The GOP has two Conservative parties

The GOP has two Conservative parties.

We started out with a number of Republicans who represented pro-choice and pro-life conservatives. These are your basic Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives.

Fiscal Conservatives are the basic limited government, balanced budget, individual freedom Republicans that were the basis for Goldwater and Reagan voters.

Social Conservatives are those who speak for the Bible over the Constitution and have their list of prohibitions banning abortions, gay marriages and death with dignity. This agenda was presented by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and was adopted by G.W. Bush.

I know of only one nation that demands these prohibitions and that is the nation of Islam. That is the nation of Mohammad where drawings of him are forbidden under the threat of dying. Islam rules through their schools, laws and family values with laws coming from their Mosques. Freedoms are often forbidden and suicide is the rule. Islam has never had individual freedoms as part of their government and in the last 7 years America is touting the same lack of individual freedoms.

I cannot figure out why any America would opt for legislation against many of the social conservative rules that are not found in the Constitution but in the Holy Bible.

Apparently Bush bought the leaders of the religious right with his faith based grants but how many of us see the parallel with Islam? It is obvious that America needs to be Christian and Islam needs to be Muslim. Why?

Voting for any Republican in 2008 will bring the kind of religious bigotry to America as is found in the Middle East. Is this what we want? The decision is in the election.


  1. neondog

    Are you referring to the United States Constitution?
    I can’t seem to find anything that allows or advocates a State’s “right” to segregate human beings based on skin color.

    Bigots and Jim Crow segregationists have been using the the 10th amendment well before Plessy versus Ferguson to defend their assertion that a black or brown skinned person is less human than a white skinned person.

    Since the 60’s segregationist have used the Republican party to camoflouge (weakly I might add) their banner of bigotry. Unfortunately some Republicans have used this collaboration to advance their own agendas. To deny this confederation exists now and when Reagan was President, is farcical.

    Instead of being pissed off, you might want to try providing us with a substantive comment instead the strawman you tossed up.

  2. Sandra Price

    We see America with a difference. To indicate that Reagan was a bigot is false. His work for individual freedoms, hardly mentioned by the press, made him a problem with Phyllis Schlafly (Queen of the Christians) as Reagan wanted nothing to do with social prohibitions. He was a State’s Rights President and if you read the 10 Amendment you will see why. It is the core of individual rights and individual freedoms.

    Before Reagan became a Republican he headed up several Hollywood studio unions and fought like hell for all crew members white or black. You never read about this because it is the trend now to slam Reagan because of his Veep.

    Well, he is dead and sadly will be thought of as a bigot who worked only for the rich. Those of us who have followed his political career know this is a cop out for people who would rather hate than respect anyone. It is the trend and you can join Rush, Laura, Coulter and pick your scabs until they bleed.

    Nixon was a criminal and it was Senator Goldwater who finally got to him to quit. Goldwater who ran and lost on individual state’s rights.

    Do you all want one law fits all in America? Each state has it’s own Constitution and laws. This is wrong? Or is it that you didn’t know about the 10th Amendment? Let’s repeal it so many of you never have to worry about one state being freer than another.

    Pick up the Constitution and read the damn thing! I’m sorry but I get pissed with comments like these.

  3. 33rdSt

    Reagan simply followed the path forged by Nixon and his henchmen 12 years earlier. Reagan did not lead a revolution; he simply rode the crest of inept opponents to sainthood.

  4. neondog

    Sometimes a spade is just that, a spade. The Democrats, (Johnson) turned their back on the Southern segregationist (bigots) and Reagan showed up in Mississippi playing the “state rights” card to the negro-phobes. And played it well he did, same as every RepubliCon since.

    Selling out your principals to form a coalition with bigots is nothing to brag about.