Comments on: Fiscal Conservative ?

By: Frank Knotts

Frank Knotts — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:15:40 +0000

What we have to remember in this discussion of morality is that the left is attempting to legislate its version of morality , at the cost of our more conservative view. When they attempt to pass laws that could in the future force churches and organizations who are opposed to certains life choices, based on moral principles, to accept these life styles into their organizations or be destroyed by government penalties, then government has already injected morality into itself.
I do not seek laws to criminalize homosexuallity, I do seek protection for groups and churches to make life choices of their own and to not have them corrupted by un-natural and imoral behavior that some in government have chosen to endorce for the sake of getting votes.
Now in my view the question of abortion is a much simpler one, we already have laws that make the taking of life a crime. Those who will make the argument that a baby in the womb is not life are seriously flawed. If we will protect a one day old baby from its mother killing it, then how can we ignore the murder of millions of babies just because they have not passed through the birth canal?

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:11:52 +0000

You can’t ‘legislate’ morality. Perhaps a rejuvinated morality will arise after this nation has collapsed into violent chaos and dictatorship; of course, that could take hundreds of years.

By: Timothy Pancoast

Timothy Pancoast — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:29:36 +0000

“America’s moral corruption is a problem, a serious problem, but not one to be solved by way of legislative morality.”
- Chris Slavens
You know what? I think I would be pretty content if we just removed the legislation that promotes immorality, and stopped all new legislation that would promote and/or finance immorality too. Unfortunatly that would probably involve some legislation that, at least loosely, promotes morality. Guess you can’t satisfy everyone.

By: Chris Slavens

Chris Slavens — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:20:53 +0000

America’s moral corruption is a problem, a serious problem, but not one to be solved by way of legislative morality. Government cannot replace faith, and should not try to, for when it attempts to promote a certain brand of morality, it’s almost certain to be the wrong one, and the result will be a country of slaves to a tainted, politicized doctrine.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:16:36 +0000

“..what good is the money in our pocket if the nation has become nothing more than some cheap whore house..”

Archaeologists and anthropologists learn a lot about a defunct society by examining their art and lifestyles. Let’s look at America.

Hard core pornography at the theater and on the internet and soft core porn on prime-time television.

Pornographic and violent lyrics on virtually every radio station serving the 12-25 age demographic.

Marketiing the notion to young girls that the best road to success is to look and act like a whore.

High art; like Maplethorpe’s painting of the Virgin Mary covered with feces, or Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ,’ a crucifix in a vile of urine. Top rated stuff!

The marketing to America of the ignorant, violent black urban lifestyle, where cars, drugs, basketball and fornication are the only goals worth realizing.

Abortion on demand as a form of birth control.

Ridiculing patriotism and piety.

Outlandish forms of dress and self-mutilation, as in primitive societies.

And the list goes on..

As the dominant media driver, we export this vile garbage around the world. Is it any wonder why devout Muslims call the U.S. the ‘great Satan?’

It will be our demise.

By: Frank Knotts

Frank Knotts — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:58:28 +0000

Dave, I have already “defended” my vote for Sen. Adams. He was strong on family values and and the NRA gave hime high ratings every year. We must make choices sometimes between issues. Mr. castle in my view has left myself at least, no choice, he is neither fiscally or socially conservative and I will not vote for him just because he is a Republican. And please Dave let me say this publicly, I hold no ill will towards you personally, we just happen to disagree , I hope the we can discuss these issues civilly. If it seems as if I am attacking you personally , it is not my intent, you just happen to be the person with the inclination to argue your point of view, I certainly do not think that you are the only one who happens to hold it. Nor am I the only person who happens to feel the way that I do about Mr. Castle and the direction of the GOP.

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:26:40 +0000

Chris, let me stand against that group’s mentality. I am not asking government to control relationships. I do ask that government recognize that some relationships are more valuable to society than others and deserve a special place.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:26:06 +0000

So let me get this straight. You want me to defend Mike Castle’s vote for cap-and-trade, which I neither want to nor could do, since it was a terrible vote. Will you defend your chosen senator Thurman Adams’ vote to put Delaware under cap-and-trade?

“And at some point many of us may decide to not show up and then those that feel as you do will have what you have wanted, a party without those pesky social issues.”

Again, you’re wrong. I don’t want a party without social issues, despite you AGAIN wanting to frame this as an either-or. I’ve been to GOP meetings, and I see plenty of social conservatives with very active roles. I don’t see anyone telling them to leave. I invite you to find anyone who will say that I undermined social conservatives when I was party chair. Find one.

In fact, one could argue that I stood up for family values when no one else would, and when plenty of so-called “social conservatives” fought me tooth-and-nail at the time. I learned at the time that a lot of “social conservatives” are really good at playing the part in public, but not so good when the rubber hits the road.

So you’ll forgive me for not giving a flying crap what you or other “social conservatives” think my values or positions are.

By: Frank Knotts

Frank Knotts — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:01:24 +0000

Chris, when I talk of traditional marriage, I am not talking about passing laws to make homsexuality illegal. I am talking about protecting traditional marriages and churches from those who would use gay marriage laws to attack churches and Christians. They would use these laws to forward their agendas of normalizing what is un-natural. But more important they would use them to attack the rights of people to worship as they see fit .Such as we have already seen with their attacks on The Boy Scouts and any group that wishes to not participate in their alternative life style.
Dave says,
“This isn’t about fiscal vs. social conservatives. It’s about a certain group of people who are trying to purge the Republican Party of anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%.” Dave please tell me where I have ever said we should purge the party of any fiscal conservative ? Because if you are speaking of my opposition to Mike Castle, then please defend his vote for cap and trade and TARP and increased CAFE standards, based on your definition of “FISCAL CONSERVATISM”.
Do I oppose Mike Castle’s stand on issues such as abortion and stem cell research, damn straight I do, and as long as I have breath I will voice that oposition. Do I also oppose him on his votes for cap and trade , TARP and increased CAFE standards, you damn straight I do, and as long as I have breath , I will oppose him on these issues as well. And if you were not so blinded by your laudable loyalty to the GOP you too would oppose him for these less than GOP like votes.
You say that it is I who would purge the GOP of people, but from where I stand it is I and those who feel as I do, who are made to feel un-welcome within the GOP. Would you have us leave or just shut up and show up on election days ? I’m not real good at shutting up as I’m sure you are aware of by now. And at some point many of us may decide to not show up and then those that feel as you do will have what you have wanted, a party without those pesky social issues. There is a reason they call us the base though, think about it.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:47:39 +0000

” But what good is the money in our pocket if the nation has become nothing more than some cheap whore house , where you can do anything you want?”

And who gets to decide what I get to do? You?

(Nice statement in support of freedom and liberty, by the way.)

And since you’re talking about me, though you fail to mention my name, I am offended at the idea that fiscal conservatives are soulless creatures who only want to enrich themselves.

Fiscal conservatism is about a government that is sustainable over the long term, which ours isn’t. China basically announced yesterday that they’re not buying Treasuries anymore. So we’re screwed, because we spend more money than we can afford to. So fiscal conservatism says that we should spend less money, and that we should exercise our freedom to live within our means, personally and collectively. If we don’t, we will dive into poverty and third-world status as a nation. We’ll have 30% or greater unemployment, and people will suffer and die.

But hey, who gives a crap about that stuff as long as Frank gets to decide what’s ‘decent’ and approve what I’m allowed to watch on the TV, right?