Purplehood wrote:speedsix wrote:if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way
Why do the issues of pornography and gay/lesbian rights have to be concerns exclusive to those of balancing the budget, ending wars and a strong job market? Being concerned about one means that you cannot be concerned about the other?
I would also be interested in how our country was begun, so that I can gain a further understanding of the statement above.
Though Bachmann appeared at first to be a viable candidate, it soon became apparent that she is a perfect example of exactly what you appear to be decrying, but as the exact opposite. She is obviously against abortion, gay marriage and similar social-issues that a Christian Conservative might oppose. Yet she is what one might consider a Fiscal Conservative.
To me this is simply a statement that if you don't follow the Ultra-Conservative philosophy in regards to Social Issues, you by default cannot be a Fiscal Conservative and therefore do not care about your country. This contradicts the very idea set forth in the Constitution that Government should not be intruding in our private lives (unless your private lives happen to be different than mine). This is utter hypocrisy.
My version of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness may differ from yours. Legislating how either one of us goes about that pursuit should only go so far as making sure that it does not interfere with someone else's.
Your feelings about social issues are every bit as valid as mine. But they should simply be discussion points for us to merrily banter about over a cold-drink. They should not be issues handled by the Federal government.
P1...they DON'T have to be exclusive...what I meant was that if they are more important to you than the other issues which you agree with...you can vote against the person who disagrees with you on them...even though you sincerely believe that his/her fiscal and other platform views support yours...but the country was begun by coming to agreement on what was best for the majority...not necessarily getting all we want, but what was best for the country as a whole...I'm sure a LOT of splinter groups, pet issues were sacrificed...you can be concerned about ALL issues...but you can't have it ALL your way...the one who gives you some...is completely opposed to you in others...choose your battles...
P2...there's a lot compiled about HOW they did what they did...supported by their notes and letters and quotes taken from the meetings...Google David Barton, who's made re-aquainting us with the true roots of our history his life's work...you'll be amazed to find what our founders really thought, said, and did...they haven't taught much of it in school since WWII...
P4...nope...but if the Ultra-Conservative is the only one on the ticket who supports the fiscal and political stance that you believe is best for your country and your family, and the opponent favors your social positions, but his fiscal and political platform is totally against what you feel is right...which are you going to choose??? that's not hypocrisy, that's having to make a tough choice...
P5..."...does not interfere with someone else's.." to me includes I shouldn't have to pay for programs set up to pay for the normalization of abnormal lifestyles(by society's standards over thousands of years) or pay for murders of unborn children by the thousands...if a person chooses such a lifestyle or by their actions spawns an unwanted baby...the government shouldn't become involved...penalizing the majority for the wishes/needs of the minority...that's interference...
P6...I agree...the Federal government should deal with and make laws about and govern ONLY things expressed as the Will of the People...by the majority vote...I don't know of another way it can work...but they haven't been doing that in a looooong time...make mine Root Beer
