Fill in the blank: I’ve seen more _________ yard signs in my NoVa neighborhood. (Virginia Beach: condo, move to)

[OrangeFish]

When I lived in Massachusetts, there were at least 2:1 signs for Romney compared to Kennedy. We all know how that turned out.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by LynchburgLover

But let's be real here, by today's progressive standards of the Democrat Party, even John Kennedy would be consider very conservative. They've turned his "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" upside down. This group wants the government to control everything from light bulbs to big gulps.

I also digress. I guess your friends and my friends will cancel each other out.

You can still buy incandescent bulbs; they are not, nor will they ever be, off the market.

And Mayor Bloomberg, who banned larged-size sodas in NYC, is a Republican.

As to government control: Do you regard government intrusion into women's healthcare options (to include contraception) and government telling two gays or lesbians that they can't get married in their own gay church as consistent with the idea of a limited federal government?

Until the GOP starts reflecting the views of moderate conservatives and fiscal conservatives it will keep losing elections. And that now means in Virginia too.

[LynchburgLover]

Yeah, Bloomberg's an idiot . . . but couldn't have passed that silly law with the Democrat controlled city council.

Yes, I'm a right-to-lifer and do not believe government should be forced to pay for contraception. Gay marriage? Meh . . . don't care.

I actually think I lean more libertarian -- let's just all get out of a lot of things. But government is becoming way to controlling. And, right now, my two main issues are the economy and the Middle East.

[jmerr001]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

You can still buy incandescent bulbs; they are not, nor will they ever be, off the market.

And Mayor Bloomberg, who banned larged-size sodas in NYC, is a Republican.

As to government control: Do you regard government intrusion into women's healthcare options (to include contraception) and government telling two gays or lesbians that they can't get married in their own gay church as consistent with the idea of a limited federal government?

Until the GOP starts reflecting the views of moderate conservatives and fiscal conservatives it will keep losing elections. And that now means in Virginia too.

Bloomberg is an "independent" and not a Republican ala Barry Sanders and Joe Lieberman... a NYC Republican doesn't equate to "conservative", despite their party name.

Who's calling for government intervention to prevent the use of contraceptives? No one far as I can see. And other health care options? You mean forcing insurance companies (a private entity) to provide coverage they object to based on either economic or moral or religious reasons? Before going down the road of the one big wedge issue that people like to throw into this "woman's health debate" keep in mind it gets more complicated when there's another life at stake. Sure its a choice, but no one can speak for that little person.

As for gays and marriage well they can get married, even in their own gay church... but the states nor the federal government have to recognize it.

You just made some incorrect/inaccurate statements that begged to be challenged.

I aplogize for the derailment, back to reading ya'lls posts.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by jmerr001

Bloomberg is an "independent" and not a Republican ala Barry Sanders and Joe Lieberman... a NYC Republican doesn't equate to "conservative", despite their party name.

I never said he was on par with any other particular Republican. But he was a Republican between 2001 and 2007. That's a fact. That he has left the GOP I think illustrates my point--that there is no longer room in the party for fiscal conservatives or even moderate social conservatives.

Here's a really fascinating article I read this morning: Why I left the GOP - Salon.com

Originally Posted by jmerr001

Who's calling for government intervention to prevent the use of contraceptives? No one far as I can see.

If an employer denies coverage for it (as the GOP supports allowing them to do), it is essentially preventing access to it for anyone who can't afford to pay for it out of pocket. What if employers could deny coverage for cancer treatment? You could still get it--if you could shell out tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. And I'm sure many employers and insurance companies would love to get out of paying those costs. That would mean that most middle-class people couldn't afford cancer treatment. It would amount to denying access to it for most of the population.

Originally Posted by jmerr001

Sure its a choice, but no one can speak for that little person.

I would not have taken this thread here, but since you have: Is it a person? That's the point of dispute. Is a microscopic embryo a person, just because it's made of human tissue and is alive? Based on those criteria, one could say the same about the two elements that went into making that embryo. But let's not get further derailed.

Originally Posted by jmerr001

As for gays and marriage well they can get married, even in their own gay church... but the states nor the federal government have to recognize it.

Would you support that same treatment for heterosexual marriages? If you truly support small government that leaves people to live their lives and treats people equally, then the answer has to be yes. (I would actually support the idea of getting the government out of marriage altogether. Any two adults could be a civil union and have all the rights currently afforded under the word "marriage." Use of that word would be between you and your church, if any.)

The longer the GOP keeps making opposition to gay marriage and abortion in all instances part of its litmus test, the more the GOP will continue to be marginalized.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

If an employer denies coverage for it (as the GOP supports allowing them to do), it is essentially preventing access to it for anyone who can't afford to pay for it out of pocket. What if employers could deny coverage for cancer treatment? You could still get it--if you could shell out tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. And I'm sure many employers and insurance companies would love to get out of paying those costs. That would mean that most middle-class people couldn't afford cancer treatment. It would amount to denying access to it for most of the population.

Well, there is a difference. Medical insurance is designed to help people to cover costs for illnesses and diseases. Unlike cancer, pregnancy is neither of those. So, the prevention of pregnancy is not something that requires medical insurance. If someone wants to prevent getting pregnant, they do not need medical insurance or government help. They only need to keep their pants on.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by spencgr

Well, there is a difference. Medical insurance is designed to help people to cover costs for illnesses and diseases. Unlike cancer, pregnancy is neither of those.

So you're arguing that obstetric care should not be covered?

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

So you're arguing that obstetric care should not be covered?

no, just the prevention of pregnancy should not be covered. Do not get me wrong, I am 100% in favor of contraceptives; I just do not feel that it is something that needs to be covered by any health insurance.

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by Caladium

I tell ya what, the number of telephone poll calls we're getting this year seems odd. And the amateurishness of some of these calls seems eyebrow-raising, too. We just hang up on all of them now. (Of course that may be why they keep calling. Wouldn't be surprised if they keep hounding us until we tell them what they want to hear about who we're voting for.) Hmmm, maybe I should experiment with this-- just start lying, to see if it gets them off our back. On even numbered days I'll claim I'm voting for Obama, on odd days for Romney, and see if the calls go away.

Amateur - yes. Maybe I'll start telling them that I'm writing in a candidate.

Oprah? Bill O'Reilly? Michael Moore? Glenn Beck?

[United_Caps_Skins_Fan]

Interesting direction and discussion in this thread. Its been a busy couple of weeks for me so I have not had much time to get back on here. So Im going to choose to stay OUT of the political banter, because its not really on topic, and, people usually have a hard time staying civil when they disagree on political issues anymore. I don't see where that has happened HERE, but I don't want to possibly aid in that either. Anyway,

I'm really starting to see alot of Obama signs come on, even out in the country. I've seen them in up on small mountain roads, back country roads in Loudoun and Fauquier and Clarke counties. There are pockets of more romney, but pockets of more Obama too. So I think that is pretty even. Depending on where you go it changes. Interestingly, in my town of Purcellville, most of the Romney signs are in the NEW developments. If you go in to the older neighborhoods here, I have seen far more Obama signs.

Hamilton, the clear edge is far and away Obama now. Every week it seems there are new homes putting out Obama signs there. The more rural areas of Western Loudoun though Romney has the clear edge in signs.

In our travels all around the country side from Loudoun to Markham and back through Berryville that I mentioned above, id say it was an even split. I also find interesting that several self described republicans that I have chatted with over the last week or so have said they are absolutely not voting for Romney, and will again cross the party line and go for Obama.

Last week I had to be in my old neighborhood of Del Ray in Old Town Alexandria, and it was hands down 95% Obama signs. In fact, I saw ZERO Romney signs, though I was told by one of our many friends that still lives there that there are one or two here and there. Same with Arlington Ridge, all Obama from what I could see.