TakeYouToTasker Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I'll just Go ahead and point out the the American Democratic Party is the only group actively seeking to legislate a racial, or gender bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Calm the !@#$ down. I never once said the entire Tea Party are bigots. He asked why I would label the Tea Party as extremists. There are 2 sections that most political issues or ideals fall into, fiscal and social. While the movement started, and is mostly still, about fiscal conservatism, it has unfortunately attracted some social conservatives. Those social conservatives tend to be extremists and therefore bigots. Not ALL Tea Party members, I wont even say most. But that is why I used them to specify an extremely conservative party. RELAX I am perfectly relaxed, and you've completely missed the point. Whether or not you accused all tea party members of bigotry is irrelevant. You leveled some pretty strong criticism of one party, opening the door for further discussion about the merit of one party relative to another, then decree that anyone responding to your unsubstantiated claims is venturing off the topic. If you don't want this thread to devolve into a "your party sucks" shouting match, then how about you refrain from casting the first stone? Or if you choose to get your shots in, then you can hardly blame others for acting in turn. You can't, however, have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 I am perfectly relaxed, and you've completely missed the point. Whether or not you accused all tea party members of bigotry is irrelevant. You leveled some pretty strong criticism of one party, opening the door for further discussion about the merit of one party relative to another, then decree that anyone responding to your unsubstantiated claims is venturing off the topic. If you don't want this thread to devolve into a "your party sucks" shouting match, then how about you refrain from casting the first stone? Or if you choose to get your shots in, then you can hardly blame others for acting in turn. You can't, however, have it both ways. NO I DIDNT, i never criticized any party. Youre just being ultra-sensitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) NO I DIDNT, i never criticized any party. Youre just being ultra-sensitive. What part calling social conservatives bigots isn't a criticism? I'm socially pretty liberal, and not in the least bit sensitive regarding your views of conservatives. Again, you're missing the point. Edited November 14, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Calm the !@#$ down. I never once said the entire Tea Party are bigots. He asked why I would label the Tea Party as extremists. There are 2 sections that most political issues or ideals fall into, fiscal and social. While the movement started, and is mostly still, about fiscal conservatism, it has unfortunately attracted some social conservatives. Those social conservatives tend to be extremists and therefore bigots. Not ALL Tea Party members, I wont even say most. But that is why I used them to specify an extremely conservative party. RELAX The Tea Party is fiscally conservative. Since it tends to attract social conservatives too, and even though most charters specifically note that they are not about social issues, it's a party full of bigots? You're a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 What part calling social conservatives bigots isn't a criticism? 1. That wasnt criticizing an entire party like you originally got worked up about. 2. How is being socially conservative NOT bigotry? It is social conservatives that are against Gay rights, and have historically been against Women's Rights, Minority Rights, etc. Why do you think people say stupid crap like "Im fiscally conservative, but socially liberal"? Because everyone knows being social conservative by definition makes you a hateful a-hole. It's the only reason behind being socially conservative. I'll openly criticize social conservatives all day, and rightfully so. But that isnt what we were talking about. The Tea Party is fiscally conservative. Since it tends to attract social conservatives too, and even though most charters specifically note that they are not about social issues, it's a party full of bigots? You're a clown. Can you guys even read? Or are you just trolling me now? I literally typed Not ALL Tea Party members, I wont even say most. So how do you get that I said it's a party "full of bigots"? Jesus H.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 No, because as I said in the first sentence of the thread, I dont care about the actual parties or which side anyone is on, or the name of what. This is about the Government and Election process in general, and how more or less parties can affect it. Your posts are for a different conversation. 1. That wasnt criticizing an entire party like you originally got worked up about. 2. How is being socially conservative NOT bigotry? It is social conservatives that are against Gay rights, and have historically been against Women's Rights, Minority Rights, etc. Why do you think people say stupid crap like "Im fiscally conservative, but socially liberal"? Because everyone knows being social conservative by definition makes you a hateful a-hole. It's the only reason behind being socially conservative. I'll openly criticize social conservatives all day, and rightfully so. But that isnt what we were talking about. For someone who doesn't want to discuss the merits of certain political movements or "what side anyone is on", you've certainly done a piss poor job. How do you reconcile the two posts? I originally "got worked up about", to use your term, about your blatant hypocrisy and inability to play by your own rules. How can you continue to miss this painfully obvious point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 1. That wasnt criticizing an entire party like you originally got worked up about. 2. How is being socially conservative NOT bigotry? It is social conservatives that are against Gay rights, and have historically been against Women's Rights, Minority Rights, etc. Why do you think people say stupid crap like "Im fiscally conservative, but socially liberal"? Because everyone knows being social conservative by definition makes you a hateful a-hole. It's the only reason behind being socially conservative. I'll openly criticize social conservatives all day, and rightfully so. But that isnt what we were talking about. Can you guys even read? Or are you just trolling me now? I literally typed So how do you get that I said it's a party "full of bigots"? Jesus H.... Where do you come up with this bigoted schit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Well we don't necessarily always have an ultimate winner, just minority or majority. Harper held the minority for a while and eventually got the majority which flipped out the lefties since they figured Canada would go into neo-con imperialist mode with our 6 jets and 2 submarines? Effectively what happened in 2010 was that Harper won the majority but since Quebec is strong left, they kicked out the Liberals and voted in the NDP as the representative minority which as I said earlier, was a bunch of amateurs with one true charismatic leader (layton RIP). The pros = You have the Liberals having to re-tool to find out why they got their asses handed to them and they are effectively kept in check. The cons = You now have a bunch of amateurs who will soon be eligible for lifetime pensions etc since extra government automatically brings extra cost. The republicans have had it handed to them by the independents for the last two presidential elections. If they pandered to the independents instead of the fundamentalists, they Romney probably would have won, handily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The republicans have had it handed to them by the independents for the last two presidential elections. If they pandered to the independents instead of the fundamentalists, they Romney probably would have won, handily. Romney won +5 independents. His own base didn't show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Zero +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Romney won +5 independents. His own base didn't show up. EVERYBODY seems to ignore this stat. Please post it in the 18 page trainwreck going on over here. It obviously shows how much of a crazy right winger Romney is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 EVERYBODY seems to ignore this stat. Please post it in the 18 page trainwreck going on over here. It obviously shows how much of a crazy right winger Romney is. Yeah, that +5 really made a difference. Having more independents would have made a bigger difference than having lots of fundamentalists. It doesn't matter that Mitt Rmney isn't a crazy right winger. His campaign portrayed him as one. He is definitely a decent man and may have won if somebody who knew what they were doing was running his campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Yeah, that +5 really made a difference. Having more independents would have made a bigger difference than having lots of fundamentalists. It doesn't matter that Mitt Rmney isn't a crazy right winger. His campaign portrayed him as one. He is definitely a decent man and may have won if somebody who knew what they were doing was running his campaign. Listen, just because he had the fundamentalists, doesn't mean his focus was off. They were going to vote for him anyway over Obama. The difference in this election was the ground game. Obama got his voters out and Romney did not. 11 million less than expected and 2 million less than McCain got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Yeah, that +5 really made a difference. Having more independents would have made a bigger difference than having lots of fundamentalists. It doesn't matter that Mitt Rmney isn't a crazy right winger. His campaign portrayed him as one. He is definitely a decent man and may have won if somebody who knew what they were doing was running his campaign. His campaign didn't portray him. The media was much better at doing that. How many independents are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 His campaign didn't portray him. The media was much better at doing that. How many independents are there? 73',985',451,034 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) More people now identify as independent....but they still have leanings and often times winning them is just roping them back into the fold not really winning over a true "independent/undecided" Edited November 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 More people now identify as independent....but they still have leanings and often times winning them is just roping them back into the fold not really winning over a true "independent/undecided" Correct- many of the independents also hold independent religious views. The right wing fundamentalists where I live really alienated a lot of people. If Romney's campaign focused on those people, instead of the zealots who speak god's word, he probably would have won. Instead, the moron spending the money and coming up with the campaign, moved more towards those people and away from electability. Enjoy the next four years, and prepare for another four, with Congress moving to the left, if you don't change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts