Permanent Majority........

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-08-2012, 02:08 PM
cotts135

Quote:

Originally Posted by road kill

What nonsense..........

Well you might think so, but the vote says otherwise. If the Republicans want to continue to go farther to the right I don't see them winning to many elections in the future.

" I can give any woman all the FREE birth control she wants, gaurunteed to work, 100%, and she has COMPLTETE/TOTAL control over her body!!!" :confused::confused:

Not even sure what to think about that
11-08-2012, 02:27 PM
Jay Dufour

Yep.All good points.Didn't pay that much attention to the wholesale change in demographics. Mexicans,women,and the ever increasing high yellas , that romney left on the table,went the other way. Yes,in 25 years one would not recognize a European decented American.Go look at the students at a college campus,and you wouldn't know what country your in.Not to mention the amazing number if gays there.
11-08-2012, 03:00 PM
JS

Quote:

Originally Posted by HPL

Since it is the MODERATES (folks in the middle) who actually determine the final outcome, it is just stupid to pander to the fringe (base). I am convinced that is what cost G. H. W. Bush his second term. In response to Clinton's portrayal of himself as a moderate, bush moved to the right to give the voters a clear choice. I always thought that he should have walked up that hill and pushed Clinton off the middle.

I think the real problem is in the primaries where the reactionary members of the party seem to be able to force candidates to "prove" their worthiness to be considered Republicans and where the candidates must play to the base. This actually almost guarantees that we end up with a candidate that is LESS likely to appeal to the moderate voters in the country. Putting Palin on the ticket to appeal to the BASE cost the repubs my vote in 2008 (voted libertarian). I have to believe that the republican values of self reliance, less govt interference, etc., still ring true with the American people, but unfortunately the party has allowed itself to by hijacked by the extreme right and now focuses on distracting social issues like what folks do in their bedrooms. It has proven to be a losing strategy and really pisses me off.

This is the most sensible post in the past two days. Republicans lost be cause they are out of touch. If you didn't spend all your time on the internet commiserating with each other, you might find out that the middle of the electorate is not what you think. Instead you blame it on minority groups of all kinds and, of course, the "takers" who only want a handout.

If there is even minimal improvement in economic factors and the gridlock continues for the next four years, the Democrats can run Mickey Mouse and win again.

Hope you run Paul Ryan, regards, :D

JS
11-08-2012, 03:18 PM
ARay11

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

This is the most sensible post in the past two days. Republicans lost be cause they are out of touch. If you didn't spend all your time on the internet commiserating with each other, you might find out that the middle of the electorate is not what you think. Instead you blame it on minority groups of all kinds and, of course, the "takers" who only want a handout.

If there is even minimal improvement in economic factors and the gridlock continues for the next four years, the Democrats can run Mickey Mouse and win again.

Hope you run Paul Ryan, regards, :D

JS

Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.
11-08-2012, 03:25 PM
HPL

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseGooser

My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...

I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

Well, I'm not sure if you are just being obtuse or if you really are part of the problem. When folks looked at your mom, they almost certainly would have had no reason to question her immigration status (not a lot of wets from England) since she LOOKED like the majority citizens. Not likely that she was often exposed to derisive "stinking limey" remarks or faced many "no dogs or Brits" signs. There are plenty of living Multi-generational legal US CITIZENS of latin descent have have had to deal with that type of discrimination, and who have some legitimate concerns when it comes to the rhetoric that comes from the republican base. I don't believe that we should "pander" to either the illegals or the citizens of latin descent, but we certainly need to find a way to address these legitimate concerns of CITIZENS. On an aside, I photographed Marine Birthday Ball last Saturday and there was a gentleman there who was clearly of latin ancestry who was wearing a silverstar lapel pen, and based on that one fact alone, any concerns he might have deserve to be taken seriously.
11-08-2012, 03:25 PM
JS

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARay11

Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?

And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?

Who cares?

JS
11-08-2012, 03:36 PM
HPL

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARay11

Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

Not so much out of touch as not really holding the primary conservative position of keeping government out of peoples' business. I want the government to busy itself working on things that are its correct purview like national defense, trade agreements, etc., and stay out of people's personal affairs.
11-08-2012, 03:36 PM
JS

I remember during the years of real liberalism, the mantra of the establishment: "America; Love it or Leave it".

How ironic if we were to someday hear that cry again, only with the shoe on the other foot.

JS
11-08-2012, 03:38 PM
Franco

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?

And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?

Who cares?

JS

This post has been up for 10 minutes and I am shocked none on the far right, today's Republican Party hasn't called you a Homo yet!
;)

Today's GOP is all about big over-bearing and over-spending government. They want to tell people how they should live and have become as intrusive on one's personal Liberties as the Dems.
11-08-2012, 03:40 PM
ARay11

[QUOTE=JS;1031409]This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?
nothing
And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?
it doesnt

personally, I dont care who you marry. I believe government should get completely out of all of it...gay or straight. No more marriage deduction on income taxes, no more regulation on who you can name as your beneficiary (inlcuding for SSI), your personal caregiver, or add to your insurance policy.
Marriage is between two people and their God (or I suppose could say also lack thereof).
As for abortion.... well, there's a whole other argument about that. I think someone already said if it's okay to kill your child while its inside you, why not after it's out? Yes, life begins at conception. There is no scientific argument to that. You only have to decide how far along life has to be before YOU call it alive. Yes, it is safer now that it's legal...fewer women are dying via botched back door abortions.

My point was that the moral compass of our society has shifted. Sorry if I didnt get that across properly.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page