The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Since I'm not a fan of the RINO establishment...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default Since I'm not a fan of the RINO establishment...

    ...this is pretty stunning news. Apparently, many in the party want to maintain their basic principles, rather than cowtowing to the PC crowd. I applaud them for their stand.

    UB

    RNC Votes Unanimously Backing Traditional Marriage
    Saturday, 13 Apr 2013
    By Sandy Fitzgerald
     
    The Republican National Committee voted unanimously Friday to reaffirm the party's view that marriage should strictly be the union of one man and one woman, rebuffing its chairman's call for the party to be more tolerant on social issues.

    Less than a month ago, National Chairman Reince Priebus released a 98-page document that appraised his party's political liabilities in an attempt to re-brand the party and attract voters following last November's election setbacks.

    However, the RNC's resolved to uphold its stance on marriage, declaring that the union between a man and a woman is "the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America," reports the Wall Street Journal.

    The 168 RNC members, by casting their unanimous vote, shows the party faces further challenges as it looks for ways to broaden its voting base. While some Republicans agree with Priebus that the party needs to further acknowledge and attract minority groups and younger voters, others believe doing that will cause the GOP to abandon its core values.

    The party's base seems to agree with the RNC's vote, according to the results of a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this past week. The poll showed that while 53 percent of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriages, only 27 percent of Republicans approve.

    Supporters of the new RNC resolution say it was made to create the party's clear line on marriage.

    "At the very least we wanted to clarify the position of the party," said A.J. Spiker, who chairs the Iowa Republican Party. "(We) can certainly be welcoming without compromising on marriage and the definition of marriage."

    Meanwhile, social-conservative group leaders, including Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins, wrote a letter to Priebus last week to voice their "great displeasure" with his assessment of the party, warning that the party will make a "huge historical mistake" by skirting "the issues which attract and energize them by the millions."

    Priebus and other GOP leaders, though, say they are trying to balance the party's stance on traditional marriage while being more accepting of other views.

    "What's important is for people who disagree with this stance to know they're welcome in the party," said former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who helped draft the RNC re-assessment report.

    The RNC's resolution also urges the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits the recognition of gay marriage, and California's Proposition 8 legislation, which bans same-sex unions. Both issues remain under court review.

    Priebus Friday rejected suggestions that he and others want the party to change its values.
    "I'd never suggest we should waiver on our principles," he said in a speech before the vote was taken. "But I also won't tell anyone they can't be a part of this party. If you're willing to defend liberty and champion opportunity, then you should be a Republican."
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    central Mo.
    Posts
    95

    Default

    I think the whole same marriage is smoking mirrors, The only reason the gov cares about marriage is for taxes. Government should completly get out of marriage.

  3. #3
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,716

    Default

    Don't get to excited about the RNC, last week in the Senate, 16 RINO Republicans voted to allow debate in the Senate on further gun control. This attack on our 2nd Amendment Rights should be out of bounds for debate. The DEMS are attacking the U. S. Constitution on every level, and the stupid RINO's Republicans in both houses are feeding the monster....God Help us all...cause the voters sure do not have a clue!

  4. #4
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Don't get to excited about the RNC, last week in the Senate, 16 RINO Republicans voted to allow debate in the Senate on further gun control. This attack on our 2nd Amendment Rights should be out of bounds for debate. The DEMS are attacking the U. S. Constitution on every level, and the stupid RINO's Republicans in both houses are feeding the monster....God Help us all...cause the voters sure do not have a clue!
    Unfortunately, and sadly, you are probably correct. Dan Horowitz also recently explained the conundrum.

    UB

    How to Give Vulnerable Democrats Cover on Guns

    By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | April 12th, 2013



    Yesterday, 16 Republicans voted along with the Democrats to break the filibuster against the Reid gun control bill (S.649). Although Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn voted against it, they failed to whip against the vote, exerting no pressure on these wayward Republicans to put the brakes on this fast moving train wreck. The end result is exactly what the Wall Street Journal editorial page advocated earlier this week: we will now have a debate on how much we are willing to limit the Second Amendment.


    On Tuesday, the WSJ condescendingly chastised Senate conservatives for mounting a filibuster on the motion to proceed with debate. They mockingly observed that “If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to, but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they’re voting on.”
    Moreover, they argued that by blocking debate on the bill, red state Democrats “don’t have to declare themselves on provisions that might be unpopular at home.”


    Obviously, these novice observers of the legislative process have not been paying attention to the way the Senate has functioned in recent years. The reason why Republicans need to filibuster even the motion to proceed on debate is precisely to leverage Reid into allowing a debate in the first place! Reid has used a parliamentary procedure to “fill the amendment tree” and block all amendments that would embarrass his caucus. To that end, the only recourse for Republicans is to filibuster the motion to proceed with debate, as a means of forcing him to allow amendments to go through.


    Now that these Republicans, with the support of the dinosaur conservative intelligentsia, have handed over their one point of leverage, Harry Reid has once again taken full control of the amendment process in an effort to protect the vulnerable Democrats. In fact, it is those 16 Republicans who afforded Reid the opportunity to hand out hall passes to Pryor and Begich yesterday to vote no on cloture. They provided him with more than enough votes to break the filibuster without those two Democrats. Now they can go home to their states (Arkansas and Alaska) and feign a more pro-gun posture than one-third of Republicans.


    Now it will only get worse once “debate” commences next week. Harry Reid knows that there is no chance of ever passing a sweeping gun banning bill. He merely wants Republicans to break their consistency on the issue, and grant the overzealous ATF more power to begin stepping up gun stings and collecting more data. Perforce, he will bring up Feinstein’s assault weapons ban knowing that it will never pass, only to offer Democrats like Kay Hagen (NC), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Donnelly (IN), Max Baucus (MT), and Claire McCaskill (MO) the opportunity to vote no and bolster their position at home. They might also vote yes on some good Republican amendments with the knowledge that they won’t pass either. This will give them the requisite cover to vote for the part of the bill Reid thinks will actually pass.


    Enter Schumer’s Toomey-Manchin amendment. Although it contains dangerous healthcare privacy concerns, statist regulations on transporting guns across state lines, and allows the ATF to collect more data from background checks, it doesn’t overtly ban guns. All those vulnerable red-state Democrats will have enough cover to support it because they will vote the right way on all the straw men votes.


    And that is just the Democrats. What about the Republicans? Yes, if every Republican were like Cruz/Lee/Paul, we could act on the advice of the Journal and vote for the MTP on every bill, with the full confidence that they will filibuster the final vote. But that seldom happens in the Senate with this pack of flaccid Republicans. Once the train gets rolling, Reid finds a way to get wayward Republicans to cut a “compromise” and oppose cloture on final passage as well.

    That is how we got saddled with so many bad bills passing out of the Senate and pressuring the Republican House this year. And in this case, the compromise is already on the table, brought to you by a “tea party” senator from Pennsylvania.


    And what about the rock-ribbed, right-wing House? Certainly they would never pass the bill, right? Who knows. With House leadership already violating the Hastert Rule four times this year, one never knows if they will try to avoid the media pressure and pass something with Democrat support. Paul Ryan is already lending support to expanded background checks.


    Yes, what could go wrong by allowing debate to proceed?
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,836

    Default

    The RNC will attract no new constituency if it doesn't take a stand on SOMEthing that is consistent. Personally, I am in favor of the govt offering legal benefits via civil unions. That would mean that the DOMA would not stand. Why not simply legislate a modification to DOMA?

    The danger of govt extending its reach beyond civil unions is that it implies a civil right that will make criminals out of anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage due to their religious beliefs ... like the elderly florist in WA. If govt can force anyone to act counter to their religious convictions, there is a big probem. We saw how that worked with the Emmanuel in Chicago threatening to withhold business permits for Chick Fil A because of the owner's religious belief.

    If govt grants civil relief, then it is up to the gays to then make their peace with their own religious affiliation of choice. Obviously, there is no problem with atheists What would atheists care about having a marriage ceremony? And, many Christian groups (like Unitarians) are not opposing them. Might be kind of tough if you happen to be a Muslim, though, since that denomination has a rather aggressive opposition to gay marriage.

    There's already a problem in CA with the idea of providing infertility coverage (in health insurance) to gay couples. Heck, they know when they get married that there is no possibility of children by ordinary biological means. Not to mention the fact that you then have 3 parents, rather than just 2, who could make claims in child custody suits (which has actually happened already). What about the scenario of a surrogate mother changing her mind and wanting an abortion? will her "pro choice" not be her choice after all? Two liberal consituencies up against each other?

    This would solve the pragmatic problems of gay "marriage", but that does not seem to be what militant gays want. They want everyone to agree with them ... that their gay situation is just fine and dandy. I don't think we could, or should, get the whole country to agree on any one lifestyle ... otherwise there would not be so many relgiions in the world! And, our govt, is not supposed to favor any one over any other.

    As for the Rs and gun control ... they sure seem to be caving in. OTOH, there might be some worth in letting the Ds "own" this issue via the debate on the floor ... and then have them lose on the vote. However, one questions whether the Rs (and enough Ds) will have the backbone to vote for the Constitution.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,657

    Default

    In regards to the stance by the GOP on traditional marriage; looks like another giant step towads obscurity. Their refusal to not get into he 21st Century is not good for their future.

    Speaking of RINOs, for the third time asking; Was Pres. GW Bush a RINO? Just curious as to what the NeoCons consider a RINO to be.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •