saved and all those who put their faith in the things of this world will burn.

  • Abby
  • Abby
  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Extremists” who are incapable of being practical are those who say things like abortion even for legitimate rape or if the woman’s life is endangered has to be completely banned for all. 85% of the public is against such an extreme position. But unreasonable extremists continue to take an all or nothing approach, and as a result, continue to get nothing in return, because they are not sane, they are not practical and they do not represent the wishes of their consitituents.

    Lemme see if I got this straight. You think that there is an option to ban all abortions except for rape and the life of the mother, but the “extremists” would vote against that option. Is that right? If you think that, you need to lay off the recreational meds, brother. That option does not exist, but if it did, “extremists” sure the heck would vote for it. People like President Obama who want abortion legal for any reason for all nine months are the real extremists. That position has no more support than a total ban.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Extremists” who are incapable of being practical are those who say things like abortion even for legitimate rape or if the woman’s life is endangered has to be completely banned for all. 85% of the public is against such an extreme position. But unreasonable extremists continue to take an all or nothing approach, and as a result, continue to get nothing in return, because they are not sane, they are not practical and they do not represent the wishes of their consitituents.

    Lemme see if I got this straight. You think that there is an option to ban all abortions except for rape and the life of the mother, but the “extremists” would vote against that option. Is that right? If you think that, you need to lay off the recreational meds, brother. That option does not exist, but if it did, “extremists” sure the heck would vote for it. People like President Obama who want abortion legal for any reason for all nine months are the real extremists. That position has no more support than a total ban.

  • Grace

    Jim @ 51 “What’s your point? We live in the richest, most materially abundant society in human history. People are not starving to death in this country. The poorest people in our society are the fattest. An American poor person is far more likely to die of a obesity-caused heart attack in front of a flat screen TV in an air-conditioned apartment than expire from lack of food.”

    You’re right about the “poorest people in our society are the fattest. ” – Do you know why?

    Fat food is the cheapest food to buy – starch, and more starch, bread, etc. That’s one of the basic reasons they are fat.

    How many hard working single mothers do you know with a “flat screen TV” or an “air conditioned apartment” ?

    Be careful Jim, you might be put in a position to eat those words you’ve spit out about others.

    I’m a pastors daughter, I saw a great many who struggled, my father did what he could to help. Your obvious distaste for those less fortunate is appalling. It’s easy to ‘arm chair, such a difficult situation, it’s another to see it with my own eyes. It’s heartbeaking.

    There are many who work the system, take all they can get, but that is not ALL PEOPLE, it’s only part of the story.

    You want to justify keeping ALL YOU HAVE for yourself. I’m no where close to socialism, but I most certainly don’t agree with you, from the experience I’ve had.

    5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

    6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

    7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

    8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

    9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
    James 2

  • Grace

    Jim @ 51 “What’s your point? We live in the richest, most materially abundant society in human history. People are not starving to death in this country. The poorest people in our society are the fattest. An American poor person is far more likely to die of a obesity-caused heart attack in front of a flat screen TV in an air-conditioned apartment than expire from lack of food.”

    You’re right about the “poorest people in our society are the fattest. ” – Do you know why?

    Fat food is the cheapest food to buy – starch, and more starch, bread, etc. That’s one of the basic reasons they are fat.

    How many hard working single mothers do you know with a “flat screen TV” or an “air conditioned apartment” ?

    Be careful Jim, you might be put in a position to eat those words you’ve spit out about others.

    I’m a pastors daughter, I saw a great many who struggled, my father did what he could to help. Your obvious distaste for those less fortunate is appalling. It’s easy to ‘arm chair, such a difficult situation, it’s another to see it with my own eyes. It’s heartbeaking.

    There are many who work the system, take all they can get, but that is not ALL PEOPLE, it’s only part of the story.

    You want to justify keeping ALL YOU HAVE for yourself. I’m no where close to socialism, but I most certainly don’t agree with you, from the experience I’ve had.

    5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

    6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

    7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

    8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

    9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
    James 2

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The problem is that the overwhelming majority of social conservative Christians will not support ANY position on abortion other than a COMPLETE ban. Again, they cannot compromise because compromising is a sin.

    This is so obviously false. Those very same people are the ones writing legislation to restrict abortions even if it will only delay it a couple of days. There is no basis in fact in what you say.

    If a woman is horrifically raped by some brutal thug: “Sorry, young lady, but you are going to have to carry that thug’s baby to term”.

    Okay, but since the baby gets the death penalty, can we give the thug rapist the same death penalty? I mean you know at least he has some blame for the situation. So, you know punishment fitting the crime and all.

    A mother’s life is in danger: “God should have the right to decide whether the mother or the child lives or dies. The doctor should not be allowed to make the choice.”

    That was never illegal. You know that, right?

    A thirteen year girl old is repeatedly raped by her father and becomes pregnant: “Sorry, honey, but your rape was obviously God’s will or he would not have let it happen. Carry your baby/brother to term and then we will adopt him out.”

    Again, how about the death penalty for the rapist? I mean if being the victim of a crime is serious enough for the state to allow the death penalty then surely being the perpetrator should be as well. Can we count on your support to make rape a capital crime?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The problem is that the overwhelming majority of social conservative Christians will not support ANY position on abortion other than a COMPLETE ban. Again, they cannot compromise because compromising is a sin.

    This is so obviously false. Those very same people are the ones writing legislation to restrict abortions even if it will only delay it a couple of days. There is no basis in fact in what you say.

    If a woman is horrifically raped by some brutal thug: “Sorry, young lady, but you are going to have to carry that thug’s baby to term”.

    Okay, but since the baby gets the death penalty, can we give the thug rapist the same death penalty? I mean you know at least he has some blame for the situation. So, you know punishment fitting the crime and all.

    A mother’s life is in danger: “God should have the right to decide whether the mother or the child lives or dies. The doctor should not be allowed to make the choice.”

    That was never illegal. You know that, right?

    A thirteen year girl old is repeatedly raped by her father and becomes pregnant: “Sorry, honey, but your rape was obviously God’s will or he would not have let it happen. Carry your baby/brother to term and then we will adopt him out.”

    Again, how about the death penalty for the rapist? I mean if being the victim of a crime is serious enough for the state to allow the death penalty then surely being the perpetrator should be as well. Can we count on your support to make rape a capital crime?

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace @56

    I’m sorry you’re appalled by my views. I’m appalled by deadbeats who live off the hard work of productive people.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace @56

    I’m sorry you’re appalled by my views. I’m appalled by deadbeats who live off the hard work of productive people.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Republicans do not only have problems with abortion and gay marriage, but their attitude towards science, the environment and voodoo economics is also a bit of a worry.”

    Ah yes, remind us of how importing millions of people and increasing our population by 50% in 50 years is going to help the environment. Come on, you believe in science. Please tell us how 300 million people use so many fewer resources and create less pollution than 200 million. Please tell us how people who move to the US consume less per capita than they did before they came. Show us the science, Mr. science man. Oh and remind us of how spending twice what you take in year in and year out is great economics. Cut the voodoo and explain it to us. After that you can explain exactly when a human becomes a human since evidently it must be at some other time than when other animals become new individuals.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Republicans do not only have problems with abortion and gay marriage, but their attitude towards science, the environment and voodoo economics is also a bit of a worry.”

    Ah yes, remind us of how importing millions of people and increasing our population by 50% in 50 years is going to help the environment. Come on, you believe in science. Please tell us how 300 million people use so many fewer resources and create less pollution than 200 million. Please tell us how people who move to the US consume less per capita than they did before they came. Show us the science, Mr. science man. Oh and remind us of how spending twice what you take in year in and year out is great economics. Cut the voodoo and explain it to us. After that you can explain exactly when a human becomes a human since evidently it must be at some other time than when other animals become new individuals.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “However, any group, human or otherwise, can survive with a small percentage of freeloaders. (I recall a study about some sort of insect population where a small percent just lives off the work off others.) The problem is we’ve encouraged these people to multiply themselves by having kid after kid. Our grandchildren will grow up in a very different America.”

    Not true. We have imported them. The only groups of Americans who have above replacement birth rates are Amish, Mormons and Orthodox Jews. And they aren’t freeloaders.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “However, any group, human or otherwise, can survive with a small percentage of freeloaders. (I recall a study about some sort of insect population where a small percent just lives off the work off others.) The problem is we’ve encouraged these people to multiply themselves by having kid after kid. Our grandchildren will grow up in a very different America.”

    Not true. We have imported them. The only groups of Americans who have above replacement birth rates are Amish, Mormons and Orthodox Jews. And they aren’t freeloaders.

  • Grace

    Jim @58

    “I’m sorry you’re appalled by my views. I’m appalled by deadbeats who live off the hard work of productive people.”

    Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.

    You might think these “dead beat fathers” – many of these so called ‘men, have careers, but they beat the system, by constant court appearances, which their ex-wives cannot afford – (attorney’s cost money, more than a single mother with children can afford) Of course they can get a transfer from their corporation.

    You’ve got “deadbeats” in the WRONG CATEGORY!

  • Grace

    Jim @58

    “I’m sorry you’re appalled by my views. I’m appalled by deadbeats who live off the hard work of productive people.”

    Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.

    You might think these “dead beat fathers” – many of these so called ‘men, have careers, but they beat the system, by constant court appearances, which their ex-wives cannot afford – (attorney’s cost money, more than a single mother with children can afford) Of course they can get a transfer from their corporation.

    You’ve got “deadbeats” in the WRONG CATEGORY!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And also, the real estate taxes we all pay ARE taxes on capital. And Capital pays them. Whether it is a good idea to structure a tax code to tax real estate is probably a debate for another time, but Capital DOES pay taxes on some of its capital anyway.”

    Yes, of course, but we are talking about federal taxes not state and local. President Obama is not advising states to raise property taxes when he talks of the wealthy paying more. Nor is he advocating federal property taxes on real estate or any other kind of property. In short, he is only talking about taxing workers more, not capital.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And also, the real estate taxes we all pay ARE taxes on capital. And Capital pays them. Whether it is a good idea to structure a tax code to tax real estate is probably a debate for another time, but Capital DOES pay taxes on some of its capital anyway.”

    Yes, of course, but we are talking about federal taxes not state and local. President Obama is not advising states to raise property taxes when he talks of the wealthy paying more. Nor is he advocating federal property taxes on real estate or any other kind of property. In short, he is only talking about taxing workers more, not capital.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If we want people to save more (i.e. acquire and invest capital) what we should be taxing is spending. This is why every state should eliminate its state income tax and go with a sales tax, as Texas and Florida and many other states do. Not only does this encourage ordinary Americans to save up their capital, it frees labor from the shackles of government regulation, and eliminates using the tax code as a wealth redistribution scheme.”

    Bravo.

    But remember, spending enriches Capital and they make the rules. So, of course they don’t want spending taxed.

    One quibble. Texas has very high property taxes. Consider a house in New Jersey is $400k, annual tax is $3500. In Texas, that same house is $250k and the taxes are $7500. The effect is that more money goes to the state and less to the bank. So, if you can only afford a $2200 a month payment and no more, you don’t care how much goes to the bank in interest vs. how much goes to the state and school/MUD district. All you care about is the bottom line. So, of course banks love NJ. Do you know how much interest there is on a $400k loan? Anyway, if you do pay to the end and then sell, in NJ, you have about the equivalent value of $400k, in Texas $250k , but the state cashed in and they did it whether you had good income or not. New Jersey has income tax. That only taxes money you have. Property tax is due whether you are raking it in, unemployed, or dead.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If we want people to save more (i.e. acquire and invest capital) what we should be taxing is spending. This is why every state should eliminate its state income tax and go with a sales tax, as Texas and Florida and many other states do. Not only does this encourage ordinary Americans to save up their capital, it frees labor from the shackles of government regulation, and eliminates using the tax code as a wealth redistribution scheme.”

    Bravo.

    But remember, spending enriches Capital and they make the rules. So, of course they don’t want spending taxed.

    One quibble. Texas has very high property taxes. Consider a house in New Jersey is $400k, annual tax is $3500. In Texas, that same house is $250k and the taxes are $7500. The effect is that more money goes to the state and less to the bank. So, if you can only afford a $2200 a month payment and no more, you don’t care how much goes to the bank in interest vs. how much goes to the state and school/MUD district. All you care about is the bottom line. So, of course banks love NJ. Do you know how much interest there is on a $400k loan? Anyway, if you do pay to the end and then sell, in NJ, you have about the equivalent value of $400k, in Texas $250k , but the state cashed in and they did it whether you had good income or not. New Jersey has income tax. That only taxes money you have. Property tax is due whether you are raking it in, unemployed, or dead.

  • Grace

    Sg

    Would you be so kind as to give property tax rates on a home as follows:

    500K

    650K

    750K

    850K

    950K

    And one million. What kind of home would one be able to obtain at 700K – to 1 million

  • Grace

    Sg

    Would you be so kind as to give property tax rates on a home as follows:

    500K

    650K

    750K

    850K

    950K

    And one million. What kind of home would one be able to obtain at 700K – to 1 million

  • kerner

    @63:

    Gotta make up your mind. Property tax is a tax on a certain kind of capital. If you don’t have that kind of capital, you don’t have to pay the tax. So in that sense property tax is in fact a tax on property you HAVE, not on property you produce. Where there is no income tax, you can produce a lot or a little, and never pay a tax either way. You pay a tax on your spending or on capital that you own.

    Now what you have in Texas is either better or worse than what they have in NJ. My guess is that it’s better, because business and people are coming to TX, but they are leaving NJ. But nobody ever said that you were going to get off paying NO tax.

    The thing is, your system there in TX addresses most of the problems that you personally seem to gripe about the most. Got illegals working off the books? They still pay every penny in TX taxes that a native born Texan would making the same money, because they pay their taxes when they buy things, not where they work. And their employers and landlords pay more taxes on their capital because their real estate is more valuable because of the workers they employ or because of the tennants they rent to.

    Meanwhile, TX attracts people who earn a lot of money, because they don’t have to pay a tax on their income. But they don’t have to spend it buying stuff meither. THey can hire people to provide services or to produce stuff for sale locally or abroad. WHich creates more jobs and earns more tax free money. A clear win-win. Because you don’t have to come up with artificailly, centrally planned, policies to help out workers, People earning money and hiring workers who don’t get taxed for working creates a system that is good for workers through free market forces; no central planning needed.

  • kerner

    @63:

    Gotta make up your mind. Property tax is a tax on a certain kind of capital. If you don’t have that kind of capital, you don’t have to pay the tax. So in that sense property tax is in fact a tax on property you HAVE, not on property you produce. Where there is no income tax, you can produce a lot or a little, and never pay a tax either way. You pay a tax on your spending or on capital that you own.

    Now what you have in Texas is either better or worse than what they have in NJ. My guess is that it’s better, because business and people are coming to TX, but they are leaving NJ. But nobody ever said that you were going to get off paying NO tax.

    The thing is, your system there in TX addresses most of the problems that you personally seem to gripe about the most. Got illegals working off the books? They still pay every penny in TX taxes that a native born Texan would making the same money, because they pay their taxes when they buy things, not where they work. And their employers and landlords pay more taxes on their capital because their real estate is more valuable because of the workers they employ or because of the tennants they rent to.

    Meanwhile, TX attracts people who earn a lot of money, because they don’t have to pay a tax on their income. But they don’t have to spend it buying stuff meither. THey can hire people to provide services or to produce stuff for sale locally or abroad. WHich creates more jobs and earns more tax free money. A clear win-win. Because you don’t have to come up with artificailly, centrally planned, policies to help out workers, People earning money and hiring workers who don’t get taxed for working creates a system that is good for workers through free market forces; no central planning needed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oh, yeah, I agree with you Kerner. Taxing spending and/or real estate is much more efficient for the state. Plus, with a homestead exemption, poor and/or retired folks in the country or suburban trailer parks can get under it. As for the sales tax, food and some other essentials are exempt. Property tax can never be avoided and there is little real incentive generally for merchants to cheat because they don’t pay it, the customer does. Elaborate income tax schemes just beg to be gamed and dodge, and no surprise, they are gamed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oh, yeah, I agree with you Kerner. Taxing spending and/or real estate is much more efficient for the state. Plus, with a homestead exemption, poor and/or retired folks in the country or suburban trailer parks can get under it. As for the sales tax, food and some other essentials are exempt. Property tax can never be avoided and there is little real incentive generally for merchants to cheat because they don’t pay it, the customer does. Elaborate income tax schemes just beg to be gamed and dodge, and no surprise, they are gamed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @64

    Rates vary from place to place as do property values. I just happened to know the above example because of friends in New Jersey.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @64

    Rates vary from place to place as do property values. I just happened to know the above example because of friends in New Jersey.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.

    45% of single mothers have never been married. 55% of single mothers are divorced. Now we know that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women. So, that means of the single moms out there, about 22% could be women who were abandoned. So, if 78% are single moms by choice, then using them as the general case is fair when making a generalization.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.

    45% of single mothers have never been married. 55% of single mothers are divorced. Now we know that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women. So, that means of the single moms out there, about 22% could be women who were abandoned. So, if 78% are single moms by choice, then using them as the general case is fair when making a generalization.

  • John C

    Show us the science, Mr Science Man.
    That’s quite a rant, sg.
    Now, what’s that I said about science and Republicans?

  • John C

    Show us the science, Mr Science Man.
    That’s quite a rant, sg.
    Now, what’s that I said about science and Republicans?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 69

    Yeah, didn’t think you could back up your snide trolling. You never do, because you don’t actually know anything. Try cracking a book, troll.

    I have no love for the Republican party per se, but your stupid content free comments certainly make you look even dumber and more clueless than the Republican leaders.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 69

    Yeah, didn’t think you could back up your snide trolling. You never do, because you don’t actually know anything. Try cracking a book, troll.

    I have no love for the Republican party per se, but your stupid content free comments certainly make you look even dumber and more clueless than the Republican leaders.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace, do you really not see the difference between the truly needy and those who are lazy and gaming the system? Do you really believe that every person who is poor is a victim of society and bears no responsibility for his plight? Liberal social policies have incentivized shiftlessness and created generations of people who have simply embraced subsidized poverty as a lifestyle. These people live off the hard work of other people. No one debates that there are truly needy people in our society. I wholeheartedly support helping people like this and my wife and I do what we can in that respect (though I’m sure we could do more). Why do you have no sympathy for the people who break their backs working and paying taxes? What about the people who build businesses and employ people and are demonized every day by the entitlement class? You do a lot of weepy sermonizing about struggling single mothers but you never admit that many of the “poor” in our country are leeches on the flesh of our hardworking fellow citizens. Worse than that, truly needy people are denied the help they need because the welfare system is bled dry through waste and fraud. This doesn’t seem to bother you though. I’ll say again, there is nothing pious about coddling people who won’t work and prefer to take what others have earned. Why you find these views “appalling,” I don’t know.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace, do you really not see the difference between the truly needy and those who are lazy and gaming the system? Do you really believe that every person who is poor is a victim of society and bears no responsibility for his plight? Liberal social policies have incentivized shiftlessness and created generations of people who have simply embraced subsidized poverty as a lifestyle. These people live off the hard work of other people. No one debates that there are truly needy people in our society. I wholeheartedly support helping people like this and my wife and I do what we can in that respect (though I’m sure we could do more). Why do you have no sympathy for the people who break their backs working and paying taxes? What about the people who build businesses and employ people and are demonized every day by the entitlement class? You do a lot of weepy sermonizing about struggling single mothers but you never admit that many of the “poor” in our country are leeches on the flesh of our hardworking fellow citizens. Worse than that, truly needy people are denied the help they need because the welfare system is bled dry through waste and fraud. This doesn’t seem to bother you though. I’ll say again, there is nothing pious about coddling people who won’t work and prefer to take what others have earned. Why you find these views “appalling,” I don’t know.

  • Grace

    sg, @67 “Rates vary from place to place as do property values. I just happened to know the above example because of friends in New Jersey.”

    RE: your post @ 63 – I wasn’t clear about “property taxes” – I wanted info on Texas, not New Jersey.

  • Grace

    sg, @67 “Rates vary from place to place as do property values. I just happened to know the above example because of friends in New Jersey.”

    RE: your post @ 63 – I wasn’t clear about “property taxes” – I wanted info on Texas, not New Jersey.

  • Grace

    sg @68

      YOU WROTE: “45% of single mothers have never been married. 55% of single mothers are divorced. Now we know that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women.”

    Where did you get this info? – please give a LINK. It appears you are using stats that are very recent.

  • Grace

    sg @68

      YOU WROTE: “45% of single mothers have never been married. 55% of single mothers are divorced. Now we know that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women.”

    Where did you get this info? – please give a LINK. It appears you are using stats that are very recent.

  • Lou G.

    SG: “That option does not exist, but if it did, “extremists” sure the heck would vote for it.”
    You’re wrong. The option DOES exist. It is simply not on the table. As I stated. It always comes down to all or nothing politically. Did you read the social conservative blogs and commentary after Akin’s misspeak? Every single one of pundits and their conservative political counterparts defended banning abortion even in the case of rape as being consistent with their views.
    Yet, the public disagrees by an 85% to 15% margin.

  • Lou G.

    SG: “That option does not exist, but if it did, “extremists” sure the heck would vote for it.”
    You’re wrong. The option DOES exist. It is simply not on the table. As I stated. It always comes down to all or nothing politically. Did you read the social conservative blogs and commentary after Akin’s misspeak? Every single one of pundits and their conservative political counterparts defended banning abortion even in the case of rape as being consistent with their views.
    Yet, the public disagrees by an 85% to 15% margin.

  • Lou G.

    Abby #54: That link looks really good but it goes to an audio file which I am unable to listen to. Any chance you could give us the highlights? Thanks.

  • Lou G.

    Abby #54: That link looks really good but it goes to an audio file which I am unable to listen to. Any chance you could give us the highlights? Thanks.

  • Lou G.

    Gary #38 “Take a poll of the readers of this blog. How many conservative Christians would vote to support allowing the abortion of babies who are conceived due to rape or incest? How many conservative Christians would say that it is ok, and should be legal, to abort a baby if his/her mother’s life is in danger?”

    I think you’re asking the question wrong and as such highlight the reason why we’re not making head way. We should ask conservative Christians how many of them would vote to outlaw abortions except in extreme cases if we could get it passed tomorrow?

    Clearly, banning MOST abortions (except only in extreme cases) is immensely better than flagrantly allowing ALL abortions under any circumstance.

  • Lou G.

    Gary #38 “Take a poll of the readers of this blog. How many conservative Christians would vote to support allowing the abortion of babies who are conceived due to rape or incest? How many conservative Christians would say that it is ok, and should be legal, to abort a baby if his/her mother’s life is in danger?”

    I think you’re asking the question wrong and as such highlight the reason why we’re not making head way. We should ask conservative Christians how many of them would vote to outlaw abortions except in extreme cases if we could get it passed tomorrow?

    Clearly, banning MOST abortions (except only in extreme cases) is immensely better than flagrantly allowing ALL abortions under any circumstance.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    SG: “That option does not exist, but if it did, “extremists” sure the heck would vote for it.”
    You’re wrong. The option DOES exist. It is simply not on the table.

    Where have you been since 1973? Banning all abortions except those for rape and the life of the mother is not an option. Roe v. Wade specifically prohibits that and asserts that the woman has the right to have an abortion for any reason and Doe v. Bolton makes it a right through all 9 months. Plenty of states had those laws before Roe v. Wade struck them down. So, even if they passed that law, it could not be enforced. Got that? It is not an option. It is just like you can’t outlaw Buddhism because the Constitution protects religious exercise.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    SG: “That option does not exist, but if it did, “extremists” sure the heck would vote for it.”
    You’re wrong. The option DOES exist. It is simply not on the table.

    Where have you been since 1973? Banning all abortions except those for rape and the life of the mother is not an option. Roe v. Wade specifically prohibits that and asserts that the woman has the right to have an abortion for any reason and Doe v. Bolton makes it a right through all 9 months. Plenty of states had those laws before Roe v. Wade struck them down. So, even if they passed that law, it could not be enforced. Got that? It is not an option. It is just like you can’t outlaw Buddhism because the Constitution protects religious exercise.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 73

    Single mother data link:

    http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources–publications/single-mothers-snapshot.pdf

    Their data source is the US Census.
    Follow their links in the citations to find the data tables on the US Census site.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 73

    Single mother data link:

    http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources–publications/single-mothers-snapshot.pdf

    Their data source is the US Census.
    Follow their links in the citations to find the data tables on the US Census site.

  • John C

    How does one respond to a barely coherent rant, sg?

    How does one begin to answer the following question in the context of the Republican problems with science and the environment?
    “Ah yes, remind us of how importing millions of people and increasing our population by 50% in 50 years is going to help the environment.”

    You can ask as many questions you like, sg, I’m not going to follow you into every burrow.

  • John C

    How does one respond to a barely coherent rant, sg?

    How does one begin to answer the following question in the context of the Republican problems with science and the environment?
    “Ah yes, remind us of how importing millions of people and increasing our population by 50% in 50 years is going to help the environment.”

    You can ask as many questions you like, sg, I’m not going to follow you into every burrow.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Look, John, you make unsubstantiated statements. You have no facts to back up what you say. You just say that Republicans are anti science. Okay well, how about I just assert that no, they aren’t. Actually the Democrats are anti science. The difference is there is actual evidence that Democrats don’t believe in science as in they say they don’t know when a human’s life begins. You present no evidence to support what you say. You just use ad hominem and straight up falsehood. You have nothing to say beyond claiming that you are right and others are wrong. You have no argument. What is the point of what you say? That we have entered the age of the sleep of reason therefore reasonable people no longer have any place in leading government? Is that your point? Or do you not even know what your point is?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Look, John, you make unsubstantiated statements. You have no facts to back up what you say. You just say that Republicans are anti science. Okay well, how about I just assert that no, they aren’t. Actually the Democrats are anti science. The difference is there is actual evidence that Democrats don’t believe in science as in they say they don’t know when a human’s life begins. You present no evidence to support what you say. You just use ad hominem and straight up falsehood. You have nothing to say beyond claiming that you are right and others are wrong. You have no argument. What is the point of what you say? That we have entered the age of the sleep of reason therefore reasonable people no longer have any place in leading government? Is that your point? Or do you not even know what your point is?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Here you go, John, see if you can comprehend these questions.

    How does increasing our population by 50% in 50 years help the environment?

    Is it because more people means a cleaner environment? If so, how?

    Do you understand the questions?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Here you go, John, see if you can comprehend these questions.

    How does increasing our population by 50% in 50 years help the environment?

    Is it because more people means a cleaner environment? If so, how?

    Do you understand the questions?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How does one begin to answer the following question in the context of the Republican problems with science and the environment?”

    John, you never even stated what you were talking about.

    What is the Republican problem with science? You didn’t say.

    What is the Republican problem with the environment? You didn’t say.

    So, how is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How does one begin to answer the following question in the context of the Republican problems with science and the environment?”

    John, you never even stated what you were talking about.

    What is the Republican problem with science? You didn’t say.

    What is the Republican problem with the environment? You didn’t say.

    So, how is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about?

  • Jim Hamilton

    sg, my guess is that Republicans are “anti-science” because many of them don’t believe in evolution and global warming. As you know, nothing angers a liberal more than a person who refuses to knuckle under to his worldview. Disagreeing with a liberal doesn’t mean that you have a different opinion or perspective; it means that you’re a retarded, racist moron. So if you don’t agree with the liberal obsession with evolution, you’re “anti-science.”

  • Jim Hamilton

    sg, my guess is that Republicans are “anti-science” because many of them don’t believe in evolution and global warming. As you know, nothing angers a liberal more than a person who refuses to knuckle under to his worldview. Disagreeing with a liberal doesn’t mean that you have a different opinion or perspective; it means that you’re a retarded, racist moron. So if you don’t agree with the liberal obsession with evolution, you’re “anti-science.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, but liberals are creationists in so far as they don’t believe in natural selection among human beings. They only believe in aspects of evolution that can’t be proved. Stuff like selection within a species they think only applies to non humans.

    As for global warming, all skeptics want is better evidence and some sort of explanation of what it is proponents suggest we do about it. And no, skeptics don’t believe that paying higher taxes or buying credits from some company is going to lower the temperatures. What exactly is the mechanism that is going to lower the temperature? Every discussion I see of climate change is political. There is no campaign to actually do something to reduce emissions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, but liberals are creationists in so far as they don’t believe in natural selection among human beings. They only believe in aspects of evolution that can’t be proved. Stuff like selection within a species they think only applies to non humans.

    As for global warming, all skeptics want is better evidence and some sort of explanation of what it is proponents suggest we do about it. And no, skeptics don’t believe that paying higher taxes or buying credits from some company is going to lower the temperatures. What exactly is the mechanism that is going to lower the temperature? Every discussion I see of climate change is political. There is no campaign to actually do something to reduce emissions.

  • Grace

    sg,

    The information which you provide is from 2010 – 2012 from the The Legal Women’s Defense Fund “Single Motherhood in the United States – A Snapshot (2012)”
    http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources–publications/single-mothers-snapshot.pdf

    The single mothers I wrote about ‘had husbands, they had been married to the children’s father. See post 64     “Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.”

    I was right when I posted @73     “Where did you get this info? – please give a LINK. It appears you are using stats that are very recent. All the statistics you cited are not on that LINK.

    - Granted the stats have changed in the last 10 years, however 7 to 10 years ago, the statistics are far different than today. Children who were born one and two years ago, from unmarried mothers, are a completely different story.

    My comments were regarding women who’s husbands had left them, giving them very little money to care for their children. You are citing women who were, for the the majority, single and unmarried, and uneducated, having children – very different scenario.

  • Grace

    sg,

    The information which you provide is from 2010 – 2012 from the The Legal Women’s Defense Fund “Single Motherhood in the United States – A Snapshot (2012)”
    http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources–publications/single-mothers-snapshot.pdf

    The single mothers I wrote about ‘had husbands, they had been married to the children’s father. See post 64     “Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.”

    I was right when I posted @73     “Where did you get this info? – please give a LINK. It appears you are using stats that are very recent. All the statistics you cited are not on that LINK.

    - Granted the stats have changed in the last 10 years, however 7 to 10 years ago, the statistics are far different than today. Children who were born one and two years ago, from unmarried mothers, are a completely different story.

    My comments were regarding women who’s husbands had left them, giving them very little money to care for their children. You are citing women who were, for the the majority, single and unmarried, and uneducated, having children – very different scenario.

  • Grace

    My post @ 85 should have read:

    Some of the statistics you cite are not on that LINK.

  • Grace

    My post @ 85 should have read:

    Some of the statistics you cite are not on that LINK.

  • Michael B.

    “Disagreeing with a liberal doesn’t mean that you have a different opinion or perspective; it means that you’re a retarded, racist moron”

    That’s a little over the top, don’t you think? Certainly on many issues, you’ll find educated opinions on all sides of the issue. Having said that, and it may be politically incorrect to say so, there are beliefs that are correlated to lesser education. According to a Gallup poll, 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number jumps to 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.

  • Michael B.

    “Disagreeing with a liberal doesn’t mean that you have a different opinion or perspective; it means that you’re a retarded, racist moron”

    That’s a little over the top, don’t you think? Certainly on many issues, you’ll find educated opinions on all sides of the issue. Having said that, and it may be politically incorrect to say so, there are beliefs that are correlated to lesser education. According to a Gallup poll, 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number jumps to 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.

  • JunkerGeorg

    On the principle that as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights/liberties of others, while I can see the gay marriage issue as one which the Republicans might want to give up as a federal issue, (or at least leave to the level of the states to decide the issue), I cannot see a fully pro-life stance as something to give up fighting for on the federal level. I mean, abortion is one issue where I do disagree with many Libertarians and moderate Republicrats. I don’t believe it is right to give up the fight. I mean, if you do believe life begins at conception (substantiable just on the basis of science/technology even apart from the Bible), and if you do claim to be “constitutional” and accept the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause from the Declaration of Independence, and if you do believe like a typical Libertarian does that the essential purpose of federal government is nothing more/nothing less than to simply protect/uphold our individual rights/liberties as stated in the Constitution, then…………how could you not want the Federal Government to defend the right to life of the unborn?

    Again, on principle, this is an issue where I disagree with Libertarians and Moderate Republicans. Yes, I realize that taking a pro-life stance may hurt the Republican party in terms of votes, but what hurts worse is abandoning core principles of your party, especially when they principles tied to the Constitution itself.

  • JunkerGeorg

    On the principle that as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights/liberties of others, while I can see the gay marriage issue as one which the Republicans might want to give up as a federal issue, (or at least leave to the level of the states to decide the issue), I cannot see a fully pro-life stance as something to give up fighting for on the federal level. I mean, abortion is one issue where I do disagree with many Libertarians and moderate Republicrats. I don’t believe it is right to give up the fight. I mean, if you do believe life begins at conception (substantiable just on the basis of science/technology even apart from the Bible), and if you do claim to be “constitutional” and accept the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause from the Declaration of Independence, and if you do believe like a typical Libertarian does that the essential purpose of federal government is nothing more/nothing less than to simply protect/uphold our individual rights/liberties as stated in the Constitution, then…………how could you not want the Federal Government to defend the right to life of the unborn?

    Again, on principle, this is an issue where I disagree with Libertarians and Moderate Republicans. Yes, I realize that taking a pro-life stance may hurt the Republican party in terms of votes, but what hurts worse is abandoning core principles of your party, especially when they principles tied to the Constitution itself.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The single mothers I wrote about ‘had husbands, they had been married to the children’s father. See post 64 “Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.”

    This is one of those cases where the commas make a difference. Because you used commas your clause is non restrictive. If you had not used commas then your statement would have have conveyed the intended meaning. As written, it means that you think all single mothers fit the description you include. Without the commas it would mean that you are restricting your statement to only that subset who fit that description.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The single mothers I wrote about ‘had husbands, they had been married to the children’s father. See post 64 “Single mothers, whose husbands have left them along, with children to raise – giving them little or nothing for child support – are left with meager means to live, safely, with enough food, and other necessities of life.”

    This is one of those cases where the commas make a difference. Because you used commas your clause is non restrictive. If you had not used commas then your statement would have have conveyed the intended meaning. As written, it means that you think all single mothers fit the description you include. Without the commas it would mean that you are restricting your statement to only that subset who fit that description.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    According to a Gallup poll, 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number jumps to 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.

    Key word: believe.

    Ask people who “believe” in evolution and you will rapidly discover most of them cannot explain it at all. So, while they can’t understand it, they claim belief. This is the realm of religion; believing that which you don’t understand. Colleges are indoctrination camps.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    According to a Gallup poll, 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number jumps to 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education.

    Key word: believe.

    Ask people who “believe” in evolution and you will rapidly discover most of them cannot explain it at all. So, while they can’t understand it, they claim belief. This is the realm of religion; believing that which you don’t understand. Colleges are indoctrination camps.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Some of the statistics you cite are not on that LINK.

    I stated directly that you had to follow the links on that page to the census site which has the data tables. The top is a summary of some data points with citations and links at the bottom in the footnotes. The data tables on the census site are plainly labeled.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Some of the statistics you cite are not on that LINK.

    I stated directly that you had to follow the links on that page to the census site which has the data tables. The top is a summary of some data points with citations and links at the bottom in the footnotes. The data tables on the census site are plainly labeled.

  • Lou G.

    Yeah, this is exactly the kind of thread that will go great on Patheos. And such a warm welcome it will be to new visitors. Should be such a pleasant experience for all.

  • Lou G.

    Yeah, this is exactly the kind of thread that will go great on Patheos. And such a warm welcome it will be to new visitors. Should be such a pleasant experience for all.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Ich habe genug!

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-justin-amash-john-boehner-gop-purge-fiscal-cliff-2012-12

    It’s this kind of stuff by the Republican Rockefellerian ‘establishment’ that leads more and more of those informed within the Republican conservative ‘base’ to finally “shrug”, becoming disenchanted, refusing to financially support, and maybe even vote 3rd party in protest, if vote at all.

    Or how about when an openly socialist Democrat Jew proclaims the truth of Christ/Christianity while psuedo-conservative/faux-Christian Fox News icons falsify it all as being “philosophy”?

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-3-2012/the-war-on-christmas–friendly-fire-edition—bill-o-reilly-s-philosophy

  • JunkerGeorg

    Ich habe genug!

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-justin-amash-john-boehner-gop-purge-fiscal-cliff-2012-12

    It’s this kind of stuff by the Republican Rockefellerian ‘establishment’ that leads more and more of those informed within the Republican conservative ‘base’ to finally “shrug”, becoming disenchanted, refusing to financially support, and maybe even vote 3rd party in protest, if vote at all.

    Or how about when an openly socialist Democrat Jew proclaims the truth of Christ/Christianity while psuedo-conservative/faux-Christian Fox News icons falsify it all as being “philosophy”?

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-3-2012/the-war-on-christmas–friendly-fire-edition—bill-o-reilly-s-philosophy

  • Tom Hering

    According to a Gallup poll, 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number jumps to 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. (@ 87)

    Well sure. The idea of evolution has come to undergird a lot of disciplines. At least philosophically. So by the time people finish their postgraduate educations, they’ve had the idea presented to them a lot, as a given.

    People who are less educated aren’t, necessarily, less intelligent. But they’re certainly less indoctrinated. Or, more to the point, less exposed to the snickers of anti-creationists.

  • Tom Hering

    According to a Gallup poll, 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number jumps to 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. (@ 87)

    Well sure. The idea of evolution has come to undergird a lot of disciplines. At least philosophically. So by the time people finish their postgraduate educations, they’ve had the idea presented to them a lot, as a given.

    People who are less educated aren’t, necessarily, less intelligent. But they’re certainly less indoctrinated. Or, more to the point, less exposed to the snickers of anti-creationists.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X