My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[Photonic]

We have suffered a major setback...there is no denying that.

The natural kneejerk reaction it's to lash out, point fingers, distance oneself from defeat.

Instead, I would ask that you take time to process the election results and thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the election, the constructive criticism that you glean from that reflection, and how we can rectify the shortfall we suffered here.

What we need is an After Action Review, not a rerun of the Blame Game.

Defeat is a fork in the road...one path leads to internal destruction, the other to strength through adversity.

Today we choose...choose wisely.


EDIT -- Before replying to this post, read the clarification here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ervatives-please-read-this-3.html#post6297400

The republican party ran on a platform of legitimate rape, and oppression of women this year. Perhaps avoid that in the future.

Stop letting your extremists get into positions of power, and you're golden.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm positive the liberals will lampoon this thread mercilessly.

They would like nothing better than to witness the self destruction of the Republican party.

Simply ignore it.

They have their motivation....we recognize it...it is no threat.

Alinsky's rules only work if you allow yourself to be cowed by them.


EDIT at 9:30...I am happy to amend this post to read "Some Liberals" as some have posted gracious comments in this thread...kudos to them.

To the contrary, we need the Republican Party just as much as we need the Democratic Party. I do not like the idea of either party having complete control, because that allows those on the fringe way too much power. The key for Republicans is to move back a little bit closer to the center without completely abandoning their core beliefs. And for God sakes, quit chasing moderates away from the party. The party should be welcoming moderates and understanding that not everyone has to be on the same exact page. Maybe being in the same chapter is good enough. It has to be better than being in a completely different book.

 

[Photonic]

I'm positive the liberals will lampoon this thread mercilessly.

They would like nothing better than to witness the self destruction of the Republican party.

Simply ignore it.

They have their motivation....we recognize it...it is no threat.

Alinsky's rules only work if you allow yourself to be cowed by them.


EDIT at 9:30...I am happy to amend this post to read "Some Liberals" as some have posted gracious comments in this thread...kudos to them.

To the contrary, we need the Republican Party just as much as we need the Democratic Party. I do not like the idea of either party having complete control, because that allows those on the fringe way too much power. The key for Republicans is to move back a little bit closer to the center without completely abandoning their core beliefs. And for God sakes, quit chasing moderates away from the party. The party should be welcoming moderates and understanding that not everyone has to be on the same exact page. Maybe being in the same chapter is good enough. It has to be better than being in a completely different book.

They need to completely get rid of their social conservatives. Or they will be relegated to the pages of history as something that won't look very good on paper.

 

[kwc57]

No they don't. Republicans must be as entitled to their moral convictions as anybody else is. But those Republicans who would force their moral convictions on everybody else are no more conservative than are Democrats who would force their moral convictions on everybody else. True modern American conservatism is a live and let live principle that allows the people freedom to form whatever sort of society they wish to have so long as they do not infringe on anybody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That means the federal government stays out of it and community A does their own thing and allows community B to do its own thing. And each community doesn't try to force their thing on the other.

I took what he said to mean what you just said, that conservatives can have their moral convictions, they just shouldn't try to legislate them on everyone, i.e. have them a part of a political platform, the same as liberals should not try to legislate theirs as well. The problem is that the media takes the liberal side and constantly beats the dead horse of how conservatives are legislating their morals, while ignoring when the left does the exact same thing.

I agree with the principle. The part I disagree with is that those who would force their morality on everybody else are conservative at all. Such are authoritarians that are no different from modern American liberals who would force their version of morality on all; they just have different objectives.

At the same time, freedom must include an ability to form the society we want even if it it seems to be morally rigid and isn't everybody else's cup of tea. True freedom allows people to be who they are just so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Fox,

We actually agree. My issue is that the Republican party wraps themselves up in "values" and makes them a key point of their campaign and platforms. Thus, they are saying vote for me and I'll give you X society as opposed to my opponent who will give you Y society. Both are using social issues to sell their brand. In a free society, government should tend to government and leave the social experiments to society to sort out. Neither the liberals or the conservatives currently do this. as a conservative, I have my own personal views on social issues, but I am not looking for a candidate who will legislate a marriage amendment anymore than I am looking for a candidate that will legislate gay marriage. I want someone who will follow the constitutional mandates of what government is limited to and nothing more.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Republicans could have run Jesus Christ or Ghandi or Chairman Mao or anybody you want to name and he or she would have been so demonized by the left so as to become unrecognizable. The leftwing media was not going to allow any Republican to get his/her message out and no proposal by any Republican would have been satisfactory to the partisan Democrats.

It is quite possible that even if Romney had pulled out the win, we are too fractured as a nation to give him any chance at success. Certainly we on the right have wished little or no success for the more extreme and/or more destructive of Obama's agenda. Until we can get past the bitter partisanship that looks more like hatred than patriotism, nobody is going to have much of a chance to succeed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm positive the liberals will lampoon this thread mercilessly.

They would like nothing better than to witness the self destruction of the Republican party.

Simply ignore it.

They have their motivation....we recognize it...it is no threat.

Alinsky's rules only work if you allow yourself to be cowed by them.


EDIT at 9:30...I am happy to amend this post to read "Some Liberals" as some have posted gracious comments in this thread...kudos to them.

To the contrary, we need the Republican Party just as much as we need the Democratic Party. I do not like the idea of either party having complete control, because that allows those on the fringe way too much power. The key for Republicans is to move back a little bit closer to the center without completely abandoning their core beliefs. And for God sakes, quit chasing moderates away from the party. The party should be welcoming moderates and understanding that not everyone has to be on the same exact page. Maybe being in the same chapter is good enough. It has to be better than being in a completely different book.

IMHO that is the big question the GOP needs to tackle. The demographics are only getting worse for them year by year.

Is there room in their party for moderates like Olympia Snowe. Snowe doesn't think so - she bailed.

Immigration is a prime example. Do they stick to "self deport" or do they embrace a path to citizenship. "Self deport" means they have virtually no chance with 17% (and the fastest growing segment) of the voters. But does "Path to citizenship" compromise their core values too much?

 

[kwc57]

We have suffered a major setback...there is no denying that.

The natural kneejerk reaction it's to lash out, point fingers, distance oneself from defeat.

Instead, I would ask that you take time to process the election results and thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the election, the constructive criticism that you glean from that reflection, and how we can rectify the shortfall we suffered here.

What we need is an After Action Review, not a rerun of the Blame Game.

Defeat is a fork in the road...one path leads to internal destruction, the other to strength through adversity.

Today we choose...choose wisely.


EDIT -- Before replying to this post, read the clarification here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ervatives-please-read-this-3.html#post6297400

The republican party ran on a platform of legitimate rape, and oppression of women this year. Perhaps avoid that in the future.

Stop letting your extremists get into positions of power, and you're golden.

Educate your extremist ass and get back to the class on what you learned.

2012 Republican Platform - GOP

 

[kwc57]

I'm positive the liberals will lampoon this thread mercilessly.

They would like nothing better than to witness the self destruction of the Republican party.

Simply ignore it.

They have their motivation....we recognize it...it is no threat.

Alinsky's rules only work if you allow yourself to be cowed by them.


EDIT at 9:30...I am happy to amend this post to read "Some Liberals" as some have posted gracious comments in this thread...kudos to them.

To the contrary, we need the Republican Party just as much as we need the Democratic Party. I do not like the idea of either party having complete control, because that allows those on the fringe way too much power. The key for Republicans is to move back a little bit closer to the center without completely abandoning their core beliefs. And for God sakes, quit chasing moderates away from the party. The party should be welcoming moderates and understanding that not everyone has to be on the same exact page. Maybe being in the same chapter is good enough. It has to be better than being in a completely different book.

They need to completely get rid of their social conservatives. Or they will be relegated to the pages of history as something that won't look very good on paper.

Are you willing to get rid of your social liberals in trade?

 

[Newby]

We have suffered a major setback...there is no denying that.

The natural kneejerk reaction it's to lash out, point fingers, distance oneself from defeat.

Instead, I would ask that you take time to process the election results and thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the election, the constructive criticism that you glean from that reflection, and how we can rectify the shortfall we suffered here.

What we need is an After Action Review, not a rerun of the Blame Game.

Defeat is a fork in the road...one path leads to internal destruction, the other to strength through adversity.

Today we choose...choose wisely.


EDIT -- Before replying to this post, read the clarification here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ervatives-please-read-this-3.html#post6297400

The republican party ran on a platform of legitimate rape, and oppression of women this year. Perhaps avoid that in the future.

Stop letting your extremists get into positions of power, and you're golden.

You can stop with the lying propaganda now, the election is over.

 

[Photonic]

We have suffered a major setback...there is no denying that.

The natural kneejerk reaction it's to lash out, point fingers, distance oneself from defeat.

Instead, I would ask that you take time to process the election results and thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the election, the constructive criticism that you glean from that reflection, and how we can rectify the shortfall we suffered here.

What we need is an After Action Review, not a rerun of the Blame Game.

Defeat is a fork in the road...one path leads to internal destruction, the other to strength through adversity.

Today we choose...choose wisely.


EDIT -- Before replying to this post, read the clarification here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ervatives-please-read-this-3.html#post6297400

The republican party ran on a platform of legitimate rape, and oppression of women this year. Perhaps avoid that in the future.

Stop letting your extremists get into positions of power, and you're golden.

Educate your extremist ass and get back to the class on what you learned.

2012 Republican Platform - GOP

Ever wonder why Todd Atkins didn't get re-elected?

Why is a vast majority of the women vote not going to the republican party?

Could it be the extremist social conservative policies that would send us spiraling backwards through time itself?

Deal with it. The American people spoke. Your policies our out of touch with humanities progress towards an actual future we can care about. While the democrats aren't the party I would optimally vote for, at least they have their social policies straight.

 

[dblack]

My issue is that the Republican party wraps themselves up in "values" and makes them a key point of their campaign and platforms. Thus, they are saying vote for me and I'll give you X society as opposed to my opponent who will give you Y society. Both are using social issues to sell their brand. In a free society, government should tend to government and leave the social experiments to society to sort out. Neither the liberals or the conservatives currently do this. as a conservative, I have my own personal views on social issues, but I am not looking for a candidate who will legislate a marriage amendment anymore than I am looking for a candidate that will legislate gay marriage. I want someone who will follow the constitutional mandates of what government is limited to and nothing more.

Well said. This is what I see as a (perhaps 'the') key difference between conservatives and libertarians - even when the two views sometimes support the same policies. Both libertarians and conservatives are opposed to the welfare state, for example. But libertarians oppose it on limited government principles, whereas conservatives oppose it as a moral concern (they don't want to encourage "shiftless freeloaders").

I don't find it a very reliable co-alignment. As soon as limited government principles conflict with the moral mandates of the conservatives, small government is dropped in favor of "whatever it takes" to drive home their moral agenda.

 

[Newby]

I took what he said to mean what you just said, that conservatives can have their moral convictions, they just shouldn't try to legislate them on everyone, i.e. have them a part of a political platform, the same as liberals should not try to legislate theirs as well. The problem is that the media takes the liberal side and constantly beats the dead horse of how conservatives are legislating their morals, while ignoring when the left does the exact same thing.

I agree with the principle. The part I disagree with is that those who would force their morality on everybody else are conservative at all. Such are authoritarians that are no different from modern American liberals who would force their version of morality on all; they just have different objectives.

At the same time, freedom must include an ability to form the society we want even if it it seems to be morally rigid and isn't everybody else's cup of tea. True freedom allows people to be who they are just so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Fox,

We actually agree. My issue is that the Republican party wraps themselves up in "values" and makes them a key point of their campaign and platforms. Thus, they are saying vote for me and I'll give you X society as opposed to my opponent who will give you Y society. Both are using social issues to sell their brand. In a free society, government should tend to government and leave the social experiments to society to sort out. Neither the liberals or the conservatives currently do this. as a conservative, I have my own personal views on social issues, but I am not looking for a candidate who will legislate a marriage amendment anymore than I am looking for a candidate that will legislate gay marriage. I want someone who will follow the constitutional mandates of what government is limited to and nothing more.

Exactly, and why the left gets away with it is because they own the media, and they've influenced the newest generation of voters thru education and have 'taught' them that what they, the left, promote are the 'right' things, while demonizing their opponent, as Fox mentioned a post or two ago. They've planned well and it's been something that has been in motion for decades.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The republican party ran on a platform of legitimate rape, and oppression of women this year. Perhaps avoid that in the future.

Stop letting your extremists get into positions of power, and you're golden.

Educate your extremist ass and get back to the class on what you learned.

2012 Republican Platform - GOP

Ever wonder why Todd Atkins didn't get re-elected?

Why is a vast majority of the women vote not going to the republican party?

Could it be the extremist social conservative policies that would send us spiraling backwards through time itself?

Deal with it. The American people spoke. Your policies our out of touch with humanities progress towards an actual future we can care about. While the democrats aren't the party I would optimally vote for, at least they have their social policies straight.

I don't think Atkins was the incumbent in that race and the vast majority of Republicans will tell you that they DO NOT share his views. But you are right about one thing. His stink did rub off on other Republicans even though they cut him off and hung him out to dry.

I think the GOP failure to embrace equal pay initiatives hurt and I think that "reproductive rights" (even though I share their opposition to abortion) hurt them among many women voters. I think those two things hurt more than some lame-brain spouting off at the mouth.

 

[saveliberty]

The piggy bank is about empty...

 

[Photonic]

Educate your extremist ass and get back to the class on what you learned.

2012 Republican Platform - GOP

Ever wonder why Todd Atkins didn't get re-elected?

Why is a vast majority of the women vote not going to the republican party?

Could it be the extremist social conservative policies that would send us spiraling backwards through time itself?

Deal with it. The American people spoke. Your policies our out of touch with humanities progress towards an actual future we can care about. While the democrats aren't the party I would optimally vote for, at least they have their social policies straight.

I don't think Atkins was the incumbent in that race and the vast majority of Republkicans will tell you that they DO NOT share his views. But you are right about one thing. His stink did rub off on other Republicans even though they cut him off and hung him out to dry.

I think the GOP failure to embrace equal pay initiatives hurt and I think that "reproductive rights" (even though I share their opposition to abortion) hurt them among many women voters. I think those two things hurt more than some lame-brain spouting off at the mouth.

It's the parties "Moral" stance that hurts them. If they pushed that agenda out of the party, I'm willing to bet you anything they would be able to win the white house. I was going to vote for the republican party this year until the crazy started spraying out of their mouths. Not to mention Romney's special ability to lie constantly about his own agenda.

 

[Newby]

My issue is that the Republican party wraps themselves up in "values" and makes them a key point of their campaign and platforms. Thus, they are saying vote for me and I'll give you X society as opposed to my opponent who will give you Y society. Both are using social issues to sell their brand. In a free society, government should tend to government and leave the social experiments to society to sort out. Neither the liberals or the conservatives currently do this. as a conservative, I have my own personal views on social issues, but I am not looking for a candidate who will legislate a marriage amendment anymore than I am looking for a candidate that will legislate gay marriage. I want someone who will follow the constitutional mandates of what government is limited to and nothing more.

Well said. This is what I see as a (perhaps 'the') key difference between conservatives and libertarians - even when the two views sometimes support the same policies. Both libertarians and conservatives are opposed to the welfare state, for example. But libertarians oppose it on limited government principles, whereas conservatives oppose it as a moral concern (they don't want to encourage "shiftless freeloaders").

I don't find it a very reliable co-alignment. As soon as limited government principles conflict with the moral mandates of the conservatives, small government is dropped in favor of "whatever it takes" to drive home their moral agenda.

Who defines this 'moral madate' that conservatives supposedly have? Or is it a label that's been applied thru endless lies and propaganda campaigns via the media for years and years?

 

[WillowTree]

The piggy bank is about empty...

that's why they're so desperate to tax the rich. Still how long do you think it will take obummer to reach 20 trillion in debt? Should we start a pole?

 

[Newby]

Educate your extremist ass and get back to the class on what you learned.

2012 Republican Platform - GOP

Ever wonder why Todd Atkins didn't get re-elected?

Why is a vast majority of the women vote not going to the republican party?

Could it be the extremist social conservative policies that would send us spiraling backwards through time itself?

Deal with it. The American people spoke. Your policies our out of touch with humanities progress towards an actual future we can care about. While the democrats aren't the party I would optimally vote for, at least they have their social policies straight.

I don't think Atkins was the incumbent in that race and the vast majority of Republicans will tell you that they DO NOT share his views. But you are right about one thing. His stink did rub off on other Republicans even though they cut him off and hung him out to dry.

I think the GOP failure to embrace equal pay initiatives hurt and I think that "reproductive rights" (even though I share their opposition to abortion) hurt them among many women voters. I think those two things hurt more than some lame-brain spouting off at the mouth.

Because that is how the left/media want to portray it, and they will continue to do so.

 

[Photonic]

My issue is that the Republican party wraps themselves up in "values" and makes them a key point of their campaign and platforms. Thus, they are saying vote for me and I'll give you X society as opposed to my opponent who will give you Y society. Both are using social issues to sell their brand. In a free society, government should tend to government and leave the social experiments to society to sort out. Neither the liberals or the conservatives currently do this. as a conservative, I have my own personal views on social issues, but I am not looking for a candidate who will legislate a marriage amendment anymore than I am looking for a candidate that will legislate gay marriage. I want someone who will follow the constitutional mandates of what government is limited to and nothing more.

Well said. This is what I see as a (perhaps 'the') key difference between conservatives and libertarians - even when the two views sometimes support the same policies. Both libertarians and conservatives are opposed to the welfare state, for example. But libertarians oppose it on limited government principles, whereas conservatives oppose it as a moral concern (they don't want to encourage "shiftless freeloaders").

I don't find it a very reliable co-alignment. As soon as limited government principles conflict with the moral mandates of the conservatives, small government is dropped in favor of "whatever it takes" to drive home their moral agenda.

Who defines this 'moral madate' that conservatives supposedly have? Or is it a label that's been applied thru endless lies and propaganda campaigns via the media for years and years?

You're kidding right?

 

[dblack]

Who defines this 'moral madate' that conservatives supposedly have? Or is it a label that's been applied thru endless lies and propaganda campaigns via the media for years and years?

Conservatives do, I suppose. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you denying that conservatives see these issues more often from a moral perspective than from a limited government view?