Why Dont More Social Conservatives Particpate on The Hannity Forums

[BillyBobUSA]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?

[johnrocks]

I think there are a lot of social conservatives, seems to be anyway. Maybe they are in the Religion Forum.

[grapabeaux]

Billybob, I think what you're seeing is symptomatic of internet communications in general. I would be most social conservatives derive their social networking from their real-life interactions (church, family, maybe work), and might consider these kinds of message boards - even heavily moderated ones like this one - a variant of the chat rooms that don't lead to any good, in their opinion. That's just a guess, mind you.

Plus, they've got their hands full raising our next generation of munchkins; not enough time in the day to research and contribute to the debate in teh gay threads.

[Dreamy]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?


Examples of such? ^^^

The board is filled with people from left to right and in between. Social conservatives do exist. How muh they participate in social issues I do not know.

[PyramidBuilder]

I don't understand - every thread is filled with both ignorant and well-informed comments from people of nearly every political stripe. A few left-wingers ragging on conservatives from time to time doesn't change the fact that this is a predominately right-wing board, from the mods to the newbies.

[Ballygrl]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?

Not every conservative is a 100% social conservative, and this is a message board and everyone has their own opinions on issues and if you're going to post about something you have to expect differing opinions at times.

[LoneStarHero]

There are plenty of social conservatives here. Where the heck do you get an idea that there is some sort of shortage of them them? Did you not notice the abundance of abortion and gay marriage threads here?

[Old_Mil]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?

Billybob, I get the sense that our host has positioned himself to the left of the conservative movement. Certainly I get that sense when I compare the content to that from Brand L, Brand S, Brand B, and even Brand D. That theme seems to be reflected in the content here, where a good number of the "conservatives" are quite content with barbarism so long as it leads to low taxes.

[LoneStarHero]

Billybob, I get the sense that our host has positioned himself to the left of the conservative movement. Certainly I get that sense when I compare the content to that from Brand L, Brand S, Brand B, and even Brand D. That theme seems to be reflected in the content here, where a good number of the "conservatives" are quite content with barbarianism so long as it leads to low taxes.

What do you mean by "barbarism"?

[Cav Scout]

Billybob, I get the sense that our host has positioned himself to the left of the conservative movement. Certainly I get that sense when I compare the content to that from Brand L, Brand S, Brand B, and even Brand D. That theme seems to be reflected in the content here, where a good number of the "conservatives" are quite content with barbarianism so long as it leads to low taxes.

I am extremely socially conservative.
Like most smart ones though, I tend to think Government should stay the hell out of it and let me be a father to my kids and that is that.
I do not come here to listen to somebody scream about the Governemt not making social issues the topic of the day. The libs do that to darn much already.
So if that is the "barbarianism" of which you speak, you can stuff it.
The Government has no place in these issues.
Nor do they in the government.
I am sick of the Pat Robertson crowd and the book burners.
They need to shut the hell up.

[BillyBobUSA]

Billybob, I get the sense that our host has positioned himself to the left of the conservative movement. Certainly I get that sense when I compare the content to that from Brand L, Brand S, Brand B, and even Brand D. That theme seems to be reflected in the content here, where a good number of the "conservatives" are quite content with barbarianism so long as it leads to low taxes.


I am kind of leaning toward your view as well, if you mean our host is to the left of the social conservative movement. On economics and security no one is more conservative.

[BillyBobUSA]

I am extremely socially conservative.
Like most smart ones though, I tend to think Government should stay the hell out of it and let me be a father to my kids and that is that.
I do not come here to listen to somebody scream about the Governemt not making social issues the topic of the day. The libs do that to darn much already.
So if that is the "barbarianism" of which you speak, you can stuff it.
The Government has no place in these issues.
Nor do they in the government.

But the leftwing social reconstructionists, like the gay marriage fascists are using the government to push their bile. We social conservatives want the conservative movement to stand strong against this misuse of the government.

But people like you bug out when the going gets tough and you start to fear a little unpopular.

These forums are hostile to social conservatives and when social conservative themed thread appear, the social fascists and their neocon allies pile-on the thread and kill any interest in it by social conservatives. It is deliberate and purposeful and tolerated for some reason.

Meanwhile social conservatives seem to be kept on a very short leash and banned pretty darned quick for the most minor things.

I am still banned from the RF for saying something offensive about Baptists, though no Baptist evr complained and one said he did not see it as an intended slight. But I am still banned while some other posters with a very long history of yanking our chains get by with warning after warning.

This site is not friendly to social conservatives at all.


I am sick of the Pat Robertson crowd and the book burners.
They need to shut the hell up.

Well, guess what, Sherlock; the Republican Party cant win without us, nor can any cosnervative movement.

Frankly I am getting sick of the ecocons and neocons and security cons running every damn thing.

I am more than ready to find a party that welcomes uswith open arms and build a new party while the Republicans rot in their own self-created Hell.

Fine by me; let the whole damn world burn.

[Cav Scout]

But the leftwing social reconstructionists, like the gay marriage fascists are using the government to push their bile. We social conservatives want the conservative movement to stand strong against this misuse of the government.

But people like you bug out when the going gets tough and you start to fear a little unpopular.

These forums are hostile to social conservatives and when social conservative themed thread appear, the social fascists and their neocon allies pile-on the thread and kill any interest in it by social conservatives. It is deliberate and purposeful and tolerated for some reason.

Meanwhile social conservatives seem to be kept on a very short leash and banned pretty darned quick for the most minor things.

I am still banned from the RF for saying something offensive about Baptists, though no Baptist evr complained and one said he did not see it as an intended slight. But I am still banned while some other posters with a very long history of yanking our chains get by with warning after warning.

This site is not friendly to social conservatives at all.




Well, guess what, Sherlock; the Republican Party cant win without us, nor can any cosnervative movement.

Frankly I am getting sick of the ecocons and neocons and security cons running every damn thing.

I am more than ready to find a party that welcomes uswith open arms and build a new party while the Republicans rot in their own self-created Hell.

Fine by me; let the whole damn world burn.

REally?

Hog wash! What is to bug out from? What you fail to realize is that no party is going to welcome you with open arms if you can not drop the pretense that your entire purpose is to push a social agenda. Exactly like the left is doing, on that I agree and I sure as hell do not run from them, nor will I run from you. You all simply fail to realize that you got a heckava lot further when you left the sky pilot in the church and off of the platform.

ecocon? Thats a new one on me btw. I am certianly not a neocon, what I am is a person who believes in solid conservative government from all directions. ALL.

As to the rest of your silly post, that is hogwash too, it is not unfriendly to social conservatives, we would just like you to remember that there is more then one way to skin a cat.

I have no clue about the baptist thing, but if it helps you out any, I aint one...

[Marleysdaddy]

I am still banned from the RF for saying something offensive about Baptists

I don't think that is why you are still banned from the RF.

[Pudge]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?

Billy, look, I know you and I don't agree on social issues, but I wouldn't say that socio-cons aren't welcome here.

I think, honestly, that there are a lot of Republicans and Libertarians who blame socio-cons for the losing of the election. I don't, though. Yeah, Sarah Palin would have been a nightmare for those of us who don't support social conservatism but she was no worse than our last president on that end. Nothing would have stopped Obama's election. The GOP could have resurrected Reagan from the grave, made him 30 years younger, and he would have gone down in flames to the Obama machine.

I also think that over the years, the influence of social conservatives has waned. Desipte Republicans controlling the White House for most of the last 30 years and Congress for a good chunk of time, the general culture has moved away from the socially conservative ideal. People are generally less religious, more accepting of homosexuality, abortion remains about 50/50, and we're beginning to understand that outlawing a social ill or vice may not be the best, most efficient way to contain it.

Social ideology is best practiced among individuals, not propped up by law. That's my thought on it. As long as I'm not subsidizing what you're doing and it's not affecting me or mine, it's not my business what you do. I don't have to like it, but to me, that's freedom. Liberty is the one thing you can't have unless you're willing to give it to others.

[Pudge]

I think there are a lot of social conservatives, seems to be anyway. Maybe they are in the Religion Forum.

I agree. Many hide out there because the rules of respect prevent people who disagree from challenging the basis of their beliefs, i.e. their religion. And I don't mean people being hostile to others' beliefs, but even slight criticism is enough to get a poster's access to the RF removed. I don't mind discussing religion, but to me, the RF is the kids' table of debate for people who need a sheltered forum so they can operate with impunity and be free from criticism on their foundations.

[johnrocks]

I agree. Many hide out there because the rules of respect prevent people who disagree from challenging the basis of their beliefs, i.e. their religion. And I don't mean people being hostile to others' beliefs, but even slight criticism is enough to get a poster's access to the RF removed. I don't mind discussing religion, but to me, the RF is the kids' table of debate for people who need a sheltered forum so they can operate with impunity and be free from criticism on their foundations.

I only made one post there to offer my condolences to someone who had posted they had lost a family member but I have lurked and I see posters that have been here for years with thousands of posts that I have never interacted with and never once saw their username outside that forum.

[Pudge]

But the leftwing social reconstructionists, like the gay marriage fascists are using the government to push their bile. We social conservatives want the conservative movement to stand strong against this misuse of the government.

What is a 'gay marriage fascist'?

To me, that would be someone who forces you into a gay marriage for the greater good of the state.

These forums are hostile to social conservatives and when social conservative themed thread appear, the social fascists and their neocon allies pile-on the thread and kill any interest in it by social conservatives. It is deliberate and purposeful and tolerated for some reason.

I've not seen that. I just think that social conservatives do not have a strong argument as to why their social policy beliefs must be reinforced by law.

Meanwhile social conservatives seem to be kept on a very short leash and banned pretty darned quick for the most minor things.

Again, I've not seen this. And most of our mods are social conservatives. People get banned for how they post on the forums, not because of their ideology.

I am still banned from the RF for saying something offensive about Baptists, though no Baptist evr complained and one said he did not see it as an intended slight. But I am still banned while some other posters with a very long history of yanking our chains get by with warning after warning.

This site is not friendly to social conservatives at all.

Ah, you have an axe to grind. Look, just because you couldn't adhere to the rules of respect in the RF doesn't mean that tyhe site is hostile to social conservatives. I don't know what you said nor do I care, the only thing that matters is that the moderators made a call. That you or the Baptist didn't see it as offensive is irrelevant. Other people visit these forums and read posts in the RF, what you said may have been offensive to someone else. This is a privately run site and your presence here is conditional upon the terms they set, and if you can't adhere to them, hey, there's the door. I don't wish to see you go, but if you find the rules too strict, there are other places you can go.

I am more than ready to find a party that welcomes uswith open arms and build a new party while the Republicans rot in their own self-created Hell.

Constitution Party seems to line up with you pretty well.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

There are plenty of social conservatives here. Where the heck do you get an idea that there is some sort of shortage of them them? Did you not notice the abundance of abortion and gay marriage threads here?

he's not getting enough support, apparently.

[Apatriot]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?

I think this place has a lot of social conservatives. However, I do agree that there are more social moderates that are otherwise conservative.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

But the leftwing social reconstructionists, like the gay marriage fascists are using the government to push their bile. We social conservatives want the conservative movement to stand strong against this misuse of the government.

But people like you bug out when the going gets tough and you start to fear a little unpopular.

These forums are hostile to social conservatives and when social conservative themed thread appear, the social fascists and their neocon allies pile-on the thread and kill any interest in it by social conservatives. It is deliberate and purposeful and tolerated for some reason.

Meanwhile social conservatives seem to be kept on a very short leash and banned pretty darned quick for the most minor things.

I am still banned from the RF for saying something offensive about Baptists, though no Baptist evr complained and one said he did not see it as an intended slight. But I am still banned while some other posters with a very long history of yanking our chains get by with warning after warning.

This site is not friendly to social conservatives at all.

Well, guess what, Sherlock; the Republican Party cant win without us, nor can any cosnervative movement.

Frankly I am getting sick of the ecocons and neocons and security cons running every damn thing.

I am more than ready to find a party that welcomes uswith open arms and build a new party while the Republicans rot in their own self-created Hell.

Fine by me; let the whole damn world burn.

Has it ever occurred to you that the numbers of social conservatives out there might actually be dwindling?

[LoneStarHero]

Social ideology is best practiced among individuals, not propped up by law. That's my thought on it. As long as I'm not subsidizing what you're doing and it's not affecting me or mine, it's not my business what you do. I don't have to like it, but to me, that's freedom. Liberty is the one thing you can't have unless you're willing to give it to others.

Don't you subsidize practices abhorrent to somebody with your tax dollars?

Anti-abortion people fund abortions and other birth control against their beliefs. Anti-war people fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The government doesn't give us the choice on what we will subsidize.

[brouski]

<snip>Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?<snip>Do you want my honest opinion?

I think it's because social conservatives have a sense of entitlement and moral superiority, magnified by the surroundings of a predominately conservative message board. They're the ones who think they can post without consequence, and are surprised to find the mods are legitimately fair and evenhanded in their rulings, even with the scummy liberals.

It doesn't help that the social conservatives think they have God on their side. God's not going to let them get banned, right?

[Ballygrl]

But the leftwing social reconstructionists, like the gay marriage fascists are using the government to push their bile. We social conservatives want the conservative movement to stand strong against this misuse of the government.

But people like you bug out when the going gets tough and you start to fear a little unpopular.

Absolutely NOT! Im personally against the term marriage for gay couples but I've always been for some type of protection for couples who've been together for years, at the time there wasn't a word for it, now it's called civil unions.

My personal belief when it comes to homosexuality is that people are born that way and that God loves them as much as he loves the rest of us, so I don't subscribe to the view that homosexuals are condemned. Those have always been my views and political correctness doesn't enter into my views.

[Marleysdaddy]

I agree. Many hide out there because the rules of respect prevent people who disagree from challenging the basis of their beliefs, i.e. their religion. And I don't mean people being hostile to others' beliefs, but even slight criticism is enough to get a poster's access to the RF removed. I don't mind discussing religion, but to me, the RF is the kids' table of debate for people who need a sheltered forum so they can operate with impunity and be free from criticism on their foundations.

Apparently, you must not have been in many threads in the RF in a while...I can tell you that there is no lack of critical analysis of ideas there...the Rules of Respect prevent the ad hominem comments that are so prevalent elsewhere (like WP) but do not prevent criticism in general.

[BrittleBullet]

Social conservatives should get some tougher skin.
Its only the internets.

[Old_Mil]

I agree. Many hide out there because the rules of respect prevent people who disagree from challenging the basis of their beliefs, i.e. their religion. And I don't mean people being hostile to others' beliefs, but even slight criticism is enough to get a poster's access to the RF removed. I don't mind discussing religion, but to me, the RF is the kids' table of debate for people who need a sheltered forum so they can operate with impunity and be free from criticism on their foundations.

The problem with the RF is that the rules are applied somewhat erratically. Plenty of threads criticizing Christianity are allowed to persist, but if you so much as suggest that Islam is an evil, bloodthirsty philosophy dreamt up by an illiterate camel herder, look out.

[birddog1]

Has it ever occurred to you that the numbers of social conservatives out there might actually be dwindling?

Maybe they have begun to figure out that we as a people can't legislate morality.

[Old_Mil]

Maybe they have begun to figure out that we as a people can't legislate morality.

Of course you can. I have yet to see anyone argue that murder should be legalized. The left just wants to legislate *its* morality.

[Dreamy]

What people claim to be on this internet message board and what they live are often not the same thing anyhow. I have seen it firsthand.

[birddog1]

Of course you can. I have yet to see anyone argue that murder should be legalized. The left just wants to legislate *its* morality.

Look up Prohibition and see what that did to the country.

[johnrocks]

Of course you can. I have yet to see anyone argue that murder should be legalized. The left just wants to legislate *its* morality.

murder is an act against someone else, smoking pot or Bill and Bob getting "hitched" isn't exactly in the same box of sins as murder,rape,robbery,child molestation,burgulary and a host of other crimes against someone or their property, that is what I have a problem with, people or government telling me what I can do in my own home, not if I can go shoot someone in cold blood, see the difference?:wall:

[LoneStarHero]

murder is an act against someone else, smoking pot or Bill and Bob getting "hitched" isn't exactly in the same box of sins as murder,rape,robbery,child molestation,burgulary and a host of other crimes against someone or their property, that is what I have a problem with, people or government telling me what I can do in my own home, not if I can go shoot someone in cold blood, see the difference?:wall:

The social conservatives around these boards, depend on red herrings for their arguments.

[Marleysdaddy]

<snip> Plenty of threads criticizing Christianity are allowed to persist, but if you so much as suggest that Islam is an evil, bloodthirsty philosophy dreamt up by an illiterate camel herder, look out.

1) The portion I snipped could be interpreted as COM...you might consider editing it.

2) Your claim is false. Respectful threads criticizing any religion are allowed to stand, and threads which disrespect any religion are removed.

3) Why is your example not parallel? I can assure you that a post which suggested that Christianity is a tyrannical, power-hungry philosophy dreamt up by an illiterate carpenter would be removed.

[Pudge]

Don't you subsidize practices abhorrent to somebody with your tax dollars?

Anti-abortion people fund abortions and other birth control against their beliefs. Anti-war people fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The government doesn't give us the choice on what we will subsidize.

Of course, and I usually speak out against things I oppose when I'm paying for them.

What I am saying, though, is that... take flag burning, for example. You want to burn an American flag to protest the war or some government policy or another- I don't like it. I will probably not pay attention to why you're burning the flag. I might even call you a few choice names and walk off. But I respect the person's right to burn the flag, even if I find it offensive.

You want to smoke weed that you grew or bought in your own home, you're not driving a car or doing anything to put anyone else at risk? Have at it. I don't do it, I don't like it, but it's not my business.

That's my point.

[Pudge]

Apparently, you must not have been in many threads in the RF in a while...I can tell you that there is no lack of critical analysis of ideas there...the Rules of Respect prevent the ad hominem comments that are so prevalent elsewhere (like WP) but do not prevent criticism in general.

I don't agree. I got a 72-hour timeout for a mild criticism of a point made by one of the RF regulars who rarely ventures out into the other forums. Since then, whenever I post in the RF, it's brief, very general, and quite rare. It's not because I don't respect other people, it's because there are too many people who play the wounded deer and cry about perfectly valid, non-attacking criticisms. Look, I understand those are the rules of the RF- fine. But there's a reason I don't go there. I don't like to box with kid gloves.

[Pudge]

The problem with the RF is that the rules are applied somewhat erratically. Plenty of threads criticizing Christianity are allowed to persist, but if you so much as suggest that Islam is an evil, bloodthirsty philosophy dreamt up by an illiterate camel herder, look out.

I suspect that the reason for that is because there are a lot of Christians and there's a tendency to dogpile. I don't agree with the double standard but when you're in the majority, you tend to get the lion's share of criticism. Again, I don't hang out there much, so I don't know what slides by and what doesn't. I can only judge from my own experience, and decided that it wasn't worth posting there and having to fight mod complaints, bait & banners, and generally people who can't take criticism of their faith without believing that they're being persecuted.

[Pudge]

Of course you can. I have yet to see anyone argue that murder should be legalized. The left just wants to legislate *its* morality.

Is murder illegal because it's immoral, or is it illegal because it deprives another individual of their right to life, and because a society where murder is legal would probably not survive?

[Pudge]

1) The portion I snipped could be interpreted as COM...you might consider editing it.

I don't think so, since it's not attacking a particular mod or ruling. Even the mods say that they judge on a case-by-case basis, which can give the appearance of being erratic. One offense gets no sanction, the other gets the poster booted from the RF. Why is entirely up to the mods, who have more information about a poster and their general history, the tenor of their postings in general, and so on. But on the surface, it can appear that two similar offenses get ruled on differently.

[Pudge]

There are no secular reasons to outlaw either abortion or gay marriage.

The latter, I agree with.

The former- I believe that an unborn child is an individual and as such, it should have the rights of an individual. Because it cannot speak or survive without the mother is no reason to deny them those rights, if that were the case we would allow for post-natal 'abortions' since babies and toddlers can't survive without depending on anyone else or give voice to their own status.

There are so many ways to not get pregnant, and I don't believe that irresponsibility should be rewarded with the legal right to kill a child. I may not agree that the law is a perfect solution to this, but I do think that abortion is horribly wrong and as a civilized society we ought to find a way to do away with this barbaric, drastic, and terribly shameful practice.

[bella-day]

No social conservatives posting on this forum? Oh please!:rolleyes:

Does that translate into...people you do not feel match what you perceive to be your social conservative agenda?

Who died and left you in charge of judging the beliefs, thoughts, principles, and ideas of others?

Is this little rant based on the slamming that the OP of the funniest thread I've seen posted for sometime received?

Have you ever stopped to consider that particular thread may not have been what it was presented to be? It wouldn't be the first time that some lib posted something they felt was the "conservative view" on a specific subject but were not bright enough to understand the conservatives will see them for the caricature they really are.

The thread wasn't about "social conservativism." That thread was about stereotypes of the ugliest kind. The OP got the brand of response that was deserved for some of their stupid statements.

I don't buy into the stereotypes. Individuals are just that...individuals and should be respected as such.

I guess in your book...that makes me one of those people you are bellyaching about.

Oh well. If I do not meet your definition of a "social conservative," it really doesn't matter. I do not need another person to define who I am...I'm bright and insightful enough to know who I am and for what I stand.

[Marleysdaddy]

But on the surface, it can appear that two similar offenses get ruled on differently. (emphasis mine)

This is the important part that I thought was missing from the other poster's statement.

[ChloeP]

The reason many alleged social conservatives come on and get banned in a heartbeat is because they come on expecting everyone else on these boards to have the same opinion that they do. This IS an open community with members from every background. All of them deserve to express their opinions without being called names or being attacked because of it. But in thread after thread you will see people shouting LIB at other posters just because their opinion is different when in many cases said opinion has little or nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. These people also often come across as trolls looking to pick a fight from post one.

[Dreamy]

Where is the evidence that social conservatism is the best route or life to live?

[CID_0687]

I get the drift that most dont feel welcome here.

They get flooded with hostile posts if they ever start a thread on a topic from a social conservatives point of view, whether it be abortion or homosexual perversions or legalising prostitution.

Isnt this the *Sean Hannity* message boards? In his show he seems to be fairly conservative on social issues, so why doesnt that range of conservatism find as predominate a majority as do economic and security conservative threads do? Why do so many social conservatives seem to get banned here in one form or another?

I have had three different people email me about leaving this message board and a couple send me complaints about one vice or another via private message here as well.

Why is there such a predominate hostility to social conservatives on these boards?

Is Sean aware of this or is this what he prefers to be the case here anyway?
I'm socially conservative, for the most part...I choose not to get involved in some of the social debates though, simply because it can become extremely heated, and I have a bit of a temper.

I've done fairly well on this board with not being banned or placed on a time out, I intend to keep it that way, and if that means self moderation on certain topics then I'll continue to do so.

[BillyBobUSA]

No social conservatives posting on this forum? Oh please!:rolleyes:

?????

Who said *no* social conservatives post here?

With that start, I wont bother reading the rest of the post; why bother?

[BillyBobUSA]

The reason many alleged social conservatives come on and get banned in a heartbeat is because they come on expecting everyone else on these boards to have the same opinion that they do. This IS an open community with members from every background. All of them deserve to express their opinions without being called names or being attacked because of it. But in thread after thread you will see people shouting LIB at other posters just because their opinion is different when in many cases said opinion has little or nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. These people also often come across as trolls looking to pick a fight from post one.


Oh, bull.

[BillyBobUSA]

I'm socially conservative, for the most part...I choose not to get involved in some of the social debates though, simply because it can become extremely heated, and I have a bit of a temper.

I've done fairly well on this board with not being banned or placed on a time out, I intend to keep it that way, and if that means self moderation on certain topics then I'll continue to do so.


Congrats.

Your absense when other social conservatives are getting beat up is noted.

Thanks.

[CID_0687]

Congrats.

Your absense when other social conservatives are getting beat up is noted.

Thanks.
Hey, no problem. Always glad to be able to help the cause.

[BillyBobUSA]

REally?

Hog wash! What is to bug out from? What you fail to realize is that no party is going to welcome you with open arms if you can not drop the pretense that your entire purpose is to push a social agenda. Exactly like the left is doing, on that I agree and I sure as hell do not run from them, nor will I run from you. You all simply fail to realize that you got a heckava lot further when you left the sky pilot in the church and off of the platform.

ecocon? Thats a new one on me btw. I am certianly not a neocon, what I am is a person who believes in solid conservative government from all directions. ALL.

As to the rest of your silly post, that is hogwash too, it is not unfriendly to social conservatives, we would just like you to remember that there is more then one way to skin a cat.

I have no clue about the baptist thing, but if it helps you out any, I aint one...

Your response simply makes no sense to me at any level, except the not being a Baptist thing.

Dont bother responding to me any more as I dont plant to waste any more time with neocons that dont realise that they are neocons.

[Dreamy]

Congrats.

Your absense when other social conservatives are getting beat up is noted.

Thanks.


Conservatives are not a very unified group in my opinion.

But that said,I can tell you that at times I was alone on threads where liberals outnumbered me greatly. There are some guests who never even debate politics or much else but are here every day. Not sure what that says about conservatism or the board in general. Seems some people are simply not into debates here on a message board debate forum. Go figure.

[CID_0687]

Conservatives are not a very unified group in my opinion.

But that said,I can tell you that at times I was alone on threads where liberals outnumbered me greatly. There are some guests who never even debate politics or much else but are here every day. Not sure what that says about conservatism or the board in general. Seems some people are simply not into debates here on a message board debate forum. Go figure.
That sounds about right.

If you look at my post count, and were able to see where all my posts are it would probably be something like:

TP: 40%
RF: 40%
GIT: 15%
WP: 5%

It has to be a very important issue for me to debate it. I'm pretty much here just to have fun. There's nothing accomplished by arguing with a lib over an issue on here, it's trivial. I've gotta be in the mood for it...Most of the time I'm in more of a mood to discuss religion, or slack off in TP.

But there are some who take things way to serious............................

[Dreamy]

That sounds about right.

If you look at my post count, and were able to see where all my posts are it would probably be something like:

TP: 40%
RF: 40%
GIT: 15%
WP: 5%

It has to be a very important issue for me to debate it. I'm pretty much here just to have fun. There's nothing accomplished by arguing with a lib over an issue on here, it's trivial. I've gotta be in the mood for it...Most of the time I'm in more of a mood to discuss religion, or slack off in TP.

But there are some who take things way to serious............................

Well in truth debating is something you either like or do not. This being a political board I am actually surprised how many come here and never debate politics. I do like to debate politics but like anything I too have to be in the mood and the topic has to draw me in. Also I have never debated planning to accomplish anything. It is a love and a pasttime. Nothing is accomplished on any forum here. But compared to TP at least in other forums we work our gray matter which is always a good thing. I have an interest in the world around me. I like to read opinions,offer mine and sometimes with a good reasonable posters "spar" some.

And I like the mix of political views Billy. Would want it any other way.

[CID_0687]

Well in truth debating is something you either like or do not. This being a political board I am actually surprised how many come here and never debate politics. I do like to debate politics but like anything I too have to be in the mood and the topic has to draw me in. Also I have never debated planning to accomplish anything. It is a love and a pasttime. Nothing is accomplished on any forum here. But compared to TP at least in other forums we work our gray matter which is always a good thing. I have an interest in the world around me. I like to read opinions,offer mine and sometimes with a good reasonable posters "spar" some.

And I like the mix of political views Billy. Would want it any other way.
Yeah, what she said.

Dreamy always waxes more eloquently than I.

[Dreamy]

Yeah, what she said.

Dreamy always waxes more eloquently than I.

I pahk the cah betta too. :))

[CID_0687]

I pahk the cah betta too. :))
:lol:

[bella-day]

?????

Who said *no* social conservatives post here?

With that start, I wont bother reading the rest of the post; why bother?


You are right.

I'm sure I said nothing of any relevance to you.

Something I've noticed about your little thread...if people do not agree with every word you post they are not worth your while.

Maybe you should start and thread and debate yourself.

:D

[CID_0687]

You are right.

I'm sure I said nothing of any relevance to you.

Something I've noticed about your little thread...if people do not agree with every word you post they are not worth your while.

Maybe you should start and thread and debate yourself.

:D
I've noticed that about other threads by the same poster.

Just sayin'. :whistle:

[bella-day]

I've noticed that about other threads by the same poster.

Just sayin'. :whistle:


Meh, we just aren't conservative enough for this one.

;)

[ChloeP]

You are right.

I'm sure I said nothing of any relevance to you.

Something I've noticed about your little thread...if people do not agree with every word you post they are not worth your while.

Maybe you should start and thread and debate yourself.

:D

Bella, that's just what I was thinking. And how not fun would life be if we all thought exactly the same all the time...

[CID_0687]

Yep...sure would be a short lived forum if every post was, "+1".

[BillyBobUSA]

You are right.

I'm sure I said nothing of any relevance to you.

Something I've noticed about your little thread...if people do not agree with every word you post they are not worth your while.

Maybe you should start and thread and debate yourself.

:D


Thanks for the advice; at least you actually read that response.

[BillyBobUSA]

Yep...sure would be a short lived forum if every post was, "+1".

You almost have that with all the antiChristians that post here.

There is nothing remotely like all Christians, btw.

Nothing like a relevant response.

[BillyBobUSA]

And I like the mix of political views Billy. Would want it any other way.

I do too, but right now the boards seem to have far too much fruit and nuts for my taste - I like some good ole red meat most of the time.

[CID_0687]

You almost have that with all the antiChristians that post here.

There is nothing remotely like all Christians, btw.

Nothing like a relevant response.
Now you've moved on from social conservatives to Christians?

Or can you not be a social conservative if you're not a Christian?

[ChloeP]

now you've moved on from social conservatives to christians?

Or can you not be a social conservative if you're not a christian?


+1







;)

[CID_0687]

+1







;)
:))

[bella-day]

Thanks for the advice; at least you actually read that response.


Ha! That's more than you can say about my response huh?:))

I read your OP as sad as it is...too bad you are unable to extend the same courtesy to others.

You would do better debating you. You seem to be the only person you are able to agree with for even a second.

BTW, there are tons of social conservatives that post here. Not all of them buy into are sanction stereotypes.

[bella-day]

Bella, that's just what I was thinking. And how not fun would life be if we all thought exactly the same all the time...


One would have to be a very insecure individual to even desire such.

[Dreamy]

I do too, but right now the boards seem to have far too much fruit and nuts for my taste - I like some good ole red meat most of the time.

Really Billy? :eh:Ok this fruity nut will post less.

Ok seriously what is it you think is lacking? Specifics if you will.

[Cav Scout]

Your response simply makes no sense to me at any level, except the not being a Baptist thing.

Dont bother responding to me any more as I dont plant to waste any more time with neocons that dont realise that they are neocons.

Oh please.

You want an example of a Neo Con, see: Lindsy Grahm.

Now if you can not simply understand that Every different version of the Social agenda including the lefts does not belong in government then you are not any type of conservative, you are in fact a member of the Far Religious Right who thinks that a Preacher should be in office.

We do not need that.

You do not know how touched I am that you understand I am not a baptist...

Now for the irony, I am Synod Lutheran.

[Cav Scout]

I do too, but right now the boards seem to have far too much fruit and nuts for my taste - I like some good ole red meat most of the time.

Any time you want a Steak you just let me know, lent is over so I will carve you up a hunk of buffalo. There is plenty of red meat on this board.

[Broseph]

I think there are a lot of social conservatives, seems to be anyway. Maybe they are in the Religion Forum.

:)):))

Haha, I am a weekly church attender, but I am no social con, and that post made me laugh.

[Point Blank Gratte]

Social populaism is generaly disenfranchised in the west. People think that a few decades ago we were so much different. Not really, people were popping morphine pills like candy, there was legal prostitution, abortion was still legal, just generaly more regulated.

The only real difference was we didn't go crazy with the leftwing rhetoric. That's where we went wrong... And that's what the right tries to argue. The left in this country loves to lie, so they outright lie and claim the right wants to "control our bodies". When that's not the case at all. The right just wants some realistic laws, and to be left the hell alone. The "Christian-Right" has always been, and probably will always be a minority in this country. For better or for worse.

I myself am not socialy conservative. (Well, I suppose on abortion I am. But I find it deplorable we live in a society that asscosiates killing babies with "freedom". I figured supposedly educated people had enough sense to know better..) And most strict constitutionalists aren't. Even though you'll hear rumors that constitutionalists are Christian conspiracy nuts. But if you ever actually talked to one. They're basically hippies in camaflauge.

[AeroEngineer]

Your response simply makes no sense to me at any level, except the not being a Baptist thing.

Dont bother responding to me any more as I dont plant to waste any more time with neocons that dont realise that they are neocons.

CavScout isn't a neocon... he's a badass.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I am extremely socially conservative.
Like most smart ones though, I tend to think Government should stay the hell out of it and let me be a father to my kids and that is that.
I do not come here to listen to somebody scream about the Governemt not making social issues the topic of the day. The libs do that to darn much already.
So if that is the "barbarianism" of which you speak, you can stuff it.
The Government has no place in these issues.
Nor do they in the government.
I am sick of the Pat Robertson crowd and the book burners.
They need to shut the hell up.
I find the OP rather confusing.

Wouldn't a true social conservative want the government to stay the hell out of people's business--- to include allowing same sex marriage if that is what they so desire.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Frankly I am getting sick of the ecocons and neocons and security cons running every damn thing.


Yet your bunch wants to dictate how others should live their lives.

[CID_0687]

I find the OP rather confusing.

Wouldn't a true social conservative want the government to stay the hell out of people's business--- to include allowing same sex marriage if that is what they so desire.
Why should the gubmint be involved in any type of marriage anyway?

[AeroEngineer]

Yet your bunch wants to dictate how others should live their lives.

I'm trying to figure out which "cons" are left remaining from his list.

I guess the only "cons" that he thinks matter are social cons.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I do too, but right now the boards seem to have far too much fruit and nuts for my taste - I like some good ole red meat most of the time.

There ARE other forums on the interwebs. Some of them quite large, bigger than this one even.

[Pudge]

(emphasis mine)

This is the important part that I thought was missing from the other poster's statement.

Maybe, but I've seen a lot of people who don't understand the case-by-case policy of the mods, so I was giving the benefit of the doubt.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Why should the gubmint be involved in any type of marriage anyway?

I agree. The government can deal with legal contracts between two parties (consenting human adults... for those about to bring up pedophiles or someone marrying fido) and let the churches perform marriage ceremonies.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I'm trying to figure out which "cons" are left remaining from his list.

I guess the only "cons" that he thinks matter are social cons.

Those that agree with him 100%, you mean.

[AeroEngineer]

I agree. The government can deal with legal contracts between two parties (consenting human adults... for those about to bring up pedophiles or someone marrying fido) and let the churches perform marriage ceremonies.

You left yourself open to the polygamist argument. :silenced:

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

You left yourself open to the polygamist argument. :silenced:
Well, I did say "two". But I noticed I left it open to incest.

Ahem.

Two human non-related consenting adults.

Does that cover it?

[Point Blank Gratte]

Why should the gubmint be involved in any type of marriage anyway?
That's what I've been saying all along lol! People asked me about gay marriage, and thought it was a big issue of mine cause I'd go on a longass rant. And it wasn't. Not in itself anyway. But everyone thinks government has to okay what we can and cannot do. That we need government to validate our love, our lives, our happiness.

No. Government is just there to capitalize, and protect your life and property. That's it. Anything else, is just some incoherent policey that is going to endup hurting you in the end..

I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all! No marriage liscences, no legal definition of what marriage is, no laws against X or Y marriages. Etc.

I'm however a rationalist. And know people love drama. And this will probably never happen. So if it really means that much to them, then leave it to the states. Which our forefathers suggested sense it doesn't involve national security or the treasury..

Proof is, some states do allow gay marriage. If your state doesn't, and you want it too. Get involved! But marriage is not a right. It's a belief. Marriage really isn't anything at all but a ritual. And I think it's ridiculous and downright dangerous how the left is trying to make it out to be something more. A sortof "social contract to shared property". Just what we need, more cryptic communist legislation!

Noone is entitled to forcing their beliefs on others. And frankly should at every turn be denied the ability to do so. Unless you know gays who are getting hanged or robbed, I don't really care about gay marriage, or gay people...

Ofcourse the prop 8 legislation didn't give me a choice like this. It either constitutionaly defined marriage as between man and a woman, or allowed gays to marry. Eitherway it decreed government has a place in telling me who I can and cannot get in bed with...

I voted yes on prop 8. Not because I wanted too, but given the option. I chose the lesser evil. Or should I say greater evil. Cause at the time I was single and thought "well if I can't get married, then I'll make sure gays can't either!" Misery loves company lol! And liberals are very VERY miserable!

[ChloeP]

why should the gubmint be involved in any type of marriage anyway?


+1

[WorldWatcher]

Well, I did say "two". But I noticed I left it open to incest.

Ahem.

Two human non-related consenting adults.

Does that cover it?


In marriage threads I usually use comparing two similarly situated law abiding, infertile, tax paying, consenting adults.


Such as...


When determining the States compelling interest, similar groups must be compared to determine if one is being unfairly discriminated against. In this case (Civil Marriage) those groups would be law abiding, infertile, tax paying, consenting different-sex couples and law abiding, infertile, tax paying, consenting same-sex couples.


A little "wordy" true, but there are certain posters that like to play word games and state that same-sex couples can get married, just not have government recognition when obviously the discussion is about their treatment under the law (Civil v. Religious Marriage). Hence the tendency to be verbose.



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Now you've moved on from social conservatives to Christians?

Or can you not be a social conservative if you're not a Christian?

Christians can't be anything but gay-bashing, bible-clutching gun nuts.

Haven't you been paying attention?

;)

[Dr. Funkenstein]

+1


;)

SOMEONE's post-count boosting.

I support this.

[ChloeP]

SOMEONE's post-count boosting.

I support this.

LOL...Actually I'm agreeing with everything CID says...it makes his world a happy place ;)

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Yeah, what she said.

Dreamy always waxes more eloquently than I.

Never talk about how you wax ever again.

I'm warning you.

[Dreamy]

I think I am a bi-social conservative.

Seriously who cares? I do my thing. I don 't break the law. I don't force my beliefs on others. I think people are much more complex than any label.

I truly wish we could ditch many of the labels we give each other. They are rarely accurate when applied to people.

[Marleysdaddy]

I think people are much more complex than any label.

Not on these forums :razz: