Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 423
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,590
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    I thought economically, Romney was about as conservative as you can get. Unless you are one of the Ron Paul and/or return to the gold standard types.

    The guy you propose is the guy the GOP ran, at least who he was before he started the nomination process. Who he was when he was Governor is what I'm trying to say. Romney changed his social conservative positions to get nominated, not his economic ones. At least that is what i thought happened.
    No. Romney is not as conservative as you can get. He's a Massachusetts Republican who forced people to buy health insurance in his state.

    Quote Originally Posted by flips333
    So like Paul Ryan. But a little Hispanic. So Rubio.
    Ryan isn't a good messenger. He comes off as dickish.

    Rubio is the guy. Not because he's Cuban (although his personal story is dynamite. Conservatives are going to eat that **** up.) He delivers the message the best.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,590
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    Hey look. It's a straw man all torn apart.

    I, along with the candidates, campaigns and donors, think that it's likely that pouring huge amounts of money into a campaign can make a difference. The question is just how much difference. If you'll note the titles of my threads on the topic, they tend to read like "What can $10 million buy?" You'll note the question mark at the end. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to "admit" implicitly or explicitly about questions like the one I posed.
    lol. What is this, Fox News? "I put a question mark at the end of it, therefore I never made that claim!"

    Some of your posts from the thread you mentioned make it pretty clear you aren't simply posing a question:
    The 11 million dollars Adelman already spent only bought a couple of states. At this rate, he'll have to spend a few weeks' worth of his earnings to buy the Presidency for his chosen lackey.
    Just to keep us updated on the Supreme-Court approved purchase of the Presidency:

    Based on this logic, isn't the Republican party's only problem that they didn't spend enough money to buy the presidency?

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,838
    vCash
    1500

    How Should The GOP Handle Immgration Refrom?

    nvm

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,714
    vCash
    1500
    I generally dislike Rachel Maddow, but I thought she made some good points in this.

    http://gawker.com/5958890/rachel-mad...r-this-country

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GA16Angels View Post
    I generally dislike Rachel Maddow, but I thought she made some good points in this.

    http://gawker.com/5958890/rachel-mad...r-this-country
    Yeah.. someone tell me how hard it is to imagine Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck saying all of this if the election went the other way.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,590
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Yeah.. someone tell me how hard it is to imagine Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck saying all of this if the election went the other way.
    Well...Hannity, Oreilly, Rush, and Beck aren't that passive aggressive.

    From Maddow, that is just an example of that common trope from the left of calling every idea they don't like "not serious." Or that "facts have a liberal bias" tripe.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by waveycrockett View Post
    And that assumption is based on........................
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I don't know.

    But, your analysis seemed to focus on political messaging, rather than money. So, it seemed an implicit admission that that "all that matters is money!" stuff was bunk.


    Well, I don't think the Republicans are dumb enough to make Santorum, West, or Huckabee their presidential nominee.

    I'm telling you, unless things change (which they are apt to do) it's Rubio.

    I also don't think Democrats are dumb enough to make Biden their presidential nominee.
    It'll come down to Rubio, Christie, or Ryan for the republicans I think. I would prefer Ryan or Rubio, Christie seems too outspoken and he may have a blunder or two cost him.

    As for the democrats, if Hillary wants it the nomination is hers. Other than that, they'll probably run Biden, Warren, or someone like Deval Patrick.

    Unless Hillary decides to run I have a hard time thinking the GOP will lose in 2016. I think they'll win regardless, but Clinton running would make it a lot closer. I think that the GOP has learned its lesson, and that moderate immigration stances are the way to reclaim the white house.
    Proud to be PSD's Danny Woodhead

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,710
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by celtisox41 View Post
    It'll come down to Rubio, Christie, or Ryan for the republicans I think. I would prefer Ryan or Rubio, Christie seems too outspoken and he may have a blunder or two cost him.

    As for the democrats, if Hillary wants it the nomination is hers. Other than that, they'll probably run Biden, Warren, or someone like Deval Patrick.

    Unless Hillary decides to run I have a hard time thinking the GOP will lose in 2016. I think they'll win regardless, but Clinton running would make it a lot closer. I think that the GOP has learned its lesson, and that moderate immigration stances are the way to reclaim the white house.
    Clinton/ Castro. Would be delightful.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    10,400
    vCash
    1500
    The problem with the republicans is that they continue to stupidly allow the democrats to make major issues out of things that should be non issues. The presidential stage need to deal with real problems and issues that affect the country and get away from issues that bear little relevance on the nation as a whole.

    Abortion…women make this a huge issue. The republicans need to become pro choice or at least say they will not block access to their personal choices. Allow funding for birth control and abortion. It's a national stain, but a national stain that people seem to want. If both parties supported abortion the republicans would gain tons of votes.

    Gay Marriage/Same sex marriage…just shut up about it. I am against it but if gays get married, I don't really care. It is a non issue and has little effect on the nation as a whole. Let the states do what they want.

    Gun Control…just support the 2nd amendment. It is not worth losing votes over.

    Death penalty…couldn't care less. Shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.

    Every time these topics com up in politics, and they always do especially abortion, I cringe as the republicans lose votes. If these topics were minimized and real topics were concentrated on the playing field would be more level and republicans would do better.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    170
    vCash
    1500
    This thread was highly insulting. I'm a republican and I cannot believe you would say this. If there are no republicans, democrats wont be able to survive because they take all the republicans' money. Republicans work hard to earn all their money, not to give it to people who arent even trying.
    Last edited by Killer Clown; 11-10-2012 at 01:32 PM.

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,921
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Clown View Post
    This thread was highly insulting. I'm a huge republican and I cannot believe you would say this. If there are no republicans, democrats wont be able to survive because they take all the republicans' money. Republicans work hard to earn all their money, not to give it to people who arent even trying.
    Nice troll post. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're trolling.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,424
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Clown View Post
    This thread was highly insulting. I'm a huge republican and I cannot believe you would say this. If there are no republicans, democrats wont be able to survive because they take all the republicans' money. Republicans work hard to earn all their money, not to give it to people who arent even trying.
    I am going to assume you are attempting to troll and I will also say that you got me to bite.

    You simultaneously pretend to be insulted that someone would make a generalization about Republicans all while making the exact same generalization about Democrats. If you truly believe that Democrats don't work and don't earn a living, then you live a thoroughly sad life because there is a 50-50 chance that every single person you work with is a Democrat who works hard to make sure the company you work for does well. In fact there are many Democrats who run the largest companies in the world. Its not just Republicans who are industrialist and want to make a living. If you believe that it is a sad reflection on the places you listen to when you attempt to make a decision, any decision.

    I will leave you with the fact that the states that take more than they give to the federal government tend to be run by strong Republicans. Most of the South that backs up right behind the GOP ticket are the ones who take more from the Federal government and tend to use food stamps more than the Democratic states.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ng-charts-maps

    Notice where the two big concentrations of red are, right in the south east and in the middle of the country.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,219
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Well...Hannity, Oreilly, Rush, and Beck aren't that passive aggressive.

    From Maddow, that is just an example of that common trope from the left of calling every idea they don't like "not serious." Or that "facts have a liberal bias" tripe.
    In looking at elections, the facts (about the election itself) always have a bias toward the winning side. That is what elections are about.

    To deny that, is to deny that the election took place, or, at best, the vote counting and inspection of the electorate for that election is false.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Well...Hannity, Oreilly, Rush, and Beck aren't that passive aggressive.

    From Maddow, that is just an example of that common trope from the left of calling every idea they don't like "not serious." Or that "facts have a liberal bias" tripe.
    I guess I wonder if we watched different videos.

    "...deprived of the debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems..."

    "There's real problems in the world. There are real, knowable facts in the world. Let's accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently."

    The "facts" she listed, are these:

    Ohio really did go to the president last night.

    And he really did win.
    And he really was born in Hawaii.
    And he really is -legitimately- President of the United States.
    Again.

    And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make-up a fake unemployment rate last month.
    And the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence
    That cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.

    And the polls were not skewed to over-sample Democrats.
    And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election
    To make conservatives feel bad.
    He was doing math.

    And climate change is real.
    And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes.
    And evolution is a thing.
    And Benghazi was an attack on us.
    It was not a scandal by us.

    And no one is taking away anyone's guns.
    And taxes haven't gone up.
    And the deficit is dropping, actually.
    And Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

    And the moon landing was real.
    And FEMA isn't building concentration camps.
    And UN election observers aren't taking over Texas.
    And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry
    And the financial services industry
    Are not the same thing as communism.
    Maybe you're thinking of another video when you quote "not serious," because I still don't see where she said that here.

    Or maybe you're just seeing it's Rachael Maddow, not even watching it, and assuming what she said.

    I don't really know. But either way, I just see her, on the left, wanting to also have a strong right, to give a spirited and face-based debate on the issues.

    It seems like you think changes need to be made in the GOP, and that's fine and dandy, but if she also thinks changes need to be made in the GOP, it's a "trope" and "passive aggressive."
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,686
    vCash
    1500
    In many respects, the 2012 election played out as a close cousin of the 2004 contest. A vulnerable incumbent president in a bad political environment faced a weak challenger who lacked a core ideology and who articulated no clear vision for the country. In both campaigns the challenger chose to present himself as a default choice, rather than an insurgent. In both campaigns the president pursued a base-turnout strategy. And in both years the president won, by a margin of victory just around 2.4 percentage points.

    The similarities continued following the elections. After Mitt Romney’s defeat, many Republicans and conserv-atives were caught surprised. In the days that followed there was fatalistic talk about how America had undergone a fundamental change. Some of this analysis centered on demographics. There was concern about a permanent shift in the racial composition of the electorate and about how changes in the institution of marriage—more divorce, more cohabitation, and later marriage—might be permanently increasing the pool of single voters. (The first worry seems mistaken: Romney’s main problem with white voters wasn’t that they were in decline—it was that so many of them didn’t show up for him. The second is more plausible.)

    There was also a lot of talk about how Romney’s loss was a sign of a fundamental change in America’s character. People contended that this was no longer a “center-right” country. Or that the nation had turned its back on the free market. Or morphed into Greece. One of the more prominent lines of thinking was that the “takers” in America finally outnumbered the “makers” and that, per Ben Franklin’s warning, the electorate had entered a death spiral where it would continually vote itself more money. It all sounded eerily like Romney’s contention that 47 percent of the country isn’t responsible for itself and can no longer be persuaded by conservative argument. Doom to follow shortly.

    The existential despair was familiar because liberals and Democrats said the same sorts of things immediately following the 2004 vote. Like Mitt Romney’s, John Kerry’s final polls before Election Day—not to mention the early exit polls on the day itself—suggested he had a reasonable chance of victory. So when defeat came, Democrats were both discouraged and shocked. And their first reaction was to conclude that America had changed in a fundamental way.

    A week after the election, a group of African-American journalists gathered at Harvard to discuss the implications of Kerry’s loss. Summing up the meeting, the Detroit Free Press’s Rochelle Riley concluded that “it could be the end of civilization as we know it” because “Bush’s next term is not four years. It is 30 years, based on its impact.” In the Baltimore Sun, USC professor Diane Winston worried that Democrats were “ill-prepared for this new, faith-based world.” A Seattle Times columnist wrote, “after three decades of cultural and religious struggle—including a fair amount of concerted, premeditated political exploitation—the religious right is more mainstream in America than once-mainline denominations. This election confirms the influence and clout of those described by scholars as the socially conservative, theologically evangelical. They are our friends and neighbors, and unlike 18-to-29-year-olds, they vote in big numbers.” All of which led columnist Leonard Pitts to wonder, “Maybe this is where America ends. .  .  . Small wonder that everywhere I go, people are talking about moving to Canada. That’s the kind of joke you make when you no longer recognize your country.”

    The point of all this isn’t to suggest that Republicans are on the cusp of a resurgence or to argue that all politics is cyclical. Both, or neither, of those things might be true. Rather, it’s a reminder that the future is uncertain. In 2004 Democrats believed that the culture of America had irrevocably changed. Then came the housing bubble, the financial collapse, and Barack Obama. Events happen, individuals matter, and the first lessons learned are rarely helpful. Or right.
    http://weeklystandard.com/articles/l...04_662224.html
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •