the new health care?

Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

Are you kidding me?

The GOP has run for the last 20 years at least on social conservatism and fiscal conservatism RHETORIC.

When given the chance to govern they were able to:

a) do nothing to advance their social values legislatively because those values are held by a minority
b) completely ignore their fiscal conservative principles.

We don't have a single true fiscal conservative politician in this country of any significance because they get run out of the party pretty effing fast. Look at a guy like Demint in SC. He is a true free-marketer and gets barely any traction within the party because of it. He voted against the Medicare bill because it was crap while the rest of the dumbsh*t Republicans rallied around our wonderful "Conservative" President as they passed into law one of the biggest spending projects in US history.

But to answer your question:

Abortion
Gay Marriage
Gays in the Military
10 Commandments in public buildings
Prayer in school
The whole "family values" campaign


Just to name a few

No thanks. If i wanted to be socialist, i'd hop to France.

from a random website


Thanks random website.

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment#2008).

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction (http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War)
Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

Does anybody REALLY believe our representatives are concerned with what we think, or make decisions based on what is best for the American people? That they are going to do what is right, rather than self serving issues they are concerned about? It does not appear so to me.

I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.

Nope. As demonstrated by the trillion dollar budget and trillion dollar health care plan, fiscal responsibility is not within their lexicon. It's 1970's liberalism all over.

I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.

With whom I agree on almost nothing.

I get to choose from one group who I believe is totally and utterly wrong in both idea and application or another who cares more about things I don't care about at all but has the forethought to throw a few good sentences into their campaign speeches about the things I really do care about.

It's why the two-party system doesn't work for me...and most Americans. We're always stuck voting for people who are the best of two evils. And that accounts for about 60-70% of the electorate. Since this group is so hard to campaign to then the parties campaign to the bases and hope to pull in a few moderates and win. That's why even in this recent "landslide" election it was basically a 55-45 split. Both parties campaign from the outside->in and anyone with in-view(middle of rthe road) as defined by the party don't get the political party support they need to get traction.

VA is a great example. We have some good fiscal conservatives in this state. None ever get shots at the bigger jobs. Instead we put up dipwads like Mark Early, Jerry Kilgore, George Allen, Jim Gilmore. Why? Because they say the right stuff about gay people and abortions. Then they run through the standard stuff on national security and finally might throw a line or two in there about stopping spending. Then they get nominated and get trounced in a largely CONSERVATIVE state because no one believes them fiscally (history speaks the truth) and are scared of their social agenda.

Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.


taxes my friend. taxes.

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.
First off gay people can find a church and get married everyday its just not recognized by the goverment. If they love each other so much why don't they just get married and move on with life?