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  
•       •       •

3561 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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
 
2012-11-09 09:30:35 AM  
Read the headline, and thought, "Hmm... Is Redstate getting it?"

Read the article, and it says:
 
2012-11-09 09:31:02 AM  

dudemanbro: 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.


americanchefinlondon.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-09 09:31:12 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-09 09:31:23 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.


On my phone right now so can't provide link. If you go to YouTube and search bush banks low income you will see that he really does push the banks to make these loans.
 
2012-11-09 09:32:02 AM  

fringedmyotis: 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.


Sad part is, though, that they're saying they can't risk the 10% they have to go after the 90% that they need to ever have a chance of winning.
 
2012-11-09 09:34:21 AM  
I came in here for the mocking of the article, but then the DERP happened. Headline = true, article = false.
 
2012-11-09 09:34:37 AM  
Holy F, don't click on "TobyToons"

www.tobytoons.com

/what a bunch of willfully ignorant shiatheads.
 
2012-11-09 09:38:06 AM  
That is the only type of conservative. There is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" politician. Never was and never will be. It is a fantasy.
 
2012-11-09 09:39:10 AM  

sprawl15: fringedmyotis: 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.

Sad part is, though, that they're saying they can't risk the 10% they have to go after the 90% that they need to ever have a chance of winning.


You go to election with the voters you have, not the voters you wish you had.
 
2012-11-09 09:39:53 AM  
Um...at the end of the article the writer says that they need the social conservatives and can't throw them out, they just need to communicate their positions better.

Yeah...that was the problem. Not that their positions were in any way reprehensible. They just need to communicate about rape better.
 
2012-11-09 09:41:12 AM  

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


They think that if they aren't for making homosexuality illegal or for ethnic segregation, they are actually social moderates.
 
2012-11-09 09:41:24 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.


Lincoln was not what you would consider a "fiscal conservative". As soon as the South left congress, he pushed through a shiat-ton of railroad and education spending.

Modern Republicans, even the "socially liberal" ones, are not descendents of Lincoln. They are the descendents of unrepentent slavers like Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis. The opposition to a strong central government is and has always been about having access to cheap, politically powerless labor.
 
2012-11-09 09:43:40 AM  
Oh, I get it now. You have to pander more to minorities and women. Except that, on various websites, your base is (jokingly) discussing repealing the 19th amendment and (very seriously) closing our borders. I'm sure that discussion of voting rights restrictions is a funny inside joke, but to outsiders it's a threat to suppress voters and artificially increase your own numbers. As far as closing the borders, this is very anti-American. Our open borders are what made this country great. shiat, it's right there on the Statue of Liberty.
So go ahead and pretend you need more "social conservatives". Normal people can see through your line of bullshiat. Your pro-life, anti-contraception, closed borders belief is killing your party. I, for one, am glad to see it happen.
 
2012-11-09 09:45:11 AM  
Article is breathless derp, but yes.

Since the article makes minority voters a thing, I'll opine this. The black people I know voted for Obama. Most are Christian and have traditional family values. They don't like abortions and gay marriages (not all... some are anti marriage equality, some are for) but they don't care. They voted for Obama, not because he was black, but because they felt he at least had some idea where they were coming from and that he cares about everyone, not just the super rich (whether or not that's actually true, Obama did a better job of articulating that).

I'm Latina. The vast majority of my latino friends were pro-Obama (even though many would describe themselves as pro life). The few antis are unapologetically racist or religiously derpy.
 
2012-11-09 09:45:15 AM  
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. ~FTFA

The GOP has swung hard right, and it has stayed there, since the Black Guy got into office.
The Democrats have moved into that space, taking the Leftist vote (since there is no liberal alternative of significance, sorry Greens), but politically moving into the Center.
The GOP has made the horrific mistake of thinking that the Democrats are, somehow, still hardcore 'liberals'.

Unfortunately... the GOP has pretty much lost its cred on anything BUT the hard right bullshiat. Immigration... healthcare... foreign policy... taxation... social issues... their positions range from 'solid' conservative (aka, borderline RINO in their eyes) all the way to near-fundamentalist conservative (the 'true' conservatives for them).

They can't reach back to the Center. They sure as hell can't reach around to the Far Left. They're stuck, they've painted themselves into a corner, and don't comprehend how it even happened, and think that dumping the can of paint over their head is, somehow, the answer.
 
2012-11-09 09:45:36 AM  
well my local AM radio guy is not talking about throwing them out, they just want to go the path of not talking about the social issues. it's practically a bait and switch approach
 
2012-11-09 09:46:06 AM  

Dog Welder: Yeah...that was the problem. Not that their positions were in any way reprehensible. They just need to communicate about rape better.


bbsimg.ngfiles.com

No no no no, it's not rape because it's YOUR dog.
 
2012-11-09 09:47:37 AM  
I had planned to gloat for only one week but it seems like zero lessons were learnt. Hence, maybe pointing and laughing may make the message stick better.
 
2012-11-09 09:50:46 AM  
What I find really interesting here is that, implicit in the social conservatives 'no compromise' mindset is an apparent belief that Americans will line up and follow if they are given a 'true' conservative option. They really seem to think this is the case.

That is one thick bubble.
 
2012-11-09 09:56:45 AM  
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006[16] and share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[16] The Community Reinvestment Act also only affected one out of the top 25 subprime lenders.[16]

In 2008, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, said the CRA wasn't to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis, stating that "first, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together... we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis,". Only 6% of subprime loans were handed out by CRA-covered lenders to lower income people (the people the CRA is responsible for, CRA-covered banks can technically lend subprime loans to anyone).[17] Others, such as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair,[18] and Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation[19] also argue that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.
 
2012-11-09 09:58:33 AM  
What is this the origin of this "Free stuff" talking point? Was Bill O'Reilly clever enough to create that on his own?

And where is my free stuff? I have not received one Obama phone and I thought that Obamacare was deemed to be a tax.
 
2012-11-09 10:04:05 AM  
it's funny because the social cons want to throw out the establishment...

should be fun.

/...and BOOM goes the GOP
 
2012-11-09 10:04:23 AM  

Wendy's Chili: 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.

Lincoln was not what you would consider a "fiscal conservative". As soon as the South left congress, he pushed through a shiat-ton of railroad and education spending.

Modern Republicans, even the "socially liberal" ones, are not descendents of Lincoln. They are the descendents of unrepentent slavers like Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis. The opposition to a strong central government is and has always been about having access to cheap, politically powerless labor.


wow, aren't you a downer this early in the morning. Last I checked, being of an Irish background, I highly doubt my family are descended from slave owners. There are things the federal government should do and there are some things that they shouldn't do. Public health is something they should do, but the prohibition of some substances (pot, tobacco, alcohol) shouldn't be (and we're seeing that in Washington and Colorado), nor should the there be a federal law defining marriage, as it is not for the government to decide religious ceremony (everyone should be allowed to get the same benefits regardless of who they're with, as long as they're human)

to generalize modern "socially liberal" republicans as a throwback to slave owners is a dishonest generalization that has no place here.
 
2012-11-09 10:08:20 AM  
FTA:
A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP.

You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.


Hm. And the GOP's polling data is so good on that kind of thing, isn't it?
 
2012-11-09 10:10:26 AM  

pecosdave: There's a balance to be achieved.


This. No party will ever have a monopoly on genius or stupidity. Discussion of ideas should be open, diverse, and honest. People should then decide. Admittedly mistakes will be made, but nothing that can't be learned from and fixed.

I point to the SW E1 "Phantom Menace" and US 2001-2008 as an example of what happens when you believe there is nothing to be learned from outside sources.
 
2012-11-09 10:15:02 AM  
You should have done that shiat on principle, not in reaction to a loss
 
2012-11-09 10:19:55 AM  
It's not time to throw out social conservatives.

Yes it is. Just think of everyone you would gain by doing so.

/short sighted
//poorly written and constructed article
///typical of Red State
 
2012-11-09 10:20:03 AM  
Deja vu to 1996.
 
2012-11-09 10:24:38 AM  

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


As seen on Fark, Dunning, meet Kruger. Kruger, Dunning

Whatever they come up with, it will be wrong.
 
2012-11-09 10:31:54 AM  
Read the article. Then read the comments. These people have learned NOTHING. I was listening to Diane Rehm yesterday - she had a bunch of bigwigs from Republican think tanks on. They've learned NOTHING. They just sat around saying "message, message message" when the problem has always, ALWAYS been "policy policy policy."

They're blind. There will be no change. They are completely screwed.
 
2012-11-09 10:37:52 AM  

PreMortem: [www.rhrealitycheck.org image 375x250]


I can't tell you how many "conservatives" I talk to that know nothing about Goldwater and when I talk about his positions they laugh and say that its not conservatism. I weep for my party...
 
2012-11-09 10:42:18 AM  

Happy Hours: 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.


Welcome to favorites.

I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packages it into one narrowly defined box of derp. (TAC is a good starting point, but there aren't any booby threads there.)

News flash. Not all registered Republicans are Tea Partying Mamma Grizzlies. Not all of us fall into the "Rape-ublican" wing label you want to paint us with.
 
2012-11-09 10:51:55 AM  

daveUSMC:
I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packa ...


Would that there be some actual Politicians that would vote or legislate this way. The "lumping" of the rational and irrational was done by the Republican party to achieve their permanent majority. Don't blame me for considering them (or anyone who self-identifies with them) as unified in their derp.
 
2012-11-09 10:52:49 AM  

daveUSMC: Happy Hours: 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.

Welcome to favorites.

I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packa ...


This.
 
2012-11-09 10:55:26 AM  

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


Seriously, after you kick them out who do you have left? The 1%, maybe top 5%. Good luck winning with those numbers.
 
2012-11-09 10:55:42 AM  
Man, that was hard to get through. I wasn't sure of his point until about 3/4 of the way through.

That said, yeah, you guys run with that. I guess he missed the MJ ballot initiatives that passed and the first gay memeber of the Senate and two states passing gay marriage laws.
 
2012-11-09 10:56:30 AM  

Chilkoot Charlie: daveUSMC:
I really want to find a reasonable nook of the internet where I can discuss conservative/small-libertarian ideas without being lumped in with Bachmann/Palin, and where I don't have to deal with the snark-fark patrol that writes off the entire idea of a GOP or conservatism and packa ...

Would that there be some actual Politicians that would vote or legislate this way. The "lumping" of the rational and irrational was done by the Republican party to achieve their permanent majority. Don't blame me for considering them (or anyone who self-identifies with them) as unified in their derp.


Isn't that a bit intellectually dishonest? I mean, you can't be bothered to accept a differentiation between different brands of conservatives. You can't even be bothered to take each individual's positions and discuss them with that individual, instead assuming they're all the same and blowing it all off.

Wouldn't it make more sense for this country if we took on and forcibly shifted focus to the ideals and ideas of the individuals that AREN'T in the mainstream spotlight, but rather the ones that actually have something meaningful to say based on their own lives?
 
2012-11-09 10:56:38 AM  
See, here's the thing: This supposed dichotomy between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives does not really exist. The same people who think it's fair to tax super rich people at half the rate of everyone else are the same people who think you should be grateful for that rape baby that Jesus gave you. The GOP has done such a terrific job of melding social and fiscal issues into one big ideology that they can no longer be separated.

Take, for example, the issue of poverty. You'd think Christians would want to take care of the poor like Jesus instructed them to do, right? WRONG! Conservative Christians have figured out a way to rationalize their brutal fiscal policies in a way that, in their mind, doesn't conflict with their medieval religious ideas. Every now and then you'll come across someone who is very fiscally conservative but not religiously conservative, but those people are still complete assholes too (Ayn Rand anyone?). There is nothing morally defensible about fiscal conservatism or religious conservatism.
 
2012-11-09 10:59:45 AM  

dudemanbro: 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.


You totally just argued with that guy that you never said what you just said. I think you have a future in politics.
 
2012-11-09 11:12:11 AM  

AiryAnne: PreMortem: [www.rhrealitycheck.org image 375x250]

I can't tell you how many "conservatives" I talk to that know nothing about Goldwater and when I talk about his positions they laugh and say that its not conservatism. I weep for my party...


The intelligent conservative embraces Eisenhower and Goldwater (the version of Goldwater who recanted his issues with civil rights mind you). The mainstream party calls us RINOs for that ideology and just got a middle finger in return when we all voted for Centrist Obama.

/also it is amazing how many people seem to forget HW called Reagonomics "voodoo economics" and had to raise taxes to clean up the giant farking mess Saint Ronny made
 
2012-11-09 11:12:17 AM  

pecosdave: I'm working on it.



Well good for you, but I see your subsequent posts are filled with a bunch of stuff about the "left wing" and how it just loves federal control over everything and the statement "You are my enemy" directed at another Farker.

I know it's super easy to buy into narratives like leftists-hate-freedom or whatever, but would you consider the possibility that many people who vote against Repubs aren't so much "leftist" as they are people who just want good government? It sounds like your group has a lot of ideas. Chances are good that many of them are intrinsically good ones. And if they are, you might discover that many of these people you're dismissing as totalitarian-minded commies would actually be natural allies, sometimes, who you could work with to achieve common goals. After the whole process is done with them your ideas probably won't be adopted verbatim -- and neither will theirs -- but the result could be something better than what we're all stuck with now.

It sounds like you're used to thinking in terms of categories and maybe doctrinal purity. But what do you really want in the end -- good, lean public policy that works a little better than what we have today? Or a He-Man Tyranny Haters' Club in a treehouse somewhere where you and your friends can sit around and biatch?
 
2012-11-09 11:17:14 AM  
Never happen and it doesn't need too. The hard right, social conservatives are literally dying out and are being replaced with a more diverse and open minded younger generation. It might take another generation, but the social conservatives have reached the height of their influence and simple demographics shows their worldview is fading. My state, Colorado, is an excellent example that this is happening. We just legalized weed in spite of Focus on the Family and the rest of Springs Evangelical community.
 
2012-11-09 11:25:48 AM  

PreMortem: [www.rhrealitycheck.org image 375x250]


THIS THAT THUS THEMS DAMNIT THIS.
 
2012-11-09 11:26:01 AM  
FTFA: ...a quarter of the hispanic vote and a tenth of the black...You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.

1 in 10 black voters voted for Romney, and this clown thinks the goal should be to craft policies to ensure that number doesn't go to zero, instead of crafting policies that would allow their party to compete in this demographic. How did this party lose an election? The party's teeming with farking geniuses.
 
2012-11-09 11:26:53 AM  

pecosdave: 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.


[whatthefarkamireading.jpg]
 
2012-11-09 11:31:22 AM  

daveUSMC: News flash. Not all registered Republicans are Tea Partying Mamma Grizzlies. Not all of us fall into the "Rape-ublican" wing label you want to paint us with.


Free association. You hang out with them, you're gonna get some of that on you.
Either chuck them out or leave if you don't want their tar brush anywhere near you.
 
2012-11-09 11:33:55 AM  
They don't seem to realize that "social conservatism" is not a growth industry. Social conservatives do one thing really well: they die.

It's hard to make new social conservatives. You have to indoctrinate them at a young age and then hope it sticks, which is really, really difficult in the age of ubiquitous internet.
 
2012-11-09 11:43:08 AM  
Who's throwing who out?

www.theage.com.au
 
2012-11-09 11:46:49 AM  
How many read last paragraph and summation where he was actually making the argument for needing to retain the social conservative aspect of the party if they want to win the Hispanic vote?
 
2012-11-09 11:55:11 AM  
Ah. That was wonderfully derpy. He's arguing against the position in the headline, to those of you who didn't read the article.
 
2012-11-09 12:05:23 PM  
He actually believes that, by becoming more socially conservative, the Republican party will steal black and Hispanic votes away from the Democrats.

I'm not sure what Erick Erickson's personal life is like, but I bet it involves lots of hallucinogenics.
 
2012-11-09 12:20:17 PM  

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.


Oh yes, what a great guy John Huntsman is, totally reasonable. Let's eliminate capital gains and dividident taxes, lower corporate taxes by 12%, lower everyone else's taxes while we're at it, then end Health Care Reform and all the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. Also basically kill FEMA and the EPA. You know how we'll pay for it? Closing unspecified loopholes!

None of your Republican splinters have any good ideas, other than opposing SOPA. That is literally the list right now
 
2012-11-09 12:21:38 PM  

phaseolus: pecosdave: I'm working on it.


Well good for you, but I see your subsequent posts are filled with a bunch of stuff about the "left wing" and how it just loves federal control over everything and the statement "You are my enemy" directed at another Farker.

I know it's super easy to buy into narratives like leftists-hate-freedom or whatever, but would you consider the possibility that many people who vote against Repubs aren't so much "leftist" as they are people who just want good government? It sounds like your group has a lot of ideas. Chances are good that many of them are intrinsically good ones. And if they are, you might discover that many of these people you're dismissing as totalitarian-minded commies would actually be natural allies, sometimes, who you could work with to achieve common goals. After the whole process is done with them your ideas probably won't be adopted verbatim -- and neither will theirs -- but the result could be something better than what we're all stuck with now.

It sounds like you're used to thinking in terms of categories and maybe doctrinal purity. But what do you really want in the end -- good, lean public policy that works a little better than what we have today? Or a He-Man Tyranny Haters' Club in a treehouse somewhere where you and your friends can sit around and biatch?


You start increasing the levels of freedom and decreasing the number of laws we live under we don't have to achieve the full vision in order to make this place much more livable and burdensome on the next generation.
 
2012-11-09 12:24:56 PM  
BTW, the you are my enemy thing was in reply to a rather straight forward statement that increasing regulation is what we need. Increased regulation got us here and more will make it worse.
 
2012-11-09 12:27:38 PM  
Yeah, cause the GOP's fiscal and economic polices are SOOOOO worth preserving.

I actually think their dark-ages social polices go well with their magic-themed economic philosophy. If there were orcs and the GOP stayed away from governance, they could be entertaining.
 
2012-11-09 12:41:33 PM  

Garble: Yeah, cause the GOP's fiscal and economic polices are SOOOOO worth preserving.

I actually think their dark-ages social polices go well with their magic-themed economic philosophy. If there were orcs and the GOP stayed away from governance, they could be entertaining.


They're not worth preserving. Actual conservative money policies are. The GOP is neck and neck with the Democrats on spending, they just have different corporate masters.

That's part of why us Libertarians jumped ship.
 
2012-11-09 12:46:13 PM  

China White Tea: They don't seem to realize that "social conservatism" is not a growth industry. Social conservatives do one thing really well: they die.

It's hard to make new social conservatives. You have to indoctrinate them at a young age and then hope it sticks, which is really, really difficult in the age of ubiquitous internet.


It might not be a growth industry but ignorance is. If they can sustain a shiatty education system, there should be an unending supply of right-wingers.
 
2012-11-09 01:16:43 PM  

Garble: Yeah, cause the GOP's fiscal and economic polices are SOOOOO worth preserving.

I actually think their dark-ages social polices go well with their magic-themed economic philosophy. If there were orcs and the GOP stayed away from governance, they could be entertaining.


See, you're casting a wide net over anyone who's got an R after their name. I have an R after mine, but I don't want to "lower taxes %20 across the board" or increase defense spending a dime.

Do I want to reduce the scale of government involvement, including addressing entitlement spending and some safety net programs? Sure. Do I want to take away poor people's food and money and shove them into the cold, making them swim through an alligator infested moat to compete for the right to live in government subsidized housing? No.

As far as I'm concerned though, Grover Norquist can go get intimately acquainted with a cactus, and Jerry Fallwell can go meet Ted Haggard in a truck stop.
 
2012-11-09 01:26:32 PM  

DemonEater: daveUSMC: News flash. Not all registered Republicans are Tea Partying Mamma Grizzlies. Not all of us fall into the "Rape-ublican" wing label you want to paint us with.

Free association. You hang out with them, you're gonna get some of that on you.
Either chuck them out or leave if you don't want their tar brush anywhere near you.


Some of us did leave. I registered Democrat, though I tend to vote more libertarian when I can. Yet we mention being conservative and get "ZOMG TEATARD WHARRGARBL!"
 
2012-11-09 01:27:20 PM  

pecosdave: You start increasing the levels of freedom and decreasing the number of laws we live under we don't have to achieve the full vision in order to make this place much more livable and burdensome on the next generation.


this.
 
2012-11-09 03:25:55 PM  

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.


ok I'll give him the benefit of a doubt... maybe he just really doesn't know the difference between 'opinion' and 'factual reality'... here, Pecos... just read the 'cause' section and then report back that it was still democrat legislation that 'forced' those poor loan originators to write bad loans that they were selling to wall street to be 'collateralized'.

here's the summary in case too busy to read the whole thing:
The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."
 
2012-11-09 04:21:06 PM  

somedude210: Our party is being strangled by the radical fringe because we let them


Um... it's not a fringe. It's not quite a majority, but it's just short.

shadow9d9: That is the only type of conservative. There is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" politician. Never was and never will be. It is a fantasy.


1) Moneycons are circa 20% of the GOP; linky.
2) There's two basic flavors for conservative; loosely: protofascist and sociopath,

The Dog Ate My Homework: See, here's the thing: This supposed dichotomy between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives does not really exist. The same people who think it's fair to tax super rich people at half the rate of everyone else are the same people who think you should be grateful for that rape baby that Jesus gave you.


There's an overlap between the sociopaths and protofascists, but they're not the same two groups.
Granted, the fiscal conservatives still tend more protofascist than Democrats, but there is a difference.
 
2012-11-09 07:30:20 PM  

fringedmyotis: 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.


And yet somehow tax cuts will create a rise in revenues?
 
2012-11-09 11:22:08 PM  
www.simplyrecipes.com
I got it ready
 
2012-11-10 12:22:05 AM  
NEWSFLASH

The youth, who are a growing voting demographic, do not tolerate the GOP social agenda. Recognize the trend Republicans. The social platform will not prevail for the GOP any longer.
 
2012-11-10 12:02:49 PM  

Frederick: The youth, who are a growing voting demographic, do not tolerate the GOP social agenda. Recognize the trend Republicans. The social platform will not prevail for the GOP any longer.


It's merely a sign of the corruption of youth in these degenerate days. No doubt if their elders sharply rebuke them about the error of their ways, the naive little dears will fall in line once more to the properly Republican way of things.

a.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report