"The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, blossomed during all of the Hoopla which surrounded the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. In fact it was much worse than that, Senator Heflin decided to back Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President- a Republican President no less. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy, especially in the South. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist.
At the time, this phrase certainly did not reflect well on Senator Heflin."
It's odd. Democrats now consider it an insult. :laugh:
Getting Evangelical,Christian values back on the table
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Jack Matthews, Nov 8, 2006.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
To ask the question "What are evangelical Christian values?" is legitimate. It is a broad category and not always consistent. -
I look at it this way. Scripture tells us that the government we have is the one God intended for us to have. Live with it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Pray for the gift of discernment. Then read the Bible.
It's all there.
It sounds like you don't believe the Bible will tell us how and what to evangelize. I disagree totally.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted your remarks. -
Or are you saying it's ok to do it in Iraq but don't dare use this standard on our soil? -
America rejected extremism, as well as corruption and incompetence.
-
Theologically, it's a lot simpler. The Holy Spirit convicts and converts. The church makes disciples and assimilates them into the community which enourages and supports the ministry of conversion and disciple making. -
The Republicans will now go through that same process. They will begin moving back toward the center, and choose leadership that will get them there. The next time they become the majority party, and that is inevitable, they will look and sound somewhat different than they do now.
A good part of what I do for a living depends on keeping one step ahead of the game as far as legislation and government regulation goes. We contract with a political analyst after every major election, particularly state level contests, because we need to keep on top of legal changes to develop strategies to assist our clients. The situation changes constantly. On the state level it can happen suddenly and often without warning.
If you want a really good analysis of the factors in this election which led to such a dramatic reversal from 1994, take a look at all the exit polling data, especially on the key issues and in states where there were sharp reversals of the political power base, like Indiana or Ohio. There are several things that stand out. Voters under 25, most of whom were not old enough to vote when Bush was first elected in 2000, went to the Democrats nationally by almost a 6 to 1 margin. They also turned out in almost twice the numbers that the same age bracket did in 2000. Women, who tended to vote Republican between 94 and 04, now tend to vote Democrat. The number of voters identifying themselves as "politically liberal" outnumber those identifying themselves as "politically conservative" for the first time since 1994. And the "religious right wing" base that Karl Rove helped Bush build as a base has declined as a percentage of the electorate.
Instead of party line support, the order for the day is negotiation. In order to reshape the legislative agenda, Democrats will do a lot of give and take, negotiating a lot of positions in order to move in the direction they want to go on the big stuff. Instead of rigidly towing the entire party platform out of loyalty, as Christian right wingers tend to do, this would be a time to get at least some of the social agenda passed in exchange for helping Democrats on health care reform, Iraq, tax reform, and other issues that do not involve a compromise of personal spiritual convictions. Just because you are a right wing Christian who opposes abortion and gay marriage does not require you to also accept the Republican position on tax cuts for the wealthy, or lack of an exit strategy in Iraq. -
Political Evangelicals are all for legislating laws against equal rights for homosexuals - marriage, for example. They are all for protecting people from making choices about a wide variety of things, including whether or not they want to gamble, for example.
If Political Evangelicals truly believed in a self-disciplining society, then there would be no problem in insisting the government extend the same rights and tax breaks to same-sex couples that are afforded traditional married couples.
If Political Evangelicals truly believed in a self-disciplining society, there would be far less time spent hollering at abortion clinics and more time spent praying with young people.
If Political Evangelicals truly believed in a self-disciplining society, they would cease insisting that the Federal, State, and local governments run the moral show according to only their narrow definition of righteousness.
It is typical Political Evangelical Conservative Lockstep Brownshirt claptrap to parrot the party line about Liberals thinking some animals are more equal than others, but offering nothing substantive by way of argument or discussion.
We've had the "Moral Majority" crowd deciding who was and was not a True Christian(tm) now for several decades. What's gotten better? Not a stinking thing. While this should tell us all somthing about Political Evangleicals and their lust to control the thoughts and minds of every American, it sadly does not. -
Iraq does not even come close to the 50 million + murdered by abortion in the US alone over the last 34 years.
Abortion is a matter of convenience for someone who has already exercised their rights and want to escape the consequences.
When we went to Iraq, we had every reason to believe that Saddam had WMD's and was prepared to share them with terrorists. The intel convinced everyone privileged to see it... even the hypocrites who opportunistically have now risen to power by bashing Bush for believing it.
This war was intended to protect life. Those all to willing to take life are the ones perpetuating it. Whose life does abortion protect?
I hope that you are not truly confused about the difference between Iraq and abortion. If so, God help you. -
Any other definition of "evangelical" doesn't matter to me. -
Jihad! Woohooo!!!!! -
Marriage is a contract. Gov't should leave the personal part out of their involvement. At the same time, no employer, insurance company, church, civic group, club, or any other entity should be required to accept people whose behavior they find offensive. It is a constitutional right to be prejudiced against behaviors by not associating or doing business with those who do them.
Some people do oppose it though. I would argue that even those people would be silenced though if they didn't have to see things like a woman in a quick stop using her welfare money to buy lottery tickets and cigarettes while buying milk and bread with food stamps. If the people who gambled were responsible for the consequences of their behavior then there probably wouldn't be enough of it to bother with.
BTW, it is liberals who demanded that issues such as these be fought out in the halls of gov't. Pragmatically, as long as it must be that way then even folks with ideals like mine must take a stand against gov't affirmation and funding for things that are contrary to our core moral values. I don't want morals determined in the legislature... but if liberals demand it then I'm not going to silently be railroaded either.
Show me where you have proven that the unborn are not human lives and therefore not worthy of having their right to live protected.
Show me where liberals are truly willing to let conservative Christians live out their values and beliefs without forcing their children into indoctrinating schools or forcing them to pay for immoral behavior or forcing us subsidize people who are engaging in self-destructive behavior.
Where is your substance? Where is your biblical or even rational support for liberalism (aka socialism)?
With Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and the greatest judicial mind in America, Scalia, we were only one justice away from taking another look at Roe.
With a Dem Senate, this won't happen.
BTW, politics is about agenda and direction. Seldom do you get the kinds of majority you need to effect things all at once. Compromises are made where you get 60-70% of what you want and give up 30%... but you move things toward your goal. The last twelve years have produced some positive change on welfare. Positive change on taxes. Positive changes in the judiciary and especially a shift in the Supreme Court. Things have moved. Not as far as they need to move but they have moved.
Liberals did this for 40 years to get us in the mess we were/are in. The Republicans became more like them and less like the 94 reformers. That's why they're out on their ears.
Any time you want to affirm freedom with responsibility, I'll be the first one to "amen". But this idea that people should have "freedom" but the responsibility should be born by society is wholly perverse and breeds the type of licentiousness that destroys whole societies... and appears to be doing so to ours. -
Jihad? Liberal humanists have been conducting their own Jihad since the 60's. Silencing the opposition. Killing on a massive scale. Unification of their religion (secular humanism) with gov't characterized by making their moral opinions the law of the land.
Were always at war with sin... but murder and oppression are the tactics of the other side. -
I don't agree with you, but I like the fact that you reply substantively.
-
Sorry if my antagonism went a little overboard. -
-
It was much more than simply a belief in his WMD program. Despite Ritter's claims to the contrary, we invaded anyway. And yet, we haven't found anything.
Regards,
BiR -
-
I believe you know that. If you still contend they did, please supply us with the quote and source.
Page 3 of 5