the new health care?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.

I think you mean tied to the social conservatives so fastly. The christian right's co-opting of the Republican party started in the 80's with Mr. Falwell and the Moral Majority. It concerned me then and has ultimately cost the Republican party its soul as the social conservatives became more interested in government interventionism as time wore on.

Whereas originally this group was very defensive saying, essentially, "We have a right to believe as we do and to express that belief" (which I agree with), they changed to a very aggressive stance saying "We have the right to believe as we do and, where we are the majority, to make laws reflecting and enforcing our religious beliefs." In doing so, the went from a stance that required govt. to simply stay out of the way to one that called for interventionist policies. Once you buy into the "Govt. can legislate belief", it is only a short trip down the road to Govt activism.

The social conservatives and the democratic socialists have the same formula, they just believe in different ingredients.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think you mean tied to the social conservatives so fastly. The christian right's co-opting of the Republican party started in the 80's with Mr. Falwell and the Moral Majority. It concerned me then and has ultimately cost the Republican party its soul as the social conservatives became more interested in government interventionism as time wore on.

Whereas originally this group was very defensive saying, essentially, "We have a right to believe as we do and to express that belief" (which I agree with), they changed to a very aggressive stance saying "We have the right to believe as we do and, where we are the majority, to make laws reflecting and enforcing our religious beliefs." In doing so, the went from a stance that required govt. to simply stay out of the way to one that called for interventionist policies. Once you buy into the "Govt. can legislate belief", it is only a short trip down the road to Govt activism.

The social conservatives and the democratic socialists have the same formula, they just believe in different ingredients.

Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction

The only check on Judicial power can come from the Executive's power to appoint. And from limitations placed on said court by a higher court through past decisions. That was my understanding. Anyone with me?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

The only check on Judicial power can come from the Executive's power to appoint. And from limitations placed on said court by a higher court through past decisions. That was my understanding. Anyone with me?

Congressional power over the courts

Congress checks the power of the judiciary mainly through its power to propose constitutional amendments and pass new laws. Congress also has the power to confirm the president's appointments to the federal bench, change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and impeach and convict judges who commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

from a random website

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction

Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

Are you kidding me?

The GOP has run for the last 20 years at least on social conservatism and fiscal conservatism RHETORIC.

When given the chance to govern they were able to:

a) do nothing to advance their social values legislatively because those values are held by a minority
b) completely ignore their fiscal conservative principles.

We don't have a single true fiscal conservative politician in this country of any significance because they get run out of the party pretty effing fast. Look at a guy like Demint in SC. He is a true free-marketer and gets barely any traction within the party because of it. He voted against the Medicare bill because it was crap while the rest of the dumbsh*t Republicans rallied around our wonderful "Conservative" President as they passed into law one of the biggest spending projects in US history.

But to answer your question:

Abortion
Gay Marriage
Gays in the Military
10 Commandments in public buildings
Prayer in school
The whole "family values" campaign


Just to name a few