Electoral Votes

[anygunanywhere]

Nothing will change now until Rome collapses and the "free" stuff stops coming. THAT is what it will take: pain and misery. Plain talk and common sense have no place with people who scream for "Obamaphone" or LIE on TV about how much money they spent on birth control just so they can not spend ANYTHING on birth control, or with the type of man who wishes to spend his ADULT life acting like a baby while getting "disability"...as long as "free" stuff is offered, people will take it. But what they don't realize (or don't care about) is they ARE paying for it...with their liberties.

This.

Nice post.

Anygunanywhere

[Oldgringo]

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.[

There is a vast difference between funding something you disagree and don't like with and being forced to fund something you find so very reprehensible that those who engage in it and propagate its existence are endangering their very souls.

Would you make a Jewish deli serve ham?

I think the point is: we have no right to force our beliefs on others. If someone wants to have an abortion and perhaps burn in the everlasting flames of {hell}, that is their choice. Just as a Jewish Deli may choose to offer ham sandwiches to its goy customers.

The sooner the GOP decides to get out of the public's bedroom and back to the hallowed halls of federal government, the sooner they will have a chance in 2016.

PS:
I didn't use the word {heck}.

[anygunanywhere]

I think the point is: we have no right to force our beliefs on others. If someone wants to have an abortion and perhaps burn in the everlasting flames of {heck}, that is their choice. Just as a Jewish Deli may choose to offer ham sandwiches to its goy customers.

The sooner the GOP decides to get out of the public's bedroom and back to the hallowed halls of federal government, the sooner they will have a chance in 2016.

PS:
I didn't use the word {heck}.

Abortion forces the beliefs of the mother onto the unborn child. That is a fact. That is the truth, and you can't justify it in any way shape or form. It has nothing to do with the GOP getting into someone's bedroom.

Anygunanywhere

[Jaguar]

I find this thread fascinating; we have a group who wishes to move to the center on social issues and a group that is not willing to compromise their religious and moral beliefs. Yet both groups seem to believe they have common ground on economic issues.

A few weeks ago after the second Presidential debate, I stated that my distaste for Mitt Romney had me thinking about voting for Gary Johnson. This was due to the reason everyone in this thread seems to be agreeing on, economic issues. Beyond repealing Obama-care which isn’t even in force yet, Romney said nothing and offered nothing to reduce government and ease restrictions on business which would allow the economy to grow. Yet when I published my distaste on this forum, I was told I would be “voting for Obama” or “throwing away my vote” since I wasn’t willing to compromise my beliefs. Now many of the social conservatives who told me to compromise my economic beliefs are stating they will not compromise their social beliefs, interesting.

Yet here is a thread detailing differences on social issues that seems to be tearing the GOP apart, and apparent agreement on economic issues. Did you watch the debate and hear something I didn’t? Almost everything Obama has done or has proposed concerning the economy Mitt said he will double down on or continue, if only to a lesser degree. I could not believe what I was hearing but now it is what you folks are agreeing on; free college tuition, more money for “green energy”, tax the rich, etc., etc., etc. Sure there were a few differences but come on, Romney offered no plan and just went along with big government entitlements.

So it seems to me the GOP has already moved left of center on economic issues and nobody even noticed because they are fighting over the social issues. You wonder why people did not turn out to vote? Maybe because there was so little difference between Obama and Romney that it didn’t really matter. Mitt has flip flopped on social issues so much there was no telling where he would land once in the White House so social conservatives stayed home. Mitt agreed with most of Obama’s economic policies so fiscal conservatives stayed home or voted Libertarian.

When both choices are Democrats, a Democrat will win.

I am a fiscal conservative. To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, “I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.”

I am a Libertarian.

[canvasbck]

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.[

There is a vast difference between funding something you disagree and don't like with and being forced to fund something you find so very reprehensible that those who engage in it and propagate its existence are endangering their very souls.

Would you make a Jewish deli serve ham?

I think the point is: we have no right to force our beliefs on others. If someone wants to have an abortion and perhaps burn in the everlasting flames of {heck}, that is their choice. Just as a Jewish Deli may choose to offer ham sandwiches to its goy customers.

The sooner the GOP decides to get out of the public's bedroom and back to the hallowed halls of federal government, the sooner they will have a chance in 2016.

PS:
I didn't use the word {heck}.

I agree with the bolded statement 100% It's not the government's place to tell people who they can and cannot marry. Unlike many Christians, I don't think that my marriage is somehow weakened by gays being able to marry. Because of this I line up almost perfectly with Libertarians who want to allow gay marriage, decriminilize pot, ect.

The flip side of your arguement, however, is in the area of abortion. Abortion is the termination of a human life (aka murder). I have been forced to accept the fact that I live in a society that views murder as a "women's rights issue" just because the life that is being taken happens to reside inside his mother's body. The government is forcing other's beliefs on me every time that my tax dollars are used for a state funded abortion.

[donkey]

I agree with the bolded statement 100% It's not the government's place to tell people who they can and cannot marry. Unlike many Christians, I don't think that my marriage is somehow weakened by gays being able to marry. Because of this I line up almost perfectly with Libertarians who want to allow gay marriage, decriminilize pot, ect.

The flip side of your arguement, however, is in the area of abortion. Abortion is the termination of a human life (aka murder). I have been forced to accept the fact that I live in a society that views murder as a "women's rights issue" just because the life that is being taken happens to reside inside his mother's body. The government is forcing other's beliefs on me every time that my tax dollars are used for a state funded abortion.

If we were really talking about the government staying out of the bedroom then there would be zero government involvement in marriage. No more government marriage licenses preventing you from marrying someone of the same gender, underage, or related to you. Two consenting people could do whatever they want in their own home and could be married by whatever church would allow it. But that's not what is being advocated. Gay marriages supporters are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms and demanding approval of their beliefs. This isn't an argument over whether gay marriage is right or wrong; just that any government involvement in marriage is still government involvement. Gay marriage advocates don't want the government out of the bedroom, they want to invite it into more rooms.

[Kythas]

I've been thinking about it for two days now, and I'm actually glad Obama got re-elected. Let me explain why.

The financial collapse would have happened anyway, even if Romney were elected. Romney's election would have simply slowed it; made it more gradual. That way, it would have come as less of a shock when it happened.

With Obama re-elected, the time to collapse will accelerate, and the crash will be harder. This will enable us to both get it over with, pick up the pieces, and move on more quickly as well as illustrate much more graphically how socialist policies will always eventually end.

Greece is in dire straits with riots at 170% debt to GDP ratio. They have the ability right now to be bailed out by Germany and other EU member nations. The CBO estimates the US debt to GDP ratio will be 180% by 2035. With Obama in office, and depending on what he does in the next four years, I can easily see this hitting its breaking point years earlier than that. Nobody will have the ability to provide bailouts for the United States of America.

For this reason, I will now support Obama's agenda 100%. I will support every tax hike he proposes. I will oppose any spending cut Republicans want. I will support every new spending program and entitlement Obama and the Democrat party wants. I will support every single restriction on our rights. Let's show America what the liberal agenda really means, and how it will really affect them.

I say let's get it over with. Let's stop staring at the horizon, watching it approach, and worrying about how bad it's going to be. Let's run out to meet it on our terms, attack it, and get back to our lives. In the process we can put the lie that is socialism/liberalism in the ground once and for all.

[snatchel]

Anygun-- it's not that I disagree with your principles, and I admire your tenacity and that despite modern culture, you stand strong in your convictions.

My point is that we, as a conservative republican party, are going to have to eventually make a choice. We will either agree to compromise a d find middle ground in order to get a qualified candidate elected, or watch our party wil away into history. You mention giving up gun rights--- well, here is how I look at it:

If we choose to stand against any tolerance of moral opinion regarding gay rights, abortion, etc..... Than we WILL lose our gun rights. Our staunch stance for more integrity will continue to get democrats elected...and they will surely strip the 2nd rights we have managed to keep thus far.

I know a lot of folks have gone so far as to say they would welcome a civil war, uprising, or something like thAt. To those who say they would rather fight a war than allow a gay couple's to marry I only ask this: have you been in battle?

Please. Be tolerant. Understand that the idea of democracy & freedom that we hold onto with our dying breath extends to those that you disagree from a moral standpoint.

One last thing-- this needs to be put out there-- morality & Christianity are not one and the same.

[anygunanywhere]

I find this thread fascinating; we have a group who wishes to move to the center on social issues and a group that is not willing to compromise their religious and moral beliefs. Yet both groups seem to believe they have common ground on economic issues.

A few weeks ago after the second Presidential debate, I stated that my distaste for Mitt Romney had me thinking about voting for Gary Johnson. This was due to the reason everyone in this thread seems to be agreeing on, economic issues. Beyond repealing Obama-care which isn’t even in force yet, Romney said nothing and offered nothing to reduce government and ease restrictions on business which would allow the economy to grow. Yet when I published my distaste on this forum, I was told I would be “voting for Obama” or “throwing away my vote” since I wasn’t willing to compromise my beliefs. Now many of the social conservatives who told me to compromise my economic beliefs are stating they will not compromise their social beliefs, interesting.

Yet here is a thread detailing differences on social issues that seems to be tearing the GOP apart, and apparent agreement on economic issues. Did you watch the debate and hear something I didn’t? Almost everything Obama has done or has proposed concerning the economy Mitt said he will double down on or continue, if only to a lesser degree. I could not believe what I was hearing but now it is what you folks are agreeing on; free college tuition, more money for “green energy”, tax the rich, etc., etc., etc. Sure there were a few differences but come on, Romney offered no plan and just went along with big government entitlements.

So it seems to me the GOP has already moved left of center on economic issues and nobody even noticed because they are fighting over the social issues. You wonder why people did not turn out to vote? Maybe because there was so little difference between Obama and Romney that it didn’t really matter. Mitt has flip flopped on social issues so much there was no telling where he would land once in the White House so social conservatives stayed home. Mitt agreed with most of Obama’s economic policies so fiscal conservatives stayed home or voted Libertarian.

When both choices are Democrats, a Democrat will win.

I am a fiscal conservative. To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, “I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.”

I am a Libertarian.

No offense, but being a libertarian means you (not personally) do not take stances on any issue. As long as they are left alone they don't care what others do. That is not the definition of liberty.

I do agree that the GOP left me.

Anygunanywhere

[koolaid]

If we were really talking about the government staying out of the bedroom then there would be zero government involvement in marriage. No more government marriage licenses preventing you from marrying someone of the same gender, underage, or related to you. Two consenting people could do whatever they want in their own home and could be married by whatever church would allow it. But that's not what is being advocated. Gay marriages supporters are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms and demanding approval of their beliefs. This isn't an argument over whether gay marriage is right or wrong; just that any government involvement in marriage is still government involvement. Gay marriage advocates don't want the government out of the bedroom, they want to invite it into more rooms.

In the most basic terms, marriage is a contract that confers certain financial and legal rights.

It requires the backing of the government to be enforced.

Also, the conflation of underage marriage with "two consenting people" is disingenuous. Minors cannot legally consent or enter into contracts, which is is why statuatory rape is a crime. It is also why the child marriage and "people marrying dogs!!" arguments are ridiculous. There is no consent in those cases, which is the crucial difference. There is no slippery slope to slide down.

[Kythas]

Anygun-- it's not that I disagree with your principles, and I admire your tenacity and that despite modern culture, you stand strong in your convictions.

My point is that we, as a conservative republican party, are going to have to eventually make a choice. We will either agree to compromise a d find middle ground in order to get a qualified candidate elected, or watch our party wil away into history. You mention giving up gun rights--- well, here is how I look at it:

If we choose to stand against any tolerance of moral opinion regarding gay rights, abortion, etc..... Than we WILL lose our gun rights. Our staunch stance for more integrity will continue to get democrats elected...and they will surely strip the 2nd rights we have managed to keep thus far.

I know a lot of folks have gone so far as to say they would welcome a civil war, uprising, or something like thAt. To those who say they would rather fight a war than allow a gay couple's to marry I only ask this: have you been in battle?

Please. Be tolerant. Understand that the idea of democracy & freedom that we hold onto with our dying breath extends to those that you disagree from a moral standpoint.

One last thing-- this needs to be put out there-- morality & Christianity are not one and the same.

Snatchel, I agree. I don't understand the Conservative stance on gay marriage - it's probably the only Conservative viewpoint I don't hold. Who cares if gay people want to get married? It affects my marriage not at all.

Personally, I think the entire gay marriage fight is being fought wrong. Gay marriage is already a right, per the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. Government cannot deny a right or privilege to any American that it gives to any other American. Government already grants over 1,000 rights to heterosexual couples who marry. Per the 14th Amendment, gay couples have due process of that same right.

Their problem is they are fighting this as a civil rights issue, and framing it as a right that doesn't currently exist. They are saying "Give us a new right" when they should be saying "Stop denying us a right which already exists". People will be more amenable to a group saying their rights are being denied than they will be to a group demanding a new right be created.

Going state by state and slugging it out in that manner is a bad tactical move. Saying to the states that this right must be enforced due to an already existing Constitutional Amendment would be a much better tactical plan.

That said, government should also not force any religion into marrying gay couples. If the tenants of a particular church forbid gay marriage, so be it. That church has a right to its beliefs and has a right to not marry gay couples in violation of those beliefs. A gay couple can find a church which has no opposition to it, or can go to the courthouse and be married by a Justice of the Peace, or go on a cruise and get married by the ship's Captain. Forcing a church to marry gay couples against that church's beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment. There's no way a person can be in favor of the separation of church and state and still want to force churches to do so without being a hypocrite.

[donkey]

If we were really talking about the government staying out of the bedroom then there would be zero government involvement in marriage. No more government marriage licenses preventing you from marrying someone of the same gender, underage, or related to you. Two consenting people could do whatever they want in their own home and could be married by whatever church would allow it. But that's not what is being advocated. Gay marriages supporters are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms and demanding approval of their beliefs. This isn't an argument over whether gay marriage is right or wrong; just that any government involvement in marriage is still government involvement. Gay marriage advocates don't want the government out of the bedroom, they want to invite it into more rooms.

In the most basic terms, marriage is a contract that confers certain financial and legal rights.

It requires the backing of the government to be enforced.

Also, the conflation of underage marriage with "two consenting people" is disingenuous. Minors cannot legally consent or enter into contracts, which is is why statuatory rape is a crime. It is also why the child marriage and "people marrying dogs!!" arguments are ridiculous. There is no consent in those cases, which is the crucial difference. There is no slippery slope to slide down.

This isn't about a slippery slope, this is about the government being involved in marriage at all. If we really wanted the government out of our bedrooms then we wouldn't have the government issue marriage licenses. We've already repealed laws against sodomy and there's no law preventing two people of the same sex from living together. Yet those who advocate gay marriage invite the government into their bedrooms and demand approval.

[anygunanywhere]

Please. Be tolerant. Understand that the idea of democracy & freedom that we hold onto with our dying breath extends to those that you disagree from a moral standpoint.

One last thing-- this needs to be put out there-- morality & Christianity are not one and the same.

Thank you for the acknowledgement, snatchel. Much appreciated.

Tolerance, with respect to the dems, gays, and others who want to advance their cause is a one way street. Those who want me to be tolerant have no tolerance for me and my beliefs.

Faithful Catholics, and many more from the other mainstream faiths are now the persecuted simply because we want to be left alone and celebrate our religious freedoms without having social engineering and practices that we do not support forced upon us.

I must be the one that changes.

Morality is not subjective. Morality is objective.

There are immoral christians. It is called sin. I am and have been guilty. I can't change my nature. All I can do is trust in my Savior's Mercy.

Trust me. I am tolerant. I am not judgemental. I work with flaming gays. I have to to keep my job. I am a mid level manager in a fortune 250 company. "Diversity" and "Tolerance" is a daily requirement. I live and work in a secular world. I have no issue with this. I know how the world works. I have seen it. I have spent time at the gates of the biggest abortion mill in the world right in downtown Houston and prayed for the babies that were being (and still are) being slaughtered and mothers that were being butchered. The planned parenthood babykillers will have you arrested if you step off the sidewalk onto the grass. In case you do not know, an arrest today is a federal crime the same as if you were a gangster pimping women or selling drugs, just for trying to save babies.

I do understand.

This is why I refuse to concede to changing my core beliefs. You see, there really is not a political party that has my core beliefs, so I have already made concessions.


Anygunanywhere

[talltex]

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.[

There is a vast difference between funding something you disagree and don't like with and being forced to fund something you find so very reprehensible that those who engage in it and propagate its existence are endangering their very souls.

Would you make a Jewish deli serve ham?

Therein lies the fundamental difference between us. I don't believe that I have the right to tell a Jewish deli or anyone else what they may or may not do as long as it is not illegal and doesn't infringe on my rights or safety. I don't believe the government should have the right to do so either. I understand your position and support your right to feel that way and I'm certainly not trying to change your mind. Your opposition is based on your own religious beliefs and you obviously feel very strongly about them. However, our government was founded on the concept of religious freedom and one of the basic tenents was that the government should not tell people how to think and what to believe, and for that reason I think they should leave religious issues up to the individual.

[Jaguar]

When both choices are Democrats, a Democrat will win.

I am a fiscal conservative. To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, “I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.”

I am a Libertarian.

No offense, but being a libertarian means you (not personally) do not take stances on any issue. As long as they are left alone they don't care what others do. That is not the definition of liberty.

I do agree that the GOP left me.

Anygunanywhere

I don't understand, the LP does not have a platform? The LP does not take stances on any issues? I may disagree with some of the issues they have in the platform, but when it comes to fiscal matters, I do agree with the platform.

So wishing to be left alone and leaving others alone is not liberty? Come again?