3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 If conservatives don't want others defing them, all they simply have to do is prove those definitions wrong. You championed a liar-in-chief who would say anything to get reelected. He defined Romney as wanting to bankrupt the auto industry when he actually did just that. The only difference was that it was an administration controlled bankruptcy rather than a federal judge controlled bankruptcy. He created a "war on women" and claimed Republicans wanted to do away with birth control just because they didn't want to pay for someone else's pills or rubbers. He was very effectively able to constantly change the subject away from his many failures by throwing up numerous canards. That's who you voted for and the person you want to lead the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Clean sweep on the ballots this time around. 3 states approve it--one state rejects a ballot initiative not to ban it. The Rep spin is that the wins were only possible in Dem-dominated states and there, only by slim margins. But the truth of the issue is that the tide is and will continue to turn. The Republicans, in their regrouping from this ass-kicking presidential loss, might want to rethink how to appeal to the social moderates like me who are fiscally conservative. I voted for Mitt but with my nose held on issues like this and immigration. The young guns like Rubio and Ryan should go home and rethink their positions for 2016 if they want to have a chance. The Right can either go more liberal on money (spread the wealth) or social issues. One way or another, they can't just retrench and hope for the big turnout. This electorate did not like Obama and he still trounced Romney. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 7, 2012 Author Share Posted November 7, 2012 You championed a liar-in-chief who would say anything to get reelected. He defined Romney as wanting to bankrupt the auto industry when he actually did just that. The only difference was that it was an administration controlled bankruptcy rather than a federal judge controlled bankruptcy. He created a "war on women" and claimed Republicans wanted to do away with birth control just because they didn't want to pay for someone else's pills or rubbers. He was very effectively able to constantly change the subject away from his many failures by throwing up numerous canards. That's who you voted for and the person you want to lead the country. Be cool with the sour grapes. Even Mitt's most ardent supporters acknowledge his changing positions on many issues. Mitt was a political animal and that was pretty well exposed by the Obama campaign. I voted for him because he seemed pretty focused on the economy and didn't push the social aspects of the right wing agenda. When Obama switched on gay marriage (or more likely, actually expressed his true opinion), many here thought it was a stupid political move. In the end, it probably didn't move the needle at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 The economy is probably going to be in better shape 4 years from now than it is today, so you tell me how a GOP candidate is going to win the WH in 2016 without a major shift in social ideology. I don't see it happening. Doubtfully. Welcome to the lost decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 My favorite topic? The economy. So now we have re-elected a President who is for same sex marriage. Good for him. Now, what's he going to do about it? We can have all 50 states approve of same sex marriage and those in same sex marriage, hell heterosexuals living together and not married, would still be !@#$ed. So I'm not sure what your excitement is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 You championed a liar-in-chief who would say anything to get reelected. He defined Romney as wanting to bankrupt the auto industry when he actually did just that. The only difference was that it was an administration controlled bankruptcy rather than a federal judge controlled bankruptcy. He created a "war on women" and claimed Republicans wanted to do away with birth control just because they didn't want to pay for someone else's pills or rubbers. He was very effectively able to constantly change the subject away from his many failures by throwing up numerous canards. That's who you voted for and the person you want to lead the country. And you know what? Romney did ZILCH to reject this false narrative. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 7, 2012 Author Share Posted November 7, 2012 My favorite topic? The economy. So now we have re-elected a President who is for same sex marriage. Good for him. Now, what's he going to do about it? We can have all 50 states approve of same sex marriage and those in same sex marriage, hell heterosexuals living together and not married, would still be !@#$ed. So I'm not sure what your excitement is all about. I voted for Romney, who was for amending the US constitution to prohibit gay marriage. So I also voted with economy as my number one concern. I was noting a tide turn. Ballot initiatives had failed before this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 You championed a liar-in-chief who would say anything to get reelected. He defined Romney as wanting to bankrupt the auto industry when he actually did just that. The only difference was that it was an administration controlled bankruptcy rather than a federal judge controlled bankruptcy. Who exactly in the private sector was lining up to loan them the $ to keep production running? No one. They would have gone into liquidation which would have meant many tens of thousands of jobs lost at exactly the worst time for the economy. It would also have devastated the network of suppliers that feed the auto industry. Companies that would have disappeared from the map, but now are still in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) The Republicans Democrats need to rethink this long-held contradiction at the core of their party: They’re all about getting the government out of people’s lives, self-relianceindulgence, personal responsibility right to get high, freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc... but they can’t keep their nosy, perverted, sexually repressed economically stupid asses out of people’s bedrooms paychecks, purchase decisions, etc. It’s all about the evangelical leftist freak fringe base that has hijacked the party’s frontal lobe for way too long. It's disgusting and the vast majority of people don't want anything to do with that crap and they're sick of hearing about it. Fun with BBcode. Edited November 7, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Who exactly in the private sector was lining up to loan them the $ to keep production running? No one. They would have gone into liquidation which would have meant many tens of thousands of jobs lost at exactly the worst time for the economy. It would also have devastated the network of suppliers that feed the auto industry. Companies that would have disappeared from the map, but now are still in business. But isn't that how capitalism works? Financially unhealthy compaines either sink or swim, and do so with private capital? So you save an unhealthy company, whom more than likely will be back in the same place at some point in the future??? I don't think in free market economies cherry picked companies get sctructured bankruptcies and equity infusion from taxpayers, only to come out with the same Union issues as it went in, if not more.. Its great we saved the jobs, but you have to wonder the consequences of that kind of intursion into the car industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 But isn't that how capitalism works? Financially unhealthy compaines either sink or swim, and do so with private capital? So you save an unhealthy company, whom more than likely will be back in the same place at some point in the future??? I don't think in free market economies cherry picked companies get sctructured bankruptcies and equity infusion from taxpayers, only to come out with the same Union issues as it went in, if not more.. Its great we saved the jobs, but you have to wonder the consequences of that kind of intursion into the car industry Yeah, it's definitely a tough one. I know it plays partisan now, but it wasn't just the Dems calling for the bailout at the time. Interesting how the Wall St. bailout doesn't get questioned the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So aliens are getting rammed up the butt and loving it? This will be a brave new world. Our species does not define itself by its sexuality. We've moved beyond the pettiness. This is not about us, it's about you... and anyone who says the following: My favorite topic: Gay Marriage. Faggot. It means if you think about "gay" marriage you're a faggot. Plain enough? ... Well, they're either a hateful, bigoted, disgrace of a human being who is on the wrong side of history or they looooooooooooooove rooster. I'm thinking it's the later. Just look at your avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Yeah, it's definitely a tough one. I know it plays partisan now, but it wasn't just the Dems calling for the bailout at the time. Interesting how the Wall St. bailout doesn't get questioned the same way. I have flip flopped on this issue about 20 times already because on one hand, I think these institutions should have been allowed to fail but on the other hand, I think the chaos would have destroyed the economy. I am throwing my Adam card on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I have flip flopped on this issue about 20 times already because on one hand, I think these institutions should have been allowed to fail but on the other hand, I think the chaos would have destroyed the economy. I am throwing my Adam card on this issue. I don't know what the "Adam card" means, but I'm with you. I was initially against it. Eventually, I deferred to the so-called expert economists who said it was too catastrophic if we let it fail. I definitely understand the conservative impulse on this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I don't know what the "Adam card" means, but I'm with you. I was initially against it. Eventually, I deferred to the so-called expert economists who said it was too catastrophic if we let it fail. I definitely understand the conservative impulse on this though. Adam is a middle of the road guy. I don't think I've ever seen him take a stand. Sometimes you need a giant flood to wash away the garbage. Sure many will be wiped off but lessons will be learned. I don't think any lessons were learned after 2008. Same thing with the auto industry. They failed and should have been allowed to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Adam is a middle of the road guy. I don't think I've ever seen him take a stand. Sometimes you need a giant flood to wash away the garbage. Sure many will be wiped off but lessons will be learned. I don't think any lessons were learned after 2008. Same thing with the auto industry. They failed and should have been allowed to fail. Funny, the right doesn’t believe in evolution but they sure got the whole survival of the fittest / natural selection thing down. Sorry, just kidding (mostly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Funny, the right doesn’t believe in evolution but they sure got the whole survival of the fittest / natural selection thing down. Sorry, just kidding (mostly). This election irritates fiscal conservatives/socially liberals like myself. Sad that they have to be linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Who exactly in the private sector was lining up to loan them the $ to keep production running? No one. They would have gone into liquidation which would have meant many tens of thousands of jobs lost at exactly the worst time for the economy. It would also have devastated the network of suppliers that feed the auto industry. Companies that would have disappeared from the map, but now are still in business. Romney was for the government guaranteeing the loans. The bankruptcy should have gone through legal channels rather than allowing the administration to screw over the bondholders in favor of the UAW and their pensions. They also messed with Delphi's salaried workers and retirees pension while keeping their union pensions intact. Obama flat out bought votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Yeah, it's definitely a tough one. I know it plays partisan now, but it wasn't just the Dems calling for the bailout at the time. Interesting how the Wall St. bailout doesn't get questioned the same way. I believe it was Bush that initiated the bailout, I think- and Obama took it from there. I don't know about the Auto Bailout... losing the jobs and shuttering places like Mich and Ohio would have been devestating, but mayeb that is what needs to happen. Now we have sent a message that you can build products that are uncompetitive, have far to many brands, have labor and legacy obligations that are egregious, and if you fail... you will still survive? In way is in the same thing with Schools. The conentional wisdom is "they need more money, more buidlign, more teachers", but the fact remains the ROI on that money isn't neccesarily getting incremental results, perhaps even worse results per extra dollar spent. So instead of trying some new things, we just keep throwing money at it..... the Government continues to bailout underperformers.. so they continue to do the samr thing because there is no consequence. It is exactly why I voted no on addtional tax funds for buildig more schools in Colorado. the more you look into each and every issue, there is more evidence of the Fed muddying the waters on issue, albeit with good intentions, but making things worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 It means if you think about "gay" marriage you're a faggot. Plain enough? Umm, Jim, I'm straight yet I "think" about gay marriage enough to know that the gov't has no business deciding who may marry whom in what is essentially a legal transaction and nothing more. You, in fact, are a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts