Actually, Wordkyle, Romney (and the Republican Party) lost because more Americans than ever can spot a liar when they hear one. I did not vote for Obama because he is black, I voted for him because I don't think that he will sell America to the highest bidder, and won't fight a poor person for his last nickel. You can hide, deny, lie and obfuscate as much as you want, but that won't change the facts.
This would be funny, if Most all of Obama's closest advisers weren't all white males. Other than Valerie Jarrett, who is both female and African American. Look it up, it is true.
So, while Obama did use them and pander to them for votes and election, when he fills his closest posts, he goes to the white males, same as republicans.
What's the Constitutional Limits on a President's power to issue an executive order? Can he, if he so chooses, issue an executive order postponing an eleection and hold over in office? The knee jerk reation is "of course he can't", but where does the Constitutional basis for that response come from? I'm just asking in anyone knows.
2:27 On all of your bragging on Obama you follow with I think and then follow that with you can't change the facts. So which is it facts or what you think? Typical lib gives both answers so he will be sure and get it correct.
I bundled 500 thousand for Obammy's reelection. Then I started a solar company and got a 500 million dollar loan from him. A year later I went bankrupt. Is this a great country or what?
1) I am not a liberal. I am a conservative that could no longer put up with Romney and his people lying all the time.
2) When I speak, or write, I try to be clear between my opinion, my interpretation of fact, and fact. The failure of Republicans to do this is the basis of 1).
3) The primary fact is that the Republicans spent 4 years trying to tear Obama down, sifted through a bunch of radical candidates to choose Romney and then spent a ton of money to lose. Let me repeat - lose.
4) An good secondary fact is that Obama was not elected by blacks, people on welfare or people that are too stupid to know better. He was elected by a cross section of the American people.
5) This one is my opinion, but I would be willing to bet that just as many people on welfare or food stamps voted for Romney as Obama.
My conclusion (opinion):
The Republicans have run on propaganda and misinformation for 50years. Their problem is that they have bought in to their own lies, and can't seem to understand why nobody wants to follow them any more. (and it will get worse as more good information gets to people).
Hope that helps clear things up for you. If you want to debate the facts, great. If you just want to throw around shallow insults, go hang out in a bar somewhere and cry with your theoreticaly conservates buddies.
What do you mean "white"? One is tan, another is bronze, another is ochre, another is pasty, another is ruddy, another is albino, another is pinkish, etc. etc. etc.
The GOP may go down for its beliefs, but at least they don't compromise on their beliefs by pandering to certain demographics with taxpayer-funded goodies. I think that's admirable.
You ought to ask instead WHY minorities in this country all vote the same way. Are they ALL part of a Hive mind......like the The Borg on Star Trek?
415 - You speak as though you are an intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable person. Please reinforce that impression by presenting some data to support your points 1-5. Otherwise your stated stereotypical Liberal Democrat opinion is exactly the same as that of a partisan Liberal faking credibility by preemptively stating "I am a Conservative." I look forward to your intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable response.
Nice shot at a diversion Wordkyle, but if you will go back and look at 1-5, they don't seem to be statements of fact that lend themselves to the support you are asking for. So, instead of engaging what was said, you dismiss with a sidestep. (Reminds me of Rush). Regardless, here goes.
1) I am a 53 year old white male, that never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate before this election. I have a degree in economics and am a business owner.
2) I believe that what I wrote above and am writing here backs this up. I have clearly deliniated between what I hold as facts and what I am putting forward as opinion.
3) I don't believe that there is any question about the "tearing Obama down" statement. Just looking at the filibuster records should be enought to support that. I hope you are not saying that Perry and Santorum are not radical? How about the spent a bunch of money thing? I know you don't belive the lose part, but check all the newspapers. They will tell you.
4) Obama collected a number of votes that far exceeded the number of people on welfare, the number of blacks, etc. Exit poling also showed that Obama voters tended to have a higher education level. Yes, a bunch of blacks voted for Obama becase he is black, but just as many crackers voted against him because he is black.
5) This was clearly stated as an unsubstantiated opinion, but if you look at the demographics of the vote, Romney carried the poorest states in the nation, with the highest percentage of people "on the dole", so I think that the assumption is viable.
I know that you are smart, and know how to do research, so I will "assume" that you did not use facts to come after me because you don't have them.
Nice try at an end around, but going back to the original post, there are more and more people every day that can see through these empty arguments.
I will promise you this. In four years it will be as hard for a Dem to get elected as Pres, as it was for a Repub after 8 years of Bush. Hide and watch...That's just how politics go.
541 - I gave you the chance to back up your claims, but your response failed to do so. In order:
#1 "...never voted for a Republican presidential candidate before this election." How does this bolster your earlier #1 claim of being a Conservative?
#2 "I try..." I'll accept this, although you still fail to support your earlier claim that Republicans don't.
#3 Your "tearing Obama down" is a manipulative statement of opinion. "Showing loyal opposition" is just as accurate, but it's your opinion and your point of view you express. Not a fact.
#4 A primary fact is that Obama could not have won the election without the votes of blacks, people on welfare and people too stupid to know better. The near-worship of Obama (citations upon request) by his supporters shows that a great many voted for him without regard to facts or information. Jamie Foxx's comment was one indication.
#5. You're free to express your opinion of those who supported Romney, but your justification is a flawed argument. "Percentage" has nothing to do with total votes. California has the most welfare recipients, and New York the second most. Two of the most-populated states, both Democrat strongholds.
Your Liberal Democrat-ish criticisms of Republicans conflict with your initial claim of being a Conservative. There is much to criticize about Republican politicians, but your masquerade smacks of a partisan wolf in cheap clothing.
Here's what you have to know about wk, he's a loser, that's why he hangs out with all these losers. I observe losers, can spot one in a few posts on these pages.
"We will criticize everything you do or say, but won't state what criteria we are using, and are free to change our critereia at any time."
Followed by:
"We will not use the same criteria to judge our guy as we will to judge your guy".
1) Would you like to play "quote Ayn Rand?" What proof would you like that I am a conservative?
2) Look at what you wrote (and write all the time) You constantly express soft facts and opinion as truth.
3) Look at history. "Loyal Opposition" has always meant stating your case and then working for a solution. The Republicans continue to practice "do it our way or we are going to shut the whole thing down". If Bush had been treated this way, you would have been trying to throw people in prison.
4) Without the white male vote, the fundamental (non) Christian vote and the too stupid to know better vote, Romney would bave been under 30%. Why use an argument that works both ways?
5) I agree with your thoughts on this. Let's just agree that the Republican's broad statements that Obama was elected by welfare recipients is patisan crap, and move on.
You work really hard to throw up smoke screens, but the fact is, you lost. The party of "freedom", "family values" and "fiscal conservatives" is none of these things, and people are starting to see this. Each of these three things are good and noble, but they are convictions, not labels. Denial is just dragging out the inevtiable.
Well to be fair the porch monkeys are not as smart as white folks. I be to stupit to gets one of dem photo I.D.s but I shore can gets me a check from Obama money. He jus gibs it to us .
720 - Yet another squandered chance to bolster your arguments. Additionally, more unsupported claims to support your initial unsupported claims. As anti-Republican partisan statements of opinion, your comments are fine. Prefacing your arguments with "I'm a Conservative" was inconsistent with the rest of your message. With your credibility and your claims called into question, you haven't done much in the way of improving either.
As for you other yay-hoos, find anywhere that I have ever stated or implied that I was extra (or even pseudo-) intelligent. You can't, because I've never done that. That impression is what you guys are saying, not me.
Word - You continue to confuse "Republican" with "Conservative". Two different things. Why don't you give us YOUR definition of a conservative so we have something concrete to work with.
.jpg)
39 comments:
Guess they didn't get Romney's binders.
That would be a good argument Mr. Green if the left had anyone "within the demographic" you speak of that wasn't as crooked as the day long.
Sooooooooo, demographic brownie's and blackies don't mean shiate.
Plus, it's a sad day in America when becasue of the color of your skin you should be elected.
Yeah 1:27, soooooo none of these guys are crooked?! You're delusional. BTW, the fifties are gone, get used to it.
Have fun at your secession planning meeting tonight. Yeeeehaw!!
Demographics re-elected Jesse Jackson, Jr. Demographics re-elected "our Lord and Savior, Barack Obama."
Voting based solely on demographics ain't something to crow about. I guess it wins elections, but it's Idiocracy in action, and you're celebrating it.
Redistricting works!!
Oh well, Mama Tried!
Demographics re-elected "our Lord and Savior, Barack Obama."
Is that what all the "lord and savior" hub-ub is about? A comedian making a joke?
Y'all are going to have to get crazy about somethng else, he was clearly making a joke.
Actually, Wordkyle, Romney (and the Republican Party) lost because more Americans than ever can spot a liar when they hear one. I did not vote for Obama because he is black, I voted for him because I don't think that he will sell America to the highest bidder, and won't fight a poor person for his last nickel. You can hide, deny, lie and obfuscate as much as you want, but that won't change the facts.
2:18, What is sad is that he wasn't joking. That's how the coloreds feel about him. And evidently you do too.
Praise Hussein Obama and gaze upon his likeness...do it now.
2:27: How did you get the internet? I didn't think they had it back in 1955!
2:27
And you would know how "coloreds" feel??????
Less than 30 of the House Repub relected had contested races....thanks to gerrymandering.
At some point the courts will hand that little scheme and all will be over.
This would be funny, if Most all of Obama's closest advisers weren't all white males. Other than Valerie Jarrett, who is both female and African American. Look it up, it is true.
So, while Obama did use them and pander to them for votes and election, when he fills his closest posts, he goes to the white males, same as republicans.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/11/28/obamas-senior-white-house-aides-men/
What's the Constitutional Limits on a President's power to issue an executive order? Can he, if he so chooses, issue an executive order postponing an eleection and hold over in office? The knee jerk reation is "of course he can't", but where does the Constitutional basis for that response come from? I'm just asking in anyone knows.
No women is a problem.
2:27 On all of your bragging on Obama you follow with I think and then follow that with you can't change the facts. So which is it facts or what you think? Typical lib gives both answers so he will be sure and get it correct.
We're all doomed.
3:21...No wimmen is only a problem if Obama needs somebody to make him a sammitch!!!
I bundled 500 thousand for Obammy's reelection. Then I started a solar company and got a 500 million dollar loan from him. A year later I went bankrupt. Is this a great country or what?
19 angry (white)men.
meh
3:38
Not sure I could follow what you were saying but:
1) I am not a liberal. I am a conservative that could no longer put up with Romney and his people lying all the time.
2) When I speak, or write, I try to be clear between my opinion, my interpretation of fact, and fact. The failure of Republicans to do this is the basis of 1).
3) The primary fact is that the Republicans spent 4 years trying to tear Obama down, sifted through a bunch of radical candidates to choose Romney and then spent a ton of money to lose. Let me repeat - lose.
4) An good secondary fact is that Obama was not elected by blacks, people on welfare or people that are too stupid to know better. He was elected by a cross section of the American people.
5) This one is my opinion, but I would be willing to bet that just as many people on welfare or food stamps voted for Romney as Obama.
My conclusion (opinion):
The Republicans have run on propaganda and misinformation for 50years. Their problem is that they have bought in to their own lies, and can't seem to understand why nobody wants to follow them any more. (and it will get worse as more good information gets to people).
Hope that helps clear things up for you. If you want to debate the facts, great. If you just want to throw around shallow insults, go hang out in a bar somewhere and cry with your theoreticaly conservates buddies.
It's a sad day in America when it's more important to be a welfare carrying loser than an intelligent white person with class.
If you look only above the eyebrows, it's a reasonably diverse group, I guess. Black, brown, grey... Even the chrome domes have some representation!
What do you mean "white"? One is tan, another is bronze, another is ochre, another is pasty, another is ruddy, another is albino, another is pinkish, etc. etc. etc.
DF Color Wheel Guy
The GOP may go down for its beliefs, but at least they don't compromise on their beliefs by pandering to certain demographics with taxpayer-funded goodies. I think that's admirable.
You ought to ask instead WHY minorities in this country all vote the same way. Are they ALL part of a Hive mind......like the The Borg on Star Trek?
The Jackal
415 - You speak as though you are an intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable person. Please reinforce that impression by presenting some data to support your points 1-5. Otherwise your stated stereotypical Liberal Democrat opinion is exactly the same as that of a partisan Liberal faking credibility by preemptively stating "I am a Conservative." I look forward to your intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable response.
Nice shot at a diversion Wordkyle, but if you will go back and look at 1-5, they don't seem to be statements of fact that lend themselves to the support you are asking for. So, instead of engaging what was said, you dismiss with a sidestep. (Reminds me of Rush). Regardless, here goes.
1) I am a 53 year old white male, that never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate before this election. I have a degree in economics and am a business owner.
2) I believe that what I wrote above and am writing here backs this up. I have clearly deliniated between what I hold as facts and what I am putting forward as opinion.
3) I don't believe that there is any question about the "tearing Obama down" statement. Just looking at the filibuster records should be enought to support that. I hope you are not saying that Perry and Santorum are not radical? How about the spent a bunch of money thing? I know you don't belive the lose part, but check all the newspapers. They will tell you.
4) Obama collected a number of votes that far exceeded the number of people on welfare, the number of blacks, etc. Exit poling also showed that Obama voters tended to have a higher education level. Yes, a bunch of blacks voted for Obama becase he is black, but just as many crackers voted against him because he is black.
5) This was clearly stated as an unsubstantiated opinion, but if you look at the demographics of the vote, Romney carried the poorest states in the nation, with the highest percentage of people "on the dole", so I think that the assumption is viable.
I know that you are smart, and know how to do research, so I will "assume" that you did not use facts to come after me because you don't have them.
Nice try at an end around, but going back to the original post, there are more and more people every day that can see through these empty arguments.
I will promise you this. In four years it will be as hard for a Dem to get elected as Pres, as it was for a Repub after 8 years of Bush. Hide and watch...That's just how politics go.
Looks good to me no Blue Gums
In regard to Wordkyle, you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. His claim to being an intellectual is put to lie by his comments.
541 - I gave you the chance to back up your claims, but your response failed to do so. In order:
#1 "...never voted for a Republican presidential candidate before this election." How does this bolster your earlier #1 claim of being a Conservative?
#2 "I try..." I'll accept this, although you still fail to support your earlier claim that Republicans don't.
#3 Your "tearing Obama down" is a manipulative statement of opinion. "Showing loyal opposition" is just as accurate, but it's your opinion and your point of view you express. Not a fact.
#4 A primary fact is that Obama could not have won the election without the votes of blacks, people on welfare and people too stupid to know better. The near-worship of Obama (citations upon request) by his supporters shows that a great many voted for him without regard to facts or information. Jamie Foxx's comment was one indication.
#5. You're free to express your opinion of those who supported Romney, but your justification is a flawed argument. "Percentage" has nothing to do with total votes. California has the most welfare recipients, and New York the second most. Two of the most-populated states, both Democrat strongholds.
Your Liberal Democrat-ish criticisms of Republicans conflict with your initial claim of being a Conservative. There is much to criticize about
Republican politicians, but your masquerade smacks of a partisan wolf in cheap clothing.
Here's what you have to know about wk, he's a loser, that's why he hangs out with all these losers. I observe losers, can spot one in a few posts on these pages.
Wordkyle:
Typical "Republican" arguments.
"We will criticize everything you do or say, but won't state what criteria we are using, and are free to change our critereia at any time."
Followed by:
"We will not use the same criteria to judge our guy as we will to judge your guy".
1) Would you like to play "quote Ayn Rand?" What proof would you like that I am a conservative?
2) Look at what you wrote (and write all the time) You constantly express soft facts and opinion as truth.
3) Look at history. "Loyal Opposition" has always meant stating your case and then working for a solution. The Republicans continue to practice "do it our way or we are going to shut the whole thing down". If Bush had been treated this way, you would have been trying to throw people in prison.
4) Without the white male vote, the fundamental (non) Christian vote and the too stupid to know better vote, Romney would bave been under 30%. Why use an argument that works both ways?
5) I agree with your thoughts on this. Let's just agree that the Republican's broad statements that Obama was elected by welfare recipients is patisan crap, and move on.
You work really hard to throw up smoke screens, but the fact is, you lost. The party of "freedom", "family values" and "fiscal conservatives" is none of these things, and people are starting to see this. Each of these three things are good and noble, but they are convictions, not labels. Denial is just dragging out the inevtiable.
7:20 Right on. Wordy is lost in his pseudo intellectual world.
Well to be fair the porch monkeys are not as smart as white folks. I be to stupit to gets one of dem photo I.D.s but I shore can gets me a check from Obama money. He jus gibs it to us .
720 - Yet another squandered chance to bolster your arguments. Additionally, more unsupported claims to support your initial unsupported claims. As anti-Republican partisan statements of opinion, your comments are fine. Prefacing your arguments with "I'm a Conservative" was inconsistent with the rest of your message. With your credibility and your claims called into question, you haven't done much in the way of improving either.
As for you other yay-hoos, find anywhere that I have ever stated or implied that I was extra (or even pseudo-) intelligent. You can't, because I've never done that. That impression is what you guys are saying, not me.
Word - You continue to confuse "Republican" with "Conservative". Two different things. Why don't you give us YOUR definition of a conservative so we have something concrete to work with.
716 - I don't "confuse" the terms. The Republican party is the only (nationally) viable option for anyone who calls himself a Conservative.
And you want my definition of a conservative? How about what Conservatives aren't?
Post a Comment