Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my opinion of G Will: he is a jerk. What needs to be done, who knows, but he is still a jerk as far as I am concerned..Krauthamer (spelling) had a great column yesterday on this: simply, he said, we don't need or should not sell ourselves so down the drain that GOP and Dems become one. That is what appears a lot want to do. He did say, we need to reach out of Hispanics. Other than that leave things alone.
When it comes to gay rights and things like abortion: these should not enter into the picture. These are very much personal beliefs, they have little to do with or should have little to do with elections. No one is going to overturn Roe versus wade, and eventually gay marriage will be legal regardless of who is Pres.
Other than Pres, what is the big issue here? We have more Governors, in fact a record number, we hold the house, we would have carried or come close to controlling the senate if a couple of jerks would have kept their mouths shut and some states, like AR are controlled, at the state level by Republicans. For us, this is the first time since 1874. Add to that, as much as I try to keep the color card out of this: it is a fact: the blacks voted for Obama, because he is black and probably a lot of them will not vote in 2016 unless there is a black candidate.
Really? So forcing people to buy a product from the private sector (medical insurance) is not totalitarian? And when the same people use the same logic and tell people to buy unemployment, food stamp, workman comp. insurance that is ok?
No. Forcing people to buy health insurance is social liberalism. Forcing people to participate in food stamps unemployment is also social liberalism. Workman's comp is a state issue, so that really isn't relevant here.
No. Forcing people to buy health insurance is social liberalism. Forcing people to participate in food stamps unemployment is also social liberalism. Workman's comp is a state issue, so that really isn't relevant here.
Why not? Obama said people that don't buy medical insurance are free riders and need to take personal responsibility. So just apply that logic to all aspects of "what goes wrong" in a person's life. The gate is now open, future political leaders just have to call it a tax and wham!. Here you go!.
However, on the most salient social issues - abortion, marriage, dope, et al - capitulating on these would be evil. Political parties in a republic should do more leading than following, win or lose. If you can't stand for something that matters, what's the point?
On those two issues I look at the abortion issue as a clash of values. Even as a libertarian I believe that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of the next persons nose, It would be foolish to even try to persuade a pro-lifer to change their position or to vote for someone who favors liberalization of what they consider an "evil" act. I don't see the abortion issue as particularly harmful to the Republican Party. In many ways you can argue that pro-lifers are defending the littleisy guy of them all, the unborn child.
Gay marriage is a whole other issue. Gay marriage does not in any way reduce the sanctity of my marriage. When I got married in the state of Texas I had to get a marriage license which, I guess, required that my spouse and I be of opposite sex. I also got married in the Roman Catholic Church which also certainly requires that my spouse and I be of opposite sex but also made other demands. If the state of Texas legalized gay marriage it would in no way alter the sanctity of my marriage or anyone else's. It would simply change man's law, not God's. The Republican attacks on gay marriage do a great disservice to Republican claims to be the party of liberty and freedom.
I got problems with illegal immigration. I got problems with liberal immigration policies in times of high unemployment. In the past parties of labor tended to be for restrictive immigration policies in order to reduce labor competition. The Democrats are no longer the party of labor. If Republicans who oppose liberal immigration policies on economic issues and leave the cultural warfare out of it that would help. Liberal immigration policies may or may not be detrimental to the economy but they are certainly detrimental to low-skilled labor which is disproportionately black and hispanic.
Of course, immigration is more than just an economic issue when you personally know decent, hardworking people who are simply trying to achieve a better life for themselves, as I and I would say most hispanics do, accomadations on immigration is absolutely neccesary.
I believe young people today are not all that enthralled with big government. I believe a true small government party would have quite a bit of success.
As someone in college I can attest that it's the social views of the GOP that turn most young people off from them. I have plenty of more conservative friends who like their ideals on financial matters but refuse to support them because of their views on abortion, gay marriage,immigration, and their new seemingly dislike that women don't stay in the kitchen anymore.
It's hard to be the party of law and order while seeming to condone illegal immigration, but yes, I think there's room to finesse their immigration position. I favor a limited form of amnesty myself - legal residency but not citizenship for those who entered illegally and meet certain criteria. Some conservatives hate the idea because they want all illegals to go home, period, regardless of circumstances. Most liberals hate the idea because it creates a large bloc of "second class citizens" and violates their sense of egalitarian piety.
However, on the most salient social issues - abortion, marriage, dope, et al - capitulating on these would be evil. Political parties in a republic should do more leading than following, win or lose. If you can't stand for something that matters, what's the point?
Except they are on the losing end of those issues. And further continued support of them is going to ensure they become a party of irrelevance in the very near future. Principle without power is meaningless in politics.
As someone in college I can attest that it's the social views of the GOP that turn most young people off from them. I have plenty of more conservative friends who like their ideals on financial matters but refuse to support them because of their views on abortion, gay marriage,immigration, and their new seemingly dislike that women don't stay in the kitchen anymore.
Oh, so they bought into the slickly packaged lie that liberalism is good for women? That somehow, having the "freedom" to sleep around and kill their unwanted children brings happiness? That abortion means that a woman is left with the physical and emotional baggage of killing the life within her so that the man who helped her to create the child can walk away, scot free? That hooking up because of cheap, available birth control means that women can just somehow deactivate the emotional side of the act and pretend that they are nothing more than animals who don't mind being used for carnal reasons and tossed aside the next day?
Just praying that eyes are opened before more lives are destroyed by the illusion that Obama and his liberal band are "good" for women.
my opinion of G Will: he is a jerk. What needs to be done, who knows, but he is still a jerk as far as I am concerned..Krauthamer (spelling) had a great column yesterday on this: simply, he said, we don't need or should not sell ourselves so down the drain that GOP and Dems become one. That is what appears a lot want to do. He did say, we need to reach out of Hispanics. Other than that leave things alone.
When it comes to gay rights and things like abortion: these should not enter into the picture. These are very much personal beliefs, they have little to do with or should have little to do with elections. No one is going to overturn Roe versus wade, and eventually gay marriage will be legal regardless of who is Pres.
Other than Pres, what is the big issue here? We have more Governors, in fact a record number, we hold the house, we would have carried or come close to controlling the senate if a couple of jerks would have kept their mouths shut and some states, like AR are controlled, at the state level by Republicans. For us, this is the first time since 1874. Add to that, as much as I try to keep the color card out of this: it is a fact: the blacks voted for Obama, because he is black and probably a lot of them will not vote in 2016 unless there is a black candidate.
The record number was 34, you currently have 30 :-P. And since the republicans also did not capture the supposed easy wins of nd, and montana, I would say that it's doubtful they would have gained either missouri or kep indiana. All those comments did was make the elections less close is all. You also have to remember that you lost 7 states houses compared to the 4 you picked up, and lost several state super majorities. Overall it was a dismal showing for the republicans given this crappy economy.
As someone in college I can attest that it's the social views of the GOP that turn most young people off from them. I have plenty of more conservative friends who like their ideals on financial matters but refuse to support them because of their views on abortion, gay marriage,immigration, and their new seemingly dislike that women don't stay in the kitchen anymore.
Here's a bit of knowledge for you. Social issues are decided by the states not the fed.
Tell your college friends to listen to the economics of national politicians. The rest is fluff and fear mongering. Vote with your future pocket.
Oh, so they bought into the slickly packaged lie that liberalism is good for women? That somehow, having the "freedom" to sleep around and kill their unwanted children brings happiness? That abortion means that a woman is left with the physical and emotional baggage of killing the life within her so that the man who helped her to create the child can walk away, scott free? That hooking up because of cheap, available birth control means that women can just somehow deactivate the emotional side of the act and pretend that they are nothing more than animals who don't mind being used for carnal reasons and tossed aside the next day?
Just praying that eyes are opened before more lives are destroyed by the illusion that Obama and his liberal band are "good" for women.
No what we have bought into is the fact we don't need MEN telling us what is and is not good for our bodies . We have bought into the fact that democratic candidates don't make ridiculous comments on rape, abortion, and try to block laws that ensure equal pay for an equal day of work. And believe me sweetie, we women have just as much ability to turn off our emotional side for sex as you boys do. Always blows me away that in 2012 people still slap out those stereotypes. Anyway if you would drop all those things you women tend to get more of us. But if you keep pushing rightward, than old white men are about the only vote you will continue to reach .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. We have bought into the fact that democratic candidates don't make ridiculous comments on rape, abortion, and try to block laws that ensure equal pay for an equal day of work. And believe me sweetie, we women have just as much ability to turn off our emotional side for sex as you boys do. Always blows me away that in 2012 people still slap out those stereotypes. Anyway if you would drop all those things you women tend to get more of us. But if you keep pushing rightward, than old white men are about the only vote you will continue to reach 
.
