I have settled on a GOP candidate to support.

Dixie said:
I have to diagree with this "put social issues on the back burner" idea. Maybe you mean well, maybe what you are saying isn't that far from what I have said, that we need a candidate who knows how to "balance" social conservatism with fiscal conservatism? But the idea that we have to abandon a core principle, because it may offend independnets and seculars....well, that's just ignorant. What good is a principle if you are going to put it on the back burner? I get the feeling, many of you fiscal conservative seculars, don't grasp the principles of social conservatism, and don't understand why they are important to the conservative philosophy as a whole. Being totally ignorant of this, you think it's a good idea to get rid of all that stuff... put it on the back burner. As much as it makes a secular cringe to hear a candidate talk about God, it makes evangelicals cringe to hear "put your social issues in the closet!" We have to find a way to bridge this gap, to establish why these principles are important to conservatism, and instead of putting them "on the back burner", making the case for why we should never put our principles on the back burner.

My position does not mean that abortion and gay marriage should be front and center, I understand what is being said about fiscal issues being of paramount importance at this time, I'm just saying we can't abandon our principles, and we don't need to. That said, I believe a candidate like Herman Cain could articulate a strong message, full of common sense and pragmatism, because that's just who the man is.
Click to expand...

There is a fine line for the social issues. I have no problem with a candidate having faith. I understand that their faith will guide their decisions. But when the candidate starts in with the "we must return this nation to God's path" or something similar, I do cringe. The difference is whether or not I believe that candidate will be guided by their principles or will demand that their principles be followed by everyone in the nation. Whether their faith is something from which they gain strength or is something they want to use to control the country.

I think too many of the social issues are simply meddling in people's private lives. The gov't should (in fact MUST) to that as little as possible.
 
The best thing about A Dixie prediction, and to a lesser extend a Dixie endorsement, you can go to the bank that the opposit will happen.
 
Given Dixies endorsement, and using Democrat logic, you're obviously a racist and a bigot.....
 
hahahahahahahahaha!!!

Dixie said:
Let me preface my post with the following; The last time my initial primary pick actually won the presidency, it was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although the country should listen to me more, that just often doesn't turn out to be the case. Most of the time, my primary pick doesn't even make it to the nomination, and by the time the primaries reach Alabama, is not even on the ballot anymore. Nevertheless, as a man of principle, who believes in supporting who you think is best man/woman, regardless of party, polls or popularity, I have settled on an initial candidate to support for the GOP nomination.

It might come as a shocker to some on the left, who might think of me as "racist" because of my nickname and avatars, or respect for Confederate veterans, but my choice is Herman Cain. I realize he is a real long shot, and probably won't ever win the nomination or the presidency, but he is the man who I feel is best qualified to be president, who's ideas are most inline with my own, and who's character shines through above all else. Whether the rest of America agrees, remains to be seen.

Cain/Rubio 2012! YES WE CAIN!
Click to expand...

obama-osama-good-luck.jpg
 
King of Kings said:
Speaking from a strategic standpoint, you wouldn't want to run Rubio with Cain, as they come from neighbouring states (GA/FL). You typically want to spread the ticket geographically. How about Cain/Johnson? :cof1:
Click to expand...

I'm just not impressed with Johnson (or Paul)... sorry. Maybe not Rubio, I almost put WEST, then I realized how 'in your face' that would be, to run two black men on the ticket... Bachmann might be a good pick, but Florida carries a lot of electoral votes, and was decisive in the last few elections. I'm not really concerned with who he picks as a VP candidate at this point, I would just like to get him nominated, and I trust he would make a great pick, there are a bunch of possibilities available... How about Cain/Kasich? :D
 
WinterBorn said:
It is an issue raised by BOTH parties. No conservative candidate gets the evangelical vote without promising to end all abortions immediately.
Click to expand...

Please show me ANY evidence to support this statement? The simple truth is, there isn't any evidence to support it, because it's a flat out lie. No Republican/Conservative I have ever known in my life, has EVER "promised to end all abortions immediately." Not on a national level, not on a state or local level.... there is NO example of this. Go ahead WB... try to prove your point! I bet you can't!

To all of you so-called conservatives who think we need to put the social issues on the back burner.... notice that almost to a fault, every pinhead liberal on this board thinks that is a marvelous idea! That should be your first sign you are advocating stupidity.
 
Dixie said:
Please show me ANY evidence to support this statement? The simple truth is, there isn't any evidence to support it, because it's a flat out lie. No Republican/Conservative I have ever known in my life, has EVER "promised to end all abortions immediately." Not on a national level, not on a state or local level.... there is NO example of this. Go ahead WB... try to prove your point! I bet you can't!

To all of you so-called conservatives who think we need to put the social issues on the back burner.... notice that almost to a fault, every pinhead liberal on this board thinks that is a marvelous idea! That should be your first sign you are advocating stupidity.
Click to expand...

Oh please. No, no candidate promised to end abortions immediately. It is what is called an exaggeration. I would think you, of all people on this board would have grasped the concept.

But the abortion issue has been a litmus test for candidates since Roe v. Wade.



BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer Soc's question.

"Tell me Dixie.... what has changed in the last 20 years with regards to the social issues that has improved this country on the whole?"
 
WinterBorn said:
Oh please. No, no candidate promised to end abortions immediately. It is what is called an exaggeration. I would think you, of all people on this board would have grasped the concept.

But the abortion issue has been a litmus test for candidates since Roe v. Wade.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer Soc's question.

"Tell me Dixie.... what has changed in the last 20 years with regards to the social issues that has improved this country on the whole?"
Click to expand...

The question is academic. What has changed with the number of murders in America in the past 20 years? Should we stop prosecuting people for murder? What has changed with regard to corruption in government? Should we abandon government? Billions spent trying to cure AIDS and we're no closer now than 20 years ago... should we just quit trying that too?

You can call it a litmus test if you want, but I think most people have values which they hope to find in the candidates they support for public office as well. You seem to think people can compromise on their principles when it comes to the sanctity of life, and that's just not a realistic expectation. Yes, we are going to support a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate, but there has NEVER been a pro-life candidate who promised to END abortions immediately. Thank you for admitting that was a LIE.
 
Dixie said:
The question is academic. What has changed with the number of murders in America in the past 20 years? Should we stop prosecuting people for murder? What has changed with regard to corruption in government? Should we abandon government? Billions spent trying to cure AIDS and we're no closer now than 20 years ago... should we just quit trying that too?

You can call it a litmus test if you want, but I think most people have values which they hope to find in the candidates they support for public office as well. You seem to think people can compromise on their principles when it comes to the sanctity of life, and that's just not a realistic expectation. Yes, we are going to support a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate, but there has NEVER been a pro-life candidate who promised to END abortions immediately. Thank you for admitting that was a LIE.
Click to expand...

Right, a lie. Exaggeration has never been found in YOUR posts. Of course not. lol

Dixie, the point I am trying to make is not to let teh election get bogged down in bullshit. The candidates will be happy to avoid the tough fiscal issues in favor of stumping against gay marriage. If you want to let them, then you deserve the financial chaos that follows.
 
WinterBorn said:
Right, a lie. Exaggeration has never been found in YOUR posts. Of course not. lol

Dixie, the point I am trying to make is not to let teh election get bogged down in bullshit. The candidates will be happy to avoid the tough fiscal issues in favor of stumping against gay marriage. If you want to let them, then you deserve the financial chaos that follows.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think anyone is going to avoid the tough fiscal issues and get nominated, much less elected. But mainly, I don't believe a candidate has to make the choice to ABANDON their principles on social issues, to get elected... in fact, I believe that is a detriment to their campaign, if they choose to go down that path. I want someone who stands up for their principles, not someone willing to put them on the back burner or not talk about them.

As for MY deserving the financial chaos to follow... what about people who's God-fear keeps them from voting for someone who dares to mention they are Christian? Aren't they just as much at fault? Aren't they just as deserving? I get what the seculars are trying to do here... you religious righties need to sit down and shut up, put your issues in a box... don't bring them up... so we can win an election! Well, I categorically REJECT that idea. I think we can win an election with a fiscal AND social conservative message, we just need the appropriate messenger. That starts by finding someone who isn't ashamed of their convictions, who doesn't need to change who they are or what they stand for, and who can articulate their message in a way that ties together both fiscal and social conservative values, so a majority of Americans understand it.
 
Dixie said:
As for MY deserving the financial chaos to follow... what about people who's God-fear keeps them from voting for someone who dares to mention they are Christian? Aren't they just as much at fault? Aren't they just as deserving? I get what the seculars are trying to do here... you religious righties need to sit down and shut up, put your issues in a box... don't bring them up... so we can win an election! Well, I categorically REJECT that idea. I think we can win an election with a fiscal AND social conservative message, we just need the appropriate messenger. That starts by finding someone who isn't ashamed of their convictions, who doesn't need to change who they are or what they stand for, and who can articulate their message in a way that ties together both fiscal and social conservative values, so a majority of Americans understand it.
Click to expand...

Look at what happens if we ignore one side or the other.

If we ignore the fiscal issues, the nation is in serious danger.

If we ignore the social issues?? What happens then? Other than abortion, what social issue is so important as to even need to be included? Other than abortion, if all the other social issues are ignored, what will happen, Dixie? People will be happy and free?
 
And let's be clear about what Herman Cain has said here.. He has not promised to end all abortions immediately... He said he would not support funding for Planned Parenthood, because it's a scam, a farce, it's not "planned parenthood" and they don't help plan parenthood at all... it should be called Planned Genocide, because that is effectively what it is! He goes on to make his case for that, and he is 100% correct in his facts and analysis. It can't be refuted, so nimrods such as yourself, have to throw out "exaggerations" to counter what he said, which was the TRUTH.
 
Dixie said:
And let's be clear about what Herman Cain has said here.. He has not promised to end all abortions immediately... He said he would not support funding for Planned Parenthood, because it's a scam, a farce, it's not "planned parenthood" and they don't help plan parenthood at all... it should be called Planned Genocide, because that is effectively what it is! He goes on to make his case for that, and he is 100% correct in his facts and analysis. It can't be refuted, so nimrods such as yourself, have to throw out "exaggerations" to counter what he said, which was the TRUTH.
Click to expand...

Lets be clear about who you should be arguing with. Have I said anything negative about Herman Cain? I have said that Cain looks like the best candidate.

The comments about the fiscal v. social conservative issues was not aimed at Herman Cain.
 
WinterBorn said:
Look at what happens if we ignore one side or the other.

If we ignore the fiscal issues, the nation is in serious danger.

If we ignore the social issues?? What happens then? Other than abortion, what social issue is so important as to even need to be included? Other than abortion, if all the other social issues are ignored, what will happen, Dixie? People will be happy and free?
Click to expand...

Social issues are there because of principles and convictions. If you abandon them, you have abandoned your principles and convictions... if you will abandon your principles and convictions on one thing, what is preventing you from abandoning other principles and convictions you have?

You're right, the nation is in serious danger fiscally, which is exactly why it's important to elect someone who will not waver or compromise on their principles and convictions. The LAST thing we need running the country, is someone who is willing to compromise on their principles, whether they are social or fiscal.
 
Dixie said:
Social issues are there because of principles and convictions. If you abandon them, you have abandoned your principles and convictions... if you will abandon your principles and convictions on one thing, what is preventing you from abandoning other principles and convictions you have?

You're right, the nation is in serious danger fiscally, which is exactly why it's important to elect someone who will not waver or compromise on their principles and convictions. The LAST thing we need running the country, is someone who is willing to compromise on their principles, whether they are social or fiscal.
Click to expand...

The point is not abandoning convictions. The point is focus and work. If the candidate, whoever they are, allows the campaign to get bogged down in gay marriage issues, flag burning issues, banning porn issues, 10 Commandments issues, or teaching ID issues, the fiscal work will not get done. The people in Washington don't want the fiscal issues addressed because it takes away thier power.
 
Not a snowball's chance in hell - but with global warming you never know! But this is the republican party Dixie, did you miss that obvious fact. Reagan has to be one of the best myths ever perpetrated on the American public. This piece sums up republicans and those loony voters. "Finally, to anyone who says “It can’t happen here”, I have two simple one-word responses: “Reagan” and “Bush”. That George W. Bush was a buffoonish character straight from slapstick central casting is incontrovertible, though the degree to which he has been left off the hook for the crime of his presidency is both nauseating and frightening. It is also as predictable as sunrise that the Ann Coulters of this world will, sufficient time having passed, seek to rehabilitate his image, just as she literally tried to do a few years ago for Joe McCarthy (yes, that Joe McCarthy, and no, I’m not kidding)."

"...And just as has been done for decades now by a whole cottage industry on the right, which has turned another president who by conventional standards was mediocre, and by honest standards would be considered fully treasonous, into some great deity in the consciousness of the American public. No room on Rushmore? No worries, why not give Reagan his own entire mountain?" http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Trump_Beats_All.html
 
WinterBorn said:
The point is not abandoning convictions. The point is focus and work. If the candidate, whoever they are, allows the campaign to get bogged down in gay marriage issues, flag burning issues, banning porn issues, 10 Commandments issues, or teaching ID issues, the fiscal work will not get done. The people in Washington don't want the fiscal issues addressed because it takes away their power.
Click to expand...

Ummm "get bogged down"? Stating ones views and beliefs is something ALL candidates do. Obama claimed to be pro gun anti gay marriage Christian candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top