Meathead Posted March 19, 2013 Author Share Posted March 19, 2013 lmao you really are something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 This thread is hilarious. As someone said on here the purity standards one must go through to gain acceptance by the GOP base is what destroys our chances in a national election. As Romney's top adviser said "etch-a-sketch", as in Romney would out-right-flank the GOP in the primary. Romney should have been running on "reforming" Romneycare, amnesty for illegals, pro-gay marriae, and a massive overhaul of education, infrastructure & the military. A bold strategic vision versus simply being the "anti-Obama". With this behind him, Romney could have pivoted to the economy where he could have beat Obama by having a clear tax-code revision, that would have remained progressive enough so as to avoid the media assault of him being out of touch with the majority of Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) This thread is hilarious. As someone said on here the purity standards one must go through to gain acceptance by the GOP base is what destroys our chances in a national election. As Romney's top adviser said "etch-a-sketch", as in Romney would out-right-flank the GOP in the primary. Romney should have been running on "reforming" Romneycare, amnesty for illegals, pro-gay marriae, and a massive overhaul of education, infrastructure & the military. A bold strategic vision versus simply being the "anti-Obama". With this behind him, Romney could have pivoted to the economy where he could have beat Obama by having a clear tax-code revision, that would have remained progressive enough so as to avoid the media assault of him being out of touch with the majority of Americans. That would have worked ....in a vacuum. Here in the real world, the media was going to assault him, no matter what he said. . Edited March 19, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 This thread is hilarious. As someone said on here the purity standards one must go through to gain acceptance by the GOP base is what destroys our chances in a national election. As Romney's top adviser said "etch-a-sketch", as in Romney would out-right-flank the GOP in the primary. Romney should have been running on "reforming" Romneycare, amnesty for illegals, pro-gay marriae, and a massive overhaul of education, infrastructure & the military. A bold strategic vision versus simply being the "anti-Obama". With this behind him, Romney could have pivoted to the economy where he could have beat Obama by having a clear tax-code revision, that would have remained progressive enough so as to avoid the media assault of him being out of touch with the majority of Americans. Just a note: we already have meathead here to pretend he's a Republican, though in fairness he wasn't quite stupid enough to also suggest the GOP promote amnesty and a pro gay marriage message in an effort to get control of the WH so they could do what they REALLY want to do. That's the kind of trolling he can only hope to accomplish. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 This thread is hilarious. As someone said on here the purity standards one must go through to gain acceptance by the GOP base is what destroys our chances in a national election. As Romney's top adviser said "etch-a-sketch", as in Romney would out-right-flank the GOP in the primary. Romney should have been running on "reforming" Romneycare, amnesty for illegals, pro-gay marriae, and a massive overhaul of education, infrastructure & the military. A bold strategic vision versus simply being the "anti-Obama". With this behind him, Romney could have pivoted to the economy where he could have beat Obama by having a clear tax-code revision, that would have remained progressive enough so as to avoid the media assault of him being out of touch with the majority of Americans. The GOP will never be Pro Gay Marriage, that's why the Libertarian's have been able to gain traction with in the party, and support by more people The GOP will not support a massive overhaul of Education System, they already did that with NCLB to at best mxed results, if anyting they would support dismantling an Federal involvement in education, and leave it to State to decided is school choice is their flavor, of the tradtional public school system. To me, Romney often looked like he was tryign to hard, it wasn't fluid for him to be a campainger. One night he looked on, one night he seemed comfortable, but unfortunately its a marathon and not a sprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 This thread is hilarious. As someone said on here the purity standards one must go through to gain acceptance by the GOP base is what destroys our chances in a national election. As Romney's top adviser said "etch-a-sketch", as in Romney would out-right-flank the GOP in the primary. Romney should have been running on "reforming" Romneycare, amnesty for illegals, pro-gay marriae, and a massive overhaul of education, infrastructure & the military. A bold strategic vision versus simply being the "anti-Obama". With this behind him, Romney could have pivoted to the economy where he could have beat Obama by having a clear tax-code revision, that would have remained progressive enough so as to avoid the media assault of him being out of touch with the majority of Americans. Surprisingly I agree with the majority of this post. The GOP will never be Pro Gay Marriage, that's why the Libertarian's have been able to gain traction with in the party, and support by more people And that is not "why" the Libertarian's have been gaining traction, sure, that is an element but the main reasons they've gained traction is there overall view of government intrusion in people's life, and their views of the federal reserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The GOP will never be Pro Gay Marriage, that's why the Libertarian's have been able to gain traction with in the party, and support by more people The GOP will not support a massive overhaul of Education System, they already did that with NCLB to at best mxed results, if anyting they would support dismantling an Federal involvement in education, and leave it to State to decided is school choice is their flavor, of the tradtional public school system. To me, Romney often looked like he was tryign to hard, it wasn't fluid for him to be a campainger. One night he looked on, one night he seemed comfortable, but unfortunately its a marathon and not a sprint. I agree. Funny how those "purity tests' are only pointed out on one side though, huh "B" ? My real reason for bumping the thread is to wish B-Large a Happy Birthday ! or is it "B" - Day Have a great Day sir..................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The GOP will never be Pro Gay Marriage, that's why the Libertarian's have been able to gain traction with in the party, and support by more people The GOP will not support a massive overhaul of Education System, they already did that with NCLB to at best mxed results, if anyting they would support dismantling an Federal involvement in education, and leave it to State to decided is school choice is their flavor, of the tradtional public school system. To me, Romney often looked like he was tryign to hard, it wasn't fluid for him to be a campainger. One night he looked on, one night he seemed comfortable, but unfortunately its a marathon and not a sprint. How could you take schools away from the gov't? Think of the poor children who would suffer because of this! Little Timmy would grow up stupider than he likely would have anyway. I mean look at the outstanding jobs that schools are currently doing: http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/illiteracy-in-america-infographic_b51032 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Surprisingly I agree with the majority of this post. And that is not "why" the Libertarian's have been gaining traction, sure, that is an element but the main reasons they've gained traction is there overall view of government intrusion in people's life, and their views of the federal reserve. poorly worded... it one of the reasons why, not the reason why.... I shoud have been more specific I agree. Funny how those "purity tests' are only pointed out on one side though, huh "B" ? My real reason for bumping the thread is to wish B-Large a Happy Birthday ! or is it "B" - Day Have a great Day sir..................... . Thank you B! yep, 36 and not getting any younger... and most on this board perhaps argue none the wiser.... lol How could you take schools away from the gov't? Think of the poor children who would suffer because of this! Little Timmy would grow up stupider than he likely would have anyway. I mean look at the outstanding jobs that schools are currently doing: http://www.mediabist...ographic_b51032 Its interesting, I went a private catholic high school because I was bordering on retardation leaving 8th grade, and my parents had the money and determination to get me straigtened out. What I found very interesting about the school was there were ALOT of young men who came from relatively poor families, but it was importan to them to get their kids the best education possible. I have to say the difference in expectations and rigor from the Williamsville Public Schools (considered pretty good) to St. Joe's was very noticable. Maybe that was because I was an idiot and needed to do some serious work to get up to speed, and perhaps kids in Public School who applied themselves sought our rigor and pulled out an excellent education nonetheless, but I will say I believe the private education was better overall at delivering excellent young men, not just graduated students. People seem to get hung up on the Religious piece of the schooling, but I have to say, I never felt unfomrtable with it. It was not forced on you, in fact I did not attend liturgies by choice and they were supportive. Whats at the core is parents want an excellent education, they are already shelling out big bucks in taxes, why not at least try if a different way? If the reulst sucks and it costs way more, then change the laws... but to no even try, wasted opportnity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) poorly worded... it one of the reasons why, not the reason why.... I shoud have been more specific Thank you B! yep, 36 and not getting any younger... and most on this board perhaps argue none the wiser.... lol Its interesting, I went a private catholic high school because I was bordering on retardation leaving 8th grade, and my parents had the money and determination to get me straigtened out. What I found very interesting about the school was there were ALOT of young men who came from relatively poor families, but it was importan to them to get their kids the best education possible. I have to say the difference in expectations and rigor from the Williamsville Public Schools (considered pretty good) to St. Joe's was very noticable. Maybe that was because I was an idiot and needed to do some serious work to get up to speed, and perhaps kids in Public School who applied themselves sought our rigor and pulled out an excellent education nonetheless, but I will say I believe the private education was better overall at delivering excellent young men, not just graduated students. People seem to get hung up on the Religious piece of the schooling, but I have to say, I never felt unfomrtable with it. It was not forced on you, in fact I did not attend liturgies by choice and they were supportive. Whats at the core is parents want an excellent education, they are already shelling out big bucks in taxes, why not at least try if a different way? If the reulst sucks and it costs way more, then change the laws... but to no even try, wasted opportnity... i think much of it does have to do with parental expectations but some with teacher expectations. i went to catholic school grades 1-8. then went to public high school where i felt ahead of most everyone that didn't go to parochial school. i will never forget my father coming home from the first parent teacher meeting at the high school. he was livid. apparently, one of my teachers said i was an overachiever. i thought that was kind of cool. after thinking about i understood hia anger. why would you ever tell a student that? anyway, i think the differences between objective measures of success in the different schools is multifactorial. but i don't think anyone seriousy argues that public schools can't or shouldn't be improved. Edited March 19, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 By the by.......how does this sage advice for the GOP to moderate its message match up with the fact that Romney (already) won the Independent vote in 2012, but 4 million conservatives stayed home ?........hmmmm Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 What is "big media" to you? And what is "the Internet" and why in God's name does "the Internet" heighten people's attention span and overall intelligence? I'm just curious btw not trying to defend any particular media group but I find it hard to believe what I think you are saying is as likely as you seem to think it is... Big Media being the viacoms, the turners, the comcasts -- big corporate congloms that currently control the airwaves. From cable news, to network news, to sitcoms to dramas, "Big Media" is in full scramble mode trying to figure out how to keep the current system in place. But they're losing the battle and everyone knows it. From Netflix, to YouTube to Hulu to the blogosphere, younger viewers/readers are turning away from traditional media outlets (cable, tv, print journalism) and getting their information and entertainment from the interwebs. As the older generation begins to die out (myself included), the younger generations aren't going back to traditional media. Network TV is dying, cable TV is beginning it's death spiral, print is already dead. Point being, with more people turning to outside sources for news, there is less control of information by the Big Media -- the ones who have the most money invested in our current string of politicians. This certainly leads to a lot of misinformation (people who cite Drudge or Maddow's blogs as solid news sources) but it also leads to true intellectual freedom with things like Wikileaks. 20 years from now Big Media will be all but gone. There will be a vacuum that will have to be filled, but the power and freedom of information on the internet will change the game for the younger generations, for better and worse. It already has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Brilliant article. http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3 Today, all Democratic congressmen from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia are black, except for John Barrow of Georgia; and all Republican congressmen from these states are white, except for Tim Scott of South Carolina. All the Dems are black but all the Repubs are white, conclusive proof that the Republicans are racist. The author must have over looked the fact that the same pathetic argument could be applied to the other side. Sprinkle in some anecdotal evidence of racism in the South, imply that all racists are registered republicans, reaffirm that the GOP is too old and too white (a statement which would be wholly unacceptable if applied to any other group) and you're ready to print. This is garbage even by CNN's sliding standards. Edited March 19, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) By the by.......how does this sage advice for the GOP to moderate its message match up with the fact that Romney (already) won the Independent vote in 2012, but 4 million conservatives stayed home ?........hmmmm Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state . you know what they say about statistics...it's clearly true that different people can look at the same numbers and draw different conclusions. looking at the demographics part of this page http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2012 a few statistics stand out to me (and very likely the authors of the repub report being discussed here): romney lost by almost 5 million votes. how many dems didn't vote in comparison to the 4 million repubs u cite? self avowed liberals and moderates both significantly favored o with only cons supporting r. makes you wonder what independent really means. all races favored o x whites gays overwhelmingly favored o with heterosexuals equally divided (one might conclude o won on the gay vote in this limited regard) all education levels x college grads supported o including those with post grad education all religions reported here favored o x protestants (with evangelicals widely favoring r) and mormons. in summary, r won a majority of the vote from a rather homogeneous demographic base that is decreasing relative to the remainder of the us population. the writers of the report would have had to be stupid or in denial to miss these findings. Edited March 19, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Big Media being the viacoms, the turners, the comcasts -- big corporate congloms that currently control the airwaves. From cable news, to network news, to sitcoms to dramas, "Big Media" is in full scramble mode trying to figure out how to keep the current system in place. But they're losing the battle and everyone knows it. From Netflix, to YouTube to Hulu to the blogosphere, younger viewers/readers are turning away from traditional media outlets (cable, tv, print journalism) and getting their information and entertainment from the interwebs. As the older generation begins to die out (myself included), the younger generations aren't going back to traditional media. Network TV is dying, cable TV is beginning it's death spiral, print is already dead. Point being, with more people turning to outside sources for news, there is less control of information by the Big Media -- the ones who have the most money invested in our current string of politicians. This certainly leads to a lot of misinformation (people who cite Drudge or Maddow's blogs as solid news sources) but it also leads to true intellectual freedom with things like Wikileaks. 20 years from now Big Media will be all but gone. There will be a vacuum that will have to be filled, but the power and freedom of information on the internet will change the game for the younger generations, for better and worse. It already has. Drudge is just an aggregator. And if you bothered to actually look, one of the most fair and balanced around. While Drudge himself is a right winger, his website has tons of links to left leaning news sources and columnists. But please....continue. Edited March 20, 2013 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Drudge is just an aggregator. And if you bothered to actually look, one of the most fair and balanced around. While Drudge himself is a right winger, his website has tons of links to left leaning news sources and columnists. But please....continue. El oh el Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 This thread is hilarious. As someone said on here the purity standards one must go through to gain acceptance by the GOP base is what destroys our chances in a national election. As Romney's top adviser said "etch-a-sketch", as in Romney would out-right-flank the GOP in the primary. Romney should have been running on "reforming" Romneycare, amnesty for illegals, pro-gay marriae, and a massive overhaul of education, infrastructure & the military. A bold strategic vision versus simply being the "anti-Obama". With this behind him, Romney could have pivoted to the economy where he could have beat Obama by having a clear tax-code revision, that would have remained progressive enough so as to avoid the media assault of him being out of touch with the majority of Americans. I'd vote for anybody who ran on that platform. I'll continue to say it: until the GOP gets into the 21st century on social issues, they are completely !@#$ed nationally. As for 2012, Romney almost certainly would have made a better President than he did a candidate (similar to Bush Sr), but Amerians can't be bothered to look up from their iphones for longer than it takes to hear a soundbyte and form an opinion from it, so populist idiocy like the Obama strategists fed the masses is going to win an election against an uninspiring candidate who didn't really offer anything of substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 As for 2012, Romney almost certainly would have made a better President than he did a candidate (similar to Bush Sr), but Amerians can't be bothered to look up from their iphones for longer than it takes to hear a soundbyte and form an opinion from it, so populist idiocy like the Obama strategists fed the masses is going to win an election against an uninspiring candidate who didn't really offer anything of substance. He certainly would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 the whole hope and change yes we can crap just pissed me off right from the start. but it sure worked. didnt matter how many times you tell people to notice there was nothing behind it, it sure worked similar to that aw shucks folksy style of little bush. he made me cringe during the debate how profoundly stupid he was for a presidential candidate, but he had that twinkle in his eye and said flip flopper in such a cute way that it worked like magic. nothing at all behind the curtain, but it sure worked hillary is going to be the first president in a while that wont be either aw shucks or have a catchy vapid campaign theme. of course she will be the first female to run at the top of the ticket which will help, but really i dont think that will be a deciding factor in her winning. shes simply too smart, too good, and too well recognized. we will finally have a high quality president right out of the chute. she will landslide any poor schmuck the republicans find to get mowed down by her. and for once it will be for a very good reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Drudge is just an aggregator. And if you bothered to actually look, one of the most fair and balanced around. While Drudge himself is a right winger, his website has tons of links to left leaning news sources and columnists. But please....continue. Thank you for proving my point about the misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts