A new Political party

[carlfense]

You sound like you have no argument for anything else that was in my post.

There's little worth arguing in your post because it's all opinion and I see no chance that you'll change your mind. You're emotionally invested in the abortion debate. I'm not.

Now you claiming that you didn't say that people need to change their thinking to align with your views . . . now that's worth discussing because it's not a matter of opinion. It's an awfully short discussion when I can just quote your own words. Now if I could just eliminate or change your thinking . . .

 

[TGHusker]

The libs made contraception of all things a huge issue in the campaign . . .

Wait a minute . . . you think the Democratic Party chose a fight over contraception?

You know they did. Obama and Sabelius (sp?) HHS secretary demonized the Catholic church for not wanting to be forced to pay for contraceptions under obamacare. At a mock hearing on Feb. 23, Nancy Pelosi invited Fluke to testify in support of the Obama administration’s decision to have insurance companies pay for contraceptives for employees at religious-affiliated institutions. . Darrell Issa who chaired an earlier hearing, said Fluke was not qualified to speak because she was not a member of the clergy. But Fluke was a set up to become the poster girl for Obama in the campaign - the gal who could not afford the $9/mo contraceptives. Then we have ABC moderator setting up Romney with a 'got you' guestion in the debate. Obama's who women's compaign centered around this issue, while Romney pointed out how women lost so many jobs under Obama in comparrison to men.

You realize not all BC cost $9/month, and there are plenty of other medical uses for BC other than controlling pregnancy. Which is what miss Fluke was testifying to. Why should the church be allowed to deny someone the right to have preventative care simply because they deem it against their religion, when in reality that person isn't using it in violation of the religion's views?

but that is what the arguement came down to - yes there were other things in Fluke's testimony as Carl alludes to - but the debate in the election centered around this one concept - contraceptions as a govt entitlement primarily as birrth control.

 

[TGHusker]

So, now that we have gotten way off topic, there seems to be more of a consensus for the repubs to reform themselves then starting a new party or all of the conservatives jumping to the Libertarian or Constitution party.

 

[carlfense]

The libs made contraception of all things a huge issue in the campaign . . .

Wait a minute . . . you think the Democratic Party chose a fight over contraception?

You know they did. Obama and Sabelius (sp?) HHS secretary demonized the Catholic church for not wanting to be forced to pay for contraceptions under obamacare. At a mock hearing on Feb. 23, Nancy Pelosi invited Fluke to testify in support of the Obama administration’s decision to have insurance companies pay for contraceptives for employees at religious-affiliated institutions. . Darrell Issa who chaired an earlier hearing, said Fluke was not qualified to speak because she was not a member of the clergy. But Fluke was a set up to become the poster girl for Obama in the campaign - the gal who could not afford the $9/mo contraceptives. Then we have ABC moderator setting up Romney with a 'got you' guestion in the debate. Obama's who women's compaign centered around this issue, while Romney pointed out how women lost so many jobs under Obama in comparrison to men.

You realize not all BC cost $9/month, and there are plenty of other medical uses for BC other than controlling pregnancy. Which is what miss Fluke was testifying to. Why should the church be allowed to deny someone the right to have preventative care simply because they deem it against their religion, when in reality that person isn't using it in violation of the religion's views?

but that is what the arguement came down to - yes there were other things in Fluke's testimony as Carl alludes to - but the debate in the election centered around this one concept - contraceptions as a govt entitlement primarily as birrth control.

No . . . the debate that I saw was primarily outraged conservatives online claiming (falsely) that Obama was mandating that the Catholic Church hand out free contraceptives.

Then Fluke was demonized as having loose morals and wanting to sleep around for free . . . when she was telling a story about a friend who had to take birth control to prevent ovarian cysts.

And the GOP wonders why they have trouble attracting female voters?

 

[ZRod]

but that is what the arguement came down to - yes there were other things in Fluke's testimony as Carl alludes to - but the debate in the election centered around this one concept - contraceptions as a govt entitlement primarily as birrth control.

No that's what Fox News, the Catholic Church, and some Republicans made it about to begin with.

And then the extremist did as Carl said above.

 

[Whistlebritches]

I had a similar discussion with a couple of Tea Party guys at work last week. IMO the Republicans need to distance themselves from the dated social views that they seem to embrace. They need to focus on their fiscal plans and try to leave guns, gays, weed, birth control, and abortions out of it. Stop proclaiming this idea of smaller government while trying to legislate morality. It's going to be tough to attract younger voters when the social issues that your party trumpets are no longer widely accepted by a younger crowd that is only getting bigger.

The economy is complicated and there are people on both the left and the right that are certain they know best and I'll admit that they (both sides) know more about that I do. That's why I don't consider the economy when voting. I know I'm not smart enough to fully comprehend the economy and all it's intricacies. I'll vote for the person that is going to support my same view on the social issues.

 

[carlfense]

I had a similar discussion with a couple of Tea Party guys at work last week. IMO the Republicans need to distance themselves from the dated social views that they seem to embrace. They need to focus on their fiscal plans and try to leave guns, gays, weed, birth control, and abortions out of it. Stop proclaiming this idea of smaller government while trying to legislate morality. It's going to be tough to attract younger voters when the social issues that your party trumpets are no longer widely accepted by a younger crowd that is only getting bigger.

:thumbs

 

[carlfense]

So, now that we have gotten way off topic, there seems to be more of a consensus for the repubs to reform themselves then starting a new party or all of the conservatives jumping to the Libertarian or Constitution party.

Realistically, we're probably a two party country for the foreseeable future. I blame some of that on intellectual laziness.

A reformed Republican party is probably more likely than a new party rising up to the point of national relevance.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You sound like you have no argument for anything else that was in my post.

There's little worth arguing in your post because it's all opinion and I see no chance that you'll change your mind. You're emotionally invested in the abortion debate. I'm not.

Now you claiming that you didn't say that people need to change their thinking to align with your views . . . now that's worth discussing because it's not a matter of opinion. It's an awfully short discussion when I can just quote your own words. Now if I could just eliminate or change your thinking . . .

Hey...you're the one who brought up abortion.

 

[TGHusker]

I had a similar discussion with a couple of Tea Party guys at work last week. IMO the Republicans need to distance themselves from the dated social views that they seem to embrace. They need to focus on their fiscal plans and try to leave guns, gays, weed, birth control, and abortions out of it. Stop proclaiming this idea of smaller government while trying to legislate morality. It's going to be tough to attract younger voters when the social issues that your party trumpets are no longer widely accepted by a younger crowd that is only getting bigger.

The economy is complicated and there are people on both the left and the right that are certain they know best and I'll admit that they (both sides) know more about that I do. That's why I don't consider the economy when voting. I know I'm not smart enough to fully comprehend the economy and all it's intricacies. I'll vote for the person that is going to support my same view on the social issues.

I agree with your larger point - the party needs to go back to the basics in that they were known (before GWB) as the fiscally responsibly party and concentrate on that. If they cannot gain the higher ground (I'm speaking from a communication point of view - not the moral) on leading the discussion and educating voters on the social issues, these issues flip on them and become wedge issues. But here is the grind: So much of the energy in the repub party comes from those social voters (these issues are important to me also). What do you do with their issues - you risk them not turning out at all.. Or do you say, "Where else will they go? and take that risk. We do elect a president for all of the people and all of the issues generally speaking. I don't want to vote for a prolife candidate if I know he is totally inept in every other area.

 

[TGHusker]

From Carl:

Realistically, we're probably a two party country for the foreseeable future. I blame some of that on intellectual laziness.

ME

BINGO :hmmph I would say there are a lot of kool aid drinkers on both sides of the fence - they either just listen to what their union boss tells them or what talk radio tells them

 

[carlfense]

Hey...you're the one who brought up abortion.

Yep. I said this:

What specific proposals would you make? How would you present "no abortions ever" or "legitimate rape" or "deport all illegals" in a way that doesn't turn away women or Latinos?

Quite frankly, many of the things trumpeted by the GOP can't just be hidden under a fresh coat of paint.

That last part is still true. Eliminating thinking different from your own isn't a solution.

 

[carlfense]

I agree with your larger point - the party needs to go back to the basics in that they were known (before GWB) as the fiscally responsibly party and concentrate on that.

Completely agree.

But here is the grind: So much of the energy in the repub party comes from those social voters (these issues are important to me also). What do you do with their issues - you risk them not turning out at all..

That's definitely a problem and I don't know how it can be fixed.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Hey...you're the one who brought up abortion.

Yep. I said this:

What specific proposals would you make? How would you present "no abortions ever" or "legitimate rape" or "deport all illegals" in a way that doesn't turn away women or Latinos?

Quite frankly, many of the things trumpeted by the GOP can't just be hidden under a fresh coat of paint.

That last part is still true. Eliminating thinking different from your own isn't a solution.

So, thinking differently about gay people, black people and Mexicans isn't a solution?

 

[carlfense]

So, thinking differently about gay people, black people and Mexicans isn't a solution?

Changing policy positions within the party would certainly alter the dynamic. I don't think that anyone has said otherwise.

My point is that changing the rhetoric without changing the beliefs won't result in long term electoral success.