If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   It Is Time to Throw the Social Conservatives Out of the GOP   (redstate.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, GOP, social conservatives, pro-life Democrats, close election results, Cultural Revolution, Richard Mourdock  
•       •       •

3559 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 12:07:56 AM
I'm working on it.

The libertarian bunch is the group that got pushed out when they took over, we're trying to take it back and push them out. We made the Libertarian party when we got pushed out, maybe they can go make the Totalitarian party or something.
 
2012-11-09 12:19:22 AM
Meanwhile, on April 26 of 2012 (a mere 6 and a half months ago), Erick Erickson said:

"When you have a massive black turnout for Barack Obama, and he wins them by 90%, you need as many Christian evangelicals turning out to offset that for Mitt Romney. He needs to not take social conservatives for granted."
 
2012-11-09 12:19:44 AM
The social conservatives are, as far as I can tell, the majority of the GOP.
 
2012-11-09 12:22:26 AM
I would say out of the country, but out of the GOP is a good start.
 
2012-11-09 12:31:53 AM
By the way, the article says nothing of the sort. It's Erickson saying that the GOP will lose horrifically if they don't embrace the social conservatives FURTHER. The headline and initial paragraph is the premise he rejects.
 
2012-11-09 12:54:29 AM

DamnYankees: The social conservatives are, as far as I can tell, the majority of the GOP.


Well, let's not forget the fiscal conservatives who want to repeal all social programs
 
2012-11-09 01:09:23 AM
How about all "conservatives" fark off? They're all either selfish to the point of being destructive to the social fabric, all up in everybody else's business about how they run their lives, or forming little judgemental groups to make life difficult for those they don't like; consequently they should all fark off. Assholes.
 
2012-11-09 01:14:38 AM
watching the right try to self reflect is hilarious.
 
2012-11-09 01:16:56 AM

pecosdave: I'm working on it.


I think your best long-term shot is electoral reform.

Figure out an algorithm for redistricting to end the shenanigans there; make sure it's not racistly racist racism badly disguised in blackface, but a system which recognizes and addresses that longstanding problem. Go with some manner of alternate voting mechanism like concordet, instant run-off, or whatever, that might help third parties be viable. Figure out how to make voting fully auditable to cut out wholesale fraud, yet maintain the secret ballot, and still simple enough for high schoolers to learn; talk to the computer science folk for the algorithms there, too. You can probably get some manner of voter ID, if you're willing to make obtaining it an absolute right, although you'll have to deal with the religious right's terror of ID systems. Kill the electoral college; the South may no longer be as resistant, it was pretty popular the last time it came up, and it kind of fits the theme, helping the sale on the whole package. Make it all a package, and make it fair and protecting the rights of minority groups... because you may well be one, soon.

At that point, you can afford to cut loose the Tea Party and Values Voters, without risking absolute loss of political power. You'll almost certainly lose some power (or at least the presidency) for a decade, as the second party becomes two third parties, but you can start seducing the Do-It-Yourself Democrats back out of that tent so the Democrats fission, too; and probably get the Libertarian Party going along as well. (You may have to move under their brand name; TP and VV outnumber y'all.)

The hard part is there's going to be a big chunk of the GOP who will want to fake the reform, and actually try and jigger the system even more their way. You will need to make pariahs of anyone who attempts bad faith games. Make it clear that that way lies civil war, and the rest of you will not hesitate to put anyone up against the wall to prevent the revolution from coming, because they might well be there anyway.


Of course, someone actually in your party may have another cunning plan.

DamnYankees: The social conservatives are, as far as I can tell, the majority of the GOP.


Tea Party and Values Voters look to be just under half the potential electorate; possibly just over, by actual number of voters. More if you throw out RINO "Window Shoppers", less if you count the "Fark Independent" type of Disguised Republicans.

Linky; and deeper data entry point.
 
2012-11-09 01:26:22 AM
www.rhrealitycheck.org
 
2012-11-09 01:38:36 AM

log_jammin: watching the right try to self reflect is hilarious.


It's a great example of a positive feedback loop in action.
 
2012-11-09 01:38:38 AM

dudemanbro: How about all "conservatives" fark off? They're all either selfish to the point of being destructive to the social fabric, all up in everybody else's business about how they run their lives, or forming little judgemental groups to make life difficult for those they don't like; consequently they should all fark off. Assholes.


You're not helping. At least you put conservatives in quotes because I don't think many Republicans are actually conservative anymore. Wanting less government interference in our lives does not make someone evil or selfish. Less governmental interference demands lower taxes and that the government be restricted to basic things like defense of the country and facilitating commerce. Those principles have been corrupted though. The "social" part of the "convservative" movement is neither social nor conservative. More things should be left to the states. Gay people should have the same rights to marriage as straight people. Those are actually true conservative values. The legality of marijuana should be left to the states.; We needed a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, why shouldn't the same apply to marijuana? You know what happens when a Democrat gets into the White House? They crack down on marijuana. It happened under Clinton and it is still happening with Obama.

But one of the huge problems with politics today is the polarization. People like you are not very different from Tea baggers. You feel the other party is evil and should be stopped at all costs Much like them, you feel there is no room for compromise and the only solution is to somehow exterminate those who disagree with your views.
 
2012-11-09 02:11:29 AM

Happy Hours: You're not helping.


Really? Good, 'cause I don't care.

Happy Hours: People like you are not very different from Tea baggers. You feel the other party is evil and should be stopped at all costs Much like them, you feel there is no room for compromise and the only solution is to somehow exterminate those who disagree with your views.


You don't know how I feel, or what my past is, or how I am, as evidenced by this post. So don't assume I'm anti-conservative or a totally partisan "liberal" Democrat just because I think "conservatives" should fark off. Truth is, there aren't many true conservatives around these days. Except for my cousin Larry. He and I don't agree on everything, but we get along a lot better than Congress. As for your assertion that I feel anyone should be "exterminated", that's only true of a few people, such as Grover Norquist, who are truly incapable of compromise. I didn't say anyone should be "exterminated," I said they should fark off. But enjoy your high horse.
 
2012-11-09 02:31:49 AM

abb3w: I think your best long-term shot is electoral reform.

Figure out an algorithm for redistricting to end the shenanigans there; make sure it's not racistly racist racism badly disguised in blackface, but a system which recognizes and addresses that longstanding problem. Go with some manner of alternate voting mechanism like concordet, instant run-off, or whatever, that might help third parties be viable. Figure out how to make voting fully auditable to cut out wholesale fraud, yet maintain the secret ballot, and still simple enough for high schoolers to learn; talk to the computer science folk for the algorithms there, too.


That would be great. Of course neither the Democrats or Republicans want anything resembling instant run-off or any sort of reform, it reinforces their duopoly, and by intentionally making ass-hat polarizing bills and issues they further reinforce the "have to vote for the lesser evil to keep that evil from happening game.

I recently watched a short movie made by Democrats four years ago that detailed the Chicago style politics that made sure Obama shut Clinton out at the primaries. Romney appears to have used Obama's own tactics in the primaries this last time. What he didn't count on was unlike the Democrats us freedom guys didn't actually have party loyalty to vote for him anyways, we had idea loyalty. Romney's reputation was left as debris to be swept up off the floors of the convention centers as far as I was concerned. As long as we maintain delegates, electoral college, and anything resembling it we're going to have problems with strong arming and outright election fraud.

On another note - I grew up as a minority. I lived in an area that was pushing 90% Hispanic, mostly recent immigrants and they were very cliquish at every level, I faced a lot of discrimination within the school system. Yes, white people can be discriminated against as racial minorities in the United States, the difference is we have not recourse when it happens because so many - usually left wing - people refuse to accept that it can happen or feel it's justified as some sort of deserved vengeance. Even though that group of Hispanics treated me very poorly, and yes it was racially motivated, part of the reason I fight for the recognition of bike rights is the large number of Hispanic minorities in the area I live now that have to ride through very dangerous areas for cyclist to get to work and back. I bike because I want to, they do it because they have to.

Things like the bike rights issue I just mentioned are tricky. I don't think the federal government has any place in the issue except along interstate and federal highways - where they generally do a piss-poor job. Bike-rights need to be handled at state, county, and local levels with national awareness. That's what separates me from a left winger - I don't think poorly managed federal programs are the answer to every problem.

I think this idea goes a long ways towards fixing a lot of the fraud issues.

There's a Democrat who was running for office that owns a nearby coffee shop (guess I should check to see if he won or not). He explained to me for an hour that it was wrong to expect one of those people I went to school with, had every opportunity I did plus many I didn't because they were legally a racial minority, and still live in the same state I do and were born here to show ID to vote. I still don't get it.

Something about the freedom movement. We're pretty good at making pariahs of phonies. Right now we're making due with some half-assers on our side, but as the movement grows we're going to be less tolerant of them.
 
2012-11-09 03:15:25 AM

pecosdave: The libertarian bunch


Aside from social issues. "Libertarain" is a code word for more power to corporations, less regulations for corporations, and more corporate control over our lives. Sounds nice on paper...but "libertarian" would allow mega monopolies. With only a few survicing corporations running wild...controling our employment, health care, internet, electricity, Firefighters, EMTS, etc..etc.

All without that pesky 'regulation' that says you have to treat people in the ER...or if you can't pay the bill the corporation could place you physically in a "Work Farm" until paid. HEY, with no regulation...why not? It's a 'work house' to pay off debt not a prison. Nothing in libertarianism would prevent that worst case Scifi situation. In fact we've had it before in Charles Dicken's London. Debtors' prison. Link

That's the ultimate outcome with 'libertarianism". Sounds good at first...yeah..Pot and no regs...until you know the 'no regs' applies to those corporation/people too.
 
2012-11-09 03:36:13 AM

optikeye: pecosdave: The libertarian bunch

Aside from social issues. "Libertarain" is a code word for more power to corporations, less regulations for corporations, and more corporate control over our lives. Sounds nice on paper...but "libertarian" would allow mega monopolies. With only a few survicing corporations running wild...controling our employment, health care, internet, electricity, Firefighters, EMTS, etc..etc.

All without that pesky 'regulation' that says you have to treat people in the ER...or if you can't pay the bill the corporation could place you physically in a "Work Farm" until paid. HEY, with no regulation...why not? It's a 'work house' to pay off debt not a prison. Nothing in libertarianism would prevent that worst case Scifi situation. In fact we've had it before in Charles Dicken's London. Debtors' prison. Link

That's the ultimate outcome with 'libertarianism". Sounds good at first...yeah..Pot and no regs...until you know the 'no regs' applies to those corporation/people too.


You're one of those far left wingers attempting to sew visions of worst case scenarios and exaggerated outcomes we libertarians like to laugh at.

There's a balance to be achieved. Right now the pendulum is all the way over into corporatist zone, right now quite literally corporations are running the government, even if it is through puppetry, writing the laws and making sure they get enforced selectively to serve the corporate interest. Regulations are the tools they use to do this. Why else do you think there's regional monopolies and duopolies in the communications businesses? It's sure not technological, or even due to limited ability to have infrastructure, it's regulations preventing competition.

The saddest part is most people are blind to what's really happening. The Occupy Wall Street crowd? They were HELPING WALL STREET. Being in business when regulations get passed is the best place to be, it means your able to adapt and comply - not to mention help write the regulations making it very difficult for competition form.

You are my enemy. You are among those people trying to protect the power of the blended government/corporate body with the intent of preventing individual growth to protect the powers already in place.
 
2012-11-09 03:43:11 AM

pecosdave: it's regulations preventing competition.


Hilarious!
 
2012-11-09 03:53:26 AM

log_jammin: Hilarious!


Fine.

Go start a local ISP right now. Take advantage of those fibers run directly to the consumers residence that they decide who gets to plug into them? Oh? They don't exist? Why don't you run some of your own to their homes then. What? Regulations don't allow it without an incredibly high barrier of expensive certifications, permits, and licenses? Well go get those. What? You're still not allowed because now all the other carriers are lobbying to make new laws to prevent it and suing on various shaky legal premises that shouldn't exist?

Yeah. Almost as hilarious as you thinking it's hilarious.
 
2012-11-09 04:13:27 AM

pecosdave: Fine.

Go start a local ISP right now. Take advantage of those fibers run directly to the consumers residence that they decide who gets to plug into them? Oh? They don't exist? Why don't you run some of your own to their homes then. What? Regulations don't allow it without an incredibly high barrier of expensive certifications, permits, and licenses? Well go get those. What? You're still not allowed because now all the other carriers are lobbying to make new laws to prevent it and suing on various shaky legal premises that shouldn't exist?

Yeah. Almost as hilarious as you thinking it's hilarious.



I can't right now. I'm too busy writing sub prime mortgages and selling them off to the banks. But hopefully in a few years my waste control business will be in full swing when the LP takes over congress. I plan to collect everyone used tires and car batteries for a small feel and dump them in a hole that's right above the water table.

If that doesn't work out, I'll start my sub par meat business. all meat personally inspected by earl of course. I'll make a ton by buying all the old product the local stares can't sell after awhile. a few injections of a "solution" and my beef will look pretty again and I can sell it for half price!

But then again....I'll have tons of competition....but that's what the market is all about! Thank god for forward thinking libertarians! down with regulations!
 
2012-11-09 04:27:21 AM

log_jammin: pecosdave: Fine.

Go start a local ISP right now. Take advantage of those fibers run directly to the consumers residence that they decide who gets to plug into them? Oh? They don't exist? Why don't you run some of your own to their homes then. What? Regulations don't allow it without an incredibly high barrier of expensive certifications, permits, and licenses? Well go get those. What? You're still not allowed because now all the other carriers are lobbying to make new laws to prevent it and suing on various shaky legal premises that shouldn't exist?

Yeah. Almost as hilarious as you thinking it's hilarious.


I can't right now. I'm too busy writing sub prime mortgages and selling them off to the banks. But hopefully in a few years my waste control business will be in full swing when the LP takes over congress. I plan to collect everyone used tires and car batteries for a small feel and dump them in a hole that's right above the water table.

If that doesn't work out, I'll start my sub par meat business. all meat personally inspected by earl of course. I'll make a ton by buying all the old product the local stares can't sell after awhile. a few injections of a "solution" and my beef will look pretty again and I can sell it for half price!

But then again....I'll have tons of competition....but that's what the market is all about! Thank god for forward thinking libertarians! down with regulations!


While you're off selling stinky meat I'll make sure I buy all of mine from stores and distributors approved by the Safe Food Alliance. There will always be a place for cut rate crap like you sale, but the intelligent consumers will know not to buy from anywhere but an SFA butcher or possibly from someone they know and trust.

You're not going to have a lot of time to perform your butcher job as everyone who drinks water from the water table, for example, everyone, will be collectively suing your ass because pollution of the water table does infringe on the rights of others as understood as by the "do no harm to others" requirement to existing. Libertarian approved. Remember, we're not Anarchist, there's a big difference.

Go write all the sub-prime mortgages you like. When the loan recipients can't pay what are you going to do? We plan to eliminate the FED and the FDIC won't be there to bail your ass out. It looks to me like some people are going to get some very cheap houses out of the deal. You might be able to evict a few but eventually the courts are just going to call you an idiot for it.

Remember banks were ordered by the government to make those loans available to begin with.
 
2012-11-09 04:30:01 AM

pecosdave: Remember banks were ordered by the government to make those loans available to begin with.


That's really all I need to know about you. I'm not going to argue with an idiot. good night.
 
2012-11-09 05:39:23 AM

log_jammin: pecosdave: Remember banks were ordered by the government to make those loans available to begin with.

That's really all I need to know about you. I'm not going to argue with an idiot. good night.


Completely ignored the link and all the implications in it. I guess he decided to stop arguing with himself and go to bed.
 
2012-11-09 05:44:04 AM

pecosdave: Completely ignored the link and all the implications in it. I guess he decided to stop arguing with himself and go to bed.


no. I've seen the link many times. and if you still think after all this time that the CRA forced banks into pushing subprime loans, then you're a hopeless cause and it's pointless dealing with you.
 
2012-11-09 06:03:58 AM

log_jammin: pecosdave: Completely ignored the link and all the implications in it. I guess he decided to stop arguing with himself and go to bed.

no. I've seen the link many times. and if you still think after all this time that the CRA forced banks into pushing subprime loans, then you're a hopeless cause and it's pointless dealing with you.


Force may be a little strong of a word, but baited certainly wouldn't be going to far.
 
2012-11-09 08:01:35 AM

pecosdave: The Occupy Wall Street crowd? They were HELPING WALL STREET.


What the hell is beyond WHARRGARBLE? We've reached new record levels of derp.
 
2012-11-09 08:23:13 AM

GAT_00: pecosdave: The Occupy Wall Street crowd? They were HELPING WALL STREET.

What the hell is beyond WHARRGARBLE? We've reached new record levels of derp.


Heh... THE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
 
2012-11-09 08:36:49 AM
I cannot remember the preacher who said it this year, but it cuts to the chase. He was talking about same-sex marriage and said something along the lines of this:

"Live your ministry - don't legislate it."

That means STFU about same-sex civil marriage. There are no ethically satisfactory objections to it. If you want to be persnickety and demand that marriage licenses be named something else because 'marriage' is a word that carries a religious context...okay, sure. That would be a good example of separating church from state the way it's supposed to be.

That doesn't mean dropping all opposition to abortion, birth control or the funding of same. There are plenty of arguments against these that don't require a "because Jesus" every time you're in a tight spot. It does mean being prepared to debate the issue with more than a Todd Akin level of knowledge of human biology, for starters.
 
2012-11-09 09:04:06 AM

GAT_00: pecosdave: The Occupy Wall Street crowd? They were HELPING WALL STREET.

What the hell is beyond WHARRGARBLE? We've reached new record levels of derp.


That's some delusional shiat. Our regulatory system is weak due to decades of chipping away by "conservatives" and this has led to systemic crashes of our economy, but regulations are bad and only make things worse?

The problem with regulation is that somehow, we've decided that industry self-regulation is better and in the cases where we actually create government regulation, we stack the regulatory bodies with industry interests. fark that shiat.
 
2012-11-09 09:09:35 AM

pecosdave: Of course neither the Democrats or Republicans want anything resembling instant run-off or any sort of reform, it reinforces their duopoly


However, the GOP looks to be on the edge of a demographic cliff, where they can either keep their political stance and lose voters, or shift their political stance and lose voters -- leaving the Democrats with a (near) monopoly. It might motivate them, if they can face reality.

I admit, it's unlikely. But, it seems the most viable way for the GOP to maintain significant levels of power. Contrariwise, since I'm to the left of the Democratic median on a lot of issues, I'm not too upset by the prospect of the political right coming crashing down.

pecosdave: There's a balance to be achieved.


Unfortunately, the Randite wing of the libertarians doesn't seem to recognize that.

Since you're a libertarian, you're probably disinclined to think of the left-right spectrum, anyway, preferring to think in two dimensions. If you haven't encountered it, you might find the two dimensions that the psychological metrics discussed in Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" of interest. At the end, you might consider my conjecture that Libertarians appear to tend to be low-RWA, but high-SDO.

I'm not sure what the practical consequences are if I'm right, but it seems likely there would be some.

pecosdave: the intelligent consumers will know


Like most modern economists, you're neglecting information costs; treating de minimus as de nihil is as sloppy as a spherical cow, or worse in some cases.

Gulper Eel: If you want to be persnickety and demand that marriage licenses be named something else because 'marriage' is a word that carries a religious context...okay, sure. That would be a good example of separating church from state the way it's supposed to be.


Except, you have to do that for all marriages, because some churches (like the Unitarian Universalists) are just fine with sanctifying gay marriages. Which a few folk are fine with; but more seem to want a "separate but equal" bit for "civil unions".
 
2012-11-09 09:09:45 AM
A - FARKING - MEN!
 
2012-11-09 09:12:09 AM
Throw them out? Sounds good, they are useless anyway

*reads article*

Oh sweet jesus....

/Am the libbiest lib whoever libbed
 
2012-11-09 09:12:41 AM
Social issues are how they get poor white people to vote against their economic interests.
 
2012-11-09 09:13:48 AM
I wonder if subby actually read the Red State article, it's an argument to double down on the crazy.
 
2012-11-09 09:14:04 AM
Richard Mourdock was one of two of the poster children for abandoning social conservatives this year.

wat

The "rape is divine" guy abandoned social conservatives?
 
2012-11-09 09:14:07 AM

abb3w: pecosdave: Of course neither the Democrats or Republicans want anything resembling instant run-off or any sort of reform, it reinforces their duopoly

However, the GOP looks to be on the edge of a demographic cliff, where they can either keep their political stance and lose voters, or shift their political stance and lose voters -- leaving the Democrats with a (near) monopoly. It might motivate them, if they can face reality.

I admit, it's unlikely. But, it seems the most viable way for the GOP to maintain significant levels of power. Contrariwise, since I'm to the left of the Democratic median on a lot of issues, I'm not too upset by the prospect of the political right coming crashing down.

pecosdave: There's a balance to be achieved.

Unfortunately, the Randite wing of the libertarians doesn't seem to recognize that.

Since you're a libertarian, you're probably disinclined to think of the left-right spectrum, anyway, preferring to think in two dimensions. If you haven't encountered it, you might find the two dimensions that the psychological metrics discussed in Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" of interest. At the end, you might consider my conjecture that Libertarians appear to tend to be low-RWA, but high-SDO.

I'm not sure what the practical consequences are if I'm right, but it seems likely there would be some.

pecosdave: the intelligent consumers will know

Like most modern economists, you're neglecting information costs; treating de minimus as de nihil is as sloppy as a spherical cow, or worse in some cases.

Gulper Eel: If you want to be persnickety and demand that marriage licenses be named something else because 'marriage' is a word that carries a religious context...okay, sure. That would be a good example of separating church from state the way it's supposed to be.

Except, you have to do that for all marriages, because some churches (like the Unitarian Universalists) are just fine with sanctifying gay marriages. Which a few folk are fine with; but m ...


The GOP has a third option and it's one that the parties have done before. They can switch and become left-wing.
 
2012-11-09 09:14:28 AM
you don't need to throw out all social conservatives

you just need to throw out batshiat crazy black-helicopter obama-sekret-muslin rape-obsessed end-of-the-world obsessed legislate-morality social conservatives

they're like modern day puritans shiatting up the republican process, let them be puritan somewhere else
 
2012-11-09 09:16:48 AM
He said "killing kids"
 
2012-11-09 09:17:00 AM

pecosdave: Remember banks were ordered by the government to make those loans available to begin with.


you mean people do this

just go on the internet and lie?
 
2012-11-09 09:17:02 AM
Democrat's nightmare:GOP becomes pro choice on abortion and is pro immigration reform with amnesty. The latter is almost guaranteed to happen.
 
2012-11-09 09:17:18 AM
PLEASE READ THE WHOLE FARKING ARTICLE.
The title is just a troll and he's doubling down on the derp.
 
2012-11-09 09:17:51 AM

RexTalionis: Meanwhile, on April 26 of 2012 (a mere 6 and a half months ago), Erick Erickson said:

"When you have a massive black turnout for Barack Obama, and he wins them by 90%, you need as many Christian evangelicals turning out to offset that for Mitt Romney. He needs to not take social conservatives for granted."


Evanglicals whose doctrine state that mormornism is a false religion voting for a mormon to offset black voters voting for a christian leader who happens to be black.

Sorry GoP, doesn't get any more racist than that.
 
2012-11-09 09:18:48 AM
As a Lincoln Republican (wait, we still have those? Yes, Virginia, we do still have socially liberal republicans) living in Liberal Bastion Massachusetts who went out and helped with the Warren campaign and was (and still am) a Jon Huntsman supporter, I agree with the other Republicans here. The party is not what the party should be. We are no longer a party of fiscally conservative moderates to counter the fiscally liberal moderates of the Democratic party.

Our party is being strangled by the radical fringe because we let them, because we thought we needed that shot in the arm that a heroin junkie thinks they need that first time they try it. Rehab is gonna be tough and the shakes and chills and vomiting up will be brutal but we need to kick the habit of going to the radicals when we lose or we're never going to get back on course where moderates like me can really vote for anyone running under your flag in good conscience.

Look at Scott Brown. He ran originally as a moderate, independent Republican, then you stuck your claws in him and convinced him that not only should he take that first hit of Fringe-arific ecstasy, but you wouldn't let him go when he tried to run and you sucked him down the rabbit hole. Your guys had him go negative in atomic fashion when it first appeared that the people weren't buying what you were peddling anymore. So when the national republicans went nuclear, you made him go nuclear too. You dragged him down to your levels and it made him sickly in the eyes of his former supporters, and we saw just what we could have with Warren, a bright-eyed, bushy tailed professor who wanted to support the little guy, and we realized that we needed to help those that needed it instead of take a swig from the Randian hits you were doling out.

You called us ingrates for leaving you, but you know what. We were those abused housewives that finally said "fark you, we're gone" and packed up and left you for a better person. Are we sad we left you? In the back of our mind, we may miss you, we may hope you're doing well but mostly, we hope you're finally getting the help that you needed for so long that we just couldn't provide anymore. We wish you well but you need to change your tone if you ever hope to get people like us back.

Until then, we're gonna keep doinking the mailman that treated us with concern when he saw our bruises.

Yours,
Moderate Republicans
 
2012-11-09 09:19:11 AM
According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.

from your own link even
 
2012-11-09 09:19:31 AM
Last lines from TFA: "It's not time to throw out social conservatives. It's time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well."

Good that they're trying to apply some math. Not so good that it's still limited to their bubble of social conservatism.
 
2012-11-09 09:23:11 AM
No, the time to do that was 30 years ago. You could throw all of them out, the GOP brand would still be tainted by their residue
 
2012-11-09 09:23:25 AM
That is one heap of DERP.

First line: It is time to throw the social conservatives out of the GOP.
Last paragraph: It's not time to throw out social conservatives.
 
2012-11-09 09:23:53 AM
FTFA: They can't see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role.

whatisthisIdon'teven
 
2012-11-09 09:24:25 AM

pecosdave: While you're off selling stinky meat I'll make sure I buy all of mine from stores and distributors approved by the Safe Food Alliance. There will always be a place for cut rate crap like you sale, but the intelligent consumers will know not to buy from anywhere but an SFA butcher or possibly from someone they know and trust.

You're not going to have a lot of time to perform your butcher job as everyone who drinks water from the water table, for example, everyone, will be collectively suing your ass because pollution of the water table does infringe on the rights of others as understood as by the "do no harm to others" requirement to existing. Libertarian approved. Remember, we're not Anarchist, there's a big difference.

Go write all the sub-prime mortgages you like. When the loan recipients can't pay what are you going to do? We plan to eliminate the FED and the FDIC won't be there to bail your ass out. It looks to me like some people are going to get some very cheap houses out of the deal. You might be able to evict a few but eventually the courts are just going to call you an idiot for it.

Remember banks were ordered by the government to make those loans available to begin with.


The rotten meat I sell is certified by the Safer Food Alliance (which just so happens to be headquartered in the back room of my store). You can trust the Safer Food Alliance. Really . You can.

And that pollution in the water table isn't from my company. Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt in court that I am the source of that specific pollution.
 
2012-11-09 09:27:34 AM

Lost Thought 00: No, the time to do that was 30 years ago. You could throw all of them out, the GOP brand would still be tainted by their residue


This. They can try kicking out the social conservatives, but a lot of the people who the social conservatives scared off will never come back.
 
2012-11-09 09:27:55 AM

somedude210: As a Lincoln Republican (wait, we still have those? Yes, Virginia, we do still have socially liberal republicans) living in Liberal Bastion Massachusetts who went out and helped with the Warren campaign and was (and still am) a Jon Huntsman supporter, I agree with the other Republicans here. The party is not what the party should be. We are no longer a party of fiscally conservative moderates to counter the fiscally liberal moderates of the Democratic party.


Five years ago I self-identified as a Republican too, but I thought they should get off this social nonsense that is none of the government's business. When they went nuclear and put party before country, they completely lost me. If the day ever comes when a moderate like Huntsman can run under the R ticket, I'll reconsider.

Considering how he was ostracized for daring to say he served under an American President, not a Democratic or Republican one, I doubt that day will come in my lifetime
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report