Republican Morality

DoggyStyle82 · #1 10-02-2006, 11:49 PM

OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance.

Prime examples

Newt Gingrinch

And Now........ Mark Foley, who was one of the leaders of the impeach Clinton movement and who wrote most of the legislation against internet predators while he was the proverbial "fox (news) in the henhouse".

Political dogma on either side belies common sense.

shinerbock · #2 10-03-2006, 12:15 AM

Prime Examples- Jim McGreevey, Bill Clinton, Mel Reynolds, Gerry Studds

Wolfman · #3 10-03-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Prime Examples- Jim McGreevey, Bill Clinton, Mel Reynolds, Gerry Studds

As far as I know none of these "offenders" cloak themselves with the mantle of Family Values and used this as a political strategy. We are al sinners but it's very precarious being a demagogue on these issues because we humans do have our weaknesses and they will be exposed, sadly to say.

The biggest sin I see the Republicans being a part of is the one that tripped up Satan: actually believing the hype that you are better than the Godless, libertine, anti-American Democrats. If you convince yourself of this then you'll be blinded by pride and slip into all kinds of unethical and immoral behaviour,justifying it on the grounds of the morality of your cause, God's cause. If you're a Christian and take the Bible seriously, and not simply for use as political slogans, then you know that we are all fallen beings, whatever political persuasion we may be. And if we put ourselves in the place of playing God, we'll be humbled. This is what I see happening to the GOP now. "Pride goeth before the fall."

shinerbock · #4 10-03-2006, 02:35 PM

I'm sure thats true for some, but there is no shortage of self-righteous Dems. Painting any group with one brush is a bad decision.

AXEAM · #5 10-03-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm sure thats true for some, but there is no shortage of self-righteous Dems. Painting any group with one brush is a bad decision.

What.. so every time a member of the GOP screws up your reponse is that the Dems do it to.....like Wolf said it's the GOP who proclaim to be so self rigtheous.

DSTCHAOS · #6 10-03-2006, 03:15 PM

The Republicans have long tried to paint themselves as the conservative voice of morality for this country. This is what makes all of these mishaps so noteworthy.

People are people and both Dems and Repubs are full of crap. But don't be the posterboy against child pornography, abortion, gay marriage and other weighty topics, claiming they weight down on the morality of this country, and then be exposed as a criminal or "social misfit" in your own right.

AXEAM · #7 10-03-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoggyStyle82

OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance.

Prime examples

Newt Gingrinch

And Now........ Mark Foley, who was one of the leaders of the impeach Clinton movement and who wrote most of the legislation against internet predators while he was the proverbial "fox (news) in the henhouse".

Political dogma on either side belies common sense.

What's worst is that these guys claim to be the party of family values. Jesus warned us against their type always talking about god and morals but delight in evil.

shinerbock · #8 10-03-2006, 12:30 PM

So its better to be the party of no values, so nobody holds you to a standard...I see.

AXEAM · #9 10-03-2006, 12:44 PM

Please quit w/ the strawman questions....what's happening to the GOP is what's happening to Bush all bullsh#t will evenually come to light. Since you're always telling others to read Bob Woodward books, have you read his last book State of Denial?

shinerbock · #10 10-03-2006, 12:47 PM

You mean the one where the White House stopped giving him access because they were concerned he was taking a slanted view? Nah, I haven't read it yet. I'll probably just read Michael Moore's blog, its about the same thing.

AXEAM · #11 10-03-2006, 12:53 PM

More of your BS....first you agree w/ what he saids then when he holds Bush's feet to the fire you come up w/ crap like this.

06pilot · #12 10-04-2006, 06:43 PM

So where would I fit in? I considr myself a Consrvative Democrat. I am conservative because I am a Christian. I dont believe in homosexuality. I dont believe in hand outs. I believe in helping one lift himself by his own bootstraps. I believe in small governement involvment in peoples lives. I am a Democrat mainly because I do believe it is govt's responsibility to help the down troddin (To a certian degree). Ialso believe in a strong defense ( Guess thats another conservative view)

DSTCHAOS · #13 10-04-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 06pilot

So where would I fit in? I considr myself a Consrvative Democrat. I am conservative because I am a Christian. I dont believe in homosexuality. I dont believe in hand outs. I believe in helping one lift himself by his own bootstraps. I believe in small governement involvment in peoples lives. I am a Democrat mainly because I do believe it is govt's responsibility to help the down troddin (To a certian degree). Ialso believe in a strong defense ( Guess thats another conservative view)

Not with the topic of the thread. This is a very specific topic that highlights the irony of a political party affiliation with a particular moral platform. Only staunch, conservative Republicans need apply.

Christianity doesn't "require" conservativism. Especially if you know that there IS a difference between moral conservativism and political conservativism. You don't have to be pro-homosexuality to believe in human rights that don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Moreover, are Christians who aren't against homosexuality considered "bad Christians" now? The central and defining tenant of my faith doesn't require feeling a particular way about homosexuals. It doesn't require a particular political stance and certain moral stances should only be taken if they can be specifically supported by Scripture, as opposed to humans' interpretation of Scripture. The central tenant is the belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior--because He died so that I may be Saved--and a belief in a Living God.

Both conservatives and liberals with a grain of sense believe in helping people to help themselves, whether that means small or big government involvement. Only ultra-stingy conservatives in the upper echelon of income and wealth distribution truly believe in raw individualism believe it's "every human for his/herself." Only misguided liberals believe that handouts, and making people believe they are helpless victims, will work. Either case, the govt sponsored social welfare programs have overwhelmingly failed at helping people help themselves. If bipartisanism would give way to true human interest we'd probably be further ahead in terms of eliminating the poverty that is victimizing more helpless children than able bodied adults.

DoggyStyle82 · #14 10-04-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not with the topic of the thread. This is a very specific topic that highlights the irony of a political party affiliation with a particular moral platform. Only staunch, conservative Republicans need apply.

Christianity doesn't "require" conservativism. Especially if you know that there IS a difference between moral conservativism and political conservativism. You don't have to be pro-homosexuality to believe in human rights that don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Moreover, are Christians who aren't against homosexuality considered "bad Christians" now? The central and defining tenant of my faith doesn't require feeling a particular way about homosexuals. It doesn't require a particular political stance and certain moral stances should only be taken if they can be specifically supported by Scripture, as opposed to humans' interpretation of Scripture. The central tenant is the belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior--because He died so that I may be Saved--and a belief in a Living God.

Both conservatives and liberals with a grain of sense believe in helping people to help themselves, whether that means small or big government involvement. Only ultra-stingy conservatives in the upper echelon of income and wealth distribution truly believe in raw individualism believe it's "every human for his/herself." Only misguided liberals believe that handouts, and making people believe they are helpless victims, will work. Either case, the govt sponsored social welfare programs have overwhelmingly failed at helping people help themselves. If bipartisanism would give way to true human interest we'd probably be further ahead in terms of eliminating the poverty that is victimizing more helpless children than able bodied adults.

Touching and agreeing almost 100%. My point is that infusing political rhetoric with rigid religious dogma or the converse, infusing reilgious dogma with intractable political agendas, inevitably causes the polemicist to be in violation of their own tenets.

Shinerbock makes good points, but misses the point.. Pointing fingers is not an argument. Ad hominem platitudes do not further the conversation. Spouting party line talking points does not advance discourse. They only, obscure, deflect, and obsfucate. The debate is about leadership, not individuals. Democratic leadership is no more "moral" than republican leadership. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread

DSTCHAOS · #15 10-04-2006, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoggyStyle82

Democrats are no more "moral" than republicans. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread

Correct. And again, you never said all Republicans are a particular way. You were making a generalization because the staunch, conservative Republican platform is a very strict and morally vocal one. This doesn't even mean that all staunch, conservative Republicans are a particular way.

Similarly, the Democratic platform would be highlighted as hypocritic if it was discovered that quite a few headliners were doing things in their private and public lives that contradicted the Democratic stance on certain issues.