|
|
On November 11 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:48 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:
[quote]
$1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough.
It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it. Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get. no child with a 200k price tag makes 100k a year. Fuck, my COLLEGE cost more than 200k, and I wouldn't be making 100k even if didn't have problems with authority and an unemployable degree lol english majors
Actually, Bio on pre-med track/Business, though I am doing Nanowrimo this month. I go to college on mostly scholarships, so I come with a discount. 
I fully expect to make a lot of money when I finally get out of school, even though that's not the primary reason I chose my profession/studies.
So maybe not everyone is going to be like me, but hey, I'm doing alright.
|
On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you.
I don't like how he argues but talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem?
|
On November 11 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you. I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem?
Well played sentence structure sir.
|
On November 11 2012 13:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you. I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Well played sentence structure sir.
I misplaced a word. Problem?
On November 11 2012 13:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well, yes, I do change my argument when I find out I'm wrong... sorry?
if I'm being insulting I apologize, I'll try to tone it down a bit.
Yes, and when you change your argument you pretend that was your argument all along, or that your new argument is relevant to whether your old argument is right or wrong.
Like when I called you out on saying 3% more black 10% more latino would mean GOP landslide, and you responded with "well if the 3 million conservatives that stayed out came out, it would have been a landslide."
This works in debates where the point just gets passed along, so I guess you'd make a good politician whereas I might just stutter at getting called out but it makes no sense to argue this way.
|
On November 11 2012 12:57 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:50 NicolBolas wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. That's the point: social conservative ideas are out of the question. They have been categorically rejected by history. The country as a whole does not want them. If the Republican party wants to survive, then it needs to kick them to the curb. yeah we'll really do well by kicking out the majority of our base.... I can see why you're not a politician... lol But progressively and increasingly, republicans will become the minority of the country if the GOP stays so stubborn, with the aide of certain demographic trends. Appeasing in-party values/stances is one thing... but if they can't get you the electoral college, then it's time to play ball and shift gears.
The problem isnt so much the republicans in power as it is the base they spent so long firing up has no gone out of control.
A lot of people noted how stubborn mitch mcconnell (senate minority leader) seemed after basically losing every single close race and losing seats in senate and making that out to be a mandate to do basically what Mitt Romney talked about doing. The problem is that if he does anything remotely seen as making a deal with Obama or even probably votes for whatever deal they come up with, he will be primaried and he will lose.
You might think that sounds unlikely but every other republican who has been seen as showing signs of willingness to work with other side has been getting primaried out. Look at Dick Lugar, a veteran senator seen as a genius on foreign policy and a staunch conservative but he got primaried out because people thought he might be willing to work with democrats when his opponent said "compromise is democrats coming to our point of view". They need to figure out how to get there base to go along with working together or they wont be able to do so.
|
It's stupid for Republicans (the party that should be all about the government not telling anyone what to do and being as small and efficient as possible) campaign on social issues. Social issues should be left at the state and community level; it's why we have states to begin with. There are plenty of things that people find objectionable and/or immoral, but they don't need to be legislated against, especially not at the federal level.
It's an absolute disgrace that the Republican party let the presidential race be sidetracked by abortion, binders full of women, etc. Why did we never hear about the civil rights encroachments under Obama (NDAA, Patriot Act, etc)? Why couldn't they outline an actual concrete plan for economic recovery? Why couldn't they outline a plan to increase the level of respect for America abroad? Etc.
If they back off these issues, the people who vote that way aren't going anywhere else.
On November 11 2012 12:18 Eschaton wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 02:41 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 11 2012 02:23 SayGen wrote:
It's really upsetting to see how people sell themselves short, I was really hoping America would start climbing back on the educational ladder to success. Now I fear only our private schools will offer any shelter.
Under Obama Americans have scored lower than any time since Bush Senior. Our high schools are nothing but daycares, too many 'graduate' without having the basic skills of reading and writing. If you want to make something of yourself you are all but forced into college- which costs thousands of dollars. Less money in our classrooms are spent on learning instead we will just hire more unqualified teachers who can't even obtain a 4 year degree.
American truly is under decline.
Average homeowner makes more than ~2000$ less under an Obama Admin and soon that 2000 is going to be ~2200 soon as Obamacare takes effect.
I won't go as far as saying Obama is ruining our country, we were already headed down before he took office--but Obama sure does like speeding the process us.
In a world where knowledge is power, America is fucked.
Shame Ron Paul didn't win.
I agree about the schools, but it seems to me that the blame entirely lies with NCLB and those that decided to enforce it - teachers are entirely judged on test scores and nothing else, funding is pulled from struggling schools (because that makes sense...) and teachers can find themselves having to teach from a script - finding themselves in the wonderful position of simultaneously being blamed for failing in the classroom while having no control over what is taught and how. I have a teacher friend in Cali who has kids in her class who cannot read or write, and in some cases English is a second language barely understood. Yet, as a 4th grade teacher she has to teach 4th grade English in class, regardless of whether these kids have the ability of third-, second- or even first-grade. Then she is judged for their failures. NCLB has some good points, but the bad points far outweigh them and is holding back a generation of kids in this country. Just wait until they enter the work force. NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan. What I would propose. Take all the money that goes to schools right now (including the teachers union fund) and take 90% of it and give it out EVENLY to all schools located in the US. which ever schools do the best gets a bonus from the remaining 10%. This way you offer an incentive to do well, while not harming schools that do poorly. Break the teachers union. Demand all teachers have a4 year degree from an accrediated school. Stop hiring excess teachers, no reason to have more than 1 teacher per 20 students. Did you really just say that poor and minority people are inherently less intelligent than others?
1. wtf is 'the teacher's union fund' ??
2. how do you accurately metric which schools are 'the best?' This is the problem. The majority of educators in this country want more accurate metrics for their ability. The problem is their schools don't have the resources to implement them.
3. Giving more money to the 'best' schools DOESN'T HELP, because rich kids usually do better in school because their parents have more time and money to take care of them. The schools in bad neighborhoods need more resources because the kids have access to less outside of school.
4. All teachers already have 4 year degrees from accredited schools.
5. Excess teachers? rofl. 1 teacher per 20 students? Smaller classes are better for education, not bigger.
You know absolutely nothing about education. In many states the teacher's unions are very weak already. It doesn't help their schools be any better (or worse). The BEST schools in the country are in the states where the unions are strongest. Most teachers (not necessarily union leaders) are very reasonable people who are not in it for power or money, so they have no qualms about negotiating. The problem is when people who DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT EDUCATION OR LEARNING AT ALL PERIOD WHATSOEVER come in with a hatchet and start cutting funds and at the same time demanding improvements with absolutely no plan to accomplish that. Republicans who talk like you are the reason people think that Republicans don't know anything about education.
And since the topic moves so fast: 'the race was so close! We don't need to change anything next time! Just 5% more blacks/hispanics/wizard votes!'
No. This was not close. After a mediocre (at the absolute best) term and low approval ratings, this should have been a home run for the Republicans. They are letting social issues (that a real republican would say the government should not get involved in at all) destroy everything. I guess it's hard to campaign for reform when you are taking in sick $$$ from corporate donors.
|
On November 11 2012 12:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction. 1) the people voted in the House again. 2) I can speak for conservatives much better than you, or any other liberal. 3) we obviously have very different definitions of compromise. conservatives haven't gotten all that much lately. 1) R - 53,822,442 - 48.5% D - 54,301,095 - 48.8% 2) You are pretty good at mirroring Republican talk radio and Fox News, but you're far outside of why most people vote Republican 3) Republicans have gotten a lot lately, it's just that what they got turned out to be full of shit. Debt ceiling crap, the individual mandate on health insurance (which was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, of all places), and extended tax cuts for the top bracket. Doesn't take long to see that everything they've done in the name of "compromise" has hurt the U.S., and you somehow expect us to give them more control.
House races aren't about the popular vote. and yeah, I'll agree that the amount of obstruction that went on, whether justified or not, hurt Republicans a lot.
educate me then on why conservatives vote Republican?
and you have to understand that the mandate, while originally proposed by conservatives, was also dropped by conservatives a while ago. it's not a Republican position anymore. the debt ceiling compromise was a cluster-fuck, but that's more because of the situation than anything the current House did, and extending the tax cuts has been shown to be essential to creating jobs and growth.
|
On November 11 2012 13:06 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 11 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you. I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Well played sentence structure sir. I misplaced a word. Problem?
So this is your post : I don't like how he argues but talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem?
and this is pre edit: I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem?
Thats a few words and you can't deny the subject matter makes it pretty ironic. I would have just told people I did that on purpose.
|
On November 11 2012 13:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:06 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 13:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 11 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you. I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Well played sentence structure sir. I misplaced a word. Problem? So this is your post : I don't like how he argues but talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? and this is pre edit: I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Thats a few words and you can't deny the subject matter makes it pretty ironic. I would have just told people I did that on purpose.
Yes and if you remove "it" from the original post it would have been grammatically fine.
P.S. Well played sentence structure sir.
Irony at its finest.
|
On November 11 2012 13:06 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well, yes, I do change my argument when I find out I'm wrong... sorry?
if I'm being insulting I apologize, I'll try to tone it down a bit. Yes, and when you change your argument you pretend that was your argument all along, or that your new argument is relevant to whether your old argument is right or wrong. Like when I called you out on saying 3% more black 10% more latino would mean GOP landslide, and you responded with "well if the 3 million conservatives that stayed out came out, it would have been a landslide." This works in debates where the point just gets passed along, so I guess you'd make a good politician whereas I might just stutter at getting called out but it makes no sense to argue this way.
I didn't pretend that was my argument, I just showed how what I was saying wasn't necessarily untrue. I recognized quite openly that I overestimated, while you have yet to recognize that you underestimated.
I made an assertion, you challenged it, I looked it up and you were half-right. so I changed my argument to fit the facts. yes I know, it's horrible for me to realize I'm wrong, admit it, and then change my argument. oh wait. that's not horrible at all...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2012 13:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:On November 11 2012 11:48 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:
[quote]
It's more than 1000.
The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it. Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get. no child with a 200k price tag makes 100k a year. Fuck, my COLLEGE cost more than 200k, and I wouldn't be making 100k even if didn't have problems with authority and an unemployable degree lol english majors Actually, Bio on pre-med track/Business, though I am doing Nanowrimo this month. I go to college on mostly scholarships, so I come with a discount. I fully expect to make a lot of money when I finally get out of school, even though that's not the primary reason I chose my profession/studies. So maybe not everyone is going to be like me, but hey, I'm doing alright.
i love english majors. don't take offense. that, and history, archaeology, and anthropology. <3
|
On November 11 2012 13:10 Bigtony wrote:
It's stupid for Republicans (the party that should be all about the government not telling anyone what to do and being as small and efficient as possible) campaign on social issues. Social issues should be left at the state and community level; it's why we have states to begin with.
Roe v Wade precludes that from happening (with abortion at least). gay marriage necessarily involves the federal government...
edit: also, I didn't say that it was close, or that we don't need to change anything, or that we can just magically get more votes.
|
On November 11 2012 13:14 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:13 Sermokala wrote:On November 11 2012 13:06 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 13:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 11 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you. I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Well played sentence structure sir. I misplaced a word. Problem? So this is your post : I don't like how he argues but talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? and this is pre edit: I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Thats a few words and you can't deny the subject matter makes it pretty ironic. I would have just told people I did that on purpose. Yes and if you remove "it" from the original post it would have been grammatically fine. P.S. Well played sentence structure sir. Irony at its finest.
My sentence is structured just fine. Yours was completely illegible. Your quip is invalid. I see not why you drag this out instead of just moving on from you making a horrible post that should have made you laugh. I'ma gona go to bed now so don't expect anything more.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 11 2012 13:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:14 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 13:13 Sermokala wrote:On November 11 2012 13:06 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 13:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 11 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:57 Sermokala wrote:
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you. I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Well played sentence structure sir. I misplaced a word. Problem? So this is your post : I don't like how he argues but talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? and this is pre edit: I don't like him but it talking to him entertains me, so I do. Problem? Thats a few words and you can't deny the subject matter makes it pretty ironic. I would have just told people I did that on purpose. Yes and if you remove "it" from the original post it would have been grammatically fine. P.S. Well played sentence structure sir. Irony at its finest. My sentence is structured just fine. Yours was completely illegible. Your quip is invalid. I see not why you drag this out instead of just moving on from you making a horrible post that should have made you laugh. I'ma gona go to bed now so don't expect anything more.
Your sentence structure was fine? This just gets better and better.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 11 2012 13:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:10 Bigtony wrote:
It's stupid for Republicans (the party that should be all about the government not telling anyone what to do and being as small and efficient as possible) campaign on social issues. Social issues should be left at the state and community level; it's why we have states to begin with. Roe v Wade precludes that from happening.
We still see each state having different regulations surrounding abortion. Some get struck down, but some stand. Again though, if you're Republican and you don't like abortion, instead of bitching and whining every 4 years when it's time to elect the president, support local women to not have abortions, educate your sons and daughters on how to not get pregnant, etc. I am 100% against abortion; I believe it is the termination of a person and should be prohibited as an infringement on a person's guaranteed right to life. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS does not agree and therefore it's basically impossible for it to be outlawed. Instead, I teach the young people I work with how to have responsible relationships and avoid making poor life decisions.
Is abortion still legal? Yes. Can I prevent every abortion? No. Can I work hard to prevent abortions without looking like an idiot? Yes.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the presidential race.
Aside - it's disgusting when people say 'WOW YOU DON'T WANT WOMEN TO HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR BODIES? LET'S JUST GO BACK TO ARRANGED MARRIAGES AND SLAVERY THEN.' It's hatemongering and intentional blindness to the issue - for pro-life people it has nothing to do with a right to privacy or your own body, it has to do with the unborn's right to life and your right to privacy not superceding their right to life. Defining personhood is not something that can be done with science or objective fact, it's something we have to reason out as a society. Our society has reasoned out that the unborn are not persons and therefore don't have a right to life.
|
I don't think it is wrong for Republicans and conservatives to push for national legislation or SCOTUS decisions that would lead to overturning Roe v Wade. of course we should do more on the local level, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work at a federal level.
|
On November 11 2012 13:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't think it is wrong for Republicans and conservatives to push for national legislation or SCOTUS decisions that would lead to overturning Roe v Wade. of course we should do more on the local level, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work at a federal level.
Of course it's not 'wrong,' it's just a waste of time. You will gain more ground by actually convincing real live people that your position is right through your actions and the way you live your life than by trying to ram through legislation or pack the Supreme court. This strategy hasn't gained any ground and isn't likely to in the future. It's too easy for any opposition to turn against you and it doesn't garner any support that you wouldn't get without it.
|
On November 11 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:50 NicolBolas wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. That's the point: social conservative ideas are out of the question. They have been categorically rejected by history. The country as a whole does not want them. If the Republican party wants to survive, then it needs to kick them to the curb. yeah we'll really do well by kicking out the majority of our base.... I can see why you're not a politician... lol
Well the country has actually spoken, they want Obama and the democrats, not the republicans. Doesn't that warrant some type of compromise on the behalf of the republicans?
|
On November 11 2012 13:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:53 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 12:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction. 1) the people voted in the House again. 2) I can speak for conservatives much better than you, or any other liberal. 3) we obviously have very different definitions of compromise. conservatives haven't gotten all that much lately. 1) R - 53,822,442 - 48.5% D - 54,301,095 - 48.8% 2) You are pretty good at mirroring Republican talk radio and Fox News, but you're far outside of why most people vote Republican 3) Republicans have gotten a lot lately, it's just that what they got turned out to be full of shit. Debt ceiling crap, the individual mandate on health insurance (which was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, of all places), and extended tax cuts for the top bracket. Doesn't take long to see that everything they've done in the name of "compromise" has hurt the U.S., and you somehow expect us to give them more control. House races aren't about the popular vote. and yeah, I'll agree that the amount of obstruction that went on, whether justified or not, hurt Republicans a lot. educate me then on why conservatives vote Republican? and you have to understand that the mandate, while originally proposed by conservatives, was also dropped by conservatives a while ago. it's not a Republican position anymore. the debt ceiling compromise was a cluster-fuck, but that's more because of the situation than anything the current House did, and extending the tax cuts has been shown to be essential to creating jobs and growth.
I am going to leave the flame bait alone and focus in the question in the middle of your post since I think it has merit. Originally, maybe 20 years ago when I was in the middle of single digits, I would have said that conservatives vote Republican because they want to believe crazy things and republicans create the necessary distance between them and the world to allow it. Basically this makes republicans the "tinfoil hats are a legitimate fashion choice" party.
If this were still the case, even as a liberal I would still be able to respect the Republican party. But what seems to be the case more and more is that conservatives vote for politicians because the politician him/herself IS conservative. This has created the insane task of finding people completely immune to facts in one part of their lives (fundamentalists, creationists, 1950's values voters) and yet completely the opposite in job performance. How do we even trust these people without subscribing to their particular brand of insanity?
This is what liberals are watching and fearing. It is that when liberals look at conservative policies they see good ideas but think theirs are better. When conservatives look at liberal policies they see madness. If becoming the fringe element in order to get their vote is the cost, then the cost is too high (and will eventually destroy the party).
|
On November 11 2012 13:29 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 13:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't think it is wrong for Republicans and conservatives to push for national legislation or SCOTUS decisions that would lead to overturning Roe v Wade. of course we should do more on the local level, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work at a federal level. Of course it's not 'wrong,' it's just a waste of time. You will gain more ground by actually convincing real live people that your position is right through your actions and the way you live your life than by trying to ram through legislation or pack the Supreme court. This strategy hasn't gained any ground and isn't likely to in the future. It's too easy for any opposition to turn against you and it doesn't garner any support that you wouldn't get without it.
Ugh. I'm so torn on this. 
Part of me wants the republicans to lose the social conservatism baggage so that there's two valid parties to choose from, and that it's about the fiscal issues and not this social crap.
But part of me loves the idea of watching old white men not be able to adapt and repeatedly lose because of these social issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
