Republican Morality

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Because its not that conservative. However, there is a big difference between being unimpressed with the current state of GOP politics, and voting or leaning democratic. I'll take a less conservative GOP over the weak stance of the DNC anyday.

They want stricter morality and anti-government intervention and control? To be disenchanted should mean to forego party loyalty and instead vote based on political platforms.

Either way, both the Democrats and Republicans are the devil. Go Independent.

[DoggyStyle82]

My point in the post was that people who are imprisoned in political dogma, particularly of the self-righteous variety invariably fall because like Wolf said, we all fall prey to human frailty and taking the moral high ground has slippery slopes. Using such moral platitudes to pander to a base that you only plan to prostitute leaves you little wiggle room when your personal peccadillos come to light

Newt Gingrich was in an extra-marital affair and divorced his wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Some family values. He left unwillingly.

Rush Limbaugh= drug addict, felon, and sexual predator (sex trips to the Dominican Republic to have sex with teenage girls).

Jim Wright lead formal impeachment hearings against Clinton. Had to resign when his adulterous affair came to light.

Tom Delay Rep Majority Leader leaves in disgrace due to multiple corruption charges.

As for most Democrats, they don't cloak themselves in Moral Dogma as part of their political strategy since as Anne Coulter-geist states, they are "godless". If Dems are Godless then what is the Republican leadership.

Those named republicans have been disengenuous in pandering to the true moral conservatives who make up the hard right wing of the party and leaving them used like a crack whore. Just like the Dems do to Black voters.

As my Pastor says, "don't play with God"


Lastly, as a man of conviction, I admire yours to a point, but sometimes you have to realize, that you cannot be right all of the time just because your talking points say that you are. When faced with incontroverable facts a reasonable and intelligent person would concede or even dialogue on some points. However, only a demagogue cannot see fault or error in himself and his views, nor the good and validity in his opponent. There is no growth nor enlightenment. Fanatics, fundamentalists, the intellectually lazy, and fools let slogans and dogma speak for them rather than rational thought.

[shinerbock]

Of course, my only contention is that equal amounts of corruption, moral indiscretion, etc...exists on the other side of the aisle. So long as you realize this, thats fine.

[06pilot]

So, because a few Republicans have gotten off the beatonpath, ALL Republicans are bad? That doesnt make much logical sence to me. Democrats have been taken care of by interns. They have had affairs ontheir wives. DOes that make all of them bad?

You cant stereotype a whle group of people because of a few. Thats what white people have been doing to us for years. Take the better road and dont be like that.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Of course, my only contention is that equal amounts of corruption, moral indiscretion, etc...exists on the other side of the aisle. So long as you realize this, thats fine.

We're waiting for the staunch, conservative Republicans to realize this so they can stop beating America over the head with their "morality."

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by 06pilot

So, because a few Republicans have gotten off the beatonpath, ALL Republicans are bad?

Yes. Thanks for visiting our wonderful thread.

[06pilot]

Thanks for having me.

[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)

[DSTCHAOS]

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]

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]

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.

[AXEAM]

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)

I agree w/most of your post but let ask are you opposed to all goverment handouts or just the little bones thrown out to the poor? I'm not trying to start anything I just want to know how you feel on the issue.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DoggyStyle82

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

However, in attempting to rationalize this argument, you're pointing your finger at the Republican party. By using terms such as "demonize," you're showing your personal bias. Simply saying that we don't agree with homosexuality could not be aptly described as "demonizing." Democrats consistantly try to portray Republicans as trying take away homosexual's "right" to marry, when in actuality the right never existed. Its like saying we're keeping engineers from practicing law. They simply don't fit the requirements. I also disagree...Democrats use morality all the time as a selling point, describing the GOP as a group which is dishonest and heartless. Again, its tough to be hypocritical when you don't stand for anything in the first place (see: Iraq).

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

However, in attempting to rationalize this argument, you're pointing your finger at the Republican party. By using terms such as "demonize," you're showing your personal bias. Simply saying that we don't agree with homosexuality could not be aptly described as "demonizing." Democrats consistantly try to portray Republicans as trying take away homosexual's "right" to marry, when in actuality the right never existed. Its like saying we're keeping engineers from practicing law. They simply don't fit the requirements. I also disagree...Democrats use morality all the time as a selling point, describing the GOP as a group which is dishonest and heartless. Again, its tough to be hypocritical when you don't stand for anything in the first place (see: Iraq).

ok, then take that line out and respond specifically to the point at hand, not what others have done. Its been stated by DSTChaos and myself that Dems are not perfect either. This isn't even about them so take them out of the equation. Republicans, specifically, the social and religious variety, hold their party as the standard. What is your response to the failings of your leadership in moral and ethical issues?

BTW, I am a conservative, just not an idealogue entrenched in either parties b.s

[shinerbock]

Well the moral failings so far as we know involve Foley's misdeeds. Now, I don't really consider him to be among party leadership, but he has represented the GOP poorly. If it turns out that Hastert knew something and took little or no action when action was obviously appropriate, then I'd admit he has failed in both his capacity as a human being, a legislator, and a party leader. Personally, I think he has failed in general as a party leader. He has allowed the GOP in the house to be divided, and has not set a clear direction for the party or the country. My primary problem with the GOP at this point is that nobody is willing to play hardball, everyone is concerned with their own motivations. I think the only place where Democrats have shown any sort of unity or strength is in their hatred of the adminstration, and despite this lack of direction from the left, Hastert and Co. have not taken advantage. I'm not sure if you were interested in my thoughts on other immoral acts by republicans, but if you'll specify I'll respond. As for the party, this is what I'd like to see...

Strong leadership (both for the country and internally). Modern politicians don't seem to understand that when acting as a block, most obstacles can be overcome. Republicans will point to Bush's weakened stature, but fail to recognize that if they would continue to stand by him, it wouldn't be nearly as weak. Its similar to the debate on immigration, where politicians are concerned that if they take too tough a stand either way, they'll either lose their base or the hispanic community. What they fail to understand is that by taking a tough stand, they'll solidify their support, one way or another. By staying in the middle or wavering, you're likely not only to lose some of your base, but to fail in efforts to gain more moderate voters. Basically, get off the fence. The problem with politicians is that they're educated and prideful people. If you present a patriotic and honest campaign that appeals to Americans because of their love for this country (aka Edwards before Kerry made him his attack dog), I truly believe you'll generally win. However, politicians are of the sort that they simply cannot stand to sit idly by while being derided by opponents. Thus, they get pulled into a typical mudslinging election cycle. I'd love to see the GOP appeal to people on a level beyond "If you don't vote for us _______ will happen." Ask Reagan how that worked. Times were bad for most people, but his message was one of inspiration, and a lot of people loved him for it. Not everything has to be policy, sometimes it just comes down to leadership. When presented with people starving and those down on their luck, our greatest leaders haven't established new government programs, they've merely appealed to citizens, asking them to help those in need. People have asked me before how Christians can be against social welfare programs, and my general answer is that its not the government's responsibility, its ours. We've taken the burden off of Americans to act neighborly to one another, and placed it squarely on the government. Not only does it not work, it denies Americans the chance to fulfill their civic responsibilities. Alright, sorry for the tangent.

By the way, I'm pretty sure there is somebody coming up who's what I'd like to see in a leader, and his name is Mitt Romney.