Help Wanted - Position Available

[Thomas Rogers]

Position Available: Ideal candidate is a 40s-something attractive male, American-born citizen of Latino descent, supporting women's rights & equal rights for gays, is self-made, with ties to Hollywood, Detroit, the black community and the military. Contact the RNC for details. Interviewing and job preparation start immediately with job available in 2016.

 

[Bill V]

TJR, the problem with that job description is that there's enough of the GOP's base who would never support a candidate with most of those characteristics.



"Supporting women's rights"? REJECTION.



"Equal rights for gays"? REJECTION.



"Ties to Hollywod"? "Ties to Detroit"? "Ties to the black community"? "Latino descent"? REJECTION, REJECTION, REJECTION, REJECTION.



As Mike Huckabee said on election night--until the GOP conservative base finds a way to be more accepting of groups/ideologies like these, they're going to struggle more and more to win national elections or hold/attain Congressional majorities.

 

[Gavin Allan]

The old guard GOP is irrellevant. Unless the GOP stops worrying about people's sex lives, womens' bodies, and people who look different, they will continue to fade into oblivion. Huckabee has it right.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V, Gavin,



You guys get it.



The "old" GOP would never allow such, but if they don't relax those things that they cannot change (women's reproductive rights, gay rights, reaching out to people that aren't "old white guys") then they will continue to lose election after election.



People here that voted for Romney, that wish he won, and that didn't want another 4 years of Obama *AND* resonate with the issues listed and support the tradtional GOP stance on said issue, I submit that your bias is what keeps the GOP from moving forward. You are why Romney lost.



The GOP has to drop its pacification of conservative Christians, PERIOD! Let them form their own party.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

The GOP has to drop its pacification of conservative Christians, PERIOD! Let them form their own party.

Or vice versa--the GOP caters only to the conservative Christians, and the new party forms with traditional GOP-style fiscal conservancy, but more moderate-to-liberal social sense.



Man, would such a party flourish tremendously in this environment, if only they could find the right bell cow to get them off the ground...

 

[H D]

Sounds a bit like y'all are asking for the man that ran on the Libertarian ticket. Anybody even know his name? I got asked who the "other guy" was as I was walking out next to the lady that voted next to me. She was referring to Romney. What are the chances the vast majority of the population knew Gary Johnson's name, let alone his platform?

 

[Mark K 2]

I was in the middle of a Facebook conversation with a friend Tuesday evening. She's a rigid conservative. I made a comment stating that the GOP "needs to become more flexible and be willing to change its stances in order to attract people to the cause." Right in the midlle of that sentence, she fricking unfriended me in a huff. Guess my suggestion was too much to ask.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Conservative Christians need to understand that not everyone agrees with when life starts, nor whether or not you can "pray away the gay." These folks would be the first to revolt if their freedoms and their rights based on their beliefs were jeopardized. The funny thing is, on those two issues, no one is telling them how to believe, who to marry, what their church can or can't do, etc.



There are God's laws, and then there is a subset of that which is man's law, and the latter are defined by the governed and change over time.



If Romney had been simply less rigid on those two issues, like when he was a governor of a liberal state and not the GOP nominee for president, he would be our president today. I'm pretty certain of that.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

I can totally understand that. Y'all want the GOP's base to relinquish its principles to become the "fiscally conservative Democrat party". No one likes relinquishing their principles, especially in this case. Surely you guys get that.



Besides, "fiscally conservative Democrat party" sounds like the party that Chris Christie thinks he's in, and I don't think any of the conservative base is ready to have anything to do with that man yet. I know that I'm not. He didn't even get his 40 pieces of silver from FEMA :smack: .



BTW I thought we tried that already with John McCain's bid, otherwise known as "Obama Lite". It didn't work out.



I don't think that anything will work until we break the leftist stranglehold on "education".

What are the chances the vast majority of the population knew Gary Johnson's name, let alone his platform?

Less than the chances that the vast majority of the population knew the Romney/Ryan platform, which is to say, less than zero.



Tragically the nutjob Ron Paul has sullied the Libertarian name by being an anarchist in Libertarian clothing. Isolationism (though with no border security), competing domestic currencies, no military might (just the tip of the iceberg); is no central government better or worse than Obama's overbearing, invasive, predicted-by-British-authors-of-yesteryear central government?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL said:

I don't think that anything will work until we break the leftist stranglehold on "education".

I don't see that happening. The liberal strangle-hold on education, or should I say academia, is there because, by and large, the more educated one is, the more questioning they areof certain things and the less likely they see complex issues as "black and white" simply because of "simple answers". Make no mistake, the major problem with the GOP is its catering to the Christian Conservatives, and the major problem with many of the CCs is that they really don't want to open their minds.



Gay marriage is just one such issue where minds are closed. If you are against it because a couple of passages in a book written over a 1000 years ago that is otherwise filled with instructions to "love each other", well, then, that's just in a word (or two), narrow-minded.



More liberals are in academia because liberals, on average, are more educated. There, I said it. Education breeds liberalism, not because there are liberal educators, but because knowledge and insight opens minds and that makes people question the "pat answers" that have kept them believing certain things their whole life.



If anyone thinks I am bashing others, or am an elitist, well, sorry. I am a Christian, and a Republican, but one with higher education and an open mind to the issues being discussed. That gets me labeled as a non-Christian and a liberal all the time. I actually hate that.



Many have left the Republican party and aren't voting Republican because the party has become a hijacked joke.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

The liberal strangle-hold on education, or should I say academia, is there because, by and large, the more educated one is, the more questioning they areof certain things and the less likely they see complex issues as "black and white" simply because of "simple answers".

Now hold on a second, when I see "academia" I think of colleges and higher education. I'm not as concerned about the avowed radicals there as I am about the ignorant teachers in our K-12 public schools. I have noticed that colleges require a certain amount of "diversity" classes for technical degrees that would otherwise not require those classes. Those classes aren't promoting free thinking, not as I'd define it. Free thinking doesn't have a leftist bias and bash anything going right of the center or even to the center.



Public schools these days are low on teaching skills to be a functioning citizen and high on indoctrination. Little knowledge of math (none without a calculator), less of literature and precious little on grammar and history. Surely we could go on for hours about the horrors and lapses of modern public education, but I think its philosophy can be summed up thusly: Teach how to behave, not how to function. Therein lies the problem.



Part of the reason, I suspect, why the high school diploma isn't even worth the paper it is printed on.

Gay marriage is just one such issue where minds are closed.

In my state, the issue was far more complex than you're giving it credit. A new protected class to exploit to gain power and a step closer to the edge of the Slippery Slope.



You know, in 1973 homosexuality was suddenly no longer considered some sort of mental disorder. As far as I was told, other deviant sexual behavior didn't get similar acceptance from the psychological community. I asked "why?" in my college psych classes but was shot down and made a pariah for an innocuous inquiry in an environment which supposedly (cough) promotes free thinking.



As Sheldon Cooper (played by a gay actor, unsurprisingly enough) says on the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory: "The social sciences are hokum"

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL, we can agree on one thing, our educational system is failing us as a country. Read Freakonomics (or watch the movie...lol) to see why it worked 50 years ago, but fails us today.



I loathe indoctrination, whether done in schools, in churches, or on the street. I firmly believe that most any person that completely agrees everything their party (or their religion) stands for and says is indoctrinated, and to me, indoctrinated in that context can be replaced with the term "brainwashed!"



I think it was Chris Rock that said if you are completely liberal, or completely conservative, then you are a complete idiot (paraphrasing).



Your question in 1973 about homosexuality would be like asking a question in 1963 about the superiority of African American physiques possibly due in part to the practice of breading the "best with the best" by slave owners in the 1800s. It would be deemed a racist question, even though that was not the intent.



Why is that? Well, I think it is because there are times of enlightenment and growth in which we "over react" and swing too far towards the light. Our political correctness era (which I can only hope is coming to a close) is a good example of this. For decades (70s, 80s) this was a "I've got mine, you get yours" dog-eat-dog country then we wanted to be a kinder, gentler nation that feels good about ourselves and is catering to other's feelings, etc. That in itself wasn't bad, but it is bad if that movement stops us from being able to constructively criticize one another....in many cases I think it has.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Y'all want the GOP's base to relinquish its principles to become the "fiscally conservative Democrat party"

That, right there, is one of the major shortsighted misconceptions that much of the conservative Christian right has. "The middle" is not asking them to relinquish their principles. They are just asking them to not legislate those principles upon others.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V said:

That, right there, is one of the major shortsighted misconceptions that much of the conservative Christian right has. "The middle" is not asking them to relinquish their principles. They are just asking them to not legislate those principles upon others.

+ LIKE



Correct. Have your principles. But just as you don't like being told what to believe, don't force your beliefs into legislation that limits the rights and freedoms of others.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

That, right there, is one of the major shortsighted misconceptions that much of the conservative Christian right has. "The middle" is not asking them to relinquish their principles. They are just asking them to not legislate those principles upon others.

We are being asked more than that in the bible belt. We are being told we need to stop teaching that amongst other things. Even in our church's.



I dont see anyone telling the others, muslims etc. Even some hindu sects kill gays as do muslims. To stop teaching what is in there books. So why is christianity under so much attack. We dont and wont kill them. Not a true Christian, anyway. My opinion, if I tell you. That would start another.........

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie, are you saying that our government is telling you what you should teach in your churchs?



I really don't think Christianity is under attack. People can still pray in public, people can still go to the church they want. People can still evangelize and practice their faith without fear of persecution. If those things were NOT true then I could agree with the use of the term "attack!"



Also, giving examples of other more hateful, more intolerant, more violent religious sects and saying "what about them?" really isn't that helpful to the cause. Heck, my 17 year old son tries that when I complain about his grades, or his behavior, and he says: "I don't know what the big deal is, I'm better than my friends and their parent's don't give them all this grief!"



To some Christians it may FEEL like they are under attack, but really the attack that they are sensing is actually (in my opinion) a questioning and an awareness that some of the firmly held beliefs that are slipping away in the secular world.



Many Christians used to use the Bible as the reason women shouldn't vote (or hold jobs, or own things, etc), as to why slave ownership was okay, etc. They felt under attack too, I bet, when these things changed.



Times change. God's laws can remain constant, and that's okay, but man's laws are fluid, and Romans 13 says that is OKAY and we are to abide.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

I dont see anyone telling the others, muslims etc. Even some hindu sects kill gays as do muslims. To stop teaching what is in there books. So why is christianity under so much attack. We dont and wont kill them. Not a true Christian, anyway. My opinion, if I tell you. That would start another.........

HUH? You're saying that people in this country are saying it's OK for a muslim or hindu to kill other people??? Last I checked, there has never been a murder case in this country where the verdict was that the person did it, but because he is muslim or hindu, it was OK, and he was let free. That's utterly ridiculous.



No one is telling you or any other Christians to to stop teaching your faith to those who choose to be taught. They're just saying that you can't impose the teachings of that faith on those who choose not to share your beliefs. If you feel that that's an "attack", you're being more than a bit overdramatic.

 

[Mark K 2]

If your church rituals include playing jumprope during communion, that's fine. No where is the government preventing that in this country. And, although you may call it an attack if someone asks, "Why do you do that?", it's NOT an attack.

 

[EddieS'04]

I give up. When I say have some thing to say. It gets out of context. I dont have time or the typing skills, to type a theasus. Stretch your minds a little. Outside of this country with some of faith based problems.



Also not talking about murder in this country. And yes there are many groups pushing very hard. To stop the Christian church in this country to stop teaching, some things in the bible.

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Most people are against religion in politics. (Except the CC's).

With them being an ever shrinking group, they cannot expect to sway elections. Yes let them form thier own party.