The label itself implies that only the values of the religious right qualify as true values. You may not agree with my values, but they are values none the less.

I think that the religious right has finally figured out they’ve been sold a bill of goods by their leaders, and are simply loosing interest.

Moreover, the values of the powerful religious right don’t necessarily line up with the values of religious people as a whole. I mean, let’s face it, Jesus spent a lot more time talking about feeding the poor than sexual orientation.

Which was controlled by The Church!! He wasn’t ruled incorrect through peer review, he was branded a heretic! Wow. Bad argument.

I still say “Values Voters” are declining.

Abortion is the ONLY ‘winning’ issue these people have.

Without abortion, George Bush would be sitting on a barstool in Crawford right now (and we’d all be better off). Bush wanted their vote so he could pick there pockets. Personally, as a fiscally conservative white male, I wish we could overturn RvW just so we could get rid of these opportunistic thieves. Bush couldn’t care less about gay marriage or abortion. His loyalty is to his economic class — he would sooner invite a millionaire gay abortionist to dinner than some poor but pious abortion activist. I’m not singling out Bush, I mean the whole ‘conservative’ establishment. NONE of the current candidates are sincere about their ‘religious’ credentials.

Abortion is the ONLY ‘winning’ issue these people have, and personally, I’d like to take it away from them.

The only reason I also brought up the wedding dress or the age of the universe is to show one of the reasons the Falwell/Robertson model of politics/Christianity will continue to dwindle – it sounds and is uneducated.

BC Muse, I think you’re absolutely on to something. People love to shout that abortion is a losing issue and no one cares even as polls show increasing number of young people are pro-life and that the pro-abortion side is losing over time. The goal is to make it appear true and to get people to believe it, so they conclude it’s hopeless.

I think this specific post stands in pretty strong support of your comments within the post based on the number of comments on the post.

You picked a socially conservative stance and you’ve garnered more comments for it than any other post currently up on your homepage. Unfortunately, the only ones commenting are folks that disagree with you. Their contribution is to disagree (no problems there whatsoever) and to try and deflect attention away from the original points you made while trying to get you to sound silly (in their opinion, anyway) in order to marginalize you or to get your rationale views indelibly linked to irrational ones.

A similar thing happened to me in a recent series on abortion that I did. Only one other conservative blogger chimed in and that one only very late in the game despite his being the actual catalyst that prompted a 3 post series on the topic.

I’m not sure what it means but it’s interesting. Tennessee or Idaho, the same thing is going on. At the risk of sounding silly, it’s almost as if there’s a concerted effort to keep certain topics under pressure. But why? I’m reminded of one of my kids’ movies, ‘A Bug’s Life’. A small group of surly grasshoppers were able to suppress a much larger group of ants by intimidation. The one fear the grasshoppers had was that one day the ants would realize their numbers made them more powerful and they would throw off the grasshoppers rule.

I don’t know that’s what’s happening here but it’s an interesting avenue to explore.

Adam, thanks for both the link and for making me think a little bit in odd directions.

Blue

Drug dealers don’t pay taxes

Pimps/prostitutes don’t pay taxes

Many Drug addicts die(don’t pay s.s) or end up in prison for possession or theft. They don’t pay s.s, and incarceration is a heavy burden on the taxpayer.

The % of severe mental illness is surprisingly high in impoverished communities. The mentally ill either live on the street (don’t pay) or get benefits (s.s. or otherwise)

Single mothers earning minimum wage receive more in benefits (s.s. or otherwise) than they pay.

Minimum wage earners/day workers get all their medical attention at ER’s, which costs the taxpayer.

Impoverished communities typically have underground economies, i.e. many don’t pay s.s.

I could go on for pages. Again, I am absolutely NOT saying the world would be better off without these people.

I’m merely saying that your argument about s.s. is specious at best. Simply not the real world. The picture you paint is ridiculously oversimplified.

Thanks for the discussion, Adam. I’m sure “the argument still stands”, but I’m done. I’ll pick out one of those other 50,000 blogs to read.

I’m not arguing for income redistribution or more social programs. It is just a simple fact that people born into bad situations are much less likely to be successful, and therefore less likely to contribute to s.s.

It’s not liberal or conservative, it’s just a simple fact. Ideology doesn’t enter into the argument until one considers what, if anything, to do about it.

You know, many many people find it insulting to have their complex and considered opinions reduced to stereotypes like “liberal propaganda”. Ya, I’s jus a dumb chick, and i jussa beleve wat des tels me.

Get a life.

As to the age of the Earth, I scanned the post and I don’t see that was a topic of what I wrote. I’m not going to answer. I lean towards a younger Earth, but I’m not all dogmatic about it.

Believe it or not, Adam, there are true Christians that are environmentalists and against gun control. Where do they fit? Some actually believe that abortion is humane in certain circumstances and Adam The Blogger has no say in the matter. Where does that fit in the GSS?

Also, Jay, are you arguing the ones having the kids are Socially Liberal Republicans. Not likely. Religious folks tend to have more kids than non-religious and if conservatives have more than a liberal, it’s not a giant leap to assume social conservatives are having the kids.

And Abby, poverty is a transitory state for most kids, it’s not a forever thing despite the liberal propaganda.

As far as the wedding dress, I hate what some people do with their free speech rights but I’m not about to advocate for them to lose those rights.

You never said how old you think the universe is. How old?

And why can’t these “wedding dress” women find a good seamstress?

If it’s a question of out-breeding, then it’s just a matter of time before we’re all speaking Spanish.

¿Donde esta la biblioteca?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831

It’s the real problem for liberals. As for the wedding dress thing, if you want to publicly say a woman should not have the right to get an abortion if she just wants to fit in her wedding dress then it won’t apply, but you can’t, and neither can any major pro-choice person.

By quoting him I assumed you agreed with him. My bad.

Picking out one of the most depraved reasons a woman could use to rationalize an abortion does not cover the whole issue and puts a Strawwoman in said wedding dress. Very Surberish of you.

Finally, your anecdotal anthropology is underwhelming.

As to my argument on social security, I don’t consider the argument callous, I consider it factual, and a movement that believes women should be able to get an abortion to fit into a wedding dress would not be well-advised to talk about “calloused.”

Currently we don’t have a label for people whose primary philosophical concern is their pocketbooks.

What?!!! It’s called Libertarianism!! Really! Look it up!

Seriously, Adam, the average American agrees with Giuliani that abortion should be legal but rare, gays should be allowed the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and, unlike Rudy, that tax cuts can do more harm than good in some cases. Reagan was wrong – deficits do matter.

In short, “Values Voters” are becoming more marginal and the content of right-wing blogs reflects this.