Republican calls for 'brutally honest' review after Romney loss

[OhioMan]

Originally Posted by Theoryrealm

We could sit here and offer up Jefferson's and Madison's and Franklin's and Thomas Paine's words AGAINST religion in the state as well. Offering up "quotes' and the papers themselves where they spoke of.....SEPERATION....of Church...and State, OhioMan.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ion_of_chu.htm


RELIGION does not need to be in the matters of the STATE.



uh yeaaaaaaah......

You completely missed the point Theo.

NO one including myself is advocating a marriage of Church/State.

[Theoryrealm]

Originally Posted by OhioMan

You completely missed the point Theo.

NO one including myself is advocating a marriage of Church/State.

I was specifically pointing out to you this:

Originally Posted by TekGremlin

Keep religious issues as a matter between you and your church. Keep family values as an issue between you, your family, and your children

Originally Posted by OhioMan

Do our Founding Fathers agree with that logic?

This is where I pointed out to you, that YES....they DID, and they were SPECIFIC about the seperation.....

This has been our POINT.
We as conservatives need to DROP the gays and God from POLITICS. Why? Because...of the...Seperation of Church...and...STATE.
We have no business, as conservatives, much less AMERICANS, in telling people what they do with their religion, nor their bedroom. It's a losing battle in "politics/trying to get conservatives in and dems out", and more importantly it's a losing battle in the realm of the history and FREEDOMS of the United States of America.


Lead by example, and freedom. That will win over souls, and Americans.
Or....we can alienate the rest of America, and push them even further away from conservatism AND something that is just as important to you, CHRIST.

[TekGremlin]

Originally Posted by OhioMan

First, I have never advocated shoving "my" values down anyones throat but I will stand for them and vote accordingly.

For the most part form your response it seems you agree with the libertarian perspective then that government should not be managing our religion/moral lives.

This is great.

What I don't understand however is how someone can vote for conservative values, without automatically saying I think the government needs to tell people to be conservative.

example: I don't smoke pot, I think it makes you dumb. I also don't drink or smoke tobacco either. I would never vote to make any of those products illegal though because I don't believe i have the right to tell others how to live there lives.

Social conservative consistently and regularly support making certain substances like pot illegal. I assume you support this as well (if I am wrong my apologies because I actually have no idea what you think on this specific issue). How can one say that this is not shoving your ideals/values down other peoples throats?

I think it is fine to say Pot is bad dumb or whatever. But I think it is a huge mistake to say the government should be responsible for stopping people form doing it.

If you think government sucks at managing almost every issue, how could one then think the government should be managing what people smoke? Is it not obvious that whatever measures the government takes they will not hep resolve the issue, cost zillions, waste energy that should be focused on solving the economy?

Same goes with marriage, gambling and pretty much every other so called social conservative interest.

Voting against people making things like that mandatory would be fine, but I have never heard a anyone on the left say we must smoke pot. I have heard plenty of repubs say we should stop others from doing it.

You can't say your for small limited government, and then advocate government gets involves with these issues. It just doesn't make any sense. Either you are voting to authorize government control over such issues or your not. Once you open the door, don't be surprised when your point of view is the minority and the government is using the authority you gave them to undermine your own beliefs by taking the position of the opposite side.

[stephpd]

Problem being the 'liberals' are all in on keeping it illegal too.

Not one of the party nominees from either party advocating legalization.

Why?

It doesn't stop anyone. It creates the black market that generally bring violence too. It crates an unnecessary burden on the courts, jails, and our tax dollars to support this prohibition.

By the by, OhioMan has spoken out against this prohibition.

It's more the religious aspects he supports government involvement. As in pro life, anti gay marriage. For these I believe the government has no reason to be involved, either supporting or trying it make illegal.

To me these are all personal choices.

If you believer 'A' is wrong don't have one or pay for someone else to have one. Or be made by law to pay the medical bills of someone else that wants to have one.

Don't like being gay then don't have sex with someone of the same sex. (seems some of the advocates of this do have same sex and think a law would stop them.) But neither should they be discriminated against by the government in any way.

Don't like other religions then don't practice them. But again, the government can't support your religion and make laws against other religions. This include the 'benign' things like school prayer, nativity scenes, etc.



Far too often it's these socially conservative issues that keep folks away from the Republican party. Showing favoritism and using government to push your religion and suppress other religions has no place in government.

These are individual choices and have no place in government, if you believe in the 1A and religious freedom. Or freedom from any and all religions if you so choose. And not being required to participate in some else's religion.

[TekGremlin]

Originally Posted by stephpd

By the by, OhioMan has spoken out against this prohibition.

As promised then OhioMan I apologize. To make the argument relevant then, please replace pot with gay marriage.

Do I really want government to have anything to do with my marriage. If you advocate they control any aspect of marriage (they already do of course) you also give them the authority to later say heterosexual marriages are now illegal. Lets face it, if politicians were advocating that position you would be all over how it was unconstitutional etc etc. Just cause it is your side that is winning doesn't mean you would want the government to handle it.

[OhioMan]

=TekGremlin;4893848]For the most part form your response it seems you agree with the libertarian perspective then that government should not be managing our religion/moral lives.

Correct, I "ME" will vote for a person that believes in the same values I value!

I do NOT favor forcing my ideas of morality on to others who may not share those same values.

What I don't understand however is how someone can vote for conservative values, without automatically saying I think the government needs to tell people to be conservative.

Honestly, your not hearing/understanding the debate. One can have values, morals without demanding other adhere to them. Freedom is the guiding principle.

Let me offer you the words of George Washington: Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

NOTICE: Washington isn't advocating a forced adherence to his values. Washington is offering us his values of morals and religion and what he believes to be vital for our nation to be maintained.

Over and over our Founders warned us to elect a moral and religious people but NEVER forced!

example: I don't smoke pot, I think it makes you dumb. I also don't drink or smoke tobacco either. I would never vote to make any of those products illegal though because I don't believe i have the right to tell others how to live there lives.

And neither do I!

BUT, I will vote for men/women who have the values our founders spoke about so often

Social conservative consistently and regularly support making certain substances like pot illegal. I assume you support this as well (if I am wrong my apologies because I actually have no idea what you think on this specific issue). How can one say that this is not shoving your ideals/values down other peoples throats?

You can check with others about how I feel about personal freedom. I believe that if a free man wishes to drink gasoline, smoke whatever, drink whatever is his business.

I will do my best to convince that person that these things will harm him but I do not advocate "laws" to stop him if he so chooses.

I think it is fine to say Pot is bad dumb or whatever. But I think it is a huge mistake to say the government should be responsible for stopping people form doing it.

Meet the choir!

If you think government sucks at managing almost every issue, how could one then think the government should be managing what people smoke? Is it not obvious that whatever measures the government takes they will not hep resolve the issue, cost zillions, waste energy that should be focused on solving the economy?

I have never said these things

Same goes with marriage, gambling and pretty much every other so called social conservative interest.

Again, I will warn of these issues but have NEVER advocated making them illegal.

I will also vote for people who share those values. Personally "I" believe marriage is between and man/woman and would vote for people who also believe those values HOWEVER I do not suggest laws to stop it.

HEAR the words of Samuel Adams: "he most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders. NO where did Adams or any Founder suggest a "Forced" adherence!

The Founding fathers were strong advocates of civil liberties, personal freedoms (Religion), and as in the Constitution no theocracy is to be applied to government or our people.

Thousands of men and women fought and died in order to obtain the right to practice their religion of choice, freely without the heavy hand of government.

You can't say your for small limited government, and then advocate government gets involves with these issues. It just doesn't make any sense. Either you are voting to authorize government control over such issues or your not. Once you open the door, don't be surprised when your point of view is the minority and the government is using the authority you gave them to undermine your own beliefs by taking the position of the opposite side.

(See above answers)

Now if you would like to discuss "Forced Values" by the heavy hand of government I would suggest a conversation on the other side of the fence also known as Liberals!

OM

[OhioMan]

Stephph...please don't think I was ignoring you. I think I covered in the above post my thoughts/belief on the issues we are discussing.

Om

[OhioMan]

=

stephpd;4893940]Problem being the 'liberals' are all in on keeping it illegal too.

Not one of the party nominees from either party advocating legalization.

Why?

It doesn't stop anyone. It creates the black market that generally bring violence too. It crates an unnecessary burden on the courts, jails, and our tax dollars to support this prohibition.

I don't know what the current numbers are but I do know it's in the billions to police pot smokers/drugs etc...as well as billions and billions spent in rehabilitation of these freedom loving folks.

Again, it's not governments job to rescue people from themselves (IMO) and actions.

OM

[Crackshot]

Originally Posted by OldSchoolPC

^^^^^ This. If I have a dime for every time I heard this line: "Ron Paul isn't Electable." I'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper. Ron Paul was the MOST electable. He'd have had all the republicans, all the independents, and some of the moderate democrats. He'd have beaten Obama by a bigger margin than Obama beat Romney.

However, since he wasn't on the ballet I voted for Gary Johnson. Flame on.

Honesty doesnt pitch well to people in denial about the US's current financial situation. We still have conservatives saying we need to continue the occupation of Iraq and Afgahnistan. We cant afford it. But they wont come to terms with that til the country goes belly up. I say the hell with it. Let is all go belly up, Ill survive.

[TekGremlin]

Originally Posted by OhioMan

I will also vote for people who share those values. Personally "I" believe marriage is between and man/woman and would vote for people who also believe those values HOWEVER I do not suggest laws to stop it.

Seems like we disagree on nothing. I am surprised because I thought you were more of an advocate for forcing social conservatism through government. I don't know exactly why I thought that though. I normally don't pay much attention to whom I am debating issues with online and try and stay focused on the issue, so I must have had you confused with someone else.

Have a great day!

[OhioMan]

Originally Posted by TekGremlin

Seems like we disagree on nothing. I am surprised because I thought you were more of an advocate for forcing social conservatism through government. I don't know exactly why I thought that though. I normally don't pay much attention to whom I am debating issues with online and try and stay focused on the issue, so I must have had you confused with someone else.

Have a great day!

Keep going, we'll find something!

[FWFRazorX]

Romney promised jobs and that scared most Americans.

[OhioMan]

Tea-Parties!

Just a word on the Tea-party. When I first heard of the tea-party it was essentially a group of people who suggested we mail "tea-bags" to members of Congress which myself and wife did. Maybe a year or two we attended our first meeting that was organized. We also attended a march at "Voice of America" park and heard many speakers.

Just to make a couple of points and comments that the tea-party is now corrupt.

First, the folks I met are some of the finest people you would ever want to meet. People from Dayton, Ohio, Columbus and all over SW Ohio who love America and are very concerned just as we were and still are.

Personally I have never had anyone tell me what to believe or to change my views. From Day #1 we were treated with great respect. I do NOT feel hijacked or taken over, in fact just the opposite.

OM

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/get-started/

[Theoryrealm]

Originally Posted by OhioMan

Tea-Parties!

Just a word on the Tea-party. When I first heard of the tea-party it was essentially a group of people who suggested we mail "tea-bags" to members of Congress which myself and wife did. Maybe a year or two we attended our first meeting that was organized. We also attended a march at "Voice of America" park and heard many speakers.

Just to make a couple of points and comments that the tea-party is now corrupt.

First, the folks I met are some of the finest people you would ever want to meet. People from Dayton, Ohio, Columbus and all over SW Ohio who love America and are very concerned just as we were and still are.

Personally I have never had anyone tell me what to believe or to change my views. From Day #1 we were treated with great respect. I do NOT feel hijacked or taken over, in fact just the opposite.

OM

Glad YOUR tea party isn't corrupt and focused on the Birth Cert and not just on the DEMS.

[OhioMan]

Originally Posted by Theoryrealm

Glad YOUR tea party isn't corrupt and focused on the Birth Cert and not just on the DEMS.

Well, it's not "My' tea-party, I'm only a member. Sorry to disappoint you but I have never spoken to any tea-party member here in Ohio who is pro-Obama in the least bit or even defends his worthless XXX.

You have to understand, there are just as many views/opinions in the tea-party as there are people. There are some who are very singularly focused on one issue or another but most if not all are concerned with:

-Obamacare
-Massive debts
-socialism
-Big government
-All things Obama
-Cap & trade (at the time)

Yes I have met a few that I personally wish would shut-up. I recall a lady wanting to share her ideas/concerns of cruelty to animals and demanded everyone listen to her. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but not the focus of this movement.

[OhioMan]

Originally Posted by Theoryrealm

Glad YOUR tea party isn't corrupt and focused on the Birth Cert and not just on the DEMS.

Go to core "Values" http://www.teapartypatriots.org/get-started/

[OhioMan]

double post.....

[KaBar67]

I think we got a poor deal when we switched out William F. Buckley for Sean Hannity. As far as social values, I look at it this way. As a child I attended Mass regularly. As a teen and through my 20's I ignored religion and behaved like a first class hole. Then I married, bought a house and started a family, and returned to Church. Then I got active in my Church. Then we joined the PTA and got active in the community. Guess what, there are a lot of former punk rock,hard drinking, drug users who now look just like me, seated in a row in front or behind me at Church.

I don't want to fight, but if I make fun of self absorbed Jon Stewart or fat ass Chris Matthews, not because they are Liberals but because they are almost always wrong.

Think about the Liberals who said, "Don't challenge the Soviets" or attended Green rallied in Europe. They were wrong. Remember those who laughed at Star Wars? Israel is now protected by a workable anti missile system. Remember when the sneering liberals said "You need government stimulus to invigorate the economy?" Another major fail. Only about 6% went to "shovel ready jobs" anyway. Same for quantitative easing= printing money. Etc. Etc. Liberals fail, because they are usually wrong, and their error cost billions. We need a William F. Buckley to point this all out. Not with hate, but with facts. I hate this "Real American" nonsense. Some are just dumber than others. We need more artists, less Liberal newsmen.

[OhioMan]

Originally Posted by KaBar67

I think we got a poor deal when we switched out William F. Buckley for Sean Hannity. As far as social values, I look at it this way. As a child I attended Mass regularly. As a teen and through my 20's I ignored religion and behaved like a first class hole. Then I married, bought a house and started a family, and returned to Church. Then I got active in my Church. Then we joined the PTA and got active in the community. Guess what, there are a lot of former punk rock,hard drinking, drug users who now look just like me, seated in a row in front or behind me at Church.

I don't want to fight, but if I make fun of self absorbed Jon Stewart or fat ass Chris Matthews, not because they are Liberals but because they are almost always wrong.

Think about the Liberals who said, "Don't challenge the Soviets" or attended Green rallied in Europe. They were wrong. Remember those who laughed at Star Wars? Israel is now protected by a workable anti missile system. Remember when the sneering liberals said "You need government stimulus to invigorate the economy?" Another major fail. Only about 6% went to "shovel ready jobs" anyway. Same for quantitative easing= printing money. Etc. Etc. Liberals fail, because they are usually wrong, and their error cost billions. We need a William F. Buckley to point this all out. Not with hate, but with facts. I hate this "Real American" nonsense. Some are just dumber than others. We need more artists, less Liberal newsmen.

How I miss Buckley but forgive me I enjoy Sean Hannity as well.

God Bless America... W. F. Buckley, Jr. &...

Fox News - William F Buckley - Right From The...

[KaBar67]

I strive to have his posture and affectations. Sean Hannity needs to use a period once and a while.