The Christian Right Is Back And Ready To Dominate The 2012 Campaign

[cheapseats]

Abortion is the OL' RELIABLE of Wedge Issues. I'm fer gettin' to the bottom of WHO IS DRIVING WEDGES.

You, you're the one who brought it up.

Really?


The Christian Right Is Back And Ready To Dominate The 2012 Campaign

Pray tell, what does DOMINATION BY CHRISTIAN RIGHT portend, if not the customary divisive unwinnable CIRCLE JERK over Abortion? Evidence abounds, for many years, that it isn't for purpose of bringing these GODFORSAKEN wars to a swift end. Or any end at all.

Did you WATCH the Republican debate? Did you HEAR Michelle Bachmann, then Tim Pawlenty, then Mitt Romney avow SANCTITY OF LIFE without saying ONE FUCKING WORD about wars? Without saying one word about Police Brutality that REGULARLY culminates in death? Without saying ONE WORD about mounting tally of DEAD Investigative Journalists?

EDDIE IZZARD: "I'm willing to learn."

What DOES "Dominance of the Christian Right" mean for those who believe/feel differently than "The Chosen"?

 

[Sola_Fide]

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY FOR THE UNBORN.

I draw attention to NOT born. NOT at liberty, no matter how much money is thrown at RIGHTS OF UNBORN, no matter how many elections are derailed trying to ensure Liberty where it does not yet exist. All the while diminishing Liberty that DOES exist.

Yes, I call that ridiculous.

RIGHTS OF UNBORN is Legal Eagle heaven.

Bro I can't even understand what you're saying.

 

[cheapseats]

Bro I can't even understand what you're saying.

I know. Believe me, I know.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well, I can't. Can you word it clearly?

 

[cheapseats]

Heh. Think it's the second time today when I've wondered if he isn't just a troll.

It's the second time I've wondered whether you are experiencing the New Mommy Complex of trying to diffuse all tensions and clean all messes.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's the second time I've wondered whether you are have the New Mommy Complex of trying to diffuse all tensions and clean all messes.

Aw Nah! AW NAH! Amy gonna go mommy-crazy on you now bro!

 

[amy31416]

Are you under the impression that pro-life people don't do that?

Yes.

 

[amy31416]

Aw Nah! AW NAH! Amy gonna go mommy-crazy on you now bro!

Nahhh...too distracted. I don't even remember what he/she was yapping about.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did you WATCH the Republican debate? Did you HEAR Michelle Bachmann, then Tim Pawlenty, then Mitt Romney avow SANCTITY OF LIFE without saying ONE FUCKING WORD about wars? Without saying one word about Police Brutality that REGULARLY culminates in death? Without saying ONE WORD about mounting tally of DEAD Investigative Journalists?

Yes, they are hypocrites. One of the many reasons why I support Ron Paul.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I've talked to Evangelicals who think that Ron is "pro-abortion" because he wants it left up to the states. So, he will have a difficult time convincing the Evangelicals that his position is the right position. They also don't agree with him on homosexuals marrying; he wants it left up to the states. And, they don't agree with him on his position to end the "War on Drugs".

Also, the issue of abortion is "dead". The Republicans killed it. The Republicans, under Bush, controlled our government, lock stock and barrel, for 5 1/2 years, and did absolute nothing; zero, nada, about ending abortion. Those who claim to be against abortion had their chance, and they did nothing because they want abortion to remain an issue that will continue to divide the Republicans and the Democrats. They don't care about unborn babies, because if they did, the Republicans would have ended abortion when they had the power to do so.

Do you not understand that we are in a battle of ideas? Because we are. There are many good people out there, no, probably not in Republican leadership positions, but there nonetheless, that would be open to Ron Paul's stances. Many just do not understand them, yet. I hate to say it, but Rand is better at articulating the positions. As Doug Wead works with Ron, Ron is getting better at explaining his positions. I just hope there is enough time.

 

[truelies]

What an interesting statement.

From whence do you envision coming the selective pressure?

basic Reality- the gayrights/pro-abort/substance abusing compliant personality is remarkably unsuited for dealing with the sort of dire circumstances coming down the pike. On the otherhand the traditional extended family coupled with the community true christian faith cultivates is made for overcoming adversity- in particular IF the Church as a whole in America awakens from the nationalist bush wars Deception. This will happen, in time. Maybe not in time to save the USA...............but the USA is merely another temporary nation not the church.

 

[WilliamC]

basic Reality- the gayrights/pro-abort/substance abusing compliant personality is remarkably unsuited for dealing with the sort of dire circumstances coming down the pike.

I'm personally for individual rights, not gay rights, I don't think I have a say in anyone's medical decisions except for me and my family, and could care less what substances others use as long as I am not paying for their decisions.

What exactly do you see coming down the pike?

Me I think a credit market melt-down is the most obvious, immediate disaster, but I think that at least in most of the USA the States will be able to keep the peace and that there will not be the ability of the FedGov to impose nationwide martial law even if it wanted to.

But what do I know?

On the otherhand the traditional extended family coupled with the community true christian faith cultivates is made for overcoming adversity- in particular IF the Church as a whole in America awakens from the nationalist bush wars Deception. This will happen, in time. Maybe not in time to save the USA...............but the USA is merely another temporary nation not the church.

Well you are most certainly correct that there can be significant benefits to traditional extend families but these are in no way limited to those practicing Christianity. Although I suppose one could make a strong argument in favor of strong religious belief in general being associated with large, extended families.

As for the passage of the USA, well if the Soviet Union can break-up without war and widespread bloodshed so too can the USA.

So that's the extent of the selective pressures which would render those who might provide or procure an abortion 'remarkably unfit for survival'? The hypothesized lack of them belonging to a traditional family?

 

[truelies]

yeppers willy aging/ sexually depraved/childless/self-indulgent people are going to find life in a collapsed society nasty, brutish & short. Untreated STD's and suicide alone will thin that crowd quite a bit.

On the otherhand those with kids and family have a huge incentive to battle on no matter how tough the odds. Such are the people who will make the future. The others sort in their extinction like Sodom will at least provide a lesson for the future.

 

[erowe1]

yeppers willy aging/ sexually depraved/childless/self-indulgent people are going to find life in a collapsed society nasty, brutish & short. Untreated STD's and suicide alone will thin that crowd quite a bit.

On the otherhand those with kids and family have a huge incentive to battle on no matter how tough the odds. Such are the people who will make the future. The others sort in their extinction like Sodom will at least provide a lesson for the future.

That is an interesting point.

Another thought I've had about the relationship between the gay agenda and public policy is that if you have a republican form of government, then the natural order will be that the more local governments will be the most sovereign, with the individual household being at the pinacle, and larger groups only having governments with whatever responsibilities their members cooperatively and unanimously agree to delegate them. The more powerful the federal government gets, the further from that ideal we get. But it's under that ideal of local authority being higher than distant authority that traditional values (for better or for worse) are at their greatest potency. Maintaining one's connection to one's local community/tribe/church becomes much more important in that situation than it is now. The line between what are laws and what are social mores gets blurred. As we've drifted away from that, and the prevailing concept of "law" has drifted from an absolute unchangeable natural law to an arbitrary set of rules some distant group of politicians make up for the benefit of various interest groups, so has the importance of social mores waxed and the proliferation of indulging vices with impunity (since, after all, they aren't crimes) has waned.

But when that day comes that the regime in Washington DC loses its grip, however that happens, its subjects will begin the cycle of government d/evolution back at square one. Whether it be through voluntary communal associations or street gangs, the most potent force for societal order that people sense will be a local one. The results of the gay agenda and the so-called sexual revolution will be wiped out. We'll go back to having only 1 in 1,000 or so gay people, 1 in 1,000 marriages ending in divorce, and 1 in 1,000 kids born to unwed mothers. Not everyone will like that, of course. But it will happen.

 

[reillym]

Hmmmm. Was this supposed to be a rational argument of some kind? I don't get it.....

No surprise you didn't get it. If the miscarriage is voluntary and happens threw neglect of the mother, the same logic that fundys use to attack abortion rights can be used to criminalize the mother in this case, if she has a miscarriage. But you don't understand women's rights, so it's ok. (Are you a woman? Do you know what it is like to have a baby? Why do you think it's ok for you to attack innocent women?)

 

[erowe1]

No surprise you didn't get it. If the miscarriage is voluntary and happens threw neglect of the mother, the same logic that fundys use to attack abortion rights can be used to criminalize the mother in this case, if she has a miscarriage. But you don't understand women's rights, so it's ok. (Are you a woman? Do you know what it is like to have a baby? Why do you think it's ok for you to attack innocent women?)

I don't see the problem there. Yes, if a child dies because of the neglect of its parents, the parents are at least partially culpable for that. That's true both before and after birth. Parents have an obligation to care for their children.

 

[anaconda]

I convinced one of my devout Christian friends to support Ron Paul. Now he's very excited about RP! He even went to church and talked to his minister about him, and the minister said a prayer at church for Dr. Paul to become our next President!

Sweet.

 

[anaconda]

The Christian Right Is Back And Ready To Dominate The 2012 Campaign



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rick...tian-right-2012-campaign-2011-8#ixzz1U5LQTxyi

Does bode well for a Santorum surge?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't see the problem there. Yes, if a child dies because of the neglect of its parents, the parents are at least partially culpable for that. That's true both before and after birth. Parents have an obligation to care for their children.

Nah Erowe1, you just don't understand "women's rights".