Cons that are tired of losing and being the minority

Yeah, there are some cons that are starting to think about the consequences of being the exclusionary party. They are starting to realize that excluding so many because they aren't White enough, man enough, religious enough, rich enough, or right wing enough is making it impossible to win any national elections.

Yes, there are certain "red" states that will get a number of those kind of politicians in congress, but not enough to take control of the government, thank God. And the bigoted hypocrite religious fanatics, and the mean selfish greedy scammers are being exposed, and are becoming a smaller and smaller minority.

So the reasonable cons are trying to think of how they can be CONSERVATIVE without being, or at least appearing to be so hateful, mean, selfish, bigoted, and exclusionary. In order for the GOP to survive, that party is going to have to become appealing, and pleasant, otherwise they are going the way of the dinosaurs. The reasonable cons have had the epiphany, that being viewed as extremist fanatics is a loser strategy.

So if the GOP can get that through the thick heads of the *********s, before the DNC gets it through the heads of the extremist left wingers in the Democratic party, they might be able to get a small majority of both houses of congress in the mid-term elections, and even the White House next time. But they have a long row to hoe, because they've got get control of the many nut jobs on the PF to start with.

Nobody wants to be in a party full of ignoramus dinks.

 

You are so right!! Bravo!!

 

Republicans might not win another election, especially if Obama is able to get 12 million illegals, citizenship. Although it would bother me a great deal, I'm not willing to give up my beliefs to become like so many Liberals that would throw away any morals they have to approve of all the things they think is right and moral.

I'll never believe in gay marriage.

I don't approve of drugs

I don't think a woman should have the right to use abortion as a form of birth control or have late term abortions, unless it would save her life, or the baby would be born with a condition that would take constant care and cost the parents plenty of money.

I don'tapprove of allowing 12 million people who broke the law by sneaking into this country and stealing other's ID should be reworded with citizenship.

I don't believe in taking from others who have earned it and giving it to those that didn't.

I don't believe in gay marriage.

I still think we should have some morals in this country and I'm not willing to give mine up to see my Party reelected.

 

I respect that you don't want lo give "your" sense of morality to see your party reelected. That is what 's called integrity. Much better reson that just "greed," or "politics" to resist natural evolution of thoughts and knowledge that lead reasonable people to consider the REAL impact of exluding some groups (like gay couples), and taking over the RIGHTS of women to make decision over their own body.

But I hope you do not seriously believe that, those who do not share YOUR sense of morality are "immoral!" Because that would be arrogance and total misconception.

 

Seems to me that people like the OP are the ones that are exclusionary. God forbid we should have opinions on things outside of their views. If you do your not invited to the party. You must think like we do, have our same values, practice our ideals or your just not welcome.

Its like the homosexual crowd, they want everyone to accept their stance but heaven help you if you don't agree with them. Inclusion for them is a one-way street, accept our views but we won't accept yours. That is what the democratic party sounds like after winning an election.

 

Gee, 'gay marriage' is so 'bad' that it hits the list first and last.

I don't believe in gay marriage either. I believe in marriage without restrictions on gender that disadvantage people based on someone else' ideas about 'morality'.

But do keep on being the party that wants to control people's personal decisions and interferes with their ability to conform their lives to their own sense of what does or doesn't constitute morality.

Do go on being the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-drug, anti-immigrant party and embrace the sexism, racism, and xenophobia so cluelessly portrayed by the less artful extremists in the party.

Do please render your party extinct so that one which really embraces liberty and small government can rise up to take the place of one defined by social conservatism and the desire to create a feudal state to serve those who amass extreme wealth and the undemocratic power that comes with it.

 

What's this natural evolution of thoughts your talking about?

You make it sound like the human race started out as conservative and has slowly been working its way towards the progressive liberal mindset over the centuries and this simply isn't true. If you knew history you would see that humans often switch between being conservative and being liberal in the way they think, there is no natural steady progression. Things like homosexuality were openly accepted in times such as the Roman era but then the thought process reverted back to more conservative ideals which is contrary to what your saying.

Things change but not always in the same direction. Obama winning an election does not mean that the county has started thinking in a different way. 31 States have recently passed amendments to their Constitution saying marriage is between a man and a woman, I'd hardly say the train of thought is going towards progressivism.

 

Point is, gays don't expect anyone else to be gay. you don't have to be like them to be a liberal. But you do have to be a total con to be in the GOP. Liberals believe that if you don't like abortion, don't have one. We aren't going to make you get one. Just keep you hands off my genitals, and mind your own business.

 

Gays expect people to accept their lifestyle choices but yet they won't accept the fact that some people do not agree with them. They actively want everyone to acknowledge that they are right. If your against homosexuality your labled as a bigot or a hater. They will not accept that people have anti-homosexual views.

Many people like myself who are against legislation favoring homosexuals do not really care what they do in their lives, we just don't want laws passed on it. I accept what they do but they do not accept my views. Very hypocritical of them.

 

Wow, pot meet kettle. It's not like the social conservatives running the GOP have embraced small government homosexuals.

Consider: Without exclusion there would be no need for political parties. They exist so that people with shared ideals and goals can pool their resources with the aim of gaining power to advance their agenda.

Having a difference of opinion isn't the problem. Insisting that people respect the content of that opinion is the problem - especially when that opinion demands that people see themselves as less that equal, less than fully American, etc. When your opinion is one that seeks to marginalize - and to form policy around that - don't expect it to be embraced with open arms by the people it harms.

 

Apparently, a lot of them still cling to their ignorant notions and have very little to look forward to in future elections.
Right-wingers may have indeed killed the repub party already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-a-lost-civilization.html?src=me&ref=general

 

That was my point. The GOP having a difference of opinion is a huge problem for the liberal left. They want everyone to think as they do and they assume that because Obama won re-election that everyone should now flip to liberal ideals. If not, they don't want you around.

 

I'm in my mid-50's... I've watched both Democrats and Republicans kick that immigration football around since I was in elementary school. Really, it's not Mr. "Obama" (only) that can be held responsible for the outcome we've seen thus far. In reality, this nation should have had a reasonable PATH to citizenship for Hispanics and others seeking citizenship (certainly by now). Instead, certain elements within this society have only invited them in (especially Hispanics from Mexico), to be used as cheap labor and sought every work-around to continue using them in that manner.

To expect Mr. Obama (in particular) to suddenly 'fix' that, is just short-sighted and foolish. Not only that, we should all know that laws against illegal immigration are more heavily enforced (statistically) under the Obama Administration.

Keep your morals (if you will/must), that's acceptable; just don't think that you have the absolute right to IMPOSE your morality upon others who do not hold your views. You've implied (in other posts yourself) that people have a problem with not seeing BOTH sides of an issue. And I agree it is in our nature to clamp down on what we think or believe is important or right/wrong.

Again, that doesn't mean that you can impose that 'belief'.

I understand you (or myself) not using them; though I do have an occasional 'aspirin', 'ibuprofen' and some 'caffeine' from time to time.

I don't believe that males (sperm-donors) should be let off the hook as readily as they are in this society. Unless a woman stole someone's sperm... it was deposited into her by someone. In my view, MEN are just as responsible for abortion and if they were held exponentially more responsible, perhaps the abortion rates would fall significantly. As things are however, I understand (to a large degree) why some women opt for aborting the pregnancy within them.

Again, many on the Right (Republicans) have not done as much about that, as Barack Obama has been doing his entire tenure as President.

I believe in correcting INJUSTICES incurred in this society by slanted/corrupted politicians allowing the overall game to be rigged against the middle-class. When laws bend more toward wider justice and fairness, any 'corrective' distribution of wealth will likely be very rare. As things are, we've allowed the wealthiest people (in history) to RAPE the economy... while blaming it on those who have the least to do with it (the middle class and working poor).

(see the above)

We don't all have the same moral and beliefs. And it is foolish to remove/prohibit people's liberties and freedoms, in some misguided effort to legislate or force morality. More specifically, IF something is merely a moral infraction (as you perceive it)... then the law should not prohibit it UNLESS it somehow infringes upon the freedoms or liberties of another.

 

Yep. Yes.

 

Fine, don't have one. Why deny others that right? You're not required to participate. They're not hurting you. You don't ever have to attend a gay wedding. Just let them be. Live and let live, man.

Then don't do them. Why not let others decide what to do with their own bodies?

This is an endlessly debated issue and it's never resolved. So why not just let the woman decide? We have no objective standard by which to determine when a fetus is a person in the same sense as someone who isn't physically a part of another person (already born). The fetus goes from being something that has no brain, no thoughts, no ability to choose or feel to being a newborn. How in the hell can anyone be sure at what point that developing organism is a person with rights that trump those of the mother? We can't agree on it, so you have extremes where a freaking zygote is a "person" all the way to abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth. So we draw some arbitrary line at viability and let the woman choose before then. Or something like that. Which seems quite reasonable. At the very least, women should be the ones deciding this issue. They're the ones who have to deal with being pregnant.

It's not that simple and you know it. They're fulfilling a need for cheap labor by various businesses, and this is why the Republican party hasn't done anything about it. We've had waves of unwanted immigrants before (Irish, Asians, Eastern Europeans) and they all assimilated quite nicely over several generations and are full fledged Americans that we're happy to have now.

It's a matter of the rich needed to pay their fair share. They benefit the most from the services the government supplies, so they should pay the most. It's better to have a society where the divide between the rich and poor isn't too great and the middle class is maintained. Otherwise, you end up with societies like you have in swaths of Latin America. That's not desirable unless you are very wealthy. It certainly doesn't make for a strong nation and sound economy. And anyway, all those social security and welfare checks serve as stimulants to the local economies. The money gets spent, not holed up in some offshore account.

Everyone, except maybe sociopaths have morals. But we don't all agree on those morals. We still have to share the same country.

 

I have nothing against any race. I just don't feel you reward people for breaking the law. I don't believe in open borders. I think we should be thinking of putting our millions of Americans back to work, not making it harder for them to get jobs by giving them to illegals, soon to be new citizens. Sorry you don't see the wrong in that. I'd feel the same if it were 12 million Irish that sneaked in here.

Do you also approve of brother and sister, or first cousins being married? I don't believe in calling an act that can cause aids a marriage. Partnership with all the rights of married, fine.

There is ample evidence of what drugs can do to you, even pot and sorry, I don't aprove of it.

Sorry you don't see the wrong in taking what isn't yours or what you didn't earn. They usually call it legalized stealing the way Liberals look at it.

Your idea of liberty is if it feels good do it no matter what. There isn't anything bad anymore. Unless of course you don't like it.

I believe in some kinds of abortion. But I don't believe it should be used as some sort of birth control because your to lazy or broke to take the pill, or have your mate use protection. At nine dollars a month, everyone should be able to afford birth control pills without asking others to pay for it. It's about the same as two cups of Star Bucks coffee.

You know with freedom, comes responsibility. It would seem to many Liberals want all the freedom to do what ever they want with no responsibility. Or put it on others.

I'm not rich and maybe even considered lower middle class, but I don't want anything that I don't earn. I'm not obsessed with what others make. I'll do what I have to do to make it myself. I expect to get out of life what I put into it. But I do know there are poor out there for no fault of their own and have no trouble helping them. But not those that refuse to help themselves.

 

Most people have this problem to some degree, and the right certainly likes to impose their views while demonizing those who don't agree, so please. And anyway, it was people within the Republican party who started suggesting changing the party line in order to win future elections, or did you guys completely forget this? They were doing it on Fox News right after the election was called, for crying out loud!

 

Who exactly the hell do you think to are to tell gay people what they think about anything?

See, this is exactly the problem the GOP has. Republicans don't know how to talk to people who might share their views on other issues. They instead insist on saying stupid crap that just alienates people, and think it should just be overlooked.

Do I expect people to embrace my homosexuality or the "lifestyle choices" I make in connection with it? No. In fact, I don't even expect them to accept my right to exist. I have learned to have very low expectations when it comes to the socially conservative viewpoint on many things.

Am I going to not speak up when I feel someone is talking smack about homosexuality, and by extension me personally? You bet I am. And if social conservatives can't accept that we disagree with them and their agenda to marginalize us, tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

Oh BS. I hold no such illusions.

If the shoe fits...

(which it so often does once you dig deep enough into how bigots and haters actually think)

More BS. Of course I accept that some people have anti-homosexual views. Apparently what some people want, nay demand, is that I respect the content of those views, regardless of how poorly thought out they are. That isn't going to happen. Some people need to learn that their opinions are not sacrosanct. Express them in a forum such as this one, and they will be debated. If people don't want their views challenged, then this forum is most definitely not the place for them.

Well, if the starting point is going to be one of obvious bias, there's no common ground for us to even begin a conversation, is there?

Sorry, but if the issue wasn't 'cared' about, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, there's more to it than just not wanting laws passed on it. There's a 'reason' for not wanting laws passed on it. Let's not pretend like there's nothing underpinning the opinion.

There is nothing hypocritical about disagreeing with someone and daring to say so. It's a street that runs both ways. I have no more obligation to accept the validity of your views than you do mine. You have the right think and believe whatever you like about the issues. Just don't expect me to roll over and play dead when you assault me with them.

 

On the contrary, I fully expect the GOP to have a difference of opinion - if it didn't, there would no reason for it to exist. I don't expect the GOP to "flip to liberal ideals". I expect it to adapt to a changing world, or go extinct. Quite possibly the latter from the look of things.

 

It would seem that social conservatives mean something else when they say "freedom", because what they really mean is using the power of the state to impose their moral and religious views on everyone else. That is not freedom and it is not limited government.

 

You have to be a total Liberal to be a Democrat. Never heard of a Liberal Con.

I just don't think abortion should be a form of birth control. I don't believe it a human being at the minute of conception, anymore than I believe a just laid egg is a baby chick. But I don't believe in late term abortion when it's all but a few months from birth, unless the mother's life is in danger or there is something drastically wrong with it. Most any other reason, she could have an abortion within the first few months. It's just not your genitals. Not when your actions effect others.

There is enough evidence out now that show the harm drugs can do to your body and how taking them can some times harm others. So I am against that.

 

Sorry that you're incapable of understanding that I do indeed see the wrong in that. What I have a problem with is people using something like immigration or crime as an excuse to spout racist and xenophobic rhetoric. It's no coincidence that the GOP has an image problem concerning these things. It's not that independents like myself (swing voters) think we should have open borders or fail to properly enforce the laws concerning illegal immigration. We're just sick of the crap rhetoric coming from members of the GOP about it. We're sick of the inability to think in terms of anything other than absolute black and white on any issue.

Homosexual acts don't cause AIDS. See, that's exactly the kind of ridiculous statement that makes me shut down and stop listening. I read that and what I see is an attempt to blame all gay people - regardless of how they have conducted themselves - for the HIV/AIDS problem. And then to use that as an excuse to withhold full marriage recognition is, frankly, asinine.

But dare to say so or point out the facts, and we get accused of demanding that everyone 'accept our lifestyle'. Which is also BS. I don't have a 'gay lifestyle'. My 'lifestyle' has more to do with my socio-economic class than my orientation.

It's the leap from moral disapproval to a political agenda that attempts to enact a big brother nanny state telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies, in their own homes and their own lives that rings the alarm bell. Social conservatism, yet they complain about the 'socialists' on the left? Sorry, I don't want what either side is selling.

Sorry you can't see that I'm not a 'liberal' (a meaningless term as I see it). Sorry you can't see that I think theft is wrong.

And sorry you can't see that it's this kind of extreme rhetoric that is making people vote against the GOP. It's not that we're all deeply in love with the Democrats. It's just that some in the GOP seem to have made a science of extreme argument.

You are in no position to tell me what my ideas are about anything unless you're 'God' (who I'm not convinced exists) or a psychic (which I'm also skeptical about).

But thanks for exhibiting the kind of control issues that make me flee from voting for the GOP's candidates.

Sorry, not going to join you in black and white absolute thinking.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but forcing someone to have a baby because of your moral positions, judging them by their mistakes, isn't going to earn the GOP votes.

Not agreeing with the extreme positions of some in the GOP now equals having no morals, not believing in personal responsibility, etc.

Keep it up, you're doing a great job of persuading me why I should join the GOP (NOT!)

Well, I'm thoroughly convinced that you're not even listening to me now, and instead are paying attention to a well worn path of anti-liberal talking points that tell you to attack and portray me as the enemy and someone with extreme positions I don't actually hold.

I don't think there's any point in us continuing this discussion further. Until the GOP and its members will really start listening instead of always retreating to the echo chamber and familiar talking points, there's no saving the party from its mistakes.

 

Dittos!!!

 

Alcohol.

 

Gay people don't want everyone to like them because they are gay. The reason why they are out there advocating for themselves is because their are people who are trying to obstruct their decision to be gay. You can't say everyone is equal and then say well these people can't be married because...uh...I just don't like the concept of them.

However you try to word it, it is basically you saying I don't like it and everyone else shouldn't like it, and the government should agree and continue to enforce whatever against it.

Selfish, no?