I check them regularly, and the latest cluster of polls in Real Clear Politics shows him leading in every poll.

Every economic indicator shows this country is tanking seriously - as bad as I have ever seen in my adult life - and yet almost half the nation wants him back for another four years.

I seriously don't get it.

People are stupid.
People are lazy.
Rather than pass on the poll, they want to appear smart by choosing someone.
Obama is an incumbent.
He's probably the only candidate whose name they recognize.


:shrug:

I check them regularly, and the latest cluster of polls in Real Clear Politics shows him leading in every poll.

Every economic indicator shows this country is tanking seriously - as bad as I have ever seen in my adult life - and yet almost half the nation wants him back for another four years.

I seriously don't get it.

:yeahthat:

I think (more like hope) that the numbers will start to change when the election gets closer and more folks start to pay attention and get involved.

Wirelessly posted


People are stupid.
People are lazy.
Rather than pass on the poll, they want to appear smart by choosing someone.
Obama is an incumbent.
He's probably the only candidate whose name they recognize.


:shrug:

Have you seen his opponent?


That's all you really need to know.

Because Obama is close to Bush, but Romney is closer to Kerry.

Those polls are not half the nation. Barely half of eligible voters vote.
Polls are nothing more than educated representations of fractions of the voters who in the middle, some 10% of voters, haven't decide yet.

Polls at this point in the national cycle are never how it finishes. If they were, elections would no longer occur. The race isn't over.

People who support one side believe the other side is the problem no matter what.

People who are smart enough to not believe in politicians sometimes can't help themselves and get involved if something catches their attention.

Wirelessly posted



Have you seen his opponent?


That's all you really need to know.

I was listening to WMAL this morning, and they had a quote by Boehner. Someone asked him what he could tell him to get him to like Romney.

He said he couldn't do that, because 95% of the vote this fall will be a vote FOR or AGAINST Obama. In his opinion, the opposing candidate doesn't matter as much as how voters feel about Obama.

Your point is well taken - in 2004, Bush was still not terribly popular, but they ran him against Lurch. Kerry was a candidate NO ONE could seriously get excited about. The election reminded me of the comic strip "Bloom County" where a campaigner for Mondale was encouraged to join the Meadow Party. When he was told they were running a wino and a dead cat, the campaigner chucks his sign and says "what the heck".

Frankly as bad as this country is, four years later, I should think the Republicans could run a dead cat and win.

Those polls are not half the nation. Barely half of eligible voters vote.


That's why some polls only represent registered voters - still others, such as Rasmussen, only represent "likely" voters (such as Rasmussen) - registered voters who regularly vote and intend to vote in the fall. Rasmussen has been criticized for being too conservative, but his polling predictions have been very, very good.

I agree that plain old opinion polls that just ask anyone are useless. RCP doesn't carry any of those.

Frankly as bad as this country is, four years later, I should think the Republicans could run a dead cat and win.

Based on what? Why would anyone vote for the Republicans? Our only national election is won by the person a few more folks are for. Right now, there is no reason to vote FOR Mitt other than the other guy stinks. That never works.

Right now, there is no reason to vote FOR Mitt other than the other guy stinks. That never works.

Almost worked for Kerry. Who wanted to vote for that guy?

I was listening to WMAL this morning, and they had a quote by Boehner. Someone asked him what he could tell him to get him to like Romney.

He said he couldn't do that, because 95% of the vote this fall will be a vote FOR or AGAINST Obama. In his opinion, the opposing candidate doesn't matter as much as how voters feel about Obama.

Your point is well taken - in 2004, Bush was still not terribly popular, but they ran him against Lurch. Kerry was a candidate NO ONE could seriously get excited about. The election reminded me of the comic strip "Bloom County" where a campaigner for Mondale was encouraged to join the Meadow Party. When he was told they were running a wino and a dead cat, the campaigner chucks his sign and says "what the heck".

Frankly as bad as this country is, four years later, I should think the Republicans could run a dead cat and win.

Here's our guy...wish us luck!

more folks start to pay attention and get involved.

Don't hold your breath.

You all are so generous and positive when it comes to the electorate, yet year after year my cynicism is validated. Larry Gude likes to give them credit for awareness and intelligence, yet he stood right there in the High's and took part in our little experiment.

Snookie and The Situation are big stars in this country. I think that's all you really need to know about the citizenry.

Snookie and The Situation are big stars in this country. I think that's all you really need to know about the citizenry.

LOL...so true!

Don't hold your breath.

You all are so generous and positive when it comes to the electorate, yet year after year my cynicism is validated. Larry Gude likes to give them credit for awareness and intelligence, yet he stood right there in the High's and took part in our little experiment.

Snookie and The Situation are big stars in this country. I think that's all you really need to know about the citizenry.

Did you see Kourtney Kardasian had her baby?

Frankly as bad as this country is, four years later, I should think the Republicans could run a dead cat and win.

You'd think so but you're forgetting about:


The people who are so invested in race that they'll vote for Obama no matter what;
The people who are so invested in the Democrat party that they'll vote for Obama no matter what;
The people who would rather die than admit they were wrong in 2008.


I know people personally in each of those categories, and I'll bet you do too. In fact I just had a conversation with a friend who is a diehard Democrat AND white guilter, and he informed me that not only has Obama turned this country around from Darth Cheney and Emperor Bush, or at least he would if the Republicans would let him, but anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama is a racist who hates blacks.

You cannot talk to these people because they live in their own reality and make stuff up as they go along. If you try to flesh them out a bit, they just get angry and the discussion is over.

Did you see Kourtney Kardasian had her baby?

No, they are depressing and I can't deal with them anymore.

That's why some polls only represent registered voters - still others, such as Rasmussen, only represent "likely" voters (such as Rasmussen) - registered voters who regularly vote and intend to vote in the fall. Rasmussen has been criticized for being too conservative, but his polling predictions have been very, very good.

I agree that plain old opinion polls that just ask anyone are useless. RCP doesn't carry any of those.

Do you think the election is going to end 47% Obama, 45% Mitt?

Of course not. That's my point. That Obama leads by 2 is nothing at this point and Mitt behind by 3 is nothing.

To your larger point, how can Obama have that much support as bad as things are, again, there is no reason to vote FOR Mitt. over 40% of us believe the GOP is the problem, not Obama. What's another 7% at this point?

Nothing. I mean, come on, there is NO reason to vote for Mitt at this point for the 10% in the middle.

You'd think so but you're forgetting about:


The people who are so invested in race that they'll vote for Obama no matter what;
The people who are so invested in the Democrat party that they'll vote for Obama no matter what;
The people who would rather die than admit they were wrong in 2008.


I know people personally in each of those categories, and I'll bet you do too. In fact I just had a conversation with a friend who is a diehard Democrat AND white guilter, and he informed me that not only has Obama turned this country around from Darth Cheney and Emperor Bush, or at least he would if the Republicans would let him, but anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama is a racist who hates blacks.

You cannot talk to these people because they live in their own reality and make stuff up as they go along. If you try to flesh them out a bit, they just get angry and the discussion is over.

And how are these people different, really, than die hard Republicans? We 'hate' ObamaCare yet think replacing him with the ONLY elected leader in our history to actually institute a mandated health care program is the solution?

I mean, come on. What is the argument FOR Mitt? He's not Obama. And who is Obama, basically Bush on ALL the large issues. Bush is gone but key congressional folks and key political folks who supported him are going to be right back in power if Mitt wins. They going to do some sort of U turn on all the things they supported under Bush that then became 'bad' because a Democrat was in charge?

It's just not rational to support Obama given how things are going. However, it's not rational to support the GOP either. So it goes...

but anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama is a racist who hates blacks.


The race card at this point baffles me.

When I was a kid, I was the smartest kid in class. Depending on what school I was in - because I went to a lot - sometimes I was the smartest by a few dozen IQ points. When kids didn't like me, I naturally chalked it up to the fact that I was smarter than them and they were just jealous. Why not? It was my most conspicuous trait. It would never occur to me they couldn't care less about how smart I was.

Fast forward several years and I was now hanging out with kids as smart as me - and I still had difficulty getting along. I finally had to accept the fact that it wasn't smarts that made kids not like me, it was the fact I was a serious #######. I had to actually hear some of my own words come back to me before I realized that not everything is everyone ELSE's fault.

Sometimes it's just not your looks, or your money, or your talent or your race - sometimes, probably most times, it's you - because you'd have to be pretty damned special to people for them to even care about the other stuff. People will FORGET the other stuff and remember that you were a jerk to them.

Larry Gude likes to give them credit for awareness and intelligence, yet he stood right there in the High's and took part in our little experiment. .

And I'd like to think I am starting to understand that it is absurd to be concerned with who runs this nation. We, the people, want what we have. We just do because, D or R, that is what we keep supporting.

In the abstract, many of us are sure less gummint is the answer. Right up to the point where it affects us personally. Then, as usual, it is THEIR gummint that is bad and OURS that is good.

In practice, the people in High's were the smart ones; they had little concern for knowing much about the people who, D or R, are leading this nation to total government dependence. They, rationally, see them as the same thus not worth worrier about which turd is cleaner.

:shrug:

Nothing. I mean, come on, there is NO reason to vote for Mitt at this point for the 10% in the middle.

I'd argue that in 1980, we were presented with the same option - an idiot actor versus a complete failure as a President. I wrote in Nixon, wanting nothing to do with the idiot movie actor. One thing I knew about Reagan - my student loans were going to be harder to get (they were).

I voted AGAINST Carter.

The race card at this point baffles me.



The race card was, as a rational exercise and idea of good policy, always baffling. You no more cure racism with racism than you cure heart disease with liver disease. However, affirmative action, race consciousness, all that garbage, far from actually helping people were all simply what George Will calls the racial spoils system, looked at properly, just simply one more gummint program with patrons to feed.

The race card is the Social Security card is the military/industrial card is the environmentalist card is the immigration card is the Wall Street card etc and so on and so forth.

I'd argue that in 1980, we were presented with the same option - an idiot actor versus a complete failure as a President. I wrote in Nixon, wanting nothing to do with the idiot movie actor. One thing I knew about Reagan - my student loans were going to be harder to get (they were).

I voted AGAINST Carter.

I'd counter that Reagan was an 'idiot actor' to people who were not going to support him. To his supporters, he was inspiring, had solid rhetoric and record to back it up and looked and sounded like a leader.

Mitt?

In your case, you know how you voted. That will always be the case on a person to person basis. I think most people voted FOR Reagan.

With most folks today it doesn't matter. They don't watch the news or keep up with what's going on in politics. They will walk into the polling place, if they bother to vote at all, and they will push all the buttons for DEM. And it doesn't matter for whom they are voting. They will vote for Obamy again because he's a Dem. The Black population will vote for him again because he is black to them. The liberals will vote for him again because they are brain damaged.

Sam, I never believed Obama would take the country in the direction it needed to go and I see proof that the changes he's brought about are more harmful than good, but I also believe Romney is just as dangerous to the other extreme... just as I believe Obama has an agenda that does not take the best interest of the country into account and he's catering to a specific audience, I also believe Romney won't have the best interest of the country as his priority and that he is also catering only to a specific audience... this article sums up many of my concerns with Romney:

"He's the first and only candidate for the president of the United States with a Swiss bank account, with tax shelters, with tax avoidance schemes that involve so many foreign countries," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS' "Face the Nation." He's one of several high-profile Democrats who spoke out on the Sunday morning news shows.

Romney may have unintentionally helped the Obama campaign.

Republican donors driving Mercedes, Bentleys — and in one case a candy red 2013 Ferrari Spider — crowded into a series of closed-door Romney fundraisers in the Hamptons, New York's exclusive string of waterfront communities on Long Island's South Shore. Wall Street bankers and brokerage house chiefs, among others, make the area their weekend playground. Romney's Hamptons swing follows a weeklong vacation at his lakeside vacation home in New Hampshire.

Voters are split on whether they trust Romney or Obama more to run the nation's economy, but a majority says that Obama better understands their concerns.

http://forums.somd.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4863168

And how are these people different, really, than die hard Republicans?
They're not. Ideologues and party animals are all ignorant, regardless of which party they support. If you (figuratively) think the Republicans are the saviors of the political and social mess that is Obama, then you are just as ignorant as the Democrats who support him. The Republicans, or any political party, are the problem and not the solution.


And I'd like to think I am starting to understand that it is absurd to be concerned with who runs this nation. We, the people, want what we have. We just do because, D or R, that is what we keep supporting.

That is so defeatist to me. It's like saying, "Kids are going to have sex/do drugs/shoplift/whatever anyway, so we might as well condone it instead of trying to curtail it." Yes, people want what they want and typically that consists of something free that isn't necessarily good for them. They want Oreos for dinner. They want whatever is the path of least resistance for them, and that is what the Left doles out in order to stay in power. This, of course, makes the Republicans follow suit because they want power, too, and see that this is the only way to get it.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but there also needs to be leadership and someone who is strong enough to tell the whiners no, they cannot have that and they have to get off their ass and go work for a living and make a contribution to society. Having raised ungrateful whining children for 20 years and trying to turn them into responsible productive adults, I totally get how unpopular that makes the leader.

I do not believe the children should be allowed to vote for the parent or head of household. They will vote for Oreos for dinner and staying out all night every time. They will vote for whoever doesn't make them go to school and doesn't get on them about grades, along with whoever gives them an unlimited allowance. You have seen this in action in our own home on a smaller scale. I was the hammer, you were the ice cream Daddy - and you were WAY more popular than I was. If it had come to a vote for head of household, you'd have gotten 100% of the vote.

This where the dictatorship comes into play and isn't necessarily a bad thing. :smile: Someone has to lead, be unpopular, and tell the kiddies to get off their ass, that the free ride is over and now they must contribute or starve. We cannot afford to support them for the rest of their lives.

That is so defeatist to me. It's like saying, "Kids are going to have sex/do drugs/shoplift/whatever anyway, so we might as well condone it instead of trying to curtail it." Yes, people want what they want and typically that consists of something free that isn't necessarily good for them. They want Oreos for dinner. They want whatever is the path of least resistance for them, and that is what the Left doles out in order to stay in power. This, of course, makes the Republicans follow suit because they want power, too, and see that this is the only way to get it.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but there also needs to be leadership and someone who is strong enough to tell the whiners no, they cannot have that and they have to get off their ass and go work for a living and make a contribution to society. Having raised ungrateful whining children for 20 years and trying to turn them into responsible productive adults, I totally get how unpopular that makes the leader.

I do not believe the children should be allowed to vote for the parent or head of household. They will vote for Oreos for dinner and staying out all night every time. They will vote for whoever doesn't make them go to school and doesn't get on them about grades, along with whoever gives them an unlimited allowance. You have seen this in action in our own home on a smaller scale. I was the hammer, you were the ice cream Daddy - and you were WAY more popular than I was. If it had come to a vote for head of household, you'd have gotten 100% of the vote.

This where the dictatorship comes into play and isn't necessarily a bad thing. :smile: Someone has to lead, be unpopular, and tell the kiddies to get off their ass, that the free ride is over and now they must contribute or starve. We cannot afford to support them for the rest of their lives.

Conflict time; I TOTALLY agree with everything you are saying except one; that this is defeatist. The GOP is supposed to be the 'just say no' party. It is not because we, the people, keep taking the easy route and voting for whomever wins the nomination no matter how much we don't like them. I submit that the Les Evil mindset is NO different than being a permissive parent. The GOP will NOT start saying 'no' about policy unless and until we, the people, say 'no' to their latest run right, govern left offering. The path of least resistance is voting for Les Evil.

You argue the GOP is only mirroring the left because it works. Well, the only reason it 'works' is because we who claim to want them to say 'no' accept it when they don't.

You believe in tough love? You think it works? Then we ought to damn well start showing the GOP some. The only major candidate who said 'NO' was Ron Paul and he was dismissed as a kook. Then, we set about making all sorts of excuses for the other candidates; they're charming, they speak better, they can get things done never mind in getting something done they tossed the baby out to get fresh bathwater, it's a beautiful turkey!

If we can be tough on our own kids and it works, why in the flying hell can't we be tough on a bunch of strangers, politicians, who, clearly, don't give two ####s about us and what they promised the day after they win just like some kid who got what they wanted without earning it?

People are stupid.
People are lazy.
Rather than pass on the poll, they want to appear smart by choosing someone.
Obama is an incumbent.
He's probably the only candidate whose name they recognize.


:shrug:

Face facts ,people are'nt as stupid or as lazy as you put it and know Mitt Romny will kill this nation,it's going to take alot longer then 4 years to get us out of the mess that 8 years of Bush got us in!!!

Face facts ,people are'nt as stupid or as lazy as you put it and know Mitt Romny will kill this nation,it's going to take alot longer then 4 years to get us out of the mess that 8 years of Bush got us in!!!

:killingme

Face facts ,people are'nt as stupid or as lazy as you put it and know Mitt Romny will kill this nation,it's going to take alot longer then 4 years to get us out of the mess that 8 years of Bush got us in!!!

Face facts, if Obama is re-elected, in 2016 they will STILL be blaming Bush for the lousy economy. And there will STILL be people who will believe it.

Face facts ,people are'nt as stupid or as lazy as you put it and know Mitt Romny will kill this nation,it's going to take alot longer then 4 years to get us out of the mess that 8 years of Bush got us in!!!

Really...I think after 3 1/2 years, you can come up with some other excuse besides...it was the other guys fault. LOL! :smack:

Face facts ,people are'nt as stupid or as lazy as you put it and know Mitt Romny will kill this nation,it's going to take alot longer then 4 years to get us out of the mess that 8 years of Bush got us in!!!

And Obama is not killing this nation? None of Bush's major policy decisions have worked out very well for the nation as a whole. Clearly, that is the case with Obama as well and there is little, if any, substantial difference in their policies; More government. More debt. More dependency.

:killingme








:oldman:

And Obama is not killing this nation? None of Bush's major policy decisions have worked out very well for the nation as a whole. Clearly, that is the case with Obama as well and there is little, if any, substantial difference in their policies; More government. More debt. More dependency.


Well not so ,had congress worked with Obama we might have seen some difference.:coffee:

Well not so ,had congress worked with Obama we might have seen some difference.:coffee:

He had his own Congress for the first two years...what does that tell you about his policies?

Face facts ,people are'nt as stupid or as lazy as you put it and know Mitt Romny will kill this nation,it's going to take alot longer then 4 years to get us out of the mess that 8 years of Bush got us in!!!

Present a fact and I will face it.

Really...I think after 3 1/2 years, you can come up with some other excuse besides...it was the other guys fault. LOL! :smack:

Clinton tried it for two years ("the previous twelve years of Republican administration" was the way he constantly put it) until the House GOP cleaned his clock in 1994. To his credit, he learned from the experience.

Obama - and the Democratic leadership - have not. They took the House in 2006 by winning in districts that were already largely conservative and continued to hold on with the innate strength of incumbency. That advantage was wiped out in 2010, and most of the seats lost were in these seats where conservatives usually held the advantage.

The Democrats somehow think in one election - they're going to win 'em all back. So they didn't learn a thing.

Well not so ,had congress worked with Obama we might have seen some difference.:coffee:

He, like Bush, had congress. Obama chose to use all the advantages he had to pay off unions and get him a signature achievement and he did it in a fashion that was far more partisan than what Bush did. Just look at the votes.

Obama divided this nation in ways far more obvious and partisan than Bush did and Bush was pretty divisive.

Obama doesn't get as much cooperation from congress since he oversaw the obliteration of the House D's as he may like because he simply declared he won and should get his way on that basis alone. So, now, he reaps what he sowed.

:shrug:

He, like Bush, had congress. Obama chose to use all the advantages he had to pay off unions and get him a signature achievement and he did it in a fashion that was far more partisan than what Bush did. Just look at the votes.



Obama doesn't get as much cooperation from congress since he oversaw the obliteration of the House D's as he may like because he simply declared he won and should get his way on that basis alone. So, now, he reaps what he sowed.

:shrug:


LOL...are you insaine???..How did he payoff Unions???

"Obama divided this nation in ways far more obvious and partisan than Bush did and Bush was pretty divisive."

this is a joke ,right???

...you type alot but say a whole lot of nothing.

Present a fact and I will face it.




Because House Republicans included cuts to a provision that coordinates essential nutrition assistance with other safety net programs, 280,000 children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school breakfast and lunch

Conflict time; I TOTALLY agree with everything you are saying except one; that this is defeatist. The GOP is supposed to be the 'just say no' party. It is not because we, the people, keep taking the easy route and voting for whomever wins the nomination no matter how much we don't like them. I submit that the Les Evil mindset is NO different than being a permissive parent. The GOP will NOT start saying 'no' about policy unless and until we, the people, say 'no' to their latest run right, govern left offering. The path of least resistance is voting for Les Evil.

You argue the GOP is only mirroring the left because it works. Well, the only reason it 'works' is because we who claim to want them to say 'no' accept it when they don't.

You believe in tough love? You think it works? Then we ought to damn well start showing the GOP some. The only major candidate who said 'NO' was Ron Paul and he was dismissed as a kook. Then, we set about making all sorts of excuses for the other candidates; they're charming, they speak better, they can get things done never mind in getting something done they tossed the baby out to get fresh bathwater, it's a beautiful turkey!

If we can be tough on our own kids and it works, why in the flying hell can't we be tough on a bunch of strangers, politicians, who, clearly, don't give two ####s about us and what they promised the day after they win just like some kid who got what they wanted without earning it?

I'm sure you are not addressing me personally in that post - I am the one who turned in my Republican membership card and told them to go to hell.

You contradict yourself and make your point at the same time. You said that the voting public gets what it wants, and you are correct. The majority of them do indeed get what they voted for - free stuff and Oreos for dinner. The Republicans want power, so they are clearly not going to tout what the majority DON'T want, which is personal and fiscal responsibility. Unpopular opinions are not the way to win popularity contests.

"We" are not tough on politicians because "we" want free stuff and to stay out all night carousing while someone else pays the bills. What is that saying? For every you, there are millions of not-yous. And all those millions of not-yous want their free stuff.

Well not so ,had congress worked with Obama we might have seen some difference.:coffee:

:killingme he had a fully Donk congress for 2 years and the Senate the whole time.

Like the closing of Gitmo..wait that was an executive order and it is still open. Oh I know the Trillion dollar stimulus he passed with Speaker Pelosi and Ried, then after it was squandered he joked about the definition of shovel ready? How about about the great budgets he passed with Pelosi and Reid in charge...wait they didn't.

I have to give Obama credit, he completely redefined "reach back". Given his parameters for blame the next GOP president can go back and heap #### on Carter. :killingme

If you had any self respect you would not participate in this excuse fest. Your man was ill prepared, over his head and it is glaring. You should just go ahead and blame this fiasco on John McCain for being too big a putz to beat him or better yet on Terry McCauliffe for screwing Hillary out of the nomination. Maybe Obama should go back to Berlin and give another speech, they might still like him.

Because House Republicans included cuts to a provision that coordinates essential nutrition assistance with other safety net programs, 280,000 children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school breakfast and lunch

And that's why the economy is a mess, because 280,000 kids have to pay for lunch and breakfast?

Because House Republicans included cuts to a provision that coordinates essential nutrition assistance with other safety net programs, 280,000 children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school breakfast and lunch

Essential......If I have learned ONE thing it is when a liberal says ESSENTIAL don't believe it, it is emotional bull####.

read on...from CNN

Fear fueling Republican extremism - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html)


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

Because House Republicans included cuts to a provision that coordinates essential nutrition assistance with other safety net programs, 280,000 children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school breakfast and lunch

So?

read on...from CNN

Fear fueling Republican extremism - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html)


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

If Romney wins and the GOP takes back the Senate will you leave the country? That is what your side always says. :popcorn:

Might I suggest Greece? those people are scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts.
Seriously, you would point the finger at the GOP for being unwilling to compromise? After the Obama, Pelosi and Reid show? You are retarded

I'm sure you are not addressing me personally in that post - I am the one who turned in my Republican membership card and told them to go to hell.

You contradict yourself and make your point at the same time. You said that the voting public gets what it wants, and you are correct. The majority of them do indeed get what they voted for - free stuff and Oreos for dinner. The Republicans want power, so they are clearly not going to tout what the majority DON'T want, which is personal and fiscal responsibility. Unpopular opinions are not the way to win popularity contests.

"We" are not tough on politicians because "we" want free stuff and to stay out all night carousing while someone else pays the bills. What is that saying? For every you, there are millions of not-yous. And all those millions of not-yous want their free stuff.

Yes, that was not meant 'at you' because I know you ended affiliation with the GOP.

The contradiction, as I see it, is in we, the people, who claim to want less government, rightly point out all the excesses of the others guys yet make excuses for the GOP. It seems wanting less government and actually meaning it don't go hand in hand.

I am saying that ONLY when people who claim to want less government demand it will the GOP respond. As for an elected Republican worrying about giving more stuff, did Bush lead the GOP to being wiped out by governing to the right? Or to the left?

My point is that by GOVERNING to the right, they WILL stay in power. Even if you disagree with that, governing to the left has not kept them in power.

I supported Ron Paul BECAUSE he says a trillion dollar deficit needs a trillion in spending cuts THIS year. I support him because he says we spend too much on defense. Too much on dumb drug laws. That the Fed is harming the economy and at least ought to be audited. I support him because he points out that that trillion in spending cuts won't be harmful BECAUSE it leaves that trillion in OUR hands, not the governments.

Where is Mitt on all of that? Or one of the Rick's? Or Paul Ryan? Or McConnell? Or Baynor?

ETC pointed out something I didn't know; that Max Baucus, R, had small business wiped out in favor of large corporations. The spin is it's Obama's fault.

I applaud you for leaving the party. Only when enough do the same will the GOP respond. SO, you've given them some tough love. It would be great if more did. And, baring that, it would be great for fans of big government would stop bashing one side for providing it while claiming to oppose it.


EDIT::::::
BBBBZZZT!!!! I was wrong; Max is a D.

Because House Republicans included cuts to a provision that coordinates essential nutrition assistance with other safety net programs, 280,000 children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school breakfast and lunch

Good! I'm tired of paying for other peoples' kids.

read on...from CNN

Fear fueling Republican extremism - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html)


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

If I believed that I would still be a Republican. However it's just more party rhetoric bull####. If anyone thinks that the Republicans have been "extreme" or even mildly forceful in stemming the Congressional spendfest for special interests....then I don't know what to say. You cannot have a discussion or debate with people who live in an alternate reality.

The "mainstream" are a bunch of idiots. They are the ones that got us into this mess in the first place, and keep us here. They are the ones that think everything should be free and don't understand the concept of income vs. outgo. Anyone who thinks the Republicans are not "mainstream" is a clueless party hack because they are as much mainstream as any other group that needs to cultivate popularity on order to gain or retain power.

Face facts, if Obama is re-elected, in 2016 they will STILL be blaming Bush for the lousy economy. And there will STILL be people who will believe it.Exactly! :killingme

So?

Same old Liberal BS..


"It's for the CHILDREN!!"

You child hater you..

If Romney wins and the GOP takes back the Senate will you leave the country? That is what your side always says. :popcorn:

Might I suggest Greece? those people are scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts.
Seriously, you would point the finger at the GOP for being unwilling to compromise? After the Obama, Pelosi and Reid show? You are retarded



Two things ...

1) What is my side...?

2) you use the word retarded alot:coffee:

Good! I'm tired of paying for other peoples' kids.


....grow up you moron.:smack:

Exactly! :killingme


.....and it will still be true.

2) you use the word retarded alot:coffee:

From what I've seen...its probably because you have left a standing invitation for folks to do that.

Just sayin.....:whistle:

Face facts, if Obama is re-elected, in 2016 they will STILL be blaming Bush for the lousy economy. And there will STILL be people who will believe it.

On the other hand, if Mitt wins and doesn't aggressively move away from the big government policies of both Bush and Obama, the economy will still be a mess in 2016.

We're stuck in a lost decade cycle like Japan had not too long ago fueled by low interest rates and refusal to wipe out debt. Only when someone steps up and wipes out debt, trade that for higher interest rates so investors can trade low returns on inflated assets for real earnings on real value, will this thing turn around.

Is that more likely with Mitt or Obama? It ain't happening under Obama. He hasn't even touched on it. Neither has Mitt so far.

From what I've seen...its probably because you have left a standing invitation for folks to do that.

Just sayin.....:whistle:



...point is people like you and Pete and others are insulting the mentally challenged,not me.Again proof of your stupidity and ignorance.:coffee:

read on...from CNN

Fear fueling Republican extremism - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html)


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

And democrats haven’t? Can you even articulate the events surrounding the deliberations and passing of Obamacare? You want to see extreme in action. Democrats exercised one of the most partisan acts in political history.

You don’t want to talk about how extreme it is when democrats pass laws that puts us deeper and deeper into the malaise of dependence and limits our rights. Then you call it extreme when republicans want to pull back or repeal these things.

The contradiction, as I see it, is in we, the people, who claim to want less government, rightly point out all the excesses of the others guys yet make excuses for the GOP. It seems wanting less government and actually meaning it don't go hand in hand.

No, the handful of us left (ha) who want less government are simply outvoted by the kiddies. You cannot win elections with a minority.

Why do Republicans vote for people like McCain and Romney? Because they're idiots who vote for the shiny. Just because you're a Republican doesn't mean you're exempt from being braindead.

Follow me, here:

The extremists are not the politicians - they are merely finger lickers who check the wind constantly. The real extremists are the handful who want to dig into people's personal lives and focus on abortion and gay marriage, and other things that are none of their business. They, of course, get all the attention from the liberal media - "See??? These people - REPUBLICANS! - want to control your life!!" and now the idiots in front of the TV think that's the Republican mainstream.

And since politicians are lazy and aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack, they follow that line of thinking as well: "I must cater to these people since they are the vocal....something. But they're vocal and I need their votes because that's the only special interest group that is absolutely against the Democrats."

Remember when Bush won his second term and the...I want to say TIME...cover showed these raving loons with the caption that "evangelicals" put him back in the White House? And how it was all the rage on the liberal news and talk shows to interview some fundie moonbat and portray them as "mainstream" Republicans? Never mind that they represent maybe 10%, if even that, of Republican voters.

Perception is reality. Just the way it is. And politicians do whatever it takes to win elections.

And democrats haven’t? Can you even articulate the events surrounding the deliberations and passing of Obamacare? You want to see extreme in action. Democrats exercised one of the most partisan acts in political history.

You don’t want to talk about how extreme it is when democrats pass laws that puts us deeper and deeper into the malaise of dependence and limits our rights. Then you call it extreme when republicans want to pull back or repeal these things.Well now you can't really blame the democrats for that, after all they just passed it without reading it, so they didn't really know what was in it. :shrug:

:lol:

And democrats haven’t? Can you even articulate the events surrounding the deliberations and passing of Obamacare? You want to see extreme in action. Democrats exercised one of the most bipartisan acts in political history.

You don’t want to talk about how extreme it is when democrats pass laws that puts us deeper and deeper into the malaise of dependence and limits our rights. Then you call it extreme when republicans want to pull back or repeal these things.



....fixed for "factcuracy"
the dems got the GOP to agree to something they thought was a joke and could'nt work,well tadaaaaa!:patriot::patriot::patriot:

Well now you can't really blame the democrats for that, after all they just passed it without reading it, so they didn't really know what was in it. :shrug:

:lol:


...that would be the GOP ,again you're having trouble with that fact thing.

...that would be the GOP ,again you're having trouble with that fact thing.

I think you're having MEMORY trouble.....

Why would I read health care bill John Conyers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao)

Yet another Democrat: Who has time to read these bills? « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/04/yet-another-democrat-who-has-time-to-read-these-bills/)

The most common theme among the Democrats at the time was, don't bother to read it.

No, the handful of us left (ha) who want less government are simply outvoted by the kiddies. You cannot win elections with a minority.

Why do Republicans vote for people like McCain and Romney? Because they're idiots who vote for the shiny. Just because you're a Republican doesn't mean you're exempt from being braindead.

Follow me, here:

The extremists are not the politicians - they are merely finger lickers who check the wind constantly. The real extremists are the handful who want to dig into people's personal lives and focus on abortion and gay marriage, and other things that are none of their business. They, of course, get all the attention from the liberal media - "See??? These people - REPUBLICANS! - want to control your life!!" and now the idiots in front of the TV think that's the Republican mainstream.

And since politicians are lazy and aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack, they follow that line of thinking as well: "I must cater to these people since they are the vocal....something. But they're vocal and I need their votes because that's the only special interest group that is absolutely against the Democrats."

Remember when Bush won his second term and the...I want to say TIME...cover showed these raving loons with the caption that "evangelicals" put him back in the White House? And how it was all the rage on the liberal news and talk shows to interview some fundie moonbat and portray them as "mainstream" Republicans? Never mind that they represent maybe 10%, if even that, of Republican voters.

Perception is reality. Just the way it is. And politicians do whatever it takes to win elections.

Again, I agree with most of what you are saying but, then how did Mitt win the nomination? And why didn't Dubbya then govern to the right on immigration and entitlements and war fighting and all that, in a fashion that would also appeal to the religious right?

...that would be the GOP ,again you're having trouble with that fact thing.
Voting yes were 219 Democrats and 0 Republicans.

Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans.



Congressmen And Senators Who Voted For Obamacare | Quipster (http://quipster.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/congressmen-and-senators-who-voted-for-obamacare/)

Again, I agree with most of what you are saying but, then how did Mitt win the nomination??


Really, becuase the GOP has nothing but brain dead idiots lake Sara Palin or Romney too offer.He won becuase he was'nt the worst, now he is.

Really, becuase the GOP has nothing but brain dead idiots lake Sara Palin...

And of course, you not being brain dead, realize Sarah didn't run?

And of course, you not being brain dead, realize Sarah didn't run?


....hell yeah but tell me why,THANK GOD!!!!:yahoo:

....hell yeah but tell me why,THANK GOD!!!!:yahoo:

Quick question for you - why is it that every Obama supporter that tries to sing his praises ends up being a knowledgeless illiterate idiot? I'm sure there are some intelligent liberals out there, so why do they leave it to you?

....fixed for "factcuracy"
the dems got the GOP to agree to something they thought was a joke and could'nt work,well tadaaaaa!:patriot::patriot::patriot:

Isn’t it so convenient to make up your own facts? Go back and look at the vote on Obamacare. Not one republican voted for it. In fact the only bipartisan part of the vote was 34 democrats sided with the GOP and voting against it. The GOP was literally locked out of deliberations. It was one of the most despotic acts by a party I’ve ever seen.

But who am I kidding; you’re not the least bit interested in facts; only your very narrow bias.

....hell yeah but tell me why,THANK GOD!!!!:yahoo:

So, uh, why would you mention her when she wasn't running?

how did Mitt win the nomination?

Shiny. And that's who the party got behind and pushed into position because they knew he'd have a better chance with the kiddies than the grumpy guy who imposes a bed time and expects us to do our chores. They only wanted someone electable to catch the Oreo people, and please do not operate under the misconception that they actually have any agenda other than that.

why didn't Dubbya then govern to the right on immigration and entitlements and war fighting and all that, in a fashion that would also appeal to the religious right

Because he wanted to keep everyone happy, or at lease sedated, so that he could win re-election. Really it didn't matter what he did, the media was going to paint him as some extremist dictator. How many times have we seen and heard people talking about him like he's some hard-core Right-winger, which is just laughable? I think a lot of his spending and social bullcrap was just to try and counteract that image, which didn't work.

Really, becuase the GOP has nothing but brain dead idiots lake Sara Palin or Romney too offer.He won becuase he was'nt the worst, now he is.

....hell yeah but tell me why,THANK GOD!!!!:yahoo:

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

How do you pull people like this into reality and get them to actually think reasonably about the issues? If you can answer that, run don't walk to the nearest person who shows strong leadership skills and take him in hand.

We're going to mark Giantone as a "not-you".

Isn’t it so convenient to make up your own facts? Go back and look at the vote on Obamacare. Not one republican voted for it. In fact the only bipartisan part of the vote was 34 democrats sided with the GOP and voting against it. The GOP was literally locked out of deliberations. It was one of the most despotic acts by a party I’ve ever seen.

But who am I kidding; you’re not the least bit interested in facts; only your very narrow bias. Yep, those dayum facts he seems to think I have trouble with seem to get in his way. :lol:

Really, becuase the GOP has nothing but brain dead idiots lake Sara Palin or Romney too offer.He won becuase he was'nt the worst, now he is.This coming from a brain dead dolt who can't spell "because" or "wasn't" or "Sarah" and accuses a group of people who get together for fun and conversation of being the klan.

You are an excellent representative of the democrats!

Shiny. And that's who the party got behind and pushed into position because they knew he'd have a better chance with the kiddies than the grumpy guy who imposes a bed time and expects us to do our chores. They only wanted someone electable to catch the Oreo people, and please do not operate under the misconception that they actually have any agenda other than that. I guess. The only guy with a successful conservative record on that stage was Huntsman. He wasn't grumpy.



Because he wanted to keep everyone happy, or at lease sedated, so that he could win re-election. Really it didn't matter what he did, the media was going to paint him as some extremist dictator. How many times have we seen and heard people talking about him like he's some hard-core Right-winger, which is just laughable? I think a lot of his spending and social bullcrap was just to try and counteract that image, which didn't work.

See, I think Bush did what he thought best on the big issues.
That's what really scares me. :lmao:

Obama, he comes across, to me, that I don't pick up any 'I think it's the right thing'. I mean, playing advocate, I can see the green energy thing; get it going and support it until it reaches enough speed to support itself. Stimulus, gotta get money to the teachers and public sector folks who elected me. HealthCare, the mandate makes sense in the same way social security does. The wars, look like a tough guy.

But, on all of them except for perhaps ObamaCare which I think he sees as his legacy piece, all the rest come across as simple political calculations but, dumb ones. For ####s sake, were he to have closed Gitmo and bring the troops home by now, he'd be up by 15 points.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

How do you pull people like this into reality and get them to actually think reasonably about the issues? If you can answer that, run don't walk to the nearest person who shows strong leadership skills and take him in hand.

We're going to mark Giantone as a "not-you".


This coming from someone who uses the Oreo's to descibe voters,go put on your sheet.

This coming from a brain dead dolt who can't spell "because" or "wasn't" or "Sarah" and accuses a group of people who get together for fun and conversation of being the klan.

You are an excellent representative of the democrats!


....thats clan.:coffee::whistle:

This coming from someone who uses the Oreo's to descibe voters,go put on your sheet.

:killingme

She is, easily, the least racist person I have ever met in my life.

Idiots on the other hand, she might put a sheet on for that...


:lol:

Yep, those dayum facts he seems to think I have trouble with seem to get in his way. :lol:

...you just keep on jumpin on his wagon.

In fact I just had a conversation with a friend who is a diehard Democrat AND white guilter

Goodness, why would let a time thief like that into your life :confused:

For ####s sake, were he to have closed Gitmo and bring the troops home by now, he'd be up by 15 points.

Nope. He'd have very likely had impeachment proceedings brought against him for jeopardizing the safety of the US. He's not dumb and he knows that his faithful will indeed remain that way no matter what he does. And he knows that, given the choice between a D and an R, he can count on roughly half the population voting for the D.

All those disgruntled Obama voters from 2008 who are now pretending to not like him anymore? Bull####. They will do as they're told. It's highly unlikely that they've suddenly grown a brain in the last 4 years and it's unlikely they will vote for the R instead of the D. So if anything, put them down as "not voting in 2012".

And it's not like Romney will be some huge improvement anyway.

...that would be the GOP ,again you're having trouble with that fact thing.

Voting yes were 219 Democrats and 0 Republicans.

Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans.


...you just keep on jumpin on his wagon. And the answer is yes, you are that dumb. I've got to put you on ignore. You're just not worth the effort that it takes to respond. And I was right the first time when I said, "liberals are brain dead." You are the proof.

Nope. He'd have very likely had impeachment proceedings brought against him for jeopardizing the safety of the US. .


You really think so? I just posted a link about him and killing; Abdulrahman al-Awlaki Death - Tom Junod on the Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891)

...really dark, dark stuff. It would seem to me that if he just started killing all the ex detainees as they were released, what would the GOP say about it? I would think nothing. They are all for this.

In the August issue, Tom Junod examines an entirely new application of power on the part of the president — the targeted killing of individuals deemed to be threats to the country. So far, thousands have been killed, most prominent among them Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The decisions to target are made and the lethal missions are carried out without any public accountability, even when those targeted are Americans and even when, on one occasion, one of those Americans was a teenager. Over the course of this week, Junod considers five of the larger implications of his story on The Politics Blog. —Eds.

It's just not rational to support Obama given how things are going. However, it's not rational to support the GOP either. So it goes...

So out of frustration I left the Repugnicans after being a staunch one for many years, couldn't bring myself to embrace the stinking Democrypts, and joined the Get-out-of-my-business Party (The Libertarians). Of course we have no candidate for the White House with a snowball's chance in heck of getting elected to anything, so in the end I'll vote against the incumbent (this may become my default position).

I voted AGAINST Carter.

I played a game in my head the other day when I was driving; I made two lists, one of the Presidential candidates I voted for, then made the same list of the candidates I did not vote for. It made a LOT more sense when I said 'I voted against this guy' than when I said 'I voted for this guy'.

So out of frustration I left the Repugnicans after being a staunch one for many years, .

How is that working on a subconscious level? I have reached an intellectual position where I challenge everything the R's say and only give them any credibility where it has been earned. However, I still reflexively am a GOP'er reacting to left wing spin as an R. I can rein it back in quickly but, the reaction hasn't died.

You?

I played a game in my head the other day when I was driving; I made two lists, one of the Presidential candidates I voted for, then made the same list of the candidates I did not vote for. It made a LOT more sense when I said 'I voted against this guy' than when I said 'I voted for this guy'.

I've always come up for a rational for whom I voted FOR. Hasn't always been easy but, I never voted against Mondale or Dukakis or Clinton or Gore or Kerry or Obama. I have to have a reason to vote FOR you.

Interesting thought for all you who have burned your GOP card. How can you affect change if you leave? You cannot vote in primaries for more right leaning candidates. Not that it matters much as most of you point out the GOP is not nearly right enough.

I check them regularly, and the latest cluster of polls in Real Clear Politics shows him leading in every poll.

Every economic indicator shows this country is tanking seriously - as bad as I have ever seen in my adult life - and yet almost half the nation wants him back for another four years.

I seriously don't get it.

People know where Obama stands. People don't know, IF Romney were to win, which Romney would take oath. The Obama campaign has also successfully painted Romney in a way that it's easy, really really really easy, to lump him in with the Wall Street CEOs people wanted hung from oak trees in 2009.

And the answer is yes, you are that dumb. I've got to put you on ignore. You're just not worth the effort that it takes to respond. And I was right the first time when I said, "liberals are brain dead." You are the proof.




'liberals are brain dead."




...............AGAIN GREAT COMEBACK.:coffee:

the targeted killing of individuals deemed to be threats to the country. So far, thousands have been killed, most prominent among them Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The decisions to target are made and the lethal missions are carried out without any public accountability, even when those targeted are Americans and even when, on one occasion, one of those Americans was a teenager

Barak Obama
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Republican
:yay:

You'd think so but you're forgetting about:


The people who are so invested in race that they'll vote for Obama no matter what;
The people who are so invested in the Democrat party that they'll vote for Obama no matter what;
The people who would rather die than admit they were wrong in 2008.


I know people personally in each of those categories, and I'll bet you do too. In fact I just had a conversation with a friend who is a diehard Democrat AND white guilter, and he informed me that not only has Obama turned this country around from Darth Cheney and Emperor Bush, or at least he would if the Republicans would let him, but anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama is a racist who hates blacks.

You cannot talk to these people because they live in their own reality and make stuff up as they go along. If you try to flesh them out a bit, they just get angry and the discussion is over.


There are people who hate Obama because of his skin color (and you know there are plenty of racists out there still) that they'll vote for Romney no matter what.
41% of the country will ALWAYS vote Republican no matter what.

There are people who hate Obama because of his skin color (and you know there are plenty of racists out there still) that they'll vote for Romney no matter what.
41% of the country will ALWAYS vote Republican no matter what.


This is true.

There are people who hate Obama because of his skin color (and you know there are plenty of racists out there still) that they'll vote for Romney no matter what.
41% of the country will ALWAYS vote Republican no matter what.


Having backed non-white candidates in the past I can safely say that his skin color is not the reason that I cant stand him.
however, come November, I would certainly be willing to give rides to the polls for anyone that is going to vote against him simply for his color.

whatever it takes in order to regain our country and turn away from the socialits dream, we should all be willing to do.

Having backed non-white candidates in the past I can safely say that his skin color is not the reason that I cant stand him.

I didn't say people on this forum dislike him solely because of his skin color. But to deny that racism still exists is naive and foolish.

Interesting thought for all you who have burned your GOP card. How can you affect change if you leave? You cannot vote in primaries for more right leaning candidates. Not that it matters much as most of you point out the GOP is not nearly right enough.

I have never thought it wise to stand in the path of a tidal wave and think I might perhaps slow it down a bit.

I no longer agree with the GOP agenda. Their worrying about gay marriage and abortion, catering to special interests while spending goes through the roof, is against everything I believe is right. And make no mistake, the party chooses the nominee, not the people. THEY push him out there and get everyone onboard; give him top of mind name recognition and make him popular. Li'l ole me does not stand a chance against them.

So rather than vote for some other R instead of their favored candidate, which doesn't mean a hill of crap to them, I decided to take my name off their roster. THAT gets some notice, and how I can tell is that within weeks of changing my voter registration I started getting, "Come back! Come back!" letters from them, coupled with dire warnings about how we will all be destroyed if the Republicans don't win.

If more people would do that, dump the chumps, the party would be forced to sit up and take notice, and perhaps change their agenda. As it stands, they know you all will be voting for the R against the D, and they don't give two damns - or even one - about the issues because they don't have to. "Well, we may have lost Vrai but...meh...who cares. We still have Pete and Larry Gude and millions of others. Screw Vrai, who needs her?"

I have never thought it wise to stand in the path of a tidal wave and think I might perhaps slow it down a bit.

I no longer agree with the GOP agenda. Their worrying about gay marriage and abortion, catering to special interests while spending goes through the roof, is against everything I believe is right. And make no mistake, the party chooses the nominee, not the people. THEY push him out there and get everyone onboard; give him top of mind name recognition and make him popular. Li'l ole me does not stand a chance against them.

So rather than vote for some other R instead of their favored candidate, which doesn't mean a hill of crap to them, I decided to take my name off their roster. THAT gets some notice, and how I can tell is that within weeks of changing my voter registration I started getting, "Come back! Come back!" letters from them, coupled with dire warnings about how we will all be destroyed if the Republicans don't win.

If more people would do that, dump the chumps, the party would be forced to sit up and take notice, and perhaps change their agenda. As it stands, they know you all will be voting for the R against the D, and they don't give two damns - or even one - about the issues because they don't have to. "Well, we may have lost Vrai but...meh...who cares. We still have Pete and Larry Gude and millions of others. Screw Vrai, who needs her?"

I feel the exact same way about the Democratic Party. O'Malley and Obama do not represent my ideology. Unfortunately, most of what Romney stands for (well, most of what he stands for on Tuesdays and Thursdays) goes against everything I believe is right.

I didn't say people on this forum dislike him solely because of his skin color. But to deny that racism still exists is naive and foolish.

Racism exists, but it is not nearly as prevalent as the media would like you to believe. There are certainly a handful of people who voted against Barack Obama because he's black, but significantly more who voted FOR him because he's black. If you'd attended one of the zillion Charles Lollar rallies a few years ago, you'd have seen a sea of white faces coming out in support of him. A black friend pointed out that had Obama only received votes from black people, he'd have tanked at 15%.

White people put Obama in the White House, not black people. So to bring up racism as a reason some voted against him is like saying the only reason someone wouldn't vote for Romney is because they're jealous of his beautiful wife. It's insignificant and not worth talking about.

I can only hope that Ron Paul's delegates give him some nice speaking time at the convention.

I have never thought it wise to stand in the path of a tidal wave and think I might perhaps slow it down a bit.

I no longer agree with the GOP agenda. Their worrying about gay marriage and abortion, catering to special interests while spending goes through the roof, is against everything I believe is right. And make no mistake, the party chooses the nominee, not the people. THEY push him out there and get everyone onboard; give him top of mind name recognition and make him popular. Li'l ole me does not stand a chance against them.

So rather than vote for some other R instead of their favored candidate, which doesn't mean a hill of crap to them, I decided to take my name off their roster. THAT gets some notice, and how I can tell is that within weeks of changing my voter registration I started getting, "Come back! Come back!" letters from them, coupled with dire warnings about how we will all be destroyed if the Republicans don't win.

If more people would do that, dump the chumps, the party would be forced to sit up and take notice, and perhaps change their agenda. As it stands, they know you all will be voting for the R against the D, and they don't give two damns - or even one - about the issues because they don't have to. "Well, we may have lost Vrai but...meh...who cares. We still have Pete and Larry Gude and millions of others. Screw Vrai, who needs her?"

Ever think they may think oh we need to get more liberal, thats why people are leaving us?

I've said it before I can't tell you how many people said Bush was too conservative.

Interesting thought for all you who have burned your GOP card. How can you affect change if you leave? You cannot vote in primaries for more right leaning candidates. Not that it matters much as most of you point out the GOP is not nearly right enough.

How can we affect change if we leave.
good question, let me give my reasons for leaving.

as a registered Republican, the party counts on my vote, as long as I stay registered they dont have to try and work to get my vote, they take it for granted. Evidently, if I register and stay registered, then I must agree with what they are doing and the direction they are going.

now, as an unafilleated voter, they look at me as a swing voter, and now they have to actually work to get my vote.
If the party does something that the voters hate, and the voters just go along with it, then the party thinks they got away with it. However if the party does something and a week later they lose a noticable portion of their registered voters, they take notice.

If you are registered to a specific party, they take your vote for granted.

Racism exists, but it is not nearly as prevalent as the media would like you to believe. There are certainly a handful of people who voted against Barack Obama because he's black, but significantly more who voted FOR him because he's black. If you'd attended one of the zillion Charles Lollar rallies a few years ago, you'd have seen a sea of white faces coming out in support of him. A black friend pointed out that had Obama only received votes from black people, he'd have tanked at 15%.

White people put Obama in the White House, not black people. So to bring up racism as a reason some voted against him is like saying the only reason someone wouldn't vote for Romney is because they're jealous of his beautiful wife. It's insignificant and not worth talking about.

I'm not saying every single white voter is racist and I know Lollar got a lot of TEA Party support. I was actually living up north when he was running. But every time the race baiting comes up, the conservative pundits on television act like racism doesn't exist in our society. I'm not even going to say the majority or most and not even 25%of conservatives are racist. But I know numerous people who dislike Obama solely because of his skin color. In fact, a few of those people believe in everything Obama believes in and still would never consider voting for him because he's black.

Yes, the liberal argument that everyone voting against Obama is doing so because he's black is just as asinine as the conservative argument that everyone voting against Romney is doing so because they're jealous of his wealth.

I am, by no means, a class warrior. In fact, if anyone wants to pull up the archives on here, I supported extending the Bush Tax Cuts in their entirety. Romney's a business guy, and he KNOWS that it's not just the rich who contribute to a successful business. He has to know that, if those middle class people can't afford to buy a product, it hurts the bottom line for everyone at a company, including the wealthy. But he supports an extremist budget that even Newt Gingrich, who is farther to the right than Romney, called, "social engineering".

Taking from the poor to help the rich and hoping it trickles back down as well as taking from the rich to give to the poor -- both go against everything I believe in.

What Are Electoral College Votes?

The term "Electoral College" is not used in the U.S. Constitution or the 12th Amendment which created the system.

When you cast your vote for the president of the United States, you are actually selecting Electoral College voters pledged to that political party within your state. These electoral voters cast their votes for president after the November general election has occurred. A candidate now must win at least 270 Electoral College votes to become president.

Popular general public votes may b (?) fun to watch. don`t think so.

How many candidates for POTUS are poor?

in Maryland the electorates are required to vote according to the popular vote in the state. Therefore, if your specific area votes majority republican, but the state is majority democrat, your electorate is required to vote democrat instead of voting what his/her actual geographic numbers dictate.
It basically changes your vote from one party to the other. Just another case of voter fraud.

I know numerous people who dislike Obama solely because of his skin color.

So because you hang out with racists, the whole country is racist :killingme

Ever think they may think oh we need to get more liberal, thats why people are leaving us?

Yep, and we call that "tin ear". To make sure they didn't get that misconception about me, I drafted a form letter that I sent back in their postage-paid envelope instead of a donation. I'm sure it went right in the trash.

How many Republican politicians distanced themselves from the Tea Party? That's because they don't want to hear it. They want to give money away and be popular, not be the mean parent who makes people eat their vegetables and enforces a curfew.

And how many jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon, with no intention of actually conforming to the platform? How many ran away after the media started in with their lies and spin?

By their very nature, politicians are not leaders - they are popularity contest entrants.

So because you hang out with racists, the whole country is racist :killingme

Go back and read the post.

Go back and read the post.

No.

Ever think they may think oh we need to get more liberal, thats why people are leaving us?

I've said it before I can't tell you how many people said Bush was too conservative.

The numbers would show that.
If I and a large number of other voters left the republicans because we thought they were not left enough, then you would expect to see the democrats numbers go up proportionatly

But I know numerous people who dislike Obama solely because of his skin color.

And I do not know a single one.

And I do not know a single one.

The company you keep, eh Andy? :yay:

I actually dont know any either.

and I pretty much only hang out with Americans, so most of my friends hate obama as much as I do,, but not because of his skin. Its more due to the fact that he is a blundering idiot that would be better suited for digging a ditch than trying to run a country.

I just cant express enough disrespect for the obama clan without taking a chance of some federal investigation. :killingme

In your case, you know how you voted. That will always be the case on a person to person basis. I think most people voted FOR Reagan.





I did in 84 and 88

I did in 84 and 88

There is no question that I will be voting against obama this time around

I dont care if the choices are obama and Charles Manson. I would vote for Manson.

I believe I would vote for an Adolf Hitler type before obama. (I apologize to my Jewish friends, You can hide in my attic)

Taking from the poor to help the rich and hoping it trickles back down as well as taking from the rich to give to the poor -- both go against everything I believe in.

How do the rich take ANYTHING from the poor? Most poor pay NO federal income tax.

I'm not about to argue the rich care about the poor but, that's not relevant anyway. The poor in this nation got seriously screwed over by both the left and the right because a rational immigration plan would have allowed wages to climb simply because of the most basic of supply and demand principles so, to argue the left 'cares' about the poor is just silly.

And I do not know a single one.

Unfortunately, I know at least one that WILL vote for him based on his skin color.

:smack:

How do the rich take ANYTHING from the poor? Most poor pay NO federal income tax.

I'm not about to argue the rich care about the poor but, that's not relevant anyway. The poor in this nation got seriously screwed over by both the left and the right because a rational immigration plan would have allowed wages to climb simply because of the most basic of supply and demand principles so, to argue the left 'cares' about the poor is just silly.

Actually the poor TAKE more in "refunds" than they pay in.. I never knew this was possible, but I've been poor enough to realize it.

They took the House in 2006 by winning in districts that were already largely conservative and continued to hold on with the innate strength of incumbency.




IIRC - they took a page from the Republicans and ran moderate Dems. not flaming socialists ..... guys that supported Dem social programs, but gun ownership, more fiscally responsible governing ..... and then when they took power, ignored them ....

If I believed that I would still be a Republican. However it's just more party rhetoric bull####. If anyone thinks that the Republicans have been "extreme" or even mildly forceful in stemming the Congressional spendfest for special interests....then I don't know what to say.




the Propaganda Ministry just labels it 'Extreme' it makes a nice sound bite in the evening news and 40% of the pop buys it because they always vote D, the next 40% go 'liar' and the 20% in the middle who here this all the time go :shrug:

maybe where there is smoke there is fire ........ EVEYBODY cannot be lying - CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, PMSNBC ....

And I do not know a single one.


Neither do I.


In fact, I don't know anyone who dislikes him personally.

I, myself, find him charming and a charasmatic speaker, and I woulnd't mind enjoying one of his beer summits.




But his policies suck moose balls, and I wouldn't vote for him unless a gun was pointed at one of my children.

Another Democrat that thinks YOU aren't paying your fairshare..

Denise Rich..

Her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg, appeared in the Federal Register on April 30 in a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. citizenship and permanent residents who handed in their green cards.

By dumping her U.S. passport, Rich likely will save tens of millions of dollars or more in U.S. taxes over the long haul, tax lawyers say.

How many more democrats are in this list I wonder, or what the averate net worth was.. .. or better yet, how many are on this list that have an idea of what's coming next?

Nearly 1,800 citizens and permanent residents, a record since data was first compiled in 1998, expatriated last year, according to government figures.

How do the rich take ANYTHING from the poor? Most poor pay NO federal income tax.

I'm not about to argue the rich care about the poor but, that's not relevant anyway. The poor in this nation got seriously screwed over by both the left and the right because a rational immigration plan would have allowed wages to climb simply because of the most basic of supply and demand principles so, to argue the left 'cares' about the poor is just silly.

I agree in principal to all this with a caveat.

I believe the poor in this country are screwed by the left and the right because both sides have taken away consequence and the need to problem solve for themselves. As Giantoe pointed out in one of his excruciatingly lame posts "280,000 poor kids now do not automatically qualify for free lunches" or some total crap.

The reason 280,000 kids get free food is because someone decided to give it to them. Now it is relied upon. Now some lib will say "Those children didn't eat bfore that program" which is total crap as is the notion that if the program went away tomorrow those 280,000 would starve to death. They simply wouldn't. Their parents, grandparents or someone would FIND a way for them to eat. There is no need to go FIND a way for them to eat now because someone is doing it for them. Essential...yea right.

Another Democrat that thinks YOU aren't paying your fairshare..

Denise Rich..

Her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg, appeared in the Federal Register on April 30 in a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. citizenship and permanent residents who handed in their green cards.

By dumping her U.S. passport, Rich likely will save tens of millions of dollars or more in U.S. taxes over the long haul, tax lawyers say.

Is this the same woman whose husband was on the lamb for tax evasion and Bill Clinton pardoned him?

Is this the same woman whose husband was on the lamb for tax evasion and Bill Clinton pardoned him?

That be the one..

That be the one..

and who during testamony in front of congress when asked if herr husband was granted a pardon because of her vast contributions to the Democratic National Committee, she invoked the 5th?

and who during testamony in front of congress when asked if herr husband was granted a pardon because of her vast contributions to the Democratic National Committee, she invoked the 5th?

That also be the one...

Marc Rich received a presidential pardon in 2001 on President Bill Clinton's last day in office. Federal prosecutors and Congress investigated the pardon, and in 2002 a House of Representatives committee concluded Denise Rich had swayed the action through donations to the Clinton library and campaign.



.. and again nothing became of it..

Denise Eisenberg

:ohwell:

and who during testamony in front of congress when asked if herr husband was granted a pardon because of her vast contributions to the Democratic National Committee, she invoked the 5th?

She was obviously a Republican plant.

That also be the one...

Marc Rich received a presidential pardon in 2001 on President Bill Clinton's last day in office. Federal prosecutors and Congress investigated the pardon, and in 2002 a House of Representatives committee concluded Denise Rich had swayed the action through donations to the Clinton library and campaign.



.. and again nothing became of it..

Giantone, do you recall this?

Is this the same woman whose husband was on the lamb for tax evasion and Bill Clinton pardoned him?

:smile:

But...but...it's only rich Republicans who don't pay their fair share. Right?

Anyway, two things:

ONE

It's the middle-class that get hosed in this country, not the poor or the rich.

The rich can afford a hike in taxes or higher health care costs, plus they know how to shelter their money so the government doesn't get its hands on it;
The poor don't have anything to give - they only take.


The middle-class has ALWAYS paid for these social programs and goodies.

TWO

I am not voting for Mitt Romney. I did that crap last time, held my nose and voted for McCain, and I'm not doing it again. If we end up with Obama for another four, oh freaking well. That's you Republicans' fault, not mine. I quit the team for a reason.

I realize this is an about-face from when I was chastising Larry Gude for not voting for our old buddy Les, but I have come to see the error of my ways and the futility of trying to fight the tide. Plus I won't feel any better about Romney than I do Obama.

Gary Johnson will be getting my vote, whether The Peoples Republik decides to allow a third party on the ballot or not. And I'm seriously considering throwing my lot in with the Libertarians officially - increase their rolls. Jacking up the third-party numbers - THAT will make an impression.

Giantone, do you recall this?

She also threw a little Lewinski in there for good measure too..

THAT will make an impression.

No it won't.

The only impression it will leave is more empowered Obama during a second term.

I saw today on an AOL link that Denise Eisenberg Rich renounced her American citizenship in favor of her fathers Australian citizenship.....all to save millions in taxes.

No it won't.

The only impression it will leave is more empowered Obama during a second term.

Then you Republicans should have thought of that when you were voting for your nominee instead of just doing what the GOP told you to.

I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. And anyone who does is a Socialist, pure and simple.

Then you Republicans should have thought of that when you were voting for your nominee instead of just doing what the GOP told you to.

I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. And anyone who does is a Socialist, pure and simple.

I didn't vote for him during the primary, and the best nominee did not float to the top.. and probably never will

If you have two GOOD nominees splitting the vote, and a third sitting in the shadows, sooner or later #3 of #4 takes more votes and wins state by state.

What we need to learn how to do is to vet out the best of the best BEFORE the primaries.. Until then we'll continue to get #3 or #4 or worse on the list.

Hands down he is exponentially better than the incumbent, and any vote not for Romney IS a vote for Obama..

You vote for your guy and Obama wins.. I'll do whatever it takes to defeat Obama and get him out of the WhiteHouse, I can make a worthless statement later. My country is too valuable to just make a statement on election day.

I didn't vote for him during the primary, and the best nominee did not float to the top.. and probably never will

Whose fault is this?

This is one of the myriad reasons I've never made the jump to the Republican camp myself. You guys keep putting up half-liberals and half-wits like Bob Dole, W, McCain and now Romney.

Freakin' Romney - a Massechusetts liberal, despite the (R) after his name.



You vote for your guy and Obama wins..


Good.

It's not like he can #### us any worse than he already has - and maybe it'll give the Republicans the very kick in the pants they need to put up someone worth a #### in 2016.

You just got through saying that if Obama wins it'll empower him for a second term. Voting for idiots like Romney only empowers the GOP to put up another idiot next time.

Nobody wants to see Obama gone more than I do, but damn....

Hands down he is exponentially better than the incumbent

In what regard?

Voting for idiots like Romney only empowers the GOP to put up another idiot next time.

And there you have it. :yay:

See what voting for that idiot McCain got us?

:smile:

But...but...it's only rich Republicans who don't pay their fair share. Right?

Anyway, two things:

ONE

It's the middle-class that get hosed in this country, not the poor or the rich.

The rich can afford a hike in taxes or higher health care costs, plus they know how to shelter their money so the government doesn't get its hands on it;
The poor don't have anything to give - they only take.


The middle-class has ALWAYS paid for these social programs and goodies.

TWO
...snip...

What is the definition of rich? (I always figured you were rich if you didn't have to clean your own toilets..) Is rich two working adults in a family or a Hilton/Heinz that doesn't work but has millions in the bank? Your statement is kinda crap... The 'rich' targeted by the obamamites are not rich... they are working people, that are in an 'income tax' bracket that rapes their paycheck every month... People at the low end of that spectrum are already paying way over what they should and definitely don't make enough money to 'shelter' anything... Shelters are for heiresses... Maybe lotto winners... But an IT consultant and a Fed who are married with a family?

Where does middle class start and end anyway? According to figures there is a good percentage that gets every dime back from withholding... and about 10 percent that gets back MORE than they had withheld AND was put in by their employer...

In what regard?

For one he's not a total incompetent..

He's run, managed and been successful at a NUMBER of ventures outside of the govenment...

AND he's better qualified than the person sitting in the White House with 4 years of experience.

Obama has admitted that he's tried his hardest.. so it's apparent his hardest isn't good enough.. so let's show him.. Let's make him do 4 more years??

Let ANYONE else have a shot to make things better... I wouldn't care if it was another Democrat.. Hillary would be 10 times a better President than Obama EVER will be..

So, other than Obama, who has a REAL shot at getting elected?

And there you have it. :yay:

See what voting for that idiot McCain got us?

No, see what voting for the third party condidates got us..

Whose fault is this?

This is one of the myriad reasons I've never made the jump to the Republican camp myself. You guys keep putting up half-liberals and half-wits like Bob Dole, W, McCain and now Romney.

Freakin' Romney - a Massechusetts liberal, despite the (R) after his name.






Good.

It's not like he can #### us any worse than he already has - and maybe it'll give the Republicans the very kick in the pants they need to put up someone worth a #### in 2016.

You just got through saying that if Obama wins it'll empower him for a second term. Voting for idiots like Romney only empowers the GOP to put up another idiot next time.

Nobody wants to see Obama gone more than I do, but damn....

You keep saying "You guys", why? I did not vote for Romney in the primary. this is not a "Republican" problem, it is a societal problem. For every one of us there are 10 who vote for Romney's and McCains because they WANT socialist lite. Ron Paul gets press, gets to the debates, gets air time but cannot get votes, same with Johnson, Gingrich, Huntsman and the others.

It is a left of center society and nothing is going to stop it until we hit the point Greece will hit in about 18 months and there will be NO CHOICE.

You keep saying "You guys", why?


I guess the same reason a foreigner would use a collective "you" when they ask the United States collectively: "Why did 'you' elect that braying jackass?"


I didn't personally vote for Obama, but "we" did - we as in America.

Maybe you didn't personally vote for Romney, but your party is hoisting his grinning visage up onto their shoulders.



Don't want to be associated with him? Leave the party.

For one he's not a total incompetent..

Obama is demonstrably not incompetent.


He got his health insurance bill pushed through not only Congress but the Supreme Court.
He ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and now gays serve openly in the military.
He passed the Hate Crimes bill.
He's appointed two more Leftists to the Supreme Court.
He gave a ton of money to his cronies under the guise of creating jobs.
He has all but destroyed race relations in this country.


He has actually accomplished quite a bit in four years. Why do you say he's incompetent?

You keep saying "You guys", why? I did not vote for Romney in the primary. this is not a "Republican" problem, it is a societal problem. For every one of us there are 10 who vote for Romney's and McCains because they WANT socialist lite. Ron Paul gets press, gets to the debates, gets air time but cannot get votes, same with Johnson, Gingrich, Huntsman and the others.

It is a left of center society and nothing is going to stop it until we hit the point Greece will hit in about 18 months and there will be NO CHOICE.

If you have three great nominees splitting 60% of the vote, the losing(er) candidate with 21% wins.. OR if you have 6 or more candidtates, what percentage do you need to win? If the TOP three split 50% of the vote (basically a coin toss because they are all GREAT candidates), what percentage do you need to get nominated? The Best canditates walk away with something like 17% each.. the winningest loser only needs 18% to win, which still leave 31% for the also rans self esteem. Even the #4 on the list of six can tie with the best three..

I think 18% you'll get at the polls just from name recognition.. "I remember seeing that name on TV, let me put my beer down and vote for him".. the top three are actually going to be battling on voters concerns, and doing a great job, enough so that they'll almost evenly split the informed vote evenly, whether it be two ways or three ways..

The middle man floats to the top, and that's what we are left with.. Spend enough on advertising in ANY market, and let the GREAT candidates fight it out on the issues, and you'll win every time.

If we had ONE great candidate vying for that 60% we'd never have the McCains or the Romneys in the finals.. If Christie had jumped in, Romney would have taken the lead by an even bigger margin.. Christie would have been pulling voters from the informed pool, not the "Let me put my beer down" pool..

You keep saying "You guys", why? I did not vote for Romney in the primary. this is not a "Republican" problem, it is a societal problem. For every one of us there are 10 who vote for Romney's and McCains because they WANT socialist lite. Ron Paul gets press, gets to the debates, gets air time but cannot get votes, same with Johnson, Gingrich, Huntsman and the others.

It is a left of center society and nothing is going to stop it until we hit the point Greece will hit in about 18 months and there will be NO CHOICE.

The sad part is, people want to be free, they want govt. out of their business, they like individual liberty, they like fiscal conservatism, yet they don't vote that way.

The sad part is, people want to be free, they want govt. out of their business, they like individual liberty, they like fiscal conservatism, yet they don't vote that way.

No they do not. They like handouts and free stuff, and they like not having to work to make money. They want government to raise their children, including feed them and teach them morals, and they want government to tell them what they themselves can and cannot eat.

There is a small percentage in this country who want to be free, have government out of their business, and stop spending money like maniacs. The rest vote for what they want and put the likes of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in office to get it.

What is the definition of rich? (I always figured you were rich if you didn't have to clean your own toilets..) Is rich two working adults in a family or a Hilton/Heinz that doesn't work but has millions in the bank? Your statement is kinda crap... The 'rich' targeted by the obamamites are not rich... they are working people, that are in an 'income tax' bracket that rapes their paycheck every month... People at the low end of that spectrum are already paying way over what they should and definitely don't make enough money to 'shelter' anything... Shelters are for heiresses... Maybe lotto winners... But an IT consultant and a Fed who are married with a family?

Where does middle class start and end anyway? According to figures there is a good percentage that gets every dime back from withholding... and about 10 percent that gets back MORE than they had withheld AND was put in by their employer...



wow....wow,just.......stupidity at it's finest!

wow....wow,just.......stupidity at it's finest!


Would you care to elaborate, or are you just randomly insulting people for kicks?

No they do not. They like handouts and free stuff, and they like not having to work to make money. They want government to raise their children, including feed them and teach them morals, and they want government to tell them what they themselves can and cannot eat.

There is a small percentage in this country who want to be free, have government out of their business, and stop spending money like maniacs. The rest vote for what they want and put the likes of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in office to get it.

BS......,no one wants the hand outs as you call them everyone wants to live for themselves and their familys but when you take you GOP business to China or Ireland to not pay taxs..BS on you .If you believe people want the goverment in their lives you really are stupid and ignorent especially when it has to do with their children.I have no problem paying tax and staying in Maryland but it's the GOP rich that cut and run and don't pay their fair share they are the ones I have a problem with.

Would you care to elaborate, or are you just randomly insulting people for kicks?


I assume you could read and there for could see the stupidity for yourself, my apologies.

I assume you could read and there for could see the stupidity for yourself, my apologies.


Whether I could see it or not is beside the point.


If you're going to blast someone, you should be able to back your #### up.
You, apparently, cannot.

BS......,no one wants the hand outs as you call them everyone wants to live for themselves and their familys but when you take you GOP business to China or Ireland to not pay taxs..BS on you .If you believe people want the goverment in their lives you really are stupid and ignorent especially when it has to do with their children.I have no problem paying tax and staying in Maryland but it's the GOP rich that cut and run and don't pay their fair share they are the ones I have a problem with.

Tox? Any more questions?

Tox? Any more questions?


No, I think that pretty much spells it out.




:facepalm:

Tox? Any more questions?


....you might want to ask him him he's going to the meeting on the 20th?

....you might want to ask him him he's going to the meeting on the 20th?

^

This is why you shouldn't post until the quaaludes wear off.

You keep saying "You guys", why? I did not vote for Romney in the primary. this is not a "Republican" problem, it is a societal problem. For every one of us there are 10 who vote for Romney's and McCains because they WANT socialist lite. Ron Paul gets press, gets to the debates, gets air time but cannot get votes, same with Johnson, Gingrich, Huntsman and the others.

It is a left of center society and nothing is going to stop it until we hit the point Greece will hit in about 18 months and there will be NO CHOICE.

Huntsman was the best candidate. But the Primary voters didn't care about issues. They cared about who was the best at talking points and name calling. Nevermind the fact that Romney has no conviction. He sounded better than the others when he said "Western Eurpoean Socialism". Everyone knew he would change his entire campaign platform once he got the nomination, but he echoed the talking points the best so who cares?

I knew Romney was the weakest choice for the GOP when MSNBC fell head over heels for him. When MSNBC and CBS don't attack a Republican candidate during the primaries, you know that's the guy they're going to hit the hardest in the general. And look what we're finding now, Romney's got a ton of baggage.

No they do not. They like handouts and free stuff, and they like not having to work to make money. They want government to raise their children, including feed them and teach them morals, and they want government to tell them what they themselves can and cannot eat.

There is a small percentage in this country who want to be free, have government out of their business, and stop spending money like maniacs. The rest vote for what they want and put the likes of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in office to get it.

Yep. Americans like freedom and want government out of their lives, but then they want government to legislate morality and, when the government cuts spending in a way that will directly affect them, they break out the pitchforks and torches.

Yep. Americans like freedom and want government out of their lives, but then they want government to legislate morality and, when the government cuts spending in a way that will directly affect them, they break out the pitchforks and torches.


...agreed...........

I check them regularly, and the latest cluster of polls in Real Clear Politics shows him leading in every poll.

Every economic indicator shows this country is tanking seriously - as bad as I have ever seen in my adult life - and yet almost half the nation wants him back for another four years.

I seriously don't get it.

47% of the people in this country pay no federal (and probably no state) income taxes.

BS......,no one wants the hand outs as you call them everyone wants to live for themselves and their familys but when you take you GOP business to China or Ireland to not pay taxs..BS on you .If you believe people want the goverment in their lives you really are stupid and ignorent especially when it has to do with their children.I have no problem paying tax and staying in Maryland but it's the GOP rich that cut and run and don't pay their fair share they are the ones I have a problem with.

- Social Security Disability had more applicants than jobs gained for June

- Obama is known as the Food Stamp president. There are almost 45 million people on food stamps.

- Nancy Pelosi claims the food stamp program creates jobs

- Have you seen the food stamp commercial?

- Who's Obama's jobs czar? I know you don't know. It's Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE. Guess where most of GE jobs are? CHINA!

- And there's these little gems:

arOGHY27JwI

fOZ-Etb0k0Q

- Social Security Disability had more applicants than jobs gained for June

- Obama is known as the Food Stamp president. There are almost 45 million people on food stamps.

- Nancy Pelosi claims the food stamp program creates jobs

- Have you seen the food stamp commercial?



The republicains put a couple of hundred thousand out of work and you blame Obama for food stamps....you really are out of your mind!!!:smack:

The republicains put a couple of hundred thousand out of work and you blame Obama for food stamps....you really are out of your mind!!!:smack:

You just don't pay attention. You don't read what people write, you just blindly post your mindless blather.

I'll type real slow for you...................

I.......... stated ........... already ............. that ................ the ................ Republicans ............. are ................ complicit.

one more time...

I.......... stated ........... already ............. that ................ the ................ Republicans ............. are ................ complicit.


Obama owns it now. He has done nothing but made it worse. You're not interested in any sort of intellecual honesty. You're only interested in toeing the 'D' line. Any bit of facts that get thrown your way you :jameo: with you already-beat-up mantra "THE REPUBLICANS DID IT TOO".

So one more time in case you already forgot because I posted other things that probably muddied up your brain:

I.......... stated ........... already ............. that ................ the ................ Republicans ............. are ................ complicit.

The republicains put a couple of hundred thousand out of work and you blame Obama for food stamps....you really are out of your mind!!!:smack:

And another thing, you claimed "no one wants the hand outs as you call them everyone wants to live for themselves". I proved you wrong. You couldn't refute it so you simply did your beat up "republicans are at fault" dance. You need new material.

You just don't pay attention. You don't read what people write, you just blindly post your mindless blather.

I'll type real slow for you...................

I.......... stated ........... already ............. that ................ the ................ Republicans ............. are ................ complicit.

one more time...

I.......... stated ........... already ............. that ................ the ................ Republicans ............. are ................ complicit.


Obama owns it now. He has done nothing but made it worse. You're not interested in any sort of intellecual honesty. You're only interested in toeing the 'D' line. Any bit of facts that get thrown your way you :jameo: with you already-beat-up mantra "THE REPUBLICANS DID IT TOO".

So one more time in case you already forgot because I posted other things that probably muddied up your brain:

I.......... stated ........... already ............. that ................ the ................ Republicans ............. are ................ complicit.

I don't think I quite understood you and whether you think Republicans are complicit... could you please clarify? :lol:

I don't think I quite understood you and whether you think Republicans are complicit... could you please clarify? :lol:

He is being a bit cryptic about the whole thing dont you think?

He is being a bit cryptic about the whole thing dont you think?

Reading Giantone you'd think so.

And another thing, you claimed "no one wants the hand outs as you call them everyone wants to live for themselves". I proved you wrong.

Proved me wrong,not even close jr!...LOL:whistle:

Reading Giantone you'd think so.This is why I put him on ignore. He just comes out with his BS and doesn't read the facts. If he does read the facts, he sure doesn't comprehend them. You can't fix stupid no matter how hard you try and I've seen everyone in this thread trying to argue with Giantone including myself. You get nowhere with common sense and facts. Do yourselves a favor and hit the ignore button for him.

Proved me wrong,not even close jr!...LOL:whistle:

Arguing with a liberal is as useful as beating their head against a wall, and not as much fun... Facts mean absolutely nothing to them... It's all about "fair"... The top 5% already pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes... The bottom 5% take... Just because you're a dumbass that can't read the statistics and understand them doesn't make someone else wrong.

Arguing with a liberal is as useful as beating their head against a wall, and not as much fun...

^This^

It is a far more enjoyable and productive use of my time to chase the dog around the house with a squeaky toy.

^This^

It is a far more enjoyable and productive use of my time to chase the dog around the house with a squeaky toy.

My wife's cat and a squirt gun... :buddies:

This is why I put him on ignore. He just comes out with his BS and doesn't read the facts. If he does read the facts, he sure doesn't comprehend them. You can't fix stupid no matter how hard you try and I've seen everyone in this thread trying to argue with Giantone including myself. You get nowhere with common sense and facts. Do yourselves a favor and hit the ignore button for him.

Now see, you're filtering out all the entertainment.

But I can't help but believe that Giantone is at least related to JPC, if not an MPD.

BS......,no one wants the hand outs as you call them everyone wants to live for themselves and their familys but when you take you GOP business to China or Ireland to not pay taxs..BS on you .If you believe people want the goverment in their lives you really are stupid and ignorent especially when it has to do with their children.I have no problem paying tax and staying in Maryland but it's the GOP rich that cut and run and don't pay their fair share they are the ones I have a problem with.

That right there is funny.

That right there is funny.

OMG!!! How did I miss that??? Those are my favorite posts!!

:banghead:

^This^

It is a far more enjoyable and productive use of my time to chase the dog around the house with a squeaky toy.

Its not really fair to compare an more intellegent creature with a liberal.

That right there is funny.

Funny 'ha ha' or funny 'what a joke'?

I have no problem paying tax and staying in Maryland but it's the GOP rich that cut and run and don't pay their fair share they are the ones I have a problem with.

What does that mean, fair share?

If you earn $1,000,000 in Maryland you pay 5.5% or $55,000 plus your local rate. If you earn $50,000 you pay less than $3,000.

How is this fair, at all? Do the rich get more government for their $55,000?
Of course not. They can only use as much highway or library or public school as anyone else. They only get one vote.

So, never mind socialism and communism, how, in a free society, is $55,000 NOT enough? Not fair? I would argue it is absurdly high and unfair in that manner.

Do the rich get more government for their $55,000?

Yes. Who ever heard of a poor person buying a Congressman?