It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by sheepslayer247
I've been "unfriended" a few times on FB already this morning for poking fun at the boo-hooers. And I don't even support Obama, I just don't see how anyone thought Romney would be any different, and I don't see why they are so upset. There are people that literally think our country died today. I've seen it on FB, I've heard it a work, etc. The guy I went to lunch with today thinks we are doomed.
The big thing is the pro-life crowd. They are livid! But why? Romney was never going to stay pro-life. He wasn't going to enact any such legislation, he has said so plenty of times.
The economy? Well, it has taken a dip today, just like it could have taken a bounce today, but it is only temporary. By Monday the stock market will be doing its typical illogical thing instead of its current reactionary illogical thing.
Even if you believe all the doom and gloom, and even if Obama can now proudly display his horns, so what? At least we get to the business at hand instead of delaying it further. We were doomed before last night, but at least this way, its possible we might get to see this thing through and see the government for what it really is, instead of being falsely misled for another 4-8 years.
My candidate lost too. Didn't even get 1% of the votes. Should I be mad? Tell everyone they are idiots for falling for the two-party stranglehold? Well, that is all true, but I didn't say it.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
The GOP is going to try the same formula in 2016 but instead of white, they're going with brown aka Marco Rubio.
Same policies, different color.
Good thing we have Rand Paul 2016. But its not the libertarian wing of the party that everyone should worry about. Rand Paul does have a good connection with the entire GOP electorate, let's hope they take the policies seriously and not just cheerlead for party loyalty.
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by darkhorserider
Sadly Huntsman was the most qualified this year. Pushed out of the ring by the freak show. I will add to this if it weren't for the Republican Parties insanity right now the Libertarians would be doing far better right now. But they will be unable to peel off the more centrist Democrats as long as the Republicans continue to put up candidates that just simply can not be allowed to hold office i.e. Todd Akin.edit on 7-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by HappyBunny
If nothing else Obama winning is showing why I dislike his supporters. Rich old white men. Classism, ageism, racism, and sexism. You talk about minorities? lol. Which do you think is the smallest minority? From your previous words you imply you are not prejudice but with that statement alone you show your true colors. During this race I have heard more about removing the old white man then I have ever heard about about removing a minority before from society.
Of course I am only 60 years old. I was not around when Hitler started on the Jews. Any similarities? Hitler started with blaming the Jews for all that was wrong with Germany. I keep hearing about how all the problems in this country were caused by old white men. The Jews were rich and Hitler wanted their money. Humm, I see you mentioned rich above and I keep hearing about how Obama supporters want to redistribute the wealth, of the rich old white men. So that makes three similarities so far. Smallest minority, getting the blame, their money should be taken from them and passed out to everyone else. Just something to consider.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by darkhorserider
O-b-a-m-a does spell D-e-a-t-h to this country unless we can reverse the tide and roll back communism in spite of his disastrous agenda.
I say REVERSE the TIDE!
Originally posted by Red Cloak
Originally posted by eLPresidente
The GOP is going to try the same formula in 2016 but instead of white, they're going with brown aka Marco Rubio.
Same policies, different color.
Good thing we have Rand Paul 2016. But its not the libertarian wing of the party that everyone should worry about. Rand Paul does have a good connection with the entire GOP electorate, let's hope they take the policies seriously and not just cheerlead for party loyalty.
Rand Paul is a certifiable lunatic.
Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by HappyBunny
I don't think Rand Paul is a bad guy, but he isn't Ron Paul, and he isn't the right guy for the job. He is really in a no-win situation. If he follows his father's footsteps he'll be called a nutcase, and if he veers off in his own direction he'll be a disappointment.
I agree Huntsman is the right guy for 2016.
I wasn't a fan of Christie, until I saw him lay into the reporters when asked about making nice with Obama. He said adamantly that it was not about politics, it was about doing what was right for the residents of his state, and he seemed angry that they would even ask. He seemed sincere and passionate, so I see now why so many people like him.
Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by HappyBunny
Yep, Romney should have praised Christie and mirrored his statements, and advertised his patriotism in putting his trust in the president to handle a crisis.
I like sports, you can have the worst coach in the history of the game, and everyone can know it, but if a player comes out and blames the coach, then suddenly the player is the bad guy. Obama is currently president, and even if you are running against him, during a crisis, you need to put everything else aside and respect the office, and respect the role, and put up a unified front that government can handle the crisis effectively. Christie got that, but Romney didn't. Christie was obviously more presidential than Romney was. Romney was never the right guy for this job. I've never heard a person say they just loved Romney and supported him as a person. His campaign slogan should have just been more straightforward and said, "Not Obama," because that is all he had going for him.
Originally posted by Plotus
It seems the lure of the Libs is entitlements, free stuff. Well there is no free stuff, just a redistribution of stuff, with a Handling fee attached by the Bureaucrats. They, are getting more 'free stuff', and you are getting stuff, in appearance only. Taxes are going up, thats one of the first announcements 0bama made after the election. Stuff..... yea, all the stuff you wanted, like food stamps because the economy is so bad, now isn't that a real bonus..
It's the 8th of November, and 'Sandy' has already fallen off the radar, the Stock market is running in the Red, the market plummeted, and now there's talk of reinvigorating aid to Syria. New Yorkers have been left to their own devices, the EPA has turned loose to implement some of the most drastic regulations ever. You do not promote prosperity by taking away from the working man. And make no mistake the redistribution is taking your money.
You (OP) can chastise the Republican party all you want, but in the long run, becoming liberal is nothing more than the path of least resistance and the falling away of our moral fiber and obligations. Giving up character for cash. Trading freedom for so-called security. But that security or illusion of security will be short lived. The majority of Republicans have Built and sacrificed for America in Blood and Sweat, while the Democrats have done little but consume the wealth and contribute little. And at the same time leading the Decay of the moral social structure of this Great Nation.
Methinks you need to read up on the likes of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.
Originally posted by micmerci
Methinks you need to read up on the likes of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.
Sorry it took so long to respond, I had work- I have to support 51% of the country, you know! I kid, I kid! Just a joke, please don't pummel me with hate posts!!
The point of my reply- I'm wondering if the Eisenhower uthinks I should read up on is the same one that was virtually solely responsible for In God We Trust on all our money? And the same one responsible for One Nation Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance?
Methinks most people today are living under revisionist history and moral relativism.edit on 8-11-2012 by micmerci because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by HappyBunny
I am simply setting the record straight on the history of the Republican Party's platform. I have made no reference to my individual stance on ANY issues on ANY of my posts throughout this thread. So, to assume that I am a moral absolutist is baseless and just an attempt to sideline the purpose of my post.
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by HappyBunny
I am simply setting the record straight on the history of the Republican Party's platform. I have made no reference to my individual stance on ANY issues on ANY of my posts throughout this thread. So, to assume that I am a moral absolutist is baseless and just an attempt to sideline the purpose of my post.
Okay, then--where has the Republican Party's moral absolutism gotten it?
As far as the history of the Republican Party's platform, prior to about 1980 there wasn't much difference between the GOP and the Dems except maybe in foreign policy. Maybe you should look up Rockefeller Republicans and then contrast them with the neocons. And then look at Taft and Hartley. Eisenhower not only didn't repeal the New Deal--he expanded Social Security, for heaven's sakes.