Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

  • Thread starter Thread starter HansTrappist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Romney did not get the support of pro-life groups until Santorum was out.
True. This was after the Convention when endorsements are usually made. True.

I love Rick, he got me back interested in Politics in about February of this year, he had a message and at first he was great. Some of his subsequent comments might have been unfortunate but his earliest debate performances were prime. I would visit his website too…
 
I haven’t been through all the posts for this thread yet but SEDONAMAN hit the nail right on the head. Mitt Romney was the best choice to run against President Obama. Our country has gone practically nowhere over the last four years in the way of creating jobs, building homes, or paying off our debt. We needed a person with business experience to get this country back on track again. Mitt Romney also has a compassionate heart in that he wants everyone to benefit from a newly revitalized economy including alot of the “47% who rely on the government”. There will always be poor people who need help from others. Mitt Romney wasn’t blaming them for this need, he was extending a hand to them. But we have to be honest, there are some people out there who take advantage of the extended hand of the government and abuse it.
Code:
 I agree with what alot of republican strategists have been saying that the republicans need to offer a hand and work more closely with the poor in this country.  They also need to extend a more friendlier hand to African Americans and Hispanic Americans.  We are a multicultural nation.

 Now, its interesting but some of the republican strategists were mentioning another group that the GOP has alienated because of the GOP's pro-life message and thats women.  Here, I totally disagree with this thought process.  If the GOP would try to become a pro-abortion cheerleaders and try to attract the so-called pro-choice voters, the GOP would cease to exist.  Churchgoing, Pro-life people make up a good chunk of the GOP and we want to see abortion ended.
I believe that, for practicing Catholics, Romney was the only one we could have voted for had one decided to vote. Now, it is true that both Romney and Obama supported the intrinsic evil of abortion to varying degrees, but I have not heard a convincing case made that Obama would have done more than Romney to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion. In fact, the Democrat Party now actively supports as part of its platform two sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance: abortion on demand and homosexual marriage.

I believe the U.S. Bishops should have come right out and said, by name, which of the two candidates would have done the most to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion (doing so would not have been a case of the Bishops campaigning but rather a case of them concretely applying the Truth to a specific moral dilemna). Instead, their statements left the resolution of this dilemna up to the subjective judgement of individual consciences.

Now, as to the future of the Republican Party, I think Pat Buchanan (who endorsed Mitt Romney by the way) just took a cold, hard look at the future in latest article “Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?” (buchanan.org/blog/is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard-5347).

Now, as to your mention of the economy and Mitt Romney, I don’t think even a Mitt Romney win would have done anything in that regard. As Ron Paul recently said (rt.com/usa/news/paul-fiscal-cliff-obama-364/):🙂

“We’re so far gone. We’re over the cliff. We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5 to 10 years who will do the wise things. We have to prepare for having already fallen off the fiscal cliff."

“They’re just looking for the truth,” said the congressman. “They say, ‘Well, all we need is a little compromise.’ Well nobody expects that because they do not admit the truth, and the truth is that we are broke. How do you compromise? The only way you can compromise is if you agree on what to cut. People do not want anything cut. They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing money. They do not believe we have gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff.”

I believe that there are really a few things keeping the U.S. economy afloat right now in spite of our obscene debt: the fact that we can print money out of thin air, the fact that the Dollar is the world reserve curreny, and the fact that our endless “war on terror” has kept at least one sector of the economy growing. But that may all be about to change and even Obama might not be able to stop what comes next.
 
I believe that, for practicing Catholics, Romney was the only one we could have voted for had one decided to vote. Now, it is true that both Romney and Obama supported the intrinsic evil of abortion to varying degrees, but I have not heard a convincing case made that Obama would have done more than Romney to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion. In fact, the Democrat Party now actively supports as part of its platform two sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance: abortion on demand and homosexual marriage.

I believe the U.S. Bishops should have come right out and said, by name, which of the two candidates would have done the most to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion (doing so would not have been a case of the Bishops campaigning but rather a case of them concretely applying the Truth to a specific moral dilemna). Instead, their statements left the resolution of this dilemna up to the subjective judgement of individual consciences.

Now, as to the future of the Republican Party, I think Pat Buchanan (who endorsed Mitt Romney by the way) just took a cold, hard look at the future in latest article “Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?” (buchanan.org/blog/is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard-5347).

Now, as to your mention of the economy and Mitt Romney, I don’t think even a Mitt Romney win would have done anything in that regard. As Ron Paul recently said (rt.com/usa/news/paul-fiscal-cliff-obama-364/):🙂

“We’re so far gone. We’re over the cliff. We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5 to 10 years who will do the wise things. We have to prepare for having already fallen off the fiscal cliff."

“They’re just looking for the truth,” said the congressman. “They say, ‘Well, all we need is a little compromise.’ Well nobody expects that because they do not admit the truth, and the truth is that we are broke. How do you compromise? The only way you can compromise is if you agree on what to cut. People do not want anything cut. They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing money. They do not believe we have gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff.”

I believe that there are really a few things keeping the U.S. economy afloat right now in spite of our obscene debt: the fact that we can print money out of thin air, the fact that the Dollar is the world reserve curreny, and the fact that our endless “war on terror” has kept at least one sector of the economy growing. But that may all be about to change and even Obama might not be able to stop what comes next.
Amazing, Presidency is one thing, Democrats control the Senate too, Republicans the house.

But state-wise:
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks party representation in the country’s 50 state governments, **Democrats now control all three bases of power – the governorship and both houses of the state legislature – in 14 states **and Republicans in 23, with only 12 states sharing power. (Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is considered nonpartisan.)
Read more: Rising number of states seeing one-party rule - Washington Times washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/10/rising-number-of-states-seeing-one-party-rule/#ixzz2BsM9fAfS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
It may be state level but 23 states is almost half of them.

If we were to see severe turmoil, a result of that might be more State power, less Federal intervention. That’s the way it is suppose to be and maybe this system has not been working the way it should.
 
It’s also hard to get good candidates in this system.

Romney was from Massachussets and made compromises there, Santorum was from Pennsylvania and though great views on some subjects, not me but some could find fault with him on fiscal issues, the guy was from a state with a lot of Unions.

Buchanan may be overly pessimistic in the things he says but he is true on some things, California is largely lost, Texas will remain strong because of the migration of industry and those jobs to there.

California has high unemployment, has cities, 3 at least that have declared bankruptcy and California could collapse under its own weight.

Texas is in renaissance and booming.

Really at this rate and the immorality of the Democrats and Federal Government, this country may balkanize and break up. Our Founding Fathers envisioned nothing like this. I’ve thought this for awhile, let DC, Mass. NY and Calif. have their ways, don’t push it on the rest of us.
 
I understand that the those on the left would like others to believe what you’re saying above. That makes it much easier to justify voting for a president who supports infanticide. Notice that the poster you refer to never attributed to the left all evil, and actually said, “And I’ve been as guilty as anyone of going along and not saying anything.” Some of us, Seekerz, are concerned about the plight of the unborn and the sanctity of life as a result of this election. That so many catholics voted for Obama shows how blind some are to evil.

Ishii
That so many Catholics voted for Obama shows that human beings are not robots, period. Blindness? How about the ‘new religion’ where the only and supreme sin is abortion? What kind of vision is that?
 
Why do you think Our Lady of Guadalupe is referred to as “Patroness of the Americas and Protector of the Unborn”?
Because she IS that. I’m quite sure she would have no part of driving people from the faith with derisive, dismissive and judgmental monocular vision.

The left promotes abortion and the right does not promotes selfish individualism? Two different roads to the same destination. The sinner and the ‘righteous man’ in the Temple…
 
Though it looks attractive, Democrats often want to give amnesty because their numbers are not so great and they need new members too.

Nationally, those who are registered Republicans and Democrat I am told is not that big of a difference.
 
Never happen. Two Catholics.

Either Ryan/female or Rubio/female
We need Rubio, no question, and we’ll have to get him ourselves.

Despite all their celebrating about the new “permanent democrat majority”, they know if we ever ran a minority on the top of the ticket it’s all over for them.

The left can’t get over 45% of the white vote in a presidential election on a good cycle, so they need a coalition of minorities.

We get even a third of African Americans or single women it’s all over for the left.

And all we need is to get out the Truth. Make it simple, make it easy.
 
Though it looks attractive, Democrats often want to give amnesty because their numbers are not so great and they need new members too.

Nationally, those who are registered Republicans and Democrat I am told is not that big of a difference.
Progressive liberals have few kids, so they need minorities as an uneducated underclass to inflate their numbers.

That’s why they engaged in racial, gender and sexual orientation demagoguery.
 
How about the ‘new religion’ where the only and supreme sin is abortion? What kind of vision is that?
It is not the only sin…but there is no doubt that it is a “supreme” sin…a mortal in…an intrinsic evil.

The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child.
(150 AD Didache 2:1)
 
Because she IS that. I’m quite sure she would have no part of driving people from the faith with derisive, dismissive and judgmental monocular vision.

The left promotes abortion and the right does not promotes selfish individualism? Two different roads to the same destination. The sinner and the ‘righteous man’ in the Temple…
Individualism can be selfish, but it doesn’t have to be. People need to be free to make that choice. They don’t need a moral theocracy based on religious or secular values. That always backfires. Just look at any other country that governs like that.

Do you really think the left isn’t ever selfish?

-Check out who contributes to your average democrat

-Conservatives, despite making less money that liberals, give four times as much to charity.
 
I believe that, for practicing Catholics, Romney was the only one we could have voted for had one decided to vote. Now, it is true that both Romney and Obama supported the intrinsic evil of abortion to varying degrees, but I have not heard a convincing case made that Obama would have done more than Romney to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion. In fact, the Democrat Party now actively supports as part of its platform two sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance: abortion on demand and homosexual marriage.

I believe the U.S. Bishops should have come right out and said, by name, which of the two candidates would have done the most to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion (doing so would not have been a case of the Bishops campaigning but rather a case of them concretely applying the Truth to a specific moral dilemna). Instead, their statements left the resolution of this dilemna up to the subjective judgement of individual consciences.

Now, as to the future of the Republican Party, I think Pat Buchanan (who endorsed Mitt Romney by the way) just took a cold, hard look at the future in latest article “Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?” (buchanan.org/blog/is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard-5347).

Now, as to your mention of the economy and Mitt Romney, I don’t think even a Mitt Romney win would have done anything in that regard. As Ron Paul recently said (rt.com/usa/news/paul-fiscal-cliff-obama-364/):🙂

“We’re so far gone. We’re over the cliff. We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5 to 10 years who will do the wise things. We have to prepare for having already fallen off the fiscal cliff."

“They’re just looking for the truth,” said the congressman. “They say, ‘Well, all we need is a little compromise.’ Well nobody expects that because they do not admit the truth, and the truth is that we are broke. How do you compromise? The only way you can compromise is if you agree on what to cut. People do not want anything cut. They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing money. They do not believe we have gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff.”

I believe that there are really a few things keeping the U.S. economy afloat right now in spite of our obscene debt: the fact that we can print money out of thin air, the fact that the Dollar is the world reserve curreny, and the fact that our endless “war on terror” has kept at least one sector of the economy growing. But that may all be about to change and even Obama might not be able to stop what comes next.
Well, it’s going to get rough, that’s for sure. And a lot of people are already learning a hard lesson as layoff after layoff after layoff are coming .
 
Progressive liberals have few kids, so they need minorities as an uneducated underclass to inflate their numbers.

That’s why they engaged in racial, gender and sexual orientation demagoguery.
And though Obama is a racially mixed president, where are all of the Democrat Woman governors, okay, they just elected one, but Republicans have a number,and one in New England I’m pretty sure, I forget her name (or she’s a Senator). Republicans have a number of Ethnic Governors we were discussing, Hailey, Jindall, Martinez, 3 off the top, if the Democrats are so gung ho with Minorities, where are these? Where are African American Governors? Has there been one?

In heavily Hispanic and largely Democrat New Mexico, there last Hispanic Senator retired in 1977!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

But it really is about being an American, Jindal, Hailey are elected as Americans, Ted Cruz is elected as an American, not this quota system where it seems the Left finds they can play the race card, try to marginalize others by calling them fringe, etc.
 
Heard it today, I knew it but the commentator said Romney should have said “My father (grandfather) was born in Mexico”, He could have made more of this but he wanted the Nomination too bad so in the debates, he came out for strong immigration controls.

I’ve seen Chihuahua Mexico, Mennonites out there and I think Mormons were out in that area, still are and I wonder why he didn’t play on this.

Rush has said they’ve talked about a Spanish version of the show.

The Yankees have had Spanish language broadcasts forever, I have to believe most NFL teams have Spanish language broadcasts because it’s definitely in some of the Northern Cities, I assume so in Miami and other places.

Rubio spoke some Spanish at the Convention, so yes, this can be an outreach because everyone on both sides, Republican and Democrats will have a number of people that will just vote robot like for a candidate, maybe entice them. somehow.
 
And though Obama is a racially mixed president, where are all of the Democrat Woman governors, okay, they just elected one, but Republicans have a number,and one in New England I’m pretty sure, I forget her name (or she’s a Senator). Republicans have a number of Ethnic Governors we were discussing, Hailey, Jindall, Martinez, 3 off the top, if the Democrats are so gung ho with Minorities, where are these? Where are African American Governors? Has there been one?

In heavily Hispanic and largely Democrat New Mexico, there last Hispanic Senator retired in 1977!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

But it really is about being an American, Jindal, Hailey are elected as Americans, Ted Cruz is elected as an American, not this quota system where it seems the Left finds they can play the race card, try to marginalize others by calling them fringe, etc.
The left has to and will continue to, (well “marginalize” is such a nice word), but they’ll keep coming after our minority candidates.

Interesting, too, because now the progressive left is trying to cozy up to us and say we need to diversify.

Well, what do you call Clarence Thomas? Remember how Joe Biden and the democrats treated him during confirmation hearings?

Look at Sarah Palin, a women VP candidate. She and her family were attacked left and right.

And there’s Herman Cain.

You see, every time we do run a minority for higher office, they get viciously attacked, and why?

Because the progressive left is a fragile coalition of people who are united by basically two things:

Entitlements and programmed hatred for anyone with a nice R behind their name.

One minority on the top of the GOP ticket and it’s over.

And they know it.
 
Conservatives are calling for GOP leaders to step down. Republicans are debating their future. I’ve seen talk this wk such as if the GOP would only nominate a Marco Rubio and/or have a female VP nominee. It will take more than that. Latinos and women and other voters care about issues too and a party’s positions on them. Along with the tone of the messengers. Merely changing the color of the face of the Republican candidate or their gender may not necessarily do it alone.
It’s a whole different ballgame in the presidential race. People will vote for someone who looks like them in droves.

And with the ruin of the economy and possibly the dollar coming soon, there will a cry from all peoples from all corners of the country for conservatism.
 
Cmatt, the nightmare scenario for those who value the sanctity of life (as opposed to those who liken protecting unborn babies to “anti-choice”) is retirement of Ginsburg and a conservative - like Scalia. As for your last question, did the nine justices who voted for the Roe V Wade decision consider that the American people in 1972 were not with them? I doubt it. See- it works both ways, doesn’t it. Btw, you seem to be arguing for “majority rule” instead of constitutional rule, Cmatt. Are you for mob rules or a constitution where people’s rights are protected - even if the majority don’t want to? I ask this considering that until not very long ago in the south, the supreme court acted in ways that the majority of southerners were “not with them.”

Ishii
So your answer to my 1st question is you’re expecting Scalia to retire? I’m for the sanctity of life, Ishii, and for protecting people’s rights. For me the sanctity of life also includes the lives of women and that of their families. For instance I don’t want Big Brother government forcing a decision on women who have been raped. They know better than me or the government how such a terrible thing affects their and their families lives. Yes I realize Paul Ryan says rape is just another manner of conception. But I am not going to put myself in the shoes of those women. Nor any woman. And I realize in the real world protecting rights is not always black and white. God bless you, Ishii. And God bless America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top