http://www.boortz.com/Player/101701171/

Neal Boortz's voice, but it might as well be mine.

The social conservative faction of the Republican party can go to ****; either they are out of the Republican party or the Republican party will fade into oblivion just like the Whigs before them. I say this now, I say loud and clear: the Libertarians out there cannot wait for this to happen, we must force the issue. The Democrats did not win this election, the Libertarians did not lose this election; the Republicans and the social conservative faction that seized control (under Bush) were sent a resounding message from the American people that they are not wanted and will not be tolerated.

So suck it social conservatives, because you are the disgraces giving Obama leave to lead the American people to dependency devestation.

evangelical christians are a huge part of the republican base. if you tell them to 'suck it' and lose their vote/suppress their turnout, you're just putting a new fracture in the party.

blid, what party? The Republican Party is already losing factions to the democrats, just how much more of the party do you thing there is to lose? The Republican Party has too main factions left, the social conservatives that are right at home and the Libertarians too afraid of the Democrats fiscal plans to vote any other way. The Libertarians won't have anything to loose in abandoning the Republican Party if the social conservatives keep costing the Republican Party elections.

Uhh Democrats did win the election. Whatever you think your own party's fault is the Democrats still won the election. If Obama took over in a good economic period he would have had more votes from people voting against him mostly because of that.

So it is not like there was nothing going against Obama. Republicans had their issues and the Democrats had their own(whether you wish to believe it is Obama's fault or not it doesn't matter) and they still won.

But yah this is the perfect idea here. More hate among yourselves. THAT will solve it. Oh wait.. that is one of your problems already.

there's a lot more to lose. 26% of voters identified as born-again christians, and they went 78% romney, for example. 36% of voters want abortion to be mostly/always illegal and romney got 77% of them.

yah though the rihgt has a problem because the people who want to keep taxes low on the rich while gutting social security and health care can't agree on what they think about gays and abortion lol

it's sad that libertarians aren't running the republican party. they have some of the sanest policies, along with some of the insanest. i would like to see how that goes :)

social conservatives can complain all they want about how things are changing under the democrats, but demographics will continue to marginalize their voices over time. it's not the democrats that are causing issues like abortion, gay rights, marijuana, and other social/moral issues to be liberalized; it's just what people want. I thought republicans didn't like it when the government tells you what to do/not to do? It's hypocritical by design.

<--- very socially liberal, but economically conservative. But also in Canada :p

And here comes the voice saying, "Well the results are that Obama won re-election." Obama won election on the backs of factions that don't belong with the Democrats fiscally. Before you start asking who I am to say that, don't bother. Fiscally conservative factions voted Democratic because they're socially liberal and the Republican Party has gone hard to social conservativism.

This is about dislodging an entrenched faction that has seized control of the Republican Party, so a lot of anger is justified. They can't be allowed to brush off the complaints. It has to be put in front of their faces. The consequences of losing fiscal conservatives elections must be put in front of their faces. I daresay a lot of social conservatives won't like the consequences they see. They have to know just how badly they've messed up. You call it hate, I call it being fed up. I'm tired of this country going in a fiscal direction that cannot be sustained.

A Republican Party that's made of only 36% of Americans, won't win any elections. In a two-party system, that means the fiscal liberals get to have a field day and that scares the heck out of me. When the credit stops flowing, all of the entitlement programs and so many other important federal jobs will come to a screaching halt. Republicans aren't be allowed to make the argument for losing it all in the future or reforming it now, so that the future won't include devestated government dependent Americans when the government can't pay for their dependency anymore. An evangelical, socially conservative American is suppose to care about people; letting America go off this fiscal cliff is not caring about people.

I'll throw social conservatives this bone, if they'll concede their political fights on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration; then, I'll support efforts to make adoption an easier, better process, I'll defend their right to speak publically about personal beliefs concerning gay marriage, and I'll work hard to make sure that the next immigration reform is the last major immigration reform ever needed. It's time for social conservatives to be pragmatic, they can either mitigate Republican positions or they can lose any voice in the nation's direction at all. That's not rhetoric, that's already happening to them.

and how many rural poor poeple that would benefit from democratic social programs vote republican for cultural reasons?

TRYING TO PUT PEOPLE IN POLITICAL BOXES IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS MOST OF YOU WOULD SEEM TO BELIEVE.

MY FATHER IS A LIFE LONG DEMOCRAT. HE WOULD NOT VOTE FOR ANY REPUBLICAN, EVER. HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER ANY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, EVEN IF HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THEM.

HE WAS ALSO VERY UPSET THAT OUR STATE VOTED TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE.. HE OPPOSED THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA... HE PRETTY MUCH FALLS INTO THE "SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE" CATEGORY ON EVERY ISSUE. HE'S ALSO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT FEDERAL DEBT OF $50K PER CITIZEN IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

MY WIFE AGREES WITH REPUBLICANS ON FISCAL ISSUES, WITH DEMOCRATS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, AND STILL HATES ALL REPULICAN POLITICIANS WITH A PASSION.

CAN ANYONE GUESS WHAT THE TWO OF THEM HAVE IN COMMON? HINT: IT'S NOT RELIGION.

ALSO, I'M CURIOUS, BLID. DID THE PLACE WHERE THOSE STATISTICS YOU CITED CAME FROM HAPPEN TO ASK THE PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIANS WHETHER THEY BELIEVED THEIR VIEWS SHOULD BE FORCED ON OTHERS?

How do you infer that? The vote was practically a 50/50 split.

You tell me to suck something again and you'll get a mouth full biznitch!

Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others, Requiem!

Pang, I like your style!

I am an old Rockefeller Republican.

I do not feel welcome, in the Republican party.

I have voted Democrat the last 2 Presidential elections.

then you are a democrat, dont be embarassed, just state that youa are what you are, and it aint a Repulican.

moving to the right won't win the reps any elections. You already have nearly all votes from that corner. You will lose all votes that otherwise might be swayed to vote for you, though.

Modernizing your view on things that will inadvertedly become or already are part of our life-style(like abortions and gay mariiage) are your only chance to become relevant again.

Personally I would appreciate a move to the right, though. That would keep you guys from being relevant for years and years and perhaps(with a lot of wishful thinking) even break up your god-awful election system

I would say this whole social conservatism thing with the GOP really got going when they got control of the house during the clinton era.. that whole "moral majority" thing with Newt.

Social conservatism as a policy has been shown to not work out multiple times throughout history.

Read Chriton's "A case of need" (abortion) or study the effects prohibition or the costs of the current "war on drugs" as examples.

A lot of good is to be said about "Rockefeller Republicans" or as we call the equivalent in canada "red torries". That type of movement was very successful both in terms of popular support (at the provincial level here) and policy. Unfortunately that movement seems to have dissapeared and/or headed over to center left parties as more extreme right-wingers took over.

Well, if the social conservatives keep control of the Republican Party, then Servant will be able to call himself whatever he wants as the Republican Party will collapse. He's not a Democrat, he's just had it with the far right. In America's system the only way he can really prevent the far right from winning is by voting Democratic.

Fiscal conservatives need to both denounce the social conservative and argue for tax and entitlement reform. Efficiency must be the goal. We can no longer afford for it to cost as much as it does to collect or pay taxes. We can't afford social programs that are not providing impactful benefits to society. Fiscal conservatives need to make sure that we get the most possible tax revenue out of the taxes we have and cost people and businesses the least possible tax burden. The bottom line is that under the current tax and entitlement regime, this party that our nation's been having for too long will come crashing down when our creditors don't have anymore credit for us.

The dems have a good strategy: get lots of people dependent on the government and get their vote. It's almost like a round-about way to buy votes. The government has a lot of people in their pockets, and people who are on the receiving end of this are more likely to vote for people who give them said monies.

That's just one issue among many.

haha funny that right wing people think trying to prevent people from dying of hunger or lack of medical care is a "strategy." real window into the soul of these people

That couldn't be further from the truth blid. Why do you try to lie and twist the truth? You assume it's for evil reason to conserve our money, you also assume that means that we don't take care of people in need. You fail at both assumptions.

I have been pondering this myself. For every man that wants to marry a man that you bring into the party by changing policy positions, or every harlot that wants to be able to have sex with everything for free and with no consequences that you bring in, how many of the old base are you losing? I question if it'd be a net gain.

Gays make up too small a percentage of the vote. White women already vote Republican by a huge majority. Blacks will NEVER vote Republican no matter what positions we adopt. Hispanics are persuadable, however, they are Catholic and socially conservative. We need to change our positions and rhetoric on immigration and hispanics.

Here is the problem:
96% of blacks vote Democrat - nothing can be done.
71% of hispanics vote Democrat - something can be done.
A large percentage of Asians vote Democrat - I honestly have no clue what is important to Asians.
60% of whites vote Republican. In today's America its hard to believe that 60% of whites agree on anything. I can't picture us getting more than 60% of the vote no matter what we do. I don't see more liberal social policy helping, only hurting. Hispanics must be our target.

THE MISTAKE YOU ARE MAKING HERE (IN MY EVER SO HUMBLE OPINION) IS THAT YOU THINK ONLY THE PEOPLE YOU'RE REFERRING TO AS "GAYS AND HARLOTS" CARE ABOUT THEIR FREEDOM. I'M STRAIGHT, BUT I CARE ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF HOMOSEXUAL AMERICANS TO MARRY WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE.

AN INCREASING NUMBER OF AMERICANS ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO SOME VERY OLD LESSONS FROM THE FOUNDERS THAT WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE FORGOTTEN. CHIEF AMONG THOSE IS THAT WHEN YOU EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS OTHERS, YOU ARE ALSO EMPOWERING IT TO OPPRESS YOU.

AS MORE PEOPLE WAKE UP TO THIS TRUTH, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY - AND I THINK THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AS WELL - WILL LOSE CREDIBILITY AND INFLUENCE, UNLESS THEY DRASTICALLY CHANGE THEIR WAYS.

http://www.nytimes.com/...work.html?ref=davidbrooks

Here is a decent article from David Brooks, wish he would have expanded more on it.

did someone say "harlots"

Funny that left wing people think that creating a state in which people are dependent on the government to keep them fed and taken care of medically that the government when it's all said and done won't be able to pay for and therefore won't be able to have in the long run is a good thing. That's a real window into their souls. Get them dependent and then take it all away when the financial house of cards comes crashing down. It's not military spending or two wars that a creating the massive deficit crisis to come...it's runaway entitlement programs. When the credit runs out, so do those programs. I care too much about my fellow Americans to stand by and watch while the left wing tells everyone that the government will take care of everyone...when that's just not true in the long term. Don't talk about raising taxes on the richest Americans; true fact: even if you took it all...it wouldn't be enough. The government can help create the environment in which people can stand on their own two feet and survive. The government can build the skeleton around which communities of individuals build the American body. We have a name for governments that have tried to be the skeleton and the body...failures. When those systems fail, who suffers? The same people that those systems claimed to be helping. The left wing would rather give people fish than teach people to fish.

whaat?

FYI it is working in Canada and plenty of other European countries. Seems to me that you just want people to die if they lack money. Good Christian values there. I am of course making the assumption that you are Christian here.

Oh and I do realize you dont want people to die but you also do not realize that without things such as the ever so hated Obamacare people do die when they could have been saved. My best friend would never get medical coverage in the States before Obamacare came in. Perhaps you would change your mind pretty quickly if you had a condition that made health care impossible.

ok ready to become a socialist?

first off i wanna note when i talked about the widnow into the soul, it was in response to req perceiving taking care of those in need as a "strategy," it wasn't a judgment of those who think social welfare is just not feasible or w/e.

but ok so your post you're talking about teaching a man to fish or whatever. how does cutting them off frmo social welfare programs, health assistance, etc help them "learn to fish"? on the contrary, people in need are less able to afford things like education, even public education they're more liekly to drop out frmo in order to make some money, oftentimes their most lucrative options involve crime or drugs. and this isn't just me running my mouth, it's actually been shown to be true: a guaranteed basic income has proved to actually increase education and work:

The pilot project of Omitara should give the nay-sayers a pause. Reading through the final report, some striking figures come up: Household poverty was halved in one year, child malnutrition was cut from 42% to 10% and school dropouts fell from 40% to zero. The overall crime rate fell by 42% and lifestock ownership increased. At the same time, the rate of those engaged in income generating activities rose by 10% - refuting the claim that a basic income would make people lazy.
http://www.comminit.com/en/node/329310

THAT is how you teach a man to fish - and guess what, it happens to be the moral choice as well. in the wealthiest c ountry on earth nobody should be going without medical care, housing, or food, the basic necessities of life. can we afford it? yeah, easily.

cut war related spending: $127b/yr according to the CBO
have a public option for health care: $88b/yr savings according to the CBO (expand this program to universal single-payer health care later on)
end obama's dumbass payroll tax cut which defunds social security: $50b/yr
remove the payroll tax cap which exempts income over 107k from taxation: $13.4b/yr
let the bush tax cuts expire: $453b/yr ($371b/yr if you extend them for people making under 250k)
how about a new top marginal tax rate as well for income over a certain extra high amount? we've got lower rates than ever before.

all in all it'd be pretty easy to do...

Your proposals leave me with at least 15% less in my pocket. What am I gaining from your proposal that is worth thousands and thousands of dollars from me?

the right not to be thrown up against a wall

So you support executing those that do not want to work for free on behalf of certain beneficiaries. That is different from slavery how?

i have that right anyway. plus i get to kill whoever tries it.

work is already subject to a tax by the force of the state, you could just as easily ask the same questions about your tax rate right now, ie, what's in it for you, and is it slavery to be taxed on a portion of a sizeable income you're taking home from a job you choose to do. i wonder what an actual slave would think of that claim. and what's in it for you? really? you mean besides a nation free from debt, with a solvent retirement system, and looking out for the well-being of your fellow citizens?

I already look out for the well-being of my fellow citizens. I give to charity and I help my impoverished neighbors (I live in a deeply impoverished area). That would unfortunately be the first thing that would have to go if I was taxed an additional 15%. I get a return on my taxes. Is it the return I'd like? No, much is wasted and our entitlements are in dire need of reform. You are pushing for my taxes to rise in order for my income to be redistributed. That I would equate with slavery.

fluff charity. food, housing, and medical care should be a RIGHT, not charity given at the whim of the wealthy. hey poor ppl, beg and grovel for your humiliating charity and maybe one or two magnanimous rich guys will give you something and go to sleep easy, feeling like heroes lol. so you;re so rich in a deeply impoverished area and youre dishing out charity, i hope those lucky buggers give you the thanks oyu're due (a knife in the back?). seriously "i would equate higher taxes to slavery," you said that lol

rich white guy having to pay higher taxes, yes i too would equate that with africans being kidnapped and put in chains and then shipped across an ocean to a new land where they are owned, bought, and sold as property. lol!

Umm... I'm not rich. You're fluffed up dude, I'm not talking to you anymore.

wth I'm fluffed up? You said this:

Here is what Klown is equating his life to:

"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."

I'm pretty sure you can quit your job any time... so i guess it's not precisely equal.

I cannot quit my job at any time. I have to support myself. Being forced to work on behalf of someone else is slavery. No other way to say it.

ah, really now?
you don't say..........
its a little different, though.
like,y ou get paid a "wage," for example.

You could go live on the streets or do other things. You COULD quit your job. Comparing it to slavery is stupid. Your comment here is pretty ignorant.

I said I'm not talking to you. You want to talk about ignorant comments? This guy said I should be killed for helping my neighbors.

by your own description, you live among people in deep poverty. but you oppose policies that would guarantee these people's well-being, policies that could lift them out of poverty. you oppose those policies because, according to you, paying 15% more in taxes out of your paycheck would mean you, the well-off guy in the impoverished area, were a slave. you stand by that. so basically you stand for all this bad stuff that hurts these people, because of crackpot delusions i guess. also, interestingly, these things you oppose would make these people not need to rely on charity in the first place. i'm not saying giving to charity is bad, but when you feed these people with one hand, you're stabbing them in the back with the other. and in fact you're using the concept of "charity" as a way to champion and defend your worldview, a worldview which says to let the poor suffer unless those better off deign to help them, right? even though, realistically, you must realize that no charity is going to cover all the $100,000 medical bills out there or the like. charity is helpful while we don't have anything better, but it's just a temporary weak salve to apply to the disease while we work toward that cure. it's not the answer in any civilized system. providing the basic life needs for people is a duty, not some noble act of benevolence people should be thanking you for - resenting would be a better word.

You don't know fluff about poverty. I can already tell you are some holier than thou well off prick. fluff you. I know why my neighbors are in poverty, you don't. It is poor decisions that government assistance allows them to continue making. While I try to get them on the right path, I also don't let them starve. Again, fluff you. You don't know fluff.

The "War on Poverty" in the US began in the 60's. Since then we've spent tens of trillions of dollars on these programs to which you refer, and the poverty rate now is the same as it was then.

Perhaps - just perhaps - government isn't the answer to everything.

The government exists to run a country and to protect what they believe are the best interests of the people living in it.

Those social programs that the government has created or instituted or funded have helped a lot of people to get out of poverty... but they have not kept people from getting into poverty.

To say (sorry to disagree ST) that the "poverty rate now is the same as it was then" implies (unintentionally) that the same people who were in poverty 10 years ago are still in poverty. This isn't true. More than half of ALL American's have been in poverty by the time they were 65. The chance of becoming poor each year is about 4%. 50% of all people who are in poverty escape poverty within a year... 75% within 4 years.

http://www.urban.org/..._transitioningpoverty.pdf

Lastly, to say that the poverty rate hasn't gotten better since the 60's isn't actual evidence that govt programs don't work. If one were to hypothesize, if the government did absolutely nothing, would the poverty rate get worse? I'd bet my next 24 pay checks that it would be worse.... hard to disagree with.

Klown. Your taxes won't go up unless you make $250k+. If you are making $250k+ why are you living in a deeply impoverished neighbourhood?

Reversal- you live in a deeply impoverished neighbourhood, therefore you don't make $250k+, therefore you won't get taxed an additional 15%.

Don't lie please.

Dissident, perhaps you should read what I was responding to before you comment.

Dissident, while I think Klown may have stated it rather inarticulately (due to being angry) his point is a valid one, IMO.

Government programs that provide a crutch allow people to continue to make the poor decisions that landed them in poverty in the first place.

I'm one of those 50+% who've lived in poverty during my lifetime, and it was due to the poor choices I made. Luckily for me, I never became hooked on the government programs which, while possibly well intentioned, effectively keep people mired in the same old patterns.

I don't understand how these programs can be considered to be a success. They were supposed to eliminate or drastically reduce the number of Americans in poverty. On that front, they have failed miserably. Whether it's the same individuals who are in poverty now, or new individuals is irrelevant. The programs which we've spent trillions of dollars on have not reduced the percentage of Americans who live in poverty.

To look at it another way, if we could go back in a time machine and stop the War on Poverty before it started, we'd currently have a national debt of approximately zero dollars rather than 16 trillion, even if we kept all of the other irresponsible Federal spending that has occurred during that time. We've traded a false promise of help for the poor, for mountains of debt for our children... guaranteeing that every one of them starts out with a giant weight around their neck, further increasing the chance that *they* will experience poverty in their lifetimes.

Anyway, that's my take on it, but meh.. it seems this is what the people of America want. Who am I to argue?