Redstate

But for the life of the mother.

Let local and state governments display religious symbols without balancing pop culture detritus.

A Federal Marriage Amendment.

Congress removing some issue -- any issue -- from the Article III Courts' review.

An end to no-fault divorce. That's from a former divorce lawyer (among other things).

That's an initial list.

do a complete review, assessment and realignment, both jurisdictionally and territorially, of the Federal Judiciary.  Complete with committee hearings shown 24/7 on C-SPAN.

Since a large part of the judiciary wishes to legislate from the bench, they should be exposed to the same public scrutiny as the other two branches of our federal government.

Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion marketing campaigns.

End abortion except for the life of the mother.

--In the absence of the above, ban all federal funding for any purpose whatsoever to any organization, activity, or state agency that either performs abortions or assists in procuring abortions.

End no-fault divorce.

--While ambivalent about the covenant marriage movement, if the state is going to be expected to pick up the aftermath of failed marriages by funding divorce courts then perhaps it should take a tad bit of responsibility up front.

Federal Marriage Amendment, regardless of the success of DOMA. We need to drive a stake through the heart of the "marriage is a right" movement while we can.

Support adoption.

--To the extent allowable under law, ensure parental rights are forever and unequivocably terminated by adoption. Make adoption permissible on the decision of the mother alone unless the father is jointly custodial and the couple are married.

Stop supporting anti-social behavior.

--To the extent that we wish the federal government involved in the issuance of housing vouchers, issuance of food stamps, or income maintenance programs, make these programs available to families with a jointly residing, married, husband and wife.

Break the public education mafia.

--School vouchers.

--Stop federal funding to school districts and states who fail to actively encourage charter schools or who resist the ability of parents to homeschool.

--Get rid of Title IX. Period.

--Aggressively defend the Solomon Amendment and appoint an Assistant Attorney General to seek out cases to prosecute.

to everything that has been suggested already, I would like to see states and localities regain the authority to set standards of public decency, so that the persupposition of participation in the culture will NOT  be that one will have to tolerate obscenity, ceaseless sexual discourse and ever-coarsening vulgarity, whether it be at sporting events or on TV.  I would like to see a "brown wrapper" approach to this stuff: the public spaces are for families; perverts, whackjobs and people who like to shout obscenities can do it in their own homes.  It shouldn't be the default, but the stuff ones has to seek out.  

And as long as there is going to be an FCC, it should be used to render public airwaves a little more friendly to families; the stuff that airs at 5 PM is the stuff you had to wait until 11 to see when I grew up - in the 1980s.

But about adoption: Don't you want to add that only heterosexual couples be allowed to adopt?

Glad to see I've not at all misapprehended the Conservative agenda.

and it is customary for guests to show a bit of courtesy.

Now I have observed that isn't your natural state but please re-read Mike's instructions for posting on this thread and try just a little bit to realize you are in someone else's house where you and your opinions are expendable.

Or are adoptions by gay people and single people NOT something the social conservative wants to see eliminated?

I am NOT being snarky, nor trying to argue. Just clarify.

and you don't have the good manners to butt out.

I don't have to clarify squat to you of all people.

is on your end.

I've politely asked you the same question twice and received rebukes and veiled insults.

I apologize for any offense I have caused, but I'm pretty sure there ARE social conservatives who would like to see adoptions limited to heterosexual married couples.

Hence my question. I guess I'll asume your answer to be in the affirmative, as he who says nothing is understood to assent.

I'd add only some kind of Freedom in Academia act, especially covering our institutions of higher learning.

I'd also point out that a national TABOR is perfectly within the purview of Social Conservativism, but that might be out of place in this thread.

This is NOT the place to snipe, argue, debate, etc. Conduct any such activities and I'll send Thomas and Streiff to your neighborhood.

I guess he sent 'em.

Legislation at the Constitutional level protecting the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity by the all levels of Government in a non-denominational fashion.  Would forestall the eventual scrubbing of all signs of the Deity from government.

Complete reform of the health care system.  This would start with a clean slate and focus on implementing minimal regulation, mostly aimed at mandating features that reduce cost and waste.  Waste centers around transaction costs and excessive legal costs.  Would go so far as to facilitate (through transparency) market-based forces for the pricing of healthcare goods and services.  (Although these principles are conservative, the implementation will not appear as such!)  The ideal is that people will have incentive to "shop around" for the best deal, rather than to simply go whereever their insurance is taken, no matter the price charged.

She is asking a fair question, and it doesn't seem to me like she wants to be snarky or argumentative, just a point of clarification.  Simply because she's not a social conservative doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to ask those of us that are a few questions.  At worst, the initial way she phrased it was a bit sarcastic, but it's forgiveable.

In any case, I don't claim to speak for streiff, but insofar as I think married couples should have very strong preference in adoption queues, gay couples probably would not be allowed to adopt, or would only be able to adopt if there were absolutely no willing heterosexual married people.  While I do not think growing up in a homosexual parental situation is normal or healthy for a child, I feel that loving gay parents are still better than having a child live his or her childhood as a ward of the state.  No one makes a worse parent than the government.  That is why I don't think I would go so far as to ban gay adoption altogether.

I purposely chose not to post on this thread because social conservatism is not the aspect of conservatism most important to me; however, I have chosen to read it out of interest.  

But I was curious exactly which poster you were targeting as the troll or interloper here.  Maryscott O'Connor's post didn't seem out of line at all, but she appears to be the object of your ire.  In fact, I felt her question was perfectly thoughtful and germane to the topic of social conservatism, even if not a subject I am keenly interested in.  Feel free to level your guns at me, but I felt compelled to defend her honor here, as I have not known any of her posts on any thread to be negative or disruptive in nature.

Again, feel free to shout me out of here, but I don't see any Flinstones around here.

Great list so far, and I'd like to tack on one of my own.

Repeal EMTALA- someone above mentioned health care, but more in a economically/fiscally conservative sense.  From a socially conservative stance, EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) makes a mockery of our country's immigration laws, and is wrecking hospitals in the Southwest, especially where I live (Arizona).  Essentially, EMTALA requires that all people must be provided emergency medical care, regardless of whether they have insurance or proof of citizenship.  While that sounds fine on paper (I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment), it has predictably gotten out of control.  "Emergency medical care" is so nebulous as to be impossible to define, and illegal immigrants often show up in hospitals with chest colds requesting emergency care, and EMTALA requires that emergency room physicians screen and provide some form of treatment before releasing them.  Illegal immigrants also caught onto the concept of "anchor babies," where they have their children in a hospital, then use EMTALA to stay there for long periods of time at hospital expense.  Physicians are not reinbursed for treating those who can't pay and/or aren't citizens, which is causing many hospitals in cities with large immigrant populations to shut down.  All in all, a losing proposition.

I second about thirty times over the Federal Marriage Amendment to "drive a stake through the heart of the 'marriage is a right' movement," as streiff put it.

I've always been a fan of reforming low-income housing, specifically doing everything possible to allow/encourage residents to purchase their homes - it's the prosperity solution to so many other problems. Granted, it's a bit of entanglement, but overwhelmingly preferable, in my mind, to the current situation.

I think you are correct, but historically I would offer

This and

This and

This and

This complete with this bizarre defense and

This and

Do I really need to go on?

I don't sit around looking for her posts, if that's what you mean, but I've come across several.  And even if she DID mean to be argumentative, this particular post hardly fit the bill.  And if nothing else, even if her intent was otherwise, the question was very valid, as AaronVB pointed out.

I would gladly trade a clean-up of popular culture in the public view for a cessation of hostilities against those who want to buy/sell/trade pornographic material (save for child pornography, of course) in private business transactions among those of majority age.  For example, there was a case where an overzealous prosecutor in Tennessee tried ordering some smut from California, and then tried prosecuting them based on said material not meeting his community standard in Tennessee.  If we allow that, then the most rigid local community standard becomes the de facto national standard, and I don't think Tennessee has a right to tell residents of California what they can buy or sell any more than the reverse.

Kossack who can get quite vile over there at times.  Her purpose here is to stir the pot.  Nothing more.

Krempasky specifically asked that we not do that on this thread.  She did it, Streiff came after her, and there you have it.  My guess is if she keeps it up, she'll go the way of her fellow Kossack that Thomas FINALLY banned last night.

I might add ABOR to your list of educational initiatives and return control of the educational curriculum in government schools to local school boards.

A decidedly more conservative composition, or more accurately described as constitutionalist composition, of the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court will go a long way toward resolving the balance of issues most important to social conservatives.

....yes, I would restrict adoption to traditional families, certainly.

For my part, I don't particularly think MSOC was out of line, here.  Considering how she behaves at dKos, we cannot accuse her of not making an effort at RS.  Give her some slack, folks.

All lobbyist activity to be held in a public forum.

Legislation for extremely harsh penalties concerning theft of federal monies on any level. Minimum 5 year sentense.

Public Accounting Division of Homeland Security. Division specifically and continuously audits the spending of all government branches.

Standardized federal voting system.

Border crossing and immigration truly studied and solution concieved.

Hard core and sincere efforts to stop "Asian Arms Race" before it starts.

It wouldn't surprise me if my behaviour HERE gave some the impression I have multiple personalitites.

: )

purchases material from California that is legal there but not in Tennessee then I would say the buyer is 100% at fault for breaking the law, not the seller. Why can't prosecution proceed on that basis? This would include international purchases as when French people buy Nazi trash on ebay, etc.

how any moral person (especially a Christian!) can oppose a law requiring medical treatment. The idea that people should be left to die in the streets for political reasons ought be abhorent to anyone with a scintilla of moral scruples. Even Timothy McVeigh and John Wayne Gacy received medical treament in prison despite being vastly more wicked than the average wetback. Of course illegal aliens should be treated fully-- and then promptly deported.

Re: To the extent that we wish the federal government involved in the issuance of housing vouchers, issuance of food stamps, or income maintenance programs, make these programs available to families with a jointly residing, married, husband and wife.

What about widows? Or wives whose husbands are absent on military duty?

Knock it off.

knock it off, or take it a new thread.

that is exactly what it means. And no it's not forgiveable. She deliberately continued to violate the rule for this thread after being asked not to.

And while your comments ref gay adoption are wee reasoned, unless you are making the case that social conservatives should suppor this, then I think you are drifting away from the stated purpose and rules of this thread.

of if you think is of no concern to me whatsoever.

I'm not a social conservative, so I won't try to add anything, but the types of entries are very interesting.

So far the list consists of life-style and personal morality issues. This has been the signature of the  Rove energizing-the-base strategy and apparently it has worked since it has brought a fair number of like-minded people together.

What I find interesting is the absence of concern for foreign policy issues, military matters (there are two wars on, after all), and national economic policy.

It seems to me that "social conservatives" have lost sight of the ball. The social causes listed here are mostly not important to the vast middle. This can be seen by apply the test: watch what I do, not what I say.

There are millions of abortions performed, pornography is at an all time high in terms of ease of access and very few people worry about things like religious symbols on government property, for example.

So the chances of all these pet conservative concerns being materially altered is slim.

In the meantime:

Hundreds of people are killed in Iraq each month.

A million people are in distress in the Sudan.

The world-wide AIDS epidemic is getting worse.

There is the prospect of a global climate change.

And domestically:

The standard of living for the middle and lower class is declining.

The cost of health care and education is getting unaffordable for many.

Retirement security is slipping away.

Solid middle-class employment prospects are diminishing.

The prison population is out of control and the associated police functions (mainly drug enforcement) are not working.

So rather than worry about these major problems we get the politically interested focussing on the fate of a handful of judges, or the viability of a cluster of 20-30 cells, or whether two people who live together can file a joint tax return.

Sorry, but in my opinion you have been lured into shifting your attention to symbolic issues, while the real life-altering issues of the day are down played. I apply this criticism to the left as well as the right.

the point to your comment.

I fail to see the point to your comment. Is there some reason for your hostility toward me?

I fail to see the point to your comment. Is there some reason for your hostility toward me?

Here, let me buy you a vowel:

Do you refer to people as 'wetbacks' in your daily speech among your friends?

that he was attributing that racism to the post to which he replied. Certainly there are less inflammatory ways to make the same point.

if I have given offense.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was attributing that racism to the post to which he replied

It was obvious to you. Consider the possibility that it was either (a) not at all obvious to someone of the red persuasion, or (b) an obnoxious and offensive attempt to attribute to racism that which was (obviously, to someone of the red persuasion) caused by some rather abstract thoughts about how economic resources are deployed.

We had discussed in previous threads that the fundamental assumptions about how the world works that define a congenital 'liberal' lead to the ineluctable conclusion that all conservatives must be motivated by racism, for nothing else explains their behavior. If conservatives are not motivated by racism, then cracks appear in the logical infrastructure of liberalism itself, leading first to cognitive dissonance and finally throbbing headaches.

So those of us here on the right understand well that amongst friends, and in the Real World, the poster would use the word 'wetback.' He would use it as an example of ConservativeSpeak, and all his friends would understand what he meant.

Those of us who Embrace The Red do not share your fundamental assumptions about how the world works. Do not quibble with this; just accept it.

Next, accept the fact that we are going to be quite put off when you attribute to racism that which we 'know' is not. 'Know' in that sentence means that starting from our fundamental assumptions about the world works, no logical process produces the result that racism accounts for anything in the post you referred to. Thus we are insulted, and pissed off.

And since this is not Daily Kos, but Red State, a moderator arrives to inform the poster that exhibiting either (a) racism, or (b) a tendency to attribute racism to people who are not racists, will lead to a bad end.

So at bottom this is one of those places where the Fundamental Assumptions collide, and where there is an opportunity for you — our honored guests — to learn something useful about those weird conservatives. That learning this will cause you to experience cognitive dissonance and ultimately headaches is, for us, a necessary evil.

Addressed in the post, not the comment.

This is not a debate thread. Knock off the sniping.

"Over the next two weeks - expect a similar effort to compile the interests of economic conservatives and conservatives in foreign policy. Think of it as an open-source platform efforts for our movement"

Now - if you don't have something to add to the list of things social conservatives believe or want - stay out of the thread.

these days in my futile and misguided efforts to clarify other people's comments. I'm starting to sympathize with Thomas on this issue, which is somewhat scary for me.

I didn't comment on whether I thought it was proper to attribute the sentiments in the original post to racism or not, so while I appreciate the 7 paragraph "Conservatives are NOT RACISTS" lecture, it doesn't really apply. Probably when you say accept the fact that we are going to be quite put off when you attribute to racism that which we 'know' is not the "you" is meant generally, or perhaps for Aleks; nevertheless, for the record, I don't think conservative==racist. But if you think it's an ineluctable conclusion that all liberals think all conservatives are necessarily racist, then my weak denial certainly isn't going to convince you otherwise.  

Which leaves the possibility that it was not at all obvious to someone of the red persuasion that the use of the term wetback was intended to disparage the original post, rather than being a genuine slur. Given the contents of the respective posts, I rather suspect most people of the "red persuasion" or otherwise will have little trouble sorting it all out, but hopefully anyone who is confused will be enlightened by your lucid explanation.

In any case, none of that makes the choice of wording appropriate, which I said. Since we essentially agree, all of this is a little silly, and also not in the spirit of what Mike wanted this thread to be, so I'll shut up now.

To quote from your original posting:

"This is NOT the place to snipe, argue, debate, etc."

So what's all that stuff earlier in the thread?

We should take this somewhere else. I see that Mike has asked that the thread not be further polluted with this stuff, so let us honor his wishes.

Was it sotonohito?

Some of these things were mentioned before but like someone from the other side once said about an overly lengthy debate.."Everything that needs to be said has already been said."... asked why it should continue he said,  "Not everybody has had a chance to say it yet."

-- Abortion returned to the states for legislation.  Make it illegal to transport a minor across a state line for an abortion or a drink.  I do believe that most abortions, maybe all, depending on how you define abortion, are out and out murder, but I also believe that police matters are state matters. (if the baby were a federal official it could be a federal problem).

-- No federal funding for abortions.

-- No federal tax write-off for abortions.

-- No federal funding for non-defense, non-transportation, non-communication research.  Common defense; Interstate Commerce; Foreign Relations; Rember Federal Areas vs State Areas of Responsibility?

-- No federal grants to colleges or universities.

-- No federal grants to students who aren't federal employees or sworn to the military or public health service.

-- Disband Department of Education.

-- Deny tax exemptions for children living with parents who are not married.

-- Deny tax exemptions for children whose parents are divorced.

-- Deny tax exemptions for non-related dependents living together.

-- Allow the states to prohibit adoptions except by married couples.

-- Allow states to support one or more churches with their tax money. (nb As a Catholic I would oppose allowing my church to take any, but heretics need support and ought to have it.)

-- End federal payments to states.  Cut federal taxes, raise state taxes... put the cost on the people who would benefit.

-- Allow states to condemn federal land not owned by the Defense Department, or National Park Service and sell it or put it to state use.

-- Allow states to regulate their own Social Security funds... experiment, laboratory of the states?  

with you when it's appropriate.  Give me a day or two and I'll make a post about healthcare and answer all questions.

I have a lovely discussion going with doverspa about this. I came here to better know the mind of the more REASONABLE right wing conservatives.

While it's probably a foregone conclusion that anything I say which reflects my ultra-liberal disposition will naturally be considered "stirring the pot" by some, to that I can only say: It's pretty damned hard to come here with genuine curiousity without simultaneously "giving away" that disposition.

I am a left wing Democrat who wishes there were less contention (but contributes to it constantly, admittedly). I am here to ATTEMPT to gain insight into the "other team." NOT to provoke pointless arguments.

But it seems there will always be the sort who take instant offense at the merest suggestion of the presence of "the enemy," and I suppose that's par for any ongoing political discourse.

(My Daily Kos persona is, indeed, abrasive and profane and harsh. I can be myself over there. Here, I behave as I would hope any conservative guest at dKos would. If that's STILL not good enough for some, then I would submit that profanity isn't the only thing those people don't tolerate.)

Nothing inflammatory about this one?

    She is a known               By: c17wife

Kossack who can get quite vile over there at times.  Her purpose here is to stir the pot.  Nothing more.

Krempasky specifically asked that we not do that on this thread.  She did it, Streiff came after her, and there you have it.  My guess is if she keeps it up, she'll go the way of her fellow Kossack that Thomas FINALLY banned last night.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read that comment to mean that funding formulas shouldn't discourage marriage by reducing/eliminating food stamps, etc. due to the presence of a husband.  I think "available" here doesn't mean "exclusively available."

Again I understand the sport in disagreeing to be disagreeable. Many might suspect that I fall prey to the urge on occasion.

I would only ask that you read before disagreeing. Do you find anything in my post advocating the disallowal of those programs to anyone? Of course not, because my comment is specifically about making the programs available to a class of people not currently eligible for the most part: intact, two-parent families.

. . . is to go back to the system under which a court decides whether the circumstances justify a divorce.

The entire purpose of no-fault divorce is to get the state out of this personal decision. This is a goal that many conservatives strongly support, in this and in many other areas.

I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part

here I do not regard conservatives as racists. Indeed, I will usually argue with leftists when they make that charge.

I was genuinely not aware that the term I used was regarded as offensive-- mildly vulgar and slangy, yes, but not something to cause outrage. Please again accept my apologies.

Re: -- Deny tax exemptions for non-related dependents living together.

May I ask if there is such a thing in the tax code? I had reason to look into this closely a few years back (when I supported my unemployed step-brother) and as far as I can there are no tax exemptions (including head of household statsu allowance) for any person to whom you are not closely related, by blood, marriage or adoption.

To me it's interesting that nobody has mentioned an increased federal role in end-of-life issues. If this thread had been posted in late March instead of late May it would have been filled with suggestions on how the feds should protect those who can't speak, are being killed, etc.

On that subject Elvis has left the building.

was with the judicial process itself, not right-to-die per se, and I see that judicial activism has already been roundly discussed in this thread.

That's the reason I didn't bring it up.

Let's play nice now, back away from the keyboard, and re-read the original diary.

But I'm actually not opposed to allowing adoption by all, not just couples or traditional families.

I think I am fairly alone as a conservative in that opinion, and I would not argue for it from a conservative perspective.

You have the good grace to act like a guest most of the time. I'm with trevino on this one.

Mission Accomplished.

Senators Allen and Warner can go home now.

--- but step-brothers should count for exemptions, especially when they need help.  Surely they can't allow for sibs but not step-sibs?  

I can see this agenda/laundry list thing isn't going to be easy enough to get done over the Memorial day recess, is it?

The states' interest in a marriage has nothing to do with any moral values at all, only the assest of the marriage and that they are disributed with equity.

If a person wants a divorce then thats that, end of story. Placing some new label on slavery or forced subjugation and trying to frame it under the guise of some personal morality is childish, more reflective of a unstable mind that has difficulty with relations with the opposite sex.

If a woman wants a divorce from you because your nose is too big, then your just going to have to deal with it. Marriage is a theological institution, not a state institution no laws of forced slavery can be placed into practice for the advancement of some singular religious instution.

You got a problwm with your wife or husband, here's a piece of advice from a counselor, go work it out with them if it is possible, try to find the reason you once loved each other. If that fails, then attempt to be civilize, especially if you have children. And the biggest piece of advice is try not to force your wife or husband into someone you want them to be, whether that be morally or any other way, let them become themselves, because their going to anyways.

With that said, there is a piece of advice I would give to all men in the United States at this point in time of our socialization, get a prenuptual. Do not mary any woman at all in this country without one.

It's not that all American woman are bad, that would be inaccurate, but it is that the laws give nearly zero protection to the husband right now, and with those laws in place, a man stands very little chance of an equitable division of property. Since woman represent about 85-90% of all divorces that are filed in America.

And finally, the children. More than 35% of all children in this country are physically and mentally abused by thier parents. Strict new laws should be passed to do more to help them. If a child is struck by thier parent in such a way that a mark appears, then that parent needs to be charged with assault on a minor and sent to couseling so help them understand why they would want to hurt a child, especially thier own. Minimum 2 years of counseling. New laws about calling your child stupid, or ignorant, or dumb, or ugly should be enacted and it should be made a minor offense and manditory counseling sentencing should be passed.

On the first offense couseling is all that will be done, on a second offense, then a neighborhood notification needs to be in place to inform the neighbors that this person mentally of physically abuses their child and should be observed and watch by the community. Far more children are killed or hurt by their parents than all sex offenders combined, times more ten thousand.

Third offense 18-36 months sentense, rehabilitation and anger management couseling manditory.

4th offense,10 years prison term and child taken from you permanently.

You want to start saving the family system, start by saving the children from statistically thier most dangerous threat to their lives and well being, their parents then go from their.

do count as potential sources of exemptions. However in my case I was unable to utilize this exemption since my step-brother did have unemployment and that put him over the income limitation for being used as an exemption (it's about $3,000 for an adult relative.)

To run an experiment. The result was not what I expected. Ergo, I'm back.

I was waiting on him until I came back.

...again, being more to the left of most RS.org Republicans, I'm absolutely fine with gay couples adopting. In fact, I'd rather have gay couples adopt than single parents.

I'm curious as to the 'social conservative' consensus on the War on Drugs. For that matter, is there even a consensus?  I know my own opinion on it (waste of time and money, threatens civil liberties, (as of 9/11) distracts from war on terrorism), but I wouldn't presume to speak for social conservatives on the issue.

...so that's why this thread isn't fitting well with me.

most likely also from a conservative perspective.

If we can't get rid of the Department of Eduction, and if we can't get rid of lobbyists injecting their doctrines into our children's education, then what about some type of oversight committee? I would say bi-partisan .... how about multi-partisan?

In other words, if it isn't approved by left and right together, it doesn't get in. It'll either even out some of the ridiculous indoctrination going on, or it'll make the system so completely muddied they'll wise up and ditch Federal meddling in local schools altogether.

I'm just getting tired of needing to correct myths being lavished on my kids. And they're not even in first grade yet.

What a fun thread! Here's my two cents: I work in the Big City Welfare Department, so I know a bit about this stuff. First, marital status is irrelevant for Food Stamps. It's the composition of the househoud (how may people, who shares food, etc). Here in California, we use state money to give cash aid to intact, two-parent families. The feds won't spend any money on that, and they will not aid such families. This is ridiculous, as it encourages single mothers to remain single. I would propose that ALL single mothers under the age of 25 who want welfare be required to live in group homes where they can be monitored. This would ensure that their kids go to school, and that money is spent properly, not on drugs or alcohol. I would also put foster kids into group homes, similar to orphanages. Kids like groups, and the foster care home-of-the-month is a disaster. I would also re-instate drunk farms (also for low level drug arrests). I would re-instate vagrancy laws, thereby reducing the "homeless" population by 75%. I know, I am SO harsh.

1)Abortion - make it easier to get one: do not allow clinics to show you what they do during an abortion, or allow them to talk you out of it. Make them cheaper, and give more federal funding to planned parenthood.

2)Religion - keep it out of public schools: Send your kids to Christian or catholic affiliated schools if you want them to learn that BS.  Separation of church and state: keep them separate.  Take down the 10 commandments down from all public buildings before they are used for the wrong purpose.

3)Marriage amendment - allow homosexual marriage in every state.

4)National voting system - obviously this has been a serious problem in the last 2 elections.

5)Patriot Act - get rid of it: only a racist would support it.

don't understand why you would want to do away with this...please expand

I thought you said it wasn't the venue to snipe,

argue and debate --  that's a good deal of

what was posted! To answer your question I would

-- rather than post a long list of specifics --

simply say that measures that result in a smaller

less intrusive government, expose and curtail

government waste of tax dollars, support a

constitutional amendment that allows Congress

to vacate a Supreme Cout decision by a two-thirds

vote of both houses, and -- ABOVE ALL --

require Congress to adhere strictly to Amendment

X of the U.S. Constitution.

don't stay gone so long next time. You can only take a day or two off. We need you, Lord Thomas Snarkmaster! ;0)

-- declare and confirm that America is a Christian nation, founded on judeo-Christian principles

-- separation of church and state is impossible, unnecessary and detrimental to society

-- Christian social conservatives should look at the Dominionist movement for inspiration

Other topics:

-- English-only

-- states and localities have the right to outlaw labor unions and union activity

-- state and local control of all elections including federal; only POTUS and VPOTUS are truly federal elections anyway.

-- repeal Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act; these responsibilities devolve to state and local control

-- require in vitro to produce one and only one embryo at a time or find a "Culture of Life" means to deal with all the unused embryos "left over" in the current process

What about the other religions in this country? Do jews and muslims start going to church? What about people raised christian but do not currently go to church, are they forced to believe everything YOU believe? And what religion of christianity? Are all decisions in politics now based on 'christianity?' - again, which one?

I wonder who/what Jesus would bomb.

Nice try, troll.

Title IX, I believe, requires an unspecified degree of gender equality in collegiate athletics, which, given the fact that the percentage of women who want to participate in sports in but a minute fraction of the percentage of men, means that we get to see women's bowling, but not men's swimming, wrestling, and sometimes even soccer and baseball.  Absurd.

Hey man, we can quibble about whether the fact there is no female equivalent of men's football on the collegiate level, but you are waaaay off base when you dismiss female interest in athletics as minute.  

namely, that this ham-handed regulation has forced the cancellation of men's athletic programs for which there are substantial constituencies, in spite of the fact that the percentage of men interested in fcollegiate athletics is much higher than the percentage of women so interested.  

The representation should be what the institutions believe it should be, without regard to politics.  Failing that, it should NOT be numerically equal, but proportional: fewer interested women - fewer women's teams.  

that we were not created equal. got it. thanks.

it goes beyond collegiate athletics

of my post, you're even more daft than I thought.  Thanks for enlightening me on that score.

repeal Civil Rights Act?  What is your problem with it?

with your other account, 'trueamerican', then you would be allowed to interact here. Now you've screwed yourself. Goodbye.

You've been busy. Your 'IS' account is suspended, too.

and 'IsabellaSager' is now closed for business.

1. Quit trying to regulate other peoples lives through restricting reproductive rights.
   
2. Quit discriminating against gay people. It's just more government in peoples lives.
   
3. Hold corrupt politicians accountable rather than defending them. Tom Delay is far too ethically challenged to be a Republican.
   
4. Reign in the fiscal disaster that is facing the nation. If I am going to mortgage something I want a return on it.
   
5. Hold politicians to the highest standards. If an illegal war is started on lies, impeach those responsible. Otherwise conservatives credibility continues to decline, lies only work for so long.
   
6. Stop restricting science. It is causing the US to become a backwater country in important scientific developments. When scientific research results in desirable results, we will be buying them from other nations as a result, instead of selling them to other nations.
   
7. Stop ignoring solid scientific evidence as a whole. Putting your head in the sand is no defense for what is to come.
   
8. Remember that this country was founded for its citizens, not its business owners.
   
9. Checks and Balances are there for a reason. Remove these and you will forever regret it.
   
10. Education is the foundation of a strong nation.
    
11. Absolute faith in leadership leads only to abuse.

While I find many suggestions in this diary entry laughable, don't pretend that similar things don't pop up over at dKos frequently. One of the funniest was a diary entry where the author asked the site what their ideal pagan America would look like. Among the suggestions were such things as forced service in pagan temples for all women of childbearing age.

I guess I forgot an item.

The absolutist defining of what it is to be a conservative, by those who make up the smallest numbers in the party. The same ones who are splitting the party. Think I'm wrong? it started yesterday, it's only going to get worse.

If you've read the absolute hate that come from her over at dKos, I'd saw she deserves even less leniency. I don't think you understand how much she hates you for being a conservative. She hero worships David Podvin. This isn't hyperbole, either. She freely admits its. She gloats about how she has no Republican friends and never will.

I'd keep a short leash on her because she is poisonous. It cannot be stressed how much she hates you.

Those are traditional values, for us older Elephants.

Is the poster asking what the laundry list should be, posting what his is, or telling us what the  laundry list is?

Nice to see you ineffectively trolling here again. Glad to see you go.

if I would be considered a social conservative, I am a bit all over the place.  But the war on drugs would be eliminated if I had my way.
-bro

And it forces equality of outcomes at the expense of  equality of opportunity.  Thus it is a perfect left vs. right clash.  One wants all to be treated equally wrt to opportunity; the other sees a difference in outcome and presumes discrimination, which is then countered by creating a legally enforcable discrimination.

I oppose gender and race discrimination.  Title IX is just that.

It also fits into the Ownership Society concept as well which is a nice blend of economic and social conservatism.

Not a social conservative myself (I don't think...) but curious where the SoCons of RS stood on the issue of affirmative action.

-TS

• Ban abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
• Reform Title IX to prohibit the use of quotas.
• Defunding Planned Parenthood or any other group that is also politically active.
• Pass a Federal Marriage Amendment that allows states to decide for themselves on civil unions.
• Convert education funding to block grants, and cut the workforce at the Department of Education by 50%.
• Repeal the advertising limits of the 2002 BCRA.
• Require folks to swear under penalty of perjury that they have seen the material they complain to the FCC about.  I don't know about anyone else, but I find the PTC's tactic of generating complaints to be sleazy.
• Pass both the President's immigration/guest worker proposal and the CLEAR Act.
• Re-enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I would like to see abortion out of the court system and back into the legislature so the people can debate and compromise.  We anti-abortionists would not win everything, but at least we would be have the same opportunity to be represented as everyone else.  (And I believe that principal was there at the beginning of this great experiment in a democratic republic.)

I would like to see the death penalty enlarged and enriched.  I would allow the execution of child molesters, rapists, and attempted murderers.  The first two categories of people have wantonly destroyed or attempted to destroy someone else's life, and therefore forfeit their inborn right to life.  (Under my system, tracking convicted child molesters would be simple, just check to see that no one has disturbed the soil.) The latter because I can't see differentiating based one someone's success ratio as it relates to their criminal attempts.

I don't want to see a Federal Marriage Amendment, though I agree with the goal.  If the Constitution ever includes anything about marriage, the judicial branch of our beloved gov't will take it upon themselves to make a mess of the whole of family law.  I believe it would be better to legislatively remove any decisions about marriage and family law from the purview of the federal court system (which I believe is constitutionally allowed even as we speak [write].)  If those poor souls in Massachusetts get stuck with it, they can move (and I say that with great love for my poor sister who was lured there out of love for a guy.)

I'm sure I could think of others, but I have a child who needs to go to bed.  (Definitely socially necessary.)

Please add to my list: harsh controls on pornography.  It is not free speech, it is horrible, destructive pollution.  I blame the ready availability of pornography for the increase in the times perverts steal our children, molest them and kill them.  And before anyone melts, no not everyone who views pornography does it, but how many have to before we get rid of it.  If it were product safety, one would be enough for the trial lawyers.