Electoral Votes

[sjfcontrol]

Just a couple of quick points. Firstly, why should a woman be able to "choose" what to do with her body? Nobody gets that "right". For example you can't use your body to rob a convenience store. Now, you say that's because if affects the rights of others, but the right to "choose" also affects the rights of others, mainly the baby, but also the other family members. Perhaps a more on-point example would be that you aren't allowed to put illegal chemicals in "your body". So the government put all sorts of restrictions with what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Secondly, for those that claim that gay marriage, etc. is fine with them as long as they don't get the bill -- well there is a bill, and in some cases they ARE paying it (or will be). Benefits are payable to public employee's families. Medical insurance and other benefits accrue to the spouse of the employee, and those benefits are paid by tax receipts paid by YOU. When the definition of "marriage" is expanded to include same-sex couples, those new spouses then become eligible to collect on those benefits. The same thing occurs when the benefits are expanded to include "partners" (in addition to spouses) of the employee.

[C-dub]

[quote="Oldgringo{snip}


Well, that makes at least two of us, HP.

Furthermore, I am married to Mrs. Oldgringo and that suits us fine (most days) and we don't care who else marries whom. It's not ours to judge nor is it any of our concern.....as long as we don't get any bills for it.

Nope, there's a few more of us...

I imagine there's a majority because I fit in that camp. What a woman does to her body, who people marry, etc. doesn't concern me. Until I have to pay for it...then it's game on.

I agree with anygunanywhere and have thought the same thing for many many years, but with a slight twist. While an abortion does have an effect on a woman's body, she is not killing her body. Another person is being killed. Besides, aren't there also laws against self-mutilation? Maybe not criminal, but it sure might get you a trip to see some folks in white coats.

[bizarrenormality]

{snip}


Well, that makes at least two of us, HP.

Furthermore, I am married to Mrs. Oldgringo and that suits us fine (most days) and we don't care who else marries whom. It's not ours to judge nor is it any of our concern.....as long as we don't get any bills for it.

Nope, there's a few more of us...

I imagine there's a majority because I fit in that camp. What a woman does to her body, who people marry, etc. doesn't concern me. Until I have to pay for it...then it's game on.

Get rid of the discrimination in the income tax laws and other federal laws and it's a non issue at the federal level.

Instead of having special rights for gay marriage, or polygamy, or whatever marriage somebody's religion allows, get the government out of the business. Assess everyone who earns $50,000 a year the same income taxes no matter how many wives, husbands, children, or houses they have.

Even better is to get rid of income taxes and go to a national sales tax with no loopholes, kickbacks, or master prebates. That would be a true "fair tax" with everybody paying based on their consumption, so it's not going to be popular with The 47% and others who get handouts, large deductions, and otherwise benefit from wealth redistribution schemes.

[Jaguar]

Random thoughts for today

I apologized to my 21 years old son today. My generation failed him.

Somehow me wanting to keep my paycheck is considered greedy, but someone else taking it is called compassion.

I do not like Romney, I held my nose and voted for him. Maybe others couldn't muster a cloths pin.

The greedy generation (baby boomer) has given birth to the even greedier generation.

We have tipped the 50% threshold. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Ben Franklin

Colorado voted to allow recreational cannabis. They also voted in Obama. Chicken & egg?

1984 wasn't intended to be a "How to Manual".

My doctor ordered I get a PET scan. My insurance said they would only pay for a CT scan since I haven't endured chemotherapy in five years, and if it showed anything then I could get a PET scan. Who should I trust more with decisions on my health, the doctor or the insurance company? Rhetorical question, no need to reply.

I'm tired and going to bed.

[sjfcontrol]

Random thoughts for today

I apologized to my 21 years old son today. My generation failed him.

My doctor ordered I get a PET scan. My insurance said they would only pay for a CT scan since I haven't endured chemotherapy in five years, and if it showed anything then I could get a PET scan. Who should I trust more with decisions on my health, the doctor or the insurance company? Rhetorical question, no need to reply.

Regarding apologizing to your son, did you also apologize to all your (future and present) grandkids and great-grandkids?

Regarding your rhetorical question, It should read -- "Who should I trust more ... the doctor, the insurance company, or a panel of Obama-picked bureaucrats?
And although rhetorical, the answer is that you should trust them in the order by which they are responsible to you. You have a personal relationship with your doctor (high-level relationship), you have a business relationship with your insurance company (medium-level relationship), you have an adversarial relationship with a panel of bureaucrats (negative relationship, if you die, you cease being a problem to them).

[snatchel]

I guess this all begs the question: What makes any of us culpable for someone's decision to participate in pro-choice/pro gay-marriage acts?

If the 2016 Election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: Pro-Choice, Anti-Handout, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun

I would vote Republican still, in a heartbeat. Why? I'm getting what I WANT while letting what I cant fight happen. There is no way that a Republican President is going to be elected again while maintaining a strict anti-choice/anti-gay marriage platform. Too many younger conservatives like me who are willing to sacrifice "bedroom issues" in order to maintain a fiscally conservative government that stays out of everyone's business.

It's not that I support Pro-Choice candidates... never have, never will. Nor Do I support gay-marriage. At least not from a moral perspective. Still, far be it from me to thumb my nose at a gay man who wants to marry his boyfriend. Heck, 50 years ago I would have been frowned down on by ultra-conservatives for marrying an Asian woman. "Gosh no, Sonny! You can't marry a... minority".....

Times are changing. What seems like an unforgivable, morally compromising decision now will be a non-issue in ten years to most folks. So how can I, a christian male, agree to sign off on a candidate who is pro-choice/pro gay-marriage? Simply put, i'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Going out and drinking till unconsciousness is morally wrong, sinful, stupid, and often gets people killed. But it's legal, and none of us feel culpable for those idiots, do we? In the 1920's they did... and we know how prohibition worked out.

I picked my fights. I can't baby-sit the United States. I'm not responsible for someone else's stupid decision. A pro choice/pro gay-marriage Republican President wouldn't be responsible for it either. That's between the person who chooses to do those things and God.

So here I sit... in bed next to my beautiful wife after going to Mass this evening. Tonight we will pray that the Republican party starts to realize that social-conservatism is going to bury the Republican party .. and has been since 2008. We pray that God gives us a candidate who is willing to sacrifice some conservative social stances so that he or she can have a leg to stand on come election time, so that America can start to get back on track to a country where we aren't afraid to have children in.

[Oldgringo]

I guess this all begs the question: What makes any of us culpable for someone's decision to participate in pro-choice/pro gay-marriage acts?

If the 2016 Election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: Pro-Choice, Anti-Handout, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun

I would vote Republican still, in a heartbeat. Why? I'm getting what I WANT while letting what I cant fight happen. There is no way that a Republican President is going to be elected again while maintaining a strict anti-choice/anti-gay marriage platform. Too many younger conservatives like me who are willing to sacrifice "bedroom issues" in order to maintain a fiscally conservative government that stays out of everyone's business.

It's not that I support Pro-Choice candidates... never have, never will. Nor Do I support gay-marriage. At least not from a moral perspective. Still, far be it from me to thumb my nose at a gay man who wants to marry his boyfriend. Heck, 50 years ago I would have been frowned down on by ultra-conservatives for marrying an Asian woman. "Gosh no, Sonny! You can't marry a... minority".....

Times are changing. What seems like an unforgivable, morally compromising decision now will be a non-issue in ten years to most folks. So how can I, a christian male, agree to sign off on a candidate who is pro-choice/pro gay-marriage? Simply put, i'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Going out and drinking till unconsciousness is morally wrong, sinful, stupid, and often gets people killed. But it's legal, and none of us feel culpable for those idiots, do we? In the 1920's they did... and we know how prohibition worked out.

I picked my fights. I can't baby-sit the United States. I'm not responsible for someone else's stupid decision. A pro choice/pro gay-marriage Republican President wouldn't be responsible for it either. That's between the person who chooses to do those things and God.

So here I sit... in bed next to my beautiful wife after going to Mass this evening. Tonight we will pray that the Republican party starts to realize that social-conservatism is going to bury the Republican party .. and has been since 2008. We pray that God gives us a candidate who is willing to sacrifice some conservative social stances so that he or she can have a leg to stand on come election time, so that America can start to get back on track to a country where we aren't afraid to have children in.

There it is!

[pbwalker]

Just a couple of quick points. Firstly, why should a woman be able to "choose" what to do with her body? Nobody gets that "right". For example you can't use your body to rob a convenience store. Now, you say that's because if affects the rights of others, but the right to "choose" also affects the rights of others, mainly the baby, but also the other family members. Perhaps a more on-point example would be that you aren't allowed to put illegal chemicals in "your body". So the government put all sorts of restrictions with what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Secondly, for those that claim that gay marriage, etc. is fine with them as long as they don't get the bill -- well there is a bill, and in some cases they ARE paying it (or will be). Benefits are payable to public employee's families. Medical insurance and other benefits accrue to the spouse of the employee, and those benefits are paid by tax receipts paid by YOU. When the definition of "marriage" is expanded to include same-sex couples, those new spouses then become eligible to collect on those benefits. The same thing occurs when the benefits are expanded to include "partners" (in addition to spouses) of the employee.

Well, my company expanded it to partners and same sex spouses and my rates never went up. I'd also imagine rates for a married couple is lower than the rates for two single employees. And honestly, there is nothing we can do to keep the fed from spending our tax dollars on it.

I want to ensure I tread lightly on your first comment as I do not want to violate any forum rules. We're having a good, civil discussion here, and I've enjoyed it. I'll first say I am very much pro-life, and I don't agree with the "a" word at all. But I also realize it is not my choice, and it's something a woman (and sometimes spouse) have to decide upon. It's on them to live with. I would rather see adoption, but sometimes people don't have that option. But I go back to it being none of my business. I know people wonder how one can be pro-life and pro-choice, but I am.

I will say I am not a religious person, but I understand the POV. I grew up Roman Catholic. I remember hearing birth control was frowned upon!

And great post snatchel!

[HenryAKirk]

I guess this all begs the question: What makes any of us culpable for someone's decision to participate in pro-choice/pro gay-marriage acts?

If the 2016 Election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: Pro-Choice, Anti-Handout, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun

I would vote Republican still, in a heartbeat. Why? I'm getting what I WANT while letting what I cant fight happen. There is no way that a Republican President is going to be elected again while maintaining a strict anti-choice/anti-gay marriage platform. Too many younger conservatives like me who are willing to sacrifice "bedroom issues" in order to maintain a fiscally conservative government that stays out of everyone's business.

It's not that I support Pro-Choice candidates... never have, never will. Nor Do I support gay-marriage. At least not from a moral perspective. Still, far be it from me to thumb my nose at a gay man who wants to marry his boyfriend. Heck, 50 years ago I would have been frowned down on by ultra-conservatives for marrying an Asian woman. "Gosh no, Sonny! You can't marry a... minority".....

Times are changing. What seems like an unforgivable, morally compromising decision now will be a non-issue in ten years to most folks. So how can I, a christian male, agree to sign off on a candidate who is pro-choice/pro gay-marriage? Simply put, i'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Going out and drinking till unconsciousness is morally wrong, sinful, stupid, and often gets people killed. But it's legal, and none of us feel culpable for those idiots, do we? In the 1920's they did... and we know how prohibition worked out.

I picked my fights. I can't baby-sit the United States. I'm not responsible for someone else's stupid decision. A pro choice/pro gay-marriage Republican President wouldn't be responsible for it either. That's between the person who chooses to do those things and God.

So here I sit... in bed next to my beautiful wife after going to Mass this evening. Tonight we will pray that the Republican party starts to realize that social-conservatism is going to bury the Republican party .. and has been since 2008. We pray that God gives us a candidate who is willing to sacrifice some conservative social stances so that he or she can have a leg to stand on come election time, so that America can start to get back on track to a country where we aren't afraid to have children in.

There it is!

Well put I wish I was articulate enough to put it that way.

[talltex]

well put Snatchel...precisely the point I've been trying to make...if the Republican party wants to actually WIN elections on a national scale in the future, they have to be willing to adapt to the current realities and let individuals, families and religious groups make there own choices about moral issues.

[77346]

If the 2016 election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: breathing and with a pulse

I will vote Republican

[pinkpistol]

You all are amazing.
Relax.
And remember, you might just piss off a liberal that is armed.

[Heartland Patriot]

You all are amazing.
Relax.
And remember, you might just piss off a liberal that is armed.

I refuse to "relax". And sorry to tell you this, but I'm not worried about irritating any liberals. Besides, that last line seemed rather threat-like. Not very tolerant, now, is it?

[snatchel]

If the 2016 election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: breathing and with a pulse

I will vote Republican

Ayy, I understand. But a Republican Party in the above condition will accomplish nothing while the liberal left-wingers gain vote after vote...

It seems to me, and perhaps myself included, a lot of voters don't understand tax code, economics, or business models. What they DO understand is social rights (using the word 'right' loosely here for simplicity purposes). This is how Obama got back in office. If we were all savvy and on the up-and-up on economics and whatnot, I doubt a democrat anywhere would be holding onto their seat. But they talk a good economic game while promoting themselves to the undecided swingers, young men, women, and minorities simply by being tolerant of the change in social and moral values.

[Heartland Patriot]

I uderstand that I will never be able to stop others from doing things that I find socially and/or morally distasteful. But its the paying for it part that really ticks me off. In that respect, I guess I have some common ground with pbwalker after all.