Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   National Review slams RNC autopsy for failing to identify "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 247
    More: Amusing, National Review, RNC, GOP  
•       •       •

3271 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 10:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 01:13:49 PM  

tricycleracer: "Ideologically liberal" is code for "poor & brown".


Or the new terminology:  "ethnically challenged".
 
2013-03-19 01:13:58 PM  
I was actually thinking on the way in just how many ways the GOP could completely rebrand itself, without reeeealllly changing its core principals tooo far, to get me to vote for them.

Obamacare - Opposed socialized medicine via single payer, public option, or true government run health care and implemented market based reform relying on private businesses. Already a republican win, they should claim it.

Gay marriage - the government has no business in what two consenting adults do and can recognize a two person marriage contract regardless of gender. Will rustle the jimmies of the christian conservatives.

Abortion - the government has no business telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, to include reproductive rights as established by Roe v Wade. Will rustle the jimmes of christian conservatives.

Welfare reform - welfare is an essential safety net that allows individuals to take risks while looking for employment. Rather than a handout, entitlements should be structured into temporary assistance combined with job training programs or assistance in finding employment.

Immigration reform - back of the line policy for those here illegally with no criminal past. Pay fines to reconcile with the fact they broke the law, ackowledge they are contributing members of society and want to be here to work. Expand temporary worker visa program (something in line of what Canada has for temporary agricultural workers). Deport and permanently ban convicted criminals.

Medicare/medicaid - voucher program (i don't agree personally, but its in line with the republican ideals).

social security - roll into 401k/Roth IRA program (i dont agree personally, but again, in line with republican ideals).

drug reform - decriminalize many drugs. Within certain reasonable conditions, there is no government role in what people can put in their bodies.

millitary - reduce involvement in narco-ops in south america and close many overseas posts while maintaining posts in strategic areas (i.e. Germany, Korea, Japan) to allow for force projection. Not much different than current GOP policy.

education - reduce government role in education, reduce the amount of government loans and grants to students (i don't neccessarily agree, but again, in line with republican ideas. there's probably some merit to reducing guarenteed loans though)

Overall I think I can actually imagine a hypothetical Republican party who I may even consider voting for.

It's amazing how far away that party is from the current incarnation of the GOP... and actually, really sad. I'd like to believe American deserves better than this, but I'm not sure that I do...
 
2013-03-19 01:15:58 PM  

Weaver95: manimal2878:

Stop being emotional scroll back up and actually read what I said.  You are acting like a farking tea-partier, only on the opposite end of the political spectrum building a strawman and getting all hot and bothered about it.

i'm being emotional?  scroll back up top this thread for a moment and reconsider what the article under discussion is supposed to be - it's about the GOP post mortum on the election losses and what they can do to fix their problem(s).  And what was your response to that article?  you changed the subject to gun control.  now why would you do that, I wonder?

My earlier point up thread was that the GOP (and those who support them) would change the subject to avoid discussing the reasons for the GOP election failures.  then you come along and what did you do?  changed the subject to a wedge issue.


Nice try at a dodge.   But answer my question, do certain democrats want to implement weapon bans and magazine restrictions or not?  You claimed that I was lied to about that, thus implying that I was stupid enough to believe GOP bullshiat.  Unless Feinstein is no longer a Democrat then I was not lied to.  I don't expect you will apologize for that though.

On the other hand you are right, this is a wedge issue.  And my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.
 
2013-03-19 01:18:46 PM  
manimal2878:

Nice try at a dodge.   But answer my question, do certain democrats want to implement weapon bans and magazine restrictions or not?  You claimed that I was lied to about that, thus implying that I was stupid enough to believe GOP bullshiat.  Unless Feinstein is no longer a Democrat then I was not lied to.  I don't expect you will apologize for that though.

On the other hand you are right, this is a wedge issue.  And my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.


a 'dodge'?  I'm talking about the actual purpose of this thread - discussing the reasons for the GOP's election season failures and their internal reactions to those failures.  you keep wanting to make this about gun control.

so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?
 
2013-03-19 01:20:15 PM  

manimal2878: If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.


Why would they do that?  As long as they're letting it go through committee it:

a. Keeps Feinstein happy, so she won't break ranks from spite
b. Keeps the delusional moonbat types off their back due to the impression they're actually getting what they want
c. Continually baits the right-wingers into saying  the most retarded things imaginable, which is a big plus for the 2014 election cycle.

Basically, you haven't provided any actual reason for them to cut it off early and offend some people instead of letting it die on the floor or in review where it's politically more or less harmless to them.
 
2013-03-19 01:23:08 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Basically, you're assuming that the Dems walk in lockstep and all have the same set of bullet points kept current by the whip on penalty of primary challenge like the Republicans. They do not, the Dems are holding power by being the consensus party at the moment so they can't afford to be douchebags about internal factional disagreements. On many issues there are things that a democrat wants that it can't be fairly said that democrats want.


Actually it seems you assumed that I believe a certain thing that I don't.    I don't think democrats walk in lockstep, hence their weakness during so many election cycles.  I never said I wouldn't vote for any Democrat.  I said I won't vote for a specific person that supports bans.

.  Whether it can all be pinned on Feinstein or not for pushing for the less desirable elements of gun control.  It's still a wedge issue that had largely been put to rest except on the fringe of the GOP that was still susceptable to NRA crap.  But now the Democrats have reawakened it and given credibility.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:19 PM  

manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878:

Stop being emotional scroll back up and actually read what I said.  You are acting like a farking tea-partier, only on the opposite end of the political spectrum building a strawman and getting all hot and bothered about it.

i'm being emotional?  scroll back up top this thread for a moment and reconsider what the article under discussion is supposed to be - it's about the GOP post mortum on the election losses and what they can do to fix their problem(s).  And what was your response to that article?  you changed the subject to gun control.  now why would you do that, I wonder?

My earlier point up thread was that the GOP (and those who support them) would change the subject to avoid discussing the reasons for the GOP election failures.  then you come along and what did you do?  changed the subject to a wedge issue.

Nice try at a dodge.   But answer my question, do certain democrats want to implement weapon bans and magazine restrictions or not?  You claimed that I was lied to about that, thus implying that I was stupid enough to believe GOP bullshiat.  Unless Feinstein is no longer a Democrat then I was not lied to.  I don't expect you will apologize for that though.

On the other hand you are right, this is a wedge issue.  And my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.


Actually, I'd say that it was Aurora, Newtown, Arizona and Chicago that made this an issue, but I get what you're saying.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:34 PM  

Weaver95: so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?


I repeat:  my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.

And that was in direct response to your question about what will save the GOP.
 
2013-03-19 01:27:10 PM  

Jim_Callahan: manimal2878: If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.

Why would they do that?  As long as they're letting it go through committee it:

a. Keeps Feinstein happy, so she won't break ranks from spite
b. Keeps the delusional moonbat types off their back due to the impression they're actually getting what they want
c. Continually baits the right-wingers into saying  the most retarded things imaginable, which is a big plus for the 2014 election cycle.

Basically, you haven't provided any actual reason for them to cut it off early and offend some people instead of letting it die on the floor or in review where it's politically more or less harmless to them.


Good points, you are right, politically that's the way to go.  The thing is, I shouldn't be called a liar because I take certain members of the democratic party at their word that want to ban guns.
 
2013-03-19 01:30:06 PM  

Huggermugger: Philip Francis Queeg: "the source of the GOP's recent electoral woes"

Wasn't the very first line spoken in 'The Godfather': I believe in America?


Actually, it was, ""I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
 
2013-03-19 01:35:00 PM  
manimal2878: verbaltoxin: That's what Democrats are working towards, are closing loopholes and improving background checks. Feinstein's assault weapons ban bill is going to die on the vine. I doubt a high capacity mag ban makes it out of committee. If it does, it'll die on the floor.

Did Feinstein, declare herself to not be a Democrat at some point in the last few weeks?  Otherwise, there are still democrats that are working on more than just background checks and loopholes.

If everybody knows it's going to die on the vine, they need to come out and say why, because it is a stupid idea.  Not just let it ride, so that dems can talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming that they really want to ban weapons, but also saying no that's crazy  really we only want to close loopholes.


It's almost like Democrats aren't one, monolithic hivemind or something. Maybe you should understand that. A Democrat from California is going to act differently than one from Montana, Missouri or Tennessee.

The Democratic Party doesn't have a coherent narrative like the Republican Party. It's much more of a coalition with different wings within it, such as Feinstein/Boxer/Pelosi/Waxman making up the liberal, West Coast wing; conservative Blue Dog Democrats from the Midwest and South; and centrists like Barack Obama and Harry Reid.

If there were suddenly no Republican Party tomorrow, the Democratic Party would split among these divisions, forming new liberal and conservative parties, with moderates stuck in the middle.

Gun control is mixed with Midwestern Democrats, and it's unpopular with Mountain West and Southern Democrats. On the national level, this results in Democrats being divided and noncommittal towards gun control. What flies in New York doesn't get off the ground in Wisconsin or Wyoming. What is acceptable in Chicago is verboten in Southern Illinois.

What unifies these Democrats are some basic understandings: that government has to be funded in order to work; that government serves the will of the people, and that will is to have a safety net and wealth redistribution; that the environment must at least be cared for so others can use its resources and enjoy it in the future; and that math and science are real things which contradict our assumptions, and if that makes us uncomfortable, too bad.

You keep saying you're not a single issue voter, but your words say otherwise. Just own up to it already, but admit that Democratic Party is not out to take your guns. The Democrats in California or New York might be, but Democrats elsewhere are divided on it.
 
2013-03-19 01:37:12 PM  

verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.


What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.
 
2013-03-19 01:40:20 PM  

manimal2878: Weaver95: so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?

I repeat:  my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.

And that was in direct response to your question about what will save the GOP.


and again - this isn't about the Democrats, it's about the Republicans.  did you bother to even read the attached article?  seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?  or gun control for that matter.

6 year old child: [breaks vase]
parent:: 'why did you do that?!  that's it, you're getting a time out right now!'
child: 'oh yeah!  wellllll STACY dropped her ICE cream and got away with it!'
parent: 'what does that have to do with anything!?'
child: '....'

sometimes I really do wonder about the ages of people on fark.
 
2013-03-19 01:40:39 PM  
RNC autopsy: The anus is unremarkable.

/surely not obscure
 
2013-03-19 01:44:26 PM  

manimal2878: verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.

What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.


Perhaps if everyone is misunderstanding you it isn't their failure to understand but yours to communicate.

At this point I don't know what you are trying to say, you started here saying that the Republicans were going to regroup because the Democrats were going to throw the election to them because of their stance on gun control.  When it was pointed out that the actual stance that Democrats are taking is quite popular, and the part that isn't won't even get to the floor you went on a harangue about how you would "never vote for a democrat who supported gun bans."  We managed to tease out of you what that meant (apparently you support background checks and loophole closing) but at that point you are 75-90% in agreement with the democrats so your drama queening about how you will never vote for certain democrats (if they support "gun bans") irrespective of whether or not you  agree with them on every single other issue labels you as either an extreme single issue voter (who really can't be taken very seriously) or as someone trying to change the subject (as pointed out by Weaver).
 
2013-03-19 01:46:33 PM  

manimal2878: verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.

What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.


Yes, it's our fault you keep saying, "Yeah I'm liberal, but Democrats want my guns!" and we keep saying, "No, only some Democrats do, and they don't run the party. This issue varies upon region and municipality." Then you circle back to step one and start all over.

So why don't you explain yourself more clearly. F*ckhole.
 
2013-03-19 01:46:37 PM  

Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?


Because you said: 

Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.


and: 

Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.


And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.
 
2013-03-19 01:47:43 PM  

error 303: Obamacare - Opposed socialized medicine via single payer, public option, or true government run health care and implemented market based reform relying on private businesses. Already a republican win, they should claim it.


If they had tried that back when it was being debated in Congress, that might have worked.  They could've all voted for it and claimed that they were successful in defeating the socialist plans that the Democrats had previously suggested.  Instead, they claimed that it was just a socialistical as the other plans, and they voted against it, and have tried to repeal it dozens of times. It would take a great deal of spinning for them to try to claim it now.  I'm picturing that scene from "The Dark Knight Strikes Again" where the Flash is rescued after being forced to spend years running in a giant generator that provides a third of America's electricity.  That's the sort of spin they'll need to claim credit for Obamacare.
 
2013-03-19 01:48:11 PM  
yeah manimal thanks for threadjacking

/schwantz
 
2013-03-19 01:48:51 PM  

manimal2878: Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?

Because you said:  Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

and:  Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.

And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.


Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?
 
2013-03-19 01:50:15 PM  

amiable: manimal2878: verbaltoxin: Maybe you should understand that.

What the fark?  Can none of you read?  I do understand that, I have said so several times.

Stop assuming what I believe you farkholes.

Perhaps if everyone is misunderstanding you it isn't their failure to understand but yours to communicate.

At this point I don't know what you are trying to say, you started here saying that the Republicans were going to regroup because the Democrats were going to throw the election to them because of their stance on gun control.  When it was pointed out that the actual stance that Democrats are taking is quite popular, and the part that isn't won't even get to the floor you went on a harangue about how you would "never vote for a democrat who supported gun bans."  We managed to tease out of you what that meant (apparently you support background checks and loophole closing) but at that point you are 75-90% in agreement with the democrats so your drama queening about how you will never vote for certain democrats (if they support "gun bans") irrespective of whether or not you  agree with them on every single other issue labels you as either an extreme single issue voter (who really can't be taken very seriously) or as someone trying to change the subject (as pointed out by Weaver).


The bolded part seems pretty clear to me.  You guys were the ones that decided it meant I wouldn't vote for any democrat.
 
2013-03-19 01:50:20 PM  

manimal2878: Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?

Because you said:  Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

and:  Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.

And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.


And even though we explained to you how this might not be the Democrats' undoing, and isn't much of a problem for them at all, you carped on anyway.

Thanks for your concern.
 
2013-03-19 01:51:21 PM  

Kittypie070: yeah manimal thanks for threadjacking

/schwantz


hurr durr
 
2013-03-19 01:51:36 PM  
Some kid committed suicide yesterday at the college I graduated from. Mom called, said something about "Obamacare is even infecting colleges now"

... I took a few seconds to try to figure out how they could possibly correlate, then I realized who/what I was dealing with and got her off the phone so I could spark up my nicely rolled joint and not give a fark.
 
2013-03-19 01:53:48 PM  

manimal2878: Weaver95: seriously - why even MENTION the Democrats in the first place?

Because you said:  Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

and:  Weaver95: I honestly don't know how the GOP is gonna get outta this one.  I'm not even sure they CAN get out of this mess.

And I pointed out an opportunity the democrats were handing them on a silver platter that could help them avoid the deathblow the next election cycle.


so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?
 
2013-03-19 01:53:52 PM  

manimal2878: But their are tons and tons of liberal gun owners, that aren't going to vote for a democrat that pushes for mag restrictions or weapon bans.


Most gun owners aren't single-issue voters.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:02 PM  
Well this thread's f*cked.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?


Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:48 PM  

Weaver95: so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?


No.
 
2013-03-19 01:59:37 PM  

manimal2878: Weaver95: so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?

No.


But soon as we talk about the mistakes the GOP has made (and continues to make) you change the subject to the Democrats.
 
2013-03-19 02:03:23 PM  

Lumpmoose: 59% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage. That's 1% higher than the country as a whole: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-ris e -in-support-for-gay-marriage/


Of course, that's mostly due to "Catholics" who attend church less than once per month. Among those attending more than that (and depending on exact wording), it's nearer 30% support, 50% opposed. Contrariwise... a lot of Hispanic "Catholics" are in that group who seldom attend.

deadsanta: they are right in line with public acceptance of homosexuals


Mostly. More exactly, they tend to be right in line with public disapproval; Hispanics tend a little less supportive on gay marriage, but correspondingly more uncertain.

simplicimus: Buy more, smaller, magazines.


It's not like anything can happen while swapping out the magazine.
 
2013-03-19 02:06:24 PM  

Weaver95: so you blame the Democrats for the failures of the GOP...?


To me the failure of the GOP is that their core message is wrong.  They are the party of the Rich and the ignorant. To get people to vote fore something they have to believe there is something in it for them.  Hence the lie of trickle down economics, protecting them from the lesser races, or the government that wants to enslave you, or is out to destroy your faith and way of life.

Largely shifts in demographics mean the lie about the races is going to work less and less.  People seeing that their wages have been stagnant for 30 years while the CEO's keep getting richer means they are starting to suspect trickle down really is bullshiat.   In the long run there should be no way they can be saved because their very function has been to protect the wealth of the few at the expense of others and that is anathama to what most American's  really believe when their judgement isn't clouded by bullshiat.
 
2013-03-19 02:09:47 PM  

Weaver95: But soon as we talk about the mistakes the GOP has made (and continues to make) you change the subject to the Democrats.


 Whatever you are trying to imply is wrong.  Stop being an A-hole about it.
 
2013-03-19 02:18:52 PM  

manimal2878: Kittypie070: yeah manimal thanks for threadjacking

/schwantz


hurr durr


No U.
 
2013-03-19 02:26:15 PM  

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?

Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.


What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?
 
2013-03-19 02:30:38 PM  
Most of America is farther left than the  Democrats. That's a huge chunk of the problem.

/Get. Rid. Of. The. Two. Party. System.
 
2013-03-19 02:40:10 PM  

Weaver95: so did you want to discuss the actual article or did you want to just keep trying for a threadjack?


The people that care about guns only care about guns. It's the only thing in the world they care about. Every thread is about guns. If it's not about guns, they'll make it about guns. It's a literal fetish.
 
2013-03-19 02:46:10 PM  
abb3w:
simplicimus: Buy more, smaller, magazines.

It's not like anything can happen while swapping out the magazine.


OK, bring 3 guns.
 
2013-03-19 02:57:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?

Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.

What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?


Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant.   It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.
 
2013-03-19 03:09:21 PM  

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think it's possible that you are over estimating the importance of the gun issue to the voters, in light of the fact that most of the proposals poll favorably with the public?

Depends on the proposals that make it through how important the gun issue will be.  It could end up not mattering at all.

What proposals do you think will make the public rise up en masse to vote Republican?

Don't know, don't care, en masse changes are not even relevant.   It would only come into play in a swing state where small numbers would matter.


There are no swing states in Congressional elections. But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.
 
2013-03-19 03:14:15 PM  

Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: manimal2878: Weaver95: I have no idea how they're going to get outta this one.

They don't need to get out of it, the democrats will bail them out by pushing the gun issue.

i'm not so sure.  you can only cry wolf so many time before voters catch on that you're just yanking their chains.

Cry wolf about what?

everything.  abortions, gun control, socialized medicine, Iran, the war on terror, the war on drugs, illegal aliens, the economy, socialism...the list goes on and on.  every time the GOP needs to motivate the troops they make wild claims about one of their grab bag of wedge issues.  But it's starting to become less effective.  people aren't reaching the necessary levels of outrage any more.


Well many of them realized they were misled/lied to by Fox News in 2012

Sure the true believers will stick to the path, but that's only part of the audience
 
2013-03-19 03:14:22 PM  

verbaltoxin: Are not many conservatives tricked and deceived into voting against their own interests? How many of them voted away collective bargaining, proportional taxation, funding for Planned Parenthood, and bond measures for schools and roads in the past decade alone? That bears the mark of widespread stupidity, if you ask me.


That's actually not so much stupidity, as misplaced values. They think those things are bad, and accept that they may suffer some short-term personal inconvenience for a larger and longer-term social good; and higher intelligence allows increased ability to rationalize doing so.

Moral depravity, perhaps; along with misplaced trust.

Rwa2play: Still, the fact that they still keep adhering to the message despite evidence to the contrary doesn't help their cause at all.


Confusing "delusion" for "stupidity" doesn't help their treatment.

error 303: Overall I think I can actually imagine a hypothetical Republican party who I may even consider voting for.


You sound Libertarian.

manimal2878: I repeat: my point all along was that this time it is the Democrats that brought this particular wedge into the debate, thus, in my view helping out the GOP.


Since, at this point, the polling indicates support for some proposals that the Democrats are backing (such as universal background checks) is phenomenally higher (circa 4:1) than for GOP opposition, I think your thesis that the net effect is "helping out the GOP" needs more supporting evidence.

verbaltoxin: The Democratic Party doesn't have a coherent narrative like the Republican Party. It's much more of a coalition with different wings within it, such as Feinstein/Boxer/Pelosi/Waxman making up the liberal, West Coast wing; conservative Blue Dog Democrats from the Midwest and South; and centrists like Barack Obama and Harry Reid.


It's actually true of both major parties; there's also clustering within the "Independents". (There's probably similar sub-factions of the Greens and Libertarians, too small to detect in nationally-proportionate statistical samples.)
 
2013-03-19 03:16:38 PM  

simplicimus: OK, bring 3 guns.


Also works less well in practice than in the movies.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.


I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.
 
2013-03-19 03:33:54 PM  

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.


Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.
 
2013-03-19 03:37:32 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:
There are no swing states in Congressional elections. But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

PS you are wrong:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-demo c rats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/
 
2013-03-19 03:39:33 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.


No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.
 
2013-03-19 03:41:23 PM  
manimal2878:

You claim to be rational, but you are extremely emotional on the single issue of gun control

It is so important to you that it overrides any other political issue

You have apparently bought into the NRA paranoia that a local or federal agency having a record of gun owners means they will one day invade your home and take away all your toys.

When someone points out the logical inconsistencies in your belief, you reach for the (emotional) insult-and-abuse response.

Part of what this thread is about (well the early bit anyway) was whether the GOP base is stupid or mentally ill, because they are unable to see past their (emotionally-based) prejudices and to recognize what the rest of the electorate regard as fair and reasonable.

You could perhaps consider how that applies to you.
 
2013-03-19 03:42:39 PM  

manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: manimal2878: Philip Francis Queeg: But your deep concern about something you neither know or care about is noted.

I never said I was deeply concerned champ.  You asked a question and I answered it.

Yes, you keep posting repeatedly to defend the position that you not only know or care nothing about, but one for which you are completely unconcerned.

No, I have been perfectly clear, except you and those like you, were so busy stroking your cocks off to each other that when somebody said something that was sligtly out of line with the circle jerk that was going on you didn't read what I actually said and instead started arguing with what you thought I said.


You directly said  to me that you knew nothing about the issue, cared nothing about the issue and are not concerned about the issue.
 
2013-03-19 03:50:46 PM  

mjjt: manimal2878:

You claim to be rational, but you are extremely emotional on the single issue of gun control

It is so important to you that it overrides any other political issue

You have apparently bought into the NRA paranoia that a local or federal agency having a record of gun owners means they will one day invade your home and take away all your toys.

When someone points out the logical inconsistencies in your belief, you reach for the (emotional) insult-and-abuse response.

Part of what this thread is about (well the early bit anyway) was whether the GOP base is stupid or mentally ill, because they are unable to see past their (emotionally-based) prejudices and to recognize what the rest of the electorate regard as fair and reasonable.

You could perhaps consider how that applies to you.


I'm not emotional at all.  It doesn't override every issue as I already said.  I think the NRA is full of shiat, which I also already said.  In fact why are you even introducing the strawman that I believe their bullshiat?

The only thing logical inconsistencies people have pointed out are the illogical consistencies of a position I don't hold.

My opinion is not emotionally based so your implication that I am stupid or mentally ill like the GOP is unfounded.  Keep reading the thread and you can see exactly why I think the GOP is failing.  Stop assuming my position and thoughts from the one post you read.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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