TexasCHLforum.com

rwg3

The Annoyed Man wrote:
rwg3 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:I call bull corn. From your article:Just so that we're clear......the VAST MAJORITY of voters who agree with you, that fossils like me are extremists, and not themselves, ALSO want you to surrender your firearms and learn to live happily under their superior wisdom and intellect and benevolent direction. Good luck with that. YOUR president (not mine) is going to appoint justices in the Kagan/Sotomayor mold if Scalia, Kennedy, or Thomas retires. Then say permanent goodbye to the 2nd Amendment, but go ahead and throw us extremist traditionalists on the ash heap of history.

Where does the line form to burn the Constitution? Let's get this nastiness over with so that I can get on with life.

Gracious apology accepted, not really necessary but nice. Don't assume I voted for the man, but I will say as an American, the process happened and as of today yes he is my president, as he is the president of all citizens, like it or not.

I suspect we may not agree on many things in the political arena, but I do respect your obvious intellect and your knowledge in the shooting sports. We had different upbringings and teachings, different life experiences. Mine have taught me to focus on problem solving, and the article is a valid point of view on why the Republican party did not achieve it's goal. It is not a definitive summation of the issues, but it is far too soon after the election to hope for a comprehensive answer. I suspect that many discussions mirroring the one here is happening in the Republican realm. I do hope that the end result of it is that the party can find common ground that all can agree to. I for one believe that we as a nation will survive and prosper.

rwg3

I call bull corn. From your article:

Slate OPINION: Mitt Romney lost the election because he couldn't separate himself from the Republican Party’s growing extremism.

Sonnyboy, that "growing extremism" was MAINSTREAM THINKING just 10-12 years ago. It has been mainstream thinking for all of my 60 years. When a party does NOT change its values to fit the fad du jour, that's not "growing extremism." That's "standing your ground for something." The "growing extremism" is entirely on the part of the left. We have been dragged leftward kicking and screaming, and now the right is finally putting its foot down and refusing to cooperate with getting dragged any further......and that's extremism? Please. The left calls anyone an "extremist" who refuses to submit to their extremist tyranny.

Ronald Reagan famously said that he did not leave the democrat party; it left him. In other words, his values did not change, while his former party slid into extremism.

THAT is the true version.

Personally, I've about had it. Big Brother is going to do what it does—no matter how I vote—because Big Brother is what a majority of Americans want. End of story. From now on, I'll concern myself with local matters and turn my back on the rest of it. And by the way, abortion—or, as I like to call it what it really IS, "killing babies"—doesn't happen in the bedroom. It happens in purpose-built abattoirs funded by the radical left through extorting taxes from the rest of us. A MORAL person doesn't even need to appeal to religion to understand that particular evil. The sooner alleged "americans" face that truth, the sooner we can come to an HONEST appraisal of whether or not we DESERVE to continue as a nation, or to be scraped off the planet like a fungus by a vengeful God.[/quote]

Well I will give you Methuselahan rights to refer to me as "SonnyBoy" By virtue of your 5 more years bruiting your versions of facts on this earth, but I do hope you are smiling when you use that term. Quite simply the country is evolving and what you view as standing your ground is being viewed by a greater number of people as extremism. Our great nation will continue to grow and prosper, with the Grace of God and the willingness of people to work together for the common good. I believe in less government whenever possible. I also believe that that governement has no place in our houses. I also belive that government must be a balance point between the disparate economic forces that truly threaten to tear us apart. If you look back to the late 1800's you may note that we have gone through an economic cycle in which the large corporations got larger, the middle class was in jeopardy and wise heads realized that balance in the marketplace and society was necessary for continued growth. Anti-trust laws and labor laws camw about and brought balance back into the system. We are at a point now where I believe some rebalancing is needed.

A basic difference between us is I am willing to let you live in the world as you view it, I draw the line where it comes to others pushing their beliefs on me.

A final wish if I could, I wish we would as a country would realize the truly destructive nature of the election process that we have grown into. A shorter election cycle and campaign spending linits would go a long way to focusing our public dialogue onto the key points facing the country each election.

rwg3

RoyGBiv wrote:I'll go out on the limb....

The GOP lost the WH last night because of its (in some cases real and other cases perceived) "Social Agenda".

Requiring our candidate to pass the "Conservative Enough" test to get nominated means that the candidate has to come out against "choice", against "same sex protections under law" and a whole list of other things that, frankly, are "get out of my bedroom" issues for a majority of Americans.

The fact that a small-minded, blatantly dishonest, Marxist can pull in 52% of the vote is PROOF that if the GOP doesn't find a way to restore itself to it's "Small Government" high ground while at the same time opening itself up to TOLERANCE and LIBERTY on social issues, then the GOP is destined to the sidelines until the next national or global tragedy sufficiently shake voter confidence in the Dem party that their clear and overwhelming lead on social issues is OBE (overcome by events).

I'm a small-government, fiscal-responsibility voter. Do I like the GOP's stance on social issues? Not very often. But I'm prepared to fight it out within the party, realizing that without small government and fiscal responsibility the Country will cease to function and we'll decline into a copy of Western Europe. I'm content to push aside my social views for the "good of the economy/country" and vote Red. If there was a viable candidate that favored "Economic Responsibility" and a "Libertarian Social Agenda", they'd have received my vote. Ron Paul? Gary Johnson? Even if I could swallow their myriad shortcomings, they weren't going to get elected.

Far-right voters need to find room for a Social Centrist candidate that supports their religious freedoms. Clearly the far right have reason to worry that religion is under attack in this country. The Dems clearly want "Freedom FROM Religion". But can the far right embrace a candidate that espouses Freedom OF Religion, a candidate that wants to reverse the religious paranoia of the Left while advocating a Libertarian view on social issues? Can a candidate who advocates strongly for First Amendment religious freedom, while at the same time advocating for same sex unions on "equal protection" grounds ever win the GOP primary? Can a candidate that advocates for prayer being banned from public schools while at the same time advocating in favor of religious displays on other public property ever win your vote.? [logic: I can admire the nativity display at City Hall as I walk past it, but my child cannot so easily disengage from in-school displays of religious preference that I may prefer for them not to engage in.]

What happened yesterday?.... Social-centrist voters like me "broke" for their social agenda over "saving the economy" in sufficient numbers that they gave the Dems the win. This is a mistake that will hurt this country for the rest of my life, I'm afraid. I didn't get much sleep last night out of worry.

Going forward, the GOP is faced with a tough decision... Without a shred of doubt in my mind, the GOP wins on economic issues and loses badly on a social agenda that fails to honor the ideal that we are all free to choose the life we want to lead. We readily defend free speech that makes our blood boil, but we cannot yield the same Liberty to "social" choices. The GOP platform is pushing back in the wrong way against the Left's "Freedom From Religion" movement. In the same way we defend free speech we must also defend Social Liberty, while assuring our religious freedom.

America voted for social liberty over economic responsibility last night.

IMHO, YMMV.

Well said and a fair analysis!

Also this has some fair points: http://news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The old saying about being all things to all people surely applies to the Romney trail.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 3 matches

Re: Electoral Votes

Re: Electoral Votes

Re: Electoral Votes