Tips On How The Conservatives Could Win An Election

Another chilling defeat. How could that happen? Where did they go wrong?

As I've stated before, and I'll say it again.
Here's how the conservative/republican party can win the next election.

1) Throw that god damned bible away. Just get rid of it.
2) Get out of "our" bedrooms. Nothing going on in there is any of your business
3) Remove any mention or discussion of Roe V Wade from your vocabulary and platform
4) Stop trying to legislate your version of "morality" to the people (see point number 1)
5) Never again stand in the way of equal rights for gays - stop talking about gay marriage (see point number 1 again)
6) Distance yourself from wackos like Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Pat Robertson types
7) Stop trying to police the world - focus on our country only

The key focus should be this: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Liberalism

That would win an election in a landslide victory of epic proportions.

However, you're free to continue doing what your doing, but I think today's election news proves where ignoring my suggestions above gets you.


A few states voted for legalizing gay marriage. One state elected an openly gay Senator. A few states voted to legalize marijuana. And, Romney lost.

It's hard to tell an extreme fundamentalist that they should compromise. Sometimes they sound like they would rather see a total collapse of society, than compromise an inch.
Extreme fundamentalists don't just live in the middle east.

To be conservative is one thing...to take that to an intolerable extreme is another.
And maybe the closer the fight, the more desperate people act...do or die.
But when the contest isnt that close, you'ld be surprised where compromise comes from.

Hopefully the U.S.A. will find a little more cooperation from their politicians, this time around.

Good Luck you guys.

I doubt there will be any cooperation.

That's the downfall of the current system.

Doing what's right for the country is no longer the direction our parties want to go.

Now it's simply about crushing the other party as loudly and obnoxiously as possible.

I like this : Fiscal Conservatism, Social Liberalism.

I would like the Republican party to represent middle class people who work hard and are responsible for their own actions. I want a party who represents common sense people who take care of themselves and their neighbors and don't force their values on them. I don't care if my neighbors are gay, smoke dope, get an abortion, have guns, are christian or Muslim, or are rich or poor.

Right now, I see it as a party that pushes their morals into government and is looking out for the best interests of the rich. I would like to see them distance themselves from Bush Jr and Rush Limbaugh.

Yes - the "extremism" of the talk-radio/foxnews pundits like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh might very well strike a chord with the far-right, but they are certainly a HUGE turn-off to those closer to center, and especially to those who are "swing-voters".

I hate entering political conversations, but I am one of the more central people that would LOVE to see a candidate who is a mix of both conservative and liberal values. It is the extremists that turn me off to the republican party because they are just crazy. Like scary crazy. There are extremist liberals too, I suppose, but they don't seem as dangerous for some reason. Which makes me lean more to the liberal side of things. I am a middle class citizen who works hard to take care of myself, my family, and those around me, but I also feel any advanced society has to be aware and caring and take care of its less fortunate citizens with social programs and healthcare. It's not socialism, it's human decency.

BTW, I didn't vote. My wife didn't vote. Once again, it didn't matter as the candidate that we would have voted for won my state anyway. So here we are after spending billions of dollars on campaigns (think of what that money would do for my family and friends in New Jersey right now...) back to where we were. I just hope everyone can get along now and stop being so childish.

motokid wrote:

Another chilling defeat. How could that happen? Where did they go wrong?

As I've stated before, and I'll say it again.
Here's how the conservative/republican party can win the next election.

1) Throw that god damned bible away. Just get rid of it.
2) Get out of "our" bedrooms. Nothing going on in there is any of your business
3) Remove any mention or discussion of Roe V Wade from your vocabulary and platform
4) Stop trying to legislate your version of "morality" to the people (see point number 1)
5) Never again stand in the way of equal rights for gays - stop talking about gay marriage (see point number 1 again)
6) Distance yourself from wackos like Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Pat Robertson types
7) Stop trying to police the world - focus on our country only

The key focus should be this: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Liberalism

That would win an election in a landslide victory of epic proportions.

However, you're free to continue doing what your doing, but I think today's election news proves where ignoring my suggestions above gets you.


A few states voted for legalizing gay marriage. One state elected an openly gay Senator. A few states voted to legalize marijuana. And, Romney lost.

Not sure about that Moto.

Firstly, I'm a devout atheist and strong libertarian. But the conventional wisdom has been that the libertarian wing of the Republican party can NOT win elections without social conservatives who draw their values from the bible. It may well be the case (as you describe above) that by pandering to evangelicals Republicans have alienated centrists resulting in a net loss of support. I disagree. There are a lot of evangelicals in this country. I see nothing but churches as I ride my WRR around rural Florida. I teach a General Biology course at a rural community college and every semester when I get to Charles Darwin I'm afraid I will be shot dead right there in front of the class - these kids freak out.

Many also argue that there can be no fiscal conservatism without social conservatism because social liberalism inevitably leads to social problems which cost money. And good luck with saying "well, you made your bed now go lay in it". Remember ... "we're all in this together" >>> BARF!

The south is peppered with churches. No doubt. How's that working right about now?

Do you think that removing religion from the republican platform would send most of those religious southerners flocking to the Democratic party candidates? I doubt it.

Multiple states have approved gay marriage. Pot is gaining acceptance. An openly gay senator was elected.

The conservatives can cling to religion and continue to lose....or drop it like a lead balloon and march to victory.

Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Glenn Beck are not the path to victory.

Creating legislation with the bible as the guide is not the path to victory.

yes - a lot of people want that - but not enough to win an election.

motokid wrote:

The south is peppered with churches. No doubt. How's that working right about now?

[Reply: Rather well for Republicans as they carried the South again.]

Do you think that removing religion from the republican platform would send most of those religious southerners flocking to the Democratic party candidates? I doubt it.

[Reply: No. They would stay home.]

Moto, pardon the expression but you're preaching to the choir. I'm a libertarian through and through. Live and let live. I just lack your certainty that dropping social conservatism from the Republican platform is a net win for them. Look at the popular vote numbers. The election was not the massacre it is being made out to be. One of the quirks of the electoral college system is that it magnifies small popular wins into large electoral college wins (by design, in order to help the President govern a divided electorate).

I share your political views, I just lack your certainty that dropping social conservatives is a good plan for Republicans (which I am not).

I never heard anything about Obama winning a landslide victory.

In fact, many many polls had Romney slightly in the lead over the last few months thanks to Obama's shitty debate performance.

There were also more than a few news releases that this election could be a repeat of the Gore/Bush election where Romney would win popular vote but Obama would win electoral college vote and retain presidency that way.

Going into the election it was very very close.


Now look at the Red/Blue map.

The south and middle parts of the country were solid red. The west coast and northeast were solid blue.

Stepping away from the social-conservative side of politics would most assuredly bring in the swing voters and possibly bring more blue states into the red.

There's very little if any confidence that any of the two parties has any ability to do anything fiscally responsible.
However, the larger social issues can push a swing voter from one side to the other.

If the conservatives accepted that gay people are gay and that they deserve the same rights and treatments as anyone else the conservatives would reap benefits.

If the conservatives walked away from Roe V Wade and stated that (as libertarians tend to think) while they think it's wrong, they've decided not to push their beliefs about it on others, lots of women would and many men would be more willing to vote for R's.

Stepping far away from evangelical idiots like Perry, Beck and others would be HUGE for the R's.

It's fine to guide your life using any book you chose. However, don't create and push laws based on your religion of choice on everybody else.
Morality and honesty don't come from the bible. (As you well know for sure).

Yes - the religio-political slant works well in the south, but the west coast, and northeast section of the country, where millions and millions live, are not fooled by mythological gods and books of fables written by men in an attempt to control others.

Be religious in your private life - just don't make it part of your political platform.

I believe these are things the R's and/or conservatives need to do or they shall continue to suffer in major nation-wide elections.

Election results raise questions about Christian right's influence – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs <-- clicky

Quote :

Some conservative evangelical leaders echoed that line. Albert Mohler, who heads the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on Twitter that votes for same-sex marriage suggested that “we are witnessing a fundamental moral realignment of the country.”

Bingo.....religion is losing it's grip......thank GOD.

So I'm in the process of looking thru a "tax planning guide" given to me by my accountant. There have been 4,430 changes to the tax code since 2001. More than one per day! 579 changes in 2010 alone.

That's why I vote libertarian.

Humans love regularity, because it takes a certain effort to understand and act on a pattern. To change that pattern can seem to "upset" everything. Therefore change, in general can be awkward and unwelcome.

I too, see how the "grip" religion has/had on society. And they were mostly well intending people in my opinion.

Regardless, they are humans struggling to understand the best to do, with what they have.
Just like the rest of us.

This is not a small phenomena, the world is changing in my view, and religions are more and more being asked to defend their views, like never before. This fact alone, is stressing the world community like never before. Mostly because the defense is lacking.

My family is feeling this stress.

To make fun of "them" about their very real struggle, doesnt sit well with me. Regardless of how obvious the truth may be to me.

At some point only "you" are responsible for finding the truth...

But for someone who knows, to ridicule and demonize someone who doesnt...there is no honour in that.

There is always those beyond help, but I feel they are the exception.

If you really want to help the situation, that needs plenty of help...practice patience and realize a little help is nothing...a lot of help is what you are capable of.

mucker wrote:

My family is feeling this stress.

How? What's specifically stressing your family?

A lot of your post is exactly why I find the Tao Te Ching a much better teaching than most other philosophical books. It's all about finding what's inside yourself and learning about yourself. Not about getting the answers from others. It not about fear, control, guilt, or following. The Tao is about balance and inner peace.

motokid wrote:

A lot of your post is exactly why I find the Tao Te Ching a much better teaching than most other philosophical books. It's all about finding what's inside yourself and learning about yourself. Not about getting the answers from others. It not about fear, control, guilt, or following. The Tao is about balance and inner peace.

Moto - you're sounding very libertarian.

motokid wrote:

Another chilling defeat. How could that happen? Where did they go wrong?

As I've stated before, and I'll say it again.
Here's how the conservative/republican party can win the next election.

Just what the Republicans need - advice on how to win the election, provided by a closet socialist/statist, albeit one with a few libertarian concepts where they suit him.

It's a "chilling defeat" only because we now have four more years of government under a Marxist idealogue who has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for his oath of office, a willingness to govern through presidential fiat, and not even concerns about re-election constraining him any longer.

The electoral college decides the election, but for all intents and purposes the popular vote was evenly decided. Then of course you have large numbers of blacks who voted for Obama primarily because he is black, not because of any choice between policies.

The country is essentially split down the middle on what they prefer, ignoring those who decided to vote with their homey. Of course, if whites voted for the white guy because he was white and the other guy was black in equally large numbers, we'd be having a discussion on racism - but that's another topic.

Republicans don't need advice from socialists and statists on how to win an election - they already have lots of RINOs in the establishment RNC suggesting the path to victory is to try and be more like the Democrats.

There's a pattern for winning already established. Reagan did it twice, with landslide victories that crossed party lines - after he fought his way past the RINOS who said a man with a platform like that couldn't win. In fact, their objections to Reagan and reasons why he couldn't win look eerily like what Motokid's complaints are.

And apparently, neither the RNC nor Motokid noticed the enormous wins made by conservative Republicans in 2010. And they didn't follow Motokid's advice nor RNC handwringing and obstructioniism one little bit.

But despite that, many within the establishment GOP think the Motokid approach is the way to victory - abandon principle in favour of trying to out-Democrat the Democrats.

And as long as they keep following that agenda, they're going to have about as much success as the RINOs they've put forward in the past have experienced: Ford, Dole, Bush v1.0, McCain, and Romney. When economic concerns get bad enough, people will eventually vote Republican - but only because their Santa Clause hopes will have dimmed and they'll try the alternative that time around.

If the electorate are children, Santa is going to win the election.

motokid wrote:

mucker wrote:

My family is feeling this stress.

How? What's specifically stressing your family?

A lot of your post is exactly why I find the Tao Te Ching a much better teaching than most other philosophical books. It's all about finding what's inside yourself and learning about yourself. Not about getting the answers from others. It not about fear, control, guilt, or following. The Tao is about balance and inner peace.

My point being, my direct family has devote believers, as well in branches of the family.

The troubles i am concerned about are not trivial....yet, i feel other effforts have failed, devoted efforts....

And even closer than that...my mom is a devoted christian... I will defend and back her with my life, she has earned that from me, and asks for nothing...there are only so many days.
I choose to defend hers before mine.
I guess that can cause stress at times, but not for me.

Ya, I'm a mamma's boy...but I really do have a mom that went thru it all...She's been that tough already.
I'm already smarter...just not as tough...typical son.

I can deal with me and her, but watching the rest of the siblings can try my patience at times...to say the least...and I can try real hard if I choose.

Anywho, there are many in the family tree involved in my comment.
My mom has no concern for herself. She just wants what a good mom wants for her whole family.

We all have stated our positions to each other...but the stress is there.
And I'll do what I have to do....but someone trying to prove their point at expense of my mom, for example, whether I agree or not...

Is gonna deal with me.

Good mluck with that.


Anywho, i feel respect is something everyone should learn, and practice.














And

Motokid, have you ever actually sat down with an open mind and read the Bible? Most of the people who want to "throw it out" have never actually read it for themselves. Jesus said to love your neighbour as yourself. If more people in this country cared as much about other people as they do about themselves, the world would be a much better place. They took the Bible and prayer out of schools, and are the schools better for it? I woud say, no. Our education system is pathetic and violence in school is increasing. Coincidence? Before you discount the Bible completely, try reading it. And the Pilgrims came to this country so they could have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion, and they founded this country based on principles from the King James Bible.

motokid wrote:

As I've stated before, and I'll say it again.
Here's how the conservative/republican party can win the next election.

First, Motokid obviously does not realize it, but being conservative and being Republican are not not necessarily the same thing. In fact, the ruling establishment in the Republican party these days is anything but conservative - which is why they have worked so hard in the last two primaries to offer first McCain and then Romney, instead of any of the conservative candidates that were running. Neither was remotely like Reagan.

It's also worth noting that the issue isn't "winning"; the issue is having principles and positions that are consistent with the concepts laid down by the Constitution and how it remains written today. Abandoning principles to run as Democrat Lite, simply so you can win an election and hold power as an unprincipled Democrat Lite hardly does anything for the country. That's just about power.

So let's look at the socialist/statist advice from a constitutional/conservative perspective - after all, the GOP has tried being Democrat Lite in the last two presidential elections and look where it got them, versus the Tea Party philosophy that resulted in landslide victories in the midterms:

Quote :

1) Throw that god damned bible away. Just get rid of it.

Tell the screeching atheists to take their obsessive religion of hating deists and piss off.

Juust give them a box of Midol and tell them to hit the road. And don't apologize for doing it. Tell them if they have such a hate on for religion, they should try their luck getting a constitutional amendment passed, see how far that goes.

First off, there aren't that many radical atheists out there to begin with, and aside from their atheism, most of them are also socialists and/or statists, so they aren't going to vote for conservative values even if you do pander to their hatred of every religion other than their religion of disbelief.

Second, when the leftist press or the atheists want to push the idea that having strong religious beliefs makes you somehow "scary", get in their faces. Point out what Washington, Lincoln, etc said about their religious beliefs on campaigns and while in office and ask them what they found so scary about those presidents.

Third, the Bible isn't the core of conservative values anyways, and it certainly isn't a millstone around candidate's necks. The Republicans massively failed to get Hispanic voters - and yet 90% of Hispanics identify themselves as belonging to a Christian religion, and 50% say they attend at least one religious service per week, while another 17% say they attend at least once a month. 80% of blacks self identify as having strong religious beliefs with 53% saying they attend religious services at least once a week, and 76% pray daily.

With those percentages of blacks and Hispanics holding strong Christian beliefs, and yet overwhelmingly voting for Obama, it sure as hell isn't "the bible" that is costing Republicans black and Hispanic votes. So there's no need to suck up to the rabid atheists by any measure.

Quote :

2) Get out of "our" bedrooms. Nothing going on in there is any of your business

There was nothing in Romney's campaign having to do with what Motokid does in his bedroom, so one has to wonder where that comes from.

However, it appears that what goes on in Motokid's bedroom is our business. After all, we're being told we have to buy the rubbers Motokid and his children use in their bedroom's, cars, whatever. Nobody has explained to us why we're obligated to provide those condoms, but clearly we're being told that it is our business to be in their bedrooms - at least, to the extent that we're obligated to pay for their entitlement for free condoms for their use in those bedrooms. And apparently, it's also our business to be in their bedrooms when their frolicking results in an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion performed at a Planned Parenthood clinic - funded by taxpayers.

So conservatives would be happy to stay out of your bedrooms and the backseats of your cars. Please stop demanding that we step in the door just long enough to pay the bill for your rubbers and abortions.

Is that a reasonable compromise?

Quote :

3) Remove any mention or discussion of Roe V Wade from your vocabulary and platform

No president can just "overturn" Roe v Wade - unless they were like Obama and simply ignored the law to do what they want. The only way to overturn Roe v Wade would be a Supreme Court decision. The intelligentsia, of course, either didn't know this or never thought to mention it while making it into a political issue.

Having said that, courts should overturn Roe v Wade. Given that statists/socialists and progressives are generally not well educated on the matters they scream about, explain to them that overturning Roe v Wade doesn't make abortion illegal in the US. What it does do is one point of progress in rejecting activist courts and federal governments who invent constitutional rights that do not exist, and federal governments that assume powers they do not have. This isn't about "biblical morality" - this is about constitutional limitations on government and what powers state governments have versus federal government. If the court had done something similar with respect to state laws, but instead mandated that all states must provide capital punishment for first degree murder, the same people screaming for federal intrusion as per Roe v Wade would be dropping their guts that the Supreme Court would order something like that.

Quote :

4) Stop trying to legislate your version of "morality" to the people (see point number 1)

That would be like demanding that Americans behave as atheists.

Of course, what becomes "morality" in the eyes of socialists/statists is a bit confusing. Suffice it to say, the constitution does not give the federal government the right to legislate for or against morality. That would include defending Roe v Wade and abortion - which is most certainly a moral issue for many people.

So we're once again left with the curious irrationality of socialist/statists: on the one hand, they want federal government to leave Roe v Wade - a very moral issue to many people - in power and alone. On the other hand, they demand no legislation on versions of morality to the people. Talk about illogical. What they're really trying to say is leave the laws defending moral issues they're happy with in place - but don't make similar laws referring to other moral issues that might not turn out the way they want it.

What conservatives should be telling voters is that the federal government has no business intervening in issues like abortion/Roe v Wade, or capital punishment, or anything similar. That's why each state has its own penal code, not one penal code to cover all the states. Those powers, constitutionally, properly belong with state governments and the people who live in those states, to examine and enact as they see fit.

Quote :

5) Never again stand in the way of equal rights for gays - stop talking about gay marriage (see point number 1 again)

Explain to the nitwits that there is no constitutional right for homosexuals to marry - something Obama used to argue to defend his case until his miraculous conversion a few months before the election.

Also explain to the irrational ravers out there that, if they really don't want federal politicians legislating the peoples' morality - that includes legislating that marriage can also refer to two homosexuals, a very moral issue to many people. Once again, it is kind of painfully amusing how socialist/statists want federal intervention to enforce laws on moral issues in some cases, but to keep their hands off in others.

Explain to the nitwits that there already exists a comprehensive body of law to ensure that gays get equal rights as far as hiring, pay, benefits, voting, etc - as there should be - and no GOP campaign said anything about repealing those laws. However, homosexual marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a morality issue. And as some socialists/statists demand, don't attempt to legislate the peoples' morality.

Tell people that it is not the President's business to legislate the peoples' morality - on homosexual marriage as much as anything else. And that GOP presidential candidates believe that the intent of the Constitution is that decisions like that belong to the states, not the federal government.

Quote :

6) Distance yourself from wackos like Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Pat Robertson types

Recognize that the lunatic socialists and statist out there will never have a problem with what the Democrat nutjobs like Joe Biden, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakan, Spike Lee, Chris Matthews, etc. In fact, you'll see them endlessly posting about conservatives who they think go over the line, but the racists, lunatics, losers, and rabid socialists they share common ground with will never be mentioned by them in their complaints about politicians and their supporters.

Not even once. Go ahead, find your favorite resident way-left winger and check out their posts. Just see if you can find a single post about left wing "wackos" - or if is only conservatives that they rant on about.

So again, there is no point trying to appease these one-sided losers - all they want to do is reduce your base, they're never actually going to vote for you anyways.

Point out that the problem with complaints of socialist/statists like this is their atheism has eaten their brains. Republicans have just lost an election that could have gone the other way except they overwhelmingly lost not just the black vote, but the Hispanic vote as well. So while this is supposedly a lecture on how to win, you're supposed to reject Rick Perry - a Texas governor who repeatedly wins in a state (now the second longest serving governor in the US) where 40% of the voters are Hispanics - and growing.

Jeez... maybe this advice to stay away from "wackos" like Rick Perry is mostly motivated by atheism and hatred of anyone who openly acknowledges Christianity? It's not like Perry has a losing record or anything like that.

Quote :

7) Stop trying to police the world - focus on our country only

Right.

Leave Iran alone. We all know they're just developing nuclear capability for power generation - while they float on an ocean of oil and natural gas. And if they do start throwing nukes around in the Middle East, they will never think to give a few to Wahabbist Islamic terrorists to try and detonate in The Great Satan beforehand, would they? How could nuclear war in the Middle East possibly hurt the US, anyways?

Quote :

However, you're free to continue doing what your doing, but I think today's election news proves where ignoring my suggestions above gets you.

The problem with that (aside from the irrationality like demanding hands off on morality on one hand, while demanding federally legislated morality on another), is that the GOP has tried twice now to win with a Democrat Lite approach like this, rejecting conservative candidates while doing so. And aside from the fact that rejecting principle to run as Democrat Lite accomplishes nothing, you still can't outgive and outpromise Santa Obama.

Further evidence of this is that, while some conservative GOP candidates were defeated and that got a lot of airtime, what nobody wants to notice or talk about is that some real RINO Republicans who were just what Motokid says is needed got turfed as well. In fact, far more of them went down to defeat than conservative GOP candidates.

Quote :

A few states voted for legalizing gay marriage.

And it was rejected elsewhere... oops, missed mentioning that.

However, as several conservatives who Romney beat for the GOP nomination pointed out, whether or not to call homosexual unions "marriage" in opposition to the traditional view of marriage is entirely a state power, not a federal power, and well within the power of individual states to determine.

Quote :

One state elected an openly gay Senator.

This means something? Barney Frank was elected a long time ago - back when Republicans owned Congress. Romney supported homosexuals openly serving in the military and ENDA to prohibit employment legislation - and still lost. And Republicans have far more minority governors and federal politicians than Democrats - but still lost.

So aside from the fact no GOP policy had anything to do with keeping homosexuals out of the senate or anything else, that's pretty much a meaningless throwaway statement that's supposed to get you all worked up believing conservatives are hung up on homosexuals.

Quote :

A few states voted to legalize marijuana.

Yup. The Obama "my teenage years are a blur of drug use and alcohol" fan club? Ya figger?

Wait a minute - other states voted to reject legalized marijuana use. Oops... forgot that part as well.

Quote :

And, Romney lost.

He sure did. Among many other things, because he tried to be Democrat Lite instead of an unapologetic small government conservative. It didn't have anything to do with the fanciful advice offered here.

mucker wrote:

It's hard to tell an extreme fundamentalist that they should compromise. Sometimes they sound like they would rather see a total collapse of society, than compromise an inch.
Extreme fundamentalists don't just live in the middle east.

That's true.

There are extreme atheists whose brains cease functioning as soon as they discover somebody is a deist. Right here - not out in the Middle East.

"Fundamentalism" includes overbearing socialist/statist positions. And presidents. And so we witness those people fanning the flames of class warfare and race baiting. Meanwhile - benefiting from a filibuster-proof Congress to rubberstamp his programs at the same time - welfare rolls increase by 32%. Food stamp participation shot up 71%. There are 47 million Americans on food stamps. More unemployed than when he took office. In one term alone, he has placed more debt on the US than every single president before him added all together. In just four years.

To socialists and statists, this is not a problem. They don't see this spiral into welfare, food stamps, and unemployment as any kind of "total collapse of society". Aside from the human factor of Americans being reduced to this, they're also not taxpayers. And while "tax the rich" may make them feel good, the reality is you could take every dime "the rich" own and it might run the US for a year. But it wouldn't even make a scratch in the colossus of debt these fundamentalist socialists have brought on Americans in their uncompromising, take no prisoners campaign of class warfare and attacks on free enterprise and individual liberty and freedom.

Perhaps for socialists/statists, compromise is a difficult word. When a Republican approaches a newly elected President Obama to see what common ground they have, and that President looks at the filibuster-proof Senate and House he owns and replies "Elections have consequences" - is that fundamentalist "compromise"? When that same president rejects any changes to his porkulous spending and his Obamacare bill, is that fundamentalist "compromise" to the socialists and statists out there?

It seems that, to socialists and statists, "compromise" means that Republicans should spread their legs and give him what he wants when he suddenly no longer has that filibuster proof Congress to deal from.

Quote :

To be conservative is one thing...to take that to an intolerable extreme is another.

Aside from my first thought that you really have no idea what a conservative is, I think it would be reasonably entertaining to see what you would provide as examples of "intolerable extremes" in conservatives. After all, I'm pretty sure if I felt compelled to look back through your political posts here, I don't think I'd see one example of "Holy smokes - do you see how far Obama has gone with his class warfare/race baiting/enormous spending/seizure of powers!".

Quote :

But when the contest isnt that close, you'ld be surprised where compromise comes from.

Hopefully the U.S.A. will find a little more cooperation from their politicians, this time around.

Oh, you mean Obama is going to be more ameniable this time around to changes and input from conservative Republicans?

Really? Because I think he's going to be even worse this time around.

And why not? First, he no longer has to worry about reelection. Second, Weeping John Boehner was already negotiating with himself in public with Diane Sawyer, saying Obamacare was untouchable (he hastily recanted that after the shitstorm that followed), raising taxes was necessary, etc. Obama knows Boehner will blink first every time - while snarling again at the same time at conservative house members to "get your asses in line" - so why SHOULD he cooperate and compromise? In his place, I wouldn't either.

Quote :

Good Luck you guys.

It's going to take more than luck. And Boehner isn't the one to do it.

A66auto wrote:

I would like the Republican party to represent middle class people who work hard and are responsible for their own actions. I want a party who represents common sense people who take care of themselves and their neighbors and don't force their values on them. I don't care if my neighbors are gay, smoke dope, get an abortion, have guns, are christian or Muslim, or are rich or poor.

It appears you're either confusing the GOP with the Democrats, or just blindly accept whatever the press and Obama tell you about Republicans.

First, it's pretty clear that Romney and the GOP establishment are RINOs, in some cases simply Democrat Lite.

So we have Obamacare, and increasing food stamp and unemployment programs - which have had the work requirements removed from them by Democrats. Do you see this as a party oriented towards people who work hard, are responsible for their actions, take care of themselves, etc?

Of the near trillion dollars of Obama's porkulous program, only 6% went into "shovel ready jobs". The rest got doled out to union bosses, projects like Solyndra, community organizer groups like ACORN, etc. Is that common sense? Responsible? Aiding the middle class?

When you tell Americans they have to purchase health care, despite the majority of Americans being opposed to it, isn't that forcing your values on others?

When you decide you simply aren't going to enforce immigration laws - statutes passed by the House and Senate - in violation of your oath of office, isn't that forcing your views on the entire country? What Republican policy advocates or endorses actions like that?

Quote :

Right now, I see it as a party that pushes their morals into government and is looking out for the best interests of the rich.

A few links where Republicans were "pushing their morals into government" would be helpful, if you don't mind.

So what are "the best interests of the rich" that the GOP is supposedly about? They haven't controlled Congress since 2007, so it's not like they've been writing the budgets with a president to sign them, so what have they been doing to look after just the rich?

And what's the problem with the rich? They should be taxed more, apparently not paying enough already? Publicly flogged? What? Something that won't roll downhill from what we ought to be doing to the rich that results in the people they employ and the jobs they create being affected, I assume?

Quote :

I would like to see them distance themselves from Bush Jr and Rush Limbaugh.

Bush was never a fiscal conservative, nor is his brother Jeb, nor is Karl Rove. Conservatives have been unhappy with them from the beginning.

And I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I guess I'm going to have to figure out a way to do that to see what you find so objectionable about him. Can you tell me what the problem is?

Is he a racist?

Does he advocate violence i.e. "punish your enemies"? No wait, Obama said that to his supporters.

Does he advocate unconstitutional actions?

Give me some specific examples with links so I can find out for myself what bad stuff this guy is up to.

gatorfan wrote:

If the electorate are children, Santa is going to win the election.

Santa Obama did win.

What the children haven't figured out is that this is a slightly different story.

Santa can promise all these things and even deliver them, up to and including punishing the rich to make the non-rich feel better about life.

But this story is a little different than the Santa story the kids know.

In this story, Santa Obama gives out the goodies - but the kids get the bill for the things they voted to be given.

Lots of people resent those who are successful and rich, and thus the kids relax about the bill for the goodies because they hear "tax the rich" and "make them pay their fair share".

The problem is "the rich" are a very small number, and they already are bearing the burden of much of the income tax collected each year. So how much more before the children finally go, "Okay, that's enough... now they're paying their fair share and we have to pick up the tab for the rest"? And, as has happened in other countries, the rich know that money is not confined by borders. When they've had enough, their money and investments will simply go somewhere else where they aren't children who believe in a Santa who will give them everything, paid for by somebody else.

The CBO says Obamacare is now projected to cost more than four times what we were told it would cost when the Democrats rammed it through. And that's even after nearly a trillion dollars is robbed from the Peter that is Medicare to pay the Paul that is Obamacare. And that doesn't even address the enormous amount of debt piled up in just the first four years by Santa Obama.

Sooner or later, somehow or other, the kids are going to have to pay all the bills for the stuff Santa Obama gave them. Who knows - in another ten years they may still say "The bills for all these expensive gifts is all Bush's fault". Maybe that will make them feel better, and maybe it will help Obama's reputation - but they'll still have the bills and the pain of having to deal with them.

There aren't any winners here.

Jäger wrote:

However, it appears that what goes on in Motokid's bedroom is our business. After all, we're being told we have to buy the rubbers Motokid and his children use in their bedroom's, cars, whatever. Nobody has explained to us why we're obligated to provide those condoms, but clearly we're being told that it is our business to be in their bedrooms - at least, to the extent that we're obligated to pay for their entitlement for free condoms for their use in those bedrooms. And apparently, it's also our business to be in their bedrooms when their frolicking results in an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion performed at a Planned Parenthood clinic - funded by taxpayers.

So conservatives would be happy to stay out of your bedrooms and the backseats of your cars. Please stop demanding that we step in the door just long enough to pay the bill for your rubbers and abortions.

Is that a reasonable compromise?

Bombastic but insightful. "I'll stay out of your bedroom if you'll stay out of my wallet"

It goes right to the heart of the issue which is this: Can fiscal conservatism coexist with social liberalism? Not in todays shameless society. Shame is a powerful shaper of human behavior but we can no longer shame antisocial behavior (single motherhood, excessive drug use, gluttony, slough). To do so gets you labeled a "hater". So you get more and more anti-social behavior.

What are we to make of an obese 25 year old chain smoker lathered in tattoos? Or 25 year old unmarried woman with 3 children from three different men? Or the 40 year old "artist" who can not sell any of their art.

The only reason I'm "in the same boat" with characters like this is because lefties pointed a gun at me and told me to get in. That metaphor is not a stretch. The government has the power to use force and and the left has petitioned the government to threaten me with it.

So for the left the mantra is this: "Leave me alone, it's none of your business" followed by "help me, we're all in this together".

So Moto, the question for you is this: If you want fiscal conservatism with social liberalism, are you willing to let individuals pay for the consequences of their actions?

gatorfan wrote:

Bombastic but insightful. "I'll stay out of your bedroom if you'll stay out of my wallet"

So for the left the mantra is this: "Leave me alone, it's none of your business" followed by "help me, we're all in this together".

"Thorough" is more accurate. Plus, it seems like you have to just spell it all out in tiring detail - and even then the left seems unable to get it.

Or unwilling?

But you are right, it is the heart of the issue. Or at least part of it - it doesn't address a presidency relentlessly taking more power unto itself and increasingly rejecting the Constitutions separation of powers.

We need food stamp programs - which get sold on Craigslist, used to buy booze, drugs, etc. The Obama has reacted to this by removing assets tests for most recipients - so Leroy Frick in Michigan wins a $2 million jackpot and continues to receive food stamps because he opted for a lump sum instead of a monthly payment, and therefore his two mil doesn't count. The Obama has gone even further in compelling states to cease requiring finger images from recipients and other anti-fraud attempts.

And through all of this, there is absolutely no obligation or test of means that recipients of this government largess get off their sad and sorry asses and go looking for work. Not only is the money an entitlement, but apparently choosing to be a lazy, useless slug instead of getting up early every day and looking for work is also a right. In other words, at some point in our stagger to the left, we decided to reward laziness, indolence and all the other outcomes of destructive behavior. Right down to the Obama telling them with a straight face that they have a right to taxpayers being obligated to buy them condoms. Where the hell is that in the Constitution?

We, apparently, have no right to tell people what they can do with their body. Including choosing to kill a late term viable fetus (which gets no say in what gets done to HIS/HER body...) Okay, fair enough. But why then, are we enslaved with a legal obligation to pay for the outcome of their poor moral decisions, eating habits, exercise habits, drug use, alcohol use, slothfulness, etc?

The most pathetic part of it all is 46% of Americans pay no income tax at all. Instead, many of them whine that "the rich don't pay their fair share" Pretty ballsy when your share being paid is exactly zero. As we sit divided between those of us who sponge off the government and those of us who pay for the sponging, I am reminded of what H.L Mencken wrote: we have divided America into "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living."