Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:05 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: The hard right still doesn't get it Back to Topics
YDraigGoch

Champion Author
Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 1:33:38 PM

The reason Romney lost was nor because of Romney. It was because of the whining, Sharia law spouting, intolerant hard right fanatics.

Refusing to accept reality, just like Carl Rove

Before the debates, Romney was much further behind. Then, he came out looking like he just may not be a right wing fanatic after all. He came out like a moderate. It took Obama totally by surprise.

And the American public suddenly warmed to a basically nice guy. They thought maybe he could relate to what they want after all. Maybe he wasn't really like the babbling fanatics.

But the dopes on the hard right took it to mean that THEY were the ones America wanted. So a few of them shot off their self righteous mouths, and reminded us who they REALLY are.

And Romney lost. So did the blabbermouths. America spoke!

After Reagan won, the hard core left wing fanatics could not believe they were out of touch with America either. They ranted and raved, until it finally sunk in. It took twelve annoying years before they finally ran a moderate named Clinton.

How long do you think it will take for the current bunch of brain damaged fanatics to get it? Anyone making predictions? Years? Decades? Ever???
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
jacka123
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 5:59:45 PM

May be harsh Marty, but it's perfect logic.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 5:56:23 PM

evidently, neither does the hard left, the voted the clueless one in for four more years, much to the detriment of the country.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,643
Points:319,595
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 3:57:27 PM

"if you think life is good then you must have always been on welfare"

That's harsh and unwarranted.

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,520
Points:1,846,275
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 3:50:26 PM

Michiganian, >>Once again, those who do not provide non-biased bonafied journalistic linked citations are big fat liars with their pants on fire.<<
---
Can you provide a 'non-biased bonafied journalistic linked citation' to that? If not, you'll need a fire extinguisher pronto!
Profile Pic
florida1541
Veteran Author Columbus

Posts:399
Points:4,760
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 11:00:19 AM

nick: you won please stop being so angery that is for us loser,s so please be quiety and get in line for your check we will pay one more time it,s over you won what more do you want ? if you think life is good then you must have always been on welfare and we do have many that have spent their whole lives being takers that is why we are where we are even the liberal media can,t hide from the fact,s on the streets no stop,s to help others anymore half the children can,t go to school without being picked on and if you go off on vaction chance are when you get back something you worked forr will be gone because that is where we are today
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,197
Points:1,206,725
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 9:08:17 AM

Once again, those who do not provide non-biased bonafied journalistic linked citations are big fat liars with their pants on fire.
Profile Pic
jacka123
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 8:40:13 AM

Oh, we get it, but we won't forget it! You can try to shut us up, but we don't give up that easily.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 7:22:02 AM

NickHammer: "How sad for you that someone you consider a "lightweight" proves you wrong time and again."

It's really sad that you *think* you've proven me wrong! You don't even come close to understanding the issue. You seem to get comfort from cherry-picking something that I wrote; taking it out of context; twisting and contorting it until it is unrecognizable; finding some irrelevant fragment of data to refute it; and then thumping your chest claiming you won. That has become your modus operandi and that's really pitiful. "Lightweight" is an apt description.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,477
Points:3,141,870
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:34:07 AM

>>You are such a lightweight.<<

How sad for you that someone you consider a "lightweight" proves you wrong time and again.

>>I proved that what *I* said was correct.<<

No, you didn't, and simply saying so does not make it true. All you did was prove that you were one of the sore losers trying to come up with any possible excuse for Romney not winning (except for actually blaming Romney - "Nothing about Romney lost the election for him"). No "experts" debated this point. No one even close to an "expert" debated it; not now, not "in the days after the election". The links you provided only reinforce the point that it was ludicrous to ever make that claim, such as:

- from your first link - "It’s a little noticed fact that in two weeks following every presidential election, votes continue to be reported…by the millions. ... It’s likely that by Thanksgiving, the final vote tally will show Romney very close to or even slightly exceeding McCain’s total.
So there are probably no missing voters."

- from your second link - "Remember when I wrote the following two days after the election?: ...So in the end the difference might not be that far off between the two years."

- your third link is titled "The Myth of the Missing Three Million Republicans". Heck, even they call it a myth!!!

- as I pretty much wrote before, your fourth link is simply a bunch of user comments on a right-wing blog.

Worst of all, you NEVER proved your claim that "Had all the McCain voters showed up to vote for Romney, then Romney would be the President-elect." You NEVER showed that "in the days after the election" the votes that McCain had in 2008 would have beaten Obama. And you know why you never proved it? Because it wasn't true. It was NEVER true, and you know it. If it was, you would have gladly shown us all the numbers proving your claim to be true, as opposed to Commentary Magazine refuting it THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION as simply an idea that "offers a certain degree of cold comfort for conservatives and Republicans".

I offer you a chance to PROVE your claims, and all you can come up with is personal attacks, links that say the opposite of what you claim, and the old "I'm right because I say I'm right"? All you've proven is that when it comes to making up things and being completely wrong, you're the heavyweight champion.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,853
Points:3,426,695
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 1:31:48 PM

So did Roosevelt, for that matter..

So where is the hard left absolutely wrong?
1) gun control - they need to dump this, just like the right needs to dump objections to abortion. In both cases, the laws that are already on the books are more than enough restriction, if they are enforced.

2) fiscal - get control of government spending. Get control of growth of federal government and government employment.

3) immigration - while we need immigration reform, open borders is not acceptable and will not work.

4) social programs - get control of the growth of social programs and they should not be offered to illegals. Social programs need NOT to be a way of life, they need to be a springboard to self-reliance.As well, it strikes me that the far left is more than willing to sacrifice our personal freedoms of choice in order to ensure compliance with what they "feel" is "fair". We can make opportunity "fair", and have been trying to do that for some 50 years in America. Great, but you cannot make OUTCOME "the same" for everyone. Some work harder than others, and sometimes folks hit it lucky. There's no accounting for that.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,520
Points:1,846,275
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 10:53:42 AM

btc1, >>But they and Karl Rove have succeeded at one thing. They have taken America back to the times of Lincoln.<<
---
You must mean the present administration as Lincoln violated the US Constitution repeatedly.
Profile Pic
trugasCA
Champion Author California

Posts:7,773
Points:396,895
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 10:05:48 AM

lt's all over Smile.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,513
Points:885,870
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 1:10:51 AM

The right needs to understand they are the radicals they tried to convince America was the left. It is the Radical Right, now. The majority has spoken twice.

But they and Karl Rove have succeeded at one thing. They have taken America back to the times of Lincoln.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,678
Points:741,115
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 11:10:27 PM

I think there biggest problem is that they never take responsibility for their own mistakes, they always try to blame it on something else (usually the left).

The first step in any recovery is to recognize that they do have a problem. Until they're able to admit when they;re wrong, they won't be able to learn from their mistakes.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 11:04:27 PM

NickHammer: "So difficult, in fact, that NOT ONE of your 4 links proves me wrong."

You are such a lightweight. I proved that what *I* said was correct. So, if I'm right (i.e., everything I claimed is correct) then *you* must be wrong. You cited a *later* time/date to disprove my statement, but that was clearly irrelevant. (And I had previously admitted that the argument went away as more votes were counted, anyways.) Thus, in essence, each of the four links proved you wrong.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,477
Points:3,141,870
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 9:55:55 PM

>>NickHammer: "But, please, PROVE me wrong."

I believe that I did. Not that it was difficult......<<

Apparently, it's much more difficult than you are leading us to believe. So difficult, in fact, that NOT ONE of your 4 links proves me wrong.

- NOT ONE of your 4 links showed McCain's votes in any state that Obama won in 2012 to be greater than Obama's votes just one day after the 2012 election.
- NOT ONE of your 4 links comes close to making the claim that "If everyone who voted for McCain showed up to vote, Romney would have won".

In fact, your first two links say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming (not the first time you've done this), your third link says pretty much nothing, and your fourth link is to a bunch of user comments on a right-wing blog.

>>That same morning, talk radio and various blogs debated the idea that the "missing" McCain voters cost Romney the election.<<

I have no doubt that you listened to right-wing "talk radio" and went to right-wing "various blogs" the day after the election (as evidenced by all of your links), and many of these shell-shocked people were probably trying to come up with any excuse they could in order to rationalize how they could have been soooo wrong. But these are the same people who fooled you righties (and fooled themselves, as well) into thinking that Romney was ahead in the polls and going to win. I certainly wouldn't call them "experts".
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 7:35:38 PM

NickHammer: "By 2:30pm THE DAY AFTER the election, Obama had more votes than McCain finished with. Please, show us all the states where McCain had more votes in 2008 than Obama had just one day after the 2012 election."

On Wedneday morning, Nov.7th, Romney still had ~3M votes *less* than McCain's final tally in 2008. At the time, Romney was ~3M votes behind Obama. That same morning, talk radio and various blogs debated the idea that the "missing" McCain voters cost Romney the election. The notion has since been laid to rest by events.

Here's an example. Here's another. And another. One more.

NickHammer: "But, please, PROVE me wrong."

I believe that I did. Not that it was difficult......
Profile Pic
jacka123
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 7:20:24 PM

Oh, the right and the hard right get it ok. We lost the election. But we didn't lose any more than you did. Obama is everyone's President. He won't do any more for you, than he does for us. And when he does nothing, it will hurt us all equally. The only difference is, that we know it's going to be worse than his first 4 years, and you guys just don't know it yet. But you will, soon enough.

[Edited by: jacka123 at 11/17/2012 7:21:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,477
Points:3,141,870
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 7:13:54 PM

>>What part of that don't you understand?<<

Uh, that would be the part where you claimed something that is most likely not true. If it is, please back it up with proof.

>>The point was debated in the days after the election; before the numbers we see today.<<

By whom? Please provide the names of these "experts".

>>If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that millions of votes have been added to the totals since then.<<

By 2:30pm THE DAY AFTER the election, Obama had more votes than McCain finished with. Please, show us all the states where McCain had more votes in 2008 than Obama had just one day after the 2012 election. And don't forget to provide the names of these "experts", who would make such a claim knowing that there were still ~3.5 million more votes to count.

>>What was debatable then is no longer possible. Even you should be able to understand that.<<

I understand that you write things based on how you want to believe they are, but are not factually correct. I don't believe it was even "debatable then". But, please, PROVE me wrong.

[Edited by: NickHammer at 11/17/2012 7:16:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2012 8:15:26 AM

NickHammer: "Something you yourself even admitted you were wrong about?"

What part of that don't you understand? The point was debated in the days after the election; before the numbers we see today. If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that millions of votes have been added to the totals since then. What was debatable then is no longer possible. Even you should be able to understand that.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,477
Points:3,141,870
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 10:23:56 PM

>>The difference is that mine are plausible and have been debated by experts...<<

Really? "Experts" debated the "If everyone who voted for McCain showed up to vote, Romney would have won" whine? Something you yourself even admitted you were wrong about? What kind of "experts" can't look at simple numbers and see that there is NOT ONE state that Obama won in 2012 that he wouldn't have won against McCain's numbers?
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 6:22:40 PM

EKEugene: "Oh wait... math... never mind."

I know, it's obviously a subject you should avoid! Well, I guess you can probably handle simple math. LOL!
Profile Pic
EKEugene
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:589
Points:12,175
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:46:32 PM


Damn - I left out the punchline:

"If Fox Noise had done THEIR job, their viewers would have seen this coming and Romney need not have been 'shellshocked'".


>> mine are plausible and have been debated by experts... <<

Say what? All of my fine whines have also "been debated by experts" whatever that's worth, except number 2, which is simple math.

Oh wait... math... never mind.


[Edited by: EKEugene at 11/16/2012 5:49:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:45:07 PM

EKEugene: "Oboy, the whine tasting..."

The difference is that mine are plausible and have been debated by experts, while yours are just, well, ridiculous. There is some humor there, but don't give up your day job!
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,853
Points:3,426,695
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:43:31 PM

Topic: The hard right still doesn't get it

--Neither does the hard left. And to boot, the lefties don't seem to understand the simplest rules of finance. You know, like "you can't spend more than you make"?
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:38:42 PM

btc1: "First of all why did they not?? AND, President Obama had more votes this time than last time."

Actually, we're both wrong. Romney now has 800k votes more than McCain (59.1M vs 58.3M). But, Obama has 4.3M votes less than he had in 2008 (62.6M vs 66.9M). Obama won by 8.5M votes in 2008 and by 3.5M votes so far in 2012.


[Edited by: turbosaab at 11/16/2012 5:41:18 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EKEugene
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:589
Points:12,175
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:31:36 PM


Oboy, the whine tasting excuse-a-thon is still on. I've got some I just fermented:

"If Romney hadn't lied about Jeep moving to China he might have won"
"If Romney and Ryan had carried their three home states and simply split the swing states, they would have won"
"If Romney hadn't lied about Obama being responsible for gas prices he might have won"
"Without racists, Romney wouldn't have even had a chance"
"If Romney surrogates hadn't worked so hard to suppress the vote in Florida and elsewhere, he would have won (that obviously backfired)
"If Romney hadn't allied himself with misogynist candidates he would have won (definitely)"
"If Romney hadn't declared 'corporations are people my friend' he might have got more votes from the latter instead of the former"...

etc etc etc.

Mmmm. Two thousand twelve. Good year for red whine.


[Edited by: EKEugene at 11/16/2012 5:34:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,513
Points:885,870
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:18:58 PM

A lot of "IF's" there turbo.

This one stands out; "If everyone who voted for McCain showed up to vote, Romney would have won."

First of all why did they not?? AND, President Obama had more votes this time than last time.

Like the title of the thread says, Y'all don't get it.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:08:05 PM

YDG: "There were two cliffs, thanks to the Shariah law fundamentalist hard right. Without them, Romney would have won."

Without Hurricane Sandy, Romney would have won.
If the media had done their jobs, Romney would have won.
Without racists, Romney would have won.
If everyone who voted for McCain showed up to vote, Romney would have won.
If Obama had been honest about Benghazi, Romney would have won.

There are other reasons than your fantasy.

YDG: "Obama was simply the lesser of two evils. That is why there were so many undecided voters right up to the end. They could not decide which one NOT to vote for."

This was *not* a "lesser of two evils" election. The majority of voters for each candidate believed in their candidate. Polling indicated that there were relatively few undecideds....perhaps just a few %. Undecideds were looking for a reason to support their candidate. That's why Sandy had such an impact. If they couldn't find one, they didn't vote.

It appears that the "hard right" and most other people *do* get it. Unfortunately, YOU do not.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 11/16/2012 5:09:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 3:19:17 PM

There were two cliffs, thanks to the Shariah law fundamentalist hard right. Without them, Romney would have won.

Obama was simply the lesser of two evils. That is why there were so many undecided voters right up to the end. They could not decide which one NOT to vote for.

So, with that as the criteria, you might say that your side won :o)
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 12:46:53 PM

NickHammer: "But that's not going to be good enough for you, is it?"

No. Senior Lecturer is not the same as "Professor" regardless of what the University states while under pressure. I know many Professors, and he's no Professor.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 12:43:39 PM

YDG: "If Obama had taken the helm in a good period, he probably would have been an average President. He would have been good enough (Sorry Turbosaab, but your herd mentality is wrong)."

Are you assuming that I think he is the worst President for some reason other than his performance over the past 4 years? It doesn't matter how he'd rate under different circumstances. Regardless of his favorable attributes, he's let us down and he's failed. How is that "herd mentality"? Evidently, a little more than half the herd took a wrong turn and went over the cliff. Now, they're dragging the rest of us over.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 8:39:46 AM

Ah, but he TALKS like a professor. Always lecturing, but never really connecting.

If Obama had taken the helm in a good period, he probably would have been an average President. He would have been good enough (Sorry Turbosaab, but your herd mentality is wrong).

But these are not normal times. We have huge problems. The economy is only one. We also have a rapidly warming planet, the Middle East about to blow, China in ascendancy, and as Romney points out, a potential threat from Russia. We really need a Reagan or a Roosevelt. What we do not need is a lecture.

Come to think of it, that is what we keep getting from the right. Lectures on sin, such as abortion, contraception and gay marriage. So given the choice between the preachers and the teacher, America chose the teacher.

Boring, but still better than the Taliban.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 12:00:06 AM

The Hard Right still dosn't get it ..........the understatement.

All together now ,

oh heavenly father grant me the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know those I can not.

Amen
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,477
Points:3,141,870
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 11:22:03 PM

>>YDG: "But he is not a strong leader either. Professors seldom are. And after the mess left by his predecessors, we needed strong leadership. We didn't get it, so Obama should have lost."

He was never a professor, but I agree with the rest.<<

Statement Regarding Barack Obama from The University of Chicago Law School:

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a ***PROFESSOR*** in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as ***PROFESSORS***, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a ***PROFESSOR*** in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

Hmmm....His employer sure seems to think he WAS a professor. But that's not going to be good enough for you, is it?
Profile Pic
jacka123
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 7:31:26 PM

You liberals can say what you want, but about 1 year into this next 4, you'll be saying to yourself, what the h--l did we do? Don't expect Obama to create MORE jobs, he will actually create fewer jobs for at least the next 6 months. Companies are beginning to lay people off, not hire, because of Obamacare, among other things. Just heard on CNN, that Texas Instruments are going to layoff 1700. Heard about 3 others laying off thousands. Most any company that has between 50 and 100 people, will be cutting people before they have to give them Obamacare. The unemployment picture is looking mighty bleak. You may not believe it now, but you'll find out, REAL SOON.

[Edited by: jacka123 at 11/15/2012 7:38:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 5:14:13 PM

YDG: "Obama is no prize compared to a lot of Presidents. Does that satisfy you, or will dementia drive you into yet another obfuscation?"

Did you really need the second sentence? Obama is no prize compared to *all* past Presidents.

YDG: "By the way, Mr. right wing know it all, I voted for Romney. I was willing to take the chance that he would govern the country like he did his home state. Sensibly."

I'd like to believe you, but I don't. An ideologue like you who is so demonstrably intolerant of the right would never vote for Romney.

YDG: "And, of course, he did the same as President."

I suppose you think the debt disappeared during Clinton's term too. I suppose the little recession Clinton handed Bush had nothing to do with it or 9/11, or..... You lefties are all alike.

YDG: "So I was hoping Romney would tell the Tea Party to bugger off, and govern sensibly like he did before."

Certainly you were astute enough to know the answer to that *before* you pulled the lever for Romney. No? The Tea Party's *only* mission is to bring fiscal sanity to government, why would you hope Romney would abandon them? From your screed, it sounds like you should be embracing them. Unless.....

YDG: "People heard that, and voted for the lesser man who didn't have the howling mob behind him."

It wasn't a howling mob to you because you agreed with them! You didn't hear them because it was your voice. The far left was howling just as loudly, if not more so, as the far right. In fact, OWS was more of a "mob" than anything the right ever had.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 5:07:17 PM

Thought so.

Oh well, let's continue.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 4:53:37 PM

YDG: "Have it your way, Turb. "Plural is singular". OK.*"

A troglodyte makes a mistake and, somehow, that's my fault? Same old sluggo; lost in the weeds (semantics) and can't see the big picture.

YDG: "Obama is no prize compared to a lot of Presidents. Does that satisfy you, or will dementia drive you into yet another obfuscation?"

Careful, that'll really confuse sluggo!

[Edited by: turbosaab at 11/15/2012 4:55:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,492
Points:1,802,760
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 4:23:49 PM

tim, if you believe in fiscal and personal responsibility you are hard right.
Profile Pic
jpmorgas
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:12,963
Points:2,515,290
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 4:18:36 PM

what is a hard core right? the conservative wing or right wing is oriented around the constitution of U.S.. I don't see the problem of being conservative. In fact politics oriented to the constitution is how our founders thought it would be the most successful. The general public is oriented to a hand out policy where they can get something without working for it. the left wing liberal democrats and republicans are really screwing the country by electing a person who wasn't born in this country and has stated that he is a muslim. If you don't believe it, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

what's wrong with muslims? They have a jihad going against U.S.A. and Israel. They are our enemies.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,000
Points:820,380
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 3:31:51 PM

So is your definition of "hard right" anyone right of Obama's position?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,492
Points:1,802,760
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 3:13:15 PM

"He inherited a surplus (I mean money in the bank) when he became governor. He promptly ran up a deficit handing out fat contracts to his rich buddies.

And, of course, he did the same as President."

When Bush became president he did not have a surplus (I mean money in the bank).
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 3:10:18 PM

OK, to be more specific for the one with political rage induced brain damage.

Obama is no prize compared to a lot of Presidents. Does that satisfy you, or will dementia drive you into yet another obfuscation?

Obama took the reigns after the second worse downturn in moder times. At a time when we needed a Johnson or a Reagan, we got professor Talkalot. He made promises that could not be kept because he did not have the experience to recognize how bad it was. To me, he still does not.

Romney has experience in recognizing floundering economic entities, and has fixed some of them. That is the experience we need now. Obama has put some things in play that will eventually lead us out of this, but America needs n accelerated momentum right now.

By the way, Mr. right wing know it all, I voted for Romney. I was willing to take the chance that he would govern the country like he did his home state. Sensibly.

The precedent is there. George W Bush left the taxpayers at Arlington Stadium with the bills while his rich buddies made a fortune.

He inherited a surplus (I mean money in the bank) when he became governor. He promptly ran up a deficit handing out fat contracts to his rich buddies.

And, of course, he did the same as President.

So I was hoping Romney would tell the Tea Party to bugger off, and govern sensibly like he did before.

We will never know if he would have, because the hard right kept a cacophony of raging rhetoric going in the background. And that loud rage drowned out the message Romney had. People heard that, and voted for the lesser man who didn't have the howling mob behind him.

Sensible people are just funny that way.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,492
Points:1,802,760
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 3:07:05 PM

"Yeah, I'll bet they do.

Tell me, how did these conservative analysts' "predictions" work out last week"

One word:

EUROPE!
Profile Pic
EKEugene
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:589
Points:12,175
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 2:50:17 PM


Have it your way, Turb. "Plural is singular". OK.*

That goes well with "fascism is socialism", "defeat is victory", "ignorance is strength" and all the rest of the Doublethink of Bubblethink that we see manifest all over the forum and the CEC (Conservative Entertainment Complex).

But you'll have to find your own way out of that.

(*by the way this same point, still in the plural, was spelled out for what it means in the OP, but hey, whatever works for ya...)

- - - - - - - -
>> Conservative analysts predict national 'disaster' after election <<

Yeah, I'll bet they do.

Tell me, how did these conservative analysts' "predictions" work out last week?

OK then.


[Edited by: EKEugene at 11/15/2012 2:56:08 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,492
Points:1,802,760
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 2:44:37 PM

maria....

From Walter Williams:

Williams planned an afternoon speech called “the role of government in a free society” that touched on the economy but mostly focused on political philosophy. He compared the nation’s course to the fall of Rome, describing what he said was a loss of liberty.

“It’s not a result of politicians,” Williams said. “It’s the result of the American people. Most Americans think that they should have the right to live at the expense of other Americans, and that’s what politicians get elected on — the promise to give somebody something that belongs to somebody else.”

Conservative analysts predict national 'disaster' after election

BTW, here is the view from the state:

"Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Director Jim Byard Jr. pointed to the state’s strong auto industry and a united, statewide effort to support its military bases. He said the growth of the aerospace industry in Mobile adds to that positive outlook."

Oh yes...the very same Jim Byard Jr. who used to be the mayor of the City of Prattville where I live. He is such an economic expert that the city was on the verge of bankruptcy until we had a mayor get elected that had the manhood to finally cut some government spending. No more "good ole' boys" network.

[Edited by: AFSNCO at 11/15/2012 2:46:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 2:40:46 PM

EKEugene: "Um, Turbo, he's not talking about Romney."

Um, sluggo, he *is* talking about Romney. Notice how he begins with "Obama is no prize, but"? That means he's making a comparison. Since *we* are not going away, the only thing/person that he could have been stuck with instead of Obama is Romney.

Now clean up your own fractured "whine"!
Profile Pic
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:26,913
Points:1,821,770
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 2:38:50 PM

I love it......."the hard right"......that is better than the limp left.

I Wish the Commander and Chief had a clue ,as the leader of the USA, what was happening. He is just waiting for the investigations to tell him what is happening on his watch. Guess I would not to follow him into the charge.
Profile Pic
EKEugene
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:589
Points:12,175
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 1:48:32 PM


Um, Turbo, he's not talking about Romney. He's talking about you and the rest of Red Whine imbibers, desperately looking everywhere but within to find excuses for an electoral smackdown. "Sandy did it". "Brown people were bribed". "The electorate are stupid". On and on ad nauseum.

The word "fundamentalistS" is plural. Mitt Romney, who is by definition one man, cannot be a plural.


Cleanup on aisle six! Whine spill!
Post a reply Back to Topics