If Republicans lose the 2012 Presidential election, which direction will the GOP go?

[FuelRod]

Ultimately I believe the GOP will have to back off much of the social/religious issues such as Homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. with the simple doctrine of "sin is between the sinner and God" (which we all are.)

 

[Full-Auto]

Ultimately I believe the GOP will have to back off much of the social/religious issues such as Homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. with the simple doctrine of "sin is between the sinner and God" (which we all are.)

When I hit the booth, my vote always focuses on the bottom line.

Social issues were checked at the curb.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You guys really should read the Constitution.

1. Define "you guys."
2. I was noting a historical fact, which had nothing to do with the constitution. What is the issue?

 

[jillian]

Ultimately I believe the GOP will have to back off much of the social/religious issues such as Homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. with the simple doctrine of "sin is between the sinner and God" (which we all are.)

Of course they should. But how can we expect them to when the first thing this GOP House did when it was elected was try to get a law passed absolving hospitals from liability for letting women die for refusing to preform a life-saving abortion or even having to refer her somewhere where it would be done.

They did that in 2000, too. First thing Bush did when in office was sign an executive order taking away funding from groups that counseled abortion as PART of what they did.

Not jobs... not the economy... not alternative energy... but letting women die.

 

[L.K.Eder]

tom delay 2016

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ultimately I believe the GOP will have to back off much of the social/religious issues such as Homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. with the simple doctrine of "sin is between the sinner and God" (which we all are.)

When I hit the booth, my vote always focuses on the bottom line.

Social issues were checked at the curb.

This is exactly how it should be.

 

[regent]

The history of America is the history of slow liberalism.
we only have to look at our history where we began and where we are today to see that. So many vast changes and always toward more rights for people. The only question we seem to have is do Democrats, at times, move too fast for the people? When people feel uncomforable with pace they vote in America's anchor, the Republican party. After a time again it's time to move forward and so back comes the Democratic party. But make no mistake our goal is always more liberalism and a better life for the people. The Repubicans would like to believe the Constitution is part of the anchor but so far it has not impeded progress.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So what happened when Bush got into office? He had majorities in BOTH houses of congress for 6 years. How did the budget fare then?
What is MAGIC about having a dem president and a rethug congress? It doesn't make any sense, if CONZ are the only ones to do things right?

Actually, I'm inclined to agree that a solidly GOP house and Senate might be a good thing for Obama and the US if he gets re-elected. Why? Because such division forces compromise. But currently, Obama's worst enemies in Congress are the Democrats. When Obama proposes compromises, but both sides of the aisle stomp their feet like petulant children, nothing gets done. But if both houses of Congress were Red, GOP dream bills would get passed that would make their way to Obama's desk, giving him the chance to take a stand and veto them, and force the GOP to come to a compromise with him after all.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ultimately I believe the GOP will have to back off much of the social/religious issues such as Homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. with the simple doctrine of "sin is between the sinner and God" (which we all are.)

Yes. And back off of even more pressing issues like freedom of religion.

Obama has the job situation solved so he must continue his drive to assure that college girls can get free rubbers when they want them. This is very important stuff.

 

[mudwhistle]

So what happened when Bush got into office? He had majorities in BOTH houses of congress for 6 years. How did the budget fare then?
What is MAGIC about having a dem president and a rethug congress? It doesn't make any sense, if CONZ are the only ones to do things right?

Actually, I'm inclined to agree that a solidly GOP house and Senate might be a good thing for Obama and the US if he gets re-elected. Why? Because such division forces compromise. But currently, Obama's worst enemies in Congress are the Democrats. When Obama proposes compromises, but both sides of the aisle stomp their feet like petulant children, nothing gets done. But if both houses of Congress were Red, GOP dream bills would get passed that would make their way to Obama's desk, giving him the chance to take a stand and veto them, and force the GOP to come to a compromise with him after all.

You're expecting Obama to take a principled stand. He's purely political. Solutions are not an option.

Yes, anything to stop progress, and prevent spending cuts of any kind (except defense cuts).

 

[Immanuel]

The history of America is the history of slow liberalism.
we only have to look at our history where we began and where we are today to see that. So many vast changes and always toward more rights for people. The only question we seem to have is do Democrats, at times, move too fast for the people? When people feel uncomforable with pace they vote in America's anchor, the Republican party. After a time again it's time to move forward and so back comes the Democratic party. But make no mistake our goal is always more liberalism and a better life for the people. The Repubicans would like to believe the Constitution is part of the anchor but so far it has not impeded progress.

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

 

[Inthemiddle]

You're expecting Obama to take an principled stand.

No, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. A "principled" stand is what Congress keeps insisting on doing. Instead of compromising and moving forward, they take "principled" i.e. partisan stands, and the result is gridlock. The Democrats constantly bitch that he's giving too much tot he Republicans, and the Republicans bitch that he's not giving everything to them. I expect Obama to continue to take a centrist approach, vetoing GOP dream bills, and forcing them to make concessions to the Democrats, which he will eventually sign.

He's purely political. Solutions are not an option.

That is a purely partisan examination. When his own party keeps saying that he's offering too much to the Republicans, obviously your claim is untrue.

 

[regent]

The history of America is the history of slow liberalism.
we only have to look at our history where we began and where we are today to see that. So many vast changes and always toward more rights for people. The only question we seem to have is do Democrats, at times, move too fast for the people? When people feel uncomforable with pace they vote in America's anchor, the Republican party. After a time again it's time to move forward and so back comes the Democratic party. But make no mistake our goal is always more liberalism and a better life for the people. The Repubicans would like to believe the Constitution is part of the anchor but so far it has not impeded progress.

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

 

[Immanuel]

The history of America is the history of slow liberalism.
we only have to look at our history where we began and where we are today to see that. So many vast changes and always toward more rights for people. The only question we seem to have is do Democrats, at times, move too fast for the people? When people feel uncomforable with pace they vote in America's anchor, the Republican party. After a time again it's time to move forward and so back comes the Democratic party. But make no mistake our goal is always more liberalism and a better life for the people. The Repubicans would like to believe the Constitution is part of the anchor but so far it has not impeded progress.

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

It is today's liberal who are pushing for more rights for gays to serve their country and to marry
It s liberals defending the rights of workers to collectively bargain

Where do conservatives stand on that?

 

[chikenwing]

It is today's liberal who are pushing for more rights for gays to serve their country and to marry
It s liberals defending the rights of workers to collectively bargain

Where do conservatives stand on that?


On my own two feet,I don't need nor want anyone collectively bargaining for me,I do a fine job on my own. I don't need a crutch to earn a living.

 

[rightwinger]

It is today's liberal who are pushing for more rights for gays to serve their country and to marry
It s liberals defending the rights of workers to collectively bargain

Where do conservatives stand on that?


On my own two feet,I don't need nor want anyone collectively bargaining for me,I do a fine job on my own. I don't need a crutch to earn a living.

How is that 40 hour week working out for you?

 

[candycorn]

The history of America is the history of slow liberalism.
we only have to look at our history where we began and where we are today to see that. So many vast changes and always toward more rights for people. The only question we seem to have is do Democrats, at times, move too fast for the people? When people feel uncomforable with pace they vote in America's anchor, the Republican party. After a time again it's time to move forward and so back comes the Democratic party. But make no mistake our goal is always more liberalism and a better life for the people. The Repubicans would like to believe the Constitution is part of the anchor but so far it has not impeded progress.

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

Amen. Post of the year there folks!

 

[candycorn]

More rights for citizens from the liberals?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you post BS like that? When it comes to removing people's rights, the liberals and Democrats are worse than the Republicans and the Republicans are a crappy benchmark to set in the first place.

Immie

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

Really? Who was it...how about some names of the great civil rights leaders...

 

[Immanuel]

Do Americans have more rights today than in 1789? What might those rights be? Did conservatives or liberals push for those rights?

It sure as hell was not liberals or at least not today's liberals.

Immie

It is today's liberal who are pushing for more rights for gays to serve their country and to marry
It s liberals defending the rights of workers to collectively bargain

Where do conservatives stand on that?

It is today's liberals that want to remove a person's right as to what products he will sell.

It is today's liberals that want to remove a person's right to publicly express one's faith or to speak out against abortion.

As for the right to collectively bargain, it seems many unions (SEIU) are more interested in spreading violence than improving the employment conditions of workers. By the way, I have no problem with collective bargaining. I have a problem with union bosses who can't be distinquished from corrupt politicians.

Immie