If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   It Is Time to Throw the Social Conservatives Out of the GOP   (redstate.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, GOP, social conservatives, pro-life Democrats, close election results, Cultural Revolution, Richard Mourdock  
•       •       •

3559 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 09:30:35 AM
Read the headline, and thought, "Hmm... Is Redstate getting it?"

Read the article, and it says:
 
2012-11-09 09:31:02 AM

dudemanbro: Happy Hours: You're not helping.

Really? Good, 'cause I don't care. Happy Hours: People like you are not very different from Tea baggers. You feel the other party is evil and should be stopped at all costs Much like them, you feel there is no room for compromise and the only solution is to somehow exterminate those who disagree with your views.

You don't know how I feel, or what my past is, or how I am, as evidenced by this post. So don't assume I'm anti-conservative or a totally partisan "liberal" Democrat just because I think "conservatives" should fark off. Truth is, there aren't many true conservatives around these days. Except for my cousin Larry. He and I don't agree on everything, but we get along a lot better than Congress. As for your assertion that I feel anyone should be "exterminated", that's only true of a few people, such as Grover Norquist, who are truly incapable of compromise. I didn't say anyone should be "exterminated," I said they should fark off. But enjoy your high horse.


americanchefinlondon.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-09 09:31:12 AM
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-09 09:31:23 AM

log_jammin: pecosdave: Remember banks were ordered by the government to make those loans available to begin with.

That's really all I need to know about you. I'm not going to argue with an idiot. good night.


On my phone right now so can't provide link. If you go to YouTube and search bush banks low income you will see that he really does push the banks to make these loans.
 
2012-11-09 09:32:02 AM

fringedmyotis: Last lines from TFA: "It's not time to throw out social conservatives. It's time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well."

Good that they're trying to apply some math. Not so good that it's still limited to their bubble of social conservatism.


Sad part is, though, that they're saying they can't risk the 10% they have to go after the 90% that they need to ever have a chance of winning.
 
2012-11-09 09:34:21 AM
I came in here for the mocking of the article, but then the DERP happened. Headline = true, article = false.
 
2012-11-09 09:34:37 AM
Holy F, don't click on "TobyToons"

www.tobytoons.com

/what a bunch of willfully ignorant shiatheads.
 
2012-11-09 09:38:06 AM
That is the only type of conservative. There is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" politician. Never was and never will be. It is a fantasy.
 
2012-11-09 09:39:10 AM

sprawl15: fringedmyotis: Last lines from TFA: "It's not time to throw out social conservatives. It's time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well."

Good that they're trying to apply some math. Not so good that it's still limited to their bubble of social conservatism.

Sad part is, though, that they're saying they can't risk the 10% they have to go after the 90% that they need to ever have a chance of winning.


You go to election with the voters you have, not the voters you wish you had.
 
2012-11-09 09:39:53 AM
Um...at the end of the article the writer says that they need the social conservatives and can't throw them out, they just need to communicate their positions better.

Yeah...that was the problem. Not that their positions were in any way reprehensible. They just need to communicate about rape better.
 
2012-11-09 09:41:12 AM

DamnYankees: The social conservatives are, as far as I can tell, the majority of the GOP.


They think that if they aren't for making homosexuality illegal or for ethnic segregation, they are actually social moderates.
 
2012-11-09 09:41:24 AM

somedude210: As a Lincoln Republican (wait, we still have those? Yes, Virginia, we do still have socially liberal republicans) living in Liberal Bastion Massachusetts who went out and helped with the Warren campaign and was (and still am) a Jon Huntsman supporter, I agree with the other Republicans here. The party is not what the party should be. We are no longer a party of fiscally conservative moderates to counter the fiscally liberal moderates of the Democratic party.


Lincoln was not what you would consider a "fiscal conservative". As soon as the South left congress, he pushed through a shiat-ton of railroad and education spending.

Modern Republicans, even the "socially liberal" ones, are not descendents of Lincoln. They are the descendents of unrepentent slavers like Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis. The opposition to a strong central government is and has always been about having access to cheap, politically powerless labor.
 
2012-11-09 09:43:40 AM
Oh, I get it now. You have to pander more to minorities and women. Except that, on various websites, your base is (jokingly) discussing repealing the 19th amendment and (very seriously) closing our borders. I'm sure that discussion of voting rights restrictions is a funny inside joke, but to outsiders it's a threat to suppress voters and artificially increase your own numbers. As far as closing the borders, this is very anti-American. Our open borders are what made this country great. shiat, it's right there on the Statue of Liberty.
So go ahead and pretend you need more "social conservatives". Normal people can see through your line of bullshiat. Your pro-life, anti-contraception, closed borders belief is killing your party. I, for one, am glad to see it happen.
 
2012-11-09 09:45:11 AM
Article is breathless derp, but yes.

Since the article makes minority voters a thing, I'll opine this. The black people I know voted for Obama. Most are Christian and have traditional family values. They don't like abortions and gay marriages (not all... some are anti marriage equality, some are for) but they don't care. They voted for Obama, not because he was black, but because they felt he at least had some idea where they were coming from and that he cares about everyone, not just the super rich (whether or not that's actually true, Obama did a better job of articulating that).

I'm Latina. The vast majority of my latino friends were pro-Obama (even though many would describe themselves as pro life). The few antis are unapologetically racist or religiously derpy.
 
2012-11-09 09:45:15 AM
It's not time to throw out social conservatives. It's time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well. ~FTFA

The GOP has swung hard right, and it has stayed there, since the Black Guy got into office.
The Democrats have moved into that space, taking the Leftist vote (since there is no liberal alternative of significance, sorry Greens), but politically moving into the Center.
The GOP has made the horrific mistake of thinking that the Democrats are, somehow, still hardcore 'liberals'.

Unfortunately... the GOP has pretty much lost its cred on anything BUT the hard right bullshiat. Immigration... healthcare... foreign policy... taxation... social issues... their positions range from 'solid' conservative (aka, borderline RINO in their eyes) all the way to near-fundamentalist conservative (the 'true' conservatives for them).

They can't reach back to the Center. They sure as hell can't reach around to the Far Left. They're stuck, they've painted themselves into a corner, and don't comprehend how it even happened, and think that dumping the can of paint over their head is, somehow, the answer.
 
2012-11-09 09:45:36 AM
well my local AM radio guy is not talking about throwing them out, they just want to go the path of not talking about the social issues. it's practically a bait and switch approach
 
2012-11-09 09:46:06 AM

Dog Welder: Yeah...that was the problem. Not that their positions were in any way reprehensible. They just need to communicate about rape better.


bbsimg.ngfiles.com

No no no no, it's not rape because it's YOUR dog.
 
2012-11-09 09:47:37 AM
I had planned to gloat for only one week but it seems like zero lessons were learnt. Hence, maybe pointing and laughing may make the message stick better.
 
2012-11-09 09:50:46 AM
What I find really interesting here is that, implicit in the social conservatives 'no compromise' mindset is an apparent belief that Americans will line up and follow if they are given a 'true' conservative option. They really seem to think this is the case.

That is one thick bubble.
 
2012-11-09 09:56:45 AM
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006[16] and share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[16] The Community Reinvestment Act also only affected one out of the top 25 subprime lenders.[16]

In 2008, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, said the CRA wasn't to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis, stating that "first, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together... we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis,". Only 6% of subprime loans were handed out by CRA-covered lenders to lower income people (the people the CRA is responsible for, CRA-covered banks can technically lend subprime loans to anyone).[17] Others, such as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair,[18] and Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation[19] also argue that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.
 
2012-11-09 09:58:33 AM
What is this the origin of this "Free stuff" talking point? Was Bill O'Reilly clever enough to create that on his own?

And where is my free stuff? I have not received one Obama phone and I thought that Obamacare was deemed to be a tax.
 
2012-11-09 10:04:05 AM
it's funny because the social cons want to throw out the establishment...

should be fun.

/...and BOOM goes the GOP
 
2012-11-09 10:04:23 AM

Wendy's Chili: somedude210: As a Lincoln Republican (wait, we still have those? Yes, Virginia, we do still have socially liberal republicans) living in Liberal Bastion Massachusetts who went out and helped with the Warren campaign and was (and still am) a Jon Huntsman supporter, I agree with the other Republicans here. The party is not what the party should be. We are no longer a party of fiscally conservative moderates to counter the fiscally liberal moderates of the Democratic party.

Lincoln was not what you would consider a "fiscal conservative". As soon as the South left congress, he pushed through a shiat-ton of railroad and education spending.

Modern Republicans, even the "socially liberal" ones, are not descendents of Lincoln. They are the descendents of unrepentent slavers like Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis. The opposition to a strong central government is and has always been about having access to cheap, politically powerless labor.


wow, aren't you a downer this early in the morning. Last I checked, being of an Irish background, I highly doubt my family are descended from slave owners. There are things the federal government should do and there are some things that they shouldn't do. Public health is something they should do, but the prohibition of some substances (pot, tobacco, alcohol) shouldn't be (and we're seeing that in Washington and Colorado), nor should the there be a federal law defining marriage, as it is not for the government to decide religious ceremony (everyone should be allowed to get the same benefits regardless of who they're with, as long as they're human)

to generalize modern "socially liberal" republicans as a throwback to slave owners is a dishonest generalization that has no place here.
 
2012-11-09 10:08:20 AM
FTA:
A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP.

You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.


Hm. And the GOP's polling data is so good on that kind of thing, isn't it?
 
2012-11-09 10:10:26 AM

pecosdave: There's a balance to be achieved.


This. No party will ever have a monopoly on genius or stupidity. Discussion of ideas should be open, diverse, and honest. People should then decide. Admittedly mistakes will be made, but nothing that can't be learned from and fixed.

I point to the SW E1 "Phantom Menace" and US 2001-2008 as an example of what happens when you believe there is nothing to be learned from outside sources.
 
2012-11-09 10:15:02 AM
You should have done that shiat on principle, not in reaction to a loss
 
2012-11-09 10:19:55 AM
It's not time to throw out social conservatives.

Yes it is. Just think of everyone you would gain by doing so.

/short sighted
//poorly written and constructed article
///typical of Red State
 
2012-11-09 10:20:03 AM
Deja vu to 1996.
 
2012-11-09 10:24:38 AM

log_jammin: watching the right try to self reflect is hilarious.


As seen on Fark, Dunning, meet Kruger. Kruger, Dunning

Whatever they come up with, it will be wrong.
 
2012-11-09 10:31:54 AM
Read the article. Then read the comments. These people have learned NOTHING. I was listening to Diane Rehm yesterday - she had a bunch of bigwigs from Republican think tanks on. They've learned NOTHING. They just sat around saying "message, message message" when the problem has always, ALWAYS been "policy policy policy."

They're blind. There will be no change. They are completely screwed.
 
2012-11-09 10:37:52 AM

PreMortem: [www.rhrealitycheck.org image 375x250]


I can't tell you how many "conservatives" I talk to that know nothing about Goldwater and when I talk about his positions they laugh and say that its not conservatism. I weep for my party...
 
2012-11-09 10:42:18 AM

Happy Hours: dudemanbro: How about all "conservatives" fark off? They're all either selfish to the point of being destructive to the social fabric, all up in everybody else's business about how they run their lives, or forming little judgemental groups to make life difficult for those they don't like; consequently they should all fark off. Assholes.

You're not helping. At least you put conservatives in quotes because I don't think many Republicans are actually conservative anymore. Wanting less government interference in our lives does not make someone evil or selfish. Less governmental interference demands lower taxes and that the government be restricted to basic things like defense of the country and facilitating commerce. Those principles have been corrupted though. The "social" part of the "convservative" movement is neither social nor conservative. More things should be left to the states. Gay people should have the same rights to marriage as straight people. Those are actually true conservative values. The legality of marijuana should be left to the states.; We needed a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, why shouldn't the same apply to marijuana? You know what happens when a Democrat gets into the White House? They crack down on marijuana. It happened under Clinton and it is still happening with Obama.

But one of the huge problems with politics today is the polarization. People like you are not very different from Tea baggers. You feel the other party is evil and should be stopped at all costs Much like them, you feel there is no room for compromise and the only solution is to somehow exterminate those who disagree with your views.


Welcome to favorites.

I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packages it into one narrowly defined box of derp. (TAC is a good starting point, but there aren't any booby threads there.)

News flash. Not all registered Republicans are Tea Partying Mamma Grizzlies. Not all of us fall into the "Rape-ublican" wing label you want to paint us with.
 
2012-11-09 10:51:55 AM

daveUSMC:
I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packa ...


Would that there be some actual Politicians that would vote or legislate this way. The "lumping" of the rational and irrational was done by the Republican party to achieve their permanent majority. Don't blame me for considering them (or anyone who self-identifies with them) as unified in their derp.
 
2012-11-09 10:52:49 AM

daveUSMC: Happy Hours: dudemanbro: How about all "conservatives" fark off? They're all either selfish to the point of being destructive to the social fabric, all up in everybody else's business about how they run their lives, or forming little judgemental groups to make life difficult for those they don't like; consequently they should all fark off. Assholes.

You're not helping. At least you put conservatives in quotes because I don't think many Republicans are actually conservative anymore. Wanting less government interference in our lives does not make someone evil or selfish. Less governmental interference demands lower taxes and that the government be restricted to basic things like defense of the country and facilitating commerce. Those principles have been corrupted though. The "social" part of the "convservative" movement is neither social nor conservative. More things should be left to the states. Gay people should have the same rights to marriage as straight people. Those are actually true conservative values. The legality of marijuana should be left to the states.; We needed a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, why shouldn't the same apply to marijuana? You know what happens when a Democrat gets into the White House? They crack down on marijuana. It happened under Clinton and it is still happening with Obama.

But one of the huge problems with politics today is the polarization. People like you are not very different from Tea baggers. You feel the other party is evil and should be stopped at all costs Much like them, you feel there is no room for compromise and the only solution is to somehow exterminate those who disagree with your views.

Welcome to favorites.

I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packa ...


This.
 
2012-11-09 10:55:26 AM

DamnYankees: The social conservatives are, as far as I can tell, the majority of the GOP.


Seriously, after you kick them out who do you have left? The 1%, maybe top 5%. Good luck winning with those numbers.
 
2012-11-09 10:55:42 AM
Man, that was hard to get through. I wasn't sure of his point until about 3/4 of the way through.

That said, yeah, you guys run with that. I guess he missed the MJ ballot initiatives that passed and the first gay memeber of the Senate and two states passing gay marriage laws.
 
2012-11-09 10:56:30 AM

Chilkoot Charlie: daveUSMC:
I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packa ...

Would that there be some actual Politicians that would vote or legislate this way. The "lumping" of the rational and irrational was done by the Republican party to achieve their permanent majority. Don't blame me for considering them (or anyone who self-identifies with them) as unified in their derp.


Isn't that a bit intellectually dishonest? I mean, you can't be bothered to accept a differentiation between different brands of conservatives. You can't even be bothered to take each individual's positions and discuss them with that individual, instead assuming they're all the same and blowing it all off.

Wouldn't it make more sense for this country if we took on and forcibly shifted focus to the ideals and ideas of the individuals that AREN'T in the mainstream spotlight, but rather the ones that actually have something meaningful to say based on their own lives?
 
2012-11-09 10:56:38 AM
See, here's the thing: This supposed dichotomy between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives does not really exist. The same people who think it's fair to tax super rich people at half the rate of everyone else are the same people who think you should be grateful for that rape baby that Jesus gave you. The GOP has done such a terrific job of melding social and fiscal issues into one big ideology that they can no longer be separated.

Take, for example, the issue of poverty. You'd think Christians would want to take care of the poor like Jesus instructed them to do, right? WRONG! Conservative Christians have figured out a way to rationalize their brutal fiscal policies in a way that, in their mind, doesn't conflict with their medieval religious ideas. Every now and then you'll come across someone who is very fiscally conservative but not religiously conservative, but those people are still complete assholes too (Ayn Rand anyone?). There is nothing morally defensible about fiscal conservatism or religious conservatism.
 
2012-11-09 10:59:45 AM

dudemanbro: Happy Hours: You're not helping.

Really? Good, 'cause I don't care. Happy Hours: People like you are not very different from Tea baggers. You feel the other party is evil and should be stopped at all costs Much like them, you feel there is no room for compromise and the only solution is to somehow exterminate those who disagree with your views.

You don't know how I feel, or what my past is, or how I am, as evidenced by this post. So don't assume I'm anti-conservative or a totally partisan "liberal" Democrat just because I think "conservatives" should fark off. Truth is, there aren't many true conservatives around these days. Except for my cousin Larry. He and I don't agree on everything, but we get along a lot better than Congress. As for your assertion that I feel anyone should be "exterminated", that's only true of a few people, such as Grover Norquist, who are truly incapable of compromise. I didn't say anyone should be "exterminated," I said they should fark off. But enjoy your high horse.


You totally just argued with that guy that you never said what you just said. I think you have a future in politics.
 
2012-11-09 11:12:11 AM

AiryAnne: PreMortem: [www.rhrealitycheck.org image 375x250]

I can't tell you how many "conservatives" I talk to that know nothing about Goldwater and when I talk about his positions they laugh and say that its not conservatism. I weep for my party...


The intelligent conservative embraces Eisenhower and Goldwater (the version of Goldwater who recanted his issues with civil rights mind you). The mainstream party calls us RINOs for that ideology and just got a middle finger in return when we all voted for Centrist Obama.

/also it is amazing how many people seem to forget HW called Reagonomics "voodoo economics" and had to raise taxes to clean up the giant farking mess Saint Ronny made
 
2012-11-09 11:12:17 AM

pecosdave: I'm working on it.



Well good for you, but I see your subsequent posts are filled with a bunch of stuff about the "left wing" and how it just loves federal control over everything and the statement "You are my enemy" directed at another Farker.

I know it's super easy to buy into narratives like leftists-hate-freedom or whatever, but would you consider the possibility that many people who vote against Repubs aren't so much "leftist" as they are people who just want good government? It sounds like your group has a lot of ideas. Chances are good that many of them are intrinsically good ones. And if they are, you might discover that many of these people you're dismissing as totalitarian-minded commies would actually be natural allies, sometimes, who you could work with to achieve common goals. After the whole process is done with them your ideas probably won't be adopted verbatim -- and neither will theirs -- but the result could be something better than what we're all stuck with now.

It sounds like you're used to thinking in terms of categories and maybe doctrinal purity. But what do you really want in the end -- good, lean public policy that works a little better than what we have today? Or a He-Man Tyranny Haters' Club in a treehouse somewhere where you and your friends can sit around and biatch?
 
2012-11-09 11:17:14 AM
Never happen and it doesn't need too. The hard right, social conservatives are literally dying out and are being replaced with a more diverse and open minded younger generation. It might take another generation, but the social conservatives have reached the height of their influence and simple demographics shows their worldview is fading. My state, Colorado, is an excellent example that this is happening. We just legalized weed in spite of Focus on the Family and the rest of Springs Evangelical community.
 
2012-11-09 11:25:48 AM

PreMortem: [www.rhrealitycheck.org image 375x250]


THIS THAT THUS THEMS DAMNIT THIS.
 
2012-11-09 11:26:01 AM
FTFA: ...a quarter of the hispanic vote and a tenth of the black...You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.

1 in 10 black voters voted for Romney, and this clown thinks the goal should be to craft policies to ensure that number doesn't go to zero, instead of crafting policies that would allow their party to compete in this demographic. How did this party lose an election? The party's teeming with farking geniuses.
 
2012-11-09 11:26:53 AM

pecosdave: The saddest part is most people are blind to what's really happening. The Occupy Wall Street crowd? They were HELPING WALL STREET. Being in business when regulations get passed is the best place to be, it means your able to adapt and comply - not to mention help write the regulations making it very difficult for competition form.


[whatthefarkamireading.jpg]
 
2012-11-09 11:31:22 AM

daveUSMC: News flash. Not all registered Republicans are Tea Partying Mamma Grizzlies. Not all of us fall into the "Rape-ublican" wing label you want to paint us with.


Free association. You hang out with them, you're gonna get some of that on you.
Either chuck them out or leave if you don't want their tar brush anywhere near you.
 
2012-11-09 11:33:55 AM
They don't seem to realize that "social conservatism" is not a growth industry. Social conservatives do one thing really well: they die.

It's hard to make new social conservatives. You have to indoctrinate them at a young age and then hope it sticks, which is really, really difficult in the age of ubiquitous internet.
 
2012-11-09 11:43:08 AM
Who's throwing who out?

www.theage.com.au
 
2012-11-09 11:46:49 AM
How many read last paragraph and summation where he was actually making the argument for needing to retain the social conservative aspect of the party if they want to win the Hispanic vote?
 
2012-11-09 11:55:11 AM
Ah. That was wonderfully derpy. He's arguing against the position in the headline, to those of you who didn't read the article.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report