How Can Republicans Win Again?

[Zoomie1980]

I disagree on your latter statement. Cubans vote Republican, Mexican-Americans are firmly entrenched in the Democratic machine around here.

You can't court their vote without rolling over for illegal immigrants and illegal immigrants are going to vote for whoever promises the most handouts.

One thing we will have under Obama is a comprehensive immigration bill that will pass and it will include and accelerated path to citizenship for current illegal aliens, as will as a more secure border and harsh penalties for employers. Once the hard right of the Republican party finally gets it, that there WILL be some form of "amnesty" they can get past it and start courting this CONSERVATIVE constituency.

For the Republican party to build upon the Bush 44% vote of this group in 2004 is outright IDIOCY. Instead, they come off looking like a pack of KKK thugs on immigration and alienate what should be an OVERWHELMING voting block of the nation's largest minority.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I disagree on your latter statement. Cubans vote Republican, Mexican-Americans are firmly entrenched in the Democratic machine around here.

You can't court their vote without rolling over for illegal immigrants and illegal immigrants are going to vote for whoever promises the most handouts.

I wonder if anybody caught the irony in this.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You are right. Stand upon the priciples on which this nation was founded.: Atheism, reason, and the desire to escape religious fundamentalism and it's use as a means by which to control the masses. The founding fathers were progressive deists, who would be considered atheists today.

I'm calling BULLSHIT


You know you just made that up.

 

[9 Volt]

I'm calling BULLSHIT


You know you just made that up.

Excuse me sir? I made that up? take a history lesson or read a little on Deism and it's practicioners (our foundng fathers).

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Excuse me sir? I made that up? take a history lesson or read a little on Deism and it's practicioners (our foundng fathers).

I have had a couple history lessons in my life. I promise you that none support your statement.

 

[9 Volt]

I have had a couple history lessons in my life. I promise you that none support your statement.

My friend , you had my respect. I agree with about 80% of your posts, don't disappoint me now. I know you don't want to hear it but Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin, Madison, Ethan Allen and many, many others were Deists escaping the persecution created by religious fundamentalism.

The 1796 treaty with Thripoli states in clear terms that America is a state "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". It was written under Washington and signed under John Adams.

This isn but one of many examples. It is recorded history, pure and simple.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

My friend , you had my respect. I agree with about 80% of your posts, don't disappoint me now. I know you don't want to hear it but Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin, Madison, Ethan Allen and many, many others were Deists escaping the persecution created by religious fundamentalism.

The 1796 treaty with Thripoli states in clear terms that America is a state "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". It was written under Washington and signed under John Adams.

This isn but one of many examples. It is recorded history, pure and simple.

I'll give you that a few were deists. Washington was a Mason, as was Madison, but none were Athiests. Atheism was not anywhere near what this country was founded on. Also, they weren't escaping religious fundamentalism. They were resisting religious totalitarianism. If they were afraid of fundamentalism, they would have clearly written separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. However they didn't. It was merely the interpretation of the first amendment by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Your original post, in which I called bullshit, contended that the Framers built this country on Atheism and a the fear of religious fundamentalism. I say bullshit. They built this country to "protect" both atheism and religious fundamentalism.

I do find it interesting that the names you mention are the exact name mentioned in an article in Free Inquiry, circa 1994-96, by Steven Morris. I know this article because I cited it in my thesis. I find it funny that out of the five, only three were in Philidelphia for the actual drafting. So out of 55 delgates you proven that 3 are deists? What does that prove? Nothing. Try again.

The Treaty of Tripoli? GMAFB. Don't even get me started on article 11, because I don't have time. But here is a couple links that should suffice.

Key quote:

The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. Here the only thing to be done by a translator is to try to give the reader an impression of the nonsensical original:

Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 <BR> The Annotated Translation of 1930

The best argument here is that the Treaty of Tripoli was intended to deal with the problem of Piracy, not to govern the relationship between Church and State. With thsi in mind, it is not possible to conclude that all thos that signed the treaty agreed with document in full. Particularly an article that was obvious meant to pander to Arabic pirates.

 

[jillian]

I have had a couple history lessons in my life. I promise you that none support your statement.

The founding fathers were largely deists who established, in their wisdom, a country that was religiously neutral so government stayed away from religion and religion stayed away from government.

They had the same debates with the religious types in their day that are being had today and rejected the establishment of a country based on religion.

An interesting article on the subject.Obviously, take it for what you wish, but it has some good points.

The Christian Nation Myth

 

[Toro]

I disagree on your latter statement. Cubans vote Republican, Mexican-Americans are firmly entrenched in the Democratic machine around here.

First-generation Cubans vote Republican. Their kids and grandkids less so.

And when Raul kicks it and Cuba eventually joins the rest of the world, as it inevitably will, the primary reason for Cubans voting Republican will be gone.


Republicans have to stop appealing to anti-intellectualism so blatantly. Its embarrassing.

 

[editec]

The Republicans will be back.

That franchise is too valuable for maintaining the delusion that we actually have a choice to let it die.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

first-generation Cubans Vote Republican. Their Kids And Grandkids Less So.

And When Raul Kicks It And Cuba Eventually Joins The Rest Of The World, As It Inevitably Will, The Primary Reason For Cubans Voting Republican Will Be Gone.


Republicans Have To Stop Appealing To Anti-intellectualism So Blatantly. Its Embarrassing.

Bingo

 

[BlackAsCoal]

the Republicans Will Be Back.

That Franchise Is Too Valuable For Maintaining The Delusion That We Actually Have A Choice To Let It Die.

Bingo 2

 

[editec]

Where'd all those CAPs in my quote come from, BAC?

Did I suddenly become a German or something?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Where'd all those CAPs in my quote come from, BAC?

Did I suddenly become a German or something?

No my brother .. that's emphasis

Your emphatically stated wisdom.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are right. Stand upon the priciples on which this nation was founded.: Atheism, reason, and the desire to escape religious fundamentalism and it's use as a means by which to control the masses. The founding fathers were progressive deists, who would be considered atheists today.

ROFLMNAO... And THIS opinion is one wherein the deceiver has carried the day, within what stands for intellect within this member&#8217;s mind.

First, Deism is the diametric opposite of Atheism... Atheists 'believe' that there is absolutely NO GOD... They believe, that there is NO evidence of God, thus there can be no God... Atheist flat out REJECT the very POTENTIAL of a DEITY.

Second, The Founders of the United States were individuals, who had varying beliefs; just like individuals today... but they were on whole, DEVOUT CHRISTIANS, who believed that the power associated with government corrupts all things and religion was no exception; thus they recognized that religion must be distinct from government; meaning that they recognized that any religion which became associated in terms of doctrinal influence, meaning that where the church rules rose to the function of government, the natural result would be to stifle religious freedom, just as government naturally tends to stifle individual freedom, thus freedom on the whole; they believed that where religious freedom was maintained distinct from government, there was always hope that the people would find the courage to repel an abusive government, which could never take place where the church was set as government.

Of course we see that truth being born out today as The Church of Secular-Humanism (Atheism)rises to establish it&#8217;s DOCTRINAL LAW as STATE; which is of course that tired old saw&#8230; MARXISM. But I digress&#8230;

Thomas Jefferson was a CHRISTIAN... NOT a DEIST. Jefferson's supposed Deism is a myth created by the atheist left, which lies on little else beyond the taking of out of context quotes from assorted Jefferson correspondence... The most widely abused is of course the Danbury letter, where Jefferson is informing constituents that the Federal government can't influence the church, because of the 'wall' in the constitution which separates church from state... A letter which the left trots out to erroneously prove just the opposite... meaning that the left tries to project that Jefferson was telling the Church that they cannot influence the GOVERMENT due to this rhetorical wall. The second most egregiously abused correspondence is the Jefferson letter his nephew Peter Carr, where Uncle Tom encourages Peter to consider and study all religions... which is the extent of the letter that you'll find in Atheist propaganda... but Jefferson went on the explain that from such a full and comprehensive consideration, Carr's faith will be established on the bed rock of his full intellect; a path which Jefferson believed would bring him to the truth of Christ's good news. Jefferson abhorred organized religion, feeling that it stifled the intellect&#8230; and it is from this, that atheism has managed to set this ethereal myth.

Apart from Jefferson's correspondence, the Atheist propaganda machine loves to trot out Adams words in a treaty with the Barbary Coast wherein he states that the US was not founded upon any religion. More often than not, this flaccid little exercise comes to prove that the US is not a Christian nation and that Adams himself was a Deist; which is again the absolute pinnacle of ignorant absurdity. John Adams was a deeply devout Christian and the treaty speaks to the government of the US, not the people of the US and it speaks to specific religious Doctrine established at the head of law and decidedly NOT religious principle resting at the foundation of law; a simple point of distinction which the ideological left is simply incapable of recognizing; bringing me to your next point...

It is true that the founders of the US were men of substantial reason. And it is thus true that IF we were somehow able to transport the US Founder's to our present... they would no doubt look upon the whole of the ideological left as being comprised of little more than blind madness. And this on little more than the little leftist canards such as "You can't force Freedom on people" and so on... I imagine that their reaction to the election of a Marxist Muslim to the Presidency would be one of pure terror... horror and soul wrenching disappointment, which is to say, grief.

It is NOT TRUE that the founders sought escape religious fundamentalism... the assertion is quite absurd. Those that fled England to escape STATE Religion... meaning they sought the freedom to PRACTICE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL FAITH, which was devoutly CHRISTIAN and to not be restrained by long standing doctrine of the STATE CHURCH which they believed corrupted, stifled and otherwise prevented the believer from walking in the light of the Father.

You use the word &#8220;Progressive&#8221; in your description of the Founders and that is a good word to describe them. However, that word does not fit with the ideological left, as that ideology is utterly REGRESSIVE. The Founders were men who believed that the key to freedom was INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY&#8230; The ideological left stands wholly AGAINST the freedom of the individual, except where the respective freedom is founded in self destruction and debauchery.

The Ideological left demands three and only three freedoms:

&#8226; The freedom to be overt, unambiguous homosexuals
&#8226; The freedom to abuse illicit drugs
&#8226; The freedom to murder the unborn child

Freedoms wherein the left on the whole rejects ANY SENSE of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY as being inherent in these freedoms; beyond that the ideological left has absolutely no kinship with the concept of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY .

As such Socialism has created fallacious absurdities such as people should be FREE FROM WANT AND NEED&#8230; the intellectual basis of which must necessarily reject by default, ANY SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, THUS CAN NEVER REALIZE ANYTHING RESEMBLING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY&#8230; a notion the imminently reasonable Founder&#8217;s of the United States would instantly recognize as patently impossible and thoroughly bereft of reason; thus the ideology represented in left-think can only RETURN MEN TO THAT WHICH THE FOUNDERS ESCAPED: THE TYRANNY OF OPPRESSIVE GOVERNANCE!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Republicans have to stop appealing to anti-intellectualism so blatantly. Its embarrassing.

ROFL... This is just delicious... Conservatives are anti-intellectual?


Which is to say that leftists apparently are the harbingers of intellect?

SO Shogun, a professed pedophile... a moron of such depth that no level of exposure to reasoned thought could ever hope to produce a cogent, lucid, well reasoned thought... THIS stands for that which is "Intellectual?"

Toro, why don't you give us an argument which provides a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for you thesis that 'Republicans are anti-intellectual?'

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON A LEFTIST TO SUPPORT THEIR ASSERTIONS WILL RESULT IN ONE'S DEATH)

 

[Navy1960]

IMHO Republicans can easily win again as over the years I have heard one party or the other is dead or near death for one reason or another. The political feelings swing back and forth in this country and always have. The Republican party though, suffers from a lack of a consistant message and has for years up until this recent president been for the most part successful because of it's stance on smaller government, self reliance, states rights. George Bush has been the anti version of all this and has abopted liberal principles and allowed the Republican ideals to be co-opted by the Democrats, in that the Democrats have taken the fiscally conservative message that holds appeal to Americans and married that to a liberal social agenda. While the Republicans have been idintified with a socially conservative agenda and fiscally liberal one. In order for the Republican party to be successful in the future they must recognize that Americans in general want their government to adhere to the same financial and ethical standards they do. Further the Republican party I submit must admit that conservative is NOT a color issue and see that conservative comes in all colors and be more inclusive of those that share those ideals within the party. In conclusion the Republican party of course can be successful again with a more consistant message and one that is based on the ideals that the party is based on.

 

[Toro]

ROFL... This is just delicious... Conservatives are anti-intellectual?


Which is to say that leftists apparently are the harbingers of intellect?

SO Shogun, a professed pedophile... a moron of such depth that no level of exposure to reasoned thought could ever hope to produce a cogent, lucid, well reasoned thought... THIS stands for that which is "Intellectual?"

Toro, why don't you give us an argument which provides a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for you thesis that 'Republicans are anti-intellectual?'

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON A LEFTIST TO SUPPORT THEIR ASSERTIONS WILL RESULT IN ONE'S DEATH)

Are you being deliberately anti-intellectual now or are you doing so in a sarcastic manner?

For, an intelligent person would realize that I never said that all conservatives weren't intellectuals, that there is a difference between "Republicans" and "conservatives," and that all Republicans are anti-intellectual.

But you sure are. You are a walking, talking, breathing, typing example of the anti-intellectualism that permeates through the GOP today. Its hilarious that you want proof of anti-intellectualism on one hand then say that leftists aren't "real" Americans on the other. HELLO! Is anybody in there?

 

[9 Volt]

ROFLMNAO... And THIS opinion is one wherein the deceiver has carried the day, within what stands for intellect within this member’s mind.

First, Deism is the diametric opposite of Atheism... Atheists 'believe' that there is absolutely NO GOD... They believe, that there is NO evidence of God, thus there can be no God... Atheist flat out REJECT the very POTENTIAL of a DEITY.

Second, The Founders of the United States were individuals, who had varying beliefs; just like individuals today... but they were on whole, DEVOUT CHRISTIANS, who believed that the power associated with government corrupts all things and religion was no exception; thus they recognized that religion must be distinct from government; meaning that they recognized that any religion which became associated in terms of doctrinal influence, meaning that where the church rules rose to the function of government, the natural result would be to stifle religious freedom, just as government naturally tends to stifle individual freedom, thus freedom on the whole; they believed that where religious freedom was maintained distinct from government, there was always hope that the people would find the courage to repel an abusive government, which could never take place where the church was set as government.

Of course we see that truth being born out today as The Church of Secular-Humanism (Atheism)rises to establish it’s DOCTRINAL LAW as STATE; which is of course that tired old saw… MARXISM. But I digress…

Thomas Jefferson was a CHRISTIAN... NOT a DEIST. Jefferson's supposed Deism is a myth created by the atheist left, which lies on little else beyond the taking of out of context quotes from assorted Jefferson correspondence... The most widely abused is of course the Danbury letter, where Jefferson is informing constituents that the Federal government can't influence the church, because of the 'wall' in the constitution which separates church from state... A letter which the left trots out to erroneously prove just the opposite... meaning that the left tries to project that Jefferson was telling the Church that they cannot influence the GOVERMENT due to this rhetorical wall. The second most egregiously abused correspondence is the Jefferson letter his nephew Peter Carr, where Uncle Tom encourages Peter to consider and study all religions... which is the extent of the letter that you'll find in Atheist propaganda... but Jefferson went on the explain that from such a full and comprehensive consideration, Carr's faith will be established on the bed rock of his full intellect; a path which Jefferson believed would bring him to the truth of Christ's good news. Jefferson abhorred organized religion, feeling that it stifled the intellect… and it is from this, that atheism has managed to set this ethereal myth.

Apart from Jefferson's correspondence, the Atheist propaganda machine loves to trot out Adams words in a treaty with the Barbary Coast wherein he states that the US was not founded upon any religion. More often than not, this flaccid little exercise comes to prove that the US is not a Christian nation and that Adams himself was a Deist; which is again the absolute pinnacle of ignorant absurdity. John Adams was a deeply devout Christian and the treaty speaks to the government of the US, not the people of the US and it speaks to specific religious Doctrine established at the head of law and decidedly NOT religious principle resting at the foundation of law; a simple point of distinction which the ideological left is simply incapable of recognizing; bringing me to your next point...

It is true that the founders of the US were men of substantial reason. And it is thus true that IF we were somehow able to transport the US Founder's to our present... they would no doubt look upon the whole of the ideological left as being comprised of little more than blind madness. And this on little more than the little leftist canards such as "You can't force Freedom on people" and so on... I imagine that their reaction to the election of a Marxist Muslim to the Presidency would be one of pure terror... horror and soul wrenching disappointment, which is to say, grief.

It is NOT TRUE that the founders sought escape religious fundamentalism... the assertion is quite absurd. Those that fled England to escape STATE Religion... meaning they sought the freedom to PRACTICE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL FAITH, which was devoutly CHRISTIAN and to not be restrained by long standing doctrine of the STATE CHURCH which they believed corrupted, stifled and otherwise prevented the believer from walking in the light of the Father.

You use the word “Progressive” in your description of the Founders and that is a good word to describe them. However, that word does not fit with the ideological left, as that ideology is utterly REGRESSIVE. The Founders were men who believed that the key to freedom was INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY… The ideological left stands wholly AGAINST the freedom of the individual, except where the respective freedom is founded in self destruction and debauchery.

The Ideological left demands three and only three freedoms:

• The freedom to be overt, unambiguous homosexuals
• The freedom to abuse illicit drugs
• The freedom to murder the unborn child

Freedoms wherein the left on the whole rejects ANY SENSE of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY as being inherent in these freedoms; beyond that the ideological left has absolutely no kinship with the concept of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY .

As such Socialism has created fallacious absurdities such as people should be FREE FROM WANT AND NEED… the intellectual basis of which must necessarily reject by default, ANY SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, THUS CAN NEVER REALIZE ANYTHING RESEMBLING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY… a notion the imminently reasonable Founder’s of the United States would instantly recognize as patently impossible and thoroughly bereft of reason; thus the ideology represented in left-think can only RETURN MEN TO THAT WHICH THE FOUNDERS ESCAPED: THE TYRANNY OF OPPRESSIVE GOVERNANCE!

HA! HA! I knew that would get your panties in wad. Man you're a freak.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The founding fathers were largely deists who established, in their wisdom, a country that was religiously neutral so government stayed away from religion and religion stayed away from government.

They had the same debates with the religious types in their day that are being had today and rejected the establishment of a country based on religion.

An interesting article on the subject.Obviously, take it for what you wish, but it has some good points.

The Christian Nation Myth

They were not largely deists. That is generalized statement that cannot be supported. That article sucks, but I agree with everything else you said.