# Republican Strategist: Religion is Holding GOP Back



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Since I'm sure we have lots of fair and balanced posting here.... I'm simply _shocked_ to have not found this article posted before I had a chance.. Then again with the partisan cherry picking posting of stories here.. not really.

You know...since it is straight from the political bible of the right... (FOX News!) Guess it doesn't sorta fit their current agenda now does it?

I think the title is a little ummm shall we say naieve.. "_Risks becoming _the religous party"... guess what FauxNews... most of the rest of the world except *you* already knows that _they are_. :lol:



> McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'
> 
> Steve Schmidt urges Republicans to begin voicing more support for civil unions and gay rights.
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... ous-party/
> ...


Uh ohhh... what are the zealots going to do and say now?

Blasphemy I say! Who is going to be the first to cast a stone?



> he suggested that the party will be increasingly marginalized if it sustains that opposition long-term.


It already is marginalized, as evidenced by the azz kicking it took during the last election.



> Schmidt predicted gay marriage will create a bigger and bigger divide between the GOP and the electorate in the years ahead. He said that as young voters age, they may adopt conservative views on the economy and national security -- but they will not abandon liberal, social beliefs.
> 
> This would put the Republican Party at odds with a swath of voters, Schmidt said.


Ding ding ding! At least someone in the GOP think tank has a brain and realistic perspective.

Hmmm sorta sounds like exactly what I was saying last August/October... now it is being repeated by a leading GOP strategist...

I can't wait to hear how this one can be twisted into a talking point.

* Sits back, Grabs popcorn and a beer* 8)

edit: Ohh and if you want some serious entertainment, it is even funnier to go to the comments section of that FauxNews article and watch the shrieking, fear mongering, hand wringing and blame game going on there! :lol:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

"John McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign " 

No wonder he lost!! :lol:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Irrelevant.


----------



## vtrons (Feb 14, 2008)

Soooo...

Conservatives need to be quiet about their core values in order to gain supporters, thus allowing the Republican Party to gain more voters.

Then, once a victory is secured, they'll be back in the White House.

Once there, they can start leaking damaging reports about the opposition, and they can further their core value driven agenda for at least the next couple of years until the American voters realize that they've been had.

Sounds like a page right out of the Democrats playbook.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Ryan, i think you and katie curric need to hook up.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Once again, the "moderator" posts up simply to stir the pot. Haven't quite figured out why he's allowed to do this when supposedly it's his responsibility to make sure the others who post here don't...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ryan is irrelevant......always has been.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I think this article has some very good points just not the best text. Some of these points are exactly why not just McCain but also republicans in congress lost in 08. Until republicans realize they need to broaden their horizons without giving up the farm they will be stuck in this rut for a while, unless democrats self-destruct like they appear to be doing but either way they need to come up with a sustainable plan.

I think the fall of the catholic church has made religion less of an issue in the political arena because there was so much corruption that people just got sick of religion, I know I did. I still go to church but I have found myself taking things with a grain of salt.

As far as gays and hispanics go they or their leadership seems to want something for nothing, especially on illegals and other governments.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

TK33 said:


> I think the fall of the catholic church has made religion less of an issue in the political arena because there was so much corruption that people just got sick of religion, I know I did. I still go to church but I have found myself taking things with a grain of salt.


Since when did the Catholic Church fall? The Parrish/Diocese that I belong to are exceptionally active and the masses are overflowing. You take your religion/faith with a grain of salt?? :roll: You blame what foolish/corrupt men have done on your/our religion and God? :eyeroll: We can leave it at you have not found your faith or you've never had it.

The moral fibre and sense of worth are in the toilet in this country because of that very attitude. Answer to no one including God and anything goes as "I" see fit. A country full of socialist supreme beings.

You can suck on the teat of socialism and live, but I will die fighting for the freedoms God gave me.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

You seem to have forgotten the pedophile scandal and massive coverups the church pulled a few years ago. The bottom line is that the catholics were the leaders in anti abortion and antigay arenas and other conservative issues but they have lost so much credibility that repubs have to look at other options for support.

Like I said above it can be done without selling the farm and continuously playing the socialism angle will do nothing


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> continuously playing the socialism angle will do nothing


No one is playing an angle TK, if it's socialism that's what I call it. Obama is a socialist. It's not my fault people are so politically inept that they can not understand that.

As far as the Catholic Church, I wouldn't blame God for something some stupid people did. Every religion, every race, every nationality, every group you can place people in have done stupid things. The left is simply taking advantage of the situation. It isn't just the children that were victims of these renegade perverts, it's the innocent priests, the church, the congregation. The media loves it because they can make people think only the child was the victim, and some even believe the church itself was the perpetrator. No, I'm not Catholic, but I have watched this demonetization scheme play out with other organizations and other people. It's the same trick they play on the NRA. They can only mislead us if we refuse to think or think to simple.

I find that FOX is the only main stream media I trust. Look at the left leaning article they had that Ryan posted. His post is proof they are fair and balanced.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

No one is blaming god they are blaming repubs for being closed minded.

Your comments about people being inept make my point even more valid. If people don't know what socialism is why dwell on it or use it as an angle?

New ideas, new direction, and moderacy is the key to getting us out of this pro corporate 2 class system we are in


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Your comments about people being inept make my point even more valid. If people don't know what socialism is why dwell on it or use it as an angle?


Like I said it's not an angle. When we have a problem what is it liberals always call for? Education, that's what, and we need to educate people what socialism is, and what it's affect on our economy, our freedom, and our persona lives would be. Not talking about it is like ignoring a disease. It isn't going to go away.



> New ideas, new direction, and moderacy is the key


I couldn't disagree more. What we need is a revival of our principles. They lost because they were doing the very thing your advocating now. If they try be more moderate, they will loose again because there will be even less difference between democrats and republicans. We need to draw away from that.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

If we don't get some moderation or give and take we will continue the current go nowhere special interest driven rut we have been in for years. This is what is driving people to either not care about socialism or being so desperate that they actually welcome it.

Your subtext calls socialism a failure. It is more than failure it is the means to the end. Gays are here to stay like it or not, repubs have to find a way to somewhat appease them for success. Abortion is an issue worth fighting. Repubs need to come up with new economic ideas and tax plans to get the middle class and small businesses on board.

The times haved changed and repubs and mod dems need to get control of this to stop the infectious spread


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry TK, I don't abandon my principles so easily and neither should any other conservative. The republican party will not be successful abandoning their principles either. They have already tried it and it didn't work.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

TK33 said:


> You seem to have forgotten the pedophile scandal and massive coverups the church pulled a few years ago. The bottom line is that the catholics were the leaders in anti abortion and antigay arenas and other conservative issues but they have lost so much credibility that repubs have to look at other options for support.


So your holding God, the Catholic Religion and all who practice to blame for what the perpetrators commited? Please answer.

You may want consider what you are saying, I haven't begun with the stiff logic that would drag you through a thorny manure pile.

Plainsman, thank you for the wisdom. :beer:

Sometimes I forget who might be on the other end of these posts and they may not have the knowledge or experience to grasp the virtues of manhood. In due time.

The republicans have had their butts handed to them because they abandoned the conservative values that unite and excite people who do have a deep faith and relish freedom. There is alot more of us than the left would like you to believe. That is why the tea party movement scares the hell out of them.

How long will this country stand with it being divided between the people who stand with God and those that want to cast him out lock ,stock and barrel?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Well one of those principles votes. Somrtimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand.

Seems weird that some principles can be abandoned but not others


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

There is a distinct difference between church and faith, especially for catholics. It is not that I never found my faith, the nuns beat that into me. It is more that I don't trust the the church like I used to, another example of this is the real reason why priests don't marry it has nothing to do with the teachings, it is because the church was losing land and money to their next of kin when they died. The church tells us gay is bad yet they went out of their way to cover up the homopedophile scandal they had. What is even more disgusting is that they let it go on for decades. The bible doesn't condone that, furthermore neither should anyones manhood.

The point is running to the church well has dried up. Repubs need to keep religion, dems should too but they need to be more progressive

Me and my manhood have to get back to work in the coal mine


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

The problem with both parties is that they have both let the farthest out whack jobs assend to positions of power. The republicans have already started the cleaning out process, and with the way things are going so far in the obama administration, there will be a slew of new republicans in the house and senate come the next election.

Stick to the core conservative values, smaller gov't, lower taxes is gonna be the answer to fix this mess.

As far as Ryan's post, it's pretty much worthless, just a post to get people riled up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Seems weird that some principles can be abandoned but not others


TK your not thinking as clearly as you sometimes do. Don't you have any differentiation in your principles? Do you feel very strong about some, but just so so about others? If you can give them up that easy maybe they really are not principles, just something you sort of like.

If you remember last fall most conservatives were depressed that all they had was McCain. Do you remember their reaction to Palin? However, she was such a danger that the media got right on demonizing her. I think the gays are the only ones that she really scares.



> The church tells us gay is bad yet they went out of their way to cover up the homopedophile scandal they had.


No one is arguing with you about that. It was a terrible thing to happen and a very stupid thing to cover it up. The problem was the ****/pedophile priests, and the people who made the decision to hide it, but neither reflect on the religion because they didn't hold to their principles. Now some want us to abandon ours. Nope, not going to happen, and if it does many will be looking seriously at a third party. What's that new one coming on again, the "constitutional party"?

I think a person looses all integrity if they abandon their principles for any reason.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

TK33 said:


> It is not that I never found my faith, the nuns beat that into me.


What kind of stick did they use?? We all know, just want to hear you say it.

If your saying between the physical church and faith I agree. Otherwise there is no difference.

When you abandon a core principle you are certainly weak and most likely a coward looking save your hindend for the moment or fit in with the hope and change groupies.

Hopefully TK you will find your manhood, just be sure to leave the lights on and wear your tri-focals. :lol:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I don't really think politicians have principles. Both parties have changed views over the years.

Times have changed, a survivor adapts. If you want smaller govt, less taxes, prudent spending, etc you have to prioritize your core principles. Gays are not nearly the issue they once were. You don't have to wave the white flag but rather you have to treat them like humans. With all that is going on in the world right now we have bigger fish to fry. I am sure there are gays who like some of the other repub views like taxes that are completely alienated and just vote dem. Until repubs realize this our system will stay the same.

Isn't one of Cheneys daughters gay? 4curl you spend a lot of time focusing on other peoples manhood, are you sure you are not in the other batters box? 

Anyway I am tired of the stalemates and the lack of accomplishment in DC over issues that are no win


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Schmidt also said Friday that Republicans need to reach out, not only to gay voters, but young voters and Hispanics.
> 
> "The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population for instance could soon cost Republicans the entire southwest if we don't recover our previous share of the vote," he said.


This part of the article Ryan posted proves Schmidt doesn't know what hes speaking about. The hispanic vote in California soundly defeated gay marriage on their ballot by almost 100% of their voting block shooting it down, hispanics are very religious and will move to a conservative religious postion if the illegal immigration issue is resolved. 
Oh the libs were gnashing their teeth about that one :lol: .

Neither Dems or republicans seem willing to take a stand on illegals because the issue is a great political tool for them. Cowards

the catholic church is like congress full of corrupt individuals who view it as a means to power here on earth. They will get their just desserts.

The Catholic religion is the one true Christain religion all others are "protestant" probably because the corruption in the church hirarchy was too much for decnt people to bear so they decided to break off.

But human nature being what it is the same things go on in the protestant Christain religions.

Gays should be allowed to have civil unions that give them the legal rights of a hetrosexual marriage with the exception of adoption IMO.

Being gay is not a choice they just are gay, the proof of that in my mind is I never made a choice to be hetro it just happend. I think gays are just wired wrong mentally on that issue they should not be penalized for that


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

szm69 said:


> The crazy BS that I hate is that no matter what issue you talk about the 2 partys are magically on opposite sides. WTF?
> 
> F the Democrats and F the Republicans. It sucks because I basically have to vote Republican because Democratic stand on so many issues are just plain WRONG.
> 
> ...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I agree that we need to execute faster, like Texas does.



> If you remember last fall most conservatives were depressed that all they had was McCain. Do you remember their reaction to Palin? However, she was such a danger that the media got right on demonizing her. I think the gays are the only ones that she really scares.


Where is she now? Her political spotlight didn't go dim, the bulb blew up in her face. Her daughter would be a better candidate than her, I feel sorry that she has to drug through the mud by her ex and her mother. As if being a 20 year old mom isn't hard enough. Remember when Palin blasted the stupid tarp or tarp 2, Palin then contradicted herself and took the money. The point is that she excited a base for two months and then it went to hell in a handbasket. She was not a sustainable candidate and didn't quite excite enough people. Gays shouldn't be a principle now, they are in the military, own/run businesses, etc. Just like Bob's point with the hispanics get some of their votes and win.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## pintailtim (Apr 6, 2007)

I don't think gay marriage is an issue we need to be concerned with right now. That a liberal moderator threw this garbage out there to distract the public from more pressing issues that are affecting our country seems to a liberal form of sabotage. Lets worry about putting Adam and Steve back to work, then they can worry about getting married.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

NDTerminator said:


> Once again, the "moderator" posts up simply to stir the pot. Haven't quite figured out why he's allowed to do this when supposedly it's his responsibility to make sure the others who post here don't...


Sorry NDT. Not stirring any pot. period.

This is an article written by Fox News (a website which everyone here seems to worship.) If you have a problem with my posting of an article that rag posts, take it up with them. How can it be stirring the pot when the source comes from the most credible source you guys follow? Hmm?

The answer is it isn't. Period.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that the guy is 100% correct in the article.

Plus, the _fact _that he is a Republican strategist is irony of the highest degree.

Maybe instead of complaining about the nature of the article or who posted it you might instead place the focus on the article's merits.



Hunter9494 said:


> ryan is irrelevant.....always has been.


:lol: spoken from the guy who fully 75% of his posts have no replies, joined us less than a year ago, has how many thousand posts?, and hasn't contributed anything to this forum ever except for anti Obama posts... :rollin: all one needs to do is review the last 10 pages of this forum to see how many folks even bother reading your posts or replying to your attempt at discourse. Try noting the continuous pattern.



pintailtim said:


> That a liberal moderator threw this garbage out there to distract the public from more pressing issues that are affecting our country seems to a liberal form of sabotage.


Sorry buddy.. I didn't "throw this out there" to distract the public. Better go back and read my first post slower. This was "thrown out there" by FauxNews. That "liberal sabotage" you speak of was done by a Conservative rag. :lol: Thanks for pointing out that you recognize sabotage based on the content of the words. Now let's go attack the source of that sabotage so we quit being distracted shall we?

It is interesting that very few responders to this thread have truly addressed the article, it's merits, or that it is the thoughts of a highly prominent Republican strategist.

Instead it has digressed several different ways without addressing it at all. But if you can't attack the article's merits, just attack anything else, seeing as you can't attack

1. "who" published the story being from a liberal website, when instead it is from the source of most of your worship material(Fox News)
2. the author of the article was _*not *_a liberal pundit, but rather a Republican strategist
3. That the strategist was not just some Conservative with a microphone, but rather an actual strategist with standing in the GOP
4. that he is a key figure in the GOP's most recent election with actual inside numbers/information on the reality of why they got their azzes kicked in November.

So feel free to just keep talking nonsense and avoiding the obvious flaws in your normal list of ways at discrediting stories I post.

Nice try fellas.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Irrelevant.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Irrelevant.


You really should quit talking about yourself like that 

Once again a prime example of my previous comments.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ryan wrote:


> Ding ding ding! At least someone in the GOP think tank has a brain and realistic perspective.
> 
> Hmmm sorta sounds like exactly what I was saying last August/October... now it is being repeated by a *leading *GOP strategist...


Sounds like views of a* losing* strategist, Ryan. Schmidt is only conservative if compared to you. That's why he worked for guys like Schwarzenegger and McCain. Not exactly poster boys for the true Republican party, but certainly shows why you would gravitate to him...unless it really _IS_ his ties to homosexuality that excites you.

You're not going to confess anything here......are you, Ryan? 



> He left three credits short of graduating because he couldn't pass a math course; Schmidt has said that he has been diagnosed with a *learning disability* that makes higher math difficult for him
> 
> In 1995, Steve Schmidt managed Will T. Scott's (the current Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky) *unsuccessful *campaign for attorney general of Kentucky.
> 
> Later, in 1998, Schmidt ran Tim Leslie's *unsuccessful* race for lieutenant governor of California.[7] That year he was also the Communications Director for the* unsuccessful* U.S. Senate campaign of Matt Fong.[8] In 1999, he was the communications director for Lamar Alexander's presidential run, leaving in June when the campaign reduced its senior staff


Doesn't exactly have a glowing record of being "right", does he? :wink:

This sums up Schmidt as far as I'm concerned....



> I will argue that our party was a richer party when we had people, by *no means conservatives* but republicans


That is a quote from Schmidt printed in today's Huffington Post.

Most of us here believe the problem with the Republican party is they've gotten too far from their roots, and as mentioned many times before, the Palin issue showed that....on both sides. I'm sure they are looking at the gay rights issue, but I hope they aren't counting on much non-biased input from Schmidt. It might be difficult for me to think objectively if I had a gay sister, too.....I don't know.

But it didn't change Newt's thinking!

*THAT'S* who the Republican party should be listening to !!!!!!!!!!!!

To me, Ryan, what your post clearly shows is that FOX reports the news, which is what Schmidt's appearance was. And it also shows that people like you, who've become so used to receiving "news" in the form of an indoctrination, assume that if they report it, they agree with it.

Keep up the good work, but if you're seriously trying to discredit Fox News, I think you're gonna have to dig a little deeper. :wink:

:beer:


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

szm69 said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > szm69 said:
> ...


Here is one of things that gets me about the libs that are all for abortion that is killing. Killing of a innocent person at that. But oh no we need to keep the murding rapist piece of sh!t alive on the tax payers dime. That makes no sense at all abosolutly none.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> they are blaming repubs for being closed minded


Means republicans will not agree with democrats.

Plainsman wrote:


> If you remember last fall most conservatives were depressed that all they had was McCain. Do you remember their reaction to Palin?


TK33 wrote:


> Where is she now? Her political spotlight didn't go dim, the bulb blew up in her face.


TK you were saying republicans had to give up their principles and I was simply using Palin as an example of conservative principles. My point wasn't about Palin at all, it was about what she said she stood for and how the conservatives received it. What Palin said, not what the liberal press said she said. There is a big difference.

Plainsman wrote:


> I find that FOX is the only main stream media I trust. Look at the left leaning article they had that Ryan posted. His post is proof they are fair and balanced.


Plainsman also wrote:


> What we need is a revival of our principles. They lost because they were doing the very thing your advocating now.


Plainsman also wrote:


> The republican party will not be successful abandoning their principles either. They have already tried it and it didn't work.


4CurlRedlegs wrote:


> The republicans have had their butts handed to them because they abandoned the conservative values that unite and excite people who do have a deep faith and relish freedom.


4CurlRedlegs also wrote:


> When you abandon a core principle you are certainly weak and most likely a coward looking save your hindend for the moment or fit in with the hope and change groupies.


Bobm wrote:


> This part of the article Ryan posted proves Schmidt doesn't know what hes speaking about.


szm69 wrote:


> Ask your self this. If the Democratic party and Republican party suddenly switched stances on any one issue, would you change your vote? If not then it probably isn't that important.


Ryan wrote:


> It is interesting that very few responders to this thread have truly addressed the article, it's merits, or that it is the thoughts of a highly prominent Republican strategist.


The original article:


> John McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign urged fellow Republicans on Friday to warm up to gay rights





> "If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said.





> He urged Republicans, in the near-term, to endorse civil unions and stop using the Bible as rationale for gay-marriage opposition.


Well, that's enough, simply go back and read it and you will notice that people did address the subject (including gay rights), and as a matter of fact stuck to the subject very well I think. It strayed no more than any other thread.

Steve Schmidt proved he could loose an election and evidently wants the republicans to take some more bad advise. What will be a winning strategy for the republicans is to get back to their core values. Steve Schmidt may at one time had some standing, but if he still does the republicans will keep on loosing. 
You have to hand it to FOX news to cover something like that when everyone thinks they lean so far right. Often I find they have very far left things to say. They only look off center if you are way left or right.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I agree that makes absolutely no sense to me either, You are either OK with killing other beings, or you are not, that is why I don't understand how the 2 partys split it up the way they did. Repubicans - Pro Capital Punishment, Anti abortions; Dems - Pro Abortions, anti capital punishment.
> I am surprised that Pro Capital punishment and Pro Abortions don't go together and anti abortions and anti capital punishment.


what???????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll: Its perfectly CONSISTANT Dems are never willing to hold anyone (no matter what a vicious monster they may be its always societies fault) responsible for their actions and are always perfectly willing to allow anyone that has acted irresponsibly IE had sex without considering the normal consequence of sex CHILDREN to simply look at the child as a mistake easily erased for convience. Again why hold someone responsible when its so convient to kill the "mistake" uke:

Re; Palin she is somehow held to answer to all her relatives and adult childrens mistakes why is that

simple answer is they cannot find anything else and they fear her immediate popularity because most of the normal people in this country easily identify with her

she would of made a great president McCain wasn't fit to be a good janitor


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> McCain wasn't fit to be a good janitor


I agree and he still wants to run again in 2012. uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As poor as McCain performed I'm not convinced the fool wanted to win. If you look at the video "Deception" that 4CurlRedlegs provided McCain sure looks like a guy to fit into that scheme. Like I said before the election they should have run Palin as president and McCain as vice president. Of course then he would have kept trying to make her fail.

America had no choice last November. Well we had a choice, but both were fools. Well, one was a fool the other is treacherous and anti constitution. We couldn't have done much worse for president. I hope those who voted for him like the change. I suppose those who like Stalin, Lenin, and Marx are perfectly happy.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Re; Palin she is somehow held to answer to all her relatives and adult childrens mistakes why is that


You have the simple answer, the whole answer is because she herself put them there. She was the champion of family values and "no" to contraception and sex ed. She is no different than any other politician, it comes out of both sides of her mouth and her ***.

The conservative movement has lost the battle with homosexuals, plain and simple. Fighting gays is simply fighting the inevitable, it is a waste of time, money, and votes. If republicans would give up the lost cause of gay rights and pick up some of their votes and move ahead with moderate democrats and get some logic in the tax code, spending, trade, environment, and national defense we may actually get somewhere. The Bayh group proves that there are those in DC that are fearing socialistic policies and the over reaching of the federal government. Thus they are fearing their jobs.

I am going to make another prediction: by the mid terms some of these moderate democrats will be republicans.

As far as the Fox news thing goes, I have found myself tuning into them a little more. I have also noticed that more public tv's like at the dentist, stores, etc are also tuned to fox. I used to like olbermann but it appers that GE is pulling their strings pretty hard, especially on cap and trade. CBS has been a hack operation for a while, ABC has gotten out of control, I watched a little bit of stephanopoulis yesterday and it seemed to me that Rahm controlled the interview, and even CNN has joined the tabloid style bandwagon of journalism.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Is religion holding back the GOP? No and it is an irrelevant argument.

Are the liberal/socilaists trampling on religion? Yes, that is why this country has lost its moral fiber and it is a loud flushing of principles right down the crapper.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I used to like olbermann


OUCH !!!!!!!!

That's gonna leave a mark!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The irrelevant attitude cost the gop the last election.

They need all the votes they can get.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33 said:


> The irrelevant attitude cost the gop the last election.
> 
> They need all the votes they can get.


The republicans will get more votes if they move back to what they were, conservatives.


----------



## Candiru (Aug 18, 2005)

I am one that has become sick of all the religion in the Republican party. If you are for limited goverment you should be for limited goverment in all matters not just ones that you agree with. I used to vote republican pretty much all the way. I can no longer do that in good conscience. Get Gov't out of our wallets, our gun cabinets, and our bedrooms.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Hmmm. Interesting.

I am little surprised given that guys like pintail and Bobm have chimed in their views

I am going to play the generational difference card here. For us gays came out earlier and we have dealt with that population our entire lives that they are are a non issue. Dems clearly won the young vote and to move onto bigger issues would only help the gop

Dems have the younger generations support from tax breaks, the promise of change, and being trendy or whatever. If repubs can capitalize on dem mistakes they would garner younger votes, both gay and straight


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

trendy :lol: theres a real value to b e proud of....

the conservative movement has not "lost gays" a subroup in it, the religious right has

there are many conservative gays they don't want to be screwed (Pardon the pun) by the government with high taxes ect

true conservatives believe in the constitution and follow it to the letter

the republican party has few conservatives I can't think of any, thats why they are not in power

and why are you suprised I chimed in? this is a good topic


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

McCain was not courting the Christian community in his lameazz attempt for the Whitehouse. He left them behind. That makes this argument irrelevant.

The truth about the socialist movement is coming out and it will be an awakening for the people who "want" to see it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For crying out loud TK what's with the big concern for gays? Maybe some of us wouldn't pay so much attention to the gays if they didn't want so many special privileges. It's not just gays. People should all be equal under the constitution, but every special interest group is out trying to get some kind of special treatment. If someone shoots me it's no big deal, but if they shoot a gay it's a hate crime. Really???? Someone would only shoot me if they like me? Every murder is a hate crime for crying out loud. Drop the effort for special treatment and stop the pride parades, you don't see heterosexual pride parades. If they don't get the job they want they scream prejudice and they either get the job or a settlement. If this keeps up half the country is going to claim they are gay. The gay thing isn't only tied to religion, it's tied to people beginning to get sick of their wanting everything just because they are gay. 
Have you ever noticed any of these groups that claim they just want to be treated like everyone else actually want to be treated better than anyone else. That's my pet peeve, and not just with gays.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bobm-i used the term chimed because you are a streaky poster, especially for a mod. 

I think you are somewhat right on gays, the few I know have some cash but worry about their rights. They all support dems

Trendy does not have anything to do with policy. It has more to do with being in touch with younger voters, or at least looking like you do. Obama mastered this


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Trendy does not have anything to do with policy. It has more to do with being in touch with younger voters, or at least looking like you do. Obama mastered this


But that only works with shallow fools. I would just as soon that the democrats be known as the party of shallow fools. I think if republicans have good policy which includes frugal spending that they can attract enough votes to win. I can only tell you from my perspective, but if they try to get trendy I wouldn't vote for them. They will loose more votes than mine too. I want politicians handling the defense of this country that are mature and act like adults. Democrats don't.

Trendy will get you the idiot vote, but it will loose others. It's an election to run a nation for crying out loud not American Idol.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bob started it

I don't know how we got on this. I posted the same thing earlier about something for nothing for these special interest groups.

Republicans like the religious need to modernize at least a little bit


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Republicans like the religious need to modernize at least a little bit


Oh, I get it. Which should we do give up our principles, or lie to the people and tell them we gave up our principles?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I am not disagreeing with you.

The gop needs to appeal to different crowds. The quickest way is to modernize and show younger voters they hear their voice.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So when you say modernize don't you mean give up our principles, or fake it?

I don't fit that mould very well. I listen to that old country song about the willow in the back yard bending with the wind, and think to myself: I would rather brake than bend. What will get me to give up my principles is 230 gr at 900 fps between the eyes. Oh, no, I'm a radical.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Riddle me this,

Would it kill the gop to support sex ed and contraception and still be anti abortion

To give gays equal rights and nothing more

To get some new economic plans that include someone other than the elite and corporations


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

TK33 I read the forum often just dont post a lot unless its something I find interesting

republican gays

http://online.logcabin.org/


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

TK33 name one right straights have gays don't

the equal rights argument is nonsense


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

elites and corporations you think thats just the republicans :roll:

and if our corporations aren't healthy none of us are making money


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I have to go to work but tell me this why does anyone need to support sex "education" in schools or contraception

families have done and are responsible for that from the start of time the government has no reason to be involved


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

they have the exact same right to marry we do... someone of the opposite sex


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

....


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

change :lol: re sex education you are supposed to be clueless in 5th grade :eyeroll:

everyone has alwys figured it out since the dawn of time

but hey just for fun cite the part of the constituion that says the federal government should use tax dollars seized at the point of a gun from you and spend it on family matters like sex education

I'm 56


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bobm said:


> they have the exact same right to marry we do... someone of the opposite sex


you are on a roll today :lol:



> elites and corporations you think thats just the republicans


Tort lawyers and so called "reseachers" I think of dems



> the equal rights argument is nonsense


Not to them, and once again they vote.



> I have to go to work but tell me this why does anyone need to support sex "education" in schools or contraception
> 
> families have done and are responsible for that from the start of time the government has no reason to be involved


This is my favorite conservative hypocrisy. No abortion, no sex ed, no welfare. Another "principle" that has failed miserably. I am all for smaller government, and that means smaller welfare. Families are not getting the job done and they haven't gotten the job done in some time. Kids are always going to have sex, they have forever. So lets look at this from an economic standpoint:

1 condom = $0.75
1 welfare child = $150,000

I will let you do the math but it seems to me that some sex ed taught in health class like me and szm had and maybe shell out a few free rubbers and we more than likely would have less welfare cases on our hands. It is not going to solve the problem but is a hell of a lot more effective than hoping the parents and God take care of it.[/quote]


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

...


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

TK33 said:


> This is my favorite conservative hypocrisy. No abortion, no sex ed, no welfare. Another "principle" that has failed miserably. I am all for smaller government, and that means smaller welfare. Families are not getting the job done and they haven't gotten the job done in some time. Kids are always going to have sex, they have forever. So lets look at this from an economic standpoint:
> 
> 1 condom = $0.75
> 1 welfare child = $150,000
> ...


[/quote]

Sex education has been going on for some time. I still have not seen it help, have you TK. Our wellfare system continues to grow and so does teen pregnancy. I do have a problem with sex education in the 5th grade or any grade school class. Our leader believes in sex education even at younger ages than this.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

szm69 said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > change :lol: re sex education you are supposed to be clueless in 5th grade :eyeroll:
> ...


Great idea szm69, I think we should privatize them all.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

]..


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I really appreciate that this conversation has touched on many important aspects, and that the Republicans are talking about the real issue. Thank you

This is long, as I wanted to touch on several issues in one fell swoop. I apologize in advance for the length!



TK33 said:


> Riddle me this,
> 
> Would it kill the gop to support sex ed and contraception and still be anti abortion
> 
> ...


These are the 3 biggest reasons I have against the traditional Republican party (or rather what it has morphed into)

I can support true Conservative principles of limited government, and conservative fiscal policy regarding limited government size, but their social record on rights has been abysmal at best. They have consistently allowed religion to form and define the party mores. They have abandoned the concept of separartion of church and state. They have been asleep at the wheel, and allowed the Federal government to become more powerful that the sovereignty of states' rights. They have allowed corporations and political $$$ via PACS to become increasingly influential and tip the balance of power to big business, thus allowing overt influence on voting decisions to tip in the favor of powerful companies who can spend the most, and the interests of the lower middle class get stepped on.

We are told that if we simply allow the mantra of "Big Business" to provide jobs to the lowly masses. Republicans can't be bothered to understand that Corporations while providing token benefits and opportunities, are ultimately an out of control cancer that has slowly been allowed to dominate all aspects of American society and the decisions of its politicians. They do just enough to keep up appearances, but behine the scenes they contribute big $$ that is not in the interst of the average Joe Citizen, but rather John Q. Shareholder. This "concept" has the net effect of allowing the rich to get richer, the upper middle class to participate on a smaller scale, and the lower middle class and poor who can't invest in those corporations get the shaft.

However other politically influenced decisions have a net negative social impact on us as well. The environment gets stepped on, we lose countless incremental battles when small business is forced out due to corporate behemoths being able to influence wage and job opportunities due to their sheer size and market presence (WalMart). Thus we have a huge portion of the population who works jobs just a bit better than minimum wage with little or no benefits, and needing to reach out to Government for some form of welfare. I constantly hear people here *****ing about those on welfare being lazy and not deserving. But those same people fully support WalMart coming in, causing the shutting down of 5-10 stores (take Jamestown for example), and then basically telling the employees "The wage is $7/hr take it or leave it." Thus the have the cascading effect of causing a new welfare class. But yet you Republicans sit back and say "Hey ! That is corporate life! I just got paid my dividend so screw them!"

I could go on and on ad nauseum...



Bobm said:


> TK33 name one right straights have gays don't
> 
> the equal rights argument is nonsense





Bobm said:


> they have the exact same right to marry we do... someone of the opposite sex


Most importantly Bob They want the same marriage rights as hetero's because of the legal, medical, and financial benefits that this society has placed upon marriage. Don't want gays to marry? Want to get their issue of the Republicans backs?

Fine.

Simply grant all of those rights on civil unions. Take the incentive out of the marriage.

For those of you who are truly clueless on "Why in the hell do gays want to marry?", you obviously have never experienced life in their shoes. Neither have I. But how many of those reading this can say they have an acquaintence that is gay? Not someone you "know of" that seems gay but you aren't sure, but someone who is openly living a gay lifestyle? Anyone other than TK? I seriously doubt it.

The fact is that gays have relationships. Face it. Thus, when they have those relationships, they want the ability to visit in the hospital, own property together, be able to have tax breaks like you and I enjoy, and be able to have joint medical benefits offered by their partner's employer. Right now they can't do that. They are discriminated against due to a factor they can't control in their biology. They aren't making a mental "decision" to be gay. It is how they are (mis)wired. So because they are miswired, hetero's decide it is ok to use laws against them and deny them the same benefits religous marriages get to enjoy... (I forget isnt' there seperation of church and state here?)

I want the gay issue to go away. I want it to be a non issue, to allow us to focus on more important societal issues. The only way to make it go away is to treat everyone as equal. The vast majority of folks who have an issue with gay rights, are those who have been unduly influenced by the views of their church/relgion on the matter. Their church is defining their view. It is truly sad.



szm69 said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > I have to go to work but tell me this why does anyone need to support sex "education" in schools or contraception
> ...


Precisely szm69! But there are many who like to pick and choose their battles as they see fit... err I mean as their religion sees fit to intrude into.



szm69 said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > change :lol: re sex education you are supposed to be clueless in 5th grade :eyeroll:
> ...


An even _better_ point szm!



Longshot said:


> TK33 said:
> 
> 
> > This is my favorite conservative hypocrisy. No abortion, no sex ed, no welfare. Another "principle" that has failed miserably. I am all for smaller government, and that means smaller welfare. Families are not getting the job done and they haven't gotten the job done in some time. Kids are always going to have sex, they have forever. So lets look at this from an economic standpoint:
> ...


Sex education has been a complete failure for some time Longshot. It has not helped because almost always it arrives too late and is too high level to be considered "education". Rather it happens in 8th or 9th grade, covers basic anatomy and some fuzzy biological science that no kid cares about. Don't blame teen pregnancy on the fact that sex ed has failed. Rather blame it on the fact that "education" happens too late, is not comprehensive, and does not cover pregnancy prevention instruction.

Most importantly that I think everyone here completely MISSES, is the fact that online media, cell phone cameras, sexting, pornography and the complete blending of it all into everyday life. IT IS EVERYWHERE CONSTANTLY! Longshot you and I are both younger on here, and WE didn't even have the types of access to media, photos, texting, cameras, and 24/7 technology access like current youth have been introduced as the "norm". The ENTIRE world has changed regarding the amount of sheer volume of information being thrown at kids of ALL ages. We have no real idea about the sheer volume, and thus we lose perspective that kids see sexuality as completely normal. Think about that for a moment. Now stop and think to yourself... if kids see this as normal, are you in that same mindset? Can you or I possibly fully understand that basic concept of what "normal" is to them? And if you or I can't grasp "normal", there is NO WAY anyone over 40 has a foggy clue, and unfortunately those older out of touch folks are the ones crafting sex ed policies and curriculum based largely on outdated concepts and clueless guidance of religously influenced members of school boards and administrations.

I *GUARANTEE* you that if you provide a full sex education curriculum that happens in 2 parts in 6th grade, and again in 8th grade, and that the education is comprehensive, discussing condom use and instruction, birth control pills, vibrators,and relationships mores, that you will see a dramatic DROP in teen pregnancy. Period.

Face it. A VAST majority of kids are sexually active at age 12 or 13. You aren't going to stop that fact of life. The media, their peers, a society that is increasingly sexually open and liberal, and basic hormones control the age. You can hem and haw and whine all you want, but you are simply sticking your head in the sand of reality if you choose to say "They can wait until high school". Wrong. They have chemicals and hormones and peer pressure that trump that argument every time. Adults in their misguided wisdom to "force" kids to wait until the adults "feel" they are ready, dooms kids into a scenario of failure.

Yes it is all pie in the sky rosy to think that all sex education should occur in the home. That is pure B****. Parents are mortified to speak to their children about sex almost across the board, but especially in conservative leaning areas of the country. By and large, they pawn off all other aspects of education on the schools, why would you think that they would be any different about sex? Especially sex! Older generations have also completely demonized any form of simple nudity in this country. America is a complete failure in regards to treating the simple human body as shameful, and religion and religous teachings are a huge part of that failure. Maybe if the natural nude human body was _not_ demonized here (like it is _NOT_ in Europe), kids wouldn't feel such shame in themselves. Maybe if kids didn't see nudity as = sexuality, they would instead realize sexuality is a component of a healthy relationship. Thus all the sexy ads on TV, nudity promotion in the media, etc, wouldn't have such a dramatic (negative) effect on them. Just maybe.

But I digress, if you want a GREAT example of sex ed, you can look at these websites in Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... on.schools

http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/

http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless ... ornography
(This one has portions not safe for viewing at work, due to overly conservative censorship.)

The UK governemnt has recognized the status quo is failing, and taken several important steps to correct it. That second link is being shown in classrooms to high school students. It should be THE model that America embraces. It is informative, straightforward, honest and engaging. It doesn't promote or dramatize sexuality, but rather takes an realistic approach at proper education.

We are getting way off topic here.. but that is ok, as I too believe there are several things besides religion that the Republican party needs to consider changing their stances on if they want to remain relevent to a changing world.

Noone is forcing the change. The GOP can stay the same and continue facing problems with divided membership. The party no longer has a cohesive unified message that appeals to the broader base. They are being controlled by an ultra conservative minority that ramrods the political roadmap they want to see down the throats of the more moderate rank and file. That dissatisifaction will ultimately lead to younger folks no longer voting Republican (as I have recently done), or the moderate center of both parties can split off and form their own 3rd party. I've read in several places where many are forseeing the long term downfall of the old GOP. The demographics aren't the same anymore. That is one constant that will never be the same.

Thanks for reading.

Ryan


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

szm69 said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> > szm69 said:
> ...


You may want to look at this again. Have you looked into or know about proposed and current school vouchers and tax credits? I do not advocate denying anyone an education and everyone should be included. It is interesting to see the cost per student at a private school versus a public school funded by our tax dollars. I never said anything about eliminating funding or education for gays. It is not as farfetched as you may think. Private schools have been tried in southern California with enrollment from both middle class and low income families. They were able to educate those students at a higher level and lower cost. Please read this and tell me what you think.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3231

This site will not allow you to read the whole article unless you subscribe but even the first portion is interesting.

http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source ... velId=2100



> Shift to Private Schools Predicted With Tax Credit
> By Eileen White
> Washington--About 5 percent of the students currently attending public schools would be likely to transfer to private schools if a tuition tax credit of $250 were available, according to a Congressionally mandated study of private schools.
> 
> The study also found that black, Hispanic, and low-income students, students whose parents attained low levels of education, and urban residents were most likely to make the change.


Sorry to take this off topic.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

If the GOP continues to drift to the center with the wishy washy liberal leanings and cast their core principles aside it will fall apart. As it should.

I feel there are way bigger players involved in this countries politics to even consider any part of this discussion a deciding factor.


----------



## Candiru (Aug 18, 2005)

Can you, or someone, tell me what the core principles are? Is it limited gov't, or is it using big gov't to impose your religion and stop everyone from sinning?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bobm wrote:
> TK33 name one right straights have gays don't
> 
> the equal rights argument is nonsense
> ...


if you read up the thread one of the first things I advocated was I said that they should have civil unions which would accomplish this stuff in you quote

but the real adjenda (not of all gays just the politically active militant ones)is to undermine marriage which is the fundamental building unit of our society and must be held to its present definition

a man and a woman children .....are a family

two gays is a relationship not a family there is clearly a difference.

I doubt in todays society if they really wanted to frame it as civil union very many people would object

1)Private school like everything else private VS government run is more efficient both from a financial and a results standard ...far more

although there is a place for public school, which was originally developed as a supplement to private school to educated the truly poor, but like all govt programs grew into the expensive poor performing behemoth it is today. It also is a good means to educate special needs kids private schools are currently weak at that

Private school would be affordable if there were many privates schools competeing and the money there kids parents are now forced to fund the abysmal failing public education system ( on display here).

The public school system TEACHERS UNION fears the competition because they know they would be crushed. SO they keep poor blacks locked into rotten dangerous schools because the UNION and the Politicians must have dependent people

2)Ryan show me anywhere I advocated religion in public school.. ever.

3) SZM and Ryan show me anywhere I ever stated the federal govt run or fund schools just for fun...

but sarcasm is always the answer to a question a lib cannot give a honest answer to

SZM you stated public schools should have sex ed I say they have no authorization to do so no legal one anyway. I'm right you aren't. Prove me wrong.

4) Ryan your whole premise is based on a fallacy because you dont understand WHY kids are now sexually aware at a tender age. This is one of the real failures of liberalism no one is ever responsible or held accountable for their actions its as if we are nothing but a bunch of dogs in heat.

The real problem is liberalism has defined standards of decency down to a level where our society sexualizes children. Its a horrible shame today you cannot watch a tv show listen to a song or pciup a magazine without getting a strong sexual message.

That Situation is fairly recent mostly since the 60"s and it has wreaked havoc in our youth and our society

Network Television of today would of been R or X rated when I was a kid in the fifties and sixties.

This reduction of standards is the problem.

You will probably find this humorous but when I was in high school I was popular had many friends and none of them or I were sexually active. Also in the four years I was in high school only one girl got pregnant and had a child, and it was a scandal. She subsequently married the guy and I saw them about 10 years ago at our 30 high school reunion they are still married.

Not everyone has to live to your low standards of conduct. Few people used to.

As for the idea that parents were too mortified to talk to us, "B****" as you framed it, thats also nonsense but the parents of my generation didn't back down from kids or confrontation with them about this or any other issue. My day would still pop me in the mouth if I talked with foul language and hes 80.

The discussion about sex ed was short and sweet dont do it until you are married, the vast majority of us followed their suggestion.

My mother would laugh at the idea she would of been "mortified" to lecture me about anything.

AS for your ignorant inference that children having sex is healthy... well its just that ignorant.

disease, children that they cannot afford ( thus creating welfare thugs), sexually active children have their lost oppportunity to be a child and gain the skills needed to be successful because as child parents they are thrown into the welfare system much to the delight of the politicians that depend on their dependence on them.

Kids used to be allowed to grow up slowly and mature to where they could handle parenthood before stupid libs destroyed their lives.

Libs cannot have high standards of conduct because that would mean people would be held personally accountable and judged on their actions no no libs would rather not face that consequence.

And the contraception argument will not prevent any of these problems only a return to good values will


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

No, religion is not holding the GOP back. It's another area where they can run the us-versus-them scam they always run come election time.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> > Bobm wrote:
> > TK33 name one right straights have gays don't
> >
> > the equal rights argument is nonsense
> ...


I read above where you said "The equal rights movement is nonsense"

I missed your stuff on civil unions. My apologies.

I will say however, that if you are against them marrying, aren't you implicitly saying that they can't form churches of their own choosing, whereby those churches who decide their own religous values get to decide whether those two people are worthy of joining together in a marriage? What religous entity exists that gets to make decisions for all the other churches, and defines their rules? I guess I didn't know that there was an Alpha church that everyone else genuflected to?

Because I know that there are churches that have formed specifically to welcome all people of all creeds, and have not discriminated based on their family, gender or sexual orientation.

I thought we had laws in this country that allowed churces under Freedom of Religion if I am not mistaken?

So basically what I am inferring is that some faction of religion is dictating who is worthy of marriage, and that they are all powerful across others. It would seem to me that we have heard this message before in other religions in far off Middle East countries?

It would seem to me that this all powerful cabal of religious institutions realizes the same thing, so they instead have to wield undue influence in Statehouses across this country to ensure that laws are put in place to keep down certain portions of our population. These lawmakers then do the "dirty work" of the Churches in legislatures.

It would seem to me that this is just a way of denying First Amendment rights to a certain class of citizens...

But that is just me.



Bobm said:


> a man and a woman children .....are a family
> 
> two gays is a relationship not a family there is clearly a difference.


Hmmm you don't say?

I looked up the definition of family.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/family

Main Entry: *1fam·i·ly* 
Pronunciation: \ˈ*fam*-*lē*, ˈfa-mə-\ 
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English familie, from Latin familia household (including servants as well as kin of the householder), from famulus servant 
Date: 15th century 
*1.* 
*a.* A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
*b. *Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
*2.* All the members of a household under one roof.
*3.* A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
*4.* Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.

Note the above in 1 A&B. _Nowhere_ does it use your definition of one man and one woman. Rather it uses the words _parents_. That is your definition likely derived from teachings of the church.



Bobm said:


> I doubt in todays society if they really wanted to frame it as civil union very many people would object


Unfortunately across the country we see time and time again that "society", or rather the ultra religious among us won't even allow civil unions.

One only needs to look at the illegal funding campaigning aginst the California Marriage Prop this past election, whereby the Church of Latter Day Saints out of Utah illegaly interfered with California citizens by providing funding to shoot down their proposition. I need to go find the source, but it was quite the scandal.

But it is just one of many examples, where church funded special interest groups have contributed to state groups to further a political agenda. We all know it happens often, and it should be strictly illegal.



Bobm said:


> 1)Private school like everything else private VS government run is more efficient both from a financial and a results standard ...far more
> 
> although there is a place for public school, which was originally developed as a supplement to private school to educated the truly poor, but like all govt programs grew into the expensive poor performing behemoth it is today. It also is a good means to educate special needs kids private schools are currently weak at that


No disagreement here.



Bobm said:


> Private school would be affordable if there were many privates schools competeing and the money there kids parents are now forced to fund the abysmal failing public education system ( on display here).


I see. So you are saying that I am a product of the abysmal failing public education system? :lol: really?

Private schools will never be affordable even if there were many. Qualified instructors who challenge students to excel by demonstrating high intellectual competence does not come cheap. There is no way tuition at a private school could cover the cost of a whole school full of well paid teachers who were worth the salary being paid to them. The private schools would need to charge such a high tuition to cover the operational and salary costs of the faculty, that it would put it out of reach of the avergae or below average family.

Tell me how much per year you think a private school should charge a student to attend?

What is the average income of the average family in America again?

Don't forget that most families have 2 or more children. So let's be sure to at a minimum double that tuition cost.

For giggles sake, let's say a nice round number like $10,000 per year per student (That is $1250/mo or $312.50/week or $62/day). So continuing with this analogy, $20,000 per year per family. How many families can afford that? Every year for 12 years (14 for Mn oke I'm sure I'll here something about vouchers, which I agree would offset the cost. Great let's move on to the bigger problem then.

Now we need to take that money and run the school, and cover the cost of the better more highly paid coveted talented teacher. Public schools are protecting poor teachers. Many are lazy, unqualified, and going thru the motions each day. They aren't interested in changing the curriculum every year, and most simply repeat the same lesson plans year over year. In order to have better private schools, we need better private teachers. You are not going to attract better teachers given the lousy salaries currently offered. You aren't going to attract smart people away from other careers by promising them that they get to raise the spoiled brats for the parental units. In order to lure away smart people from other industries to come back into teaching, you are going to have to offer them substantial salaries that are competitive with other industries going rate.

So you think paying a qualified experienced teacher a salary of $70,000 per year from the start is going to be covered by student tuition at what level? Make sure to add in the higher salaries for the more experienced teachers and teachers from competitive industries making more. Multiply that by a couple hundred for the size of the school, and I think we have just found that lots of families won't be able to truly afford school for their children.

But it sure sounds nice!



Bobm said:


> The public school system TEACHERS UNION fears the competition because they know they would be crushed. SO they keep poor blacks locked into rotten dangerous schools because the UNION and the Politicians must have dependent people


Agreed.



Bobm said:


> 2)Ryan show me anywhere I advocated religion in public school.. ever.


I never said you did Bob. I apologize if I implied otherwise.



Bobm said:


> 3) SZM and Ryan show me anywhere I ever stated the federal govt run or fund schools just for fun...


I replied to SZM agreeing that I'd like to see where it says the Federal Government is mandated to provide public education. It is not.

I never said anything about it being just for fun... szm was asking someone to humor him and provide that information.



Bobm said:


> 4) Ryan your whole premise is based on a fallacy because you dont understand WHY kids are now sexually aware at a tender age. This is one of the real failures of liberalism no one is ever responsible or held accountable for their actions its as if we are nothing but a bunch of dogs in heat.


Teenagers are basically a bunch of dogs in heat. Good analogy actually. Everyone knows that on some level teenagers are indeed walking hormones. Their sexual awareness is hormonally driven. I fail to see how that is a failure of liberalism. It isn't.

If you are implying that you are basing your response that children should be responsible for their mistakes that is crazy. There is a reason we treat children as minors. There cerebral cortex is not fully mature, which inhibits their logic centers of their brain. This makes them impulsive, naieve, and reactionary to stimuli in ways that adults would never behave. (Take for example the propensity to engage in sexting) Hence the reason we treat minors differently in the legal system.

Furthermore, by not providing children with a full arsenal of knowlege on other alternatives to preventing the pregnancies in the first place, you deny them options at preventing a life changing mistake.

Instead I infer that you are still hung up on simply falling back on the premise that children will strictly obey their parents if told to, and all one needs to do is demand abstinence and it shall be obeyed. :eyeroll:

That logic has failed over and over again.



Bobm said:


> The real problem is liberalism has defined standards of decency down to a level where our society sexualizes children. Its a horrible shame today you cannot watch a tv show listen to a song or pickup a magazine without getting a strong sexual message.
> 
> That Situation is fairly recent mostly since the 60"s and it has wreaked havoc in our youth and our society
> 
> ...


I disagree (go figure). The problem isn't so much that there is too much strong sexual messages. The problem lies in the increase in violence in the media, from rap music to sitcoms to movies. The FCC hasn't allowed any hard core sexuality or nudity in TV or R rated films, yet we have a skyrocketing teen pregnancy rate, so I don't see a correlation. You can go over to Europe and see nudity all over the place in magazine ads, on afternoon television and on any public waterway or beach. It doesn't increase sexuality or pregnancy rates. The reason being is that kids over there grow up more sophisticated on what having sex actually means.

Our problem over here is what I mentioned in my previous post, involving the absence of proper comprehensive sex and sexuality education. The mystery, forbiddenness, and "cool" factor are the issues, just like with alcohol. Kids are being peer pressured into being cool and staying hip and in the "in" crowd.



Bobm said:


> You will probably find this humorous but when I was in high school I was popular had many friends and none of them or I were sexually active. Also in the four years I was in high school only one girl got pregnant and had a child, and it was a scandal. She subsequently married the guy and I saw them about 10 years ago at our 30 high school reunion they are still married.
> 
> Not everyone has to live to your low standards of conduct. Few people used to.


Thanks for sharing that. I don't find it humorous. It provides some insight and as an anecdotal reference helps me to understand where you are coming from.

I'll offer the same related anecdote. I was rather popular in school too, had quite a few friends, and hung out in the "cool" jock/popular crowd. Almost every single classmate was sexually active, and many would be surprised how active. I don't remember how many ever got pregnant in my entire class. I know that none of the top 150 most popular (in the grades around me) ever did during high school. Alcohol was common even for the athletes, we didn't have high school admins meddling in our business, or athletic departments mandating honor codes or snitch clauses. There was very little drugs except weed, we had no school liason officer (like Jamestown is now asking for). We all got along pretty damn well in fact, and there was alot of frisky fooling around to be had, and noone got pregnant considering the extent of it.



Bobm said:


> As for the idea that parents were too mortified to talk to us, "B****" as you framed it, thats also nonsense but the parents of my generation didn't back down from kids or confrontation with them about this or any other issue. My day would still pop me in the mouth if I talked with foul language and hes 80.
> 
> The discussion about sex ed was short and sweet dont do it until you are married, the vast majority of us followed their suggestion.
> 
> My mother would laugh at the idea she would of been "mortified" to lecture me about anything.


So tell me in this day and age of absentee parenting, single family households, broken homes, etc how are we supposed to address the kids that come from those types of homes? It's great that you had a solid family structure (as did I) growing up, however very few parents nowadays can keep up with all the latest trends in computers, cell phones, peer to peer communicating, sexting, or social networking. Heck many parent barely know how to turn on a computer let alone know how to forensically view their children's surfing history, MySpace profile, or Twitter feed. Do all of you reading this? Bob you are a saavy computer guy. I figure you do for sure, but I'm more thinking about the dozens of less savvy parents out there.

Your parents might have been the bold take charge type, but kids are rebellious by nature. Just look at all the old movies, fast cars, leather jackets, cigarette packs rolled up in the sleeves and slicked back hair of the 60's. It was all being done out of rebelliousness. Kids back then were just as rebellious then as now. The difference is the culture.

Even if you wanted to completely shelter a child to the onslaught of media images, advertising, propoganda etc... Blame large corporations who hire slick PR Ad firms that supply them with the shock media they desire to sell more of product "X". It isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It is a corporate whore issue.

Those large Ad firms know that shock sells. Sex, scandal, ad placement, advertising in schools, on schoolbooks, pop machines in schools, sponsorship of athletic programs, etc etc... once again I circle back to the Corporate Whores.



Bobm said:


> AS for your ignorant inference that children having sex is healthy... well its just that ignorant.


I guess I don't see where I ever said or implied that. I simply pointed out the lack of proper comprehenisve education, including instruction on abstinence was the only way to go.

Kids are no longer naieve until 17. Many are very sophisticated at 14 or younger. They also know when they are being steerpooped or being fed a half truth by adults. Honesty and full information including consequences is the key in other areas of a child's development. Why not with sex?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> Private schools will never be affordable even if there were many. Qualified instructors who challenge students to excel by demonstrating high intellectual competence does not come cheap. There is no way tuition at a private school could cover the cost of a whole school full of well paid teachers who were worth the salary being paid to them. The private schools would need to charge such a high tuition to cover the operational and salary costs of the faculty, that it would put it out of reach of the avergae or below average family.
> 
> Tell me how much per year you think a private school should charge a student to attend?
> 
> ...


Ryan you obviously didn't read either of the links I posted about this or is it that you don't agree with it? This has been done in other areas of this country with good reviews. Some have shown voucher/private schools to test the same in some areas (like Michigan) and much higher (as in California tests). These were done with low income families and at much less cost per student. Tax credits and vouchers were used to make it affordable for those who could afford it and free to those who could not through government programs. Teachers were paid better, the state saved money, and test scores were anywhere from very slightly higher to much higher. I think our school system here in ND does a good job and would be one of the places where you may not see much of a difference in the testing. Of course without incentives private schools are too expensive for many people. Those who oppose this always point out private schools with the highest costs, while they ignore others in the same area. I DO believe it is something that needs to be looked into further.

Here is one of the links again. There are many out there to read both pro and con:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3231


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ryan wrote:


> I *GUARANTEE* you that if you provide....vibrators...in 6th grade, and again in 8th grade, that you will see a dramatic DROP in teen pregnancy. Period.


*FINALLY* a point from Ryan I can agree with !   

TK33 wrote:


> For us gays


Did you mean to leave the comma out? :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Not someone you "know of" that seems gay but you aren't sure, but someone who is openly living a gay lifestyle? Anyone other than TK? I seriously doubt it.


You are again assuming way to much. You better stop seriously doubting things you know nothing about. The same goes with children. It's always those that don't have any that are the experts on children. Then they have some and find out how little they know. Sort of like the 14 year old boy who thinks his father is stupid, then at 40 is amazed at how much his father has learned. 

So gays want to get married for the insurance benefits. Maybe if your dog is really sick you could marry him and get him on your insurance benefit too. I can see where it would be helpful to them, but it also undermines the real meaning of marriage. It's principles like this that advanced society from cave men and separates us from witless animals.



> Private schools will never be affordable even if there were many.


Your thinking way to simply Ryan. Public education isn't free like you must assume. I can not talk about all of the country, but in Washington DC it cost about $16,000 in tax dollars per year to educate a child. Private schools are $7,500 and the students score much higher in testing. Vouchers could cover the whole thing with a very nice savings to the taxpayer, but teachers unions constantly fight against it.

I don't want this to get to long, so for now I will skip much of the nonsense that was posted.

Oh, one more thing. I will not take a side right now on the sex education, but for those who think it's a good idea what age do you think they should start. Do you think 1st grade is needed? Can you explain why the pregnancy rate has more than tripled since they got sex education that was supposed to lower it. I can tell you that in a school of about 300 kids I knew of one pregnancy in the 1960's. Going by that it's gone up more than ten times in my home town. So what age, and how do we make the most of it?

Oh, and the view about business proves Obama isn't the only socialist we have to worry about. Seriously, and I am not name calling, I mean that in the strictest sense of the word.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So some say gays just want us to be fair. Then set a good example. One gay guy didn't like the answer from a contestant for Miss. America. The by far best contestant by everyones admission, and she lost because one gay guy axed her. She believed in traditional marriage, but I guess gays don't even want heterosexual Miss America contestants to have an opinion. Don't ask her then.

I think people who have to make out in public are exhibitionists. I don't like it when heterosexuals do it. It's usually children trying to show off. If gays want to get somewhere maybe they should stop trying to shove it down our throat (no pun intended).


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I will say however, that if you are against them marrying, aren't you implicitly saying that they can't form churches of their own choosing, whereby those churches who decide their own religous values get to decide whether those two people are worthy of joining together in a marriage? What religous entity exists that gets to make decisions for all the other churches, and defines their rules? I guess I didn't know that there was an Alpha church that everyone else genuflected to?


Ok genious explain how this fits in with the seperation of church and state

I could form a church that said everyone named Ryan should be burned at the stake, the state would unfortunately object :wink:

Church law and the constitution ( you really ought to read it) differ

I dont need some internet definition of what a family is

I cant comment on the church of the latter day saints "illegal funding"

post your source from what I've read the religious based faimily oriented and sensible hispanic vote didn't need a internet opinion either about what a family is and they killed it unless your idea of illegal funding is some church voiceing their opposition opinon I know how you feel about that



> Private schools will never be affordable even if there were many. Qualified instructors who challenge students to excel by demonstrating high intellectual competence does not come cheap. There is no way tuition at a private school could cover the cost of a whole school full of well paid teachers who were worth the salary being paid to them. The private schools would need to charge such a high tuition to cover the operational and salary costs of the faculty, that it would put it out of reach of the avergae or below average family.


says you its your opinion I disagree but I do think its hilarious you posted this as your proof :lol:



> Public schools are protecting poor teachers. Many are lazy, unqualified, and going thru the motions each day. They aren't interested in changing the curriculum every year, and most simply repeat the same lesson plans year over year. In order to have better private schools, we need better private teachers. You are not going to attract better teachers given the lousy salaries currently offered. You aren't going to attract smart people away from other careers by promising them that they get to raise the spoiled brats for the parental units.


and private schools dont tolerate spoiled brats by the way unlike public schools they throw them out
discipline that strange thing that works every time its tried

your ideas about sexuality are based on your limited lifes experiences they are wrong the FCC has nothignto do with it its a total change in the societal message I've lived it.



> So tell me in this day and age of absentee parenting, single family households, broken homes, etc how are we supposed to address the kids that come from those types of homes?


while this is a big issue my direct answer is by example and by societal standards



> Bobm wrote:
> 
> AS for your ignorant inference that children having sex is healthy... well its just that ignorant.
> 
> I guess I don't see where I ever said or implied that.


you stated according to "older generations" nudity is shameful... gee I wonder how you were born

nudity isn't shameful and "older generations" never said it was, nudity and sexual activity without committmant is and commitmant to a family relationship cannot happen unless the people are adults ready to support the undenialble result of sexual activity...children



> If you are implying that you are basing your response that children should be responsible for their mistakes that is crazy.


thats the crux of the far left "Ryan"approach, my generation was held accountable for their actions with predictable results, we abstained, the libs changed that and now people like Ryan find that strange

There was never any doubt in our minds who was responsible for our actions rampaging hormones was not an excuse not to our parents not to anyone


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

for those of you that think that everybody should have the same rights. what is your feelings on if either two men or two women want to live together just for the benefits? they are not gay or straight. shouldn't that be allowed? find a good friend that has great benefits and move in. maybe you could have three or four roomates and they would all collect benefits. what would be the difference?


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Bobm said:


> > I will say however, that if you are against them marrying, aren't you implicitly saying that they can't form churches of their own choosing, whereby those churches who decide their own religous values get to decide whether those two people are worthy of joining together in a marriage? What religous entity exists that gets to make decisions for all the other churches, and defines their rules? I guess I didn't know that there was an Alpha church that everyone else genuflected to?
> 
> 
> Ok genious explain how this fits in with the seperation of church and state
> ...


So you are saying people should be responsible for their actions that is crazy talk :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

6162rk said:


> for those of you that think that everybody should have the same rights. what is your feelings on if either two men or two women want to live together just for the benefits? they are not gay or straight. shouldn't that be allowed? find a good friend that has great benefits and move in. maybe you could have three or four roomates and they would all collect benefits. what would be the difference?


The difference would be the marriage license and the ultimate divorce.



> thats the crux of the far left "Ryan"approach, my generation was held accountable for their actions with predictable results, we abstained, the libs changed that and now people like Ryan find that strange


No you didn't, half my friends have parents less than 20 years older than them. And I live in the upper midwest. This is an issue that people have just chosen to ignore for decades. If this would have been dealt with earlier then we wouldn't see the problems of today.



> Oh, one more thing. I will not take a side right now on the sex education, but for those who think it's a good idea what age do you think they should start. Do you think 1st grade is needed? Can you explain why the pregnancy rate has more than tripled since they got sex education that was supposed to lower it. I can tell you that in a school of about 300 kids I knew of one pregnancy in the 1960's. Going by that it's gone up more than ten times in my home town. So what age, and how do we make the most of it?


There is also the issue of std's, this is another drain on our healthcare system. Aids was not as common then either.

I can tell you that when I was a kid there were a lot of sexually active 8th graders. There were also group sex parties in every town. There was no sex ed until 10th grade, the only kids who got any sort of sex ed were the girls who had confirmation class and that was from the nuns. I agree that it should start in early jr. high and continue from there. Bobm was right on about rebellion and being in heat for about 8 years, I think kids will always be active and the fact that parents allow these kids to watch filth ridden tv, internet, and cell phone crap isn't helping. That is up to the parents to decide that, sex ed in health class is common sense because std's are a health issue, and so is teenage pregnancy.

Educating all kids on the dangers of sex in the end would lead to less pregnancies, less std's, and less welfare cases. All of this would save taxpayers money.

Protecting our children, lowering welfare and healthcare costs, and trying to restore some values in our children is hardly socialism. Having it done through the schools is the most effective way to teach sex ed.

I am not looking forward to having these discussions with my kids. Maybe I will teach them the way I was taught- threats involving a baseball bat. 8)

On a side note I haven't seen this much humor from conservatives ever before. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

TK33 said:


> 6162rk said:
> 
> 
> > No you didn't, half my friends have parents less than 20 years older than them. And I live in the upper midwest. This is an issue that people have just chosen to ignore for decades. If this would have been dealt with earlier then we wouldn't see the problems of today.


Dang TK, nowhere near half my friends have parents that are less than 20 yrs. older than them. Not even 10%. I don't think I am that much, if at all, older than you and don't see that at all. When I go to my kids school, scouts, sports, youth archery, and many other activities I do not see this. I also know that most are my age and I am over 20 years older than my kids. Yes I believe that they need sex and STD education, but not at a grade school level. Over the years they have pushed sex education to younger and younger kids, yet we see no positive results.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Over the years they have pushed sex education to younger and younger kids, yet we see no positive results.


If you go back into the 1960's you will find teen pregnancy extremely low. Then they started sex education and boom it made a huge jump. It's hard to find in the literature because the proponents don't want to talk about it. It may be hard for people today to understand that a person can go through 12 years of school, and only see one or two pregnancies. My class in a small town was small (27 people) and we had one. Today that same small school is way beyond that. I would guess it has increased at the very least four times.

Every time they drop the age for sex education we see no positive results. The first time they started it however we older people all seen very negative results. Today there are more serious diseases and they need to be educated when they are becoming active. How many kids need to know before they reach biological puberty.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I agree that there is a thing as too young. How much will really be retained by young kids.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm 32 years older than my first kid ...most of my friends had their kids in their late twenties and with one exception all my friends are still married to the same woman 25- 30 years later.

If everyone waited until they were in their late twenties to get married and have a family after they completed their education and aquired the job skills to have a career most or at least many societal problems would disappear

unwed mothers and children having children have a huge negative cost on society and it was very rare just a generation ago

Johnson changed that with his stupid great society welfare replacing the need a woman had for a husband with a welfare check with disaterous effect in the black comunity.

Blacks used to be very religious and unwed mothers were rare now its the norm with predictable result.

I live in a heavily black populated area and have had many conversations with older black friends about this


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am 61 years old and I don't have to read articles about the results of sex education, I lived through them. I would guess most on here never seen pre sex ed years in school. Like Bobm said there have been programs with disastrous results. Politicians will not admit it if they or their party were involved so they just keep pushing failed programs.

Indian tribes kept elders around for advise. Today's youth have been taught in their schools that they are so smart they don't need to listen to experience. Watch the guy the youth voted for tear this nation apart.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

tk so now they get a marriage license. that would make it ok? just a question.


----------

