Another Nail in the GOP coffin

[hcap]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/independent-voters-on-the-run-from-romney-chart.php?ref=fpa

Romney’s unfavorability nationwide has risen, and it’s showing in a potential matchup against President Obama. As you can see from the chart below, Romney has seen independent voters nationally move from his camp to Obama’s as the primary race continues and the economy ticks up.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/independents.png

[Tom]

Too early to be meaningful.
Wait until the October surprise about BO comes out.

[hcap]

Didn't say they were DEAD YET.

But I suspect the GOP screwed themselves by tacking too far right. So far the repug debates have demonstrated disdain for the middle class as well as the poor. Killing SS and torpedoing policies generally favored by most have not gone over well. Will the public remember the idiotic rightwing pandering come November?

PA says sarcastically the projected 100 years of democratic rule is a crock. Well 4 more years may not be.

[Tom]

4 more with a repub controlled congress - both houses.
But, I say Obama loses - BIG.

We shall see.
I can't believe that there are that many morons to put him back in office.
Operative word here, of course, is morons.

[delayjf]

I can't believe that there are that many morons to put him back in office.

Like I've said before the silver lining to the bad economy is that it has kept his agenda in check. With any luck the Supreme Court will shoot down Obama care.

[elysiantraveller]

Didn't say they were DEAD YET.

But I suspect the GOP screwed themselves by tacking too far right. So far the repug debates have demonstrated disdain for the middle class as well as the poor. Killing SS and torpedoing policies generally favored by most have not gone over well. Will the public remember the idiotic rightwing pandering come November?

Its hurting them among the general population right now for sure.

Its the ultimate who can be a better conservative for conservative votes. After this primary season the nominee will then become a moderate and DIVE to the middle for moderate votes.

Looks bad but they all do it.

Its still very early though...

[BlueShoe]

As you can see from the chart below, Romney has seen independent voters nationally move from his camp to Obama’s as the primary race continues and the economy ticks up.
The economy is ticking up?? That would be news to a whole lot of Americans. Voodoo economics and smoke and mirrors from the left. Then there is oil. When gas sails right through the four dollar barrier and shoots up to five this summer, which it just might do, folks are going to be reminded about the Keystone pipeline along with other things. Guess who was responsible for killing the pipeline?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Off the topic a bit, but what's with the intervals on the polling dates on the graph?

They show the thing changing by 2 points literally over night and then highlight the trend the other way by showing two days of stability... the conclusions drawn from the poll aren't surprising to me at all with or without the poll, but the presentation of the poll results has me scratching at my head a bit.

[BlueShoe]

Off the topic a bit, but what's with the intervals on the polling dates on the graph?

They show the thing changing by 2 points literally over night and then highlight the trend the other way by showing two days of stability... the conclusions drawn from the poll aren't surprising to me at all with or without the poll, but the presentation of the poll results has me scratching at my head a bit.
Cappy has a well deserved reputation on PA for being, shall we say, rather creative in presenting what he perceives to be factual data in the form of charts, graphs, and tables. :D The fact that only he has the foggiest notion of what they are looking at has not discouraged him one bit. :)

[hcap]

Off the topic a bit, but what's with the intervals on the polling dates on the graph?

They show the thing changing by 2 points literally over night and then highlight the trend the other way by showing two days of stability... the conclusions drawn from the poll aren't surprising to me at all with or without the poll, but the presentation of the poll results has me scratching at my head a bit.
When Obama was in the red, the graph showed similar gaps. I think what is important though is the change from 1/18 to 2/12.

Delta 18 plus points.

[JustRalph]

The Chart is an embed from Talking points memo. Consider the source?

Talking Points Memo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talking Points Memo

Main page of Talking Points Memo as at August 2010
URL TalkingPointsMemo.com
Commercial? advertising supported
Type of site Political blog, news, discussion forum
Registration for discussion forum
Available language(s) English
Owner Joshua Micah Marshall
Created by Marshall and others
Launched November 12, 2000
Alexa rank 3,749 (February 2012)[1]
Revenue Not disclosed
Current status active
Talking Points Memo (or TPM) is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective,".[2] It debuted on November 12, 2000. The name is a reference to the memo (short list) with the issues (points) discussed by one's side in a debate or used to support a position taken on an issue.[3] By 2007, TPM received an average 400,000 page views every weekday.[4]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/independents.png

[slew101]

Tom, you know Obama has a lock on 210 electoral votes from the automatic Democratic states, and the GOP has their lock of about 160 electoral votes. Nothing will change that.

So how can you possibly think Obama loses big? What states do you see him losing that are Democratic strongholds?

4 more with a repub controlled congress - both houses.
But, I say Obama loses - BIG.

We shall see.
I can't believe that there are that many morons to put him back in office.
Operative word here, of course, is morons.

[boxcar]

Didn't say they were DEAD YET.

But I suspect the GOP screwed themselves by tacking too far right. So far the repug debates have demonstrated disdain for the middle class as well as the poor. Killing SS and torpedoing policies generally favored by most have not gone over well. Will the public remember the idiotic rightwing pandering come November?

PA says sarcastically the projected 100 years of democratic rule is a crock. Well 4 more years may not be.

If Rom the Rug gets the nom and then loses to BO, it certainly won't be because he's a right wing radical. It will be due to low voter turnout among conservatives who will find it repugnant to vote for a self-confessed "non-partisan progressive".

Boxcar

[Tom]

So how can you possibly think Obama loses big? What states do you see him losing that are Democratic strongholds?

I don't know. I just cannot accept people are stupid enough to believe this guys BS a second time. If he does win, we do not deserve to be a world power.

And we will not be one.

[slew101]

Interactive electoral map where you can enter your choices.

Like 2000 and 2004, I think it'll come down to Florida and Ohio. The GOP always has Pennsylvania on their wish list, but they haven't taken it since 1988, so I'd have to give it to Obama again.

So if Obama wins Pa., that puts him at 206 before they even start campaigning. And I also think those midwestern states usually go Democrats, so even if Obama gives back 5 or so states from 2008, he can still win with either Florida or Ohio. The GOP candidate will have to take both of those states to win.

http://www.270towin.com/

[bigmack]

Two slides to every coin.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/ObamasBigSlide-MostDiscouragingNumbersforthePresident-ChrisGood-Politics-TheAtlantic.png

[bigmack]

Another nail in whose coffin?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/DesperateforjobsyouthfleeObama-Campaign2012-WashingtonExaminer.png

[hcap]

The Chart is an embed from Talking points memo. Consider the source?

Talking Points Memo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talking Points Memo

Main page of Talking Points Memo as at August 2010
URL TalkingPointsMemo.com
Commercial? advertising supported
Type of site Political blog, news, discussion forum
Registration for discussion forum
Available language(s) English
Owner Joshua Micah Marshall
Created by Marshall and others
Launched November 12, 2000
Alexa rank 3,749 (February 2012)[1]
Revenue Not disclosed
Current status active
Talking Points Memo (or TPM) is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective,".[2] It debuted on November 12, 2000. The name is a reference to the memo (short list) with the issues (points) discussed by one's side in a debate or used to support a position taken on an issue.[3] By 2007, TPM received an average 400,000 page views every weekday.[4]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/independents.png

1-WorldNutDaily
2-Drudge
3 The Blaze
4-TheWeekloyStandard
4-FauxNoos

[boxcar]

1-WorldNutDaily
2-Drudge
3 The Blaze
4-TheWeekloyStandard
4-FauxNoos

You forgot to add that LameStream Media can't hold a candle to any of the above, nor are the MM fit to shine their boots. :D

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

The economy is ticking up?? That would be news to a whole lot of Americans. Voodoo economics and smoke and mirrors from the left. Then there is oil. When gas sails right through the four dollar barrier and shoots up to five this summer, which it just might do, folks are going to be reminded about the Keystone pipeline along with other things. Guess who was responsible for killing the pipeline?

I think things are getting better. I can't be the only one who sees more people eating out and in stores. But that's a tad unscientific :) so I decided to see if more or less people are going to Las Vegas since the recession began. I chose Vegas because we've all heard that the town was hurt really bad by the recession.

Below is the number of visitors per year to Las Vegas from 2006 through 2011. I started with 2006 because times were still good in 2006 so it's a decent barometer of the good times in Vegas tourism.

Las Vegas Visitor Volume:


2006 - 38,914,889


2007 - 39,196,761


2008 - 37,481,552

2009 - 36,351,469

2010 - 37,335,436


2011 - 38,928,708


http://www.lvcva.com/press/statistics-facts/index.jsp

[johnhannibalsmith]

.... But that's a tad unscientific :) so I decided to see if more or less people are going to Las Vegas...

Are you related to Don Herbert?



http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-20images/MrWizard1990s.jpg



Just teasing... :kiss:

[Robert Goren]

Even at worst of times LV business was only off 7.3%. The way they were bitching you would have thought it was down at least 50%.

[bigmack]

I started with 2006 because times were still good in 2006 so it's a decent barometer of the good times in Vegas tourism.
Too bad they can't turn the bodies upside down and get more dough out of them.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/VegasvisitorsupgamblingdownUSATODAYcom.png

[boxcar]

I think things are getting better. I can't be the only one who sees more people eating out and in stores. But that's a tad unscientific :) so I decided to see if more or less people are going to Las Vegas since the recession began. I chose Vegas because we've all heard that the town was hurt really bad by the recession.

Below is the number of visitors per year to Las Vegas from 2006 through 2011. I started with 2006 because times were still good in 2006 so it's a decent barometer of the good times in Vegas tourism.

Las Vegas Visitor Volume:


2006 - 38,914,889


2007 - 39,196,761


2008 - 37,481,552

2009 - 36,351,469

2010 - 37,335,436


2011 - 38,928,708


http://www.lvcva.com/press/statistics-facts/index.jsp


Not the best barometer, NJ. I have to think the large majority of people who frequent LV are pretty well heeled and have the discretionary income to spend/lose. Bad economies usually impact people on the lower economic scales first and the hardest.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Even at worst of times LV business was only off 7.3%. The way they were bitching you would have thought it was down at least 50%.
Really? What percentage drop is 5522 from 6945?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/LVStripNevadagamingarea-Wikipediathefreeencyclopedia.png

[Robert Goren]

Not the best barometer, NJ. I have to think the large majority of people who frequent LV are pretty well heeled and have the discretionary income to spend/lose. Bad economies usually impact people on the lower economic scales first and the hardest.

BoxcarRare insight into economics by a conservative.

[NJ Stinks]

Not the best barometer, NJ. I have to think the large majority of people who frequent LV are pretty well heeled and have the discretionary income to spend/lose. Bad economies usually impact people on the lower economic scales first and the hardest.

Boxcar

That's a fair observation, Boxcar.

Yours too, Mack.

[bigmack]

Another nail for Team BO.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/CBO-LongestPeriodofHighUnemploymentSinceGreatDepressio n-USNewsandWorldReport.png

[hcap]

Repug Nail 2.....

Looks like the issue of contraception is taking it's toll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/is-birth-control-fight-a-terry-schiavo-moment/2012/02/16/gIQAmYbFIR_blog.html


...The firm’s poll finds that one of the most important factors powering Obama’s gains against likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney has been the President’s improving numbers among unmarried women, a key pillar of the present and future Democratic coalition.

Among this group, Obama now leads Romney by 65-30 — and there’s been a net 18-point swing towards the President among them:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a4tDqN7zCZ4/Tz2i6NdvqEI/AAAAAAAAEpQ/IGwMF5gzSAQ/s1600/greenbergchart.jpg

[hcap]

Another nail for Team BO.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/CBO-LongestPeriodofHighUnemploymentSinceGreatDepressio n-USNewsandWorldReport.png






HOWEVER...

The full picture shows when the unemployment rate began to climb, and shortly after Obama took office, began to decline. Cause and effect, or in other words, in case I have not mentioned this obvious fact before.



Repeat after me.

v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y




IT'S----ALL-----BUSH'S-----Fault

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f07154769bedd0957000015/chart-of-the-day-unemployment-rate-vs-job-growth-jan-6-2012.jpg

[hcap]

Repug Nail 3 ?



http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wxglxzhmbk2cpxda14rivq.gif

[jognlope]

What exactly is "this guy's BS?"

[Tom]

It's just hcap...he's harmless.

[hcap]

What exactly is "this guy's BS?"Since 90% of the political posts on off topic is rightwing BS, this "guy's BS" is simply an attempt at fair and balanced.

[Tom]

Thread of the month! :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Since 90% of the political posts on off topic is rightwing BS, this "guy's BS" is simply an attempt at fair and balanced.

And your succeeding, Hcap! :cool: The info in your charts is rarely disputed - it's usually a shoot the messenger response that is posted.

Did you notice my lame effort with the Vegas visitor stats? A graph would have worked better than the actual stats but my computer skills are comparable to those of a bottom level maiden claimer.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Did you notice my lame effort with the Vegas visitor stats? A graph would have worked better than the actual stats but my computer skills are comparable to those of a bottom level maiden claimer.

The presentation of data was fine, it was the conclusion that was questionable. Boy oh boy, now I get the graph thing.

[NJ Stinks]

The presentation of data was fine, it was the conclusion that was questionable....

Thanks for the almost kind words, John. :(

[hcap]

And your succeeding, Hcap! :cool: The info in your charts is rarely disputed - it's usually a shoot the messenger response that is posted.

Did you notice my lame effort with the Vegas visitor stats? A graph would have worked better than the actual stats but my computer skills are comparable to those of a bottom level maiden claimer.NJ, I have cut my time spent on OT due to the idiocy rampant on the other side. Honestly I found the various Occupy threads venomous.

But every once in a while I like to stir the pot.
Graphs particularly annoy the righties for some strange reason. But I see you and Mosty are socking it to 'em. Keep up the good work. :jump:

[bigmack]

hclap, mostly & NJ ain't got nothin' on the Three Stooges.

Elections are won in the states. Right now it looks like a bloodbath.

His approval is 52% in the East.

And 40% in the South.

And 40% in the West.

And 40% in the Midwest.

Now Gallup did not define those regions. But Real Clear listed 8 states that look to be tossups, and only one of them can be defined as East (except by the commissioner of the Big East football conference who think Idaho is in the East): Colorado (9), Florida (29), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13) and Wisconsin (10).

That’s 114 Electoral College votes right there (not counting New Hampshire) and added to the 191 Electoral College votes that Real Clear Politics says Republicans will take, that is 305 votes — well above the 70 needed to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

[Tom]

I found the various Occupy threads venomous.

What, you don't like pigs in a blanket?

[NJ Stinks]

NJ, I have cut my time spent on OT due to the idiocy rampant on the other side. Honestly I found the various Occupy threads venomous.

But every once in a while I like to stir the pot.
Graphs particularly annoy the righties for some strange reason. But I see you and Mosty are socking it to 'em. Keep up the good work. :jump:

I understand completely, Hcap. You've been at this a lot longer than we have and the light at the end of the tunnel is not getting any closer - if you know what I mean.

Of course, you know what I mean! :D

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Gee, seeing how hcap was one of the core left that set the standards for politics in OT, I can't understand how it was OK for 8 years and now suddenly it is not.

Must be the right has more fortitude than the left.

[hcap]

Slowly I turned. Step by step. Inch by inch.

Graph by Graph.....



http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/2012electoralmap071111_2.jpg

.................................................. .........

Real Clear Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Battle for White House
217 Obama

Toss Ups
140

Republican 181

...............................................

And....

http://www.270towin.com/

Obama 196
Repugs 181

[bigmack]

I already have several higher-end wagers going for Nov of this year.

hcap looks confident enough to want in. What say?

[hcap]

Gee, seeing how hcap was one of the core left that set the standards for politics in OT, I can't understand how it was OK for 8 years and now suddenly it is not.

Must be the right has more fortitude than the left.




Your forgetting one key point

Repeat after me.

v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y


IT'S----ALL-----BUSH'S-----Fault

The Bush years still had you righties dominating off topic. by 5 to 1. But Sec was here. Ljb was here. Suf was here and just a few others fought the idiocy. The only tone we attempted to set set was rationality.

Unlike today's 10 to 1 further wacko la la land of extreme reactionary conservatism, where rationality is a lost cause.

[Ocala Mike]

Here's a prediction:

Obama wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote.


Ocala Mike

[hcap]

Here's a prediction:

Obama wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote.


Ocala MikeCorrection. Wins both and the repugs tack strongly to the middle and MAYBE take 2016. MAYBE they will wake from their slumber.

Unless of course the run a Palin/Joe the Plumber ticket.

[boxcar]

NJ, I have cut my time spent on OT due to the idiocy rampant on the other side. Honestly I found the various Occupy threads venomous.

Hmm...interesting. You didn't find the occupiers racists, bigoted and totally lacking in social graces, including in the fundamentals of being potty-trained?

But every once in a while I like to stir the pot.

But what you're not telling us that what's in the pot is what some of those clasless, nasty occupiers deposited on cars and in the streets. I thought you had more class than that. I mean talking about stooping low with pooper scooper in hand and bag in the other... :lol: :lol:

Graphs particularly annoy the righties for some strange reason. But I see you and Mosty are socking it to 'em. Keep up the good work. :jump:

The only thing you three stooges are "socking" to us is that you guys make the original characters look brilliant by comparison. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Unlike today's 10 to 1 further wacko la la land of extreme reactionary conservatism, where rationality is a lost cause.

How are you guys ever going to win the election if you can't even win here in OT? We can't help it if the liberal supporters are dying out.

Between Obama's dismal record of failure after failure and your guys aborting your next generation, it was bound to happen.

[hcap]

How are you guys ever going to win the election if you can't even win here in OT? We can't help it if the liberal supporters are dying out.

Between Obama's dismal record of failure after failure and your guys aborting your next generation, it was bound to happen.You gentlemen (and boxcar) are totally immersed in a fringe mentality NOT shared by the vast majority of Americans. I am not talking about conservatism here, I am talking about Tea Party lunacy. For sure a brief momentary reaction to a liberal and a black President scaring the beJesus out TEA PARTY members POKEADOT AND BUNNY pajamas. OT is a microcosm into a TPer's paranoid mind. Liberal supporters are not dying out, the TPers are

[hcap]

Hmm...interesting. You didn't find (the occupiers..sic ) racists, bigoted and totally lacking in social graces, including in the fundamentals of being potty-trainedI am assuming you meant yourself of course. :bang: I didn't know you had such a frank and honest self-ASSessment.

There is hope for you yet

[Lefty]

It's not a black president that scares the Tea Party, but a liberal president that is taking us down the drain. I guarantee that there plenty of black conservatives that the Tea Party would vote for in a heartbeat. But you call black conservatives "Uncle Tom" and other vile names.

[hcap]

Sorry, Lefty.

Boxcar says the Occupy moment is
" racists, bigoted and totally lacking in social graces, including in the fundamentals of being potty-trained". I say instead, screw him and shift the emphasis to TPers parading around with firearms and racist posters.

[elysiantraveller]

You gentlemen (and boxcar) are totally immersed in a fringe mentality NOT shared by the vast majority of Americans. I am not talking about conservatism here, I am talking about Tea Party lunacy. For sure a brief momentary reaction to a liberal and a black President scaring the beJesus out TEA PARTY members POKEADOT AND BUNNY pajamas. OT is a microcosm into a TPer's paranoid mind.

This is very true. Sadly, its happening everywhere among the GOP ranks.

The words pragmatic, transactional, and compromising are now looked up with disgust in the party.

Its pathetic really...

[Lefty]

hcap, I don't remember any robberies, rapes or dead bodies at any Tea Party event.
Can you say the same of the Occupy crowd?

[hcap]

The Occupy moment is international. Total numbers of Occupiers turned out hundreds of times more numerous than the Tea Party

Most ( not all ) of the Occupiers bad reputation as been fanned by right wing loonies like Drudge, Faux, Brightbart and Glen Dreck. Exaggerated ad nauseum.

So far however I will admit the Tea Party, initially a Dick Armey AstroTurf originated republican- primed movement, has had a larger political impact. So far. When the Politicians obeying extreme Tea Party dogma, broadcast items such as changing and ending SS, they lose the middle. I will also admit when the Occupy moment tacks TOO far to anarchy they lose it as well. The country is moderate. I think now leaning slightly left after the repugs ala Bush/Cheney devastated the economy

[bigmack]

hcap is literally all over the joint. On one end he endlessly whines about being outnumbered at this silly place, but then he talks of 'Occupy' far out numbering TP's. Being out numbered is good. But then it's bad.

He talks of racist posters ( :D ) & firearms, all the while knowing there are many in his "I had high hopes for them" Occupiers.

I've debated with hcap. Not worth it anymore.

He is even more fraudulent than mosty when it comes to an honest debate. :ThmbDown:

[Lefty]

The occupiers were encouraged by Obama, Pelosi and many other dims and set on a path of destruction. They robbed and raped and maybe even murdered as there was a dead body found. They are comprised of govt dole types that want to be given the fruits of someone elses labor.

The Tea Party never destroyed anything. They are working people that would like to hold on to a country that they believe in and worked for. They want
to hold on to a fair share of the fruits of their labor.
They cleaned up after themselves and never destroyed someone elses property.

[boxcar]

I am assuming you meant yourself of course. :bang: I didn't know you had such a frank and honest self-ASSessment.

There is hope for you yet

But evidently none for you, since you support these left wing radicals who live for their handouts from the government. What a bunch of losers! And then for them to defame and cast aspersions upon the productive members of society, yet! And just for good measure to make sure everyone in the world knows what bottom-feeding reprobates they are, they toss in a few rapes on the streets? Real class act, those occupiers. And what does this say about anyone who applauds them and supports them!? (Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question!)

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

This is very true. Sadly, its happening everywhere among the GOP ranks.

The words pragmatic, transactional, and compromising are now looked up with disgust in the party.

Its pathetic really...I completely disagree with the sentiments expressed here in this thread by both you and hcap. I believe your take on the GOP, the tea party, and right-leaning members of this board is terribly misguided and completely inaccurate.

I believe hcaps assessment that the GOP is too far right and that they might win in 2016 if they become more moderate to be absolutely laughable

He's implying with such nonsense that guys like Romney are not moderates... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think bigmack has the right idea. With such delusion lurking about here with the likes of hcap and certain ideas from elysian, it's just not worth it any longer.

[elysiantraveller]

I completely disagree with the sentiments expressed here in this thread by both you and hcap. I believe your take on the GOP, the tea party, and right-leaning members of this board is terribly misguided and completely inaccurate.

I believe hcaps assessment that the GOP is too far right and that they might win in 2016 if they become more moderate to be absolutely laughable

He's implying with such nonsense that guys like Romney are not moderates... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think bigmack has the right idea. With such delusion lurking about here with the likes of hcap and certain ideas from elysian, it's just not worth it any longer.

You are absolutely wrong in your assessment of me and, I think, hcap.

We both know that Romney is a moderate and both of us feel he is the most electable... thats why, like bigmack, I support Romney. Hcap also thinks he is the best option we have to take on Obama.

What we are pointing out is the obsession by a lot, not everyone, on here and in the Republican party to want to unrealistically push the party so far right it is A) completely unelectable and B) almost martyr like.

In the end I'll support whoever the GOP nominates but the TP movement is trying to drag the party off the cliff with their lack of compromise and extremely hardline positions.

They have fractured and radicalized the party and ultimately are hurting whoever the nominee ends up being.

Hell, Jon Huntsman is considered a RINO by the current GOP when his policy agenda and record was vastly more conservative than two of the remaining three candidates...

Its about winning the Presidency not who can out-conservative the other...

[Lefty]

Didn't we run a moderate last time and he got beat?
And didn't the tea party influence win us the House in 2010?
Just checking...

[elysiantraveller]

Didn't we run a moderate last time and he got beat?
And didn't the tea party influence win us the House in 2010?
Just checking...

He got beat because of a conservative backlash.

And two years ago the TP had a lot more political capital than it does now.

Elections are cycles and each one is completely independent from another.

[Lefty]

Really? Hmmm. Lessee, Reagan won and Dole got beat.
I like a conservative's chances better than a moderate. But I will have to say that Obama has screwed up everything so bad that he should be beaten by most anybody. Just run clips of what he has said. Before the last election Obama said Bush wasn't a patriot because he spent too much money. Then he goes and spends more. Run those clips. We should be a shoo-in.

[elysiantraveller]

Really? Hmmm. Lessee, Reagan won and Dole got beat.
I like a conservative's chances better than a moderate. But I will have to say that Obama has screwed up everything so bad that he should be beaten by most anybody. Just run clips of what he has said. Before the last election Obama said Bush wasn't a patriot because he spent too much money. Then he goes and spends more. Run those clips. We should be a shoo-in.

I tell you that you can't compare elections so you argue with me by comparing more elections? :bang:

[fast4522]

And you think its easy!

[boxcar]

Its about winning the Presidency not who can out-conservative the other...

You really have a severe case of mental myopia. So, then what happens if a Republican progressive gets elected? Oh, wait, I know...he'll turn the country .666 degrees to the right of where his fellow progressives for the last 100 years have steered steered us. Is that the deal? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

You really have a severe case of mental myopia. So, then what happens if a Republican progressive gets elected? Oh, wait, I know...he'll turn the country .666 degrees to the right of where his fellow progressives for the last 100 years have steered steered us. Is that the deal? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I'm not arguing with your paranoid rhetoric anymore.

You go ahead and back people who can't win that want to return us to 1898... I'll live in the reality that is modern American politics.

[johnhannibalsmith]

.... by 5 to 1. But Sec was here. Ljb was here. Suf was here and just a few others fought the idiocy. The only tone we attempted to set set was rationality.

Unlike today's 10 to 1 further wacko la la land of extreme reactionary conservatism, where rationality is a lost cause.

Not to retreat in this thread, but I think it is somewhat worthwhile to mention that the "overmatched" group works as a well-oiled machine to support one another on virtually any and all topics without a peep of dissent.

On the other hand, the "majority faction" argues among themselves regularly. Lately in particular, with the Repub nomination going on, you see as much debating within that group as you do between the "minority" and "majority".

I spent twelve tylenols worth of typing in long exchanges with Boxcar over the gay marriage "issue" (sorry 46z) and where were my liberal friends to gang up on Boxcar? I'm not saying I wanted any support, but the "issues" (sorry again zilly) themselves aren't as equally divided among us as these ratios would suggest when you turn them into teams. If we drew out a complete list of social and political "issues" (dammit 46), I'd probably be in mostpost's corner at least as often as Boxcar's.

I just don't see the value in rating the "fairness" factor with these ratios. I know where the numbers come from, but I really just don't think that they apply as much as you would like to believe - nor that they even matter if even ONE person can articulate one position better than fifty can take the opposite.

[bigmack]

You really have a severe case of mental myopia.
Whoa there, Kemo Sabe. "Mentally myopic?"

That's my material! Get your own or pony-up a residual.

I could use a couple extra shekels.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Hands.gif

[Lefty]

Elys, I don't care what you say, I can compare elections and have done it!
Bottom line: Moderates are not as good a bet to win elections on the R side as conservatives! There ya go...

[boxcar]

Whoa there, Kemo Sabe. "Mentally myopic?"

That's my material! Get your own or pony-up a residual.

Sorry, Mackro, but you're behind the curve ball badly. Been using that phrase long before this forum was a gleam in your eye.

[quote]I could use a couple extra shekels.[/i]

What's the matter? Now you're no longer satisfied wiith the extra 40 bucks a week the progressives have given you and have extended for you until the end of the year? Already you're looking a gift horse in the mouth? :D

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Not to retreat in this thread, but I think it is somewhat worthwhile to mention that the "overmatched" group works as a well-oiled machine to support one another on virtually any and all topics without a peep of dissent.

On the other hand, the "majority faction" argues among themselves regularly. Lately in particular, with the Repub nomination going on, you see as much debating within that group as you do between the "minority" and "majority".

I spent twelve tylenols worth of typing in long exchanges with Boxcar over the gay marriage "issue" (sorry 46z) and where were my liberal friends to gang up on Boxcar? I'm not saying I wanted any support, but the "issues" (sorry again zilly) themselves aren't as equally divided among us as these ratios would suggest when you turn them into teams. If we drew out a complete list of social and political "issues" (dammit 46), I'd probably be in mostpost's corner at least as often as Boxcar's.

I just don't see the value in rating the "fairness" factor with these ratios. I know where the numbers come from, but I really just don't think that they apply as much as you would like to believe - nor that they even matter if even ONE person can articulate one position better than fifty can take the opposite.
I really like this point John...and the left doesnt see it as much as it is in reality. I argue with just as many on the "right" as i do with the left. And I can appreciate the aspirin...hell Boxie has had me reaching for the bottle and a bottle lol.
But, the one thing I will add, that some have mentioned here, I don't know where this whole Romney is the electable one is coming from. Two months ago, that may have seemed to be the case. Today, I would suggest (and seems the country is starting to think as well) that Santorum will be a worthy opponent. If, and I know it's a big if at this point but, IF santorum pulls off Michigan on the 28th, look out! Romney will almost be done at that point in my opinion.
And, as I have said many times, I will support whoever the opponent to Obama is. But, given that choice, I will even donate to Santorums campaign!! :lol:

[boxcar]

I really like this point John...and the left doesnt see it as much as it is in reality. I argue with just as many on the "right" as i do with the left. And I can appreciate the aspirin...hell Boxie has had me reaching for the bottle and a bottle lol.
But, the one thing I will add, that some have mentioned here, I don't know where this whole Romney is the electable one is coming from. Two months ago, that may have seemed to be the case. Today, I would suggest (and seems the country is starting to think as well) that Santorum will be a worthy opponent. If, and I know it's a big if at this point but, IF santorum pulls off Michigan on the 28th, look out! Romney will almost be done at that point in my opinion.
And, as I have said many times, I will support whoever the opponent to Obama is. But, given that choice, I will even donate to Santorums campaign!! :lol:

The whole "electable" syndrome is purely a lamestream media propaganda ploy which only the gullible, naive or brain-dead buy into. You have to understand something: The MM today is really nothing less that the pro-leftist arm of the U.S. government. For all practical intent and purposes the MM is government-controlled. They'll lie for the left. Mislead for the left. Misrepresent for the left. Conceal damaging information for the left. Cover up for the left. There's nothing the MM won't do for their friends on the left. The leftists play the media for the fools they and and the media like the lap dogs they are lap up the phony "adoration" by the leftists because the government makes the media feel as though they're important and part of the elite inner circle -- part of the "good ol' boy" system -- real insiders. In short, the MM are the leftists' useful idiots, but the media are too stupid to realize this. And who is even more stupid than the media is the Republican Establishment because they think they can win the MM over by "being nice to them" or buying into their stupid premises, which is the farthest thing from the truth! (A great example of this can be heard when Santorum recently tossed his billionaire supporter Foster Friess under the bus in order to play to the media. Not very bright of Mr. Santorum.)

Regarding that aspirin, NTG, just make sure you stick those little bad boys in the right place and not in between your knees. :lol:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

I really like this point John...and the left doesnt see it as much as it is in reality. I argue with just as many on the "right" as i do with the left. And I can appreciate the aspirin...hell Boxie has had me reaching for the bottle and a bottle lol.
But, the one thing I will add, that some have mentioned here, I don't know where this whole Romney is the electable one is coming from. Two months ago, that may have seemed to be the case. Today, I would suggest (and seems the country is starting to think as well) that Santorum will be a worthy opponent. If, and I know it's a big if at this point but, IF santorum pulls off Michigan on the 28th, look out! Romney will almost be done at that point in my opinion.
And, as I have said many times, I will support whoever the opponent to Obama is. But, given that choice, I will even donate to Santorums campaign!! :lol:

Santorum is much more socially conservative with his stances on abortion and gay rights etc. Its actually how he has chosen to contrast himself from Romney. Sure, it helps him in the primaries but will hurt him in the general election among both women and young voters. His foreign policy stances are also very "hawkish" which won't serve him well in a general election as most American's have what I call "war fatigue."

Right now he is surging as Newt's campaign has been a non-factor for the past couple of weeks but we will know shortly whether or not he can consolidate the TPer's and the Christian far right.

[ElKabong]

Elys, I don't care what you say, I can compare elections and have done it!
Bottom line: Moderates are not as good a bet to win elections on the R side as conservatives! There ya go...

how'd Goldwater do vs LBJ? You know, a real conservative vs Mr Great Society?

GHB didn't fare too well either vs a guy that ran as a librull

[elysiantraveller]

how'd Goldwater do vs LBJ? You know, a real conservative vs Mr Great Society?

GHB didn't fare too well either vs a guy that ran as a librull

Exactly...

You can't compare elections from one cycle to the next its completely meaningless.

Dixie-Crats were real conservative too...

[PaceAdvantage]

Not to retreat in this thread, but I think it is somewhat worthwhile to mention that the "overmatched" group works as a well-oiled machine to support one another on virtually any and all topics without a peep of dissent.

On the other hand, the "majority faction" argues among themselves regularly. Lately in particular, with the Repub nomination going on, you see as much debating within that group as you do between the "minority" and "majority".

I spent twelve tylenols worth of typing in long exchanges with Boxcar over the gay marriage "issue" (sorry 46z) and where were my liberal friends to gang up on Boxcar? I'm not saying I wanted any support, but the "issues" (sorry again zilly) themselves aren't as equally divided among us as these ratios would suggest when you turn them into teams. If we drew out a complete list of social and political "issues" (dammit 46), I'd probably be in mostpost's corner at least as often as Boxcar's.

I just don't see the value in rating the "fairness" factor with these ratios. I know where the numbers come from, but I really just don't think that they apply as much as you would like to believe - nor that they even matter if even ONE person can articulate one position better than fifty can take the opposite.You said it way better than I could. Something tells me hcap will ignore this for as long as possible, until I call him out on it a few times.

Then he'll just claim it's all BS... :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

Not to retreat in this thread, but I think it is somewhat worthwhile to mention that the "overmatched" group works as a well-oiled machine to support one another on virtually any and all topics without a peep of dissent.

On the other hand, the "majority faction" argues among themselves regularly. Lately in particular, with the Repub nomination going on, you see as much debating within that group as you do between the "minority" and "majority".

I spent twelve tylenols worth of typing in long exchanges with Boxcar over the gay marriage "issue" (sorry 46z) and where were my liberal friends to gang up on Boxcar?

First, I know I'm not going to change Boxcar's mind about gay marriage. And then there is the fact that I'm not interested in discussing anything with Boxcar that has a great chance of turning theological. (No offense, Boxcar.) Anyway, I don't remember even reading your exchange. If was in the Religious thread, chances are I missed it.

Secondly, since there are not many of us in the "minority faction" to begin with, arguing amongst ourselves seems like a good way to become extinct here. Not to mention the fact that we've got more than enough stuff to debate with the "majority faction". There are only so many hours in a day! :D

And lastly, if this was 2008 and Clinton & Obama were slugging it out in the primaries, Dems would have a lot more to debate. You might agree with that even if you disagree my first two "excuses".

[Lefty]

You're right, LBJ, beat Goldwater but i'll never forget the "daisy" ad, where they
intimated that if Goldwater were elected he'd start a nuclear war. So that's one for the libs.
But Reagan did beat Carter rather handily, eh what?

[Lefty]

stinks, do you realize that Boxy's views on gay marriage, and all the Republican
candidates views on gay marriage are the SAME as Obama's.

[NJ Stinks]

stinks, do you realize that Boxy's views on gay marriage, and all the Republican
candidates views on gay marriage are the SAME as Obama's.

One significant difference, Lefty. Obama might come around to my way of thinking. There's no chance the Republican candidates will - even if they wanted to.

[johnhannibalsmith]

One significant difference, Lefty. Obama might come around to my way of thinking. ...

You act like it would be difficult... just rustle up (greater than or equal to) 50.00000001% of voters and get them to see it your way and I guarantee Obama will be next to fall in line.

[johnhannibalsmith]

First, I know I'm not going to change Boxcar's mind about gay marriage. And then there is the fact that I'm not interested in discussing anything with Boxcar that has a great chance of turning theological. (No offense, Boxcar.) Anyway, I don't remember even reading your exchange. If was in the Religious thread, chances are I missed it.

Secondly, since there are not many of us in the "minority faction" to begin with, arguing amongst ourselves seems like a good way to become extinct here. Not to mention the fact that we've got more than enough stuff to debate with the "majority faction". There are only so many hours in a day! :D

And lastly, if this was 2008 and Clinton & Obama were slugging it out in the primaries, Dems would have a lot more to debate. You might agree with that even if you disagree my first two "excuses".

Not bad for missing the bulk of the point. :D

[hcap]

This why the republican party is losing the center

“Something tells me, that if the upcoming election could be decided on social issues, the Republicans could win that in a landslide, because we are on the right side of the culture war,” he said. “The problem is, we’re scared to death of it. The Republican establishment wants no part of it.”

---Rush Limbaugh

Santorum, socially conservative, is tilting the party further. Mitt has to deal with the large part of the base drawn to these views.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This why the republican party is losing the center

“Something tells me, that if the upcoming election could be decided on social issues, the Republicans could win that in a landslide, because we are on the right side of the culture war,” he said. “The problem is, we’re scared to death of it. The Republican establishment wants no part of it.”

---Rush Limbaugh

Santorum, socially conservative, is tilting the party further. Mitt has to deal with the large part of the base drawn to these views.

Rush knows a lot more than I do I suppose, but I think he's nuts if he thinks that social conservativism as a platform would be a winning strategy, much less in a landslide.

Yeah, there are a lot of individual platforms within that spectrum that would appeal to a majority, but I'm unconvinced that this country really wants policy and leadership that is defined by the entirety of one group's moral values.

[hcap]

Nail 3b

As the election approaches, the once "next new thing" the Tea Party, based it's Raison d'être on tax policy. Now that influence is fading

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_tax_debate_2012.jpg

[boxcar]

Secondly, since there are not many of us in the "minority faction" to begin with, arguing amongst ourselves seems like a good way to become extinct here. Not to mention the fact that we've got more than enough stuff to debate with the "majority faction". There are only so many hours in a day! :D

Nah....don't buy it. The real reason is that leftists are horrible critical thinkers and they could no more debate one another than they could any conservative of average intelligence. But I sure would like to see the spectacle of a leftist "debating" with another one. That ought to be a howlin' hoot.

Now, you may think that I"m being a little harsh here by stereotyping all leftists. But am I? Let's look at the record.

AGW: An Intellectually bankrupt social/science issue if there ever was one. And the Left knows it can't win in a genuine debate, which is why they keep telling the world it's a "settled issue" -- no debate is necessary. Let's shut it down. AGW is past the debate stage. This is one way of silencing the opposition, isn't it?

Or take the leftists attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine which would have been their way of giving the Right far less time to talk about the issues.

Of take the dismal record of leftists talk show hosts. Deplorable. The public perceives that they are generally a bunch of windbags having little of substance to say about social, political and economic issues. Conversely, conservative talk show hosts do very well for themselves. (And the same can be said about liberal authors. They generally don't fare very well

Or take the tactics of Media Matters. Now they're on a mission to destroy FNC because they perceive that Fox is a dissenting voice out there and they can't have that. The Left's solution to rational and intelligent dissent and alternative views: Let's shut down Fox. This way we can shut them up. And besides, it's for the public good. We must protect the masses in the same way we protect little pre-K kids from their ignorant mommies who don't know how to feed their kids properly.

Or take the latest incident with Buchanan. He writes a tough, hard-hitting, tell-it-like-it-is, mince-no-words book, and he's demonized for it and fired from MSNBC on the pretense that he's a racist (probably among other things).

Or look at what happened with Juan Williams over on NPR when he dared to stray from the party line on Muslims. And I could go on with numerous other examples. (In fact an entire book could be written about how the Left only favors free speech when it is they who are doing the speaking!)

The irrefutable fact of the matter is that leftists' ideology and philosophy has so spiritually and morally impoverished them, has so blinded them to Truth and Reality as we all know it -- that they're incapable of making a coherent and rational case for their collectivist world view. (Even the bible portrays sinners as being "stupid" or "fools" or "foolish".) The leftist mind simply cannot see clearly enough to be able to connect the dots between their idea of what the world should be and why the world could never become what they envision. There is this huge disconnect between their illusions and reality. And I think leftists really do know this, which is why they're always looking for ways to shut down dissent -- to shut down the opposing view that does make sense or at least makes better sense.

Finally, the political climate in this country has just about reached critical mass. More and more leftists are crawling out of the woodwork and becoming more emboldened. We see this with the "occupiers" and with how leftists more brazenly and openly emulate the tactics of their communist soul brothers -- espousing revolution and attacking the free speech rights of the opposition whenever and wherever they can. If leftists were so confident in their ideology, why do they have to try to shut down opposing ideologies? Cannot their own survive critical analysis and scrutiny? Cannot their own stand on its own fours? Cannot their own stand up and bear its own weight? The answer to these rhetorical questions will be obvious to all -- but the blind.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Rush knows a lot more than I do I suppose, but I think he's nuts if he thinks that social conservativism as a platform would be a winning strategy, much less in a landslide.

Yeah, there are a lot of individual platforms within that spectrum that would appeal to a majority, but I'm unconvinced that this country really wants policy and leadership that is defined by the entirety of one group's moral values.

Excuse me! The country's policies and leadership are already defined for the most part by the godless religion of Human Secularism, which is precisely why this nation is in the pickle juice it's in. Human Secularism: The Unholy Sanctuary of Vice, Corruption, Deceit, Theft, Fraud, Injustice and last but not least Murder.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

This why the republican party is losing the center...

Who in the conservative camp would you blame for that? TP and Christian Right?

[JustRalph]

There is no center anymore....... and where it does exist it doesn't matter. It exists in states where the centrist votes won't swing the state

[hcap]

Nah....don't buy it. The real reason is that leftists are horrible critical thinkers and they could no more debate one another than they could any conservative of average intelligence. But I sure would like to see the spectacle of a leftist "debating" with another one. That ought to be a howlin' hoot.This is coming from a "critical thinker" who once told me refrigerator magnets are magical, and the universe only appears old but it is really quite young. 1000's of times younger than 13 or 14 billion years it really is, because we are fooled by God into believing it is very old

[hcap]

Who in the conservative camp would you blame for that? TP and Christian Right?After GHW Bush, the socially conservative Christian right became much more influential. Mixed with the simmering "Southern Strategy" employed by the repugs to win elections in southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism back in the 60's. It also drew on fears of growing federal power both socially and economically. And fears of lawlessness

I don't think fiscal conservatism always a strong republican mainstay, was as divisive to the country until it was co-opted by the Tea Party recently and made into a non negotiable talking point.

[bigmack]

After GHW Bush, the socially conservative Christian right became much more influential. Mixed with the simmering "Southern Strategy" employed by the repugs to win elections in southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism back in the 60's. It also drew on fears of growing federal power both socially and economically. And fears of lawlessness

I don't think fiscal conservatism always a strong republican mainstay, was as divisive to the country until it was co-opted by the Tea Party recently and made into a non negotiable talking point.
Gawd, you are so full of shit, it's remarkable.

Thing is about you, you don't just disagree with people. You want to rip their lungs out and spit on their open wound.

As I've said before, I've never seen such hatred from a certain grouping than you and your loony comrades.

Fight the power! :lol:

[hcap]

Gawd, you are so full of shit, it's remarkable.

Thing is about you, you don't just disagree with people. You want to rip their lungs out and spit on their open wound.

As I've said before, I've never seen such hatred from a certain grouping than you and your loony comrades.

Fight the power! :lol:

I don't think I exaggerated either the Christian right, the "Southern Strategy or the Tea Party's role in tilting the repugs further right.

Hatred? We are talking here on PA OT, otherwise known as the anti Obama, anti-dem anti-liberal hate channel 247/365

[boxcar]

This is coming from a "critical thinker" who once told me refrigerator magnets are magical, and the universe only appears old but it is really quite young. 1000's of times younger than 13 or 14 billion years it really is, because we are fooled by God into believing it is very old

Nope, you have it backwards, as usual. Because you were fooled by scientists with an admitted anti-God bias. Remember?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There is no center anymore....... and where it does exist it doesn't matter. It exists in states where the centrist votes won't swing the state

Au contraire. There is a "center" but it can be diffiicult to identify. I would liken it to "purgatory" a virtual realm of existence somewhere between heaven and hell. It's occupied by people who believe they are too far good to stoop down to the level of the radical left who occupy hell; yet, they can't stand the folks on the right either because they perceive that conservatives in heaven think they're far too good for everyone else. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. :lol: Those "moderates" in the "center" truly occupy their own little alternate universe where neither right or left hand turns are permitted. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

This why the republican party is losing the center

“Something tells me, that if the upcoming election could be decided on social issues, the Republicans could win that in a landslide, because we are on the right side of the culture war,” he said. “The problem is, we’re scared to death of it. The Republican establishment wants no part of it.”

---Rush Limbaugh

Santorum, socially conservative, is tilting the party further. Mitt has to deal with the large part of the base drawn to these views.You do realize that Obama's strongest supporters (Black Americans) are for the most part socially conservative...you do realize this, correct?

How come you never talk about that?

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/01/03/african-americans-provided-58-percent-of-democratic-primary-votes-and-1-percent-of-gop-ballots/

http://blackamerica.uchicago.edu/
Black youth consistently hold the most conservative views on questions of premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion. Among black youth, 42 percent felt that sex before marriage is wrong, compared with 28 percent of whites and 32 percent of Latinos. Among blacks, 55 percent think that homosexuality is always wrong, compared with 35 percent of whites and 36 percent of Latinos. The survey also found that 47 percent of black youth feel that abortion is always wrong, compared with 34 percent of whites and 46 percent of Latinos. Black youth with more religious backgrounds were more likely to hold conservative opinions.If this is how black youth poll, you can pretty much assume older black Americans will poll even higher on the social conservative scale.

So when you criticize the right for being socially conservative, you're also criticizing a sizable portion of your own party's base of support.

Put that in your pipe for a while...

[hcap]

Nope, you have it backwards, as usual. Because you were fooled by scientists with an admitted anti-God bias. Remember?

You just gloated about your superb ability to think critically. I guess if you consider the philosophy of the Church fathers during the Inquisition and guys like Cotton Mather critical thinkers, you are up there with the best!!

Think about this critically box, and tell me how you can know whether this is true or false.

12th century sailors were forbidden to eat onions while sailing, in fear that their breath would alter their compass readings.

Sounds like you would go along with this knowing your analysis of magnetism as magic. After all, compass needles align to the earths magnetic field and 12 th century sailors eating onions might have jinxed the needles "magic"

[boxcar]

You just gloated about your superb ability to think critically. I guess if you consider the philosophy of the Church fathers during the Inquisition and guys like Cotton Mather critical thinkers, you are up there with the best!!

Think about this critically box, and tell me how you can know whether this is true or false.

12th century sailors were forbidden to eat onions while sailing, in fear that their breath would alter their compass readings.

I'm not sure about those 12 century sailors and their yuns yuns but I am pretty certain that you should lay off the psychedelic mushrooms before you post. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Put that in your pipe for a while...

Good grief, PA! We're sending mixed messages to Hcap that will surely confuse him. I just got done telling him to lay off euphoria-producing materials. :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

I'm not sure about those 12 century sailors and their yuns yuns but I am pretty certain that you should lay off the psychedelic mushrooms before you post. :rolleyes:

Come now box, a critical thinker of your stature should have no problem determining if onions influence compass needles. Your perceptive magical take on frig magnets for example, for sure demonstrates your superior powers of critical thinking

[PaceAdvantage]

I know hcap can't have me on ignore...it's physically impossible to ignore moderators/administrators on this site... :lol:

So I wonder why no response to reply #99?

[HUSKER55]

HE IS CHEWING THOSE ONIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS POST:D

BTW, IF YOU HAVE CHEWED ENOUGH ONIONS TO TURN A COMPAS PLEASE STAY DOWNWIND FROM ME :D

[boxcar]

Come now box, a critical thinker of your stature should have no problem determining if onions influence compass needles. Your perceptive magical take on frig magnets for example, for sure demonstrates your superior powers of critical thinking

The only ones around here who believe in magic are evolutionists. Somehow, Something pulled Nothing out of a black top hat and it magically transformed itself somehow into Something. Only to a mind like yours would that black magic make any sense.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

The only ones around here who believe in magic are evolutionists. Somehow, Something pulled Nothing out of a black top hat and it magically transformed itself somehow into Something. Only to a mind like yours would that black magic make any sense.

Boxcar

Science has a method for testing and verifying knowledge. When it doesn't have a way of doing it just says it doesn't know. Unlike religion that says "God did it!" to things it can't answer.

How would someone who is anti-evolution explain "Lucy?"

[hcap]

The only ones around here who believe in magic are evolutionists. Somehow, Something pulled Nothing out of a black top hat and it magically transformed itself somehow into Something. Only to a mind like yours would that black magic make any sense.

Many scientists believe in God and still manage to do science well. Many religious thinkers do not call magnetism "magic" nor deny the universe is at least 13 billion years old.

Critical thinking is not jumping up and down on one leg, while sticking one's thumbs in one's ears wearing a blindfold, and babbling nonsense loudly to drown out reality. And then without a shred of evidence claim they know the will of God.

[boxcar]

Science has a method for testing and verifying knowledge. When it doesn't have a way of doing it just says it doesn't know. Unlike religion that says "God did it!" to things it can't answer.

How would someone who is anti-evolution explain "Lucy?"

Yeah, which anti-God scientists were there at the beginning to see it all happen? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Many scientists believe in God and still manage to do science well. Many religious thinkers do not call magnetism "magic" nor deny the universe is at least 13 billion years old.

No, you mean, they believe in a god. I'll become a believer in their god when they prove to me how Something evolved from Nothing, how the Personal evolved from the Impersonal, how the Organic evolved from the Inorganic and how Intelligence evolved from Inability. Anything short of this is smoke and mirrors and good ol' fashioned Black Magic -- from that Pit of Outer Darkness.

Have you never read where Jesus said, "whoever does the will of God..." (Mat 3:35). Was your spiritual hero sadly mistaken about this, too, as he was with sooooo many other things? Would not doing the will of God presuppose knowing it? And how could one know apart from God revealing what his will is? :rolleyes: Isn't this kinda like the way things work in the real world, too? :rolleyes:

Critical thinking is not jumping up and down on one leg, while sticking one's thumbs in one's ears wearing a blindfold, and babbling nonsense loudly to drown out reality. And then without a shred of evidence claim they know the will of God.

Critical thinking was never your forte, 'cap. You're much happier wrapping yourself in your dark security cloak of ignorance denying that God has revealed himself to his creation -- pretty much in same way you deny there's hardly a communist alive in this world anymore, let alone here in America. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

So I guess, once again your version is the only version possible.

My Way or the Highway Boxcar Strikes Again


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution




Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)


Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth


Buddhist
 
81%
Hindu
 
80%
Jewish
 
77%
Unaffiliated
 
72%
Catholic
 
58%
Orthodox
 
54%
Mainline Protestant
 
51%
Muslim
 
45%
Hist. Black Protest.
 
38%
Evang. Protestant
 
24%
Mormon
 
22%
Jehovah's Witnesses





Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[73][74][75]

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.[76] There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.[77] In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.[7


.................................................. ..........
 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

November 24, 2009

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

[Buckeye]

Statistics don't really mean that much if they're not true.

[elysiantraveller]

Yeah, which anti-God scientists were there at the beginning to see it all happen? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I fail to see your point. No one was around on the "first day" either.

Anyway I'd be curious to know how someone with your views explains a discovery like Lucy.

[boxcar]

So I guess, once again your version is the only version possible.

My Way or the Highway Boxcar Strikes Again


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution




Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)


Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth


Buddhist
 
81%
Hindu
 
80%
Jewish
 
77%
Unaffiliated
 
72%
Catholic
 
58%
Orthodox
 
54%
Mainline Protestant
 
51%
Muslim
 
45%
Hist. Black Protest.
 
38%
Evang. Protestant
 
24%
Mormon
 
22%
Jehovah's Witnesses





Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[73][74][75]

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.[76] There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.[77] In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.[7


.................................................. ..........
 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

November 24, 2009

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

Hcap, you have hijacked another thread. I have replied on the Religious thread.

Greyfox, please take care of my light work for me, will ya? :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I fail to see your point. No one was around on the "first day" either.

Anyway I'd be curious to know how someone with your views explains a discovery like Lucy.

You talking about the Lucy in "I Love Lucy"? Loved that show when I was growin' up. But if you're talking about that "pygmy chimp", then all I gotta say is :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Hcap still hasn't responded to reply #99.

I really am a bit shocked...I figured he'd come up with SOMETHING by now... :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

You talking about the Lucy in "I Love Lucy"? Loved that show when I was growin' up. But if you're talking about that "pygmy chimp", then all I gotta say is :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

I'm not trying to argue with you just wondering how a someone with your views explains it's existence.

[boxcar]

I'm not trying to argue with you just wondering how a someone with your views explains it's existence.

Shirley U. Jest! What the heck is there to explain? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Hcap still hasn't responded to reply #99.

I really am a bit shocked...I figured he'd come up with SOMETHING by now... :lol:I will soon

Am in trhe middle of a project to produce customized seed ratings and variants for all races run NA in the last year. About 90% there.

Boxcar is an easier debate. I usually don't have to go very deep.

[elysiantraveller]

Shirley U. Jest! What the heck is there to explain? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

How would someone who is anti-evolution explain "Lucy?"

Really?

It's pretty straightforward. If you don't believe in evolution what's your take on her discovery.

[boxcar]

Really?

It's pretty straightforward. If you don't believe in evolution what's your take on her discovery.

Like all the other "stupendous" discoveries before "her": A fraud!

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Like all the other "stupendous" discoveries before "her": A fraud!

Boxcar

So its a hoax?

[boxcar]

So its a hoax?

You sound incredulous. Why would that be, I wonder?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

You sound incredulous. Why would that be, I wonder?

Boxcar

It was a honest question, I was curious what you thought and felt it deserves more than a one word response.

If you don't want to answer it that's fine. Just don't respond next time.

[hcap]

You do realize that Obama's strongest supporters (Black Americans) are for the most part socially conservative...you do realize this, correct?

How come you never talk about that?

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/01/03/african-americans-provided-58-percent-of-democratic-primary-votes-and-1-percent-of-gop-ballots/

http://blackamerica.uchicago.edu/
If this is how black youth poll, you can pretty much assume older black Americans will poll even higher on the social conservative scale.

So when you criticize the right for being socially conservative, you're also criticizing a sizable portion of your own party's base of support.

Put that in your pipe for a while...I am not criticizing, I am pointing out that Repugs are going to have to tack strongly towards the middle to be successful in November. In no way will socially conservative issues influence black voters. You are spinning one factor totally out of context hoping somehow change reality

Overall black voters voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Black voters have been squarely in the Democratic party's corner since the early part of the 20th century.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

....Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. The Democratic Party didn’t welcome blacks then, and it wasn’t until 1924 that blacks were even permitted to attend Democratic conventions in any official capacity. Most blacks lived in the South, where they were mostly prevented from voting at all.

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/2008/ask_factcheck_images/april2008/BlackVote/Black_Vote_Pres.jpg


Social conservatism is not going to affect how blacks vote in the upcoming election, Social PROGRAMS will. White conservative Republicans are the ones that will be influenced by Santorum and ilk.

To suggest blacks will lean republican because of abortion, homosexuality, or premarital sex, is totally ignoring black voting history. The above graph shows NO propensity for blacks to vote contrary to well established trends

[boxcar]

It was a honest question, I was curious what you thought and felt it deserves more than a one word response.

If you don't want to answer it that's fine. Just don't respond next time.

Did I not give you an honest answer when I said "fraud"? :rolleyes: Next time if you don't like my answer be honest enough to tell me that you don't.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Did I not give you an honest answer when I said "fraud"? :rolleyes: Next time if you don't like my answer be honest enough to tell me that you don't.

I usually do

[bigmack]

....Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. The Democratic Party didn’t welcome blacks then, and it wasn’t until 1924 that blacks were even permitted to attend Democratic conventions in any official capacity.
What :confused:

You mean every D-nerd that has ASSumed Dem's have championed every 'little guy' in the history of mankind and R's have 'kept them down' is full of shit?

Well, I know YOU don't agree with that, but at least FactCheck that you posted does. :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

What :confused:

You mean every D-nerd that has ASSumed Dem's have championed every 'little guy' in the history of mankind and R's have 'kept them down' is full of shit?

Well, I know YOU don't agree with that, but at least FactCheck that you posted does. :lol:

The parties essentially flip flopped in the first half of the last century. Several factors led to this. The progressive movement in TeddyR's republican party was essentially the end of the forward-thinking reformist R party. Other factors like the great migrations of blacks to the north, and the New Deal democrats culminated in the parties essentially flip-flopping in domestic policy. If looking at the point where this shift became permanent most would point to the Dixie-crats of the 1948 presidential election where Strom Thurmond and the southern D guard broke ranks in a effort to preserve the previous old traditionalist D stance. Their failure resulted in them switching alignment and joining the R's and creating the party agenda's and voter breakdowns by region we still see today.

[boxcar]

I usually do

But you're always wrong in the matter.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I am not criticizing,Of course you are. Are you now telling me that you embrace social conservatism? Of course you don't. You have been critical of social conservatism forever, as have the entire lot of left-leaners on here. In fact, people create threads talking about how social conservatives have low IQs. I guess I missed your posts in that thread where you decried that study...lol

And yet, you wouldn't dare criticize a sizable portion of your party's and Obama's strongest group of supporters, black Americans, who are without a doubt social conservatives, according to every piece of literature I can find on the subject.

Overall black voters voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Black voters have been squarely in the Democratic party's corner since the early part of the 20th century.Of course they have, nobody including me is denying that. I'm just pointing out how incredibly hypocritical you are when you look down your nose at right-leaning social conservatives like Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh, yet you never criticize that sizable chunk of Obama support and ultra-strong Democratic voting block that is ALSO socially conservative...Black America...you and your party wouldn't dare...

But perhaps you don't realize and THEY don't realize how insulting you are, especially when you and your ilk point with glee towards studies embracing the notion that socially conservative people are somehow dumber than the rest of the population...that wouldn't go over too well, would it? You telling black America that they are dumber than the rest of the population...

But that's what you and the left-leaners do, whether you know it or not (and I suspect you do know).

....Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. The Democratic Party didn’t welcome blacks then, and it wasn’t until 1924 that blacks were even permitted to attend Democratic conventions in any official capacity. Most blacks lived in the South, where they were mostly prevented from voting at all.[/I]What the hell does this history lesson, or ANYTHING that you've written in your reply, really have to do with what I wrote in reply #99? You are spinning so hard, it's laughable. My point to you was very simple, and very non-debatable, which is why it took you so long to conjure up this ridiculous non sequitur of a rebuttal.

Social conservatism is not going to affect how blacks vote in the upcoming election, Social PROGRAMS will. White conservative Republicans are the ones that will be influenced by Santorum and ilk.

To suggest blacks will lean republican because of abortion, homosexuality, or premarital sex, is totally ignoring black voting history. The above graph shows NO propensity for blacks to vote contrary to well established trendsWhere the hell in my post did I ever suggest blacks will lean republican because of anything?

My post was about YOU and the other left-leaners, ALWAYS critical of the right's social conservatism, BUT NEVER CRITICAL OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND THEIR SOCIAL CONSERVATISM. Why aren't the left-leaners on here writing threads on how dumb blacks are because they are socially conservative on the whole?

Oh wait, they essentially did when they put up that thread about social conservatives and IQ. Maybe now you'll realize how whore-like and hypocritical you and the left really are.

[NJ Stinks]

PA, these are the stats you quoted in Post 99:
_________________________________

Black youth consistently hold the most conservative views on questions of premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion. Among black youth, 42 percent felt that sex before marriage is wrong, compared with 28 percent of whites and 32 percent of Latinos. Among blacks, 55 percent think that homosexuality is always wrong, compared with 35 percent of whites and 36 percent of Latinos. The survey also found that 47 percent of black youth feel that abortion is always wrong, compared with 34 percent of whites and 46 percent of Latinos. Black youth with more religious backgrounds were more likely to hold conservative opinions.
__________________________________

In only one issue above (homosexuality is always wrong) did a small majority of young blacks even side with white social conservatives and that was barely. Yet you go on and on like you have the stats to back up your silly notion that blacks are definitely social conservatives.

I also don't buy the following statement you made in Post 99:
__________________________________

If this is how black youth poll, you can pretty much assume older black Americans will poll even higher on the social conservative scale.
___________________________________

When I was young and went to a Catholic schools including a Catholic college, I can assure you that making me a social conservative was the Catholic goal. It wasn't until I got older that I firmly rejected much of the social conservative agenda. Why should I believe your premise that black adults didn't and don't change their minds like I did?

Anyway, your points are hardly "was very simple, and very non-debatable". Your own stats make your whole premise nothing but debatable.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Yet you go on and on like you have the stats to back up your silly notion that blacks are definitely social conservatives.

...Why should I believe your premise that black adults didn't and don't change their minds like I did? ...


[Social Conservatives are] Predominantly white (91%), female (58%) and the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older); nearly half live in the South. Most (53%) attend church weekly; 43% are white evangelical Protestants (double the national average of 21%). - Pew Research Center, 2005

[Pro-Government Conservatives are] Predominately female (62%) and relatively young; highest percentage of minority members of any Republican-leaning group (10% black, 12% Hispanic). Most (59%) have no more than a high school diploma. Poorer than other Republican groups; nearly half (49%) have household incomes of less than $30,000 (about on par with Disadvantaged Democrats). Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home; 42% live in the South. - Pew Research Center, 2005

Older women and blacks make up a sizeable proportion of [Conservative Democrats] (27% and 30%, respectively). Somewhat less educated and poorer than the nation overall. Allegiance to the Democratic Party is quite strong (51% describe themselves as "strong" Democrats) but fully 85% describe themselves as either conservative or moderate ideologically. - Pew Research Center, 2005

Not a rebuttal as I'm busy trying not to fall asleep at the moment, but just a few more statistics about the demographics within the "sects" of conservativism.

[PaceAdvantage]

In only one issue above (homosexuality is always wrong) did a small majority of young blacks even side with white social conservatives and that was barely. Yet you go on and on like you have the stats to back up your silly notion that blacks are definitely social conservatives.Whoa, whoa, whoa there big fella..."SIDE WITH WHITE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES?" :lol:

What do you mean "side?" In EVERY category, they completely outpolled white social conservatives by a WIDE margin.

Sex before marriage: 42% vs 28%
Homosexuality: 55% vs. 35%
Abortion: 47% vs. 34%

There was no "siding" on any issue...black youth, according to this University of Chicago study, led the way, and by a substantial margin.

Find me any data that shows that African-Americans are NOT, as a group, socially conservative. I will take anecdotal as well as scientific evidence.

Good luck.

Oh, and I love how you're trying to tell me that older Americans, as a whole (black, white, brown, whatever), aren't MORE socially conservative than younger Americans. That's a laugher...but I'm open to any studies you know of that support this claim as well.

[mostpost]

I don't see that black Americans are socially conservative except in a few areas.
I would say they are religiously conservative. Premarital sex, abortion and gay marriage are all religious not social questions.

There are so many areas in which black Americans are in total disagreement with Limbaugh, Levin and other, what you call, social conservatives.
Limbaugh et. al. want the federal government out of all education. They either want education to be controlled and funded on a local basis or they want public education dismantled entirely and replaced by private schools. Black Americans support improving schools locally with help from the government.

Black Americans recognize that discrimination in hiring and advancement once hired did not improve through some magic improvement in attitude. It improved because government stepped in and made it improve.

Housing for black Americans did not become available in all white suburbs because realtors and landlords suddenly got a conscience. It happened because the government passed laws requiring it.

It is Republican governors and legislatures that are passing voter ID laws which negatively impact minority voters to a much greater degree than white voters. You won't find many black voters agreeing with that.

I don't criticize social conservatives just because of their stand on abortion, gay rights or premarital sex. I also criticize them because of their views on education, job creation, housing, access to health care, voting rights, union rights, and their opposition to policies that would strengthen those programs for minorities.

[boxcar]

I don't see that black Americans are socially conservative except in a few areas.
I would say they are religiously conservative. Premarital sex, abortion and gay marriage are all religious not social questions.

Is racial discrimination a social issue or a religious one? Think carefully before you answer? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...


Black Americans recognize that discrimination in hiring and advancement once hired did not improve through some magic improvement in attitude. It improved because government stepped in and made it improve.

Housing for black Americans did not become available in all white suburbs because realtors and landlords suddenly got a conscience. It happened because the government passed laws requiring it.

It is Republican governors and legislatures that are passing voter ID laws which negatively impact minority voters to a much greater degree than white voters. You won't find many black voters agreeing with that.

...

So I understand here based upon your presentation - contraception, gay marriage, etc. are not socially conservative platforms, but discrimination against blacks is?

[bigmack]

So I understand here based upon your presentation - contraception, gay marriage, etc. are not socially conservative platforms, but discrimination against blacks is?
This is one of those subjects mosty & hcap prefer to remain naive. "Purposeful fumbling," I cawl it.

You see, where hcap could be looking up the definition of a social conservative just as easily as he finds graphs, (Mainly from MotherJones) he chooses to roll in a whole nuther direction from where PA made his inquiry.

So to, you have mostpostly, would could easily have 15 articles quoting what socially conservative means, but he chooses to 'bushwhack' through the woods, making up his own definition of social conservativism.

Nice little technique of theirs even though they don't know it. Act dumb and drop all resource skills when you have no points of debate.

You'd think someone over at Huff or DemoUnderground would start a thread to give these two their talking points.

[hcap]

My intention on starting this thread was to point that........

1-Obama has a good chance to being re-elected

2- The foolishness of the repugs allowing their party to gravitate TOO far right

Even if we agree young blacks are socially conservative, it is inconsequential, and not the main issue(s) that will decide the black vote.

Obviously

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice little technique of theirs even though they don't know it. Act dumb and drop all resource skills when you have no points of debate.

You'd think someone over at Huff or DemoUnderground would start a thread to give these two their talking points.I'm afraid this is how I see it too. They can't admit their blatant hypocrisy and disrespect of one of their core groups of supporters for their own party...

Do they really not know what social conservatism means? Are they disputing the points raised in the University of Chicago poll? A poll that SPECIFICALLY used the phrase "social conservatism" and SPECIFICALLY chose those subjects to highlight (premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion).

They have no argument. They are hypocrites when they criticize the socially conservative nature of someone like Rick Santorum or Rush Limbaugh. If they weren't hypocrites, they would be criticizing the vast numbers of African-Americans who hold these principles as well.

In fact, they should be calling this core group of Obama supporters and Democratic party supporters dumbasses with low IQs...just like they tagged GOP conservatives...

If they had any balls, that's what they'd do...but they don't dare...

[Tom]

It is Republican governors and legislatures that are passing voter ID laws which negatively impact minority voters to a much greater degree than white voters. You won't find many black voters agreeing with that.

What a crock.
How does voter ID negatively affect some people and not others?
You need ID to register in the first place, In your own state, you need TWO forms of ID.

You need ID to buy beer - anyone have a problem providing that?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=what%20form%20of%20id%20is%20needed%20to%20regis ter%20to%20vote%3F&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elections.il.gov%2Fdownloads% 2Felectioninformation%2Fpdf%2Fregistervote.pdf&ei=VBVDT-yqEobq0gHJj62kBw&usg=AFQjCNGslocCECJ95G9JabwH5qf85BbXLQ&cad=rja

[PaceAdvantage]

My intention on starting this thread was to point that........

1-Obama has a good chance to being re-elected

2- The foolishness of the repugs allowing their party to gravitate TOO far right

Even if we agree young blacks are socially conservative, it is inconsequential, and not the main issue(s) that will decide the black vote.

ObviouslyNow you're crying thread drift? :lol:

[bigmack]

What a crock.
How does voter ID negatively affect some people and not others?
You need ID to register in the first place, In your own state, you need TWO forms of ID.

He'll be mighty hard pressed to bring evidence of this "voter ID laws which negatively impact minority voters to a much greater degree than white voters."

He's already been shown (about 5 times now) that in those states, they'll pick-up anyone that can't afford it and drive them down to a state office to get the appropriate ID, again, FREE O' CHARGE. Probably buy 'em lunch too.

He thinks we're as dumb as Ed Schultz to believe his ridiculous talking point. What the heck am I saying? He GOT it from Dumb Ed!

[Tom]

He's already been shown (about 5 times now) that in those states, they'll pick-up anyone that can't afford it and drive them down to a state office to get the appropriate ID, again, FREE O' CHARGE. Probably buy 'em lunch too.

Lunch?
Didn't ljb get the vote with cigarettes? :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Lunch?
Didn't ljb get the vote with cigarettes? :lol:

Hell, at $9.25 a pack, either Obama or Romney could get my vote. :D

[boxcar]

Hell, at $9.25 a pack, either Obama or Romney could get my vote. :D

What a cheap sellout! :D

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

What a cheap sellout! :D

Boxcar

At least I'll get something worthwhile out of that vote. :cool:

[mostpost]

So I understand here based upon your presentation - contraception, gay marriage, etc. are not socially conservative platforms, but discrimination against blacks is?
Obviously you understand nothing. Pace Advantage presented the theory that black Americans are social conservatives based on their opinions on three matters-gay rights, premarital sex and abortion. I say there are a lot more criterion to determine social conservatism than those three items and the attitudes of black Americans towards all those factors is what determines how liberal, moderate or conservative they are.

Some results from the full survey:
76% of black youth disagree that the government should fund only abstinence only sex education. Not a conservative position.

93% of black youth believe that sex education should be mandatory in High school. Not a conservative position.

76% of black youth believe that condoms should be available in High School.
Show me many conservatives who think that.
47% of black youth think abortion is always wrong, but 58% believe the government should not make abortion illegal.
61% of black youth feel it is hard for blacks to get ahead because they face so much discrimination. Conservatives keep telling me that discrimination is over in this country.

[hcap]

Now you're crying thread drift? :lol:I see NO point remotely relevant other than your assumption that we are hypocrites.

I am not a social conservative. I doubt that you are either(I could be wrong). But other than a certain public display ad nauseum of prudishness which is at times contrary to republican social conservatives private lives. I really don't care if one is or one is not socially conservative. What is particularly irksome is most social conservatives attempt to regulate others private lives. Please spare us that hypocrisy

[PaceAdvantage]

I see NO point remotely relevant other than your assumption that we are hypocrites.Well, you are. You go around criticizing social conservatives (and you SPECIFICALLY GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO CRITICIZE THEIR SOCIAL CONSERVATISM) like Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh, claiming the GOP has to move away from these types and more to the center. You applaud studies that claim social conservatives have LOW IQs.

Yet, you welcome African-Americans into your party with open arms, even though they, AS A GROUP, ARE SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE. There are countless studies and articles written about blacks being socially conservative as a whole. 70% of black voters backed Prop 8 in California (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html) that banned gay marriage. This is but one example of their staunch social conservatism as a whole.

Thus, you are hypocrites for not openly criticizing this group, as you do Republicans.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Obviously you understand nothing.

At least I admit it.


I say there are a lot more criterion to determine social conservatism than those three items and the attitudes of black Americans towards all those factors is what determines how liberal, moderate or conservative they are.


That's fine but what you said was :

I would say they are religiously conservative. Premarital sex, abortion and gay marriage are all religious not social questions.

Two totally different things. Bogus.


Some results from the full survey:
76% of black youth disagree that the government should fund only abstinence only sex education. Not a conservative position.

93% of black youth believe that sex education should be mandatory in High school. Not a conservative position.

76% of black youth believe that condoms should be available in High School.
Show me many conservatives who think that.
47% of black youth think abortion is always wrong, but 58% believe the government should not make abortion illegal.
61% of black youth feel it is hard for blacks to get ahead because they face so much discrimination. Conservatives keep telling me that discrimination is over in this country.

I agree with the blacks almost across the board. Am I black or liberal?


The problem began when you announced that conservatives hate government or something like that and then listed off of a handful of things in history that changed with help from legislation. You listed a herd of things that black society overcame with that legislative help, as though if it were up to conservatives, there would be no government at all and none of these things would have happened. Therefore, I guess, the implication was that blacks can't be conservative or conservatives don't support blacks.

Now, you can tell me that I don't comprehend and then ignore what you did say and do-si-do by posing a whole new set of conclusions from actual data. That's fine as long it means you are at least trying to be convincing now.

[hcap]

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/2008/ask_factcheck_images/april2008/BlackVote/Black_Vote_Pres.jpg

PA, you never commented on the historical record of black voters. Do you honestly believe that the current generation of Black America because of your absurdly spun "black youth are social conservatives" is going to change in any shape or form the huge pro-Democratic black vote? Are you implying that TODAY for some strange reason as blacks are celebrating the first black president, they are more conservative than their fathers or grandfathers?

[bigmack]

PA, you never commented on the historical record of black voters. Do you honestly believe that the current generation of Black America because of your absurdly spun "black youth are social conservatives" is going to change in any shape or form the huge pro-Democratic black vote?
When do you suspect you'll get to the actual 'chewy nugget' of what's being thrown your way?

You & your brethren are/have spent countless hours deriding "conservatives" when in fact MANY times, pacifically, socially conservative views, you're attacking a large portion of independents & democreeps who view family issues, among many other issues, conservatively.

We ain't talkin' votes here. We talkin' 'bout you & mosty, et al now knowing socially conservative folk park their cans in a wide spectrum of party affiliation.

Mush to your chagrin.

[PaceAdvantage]

When do you suspect you'll get to the actual 'chewy nugget' of what's being thrown your way?

You & your brethren are/have spent countless hours deriding "conservatives" when in fact MANY times, pacifically, socially conservative views, you're attacking a large portion of independents & democreeps who view family issues, among many other issues, conservatively.

We ain't talkin' votes here. We talkin' 'bout you & mosty, et al now knowing socially conservative folk park their cans in a wide spectrum of party affiliation.

Mush to you chagrin.It's weird that he won't acknowledge the point I was making. He continues to completely ignore the entire reason why I wrote my reply.

This has nothing to do with blacks voting for whomever...but everything to do with the left-leaners (like hcap and mosty) constant criticism of social conservatives (Santorum is now the target of the day)...to the point they create threads heralding studies that claim social conservatives are inherently stupid and possess lower IQs than social liberals.

To that I say look to your own party and the large swath of social conservatives you HARBOR and EMBRACE within your own ranks. Why won't you talk about their failings and how "stupid" and low IQ'd they are?

I guess like a good whore, you'll take their money (or in this case, votes) while not really respecting a thing about them...

You, mostpost and the rest of the Democratic party must be very proud of yourselves... :lol:

Herman Cain had a point...

[NJ Stinks]

They have no argument. They are hypocrites when they criticize the socially conservative nature of someone like Rick Santorum or Rush Limbaugh. If they weren't hypocrites, they would be criticizing the vast numbers of African-Americans who hold these principles as well.

In fact, they should be calling this core group of Obama supporters and Democratic party supporters dumbasses with low IQs...just like they tagged GOP conservatives...

If they had any balls, that's what they'd do...but they don't dare...

Here's a another opinion poll:
______________________________________________

Gregory B. Lewis of the Andrew Young School of Public Policy Studies at Georgia State University examined data from 31 public opinion polls conducted from 1973 and 2000, which involved nearly 7,000 blacks and 43,000 whites. In 2003, his analysis was published in Public Opinion Quarterly. Lewis concluded, “Despite their greater disapproval of homosexuality, African-American opinion on gay civil liberties and employment discrimination are quite similar to whites’ opinions, and African Americans are more likely to support laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.”

link: http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2010/10/08/understanding-black-attitudes-toward-homosexuality/
____________________________________________

So if black people are more likely to support laws like civil unions, how does that compare with social conservatives on the issue. Hmmm....

Example 1:
________________________________________

But social conservatives at Faith and Freedom had a different view. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R), and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) all said they would not personally vote for a candidate who supported civil unions and said that such a candidate would have trouble winning the GOP nomination.

“I’ve got to be frank with you, I don’t think someone who supports non-traditional marriage is going to be a front-runner with conservatives,” Kleefisch, who once likened gay marriage to allowing humans to marry clocks (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/10/kleefisch.html), said in an interview with ThinkProgress. When asked if he thought Republican primary voters would choose a candidate who supported civil unions, Westmoreland answered, “Probably not.”

Recent polling has shown, for the first time, that a majority of Americans (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521) support full marriage equality, a policy that falls even to the left of Huntsman’s moderate stance. Independents now support marriage equality in higher numbers than ever before, but Republican opposition has held steady, suggesting that Huntsman’s support for civil unions could indeed hurt him among more conservative primary voters.

link: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/07/237778/huntsman-social-conservatives-civil-unions/?mobile=nc

__________________________________________

Think Progress is probably too liberal a source for some here so let's go to this source for

Example 2:
__________________________________________________

Huntsman’s civil-union stance may prove political liability
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

.....Huntsman drew national attention in 2009 with his public support for civil unions and other rights for same-sex couples — a sharp break from the Republican orthodoxy, especially in conservative Utah.
Now, as the former governor moves closer to a bid for the presidency, his civil-unions stance poses a unique challenge and potential liability in the Republican primary landscape.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51795519-90/civil-cowan-gay-governor.html.csp
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

At any rate, just so nobody misses my point, social conservatives don't want civil unions let alone gay marriage. Here's another poll taken last November in North Carolina:
_______________________________________

Cross-tabulations of Elon poll data based on race reveal that a strong majority of African-American North Carolinians support either full marriage rights or civil unions for same-gender couples.

69.2% of African-American North Carolinians surveyed support full marriage rights (38.3) or civil unions (30.9) for same-gender couples;
64% of White North Carolinians surveyed support full marriage rights or civil unions for same-gender couples; and
60.6% of "Other" racially-identified North Carolinians surveyed support full marriage rights or civil unions for same-gender couples.
This data also shows a strong majority of African-American North Carolinians polled oppose or strongly oppose an amendment banning same-gender marriage.

66.3% of African-American North Carolinians oppose or strongly oppose an amendment banning same-gender marriage;
57.6% of White North Carolinians oppose or strongly oppose an amendment banning same-gender marriage; and
56.9% of "Other" racially-identified North Carolinians oppose or strongly oppose an amendment banning same-gender marriage.
link: http://equalitync.org/news1/polls-reveal

[hcap]

This has nothing to do with blacks voting for whomever...but everything to do with the left-leaners (like hcap and mosty) constant criticism of social conservatives (Santorum is now the target of the day)...to the point they create threads heralding studies that claim social conservatives are inherently stupid and possess lower IQs than social liberals.

To that I say look to your own party and the large swath of social conservatives you HARBOR and EMBRACE within your own ranks. Why won't you talk about their failings and how "stupid" and low IQ'd they are?
.Totally off the wall ravings

I have never said social conservatives are stupid. I have said republican nominees who are socially conservative are. From Sarah Palin onwards.

And? Big friggin deal. Compared to the Obama Spawn of Satan remarks here 24/7/365 our remarks on repugs on their failings are quite tame. I see no hypocrisy supporting and accepting support from blacks whether they are liberal as most blacks are or their kids who may be conservative on some issues

As usual you gentlemen take a minor point and yell top of your lungs FIRE!!!!!

Meanwhile back at the Rancho El Repugo. And just how much increasing despair they must be experiencing. Does this man look worried?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/07/McConnell-Latest-Debt-Negotiations-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/recovery-winter1-small.png

[PaceAdvantage]

What is all this comparing to whites stuff?

Either African-Americans as a group are socially conservative, or they aren't.

But you got me...I guess I'm wrong...and gallop too...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx

[PaceAdvantage]

Yelling Fire at the top of my lungs? :lol:

Ok then...whatever you say buddy... :D

Just having a friendly debate on your knocking of social conservatives...that's all...

I don't care if you continue to be a hypocrite...but I will call you on it every time.

[PaceAdvantage]

Relevant point from above Gallop poll from 2008:

In this particular aggregate of data, 65% of blacks identify themselves as Democrats (and another 16% say they lean toward the Democratic Party). Only 5% identify as Republicans. Yet, as seen in the accompanying table, there are major gulfs between the attitudes of black Democrats and the attitudes of nonblack Democrats on a number of moral issues, and in most instances, blacks come much closer to the positions of Republicans than to those of Democrats.Yet hcap and mosty and all the rest of the left-leaners have no problem banging Republicans over the head with the "you're a dumb-ass low IQ social conservative" while giving a significant part of their own party a pass on such drubbings...

You go (face-painted) girl!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Yelling Fire at the top of my lungs? :lol:

...

You overlooked the important part:

you gentlemen take a minor point and yell top of your lungs FIRE

He was trying to let you know that you had a point without one of these :kiss:

[hcap]

Yelling Fire at the top of my lungs? :lol:

Ok then...whatever you say buddy... :D

Just having a friendly debate on your knocking of social conservatives...that's all...

I don't care if you continue to be a hypocrite...but I will call you on it every time.Look at this way.

The Democratic Party is a "Big Tent"
The Republican Party is not :cool:

[bigmack]

Look at this way.

The Democratic Party is a "Big Tent"
The Republican Party is not :cool:
Let's just say you're trending poorly.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PartisanTrends-RasmussenReports.png

[newtothegame]

It's weird that he won't acknowledge the point I was making. He continues to completely ignore the entire reason why I wrote my reply.

This has nothing to do with blacks voting for whomever...but everything to do with the left-leaners (like hcap and mosty) constant criticism of social conservatives (Santorum is now the target of the day)...to the point they create threads heralding studies that claim social conservatives are inherently stupid and possess lower IQs than social liberals.

To that I say look to your own party and the large swath of social conservatives you HARBOR and EMBRACE within your own ranks. Why won't you talk about their failings and how "stupid" and low IQ'd they are?

I guess like a good whore, you'll take their money (or in this case, votes) while not really respecting a thing about them...

You, mostpost and the rest of the Democratic party must be very proud of yourselves... :lol:

Herman Cain had a point...

I know I am late to the party...but you said it in a NUTSHELL mike...this is the ONLY thing they care about!
"I guess like a good whore, you'll take their money (or in this case, votes) while not really respecting a thing about them..."

[JustRalph]

I know I am late to the party...but you said it in a NUTSHELL mike...this is the ONLY thing they care about!
"I guess like a good whore, you'll take their money (or in this case, votes) while not really respecting a thing about them..."

Just keeping them within the bounds of that Dem plantation is the goal

[hcap]

Let's just say you're trending poorly.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PartisanTrends-RasmussenReports.png

I doubt it. Source?

Meanwhile

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/urbcmcvd0k-h8egaf_erna.gif

[bigmack]

I doubt it. Source?
Mr. Laughable Graphman, doubts it. :lol:

Ooo, lookie there. Even higher for Feb.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PartisanTrends-RasmussenReports-1.png
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

[hcap]

Mr. Laughable Graphman, doubts it. :lol:

Ooo, lookie there. Even higher for Feb.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PartisanTrends-RasmussenReports-1.png
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

.................................................. .............


Mr. Laughable Glib while Wrong,


Gee I wonder why Gallup shows a very different story than Rasmussen?

Could it be that ole' Rassy is indeed a house organ of the repugs. Question of course is exactly WHAT organ would that be?

[bigmack]

.................................................. .............


Mr. Laughable Glib while Wrong,

Wrong? :lol: What a clown. This from the biggest nerd with the most consistently fraudulent graphs from the same tired, pathetic tools @ Mother Jones & Media Matters.

Look into who's more reliable, Gallup or Rassmusen.

Get lost. You're a joke.

[Tom]

FOX poll says Rassmusen is more reliable than Gallop. :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

Does anyone still watch Meet The Press?

As a regular watcher, the contrast between now and almost any time previous over the last half-dozen or so years is shocking.

This big news week, when you'd think they could get a pile of people to show up and be blowhards for attention and half of the panel are NBC employees Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell...

...and listening to them, you'd think you were listening to the Bret Baier's All-Star Panel. Talk about jumping off the sinking ship - Mitchell is already comparing Obama's failed strategies in policy to what the Big Hill would do.

Really, it's been an a cascade of the abandonment of hero worship in concert with polls, but it is striking just how racist those two are the way the apologists have taken to criticizing almost every aspect of his presidency recently.

[Tom]

"News" is dead.
Nothing matters but politics anymore.Unbiased reporters went the way of the dinosaurs.

I prefer Iraq's old Sunday morning show - BEAT the Press.

[JustRalph]

Does anyone still watch Meet The Press?

As a regular watcher, the contrast between now and almost any time previous over the last half-dozen or so years is shocking.

This big news week, when you'd think they could get a pile of people to show up and be blowhards for attention and half of the panel are NBC employees Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell...

...and listening to them, you'd think you were listening to the Bret Baier's All-Star Panel. Talk about jumping off the sinking ship - Mitchell is already comparing Obama's failed strategies in policy to what the Big Hill would do.

Really, it's been an a cascade of the abandonment of hero worship in concert with polls, but it is striking just how racist those two are the way the apologists have taken to criticizing almost every aspect of his presidency recently.

One reason for when I started this thread almost a year ago. I saw it coming. Please read my inaugural post. I think the downfall is actually about a year ahead of what I thought would happen. Much to my delight :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106490

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ahead of a possible presidential run, Hillary Clinton appears to be distancing herself from what she called President Barack Obama's foreign policy "failure": the decision not to intervene during the early stages of the Syrian civil war.

In an interview with The Atlantic published on Sunday, the former secretary of state says the "failure" of the United States to those protesting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad led to the rise of al-Qaida-inspired groups like ISIS, the militants currently creating havoc in Syria and Iraq.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

The former first lady and U.S. senator said she fears the jihadist groups currently gaining strength in the Middle East will expand their sights on Europe and the United States.



....

Clinton was asked about President Obama's recently-coined slogan (“Don’t do stupid s---") to describe his administration's foreign-policy doctrine.

“Great nations need organizing principles," Clinton replied, "and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”




I wonder if the President likes how the machine does its work now.

This probably green lights mosite to now begin tearing apart Obama.


http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-obama-foreign-policy-isis-gaza-failure-141410915.html

[dartman51]

Ahead of a possible presidential run, Hillary Clinton appears to be distancing herself from what she called President Barack Obama's foreign policy "failure": the decision not to intervene during the early stages of the Syrian civil war.

In an interview with The Atlantic published on Sunday, the former secretary of state says the "failure" of the United States to those protesting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad led to the rise of al-Qaida-inspired groups like ISIS, the militants currently creating havoc in Syria and Iraq.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

The former first lady and U.S. senator said she fears the jihadist groups currently gaining strength in the Middle East will expand their sights on Europe and the United States.



....

Clinton was asked about President Obama's recently-coined slogan (“Don’t do stupid s---") to describe his administration's foreign-policy doctrine.

“Great nations need organizing principles," Clinton replied, "and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”




I wonder if the President likes how the machine does its work now.

This probably green lights mosite to now begin tearing apart Obama.


http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-obama-foreign-policy-isis-gaza-failure-141410915.html

The funny thing is, the Lefties, on this board, STILL defend Obama's foreign policy, and those same people will be defending Hillary's comments if she runs in 2016. :eek:

[Tom]

As Obama look at the mid East and the turmoil he has caused, he says, in his Erckle voice...."mmmm, did I do that?"

[davew]

As Obama look at the mid East and the turmoil he has caused, he says, in his Erckle voice...."mmmm, did I do that?"

you are assuming that what is happening is not actually his plan - the more people in the USA he gets sucking on the gov't teats, the stronger dems become as long as the government can survive. sadly GOP is dying.

[Lefty]

But there comes a a tipping point. SOMEBODY has to work, pay taxes for those benefits. SS has already tipped. More going out than coming in. The GOP can and has to make a comeback if we are to survive as the country our forefathers built.

[Tom]

The democrats clearly will bring the end to this nation.
You can't have everyone taking and no one making.
But that is their goal.

Remember the old cartoon, the guy sitting on a tree branch, sawing it off, but he is on the outside of the saw?

That is the democrat party.

[davew]

The democrats clearly will bring the end to this nation.
You can't have everyone taking and no one making.
But that is their goal.

Just tax the corporations more and give more powers to unions so they can extort the companies/corporations... cuz everyone knows the bosses are screwing their workers and not paying them enough.

[NJ Stinks]

As Obama look at the mid East and the turmoil he has caused, he says, in his Erckle voice...."mmmm, did I do that?"

I'll answer that question.

No. Bush did.

Obviously.

[mostpost]

As Obama look at the mid East and the turmoil he has caused, he says, in his Erckle voice...."mmmm, did I do that?"
Steven Quincy Urkel (generally known as Steve Urkel) is a fictional character on the ABC/CBS sitcom Family Matters, who was portrayed by Jaleel White.
Who the hell this "Erckle" guy is, I have no idea. :confused:

[Robert Goren]

The funny thing is, the Lefties, on this board, STILL defend Obama's foreign policy, and those same people will be defending Hillary's comments if she runs in 2016. :eek: Guilty on both counts.

[Clocker]

The funny thing is, the Lefties, on this board, STILL defend Obama's foreign policy, and those same people will be defending Hillary's comments if she runs in 2016. :eek:

What foreign policy?

As Secy of State, Hillary should have played a significant role in formulating the foreign policy of the Obama administration. Given her proclivity for speaking her mind, I find it hard to believe that she would have worked so hard to implement a foreign policy if she had major reservations about it.

The truth of the matter is that there is no evidence that the administration, which is to say the White House and the State Department, had any definitive policy other than to react to events, put out fires, and lead from behind.

Exhibit A: Benghazi. They still haven't gotten their stories straight on who did what and when and why. And what difference it made.

[Tom]

I have no idea.

I would pay $1,000 for a sound byte of this.......

[PaceAdvantage]

What foreign policy?

As Secy of State, Hillary should have played a significant role in formulating the foreign policy of the Obama administration. Given her proclivity for speaking her mind, I find it hard to believe that she would have worked so hard to implement a foreign policy if she had major reservations about it.

The truth of the matter is that there is no evidence that the administration, which is to say the White House and the State Department, had any definitive policy other than to react to events, put out fires, and lead from behind.

Exhibit A: Benghazi. They still haven't gotten their stories straight on who did what and when and why. And what difference it made.Good points. Perhaps they were relying too heavily on plausible deniability....ie IT'S BUSH'S FAULT...we all knew that couldn't work forever...

"and that's when the chickens came home to roost"

[dartman51]

Guilty on both counts.



:lol: No surprise there. :lol: Are you defending Hillary's statement, or, just her right to make the statement? :confused:

[Clocker]

Are you defending Hillary's statement,

Her statement shows her hypocrisy. She is saying that as Secy State she worked to promote a foreign policy that she did not believe in.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Her statement shows her hypocrisy. She is saying that as Secy State she worked to promote a foreign policy that she did not believe in.

She's selling that to people that don't even know what a Secy of State is, much less that she had the job.

[Clocker]

She's selling that to people that don't even know what a Secy of State is, much less that she had the job.

You mean the low information voters who are upset that because she is a woman, she was not given a job higher than a secretary?

[Tom]

Yup, those ones!

[Robert Goren]

Like her or not, she will get a lot of votes if she runs. It is hard to come up with a republican who can beat her. She crushes any of the people that most of the conservatives here like.

[BlueShoe]

The funny thing is, the Lefties, on this board, STILL defend Obama's foreign policy, and those same people will be defending Hillary's comments if she runs in 2016. :eek:
Mosty, Cappy, NJ, Goren, and the other lefties intend to go down with the ship, and will support Obama until the end, with nary a word of anything close to harsh criticism. Rather like Alan Colmes, the Bolshevik that is allowed to clutter up Fox every now and then with his disgusting Obama-can-do-no-wrong gibberish.

[Tom]

Like her or not, she will get a lot of votes if she runs. It is hard to come up with a republican who can beat her. She crushes any of the people that most of the conservatives here like.

so you agree with her bashing Barry's nit wit foreign policy?

[dartman51]

Like her or not, she will get a lot of votes if she runs. It is hard to come up with a republican who can beat her. She crushes any of the people that most of the conservatives here like.

You're right about that. The same low information voters that voted Obama in twice. Those people that don't give a rat's ass about this country. The latest poll, said that 71% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the WRONG direction. And a lot of those same folks voted for Obama twice, and will vote for Hillary, if she runs. The very definition of INSANITY, KEEP DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

The same low information voters that voted Obama in twice. Those people that don't give a rat's ass about this country. The latest poll, said that 71% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the WRONG direction.

These are the same people that give Congress a 13% approval rating, and then vote by an overwhelming majority to reelect their Members of Congress.

My own SWAG (scientific wild-assed guess) is that when the average low information voter says that the country is headed in the wrong direction, he means that his own economic situation is headed in the wrong direction. That is never his fault, of course, so he blames it on the economy and on the government in general and that evil Other Party in particular.

[reckless]

I'll answer that question.

No. Bush did.

Obviously.

The stupidity and abject denial never ceases to amaze me.

Did Bush kill over 300,000 Kurds and other Iraqis with chemical weapons and other assorted weapons of mass destruction?

No, Saddam Hussein did, and he was caught by Bush, tried and hung for his crimes.

Did Bush behead Christian children and did he bury any Iraqi women alive?

No, ISIS is doing this right now under Obama's watch and foreign policy.

[Clocker]

No, ISIS is doing this right now under Obama's watch and foreign policy.

Without going into all of the details and the blame, Bush made a huge mess of Iraq. But when Bush left office, it was in better shape than it was during most of his time in office, and it was still improving.

No one can deny that Iraq is in much worse shape now than it was when Obama took office. And if Obama is not actively responsible for that deterioration, there is certainly zero evidence that he did anything to prevent it.

[rastajenk]

Well, he bragged about leaving Iraq as a peaceful nation ready to move forward in the community of nations, so that pretty much gets Bush of the hook, doesn't it?

[Clocker]

Well, he bragged about leaving Iraq as a peaceful nation ready to move forward in the community of nations

Not just Iraq. The White House press secretary said recently that the Obama administration’s foreign policies have enhanced the world’s “tranquility”. So all of the bad influence of Bush on the world has been expunged.

[Robert Goren]

so you agree with her bashing Barry's nit wit foreign policy?I never said that. Her bashing of Obama's foreign policy(if that what she really did) has nothing to do with her electablity. Her electability was more more do with the sorry state of the GOP and especially the conservative wing of the GOP. I can not remember a time when the GOP was so hard up for an electable candidates as they are now. The telling story in 2012 was that the leading candidates for the GOP had both lost thier last general election trys by wide margins. They have to come up with better candidates in 2016 if they are to have even slimmest chances of winning. Public nitpicking of the differences between Obama and Hillary isn't going to get the GOP any votes. But I guess that is best the republicans can do right now. Their message seems to be "We ain't Obama". They don't have a message of their own or at least one that will get votes outside of their hardcore base.

[reckless]

Well, he bragged about leaving Iraq as a peaceful nation ready to move forward in the community of nations, so that pretty much gets Bush of the hook, doesn't it?

The kool-aid drinking left wants to pin all their failures not on the source -- namely Obama -- but on Bush. It's getting tiresome if not downright laughable.

Obama also lacks simple, basic class by blaming all his failures on Bush, either on the economy or foreign affairs.

The left, led by this incapable, intellectually deficient and petulant little president have zero credibilty in defending Obama and his current Iraq policy.

The poster I sourced in my comment is just one of many on this board that follow the same pattern of blaming Bush (or the GOP) for the world's ills all the while giving a pass to the dopes, clowns, and juveniles that sadly run our government right now.

PS--Iraq and the whole middle east was indeed a better place when Bush left office than it has been since baby Obama took office.

[Robert Goren]

Obama's foreign policy looks to me to be " Stay the hell out unless we are forced to act". I think that should always be the policy of the United States. Adventurism into other countries has seldom works and is usually a disaster in the long run and often in the short run no matter which party the president is who attempts it.

[reckless]

Without going into all of the details and the blame, Bush made a huge mess of Iraq. But when Bush left office, it was in better shape than it was during most of his time in office, and it was still improving.

No one can deny that Iraq is in much worse shape now than it was when Obama took office. And if Obama is not actively responsible for that deterioration, there is certainly zero evidence that he did anything to prevent it.

I can't in all good conscience say that G.W. Bush did not screw up the Iraq situation while in office. He let biased public opinion plus an impeachment threat by fat Ted Kennedy cloud his judgment. Clowns such as McCain didn't help this country either by slipping a shiiv in Bush's back every chance he got.

But, part of that old problem could actually be traced to Pappy Bush not finishing the job during the first Gulf War by not going into Bagdad when we were on their door step.

That's what happened when Pappy Bush let an affirmative action general such as Colin Powell make such a naive call.

[Robert Goren]

I can't in all good conscience say that G.W. Bush did not screw up the Iraq situation while in office. He let biased public opinion plus an impeachment threat by fat Ted Kennedy cloud his judgment. Clowns such as McCain didn't help this country either by slipping a shiiv in Bush's back every chance he got.

But, part of that old problem could actually be traced to Pappy Bush not finishing the job during the first Gulf War by not going into Bagdad when we were on their door step.

That's what happened when Pappy Bush let an affirmative action general such as Colin Powell make such a naive call.Pappy Bush got it right. It was his son that screw it up. We had no business stick our nose into that mess.

[davew]

Obama's foreign policy looks to me to be " Stay the hell out unless we are forced to act". I think that should always be the policy of the United States. Adventurism into other countries has seldom works and is usually a disaster in the long run and often in the short run no matter which party the president is who attempts it.

I agree, why travel around the world for war when you can just wait and the war comes here. That is what the founding fathers did in the 1770's.

[Tom]

Glad to see Bobby is feeling better - just look at those dance steps today! :jump:

[Clocker]

Glad to see Bobby is feeling better - just look at those dance steps today! :jump:

Is that the Potomac Two-Step? One step left, one step back. :p

[fast4522]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/world/middleeast/as-world-boils-fingers-point-obamas-way.html?_r=0

[Greyfox]

Pappy Bush got it right. It was his son that screw it up. We had no business stick our nose into that mess.

Yes. America would be much farther ahead today if Jr. hadn't made that decision. :ThmbUp:

[FantasticDan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/world/middleeast/as-world-boils-fingers-point-obamas-way.html?_r=0Don't you just yearn for all those years before Obama, where the world just kinda gently percolated? :rolleyes: :cool:

[Tom]

So I guess you will serving the Kool Aid to ISIS when they arrive.

[Robert Goren]

So I guess you will serving the Kool Aid to ISIS when they arrive.Whether not ISIS arrives or not will not be be determined by whether we get some of our soldiers killed in Iraq or not. Also remember any aid we give to the Shite controled government of Iraq will also go to help Iran. Any aid to the Kurds will likely go toward them stating a war with Turkey. Clearly the pain is not worth what little if any gain we make against ISIS.

[fast4522]

Like the first couple of turkey shoots there, scores will be mowed down.