My Post-Election Post-Mortem Analysis

[SicEmBaylor]

With election day now 48 hours behind us, it is time for my own election day post mortem to review what I believe went wrong and what new direction the party needs to take in order to win future elections. Let me be clear – the current Republican coalition is not working and will not win future national elections.

Let's start with the problem of Mitt Romney himself and what he failed to do. Politics is rarely about policy; politics is about personality. Mitt Romney neither made a personal connection with voters nor made much of an attempt to do so excepting Ann Romney's speech a the RNC. Romney was cold, often aloof, and never made a case that he understood the trials and tribulations of the average citizen. The '47% gaffe' and the 'I'm not concerned with the very poor' gaffes are illustrative of the disconnect he had with voters. That is not to say that he didn't have the right economic prescription for America's ailment, but sometimes a doctor needs a good bedside manner.

Romney focused too heavily on a singular message of the economy and that singular message was undercut by some very modest, err insignificant, upticks in a small handful of economic indicators. Obama was able to capitalize on a decrease in unemployment numbers even when that decrease was as little as a tenth of a point and that undermined the only real message of the Romney campaign – the economy. His campaign would have been better served by focusing on an overall theme of 'Weak Leadership' which would include both weak leadership on the economy and weak leadership in foreign affairs. The latter would have been blunted early on by the President's success in killing Osama Bin Laden, but it would have paid off in spades with the Benghazi attack (which, to be fair, could not have been predicted). Instead, any rightful criticism of his decisions in the context of the Benghazi attack came across as opportunistic rather than a legitimate critique of his performance as Commander-in-Chief.

Republican Senate candidates certainly did not do Romney any favors. Already facing a rather large gender gap, Senate candidates Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana said some supremely stupid things about rape. Granted, Romney carried both of those states but I truly believe it compounded the problem that Republicans have with women nationally and resulted in at least a half point increase in the gender gap nationally. Obama led with women by 5 points in PA, 4 points in Florida, and 5 points in Ohio. These gaffes by Republican Senate candidates may not have been enough to make a difference in and of themselves, but it was devastating when combined with the surprisingly successful and absurd claim that Romney would initiate a 'war on women' because he opposed subsidizing their contraception.

On to the fracturing Republican coalition...

It is becoming obvious that the current Republican electoral model is simply not working. The first problem, rightly or wrongly, is that the Republican party has a reputation for being slavishly devoted to big business. Wall Street is simply not popular with average citizens. Wall Street is the boogeyman that takes away people's jobs and ships those jobs overseas. This demonstrates a fairly massive misunderstanding of American capitalism, but it is what it is. Few politicians personify Wall Street quite as well as Mitt Romney; Romney absorbed popular ill-will toward Wall Street and was unable to reflect any of that criticism away from himself. His history of business success and job growth should have been a positive but instead became a liability. The phrase 'Main Street not Wall Street' has been trotted out ad nauseum, but it's a great line that shows the disconnect between Republicans and the economic conditions in communities across the country. The astonishing thing is that it isn't like Democrats aren't bankrolled by Wall Street or big business – Republicans never point out Democrat hypocrisy in this regard in large part because they refuse to play the 'class warfare' game. Nonetheless, there simply are not enough Wall Street votes for the Republican Party to be able to afford being perceived as championing their interests.

The next problem with the Republican coalition is with evangelicals. Exit polls indicate that 26% of voters on Tuesday identify themselves as evangelicals and of that 26%, Romney won 78% of their vote. In the 2000 election, the last minute depression of evangelical voters almost cost President Bush the election which was a mistake not repeated in 2004 when GOP strategy was to not only aggressively court the evangelical vote but to support several anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in key battleground states that would act as fuel to burn the evangelical electoral fire. Pervading GOP wisdom is that a national candidate must aggressively court this faction of the party's base in order to win national elections; however, there are only so many ballot initiatives that the Republican Party can support on state ballots in order to help their GOTV effort with evangelicals. Furthermore, their influence in national elections seems to be waning; however, the problem with the evangelical vote is more fundamental. Catering to evangelical interests removes two of the most important arrows from the Republican quiver – limited government and individual liberty. More on that later.

Finally, the difference between the Republican Party and Democrat Party (and by extension the difference between Obama and Romney themselves) on foreign policy issues is very minimal. Both are Wilsonians “with a stick” who believe in the supposition that the role of the United States in the world is to both police and spread liberalized democracy. This world view has led to the abandonment of long time US allies, led to one unnecessary war (Iraq) and one even more unnecessary conflict (Libya), and led to the support of jihadist supported groups in the so-called “Arab Spring” in the naïve belief that they represented a pro-democracy alternative to US allies...despots but US allied despots all the same. This is particularly true in Egypt where Mubarak, thug though he may have been, had been responsible for regional stability by keeping the peace with Israel and covert assistance to the US in the war on terror. The US relationship with Mubarak was close and had lasted for decades. Libya and Gaddafi represented one of the biggest triumphs of Bush era foreign policy that resulted in Gaddafi repudiating prior ties with terrorism, abandoning his WMD programs, and assisting the US with intelligence in the war on terror. This effort was rewarded by the Obama Administration by supporting his ouster. Perhaps the biggest motivating factor among Obama supporters in 2008 was a pledge to radically depart from Bush era foreign policy mistakes by ending the mid-east wars, winding down the war on terror, closing GitMo, and reducing American presence in the region. Instead: drone strikes have increased exponentially, one more more localized conflicts have been jump started just as one major war has drawn down, our position in Afghanistan is tenuous, and GitMo is still open. These positions should have been exploited by the Republican Party to drive a wedge between Obama and much of his base of support – instead, Mitt Romney agreed with much of the President's foreign policy direction and even pledged to double down.

[SicEmBaylor]

Building a new coalition...

It has been suggested by a few that third party voters, specifically libertarians, cost Mitt Romney the election. The numbers from key battleground states don't necessarily substantiate that claim, but it is impossible to tell what impact Ron Paul supporters may have had in those battleground states had they not been treated so poorly and with such disdain by the Romney campaign at the Republican National Convention. There is absolutely no argument that Ron Paul had some of the most dedicated and committed supporters of any presidential candidate in decades and that includes Barack Obama himself. Ron Paul supporters and their extensive grassroots network may very well have bolstered Mitt Romney and the GOP's own ground operation enough to have made the difference between victory and defeat especially in states where Ron Paul did well which happen to be swing states like Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and even Maine. The hard numbers of Ron Paul supporters compared with Romney's vote deficit may not add up to a victory, but it is not unreasonable to assume that motivated Ron Paul supporters out campaigning for Mitt Romney may very well have made all the difference on Tuesday. Unfortunately, the treatment of Ron Paul delegates at the RNC made any reconciliation between the Party and Paul's supporters impossible and poisoned any good will that may have existed between the two campaigns in the closing days of the Republican primary. The point is this – the future of the Republican party rests with libertarian-leaning Republicans such as Congressman Justin Amash, Sen. Rand Paul, and even Sen. Jim DeMint just to name a few. Just as the old Roosevelt era Democrat Party had to change via Bill Clinton's DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), the Republican Party must also change via the influence and ideas of the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus). The fact is, no man is owed another man's vote that he did not earn. If Mitt Romney, through his actions and principles, could not convince and win over libertarians then that is not the fault of the libertarian that votes Libertarian – that is the fault of Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney alone. Ultimately, the key to a new Republican coalition is very simple and should be obvious to everyone. The party should never waiver from its promotion of limited-government and individual liberty. Never.

It starts with how the Republican Party approaches economic issues. The new Republican coalition must include budget/deficit hawks which means the era of big government neoconservatism within the party absolutely must come to an end. The Bush era spending spree must never ever be repeated and the party must work vigilantly between now and 2016 to reduce the deficit and work to pay down the debt. If that means accepting limited tax hikes and cuts in defense spending in conjunction with deep and meaningful budget cuts then the GOP needs to work with the President on those terms. Having said that, the President will certainly want to take credit for any deal which is why the Republican Congress must go before the American people and constantly lay out what they are willing to give up if the President agrees to their terms. Be proactive in taking credit. Further, the Republican Party must put renewed emphasis on supporting small business which is where most job growth takes place. A little economic populism by promoting “main street” economics via locally owned businesses would go a long way. Emphasize Republican tax policies that will allow the locally owned corner store to stay in business even with competition from nationally owned “big box” chains. Ron Paul's opposition to bailouts and his support for the auditing of the Fed would send an even stronger message to the American people that the Republican Party is not beholden to banking interest. Again, to be fair, it is not as if the Democrat Party isn't beholden to those same interests; however the Democrats are far more effective at painting Republicans as the party of the banks.

Republicans have the most work and the greatest potential of growth with civil libertarians. The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of limited-government and individual liberty; yet, the Republican Party over time has been one of the biggest obstacles to the expansion and promotion of civil liberties of either of the two major parties. Civil liberties are an area where the Republican Party seemingly has absolutely no problem with big government and exercising Federal power at the expense of the individual states and at the expense of the individual contrary to both the enumerated powers of the Federal government and the 10th Amendments. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), the Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, etc. are examples of over reach by the Federal government that should ally libertarians and some civil-liberty minded liberals with a party that takes a hard stand against encroaching upon individual rights. Both parties are equally responsible for these violations; therefore, neither party is able to lay claim to these voters. Their natural home should be with the party that purportedly stands in support of less government and more rights. Obama, contrary to 2008 campaign promises, has done absolutely nothing to these egregious violations of our rights and yet Mitt Romney made no attempt to steal these voters from Obama by advocating positions that the Republican should advocate in any case. Another example is the drug war. Regardless of my or anyone else's personal opinions on drug use, drug regulation is clearly not an enumerated power of the Federal government and is therefore a power left to the individual states. The Federal government may have a role in regulating the interstate transport of drugs between states with differing drug policies, but for the Federal government should have no role in setting a national drug policy. Several states contained ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana this election cycle. I have not yet seen the exit polls, but I suspect this drove liberal voters to the polls in the same way that marriage questions drove conservatives to the polls in 2004. Obama counted on the youth vote both in 2008 and in 2012 and many of those voters voted with the assumption that Obama would ease Federal drug laws. The opposite is true – Obama made early attempts to intervene with states that had legal medical marijuana dispensaries. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party missed an opportunity to negate some of that youth vote by pledging not to interfere with states that wanted to establish their own drug policies (at the least when it comes to marijuana). This is a nation predicated upon the principle that an individual ought to have the right to live one's life in a manner that individual wishes so long as the individual is not harming another person or property. What a tremendous opportunity it would be for the Republican Party to unequivocally state that individuals ought to make responsible choices, but it should not be coerced by the government into doing so.

Going right along with the aforementioned issues, for too long the Republican Party has positioned itself as a party willing to limit rights afforded to other Americans. Most worrisome is the party's willingness to do this on the Federal level which is another example of the Republican Party willing to accept an expanded role of government contrary to the enumerated powers of the Federal government and contrary to the 10th Amendment. I am, of course, speaking of marriage policy. There really is no good justification for denying select groups of Americans rights that other groups of Americans have regardless of how distasteful I personally find their choice to be. It undermines the best argument for voting Republican – individual liberty. If a person is denied the individual liberty to marry whomever they please then it's hard to make the case that the party supports limited-government and individual rights. There is absolutely no reason why being gay should inherently cause you to be liberal. What does being gay have to do with a belief in limiting the role of government? What does being gay have to do with believing in low taxes? What does being gay have to do with how the US should conduct its foreign affairs? The problem is that the party's position on gay marriage makes it impossible for most of those people to vote Republican. This must change and the Republican Party must become the party of limited government and individual liberty not “some of the time” but all the time. Having said that, the religious-right and evangelicals are an important constituency within the party. The problem is, they dominate in states that are already solidly Republican and predominantly southern/midwestern. They should not be abandoned, but the party needs to find a way to promote traditional values in a way that is positive and does not limit individual liberty. For example, the party could come up with innovative ideas to promote reductions in the number of divorces as a way to promote traditional marriage that does not deny someone's right to choose who they marry.

Finally, the Republican Party must abandon neoconservative foreign policy principles that came into fashion during the Bush administration and adopt a more pragmatic foreign policy in lieu of the idealistic and unreasonable foreign policy that both political parties largely agree upon. In fact, there is nothing conservative about the Republican Party's foreign policy principles. These principles were largely the prevailing liberal foreign policy orthodoxy since the Wilson administration and opposed by conservatives until the Bush administration (exempting Cold War issues). Big government abroad is impossible without big government at home and each has a symbiotic relationship with one another. The Republican Party must promote a foreign policy that is based upon our pragmatic national interests and less on principle. This is something that Ronald Reagan understood well – the need to do businesses with wretched despots in order to promote our interests abroad. We can no longer continue borrowing from the People's Republic of China in order to pay the cost of being the policemen of the world. The US military should be the strongest best equipped force in the world, but it should be used sparingly and only when the United States has actually been attacked. It is time for the Republican Party to show some fiscal restraint when it comes to military and international affairs. Close our bases in Europe, deploy those troops stateside, reduce our ground presence in the mid-east, and build up the American Navy to quickly intervene globally if and when the need truly arises.

The Republican Party will either turn into the party that is home to those who oppose big government or it will continue to hobble along offering a weak statist alternative to the Democrat party. Either the Republican Party will allow the states to craft their own domestic policies or it will continue to do irreparable damage to our Federal Republic. Either the party embraces the principles liberty-leaning coalitions to win future elections or it will alienate them and continue to lose. There are many more issues that I have not addressed here including the big elephant in the room (no pun intended)...immigration; however, this is just my opinion as to where Romney went wrong and some principles off the top of my head that need to change with the Republican Party.

[kevpks]

Not through all of it yet but I could not agree more with this:
Catering to evangelical interests removes two of the most important arrows from the Republican quiver – limited government and individual liberty. More on that later.

By the way, sorry for the bad start to your week with the election and bad finish you're about to have on Saturday. Are you going to the game?

[Soonerjeepman]

damn bud...should have cut/paste..lol

[JohnnyMack]

Let me give you the Cliff Notes version of SicEm's rant:

Get in a time machine and go back and kill Ralph Reed.

[JohnnyMack]

And SicEm, the GOP needs to put forth a populist, not one of your libertarian leaning jack-offs.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me give you the Cliff Notes version of SicEm's rant:

Get in a time machine and go back and kill Ralph Reed.
You certainly do have a talent for trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious.

^quote is plagiarized. :D

[TUSooner]

Let me give you the Cliff Notes version of SicEm's rant:

Get in a time machine and go back and kill Abraham Lincoln.
Duly amended.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me give you the Cliff Notes version of SicEm's rant:

Get in a time machine and go back and kill Abraham Lincoln sooner.
Doubly amended.

[SoonerFrog]

The one and only hope for the GOP to win another presidency in (most of) our lifetimes, given the demographic shift in the US, is to completely jettison the religious people and run as an economic party.

[TitoMorelli]

Yeah, jettisoning about 20 million or so politically active voters is really going to help their cause. Especially when all it accomplishes is to make them even more like the other party.

[SoonerFrog]

When they jettison the 20 million religious people, 40 million moderates will suddenly realize they're not entirely crazy and take their place.

[TitoMorelli]

When they jettison the 20 million religious people, 40 million moderates will suddenly realize they're not entirely crazy and take their place.

Dream on, bro.

[SoonerFrog]

Touche'. But, it's their only hope - that or death by 1000 [demographic] cuts.

[okiewaker]

I'd like to know what the stats are on kids graduating from High School who identify themselves as liberal vs conservative. Just about every kid I run in to are liberal. High School is a Liberal factory. Anyway, sorry, carry on.

[rock on sooner]

In response to SicEm's epistle..
The gaffes by Romney you mentioned really weren't gaffes, that's what he believes
and the Dems were good at pointing that out. Romney wanted to apply what he did
in MA to the country. Dems did a great job of pointing out that he failed in MA. As to
Benghazi, his knee jerk remark was a bell that couldn't be unrung. He would have helped
himself immensely if he had just taken down his support ad of Mourdock. He did carry
IN and MO but both GOP candidates there lost. As to wall Street being a bad guy and
supporting Dems, they did in 08 but in 12 the money went to Pubs 9 to 1. Evangelical
support of anti gay marriage, one report out is that as many as 8.6% of the US is gay...
that is a big voting bloc. Romney flunked the foreign policy quizzes..his trips abroad
and not trying to set himself apart from Obama.

Ron Paul had no effect on the top of the ticket here in IA, even though 15 of the 22
national delegates were Ron Paul pledges..they're talking about working on local issues
and candidates, not national. Gary Johnson-Liberterian Party- nationally got about 1%
of the votes and to summarize your new coalition ideas, I pointed out in another thread
that until the Pubs can have open minded, pragmatic and inclusive ideas and leaders they
are doomed to repeat 2012.

[kevpks]

I'd like to know what the stats are on kids graduating from High School who identify themselves as liberal vs conservative. Just about every kid I run in to are liberal. High School is a Liberal factory. Anyway, sorry, carry on.

I don't know about high school, but I teach freshman composition at the college level and it's a pretty even split. I've been accused of being a leftist and a right winger on teacher evaluations, so I'm doing something right I guess? I just try to teach writing but part of that is asking them to question their own ideas. I swear I'm not a liberal professor corrupting the youth :chuncky:

[FaninAma]

To sum up your lengthy post you essentially think the GOP is becoming the Democrat-lite party. I agree. However, the historical trend is for the electorate to vote for the candidates who promise to give them most from the public treaury. This observation about democracy is certainly not a new notion and was most famously discussed by Alexander deToqueville. The GOP , being the astute politicians they are, realize this and have tried to emulate the Democrats with their own types of government pork barrel spending. However, they are learning that you can't out-liberal the liberals without totally losing the moorings on your party's principles and self-identity.

The sad fact Sic'em is that the Libertarian party would have fared even worse than the GOP has. The electorate wants socialism and they will continue to want it until they are forced to deal with the consequences of long term socialist spending policies. Only then will a fiscally conservative party have a chance of putting into place policies that will fundamentally change the direction of the country. The problem is that once a country faces the full consequences of undisciplined deficit spending the usual next course is to have a tolitarian type of government installed in power because the electorate are so desparate to have somebody come in and save them from their own decisions/actions.

[JohnnyMack]

To sum up your lengthy post you essentially think the GOP is becoming the Democrat-lite party. I agree. However, the historical trend is for the electorate to vote for the candidates who promise to give the most from the public treaury. This observation about democracy is certainly not a new notion and was most famously discussed by Alexander deToqueville. The GOP , being the astute politicians they are, realize this and have tried to emulate the Democrats with their own types of government pork barrel spending. However, they are learning that you can't out-liberal the liberals without totally losing the moorings on your party's principles and self-identity.

The sad fact Sic'em is that the Libertarian party would have fared even worse than the GOP has. The electorate wants socialism and they will continue to want it until they are forced to deal with the consequences of long term socialist spending policies. Only then will a fiscally conservative party have a chance of putting into place policies that will fundamentally change the direction of the country.


Serious question here. I've been at the same job for the last 13 years. I'm married, have 3 kids, live in a decent house in a cookie-cutter south Tulsa suburb and I drive an SUV with a big old V-8 in it. I pay my bills on time, mow my yard and don't cause trouble. And I vote Democrat more often than not. I vote democrat because I don't care for and agree with much of the GOP's stances on social issues and I think both parties are going to continue to expand the size of government so I'd rather not align myself with a party that I perceive to have an antiquated view of those social issues. Am I a taker? Am I one of your easily pigeonholed socialist leaches?

What's really sad in all this is that conservatives like you who've bought into the George W Bush, "they're either with us, or they're against us" lie.

Look I get that neither side has been anywhere close to responsible in how it deals with money, but to continue to create some false dichotomy in how you look at the populace is disingenuous and makes you come off as intellectually lazy, which I know you're not. You have great opinions and solid convictions so I don't understand why you continue to pump out this garbage.

[FaninAma]

Serious question here. I've been at the same job for the last 13 years. I'm married, have 3 kids, live in a decent house in a cookie-cutter south Tulsa suburb and I drive an SUV with a big old V-8 in it. I pay my bills on time, mow my yard and don't cause trouble. And I vote Democrat more often than not. I vote democrat because I don't care for and agree with much of the GOP's stances on social issues and I think both parties are going to continue to expand the size of government so I'd rather not align myself with a party that I perceive to have an antiquated view of those social issues. Am I a taker? Am I one of your easily pigeonholed socialist leaches?

What's really sad in all this is that conservatives like you who've bought into the George W Bush, "they're either with us, or they're against us" lie.

Look I get that neither side has been anywhere close to responsible in how it deals with money, but to continue to create some false dichotomy in how you look at the populace is disingenuous and makes you come off as intellectually lazy, which I know you're not. You have great opinions and solid convictions so I don't understand why you continue to pump out this garbage.

Because you are the outlier. I personally, as do most voters, vote my pocketbook first. There is a minority that will place social issues as their priority. However, if you were really a true social liberal you would be standing beside Sic'em and myself in the Ron Paul camp. Why aren't you if, as you say, that is the most important reason for not voting for the GOP?

And as far as my continued references to people in the the large majority of lower socioeconomic groups voting for the Democrats I would respond simply by saying:
1. It's a fact.
2. Without them the Democrats would be an unviable party.
3. Discussing inconvenient facts and trends in the country's demographics and voting habits is not intellectually lazy. In fact individuals much smarter than you or me have referenced the fact that most democracies prosper until their electorate realizes they can vote themselves "gifts" from the public treasury. If you don't beleive them simply take a hard look at Europe. Ignoring what is going on in Europe and steadfastly claiming the same thing could never happen here is what I would call being intellectually lazy.

[rock on sooner]

Well, FaninAma, if what you say is correct about the lower socioeconomic group
voting Dem, what would you have them change to? The other party, who is mostly
going to protect the upper income folks at the expense of everyone else? Now, really,
that would be stupid on their part, agree? Or, maybe you don't, in which case, there
is no argument that anyone could make to open your eyes to the many that need help.

Here's the gist, imo, of your (and MANY on the right) position..I've got mine, or made
mine and I'm not gonna help anyone less fortunate, even with creating opportunity to
pull themselves out of their morass, if it costs me even a few dollars. That is extreme,
but, for the life of me, that is all I see and hear. Someone said that the 60's..segregation
and absolute class warfare..was the "good old days". So many here exhibit no compassion,
no willingness to reach out and help. Those who have much just want to keep it. If that's
the case, then, clearly it is their choice. I grew up without much, worked early in my life
to get more, found a wonderful, caring, giving wife and we've been together 35 years, working
to get along, grow and benefit from our efforts. Two kids who care and give, neither has a
lot but they're okay and they care about those who don't have as much.

So much denigration from the right...sure, there are those that game the system, on BOTH
sides. Just hard for me to wrap my head around so much vitriol and bigotry.

[Tiptonsooner]

Rock On, I see your point. But, and it's a big but.... I don't mind helping those who are willing to help themselves. It's the have nots who think they are owed something for nothing that are in the majority. Don't believe me, look around. These people vote and frankly it scares the **** out of me. I live in SW part of the state, plenty of poverty. These people don't want out, or to work themselves out, they want "help" and lot's of it. Their kids are raised in this enviroment and believe that is the way of life. Why would I want to help people that have no desire to help themselves? I flat out asked a man a the post office last week, "Why are you voting for Obama?", he said, and I quote, " He black and the other guy gonna take my check.." I was speechless, these folks can vote???

[DrZaius]

I think Billo the clown (dickfaced hatemonger) said it best when he mentioned that white people are becoming the minority in this country more and more as time goes by. The repub party keeps painting itself into a narrower and whiter corner each year and will continue so until they realize that there are other races in this country that are not all illegal. That they can, have and will contribute great things to and for this nation. The short sighted whitey is the problem with the party and at this rate I am wondering when and if we win another election. If we cant win with the ridiculous amount of money they spent this time, which is mind blowing, then future shots do not look good either.

[FaninAma]

Well, FaninAma, if what you say is correct about the lower socioeconomic group
voting Dem, what would you have them change to? The other party, who is mostly
going to protect the upper income folks at the expense of everyone else? Now, really,
that would be stupid on their part, agree? Or, maybe you don't, in which case, there
is no argument that anyone could make to open your eyes to the many that need help.

Here's the gist, imo, of your (and MANY on the right) position..I've got mine, or made
mine and I'm not gonna help anyone less fortunate, even with creating opportunity to
pull themselves out of their morass, if it costs me even a few dollars. That is extreme,
but, for the life of me, that is all I see and hear. Someone said that the 60's..segregation
and absolute class warfare..was the "good old days". So many here exhibit no compassion,
no willingness to reach out and help. Those who have much just want to keep it. If that's
the case, then, clearly it is their choice. I grew up without much, worked early in my life
to get more, found a wonderful, caring, giving wife and we've been together 35 years, working
to get along, grow and benefit from our efforts. Two kids who care and give, neither has a
lot but they're okay and they care about those who don't have as much.

So much denigration from the right...sure, there are those that game the system, on BOTH
sides. Just hard for me to wrap my head around so much vitriol and bigotry.

No, I would expect them to take responsibility for themselves and their families. The federal government makes a very poor parenteral surrogate. I would also ask them to pull their hheads out of the sand and look around and see what is going on inthe rest of the world...especially Europe. At least be informed about the long term consequences of the government policies you support and not just the short term benefits you receive. Every social spending program needs to be re-examined for viability, effects on future genrations and, if need be, re-tooled so that their are automatic mechanisms put in place that trigger automatic cuts if the government starts running too much of a deficit.

I am all for taking care of the poor and needy but are you really going to sit there and tell me that that is the only group recieving aid from the federal government and that there are not several individuals who are taking advantage of a system that has no requirement for responsibilty or incentive to make better personal choices.

The question becomes are you willing to crash the entire system tomeet the needs of everyone who feels they deserve something from the government? What positive purpose does that serve? Or do you even admit there is a budgetary problem? How long do we keep running up yearly deficits of 1+ trillion dollars before the system fails and if the system fails who is going to be hurt the most?

[yermom]

Because you are the outlier. I personally, as do most voters, vote my pocketbook first. There is a minority that will place social issues as their priority. However, if you were really a true social liberal you would be standing beside Sic'em and myself in the Ron Paul camp. Why aren't you if, as you say, that is the most important reason for not voting for the GOP?

And as far as my continued references to people in the the large majority of lower socioeconomic groups voting for the Democrats I would respond simply by saying:
1. It's a fact.
2. Without them the Democrats would be an unviable party.
3. Discussing inconvenient facts and trends in the country's demographics and voting habits is not intellectually lazy. In fact individuals much smarter than you or me have referenced the fact that most democracies prosper until their electorate realizes they can vote themselves "gifts" from the public treasury. If you don't beleive them simply take a hard look at Europe. Ignoring what is going on in Europe and steadfastly claiming the same thing could never happen here is what I would call being intellectually lazy.

other than line crony pockets, what has anyone really done that will help the economy? you want to cut entitlements, but if there aren't jobs that pay anything, what exactly is Mr. and Mrs. Drain on Society supposed to do?

you talk about Ron Paul, but it's your boy Mitt that alienated him and his supporters in this process. Mitt is a ****** and never should have been nominated for the general election. you can thank Fox for that.

it's not JM's fault that Mittens was put up against Obama. Mitt had very little pull on the middle for moderates when it came to social issues, and it cost him.

a vote for Obama doesn't have to be a vote for socialism, it was also a vote against what the pubs were pushing.

[kevpks]

No, I would expect them to take responsibility for themselves and their families. The federal government makes a very poor parenteral surrogate. I would also ask them to pull their hheads out of the sand and look around and see what is going on inthe rest of the world...especially Europe. At least be informed about the long term consequences of the government policies you support and not just the short term benefits you receive. Every social spending program needs to be re-examined for viability, effects on future genrations and, if need be, re-tooled so that their are automatic mechanisms put in place that trigger automatic cuts if the government starts running too much of a deficit.

I am all for taking care of the poor and needy but are you really going to sit there and tell me that that is the only group recieving aid from the federal government and that there are not several individuals who are taking advantage of a system that has no requirement for responsibilty or incentive to make better personal choices.

The question becomes are you willing to crash the entire system tomeet the needs of everyone who feels they deserve something from the government? What positive purpose does that serve? Or do you even admit there is a budgetary problem? How long do we keep running up yearly deficits of 1+ trillion dollars before the system fails and if the system fails who is going to be hurt the most?

Can people perpetually stay on welfare anymore? That's a serious question. I thought reforms in the 90s changed that. I know that food stamps are different but a lot of people on food stamps do actually work. They're just underemployed.

[Tiptonsooner]

Socialism is great, until you run out of someone else's money....

I guess the smart thing to do is to quit being a contributor and start putting my hand out...

[SoonerProphet]

The relentless Manichaen framing that we face either - 1) we live in complete isolation of the individual from any mutual dependency on the government or 2) the Gulag, has been seen for what it is. Until the GOP again begins to see the shades of gray in life, it will continue to take a beating.

[kevpks]

Socialism is great, until you run out of someone else's money....

I guess the smart thing to do is to quit being a contributor and start putting my hand out...

Is that what we have in this country? Socialism? I don't see it. I work hard and am taxed at what I perceive to be a fair rate. I'm not one of the "haves" making 200K, but I do alright and pick up extra summer and intersession courses when I can to make a little more. I don't always like what my tax money is spent on, but I don't get to make those decisions. I honestly don't spend my time worrying that people on government assistance are abusing the system. If they are, they have a pretty sad life and are still struggling mightily. The welfare queen living on the high hog off the government is a myth.

[TUSooner]

I have actually taken the time to read all of these posts, including both of SicEm's tomes. Although I often chide SicEm for having an overall worldview that would have been bizarre and objectionable even in 1790, I have to give his efforts in this thread a great big BRAVO ZULU. Well done, Froston.

As for FaninAma - I understand your position, but I have to say again that it is ultimately based on a false, specious, and dangerous dichotomy by which the world is divided by 2 - producers and leeches. That's implausible in Ayn Rand's novels and even moreso in real life. You pretty know the rest of what I might say from reading my other posts, but I'll just say again that voting against the Republicans and for the Democrats is not a sign that a person supports a nanny state. Your slavish adherence to the notion that not going with the GOP is tantamount to supporting unworthy pigs at the trough is just, well, wrong. And it limits the possibilities open to the GOP to gain votes among, yes, the poor.

If the GOP s took a solid and consistent stance in favor of economic and personal liberty, it could actually make the case that its policies would benefit the working poor (most of them are working) by creating economic opportunity across the board. Of course there will always be the intractably poor, but they are not going to meekly concede their unworthiness and "self-exterminate" for our convenience; so provisions must be made for them by ANY government. Even Samuel Johnson said that the measure of a nation's greatness is its decent provision for the poor, and Dr. Sam was a Tory. If the GOP maintains your position that the poor are useless, disposable, leeches, then the real socialists will always have an audience and a constituency. I respectfully suggest you re-examine your bifurcation of society. (And that's not even getting into the Christian aspect of treating the "poor and lame and widows and orphans.")

The GOP must decide whether it will continue to carry on its back the religious right, whose theology and social policies are both - IMHO - equally suspect. I agree with SicEm and others that yoking the party to these "outliers" will not advance the cause of economic and civil liberty on which any great society is founded. Let those devoted to the deep-rooted American tradition of social puritanism find some new William Jennings Bryan to carry their banner. What is lost in releasing these extremists to their own devices will be made up by attracting those who want a responsible opposition to the leftward tendencies of the Democrats. If you are one of those "puritans", then I'm sorry. You are entitled to tout your opinions, but you are not entitled to co-opt the party of Lincoln (sorry SicEm), Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.

[rock on sooner]

No, I would expect them to take responsibility for themselves and their families. The federal government makes a very poor parenteral surrogate. I would also ask them to pull their hheads out of the sand and look around and see what is going on inthe rest of the world...especially Europe. At least be informed about the long term consequences of the government policies you support and not just the short term benefits you receive. Every social spending program needs to be re-examined for viability, effects on future genrations and, if need be, re-tooled so that their are automatic mechanisms put in place that trigger automatic cuts if the government starts running too much of a deficit.

I am all for taking care of the poor and needy but are you really going to sit there and tell me that that is the only group recieving aid from the federal government and that there are not several individuals who are taking advantage of a system that has no requirement for responsibilty or incentive to make better personal choices.

The question becomes are you willing to crash the entire system tomeet the needs of everyone who feels they deserve something from the government? What positive purpose does that serve? Or do you even admit there is a budgetary problem? How long do we keep running up yearly deficits of 1+ trillion dollars before the system fails and if the system fails who is going to be hurt the most?

I have already said that there are gamesters on both sides and those give the
legitimate ones a bad name. Surely you don't believe the trillion dollar deficits
are because of food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc. The huge deficits are because
of pork, bridges to nowhere, rural airports that have 10 customers a month,
massive cost overruns on military weapons systems, bloated agencies, etc.
Welfare to work in the 90's was a huge success and should be built upon.
Romney actually had a good idea with what he said about cutting programs.
Medicare/Medicaid, scrubbed of fraud, waste and abuse would be close to
self sustaining, SS only needs the salary cap raised and the gov't to leave the
trust fund alone and it'll be okay...these are supposed to be the two big
culprits. Don't need to crash the system and most of those that need the help
now want to NOT be where they are.

No question there is a huge problem with the budget, but there are ways out
of the mess, if both sides will work together. Last two years that has been a
big if. Unless and until both sides get serious, it'll only get worse.

[Tiptonsooner]

Is that what we have in this country? Socialism? I don't see it. I work hard and am taxed at what I perceive to be a fair rate. I'm not one of the "haves" making 200K, but I do alright and pick up extra summer and intersession courses when I can to make a little more. I don't always like what my tax money is spent on, but I don't get to make those decisions. I honestly don't spend my time worrying that people on government assistance are abusing the system. If they are, they have a pretty sad life and are still struggling mightily. The welfare queen living on the high hog off the government is a myth.

You are most certainly wrong about the welfare queen statement. I see it almost everyday, I own an HVAC company and service alot of low income housing. You would be amazed at how comfortable these people in this lifestyle, new cars, huge t.v.'s, cell phones, computers, but there rent is based on income, usually less than 50 bucks a month. IF they can afford this stuff, they can pay full rent. Why would they want out of this lifestyle? Please inform me of the incentive to get out, you can't... What's sad, is their kids think this is the way life works, they know no different. Oh yeah, the reason I'm usually there....they refuse to take care of anything in their housing. Why the hell would they? You pay for it and will continue to do so, so long as these "welfare queens" elect the people to sustain this lifestyle.

[kevpks]

Is that what we have in this country? Socialism? I don't see it. I work hard and am taxed at what I perceive to be a fair rate. I'm not one of the "haves" making 200K, but I do alright and pick up extra summer and intersession courses when I can to make a little more. I don't always like what my tax money is spent on, but I don't get to make those decisions. I honestly don't spend my time worrying that people on government assistance are abusing the system. If they are, they have a pretty sad life and are still struggling mightily. The welfare queen living on the high hog off the government is a myth.

You are most certainly wrong about the welfare queen statement. I see it almost everyday, I own an HVAC company and service alot of low income housing. You would be amazed at how comfortable these people in this lifestyle, new cars, huge t.v.'s, cell phones, computers, but there rent is based on income, usually less than 50 bucks a month. IF they can afford this stuff, they can pay full rent. Why would they want out of this lifestyle? Please inform me of the incentive to get out, you can't... What's sad, is their kids think this is the way life works, they know no different. Oh yeah, the reason I'm usually there....they refuse to take care of anything in their housing. Why the hell would they? You pay for it and will continue to do so, so long as these "welfare queens" elect the people to sustain this lifestyle.

Does anecdotal evidence of abuse like this constitute socialism? I see abuse like this too from students who say they can't afford books but have nicer phones and cars than me. I just think the abuses like this are indicative of a need for reform and not a harbinger of economic doom for the nation.

[Tiptonsooner]

I do consider it socialism, if my "earned" money is taken from me and given to someone who doesn't "earn" it to fund this lifestyle. If that is not the definition of socialism, enlighten me. These people aren't looking for a hand up, only a hand out. I understand some people definitely need a hand up, I'm more than happy to help.

You're right, more oversight is needed in determining who is getting help. But, that wont' get you re-elected. Shoot that down..

I'm glad you're gainfully employed and take care of you and yours, but get out of the classroom and see what is going on in the world around you. I see it almost every day. Why would these folks want out of this lifestyle? No responsibility and all bills paid, by you and I. Shouldn't you enjoy your work ethic instead of someone who refuses to work?? If you want to help these leeches, be my guest, get out your checkbook, that is your right. But,don't force me to do it. I'd rather help someone that will help themselves.. I'd rather gainfully employ more people, but can't afford to due to excessive taxes. This is not how it's supposed to be.....

The ant and the grasshopper, childs fairytale, but very true about this society.

[MR2-Sooner86]

And SicEm, the GOP needs to put forth a populist, not one of your libertarian leaning jack-offs.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't you support the libertarian leaning jack-off Ron Paul?

[kevpks]

I do consider it socialism, if my "earned" money is taken from me and given to someone who doesn't "earn" it to fund this lifestyle. If that is not the definition of socialism, enlighten me. These people aren't looking for a hand up, only a hand out. I understand some people definitely need a hand up, I'm more than happy to help.

You're right, more oversight is needed in determining who is getting help. But, that wont' get you re-elected. Shoot that down..

I'm glad you're gainfully employed and take care of you and yours, but get out of the classroom and see what is going on in the world around you. I see it almost every day. Why would these folks want out of this lifestyle? No responsibility and all bills paid, by you and I. Shouldn't you enjoy your work ethic instead of someone who refuses to work?? If you want to help these leeches, be my guest, get out your checkbook, that is your right. But,don't force me to do it. I'd rather help someone that will help themselves.. I'd rather gainfully employ more people, but can't afford to due to excessive taxes. This is not how it's supposed to be.....

The ant and the grasshopper, childs fairytale, but very true about this society.

Socialism- is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Having social programs or entitlement programs does not constitute a socialist government. This might just be semantics at this point though. I get the anger at people who live that lifestyle. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to hear from a student that he can't afford his books when I know for a fact he just got a $5000 grant check and will probably blow the money on anything but his education. I just think it is a small sliver of our tax dollars. Personally, I don't consider Medicare and Social Security to be entitlements by the same definition. I pay into those and (hopefully) will get something back on that. In some ways, I'd rather invest the money myself but that's not going to happen. I do agree with you about the abuses as you acknowledge.

The thing that frustrates me (as a registered Republican) is that many in the GOP don't want to take a dime from a bloated military budget that is not even getting the money where it needs to go. (I had a friend who used phone books on his Hummer in Iraq because of inadequate armor plating.) The poor are an easy target for spending cuts. There are other places to look as well to balance the budget.

Pet peeve: I hate the classroom/real world contrast. I can assure you that I live in the real world.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not through all of it yet but I could not agree more with this:

By the way, sorry for the bad start to your week with the election and bad finish you're about to have on Saturday. Are you going to the game?
Unfortunately not. I wish I was...I always enjoy going to games in Norman. I think the last one I went to in Norman was in '07 or '08ish.


In response to SicEm's epistle..
The gaffes by Romney you mentioned really weren't gaffes, that's what he believes
and the Dems were good at pointing that out. Romney wanted to apply what he did
in MA to the country. Dems did a great job of pointing out that he failed in MA. As to
Benghazi, his knee jerk remark was a bell that couldn't be unrung. He would have helped
himself immensely if he had just taken down his support ad of Mourdock. He did carry
IN and MO but both GOP candidates there lost. As to wall Street being a bad guy and
supporting Dems, they did in 08 but in 12 the money went to Pubs 9 to 1. Evangelical
support of anti gay marriage, one report out is that as many as 8.6% of the US is gay...
that is a big voting bloc. Romney flunked the foreign policy quizzes..his trips abroad
and not trying to set himself apart from Obama.

Ron Paul had no effect on the top of the ticket here in IA, even though 15 of the 22
national delegates were Ron Paul pledges..they're talking about working on local issues
and candidates, not national. Gary Johnson-Liberterian Party- nationally got about 1%
of the votes and to summarize your new coalition ideas, I pointed out in another thread
that until the Pubs can have open minded, pragmatic and inclusive ideas and leaders they
are doomed to repeat 2012.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to agree that Romney's gaffes represented his true feelings on the subject. I just don't think he relates well to people..he's not a guy that wears his emotions on his sleeve. Nonetheless, perception is everything and the perception was that he was aloof and uncaring.

As for Ron Paul supporters, that's exactly what I'm saying. They didn't have much impact, but there was a lot of potential there. The Romney camp screwed the pooch with the Paul people at the convention...the Paul grassroots network was superior to that of the GOP and Romney ground operation in some areas. The Paul people could have added a substantial boost to their efforts if they had been cultivated right and treated with the respect that they deserved and were entitled to at the convention. Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case.


To sum up your lengthy post you essentially think the GOP is becoming the Democrat-lite party. I agree. However, the historical trend is for the electorate to vote for the candidates who promise to give them most from the public treaury. This observation about democracy is certainly not a new notion and was most famously discussed by Alexander deToqueville. The GOP , being the astute politicians they are, realize this and have tried to emulate the Democrats with their own types of government pork barrel spending. However, they are learning that you can't out-liberal the liberals without totally losing the moorings on your party's principles and self-identity.

The sad fact Sic'em is that the Libertarian party would have fared even worse than the GOP has. The electorate wants socialism and they will continue to want it until they are forced to deal with the consequences of long term socialist spending policies. Only then will a fiscally conservative party have a chance of putting into place policies that will fundamentally change the direction of the country. The problem is that once a country faces the full consequences of undisciplined deficit spending the usual next course is to have a tolitarian type of government installed in power because the electorate are so desparate to have somebody come in and save them from their own decisions/actions.
I tend to agree with all of this; however, I think the United States will end up with something resembling your typical European "democratic-socialist" government. It'll be an elected welfare/nanny state. I'm a pessimist and there is no doubt in my mind that's where things are heading. It's hard to stay a free people because that freedom comes at the cost of having less support from both government and society. People want support and help and with that comes a gradual but continual decline in individual liberty.

Socialism is great, until you run out of someone else's money....

I guess the smart thing to do is to quit being a contributor and start putting my hand out...
I don't think socialism is ever great. The confiscation and redistribution of a person's property and assets is one of the most vile and evil acts that can be perpetuated upon a free people.

I have actually taken the time to read all of these posts, including both of SicEm's tomes. Although I often chide SicEm for having an overall worldview that would have been bizarre and objectionable even in 1790, I have to give his efforts in this thread a great big BRAVO ZULU. Well done, Froston.

As for FaninAma - I understand your position, but I have to say again that it is ultimately based on a false, specious, and dangerous dichotomy by which the world is divided by 2 - producers and leeches. That's implausible in Ayn Rand's novels and even moreso in real life. You pretty know the rest of what I might say from reading my other posts, but I'll just say again that voting against the Republicans and for the Democrats is not a sign that a person supports a nanny state. Your slavish adherence to the notion that not going with the GOP is tantamount to supporting unworthy pigs at the trough is just, well, wrong. And it limits the possibilities open to the GOP to gain votes among, yes, the poor.

If the GOP s took a solid and consistent stance in favor of economic and personal liberty, it could actually make the case that its policies would benefit the working poor (most of them are working) by creating economic opportunity across the board. Of course there will always be the intractably poor, but they are not going to meekly concede their unworthiness and "self-exterminate" for our convenience; so provisions must be made for them by ANY government. Even Samuel Johnson said that the measure of a nation's greatness is its decent provision for the poor, and Dr. Sam was a Tory. If the GOP maintains your position that the poor are useless, disposable, leeches, then the real socialists will always have an audience and a constituency. I respectfully suggest you re-examine your bifurcation of society. (And that's not even getting into the Christian aspect of treating the "poor and lame and widows and orphans.")

The GOP must decide whether it will continue to carry on its back the religious right, whose theology and social policies are both - IMHO - equally suspect. I agree with SicEm and others that yoking the party to these "outliers" will not advance the cause of economic and civil liberty on which any great society is founded. Let those devoted to the deep-rooted American tradition of social puritanism find some new William Jennings Bryan to carry their banner. What is lost in releasing these extremists to their own devices will be made up by attracting those who want a responsible opposition to the leftward tendencies of the Democrats. If you are one of those "puritans", then I'm sorry. You are entitled to tout your opinions, but you are not entitled to co-opt the party of Lincoln (sorry SicEm), Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.

I thank you, sir. The fact is, the Republican Party is doing very little to distinguish itself from the Democrat Party especially in foreign affairs but even in domestic policy. The difference between the two parties is of a policy and not philosophical nature. If the Republican Party is going to be viable going into the future then it needs to more clearly contrast with the Democrat Party and offer people a true alternative. There aren't a lot directions it can go, but the GOP's mantra has always been less government and more liberty so why not act like they actually mean it? Why not carry that philosophy to its natural conclusions even when it conflicts with current GOP orthodoxy? It's a pipe dream sadly.

[Tiptonsooner]

Kevpks,


I didn't mean to imply you didn't live in the real world.

I don't consider social security and Medicare to be social programs either, as you state, you pay into them.

The student you speak of is a product of the enviroment I am speaking of, same person. If you think it is a small sliver of our tax dollars, you don't realize how many of these leeches there are and they are mutiplying, fast because it pays better.

The military, I don't what to say. Bueracracy at its finest, very necessary, but fraught with overspending and little oversight. We could definitely save a bunch there.

[FirstandGoal]

Can people perpetually stay on welfare anymore? That's a serious question. I thought reforms in the 90s changed that. I know that food stamps are different but a lot of people on food stamps do actually work. They're just underemployed.


They can and they do.

Until very recently my employment put me in contact with more welfare families than anywhere else.
Here is a conversation that happened just this summer with one of my patients:

Patient pulling into the drive-through in shiny new red Suburban: "Hi, I need to refill all of my narcotics early because my housekeeper stole all of them yesterday. She also stole my new iphone, but I guess you can't replace that for me, hahaha"

Me: "Sorry ma'am, but I cannot just refill a bunch of narcotics early. I will have to call your doctor and explain the reason you are giving me and even if he decides to approve them for early refill you are going to have to pay out of pocket."

Welfare Patient with brand new SUV, a housekeeper and stolen iphone: "WHAT!!?!?! What do you mean I will have to pay!!! THEY WERE STOLEN BY MY HOUSEKEEPER!!!!!!"

Me: "I'm sorry ma'am, but Soonercare doesn't have a provision for lost or stolen medication, you will have to pay out of pocket if the Dr. approves this."

Patient: "Well that's just ridiculous! I tell you what, this insurance just tries everything it can to screw you over all of the time. I HATE IT!!!!!!! They always think they can screw over us poor folks, can't they!"

Me: * Gritting my teeth and trying my best not to throw up in my mouth* "So ma'am, did you want me to call your doctor for those refills or not?"

Patient opening up billfold and thumbing through several $100 bills: "Oh I guess. <exasperated tone of voice> I mean, I gotta have them, now don't I? Not that the stupid state cares whether I live or die."

I see this.

Every.
Single.
Day.

[JohnnyMack]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't you support the libertarian leaning jack-off Ron Paul?

During the GOP Primaries, when the choices were Santorum, Romney or Ron Paul you bet your *** I was pulling for RP. Those other two are complete time wasters. There's really not a ton of difference in Ron Paul and Barack Obama's big picture social policy, although they get there in a bit of a different way.

Again, once it became evident that the race for the White House was between two people who didn't give a **** about the economy I decided I'd rather vote for Obama than Romney. I'm not a Libertarian. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I voted for the person (of the two I had to choose from that made the ballot in OK) I felt was the better choice.

[Scott D]

Willard's other fault is that he truly is a chip off the ole block.

[LiveLaughLove]

Great piece Sic Em. As one of those evil conservative Christians, I would be willing to let the party drop the social issues and focus on the economic, but that won't be a winner overall for them.

3 million voters that voted for McCain stayed home this time. Why? I believe for two reasons.

One is Romney was a squishy moderate talking like a conservative. The other was his Mormonism. Many Christians just couldn't pull that lever.

If Romney had gotten just the same amount of turnout as McCain he would be President. The people that stayed home are just as responsible for four more years of Obama as the ones that voted for Obama.

A true conservative would have won, but the Republican apparatchik is set up to keep that from happening. The truth is Republican politicians dislike conservatives and especially conservative Christians as much as dems do.

[SoonerorLater]

Great piece Sic Em. As one of those evil conservative Christians, I would be willing to let the party drop the social issues and focus on the economic, but that won't be a winner overall for them.

3 million voters that voted for McCain stayed home this time. Why? I believe for two reasons.

One is Romney was a squishy moderate talking like a conservative. The other was his Mormonism. Many Christians just couldn't pull that lever.

If Romney had gotten just the same amount of turnout as McCain he would be President. The people that stayed home are just as responsible for four more years of Obama as the ones that voted for Obama.

A true conservative would have won, but the Republican apparatchik is set up to keep that from happening. The truth is Republican politicians dislike conservatives and especially conservative Christians as much as dems do.

I always find it amusing when people say the Republicans could win if they only supported abortion, amnesty for illegals etc. Basically just adopt the democratic platform.

[BoulderSooner79]

I always find it amusing when people say the Republicans could win if they only supported abortion, amnesty for illegals etc. Basically just adopt the democratic platform.

Which is a fair point. It could be that these fundamental beliefs imply that Republicans will have a very hard time winning the national election. And there is nothing wrong with that, they clearly can win at the state and local level which feeds into the national process. But the Pubs can't force the majority to agree with those views and the demograhic trends point to those core beliefs being held by a shrinking minority.

[LiveLaughLove]

I always find it amusing when people say the Republicans could win if they only supported abortion, amnesty for illegals etc. Basically just adopt the democratic platform.
That's where the Republican party is going. The country is going left. The liberals gladly keep moving left. The Republicans also move left but not as much.

"Center" is not the center any longer. It is way to the left of center from what it was just 30 years ago. And 30 years ago it was far to the left of what it was the 30 years before that.

Look at England. The Torries used to be actual conservatives. They are now to the left of our liberals here. The Labor party is waaaayyyyy to the left of liberals here, but we're getting there.

England at one time was the greatest country on Earth. Not any longer. It's just another nation. And one that's about to be overrun by Muslims too.

Yes, adopt Democrat policies to fight the Democrats you Republicans. Call yourself Republicans, but you won't be. In fact, you haven't been for some time.

[smooth3d]

They can and they do.

Until very recently my employment put me in contact with more welfare families than anywhere else.
Here is a conversation that happened just this summer with one of my patients:

Patient pulling into the drive-through in shiny new red Suburban: "Hi, I need to refill all of my narcotics early because my housekeeper stole all of them yesterday. She also stole my new iphone, but I guess you can't replace that for me, hahaha"

Me: "Sorry ma'am, but I cannot just refill a bunch of narcotics early. I will have to call your doctor and explain the reason you are giving me and even if he decides to approve them for early refill you are going to have to pay out of pocket."

Welfare Patient with brand new SUV, a housekeeper and stolen iphone: "WHAT!!?!?! What do you mean I will have to pay!!! THEY WERE STOLEN BY MY HOUSEKEEPER!!!!!!"

Me: "I'm sorry ma'am, but Soonercare doesn't have a provision for lost or stolen medication, you will have to pay out of pocket if the Dr. approves this."

Patient: "Well that's just ridiculous! I tell you what, this insurance just tries everything it can to screw you over all of the time. I HATE IT!!!!!!! They always think they can screw over us poor folks, can't they!"

Me: * Gritting my teeth and trying my best not to throw up in my mouth* "So ma'am, did you want me to call your doctor for those refills or not?"

Patient opening up billfold and thumbing through several $100 bills: "Oh I guess. <exasperated tone of voice> I mean, I gotta have them, now don't I? Not that the stupid state cares whether I live or die."

I see this.

Every.
Single.
Day.

Unless we have two different idea's of welfare that person you described has to have income coming from somewhere else other then the government to own a $35,000 plus suv. Soonercare does not equal welfare in my book. As far people in low income housing have computers and tv's I would bet alot of that is rent to own (Who leech of off the less fortunate in my opinion) or bought from pawn shops etc. Most electronics are cheap these days. They are not driving new cars and having $50 dollar rent. And guess what? There are plenty of Republicans on welfare too. I work with the public and see all kinds of people in different situations. As been stated earlier demographics are changing we leave in a multicultural world now with different idea's. The only we will go thru this is to come together on common goals. We all want a better life.

[TitoMorelli]

Which is a fair point. It could be that these fundamental beliefs imply that Republicans will have a very hard time winning the national election. And there is nothing wrong with that, they clearly can win at the state and local level which feeds into the national process. But the Pubs can't force the majority to agree with those views and the demograhic trends point to those core beliefs being held by a shrinking minority.

Gallup found earlier this year that fewer Americans than ever before identify as being pro-choice - down to 41%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx

Immigration amnesty has tilted the other way - a higher percentage now approves of it.

[SoonerorLater]

Until we get back to a constitutional basis for running the country we are going see this drift to the left. We have let current hot button social issues filter into the governmental arena. Can you imagine somebody bringing up the issue of gay rights at the Constitutional Convention in 1787? Of course not. Things like this are what has trivialized our democratic process.

[BoulderSooner79]

Gallup found earlier this year that fewer Americans than ever before identify as being pro-choice - down to 41%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx

Immigration amnesty has tilted the other way - a higher percentage now approves of it.

And abortion has been on the back burner for 4 years since everyone knew the status quo was not going to change.

But that is just 1 issue in a sea of many that can whittle republican support down to a minority. Even my *extremely* conservative parents who are republican to the bone think all this anti-gay stuff in the party platform is wrong. Yes, I was shocked to find this out myself recently.

[okiewaker]

Interesting read. Bottom line,, one group espouses a set of principals and hope others "get it",,,conversely,,,the other side buses ppl to polling stations b/c its a warm body, uses media to sway the ignorant, and panders to anything with a heartbeat. Romney didn't lose b/c of what he did or didn't do. O won b/c of he had a lot of help from a large network of ppl.

[SicEmBaylor]

I always find it amusing when people say the Republicans could win if they only supported abortion, amnesty for illegals etc. Basically just adopt the democratic platform.

First, I absolutely do not think the Republican Party should adopt more of the Democrat platform. That's the last thing I want since a big part of the problem is that the Republican Party is already way way way the hell too much like the Democrat Party. I want the Republican Party to adopt a more libertarian platform not a more liberal platform...just because there is some convergence there with liberal issues doesn't mean I want a liberal platform.

For one thing, I oppose all immigration both legal and otherwise, so I sure as hell don't support amnesty. Abortion is and should be a state issue -- nationally, the GOP shouldn't have a position on abortion.

[TitoMorelli]

And abortion has been on the back burner for 4 years since everyone knew the status quo was not going to change.

But that is just 1 issue in a sea of many that can whittle republican support down to a minority. Even my *extremely* conservative parents who are republican to the bone think all this anti-gay stuff in the party platform is wrong. Yes, I was shocked to find this out myself recently.

A party has to look not just at how many votes a stance may have cost it, but at how many it stands to lose if it gives in on it. I'm not sure that the GOP can afford to change its platform concerning some social issues without condemning itself to 40 years in the political wilderness. Literally.

Something else to remember - at this time in 2008 the so-called experts were writing epitaphs for the GOP and/or American political conservatism, and many who still wish for that very thing have been reporting that same tolling bell this week. Yet in 2010 Democrats didn't just lose a bulletproof (or at least filibuster-proof) stranglehold on DC, they lost the House by a landslide.

Two factors that seem to have been overlooked by many on here are 1) the natural political advantage given any incumbent, and 2) 7.8%. Many voters opted to give Obama a mulligan this time around. And apparently more than 7,000,000 others didn't think he deserved one. Had the September unemployment figure come in at, say, 8.2%, how many more Obama voters would either have defected or stayed home?

Few seats changed hands this election in the Senate and House. And as often happens, the party that won the presidential race picked up seats in each. But if unemployment figures early next year begin inching upwards again, or if more companies begin announcing layoffs, there will be hell to pay. This time there's no honeymoon, and no 70% approval rating to ride atop.

[rock on sooner]

First, I absolutely do not the Republican Party to adopt more of the Democrat platform. That's the last thing I want since a big part of the problem is that the Republican Party is already way way way the hell too much like the Democrat Party. I want the Republican Party to adopt a more libertarian platform not a more liberal platform...just because there is some convergence there with liberal issues doesn't mean I want a liberal platform.

For one thing, I oppose all immigration both legal and otherwise, so I sure as hell don't support amnesty. Abortion is and should be a state issue -- nationally, the GOP shouldn't have a position on abortion.

Wow, SicEm, you are alive and well in a country of immigrants, its very
foundation comes from immigration, which, btw, owes the natives every
sort of apology on record, but that's another thread. ( My ancestors came
over sometime after the Mayflower and were greeted by more of my ancestors.)
Your attitude seems to fall in line with the idea of, well, we're here so let's
lock the damn gate and shoot anyone else who tries to come in.

Keep your beliefs in mind as the world changes around you....imo, a path
to legalization is coming, tighter border restrictions are coming, more severe
penalties on companies who hire illegals are on the way and, a good chance
that most of the Dream Act will come to fruition. I understand why you feel
as you do but I don't understand why you are so unwilling to accept the inevitable.
It is a give and take world.

[StoopTroup]

I neither think anything SicEm said is amazing or wonderful. I have never thought he was fully educated in the ways of Politics. He spent years in a type of Political Group Therapy for people who think they will one day wear blue blazers, $1000 suits and Flagpins.

I don't think he's had an original thought since he buried his nose in all of it.

I think he would have done better putting himself through School and working a few real jobs with real people. He has no idea what real people have had to struggle with. He's maybe had a huge reality check the last few years but this idea he has that Libertarians have all the answers and would best serve America are only to serve his ego and give him some sort of satisfaction in that he didn't waste so damn much money and time on an expensive education that reaped few rewards.

I tire of people who work so hard to tell Real hard working Taxpayers what to believe when all they spew is the viewpoint of a Professional Student who was financed by the wealth of someone else.

I know he's way to young to know what Abortion was like before they stopped incarcerating people for nearly killing their Daughter or Wife and the Town Doctor having to come in and clean up a tragedy of Greek Proportion. Not every Doctor went through those days. Mine did. I still shutter when I think of what our Country would be like if States had their own laws on Abortion.

Just that position in itself shows just how naive he is about people and their lives. I would tell him to go get his Vas Deferentia snipped as hopefully he will never procreate but I feel that would be way to strong of an opinion to take. All of the years I have in this World have proved to me that the offspring of even guys like him can overcome the one-sidedness and one-mindeness of their sperm donor.

[TitoMorelli]

Wow, SicEm, you are alive and well in a country of immigrants, its very
foundation comes from immigration, which, btw, owes the natives every
sort of apology on record, but that's another thread. ( My ancestors came
over sometime after the Mayflower and were greeted by more of my ancestors.)
Your attitude seems to fall in line with the idea of, well, we're here so let's
lock the damn gate and shoot anyone else who tries to come in.

So shall we assume that your ancestors sneaked in illegally? Did they also run drugs across the border? :)

[SicEmBaylor]

Wow, SicEm, you are alive and well in a country of immigrants, its very
foundation comes from immigration, which, btw, owes the natives every
sort of apology on record, but that's another thread. ( My ancestors came
over sometime after the Mayflower and were greeted by more of my ancestors.)
Your attitude seems to fall in line with the idea of, well, we're here so let's
lock the damn gate and shoot anyone else who tries to come in.

Keep your beliefs in mind as the world changes around you....imo, a path
to legalization is coming, tighter border restrictions are coming, more severe
penalties on companies who hire illegals are on the way and, a good chance
that most of the Dream Act will come to fruition. I understand why you feel
as you do but I don't understand why you are so unwilling to accept the inevitable.
It is a give and take world.

There is no such thing as a "native" people in N. America. World history is replete with examples of one people doing another people wrong. That's life. I'd love for the Union to continue to apologize for their crimes against the southern people, but I certainly have no expectation of that. Whatever damage done to the so-called native population should be offset by the fact they have the privilege of living in one of the richest most advanced nations in all of human history instead of living in wood huts in NE or running across the prairie of the Great Plains wearing loin cloths -- the same can be said of another ethnic group.

Your characterization of my position on immigration is correct. We are a nation full of people whose ancestry includes immigrants; however, I have never heard a good compelling argument for why that should have any impact on contemporary American immigration policy. We also used to have a nation with more jobs and more space than we could fill with native-born citizens; however, we are now a nation of 350 million people and a real unemployment rate in the double digits. Let's get the unemployment rate down to at least under 5% and then if there are still a considerable number of menial labor jobs that need filling we can discuss the need to issue temporary work visas under a program that is closely monitored and well managed. But I will likely never support the naturalization process.

[SicEmBaylor]

Having said all that, I don't necessarily put all the blame on illegal immigrants for exploiting a ****ty system with as many holes in it as swiss cheese. It's completely and utterly unreasonable and insane to try to deport the millions that are here illegally. That will never ever work.

However, I am in favor of new draconian laws that would make the penalty for hiring an illegal so harsh that few would ever take the risk. I'm talking laws that would result in criminal charges and fines so massive that could even result in a business having to shut its doors. And whenever illegals do work their way into the system from committing other crimes, they should immediately be deported without a hearing.

[StoopTroup]

If new draconian laws were to be put in place...I would nominate you to be the first guy in a pickup to head down to the Border. We will give you a nice shiny badge and a bullet for your gun Frosty.

http://www.thepolicedaily.com/images/BarneyFife.jpg

[okiewaker]

To those that have never achieved anything,,,,a welfare check is a huge achievement. Just ask those who live/lived in Juarez. To them, gov is the beacon of prosperity,,, especially our gov.

[kevpks]

To those that have never achieved anything,,,,a welfare check is a huge achievement. Just ask those who live/lived in Juarez. To them, gov is the beacon of prosperity,,, especially our gov.

I was under the impression that most illegal immigrants are here to try to work. I suppose I could be wrong.

[okiewaker]

Nah,,,you're just gullible. It passes with age.

[Harry Beanbag]

Looks like ST is back on his meds again.

[TUSooner]

I neither think anything SicEm said is amazing or wonderful. I have never thought he was fully educated in the ways of Politics. He spent years in a type of Political Group Therapy for people who think they will one day wear blue blazers, $1000 suits and Flagpins.

I don't think he's had an original thought since he buried his nose in all of it.

I think he would have done better putting himself through School and working a few real jobs with real people. He has no idea what real people have had to struggle with. He's maybe had a huge reality check the last few years but this idea he has that Libertarians have all the answers and would best serve America are only to serve his ego and give him some sort of satisfaction in that he didn't waste so damn much money and time on an expensive education that reaped few rewards.

I tire of people who work so hard to tell Real hard working Taxpayers what to believe when all they spew is the viewpoint of a Professional Student who was financed by the wealth of someone else.

I know he's way to young to know what Abortion was like before they stopped incarcerating people for nearly killing their Daughter or Wife and the Town Doctor having to come in and clean up a tragedy of Greek Proportion. Not every Doctor went through those days. Mine did. I still shutter when I think of what our Country would be like if States had their own laws on Abortion.

Just that position in itself shows just how naive he is about people and their lives. I would tell him to go get his Vas Deferentia snipped as hopefully he will never procreate but I feel that would be way to strong of an opinion to take. All of the years I have in this World have proved to me that the offspring of even guys like him can overcome the one-sidedness and one-mindeness of their sperm donor.

I like SicEm and think he's intelligent and even astute in some ways. But -- as you say so well -- he is profoundly wrong insofar as he is totally out of touch with real people and their toils and troubles. Sorry Froston, but, with all respect, you are pegged.

[TUSooner]

I was under the impression that most illegal immigrants are here to try to work. I suppose I could be wrong. NO, you're not.

[FaninAma]

When they jettison the 20 million religious people, 40 million moderates will suddenly realize they're not entirely crazy and take their place.
The Democrats will never allow themselves to be out bid for voters or out liberaled.

[FaninAma]

I like SicEm and think he's intelligent and even astute in some ways. But -- as you say so well -- he is profoundly wrong insofar as he is totally out of touch with real people and their toils and troubles. Sorry Froston, but, with all respect, you are pegged.
It's called having principles that you aren't willing to compromise simply to cater to the lowest common denominators in our society. I get the distinct impression he gives a rat's *** about your opinion of him or his belief system. I wish there were a lot more like him in the country.

[SicEmBaylor]

I like SicEm and think he's intelligent and even astute in some ways. But -- as you say so well -- he is profoundly wrong insofar as he is totally out of touch with real people and their toils and troubles. Sorry Froston, but, with all respect, you are pegged.

I empathize with immigrants who want to come here for a better life. I really do. But empathy shouldn't be the basis of policy. Nobody is entitled to the right to enter this country or become a citizen. I don't care if they're coming from Wales or the Sudan. I reject the implication that I lack humanity because I oppose immigration -- it doesn't mean anything more than I oppose immigration.

Like I said, let's get the unemployment rate down below 5% (preferably around 4 1/2%) and if there is still a demand for millions of unskilled immigrants then we can talk about issuing work visas. We're a nation of 350 million people, and I oppose letting every Jack and Jill take a citizenship oath just to demonstrate our collective humanity.

[TUSooner]

It's called having principles that you aren't willing to compromise simply to cater to the lowest common denominators in our society. I get the distinct impression he gives a rat's *** about your opinion of him or his belief system. I wish there were a lot more like him in the country.

Yeah well, Hitler had principles, too.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah well, Hitler had principles, too.
Now honestly...

[Harry Beanbag]

Yeah well, Hitler had principles, too.


First one to Hitler loses, better luck next time.

Come on man, you are maybe the only leftist here that I expect better from.

[TUSooner]

Now honestly... "Now honestly", it all depends on what principles we're talking about. I've heard a conservative defined (by a Catholic priest fwiw) as "someone who sticks to his principles no matter how much it hurts...others." A whole bunch of wise guys around here latch onto one good idea and think it's THE ANSWER, the ONLY good idea, the defining principle of the World, and the only thing that matters to the exclusion of all else. Libertarianism Conservatism Laissez-Faire economics Thisism Thatism.
If you don't care about people, it's all just a big ol' pile of crap.
Good night.

[Harry Beanbag]

"Now honestly", it all depends on what principles we're talking about. I've heard a conservative defined (by a Catholic priest fwiw) as "someone who sticks to his principles no matter how much it hurts...others." A whole bunch of wise guys around here latch onto one good idea and think it's THE ANSWER, the ONLY good idea, the defining principle of the World, and the only thing that matters to the exclusion of all else. Libertarianism Conservatism Laissez-Faire economics Thisism Thatism.
If you don't care about people, it's all just a big ol' pile of crap.
Good night.

I think here is where others may call you out on black and white vs. gray thingies or something. I've heard that somewhere before.

[TUSooner]

I think here is where others may call you out on black and white vs. gray thingies or something. I've heard that somewhere before.

Then call me out and explain why. Maybe I'll get back to you about it tomorrow.

[Harry Beanbag]

Then call me out and explain why. Maybe I'll get back to you about it tomorrow.

If you of all people have to have it explained, you are just as partisan and tunnel visioned as everybody you ridicule. Not worth my time or effort.

[LiveLaughLove]

I love how liberals think everyone else is involved in group think. That's rich.

[StoopTroup]

Looks like ST is back on his meds again.

If you are worried...I appreciate it. No Reason to be Harry.

[StoopTroup]

I like SicEm and think he's intelligent and even astute in some ways. But -- as you say so well -- he is profoundly wrong insofar as he is totally out of touch with real people and their toils and troubles. Sorry Froston, but, with all respect, you are pegged.

I know I'm a bit harsh on him. He really did just pour himself into all that Rhetoric. I was impressed when he told me what he achieved at Baylor. I even feel badly for him as he's been through many things that have been tough in his life and I can relate to a lot of that myself. I just think that his resorting to Vet, Tim and now it seems Harry Beanbag slurs is a huge personality flaw for someone who spent so much time trying to educate himself so he could maybe become the next Libertarian Vice President in his 40's. I think he continues to show just how vulnerable he is to criticism and that he needs to learn one of the biggest rules of them all...

If you can dish it out.....you better be able to take it.

When someone dishes it out for no reason than he's coming to the aid of another that thinks he can dish it out but can't take it....it's just piling on like a gang member. I have gotten myself out of some pretty tough spots in my life. Froston...He's such a pup. I do hope he's able to fix some of his personality flaws as he is a pretty funny guy when he's mixing truth with fiction. He really ought to write short stories and stay out of politics.

I wish him well. Just not as a Politician. He should give up on any idea of becoming an elected official.

[SicEmBaylor]

"Now honestly", it all depends on what principles we're talking about. I've heard a conservative defined (by a Catholic priest fwiw) as "someone who sticks to his principles no matter how much it hurts...others." A whole bunch of wise guys around here latch onto one good idea and think it's THE ANSWER, the ONLY good idea, the defining principle of the World, and the only thing that matters to the exclusion of all else. Libertarianism Conservatism Laissez-Faire economics Thisism Thatism.
If you don't care about people, it's all just a big ol' pile of crap.
Good night.
Of course I care about people. Holy God I'm not a psychopath/sociopath. The difference between you and I is that I don't believe that should be the basis for crafting policy. Hell, as I've said, I'm not totally and completely opposed to some safety net programs. The issue there is that I am utterly opposed to it being on the Federal level because I believe it should be done on the state level for practical, constitutional, and efficiency reasons.

[SicEmBaylor]

I know I'm a bit harsh on him. He really did just pour himself into all that Rhetoric. I was impressed when he told me what he achieved at Baylor. I even feel badly for him as he's been through many things that have been tough in his life and I can relate to a lot of that myself. I just think that his resorting to Vet, Tim and now it seems Harry Beanbag slurs is a huge personality flaw for someone who spent so much time trying to educate himself so he could maybe become the next Liberal Vice President in his 40's. I think he continues to show just how vulnerable he is to criticism and that he needs to learn one of the biggest rules of them all...

If you can dish it out.....you better be able to take it.

When someone dishes it out for no reason than he's coming to the aid of another that thinks he can dish it out but can't take it....it's just piling on like a gang member. I have gotten myself out of some pretty tough spots in my life. Froston...He's such a pup. I do hope he's able to fix some of his personality flaws as he is a pretty funny guy when he's mixing truth with fiction. He really ought to write short stories and stay out of politics.

I wish him well. Just not as a Politician. He should give up on any idea of becoming an elected official.

If you will recall (and you probably don't for obvious reasons), I never made any sort of attacks against you in any shape, form, or fashion until the last year or so. The issues started with little insults and jabs here and there at myself and Baylor in general which I brushed off for a very long time. I took it as good-natured ribbing for the longest time. Gradually, they become increasingly insidious. My patience wore increasingly thin and I had enough.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with you -- I honestly don't. You wore out any sympathy I may have had for you a long long time ago. As such, it's difficult to look past your absolutely incoherent rants that don't make a damned bit of sense whatsoever. The random capitalization, strings of consciousness in no particular logical order, your odd mood swings, etc. etc. are all evidence of something. Whether it is from the prescription drug abuse, you were hit on your head as a child, or you never learned to communicate beyond a 5th grade level is a mystery unto me. At this point I really no longer care. Admittedly, you used to get under my skin until I realized everyone else also thinks you're utterly insane.

I used to feel bad for you; I now feel sorry for you.

[StoopTroup]

If you will recall (and you probably don't for obvious reasons), I never made any sort of attacks against you in any shape, form, or fashion until the last year or so. The issues started with little insults and jabs here and there at myself and Baylor in general which I brushed off for a very long time. I took it as good-natured ribbing for the longest time. Gradually, they become increasingly insidious. My patience wore increasingly thin and I had enough.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with you -- I honestly don't. You wore out any sympathy I may have had for you a long long time ago. As such, it's difficult to look past your absolutely incoherent rants that don't make a damned bit of sense whatsoever. The random capitalization, strings of consciousness in no particular logical order, your odd mood swings, etc. etc. are all evidence of something. Whether it is from the prescription drug abuse, you were hit on your head as a child, or you never learned to communicate beyond a 5th grade level is a mystery unto me. At this point I really no longer care. Admittedly, you used to get under my skin until I realized everyone else also thinks you're utterly insane.

I used to feel bad for you; I now feel sorry for you.
And that's some seriously messed up BS

It's obvious I got to you again. Quit drinking while your young before it's to late.

[LiveLaughLove]

Of course I care about people. Holy God I'm not a psychopath/sociopath. The difference between you and I is that I don't believe that should be the basis for crafting policy. Hell, as I've said, I'm not totally and completely opposed to some safety net programs. The issue there is that I am utterly opposed to it being on the Federal level because I believe it should be done on the state level for practical, constitutional, and efficiency reasons.

In their world you are, or at least, very close to it.

[LiveLaughLove]

And that's some seriously ****ed bull**** on your part and why I think you are a huge piece of **** and about as worthless a human being.

Exhibit A

[SicEmBaylor]

And that's some seriously ****ed bull**** on your part and why I think you are a huge piece of **** and about as worthless a human being.
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/9/90123/1668659-cool_story_bro_house_super.jpg

[StoopTroup]

House. A Fictional Character who does have a real drug problem....in the SicEm World of Fictional TV.

BTW....you know he's not a real Doctor?

I hope I didn't just spoil it for you.

[yermom]

so what about states with no money?

what is the point of being one big country vs. a bunch of independent states?

[StoopTroup]

Exhibit A

Exhibit A would be you and others piling on like dogs because your little Romney got his *** kicked and his Political Career torn to shreds because some expert that probably had the same kind of ideas SicEm did back in the day convince a bunch of Billionaires and Millionaires to write check their a$$ shouldn't have cashed.

Continuing to pile on guys that have sat here in this forum for four years and call you out for falling for their tripe is all the proof I need that not only are a bunch of you hopelessly without reason and lost in fallacy that I'm surprised you haven't checked yourself into some sort of rehab.

KNOCK KNOCK !

[LiveLaughLove]

so what about states with no money?

what is the point of being one big country vs. a bunch of independent states?

Um, it's how the Founders and the Constitution set it up.

I think I trust Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin more than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, but that's just me.

[StoopTroup]

NSFW

http://mah29001.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/dhimmi_obamasupporters.jpg

[yermom]

Um, it's how the Founders and the Constitution set it up.

I think I trust Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin more than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, but that's just me.

grown ups are talking.

[olevetonahill]

grown ups are talking.

Sicem an ST aint really Grown Ups bro:congratulatory:
Jes sayin

[LiveLaughLove]

Exhibit A would be you and others piling on like dogs because your little Romney got his *** kicked and his Political Career torn to shreds because some expert that probably had the same kind of ideas SicEm did back in the day convince a bunch of Billionaires and Millionaires to write check their a$$ shouldn't have cashed.

Continuing to pile on guys that have sat here in this forum for four years and call you out for falling for their tripe is all the proof I need that not only are a bunch of you hopelessly without reason and lost in fallacy that I'm surprised you haven't checked yourself into some sort of rehab.

KNOCK KNOCK !

You seem to think that winning an election means your ideas were correct. There is absolutely no correlation in those two things. You sound like the guy that lost though, such anger.

Wide is the way of destruction and narrow the path of salvation. It's not easy to be the adult and tell people they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed or fail on their own. It's much easier and much more palatable to say, let me take care of you my children. Doesn't make that the correct position, just because it's the more popular. If popularity mattered Justin Beiber would be the President. Come to think of it, he is.

[StoopTroup]

Bill Maher....We are Black in the saddle again...The Republicans are taking the loss well....Shawn Hannity is slumped in the corner doing heroin in a fetal position.....

Now....there's your drug addicts. The ones that point the finger all the time.

Romney arrived in Boston in a 15 SUV Secret Security Service and his lack of planning left him to find a cab he could tie his dog to so he could get Home.

[SicEmBaylor]

so what about states with no money?

what is the point of being one big country vs. a bunch of independent states?

That's the beauty of federalism. If the Federal government stayed within its proper constitutional role and allowed the individual states to set their own domestic social policy then all of that tax money would be out of D.C. and back into the pockets of taxpayers at which point the states would have access to more tax revenue to pay for their own state programs.

This was a diverse nation even in 1789 and the Framers understood that. New Hampshire was a very different place than Georgia and the needs and wants of the citizenry vary. I trust the state representative that lives in my own community, shops at the same stores, and has their kids in the same school to craft policy that most directly affects me than I do representatives half a continent that hail from urban San Francisco or the southern coast of Mississippi.

[SicEmBaylor]

Bill Maher....We are Black in the saddle again...The Republicans are taking the loss well....Shawn Hannity is slumped in the corner doing heroin in a fetal position.....

Now....there's your drug addicts. The ones that point the finger all the time.

Romney arrived in Boston in a 15 SUV Secret Security Service and his lack of planning left him to find a cab he could tie his dog to so he could get Home.

Doth protest too much.

[olevetonahill]

You seem to think that winning an election means your ideas were correct. There is absolutely no correlation in those two things. You sound like the guy that lost though, such anger.

Wide is the way of destruction and narrow the path of salvation. It's not easy to be the adult and tell people they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed or fail on their own. It's much easier and much more palatable to say, let me take care of you my children. Doesn't make that the correct position, just because it's the more popular. If popularity mattered Justin Beiber would be the President. Come to think of it, he is.

LLL, aint ya learned to not have a Battle of the Wits with an Unarmed person?
Yer wasting yer time

[StoopTroup]

You seem to think that winning an election means your ideas were correct. There is absolutely no correlation in those two things. You sound like the guy that lost though, such anger.

Wide is the way of destruction and narrow the path of salvation. It's not easy to be the adult and tell people they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed or fail on their own. It's much easier and much more palatable to say, let me take care of you my children. Doesn't make that the correct position, just because it's the more popular. If popularity mattered Justin Beiber would be the President. Come to think of it, he is.

I don't think my ideas were correct....I know they were. The evidence is packed full in this forum for all time. Now...if you are so inclined....you could go back and edit all your posts and even switch candidates. I wouldn't blame you.

I guarantee you....you won't see Karl Rove get 300 million dollars from anyone ever again. Also....if you think the folks who engineered this clusterf*ck will succeed in four years by doing nothing like they have for the last two...you will see the Tea party get more votes than the GOP.

I think lots of folks here tried civil earlier in the day. Vet came in with his one post asking where they had been and telling them they are talking out their a$$ and this comes from a guy in the woods that only turns his TV on for OU Games. If he'd watch less porn and stop jerking off he wouldn't need eye surgery.

Now I'm just tossing grenades as it seems nothing fazes some of you. You seem to want someone to run it up your a$$. It's like you are begging for it.

My entire thoughts were that President Obama would get re-elected just because of the Political tactics that were being used by the right since the moment he was elected.

It worked for GW Bush in his 2nd Campaign and now it's succeeded again to elect Obama. There are of course many other reasons like math and empty chairs and Hurricanes....lol

[LiveLaughLove]

LLL, aint ya learned to not have a Battle of the Wits with an Unarmed person?
Yer wasting yer time
He does boggle the mind for sure.

I wonder if he can come up with any more cliche's.


Romney arrived in Boston in a 15 SUV Secret Security Service and his lack of planning left him to find a cab he could tie his dog to so he could get Home.

I mean, I've never heard this one before, what a hoot. Romney, car, and dog. Too funny.

He handles victory with such class and sophistication. Imagine if he had lost. yikes.

[olevetonahill]

He does boggle the mind for sure.

I wonder if he can come up with any more cliche's.



I mean, I've never heard this one before, what a hoot. Romney, car, and dog. Too funny.

He handles victory with such class and sophistication. Imagine if he had lost. yikes.

Why you think I put the Crazy Pill poppin **** stick on Iggy.
Yall quote just enough of his Crazy that I get more than i need of his Infantile rants

[StoopTroup]

LLL, aint ya learned to not have a Battle of the Wits with an Unarmed person?
Yer wasting yer time

What's incredible is you haven't quit. You are at least down to drive-bys. Tupac didn't learn to stop them either.

[StoopTroup]

Why you think I put the Crazy Pill poppin **** stick on Iggy.
Yall quote just enough of his Crazy that I get more than i need of his Infantile rants

Glad you are bouncing back so quickly. Did ya trade your dope for pot or a few moments with the neighbors sheep?

[LiveLaughLove]

From Mark Steyn:


It took the government of the United States two centuries to rack up its first trillion dollars in debt. Now Washington piles on another trillion every nine months.


If you add up the total debt — state, local, the works — every man, woman, and child in this country owes 200 grand (which is rather more than the average Greek does). Every American family owes about three-quarters of a million bucks,


the Democrats became the first government in the history of the planet to establish annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life. Before the end of Obama’s second term, the federal debt alone will hit $20 trillion.


For the moment, tend to your state, and county, town and school district, and demonstrate the virtues of responsible self-government at the local level. Americans as a whole have joined the rest of the Western world in voting themselves a lifestyle they are not willing to earn.

This last part pretty much sums up where I am at. If Texas was smart they had better start hunkering down and controlling their borders and say screw you to the federal government. If they don't, they will be California in a few short years.

[hawaii 5-0]

I've heard more than one talking head predict that Texass would be a Swing State by the next Presidential Election.

The Republicans better turn their ship around quick.

5-0

[FaninAma]

I've heard more than one talking head predict that Texass would be a Swing State by the next Presidential Election.

The Republicans better turn their ship around quick.

5-0

Texas will not be a swing state by the next election. That is just moronic. They gave an average GOP candidate a 14% margin. Other statewide GOP candidates won by even more.

[FaninAma]

It is obvious you Democrats are reading way too much into this election. Remember what happened the last time you did that in 2010? You suffered the biggest Congressional reversal in the history of the country. Just keep on reaching.

[okie52]

Who can grovel lower for the Hispanic vote?

[StoopTroup]

Doth protest too much.

Well...I am a moderate not a dirty Libertarian....lol

[TUSooner]

If you of all people have to have it explained, you are just as partisan and tunnel visioned as everybody you ridicule. Not worth my time or effort.

And he takes the pitch for a strike.

[StoopTroup]

It is obvious you Democrats are reading way too much into this election. Remember what happened the last time you did that in 2010? You suffered the biggest Congressional reversal in the history of the country. Just keep on reaching.

It's funny you mention that....because not everyone who didn't vote for Romney and Ryan was a Democrat and I have seen very few Dems in here except for Vet who evidently wasn't ever able to figure out how to fix that.

Most of what everyone here is really trying to tell you and others like you is what they think is wrong with the GOP and why they think so many folks think many of you have lost your mind. I will continue to tell you that I do believe you are a smart guy and financially you make a lot of sense. We part ways on many other issues.

Example: NRA...do I want to lose my guns or the right to bear arms? No. Will there be a GOP Landslide Victory if the Democrats in that Party try? You Bet. If that had been a topic people thought was something the Dems were seriously considering...I think the GOP would have won. It wasn't though and now everything with a heartbeat that's within Ted's Compound is getting a double tap on his morning walk of the property...lol

Obama won. That's not reaching.

[TUSooner]

I love how liberals think everyone else is involved in group think. That's rich.

1. I'm only a "liberal" in this little SF.com corner of the world were everyone to the left of Glen Beck is suspected of being a communist.

2. "Group think" is an understatement, I think you're part of an unthinking herd, blindly following the sound of your radios. You (plural) hear one good, solid, fundamental economic principle about economic liberty, and then you try build an entire universe to fit around that one idea. Hammer to fit, paint to match, pile flawed inference upon faulty assumption, ignore facts that don't fit, glue it all together with buckets of slogans and spiteful rhetoric until everybody fits into one of your two tidy little categories of humanity: The virtuous "Us" and the unworthy, God-less "Them" who want to take all the stuff we've earned by the sweat of our brow with no help from anybody.

I repeat myself to no avail. But if I'm going to be dismissed as a liberal, I might as well act the part, eh?!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Wheah's mah free phone!?

[TUSooner]

It is obvious you Democrats are reading way too much into this election. Remember what happened the last time you did that in 2010? You suffered the biggest Congressional reversal in the history of the country. Just keep on reaching.

Since I so rarely agree with you off the football board, I should note that I do agree that the Democrats are probably overrating their mandate. But every side does that when they win, and then they overreach until the populace says "Whoa" and elect the other side. That said, the doom and gloom of some Republicans is also unwarranted. Y'all wouldn't recognize a real socialist since you're so busy concocting fake ones. (Well, you didn't really think I'd agree 100% ?)

[TUSooner]

Of course I care about people. Holy God I'm not a psychopath/sociopath. The difference between you and I is that I don't believe that should be the basis for crafting policy. Hell, as I've said, I'm not totally and completely opposed to some safety net programs. The issue there is that I am utterly opposed to it being on the Federal level because I believe it should be done on the state level for practical, constitutional, and efficiency reasons.

If caring about people is not the basis for policy, then what is?! Caring for wombats and llamas? You have hoisted yourself by your own petard (which literally means you blew yourself up with your own bomb - as you may know but others may not.)

[hawaii 5-0]

1. I'm only a "liberal" in this little SF.com corner of the world were everyone to the left of Glen Beck is suspected of being a communist.





True that.

I've got several friends here that complain I'm to Conservative.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Texas will not be a swing state by the next election. That is just moronic. They gave an average GOP candidate a 14% margin. Other statewide GOP candidates won by even more.



What's you're projection 4 years from now? Que?


5-0

[SoonerorLater]

Reading this thread demonstrates to me why the USA is so polarized. We functionally have a two party system but we have a boatload of different ideas about things. At some point years ago I came to the conclusion that the federal government can't be all things to all people. It can't be the ultimate arbitrator of life's problems. As defined by our constitution the Federal Government has a vital but very limited role. Through a series of activist court decisions starting way back with the Marshall Court, we have morphed from a new nation that had liberty at the forefront to an empire in decline. We have an industrial-welfare-nanny state where people's wants are placed above liberty. Unfortunately I don't see the acrimony ending until many of our institutions are dismantled or we dissolve the country as we now know it.

[TUSooner]

Reading this thread demonstrates to me why the USA is so polarized. We functionally have a two party system but we have a boatload of different ideas about things. At some point years ago I came to the conclusion that the federal government can't be all things to all people. It can't be the ultimate arbitrator of life's problems. As defined by our constitution the Federal Government has a vital but very limited role. *****Through a series of activist court decisions starting way back with the Marshall Court, we have morphed from a new nation that had liberty at the forefront to an empire in decline. We have an industrial-welfare-nanny state where people's wants are placed above liberty. Unfortunately I don't see the acrimony ending until many of our institutions are dismantled or we dissolve the country as we now know it.
You had me right up until the *****. I think you overstate the problems after that, at least a little bit, but before that, I agree (at the risk of ruining my reputation).

[TitoMorelli]

He does boggle the mind for sure.

I wonder if he can come up with any more cliche's.



I mean, I've never heard this one before, what a hoot. Romney, car, and dog. Too funny.

He handles victory with such class and sophistication. Imagine if he had lost. yikes.

If he'd lost, he'd have tucked his tail between his legs and run back to his little cyber cubby hole, just as he has in the past when he couldn't take the heat.

[SoonerorLater]

You had me right up until the *****. I think you overstate the problems after that, at least a little bit, but before that, I agree (at the risk of ruining my reputation).

Thus my point about a boatload of different ideas. I really don't think it's an overstatement. When you take things away from people that they now have come to expect, then there will be problems. Make no mistake they will be taken away either through voluntary legislative means (not likely) or a breakdown of the economic system (most likely). I am absolutely, 100% convinced that most people vastly underestimate the financial predicament we are in. We have been able to keep the game going through massive borrowing but that will soon come to an end. The thing that makes me saddest about it all is that it just didn't need to happen. We have wrecked this country for my kids generation.

[TUSooner]

Thus my point about a boatload of different ideas. I really don't think it's an overstatement. When you take things away from people that they now have come to expect, then there will be problems. Make no mistake they will be taken away either through voluntary legislative means (not likely) or a breakdown of the economic system (most likely). I am absolutely, 100% convinced that most people vastly underestimate the financial predicament we are in. We have been able to keep the game going through massive borrowing but that will soon come to an end. The thing that makes me saddest about it all is that it just didn't need to happen. We have wrecked this country for my kids generation.
My only consolation is that even the Democrats can no longer ignore the debt, and I don't they will try to ignore it. If the Republicans thhink it can be done without some reasonable tax increases on the top end they are the ones in denial "We must protect the rich!" is not a war cry I'll go to battle for.

[Harry Beanbag]

And he takes the pitch for a strike.


Come on man, at least be honest with yourself. Sic'em, bless his heart, as we all know has many faults. Being a narrow minded, shallow brained, talking point spewing, political lemming is not one of them. He posted a well thought out and original essay of his ideas on what is wrong with the Republican party in its current existence. One point was his thoughts on immigration, legal and illegal, which from the looks of it is almost solely based on economic feasibility. When asked to explain it further, he did, saying he isn't absolutely opposed to it, but we had some work to do to make it worthwhile for the good of the country. Obviously there are a lot of people that may disagree with him like yourself, but you immediately accused him of not caring about people at all and even lazily went to the Hitler well. Your reaction perfectly displays the black or white no shades of gray attitude that you (and others of the self appointed "intellectual elite" here) claim to despise. It is dishonest at best, hypocritical at worst.

There. That's at least a stand up double. :)

[Breadburner]

And that's some seriously ****ed bull**** on your part and why I think you are a huge piece of **** and about as worthless a human being.

It's obvious I got to you again.

Seriously...join the military. With your attitude you are sure to be one of the top notch guys. They need leaders like you SicEm. Your experience at navigating parking lots on a scooter would be invaluable.


Ummmm..Who got to who....???

[SoonerorLater]

My only consolation is that even the Democrats can no longer ignore the debt, and I don't they will try to ignore it. If the Republicans thhink it can be done without some reasonable tax increases on the top end they are the ones in denial "We must protect the rich!" is not a war cry I'll go to battle for.


I think that is exactly what will happen. Yes, there will be blustering on both sides of the isle (Republicans are not a solution either). Most likely there will be some minor compromises and the can will be kicked down the road once again. And when that fails the can will be kicked again and again until there is no more road.

The nativity of the American Electorate is amazing. Taxing the rich is a classic Red Herring fallacy and a staple of the democrat playbook. You can't tax the rich enough to make a hill of beans difference in the nation's finances. All this does is throw a red meat issue in front of an embittered, entitled electorate. There simply is not enough money to finance everything people want in the way of government services. This just takes money from successful people and throws it down the black hole of government spending.

[LiveLaughLove]

If caring about people is not the basis for policy, then what is?! Caring for wombats and llamas? You have hoisted yourself by your own petard (which literally means you blew yourself up with your own bomb - as you may know but others may not.)

Caring for the country as a whole should be paramount. Individuals are responsible for themselves, or at least, were. That was the greatness of this country.

If caring for the people alone is the sole responsibility of the country we would never allow those people to die in war. That certainly isn't caring for them now is it? But you don't mind that men and women have died for this country so that you can **** it away now, do you?


My only consolation is that even the Democrats can no longer ignore the debt, and I don't they will try to ignore it. If the Republicans thhink it can be done without some reasonable tax increases on the top end they are the ones in denial "We must protect the rich!" is not a war cry I'll go to battle for

Wrong again. Democrats will get their taxes, and people will lose jobs because of it. That's more people on the dole. Meaning more taxes are needed. Meaning more people losing jobs, meaning.... you see?

Name one thing the Democrats are really actually going to cut outside of the military. Name one constituency of theirs that is going to feel the knife. It ain't happening and you know it. If you think Democrats are responsible adults with the fiscal crisis we have, you are blind. They created it, and Obama want's to spend more. Every little Democrat has pet projects that he is wanting to fund now that they feel emboldened. It's sheer lunacy to think they are going to finally now at this late date, get serious.

I say, cut the military, gut it almost completely. Keep just enough to be able to put up a little bit of a fight if needed. Otherwise, let's become Canada militarily. What have we got to lose?

Of course, that's going to gut a lot of jobs too. But hey, so what. We need money saved. I mean Obama got some defense contractors to wait to lay people off until after the election and they happily obliged. So Merry Christmas to those folks, courtesy of our now all of a sudden finally fiscally responsible Democrat party. Sure.

[BS-JE]

What's incredible is you haven't quit. You are at least down to drive-bys. Tupac didn't learn to stop them either.

For the record Tupac is alive. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[cleller]

It feels like a return to the late 60's/early 70's is coming back around. Great Society II.

Unfortunately, I can remember the first go-round. Bleak, even to a kid. Horrible economy, horrible inflation, horrible Supreme Court, horrible fashion, rising crime, but good music.

I don't think we'll get lucky with the music this time.

[TUSooner]

Caring for the country as a whole should be paramount. Individuals are responsible for themselves, or at least, were. That was the greatness of this country.

If caring for the people alone is the sole responsibility of the country we would never allow those people to die in war. That certainly isn't caring for them now is it? But you don't mind that men and women have died for this country so that you can **** it away now, do you?

A country without people? What a magnificent abstraction! Imagine the possibilities: no need for civil rights, no need to protect private property, or to provide any infrastructure. We won't even need a military! It'll sure save lots of money.

[TUSooner]

It feels like a return to the late 60's/early 70's is coming back around. Great Society II.

Unfortunately, I can remember the first go-round. Bleak, even to a kid. Horrible economy, horrible inflation, horrible Supreme Court, horrible fashion, rising crime, but good music.

I don't think we'll get lucky with the music this time.

As much as I love to see you suffer miserably :wink: you're way too pessimistic. Except about the music.

Seriously, I think the debt issue is just too big for even the most wide-eyed Democrat to ignore, and the GOP still has the House. Cheer up.

[LiveLaughLove]

A country without people? What a magnificent abstraction! Imagine the possibilities: no need for civil rights, no need to protect private property, or to provide any infrastructure. We won't even need a military! It'll sure save lots of money.
Wow, imagine if that was what I actually said. But since it wasn't, carry on with your inanity.

[SicEmBaylor]

If caring about people is not the basis for policy, then what is?! Caring for wombats and llamas? You have hoisted yourself by your own petard (which literally means you blew yourself up with your own bomb - as you may know but others may not.)
What is the criteria for crafting policy? In this order:

1)Is it constitutional? If yes then proceed; if no then send the issue to the states.
2)Is the need great enough that it justifies the time and money the policy will cost?
3)If there is a need then can it still be done in a cost effective manner?
4)Does the policy duplicate an existing program?

Look, you know as well as I do that "feeling bad about ****" is not and should not be the basis for policy. If it were, then you're as callous as I am for not taking that to its logical conclusion. There are homeless people in this country, why not craft a policy that gives them a home? I guess we don't care about people. There are people in this country who don't have a car, why not craft a policy that gives them a car? I guess we don't care about people. There are people in this country who makes less than $40,000 a year, we should craft a policy that brings their annual income up above $60,000, but I guess we don't care about people.

A logical fallacy? Perhaps but no more than what you've demonstrated by suggesting we're all nazis for not caring enough about people.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's funny you mention that....because not everyone who didn't vote for Romney and Ryan was a Democrat and I have seen very few Dems in here except for Vet who evidently wasn't ever able to figure out how to fix that.

Most of what everyone here is really trying to tell you and others like you is what they think is wrong with the GOP and why they think so many folks think many of you have lost your mind. I will continue to tell you that I do believe you are a smart guy and financially you make a lot of sense. We part ways on many other issues.

Example: NRA...do I want to lose my guns or the right to bear arms? No. Will there be a GOP Landslide Victory if the Democrats in that Party try? You Bet. If that had been a topic people thought was something the Dems were seriously considering...I think the GOP would have won. It wasn't though and now everything with a heartbeat that's within Ted's Compound is getting a double tap on his morning walk of the property...lol

Obama won. That's not reaching.

For the record, I did not vote for Romney.

[SicEmBaylor]

Reading this thread demonstrates to me why the USA is so polarized. We functionally have a two party system but we have a boatload of different ideas about things. At some point years ago I came to the conclusion that the federal government can't be all things to all people. It can't be the ultimate arbitrator of life's problems. As defined by our constitution the Federal Government has a vital but very limited role. Through a series of activist court decisions starting way back with the Marshall Court, we have morphed from a new nation that had liberty at the forefront to an empire in decline. We have an industrial-welfare-nanny state where people's wants are placed above liberty. Unfortunately I don't see the acrimony ending until many of our institutions are dismantled or we dissolve the country as we now know it.
This definitely did not start with the Warren Court. You're roughly 100 years off.

[TUSooner]

What is the criteria for crafting policy? In this order:

1)Is it constitutional? If yes then proceed; if no then send the issue to the states.
2)Is the need great enough that it justifies the time and money the policy will cost?
3)If there is a need then can it still be done in a cost effective manner?
4)Does the policy duplicate an existing program?

Look, you know as well as I do that "feeling bad about ****" is not and should not be the basis for policy. If it were, then you're as callous as I am for not taking that to its logical conclusion. There are homeless people in this country, why not craft a policy that gives them a home? I guess we don't care about people. There are people in this country who don't have a car, why not craft a policy that gives them a car? I guess we don't care about people. There are people in this country who makes less than $40,000 a year, we should craft a policy that brings their annual income up above $60,000, but I guess we don't care about people.

A logical fallacy? Perhaps but no more than what you've demonstrated by suggesting we're all nazis for not caring enough about people.

Holy CRAP! You're missing the obvious point. How uncomplicated and uncontroversial should it be to say that governments exist for people?! Who makes up governments and nations anyway?! Hint: HUMAN ****ING BEINGS.
I only gigged you for saying something facially absurd, even if it wasn't exactly what you meant. It was supposed to be a silly comment. I never said government exists to pamper every individual. :rolleyes: And the nazi fluff was only to state the blitheringly obvious point that not all principles are worth standing up for, as you know.

Which is not to say that I don't think you are a closet fascist.
:wink:

[SoonerorLater]

A country without people? What a magnificent abstraction! Imagine the possibilities: no need for civil rights, no need to protect private property, or to provide any infrastructure. We won't even need a military! It'll sure save lots of money.

After reading some of your posts your motives seem good if not the method we use to get there, however your above post is a textbook Strawman argument. I read his post and that isn't what he said.

[TUSooner]

After reading some of your posts your motives seem good if not the method we use to get there, however your above post is a textbook Strawman argument. I read his post and that isn't what he said.

It's not meant to be a straw man it's meant to be completely frivolous.

Holy Poop. Forget about it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Holy CRAP! You're missing the obvious point. How uncomplicated and uncontroversial should it be to say that governments exist for people?! Who makes up governments and nations anyway?! Hint: HUMAN ****ING BEINGS.
I only gigged you for saying something facially absurd, even if it wasn't exactly what you meant. It was supposed to be a silly comment. I never said government exists to pamper every individual. :rolleyes: And the nazi fluff was only to state the blitheringly obvious point that not all principles are worth standing up for, as you know.

Which is not to say that I don't think you are a closet fascist.
:wink:

Aye, but that was your argument with L3 not me. I never said that.

[okiewaker]

Interesting read. Off subject but,,it would be interesting to imagine what the US would look like today if only Dems were elected in all Prez erections throughout history vs the same for Repubs. What would each look like? Anyway, sorry, carry on.

[TUSooner]

Aye, but that was your argument with L3 not me. I never said that.

Honestly, it wasn't even an argument. More like a failed (epically) attempt at some semantic/linguistic humor.
AIGHHGHHHH!!!! Forget it !!! <bangs head on table>

[SicEmBaylor]

Interesting read. Off subject but,,it would be interesting to imagine what the US would look like today if only Dems were elected in all Prez erections throughout history vs the same for Repubs. What would each look like? Anyway, sorry, carry on.

I'll tell you this -- the country would be so much better off if only Democrats had been elected up until Taft that it defies description. The absolute best thing for this country likely would have been for the Republican Party never to have existed.

The first Republican worth voting for was Taft.

[SoonerorLater]

It's not meant to be a straw man it's meant to be completely frivolous.

Holy Poop. Forget about it.

Well a thousand pardons. It's just your writing style doesn't lend itself as to be easily discerned as frivolity.

[TUSooner]

Well a thousand pardons. It's just your writing style doesn't lend itself as to be easily discerned as frivolity.

I'm working on it!

[LiveLaughLove]

My only consolation is that even the Democrats can no longer ignore the debt, and I don't they will try to ignore it. If the Republicans thhink it can be done without some reasonable tax increases on the top end they are the ones in denial "We must protect the rich!" is not a war cry I'll go to battle for.

Don't look now but those serious about the debt Democrats in San Francisco just approved taxpayer funded transgender operations. Because you know, they're serious about their debt and all.

Yeah it's SF not the federal Democrats, but if you think there is any differences in their thinking...well, you know there's no difference in a SF Democrats thinking and a typical liberal Democrat in Washington. Think Nancy girl.

Carry on with the destruction.

[TUSooner]

Don't look now but those serious about the debt Democrats in San Francisco just approved taxpayer funded transgender operations. Because you know, they're serious about their debt and all.

Yeah it's SF not the federal Democrats, but if you think there is any differences in their thinking...well, you know there's no difference in a SF Democrats thinking and a typical liberal Democrat in Washington. Think Nancy girl.

Carry on with the destruction.

Speaking being serious about the debt -- Will the 'Pubs go to the mat to protect the richest from paying a even nominal increase in taxes? I know it's no a great amount in the face of the debt, but everybody's supposed to take hit EXCEPT them?

[LiveLaughLove]

Speaking being serious about the debt -- Will the 'Pubs go to the mat to protect the richest from paying a even nominal increase in taxes? I know it's no a great amount in the face of the debt, but everybody's supposed to take hit EXCEPT them?

Nice deflection there. Took me all of a couple of hours to find a story about Democrats not being responsible on spending already, and your comment is to criticize the Republicans. Some things don't change.

To answer your query, I want y'all to get EVERYTHING you want. Tax 'em until they bleed, and then tax 'em some more. See what that get's us all. How do you like all of those layoffs since Wednesday? I guess those are just coincidences too and not related to the election.

To say everybody is taking the hit EXCEPT the rich is straight out certifiably laughable considering half of the country pays zero income taxes, and yet somehow get money back when they file taxes.

Still tax away. I want the Republicans to just vote present, get out of the way, and let you guys get to it. Let's see those serious spending cuts from those serious Democrats. I can't wait.

[FaninAma]

Speaking being serious about the debt -- Will the 'Pubs go to the mat to protect the richest from paying a even nominal increase in taxes? I know it's no a great amount in the face of the debt, but everybody's supposed to take hit EXCEPT them?

How do you figure? The "rich" will have the same entitlements cut as everbody else. I assume you are talking about those who chose to allow themselves to become dependent on government programs when they had other choices.

Are you as upset about the people in the private sector who are being laid off or having their retirement benefits cut when the company they work for runs into financial difficulty? I doubt it.

Also, I guess the lesson we should learn from Europe is that they didn't tax their citizens and corporations enough...not that they spent too much.

[kevpks]

Nice deflection there. Took me all of a couple of hours to find a story about Democrats not being responsible on spending already, and your comment is to criticize the Republicans. Some things don't change.

To answer your query, I want y'all to get EVERYTHING you want. Tax 'em until they bleed, and then tax 'em some more. See what that get's us all. How do you like all of those layoffs since Wednesday? I guess those are just coincidences too and not related to the election.

To say everybody is taking the hit EXCEPT the rich is straight out certifiably laughable considering half of the country pays zero income taxes, and yet somehow get money back when they file taxes.

Still tax away. I want the Republicans to just vote present, get out of the way, and let you guys get to it. Let's see those serious spending cuts from those serious Democrats. I can't wait.

There aren't enough wealthy people to make a dent in our budget problems; however, I do not think the wealthy should be paying the lowest tax rate since the Hoover administration. The greedy tax dodging money hoarder caricature is just as easy a target for Dems as the mooching welfare abuser is for Republicans. Addressing either is not THE solution. Both sides will need to cooperate to find sufficient cuts and new revenue. I don't know if that will happen but I'm more optimistic than some on this board that things will get marginally better.

[LiveLaughLove]

There aren't enough wealthy people to make a dent in our budget problems; however, I do not think the wealthy should be paying the lowest tax rate since the Hoover administration. The greedy tax dodging money hoarder caricature is just as easy a target for Dems as the mooching welfare abuser is for Republicans. Addressing either is not THE solution. Both sides will need to cooperate to find sufficient cuts and new revenue. I don't know if that will happen but I'm more optimistic than some on this board that things will get marginally better.

Yeah, good luck with those "cuts". Let me know how that works out.

I have no doubt taxes will get raised, but the cuts...not so much.

And if any meaningful cuts were to occur (by some miracle), those on the dole will be rioting in the streets demanding "their" money. See Greece, it's all working so splendidly there.

[kevpks]

Yeah, good luck with those "cuts". Let me know how that works out.

I have no doubt taxes will get raised, but the cuts...not so much.

And if any meaningful cuts were to occur (by some miracle), those on the dole will be rioting in the streets demanding "their" money. See Greece, it's all working so splendidly there.

I'm sometimes confused if people on here read actual news. Obama has already proposed cuts. Maybe they're not sufficient to some but they're cuts nonetheless. As far as raising taxes goes, they are going back to pre 2001 levels for those making over $250,000. They are not increases across the board.


Agreement on taxes constitutes only half of a deal. Republicans will accept higher tax revenue only if accompanied by spending cuts. Mr Obama is okay with cuts, but perhaps not the cuts to entitlements that Republicans want.

But it’s quite possible that the two could start out small with more modest caps on deductions and cuts to discretionary spending with cosmetic trimming of health care entitlements - enough to justify extending the lower tax rates for a year and delaying the sequester of automatic spending cuts. It would be a down payment on a more ambitious plan next year.

Both Mr Obama and Mr Boehner say they are not as far apart as people think. It's encouraging that neither laid down markers that the other side can't stomach; we'll see if Mr Obama maintains that openness in an address on the economy scheduled for Friday. He has previously said he would reach out to Mr Romney for ideas; he could do worse than to adopt this one.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tax-deal-2012-11#ixzz2BsmgzYsf

Pelosi and Reid were ticked that they got left out of Obama's negotiations last time. That is your Marxist President. I would think Pelosi being pissed at him would be a good thing for hardline GOPers.

[kevpks]

As far as Greece goes, it's laughable to call those austerity measures "cuts."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13940431

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm sometimes confused if people on here read actual news. Obama has already proposed cuts. Maybe they're not sufficient to some but they're cuts nonetheless. As far as raising taxes goes, they are going back to pre 2001 levels for those making over $250,000. They are not increases across the board.



Pelosi and Reid were ticked that they got left out of Obama's negotiations last time. That is your Marxist President. I would think Pelosi being pissed at him would be a good thing for hardline GOPers.

Proposing ain't doin'. Proposing is bluster. Let me know when they actually get to the doin'.

The Dem's proposed cuts to Reagan in exchange for tax hikes. Got the hikes and pulled the ball away on the cuts.

Just as they said we could secure the border if we just amnestied the illegals back then also. Reagan agreed to amnesty and yet the border is as porous as ever.

I guess what I mean is, after 50 years of watching them, the word of a Democrat politician means diddly.

[kevpks]

Proposing ain't doin'. Proposing is bluster. Let me know when they actually get to the doin'.

The Dem's proposed cuts to Reagan in exchange for tax hikes. Got the hikes and pulled the ball away on the cuts.

Just as they said we could secure the border if we just amnestied the illegals back then also. Reagan agreed to amnesty and yet the border is as porous as ever.

I guess what I mean is, after 50 years of watching them, the word of a Democrat politician means diddly.

The 2012 budget had cuts in it. Again, they're not enough but to say he doesn't compromise or make any meaningful cuts is not accurate.

[LiveLaughLove]

The 2012 budget had cuts in it. Again, they're not enough but to say he doesn't compromise or make any meaningful cuts is not accurate.

Yeah ok, you go with that.

That's why they're raising the debt ceiling another $2.4 trillion. Because of all of those cuts they plan.

I often go deeper in debt while cutting my expenses.

[SoonerorLater]

Everybody here does understand that we are in check, economically speaking right? It's just a matter of how many moves to checkmate.

[kevpks]

Yeah ok, you go with that.

That's why they're raising the debt ceiling another $2.4 trillion. Because of all of those cuts they plan.

I often go deeper in debt while cutting my expenses.

And raising the debt ceiling is definitely not just a Democrat thing. Republican presidents did that quite a bit themselves.

[SicEmBaylor]

And raising the debt ceiling is definitely not just a Democrat thing. Republican presidents did that quite a bit themselves.

Absolutely right. The Republican Party has absolutely no legitimate claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. The W. Bush deficits were outrageous, the wasting of the Clinton-era budget surplus was almost criminal, and the Bush administration created a plethora of new government agencies, bureaucracies, and some of the largest new entitlement programs since the Great Society.

Current spending levels are simply not sustainable and the reckoning is coming soon. If Boehner has to agree to an uptick in the top bracket tax rate in order to get the Democrats to agree to deep and meaningful cuts then for the love of God I hope he does it

However, the Democrats must raise the line where the tax increases take effect. I believe they are proposing $200k which would negatively affect many small businesses. It seems like Biden proposed a $1,000,000 line at the Veep debate, but I may be misremembering. I think $1.5 million would be a much better line.

[bluedogok]

I guess what I mean is, after 50 years of watching them, the word of a politician means diddly.
FTFY....both parties are guilty of campaigning on something then ignoring their campaign promises after the election.

[SoonerorLater]

And raising the debt ceiling is definitely not just a Democrat thing. Republican presidents did that quite a bit themselves.

Yes that is correct however the ceiling they raised it to was substantially less than where we are at today. If we had elected a Republican President he would have done exactly what Obama is going to do and raise the debt ceiling.

Does anybody here understand this Obama/Romney or Republican/Democrat crap is just the modern day equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

[SicEmBaylor]

I want to talk just a tad more about the religious right within Republican politics.

The Republican Party, in very general terms, has for several decades offered itself up as a limited-government pro-liberty alternative to the Democrat Party. If the Democrats stand for bigger government and less liberty then the Republican Party must offer itself up as a legitimate alternative to the statists on the other side.

The problem is that there are a hell of a lot of statists in the Republican Party as well. The neoconservatives want a strong Federal government to promote their global worldview of spreading American-style Democracy abroad. The religious right has statists who want to use the powers of the Federal government to promote their worldview on issues they consider to be moral questions. The business people even have statists who want the Federal government to issues directives, executive orders, laws, and legislation that require them to comply with a single Federal standard instead of having to comply with 50 separate states all with their own laws and regulations.

The last thing that I want is for the Republican Party to go "liberal.' I'm not a liberal -- I'm a firm believer in preserving our nation's founding principles whereas liberals consider those principles to be archaic relics of a bygone era that has little to no relevance in modern society. I happen to think our FF were absolutely brilliant and the political documents and principles they passed down are fully equipped to deal with changes in society if only those guides are followed properly.

But what you can't do is have a party that says it's for limited-government and individual liberty when the party's establishment is practically blowing Wall Street. You can't have a party that says it's for limited-government and individual liberty when it fights tooth and nail any attempt to extend marital rights to a group of people who are denied a basic and fundamental right given to every other American. You can't have a party that says it's for limited-government and individual liberty when it promotes forcing American principles upon people who don't want it and who want only to establish governments of their choosing without American influence or demands.

The Republican Party is not immortal. Parties have died before...the Federalists, the early Republican Party of Jefferson (I know the Democrats trace their roots back to that but it has little semblance to the modern party), the Whigs, etc. In all cases they were replaced. The Republican Party must fundamentally change or a new party will take its place as the alternative to the Democrat Party. I know a lot of people reject libertarian influence within the party, but it's the only logical place for the party to move if it's to remain viable in future elections.

[SicEmBaylor]

Does anybody here understand this Obama/Romney or Republican/Democrat crap is just the modern day equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

Yes, this is what I've tried to say for years.

[SoonerorLater]

I want to talk just a tad more about the religious right within Republican politics.

The Republican Party, in very general terms, has for several decades offered itself up as a limited-government pro-liberty alternative to the Democrat Party. If the Democrats stand for bigger government and less liberty then the Republican Party must offer itself up as a legitimate alternative to the statists on the other side.

The problem is that there are a hell of a lot of statists in the Republican Party as well. The neoconservatives want a strong Federal government to promote their global worldview of spreading American-style Democracy abroad. The religious right has statists who want to use the powers of the Federal government to promote their worldview on issues they consider to be moral questions. The business people even have statists who want the Federal government to issues directives, executive orders, laws, and legislation that require them to comply with a single Federal standard instead of having to comply with 50 separate states all with their own laws and regulations.

The last thing that I want is for the Republican Party to go "liberal.' I'm not a liberal -- I'm a firm believer in preserving our nation's founding principles whereas liberals consider those principles to be archaic relics of a bygone era that has little to no relevance in modern society. I happen to think our FF were absolutely brilliant and the political documents and principles they passed down are fully equipped to deal with changes in society if only those guides are followed properly.

But what you can't do is have a party that says it's for limited-government and individual liberty when the party's establishment is practically blowing Wall Street. You can't have a party that says it's for limited-government and individual liberty when it fights tooth and nail any attempt to extend marital rights to a group of people who are denied a basic and fundamental right given to every other American. You can't have a party that says it's for limited-government and individual liberty when it promotes forcing American principles upon people who don't want it and who want only to establish governments of their choosing without American influence or demands.

The Republican Party is not immortal. Parties have died before...the Federalists, the early Republican Party of Jefferson (I know the Democrats trace their roots back to that but it has little semblance to the modern party), the Whigs, etc. In all cases they were replaced. The Republican Party must fundamentally change or a new party will take its place as the alternative to the Democrat Party. I know a lot of people reject libertarian influence within the party, but it's the only logical place for the party to move if it's to remain viable in future elections.


Based on what I have read from you I am going to agree with you 75% of the time, The other 25% we are going to be polar opposites, That 25% is where I think Ron Paul goes off the track.

Abbreviated response would be the that the federal government, as I read the constitution, has absolutely no business in the area of same sex marriage. State issue pure and simple. As stated in the Constitution everything not SPECIFICALLY stated falls within the purview of the states. As to our overseas entanglements, we need to bring our soldiers home and stop our foreign interventionist policy. As an alternative to straight up modern libertarian thinking I would suggest reading Thomas Fleming or any of the other paleoconservative / neo anti-federalist writers.

[SicEmBaylor]

Abbreviated response would be the that the federal government, as I read the constitution, has absolutely no business in the area of same sex marriage. State issue pure and simple. As stated in the Constitution everything not SPECIFICALLY stated falls within the purview of the states. As to our overseas entanglements, we need to bring our soldiers home and stop our foreign interventionist policy. As an alternative to straight up modern libertarian thinking I would suggest reading Thomas Fleming or any of the other paleoconservative / neo anti-federalist writers.

This is entirely correct. I may have given you the mistaken impression that I'm for Federal legalization of marriage. That is absolutely NOT the case. I agree entirely with you that it's a state issue. What I oppose is Republican efforts on the Federal or state level to deny same-sex marriage. In any case, we're in full 100% agreement that it's a state question.

Actually, I have read Fleming (among others) and have always considered myself a paleoconservative and not a libertarian. I side in with the libertarians most of the time because paleoconservatism is dead and the closest viable option is libertarianism.

But you're again absolutely correct...I truly do consider myself a paleoconservative and have for a very long time.

[cleller]

Some day scholars may look back and wonder why we were expending so much time, money, and energy on issues like gay marriage and sex change operations while the country was in severe economic peril.

"How could they have been so blind to the dangers they faced?" -- Early 21st Century US History: Flat Screens, Smart Phones, and Free Food on Credit

[Harry Beanbag]

I side in with the libertarians most of the time because paleoconservatism is dead and the closest viable option is libertarianism.



That's what is so frustrating. Libertarianism isn't a viable "winning" option either. For better or for worse, the Tea Party is also apparently dead due in no small part to the Media. Aside from the D/R merry-go-round, the Media is the biggest obstacle to everything in this country.

[kevpks]

That's what is so frustrating. Libertarianism isn't a viable "winning" option either. For better or for worse, the Tea Party is also apparently dead due in no small part to the Media. Aside from the D/R merry-go-round, the Media is the biggest obstacle to everything in this country.

While I don't buy into the wholesale notion of a liberal media bias, I would agree that the media does sensationalize the Tea Party. They typically interview some uneducated loon in a Thomas Jefferson outfit or some curmudgeon in an Uncle Sam hat and "NoBama" shirt spouting off about socialism. Many self-proclaimed tea partiers are everyday people on board the "Taxed Enough Already" premise of the movement.

[FaninAma]

Again, does the GOP cater to the voters who live in California, Illinois and NY or will the GOP uphold some principles that give responsible voters a viable choice.

And I agree with SicEm, the GOP has to exorcise the anti-civil liberty faction of the party represented by Bush and his disasterous Presidency.

[StoopTroup]

Ummmm..Who got to who....???

Is this thread still going?

Because I got you too.

[SicEmBaylor]

Is this thread still going?

Because I got you too.
What do you intend to do with him now that you 'got' him?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9ifCsR91qJ4/TDqd_0cFT1I/AAAAAAAAA8E/LTi7VDqClgg/s320/deliverance-3.jpg

[StoopTroup]

That's what is so frustrating. Libertarianism isn't a viable "winning" option either. For better or for worse, the Tea Party is also apparently dead due in no small part to the Media. Aside from the D/R merry-go-round, the Media is the biggest obstacle to everything in this country.

You were doing so well until you passed the blame.

[StoopTroup]

What do you intend to do with him now that you 'got' him?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9ifCsR91qJ4/TDqd_0cFT1I/AAAAAAAAA8E/LTi7VDqClgg/s320/deliverance-3.jpg

Watch him do the things that lost this election like you did the last four years I guess. You fellas are funny. More blame and more insults will fix things.

Pathetic but if the right folks push your buttons...maybe this thread will be the biggest meltdown in Internet History. With you at the helm...I have faith that it will.

I'm going to go watch some Football now and peek in to see if you have fixed the Country over night. I really thought the Bubble you lived in was really going to turn into that landslide you were hoping for.

[SicEmBaylor]

Watch him do the things that lost this election like you did the last four years I guess. You fellas are funny. More blame and more insults will fix things.
I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I didn't vote for Romney (abstained) nor did I vote for McCain (Bob Barr).


Pathetic but if the right folks push your buttons...maybe this thread will be the biggest meltdown in Internet History. With you at the helm...I have faith that it will.
Okay.


I'm going to go watch some Football now and peek in to see if you have fixed the Country over night. I really thought the Bubble you lived in was really going to turn into that landslide you were hoping for.
I wasn't aware I was looking or expecting a landslide. I never wavered in my belief and insistence that Obama would win. Of course you're going to continue not bothering to actually read what I say and assume I said what I didn't so carry on.

It'd be awesome if you could keep finding something else to do instead of coming back into this thread making an *** of yourself when other people are attempting to have a legitimate discussion but alas...

[StoopTroup]

Thou protest to much.

There's no legitimate discussion. That only takes place when you can take criticism without it resulting in a personal insult.

I stopped reading anything you say when you showed your a$$. You think you can just go to War with someone and it not count because you paint yourself not guilty.

Now...I'd even except your apology but I do remember how things turned out talking about your little theories with Okla-Homey. Do you guys even speak? I think he has mostly retired from even having conversations on-line as you and many others always try to get personal when things don't go your way.

When you run into someone like me that decides not to leave and decides to rough a few feathers, the best you can do is....



It'd be awesome if you could keep finding something else to do instead of coming back into this thread making an *** of yourself when other people are attempting to have a legitimate discussion but alas...

Seriously SicEm....I stopped reading theories that little boys consume themselves with a long time ago. There is a real World out there. Getcha Some!

Next time take the time to participate in your Constitutional Right and choose a POTUS. Many of us don't believe in "The South will Rise Again" or Any Rand or Libertarian Dreams. We are out here making choices that will keep America Strong instead of hiding behind the inability to choose between two candidates. If you don't choose you are even more of the Minority.

[Curly Bill]

Thou protest to much.

There's no legitimate discussion. That only takes place when you can take criticism without it resulting in a personal insult.

I stopped reading anything you say when you showed your a$$. You think you can just go to War with someone and it not count because you paint yourself not guilty.

Now...I'd even except your apology but I do remember how things turned out talking about your little theories with Okla-Homey. Do you guys even speak? I think he has mostly retired from even having conversations on-line as you and many others always try to get personal when things don't go your way.

When you run into someone like me that decides not to leave and decides to rough a few feathers, the best you can do is....



Seriously SicEm....I stopped reading theories that little boys consume themselves with a long time ago. There is a real World out there. Getcha Some!

You've not been living in the "real world" for some time now! Seriously, wtf are you on that makes you post the nonsense crap that you do?

[Turd_Ferguson]

You've not been living in the "real world" for some time now! Seriously, wtf are you on that makes you post the nonsense crap that you do?

Democrats...Unions...Worker's Comp...Oxycontin...Democrats...Unions...Worker's Comp...Oxycontin...

[StoopTroup]

don't forget guns, retirement, Home's, Children, Doctor's who don't Prescribe Medications that kill people, Republican's who work in Union Jobs, Libertarians who we laugh at that work with both Republicans and Democrats who both always get together for a good cause, Helping Bad management through hard times by taking pay cuts and increasing production to keep from going into an uneeded bankruptcy, giving blood and platelets and becoming Organ Donors, increasing work place safety to lower costs and being so organized they can start up a new projects overnight and even getting through many of those projects that weren't thought through very well and would have failed without Skilled Dependable Labor who are willing and sometimes forced to work any shift, even if their Families need them....

We call those folks Professionals. Those that aren't....we call Turds.

[FaninAma]

Stoop, could you comment on the economic deterioration in Europe and why we won't suffer the same fate or are you too busy acting smug about the election?

[Turd_Ferguson]

don't forget guns, retirement, Home's, Children, Doctor's who don't Prescribe Medications that kill people, Republican's who work in Union Jobs, Libertarians who we laugh at that work with both Republicans and Democrats who both always get together for a good cause, Helping Bad management through hard times by taking pay cuts and increasing production to keep from going into an uneeded bankruptcy, giving blood and platelets and becoming Organ Donors, increasing work place safety to lower costs and being so organized they can start up a new projects overnight and even getting through many of those projects that weren't thought through very well and would have failed without Skilled Dependable Labor who are willing and sometimes forced to work any shift, even if their Families need them....

We call those folks Professionals. Those that aren't....we call Turds.

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!

[Curly Bill]

Stoop, could you comment on the economic deterioration in Europe and why we won't suffer the same fate or are you too busy acting smug about the election?

Oh sh*t, you asked for it now! This is likely to be a 3-page stream of conscious diatribe!

[FaninAma]

Oh sh*t, you asked for it now! This is likely to be a 3-page stream of conscious diatribe!

Personally I don't think he can do it unless he ignores the trend in this country over the past 70 years to vote for more government spending and more government involvement in our lives.

There is only one way this plays out.

[Curly Bill]

Personally I don't think he can do it unless he ignores the trend in this country over the past 70 years to vote for more government spending and more government involvement in our lives.

There is only one way this plays out.

Ignore the trend? Hell, the dude lives in his own reality these days. This is gonna be good, just wait and see!

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ignore the trend? Hell, the dude lives in his own reality these days. This is gonna be good, just wait and see!

Post reported!!!

[Curly Bill]

Post reported!!!

Report this beyonce! ;)

[FaninAma]

Absolutely right. The Republican Party has absolutely no legitimate claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. The W. Bush deficits were outrageous, the wasting of the Clinton-era budget surplus was almost criminal, and the Bush administration created a plethora of new government agencies, bureaucracies, and some of the largest new entitlement programs since the Great Society.

Current spending levels are simply not sustainable and the reckoning is coming soon. If Boehner has to agree to an uptick in the top bracket tax rate in order to get the Democrats to agree to deep and meaningful cuts then for the love of God I hope he does it

However, the Democrats must raise the line where the tax increases take effect. I believe they are proposing $200k which would negatively affect many small businesses. It seems like Biden proposed a $1,000,000 line at the Veep debate, but I may be misremembering. I think $1.5 million would be a much better line.

That's because the GOP has cynically decided the best way to hold political power is to give the electorate what they want......more government spending. I think we all do a poor job of assigning the blame where it belongs.......at the feet of the voters.

[Turd_Ferguson]

That's because the GOP has cynically decided the best way to hold political power is to give the electorate what they want......more government spending. I think we all do a poor job of assigning the blame where it belongs.......at the feet of the voters.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

[TUSooner]

Watch him do the things that lost this election like you did the last four years I guess. You fellas are funny. More blame and more insults will fix things.

Pathetic but if the right folks push your buttons...maybe this thread will be the biggest meltdown in Internet History. With you at the helm...I have faith that it will.

I'm going to go watch some Football now and peek in to see if you have fixed the Country over night. I really thought the Bubble you lived in was really going to turn into that landslide you were hoping for.

He'd have it fixed by now if it were not for all those "people" ewwwwww! :wink: <---- That's a winky, folks!

[TUSooner]

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Just don't limit "people" to poor people....

[StoopTroup]

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!

I knew you'd like that. :D

BTW...I forgot to mention I work with a bunch of Veterans as well as guys who did their duty and when back to the private sector. Some Coast Guard and lots of National Guard. I have nothing but respect for them all...even the ones that didn't come Home but have worked out there for 20-30 years.

I don't blame them for becoming Union Workers. Maybe I have just had an exceptional experience in that my workplace had lots of Military and Legacy Workers who followed a Father or a Uncle or Cousin or Brother there for a Career. I do know that while I was there, we have an incredible safety record and I am very proud of what we all accomplished as Co-Workers. You can blast us all you want. I know just how tough many of them are and if there's anyone who can take BS like yours....it's us.

You should probably get down on your knees and kiss everyone of our a$$es for getting you Home safely if you've ever had the privilege of riding in one of our flying tubes of Union Death.

Come on Curly...there's only one Dude.

http://11.media.tumblr.com/QFlX6LQ2zl9pjm0nSSNy4lFgo1_400.jpg

[StoopTroup]

He'd have it fixed by now if it were not for all those "people" ewwwwww! :wink: <---- That's a winky, folks!

I love that winky. Why can't that be fixed? There's no Union workforce here? :wink:

[Turd_Ferguson]

I knew you'd like that. :D

BTW...I forgot to mention I work with a bunch of Veterans as well as guys who did their duty and when back to the private sector. Some Coast Guard and lots of National Guard. I have nothing but respect for them all...even the ones that didn't come Home but have worked out there for 20-30 years.

I don't blame them for becoming Union Workers. Maybe I have just had an exceptional experience in that my workplace had lots of Military and Legacy Workers who followed a Father or a Uncle or Cousin or Brother there for a Career. I do know that while I was there, we have an incredible safety record and I am very proud of what we all accomplished as Co-Workers. You can blast us all you want. I know just how tough many of them are and if there's anyone who can take BS like yours....it's us.

You should probably get down on your knees and kiss everyone of our a$$es for getting you Home safely if you've ever had the privilege of riding in one of our flying tubes of Union Death.

Hey trust me, I know there is nobody that can follow SOP's and guidelines like the Union can...

Example of a Union Member Job;

Step 1- Open the manual, but make sure it's 8:15 a.m. before you do
Step 2- Take a 15 minute break
Step 3- Consult with Union Steward to make sure you shouldn't need more union members to help
Step 4- There is no job so important that we cant take time for safety
Step 5 -Make sure all seven Union members have been properly trained to use the 12" crescent wrench required for this labor intensive task.
Step 6- Consult with Union Steward to confirm 12" crescent wrench training has been completed
Step 7- Take a 15 minute break

yada yada yada...Trust me, there's a lot of peeps that know what a hard days work is. Most Union members have no ****ing idea what that is.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You should probably get down on your knees and kiss everyone of our a$$es for getting you Home safely if you've ever had the privilege of riding in one of our flying tubes of Union Death.

And I'm sure, the only ones that could provide a safe A/C is Union members...GMAFB.

[StoopTroup]

And I'm sure, the only ones that could provide a safe A/C is Union members...GMAFB.

I'll let you decide. You seem quite knowledgeable.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'll let you decide. You seem quite knowledgeable.

I'm quite sure that every A/C is not maintained by Union employees. How in the world do those aircraft ever get from A to B, much less C to D to E, without augering in?

[SicEmBaylor]

Forty-eight hours after the 2012 General Election, I wrote that rather lengthy post-mortem analysis of what steps I believed the Republican Party desperately needed to make in order to ensure its long term national viability. The short version is that the Republican Party loses the battle to court those outside its traditional tent by failing to commit to constitutional conservatism, limited-government, and the reduction of the size and scope of the Federal government. There are a small handful of issues that limit the Republican Party’s ability to appeal to those for whom the party would otherwise be home. The fundamental purpose of conservatism, in the generic sense, is to preserve a nation/society’s founding political and social institutions. Our political institutions originate from our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our Founding Fathers understood that the expansion of freedom and liberty would neither come all at once nor easily. The expectation, however, was that freedom would expand. The unfortunate truth is that the Republican Party has been, at times, hostile to expanding liberty for those who seek it. In turn, those individuals reject the Republican Party entirely even when they might otherwise embrace its values. There is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should naturally reject the Republican Party’s economic policies; there is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should reject principles of limited-government. In fact they, more so than almost anyone else, should see the value in and embrace the principles the Republican Party purports to stand for.

Here we now stand on the precipice of yet another Presidential election. We have nearly two dozen potential Republican Presidential candidates representing all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Several of those potential candidates represent a wing of the Republican Party and ‘conservative’ movement soundly rejected by voters. They have proven over the course of several election cycles that their brand of domestic and foreign Republicanism is neither the future of the party nor the future of the country. It has been soundly rejected at the ballot box everywhere except in Republican primaries. We can do better. We can do better at reaching out to those for whom the Republican Party has never been a reasonable option. We can do better by reaching out to those whose pre-conceived notions of the Republican Party may not intersect with reality. We can do a better job at selling real conservative principles. Political parties are nothing if not a conduit for ideas and principles. They are the reason for existing. There is no reason to vote Republican or Democrat unless they offer voters a clear choice based upon principle. Both parties are in the business of selling themselves, candidates, and ideas (whether based on policy or principle). They are like a business in that they put forth a product and voters will either buy or pass. I’ve been asking for some time, “What product is the Republican Party selling? What is the GOP offering that’s worth buying?” I’ve had a lot of answers to that question but no good answers. There is one candidate, in my opinion, capable of offering a better product to the consumer (i.e. voter). Rand Paul.

This comes as no shock to anyone who knows me, but it bears repeating. No other candidate has made the effort to reach out to those normally not inclined to give the Republican Party a first much less second glance. No other candidate has demonstrated they are as serious as Rand Paul about reducing the size and scope of government while expanding individual liberty. There are policy issues within the Republican Party that may never be palatable to those voters, but he makes the effort to show that the Republican Party still offers an enticing package despite differences on a few key issues. He has demonstrated that the Republican Party is so much more than a few single issues, and he has done so while offering tangible solutions to problems facing those communities the Republican Party traditionally has little outreach with. Paul may not change everyone’s opinion overnight, but show me another candidate making the same effort. From prison reform to drug law reform, Paul is talking about issues that Republicans normally shy away from. They are issues that are extremely important to a segment of the population that feels as if the Republican Party does not speak to their interests.

There are diverging schools of thought within the Republican Party on how to expand the electorate and remain viable. One group postulates that supporting the legalization of illegal immigrants will endear the Hispanic community to the Republican Party. The theory goes that Hispanics, being a traditional Catholic community, shares many of the Republican Party’s social values. This is a false assumption. Let’s set aside that it’s horrendous social and economic policy to legalize that many individuals over night. The Republican Party will never be seen as anything but obstructionist and anti-immigrant even if the GOP were to acquiesce to the proposal. The same logic can be applied to the Civil Rights Act which was largely obstructed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, and one can view that historical precedent as a guide on this issue. Legalization will result in millions of new Democratic voters in key swing states that will likely tip the scale in favor of big bad blue.

The alternative is to go after fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. The Republican Party is losing more voters over issues like gay marriage and the drug war than it would ever gain with Hispanics by legalizing current illegals. The Republican Party has a chance to offer a message that is gender/race neutral and ought to resonate with voters across the spectrum to at least some degree. The sooner the GOP can put these issues behind it, the sooner it can start properly branding itself for the upcoming election. What I’m talking about here is not an abandonment of conservatism -- it’s putting political conservatism into practice. We ought to seek to give people more freedom and more personal choice even when we don’t agree with those decisions. We ought to believe that individuals know how to best run their own lives, and we ought to stop attempting to legislate morality. Big government is big government whether it be in your bedroom or your pocketbook.

Paul offers a vision for the Republican Party that can fundamentally re-shape the electorate. Paul will be a transformative President and the most limited-government pro-liberty President since Calvin Coolidge.

[Serenity Now]

Well written. The issue is that the Mullens and langfords of the world won't compromise on key wedge issues like gay rights, the tyranny of romneycare, etc. State legislators are falling all over themselves to write the strangest laws imagineable. Oklahoma is just one of the kooky states with people like kern and that idiot trying to get rid of ap history. We spend millions defending our unconstitutional laws.

[okie52]

Actually if the legislation that recently passed the Oklahoma House becomes law the gay marriage issue becomes a moot issue as far as the state of Oklahoma is concerned. Langford and Mullens wouldn't even be part of the equation.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-to-effectively-nullify-all-sides-on-marriage-67-24/

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20FLR/HFLR/HB1125%20HFLR.PDF

Yeah Sally Kern and some others try some wacky stuff but I'm sure you know that this wackiness isn't just limited to red states.


New York’s Ban on Big Sodas Is Rejected by Final Court

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?_r=0


BOSTON — Young grade-school girls in Massachusetts may feel uncomfortable if a boy wants to use their locker room and restrooms in school.

But if that boy identifies as a girl — regardless of his actual biological gender — then girls will just have to deal with it, according to guidelines published earlier this year by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

“This discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student,” the guidelines say, adding that school administrators and counseling staff should address the students’ discomfort and “foster understanding of gender identity.”

If a boy or girl — no matter his or her age — says he or she identifies with the opposite sex and insists on being called a different name to reflect that gender, then teachers and students have to go along with it, or face disciplinary action.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/massachusetts-transgender-school-policy-criticized/#ixzz3VDrd6OSa.


New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/governor-andrew-cuomo-pro-life-people-not-welcome-in-new-york/article/2542475

[TAFBSooner]

Forty-eight hours after the 2012 General Election, I wrote that rather lengthy post-mortem analysis of what steps I believed the Republican Party desperately needed to make in order to ensure its long term national viability. The short version is that the Republican Party loses the battle to court those outside its traditional tent by failing to commit to constitutional conservatism, limited-government, and the reduction of the size and scope of the Federal government. There are a small handful of issues that limit the Republican Party’s ability to appeal to those for whom the party would otherwise be home. The fundamental purpose of conservatism, in the generic sense, is to preserve a nation/society’s founding political and social institutions. Our political institutions originate from our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our Founding Fathers understood that the expansion of freedom and liberty would neither come all at once nor easily. The expectation, however, was that freedom would expand. The unfortunate truth is that the Republican Party has been, at times, hostile to expanding liberty for those who seek it. In turn, those individuals reject the Republican Party entirely even when they might otherwise embrace its values. There is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should naturally reject the Republican Party’s economic policies; there is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should reject principles of limited-government. In fact they, more so than almost anyone else, should see the value in and embrace the principles the Republican Party purports to stand for.

Here we now stand on the precipice of yet another Presidential election. We have nearly two dozen potential Republican Presidential candidates representing all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Several of those potential candidates represent a wing of the Republican Party and ‘conservative’ movement soundly rejected by voters. They have proven over the course of several election cycles that their brand of domestic and foreign Republicanism is neither the future of the party nor the future of the country. It has been soundly rejected at the ballot box everywhere except in Republican primaries. We can do better. We can do better at reaching out to those for whom the Republican Party has never been a reasonable option. We can do better by reaching out to those whose pre-conceived notions of the Republican Party may not intersect with reality. We can do a better job at selling real conservative principles. Political parties are nothing if not a conduit for ideas and principles. They are the reason for existing. There is no reason to vote Republican or Democrat unless they offer voters a clear choice based upon principle. Both parties are in the business of selling themselves, candidates, and ideas (whether based on policy or principle). They are like a business in that they put forth a product and voters will either buy or pass. I’ve been asking for some time, “What product is the Republican Party selling? What is the GOP offering that’s worth buying?” I’ve had a lot of answers to that question but no good answers. There is one candidate, in my opinion, capable of offering a better product to the consumer (i.e. voter). Rand Paul.

This comes as no shock to anyone who knows me, but it bears repeating. No other candidate has made the effort to reach out to those normally not inclined to give the Republican Party a first much less second glance. No other candidate has demonstrated they are as serious as Rand Paul about reducing the size and scope of government while expanding individual liberty. There are policy issues within the Republican Party that may never be palatable to those voters, but he makes the effort to show that the Republican Party still offers an enticing package despite differences on a few key issues. He has demonstrated that the Republican Party is so much more than a few single issues, and he has done so while offering tangible solutions to problems facing those communities the Republican Party traditionally has little outreach with. Paul may not change everyone’s opinion overnight, but show me another candidate making the same effort. From prison reform to drug law reform, Paul is talking about issues that Republicans normally shy away from. They are issues that are extremely important to a segment of the population that feels as if the Republican Party does not speak to their interests.

There are diverging schools of thought within the Republican Party on how to expand the electorate and remain viable. One group postulates that supporting the legalization of illegal immigrants will endear the Hispanic community to the Republican Party. The theory goes that Hispanics, being a traditional Catholic community, shares many of the Republican Party’s social values. This is a false assumption. Let’s set aside that it’s horrendous social and economic policy to legalize that many individuals over night. The Republican Party will never be seen as anything but obstructionist and anti-immigrant even if the GOP were to acquiesce to the proposal. The same logic can be applied to the Civil Rights Act which was largely obstructed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, and one can view that historical precedent as a guide on this issue. Legalization will result in millions of new Democratic voters in key swing states that will likely tip the scale in favor of big bad blue.

The alternative is to go after fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. The Republican Party is losing more voters over issues like gay marriage and the drug war than it would ever gain with Hispanics by legalizing current illegals. The Republican Party has a chance to offer a message that is gender/race neutral and ought to resonate with voters across the spectrum to at least some degree. The sooner the GOP can put these issues behind it, the sooner it can start properly branding itself for the upcoming election. What I’m talking about here is not an abandonment of conservatism -- it’s putting political conservatism into practice. We ought to seek to give people more freedom and more personal choice even when we don’t agree with those decisions. We ought to believe that individuals know how to best run their own lives, and we ought to stop attempting to legislate morality. Big government is big government whether it be in your bedroom or your pocketbook.

Paul offers a vision for the Republican Party that can fundamentally re-shape the electorate. Paul will be a transformative President and the most limited-government pro-liberty President since Calvin Coolidge.

Fortunately for the Democrats, there are very few social conservatives that will even grok your argument, much less agree to it. They would have to accept the idea that people not like them are still *people*.