Rebuild the Party - A Plan for the Future

Conservatives need to re-discover what "traditional values" are before they can explain to the new generation why they're needed.

Also - use a secret signal to let other social conservatives know that you're committed to the movement. E.g., hang a pair of genuine, American-made TRUCKNUTZ from your bumper. And show Mitch "the eunuch" McConnell that we social conservatives have the "huevos" to take on the liberal democrat party. And MOAR TRUCKNUTZ!!!!111!!!11!!!! Also.

I guess if this is the party we want, we will be rewarded appropriately, by the free market that is Democracy. I will continue to vote for Democrats as I did this last year, and I'm sure many others (who actually lean right) will as well. Freedoms are not supposed to be served up cafeteria-style. Our founding fathers had meant for us to have them all. If we grasped that principle, we'd win.

Social conservatism is backwords. Not only that, but the glaring ideological contradiction between social conservatism and the natural-rights-influenced economic conservatism shows how intellectually bankrupt the entire system is.

Social conservatism goes against the very principles of this nation. It should be eliminated.

social conservatism is a horrible, backwards idea, limiting natural human progress. It is anti-science and pro-war in most ways. Denial of woman's rights and slavery were two examples of social conservatism in American history.

Now is not the time to cede ground on this issue. The media wants you to believe we've lost social issues to the youth vote. This is only true if you are like them and abdicate your parenting to day care or public schools. If you DO abdicate, you need to wake up before it's too late. If you DON'T abdicate, you need to work teaching others the necessity of teaching moral values to their own.

On another note, you clearly didn't read the rest of my post. Our problems could have been prevented had the Repubs stuck to fixing real problems. Instead they were concerned with legislating morality and look where they are now.

The younger generation doesn't consider intervening in people's private lives to be a constructive use of taxpayer money. If the Repubs don't see that, we're screwed.

Fricker, I did want her to die. You know why? SHE WAS A PRISONER IN HER OWN BODY! There was no possible way to cure her (put down your Bible and look up the report) I disagree in the matter in which it was done though. There had to have been a better way.

Unlike you, I am pro small government and I'm against religious nutjobs trying to interfere in the PRIVATE medical matters of people.

The only way drunks learn that drinking is bad for them is for someone that knows better to "love" them and over time to communicate to them that it is bad like Christ tells us to, or for them to learn through being stupid. Loving them is a lot harder than throwing them in jail yet that is what Christians are supposed to do. The bible says to love not legislate.

This is what liberalism is...bailing everyone out and proping them up. This is welfare, bank bail outs, social security etc. It's a safety net for people making wrong decisions. Replace homosexuality with drinking...you are saying, "Lets legislate drinking because being drunk is wrong and immoral and destroys lives. I must stop them even if they become a criminal as a result."

What you are proposing is legislating morality...it has never worked. It must be a free will decision. I don't want the government educating my children about any type of marriage whether traditional or homosexual. It's my job not the governments. You are essentially proposing the bail out of individuals for making immoral decisions. You want to prevent them from being stupid.

Homosexuals can have custody if they are the parent through a former marriage. Are you proposing to strip a parent of the right to parent...thats not bible my friend. The end result of destruction led by dependence of the government is not because we do not legislate corectly but because we over legislate and protect everybody from the decisions they make.

Government can protect marriage through a constitutional amendment but will homosexuals still live together...yes...You won't stop it. All you will do is make criminals out of people just like prohabition. Insurance companies already are insuring "partners" which they can do in a free market system. Are you advocating telling business who they can and can not do business with?

Strong familes mean strong nations. However how by force/law do you create strong familes....think Old Testament. God's law could not be upheld...it could only show us we are not perfect and point us to a Saviour. Strong familes start by having people wanting to have/understanding we need strong familes, then having strong familes because of this knowledge. This gets taught to future generations.

Conservative principles are that government's job is to protect life, liberty and freedom, and property...not take it away. You want to change society and it's morals. This has never worked through the political system...think prohabition. This is the job of the church not the political process. Abortion is taking of life...which the government is supposed to protect.

If you have a strong marriage, or faith, you do NOT need the government's support.

No No No.....keep your nose out of our bedrooms and your hands out of our wallets. Social Conservatives should practice their social conservative ways at home, with their families. If the CHURCH keeps trying to run the RNC, some of our best minds will stay home, or join independent parties, and this country will not support multiple parties in the general elections.

If social conservatism were the way to go, we wouldn't be having this discussion because W's popularity would have swept whoever the republicans nominated into the White House, along with control of both both houses of congress. The only place that W was conservative was on social issues. How well did that work?

That's what kills me about you damnable hypocritcal libs.
You scream bloody murder for this prick husband of hers to be able to "pull the plug" and let her die, but you are too wussy to pull the trigger and kill the woman.
You want it to be natural, but what is natural about denying food and water? You wouldn't know the first damned thing about humanity, because you don't value it.

Skieth777
The answer is Yes, you do. You want to kill folks with mental problems because you were born recently, when that is in vogue. Your bloodthirsty ass would be calling for the killing of other "inferior" people, like blacks last century, or jews beforel; had you been living then.
.
You are a coward! If you wanted her to die, then why not demand a humane death? Kill her, don't torture her