This is 6 minutes of research done half awake. You're starting to look silly. That 'movement' is still going strong through faith based initiatives and the claims of people trying to get elected president.
I was referring to the progressivism of the 60s-70s. Now who's looking silly?
How are you helping your argument that right-wing politicians do not actively try to promote social conservatism by providing examples of them doing just that?
No. What is being argued is that if social conservatives really had a real dog in America's fight to move to the left, they would have used it already wouldn't they? But they haven't.
What haven't they done? All they can do to reverse Roe v Wade is appoint conservative SC judges, which they have done. And have you forgotten about Bush's gay marriage amendment? Proposition 8, and its equivalent in some 35 other states?
Social conservatism may be losing momentum, but that is not for the lack of effort of social conservatives, be them citizens or politicians.
So they have nothing left to do but try to pass whatever is left on their agenda that a bare majority might agree on because they've lost or are losing ground on every real social issue. From education to marriage.
The pro-life movement isn't losing ground; in fact, in recent years its even gained support.
That doesn't even make sense. If the majority of conservatives are social conservatives then that would still leave cutting taxes and interventionism as part of their agenda.
Okay, but I thought you meant that those things were part of the social conservative agenda specifically, which they're not.
In response to tax cuts. Keep up.
Which is what I was responding to. You make it seem as if most conservatives don't support tax cuts; you even said it again here:
They want people to unite under 'causes' so that they can get these people to agree on cutting taxes and other matters which are of zero real relevance to the average American citizen
What I said was it doesn't matter whether or not it's relevant to most people (and incidentally, IMO, it is), since that has nothing to do with whether or not most conservatives support it.
Marriage matters my friend have always been solved through SCOTUS.
This statement is so incorrect that it makes me question how much you even know about the SCOTUS.
Constitutional issues have always been solved through the SCOTUS, and if marriage happens to be involved in a Constitutional issue, as with Loving v Virginia, then they deal with that too.
This other silly bull**** of states solving matters which concern people across the entire country is (not surprisingly) a Dixiecrat tactic that originated in the 1950s and 60s to stop desegregation and was then picked up by Republicans like Nixons in the 70s.
Have you even read the Bill of Rights? I suggest taking a look at the 10th Amendment.
Of course they(social conservatives) aren't really concerned with it.
About state rights? Probably not; see proposed pro-life/anti-gay marriage amendments. But I wasn't arguing that they were concerned with it; I was arguing that because, whether you like it or not, this is currently a state issue, it can currently only be solved on the state level.
Otherwise they would have done something serious about really stopping gay marriage or abortion. But what have they done?
They tried to pass an amendment on it; the fact that that amendment didn't pass doesn't change the fact that they tried. And they've prevented it from being legalized in all but 5 or 6 states. That'll probably change sometime soon, but they've done all they could have to slow the movement down.
Protests and TV interviews and that is exactly what the elites within the Republican party want.
Yes, it's all a conspiracy. :roll:
Hasn't it crossed your mind that Republican politicians might be concerned with social issues
as well as fiscal/economic/military issues?
