My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[rightwinger]

Government dependence is not freedom or liberty.

What is it then?

If you once had a good job and lost it and now struggle to support your family....are you a leech depending on government handouts?

If you are looking to CONTINUE depending on govt "instead of working" as your game plan, that is leeching.

If you are getting govt help temporarily, with the intent of paying back by investing your work and education to contribute to society, then that is different.

And if you are abusing the system, either to cover for criminal damages you are getting out of by exploiting the legal system or to cover for corporate profits at taxpayer expense, then that type of "welfare" whether by individual or corporation is what both parties are protesting (and blaming the other for) if we have to continue paying for these abuses.

The way to check both is to enforce Constitutional values of equal protection of interests and due process/right to petition for redress of grievances. If we all uphold and practice the same standards, the minute we see someone abusing the system, we can address and correct that. But if we don't all agree to follow the same rules, then we compete to use the system to protect our interests at the expense of someone else; and when everyone does that, then you end up with the mutual finger-pointing festival that we see going on today!

If we really care to stop the nonsense, we'd have to agree that BOTH sides of the abuses are equally wrong and bankrupting us as a nation. And quit competing and arguing over "which is worse" because they are both corrupting the integrity of the system. They are both wrongful, and both need to be corrected, whether it's the rich or the poor abusing and costing society, so why not fix both?

I believe when the parties can acknowledge that we all have been tolerating abuses to continue without correction, then we are all equally responsible, instead of blaming or excusing one group more than the other, causing division. If we work together to correct abuses of the system, then by organizing around restitution for the wrongs, we can invest our resources into programs that solve these problems and rebuild jobs and the economy around corrections, instead of wasting resources arguing who's more to blame.

Some Americans are leeching

The problem is that the rightwing lumps everyone who is struggling in an economy they did not create as leeches. Mitt Romney did not talk about people on welfare, he talked about the 47% of Americans who do not make enough to pay federal taxes. Those were the people he said lacked personal responsibility
People struggling to raise a family on a small salary, war veterans, the elderly....all leeches in the eyes of conservatives

 

[emilynghiem]

Reach out to women and minorities and get over the gay thing.

Actually, I believe there should be a Constitutional TRUCE called between both parties, where all leaders agree to stop exploiting people's religious beliefs to incite conflict and abusing that to get votes. In truth, whether people BELIEVE in pro-life or pro-choice, in gay marriage or civil unions, in keeping the choice of abortion/death penalty or not; the laws should be written to represent all people regardless of views, and should not be biased to favor one group over another. If you respect people's political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, none of this business of mandates by majority rule would be Constitutional.

The best thing the GOP could do is work with the Democrats to agree to enforce Constitutional standards. Make it safe to be as pro-life or pro-choice as you want, without fear of political censure, since it should NOT affect the policies that come out of Congress which should satisfy both views and violate neither position. Same with personal views of gay marriage, or immigration or the death penalty. We have to stop this business of setting the bar so low, assuming that "since we can never agree" then we have to arm the bigger bully to smash the other side. If you can't agree, then technically you can't pass a law if it involves any religious or spiritual beliefs. Even the health care bill crossed that line into people's views about birth control, and also about Constitutional rights of states vs. federal. If you believe it is unconstitutional, that should be respected, and should not depend on getting a majority or Court to rule that way; your beliefs are what they are, and do not depend on govt to regulate them to meet certain conditions which is unconstitutional.

My bf disagrees with me. He says the GOP should stick with the Tea Party push for real conservatives and quit losing the conservative vote by playing to moderate politics.

I believe you should not punish the moderates or the pro-choice or the pro-life views.
No matter what range your views happen to be as a voter or candidate, the laws that come out of our Congress and rulings from our Courts should be based on Constitutional inclusion and agreement. So it should not matter what you personally believe, because consensus is necessary to pass any law that touches religious matters or else it is unconstitutional.

If people and parties agree to this, then the parties and candidates can freely represent their own views without fear of rejection. Because the policies should be based on ALL views and parties, if they are truly public laws under the Constitution for all of America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reform for welfare leechs, cons and libs, sure, Emily.

You constitutional philosophy seems shaky, not well thought out. Look at it again, please.

 

[Shelzin]

Reach out to women and minorities

How? When you "reach out" generally there is some substance to it. How do you reach out to them? Obviously the where I was born and the fake tan thing didn't work. How do you reach them?

and get over the gay thing.

Well that would be a brilliant step. But given the faith based problems I'd think that the women and minorities would come first. I could be wrong on that... But it would be one of those times I'd be happy to be wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

Some Americans are leeching

The problem is that the rightwing lumps everyone who is struggling in an economy they did not create as leeches. Mitt Romney did not talk about people on welfare, he talked about the 47% of Americans who do not make enough to pay federal taxes. Those were the people he said lacked personal responsibility
People struggling to raise a family on a small salary, war veterans, the elderly....all leeches in the eyes of conservatives

That is how the media/liberal/Democrats painted that, so they could alienate and vilify Romney as a corporate rich guy kowtowing to those interests. In truth, he is a down to earth moderate, and has volunteered in public service the same or more than Obama.

The lack of conservatives voting for Romney shows that his moderate/pro-choice tolerance was not strong enough to motivate the same base as the Tea Party was targeting.

I feel this is a shame to punish Republicans for being moderate and tolerant.
I believe Romney can equally balance the concerns of the very wealthy, the middle class moderates, and also the very poor who would benefit from programs (from education to health care) where the wealthy support the churches/businesses in mentoring and serving the poor to uplift them from poverty WITHOUT depending on govt which gets bureaucratic.

When he was out pandering to wealthy donors, I'm sure he said whatever spoke to them in that context to assure them he is going to respect their interests in financial policies.

Under the Constitution ALL groups should have their interests and consent respected.

So Obama and Romney are already caught in a losing game, if political competition compels them to put one interest above the others, to make a bad guy out of someone.

I don't think it is fair, right or helpful to keep framing the game this way.
Especially with the rightwing, it should be understood that whether you or I or the next person is pro-choice or pro-life, the policies under the Constitution need to respect and protect both views. So it's not fair to expect or force candidates to pander to this side and that side, causing them to flip flop or be vague. Romney was put in this impossible position, and that is a loss to everyone, since his ability to work with all these views is key; it should be a plus and instead it was targeted as a minus.

When Obama flip flops to get support, he says things like badmouthing the rich as not paying their fair share (making them sound like the bad guy), but then saying we all deserve equal opportunity whether we are "rich or poor" but he is not respecting the perspective of the rich if he just spent the whole campaign "drawing a line in the sand" between "them vs. us" and making them the enemy manipulating the game.

Romney was too nice to respond as mean, he is a kind and good man, and based his campaign on problems in the economic situations instead of attacking Obama as badly as the Republicans were painted as a group. Romney was acting as a buffer between the extreme hardlined conservatives and the moderate center where agreements are possible.

So if that type of position is being "punished" by both left and right, that is why the country is in trouble. Instead of blaming whole parties, we need to agree to go after people who actually commit the crime and corruption that costs taxpayers, set up systems to redress those grievances and pay back debts/damages, and quit arguing over whether more damage is done by the rich or the poor. It's about who committed abuses and correcting that. It will take both parties, also the independents, to research all the cases where taxpayers are owed for why the govt was abused and where those debts wents, who benefited and how to solve that issue and get the money paid back by wrongdoers.

Romney has the principles and character to enforce such an agreement. He should not have been blamed or punished for the issues of other people from either party. I hope he has the opportunity to serve in a way that proves himself, where he is not what the media and liberal competition painted him out to be. I don't expect Obama and the Democrats to push for that level of corrections, because they have too much they have been covering up.
It would likely take a push from independents and conservative/Constitutionalists from all parties to form a coalition and lobby for such an agreement between the various parties.

Romney did prove the numbers, that about half the voters chose him or independents.
So it's a matter of uniting that half to hold everyone to the Constitution over Party politics.
I believe Romney could still do this, by working on solutions with other party candidates.
By enforcing rule of law above partisan nonsense, that would check Obama/Democrats.

 

[saveliberty]

The public always over reacts to a problem. At some point in the not-to-distant future, they will demand smaller government, more spending control and restrictive immigration policy. Patience.

 

[emilynghiem]

Reform for welfare leechs, cons and libs, sure, Emily.

You constitutional philosophy seems shaky, not well thought out. Look at it again, please.

What is shaky about upholding the Constitution?
Isn't that the central key that all parties want protection of their interests under?
Don't all parties and people want to be paid back if their money went to something shaky?

 

[ThomasPaine1776]

Nope… simple math
238M Americans

88M pay no income tax
50M work for the government or the private sector that supports government
12M work for unions in private sector
============
150M pro government potential voters and only 118M people voted.

We are seeing Atlas Shrugged

 

[emilynghiem]

Reach out to women and minorities

How? When you "reach out" generally there is some substance to it. How do you reach out to them? Obviously the where I was born and the fake tan thing didn't work. How do you reach them?

and get over the gay thing.

Well that would be a brilliant step. But given the faith based problems I'd think that the women and minorities would come first. I could be wrong on that... But it would be one of those times I'd be happy to be wrong.

1. for women, I think it will take the women themselves from both parties, from prochoice and prolife camps, standing together and refusing to be a pawn in any more politics. Demanding that focus be put on prevention of rape and abuse to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion. And restitution for rape and abuse victims be required of the offenders, where it is invested in housing and health care resources for women to break the cycle of abuse and poverty. And any policies made must not target or hold women more responsible for burdens than the men half responsible for the pregnancy. For the GOP if they have a special committee or coalition of prochoice and prolife women, and defer all policy consulting to pass through that group first, this will stop the attacks on men for what they say about things if the policies are going to pass through a special committee who have researched the best ways to end abortion without targeting bullying or scaring women.

2. for the homosexuality and gay marriage issue:
(a) again, I would call a special task force on proving or disproving by medical or scientific research the DIFFERENCE between cases that are natural born and cannot be changed vs. cases of abuse causing the sexual behavior (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that is later healed and changed. by showing this scientifically, this will end the arguments being pushed into the political realm where they do not belong.NOTE: the same studies and proof of spiritual healing can also solve issues of reducing health care costs, and criminal justice policies of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of criminal illness for public health and safety. (b) as for gay marriage/civil unions, I would also set up a bipartisan group to mediate per state regarding the language and policies, so an agreement can be reached that does not impose unconstitutionally on one group or another by majority rule. example: either agree to keep all marriage out of the state and only have civil unions and contracts, while keeping marriage under private churches; or if marriage is going to be under both church and state, then all people would have to agree to open up the process to all. If parties don't agree on the use of the same word "marriage" to mean either the civil marriage or the religious/spiritual relationship, then different terms may be needed to stop the religious disagreements that are blocking the process from reaching a consensus. It would help to make a distinction between the natural born homosexuality and man-made conditions or freely chosen lifestyle, so that not all cases are painted one way or the other.

if people can acknowledge both types of cases exist, and also acknowledge there is a problem using the same word "marriage" in both the church and state context, then that would eliminate most of the emotional arguments and conflicts clouding such issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nonsense a thousand times.

The great majority of us like the man but don't want him as a candidate in pat because of you real libertarian freaks hanging onto him.

Paul was screwed out of the nomination by the Republican Party.

I thought it was because Ron Paul won't acknowledge the role and need for the President to direct US military presence and support in foreign countries.

His lobbying to expose the Fed is probably the most helpful principle he pushed publicly.
We can still use his leadership and his lobbyists to organize solutions around that focus!

That alone is a full time job, so it makes sense his vision is limited and not about all the reforms that need to take place as the President would be asked to oversee or delegate.

 

[Shelzin]

Reach out to women and minorities

How? When you "reach out" generally there is some substance to it. How do you reach out to them? Obviously the where I was born and the fake tan thing didn't work. How do you reach them?

and get over the gay thing.

Well that would be a brilliant step. But given the faith based problems I'd think that the women and minorities would come first. I could be wrong on that... But it would be one of those times I'd be happy to be wrong.

1. for women, I think it will take the women themselves from both parties, from prochoice and prolife camps, standing together and refusing to be a pawn in any more politics.

Umm... Yeah... That's something you don't have control over. What can you do... What can the republican party do to reach out to them. Not what can THEY do to come to the republican party.

I think it should be obvious by now they don't like the Republicans current message.

It's like you want to fix the mistake, by making the same mistake. "Reaching out" is very different than telling them what to do.

2. for the homosexuality and gay marriage issue:
(a) again, I would call a special task force on proving or disproving by medical or scientific research the DIFFERENCE between cases that are natural born and cannot be changed vs. cases of abuse causing the sexual behavior (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that is later healed and changed.

I think the major problem there is you are trying to use science where faith is pretty the much ruling majority. I'm certainly not against trying to prove one way or the other the science of why people are gay... But here's the thing... Gay people likely won't appreciate either option you come up with. You accept them, or you don't.

It would help to make a distinction between the natural born homosexuality and man-made conditions or freely chosen lifestyle, so that not all cases are painted one way or the other.

I personally don't see why it would make a difference if it was biological or simply a life choice if someone was gay. And again... I doubt the gay population really cares either.

if people can acknowledge both types of cases exist, and also acknowledge there is a problem using the same word "marriage" in both the church and state context, then that would eliminate most of the emotional arguments and conflicts clouding such issues.

Frankly I think the government should issue "unions" to everybody regardless of what the church says.

I certainly like your thoughts on the subject... However it still feels very much like you are expecting others to change to your message, rather than changing the message to meet what those others want. I personally see that as a very big republican failing.

 

[ilia25]

Here is a good take:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=993717&f=28&sub=Columnist

 

[ilia25]

Some Americans are leeching

The problem is that the rightwing lumps everyone who is struggling in an economy they did not create as leeches. Mitt Romney did not talk about people on welfare, he talked about the 47% of Americans who do not make enough to pay federal taxes. Those were the people he said lacked personal responsibility
People struggling to raise a family on a small salary, war veterans, the elderly....all leeches in the eyes of conservatives

This shows the tectonic shift in GOP mindset.

People working for small salary do not pay income taxes thanks to GOP that was. The party used to believe that cutting taxes on low incomes would encourage people to get off the welfare and get a job.

Not anymore. Now GOP is in Ayn Randian world, where the only people deserving our gratitude are "job creators" -- it is they who should have their taxes cut, and the rest should pick up the bill.

No wonder Republicans are losing elections they would comfortably won in the past.

 

[saveliberty]

This shows the tectonic shift in GOP mindset.

People working for small salary do not pay income taxes thanks to GOP that was. The party used to believe that cutting taxes on low incomes would encourage people to get off the welfare and get a job.

Not anymore. Now GOP is in Ayn Randian world, where the only people deserving our gratitude are "job creators" -- it is they who should have their taxes cut, and the rest should pick up the bill.
No wonder Republicans are losing elections they would comfortably won in the past.

Politcal talking point not based in reality. Please fact check how the middle and lower class pick up the tax bill. If you want cooperation, stop the lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not Ron, it's many of his supporters that the great majority of mainstream GOP distrust. Statism is a fact of modern technology and civilization. Can't get away from it.

Nonsense a thousand times.

The great majority of us like the man but don't want him as a candidate in pat because of you real libertarian freaks hanging onto him.

Paul was screwed out of the nomination by the Republican Party.

I thought it was because Ron Paul won't acknowledge the role and need for the President to direct US military presence and support in foreign countries.

His lobbying to expose the Fed is probably the most helpful principle he pushed publicly.
We can still use his leadership and his lobbyists to organize solutions around that focus!

That alone is a full time job, so it makes sense his vision is limited and not about all the reforms that need to take place as the President would be asked to oversee or delegate.

 

[ilia25]

This shows the tectonic shift in GOP mindset.

People working for small salary do not pay income taxes thanks to GOP that was. The party used to believe that cutting taxes on low incomes would encourage people to get off the welfare and get a job.

Not anymore. Now GOP is in Ayn Randian world, where the only people deserving our gratitude are "job creators" -- it is they who should have their taxes cut, and the rest should pick up the bill.
No wonder Republicans are losing elections they would comfortably won in the past.

Politcal talking point not based in reality. Please fact check how the middle and lower class pick up the tax bill. If you want cooperation, stop the lies.

Lies? It's a simple math -- if rich are going to pay less, then the rest will have to pay more. Or there will be cuts to social programs, education, Medicare and so on -- the programs that save money for the poor and middle class.

 

[rightwinger]

Some Americans are leeching

The problem is that the rightwing lumps everyone who is struggling in an economy they did not create as leeches. Mitt Romney did not talk about people on welfare, he talked about the 47% of Americans who do not make enough to pay federal taxes. Those were the people he said lacked personal responsibility
People struggling to raise a family on a small salary, war veterans, the elderly....all leeches in the eyes of conservatives

This shows the tectonic shift in GOP mindset.

People working for small salary do not pay income taxes thanks to GOP that was. The party used to believe that cutting taxes on low incomes would encourage people to get off the welfare and get a job.

Not anymore. Now GOP is in Ayn Randian world, where the only people deserving our gratitude are "job creators" -- it is they who should have their taxes cut, and the rest should pick up the bill.

No wonder Republicans are losing elections they would comfortably won in the past.

Quite true

The Republicans used to hide their tax cuts to the wealthy by also offering tax cuts for the working poor. "Tax cuts for all"

Now, they have given up all pretext of helping the poor and call them leeches and irresponsible for their low tax rates

 

[saveliberty]

This shows the tectonic shift in GOP mindset.

People working for small salary do not pay income taxes thanks to GOP that was. The party used to believe that cutting taxes on low incomes would encourage people to get off the welfare and get a job.

Not anymore. Now GOP is in Ayn Randian world, where the only people deserving our gratitude are "job creators" -- it is they who should have their taxes cut, and the rest should pick up the bill.
No wonder Republicans are losing elections they would comfortably won in the past.

Politcal talking point not based in reality. Please fact check how the middle and lower class pick up the tax bill. If you want cooperation, stop the lies.

Lies? It's a simple math -- if rich are going to pay less, then the rest will have to pay more. Or there will be cuts to social programs, education, Medicare and so on -- the programs that save money for the poor and middle class.

Listen to yourself, the poor and middle class are going to pay for benefits to the poor and middle class. Liar.

 

[ilia25]

Politcal talking point not based in reality. Please fact check how the middle and lower class pick up the tax bill. If you want cooperation, stop the lies.

Lies? It's a simple math -- if rich are going to pay less, then the rest will have to pay more. Or there will be cuts to social programs, education, Medicare and so on -- the programs that save money for the poor and middle class.

Listen to yourself, the poor and middle class are going to pay for benefits to the poor and middle class. Liar.

Yes, if the poor and middle will have to pay more, they will be poorer. If their benefits will be cut, they will be poorer still.

But that would be fair according to GOP types, as those people, even if they work hard, are not "job creators" and they do not deserve neither respect, nor compassion.

 

[InjuryAttorneys]

I thought he was going to win for a while. It was very close until the end