YOU are behind enemy lines now VA...now what do we do?

[aquaman]

It doesn’t help that Republican candidates say that they want smaller government but then say we need laws to outlaw things like sodomy. It is so laughably hypocritical that it is no wonder that Republicans keep losing.

If you say you want a small non intrusive government you actually have to mean it or else people won’t take you seriously. Until the Republican party can drop the social conservatism attitude I can only expect more of the same.

The reason some people may have noticed the Republicans are not for small non intrusive gov is because they come up with awesome new agencies like DHS (which includes the universally despised TSA) or unfunded entitlements like medicare part D and lets not forget they run candidates like Romney (romneycare)

 

[aquaman]

almost forgot the EPA, that was a good one also.

 

[Streetgang]

I'm amazed at how many of you point towards abortion as what the Republicans need to change on.
First of all they know it’s a hot button topic as do the lefties and as such more often than not have resigned themselves to leaving it alone with the caveat that they personally do not agree with abortion.
The liberal press, bigots and baby killers constantly advertise that the conservatives want to take away a woman’s uterus and her right to kill children. AND THE majority of uninformed voters fall for it.
Pro-choice my ass. I’m so sick of hearing that. Call a spade a spade. It’s murder of convenience. They should make that choice before they spread their legs.

 

[Hopalong]

Social conservatism did not work for Ronald Reagan. Oh no, wait a minute, he won by a landslide, twice.

This isn't the '80s. Many of the social issues that we are dealing with today weren't even in the public eye back then so they wouldn't have had much of an impact on politics.

Not to mention Carter and Mondale were pretty lousy candidates. The Republicans likely could have beaten them with just about anyone.



Back on topic, Virginia is hardly "behind enemy lines" at the moment. Yes, the atmosphere is changing with densely populated, and highly liberal, NoVa becoming a bigger and bigger player. But unlike Maryland, Virgina has a substantial amount of rural, conservative areas to keep it's legislative houses stacked against Democratic control for some time. Given McAullife's weak persona and strong opposition in the legislature, I really think all he can accomplish is vetoing pro-gun bills, and he may not even be able to do that.

Yes, Democrats won the Governor's mansion. At the moment, it's a hollow victory. Let them celebrate, then watch them scurry away when he actually tries to do something.

 

[RightNYer]

So the Republican party needs to compromise its conservative values to pander to democratic voters which in turn makes them more democrat. Got it... So be more like McCain and Christie and less like Paul and Cruz .

OR how about republicans realize the tea parties existence is there as a reminder that the values of the party have shifted away from what they should be. And how about explaining to people what it means to be a republican and that what the Democrats are doing will never work.

Ken Cuccinelli let the Democrats write his narrative and he never fought back he took the "high road". He had his chance to fight but he never fought fire with fire. He looked weak and had no backbone.

Forthe last decade democrats have gone unchecked with their attacks on republicans while the media sides with them . Times need to change and the Republicans need to fight back otherwise this party is over.

Exactly. If the Republicans merely become Democrat-lites, what's the point?

 

[abean4187]

Social conservatism did not work for Ronald Reagan. Oh no, wait a minute, he won by a landslide, twice.

And there is the next problem, many conservatives are still living in the past. It is no longer 1776 nor is it 1980. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. If a Democrat did that today they would be ostracized from the party. Democrats have learned and adapted to the current times and electorate opinions. Republicans are no different, they can’t hold on to things that are opposed by the majority just because it worked 30 years ago. How many people that voted for Reagan are even still alive today? The demographics are completely different and they are showing in the loss after loss of Republicans.

What is more important to you, stopping gay people from marrying or keeping your second amendment right? Gay people marrying will not affect your life in any possible way (Unless you are a gay person that wants to get married I guess) but I bet that having your guns and magazines being restricted/taken away will change your life in quite a big way. Just think about that the next time a primary rolls around and you have a choice between a homophobic Republican or a pro gay Republican.

 

[Streetgang]

And there is the next problem, many conservatives are still living in the past. It is no longer 1776 nor is it 1980. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. If a Democrat did that today they would be ostracized from the party. Democrats have learned and adapted to the current times and electorate opinions. Republicans are no different, they can’t hold on to things that are opposed by the majority just because it worked 30 years ago. How many people that voted for Reagan are even still alive today? The demographics are completely different and they are showing in the loss after loss of Republicans.

What is more important to you, stopping gay people from marrying or keeping your second amendment right? Gay people marrying will not affect your life in any possible way (Unless you are a gay person that wants to get married I guess) but I bet that having your guns and magazines being restricted/taken away will change your life in quite a big way. Just think about that the next time a primary rolls around and you have a choice between a homophobic Republican or a pro gay Republican.

Complete and total utter bullsh*t

 

[RightNYer]

The problem is that it all rises and falls together. I agree that a strong defense and economy are the most important things, along with protections of fundamental gun rights. But any society that not only permits but glorifies allowing women to suck out her 36 week old baby's brain and men to sodomize other men, get "married," and adopt "children," is invariably an immoral, nihilistic society that will eventually become Statist in the economy and gun rights as well.

 

[abean4187]

Complete and total utter bullsh*t

What a great response. Nothing like in no way countering any of my arguments.

The problem is that it all rises and falls together. I agree that a strong defense and economy are the most important things, along with protections of fundamental gun rights. But any society that not only permits but glorifies allowing women to suck out her 36 week old baby's brain and men to sodomize other men, get "married," and adopt "children," is invariably an immoral, nihilistic society that will eventually become Statist in the economy and gun rights as well.

Got any proof for this. Historical examples, statistical analysis, etc?

 

[RightNYer]

What a great response. Nothing like in no way countering any of my arguments.



Got any proof for this. Historical examples, statistical analysis, etc?

Yes.

Your libertarian utopia has never existed, anywhere. Once people have no innate sense of right and wrong, then stealing people's money to redistribute it to leeches doesn't sound so bad.

 

[Streetgang]

What a great response. Nothing like in no way countering any of my arguments.

No need to. You seem to expect the Republican party to become the Democrat party that is pro 2A.
We are conservatives. End of story.

 

[aquaman]

And there is the next problem, many conservatives are still living in the past. It is no longer 1776 nor is it 1980. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. If a Democrat did that today they would be ostracized from the party. Democrats have learned and adapted to the current times and electorate opinions. Republicans are no different, they can’t hold on to things that are opposed by the majority just because it worked 30 years ago. How many people that voted for Reagan are even still alive today? The demographics are completely different and they are showing in the loss after loss of Republicans.

What is more important to you, stopping gay people from marrying or keeping your second amendment right? Gay people marrying will not affect your life in any possible way (Unless you are a gay person that wants to get married I guess) but I bet that having your guns and magazines being restricted/taken away will change your life in quite a big way. Just think about that the next time a primary rolls around and you have a choice between a homophobic Republican or a pro gay Republican.

CA passed prop 8 only 5 years ago. Liberal CA opposed gay marriage. Gays are only 2% of the population. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 and won. Gay marriage is not as important as you think it is.

 

[abean4187]

Yes.

Your libertarian utopia has never existed, anywhere. Once people have no innate sense of right and wrong, then stealing people's money to redistribute it to leeches doesn't sound so bad.

What does gay marriage have to do with wealth distribution? Have I ever stated that I support wealth distribution? Seems like you are just making things up and going on a rant.

No need to. You seem to expect the Republican party to become the Democrat party that is pro 2A.
We are conservatives. End of story.

Robert Taft disagrees. If he knew about the pro war, pro spying, anti civil liberties that the current Neo Conservatives were pushing he would be spinning in his grave. The social engineering programs of the current Republican party are in no way conservative. Republicans should be supporting ALL the constitution, which includes the 4th and 14th.

 

[L0gic]

What is more important to you, stopping gay people from marrying or keeping your second amendment right? Gay people marrying will not affect your life in any possible way (Unless you are a gay person that wants to get married I guess) but I bet that having your guns and magazines being restricted/taken away will change your life in quite a big way. Just think about that the next time a primary rolls around and you have a choice between a homophobic Republican or a pro gay Republican.

When they shove it in my face and expect me to accept that they were born that way, yes I have a problem with it. I have no problem with Ellen and her TV show as she does not push her personal life in to it on a daily basis, or ever from what I can recall. Neither does Neil Patrick Harris for that matter.

When gays push their agenda on Conservatives or Conservatives stand up for their values like Chik-filet or Kirk Cameron, the Conservatives are crucified for being bigots. Take for example the bakery shop on the west coast that got run out of business for refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony that was against their religious beliefs. Had they been asked to make dessert for a buffet, I'd imagine they would have accepted the order and made the dessert.

 

[abean4187]

CA passed prop 8 only 5 years ago. Liberal CA opposed gay marriage. Gays are only 2% of the population. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 and won. Gay marriage is not as important as you think it is.

It is not a make or break position but it becomes large when you pile it one with all the other social issues. When Republicans go on anti gay, anti abortion rants I cringe because I know that guy is going to now have an uphill battle. People do not have to support gay marriage or abortion but saying you support small government while also supporting government programs which intrude into people’s lives is hypocritical. It’s not even about gay marriage, it’s about consistency. If you can’t be consistent in what you say/believe than why should people vote for you? Why should people take you on your word if your word is going to change depending on the topic at hand?

I want as little government involvement in my life as possible and I hope someday the Republican party can get back to their roots and support all ideas which get the government out of my life as much as possible.

 

[abean4187]

When they shove it in my face and expect me to accept that they were born that way, yes I have a problem with it. I have no problem with Ellen and her TV show as she does not push her personal life in to it on a daily basis, or ever from what I can recall. Neither does Neil Patrick Harris for that matter.

When gays push their agenda on Conservatives or Conservatives stand up for their values like Chik-filet or Kirk Cameron, the Conservatives are crucified for being bigots. Take for example the bakery shop on the west coast that got run out of business for refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony that was against their religious beliefs. Had they been asked to make dessert for a buffet, I'd imagine they would have accepted the order and made the dessert.

I think you are doing to them what liberals do to gun owners. You’re picking out some bad apples and using them as an excuse to be against a whole group of people. If people would leave gays alone (Stop harassing them, calling them sinners, abominations, and comparing their marriage to bestiality) and just let them get married like anyone else they wouldn’t have to push an agenda. They are people just like you and me. Golden rule here, I don’t want people harassing me so I don’t harass others. Just say nice things or don’t say anything at all. The golden rule is still conservative, is it not…Oh, I guess it is not…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4UnkyNJGmw

And in terms of that business that got shut down. I consider that the free market at work. If they won’t serve gays and that makes people angry it is the people’s prerogative to vote with their dollars and not buy from the business.

 

[Mr H]

No need to. You seem to expect the Republican party to become the Democrat party that is pro 2A.
We are conservatives. End of story.

Then maybe work to bolster something like the Constitution Party??

 

[PO2012]

It is not a make or break position but it becomes large when you pile it one with all the other social issues. When Republicans go on anti gay, anti abortion rants I cringe because I know that guy is going to now have an uphill battle. People do not have to support gay marriage or abortion but saying you support small government while also supporting government programs which intrude into people’s lives is hypocritical.
I want as little government involvement in my life as possible and I hope someday the Republican party can get back to their roots and support all ideas which get the government out of my life as much as possible.

One of the most fundamental obligations of any government is to protect human life. A child in the womb has a detectable heartbeat at approximately 6 weeks, measurable brain activity at approximately 12 weeks and its DNA is unique at all times. In short, a child in the womb is a human being, separate and distinct from its mother. If a criminal shoots a pregnant woman during the commission of a robbery and the child dies the law recognizes such an act as murder. If a mother pays a physician to fracture the child's skull prior to birth and removes its brain the law most often holds her and the physician blameless. Saying that it's criminal homicide for a third party to kill the child but acceptable for the mother to do so reduces children to chattel.

When I hear the arguments in favor of abortion I'm often reminded of the arguments used to support the continuation of slavery. Slave owners viewed other human beings as property and didn't want government programs to intrude in their lives either. Specifically they wanted to be able to continue assaulting, raping and murdering men and women of African descent because it was socially and economically convenient for them to do so and because they felt entitled. If a slave was injured or killed by his master there was no fault but if a third party was responsible he had to make the master whole in the same manner as if he had killed the master's livestock. The same principle applies here. I can murder my children but my neighbor can't. This type of thinking is evil, pure and simple. Either the child is human or it isn't. If it is human then it can only be killed under the same circumstances as any other person: namely as punishment for a capital crime where due process has been observed, in combat in a manner consistent with the laws of war or in defense of self or others against unlawful force or violence.

It's very easy to dehumanize children in the womb. Their screams can't be heard and their frantic efforts to survive often go unseen. How we treat or weakest and most defenseless members defines us as a society. There is no logical way that one can justify abortion save for those rare cases where the use of deadly force against the child is necessary to protect the mother from suffering death or great bodily harm as a consequence of giving birth or otherwise continuing the pregnancy. I hear comments all the time about how restrictions on homosexual marriage will one day be viewed in the same way that anti-miscegenation laws are viewed today. Well, abortion on demand will one day be viewed, almost universally, in the manner in which slavery is viewed today. A Constitutional Republic that refuses to defend children and sanctions their murder cannot survive any more than it could survive keeping millions in chains under the yoke of slavery.

 

[Long1MD]

He can't be re-elected next election cycle. He has to sit out one term.

True...just found that out...my mistake.

 

[randian]

If the Dems go after anything in VA it will be open carry and/or shall-issue. A much easier sell than magazine restrictions.