Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

A question for the Republicans on board.

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by ysr_racer, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    Republicans as a whole don't, but a % of the fringe base does.

    Well, I suppose the posts that say women shouldn't have voting rights would qualify, among the other dozen or so misogynistic posts made in the last few days.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  2. Kentak


    Jan 8, 2006
    Central Ohio
    You don't get it and you never will.

    Prochoice is not equal to advocating abortion. It's not telling people they have to have abortions. It means not having government interfere with people following their own beliefs on the issue.

    A more sane approach to drug abuse that does not throw people into expensive prisons is not equal to advocating drug use.

    Fornication? What century are you from? Government has no business in people's sex lives as long as it's between consenting adults.

    Denial of God? What anyone believes or doesn't believe about god is government's business how? Live your life according to your own principles, religious or otherwise, and let your neighbors do the same.

  3. G23Gen4.40

    G23Gen4.40 .40 Rocks

    Mar 8, 2012
    SW Ohio
    America is doomed. Watch and see, the further our morals degrade so goes the nation.
  4. G36's Rule

    G36's Rule Senior Member

    Dec 1, 2001
    Spring, TX.
    You keep bringing up drug laws as an answer to your statement about religious voters being a threat to liberty.

    Total non-sequitur.

    If you had said Blue Laws, you might have been on to something. But Blue Laws are old and come from when the South was entirely Democrat.
  5. Harper


    Aug 10, 2010
    Yes, evangelical voters traditionally support drug prohibition. Dictating what people can or can't put in their own body is a violation of individual liberty, then locking them up for it is even worse. You can keep calling that nothing if you like, I'm done.
  6. JohnH

    JohnH Millennium Member

    Jan 15, 1999
    Houston, Texas

    The primary process needs to be changed so the RNC can't establish a momentum narrative that favors moderates (no accident that the primaries start in states that are moderate). The RNC apparatus also effectively divides the electorate by running stalking horse candidates to marginalized threats to their favored candidate.

    Republicans need to keep the social agenda out of the national platform and leave those issues to the state. Again, I think the RNC leaves these issues in the national platform to divide the electorate.

    Most importantly, the Republicans need to stop smearing and stiff arming the libertarian wing of the party. They were the only wing of the party that had any energy and enthusiasm, not to mention the youngest demographic and most fiscally conservative.

    Of course, they will do none of this and will be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
  7. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Jun 20, 2002
    Gee the Dumocrats have no problem rolling the Muslim religion into there party! Or did you not see the vote on removing God from the party platform at the DNC Convention. Spearheaded by whom the Muslim party faithful! The atheists have been trying to remove God from the whole country now you want to remove him from the GOP? Why don't you just go and be apart of the Dumocrat party and get it over with. It's obvious you were the ones that voted for Obamamoa or sat on your hands and didn't vote! Either way you supported what we have now so live with your decision. I fore one will not COMPROMISE my core convictions and support things I detest! :steamed:
  8. SCmasterblaster

    SCmasterblaster Millennium Member

    Sep 24, 1999
    Hartford, Vermont
    Right on. We need another Reagan - how about Clint Eastwood?

  9. Cali-Glock

    Cali-Glock Mountain Man

    Feb 11, 2002
    California Sierra Mnts
    Third party.
  10. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    May 8, 2011
    Where the fk did all of you posters come from? Why weren't you all posting up this stuff during the primaries when it mattered? I sure wish these insights were posted when the party was deciding who the standard bearer would be, instead of monday morning quarterbacking and posting up what some of us have been saying all along was a losing recipe, only to be repeatedly left arguing the point against the GTPI peanut gallery.

    The evangelicals will either not vote or will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is. They're not going to vote for the Democrat. As long as a person of faith (BUT NOT A FAITH CANDIDATE) is the nominee, he/she will get most evangelical votes.
  11. frank4570


    Jun 25, 2004
    Nope. We all voted for Romney and he lost anyway.

    I wasted my vote.
  12. Stubudd


    Nov 4, 2008
    Kennesaw GA
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  13. Stubudd


    Nov 4, 2008
    Kennesaw GA
    Not only are the loans making indentured servants out of generations, where costs are out of control and the market has been destroyed by government money, but even the end result is a disaster. If everybody has a degree because everybody can go to college now, the degrees are all worth less than they were before. So kids pay 20x more now, more than they can hope to repay for many of them, for a degree that's worth less than it ever. They corrupt everything they touch.

    That's why all these government=society and government=civilization posts are so disheartening. The federal government is not society and civilization, it is a ******* disaster. In so many ways, for all of us. A black hole, a deadly parasite on the United States and its people, pulling us all down with it. Administrations come and go but nothing real every changes- it just keeps growing and growing- because people don't understand the nature of it. It wasn't supposed to be this way. The guy in my sig understands the nature of it.
  14. TK-421


    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    Hmm, gays, it comes off as hating gays when you don't let them do what they want, you have to try and bar them from living their lives the way they want to, and force your beliefs upon them. If they want to call it marriage, what harm does it do you? Does it hurt you in any way to allow two people to be happy? The point that they're the same gender should be totally irrelevant. If two people are happy together and want to be married, let them.

    And women. It comes off as hating women when you want to take away their choice to do what they want, and force your beliefs upon them. You view abortion as wrong. Fine. Don't try to force them to believe abortion is wrong if they don't think it is. Don't try to take away their choice because you think it's wrong. It's their body, not your's. What harm does it do you if they want to make decisions about their body? That's like all the women in the US trying to get together and tell you that you're never allowed to shave, ever. Would you like that? Would you like someone else trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body?

    And minorities. Yes, the country has illegals in it, yes, they're illegal and need to go away. But verbally saying that makes the minorities vote democrat. Republicans try to make life difficult for illegals, try to get them thrown out of the country. Well minorities see that in an extremely negative manner. They might have friends or family who are here illegally, and it would break up families, or friendships. A lot of the illegals were brought over here as kids, and they don't know anything but the US. And then deporting them back to the country where they were born, when they don't know the language, they don't know anybody there, they have no money, no food, no place to live. The minorities who vote don't like that at all, which is why they won't vote for a guy who promises to do just that.

    So no, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I don't agree with you on gay marriage and a woman's right to control her own body. I don't think two people should be barred from being married just because they're the same gender. I don't think women should be forced to live by somebody else's rule. I don't think you should have any say over what they do with their own body. And as to the immigration thing, yes I think illegals need to be tossed out and thrown to the back of the line, but a compromise needs to be made, some system needs to be created where they can stay in the country with their family and friends, and begin paying taxes, while they go through the process. Doing anything else will piss off the minority and make the democrat win.

    I used to live in a town called Aurora, which i would guess is probably 70% hispanic. But I lived on the east side, and the east side is closer to 90% hispanic. The west side was all white, which is funny because that's where the hard drugs were. :rofl: And I remember talking to multiple people of hispanic heritage, who said they would never vote for a guy who promised to make life tough for illegals, and who would break up families and send people back to their country of birth. I even knew a few illegal kids who were in the school system, and they said the same thing. So cracking down hard on the illegals is the perfect to get the minority to vote the other way.

    It's actually amusing watching all the republicans going "We lost?! How?!" Hmm, lets see, you pissed off the gays, by hating on gay marriage, you pissed off the women by hating their body and their right to choose what they do with their own body, and you pissed off the minorities by hating on illegals. But you need the women and the minority to win, and yet you piss them off, and still expect them to vote for you? :faint:

    Oh wow, I can't believe I missed that. You want "to limit rampant ILEGAL immigration" Oh yeah? And how are you going to do that? Make laws making it illegal to be an illegal immigrant? Yeah, because they already follow the laws in place that makes them illegal. Besides, if that was the case, then gun control would work, and no criminals would have guns. :rofl:
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  15. SouthpawShooter

    SouthpawShooter Rocker Glocker

    Mar 9, 2011
    Which shows how unbelievably stupid they are.

    So, they claim to be against abortion.

    So, they stay home because Romney isn't pro life enough; and instead they help get the most pro-abortion president in history re-elected? Yeah, makes sense to me. :upeyes:
  16. SouthpawShooter

    SouthpawShooter Rocker Glocker

    Mar 9, 2011
    This just shows the abject stupidity of the "principled voter".

    No, we ALL LOST buddy.

    The evangelicals, the conservatives, the principled, ALL LOST.

    Because they couldn't get past their crappy little principles and do what's best for their country. They let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

    It's impossible to get this message through to the "principled voter". They are just as brainwashed as the liberal democrat, just in the opposite direction.
  17. engineer151515


    Nov 3, 2003
    You use the "hate" label, which is classic liberalism with a political opponent. Whom is trying to force beliefs upon whom?

    It comes off as hating women when some groups don't want to be forced to pay for abortion against their religious convictions? Again, whom is trying to force whom here. Birth control is readily available in this country and nobody here is forcing a woman to have a baby.

    You blur the distinction between minorities and illegal immigrants. You flip flop principles and then paint a picture of Republicans trying to make life difficult for illegals. (???)
    Some special cases not withstanding, what do you propose to do with 11 million illegal immigrants and how do you justify that proposal to millions of other immigrants who spent years of their lives following the law, paying thousands in fees and education, and learning the language to become naturalized US Citizen?

    I guess you don't believe in border enforcement. Do you believe in borders at all? Do you think this country and this economy is better off if we just tell everybody to walk/ride/fly in at their leisure and stay?

    All you've illustrated in your lengthy, fluffy post is that you've fallen for Democrat political mantra without understanding how your world functions, your political opponents, or the representative government under which you live.

    You choose not to engage or understand your political opposites just as much as you claim they are insensitive. Hate mantra directed at the other guy is used with the ignorant, the fearful, the uninformed. The Democrats don't want you to understand Republicans, Libertarians or any other political opposition. They just want you to know they are "hateful" and you should "hate" them. When you hear your party saying this, it should be an immediate red flag that something isn't right with your party.

    Don't swallow the hook and run blind. That's what fish do. Don't just regurgitate the mantra.

    Think for yourself.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012