Message to GOP care of Rachel Maddow

page: 7
78
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So summed up Obama took the counties where more people actually live. But Romney got the votes where the livestock, trees and crickets live. We knew this. Maybe we should let the livestock, trees and cricket vote, is this your point?


I don't understand why I keep reading about who won more counties. What difference does that make? Counties don't vote; people do. The fact of the matter is that Obama won the electoral vote, the popular vote (by about 3-million people) and he won more states. Is the fact that Romney won more counties some sort of consolation prize? I just don't see any relevance to that statistic.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Think of it from a behavioral standpoint...

People in concentrated population areas such as cities understand what is needed to get along with other people, because they have to.

Whereas rural citizens are more isolated so they can live as they please and not have to compromise with others.

In a country of over 300 million, which has the more practical approach to government, which is a necessary evil?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


oops, pulled a liberconservatism action, my apologies dear reader...





and UN election observers are not taking over Texas,


18) of couse not... to many places they could have accidents....

You do not get to belittle a point here...what are UN members doing violating election laws... I do not like abbot but he was right Texas law does not allow it and I do not think US law allows it...

If they adopt the american constitution as there own then they can watch... otherwise I side with caution of not letting my neighbor watch my checkbook on this one.....





and moderate reforms of the regulations on the Insurance Industry, the Financial Industries in this country are NOT the same thing as Communism


19)Well since you brought up Communism, your wrong this is not communism... It is a power issue... something dictators (some of who were communist) set up... it is an issue of assuming control and who has that control..

You see, stailin and hitler were not communist or socialist... they were pricks who took power with morons help... and each hid it under a cult like set of followers....

Why the need to prequalify reforms with moderate....??? hiding something


If you have any other question let me know...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Unfortunately your most vocal supporters, just as the most vocal conservative supporters do as well, demand that we give up our core beliefs. For instance the demand for contraceptives. I have no problem with you buying them for yourself but I do not see why I should buy them for you. I do not demand you buy condoms for me do I? Liberals turned this into a war on women?

Some of the posters on here are starting to get it. Those that have core beliefs we can deal with and compromise. I can not quote Heinlien correctly but he said something like this. A liberal is someone who will change his mind 6 times before breakfast according to the last person who talks to him. All in the pursuit of good. That is the problem. Someone who does that can not be compromised with as they will change their minds the next minute for something else, all for good.

Another problem liberals have is bleeding hearts. They will sacrifice 10 kids tomorrow to save one today. Then when tomorrow comes and the butchers bill has to be paid they cry but I did not mean it. You can compromise with anyone who has real core beliefs that they stand by. Somewhere, somehow along the way, most liberals I have met have come to the belief that because THEY have no core beliefs that no one does. That they can threaten or buy anyone they meet.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So summed up Obama took the counties where more people actually live. But Romney got the votes where the livestock, trees and crickets live. We knew this. Maybe we should let the livestock, trees and cricket vote, is this your point?


I don't understand why I keep reading about who won more counties. What difference does that make? Counties don't vote; people do. The fact of the matter is that Obama won the electoral vote, the popular vote (by about 3-million people) and he won more states. Is the fact that Romney won more counties some sort of consolation prize? I just don't see any relevance to that statistic.


There isn't any relevance. They're just trying to make themselves feel better by engaging in some wishful thinking, that's all.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Sergeant Stiletto
 


what ????

I think your both to blame for the mess this country is in... and yes... talking with morally questionable people requires preset defining of terms...

after all it is Bill Clinton who set the precedent


you just got emotional over an answer and cherry picked only one part to troll a response to...

I answered her message since I keep getting accused of being a conservative I decided to answer-- quit calling me one and Id let it go...


I am An American who thinks for himself...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Are you telling us your biased against livestock?
edit on 8-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)


My apologies to the cows.
Heaven forbid I should be exclusive and not inclusive of all regardless of genus or species!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


I believe many of the people on this planet have become desensitized.

You know, not believing in anything gives people the liberty to justify just about everything.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


I believe many of the people on this planet have become desensitized.

You know, not believing in anything gives people the liberty to justify just about everything.



The same could be said for those who believe in an invisible spaghetti monster and all the blood that's been spilled in the last 2,000 years.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


No one has asked you to pay for or have the Government hand out contraceptives. What has been done however is to require insurance companies cover them in the same manner they do most if not all other prescriptions as they should be. This single issue has been so distorted and exaggerated it is not even funny. There has been in fact a war on women. From person-hood amendments, which by their very nature remove even the choice of being able to use certain contraceptives. Which then becomes another health issue because hormonal birth control is used to treat a variety of other conditions. Like it or not Planned Parenthood and the ability to go there saved my reproductive ability in my younger years.

I want to know what core value it is you just can't let go, and why your core values are in fact greater than anyone else? Why is it that your core values make it so that you can not look at history and see prohibitions do not work and do nothing more than elevate crime rates and enrich criminals? Why is it that your core beliefs make you incapable of saying it is better to let them decide for themselves? I don't ask that you respect my choices, I don't ask that you approve of them either. I do ask that you respect my right and ability to decide for myself what is best for me.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Again I hear the rhetoric about the sanctity of life. That is hypocrisy on so many levels.

If people truly believed that all human life was precious, they would make sure everyone had something to eat, clothes to wear and a place to shelter from the elements...but they don't. It's ok to defend and protect a growing mass of cells but a starving 3 year old or a homeless veteran are acceptable "collateral damage of capitalism".

The value of life is in direct correlation to the scarcity of it. 200 hundred years ago when life spans were less and there were less people...life was more valuable than it is today. Just look at the attitudes toward human life in areas with tremendous populations...Africa, India and China...life is not so valuable there because there is so much of it. We are 330 million...there is no country in western Europe even anywhere close to that.

I am not trying to take a particular side here other than the side of freedom, liberty and choice. I have a distinct dislike of hypocrisy, regardless which wing of the false two party paradigm is talking.

Only when someone's choices directly effect my ability pursue my Constitutional right of "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" do I have anything to say. This spying and prying and attempts to control the choices of others (when it has no direct impact on your life) heralds back to terribly ugly times when neighbors reported neighbors to the authorities (USSR and Nazi Germany anyone?) and it must not be allowed. Trying to clean out your neighbors closet or spying on them for your own personal "core values" is an ugly-ugly thing.

We have civilized codes of conduct as to what we can and cannot do in public. What we do behind closed doors or what we do to our own bodies is not part of that code. People need to stop trying to force their world views on others...it's really that simple.

If you are willing to bear a rape child to term...I applaud you...but do not expect others to share that view. That is your choice and you are entitled to it...just as those who choose not to are entitled to theirs.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Great Heff. I am proud of you. Particularly that bit about ignorance! Shall we start with yours? I have no fear of change. I have been there Heff. From magnetic donuts for memory to controlling spacecraft. I think that is a lot of change. On social issues. I fought for equal civil rights for all. Unfortunately having been there I know I did not fight for special rights for special groups as now happens with liberals. If you were honest about what you say you believe in then we can compromise because contrary to your assumptions I am for those too. I have almost died for them as they are my core beliefs. Are you willing to die for them or are they only for show Heff? For most liberals they are for show. In my experience when push comes to shove liberals like most people are not willing to die for their beliefs as anything is negotiable to them. That is the problem.

Because I say I am a conservative you have instantly assumed you know what I stand for. The interesting thing in this thread is that none have asked. I asked you and look how long it took for you to answer. That is another reason to NOT compromise. It seems few on either side care to know what people stand for. They take what they are force fed from the media and accept it as true. Kind of ignorant if you ask me. I ask! By the way what you have listed is kind of shall we say general. You know. Non-specific. It is the specifics that matter.

Let me pick a specific. How do you feel about post-birth abortions?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dreine
 


Your values aren't wrong. You are just not seeing the big picture. Thanks to information technology, automation and the rise of the Internet, our inefficiencies have made 40 million American "jobs" redundant in 20 years. This in spite of the reality on the ground that the number of people looking for jobs has nearly doubled in the same amount of time.

We need to re-evaluate our core concepts. Job-sharing, research and development, high tech job training and the concept of "full employment" need to be examined so that we can move forward.

We no longer live in 1985. Nothing is "off the record," ever. If we want to compete on the world market, we need to reexamine and re-imagine policies which promote 3 trillion in war spending, while our allies spend their treasure guaranteeing their people won't lose their jobs if they get cancer. Americans can't compete in a world where 400 families control more wealth and power than the bottom 50% combined. That's not socialism, but an admission that everything runs betters when everyone has "skin" (money) in the game.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Congrats to the author, for I think she actually used all 42 logical fallacies in her little naritive....



he really did win, and he really was born in Hawaii.


I think the true point is whether he went to college under the false pretence of a foreign student to get the scholarship he used that was basically FOR foreign students. All this kind of murky up the waters as to where he was born, but then we can just look at his school records and...wait never mind.



and the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up fake unemployment rate last month,


Maybe maybe not...great timing as Unenployment heads back up past 8%...lol



and the Congressional Research Service really can find NO evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy,


They did fine that increasing taxes on rich people runs the country for 10 days...they did find that adding 6 trillion to 10 trillion is not a good thing, they did find that Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half in 3 years didn't go so well. That is easy...I promise to cut 16 trillion down to zero in 3 months...now vote for me...



and Climate Change is real,


Yep, Obama won so this is real.... lol ok



and rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes,
and Evolution is a thing!


Ya this is all Republican's...you know there are NO Democrats that are religious....BTW the whole Rape spin...EVERYONE saw it as totally wrong....no one agreed or support it



and Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us,


Hold on there...it wasn't even an attack for a few weeks, and we still can't say the word terrorist, can we...lol



and nobody is taking away anyone's guns,


Say this one after four years....



and Taxes have not gone up,


Yet........We will not count the huge increase in sin tax though....that affects the poor more than anyone else....not that it is a REAL tax...How about paying double on cost of living...does that mean we are paying double taxes too? One would think so....



and the Deficit is dropping, actually,


Is it? will it go down once Obamacare and other events finally become active...like his 500 billion new stimulas plan that even his own party is backing away from....I think even for the liberals this one is still up in the air.



and Saddam Hussein did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction,


Well he did and he was one of the few nations that actually used them....



and the Moon Landing was real, and FEMA is not building concentration camps,


Ok........Yep we need to hit all the logical fallacies don't we.....



and moderate reforms of the regulations on the Insurance Industry, the Financial Industries in this country are NOT the same thing as Communism


Well three words here are used very incorrectly to explain Obamacare and they are "Moderate" "Reform" "Communism"....so take those three words out and the statement is basically correct....LOL





edit on 8-11-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


That is an extremely vague term. Technically murdering a 100 year old could be labeled as a "post birth abortion". If you are referring to the article written in the Journal of Medical Ethics then my answer would be that when a child is viable outside of the mothers womb it is no longer an act that could be considered abortion - it would be infanticide.

It is my sincere hope that this dialogue does not lead into a debate about abortion in and of itself.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
So summed up Obama took the counties where more people actually live. But Romney got the votes where the livestock, trees and crickets live. We knew this. Maybe we should let the livestock, trees and cricket vote, is this your point?


It was still basically 50/50 in support. Well it is easier to heard the "livestock" in the big cities...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komonazmuk
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


Hey Grandma, since when is stating facts name calling?


This is the problem Rachel Maddow is showing in this report in my opinion - the absolute refusal to face facts. It's not name calling and insults when it's just statement of fact. Even people within the Republican party itself are beginning to openly admit that they have become increasingly detached from reality, more driven by religious ideology and authoritarian mentality than any actual social movement.

Personally, I don't care if the Republican party and media wakes up or not. I think it would actually better to see them become more and more irrelevant and eventually die out like the dinosaurs. Their opinions and beliefs are not supported by the American people, and I would suspect that this has been the case for a long time. Only difference is that now more and more young people are actually voting.

I think we'll see the Republican party split into two, with the more extreme "Tea Party" element being pushed out and and new Republican party taking the place of what you have now. Only this time they will be focusing on the economic conservatism and ignoring issues of faith when it comes to gay marriage and womens rights.

Ultimately the Republican party has moved further to the right while the American people have moved further to the left. The American people are not going to become more religious, therefore the Republican party actually has to change to become more acceptable in modern American society.

It will be interesting to see the Republican party push out the extremist element within its ranks, considering many of the most right wing are at the very top of the party.

Over the next two years you'll see a new third party. You'll probably have a religious party of zealots, racists and bigots pushed out of the Republican party to be funded by all the churches, religious groups and extremists. Then you'll have a more centred Republican party which focuses on economic conservatism and corporate interests, much like the UK's conservatives. And then you'll have the liberal Democrats.

The new third party of religious crazies won't get anywhere of course, they'll be like the extreme parties out on the fringe in European countries, but it would be a great way to dilute the religious power away from the real Republican party. I think you'll then see a tighter contest between the Republicans and Democrats in the next election, with the extremist party being left out on the fringe and wasting the religious backers money all over the place



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


I have never said my core values are better then anybody else's. I have just said that I have core beliefs. Most liberals do not. You say there is a war on women? I say there is a war on men promulgated by women. Look at the courts. If a man is having consentual sex with a woman and she suddenly decides no then he is automatically guilty of rape. Case decided by the US Supreme Court. One of the female justices Sandra even went so far as to say who is going to be there with a stop watch?

As to who pays. You do know that meat comes from cows and not the grocery store? Who do you think pays the insurance company to cover that payment. I forgot. Another liberal belief. Money comes from the government.

Now this may seem reaching but I have to ask. What if the majority thinks that putting a bullet in my head is the right thing? You would be for that wouldn't you? As liberals think that whatever the majority wants is correct. That is the reason this country is supposed to be a country of laws. To PREVENT the majority from just doing whatever it wants. I do not agree you have the right to kill whenever you choose. I PROHIBIT you from becoming a murderer. Now we just have to compromise on what life is right?

Actually the core value I have that I refuse to give up and will die for is the right for me to think. I know that is a hard one for liberals. It is easier to follow the crowd. You can also say that for some conservatives as well. I grew up on the south side of Chicago. In Roseland. The area which Obama as community organizer destroyed. Lots of gangs including the one in blue. Area 5 district where I was made it to the top of Amnesty Internationals worse police forces for torture. Prohibitions do not work right? Then why do liberals want to prohibit guns? Prohibitions DO WORK. Just as violence DOES solve problems in the real world. The devil as always is in the details.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


If you are willing to die for your core beliefs, doesn't that mean that you are pro-post-birth abortion?
Wow, you're not as conservative as you thought you were.

You didn't ask me, but I'm against post-birth abortion. I am also against the death penalty - that's a post-birth abortion. I am against war for ANY reason - that's massive post-birth abortions. I guess I'm more conservative than I thought I was.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sergeant Stiletto

People in concentrated population areas such as cities understand what is needed to get along with other people, because they have to.


In most big cities it is not people voluntarily getting along, but more controlling the masses. We can visit EVERY big city and we can go to MANY areas in those cities to prove my point, but I would not want to get hurt or worst to prove it.





new topics
top topics
 
78
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join