Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Democrats nothing, the GOP is the hater party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) The reason that 2/3 of the issues on this board devolve to "You're an idiot" is because 2/3d's of the posts are yours. That was too easy. Can DiN give me something more intelligent? Democrats nothing, the GOP is the hater party. . LOL..................obviously the answer is no. Edited May 3, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 hehe Honestly I think homosexuals have a better chance going the legal route with a hypothetically more liberal court (assuming Obama gets another appointment). I mean, they're historically discriminated against...the public seems more ready to call being gay an immutable trait....politically it's pretty obvious they have the short end of the stick and on and on...probably will never happen politically on the federal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) hehe Honestly I think homosexuals have a better chance going the legal route with a hypothetically more liberal court (assuming Obama gets another appointment). I mean, they're historically discriminated against...the public seems more ready to call being gay an immutable trait....politically it's pretty obvious they have the short end of the stick and on and on...probably will never happen politically on the federal level. So, the homo's have the short end of the stick and according to Joe Biden, Obama has the "Big Stick"? You guys have a messaging problem. Edited May 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Seems like the story is getting clearer. When the right extremes started to fire up their attacks on Grenell, the Romney campaign muzzled him from talking. Grenell chafed at this muzzling and quit...even though the Romney campaign just wanted him to simmer for a while. Obviously it backfired. "It's not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay," one Republican adviser to the campaign said. "They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn't want to confront the religious right." Like many interviewed, this adviser insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Which again goes to my initial point. Romney caving to the extremes instead of telling them to bite him and that he was hired for his expertise on foreign policy. Edited May 3, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I assume because the Federal Gov't doesn't recognize gay marriagaes as legitimate. Yeah...thus my point being that it is not and should not be a federal issue. At all. In the "if I were president" world, it's a very simple matter: it's vested in the states, the federal government's ONLY concern is the satisfaction of the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution, and that stupid, craven, cowardly, asinine "Defense of Marriage Act" would be repealed post-haste. and other than that, President DC Tom would not waste another second's thought on the matter. “It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay,” one Republican adviser to the campaign said. “They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right.” Like many interviewed, this adviser insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. In other words...politics as usual. Pretend you agree with your "base" - which these days amounts to "vocal lunatics" - even when you don't, because you can't alienate the lunatics. I recall the Obama campaign doing similar in '08. But the Republican party is its own worst enemy. They could actually lose an election because they're concerned what consenting adult males do with each other's penises. Really? Seriously? That makes sense to someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Yeah...thus my point being that it is not and should not be a federal issue. At all. In the "if I were president" world, it's a very simple matter: it's vested in the states, the federal government's ONLY concern is the satisfaction of the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution, and that stupid, craven, cowardly, asinine "Defense of Marriage Act" would be repealed post-haste. and other than that, President DC Tom would not waste another second's thought on the matter. In other words...politics as usual. Pretend you agree with your "base" - which these days amounts to "vocal lunatics" - even when you don't, because you can't alienate the lunatics. I recall the Obama campaign doing similar in '08. But the Republican party is its own worst enemy. They could actually lose an election because they're concerned what consenting adult males do with each other's penises. Really? Seriously? That makes sense to someone? Well there is an equal protection clause in the federal constitution ... and even if they don't extend the highest level of scrutiny all it takes is a few retirements at the right time and all the sudden it won't even pass a rational basis anlaysis (which IMO it really doesn't anyway...but that's just me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Also I can't help but think if Romney didn't have to justify his Mormon faith to the truly extreme right who don't consider him a Christian and would not vote for a false-god worshiping demon-spawn 2 generations removed from a Mexican polygamist commune...he would have more balls on the gay issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Seems like the story is getting clearer. When the right extremes started to fire up their attacks on Grenell, the Romney campaign muzzled him from talking. Grenell chafed at this muzzling and quit...even though the Romney campaign just wanted him to simmer for a while. Obviously it backfired. "It's not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay," one Republican adviser to the campaign said. "They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn't want to confront the religious right." Like many interviewed, this adviser insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Which again goes to my initial point. Romney caving to the extremes instead of telling them to bite him and that he was hired for his expertise on foreign policy. I think it rather foolish to think that your point is "proved" by an anonymous quote from an unnamed source in today's media.............................. it certainly sounds more like you had your own preconceptions verified by what you read. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I think it rather foolish to think that your point is "proved" by an anonymous quote from an unnamed source in today's media.............................. it certainly sounds more like you had your own preconceptions verified by what you read. . Well what word could we used? Strengthen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 It's the economy, stupid! Worked for Bubba, will work for Romney, except that this time it really is the worst economy since the Depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 It's the economy, stupid! Worked for Bubba, will work for Romney, except that this time it really is the worst economy since the Depression. Do a bunch of you guys think he will actually win? (not trying to be facetious) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Do a bunch of you guys think he will actually win? (not trying to be facetious) According to intrade, he has a 40% chance My link It is sad that a president who has such a poor record has such a good chance of being re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 According to intrade, he has a 40% chance My link It is sad that a president who has such a poor record has such a good chance of being re-elected. But he does. Though they say the undecideds never go for incumbents. I'm in Florida so assuming we count our votes this election I guess I should do some soul searching haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 But he does. Though they say the undecideds never go for incumbents. I'm in Florida so assuming we count our votes this election I guess I should do some soul searching haha I don't have a say in this since I live north of the border but I still can't find one Obama supporter who doesn't list the following as his as "having to work with crazy republicans" or "look what mess he started with". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 1336015893[/url]' post='2456877']I think it rather foolish to think that your point is "proved" by an anonymous quote from an unnamed source in today's media.............................. it certainly sounds more like you had your own preconceptions verified by what you read. . So you think the NY Times made up a direct quote and its multiple sources? Do you want me to pull the Fox and Politico stories too? This is your comeback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 So you think the NY Times made up a direct quote and its multiple sources? Do you want me to pull the Fox and Politico stories too? This is your comeback? You need your head examined if you think this was an appropriate response. Multiple sources? Horseshit. Like the NY Times has never been disengenuous? Horseshit. You have no credibility with your faux dislike for Obama and constant insipid criticism of anyone opposing him. You seem to be comfortable in the ferret role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Look at how mad you are. Yeah...he's just not as "enlightened" as you are. The problem is we just need to be more open minded to things like this. It's simply a matter of taking the time to understand the other person, having enough respect to see things from their eyes. If only he could see sticking his entire hand in there, then he would be able to see the value of fisting, and its cultural importance, and all our troubles are over, dude, right? Honestly this is the thing that kills Republicans. Yes, there is clearly and extreme right. And yes, there is clearly and extreme left. I don't think the majority of Americans identify with either. The thing is...it's easier to delineate the extreme left from the Democratic majority than it is the extreme right from the GOP majority. I mean, having Obama v. Romney is a pretty good example. Obama basically does what he does and the extreme left is fairly quiet (even though he really isn't that liberal on a number of issues though a lot of the right refuse to admit this)...the "extreme right" though? Romney has to bow down at their feet. Boehner has no control. The Republicans need to get their own camp in order. Yeah, this makes sense....since the Republicans nominated Romney, instead of Santorum....and the Democrats nominated Obama, instead of Hillary. Hint: there are no more moderates left in the elected Democratic party, as they were all voted out of office in 2010. The extreme left, and the Presidential candidate they demanded, saw to that in 2010. So...since we are talking about things that kill, exactly whom was killed by what, again? I am sorry, but the facts don't support your...theory...or wanton wishful thinking, either describes it accurately. Got any more pearls of wisdom? The Republicans have their camp in order: see 2010. You don't pull off an ass whipping of that proportion without discipline. Case in point: the only places where they lost, Delaware and Nevada, are also where there wasn't any discipline. Discipline: a word that Democrats have been unaware of since 2005. In 2005, when Carville and Begalla first created the message that was co-opted by Axelrod, there was discipline for Democrats, but only because they had lost so badly twice in a row. The discipline of "ok we'll shut off our extremist nonsense so we can finally win something" is discipline, but only fleeting. As soon as they got power in 2006, the Democrat discipline ended and the extremist nonsense, and more importantly, the over-reach, began. Edited May 3, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 You need your head examined if you think this was an appropriate response. Multiple sources? Horseshit. Like the NY Times has never been disengenuous? Horseshit. You have no credibility with your faux dislike for Obama and constant insipid criticism of anyone opposing him. You seem to be comfortable in the ferret role. Yes, I've spent 4 years on hear faking my dislike for Obama. It's the long con but I can't fool you. To more rational posters, either the campaign was caving to pressure or they made an assinine choice in Grenell. Either way, it's not a great moment. Yeah...he's just not as "enlightened" as you are. The problem is we just need to be more open minded to things like this. It's simply a matter of taking the time to understand the other person, having enough respect to see things from their eyes. If only he could see sticking his entire hand in there, then he would be able to see the value of fisting, and its cultural importance, and all our troubles are over, dude, right? Yeah, this makes sense....since the Republicans nominated Romney, instead of Santorum....and the Democrats nominated Obama, instead of Hillary. Hint: there are no more moderates left in the elected Democratic party, as they were all voted out of office in 2010. The extreme left, and the Presidential candidate they demanded, saw to that in 2010. So...since we are talking about things that kill, exactly whom was killed by what, again? I am sorry, but the facts don't support your...theory...or wanton wishful thinking, either describes it accurately. Got any more pearls of wisdom? The Republicans have their camp in order: see 2010. You don't pull off an ass whipping of that proportion without discipline. Case in point: the only places where they lost, Delaware and Nevada, are also where there wasn't any discipline. Discipline: a word that Democrats have been unaware of since 2005. In 2005, when Carville and Begalla first created the message that was co-opted by Axelrod, there was discipline for Democrats, but only because they had lost so badly twice in a row. The discipline of "ok we'll shut off our extremist nonsense so we can finally win something" is discipline, but only fleeting. As soon as they got power in 2006, the Democrat discipline ended and the extremist nonsense, and more importantly, the over-reach, began. Jesus, I actually pretty much agree with this, at least regarding the Dems. Not sure I'd say that the right has its house in order though. Romney is going to have to work to keep the Christianists in league with the independents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Yeah...he's just not as "enlightened" as you are. The problem is we just need to be more open minded to things like this. It's simply a matter of taking the time to understand the other person, having enough respect to see things from their eyes. If only he could see sticking his entire hand in there, then he would be able to see the value of fisting, and its cultural importance, and all our troubles are over, dude, right? Yeah, this makes sense....since the Republicans nominated Romney, instead of Santorum....and the Democrats nominated Obama, instead of Hillary. Hint: there are no more moderates left in the elected Democratic party, as they were all voted out of office in 2010. The extreme left, and the Presidential candidate they demanded, saw to that in 2010. So...since we are talking about things that kill, exactly whom was killed by what, again? I am sorry, but the facts don't support your...theory...or wanton wishful thinking, either describes it accurately. Got any more pearls of wisdom? The Republicans have their camp in order: see 2010. You don't pull off an ass whipping of that proportion without discipline. Case in point: the only places where they lost, Delaware and Nevada, are also where there wasn't any discipline. Discipline: a word that Democrats have been unaware of since 2005. In 2005, when Carville and Begalla first created the message that was co-opted by Axelrod, there was discipline for Democrats, but only because they had lost so badly twice in a row. The discipline of "ok we'll shut off our extremist nonsense so we can finally win something" is discipline, but only fleeting. As soon as they got power in 2006, the Democrat discipline ended and the extremist nonsense, and more importantly, the over-reach, began. Haha, the Republicans have their house in order and Obama is the extreme left. WOW. Just WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts