Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
Yet you still haven't made your case that it was a social issue.

If it is not a "social issue" then, what else could it be? 

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
If it is not a "social issue" then, what else could it be? 

A human rights issue.

Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 01:56:58 PM
A human rights issue.

Define "human rights"...

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 04:50:08 PM
Define "human rights"...

Inalienable Rights.

Quote from: Yawn on December 12, 2012, 01:29:22 AM
   

Damn those backward Christians and their backward social values!  When will they join the enlightened Democrat Party and the modern wing of the Obama Democrat Party which gave America the 30 hour/pat-time work week -- whether you want it or not! (sarcastica font)

No, those were AMERICAN values, abandoned by the Demonrats 40 years ago and now the push is on to force those beliefs on all of America because nobody likes to be "judged" to be wrong about so much, so the great push to lecture the Republican Party to follow the Demonrat lead to cultural Hell & suicide.

Not to worry, the establishment already agrees with you and is in the process of neutering that "far right" conservative wing of the Republican Party.  Once you successfully drive out the Conservatives of the last generation and thy go 3rd party, for forever maintain control of all branches of government--oh happy day!

No the establishment does not agree with us. We believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government- the establishment does not. We believe in classic liberalism, which is the philosophy of the Republican party, "can man govern himself?"- also the idea of America. The establishment does not, and only cares about winning. The establishment seeing how successful it was for the Democrats- to get linked up in religious groups- decided to do the same thing, and have spent many years now being paying lip service to the religious right, being the "leaders" of the religious right- who stupidly support them, because if they new their bibles, they'd understand that Jesus did not align himself with any political institution, as they are institutions of man. Then of course these robots, get all bent out of shape, if their once thought to be perfect pure  Christian president, senator, governor ect- gets busted doing something GASP "unholy!".

This not only has made the Republican party look like a political church- but the supporters of these phony politicians, treat them as if they are almost holy figures- and its quite disgusting really. Not to mention people are becoming sick of it. It seems the party is better at talking religion and values, than they are ideas that knock back the leftist, show clear examples on why their way is right, and theirs wrong.

I believe a politician should express his faith in public, I also dislike how the left want to remove images of faith from the public (founding fathers weren't about that).  I liked how during the Republican convention, they prayed for the troops, and for those in the storm's path. I believe a leader should ask the people to pray for him, let people know he asks god for wisdom and courage to lead well,  encourage houses of faith to get involved in their communities, and let them know he will fight for them to have the right to practice their faith... I don't however like a politician preaching to me, on how I should live or what I should do or not be doing in my own personal life.

If I'm gay and want to marry a man, then so be it let me and leave me the hell alone. If I want to go to the bunny ranch and have a little fun with the ladies (prostitutes), that's my choice, if I want to stop at a shop and buy some marijuana and smoke and play some video games on a Friday night, that's my choice. Its not the job of the government to get involved in my personal life. I however CHOOSE not to do those things, because I have no interest in doing so, and I'm a teacher, and martial artist.

I'm telling you, if Republicans one day woke up- started booting out lobbyist, distanced themselves from the religious right (Christian coalition), became the party for ALL Americans, not just social Conservative bible thumpers lol, got back to classic liberalism, and the constitution-  kept out of the personal lives of people, meaning not passing laws to ban weed, or abortion or politicians not even wanting to be ok with civil unions for gays (many aren't, Santorum is one),- stopped putting old boring white guys in front of the camera to talk about immigration, or issues within the black community or women, and actually got into black and Latino communities, instead of having the defeatist and lazy attitude of "oh they'd never vote for me"- the Republicans would kill it hard. Because the message of the party is right, the Republican party has always been the right party the good party- Democrats have always been the party of slavery and dependence even to this day. Unfortunately Republicans are horrible at selling their message, often way too old fashion out of touch with current entertainment culture- which is very important, don't get into using technology so well.

They just suck right now, big time. And it doesn't matter who is running in 2016, if the party doesn't get its act together, and change some things meaning getting back to the roots. The roots are not Nixion's 1950's social conservatism, or pathetic war on drugs, and its not the Christian coalition. Its the founding fathers, and the constitution- and compassionate and common sense conservatism which is classic

But I'm not holding my breath and hoping for anything promising, and know they'll sadly end up defeating themselves again in 2016.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 01:37:23 PM
At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, black slaves, as well as Indians were not considered the equal of white men. This is amply proven in the notorious 3/5ths Compromise found in Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the U.S Constitution

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Importation of new slaves was illegal under the Constitution, however, slavery itself was legal and was one of the socials issues which the Republican Party was formed to fight.

I wish people would stop repeating the same old stupid crap. The 3/5 compromise didn't have zilch, point, zero to do with the official position on the worth of blacks. It had a hell of a lot to do with the South receiving representation for a group that had not political rights - slaves. The South wanted slaves fully enumerated, because that would increase the power of whites in the South. Imagine a southern district that had 2000 whites and 10,000 slaves. Those 2,000 whites would have the equivalent voting power of a 12,000 person district in the north, if slaves were fully enumerated. The North - of course - wanted no black slaves counted at all. The 3/5 Compromise was the first of many "deals" the North made with the South, to preserve the Union. You can imagine the rage in the North, when after all those compromises, after all the bending over backwards to please the "slave power"; the South the attempted to tear the Union apart.

Quote from: mdgiles on December 14, 2012, 03:37:48 AM
I wish people would stop repeating the same old stupid crap. The 3/5 compromise didn't have zilch, point, zero to do with the official position on the worth of blacks. It had a hell of a lot to do with the South receiving representation for a group that had not political rights - slaves. The South wanted slaves fully enumerated, because that would increase the power of whites in the South. Imagine a southern district that had 2000 whites and 10,000 slaves. Those 2,000 whites would have the equivalent voting power of a 12,000 person district in the north, if slaves were fully enumerated. The North - of course - wanted no black slaves counted at all. The 3/5 Compromise was the first of many "deals" the North made with the South, to preserve the Union. You can imagine the rage in the North, when after all those compromises, after all the bending over backwards to please the "slave power"; the South the attempted to tear the Union apart.

I wish people would stop reading things into my posts which aren't there.

I'm not now, nor was I ever debating the "worth of blacks". I was simply pointing out that until the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, the institution was "legal" and that this was codified in the U.S. Constitution.

The larger point I am making is that the Republican Party owes its existence to "social issues", which, at the time is exactly what the question of slavery was - a social issue. Solar wants to define it as a "civil rights" issue, but there were no such things back in the mid-1800s when the Republican Party was formed.

Just about any contemporary discussion of slavery in the 1800s will invariably refer to it as a "social ill", or the one that amuses me most, the "South's Peculiar Institution".

Solar has used the Declaration of Independence as proof that "All men are created equal". Leftist do the same thing. It must be remember that few, if any of our Founding Fathers viewed non-whites as the equals of whites. At best, they viewed them as "Noble Savages".

It must never be forgotten that the Declaration of Independence was written by whites, to whites, about whites. This doesn't mean that the Founders were "racists" it was just the mentality of the day.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Abraham Lincoln, 4th Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 14, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
I wish people would stop reading things into my posts which aren't there.

I'm not now, nor was I ever debating the "worth of blacks". I was simply pointing out that until the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, the institution was "legal" and that this was codified in the U.S. Constitution.

And I was suppose to go by something other than what you wrote because?

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 01:37:23 PM
At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, black slaves, as well as Indians were not considered the equal of white men. This is amply proven in the notorious 3/5ths Compromise found in Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the U.S Constitution

QuoteThe larger point I am making is that the Republican Party owes its existence to "social issues", which, at the time is exactly what the question of slavery was - a social issue. Solar wants to define it as a "civil rights" issue, but there were no such things back in the mid-1800s when the Republican Party was formed.

Just about any contemporary discussion of slavery in the 1800s will invariably refer to it as a "social ill", or the one that amuses me most, the "South's Peculiar Institution".

Solar has used the Declaration of Independence as proof that "All men are created equal". Leftist do the same thing. It must be remember that few, if any of our Founding Fathers viewed non-whites as the equals of whites. At best, they viewed them as "Noble Savages".

The entire point about the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, is that it states that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". It says nothing about "all white men". From the start of this country their were questions about whether, Americans really believed what they professed to believe. Dr. Samuel Johnson noted that: "We hear the loudest calls for liberty, from the drivers of negroes". Thus he pointed a finger at a major source of hypocrisy in the countries founding.

QuoteIt must never be forgotten that the Declaration of Independence was written by whites, to whites, about whites. This doesn't mean that the Founders were "racists" it was just the mentality of the day.

No, it should never be forgotten that the D of I stated "ALL MEN". You make the same mistake that Taney made in Dred Scott. You assume that only whites were involved in the Revolution and Ratification, when in fact freed - or never enslaved - blacks were involved in both.

Quote"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Abraham Lincoln, 4th Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858

So he said that on the campaign trial - in Southern Illinois. He also stated that "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong". You seem to be suffering from the modern view on civil rights; forgetting that in those days even all whites couldn't vote, serve on juries, or hold office. You also miss the fact that there was a widespread belief in the difference in abilities of even members of the white race - Northern European Protestants were held to have more ability than Southern European Catholics. And of course, you're assuming that Lincoln's views didn't change with the passing of time and events.

Quote from: mdgiles on December 14, 2012, 02:33:50 PM
The entire point about the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, is that it states that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". It says nothing about "all white men". From the start of this country their were questions about whether, Americans really believed what they professed to believe. Dr. Samuel Johnson noted that: "We hear the loudest calls for liberty, from the drivers of negroes". Thus he pointed a finger at a major source of hypocrisy in the countries founding.
No, it should never be forgotten that the D of I stated "ALL MEN". You make the same mistake that Taney made in Dred Scott. You assume that only whites were involved in the Revolution and Ratification, when in fact freed - or never enslaved - blacks were involved in both.

You make the mistake of back dating contemporary meaning words and writing styles to a time when such things were different. If the Founders had, indeed, believe what you imply, the wording in the Declaration of Independence would have been different. It would have been written something like this: That all men of all races are created equal, endowed by their common Creator with certain unalienable rights. 

Dr Johnson was an Englishman and while he had some very good insights, he hardly qualifies as a "Founding Father" of the U.S.. I'm pretty sure he didn't write the Declaration of Independence.

As for free blacks fighting in the Revolution, I'm sorry to say that doesn't mean a whole lot. Free blacks also fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War. You do know that there were free blacks in the South, don't you?

QuoteSo he said that on the campaign trial - in Southern Illinois. He also stated that "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong". You seem to be suffering from the modern view on civil rights; forgetting that in those days even all whites couldn't vote, serve on juries, or hold office. You also miss the fact that there was a widespread belief in the difference in abilities of even members of the white race - Northern European Protestants were held to have more ability than Southern European Catholics. And of course, you're assuming that Lincoln's views didn't change with the passing of time and events.

And I said this, where?

However, I could point out the following...

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greely, August 22 1862

Lincoln was assassinated less than two years later.

Anyhow, I think it is safe to say that since the Republican Party was founded in response to Slavery, we can safely say that it was founded in response  to a social ill - call it a "civil right" if you like, but it was indeed a social issue.

One could make the case that there is very little distinction between a "civil right" and a "Social issue". Is the abortion of 40 million innocent babies in the time since Roe v Wade any less of a Civil Rights issue than was Slavery during the 1800?

And yet, there are those who want to dismiss abortion as a "social issue" and insist that the Republican Party shouldn't waste their time on such trivialities.

Social Issues are Civil Rights and they are what the Republican Party used to stand for!

What it stands for now, I have no clue.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 14, 2012, 03:36:02 PMAnd yet, there are those who want to dismiss abortion as a "social issue" and insist that the Republican Party shouldn't waste their time on such trivialities.

Social Issues are Civil Rights and they are what the Republican Party used to stand for!

What it stands for now, I have no clue.

What it should stand for as I mentioned in the OP is what the party stood for before becoming allied with religious groups, esp. Christian Coalition:

a limited government with minimum role in people's lives,
a strong government in areas where required such as national defense,
a government that facilitates an environment that supports individual initiative and facilitates private sector growth

I don't view my position as trivializing social issues, but instead encourage their advocacy come from religious or other organizations, not from a major political party.  In my opinion, a party emphasizing strong conservative positions with respect to the economy and functions of government has the best chance of winning elections and making a difference in the country.

The GOP has no future. It has become stagnant and has been for decades. Being a Republican simply means keeping your job.

Quote from: USAPatriot on December 14, 2012, 09:41:04 PM
What it should stand for as I mentioned in the OP is what the party stood for before becoming allied with religious groups, esp. Christian Coalition:

a limited government with minimum role in people's lives,
a strong government in areas where required such as national defense,
a government that facilitates an environment that supports individual initiative and facilitates private sector growth

I don't view my position as trivializing social issues, but instead encourage their advocacy come from religious or other organizations, not from a major political party.  In my opinion, a party emphasizing strong conservative positions with respect to the economy and functions of government has the best chance of winning elections and making a difference in the country.

And what I've said before and what I will reiterate is that "religious people" as you call them, are the people who founded the Republican Party!

Most, if not all of the Abolitionists of the 1800s which founded the Republican Party were devoutly religious and based their opposition to slavery on their religious beliefs!

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 15, 2012, 04:06:03 PM
And what I've said before and what I will reiterate is that "religious people" as you call them, are the people who founded the Republican Party!

Most, if not all of the Abolitionists of the 1800s which founded the Republican Party were devoutly religious and based their opposition to slavery on their religious beliefs!

You're right.  He has more in common with the Republican "elites" than he thinks.  They are the ones Rush say6s always complain to him that they've just got to find a way to get those "backward" religious types and those anti-abortion kooks out of the Party.

There's a heave element of that spirit here, sad to say. These people don't understand that these people they look down on ARE the majority of the American people.  It is THEY who have screwed up the Party by trying to distance themselves from FOUNDATIONAL moral issues.  Too many of "our" people (including the faux libertarians) follow the Democrats and want the Republican Party to abandon basic principles and go Demonrat Lite.  If youi have a choice between Demonrat and Demonrat Lite, why would you choose a little bit of socialism when you got Obama and Harry Reid?

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 15, 2012, 04:06:03 PM
And what I've said before and what I will reiterate is that "religious people" as you call them, are the people who founded the Republican Party!

Most, if not all of the Abolitionists of the 1800s which founded the Republican Party were devoutly religious and based their opposition to slavery on their religious beliefs!

I don't mean "religious people" in any kind of derogatory or us versus them way.  I am making reference to the GOP as it was in modern times prior to the alliance with the organizations such as the Christian Coalition.  The point is if the GOP were to avoid having social values as an integral part of its national platform, it would not be inconsistent with the party's earlier position.

I have to jump on this (even though I didn't read everything on here--I'm sure I'll get corrected pretty quickly).

I don't think the social stance of the GOP is 100% their Achilles Heel, though it's probably most of it.

I was part of another conservative forum, but when I said that I don't oppose the idea of gays being able to legally get married (I use the word "married" strictly in a legal sense), I was discarded as being a liberal student who came here disguised as a conservative to for a liberal studies paper...which of course I'm not.

I think people automatically assume that if you are a social conservative, it means you insist on the government regulating behavior. I disagree with this. I think a social conservative could easily be someone who stands by a certain philosophy personally, but it doesn't mean involving government. It doesn't even mean insisting that government should be socially liberal. Actually, it should be neither.

While I still argue that each individual has unalienable rights and marriage is part of the right to pursue happiness, I at the very least respect the states having a voice rather than the federal government.

As a Christian, I'm inclined to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman under God--but as an American, I believe each person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, the GOP's future also involves their stance on foreign policy--so far, it's looking much more progressive than it should. I suppose that's another issue.