TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:IBTL

As far as I know we are talking about the direction that the government and ideology is taking in the USA. Not sure why that would need a lock.

[/quote]

Purplehood, the government is forcing your social engineering down the throats of those who object because of their faith.

FORCED. THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR US.

The HHS Mandate is mandatory, under penalty of law!

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?

You say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion.

I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government of which I no longer recognize as a valid government.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere[/quote]

MY GOVERNMENT NO LONGER EXISTS.


Her body, not the unborn child's.

Equal rights and protection under the law, even for the unborn.

Anygunanywhere[/quote]


I understand you may not like the idea of being required to purchase health insurance...I don't either...but to say that it violates your religious freedom seems like quite a stretch. The coverage is simply in there...there's no requirement that you have to avail yourself of it. Most insurance policies cover blood transfusions, but there are some religious groups that don't believe in that...should the coverage not be included because of that? If you believe it's morally wrong to have gay marriage, use contraceptives, or have abortions, then by all means don't. No one on here has insisted you embrace them. The point I was trying to make was that the Republican party...with the current platform which includes opposition to those social issues...was unable to get more than 49% of the popular vote running against Obama who had a low approval rating, the worst economy and highest unemployment in years. If we couldn't win THIS election...under THOSE conditions...then either the party must make a move to TRY and regain some of those voters in the middle, or relegate itself to second place in future national elections. As far as the equal rights for the unborn, I realize that is a huge issue for many voters, but it's already the law, and the chances of overturning a long established law legalizing abortion are slim and none. I'm not trying to convince anyone its right or wrong...you are free to vote your personal beliefs and rightly so...just realize that if you make that the one issue you decide a candidate on, you are unlikely to win a national election given the reality of the situation.

The biggest thing for me is WHO IS PAYING? The Democrat Party finds new "rights" each election, as someone else pointed out. These "rights" all require funding no matter what its about. Of course, the "fat cats" and "1%" are always flayed by the press (Democrat Party propaganda wing) as needing to pony up the cash. However, those folks are good at protecting their money, its possible that is how they got there in the first place. So, it always devolves down to the professionals and the technicians and other real wage earners to foot the bill. Its a game for the Democrat Party to come up with new stuff to either keep themselves in power or to get themselves back into power...and now it seems that a very large percentage of the people in this nation are buying it hook, line and sinker. The path is unsustainable and the end result will NOT be pretty. We aren't ready to collapse yet, not by a long shot...but the path to collapse is wide open and downhill from here...once it gets past a certain point, no one, no matter how good they are, can save it. I believe we have either hit or are just about to hit that point.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rwg3 wrote:Well said and a fair analysis!

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

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

I call bull corn. From your article:

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

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

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

THAT is the true version.

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

Hit the nail on the head. Society with the help of the media is slowly classifying anything conservative as "extreme". This is dangerous and a good example why this country may be completely beyond repair.

donkey wrote:"Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters" are a minority. Americans are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms.

Neither major (electable) party has produced a candidate that fits that description in quite some time. Clinton was smart enough to move towards the fiscal center after mid-terms gave him a GOP Congress. That's as close as we've been in a while. I'd wager that if such a candidate could grab some air, people would rally to them. Well, I was more sure about that a few years ago.

Social Conservatives will need to find their way to a "stop abortion" plan that doesn't involve legislation. I don't think anyone espousing a legislative solution (via Congress or via stacking SCOTUS) can get elected any more. I'm not sure why "legislation" is such an imperative. I know what the impetus is, certainly, but, at some point you reach the base of the mountain and you have to ask yourself.... "Up & over or around? " Because a straight line through is no longer a productive path.

Here's what scares me most...

For holding abortion as a litmus test, what have we sacrificed in terms of other Liberties that could have been better protected by a non-Democrat Executive & Senate? How many candidates that would support National Reciprocity have lost a seat because of "bedroom" issues? Is anyone surprised that that idiot Akin lost his MO Senate race? Looking back to his primary, would we now choose the "less conservative" Republican if we could wind back the clock?

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/0 ... ill-hoped/
Akin was considered the most conservative of the nominees and the weakest general election candidate. The McCaskill team even took the unusual step of running ads “against” Akin during he primary which labeled him the true conservative. While the message of the ads should technically hurt Akin in the general it seems the bigger point of the ads run right before the primary was to help Akin with conservatives voters.

Polling before the primary found that of the three Republican candidates, McCaskill did the best against Akin. A Mason-Dixon poll from last month found that McCaskill trailing Brunner by 11 points, trailing Steelman by 8 points, but only losing to Akin by five points.

Is there no other way to approach solving the abortion issue? I've proposed Civic action. It's slower, harder and leaves the door open for those who disagree. It's less than ideal. But what else are we giving up for taking the current apparently unwinable path? Is not a crooked path forward still forward?

Side note: Thanks for the open and (relatively) non-judgmental discussion. A less mature forum would have gone completely sideways by now, instead of just off topic. My apologies to the OP for taking this off the original path... I'll make this my final comment in this thread and again, thanks to all for the discussion.

Until Atlas shrugs, the freeloaders will keep dumping their burdens on his back.

I call bull corn. From your article:

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

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

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

THAT is the true version.

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

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

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

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

National reciprocity is your litmus test???? I'm sorry...I don't support that.

Don't jump on my back....give me a minute...

NR, opens us up to National regulations...nope, keep it in the states. I know that causes trouble for some of you who travel often, but I'd rather that than have CA and NY tell Texas which hoops to jump through in order to CHL.

Purplehood wrote:
{snip}

MY GOVERNMENT NO LONGER EXISTS.

I don't want you to believe in gay marriage, abortion or any of the social freedoms and you may or may not note, I do not ask you to embrace any of them.

As far as I am concerned, the government should not be legislating any of that stuff. Just as I believe that the government should not be restricting it.

Anyone reading those few posts of mine that actually talk about government and politics will realize that I have been totally unhappy with the GWB and BHO governments. As I see it, they both represent repressive big-government as in 'Big Brother is watching you'.

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe in a womans right to determine what she does with her body.

I believe in equal rights.

I believe in small government.

I believe in limited foreign entanglements.

I am not sure why anyone thinks I believe otherwise.

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.

mamabearCali wrote:So for the socially libertarian on this thread the answer is for those of us that feel strongly on social issues (abortion/traditional marriage/ parental rights) should violate our conciseness in matters that are of the highest importance to us to get the fiscal situation we want.
Others may feel differently, but I think this stinks like cow patties. I will not violate my conscience for a pay off.
Legalized murder is still murder, and that is what I consider abortion to be. You vote as you see fit. If a candidate wants my vote he must not be willing to say murder is hunky dory if a person is less than convenient.
I will add I don't think this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage. I think it was that there are now more takers than makers. Mores the pity for us. No easy way to fix that.

I too believe that the main issue in the election was economics and the issue of entitlements, and as you say there is no easy fix, because the primary growth in our population over the last 10 years is younger people from backgrounds that view those programs as just that..."entitlements". However, you state that while you "don't believe this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage" you also say that you will NOT vote for a candidate who doesn't SUPPORT your views on those very issues...period. I believe there are others right there in that middle ground that feel strongly about single issues also...that might have preferred a sound fiscal policy, but they just don't think the government should be involved in legislating morality. Those votes might make a difference down the road...maybe not. I don't say you SHOULD violate your moral beliefs and not vote your conscience, but what if there had been a candidate that who fit your requirements in all other matters...you agreed with his economic stance, his position on the military, right to bear arms, fair and balanced foreign policies, trade balances, etc...BUT, he simply refused to take a stand on those social issues...said he didn't feel that he had the right to make those choices for others? Would you still refuse to vote that way...knowing the other choice was someone like Obama? There has to be some give and take in the political process...we can't all have it just the way we want it. I've already stated that I prefer to let people make their own choices, but I never considered not voting for Romney because of those issues.

[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.[/quote]



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

talltex wrote:[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...[/quote]

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.

Purplehood wrote:

C-dub wrote:IBTL

As far as I know we are talking about the direction that the government and ideology is taking in the USA. Not sure why that would need a lock.

You're right. It did get a little touchy there for a minute and could have gotten out of hand, but didn't.

talltex wrote:
I too believe that the main issue in the election was economics and the issue of entitlements, and as you say there is no easy fix, because the primary growth in our population over the last 10 years is younger people from backgrounds that view those programs as just that..."entitlements". However, you state that while you "don't believe this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage" you also say that you will NOT vote for a candidate who doesn't SUPPORT your views on those very issues...period. I believe there are others right there in that middle ground that feel strongly about single issues also...that might have preferred a sound fiscal policy, but they just don't think the government should be involved in legislating morality. Those votes might make a difference down the road...maybe not. I don't say you SHOULD violate your moral beliefs and not vote your conscience, but what if there had been a candidate that who fit your requirements in all other matters...you agreed with his economic stance, his position on the military, right to bear arms, fair and balanced foreign policies, trade balances, etc...BUT, he simply refused to take a stand on those social issues...said he didn't feel that he had the right to make those choices for others? Would you still refuse to vote that way...knowing the other choice was someone like Obama? There has to be some give and take in the political process...we can't all have it just the way we want it. I've already stated that I prefer to let people make their own choices, but I never considered not voting for Romney because of those issues.

If the political candidate is great in fiscal policy, but believes murdering the unborn is a-ok, and that my children are wards of the state from birth to death then he is not for me. I think it says something about a politicians character when they refuse to stand up for the smallest and the most vulnerable among us.

Like I said before I have to stand before a holy God one day. I will not do so having supported anyone who is ok with murdering children (which is what abortion is).