English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wouldn't it be so nice if more prejudiced and disturbed people like James Dobson get out of the Republican Party? The Republicans have suffered too long under the religious right hypocrites. They've made them adopt crazy stances like the right to life, violations of equal protection to people who are genetically a different sexual orientation to the mainstream, and a staunch refusal to allow our constitutional right to keep religion out of government.

I've backed Rudy Giuliani from the start. But now that this man said he would withdraw from the Republican Party should Rudy win the nomination, I'm even more ready and willing to switch from Libertarian to Republican just to cast my vote in the primary for Rudy.

Will you join me? Even if you're a Democrat you may want to do it. The Democratic candidates are all pretty much the same anyway. Voting in the Republican primary would keep mandated religion out of the general election at least and then you could vote Democrat anyway.

2007-05-18 04:35:44 · 5 answers · asked by Dan 4 in Politics & Government Elections

5 answers

I've always been a Rudy supporter and a Republican. See you at the polls!

2007-05-18 04:44:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

As a gay man myself, I am happy to know that you recognize that I didn't choose to be gay. As a gay man with a number of conservative views about how to interpret the Constitution, I think that both of your constitutional interpretations are nothing more than -- as was famously put by Pat Buchanan -- "cultural war," and you, not the right-wingers, are driving a wedge into this society. You are, not the right-wingers. You.

No, I will not join with you. You are no more appealling to me than James Dobson.

Indeed, I am not going to vote at all. Judicial activism has run amok and it is so depressing and outrageous that I don't want to vote ever again. I won't vote again until the scurge of judicial activism is finally laid to rest. And by judicial activism, I mean the kind of interpretation in which "equal protection of the laws" means equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, which is an interpretation which would have the proposers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment sitting up in their graves and yelling "THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT!!"

2007-05-18 05:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I don't think "disturbed" people like James Dobson have "made" ME adopt any "crazy" stances. I find the loaded nature of this post assanine. To many who aren't "religious right hypocrites," like myself for instance, abortion is still an abominable practice (particularly the later term and partial birth methods), and I'm well-read enough to know that agree or not, there is no protection of government from religion in the constitution. The "separation of church and state" statement isn't in the constitution.

Furthermore, the original intent is twisted by today's advocates, as it wasn't ever intended to protect government from religion--this government's system was founded by Christians whose beliefs were firmly rooted in their faith. They just believed others should be able to practice freely as they choose without government interference. The phrase was coined because the founding fathers believed that religion should be protected from government--not the other way around. The intent was to avoid a government mandated religion, like our enemies who support caliphates would like. They didn't intend to strike every reference to God from our lives.

This is coming from an agnostic, moderate republican. I just happen to recognize that the "religious right" isn't all bad.

I'm a big Giuliani supporter myself. I just don't like broad generalizations and loaded questions. I may not be pro-choice and I may not be as pro-gun control as he is, but I believe he is the kind of leader we need in the world. I want the president of this great nation to be respected in the world and to strike fear in the hearts of cowards like Regan did to the hostage takers in the Iranian hostage crisis the minute he took office in 1981. I can criticize many things about each candidate. If someone claimed to match my views 100% he would be lying. The goal is to prioritize and to decide who will be strongest in the most importanat areas. A person's priorities being different from yours does not make him disturbed.

2007-05-18 04:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by rumezzo 4 · 2 0

Before you jump on the Guliani band wagon, go give Duncan Hunter a checkout...I would love to see a fellow WOP in the WHite house, and Guliani is very intellegent,..but I love Hunter also...James Dobson is a very bright, kind man who loves this country,..and walks the walk and lives the life...I just don't think he would make a good President.

2007-05-18 04:39:31 · answer #4 · answered by MotherKittyKat 7 · 2 0

No. This is the reason I am not a republican. They don't value Christian principles. Republicans are all about greed. I think all true Christians should withdraw from the party and leave it to the remaining 13% log cabin and big business republicans.

2007-05-18 04:39:35 · answer #5 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 3 5

fedest.com, questions and answers