Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

I always think when I visit this site or attend Republican Party functions, if there is any room for moderate voices in the party? Although, I do have conservative values in most of my thinking, I am not totally entrenched in them. I believe that there is a time to raise taxes. I believe there is a time to limit gun ownership. I believe there is a time to allow abortion. I find it ironic that those who are fervently against abortion in all cases are way past their child bearing days and please understand that I am not making light of this issue as I am generally against abortion.
I thought that after the many recent defeats by the Republicans in local, state wide and federal elections we would start getting smarter, but sometimes I have my doubts.
I hear leaders in our party state that we are making strides in making this party a more diverse party and then I look around the room and feel I am in a corporate board room.
We have an opportunity with the upcoming elections to bring more people in the party with the election of candidates such as Bob McDonnell, but I wonder if we will find a way to screw it up.
I would like to see if others share my views on this or if I am a lone fish in a sea of sharks.

Views: 85

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Brian- You make me laugh with your automatic defense of unions. Yes, the Big 3 were forced to accept the unions demands as the union workers went on strike, which caused devasting losses to the Auto companies as well as the suppliers. I guess that it's OK to have your members "strike" in order to get your wishes in the end, even though those wishes are an unrealistic burden to the companies. I believe the most recent round of negotiations with the Auto companies was about a year or so ago. If the Auto companies are in such dire straights today, they were falling head first into those dire straights a year ago. You say that the unions are not going to cut off their noses, and risk losing all of the companies jobs. Gettlefinger has claimed that the UAW "has already given enough concessions" and is still holding the companies hostage in order to pay wages, benefits and previously promised pensions, which they clearly have no ability to do. As I said before, Gettlefinger is the one to be booted out, as he doesn't seem to have the sence to know what damage he is doing to the Big 3. But, it's a good day to be him as he has Obama and the Liberals on his side.

So, in other words Brian, you are all for Card Check. You say that you believe it is democratic to allow the workers the right to organize. Wonderful, terrific. Can't wait to see more than an abundance of small companies going bust because they can't pay what the idiot unions demand. Hell, what worker would not demand more money if they knew of a "legal" way to get it, and sometimes even illegal ways. I expect to see my husband out of a job if your idiocy gets passed. There are more than a handful of people with their hands always out at his company. Shoot, they screamed last year because the owner couldn't pay "bonuses" when they wanted them, rather than when they were promised. The few took care of that nice little perk. I guess they had bad parents, and no opportunities.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Sandy, go back and read what I wrote. I have already said, multiple times, that affirmative action is wrong and I'm opposed to it. It is unfortunate that there are so many Republicans who buy into the Democratic game of constantly worrying and wondering about what the other guy is making. Unions aren't perfect and there are always those who use the union to benefit themselves. I don't defend those kinds of workers. But because of them I don't oppose the the right of workers organize, either, because I believe that decision is fundamentally democratic. As for the issues with the Big 3 - it takes two to make a contract. Management is just as culpable as the unions. And no rational union is going to say "screw you, we'd rather all lose our jobs than take a pay cut." That's why you've seen pay cuts at companies like Boeing, Delta, United, and the automakers. Companies work best when labor and management work together. That was the model we had in the maritime industry and that's the future vision for the labor movement that I see. Both sides don't need to constantly be at each others throats. There is no reason why both sides can't work together. And the economic crisis we've seen is proof positive that some companies are just as capable of being lazy and greedy as the mechanic at your old auto dealership.

Equal opportunity isn't about equality of outcomes. I don't understand why you and some of the others in this thread can't recognize the difference. No one is saying that people who are unqualified should get jobs to the detriment of the qualified. No one is saying that we should take opportunities away from people and give them to those who don't deserve them. The point of equal opportunity is to make sure that people are chosen based on merit and qualifications, not something they can't control like their race or how much money their parents have. Everyone deserves a fair shot at success. That's all I'm talking about.

Sandy Cope said:
Brian- You remind me of some defense lawyers who represent clients they know are as guilty as sin, yet they come up with every excuse in the book to defend the guilty party. It's a matter of playing on the emotions of the jury, and convincing them that there was a good reason for this person to commit this crime. So far, your jury here has not bought into your arguments. Politics is about playing on the electorate's emotions, as much as playing on the emotions in a courtroom. Your argument for "protecting" those children of bad parents, is an attempt by you to make everyone feel "guilty" if they don't have compassion towards those poor poor children who didn't have a chance, or making sure that through Affirmative Action type programs, they too can get the best paying jobs or admission to the ivy league universities, even though they were not as qualified. That is attempting to make equal those that are not equal. It redistributes opportunities, and insures that the brightests and the best are not always the ones who will be rewarded. By doing so, we now have a dumbed down workforce, particularly with Union jobs. I worked for an automobile dealership many years ago that had a union forced on them by one individual who only cared about getting more pay and benefits even though he was one of the biggest slackers in the shop. With the advent of the union that he convinced other shop workers to support, he was safe and cozy with a job for life, no matter how bad a job he was doing. The dealership folded because of the high costs to the owner by the Unions demands. I'm sure as a union man Brian, you know that it almost takes an act of congress to fire a union employee. Think about all those thousands of union employees that had to do nothing more than show up, sit in a lounge all day playing games and chit chatting, and got paid union wages and benefits for that. Think about where Ford, Chrysler and GM are now with the Unions still demanding and not giving an inch. Most recently I read that a majority of Union workers would rather have less pay and benefits, but know they have a long term job, but, people like you who support this obnoxious intrusion into companies affairs would prefer to "be compassionate, and help the downtrodden, and insure that everyone is making as much money as you can squeeze out of companies, for the sake of the little man." Again, redistribute the wealth by taking from the business owners, and give it to the workers, because those evil greedy business owners should be limited on their profitability. Equal opportunity huh Brian.
Brian- You said-

And I think he's been fairly plain about his belief that if an employer doesn't want to hire someone who is white, black or brown, male or female he shouldn't have to. So not everyone agrees with you and I on that point.

You misread my post on the employer issue. I do agree with Donald that any employer has the right to hire/not hire anyone they choose. If a white employer wants to hire only whites to work for him, so be it, because I promise you there are black employers that will hire only blacks to work for them. What I did say is that much of the population has gone so far beyond the slavery issues, and has been much more open to hiring the best candidate. The current President in his quest to become the leader of the entire world, and his Liberal cronies, have opened old wounds which are now in need of some major antibiotics, yet again. We have gone 10 steps backwards on the race issue, all so that an unqualified fancy speaker, who happens to be Black, could get elected. Also, how about speaking out against government funding of ACORN. I haven't seen any whites being paid employees of that voter fraud, shakedown, thuggery organization.
Brian- The way I see it politically is, the National Republican Platform was adopted in 2008. The VA Republican Platform was also adopted about the same time. It isn't ancient history. Any candidate running for election/re-election should be held accountable to the policies contained in those platforms, or voted out, or gaining no support from the VA or National Republican parties. If any can't uphold what the party has adopted, there is a Democrat party to run in, or start your own party, but, please stop trying to infiltrate and change what once was the Grand Old Party. Period, it's that simple, even a caveman could understand that!
Hmmm, Brian, the field of opportunity for smacking you down here is just so loamy and fertile and inviting...

Okay, let's start with taxes--do you mean, in your feeble and pathetic way, to try to tell me that taxes are anything other than coercive and compulsory, divorced from the very idea of voluntary and freely given?

Don't try to go on about how all taxes are voted on and so forth by our elected representatives, and therefore based in consent or such tripe; one can consent to a conspiracy to murder, consent to do all manner of things which are fundamentally illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, etc., and we can even see widespread consent and majority approval for some of the most ungodly and atrocious things in the history of human experience--such public endorsement doesn't make the income tax, especially the progressive income tax, nor gay marriage, nor slavery, nor communism, nor bestiality, nor pedophilia, nor the "election" of a usurper with natal foreign allegiances owed to be Constitutional or legitimate at all.

Yes, throughout this discussion you have been advocating the abrogation of private property rights in order to fund bloated and unconstitutional mandatory social engineering programs such as the EEOC(you claim to be opposed to affirmative action, yet you argue endlessly in support of an organization whose chief function is forcing the hiring of underqualified minorites and abetting their lawsuits against every kind of entity!) and the Dept. of Education.

Stop lying.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, where have I said I support abrogating anyone's right to property? I haven't. And where I have said that I defend larger government, or the rolling back of our individual liberties? I haven't.

You're trying to paint me into some leftist caricature, but you're failing because you never address a single one of my points head on. Instead, you ignore them, pick out once phrase and riff off of it. Apparently you must have read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals because your responses to me have been textbook examples. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Unfortunately, it's not working, because whoever is still reading this thread can easily recognize what you're doing.

If you think that ensuring that people have access to education without being denied for no reason, or that people have access to employment is somehow a violation of our constitutional rights, you have no real idea of what constitutional rights we really have.

Donald Joy said:
OMG, he actually said it--he used the phrase "collective good"!! I told you all he's communist. Brian advocates the violation of our Constitutional right to private property on behalf of "the common good," just as his fellow socialists Hillary and Obongo do!

Taxing people out of their rightful property to fund operations of government that have no Constitutional basis or authority of function is theft, son.

There is no such thing as the "right" to an education, despite what leftists like you and your ilk say, nor is there such a right as the "right not to be discriminated against"(even though people like you insist that there is, while doing nothing whatsoever about the widespread and decades-old Jim Crow-esque employment, contracting, and admissions programs that discriminate against white males)...

You can prattle on about the will of the majority and all, but passing laws that violate Constitutional rights, such as the specifically enumerated basic right to private property through taxation, is illegal and amounts to theft.
Equal opportunity is what gets people admitted to Harvard?

Perhaps God will see fit to give you a brain along with the diploma you seek.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, it's not a violation of someone's constitutional right to private property or liberty by providing good public schools. Or providing government backed loans that let someone go to college who couldn't otherwise support it. It's not violating someone's Constitutional rights to bar race, age, or gender discrimination. You don't have a constitutional right to discriminate.

Your rights to liberty and property enumerated in the Constitution are not inviolate. The 5th and 14th amendments only say that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Therefore, if there has been due process, you can be deprived of all three.

My constitutionally protected right to equal opportunity is embodied in the 14th amendment that states that the states cannot deprive any person the equal protection of the laws, which has been incorporated into the 5th amendment as well. So is yours.

How does equal opportunity differ from an outcome? Simple. You and I both get into Harvard because of equal opportunity. I work hard, study hard, and get good grades. You goof off, lay around and get drunk, and fail out of school. I end up making 6 figures and having a great life, you end up on welfare. We both had the same opportunity but the outcome was different. We both had the opportunity to fail or succeed on our own merits and we did.

If you do all that for your son, and someone else does the exact same thing for their son, and the only difference between the two of them is that your son has a parent who can pay for his college and the other man's son can't, your philosophy is "Eh, tough breaks, kid. The world needs ditch diggers, too." I think it's wrong. I think it punishes the child for the sins of the father, and I think it's unchristian.

Donald, I don't know what else to say to you. No amount of discussion or debate is going to convince you that you're wrong. All I can do is have pity on you, and hope that someday God will soften your heart and open your mind.
And you already admitted earlier that equal protection under the law is quite a different thing than equal opportunity.
Brian said: "I think it punishes the child for the sins of the father, and I think it's unchristian(sic)."

Pardon me if I fail some sort of doctrinal test here, but "the sins of the father being visitied upon the son" and no less, "to the seventh generation," etc., etc. are the very same Christian theology that you'd use to argue against my allowing people to be responsible for the spiritual condition of their offspring, as opposed to the government?

Besides advocating the subsidizing and encouragement of parental irresponsibility, I think you may be Biblically and principally erroneous. But as an apostate I'm not about to lecture nor chastise nor condemn you for what appears to be a blatant theological contradiction--correct me if I'm wrong here.
Some deabeat defaults on a goverment backed loan, and you're trying to tell me that it's not an unconstitutional alienation of my property rights to take what I earned so as to cover the default?

Where does it end, Brian? All opportunities are of course to be eventually deemed equal and Constitutional and justifiably meriting the seizure of producers' property so as to underwrite the looters, right?

To follow your mentality, there will come a point--we have seen this over and over again throughout history--where the "have nots" simply achieve, through the voting majority(if not the bloody storming of the capital)--the utter confiscation of all property of the "haves" and the abolition of liberty and the right to assemble, etc., because, after all, the people at large must be granted equal opportunity to enjoy the fruits of anyone else's labor--right?
Well, I was correct in my suspicion that you are just ignorant of the teaching; "the sins of the father being visited on the son" is indeed a Christian Biblical principle...I thought perhaps you were trying to say that you had some kind of insight that Christ had announced it a bygone thing of the Old Testament, or that you believe government can replace or obviate the law of nature, but I see that you're merely myopic and mired in conventional liberalism.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, I'm not using any theology to argue against you. I wasn't quoting scripture, even if I used language that is similar. But from a theological standpoint, unless the crime is rebelling against God, which I don't think you're accusing anyone of, the sins of the father won't be punished on the child.

Ezekiel 18:20 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

The kinds of sin we were talking about weren't mortal.
I'm all for "moderates" and more hardcore conservatives to join together and work alongside each other for our party's victories in the immediate and distant future, however I am certain that is necessary to chastise and correct the wayard RINOs and deluded "moderates" out of their horrible straying from the principles that made this country great, to exhort and browbeat and cajole them back from the abyss of socialism, and to educate them about fundamental truths concerning which they are in error--such as the incompatibility of liberty and the socialist 'equal opportunity' that I've thoroughly explained here.

The salt of the GOP must be regained, and it is so completely unlike the corrosive corruption of the moderates' futile appeasing of our collectivist enemies that the only way to get Republicans back to the polls and volunteering in campaigns again is to show them what real Republicanism looks like again.

Cheers to all.
You should be sorry, for being in league with communists, who are my sworn enemies, and for betraying the America that I love. I hate communism and political correctness, and that's what you stand for. What happened to me is that I put my life on the line, incurred unspeakable(here) conditions, and lost loved ones only to have pathetic losers like you discard my country's principles flippantly as if some kind of outmoded parchment, as you bray on about chasing after the votes of liberals.

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Donald, you weren't correct. I'm well aware that the "sins of the father" comment is from Exodus and part of the discussion of the Ten Commandments. That being said, I wasn't making a theological reference with the statement.

I think it's kind of funny that no matter what I say, you have an ad hominem retort. I don't know what has happened in your life to make you so bitter and resentful, but I'm sorry for it.
This article is from the front page on this site. It backs up what I have said in another comment as to the "moral degradation that is infiltrating this country", not only by Democrats/Liberals, but, also by the moderate Republicans who could care less about social issues.

A Culture of Faith is Necessary to a Free Society
Friday, April 10, 2009
By Sen. Sam Brownback

A recent survey of religious practice in the United States indicates that religious observance is at an all-time low. Two thirds of Americans no longer attend religious services with any regularity and ten percent assert they do not believe in God at all. Fifteen percent of Americans say they have no religion, double the percentage in 1990.

“American Becoming Less Christian, Less Religious,” blared the headlines. In this season of Easter, this news is something for us to ponder.

I would contend that these are worrisome trends—and not just for those who practice their faith. I firmly believe that religious faith—or the lack thereof—informs the way we look at public policy and how we order our lives together.

John Adams, one of the greatest Americans of our Founding generation, and our nation’s second president, once stated “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

America has always been, and remains, a deeply religious nation. At our best, we live up to our national ideals of defending the equality and dignity of each and every human life. Public policy decisions are all about deciding what type of nation we shall be. And the sacredness of the human person is a principle that tends to get lost in that decision-making process as societies become more secular.

A society based solely on reason, without any reference to transcendent faith, has been tried and has utterly failed. In the 20th century, we witnessed this with both National Socialism and atheistic communism—colossal and bloody failures based on the ideal of human reason freed from the shackles and superstitions of religious faith. Purely secular societies have grave difficulties, because they close man in on himself instead of opening him up to transcendental truth.

There are present day examples as well. In many parts of Europe, attempts are being made to create a totally secular society. They have purged faith from the public square, and they are suffering for it. Many European countries are facing an extreme demographic crisis with birth rates far below replacement levels, resulting in stagnant economies and social security systems strained to the breaking point. It again calls to mind John Adams’ point that a culture of faith is necessary to sustain a free society. It is a cautionary tale for America: we cannot abandon our faith and expect to flourish.

There is now abundant social science data pointing to a correlation between a falloff in religious practice and a host of disturbing trends. Low religious practice in families is correlated to poor academic performance for children, more behavioral problems, poorer quality of parent-child relationships, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, lower rates of marriage, and higher rates of non-marital sexual activity, including cohabitation. While family breakdown in the United States is less advanced than it is in many European countries, it is becoming increasingly clear that unless our families and communities are strong, government will be required to step into the breach to address the social problems that result.

This is why I am concerned about surveys that show a decline in religious observance and a trend towards secularization. God should be welcome in the public square. Yet, according to the survey data, fewer of my fellow Americans feel the need for God and His providential care.

Faith has helped make America strong. We ought not turn our backs on history or we will come to regret the future. The role of religion has been enormously beneficial, and its value must not be ignored. To walk away from God is to walk away from our future. Hope comes in the knowledge that there is something far bigger and far greater than ourselves in which to invest our lives, our souls and our sacred honor.

Sam Brownback represents Kansas in the United States Senate.









(sales help fund this site)




© 2022   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service