November 10, 2012
— andy The polls weren't even closed on the west coast, it seems, before GOP pols and pundits were falling all over themselves saying we needed to moderate our positions on a whole host of issues if we ever wanted to win another presidential election. Ever!
Now, I think this is pure crap. We haven't exactly had the most articulate messengers for the last couple of cycles, and the other side has done a great job of defining our positions for us. But forget what I think.
Say for a minute you agreed with the idea that we need to rewrite the platform to draw 270 electoral votes. Which one would you drop first?
And which one is an absolute dealbreaker for you?
I tried to keep the lists short. If you have another one in either category, mention it in the comments.
And for this purpose, I'm presuming Obamacare as a standalone issue is a done deal. It now would fall with entitlement reform and the like under "Taxes and spending".
Posted by: andy at
11:00 AM
| Comments (837)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:03 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Lurking Flaneur at November 10, 2012 11:05 AM (hPlLv)
Posted by: NWConservative at November 10, 2012 11:06 AM (M1gmo)
Posted by: John at November 10, 2012 11:06 AM (PnW5k)
Posted by: josh at November 10, 2012 11:07 AM (rWb+7)
Posted by: Max Power at November 10, 2012 11:07 AM (+wxCD)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:07 AM (2rMmy)
I call five of the six items listed as absolute "don't-go-there" policies for the Republicans.
Hannity will bend over for all six.
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 10, 2012 11:07 AM (yKUrR)
Posted by: xuyee at November 10, 2012 11:07 AM (/QiO2)
Posted by: Hohum at November 10, 2012 11:08 AM (MNyMW)
This was an election mostly about econ and we worry about the obamaphone lady vote and other insulated voters who don't care and WILL NEVER vote GOP?
This was decided by mechanics.
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:08 AM (Z3ckx)
Posted by: joe dag at November 10, 2012 11:08 AM (hlZx/)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:09 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:09 AM (Z3ckx)
Posted by: D. R. Ainbough at November 10, 2012 11:10 AM (BgIBZ)
Posted by: The GOP at November 10, 2012 11:10 AM (6JMZR)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 11:10 AM (kGz1m)
So do it. Take it. Drink it up. The skull and crossbones on it just means it's bad-ass.
Posted by: oblig. at November 10, 2012 11:10 AM (cePv8)
Posted by: Truman North at November 10, 2012 11:10 AM (pVXUu)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:11 AM (2rMmy)
Which we're not. I imagine Rush will have a thing or two to say about this on Monday.
Posted by: Filly at November 10, 2012 11:11 AM (W9cj6)
Posted by: josh at November 10, 2012 11:11 AM (rWb+7)
Ace you sais "the other side has done a great job of defining our positions for us"
So please explain how do we define ourselves when the other side comtrols 80% of the media, I feel the media is our worst enemy. The media controls the messageing and the narrative and I am at a loss trying to figure out how to change it
Posted by: TRFjr at November 10, 2012 11:11 AM (QdI8s)
Posted by: Fiscal Cliff at November 10, 2012 11:12 AM (vQgte)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:12 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: xuyee at November 10, 2012 03:07 PM (/QiO2)
^This x 1000
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 11:12 AM (kGz1m)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 11:12 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Walter Sobchak at November 10, 2012 11:12 AM (AzwZn)
As I keep saying, it's not a matter of IF, it's a question of HOW MUCH
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:13 AM (Z3ckx)
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:14 AM (Z3ckx)
Posted by: Scobface, Staying Positive at November 10, 2012 11:14 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:14 AM (2rMmy)
Concerned with winning? Just consult with the campaign consultants for President's Dole, McCain, and Romney.
Posted by: RNC at November 10, 2012 11:14 AM (lDWQr)
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:14 AM (Z3ckx)
Posted by: ChrisValentine at November 10, 2012 11:15 AM (ht3c8)
http://tinyurl.com/apv62r8
Your days are done, GOP white man. In its November issue, Newsweek and writer David Frum want you to know that youÂ’re old, youÂ’re white, and youÂ’re finished.
Posted by: kbdabear at November 10, 2012 11:15 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 11:15 AM (4sZ3R)
We have significant fraud in:
Ohio
Florida
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Colorado
Wisconsin
but so far not so much in Indiana...hmmm
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:16 AM (Z3ckx)
In other words, we're screwed with a pineapple.
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 11:16 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 11:16 AM (4sZ3R)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:16 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Frankina "The Fence Jumper" Fuentes 2016 at November 10, 2012 11:16 AM (6JMZR)
Posted by: passably affable at November 10, 2012 11:17 AM (fKw58)
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 03:14 PM (Z3ckx)
Do you know what remains of the Republican Party when you piss off evangelicals? Giving in on amnesty wouldnt be as destructive electorally (and Im really not advocating that).
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 11:17 AM (kGz1m)
Posted by: Scobface, Staying Positive at November 10, 2012 11:17 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:17 AM (2rMmy)
They're kind of like the "villain" in pro wrestling
Paid to lose, and to give the crowds a bad guy to boo
Posted by: kbdabear at November 10, 2012 11:17 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at November 10, 2012 11:18 AM (SkyIE)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (21TJo)
Posted by: Truman North at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (pVXUu)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (tYaDf)
Posted by: Meadowlark Lemon at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (vUK/h)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (VlXYw)
Posted by: 18-29 Participation Trophy Obama Voter at November 10, 2012 11:19 AM (AzwZn)
Posted by: kbdabear at November 10, 2012 11:20 AM (wwsoB)
Ohio
Florida
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Colorado
Wisconsin
but so far not so much in Indiana...hmmm
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 03:16 PM
I'd recommend a close look at Michigan, too. And Illinois, and all the states where Choom Boy was making a huge, last-minute GOTV effort.
They knew. They also knew they had "banked enough votes."
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 10, 2012 11:20 AM (yKUrR)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 11:20 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: angienc at November 10, 2012 11:21 AM (w3JGl)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 10, 2012 11:21 AM (6JMZR)
Posted by: Rev dr e buzz islam at November 10, 2012 11:21 AM (EE/Xw)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:22 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 10, 2012 11:22 AM (jE38p)
Posted by: That's right at November 10, 2012 11:22 AM (Mn9Ib)
"I wonder about that. Do people really vote for president based on abortion?"
Yes. If the GOP stops nominating pro-life candidates, that means the issue is never being addressed.
"It's not like the president has the power to roll back _Roe_. To do that we'd have have the president, a supermajority in the Senate, a few retired Supreme Court justices, and a case that the court can hear."
And when you weigh that against millions of babies being killed every year, we pro-lifers just plumb don't care about how difficult it is to get rid of it. It's important.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 10, 2012 11:22 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Truman North at November 10, 2012 11:23 AM (pVXUu)
Posted by: Darrencardinal at November 10, 2012 11:23 AM (HJEUt)
Ya wanna win elections, and win them handily?
Stop attacking American voters who agree with you on many, if not most, issues. (You start with the 'squishy middle' and go downhill from there.)
It's not just a problem with messaging or mechanics or even of candidates and campaign incompetence.
When you alienate Americans, you lose voters who might otherwise have voted for you and yours. It doesn't matter if you for it, or if you endorse Coulter, Hannity and Rush to do it for you. The more you do it, the more voters you lose. You claim to have the moral high ground, but act like bullies on a playground. Contrary to the opinion of many on the right, most Americans are not stupid. They see and hear this duplicitous behavior in almost everything you do and say...and they want no part of it.
You wanna lead America to a better place? YOU - each and every one of you - has got to act like a leader. Leaders don't go around making things difficult for themselves. They set an example. That example doesn't include offering or endorsing the public humiliation of the very people they desire to lead. This is true for ideologies and politics as well as for businessmen and civic leaders. Any businessman who does this will fail. Any civic leader who does this will fail. A military leader who does this will fail. You do it and... wonder why you fail? You wonder why no one follows you or your ideology?
If you want to see civility return to America, it's got to start with you.
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 10, 2012 11:25 AM (WwR1j)
Posted by: What Do You Mean You Can No Longer Preach Against Sodomy In Church, Father O'Sullivan? at November 10, 2012 11:25 AM (AzwZn)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 10, 2012 11:25 AM (VlXYw)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has turned down an invitation to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee next Thursday on the Benghazi attack.
A committee update this evening indicated that Michael Courts, acting director of International Affairs and Trade for the Government Accountability Office, will be testifying followed by a RAND Corp. analyst.
The committee indicated further witnesses could be added, but the State Department confirmed that Clinton wonÂ’t be one of them.
http://tinyurl.com/bolb6bp
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 11:25 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Scobface, Staying Positive at November 10, 2012 11:25 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 11:25 AM (4sZ3R)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:26 AM (2rMmy)
no, obama was expecting to lose, that's why he was crying.
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:26 AM (Z3ckx)
Posted by: That's right at November 10, 2012 11:26 AM (Mn9Ib)
But it sure as hell didn't work for Brown this time. Lieawatha Warren turned it into a Free Shit and "keep your hands off my lady parts" issue. All the Angry MA Wimminz went stomping to her side.
P.S. She won.
If we were to cave on all these issues -- a move that would force me out of supporting the Repub candidate, BTW -- the Democrats would say "ooooh, you're flip-flopping again!!11!!" and any possible gains would be lost.
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 10, 2012 11:27 AM (yKUrR)
Posted by: Palandine at November 10, 2012 11:27 AM (g7D8V)
Look, we can give up taxes for now. Obama ran on taxes and teachers. give it to them. Don't give him judges and immigration.
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:28 AM (Z3ckx)
Voter ID is like dis infatizin' da voters or somethin
So what if some precints got 141 pur-cents turns out
So what if all those precints went for Messiah 99.5 purse-ents
Best be respectin my votes and not dis infantisin dem votes
Posted by: Obama_Voter at November 10, 2012 11:28 AM (Zz48T)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 10, 2012 11:28 AM (VlXYw)
Posted by: Starchild David Petreaus at November 10, 2012 11:28 AM (w4fEE)
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 03:26 PM
We'll have to disagree on that. I think it's BS.
Too much choom smoke in your eyes will make the tears flow. I learned that in college.
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 10, 2012 11:29 AM (yKUrR)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 11:29 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 10, 2012 11:29 AM (CkK+I)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 11:30 AM (sRus3)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 11:30 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:30 AM (2rMmy)
If they're in power, letting them tax everything is a good way to LET IT BURN.
If we're in power, and we're serious about closing the deficit and the national debt, then significant raises in revenue, as well as targeted taxes (fuck you, Hollywood, here's a 35% surcharge for everything you do), are necessary to go along with Rand Paul style spending cuts.
Posted by: The Q at November 10, 2012 11:30 AM (w4fEE)
Posted by: Liberal Who Just Can't Wait To Vote Republican! at November 10, 2012 11:30 AM (AzwZn)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire
This is how they achieve their dream of control of 1984 style society:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."
Posted by: Jaylord at November 10, 2012 11:31 AM (Y6qC4)
Posted by: CarolinaPunk at November 10, 2012 11:31 AM (oL1j3)
I went for illegal immigration on the 2nd one, because if amnesty happens all the rest are moot.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 11:31 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: Average Joe at November 10, 2012 11:32 AM (kf9WN)
Drop abortion--the un-Christian part of me says it's leftists who are having their children killed anyway.
___
Sometimes I go to the parish in the more affluent zip code, because it's the last chance mass. Lots of families with 4 + children. There's even one that always shows up with seven kids in tow: all boys. Only ones having big families are conservative Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims. I don't know many evangelicals, the one evang family I know has six kids.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 11:32 AM (jm/9g)
Posted by: MJH at November 10, 2012 11:32 AM (CueZK)
http://tinyurl.com/apv62r8
Your days are done, GOP white man. In its November issue, Newsweek and writer David Frum want you to know that youÂ’re old, youÂ’re white, and youÂ’re finished.
Posted by: kbdabear at November 10, 2012 03:15 PM (wwsoB)"
I've also got the money you Leftards need to pay off your voters.
I really wish the Left's alleged superiority in all aspects of human life extended to the ability to earn enough of their own fucking money without taking any from me. You want to impress me with your intelligence? Get a job that pays you enough so you don't have to reach into my wallet.
Posted by: Capt. Obvious at November 10, 2012 11:32 AM (P2Ufm)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 10, 2012 03:25 PM
Yes, because we know that most Americans certainly don't believe that Sarah Palin shot Gabby Giffords, don't we
Posted by: kbdabear at November 10, 2012 11:32 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:32 AM (jUytm)
It's already legal and the Fed's give money to Planned Parenthood and other providers. What are we going to do? Allow retro-active abortion?
Climate change?
The EPA hasn't be stopped by Congress. Again, what is there for the GOP to stop?
Gun Control*
Now here's the only kill-the-party issue. Once gun bans in place it's impossible to rescind. You destroy the 2nd Amendment and the whole game is over.
Illegal immigration?
As opposed to the current system?
Voter ID
No reason to give in. The US public wants voter ID, and that includes minorities. Nothing to give there.
For the rest the GOP only need Abstain from every measure and let the public receive their fucking wishes.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 10, 2012 11:33 AM (SX6wc)
Posted by: Liberal Who Just Can't Wait To Vote Republican! at November 10, 2012 11:33 AM (AzwZn)
True dat, Tammy.
My GF worked the polls and counted votes in our town, and believes Fauxcahontas lost here.
But, hey, this is a Democrat state (see: Joe Kennedy III) and Choom Boy's BFF Devil Patrick made sure damn nearly all of them won. It's a state law or something.
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 10, 2012 11:33 AM (yKUrR)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:33 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 11:33 AM (H8YE0)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 11:34 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: CarolinaPunk at November 10, 2012 03:31 PM (oL1j3)
Um well.. you ... um ... yes... uh... I... uh... well... uh... um... uh... thank... uh... you... uh!
Posted by: The... uh Rick Perry at November 10, 2012 11:34 AM (kGz1m)
Let Bush's tax cuts expire, the dems keep on claiming they are only for millionaires anyway, let the public find out how wrong they are when their taxes increase by 50%.
Entertainment tax, cap deductions for state and local taxes, choosing to live in a high tax state doesn't exempt you from paying your fair share federally. Lets start auditing some of these movies. Titanic never made a profit and paid any taxes, there's a nice little sound bite.
Give in on anything that might lead to Republicans being blamed for failure otherwise. Let them own it all. Let it burn.
Posted by: Ring at November 10, 2012 11:34 AM (iWnmm)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at November 10, 2012 11:34 AM (SkyIE)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 10, 2012 03:25 PM (WwR1j)"
I'd prefer to see curbstomping return to America, starting with you.
Posted by: Capt. Obvious at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (P2Ufm)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (jUytm)
Nonetheless, I think the right's jumping to point fingers and place blame (as we always does when we lose) is *especially* idiotic this time. We all realize what a SCoaMF TFG is --but most of the voters don't because the MSM carries his water and shuts down anyone who has the nerve to even "challenge" him. Furthermore, only incumbent presidents who go through a primary challenge ever end up losing the general election; no incumbent president (even ones not as beloved by the MSM as Obama) has been defeated otherwise. Finally, every crucial swing state loss was by a pretty small margin (74,000 votes is the margin in FL that I saw AP reporting today -- total of 314,000 all together), Obama lost huge margins in other states he carried by 10+ last time and the popular vote difference is going to end up being around 2%-- while it's a loss, it's not the complete and utter failure by Romney or the GOP !!!eleventy!! people on both sides are trying to say it is.
Yes it sucks. Yes I'm disgusted that anyone could have voted for TFG in 2008 much less 2012, but it is the MSM and the cult of Obama that is the problem here, not conservative ideas.
Posted by: angienc at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (w3JGl)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 03:17 PM (kGz1m)
Tell the evangelicals to start adopting unwanted babies or build real orphanages that are better than the best private schools. Then tell them that aborted babies go straight to heaven anyway. See how evangelical they are with their own damn money. Just a couple solution oriented suggestions, both of which beat lip service and guilt in spades.
America isn't church. And they you argue that it is, I submit that liberal democrats just made sure it ain't THEIR church for another four years.
Another thing for them to consider, lots and lots of liberal want to remove God from our society all together. Pick any battles that will give us all the best shot at keeping Him in our fabric.
Demonstration of solutions regarding abortion is a place to start. If you show a woman what the child's life will be if she carries to term, she might go ahead and give birth. Some foster homes are cesspools. WHo would roll the dice on strongly suggesting that avenue, especially having faith and believing God accepts them in Grace if they're aborted?
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: the little voice in your head at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (EZl54)
Posted by: That's right at November 10, 2012 11:35 AM (Mn9Ib)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:36 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Havedash at November 10, 2012 11:36 AM (ToMJU)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 10, 2012 11:36 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:36 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 11:37 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: The Dude at November 10, 2012 11:38 AM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 10, 2012 11:38 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Havedash at November 10, 2012 11:38 AM (ToMJU)
Posted by: MJH at November 10, 2012 11:38 AM (CueZK)
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 03:35 PM (LCZ3l)
Of course! Because its evangelicals who need to be lectured about charity!
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 11:39 AM (kGz1m)
Posted by: Sassy at November 10, 2012 11:39 AM (mJKH0)
He preceded the thought experiment with an admonition of giving in by the repubs. No need to feel people are willing to give up any of them in actuality.
I think he purposely did not put in the "none of the above" answer.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 11:39 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 10, 2012 11:39 AM (DoZD+)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:39 AM (jUytm)
I chose abortion to drop. Not because I am pro abortion but because republican men can't talk about it without stepping on their dick and losing the entire country in doing it.
America just voted for at least 2 and probably 3 new young liberal justices to the supreme court. Roe V. Wade will be the law for the rest of most of our lifetimes. There is nothing we can do about that now, it's over. If you wan't to slow down or stop abortion you will have to do it through education and outreach, not government mandates or laws. It's over.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2012 11:40 AM (rTgOf)
Posted by: Todd Wiley at November 10, 2012 11:40 AM (BzIWT)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 10, 2012 11:40 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 10, 2012 11:40 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: the little voice in your head at November 10, 2012 03:35 PM (EZl54)"
Think bigger. Red county secession.
Red county self-determination is the only political solution. Maybe not today, but eventually.
Obama won, what, 10-15% of the landmass of the country? Who gives a shit how many people that is. Unless those people in Obama's urban supporter base want to go out to the red counties to administer the DC empire, it's irrelevant how many of them there are.
Even the Romans couldn't command an empire from a single city once the people outside of that city got an itch for independence.
Posted by: Capt. Obvious at November 10, 2012 11:40 AM (P2Ufm)
second, even though perry looked the dumbass, he is only GOP leader even considering voter fraud issue. That means he has balls. The GOP leadership lacks balls. Therefore, second look at Perry? yes.
third, abortion is basically at full operational status anyway. We argue over rape abortions but in cities it's full speed ahead. Find a line to stand that 2/3 people agree with. Most will agree to no late terms. That will have to do for now.
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 11:41 AM (Z3ckx)
This million man army skews heavily (>75%?) Democrat and contributes a big chunk (>25%) of the cash that the Dems depend on.
Never.Going.To.Happen.
Posted by: Jaylord at November 10, 2012 11:41 AM (Y6qC4)
But don't want to give them anything. Make life as difficult as possible for the Dems. Make them and Obama overreach in their efforts to implement their agenda.
Posted by: KG at November 10, 2012 11:41 AM (IPz9m)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 10, 2012 11:41 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: That's right at November 10, 2012 11:42 AM (Mn9Ib)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:42 AM (2rMmy)
We lost the election because over 50% of the nation is mal-educated (taught to hate America), have no ethics or morality, and want all that sweet sweet free shit.
Let it burn.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 11:43 AM (mUr1V)
Posted by: t-bird at November 10, 2012 11:43 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 03:36 PM (jUytm)
Hell no. The far right hinting at going afer Roe v Wade is what I am talking about. It is done. Deal with it that way. Own it, stop the funding and the rampant nonsense like removing parents from the notification process. I'd talk her through it a lot better than some ugly godless hag that hates men and gets her sexual jollies from fantasizing about turning a teen out after "counselling" her about abortion er, man hate.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 11:43 AM (LCZ3l)
Being outnumbered by idiots does not make you wrong.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at November 10, 2012 11:43 AM (SkyIE)
Have you seen the county maps? Even Texas has a streak of bright blue down near the border. When the leftists destroy their own states, what's going to keep them from moving into yours? Are there going to be expulsions of liberals from conservative states, and vice versa? We had a document that enshrined conservative values for centuries and it couldn't withstand the rot.
This is why I want it to burn. A slow decline turns us into England--a once-mighty force for good that is now moribund, and whose conservative party is in the tank for socialized medicine. A quick, catastrophic shock has the potential to bring some of the more than 100,000,000 Americans who didn't vote in this election to their senses.
Posted by: Palandine at November 10, 2012 11:43 AM (g7D8V)
Posted by: Mindy at November 10, 2012 11:44 AM (6jLT3)
Posted by: Havedash at November 10, 2012 03:38 PM (ToMJU)
Yeah I thought about that, then I thought so letting a full throated marxist win is the answer? I don't know anyone who thinks like that.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2012 11:44 AM (rTgOf)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 11:44 AM (1+XRG)
Which is weird, because evryone I know there has had nothing but bad experiences with the overall family ( stiffed on tips, expect everything to be comped, etc)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 03:36 PM (2rMmy)"
A third of the Democrats in MA are historical Dems. Much like Patriots fans, they vote for the Democrats because their family always did and make excuses for their misbehavior for the same reason. These are more or less normal people who live conservative lives but who vote Dem as a family heritage. Most of the hackerama come from this group - they're out for loot from the state and see government as big mind of wealth. They generally don't like anything that restricts their freedom and are all about minorities (as long as they are in other neighborhoods).
A third are on the dole. Why they vote Dem is obvious.
The last third are the worst. They're the moonbats. They are the hardcore marxists who push for weirdo control laws and want insane things to happen. Massachusetts is a big college state, and the students, fresh from Marxism indoctrination at the Universities, go forth to vote with all the fury of the Revolution. A good chunk stick around after graduation, and will over time morph into the first group.
Republicans exist, but are about a quarter of the state and shrinking as more flee. Independents in MA are clueless and genuinely believe both parties are the same.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 10, 2012 11:45 AM (uhAkr)
(I am glad I am not the only one who had this thought...)
Posted by: Lizabth at November 10, 2012 11:45 AM (JZBti)
Voter ID is a must. O lost every state requiring ID. He won MN IA WI NV CO NM PA none required ID and total 66 EVs. Add this to Romney's 205 and he has 271 and would not even need FL or OH and both are no ID states. Forget immigration push voter ID and reduce the margin of fraud.
Posted by: alf767 at November 10, 2012 11:46 AM (t90zs)
If we've learned anything in our short history, it's that the Left never stops pushing and pushing their radical agenda.
^^^This
The overton window, they will never stop. I just don't know how to stop them short of a revolution.
Posted by: Infidel at November 10, 2012 11:46 AM (Vk6ZI)
Posted by: GaryL at November 10, 2012 11:46 AM (IAv8z)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 11:46 AM (sRus3)
we let the left have education - Publically Funded Crypto-Marxist Indoctrination Studies Camps (colleges and universities)
we let the left have social programs - Social Security/Welfare /Medicare
what could possibly go wrong with allowing them them to execute babies in womb?
Posted by: the little voice in your head at November 10, 2012 11:47 AM (EZl54)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 10, 2012 11:47 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 11:47 AM (H8YE0)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 11:47 AM (sRIFP)
***********************************************
Of all the post-election finger pointing that is the one that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Romney wasn't "credible"on repealing Obamacare even though he said it had to be as part of his 5 point plan he repeated every.single.stump.speech (including the speech he gave at the NAACP conference) and at all 3 debates (even the last one of foreign policy) because he also acknowledged that health care prices is a problem that needs to be addressed, so people went with the guy who was guaranteed to keep it.
The entire argument proves that there are as many idiots on the right as there are on the left.
Posted by: angienc at November 10, 2012 11:47 AM (w3JGl)
We need to ignite a grassroots revolt in the House to oust Boehner.
Immediately. Starting with a vote of no confidence.
THEN we talk platform.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 11:47 AM (ymG7s)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 10, 2012 03:40 PM (Ho2rs)
-----------------------------------------
This. But I think this nation is too used to limping and whimpering toward it's fiery death. It's not politically correct to fight anymore and too many people, especially on our side (bless their hearts) have fallen prey to it.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 11:48 AM (mUr1V)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 11:48 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: slatz at November 10, 2012 11:48 AM (fAVBA)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 10, 2012 11:48 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:48 AM (2rMmy)
Climate change and voter ID are deal breakers, I will not vote for a warmist under any circumstances.
As far as I'm concerned it may have made economic sense to fight upper-income tax increases but it makes little political sense, particularly if you can make sure that those increases mostly clobber the other guy's constituents. Protect small investor cap-gains (0% below 100K, 10% up to 250K, 20% to 500K, and 30% above that) and a restricted mortgage deduction (eliminate the first/second/HELOC distinction, just interest on max $250K total loan balance), and let them have the rest.
Republican governors and statehouses need to focus on voter ID and energy development.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 11:49 AM (o+SC1)
142...Fuck it give it all to them. Give it to them nice and hard. I want them to get everything that is coming to them.
They will blame the GOP for their failures...if we don't get it in writing.
If Boehner is going to cave, then he should at least make them own it.
Get it in writing.
Make them publish it...make Barky and the Dems put what they want, in a list.
Make it a condition, that the List of Demands is published in the media.
Then simply vote...'present'...and let it pass.
When it all fails, then we can say "You got what you wanted!"
If any of our Republicans vote for their List...then the Dems will say "But you voted for it too!"
They've done this before.
Posted by: wheatie at November 10, 2012 11:49 AM (ICEh3)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 03:39 PM (kGz1m)
Not making a dent in that deal breaking issue so far...
Also, if the evangelicals are such a powerful voting bloc, why wasn't Huckabee the guy in 08 or Santorum in 2012?
Like it or not, it is the far right and the far left that the vast majority of America votes against in the age old "lesser of two evils" scenario.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 11:49 AM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: Ayn Rand at November 10, 2012 11:49 AM (t7dIX)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 11:49 AM (sRus3)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at November 10, 2012 11:49 AM (YMqWj)
Posted by: nip at November 10, 2012 11:50 AM (11Tdq)
Posted by: unoriginalIhope at November 10, 2012 11:51 AM (gzW+q)
Posted by: Average Jen at November 10, 2012 11:51 AM (bGg6O)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 11:51 AM (sRus3)
Mexican and CA immigration, however, is the purest sort of 21st century parasitic economic warfare. Why should I try to kill you if I can hang you in my wine cellar and drink your blood at my leisure?
With M/CA immigration, those nations are exporting social welfare programs they themselves will not afford into the U.S. to be designed to Democrat-generous standards and then deficit-funded by our entire economy. This massive biological cuckoldry, like having a foreign organism lay and hatch its larvae in the bellies of every American, ends up driving many if not all of the other issues on the list - abortion, climate change, gun control, taxes and spending, and voted ID.
If we can't even afford our own welfare state, dear God, we certainly can't afford our own AND Mexico/CA's welfare states, eagerly designed and hosted by us, as well.
Posted by: Peter at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (9FQ7y)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (VlXYw)
btw Andy, thanks again for putting that poll up this am. Nearly 3300 unique votes, and the winner is.....Shut down the government. No increase in the debt cap pulled 28%; runner up was Let It Burn at 26%.
Going Galt pulled a respectable 17% as well.
Two conclusions can be drawn from my poll -- there's quite a variety of opinion on exactly what we think ought to come next, and the most popular options are pretty radical.
Thanks for participating everyone.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: ejo at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (C/Spx)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 03:47 PM (sRIFP)
___
There are conservative women who also wait tables. You'd have to employ some kind of screen while they're taking your order, maybe ask if they were happy preazy got a 2nd term. Only the dumbest and most committed obots would break out in a big smile. Smart waitresses, no matter what their persuasion, would play it close to the vest.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 11:52 AM (kpCLl)
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 11:53 AM (mUr1V)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 11:53 AM (4sZ3R)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at November 10, 2012 11:53 AM (YMqWj)
I figure the only upside of the coming Chaos is that it could very well lead to the deaths of millions of the Free Shit coalition through starvation, collapse of the health care system in cities, and nuclear strikes from Iran and the Norks.
Not something I really wish for (I have a brother living in NVA), but there's nothing we can do to stop it so it's best to be prepared.
Posted by: Jaylord at November 10, 2012 11:53 AM (Y6qC4)
Posted by: KG at November 10, 2012 11:53 AM (IPz9m)
Posted by: Buddy at November 10, 2012 11:54 AM (lpAEc)
AP exit polls say White Women went for romney by 6, Young Whites by 7. Minorities hurt us, not young people.
Soothsayer is Right, Boehner will not cave, he knows he loses the gavel if he does. He is playing a game with Obama. He came out quick to look like he was willing deal, and forced Obama's hand. As usual Obama played class warfare. Advantage Boehner
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 11:54 AM (neP+W)
It was a family issue. To the extent that there was a dispute between family members, it was up to a local court to decide. End full stop.
For GOP legislators in DC to stick their noses into this was the stupidest thing imaginable. For every one voter presumably like yourself who wanted Federal power exerted in this matter, fifty thought the GOP was proving once again that it couldn't be trusted in power.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 11:54 AM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at November 10, 2012 03:49 PM (YMqWj)
Excellent point. Deserves input.
My problem? I don't have enough and what I've got, I'd like to upgrade!
They're kinda like tattoos. One leads to a few more, and more thought put into each one subsequently gotten.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 11:55 AM (LCZ3l)
Yeah, I know the libertarians tell us we will have broader appeal if we drop the social issues like abortion and gay marriage. They've been singing that song for decades. How many votes did Gary Johnson get, again? Just over a million, just under 1% - the 2nd best showing for an LP candidate ever (Ed Clark's solid 1% in 1980 being 1st). No other LP candidate, including one Ron Paul, ever even cracked the 0.5% barrier.
So we might gain a million votes, and lose 25 million. Sounds like a great plan.
Posted by: Adjoran at November 10, 2012 11:55 AM (ZHQvg)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 10, 2012 11:55 AM (CkK+I)
Posted by: Mindy at November 10, 2012 11:55 AM (6jLT3)
Posted by: Peter at November 10, 2012 03:52 PM (9FQ7y)
That's Europe in a nutshell. Britians national party is considered right wing but it isn't. It's left wing unions who are trying to make sure they keep their share of the welfare state.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 11:56 AM (NzBQO)
Posted by: CarolT at November 10, 2012 11:56 AM (z4WKX)
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 11:56 AM (neP+W)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 11:56 AM (sRus3)
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 03:54 PM (o+SC1)
Absolutely.
Aren't there nine basic voting blocs? I agree with a lot more on the GOP side, for sure. But some of it sure is horseshit.
I have to look up the nine bloc thing. BRB.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 11:56 AM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at November 10, 2012 11:56 AM (YMqWj)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 10, 2012 11:57 AM (fCMdQ)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:57 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 03:53 PM (mUr1V)
__
Donks at least understand that when their candidates pose as moderates and fiscal conservatives, it's just a tactic so they don't get all elevnty!!!@! butthurt about it. They just keep focussed on hating on the rethugglkikkkans and getting to the polls to vote four or six times.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 11:57 AM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 11:57 AM (kpCLl)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 10, 2012 11:57 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 11:58 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 10, 2012 11:58 AM (fCMdQ)
For GOP legislators in DC to stick their noses into this was the stupidest thing imaginable. For every one voter presumably like yourself who wanted Federal power exerted in this matter, fifty thought the GOP was proving once again that it couldn't be trusted in power.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 03:54 PM (o+SC1)"
The horrible notion that the Federal government starts preventing people from being murdered. Where does it stop if they start doing that??
I can see why people would much rather have the Democrat alternative.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 10, 2012 11:58 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: The Loyal 68% You All Depended On at November 10, 2012 11:58 AM (FcR7P)
Having Romney as our candidate stole one very useful line of attack that a Perry or a Paul Ryan could have used: that the country's being run into the ground by a bunch of Ivy League academics with no practical experience.
Run against 'The Harvards'. Yes, really.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 11:58 AM (o+SC1)
Hey, here's one bright spot about abortion.
Follow my reasoning here.
Obamacare will, pretty much by definition, result in a decline in the quality of medical care, and the safety of medical procedures. There will be wage and price controls; there will have to be. Corners will be cut. Cheaper methods and supplies will be used. Good doctors will get out. Quacks will stay in.
Ineptly performed abortions lead quite frequently to permanent inability to bear children. Uteruses that have been scarred and infected stop working. Abortions, like any other medical procedure, will become more dangerous and unreliable under an Obamacare regime.
Liberals are by definition much more likely to end up resorting to abortion. They're more promiscuous. They're more reckless. They have short attention spans that lead to contraceptive failure. And they have no moral qualms about the procedure.
Extrapolate that trend, and what do you end up with?
In the long term, liberals being outreproduced.
If conservatives have more kids, consistently, and if conservatives are able to keep their kids free from the liberal cultural morass (here's a gently whispered hint: HOMESCHOOLING!), that math starts looking better in the out years.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 11:58 AM (ymG7s)
Over the past couple of years, I have been talking with both conservatives, liberals, and nonpartisans about the GOP and politics and certain political candidates.Here are the results. Remind you, these are not my opinions, but the opinions of others.
1. Bachmann - One person liked her because she was new blood, another person called her Palin 2.0. The Obama supporter that liked her was also a fan of Duncan Hunter.
2. Romney - Old blood, Rich guy, maybe decent, better than Obama. Men tend to view him more negatively. Ex Navy O2, pro-Reagan, pro-McCain I used to work with wife voted for Obama, he voted for Goode. He could not stand Romney.
3. Palin - No support whatsoever. Even from Tea Partiers, she is not liked. Some one called her an airhead and most cannot stand her voice, and cannot stand to see her on TV. The only guy I know who would support her was Scotish Engineer I met working in Asia. Another guy from Maryland said she was a bitty who should go away. Women like her less. My sister asked me why she muffed the Katie Curic interview.
4. Ron Paul - An asian 25 year old young lady with whom I work loved him and she isnÂ’t a pothead. She is a Christian, has very positive view of him. When I explained his Foreign policy views to her, she seemed to understand but no less detered; One guy who is in his mid 30s, views him positive, pro-life, pro-economy antiwar. He calls the mainstream GOP too pro-war too pro-israel.
5. Chris Christie - A couple I know who has a house in NJ cannot wait to vote for him. They also had a favorable view of Ron Paul. The Ron Paul supporter who is in his mid 30s called him a bluestate asshole.
6. Newt Gingrich, Clintons, and Bushs - Old Bloods that they want no part of them. Ron Paul supporter in his mid 30s called Newt a douche bag.
7. Rick Santorum - Male Palin. No support whatsoever, except from Mark Levin. One person said he was a rah rah boy for the GOP.
8. Mike Huckabee -A black guy I know who voted for Obama only because he said his grandfather would disown if he did not, likes Mike Huckabee, and says he would vote for him. Likes the Fair tax idea.
9. Herman Cain - Hispanic guy from CA I met on a jobsite said he liked Cain until he found out he was cheating on his wife.
10. Rick Perry - Ex Army Colonel I used to work with likes him, as does the Ron Paul guy in his mid 30s.
The general opinion, right or wrong of the GOP
1. Interested in old blood only.
2. The GOP gets high marks for Economy, low marks for foreign policy.
3. Reagan is still liked, even by most Obama voters
4. Ron Paul still has a favorable view among the people with whom I talked.
5. Palin and Santorum: Palin is disliked, not too many people care about Santorum.
Bottom line
1. The GOP needs a male figure, masculine figure, who talks like a man.
2. New blood.
3. With a Reaganesque No war Foreign Policy.
4. Pro growth economic policy.
The answer:
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) for President 2016 and Ted Cruz
Posted by: perdogg at November 10, 2012 11:59 AM (Ttf/I)
Carol, try living in Illinois. We lost 5 House Seats, Dems got supermajorites in Legislature, and we have the worst economy, and a political mafia in Chicago.
To add insult ot injury, we got a Republican into the US seante in 2010, and he had a stroke. He is recovering, Kirk, but he cannot fight the Dems
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 11:59 AM (neP+W)
List of Demands is published in the media.
Posted by: wheatie at November 10, 2012 03:49 PM (ICEh3)
----------------------------------------
Now, see, right there is where your plan falls apart.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 11:59 AM (mUr1V)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 11:59 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 03:49 PM (LCZ3l)
Its a judicial issue so its one for the long game. And I actually consider Scalia, Thomas and Alito to be the kind of dents we need.
I didnt vote for Huckabee or Santorum myself, despite being pro-life. Single issue campaigns and candidates are a bad idea in general, no matter if its on social or economic issues.
Willard just showed us how successful a campaign is that practices culture war and social issue neutrality. And I remember that we were winning in 2004 because the most important issue was "moral values". And I think I remember that evangelicals won us Ohio back then. Care to repeat that Willard experience?
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 11:59 AM (kGz1m)
Posted by: Mindy at November 10, 2012 11:59 AM (6jLT3)
If I hear one more talking head or Gop politician say latinos should be a "natural constituency" for Republicans just because they're predominantly Catholic and socially conservative i will puke.The Catholic Church in Latin America is very left wing and authoritarian and latinos are no longer all that socially conservative they vote in favor of gay marriage they are having a greater percentage of abortians and many of their children are being born out of wedlock
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (AW9md)
The good news is I don't know that the GOP has anybody for 2016 whose "turn" it is. That primary was stupid, the rep establishment said it was going to be Romney well before Iowa and that's what it was.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (PHb2k)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 10, 2012 03:55 PM (CkK+I)
I see your point, and it is one hell of a good point. But practiced and motivated manipulators are cunningly persuasive and powerful enough not dare to take lightly. Think altar boys and other molestation victims.
Hell, look at this election's results! Plenty of "adults" voting in a way we all concure was foolish, regardless of our stances on some of the "small" stuff.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (LCZ3l)
Huckabee pardoned over a thousand people and didn't run.
Santorum was a guy who lost an election.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 10, 2012 03:55 PM (CkK+I)
___
It's not a matter of keeping a daughter honest, it's a question of a young woman, possibly pre-teen undergoing a serious surgical procedure without her mom or dad's consent. Not to mention that a future member of the family is being offed, maybe mom or dad or uncle or aunt might have some other non-destructive options to offer the daughter?
A surgical abortion ain't exactly as easy as getting a pimple popped.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (jm/9g)
If by "lost," you mean "had it stolen," then, yes. That sucks.
And, hell yeah, Tom McClintock would make an absolutely outstanding president. I've been a fan for many, many years. Love the guy!
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:00 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 12:01 PM (neP+W)
Having Romney as our candidate stole one very useful line of attack that a Perry or a Paul Ryan could have used: that the country's being run into the ground by a bunch of Ivy League academics with no practical experience.
Run against 'The Harvards'. Yes, really.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 03:58 PM (o+SC1)
I agree with this, there is way to be free market AND populist. Considering all the handouts the past four years, we could have easily been the anti-bailout party but we weren't.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 12:01 PM (NzBQO)
Posted by: Adjoran at November 10, 2012 03:55 PM (ZHQvg)
So you are saying 25 million voters are single issue abortion voters. That's it, all they care about? I don't beleive that and I also don't beleive you have to stop being pro life. I think there is a lot of ground though between telling a 14 year old that has been raped that she has to have the rapist baby and stopping late term abortions.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2012 12:02 PM (rTgOf)
I think of that group as the pre - emptive "Let it burn" people. Forefathers of the L.I.B. movement.
I voted (half heartedly) but I believe that as some have said, that America slit it's wrists in 2008. The rest is just the body flopping around in the tub.
Posted by: T. Hunter at November 10, 2012 12:02 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: nip at November 10, 2012 12:02 PM (11Tdq)
The Catholic Church right here in the USA is very left wing. Insanely so. And they want nothing more than uninhibited illegal immigration because those are the people who are going to church and crankin' out more Catholics by the fuckin' bazillions. In many ways, I have no further use for the Catholic church, although I have no disrespect for Catholic morons, so don't even go there.
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (kpCLl)
Do not fret over any who lost Races in the House by less that 3% in 2012. They all will run in 2014 and win. They have instant name ID and make great candidates.
West, Mia Love, Bob Dold etc...
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (neP+W)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (sRIFP)
Posted by: t-bird at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: josh at November 10, 2012 03:11 PM (rWb+7)
----------
That's where I'm at too. Abstain, and let them name it, claim it, and hang because of it.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (fCMdQ)
Then once you are a member, you can actually vote on what goes on inside the party. Sitting around on the sidelines bitching about things doesn't get anything done. Join your local county committee. Volunteer. Vote on internal decisions. Find other local groups that have issue overlaps such as maybe a local Freedom 21 (anti Agenda 21 group) group or any group on an issue that overlaps and form coalitions. See that your local party website is actually up to date and doesn't carry information that is a year old (like mine does).
We don't need to form another party. By forming another party you are asking people to do what they have NOT done with the party they ALREADY have. You are asking them to get involved, donate their time and money to move things in a direction they want but they can do that with the party they already have if they would simply join it and take part in things.
Posted by: crosspatch at November 10, 2012 12:03 PM (ZbLJZ)
Posted by: BignJames at November 10, 2012 12:04 PM (j7iSn)
YES. If we cave on abortion and gay marriage, the left will next demand euthanasia and polygamy.
It just doesn't end with them.
Posted by: chemjeff-husker at November 10, 2012 12:05 PM (d/5qf)
Posted by: Mindy at November 10, 2012 12:05 PM (6jLT3)
Posted by: Hopeless at November 10, 2012 12:05 PM (ven16)
"Yeah, her name was Sarah Palin. She didn't win."
The wise elder party establishment said that if Palin were allowed to run in '12, it would be a disaster. They had begun to quietly poison the well against her even before the 2008 polls closed. There were conversations with the state party bosses and the big donors, all on the subject of keeping her out and quiet.
If Palin got in, and got the 2012 nomination, said the wise elders, we would not only lose the Presidential race, but the downticket undertow would likely mean that we'd lose the opportunity to flip the Senate. Might even lose Senate seats, in a year when the Dems were on defense.
Well! I'm sure we can all agree it's a good thing THAT didn't happen.
Thank goodness we have wise party elders looking out for this stuff.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 12:05 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (sRIFP)
---------
We have a Republican governor, a Republican legislature and we passed Voter ID. But it doesn't matter. Why? Lawlessness in the person of leftist Madison judges who just issue injunctions against anything we pass. They stop everything we do, and they stop it for the whole state.
Men of Lawlessness.
2 Thessalonians 2 .
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:06 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: OCD con at November 10, 2012 12:06 PM (uUlWl)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 10, 2012 03:57 PM (fCMdQ)
----------------------------------------------
You want to legalize drugs? And you think that those drug addicts are going vote against their welfare? Because if you want to imagine even more of an entitlement mentality in the US population, get more people addicted to drugs.
Yeah, that's the ticket out of our mess.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:06 PM (mUr1V)
You guys will not ever get it.
For some people abortion is not an "issue"!
Thought experiment:
Lefty scientist says circumcision prevents cervical cancer.
Obama passes an EO requiring all males to be circumcised.
Is that a "SINGLE ISSUE" for you?
Posted by: T. Hunter at November 10, 2012 12:06 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 10, 2012 12:06 PM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:06 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 12:07 PM (sRus3)
BTW, the f'ing media that tries to tell us the type of party we should have can blow me.
Go tell the dems what they should do ya bastards.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 12:07 PM (PHb2k)
First, that is exactly what the paultards are doing. It's a concerted, coordinated effort and they may just succeed. Second, I have had dealings with GOP committee types and, well, if you can stand 'em for more than 12 minutes without wanting to blow your fuckin' brains out, bless your heart.
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:07 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 12:07 PM (jUytm)
the reason we lost is that democrats will get out and vote even if their candidate was a convicted child molestor just so a republican isn't in the oval office,we on the other hand act like spoiled little bitches and stay home if our guy isn't exactly what we were looking for
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:07 PM (AW9md)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (fCMdQ)
So you are saying they are really liberals except for abortion? Well I don't know what to say about that except that maybe there are people who are really conservative except for our extreme party platform on abortion. I don't know that though.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2012 12:08 PM (rTgOf)
Secondly, as I said before, this was not a Federal issue. States deal with life and death matters all the time. And for the GOP to advocate for a smaller Federal government - oh, except for when Biblical precepts are involved - is just plain ugly and stupid.
Abortion should be a state issue too. You can make the case that it's an evil, but I believe it's a lesser evil than the extension of Federal authority necessary to prohibit it. Or to require its availability, but that genie got out of the bottle four decades ago and we haven't had much luck getting it back in.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 12:08 PM (o+SC1)
So what was the thing this time? the economy.
Romney failed because people still blames bush AND they thought things were getting better.
Stop recriminations until we know the facts.
and focus on voter fraud and recounts.
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 12:09 PM (Z3ckx)
We don't even know that the exit polls were accurate or whether they even said what they are telling us they said or just made up by the same media.
Exit polls have a high degree of bullshit.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 12:09 PM (PHb2k)
An argument can be made for letting the Dems have what the Dems want for a while. They want to raise taxes in the middle of what Obama himself calls, "The Great Recession"? Okay then. But make sure they get full credit for it. Play some ju-jitsu, redirect their thrusts to the point they stagger themselves. One thing is for certain: the American people are not going to be happy about the Bush tax cuts evaporating. The economy won't either. The Dems say things will go back to just like the Clinton era since we'll have Clinton era taxes, what's the problem? Okay grant them that thesis and then call them on it when the balanced budget does not arrive, instead we've got broad misery. And that misery is the problem: can you really do that to people? Can you really abandon them for a political point? If those tax cuts go away people are going to be hurt, personally. It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. If you truly believe that Obama's positions are poison, and you are right about it, too, you have the following problem: The people just elected him president. They believe it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Which way are you going to stick your neck out?
Posted by: Cowboy at November 10, 2012 12:09 PM (WcgMM)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 12:09 PM (sRIFP)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:09 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: KJB at November 10, 2012 12:09 PM (lOLN5)
Posted by: Nate at November 10, 2012 12:10 PM (BBlzg)
And in the end it was a non-issue, as she WAS brain-dead.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 12:10 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 10, 2012 12:11 PM (wf99r)
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (AW9md)
----------------------------------------------------
Nope. Marx, Lenin, Trotski(y?) and a host of other europeans.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:11 PM (mUr1V)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 12:11 PM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Hawkpilot at November 10, 2012 12:11 PM (uemly)
Posted by: Cowboy at November 10, 2012 12:11 PM (WcgMM)
Abortions, like any other medical procedure, will become more dangerous and unreliable under an Obamacare regime.
___
California has already OK'd midwives and nurses to do abortions. Up til now the lowest performing med school graduates went into the "specialty". Now that's changed, they're going into boob jobs,botoxing, and lipo. A lot more lucrative with none of the drama of abortioneering.
So Cali had to press the nurses and midwives into action. Which I find really questionable, since I was always of the impression that midwives always went for the most natural solution.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 12:12 PM (jm/9g)
Why? Her cheating greedy husband wanted to get on with his life.
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 04:07 PM (sRus3)
Since we are the party of personal responsibility maybe we could each take 5 minutes out of our busy lives of tweeting and commenting on blogs and go to legal zoon and do a living will so that does't happen.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2012 12:12 PM (rTgOf)
1. Investigate and prosecute those who committed voter fraud.
2. FIGHT for positive voter ID laws in every state.
3. DO NOT compromise on Conservative values. What good is it going to do to become leftist-light. This makes no sense. Say we do shift left and we actually win an election, then what? Then we've got people in office who are RINOs and will do nothing to turn this country around.
Also, we talk about the blame America first crowd, but many on the right are no better. Many are becoming the "blame Conservatives first" crowd. "Oh why, oh why, do they hate us so much? Why can't we win?" Well screw that mindset. I'm not going to become more like them just to win their approval. Is this what we teach our kids - do whatever the "in crowd" wants so you can be popular?
Posted by: Havedash at November 10, 2012 12:12 PM (ToMJU)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 10, 2012 12:12 PM (XkWWK)
Uh, no, they don't.
The Left's position is, "Have all the kids you want! Especially if you are poor, illiterate and unskilled, and will never be able to feed those kids on your own. More fodder for the cradle to grave welfare state. More voters and power for us."
I caught a piece on the news about a woman in the projects who had cranked out, if I am remembering correctly, SIXTEEN kids, by fourteen different fathers, er, sperm donors. None of the fathers were anywhere in sight. None had ever paid a dime in child support. When it was suggested that she might stop, her response was, "Ah ain't messing up mah body with no birff contol."
If the Left's position were genuinely about population control, welfare moms would be getting mandatory Norplant along with their EBT and WIC and Section 8 benefits.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 12:12 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: madamex at November 10, 2012 12:13 PM (1zsKV)
Posted by: Mindy at November 10, 2012 12:13 PM (6jLT3)
25% Entertainers Payroll Tax - targeted at Hollywood and TV types, athletes, authors, etc. Off the top, no deductions. This one sells itself.
Education Opportunity Tax - Remove exemption for contributions to college endowments and revoke the tax free status of endowments. Use the money to fund scholarships for poor students.
At least it would be fun to watch all the screaming from Hollywood and Media and Ivy League elite scumbags that would accompany these proposals
Posted by: Jaylord at November 10, 2012 12:13 PM (Y6qC4)
Posted by: t-bird at November 10, 2012 12:13 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 12:14 PM (sRIFP)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 12:14 PM (jucos)
If we believe ourselves to be the side of
smaller and less intrusive government, then we need to put candidates forward
who are not only articulate in stating that position, but who actually feel
passionately that this is what's best for our nation.
While I do believe that
Mitt Romney was a solid candidate, and would have liked to see him as our
President, I also recognize that he came across as a man for whom Conservatism
was a second language.
In the third debate, Mitt Romney sounded more like George McGovern than Ronald Reagan.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Semi-New Moron. at November 10, 2012 12:14 PM (mkb9H)
Pretty sure the social justice movement was born in Latin America wasn't it?
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (AW9md)
Jonah Goldberg wrwrote about the origins of the notion "social justice" in his latest book and it comes actually from an italian chatholic theologian. Though back then it meant something different and more reasonable.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 12:14 PM (kGz1m)
Posted by: Nate at November 10, 2012 12:14 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:14 PM (kpCLl)
--
Manifestly NOT true. The Lefties, as usual, are louder and get more attention, though.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:15 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 12:15 PM (jUytm)
Did I mention Romney is a piece of shit motherfucker?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 10, 2012 12:15 PM (wf99r)
Posted by: Semi-New Moron. at November 10, 2012 12:15 PM (mkb9H)
that don't stink?
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 10, 2012 12:16 PM (Z3ckx)
----------------
She was alive and now she's dead based on a court order. She committed no crime, but she was sentenced to die.
By a political office holder.
If that doesn't frighten you, there's something wrong with your thinking processes.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:16 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Semi-New Moron. at November 10, 2012 04:15 PM (mkb9H)
You need to make us all some sammitches now . . .
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:17 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 04:07 PM (AW9md)
--------------------------------------------
Once again. 50.6% of our populace have no idea or don't give a damn about ethics or morality. Let it burn.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:17 PM (mUr1V)
"'I would have given you a tip, but the Obama economy is crushing me'
lol I live in a city where i have not the slightest doubt every single waiter and waitress voted for Obama and i was thinking about leaving something like that
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:17 PM (AW9md)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 03:59 PM (kGz1m)
Evangelicals are not a united group. They are not a voting bloc the GOP can count on. This election showed that again. Plenty of evangelicals vote straight D tickets for their own faith based reasons. Not sure why republican voters go ga-ga over candidates like Paul Ryan. His personal beliefs cannot pervade his legislative agenda.
Reverend Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are "evangelicals" too.
You are over estimating the political power of your personal brand of evangelism.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 12:17 PM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: Semi-New Moron. at November 10, 2012 12:18 PM (mkb9H)
that don't stink?
Evidently Dave in Fl. thinks there was massive cheating but of course he can't prove it. In Virginia he said with 69% of the vote in Romney had a 6 point lead then poof it all came crashing down. Either way we lost and there is no changing it... Four more years...
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna really.really bummed at November 10, 2012 12:18 PM (9+ccr)
Posted by: The GOP, all up in your schiz at November 10, 2012 12:19 PM (L7hol)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:19 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 04:17 PM (LCZ3l)
Im not an evangelical/christian.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2012 12:19 PM (kGz1m)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 10, 2012 12:19 PM (CkK+I)
Manifestly NOT true. The Lefties, as usual, are louder and get more attention, though.
yeah we overlap on the gay marriage issue too but thats about it.
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:20 PM (AW9md)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 12:20 PM (sRus3)
Better question: What reform(s) are necessary for electing a majority consensus candidate during the Republican primary season?
Posted by: mrp at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (sRIFP)
We're not asking for an explicit pro-life campaign, but if you abandon the issue to the Dems, sorry.
If it weren't for Democrats bringing it up all the time and assholes like Akin playing into the media's hands, we'd be fine. And I don't want to even put 100% of the blame on Akin or Mourdock. The media was fishing for this all the way back in January with Stephanopoulos trying to get a clumsy soundbite about banning contraception. Yes, Akin's nuts, but is he any more so than, say, Cynthia McKinney? I know we have to deal with the rules as they are, but I think that's a bit too far to drum all the members out of a coalition.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 10, 2012 04:19 PM"
How did Repubs suggest women are helpless?
Posted by: kinlaw at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (uLTng)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (1+XRG)
That! The rest is just a horseshit. We have have way too many people looking for a hill to die on. I don't think the pandering helps. I think a candidate who would get real with them might. Or not, who knows, but this is not working. People need to understand that Roe v. Wade is NOT GOING ANYWHERE. The law is settled on that. There's no do-over on it. I'm not taking any position on whether it's good or it's bad, but people who's defining issue is abortion are a problem for conservatives. You want to make it an issue? Fine, let's talk about not allowing the federal government to use our tax dollars to fund it. That is a workable plank. One I would personally support 100 percent.
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (kpCLl)
It is in fact cultural.
Brits are convinced that if the NHS were repealed, they would die in droves in misery.
As they imagine to be the state of affairs in America.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been told -- by people who have often never even been out of the UK -- that "in America, if you go to the emergency department while badly ill, and you can't pay, you'll be taken back outside and left on the curb to die."
And of course I always have to say, well, no, there's actually a federal law called EMTALA which prohibits this, and American emergency rooms provide care to all comers regardless of ability to pay, and that the guy who signed this into law was named Ronald Reagan (which _really_ mindfucks Brit lefties, who have a mental picture of Reagan as being a brutal fascist dictator).
The other cultural thing about Brits and the NHS is that they imagine the quality of care by the NHS to be far better than it actually is in reality. And if you present them with comparative statistics on actual medical outcomes on their system versus ours (or ours as it used to be) they are often incredulous to see how crummy the NHS actually is at delivering patients back to good health.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 12:21 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: boulder hobo at November 10, 2012 12:22 PM (QTHTd)
Yep. And those darn Catholic Charities groups are the ones dragging Somalian refugees over here by the boatload,
__
Do you have a link to support? I go to mass every Sunday and this is a new one on me. As far as I know, Catholic Charities doesn't have its own fleet of passenger transport craft.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 12:22 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 10, 2012 12:22 PM (PHb2k)
--------------------
79% Romney vs 20% Obama isn't a voting bloc the GOP can count on? Were you aware that 24% of all votes cast on Tuesday were cast by people who describe themselves as evangelicals? The next highest voting bloc didn't even come close. Something like 58% I think. Can't remember but I think those were men making over 50k a year.
So GOP took most of their votes by far from church people and guys who still have jobs. But mostly church people.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:22 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: boulder hobo at November 10, 2012 04:22 PM (QTHTd)
Let it burn...
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna really.really bummed at November 10, 2012 12:22 PM (9+ccr)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:23 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 12:23 PM (1+XRG)
lol I live in a city where i have not the slightest doubt every single waiter and waitress voted for Obama and i was thinking about leaving something like that
I would not actually do this (I'm a tipper), but I would have a card printed up saying "Here's your tip: Next time, vote for the Republican."
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:23 PM (kpCLl)
The Red State govs have already drawn the line in the sand with the ACA mandate. Just keep drawing lines...
Posted by: T. Hunter at November 10, 2012 12:24 PM (EZl54)
protection from themselves and their own mistakes and choices.
That was the Dems, and women supported this plank at at 20% margin.
(I know, I keep saying this.)
Posted by: boulder hobo at November 10, 2012 12:24 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 10, 2012 12:25 PM (bxiXv)
Okay, gay marriage too. But I can tell you when we were having that fight in CA the church wasn't exactly leading it.
Yeah they saw the Morman church was out in front on that one a decided to stay quietly in the backgroud
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:25 PM (AW9md)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 10, 2012 12:25 PM (sRIFP)
Agree with #166 on abortion - need to find a way to not drop it but not have it blow up in GOP faces. See Akin and Mourdock - also I believe it did hurt the GOP nationally as I was hearding ads in a state 1/2 across the country linking Romney and the local candidates to Akin and Mourdock. Keep the others especially voter id - remember PA's law was delayed this year due to judges - we'll never win again until the elections are cleaned up
Posted by: NObama12 at November 10, 2012 12:25 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:25 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 10, 2012 03:25 PM (WwR1j)"I'd prefer to see curbstomping return to America, starting with you."
And that is why you guys cant have nice things.
Posted by: Caramba at November 10, 2012 12:25 PM (MNyMW)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 04:19 PM (2rMmy)
Tammy, is that snark or is that truth? It's a new one on me, except for that thing about busloads of 'em being driven around to vote (was that Somalians? the last week is still a bit of a blur).
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:26 PM (kpCLl)
-----------
I think your facts aren't too strong. This is the second statement you've made that I noticed was not quite, er, factual.
Jeremiah Wright is a minister in the United Church of Christ. The UCC is a mainstream liberal denomination that is in no way related to the evangelical movement. Not to mention the fact that he preaches a particular brand of theology combining Black Liberation and Nation of Islam.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:27 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 10, 2012 12:28 PM (bxiXv)
They knew who the SCOAMT was and essentially voted for him anyway. These are the same sanctimonious fools who spent the last six years claiming that we would get another Reagan if only we sat around on the sidelines and complained. I despise them worse than I do SCOAMT voters.
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 10, 2012 12:29 PM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: cheshirecat at November 10, 2012 12:29 PM (6bNif)
---------------
The Right to Life movement agrees with you, at least here in Wisconsin. They sent out some information on how they are going to attempt to increase their focus on promoting female conservative candidates, rather than automatically giving their nod of approval to male candidates who just happen to have pro-life beliefs. They would like to see some female candidates out there handling the inevitable questions and believe that will cut down on a lot of the 'stoopid'.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:30 PM (P6QsQ)
And wealthy Hollywood libs don't give a fuck- who gives a fuck if gas is $10 a gallon when you're knocking down $10 million a picture.
The working poor just know they're getting free shit. Long as that gravy train keeps rolling down the track, they don't give a fuck.
So on one end, you have the wealthy, whose money protects them from the bad economy. On the other end are the moochers getting free stuff. In the middle is you and me, getting our pockets picked to pay for it all, and being told less is the new normal.
We're outnumbered. Tipping point, call it what you will. It's here.
Dump everything you have on my position.
Let. It. Burn.
Posted by: Jones in CO says 'let it burn' at November 10, 2012 12:30 PM (8sCoq)
Excise tax.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 10, 2012 12:30 PM (gmoEG)
--
But that' s getting the formulation precisely wrong. We're part of a coalition where everyone agrees a bit and gives a bit depending upon the stakes raised by the party's platform. ON the order, what makes an issue "defining" is a reciprocal matter: You accuse social cons of having abortion as a "defining" issue, whereas it seems to me that you're the one who's trying to define a consistent and stalwart voting bloc out of the party and the movement altogether.
I love Libertarian economic and drug policy, and I want more of it in the GOP, but I ask again, when a bunch of Libertarians vote for a 3rd party, whereas evangelicals support Romney, who's being the single-issue voter and who's playing the spoilsport?
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:31 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 04:25 PM (2rMmy)
___
Since the mission of Catholic Charities is to provide comfort and support to the needy, in the spirit of Christ's directive: "Whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do unto Me", it doesn't come as a surprise that they offer services to refugees of any nation. That's a far cry from being the actual agents facilitating emigration from their homeland.
I used Catholic Charities services when my mom died. They actually offered a free support group for adults mourning the death of a parent. Those types of support groups aren't easy to come by. Usually they focus on those who have lost children or spouses.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 12:31 PM (jm/9g)
Yeah they saw the Morman church was out in front on that one a decided to stay quietly in the backgroud
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 04:25 PM (AW9md)
The Mormons were entirely blamed for prop 8, to the left it was all their fault. They were protesting at the Mormon temples. I gotta buddy in LAPD, who went out there to make sure nothing happened. He said all the Mormons had to do was bring in all their people who were islanders. Just imagine trying to get by a bunch of Manti Teo's
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 12:32 PM (NzBQO)
Posted by: Revenant at November 10, 2012 12:32 PM (W7GH9)
Never give money to Catholic charities. They get 2/3 of their funding from the feds. They are liberal. I am a catholic - we have some good bishops but most are very cozy with big government.
Posted by: chris at November 10, 2012 12:32 PM (VT/WG)
The candidate is pretty much irrelevant if the Left has the MSM shit-cannons in full operation.
Romney was the cleanest, squeakest candidate we will see in our lifetimes.
Those shit-cannons have to be shut off or rendered ineffective in the public's eye.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 10, 2012 12:33 PM (SX6wc)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 12:33 PM (sRus3)
The dye was cast after Reagan. Repubs are satanical torturers and killers. No amount of political tap-dancing is going to change that now no matter what we say or do. This has become a one-party nation.
Still too many RINO's, beltway elitists, and countryclub repubs in our ranks yet. Unfortunately, it's probably too late already to wait until they retire or die. The damage is done.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:33 PM (mUr1V)
Those shit-cannons have to be shut off or rendered ineffective in the public's eye.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at November 10, 2012 04:33 PM (SX6wc)
Exactly. Instead of it being "It's the economy stupid." It was "It's the media stupid."
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna really.really bummed at November 10, 2012 12:35 PM (9+ccr)
Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 10, 2012 12:35 PM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:35 PM (2rMmy)
------------
The ELCA branch of the Lutherans. They're kinda the LINO's.
Not to be confused with the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who won't even go near a community prayer breakfast because, GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENTS.
Those people are strict.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:36 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Revenant at November 10, 2012 04:32 PM (W7GH9)
--------------------------------------------------
Fuck off!
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:36 PM (mUr1V)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2012 12:36 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 03:39 PM (jUytm)
This. Their agenda is not to achieve the stated goal. It is to destroy the institution.
Posted by: Ostral B Heretic at November 10, 2012 12:37 PM (eacF6)
The State Department had invested in the Imminent Danger Notification System--and Charlene Lamb said that she was following it in real time from the Security Operations Center at the State Department.
But--Leon Panetta is not notified for almost an hour.
This is going nowhere... count on it...
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna really.really bummed at November 10, 2012 12:37 PM (9+ccr)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 12:37 PM (W5c4e)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 04:33 PM (sRus3)
---------------
Next cases will be coming quite soon. It is 2013 yet? Do you know where your Obamacare is?
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:37 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 12:37 PM (1+XRG)
That's a far cry from being the actual agents facilitating emigration from their homeland.
In countries where Christians are subject to wholsale slaughter by muslim militas they do
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:38 PM (AW9md)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 12:38 PM (W5c4e)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 04:33 PM (sRus3)
--------------------------------------
Get used to it. It's now government policy.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:38 PM (mUr1V)
I know that religious people are going to throw a fit about feeling silenced and not able to show their faith, but you know what? Tough. If you really care about the pro-life issue more than your own sanctimonious self-image, then pay attention to what works politically and what doesn't, and use that to move the ball down the field for the unborn. Anything else is gratuitous, unproductive martyrdom. there is a time and a place for religious activism, and that time and place in this country is not the political arena. So if you want to be an activist, don't run for office because you will damage your cause. Or rather, they will find a way to make you damage it regardless of all the caution you take.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:38 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:39 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Queequeg the Harpooner at November 10, 2012 12:39 PM (p4U6S)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 04:38 PM (W5c4e)
--------------
They're already here. The United States is now regarded as a mission field by various international congregations.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:40 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 12:41 PM (W5c4e)
Tax every part of human life, tax it to the hilt. Your lot more than X% of the size of the house? Taxed. Square feet of the house a percentage more than the number of family living there? Taxed. More than the total number of people living there? Taxed.
Whee! This is fun!
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 10, 2012 12:41 PM (gmoEG)
--
If you're referring to me, then you have absolutely no clue.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:41 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: Nate at November 10, 2012 12:41 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 12:42 PM (jucos)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 12:42 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 04:35 PM (2rMmy)
Cripes, no kidding. I don't actually trust the "noble" motive in most cases. To me, it's like "low information" helping and the most noble result is allowing them to feel all good about themselves. Somalia is a lot like stupid, it can't be fixed, and certainly not from New Hampshire.
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:43 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 12:43 PM (W5c4e)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:43 PM (2rMmy)
People keep saying this. It may be the single stupidest reason I've heard for anyone not to vote for Romney against Obama.
Romney said again and again and again and again and again that he would repeal Obamacare. But these so-called members of the "base," who cared SO MUCH about Obamacare, didn't find Romney "believable"--
So instead, they sat home (or voted 3rd party) and allowed Obama win-- i.e. the 100% absolute PROMISE and CERTAINTY that Obamacare would be FOREVER the law of the land, that's what they went for?
Ugh, ugh, ugh.
I'm so angry at the supposedly, self-described "conservative" non-voters.
Posted by: lael at November 10, 2012 12:44 PM (tUcg9)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 04:39 PM (2rMmy)
----------
Missouri Synod is pretty strict too, but they are hippie swinger hedonist libertarians compared to the Wisconsin Synod.
Son was in the Wisconsin Synod for a couple of years but when he decided he wanted to be a military chaplain he had to switch over to Missouri Synod because Wisconsin Synod won't allow their ministers to be commissioned for the Armed Forces because, you guessed it, GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENTS!
Speaking as an evangelical on the outside of their church looking in, I think they just might have the right idea afterall.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:44 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 12:44 PM (jucos)
Libertarians like me support & vote GOP simply because they are the only ones with a chance in hell of beating the tax and spend idiocy of progressive liberals.
Did the far right really hijack the Tea Party? Or did the left misrepresent it like the masters of propaganda and powerful tools of the extreme left they have become?
Posted by: Alex Keaton at November 10, 2012 12:44 PM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 12:45 PM (1+XRG)
LetÂ’s just pretend that the voter results were reversed in the swing
states last Tuesday and Romney got those 314,000 votes that made the crucial difference. What would the Dems be saying?
1) TheyÂ’d surely call Americans racist, right off the bat
2) TheyÂ’d probably say that greed won or something like that
3) TheyÂ’d probably say something about defense contractors
4) TheyÂ’d probably say something about cheating
5) TheyÂ’d probably say something we used scare tactics
6) Definitely Benghazi would be all the rage
7) Maybe they'd claima Sandy backlash type thing
Feel free to add
What would we be saying?
1) No doubt that the Dem policies and platform were rejected
2) That theyÂ’re sore losers
3) That weÂ’re sick of the race card
4) That theyÂ’re just mad they didnÂ’t cheat enough or we were better
5) We simply had a superior candidate
6) Our message was an American message
7) Our ground game was better
Probably something relative to energy resources coal/gas
9) Their identity politics was their undoing
Feel free to add.
Posted by: angienc at November 10, 2012 12:45 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: cheshirecat at November 10, 2012 12:45 PM (6bNif)
My new strategy?
Change the R to a D on my voter registration.
I can get away with whatever I want then, because that means I care about others.
Seriously, infiltrate them at the grassroots level.
Posted by: GT 5.0 at November 10, 2012 12:46 PM (wb/qi)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 10, 2012 12:46 PM (6JMZR)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 12:46 PM (W5c4e)
Again, right idea.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:47 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: longtime republican, definitely not an Obama supporter at November 10, 2012 12:47 PM (jUytm)
--
Yes, I know. that's what I'm saying. But I'm also saying that in the currently cultural climate that is beyond our control, we need to minimize the potential for gaffes. And that means not having people out and about testifying like Akin or Santorum or Bachman. Look at Romney, he's clearly a religious man; same with Bush. But they didn't have the kind of revival preacher flare of those others, which is actually more akin to people like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
And I'[m not saying religious candidates should have to hide their faith. Rather, it's a matter of tone and presentation. If your argument is that religious people shouldn't have to worry about that, well, then all you're saying is that you're special and everyone has to treat you that way. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. I wish it did, but no. Look at Obama and how much he's had to conceal to get where he is. And if you think putting on sackcloth and covering yourself with ashes in public when the media misinterprets you as a candidate is going to do one iota of good for the pro-life cause, then you're delusional.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:47 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: dogfish at November 10, 2012 12:47 PM (N2yhW)
Posted by: lael at November 10, 2012 04:44 PM (tUcg9)
I don't think this can be said too often or too loudly.
Posted by: Peaches at November 10, 2012 12:48 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:48 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 12:49 PM (NzBQO)
Just saying to check fire a little bit. Establishment? Yes. Country Club? Um, no.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 10, 2012 12:49 PM (gmoEG)
Democrats would be too busy burning and looting their own cities if obama had lost to say much of anything
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:49 PM (AW9md)
Why hello there ya stupid breeder! Send your kids to us because we're running out of recruits!
Posted by: Public Schools at November 10, 2012 12:50 PM (uhAkr)
------------
What other surgical procedure can a minor child have without parental consent?
None.
What makes abortion so special? God in heaven, it's like a sacrament to them.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:50 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 10, 2012 12:50 PM (fCMdQ)
181Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 03:33 PM (H8YE0)
Yes. Exactly right. The icons are burned into their minds.
We are Sauron.
They are Gandalf.
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 03:49 PM (sRus3)
We are Voldemort.
They are Harry Potter.
Posted by: Average Jen at November 10, 2012 12:50 PM (bGg6O)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:50 PM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Queequeg the Harpooner at November 10, 2012 12:51 PM (p4U6S)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 04:49 PM (NzBQO)"
80% of the public believes in God. The Democrats boo His name.
Maybe we should exploit that fact, not enter into a gentlemanly agreement with the Democrats not to bring it up.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 10, 2012 12:51 PM (uhAkr)
Take it away dems isn't necessary. The issues the GOP should seriously consider dropping are not issues that require no further discussion. They don't own any issue, they have just been supportive of freedom regarding them for so long that they are now dictating that everyone pays for them as if they are basic human rights that Santa Claus pays for.
Fine, do it. Do just about whatever you fucking want. Just don't make other people pay for it.
Isn't banning a 32 oz big gulp an entirely liberal endeavor? Fucking ridiculous. Beat them with freedom while championing frugality, wisdom and choice on the personal and federal levels.
Posted by: nuance i noticed at November 10, 2012 12:52 PM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 12:52 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 12:52 PM (2rMmy)
If we went all in on abortion the democrats would say the change of heart was an evil plan to kill off the future brown and black voters
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:52 PM (AW9md)
--
THIS!!!11!!
And for crying out loud, know what the traps are. It's blindingly obvious these days what the traps are. And it's very, very easy to speak seriously and earnestly about teh importance of your faith without falling into the cultural stereotypes that are set for us. And if you do manage to accidently stumble into one, for the love of all that's holy, don't double down like Akin.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 04:50 PM (2rMmy)
------------
In Wisconsin there is no registration by party. But I'm pretty sure my 14 purchases at the, umm, "hobby shop" put me on the Obama list.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Margaret Sanger at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (jucos)
Posted by: I think I'll say what I'm thinking and maybe it'll make some sense at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (W5c4e)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 12:53 PM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Queequeg the Harpooner at November 10, 2012 12:54 PM (p4U6S)
If we went all in on abortion the democrats would say the change of heart was an evil plan to kill off the future brown and black voters
--
...it's sad, but true.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:54 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 12:55 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: cheshirecat at November 10, 2012 04:45 PM (6bNif)
------------------------------------------
Perhaps we (and conservative polititions) should cut the PC shit and actually start saying that.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:55 PM (mUr1V)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 10, 2012 04:52 PM (2rMmy)
-----------
Who is liable if something goes wrong? Who is in charge of follow-up care? Who takes care of the young girl if she has complications? The state? Does the state come in the middle of the night if she starts hemorraghing? Does the state pay for the funeral if she dies from a botch job?
My God.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 12:56 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 12:56 PM (YUttk)
What makes abortion so special? God in heaven, it's like a sacrament to them.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 04:50 PM (P6QsQ)
Margret Sanger is the patron saint and ugenics is the unholy cause,it is a sacrament to them
Posted by: kj at November 10, 2012 12:56 PM (AW9md)
In other words, if you want to run as a pro-life candidate, you have to be wise about how you present yourself and your religion in public.
____
It's pretty clear that Akin and Mourdock both expressed deeply held beliefs and wanted to stay consistent with their faith's teachings. Pro-life candidates are just going to have to learn how to stay true to those beliefs while giving themselves some wiggle room, you know like the Founders believed all men were created equal but still some of them owned slaves?
Nothing's ever black and white, there's always 50 shades of grey... at least.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 12:57 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Mallamutt. RINO President for Life at November 10, 2012 04:54 PM (OWjjx)
---------------------------------
Biden/Greene 2016!
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 12:58 PM (mUr1V)
Posted by: Margaret Sanger at November 10, 2012 12:58 PM (jucos)
1. Separate federal policy from state/local policy. The abortion issue should not even be on the agenda at the FEDERAL level.
America has different culture in different areas. Oklahoma is different than Oregon and Connecticut is different than Kansas. Candidates should be able to have positions on state issues that differ, particularly if they come from different regions of the country where local culture differs but they should have common ground on federal policy. The federal policy should be about strong national defense, economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and allowing states to address their unique sets of problems with their unique array of resources.
2. Come to an agreement on what that common ground federal policy is and make it such that Republican candidates can adopt it without compromising their personal values.
That doesn't mean the party gives up on those issues, it just means the fight is taken to the state level and not done at the federal level. One of the problems in US politics today is that we do vary so much culturally from one area to the next. Voters in more liberal areas might feel their ability to express their local culture in their local laws is compromised by a very conservative candidate in DC. Conservatives, likewise, might feel their values are at risk from a more moderate candidate at the federal level. We don't have to live that way. I also believe that this approach will also appeal across party lines. A Democrat might look at a Republican presidential candidate who clearly has the better idea for the problems currently facing the country and feel less threatened in voting for that candidate if it was clear that this candidate is not about shoving cultural values down people's throats from Washington DC.
This then casts the Democrats as the party trying to shove their values down people's throats and makes them less attractive to many voters and it takes the Republicans out of that game at the federal level. It basically changes the entire game.
It might look something like this:
Abortion: States should have the right to set their own abortion policy that reflects the desires of the voters of that state.
Climate Change: As soon as someone comes up with some real evidence of it that doesn't rely on a computer model, we can talk about that.
Gun Control: The federal government should not make any laws that interfere with the second amendment rights of Americans. If individual states want to set policy that the citizens of those states want, they are free to do so within the boundaries of the US Constitution.
Illegal Immigration: There is no point in having immigration laws if they are not going to be followed. The first priority should be in gaining control of the borders. Second priority should be in deciding on what to do with people who are already here. Frankly, rounding up millions of people and deporting them is not an option within our law. Each one is entitled to a hearing before deportation. It would tie up courts for decades giving these people their hearing under the law. We need to find a way to allow hard working people in good standing with their community to stay. Those are actually the sort of people we want in this country. People with exceptional skills such as advanced degrees, people who have served in our armed forces, or people with other exceptional talents or leadership qualities should be given a path to become citizens. Basically those people have shown through their life experience that they are an asset to our country. Others should be allowed to work here legally as long as they remain out of trouble. Criminals should be deported. Those who are not working and simply subsisting off the public welfare system should be deported. One must be a citizen in order to obtain any benefits in excess of 12 months over a 5 year period. This provides a safety net for an unforeseen circumstance but prevents chronic use of the benefit system.
We need to end the process of one immigrant being the anchor used to pull entire extended families into the country. Sorry, no parents, grand parents, cousins, uncles, siblings, etc.
Taxes / Spending: Fiscal responsibility and respect for the taxpayer should be paramount. Economic growth should be our guidepost. Many of our welfare programs could be shifted more efficiently to the states for administration. End many of the federal programs with their duplications of effort. Taxes should be kept to the minimum required to perform the requirements of the federal government and should not be used for social engineering.
Voter ID: Should be mandatory for elections to federal office. States can make their own decisions for state/local elections not involving candidates to federal office.
Posted by: crosspatch at November 10, 2012 12:58 PM (ZbLJZ)
Actually, we should all change our registrations so we can pick the lousiest Presidential candidate for the Donks in 2016.
Mallamutt. RINO President for Life at November 10, 2012 04:54 PM (OWjjx)
CA went with open primary, so you don't have to change party to screw with the opposition.
Posted by: GT 5.0 at November 10, 2012 12:58 PM (wb/qi)
Posted by: crosspatch at November 10, 2012 12:59 PM (ZbLJZ)
--
Sorry if it's coming off so one-sided, but it was in response to that particular issue. I think there's a lot of blame to place at everyone's feet, not just social cons. But someone was saying social cons need to leave the party because they're causing it problems, and I was making a case for how one might oppose the social con position while not saying they have no place in the party.
With turnout as low as it was, all factions do need to be "disciplined", but I think that's more a failure of party leadership than of any single faction. And the people we have in charge are not the sort to discinpline anyone.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 12:59 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 12:59 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:00 PM (1+XRG)
True. It's all good until it isn't. I fear there are a lot of low information voters that are going to find out the hard way what a mistake they've made.
That's why Republicans need to be hands off the coming session. Vote present. Let dems have all they want - otherwise the low information voters will once again blame republicans.
Posted by: chris at November 10, 2012 01:00 PM (VT/WG)
Posted by: derit at November 10, 2012 01:01 PM (I88Jc)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 01:01 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Armando on the Armandophone at November 10, 2012 01:02 PM (hWrN/)
Abortion is a terrible thing to compromise on and to vote for anyone who approves of it is shameful.
There, I said it.
Unconscionable
Posted by: gw mclintock at November 10, 2012 01:02 PM (agud7)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 10, 2012 01:03 PM (gmoEG)
Let's get real. No republican for foreseeable future is going to win the presidency. Doesn't matter who you put up.
Posted by: chris at November 10, 2012 01:03 PM (VT/WG)
Posted by: GT 5.0 at November 10, 2012 04:58 PM (wb/qi)
I think this could be used in our favor, I was seriously thinking about signing up and running as a liberal democrat in our local district. Make a fake website, don't bother showing up to debates.Waste about $1000 at Kinko's and see what happens.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 01:03 PM (NzBQO)
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 01:04 PM (neP+W)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 01:04 PM (sRus3)
Sheer beauty.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 10, 2012 01:06 PM (gmoEG)
My God.
==============================
Not to mention the psychological problem that are sure to happen...
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 01:06 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: chris at November 10, 2012 01:06 PM (VT/WG)
I would have liked to have the chance to be proven wrong. On the other hand, I wasn't one of those "crawl over broken glass" people.
Ugh.
Rationalize all you want.
You're "sneaking suspicion" that Romney wouldn't be 100% up to your standards of perfection (or manage to repeal every last bit of Obamacare) was your reason not vote for OUR ONLY CHANCE, EVEN IF IT WASN'T A 100% GUARANTEE, STILL OUR ONLY AND LAST CHANCE to repeal Obamacare, before it's entrenched PERMANENTLY?
You, and non-voters like you: it's in large part directly because of you that we're now definitively, permanently stuck with Obamacare. In its monstrous entirety. No "sneaking suspicion": cold hard 100% fact.
Thanks!
You know, I thought by the end of the campaign that nobody took the Hot Air ABR trolls seriously. That everyone knew they were mobys, or angry Ronulans, or loons. That genuine conservatives knew what was at stake in this election.
I didn't think so many ACTUAL conservatives, or people who really think of themselves as conservatives, would follow the Hot Air trolls' lead.
Posted by: lael at November 10, 2012 01:07 PM (tUcg9)
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 01:08 PM (neP+W)
Posted by: GT 5.0 can rent you a pantie unbuncher at November 10, 2012 01:09 PM (wb/qi)
What? You ran naked? Over the ground? An earth-wear excise tax!
Existence tax (I am talking to you, Ms. Frisky the Squirrel).
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 10, 2012 01:09 PM (gmoEG)
I voted for voter ID. The Dems are going to find a way to cheat anyway. But I also repsect those that voted for Climate change. Even though everybody knows its a fraud.....whatever. Add 20% to our energy costs. Its chump change money in the big picture.
But for those that are prolife to give up on the life issue completely? Wow.
Posted by: ABR at November 10, 2012 01:09 PM (ZMY7Y)
Posted by: Jack J at November 10, 2012 01:09 PM (neP+W)
Indeed. That liberal bitch just barely lost to him, so I expect him to have a really tough time getting elected. Florida seems to be turning into a blue state because of demographics.
Posted by: chris at November 10, 2012 01:10 PM (VT/WG)
--
..and this comes first and foremost with the recognition that political office is not religious office. If you were a pastor of a church or bishop of a diocese and people were telling you to be shrewd and play realpolitik, then yes, that would be an abnegation of your faith and your duty to proclaim religious truth and pursue religious policy from your office and call it by its name loudly and clearly, ie., witness to your faith by virtue of your office.
But the problem with people like Akin is that they seem to think that there is an equivalent obligation to witness to faith in the same manner regardless of what kind of office one holds. There isn't, and the main reason is that political office is non-religiously representative. Now, that doesn't mean you "can't be religious" or have to "hide your faith and not talk about it". Quite the contrary; it's incumbent upon our representatives to be people of character who are honest about their beliefs, and I know very many religious people who do are just that. All I'm saying is that if you step back and humbly see that you're the kind of person who can't control his tongue and makes awkward alienating statements, albeit inadvertently, then maybe it's not prudent to try to be the standardbearer for your cause because you might do more damage than good.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 01:10 PM (XSzMx)
Posted by: Queequeg the Harpooner at November 10, 2012 01:10 PM (p4U6S)
I love it when folks tell me that to be really pro-life I should adopt the unwanted. Hilarious really because they have no CLUE about me or my family. I'm one of 28 kids. I wasn't adopted but 17 of us were--and not the easy ones with the blonde hair and blue eyes but the blind and the lame and the deaf. Not one of my siblings deserved to be discarded or tossed aside. And my parents did their part. I'm pro-life and I've earned the right to shove that arrogant and condescending POV you just tossed off into the crap that spewed it.
My neighbor down the street had 4 kids and adopted one and then, a couple of years later, was called on the phone from the hospital and asked if she would like to pick up her son's little sister who had just been born. She had 45 minutes notice before she had to decide if having a 6th child (and one with every kind of drug in her system at birth), newly abandoned by her prostitute mother and pimp father, should come to her home. And she'd do it again if need be.
So I get that everyone is not pro-life. But don't be such an ass about people who are. They aren't cartoons.
Posted by: Beanerschnitzel at November 10, 2012 01:10 PM (8d63Z)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 10, 2012 03:19 PM (vUK/h)
Rush shouldn't have said that he hopes Obama's policies fail back in '08. He wasn't clearly stating that he hoped he would fail to get his policies through. He should have said that he knows they will fail.
That is the major difference between the parties, isn't it?
If the GOP advocates individual freedom, they should examine what that means and really champion it. Show America how liberals and their agenda stifle freedom and present that as the choice.
Posted by: nuance i noticed at November 10, 2012 01:11 PM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:12 PM (1+XRG)
Does the state come in the middle of the night
if she starts hemorraghing? Does the state pay for the funeral if she
dies from a botch job?
___
None of the women who were mutilated by Kermit Gosnell got help from the state, in fact, PA DPW protected him. And then of course, the woman who came up from MD or DC was killed by his staff. No one took any action until the Feds raided his clinic on a prescription drug peddling charge.
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 01:13 PM (jm/9g)
No person should be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.
Until a charge of criminal conduct can be lodged against the baby, the baby is appointed an attorney, the baby is allowed to face its accusers, and the baby is found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death by a jury, the baby cannot be denied the right to life.
Also, the slavery argument. What we have here is akin to slavery in that one person is allowed to hold another person as property, and to dispose of said property as they see fit.
If people are not property, then they have rights. If people are still property, then we never outlawed slavery.
And if they are not property, why are wrongful death suits and murder charges brought against someone who kills a pregnant woman and her unborn child, on behalf of the child?
Either the child is a person in these situations or it is not. It is not dependent on what how the "property owner" (i.e. pregnant woman) wishes to view it.
If I want you, you are granted personhood but if I don't want you, you are considered property? That's not logical.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 01:13 PM (P6QsQ)
Drop abortion as a crucial issue. It scares off single women voters in droves, especially those who support criminalizing an abortion of a women who was raped. That sounds fucking insane...because it is fucking insane.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 10, 2012 01:15 PM (8cOY0)
Math is hard!
Posted by: Gerry at November 10, 2012 01:18 PM (+lJ43)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:19 PM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2012 01:20 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 05:19 PM (1+XRG)
__
In colonial America, weren't there a lot of "accidental" baby-squishings, when the parents rolled over their newborns in bed?
Posted by: kallisto at November 10, 2012 01:20 PM (jm/9g)
I surprised myself and put "Voter ID".
The thing is, if the elections are fixed, everything else is lost anyway.
Granted, Voter ID isn't a complete fix for that, but it might help, and it's a start. If you don't have integrity in your voting system, you don't have a democracy.
I'd probably go with gun control 2nd, because it's a basic right, and the next check on government tyranny. I've never even owned a gun.
Taxes and spending 3rd. If you don't have an economy, you're in trouble.
Cliamte Change? Seriously? I remember seeing Sarah Palin, who seemed unusual in thinking it was hokum, back-pedaling on that in '08, because it was unpopular. Does the party really even have an official stand on that?
Posted by: Optimizer at November 10, 2012 01:22 PM (Mxt9o)
I can understand a grudging vote for Romney (though I was one of the crawl-over-broken-glass people).
But I find it very hard to forgive the non-voters. And worse, those who encouraged others not to vote. There were quite a few of those voices on conservative blogs, most of whom I considered trolls. Who knows how many they actually influenced. They provided a rationalization/ excuse to stay home for those who would have only voted for Romney grudgingly.
Those grudging votes are IMO among the most important, and (contrary to many concern trolls' contention) among the most principled. Yes, moral and principled. Overcoming your dislike or disinclination toward a candidate, to vote for the good of your country, for the love of your country (not for the love of the candidate himself).
Posted by: lael at November 10, 2012 01:22 PM (tUcg9)
Just sayin...
Posted by: Semi-New Moron. at November 10, 2012 01:24 PM (mkb9H)
Posted by: LB at November 10, 2012 01:25 PM (CSLof)
486
I don't know what polls you are looking at. In any case, it needs to be seriously deemphasized as an important issue. The GOP should be neutral on it.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 10, 2012 01:26 PM (8cOY0)
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2012 01:27 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at November 10, 2012 01:28 PM (dqNUA)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 01:29 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:30 PM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Nate at November 10, 2012 01:31 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:32 PM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Nate at November 10, 2012 01:33 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:34 PM (1+XRG)
Also, I think we should be for easy green card access for immigrants who can demonstrate that they can take care of themselves and aren't violent criminals.
Additionally, I think we can push our own version of the dream act that is more consistent with our values. I have no problem granting citizenship to a person who was brought here as a kid if they go to college, serve in the military, etc. I want that kind of young person being an American; however, our age limit should be far more realistic than what Obama wants. Something like being able to demonstrate you'e been here since you were five? I think a K - 12 record could prove that. I'm not 100% sure on how to enforce that, but it's a start for a discussion. Isn't Obama's plan that you can become if a citizen if your parents brought you to the US before you were 22? lol
But, I don't think these kind of tweaks are pandering. I think they are intellectually consistent positions based on conservative values.
Posted by: LB at November 10, 2012 01:38 PM (CSLof)
But the elephant in the room is, why did it boil down to this?
I would have preferred winning this one and seeing things slow down (the destruction of the country). But more than that I would have thought we would have seen a landslide our way. Since we didn't, it means we've tipped. And we may as well let the GOP destroy itself now and the Left with it. In doing so, the 50% will learn a valuable lesson that we will need to rebuild a truly right-centric coalition.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 01:38 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: Heinrich H. at November 10, 2012 01:39 PM (+VMZ0)
But yes, it's not voting in swing states, specifically, that is truly inexcusable.
Posted by: lael at November 10, 2012 01:40 PM (tUcg9)
Posted by: SFGoth at November 10, 2012 01:40 PM (spwZ/)
Right, but they ALSO got rid of the notion of party on the November ballot. The top two candidates in the primaries get on the ballot regardless of party. So if you go to the Dem side and cast on a weak candidate and they win that primary, you end up getting the top two Democrats on the November ballot and no Republican candidate.
In California you do not have the top R and top D candidate on the November ballot. You get the top two vote getting candidates regardless of party.
Posted by: crosspatch at November 10, 2012 01:41 PM (ZbLJZ)
Posted by: biancaneve at November 10, 2012 01:44 PM (6bYlh)
Posted by: Burke at November 10, 2012 01:47 PM (CrqI6)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 05:03 PM (NzBQO)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bait and switch. I like it.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 01:49 PM (jn1Vy)
What it comes down to, is our message should always be about the role of government and our economy. Republican policy should be we will work with you to avoid sequestration and we will raise the debt ceiling, but beyond that we will only vote for tax increases after, and ONLY AFTER, cuts. Period. Start with defense, police state bullshit, tax breaks for Hollywood (lol), federal state, and municipal government bureausthat shouldnÂ’t exist, etc., and if after truly cutting government waste we still need to raise taxes, then weÂ’ll do it. ThatÂ’s how we win. We won't have to rasie taxes and we'll be able to juxtapose our effective, reasonable policies with those of democrats who have never seen a problem that government can't solve.
Of course, this neds to apply to our candidates, as well.
Posted by: LB at November 10, 2012 01:49 PM (CSLof)
You're talking about Santa Claus. You will not be able to tarnish his image. He will have to do that himself by not showing up for the little children. The only way it will happen, now.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 01:50 PM (MmH0Z)
2012 will be seen in retrospect as a watershed moment.
Where people who oppose abortion ended up, due to their utter political incompetence, helping to permanently and irremovably enshrine abortion.
Note that I said, "helping to". Vote fraud also helped. Class envy also helped.
But it is not possible to get away from the proposition that socons with bad messaging on abortion were one of the Top Three reasons for the 2012 disaster.
And now that central article of faith for socons, _Roe_ repeal, is forever out of reach. Brilliant job there.
Socons can still run and win. The GOP doesn't have to go start waving scalpels and suction tools and promising abortions for all. But the MESSAGING has to be changed. And then the new message discipline has to be rigorously enforced, with immediate consequences for any future Akins.
But, even if that leads to eventual victories in '14 and '16, don't expect any abortion rollbacks to result. That's the takeaway lesson from '12. Certain socons picked that hill, and the cause died on that hill.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 01:51 PM (ymG7s)
OBAMANESIA won in every state that does not have Voter ID
That is the only issue
Till that is fixed the screws are put to the electorate
The "FIX" was in Big Time in several places this election all in "da cities"
Fix it, or we fail at everything,
If the trust in the actual vote is lost then civility (civilization) is lost and actual revolution is the only solution
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 10, 2012 01:51 PM (Zz48T)
Posted by: Ace's liver at November 10, 2012 01:52 PM (1+XRG)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 01:53 PM (MmH0Z)
1) Abolish INS
2) Spend it All Spend Spend
3) Anyone can marry anything
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 01:55 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: 1984 in real life at November 10, 2012 01:55 PM (tyOgt)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 10, 2012 05:03 PM (NzBQO)
------------------------------------------
If the dems are going to have a permanent majority, sans burning, then how about we get a conservative repub governor at the end of his term to declare (by design) that he's seen the light and will become a dem. Let him run on liberal policy, then when he wins, governs constitutionally.
We can do this.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 01:55 PM (jn1Vy)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 01:56 PM (MmH0Z)
I live in WA. I think this is exactly how the Dems do it here. You're an absolute shoe-in here with that 'D' behind your name. I guess we're not unique, come to think of it...
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 01:58 PM (MmH0Z)
LIVs don't know what the fuck Goldman Sachs is. I guarantee you this.
And Goldman is a firm of schemers of no particular allegiance. The vampire squid will affectionately wrap its tentacles round anyone who will advance its interests.
Romney was the largest recipient of Goldman money this cycle.
It was clear that William Dudley of the New York Fed was shortlisted to run Treasury in a Romney administration. Dudley is a former Goldman squid.
(Since having former Goldman squid Hank Paulson appointed to Treasury by Bush worked out just _so_ well for conservatism. TARP, anyone?)
One thing Romney missed an opportunity to do this year was to run against Wall Street. You can't do that when you take Goldman money. If Romney had foresworn dirty money from the squid, and made a point of it, and made a point of Obama receiving the squid pro quo, it might have helped inoculate Romney against wealthy-elitist charges.
But at the end of the day Romney WAS a wealthy elitist. ("Some of my best friends own NASCAR teams," anyone? Car elevator, anyone? Horse farm?)
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 02:00 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 05:58 PM (MmH0Z)
------------------------------------------------
Maybe that's what we need to do to stabilize politics. Conservatives need to start introducing hordes of dark horses onto the campaign scene.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 02:02 PM (jn1Vy)
All this talk of 'messaging' in light of who we're up against is ridiculous.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:02 PM (MmH0Z)
Just the idea makes me realize the Republican party, as willing participants (oh, but only so we could win elections and DOOOOO something) in the genocide. (what would the murder of multi-ethnic/racial babies be termed as? I know genocide isn't it)
natalcide?
Posted by: Jcw46 at November 10, 2012 02:02 PM (SP4jC)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:04 PM (sRus3)
natalcide?
Posted by: Jcw46
They go to Heaven and I have more money to spend on things that make me happy. Win-Win
Posted by: SFGoth at November 10, 2012 02:04 PM (spwZ/)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 02:05 PM (XDC0v)
Free Shit Army and julia have made it clear for the US to have them sit out and have any chance at sanity requires:
Anyone can marry anything they want, free pogo pills for my gini, and baby butchery.
I don't know what the fuck to do.
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:05 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: nip at November 10, 2012 02:05 PM (11Tdq)
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 06:00 PM (ymG7s)
-------------------------------------------
So I see you've bought into the OWS attitude of class warfare too.
Posted by: Comrade Soona at November 10, 2012 02:05 PM (jn1Vy)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:05 PM (sRus3)
We need to stop playing THEIR game.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:05 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: sdavis at November 10, 2012 02:07 PM (njVMI)
Considering Hitler implemented the Final Solution in 1941 and it ended in 1945, I think Hitler had a higher on-base %.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 10, 2012 02:07 PM (spwZ/)
Nope and that is why we run Project wideawake 2013 or we're done.
Chris Matthews has too many teeth.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:07 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:09 PM (sRus3)
I'm through playing this game. I think that's another reason we had so many not vote Tuesday. They said fuck it.
If this same scenario starts playing out yet again, our turnout will drop again.
LIB
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:09 PM (MmH0Z)
Sorry, I'm all out of empathy for these people. The abortion thing is a win/win for us. The people having abortions aren't conservatives, they're communist baby factories. It's us versus them now, and we need to start using this "demographics change" against them. From now on I will encourage every dumbass "vaginal issues voter" I see to abort away as many future liberals as possible.
Sound harsh? Not really when you consider that these people are actively trying to destroy America.
Posted by: 1984 in real life at November 10, 2012 02:10 PM (tyOgt)
In most cases, if you want to get into politics these days you do so as a Democrat, because there are so few routes to office for a Republican.
Posted by: JEM at November 10, 2012 02:12 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:13 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 02:14 PM (YUttk)
"So I see you've bought into the OWS attitude of class warfare too."
If I had, I would not have voted for Romney. I did vote for Romney.
Romney's conspicuous consumption, and off the cuff remarks that made it clear he lives in an insulated world of super wealth, opened him up to class warfare attacks. Like a boxer sticking out his chin.
And those attacks work. The Obama messaging successfully turned off a lot of upper Midwest working class whites to Romney, by saying in effect,
"The only thing this guy has in common with you is his skin color and nothing else. Do you have a car elevator? He does. Do your friends own NASCAR teams? His friends do. Does your wife practice dressage on the family horse farm? His wife does. How did he get this rich? He closed factories where people like you work."
Meanwhile, Romney's messaging tack was about "job creation", a message largely nullified by the class warfare gambit. Trust me, working class whites have heard a lot of chin music about "job creation" in the last few years while watching their own actual job opportunities vanish.
When Reagan made money, he bought a small modest ranch in the hills, with no luxury or glitz, and he went out there and physically cleared brush in the hot sun. Romney's money bought palatial beach houses and car elevators. Compare and contrast. Reagan won. Romney lost.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 02:14 PM (ymG7s)
Time to start nuking the media. Follow them with PIs go through their garbage, use investigative techniques, break a few laws getting financial and health data like they're fond of everything up to the edge of violence to destroy, blackmail, or shred the credibility of said journalists.
breitbart with a ballbat.
Fuck them, 'til then let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:15 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:17 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 02:18 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: Butters at November 10, 2012 02:18 PM (NIZHJ)
Anyway, all that anger has come back. And I really don't blame the people who sat it out, since I was there at one point too.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:19 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: Butters at November 10, 2012 06:18 PM (NIZHJ)
It's the only thing the GOP does successfully.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:21 PM (MmH0Z)
Agreed. I really grew to like Mitt, even donated money to him. Looking back, I think if Perry hadn't made an idiot of himself in those debates, we'd be laughing at liberals "Jesusland" maps all over their blogs right now.
Posted by: 1984 in real life at November 10, 2012 02:24 PM (tyOgt)
Posted by: Butters at November 10, 2012 02:24 PM (NIZHJ)
Except he won many, many GOP primaries. You can excuse or dismiss the ones after "inevitability" set it, but the man *won* our primaries. I supported him throughout, and even though the other candidates wouldn't have appealed as much to me, I would have voted for them too. Because they ALL- WOULD- HAVE- BEEN- BETTER- THAN- OBAMA.
Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 10, 2012 02:25 PM (fXInK)
Even RR couldn't stop the Leviathan.
A good book in case you haven't seen it, is "Never Enough". Like a horror story, for conservatives. But really explains what we're up against.
So I think we should let things carry through to their logical conclusion now. Get it over with.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:29 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:30 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 02:30 PM (YUttk)
I get to live in Commiefornia, where not only doesn't my vote count for shit in general elections, it never counts for anything in GOP Presidential primaries, because states east of here have already selected a winner.
And those states' primary voters are doing SUCH a good job of that, too.
When was the last time that system produced a Republican who won by a wide margin?
1988.
Every Presidential election since then, the GOP nominee has either lost, or won only in a terrifyingly close photo finish.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 02:30 PM (ymG7s)
The quickest way to lose my vote is to support gun control.
I can think of a lot of adjectives to apply to somebody who'd tell a woman that it's better that she be beaten, raped and murdered than to shoot the guy trying to do those things to her, misogynist, Islamist, degenerate maybe, but "liberal" isn't one of them.
I'm not giving up any guns, nor registering them, so any of that stuff is probably going to end up with me dead in a gunfight. I'm not voting for anybody who'd turn the next crop of Lon Horiuchis on the world.
Posted by: Deanimator at November 10, 2012 02:31 PM (2YnwF)
Spend-spend-spend. And sleep like a baby.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:32 PM (MmH0Z)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 10, 2012 02:36 PM (MmH0Z)
I don't take advice from people who think what's coming is just the same as a Romney run would have been.
You won, let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:37 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 02:37 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:37 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: Fritz at November 10, 2012 02:39 PM (0yCoM)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:39 PM (sRus3)
Who the fuck do you think is still playing the game scooter?
Fuck it let it burn.
I am not letting you pick the magic pony super secret agent candidate or undermining the total process.
Fuck you let it burn you voted for it you'll get all of Big Stick in the 4th point of contact.
I told Boehner anything but the bill of rights let Barry have it Mr. Speaker.
All in baby.
You won let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:41 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 02:42 PM (jucos)
hey I'm sure since we've removed barry and all in this fantasy that we'll use the mind control device Boehner used on harry Reid to change the GOP....
fellas he won and Harry is his shield.
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:44 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:44 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: 1984 in real life at November 10, 2012 02:44 PM (tyOgt)
I truly believe the people answering this poll are Republicans.
And if the majority of Republicans answering this poll are willing to throw abortion under the bus, that speaks volumes to me -- and not in a good way.
This election convinced me that God has given up on this country. Seeing what I'm seeing in this poll, I really understand why.
I'm done with politics. Both parties can rot in Hell for all I care from now on.
Posted by: Dirk The Imapailer at November 10, 2012 02:45 PM (VXT9J)
I wouldn't "fold" on any - but i checked 'abortion' simply because it is making our candidates stoopid (more stupid than they are) and spawning more side issues for us to lose votes over. None of the idiots who are spouting off on "rape/life" have any clue on what to say and what not to. We walk into the traps laid by the media and look foolish and mean.
There is nothing these candidates can do about it - it is a settled law. Why not talk of "protecting live birth babies and opposing partial birth abortions" instead of giving sermons on what they personally believe about rape and God's intention.
Posted by: Saxon at November 10, 2012 02:45 PM (08qQk)
It's only making tard Akin and friends stupid because they refuse to either shut the fuck up and demur or make the opponent own partial birth abortion without kneeing them in the balls.
Project Wideawake b/c my candidate having details on what Candy Crowley slept with means she may shoot straight.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:47 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 02:48 PM (jucos)
Normally I'd say that would be Obama's and the Dem's downfall, but after watching videos of the police confiscating guns in NO after Katrina I think they'd willingly give them up. They might even be able to get away with it with a "Cash for Hanguns/Clunkers" type of program. America is a nation of pussys now.
Posted by: 1984 in real life at November 10, 2012 02:48 PM (tyOgt)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 02:49 PM (YUttk)
Well Tard Akin speaks for God so does Dick Mourdock but Obama thinks he is God...
so there's that.
Let it burn because a totally bankrupt DC has less power to keep me from burning junk mail to not die.
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:50 PM (LRFds)
Yeah you did.
You vote 3d party or don't vote for the person stopping Chicago Jesus you voted for whatever wins.
He won.
You'll get all of it.
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:51 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 06:44 PM (sRus3)
The only two I know of here are Flackjacksomethingorother and boulder hobo.
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 02:52 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 02:52 PM (YUttk)
Oddly they did NOT try to confiscate my guns after Rita.....
why is that?
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:53 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:53 PM (sRus3)
every vote counts towards PV, and genius...
Thanks for the gift giving us barky Choom is a great resume enhancer.
Let it burn and if SMOD comes let it nail downtown Chi-town.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:54 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 02:55 PM (YUttk)
Well, now you know. I live in IL, I didn't cost anyone the election. I was for voting for Romney (especially in Ohio) because Obama is that fucking bad.
But now you know. Maybe in the future you should take that 100% fact into consideration when selecting the nominee, so we don't wind up with this shit again.
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 06:14 PM (YUttk
You're assuming that if another candidate had won the primaries, there wouldn't be just as many trolls (or unhappy Repubicans/ conservatives who supported other candidates) ragging on him/her. I think there would be; they'd just be taking a different tack.
You really think Santorum or Gingrich, with their respective megatons of baggage, could have beat Obama + MSM in this election? I don't. For all the voters they might've gained, they would've lost (or failed to attract) at least as many elsewhere.
I was a Pawlenty, then Perry, then Romney supporter. (Like Ace, except I dropped Perry sooner, when he joined Newt on the anti-Bain crusade).
Pawlenty stupidly dropped out before the fight even began; Perry was killed by his performance in the debates. I don't think anyone else up there had a chance, politically speaking, to win the general election against Obama.
Gingrich would've been fun, in many ways. (And probably would've done better than Santorum; Santorum-through-MSM-filter would've been like having Akin at the top of the ticket). But look how Newt cracked under pressure (e.g. the infamous press conference); he lacked Romney's discipline and focus. For superficial reasons, he would've repelled a lot of people (Romney went a long ways to closing the gender gap with women; Newt would've likely expanded it). The MSM would have dragged him through the mud, through shit.
Hypothetically, Pawlenty and Perry would've done better than Romney. But would they? If one was so lily-livered he dropped out at the first skirmish (Pawlenty), and the other so unprepared-- unpracticed-- for the national stage as Perry appeared to be at the debates, that counterfactual doesn't seem so plausible.
If the explanation for Perry's performance was the back surgery/ pain issues, then that was really bad luck for the nation indeed.
Posted by: lael at November 10, 2012 02:56 PM (tUcg9)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at November 10, 2012 02:58 PM (OY/SZ)
I get tired of Entropy's class warfare bullshit.
If we go that road go full retard and try to peel off the private sector unions from the Public sector unions.
I don't like it but the "MATH!" side of me thinks that may be a play.
Goddamned free shit army.
Fuck it let it burn
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:58 PM (LRFds)
So you want to continue to lose elections then? Brain-dead vag issue voters love them some abortions. This election had the widest gender gap in history, because single women have fallen prey to feminism. The government is their husband now, no need for those evil, angry men in their lives, just have as much consequence free sex as you want!
Let them abort away their little commies, while conservative women continue to raise strong families. Let's win the demographics war by using their own bullshit against them. It's either that, or continue to be torpedoed by the Akins of the world.
Posted by: 1984 in real life at November 10, 2012 02:58 PM (tyOgt)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 02:59 PM (sRus3)
Yup.
Keep your hands off my freedoms like speech and guns and give it ALL to them.
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 02:59 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:00 PM (YUttk)
the only problem is their husband likes to fuck me in the ass too but yeah....
they try to steal our kids at school and import mexico's for a reason team....
burn it all my kid can help rebuild.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 03:01 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Last conservative in IL at November 10, 2012 03:01 PM (+29Ty)
Posted by: Bazookas4eva at November 10, 2012 03:03 PM (rz+tv)
Posted by: nip at November 10, 2012 03:04 PM (11Tdq)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:06 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Patterico at November 10, 2012 03:07 PM (4hYpF)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 03:11 PM (jucos)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 03:16 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: Todd Akin at November 10, 2012 03:16 PM (40anC)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:16 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Scobface, Staying Positive at November 10, 2012 03:17 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 03:19 PM (sRus3)
I guess we've already conceded gay marriage and marijuana.
Posted by: T.J.
You conceded alcohol a long time ago -- are you running to bring back Prohibition? No. So why hang your hat on cannabis? Let the states decide (just as the Constitution provides for alcohol). That'll get you a lot more voters than prohibition.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 10, 2012 03:19 PM (spwZ/)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:21 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: SFGoth at November 10, 2012 03:22 PM (spwZ/)
Posted by: NB_Liberallies at November 10, 2012 03:23 PM (WyCX0)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:27 PM (YUttk)
here's an idea: call your rep
Posted by: soothsayer
My Representative is a Democrat -- who just got reelected with 75% of the vote in the Romney landslide.
Think he'll listen? Maybe if I send along one of the edible fruit arrangements.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 10, 2012 03:27 PM (kdS6q)
Better trolls, please.
Question: how many nonfarm-payroll jobs were there at the end of the month that Obama took the oath of office?
Answer: 133,561,000.
Question: how long did it take for jobs under Obama to surpass this mark?
Answer: 44 months. Nearly his entire term was spent getting back just to where he was when he started.
And, in order for this to happen, several million people had to drop out of the labor force. Where they remain, unemployed and immiserated. With no prospects of returning to employment at any time in the future. Job growth under Obama has been the weakest of any President in history. On average, a typical month under Obama hasn't even had job growth strong enough to keep up with the rate of growth of new entrants to the labor pool.
Lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math.
Obama is popular with people who are bad at math and economics.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 03:27 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: NB_Liberallies at November 10, 2012 03:28 PM (WyCX0)
Posted by: KM at November 10, 2012 03:28 PM (8I6vf)
remember last year when i discussed Sydney Reilley?
Yeah exactly.
Fuck it let it burn and then cut off the head of the snake as it slinks to safety.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 03:29 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: NB_Liberallies at November 10, 2012 03:36 PM (WyCX0)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:38 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Sheila at November 10, 2012 03:39 PM (Okd9I)
Posted by: chris not rock at November 10, 2012 03:41 PM (YLqOu)
Exactly. That is why at the FEDERAL level we need a common philosophy. Abortion and contraception should be state issues, not federal.
Posted by: crosspatch at November 10, 2012 03:44 PM (ZbLJZ)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 03:45 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: Burke at November 10, 2012 03:46 PM (CrqI6)
The 2012 GOP response. You know we really should double down on allowing the wretched into our country, sure it will quicken our descent into a third world shithole, but we might win an election or something.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 10, 2012 03:47 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 03:49 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 03:50 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 03:51 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Palandine at November 10, 2012 03:51 PM (g7D8V)
I am living below the poverty line right now. But suddenly if I make a million dollars I am in the top 1% and they wanna tax me out the wazoo. Completely unfair. Want to tax someone? Tax old money, like the Romney's, the Bush's, the Kennedy's and such, but someone who got in their after long work, hell no.
Gun Control. It is fine for them to coddle criminals as victims in and of themselves. But hey numbnuts, they are criminals with no respect for the law or the rights of others. So when you release the convict with 20 years of crime behind him, how about you hedge your bets and let the people carry guns in case he faked his reform?
Those two things are what I am willing to slice throats over.
Posted by: Holger at November 10, 2012 03:53 PM (MHk3m)
Posted by: nip at November 10, 2012 03:53 PM (11Tdq)
Posted by: Palandine at November 10, 2012 03:54 PM (g7D8V)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 03:54 PM (XDC0v)
I do wonder. Some of these communities have been locked in poverty basically forever. If we doubled spending that actually WENT to them and cut the money embezzled by the political class, we might have enough to balance the budget despite the welfare.
And if we actually used that cash to pursue welfare policies that actually helped them rise instead of fostering dependency and keeping them where they are, those neighborhoods might get better and then we might find some tanner Republicans.
===========
You seriously think the black leaders WANT those people out of poverty? You are delusional. They want them dependent and they've destroyed the black family to keep them that way.
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 03:56 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Little Boomer at November 10, 2012 03:58 PM (f3koQ)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 03:59 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:00 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 04:00 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:01 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (LRFds)
Tax old money, like the Romney's
Posted by: Holger
Holger, you ARE aware that Romney gave all of his "old money" to charity and started out with nothing, right?
Posted by: Palandine
If you're talking about the bequest from his father, he died in 1995 after Mitt was already a millionaire x 100. And Mitt gave that inheritance to BYU, which is like keeping it in the family.
So, started out with nothing is a bit of a reach.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 08:00 PM (YUttk)
It's got everything to do with it. Tell me, who is against school choice and vouchers? What party has removed all responsibility from welfare? What party thrives on grievance?
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 04:03 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Palandine at November 10, 2012 04:04 PM (g7D8V)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:05 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: vics dick at November 10, 2012 04:07 PM (40anC)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:07 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 08:05 PM (YUttk)
Dem teachers unions will not allow it. Did you watch Chicago in early Sept? Who won? Now imagine that statewide. Who wins?
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 04:09 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:10 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:11 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:12 PM (YUttk)
Did you think there was no black people there?
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 08:11 PM (YUttk)
Do you think there are no teacher's unions in those states?
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 04:13 PM (X6akg)
Ok, here's my plan going forward from 11/06/2012
All immigrants here illegally can gain US Citizenship, as long as they did not vote on 11/6/2012
If they did vote illegally, then they and their entire families will be deported by whatever means necessary
If they worked for a "Union" that made them vote, then that Union shall be dissolved immediately and forever-more, and those leaders of the union, from the top members down to the local representativcs shall be deported by whatever means necessary and made non-citizens of the United States.
Those "Unions" shall be forever declared illegal. All other members of said :Unions" will no longer be members.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 10, 2012 04:14 PM (Zz48T)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:16 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Retarded Gay cripple black Mexican with a Ch' t shirt at November 10, 2012 04:16 PM (mq0tj)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:16 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 10, 2012 04:16 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 08:16 PM (YUttk)
The only person that's taken on unions is Scott Walker. Did he get school choice or vouchers?
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 04:18 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:19 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:19 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 08:16 PM (YUttk)
There are no teacher's unions in Indiana?
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 04:20 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:20 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 04:22 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:23 PM (LRFds)
Unless Romney came about his wealth illegally, who cares? What, are we Democrats already? Is the only possible leader some rags-to-riches guy (but not too much riches, only maybe slightly riches)? Stop the madness.
Posted by: Cowboy at November 10, 2012 04:23 PM (WcgMM)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 10, 2012 04:24 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:24 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 10, 2012 04:25 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 04:26 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: eman at November 10, 2012 04:26 PM (sRus3)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:26 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:27 PM (LRFds)
I'm not giving up on any of the pollicy positions.
I must, however, admit I was wrong about the election. I wrote here rather tartly (with a shot or two at Ace) a couple of times that Romney would carry my native Ohio, period.
He didn't, period. Not even Hamilton County, my home and the former GOP bastion.
I'm not sure why Nate Silver and his algorithms should get so much attention when Ace's gut (and those of other posters here) had the same prediction for most of the campaign.
As for the future, if it's any consolation my 22 year-old daughter (an education major, no less) iseven more distraught about the results than I am.
Posted by: NCC at November 10, 2012 04:27 PM (lDsmT)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:27 PM (YUttk)
Yup.
I really don't care how, but one way or another I've known for years that in the end, it must all burn.
From within, or from without. Doesn't matter. Either way, flames.
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 08:24 PM (YUttk)
Wait....what? Then WTF are you blabbering about?
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2012 04:28 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Cowboy at November 10, 2012 04:29 PM (WcgMM)
Let it burn people: how do we know this isn't going to turn into a 20 years of hell like in Japan? Lets make 'Let it Burn' a .. option D.
People who think populism is too icky to start: As entropy mentioned, large companies like GE are currently 100% crony and on the government teet as much as the welfare queens. We need to stop blanket protecting them and make it 100% clear like the a theoretical new abortion stance what the national policy is: no welfare for GE ( for instance )
Last: IRC! I'm sooo lonely on the irc channel #AOSHQ on freenode.net (http://webchat.freenode.net/)
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 04:31 PM (mHU03)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:32 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:32 PM (LRFds)
@668 NCC
The "fix" was in. Several precints in Cuyahoga had over 100% of registered voters counted and those precincts went 99.9 % Bronca Bama
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 10, 2012 04:33 PM (Zz48T)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:33 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 10, 2012 04:35 PM (dF8d/)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:35 PM (LRFds)
The Attorney General of Ohio should declare the election results null till voter fraud issues are taken out of the equation
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 10, 2012 04:35 PM (Zz48T)
Posted by: Cowboy at November 10, 2012 04:36 PM (WcgMM)
I'm personally worried about the idea that if things collapse the obama voters will go the "Strong Man" route, and end us up with a dictator.
Because of that, I am going to fight to the end.
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 04:38 PM (mHU03)
Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 10, 2012 04:38 PM (Td9D+)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:40 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: twoslaps at November 10, 2012 04:40 PM (N36ZX)
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 04:40 PM (mHU03)
I just flinched every time people were talking about Romney winning Ohio and/or Michigan.
Bailing out Detroit was economic insanity.
And Romney was correct to criticize the way Obama was preparing to do the bailout. Basically, the bailout and everything since prove that Romney was right. At least it proves that to economically literate people who aren't in the auto union food chain.
But OH and MI are full of economic illiterates who are in the auto union food chain. And the instant the bailout went through, Romney's objections to it made him fatally damaged goods there.
Especially that "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" headline on his advocacy article.
No, Romney didn't want these companies to vanish in bankruptcy. He wanted them to reorganize and continue operating. Yes, those companies did go bankrupt after all under the Obama plan.
But consider trying to explain the difference between a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy and a Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy to your typical upper Midwest high school graduate blue collar voter.
You'd get farther trying to explain general relativity to a goldfish.
I remember some years back visiting a friend who lived in Dayton and whose dad was UAW. There was a UAW political pamphlet on the kitchen counter. It was a comic book, literally. What words there were were at a seventh grade level. And these people vote. Early and often.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 04:40 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 10, 2012 04:42 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Ronster at November 10, 2012 04:43 PM (nQMHQ)
It will certainly be clairty for all the people who "didn't like romney because he was too icky", but I fear that for the clueless, it won't be clarity, but confusion, and they will reach to the person who says they can fix it, the loudest.
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 04:44 PM (mHU03)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:44 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 04:45 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 04:47 PM (mHU03)
GOP Elite's Answer to #2: None of the above
They don't call them the Stupid Party for nothing.
Posted by: I'm going Galt now at November 10, 2012 04:47 PM (5qcd7)
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 08:47 PM (mHU03)
I said the thread above this one. Not this thread.
Posted by: Ronster at November 10, 2012 04:48 PM (nQMHQ)
Posted by: twoslaps at November 10, 2012 04:50 PM (N36ZX)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:51 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:51 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Cowboy at November 10, 2012 04:51 PM (WcgMM)
The "let it burn" strategy is a bit of a worry. That's their goal. They aren't aiming for euro style socialism. They want more than that in the US particularly, for a number of reasons and the conditions are ripe. A total collapse will provide the setting for something terrible that won't be a mere transition. It will be a lasting thing that could take generations to overturn. Whatever one hopes to achieve in such a hell won't be possible. The communists have to be fought, or, get the hell out before the shit gets really real.
Posted by: otho at November 10, 2012 04:52 PM (yBF/9)
Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 10, 2012 04:55 PM (Td9D+)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 04:55 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 04:56 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: twoslaps at November 10, 2012 04:58 PM (N36ZX)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:00 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 05:00 PM (Y5I9o)
This is not about saving the status quo it's about giving the states the chance to eject.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 08:55 PM
Secession? It does sound like decent option and it may work. It may be the only way to go. However, when the shit hits the fan they way they want it, all bets are off and independence, even if done and dusted will probably count for nothing. They'll still come for you. Better to go out with style, though, that's for sure.
Posted by: otho at November 10, 2012 05:02 PM (yBF/9)
And they did sunset, and Obama reauthorized them, to sunset again this year.
Great. Steal that concept. Give Obama tax hikes. Fat ones. With immediate effect. Retroactive to the start of this year. Except, they will be temporary taxes with their own sunset provision. Which sunset the day he leaves office. He won't give a shit what happens after his own self is out of town.
That'll bone the economy good and hard for his last four years. Capital will just hunker down defensively in tax shelters. No one will get hired. Stagnation, pure and simple.
Obama will then leave in 2016 with the worst economic record of any two-term President in history. It won't be possible to excuse or explain it away except for the most rabid Kool-Aid chuggers.
It inoculates the GOP against the charge of "obstructionism".
And it sets us up for a shot at recovery and growth after 2016.
Is this an optimal plan? No. Optimal would have been, well, DEFEATING OBAMA. But since the Romney MBA/consultant brain trust fucked that up, with an assist from the Akin socons, this is the fallback plan.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 10, 2012 05:03 PM (ymG7s)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:06 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 05:06 PM (Y5I9o)
******
Romney earned his money. He gave away his inheritance, remember?
I guess not.
But on the merits: how, exactly, do you justify taxing "old money", and how do you define it? If that $$ represents reinvestment income, it was taxed already, maybe several times. If it's property , then do you want the rich to sell their property to pay their taxes, the way some farmers and small businesses do when their own dies and his estate has to pony up?
And, of course, you seem to think that making the rich poorer makes the poor richer.
That's utterly fucked up reasoning.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at November 10, 2012 05:06 PM (YwXwp)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 05:07 PM (YUttk)
Is this an optimal plan? No. Optimal would have been, well, DEFEATING OBAMA. But since the Romney MBA/consultant brain trust fucked that up, with an assist from the Akin socons, this is the fallback plan."
You are fucking delusional.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 10, 2012 05:08 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 05:08 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 05:10 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: WarrenMugugginHsrding at November 10, 2012 05:10 PM (pkkxZ)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 05:11 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:13 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Jim Bob at November 10, 2012 05:16 PM (+E75+)
Posted by: dantealiegri at November 10, 2012 05:17 PM (mHU03)
Posted by: WarrenMugugginHsrding at November 10, 2012 05:18 PM (pkkxZ)
Out of meager provisions will come one promising a return to plenty.
Out of misery will come one promising a return to former glory.
Out of scrambling to find some semblance of security and safety, one will come promising strength and leadership and victory.
That someone will find scapegoats for the misery, and the meager provisions, and the chaos. And will seek to convince the people that if we just rid ourselves of those who are standing in our way, our lot will improve.
We've seen this movie before.
Let it burn sounds appealing. But when there is no underlying moral structure to replace it, that's when evil steps in. Because evil is real good at making the trains run on time.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 05:19 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:19 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 05:21 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: entropy at November 10, 2012 05:22 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:23 PM (LRFds)
I don't think they will come to the swamp for what little I aim to have.
In the end the locusts use lists, stay low on it and draw no notice early.
Hot or cold, free shit army likes comfort so live uncomfortably.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 09:06 PM
I hear you and you're probably right on that score. But, I'm thinking of things beyond mere locusts and lists. It will be a leviathan. A lasting interregnum, at least. Am not in any way knocking your ability to hold out. Just emphasising how how bad things will probably get for quite some time. It won't be something one can just ride out, until the population "wakes up" and things get better. They will get crazier.
Posted by: otho at November 10, 2012 05:26 PM (yBF/9)
No offense at your poll here.
But frankly "our side" is losing the so-called "talking points" on all of these issues. We're not winning any of these arguments right now.
Now I voted for abortion under "Over My Dead Body" for the simple reason that's it's an EASY answer. Abortion isn't going away and NOBODY should be proposing that it should. "in the case of rape, incest or harm to the mother" is the way MOST Americans view it. Agree with this AND MOVE ON! Don't give in to media speculation - HAVE A STOCK ANSWER AND MOVE ALONG! Don't get pushed around on this issue - OWN IT!
"Ad-Libbing Is For Amateurs"
Posted by: PelosiSchmelosi at November 10, 2012 05:28 PM (oBrP/)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 05:29 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 09:29 PM (jucos)
--------------
There's a good reason something like 85% of Americans living in Israel voted for Romney.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 05:33 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:37 PM (LRFds)
"I'm going Galt" = I vote for the candidate who will do the best for the country, but he lost so I no longer care about what's best for the country.
Come on, can we have a little less of the drama queen behavior and a little bit more of the "concerned conservatives coming up with a non apocalyptic plan for the future" attitude? See I Was Right And You Suffer For It wish-fulfillment fantasies are for the guys with the other yard signs.
Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 10, 2012 05:37 PM (fXInK)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 10, 2012 05:37 PM (jucos)
I admit I have not read all 753 posts, and being so far down, doubt that few will read this. BUT - it is not "giving in" to the Dems to do higher taxes on 250K or on Imigration. Let them have these taxes and when that does not work the Dems will have to go lower, much lower -into their base. Immigration - secure the border then green cards to citizenship for those that have clean records. 11 million illegals versus the votes. Now, that you are on fire to do something bad to me, remember this on taxes - the DEMS will OWN the economy, won't be able to run from it. An issue off the table for them against Rep, as would Immigration. Now for Abortion - folks Roe is the law, forget it, drop it, don't mention it.GETOVERIT. Another issue off the table. As for Gays, let them marry, and divorce. After all if two people want to commit to each other that is good. Too many just live together, or have kids with no resposibilities.
The REP would now be able to go after spending, fiscal restraint would be the watch word. Republicans preach about gov't on our necks, then turn around and want gov't control on abortion. Does not compute.
Ok, roast me all you want.
No I am not a troll, I voted for Republicans for a very long time, sometimes by holding my nose.
Posted by: LYNNDH at November 10, 2012 05:38 PM (mr9Ns)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 05:40 PM (H8YE0)
Posted by: nip at November 10, 2012 05:41 PM (11Tdq)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:41 PM (LRFds)
------------------
I am so increasingly weary of hearing this.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 05:44 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:48 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:50 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 10, 2012 09:46 PM (fXInK)
----------------
Social conservatives are not the ones pushing that agenda. There have been marriage parameters for hundreds of years in this country. Marriage contracts have always been between a man and a woman. That is not a revolutionary social conservative agenda. That is the way society has always organized itself and the way families have been constructed.
Now a very small minority decides to change the basic structure of that by proposing new laws and regulations that will affect us all, and agitates for it constantly in the public square ad nauseum, and if anyone has an issue with that, THEY are the ones who are advocating government overreach?
I don't buy that line of thinking.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 05:52 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:52 PM (fXInK)
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 05:55 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:56 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 05:58 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: twoslaps at November 10, 2012 05:59 PM (N36ZX)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 06:01 PM (XDC0v)
Eleven.
I suppose that's because they are all over-run and full to the brim with so-con evangelicals.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 10, 2012 06:03 PM (P6QsQ)
* * * * *
A couple points:
"There have been marriage parameters for hundreds of years in this country."
There have. And we have let many go by the wayside, without marking them as failures for conservatism. Or should we start clamoring against no-fault divorce now?
"...by proposing new laws and regulations that will affect us all, and agitates for it constantly in the public square ad nauseum...
I'm trying to think of what these might be. Adoption has always been legal for married couples, as far as I know, and I'm not sure what new regulations same-sex couples would require that "will affect us all".
"Agitation" being assigned negative connotation sounds very authoritarian to me. Isn't your description that of the Tea Party, except with a desire to "repeal existing" as opposed to "proposing new"?
I'm not trying to tell you to stuff it or anything like that, just explaining the viewpoint that Brewdog was expressing and which has entered the minds of millions of other conservatives, I'm sure.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:04 PM (fXInK)
A couple points:
"There have been marriage parameters for hundreds of years in
this country."
There have. And we have let many go by the wayside, without marking them as failures for conservatism. Or should we start clamoring against no-fault divorce now?
"...by proposing new laws and regulations that will affect us all, and agitates for it constantly in the public square ad nauseum..."
I'm trying to think of what these might be. Adoption has always been legal for married couples, as far as I know, and I'm not sure what new regulations same-sex couples would require that "will affect us all".
"Agitation" being assigned negative connotation sounds very authoritarian to me. Isn't your description that of the Tea Party, except with a desire to "repeal existing" as opposed to "proposing new"?
I'm not trying to tell you to stuff it or anything like that, just explaining the viewpoint that Brewdog was expressing and which has entered the minds of millions of other conservatives, I'm sure.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:05 PM (fXInK)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:05 PM (LRFds)
* * * * *
Would you buy that line of thinking if the bill wasn't sent to you?
Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 10, 2012 06:07 PM (fXInK)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 06:07 PM (H8YE0)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:12 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 06:14 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:15 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 06:15 PM (H8YE0)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:16 PM (LRFds)
Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain --- ALL of them would have brought out a higher GOP turnout than Romney. Whether or not they would have brought more Obama turnout, I'm not sure. Santorum probably would have been crucified by the media, but my guess is that any one of those four would have done better.
The issue is that this blog is asking suburban and urban 'conservatives' and there is a big difference in what they want and what the rural folks want.
Rural America GOP who didn't turn out to vote: They want a small government candidate (Palin, Cain and to an extent Gingrich - not Romney or Huckabee).
They want someone who they can believe means what they say (Any of those four - definitely NOT Romney)
They want someone who will stand up for social issues and won't shy away from a political fight (Palin, Cain, Gingrich and to an extent Huckabee - not Romney)
They don't see immigration as a social issue, they see it as a legal and economic issue - realizing that legal immigration isn't keeping pace with the supply/demand of the need for immigrant workers (Huckabee, Palin, somewhat the others).
The GOP establishment picked the one horse where the least people would come out and watch the race, it was a calculated risk that failed and those folks who make those decisions, the bloggers, Coulter, Rove, and those folks should be purged from leadership.
Posted by: doug at November 10, 2012 06:17 PM (uJ8q7)
Posted by: Mistress Overdone at November 10, 2012 06:18 PM (8Nq99)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:20 PM (LRFds)
I have never been a Republican, although my parents were, faithfully and passionately. I would like to find a party to join. But Republicans have been almost as profligate government spenders as Democrats, and they are so damn righteous -- so I cannot choose them. Libertarians while they might keep the government out of my bedroom and out of a woman's womb, have little compassion for safety nets and for a (relatively) safe world. So where can I go? I want no gun control; I want the scientific method applied to the study of climate (the climate is always changing); I want respect for immigrants and no hatred of "illegals" -- they come to America for the same reasons all (soon-to-be) Americans have always come; no amnesty, but imaginative inclusiveness without a vote for a long time; I want everyone to pay taxes, but I want what I consider to be a fair spread, e.g., 2%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25% -- a "flat tax" is not fair; I want limited government, but with a respectful discussion of the safety net (no sneering at "takers" or the 47% -- how many of those are receiving Social Security, a system they were "forced" to pay in to for 30, 40 or so years); I want strict voter ID, no digital voting machines (always, always hackable), and guaranteed poll watchers of all party backgrounds.
Young people especially must be educated to the hope for the good life (prosperity) once they have left home. If this is held out to them, scruffy as they may seem, they will get a glimmer in their eye. Most "conservative" principles I honor are those of "classical liberalism". Anyone (most, all Republicans) who sneers at "liberals" has changed the terms of American politics. Americans used to argue/fight over "conservative" and "liberal" principles and policies, but so-called "conservatives" have blinded our culture to the fact that what has been called "liberal" for so many years is socialist, marxist, European version of "progressive". I long for good, old "anti-Communist" fervor; instead I get the a demonized "L" word. Pretty disgusting. No wonder young people can't figure out which way is up.
Where do I find a home? Nowhere, it seems.
Posted by: pyromancer76 at November 10, 2012 06:20 PM (i0aYq)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 10, 2012 06:22 PM (2yngH)
Posted by: DAve at November 10, 2012 06:22 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: twoslaps at November 10, 2012 06:27 PM (N36ZX)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 06:27 PM (H8YE0)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 06:30 PM (LRFds)
Brewdog, you are advocating the same crap that brought us Dole, McCain and Romney.
If you don't give a clear choice, then you split the independent votes and lose the election because there are less GOP voters than Dem voters.
If you give a clear choice then you increase the GOP turnout and lose some independent votes but your totals go up. When you give a clear choice (ala Reagan and Bush I v. Dukakis) you also manage to depress Dem turnout because the actual clear choice has to be given in a way that makes Dem policies look bad (rather than pretty good except for a couple minor details).
Posted by: doug at November 10, 2012 06:34 PM (uJ8q7)
Posted by: Silenus at November 10, 2012 06:34 PM (fEpBa)
Brewdog, "Romney's negatives were all on our side -- that he wasn't conservative enough. The other side successfully branded him as a radical. Not just as a conservative, but as a radical. And it worked."
Don't buy that analysis. Romney lost because less GOP voters turned out. He did much better with the independent vote than McCain did. He lost because he wasn't attractive to the GOP voters.
Posted by: doug at November 10, 2012 06:39 PM (uJ8q7)
Posted by: twoslaps at November 10, 2012 06:40 PM (N36ZX)
Posted by: conielu at November 10, 2012 06:42 PM (i0aCV)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 06:47 PM (H8YE0)
Posted by: Brewdog at November 10, 2012 06:51 PM (H8YE0)
The physics of it are straightforward; carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the Earth, and the proportion of carbon dioxide is rapidly increasing, towards levels matching the highs detected in the geological record.
The projections of what will result are of course much hazier, and many (most?) of the claims made in the popular press are just bullshit.
I'd say adopt this one wholeheartedly and reverse the spin. Build nuclear power plants instead of coal. Pour money into scientific and technological solutions to the problem, rather than imposing whole new layers of government regulation and massive economic damage as the liberals want.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 10, 2012 10:22 PM (2yngH)
Wrong on many levels. CO2 probably is a greenhouse gas, but its effect is far far weaker than that of water vapor. And at its current level of 380 parts per million, it is far short of the peaks reached in the geologic record, up to 7000 ppm, IIRC. And not all periods of peak CO2 were unduly warm, nor were all warm periods characterized by high CO2.
Higher CO2 is known to be beneficial to plant growth, and if increased CO2 from human activities did in fact cause a little climate warming, it would be a net benefit. Civilizations flourished in historic warm periods, and languished in the cold periods.
Instead of wasting vast quantities of life and treasure on trying to curb CO2 emissions, and thereby "prevent" global climate change, it would make much more sense to work towards mitigating any damage that global climate change might cause to our infrastructure, and also work towards maximizing any benefits that might accrue from climate change.
Sure, build nuclear power plants out the ying-yang, if they will give us cheap electricity, but continue mining coal and drilling for gas and oil, too.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at November 10, 2012 06:52 PM (29+x5)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 06:53 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Silenus at November 10, 2012 06:55 PM (fEpBa)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 06:57 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 07:03 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 07:07 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: doug at November 10, 2012 07:08 PM (uJ8q7)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 07:14 PM (LRFds)
So, is overturning Roe v Wade an official platform of the GOP? Cuz I spent some tough time convincing people to vote GOP by assuring them that that was ridiculous. Common ground was National defense and wise frugality with tax revenue.
Did I inadvertantly lie to people? Cuz fuck... I'd have been a third party voter this time and certainly not endorsed pious fucking hypocrites.
What exactly does Liberty mean to the GOP for fuck's sake? Get pious and ring your bell all you want, good luck with that shit when you meet your Maker. Again, America isn't a theocracy. Jesus forgave the murderer while he was being tortured to death in order to pay for that man's sins. People in the party I have voted for for years seriously think their shit doesn't stink enough to warrant saying "forgive me, Lord"?
Looks like Newton's 2060 is pretty fucking close. But hey, really. What else would it be if not close. Isaac fucking Newton and all that.
I'll rejoice then:
http://tinyurl.com/auasg87
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 10, 2012 07:15 PM (LCZ3l)
I must have missed any moral base beyond the new Moontard approved GOP platform at the Donk Convention....
1) Mary anything you want
2) abortions up to 25 years after delivery
3) spend it spend it all b/c teachers are job growth and somewhere a old rich white guy is worth more than you.
Fuck this let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 07:19 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 10, 2012 08:40 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Tracy at November 10, 2012 08:43 PM (dZUv0)
shut the fuck up and show me the non socialist satisfying Obamaphone bitch and growing the economy through higher taxes.
Get your fucking shine box
Posted by: sven10077 at November 10, 2012 08:53 PM (LRFds)
Who is the next rick sanelli/or clint eastwood. Let Rome burn.
Posted by: tony montana at November 10, 2012 09:07 PM (5S+Iv)
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at November 10, 2012 09:58 PM (L2nsu)
Posted by: hurricane567 at November 10, 2012 10:37 PM (J3ObQ)
Posted by: Rich at November 10, 2012 11:33 PM (arczc)
Posted by: It's all Grover Cleveland's fault at November 10, 2012 11:43 PM (Kflw4)
No I don't think so.
Let it burn.
Show me you gave a sack of shit the car keys America show me.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 11, 2012 04:45 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 11, 2012 05:06 AM (T/L2Z)
Posted by: Lynne at November 11, 2012 05:27 AM (coNWF)
Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at November 11, 2012 05:36 AM (taHaS)
If the idea is changing our message to a winning one, shouldn't the poll be limited to things the other side actually ran on?
Because for example, Obama never once mentioned climate change in this whole election, only afterwards. We could have been to the left of him on that one and it wouldn't have gotten us any votes. That might be a winning issue in hard blue states like NY, MA and CA, but in the rest of the country, drastically raising energy prices for some theoretical benefits in 100 years is a losing idea. So I object to it even being on the list and am horrified that it's such a popular pick as we'd not only sacrifice our principles, raises taxes on everyone and hurt the economy, grow the federal bureacracy, and destroy jobs in fossil fuel industries, but we wouldn't even help ourselves win elections!!
Just saying, the poll should be limited to issues Obama and Dems ran on in national elections, or things that would win over growing blocs of voters (immigration). Near as I can tell in this election, the things Obama ran on were 1) taxes and spending, 2) abortion, and 3) a bunch of attacks on Romney from his business experience to tax returns to binders to 47%. Only the first 2 apply to the party agenda specifically and taxes and spending he specifically ran on a) taxes on the wealthy and b) not changing entitlements. Obama didn't run on immigration either but we're obviously losing the Hispanic vote and this is one for consideration. So the poll should really have 4 choices on it: immigration, taxes on the wealthy, entitlements, and abortion. Then it would really respond to the outcome of this election.
Presumably if Obama thought any of the rest were winning issues, he would've run on them, he didn't. So would love to see the poll changed to narrow the focus for it to be meaningful.
Posted by: Brian at November 11, 2012 05:37 AM (ByFcb)
Posted by: Deety at November 11, 2012 05:56 AM (QG3g9)
Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at November 11, 2012 06:42 AM (taHaS)
I don't know why this so hard, especially since the GOP's insistence on this platform only elects truly pro-abortion Democrats. We lost the Senate over abortion. Period. I also believe we lost the White House over it.
Of my immediate friends that voted for Romney, none of them voted for him because they wanted to see abortion criminalized even though they all believe abortion is immoral. The Religious Right is a wing of the Party that most Republicans tolerate because we feel the small government platform is key.
And my Obama "friends", 90% of it was over abortion, usually women.
Party platforms change, Democrats got smart and dropped the death penalty prohibition, being soft on crime, and gun control. It worked, I really would have wished they would have just kept running Michael Dukakis Democrats that we could beat like a drum, but they didn't and they got 99% of what they wanted.
Right now, when I look at what really worries me about this country, it's not women getting the right to have an abortion. Anyone grounded in reality knows you're never going to get rid of it anymore than you're going to be able to wipe out divorce or homosexuality.
Posted by: Jeepers at November 11, 2012 06:51 AM (XDRsa)
Obama didn't run on guns, he didn't run on climate change and he didn't even run on immigration. He did run on abortion, taxes and entitlements, nothing beyond that except attacking Romney. So if the issues were a problem for us (and I don't think it's nearly that simple for the record) then we need to focus on those things. Again...abortion, taxes and entitlements. Expanding the discussion to being more liberal on subjects we didn't lose on is just plainly stupid.
Posted by: Brian at November 11, 2012 07:00 AM (ByFcb)
My guess is, had Romney campaigned on some sort of Amnesty, he might have gotten another .3% of the popular vote from increased Latino support (and mostly in states that weren't in contention like Texas and California) But I guarantee you that would easily be offset by working class whites in the true swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, etc. Also. remember that AZ's tough immigration law had something like 70% support nationwide. Does any part of the GOP platform have that kind of support?
We are not going to win every voter, and I would rather take my lumps with Latinos when they are a small pool of voters than take my lumps when you've increased their numbers by 20-30 million. I'd rather lose 70% of 8 million voters than 60% of 30 million. And do you know what 30 million illegal immigrants that now have access to all government services is going to do too our budgets?
Drop the social issues, and the GOP can start competing in states in New England, the East and West Coast instead of a Party that only does well in the South (and even now, that's become an issue).
Posted by: Jeepers at November 11, 2012 07:17 AM (XDRsa)
Posted by: Churchill, W. at November 11, 2012 07:26 AM (RXQ2T)
All you child killers, or at least you folks who believe the GOP should abandon the anti-abortion position in order to win elections:
This poll is being conducted on a 'conservative' blog that historically attacks social conservatives and likely gets a following that more resembles their views...YET....the poll indicates if you accept abortion then you will lose 14% of those who answered the poll. I imagine that equates to about 21% in the real world.
So if you turn off 21% of the voters and just let them sit out, where will you gain in order to make up for it?
I'm guessing we lost 8 points this year, easily, with regular GOP voters deciding to sit it out because Romneycare was the nominee.
Suburban republicans really don't have a clue.
Posted by: doug at November 11, 2012 07:27 AM (uJ8q7)
I love the rhetoric, people who don't have the same position on a public policy issue like abortion simply must be "child killers." I don't see anyone here actively making the case that abortion is a sound moral choice people should be making. I would say 99.9% fall into the "personally opposed" position.
I guess it's no different than those who want to reform food stamps as "starving children."
I have no problem with this wing of the Party taking their ball home and going home.
Apparently, the SoCon position is pro-lifers are really closet socialists that only vote for the GOP over a single abstract moral issue. Once you take it off the table though, they really want bigger government, gun control, higher taxes, etc.
Posted by: Jeepers at November 11, 2012 08:52 AM (XDRsa)
842
Late comment, but have to say I agree 100%. The bottom line is that abortion will NEVER be criminalized in this nation. For anyone to base their vote on something that can't be changed anyway is a political suicide mission.
With respect to gay marriage, it's amazing to me how the "third option" is almost never discussed. Get government out of all marriage, straight and gay. That way "gay marriage" will be legal, but the government won't be putting its endorsement on it either.
A winning message for the Republican party is that of personal freedom. That message becomes diluted by the stubborness of the SoCons.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 11, 2012 09:45 AM (8cOY0)
I agree, I actually thought the Ron Paul position on marriage should have been given more discussion.
Why on Earth is a marriage in the realm of government anyway? It's a religious institution, we don't get an official government document when we baptize someone, yet somehow, we Christians are able to carry on practicing our faith.
Posted by: Jeepers at November 11, 2012 10:06 AM (XDRsa)
Posted by: Silenus at November 11, 2012 11:09 AM (fEpBa)
Worse yet, the anti-abortion crowd are hypocrites in the first place. If they actually wanted to reduce the number of abortions performed, they would focus their efforts on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortions happen when women get pregnant with babies they don't want. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions. Unwanted pregnancies can be reduced by promoting sexual responsibility and encouraging both men and women to use contraceptives properly.
But of course the anti-abortion crowd won't do this because they're more interested in ideological purity than real-world results.
Fuck em. Let them go off an start their own party and stop dragging the rest of us down with their irrelevant bullshit.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at November 11, 2012 12:35 PM (waa/k)
Posted by: Fiftycal at November 11, 2012 12:58 PM (gVHgh)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4819 seconds, 965 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2012 11:03 AM (jUytm)