Why the Repulicans lost the election

[Pete]

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitt...ro-life-pledge

I can't believe I took the time to find this for you. Match what his web site says with what the mormon faith says. However I do agree we should not devote one red cent to it.
Your welcome
Pete

[HPL]

Does anyone really think that if the Republicans compromised their view, agreed with gay marriage, took a stance of pro-choice, and smoking weed, that they would be in the White House now?

Yes, if framed correctly. They could still say that they don't feel that gay marriage is moral, but that it is also no place for the government to be involved. The pro-choice stance is NOT pro abortion but is clearly the smart position, and I don't think that using any substance that affects one's judgement is smart, but I'm sure that all you beer drinkers (who contribute in large numbers to the carnage on our nations highways) don't feel that that is any of the govt's business if you want to knock back more than a few beers. You want the right to marry any member of the opposite gender you want as many times as you want, but would deny a similar right to many others just because you think their choice is a sin. Well, the Catholics think that serial marriage is a sin (as do I although I wouldn't use the word sin), but if the govt decreed that the only way you could remarry was if your spouse died, you would scream bloody murder (and I suspect that the actual murder rate would go up).

A true conservative (which is what the republicans are SUPPOSED to represent) wants the govt to take care of the business that is rightly relegated to govt, and STAY out of all else.

[HPL]

What if a woman kills her 3 month old? Just curious how that plays in. Is that between a woman, her family, and her own conscience too?

1. Depends on the circumstances.

2. You're just being silly

[Franco]

[QUOTE=HPL;1031359]Yes, if framed correctly. They could still say that they don't feel that gay marriage is moral, but that it is also no place for the government to be involved. The pro-choice stance is NOT pro abortion but is clearly the smart position, and I don't think that using any substance that affects one's judgement is smart, but I'm sure that all you beer drinkers (who contribute in large numbers to the carnage on our nations highways) don't feel that that is any of the govt's business if you want to knock back more than a few beers. You want the right to marry any member of the opposite gender you want as many times as you want, but would deny a similar right to many others just because you think their choice is a sin. Well, the Catholics think that serial marriage is a sin (as do I although I wouldn't use the word sin), but if the govt decreed that the only way you could remarry was if your spouse died, you would scream bloody murder (and I suspect that the actual murder rate would go up).

A true conservative (which is what the republicans are SUPPOSED to represent) wants the govt to take care of the business that is rightly relegated to govt, and STAY out of all else.[/QUOTE]

Very true but unacceptable by today's Conservatives! The above is now at the core of the Libertarian Party and as someone as open-minded as you should consider a return to it.

[HPL]

[QUOTE=Franco;1031367]

Yes, if framed correctly. They could still say that they don't feel that gay marriage is moral, but that it is also no place for the government to be involved. The pro-choice stance is NOT pro abortion but is clearly the smart position, and I don't think that using any substance that affects one's judgement is smart, but I'm sure that all you beer drinkers (who contribute in large numbers to the carnage on our nations highways) don't feel that that is any of the govt's business if you want to knock back more than a few beers. You want the right to marry any member of the opposite gender you want as many times as you want, but would deny a similar right to many others just because you think their choice is a sin. Well, the Catholics think that serial marriage is a sin (as do I although I wouldn't use the word sin), but if the govt decreed that the only way you could remarry was if your spouse died, you would scream bloody murder (and I suspect that the actual murder rate would go up).

A true conservative (which is what the republicans are SUPPOSED to represent) wants the govt to take care of the business that is rightly relegated to govt, and STAY out of all else.[/QUOTE]

Very true but unacceptable by today's Conservatives! The above is now at the core of the Libertarian Party and as someone as open-minded as you should consider a return to it.

Whereas the libertarian party might be a pretty good fit for me, (and I voted for several libertarians this time), I am also a pragmatist and felt that since Romney seemed to have a chance to unseat Obama (which was my primary goal this time) I voted Rep for pres.

[LokiMeister]

Wow, you really fell for it. Saying that cutting PUBLIC funding to PP is wanting to eliminate birth control is like saying cutting funding to PBS is wanting to eliminate television.

Yep, I guess you are correct.

[RailRoadRetrievers]

Honestly HPL, I disagree because the fact remains, it's not a state level issue therefore the party I support will openly stand against moral social issues. Until it becomes state level I will openly endorse those who carry my values. Pro-Choice is simply murder of the one person who deserves the choice. Sanctity of marriage. By standing down and compromising your view, then you are supporting it.

The point is this, if you think social issues lost the election, you are wrong. If republicans took the side of the democrats concerning these issues they still wouldn't get the vote because the democrats don't care what we support, they could find a transgendered black lesbian pot smoking abortion doctor to endorse their party and the democrats would call them a puppet or an Uncle Tom. The Republicans would lose credibility and integrity. Changing their stance will change nothing.

It's the fact that everyone overlooked where we are and are going, Boeing held off on a large layoff until after the election, so the unemployed number will rise, the economy still sucks, gas prices are sky high, insurance will be forced down our throats, and Obama wants us to be morally, socially, and economically like Europe.

[LokiMeister]

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitt...ro-life-pledge

I can't believe I took the time to find this for you. Match what his web site says with what the mormon faith says. However I do agree we should not devote one red cent to it.
Your welcome
Pete

Looks pretty similar.

[ARay11]

Honestly HPL, I disagree because the fact remains, it's not a state level issue therefore the party I support will openly stand against moral social issues. Until it becomes state level I will openly endorse those who carry my values. Pro-Choice is simply murder of the one person who deserves the choice. Sanctity of marriage. By standing down and compromising your view, then you are supporting it.

The point is this, if you think social issues lost the election, you are wrong. If republicans took the side of the democrats concerning these issues they still wouldn't get the vote because the democrats don't care what we support, they could find a transgendered black lesbian pot smoking abortion doctor to endorse their party and the democrats would call them a puppet or an Uncle Tom. The Republicans would lose credibility and integrity. Changing their stance will change nothing.

It's the fact that everyone overlooked where we are and are going, Boeing held off on a large layoff until after the election, so the unemployed number will rise, the economy still sucks, gas prices are sky high, insurance will be forced down our throats, and Obama wants us to be morally, socially, and economically like Europe.

and why did folks over look these things? because they want their social issues.

[Franco]