[dante1]

the end is near for the social conservatives and maybe even the R party. The demise of the R party does not make me happy but it can very well occur. Here is a party that should be attempting to recruit people because old white men won't live forever. Instead what are they doing, they are excluding people. How many different groups must you exclude before you become irrelevant? They have with their recent bickering more than likely lost the woman vote and if my math is correct that is about half. lol They have extreme problems with the Spanish speaking vote because they want to--well what the hell do they want. Each candidate was attempting to prove how strong he will be fighting illegal immigrants except when they are in Florida. They don't do well with alternate life style voters. I doubt if too many of these people will vote R, with the glaring exception of A Sullivan.

Here is a party that should be welcoming and they do just the opposite. How stupid must you be before you no longer matter? The irony about these social issues is they give great speeches to their base about how they will changes things and then when they win they do absolutely nothing about these issues. How many times have you heard school prayer is coming back, right! How many times have you heard we are going to overturn abortion laws, right! They feed their stupid base these lies and at the same time turn off potential R. It is a strategy that has to fail.

[Waterstpub87]

You forget that the democrat party is splitting apart due to immigration also. The far left amnesty crowd is alienating the blue collar union democrats. The far left crowd is alienating the blue collar union democrats with their environmental fundamentalism. The old hippy liberals have little in common with the blue dogs.

What liberals often fail to comprehend is that the republican party is a loose confederation of different voters. I vote republican because of the economy. I don't particularly care about gay marriage, Abortion is legal and should remain so. Other republicans, specifically the more fundamentalist christian members, vote on social issues. The party is composed of people who have more in common then different. But by no means do republicans march in lockstep on every issue.

Liberals have been saying the republican party is doomed for over 20 years. After Clinton won the election, republicans would fade away. After 2008, we were done. Yet we're still here. Republicans will most likely remain in control of the house, and take control of the senate. The presidential campaign will be a challenge, but Obama will be handcuffed without the legislature. Republicans are going no where.

[Carseller4]

Moderate Motto: Give me liberty or give me....hey what do you guys think?

[rkelly110]

I don't know about everyone else but, from what I'm seeing from the Repubs is their
rigidness. 3 years of no, almost shutting down the govt, creating a fiasco about the debt
ceiling which gave us a lower credit rating. Think they know what women and their bodies
want and signing pledges. They don't like change and are for the 1% of Americans.
They holler, bitch and moan about how the unfortunate are getting so much. Want
to get rid of Medicare and SS. Blatantly saying they want Obama out. No compromise.

[dante1]

I am not speaking about this year and maybe not even the next election, but if they continue to exclude the results will be obvious. The R party has made itself exclusive not inclusive and just the Hispanic vote alone could cripple this party in the future. They are one of the few American people that are having a ton of kids the R better start catering to Hispanics or they alone will crush them.

[Waterstpub87]

Hispanics, like other immigrant groups will become more like the rest of Americans politically soon enough. When the Irish came here, they voted solidly democrat. Now there is more of a mix. In ten to fifteen, you will see more Hispanic names amongst republican candidates.

On top of that, when are democrats going to learn that Americans don't want to live in socialism. No matter how you try to rationlize it, or push it down their throats, they don't want it. If anything, the continued attempts to interfer into free markets are alienating voters. I'd be worried about democrats and their continued attempts to have government take over the private sector, then the republicans. If anything, democrats failed economic policy are going to make them a footnote.

[Carseller4]

I don't know about everyone else but, from what I'm seeing from the Repubs is their
rigidness. 3 years of no, almost shutting down the govt, creating a fiasco about the debt
ceiling which gave us a lower credit rating. Think they know what women and their bodies
want and signing pledges. They don't like change and are for the 1% of Americans.
They holler, bitch and moan about how the unfortunate are getting so much. Want
to get rid of Medicare and SS. Blatantly saying they want Obama out. No compromise.

Republican rigidness? Don't remember Republicans slamming down the soon to be Un-Constitutional ObamaCare down our throat, effectively stealing $500 million from Medicare. Don't remember them trying to force Catholic Universities to give up their religious freedoms so a few sluts could have their free birth control. Obama and the Democrats on the other hand, love the poor so much that the food stamp rolls are at record levels, as are gas prices, and the national debt, and unemployment has been over 8% for so long you have to go back to the Great Depression to see a similar run.

[d2bets]

Hispanics, like other immigrant groups will become more like the rest of Americans politically soon enough. When the Irish came here, they voted solidly democrat. Now there is more of a mix. In ten to fifteen, you will see more Hispanic names amongst republican candidates.

On top of that, when are democrats going to learn that Americans don't want to live in socialism. No matter how you try to rationlize it, or push it down their throats, they don't want it. If anything, the continued attempts to interfer into free markets are alienating voters. I'd be worried about democrats and their continued attempts to have government take over the private sector, then the republicans. If anything, democrats failed economic policy are going to make them a footnote.

What a bullshit line. Republicans can put whatever labels they want on people, but most don't buy it.

[dante1]

When they don't know what to say or how to explain something they rely on "socialism" Such BS.

[Carseller4]

When they don't know what to say or how to explain something they rely on "socialism" Such BS.

I know socialism when I see it. So do the American people.

[Waterstpub87]

What a bullshit line. Republicans can put whatever labels they want on people, but most don't buy it.

Ok, fine. It might not be textbook socialism. Americans have made it clear that they:
1. Don't want your healthcare plan.
2. Don't want your attempts to stop energy production and to force a shift towards inefficient "green" energy programs
3. Don't want the democrats to spend us into collapse. Yes, the republicans do that too, but have recently been trying to stop the decent into illiquidity.
4. Want lower taxes and less regulation
5. Have noticed that every industry that the government gets involved in collapses. See housing market, student loans, green energy ect.
6. Believe the stimulus did nothing
7. Are worried about inflation due to government easing
8. Understand that doing nothing about social security will lead to it's collapse
9. Don't blame the wealthy for every problem in America
10. Don't like bailouts

Is that better?

[dante1]

I know socialism when I see it. So do the American people.

If you think what we have in the US is socialism you know nothing.

[golfrulz]

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday shows female voters play a significant role in President Barack Obama's current lead over Mitt Romney among 2012 voters. Tuesday's poll is the second major national poll in recent weeks pointing to a gender gap. Obama led Romney 57 to 38 percent among registered female voters surveyed, the president's largest margin among women to date, according to Langer Research Associates (pdf), which produced the April 5-8 poll for ABC.
Romney led Obama among men, 52 to 44 percent, but that wasn't enough to blunt the edge provided by the president's female support. When voters of both genders surveyed were grouped together, Obama led Romney 51 to 44 percent.

[dante1]

funny, I just posted basically the same, you must be eastern time.

[dante1]

The Republican Party will not vanish anytime soon. They will continue to fight with Democrats to win the hearts and minds of the American Public. As with the Dems, the Repubs will continue to have their loyal constituents and they will adapt to the changing landscape. I think Romney will win in November.

Oh, of course they will have their loyal supporters. But they are not doing a very good job of winning hearts and minds. And they are not adapting, just the opposite they are catering to the radical right and that will be a losing long term proposition. No doubt about that.

[dante1]

Present R politics has become so extreme that a moderate left leaning O appears to these guys like a socialist and they convince their base the same. That is ridiculous especially since O maintained much of the same policies as Bush. If you are extreme right and you gaze down the spectrum a moderate looks very much like a radical. But the facts don't hold that up even a little.

[DwightShrute]

Progressives are ruining America. Just look at the last 3+ years. 16 trillions in debt and a country divided like never before. Ya that's change alright. Talk about denial.

[dante1]

Progressives are ruining America. Just look at the last 3+ years. 16 trillions in debt and a country divided like never before. Ya that's change alright. Talk about denial.

Dwight get your history right before your reply. Clinton had the country doing just fine, 8 years of Bush did the damage. Compare the Clinton 8 to the Bush 8. Progressive vs conservative

8 years to break it, 8 years to repair it and the tide is already turning in four. Four more years and we might be back or close to the Clinton era and the Bush era will be a horrible memory.

[DwightShrute]

Dwight get your history right before your reply. Clinton had the country doing just fine, 8 years of Bush did the damage. Compare the Clinton 8 to the Bush 8. Progressive vs conservative

8 years to break it, 8 years to repair it and the tide is already turning in four. Four more years and we might be back or close to the Clinton era and the Bush era will be a horrible memory.

wrong. This might work on the John Steward/Bill Maher watchers of the world but not on those that understand how US politics work. The ones that understand know that Clinton was effective because he had no choice but to work with a GOP congress. Clinton could have been a baby like King Obama is today and blamed the other side at all hios woes, but he didn't. He instead took his ego and put it away. He worked with GOP. That's why Clinton was a good president. He put country ahead of himself and party politics. Clinton is 100X the president as King smug liar Obama is.

The exact opposite happened with Bush. The Dems controlled congress in 2006 and its no coincidence that's when the declined happened. Spin it all you want but these are the facts.

[CrazyCarl]

I agree that Bush was a bad president (horrible, actually), but the fact that you praise Obama is humorous to me. He has taken all of the worst aspects of Bush's presidency and made them even worse. Talked about how irresponsible Bush was with his spending, increased spending. Talked about ending the wars, tripled the troops in Afghanistan. Talked about "no more government spying on citizens who are not expected of a crime", and then extended the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA, and signed the FAA Reauthorization Act. Talked about a transparent government, works in secrecy. Calls for bipartisanship (not that I agree that bipartianship is usually a good thing), and blames everything on republicans.

Then, he criticizes the Supreme Court for shutting down laws that democratically elected officials passed, ignores that 70 something percent of americans find it unconstitutional.

The hypocrisy of Obama is laughable. Even Maher and John Stewart, who I kind of like actually, have been critical of him. He's one of the worst presidents in history, and it has nothing to do with him being black before you pull that one out of your bag (liberals love this fallback).

[dante1]

We will see how the people feel about this pretty soon. We can argue he said she said for decades and nothing accomplished. Let the people speak.

BTW, you call him one of the worst presidents in history and I will bet $1 to your donut your don't know squat about 90% of our presidents. This is why when guys like you make outrageous comments I realize how uneducated you truly are.

[CrazyCarl]

We will see how the people feel about this pretty soon. We can argue he said she said for decades and nothing accomplished. Let the people speak.

Good argument.

BTW, you call him one of the worst presidents in history and I will be $1 to your donut your don't know squat about 90% of our presidents. This is why when guys like you make outrageous comments I realize how uneducated you truly are.

I fail to see any rebuttal to anything I said, at all -- you simply attacked my knowledge. This was a completely useless post.

Congratulations.

[dante1]

Useless, I will tell you what is useless. When people use words like worst or one of the worst about anything and it is obvious they don't have the expertise to make that judgment. You should not say worse president or one of the worst presidents without being able to back that up with proof and the proof you will need is a spectacular knowledge of all of our presidents. That you do not have. So if you want to talk about rebutal here is one for you--learn how to present a valid argument first.

[CrazyCarl]

Useless, I will tell you what is useless. When people uses words like worst or one of the worst about anything and it is obvious they don't have the expertise to make that judgment. You should not say worse president or one of the worst presidents without being able to back that up with proof and the proof you will need is a spectacular knowledge of all of our presidents. That you do not have. So if you want to talk about rebutal here is one for you--learn how to present a valid argument first.

2 consecutive useless posts in a row. How many more can you go?

How do you know what I know? For all you know I have a PHD in american history and politics. Just drop the ad hominem nonsense attacks and get on with something, or shut up.

[dante1]

You argue like a child, useless is your favorite word.

I know for sure you don't have a PHD in American History. Positive, beyond a doubt.

Learn words that should and should not be used in any intelligent conversation. If you think that is useless well then educated people will make sport of you every time you do it. Just attempting to teach you some very elementary rules needed for debate. I taught it for decades. You don't use words such as always, worst, never they are words that detract from your argument and make your look foolish. It ain't useless kid. You may have the final word.

[CrazyCarl]

You argue like a child, useless is your favorite word.

I know for sure you don't have a PHD in American History. Positive, beyond a doubt.

Learn words that should and should not be used in any intelligent conversation. If you think that is useless well then educated people will make sport of you every time you do it. Just attempting to teach you some very elementary rules needed for debate. I taught it for decades. You don't use words such as always, worst, never they are words that detract from your argument and make your look foolish. It ain't useless kid. You may have the final word.

Man, 3 posts and we're still talking about a single word in my 3 paragraphs. I'm impressed. All of that and you didn't respond to a single thing I said.

I stand by what I said, and I don't care what you think about my use of the word. Someone's got to be the worst, so trying to identify who it is is not ridiculous, un-educated, or something to be avoided. Not that I even think Obama is THE worst in history.

And no, you have no clue about my history credentials (which shouldn't matter) or knowledge, because we didn't talk about much history, we talked about the last 12 years.

But hey, ad hominem is fun. Let's throw in a fallacy. "You don't have a PHD in history, and I taught debate in years, so therefore I am right and you are wrong."

Lol.

I really hope this isn't how you taught your students to debate, or I'm sure the judges couldn't stand them.

[dante1]

I wanted to test something and you failed miserably. I purposely gave you a huge advantage in my last response and you completely missed it. Read it again and see if you can find it. Read it carefully, use what I taught you and come back at me with a better argument than "ad hominem" a couple of you guys learned a new phrase and you are over using it which tells me it is a new toy.

Now, this is no trick and it is a learning experience for you. Read it again and find it and we will become friends and I will show you great respect. You have one half hour. Don't make me show it to you, show me you can learn. No joke, find it kid.

[CrazyCarl]

I wanted to test something and you failed miserably. I purposely gave you a huge advantage in my last response and you completely missed it. Read it again and see if you can find it. Read it carefully, use what I taught you and come back at me with a better argument than "ad hominem" a couple of you guys learned a new phrase and you are over using it which tells me it is a new toy.

Now, this is no trick and it is a learning experience for you. Read it again and find it and we will become friends and I will show you great respect. You have one half hour. Don't make me show it to you, show me you can learn. No joke, find it kid.

You're right, I missed it at first glance. It hardly matters, as I don't care about your debate rules and I don't care to attack you for such a statement.

You still believe in it even though you used it as a "test" supposedly, and you're right, but I have studied history and your assumptions about my knowledge have been ridiculous, off-topic, and unfounded. You continued this by assuming more about what I know and how long I have known it with your "new toy" remarks (which isn't really relevant) which were also unfounded and wrong.

Again, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'd much rather actually talk about this rather than bicker with debate rules like "don't say one of the worst".

[dante1]

Not off topic at all, if a person declares "every" or "all" the opponent has a right and a duty to have him prove his allegations.

Maher and Stewart are critical of O because they feel he hasn't been liberal enough.

What is the use of me supporting O and his policies with you. I have been doing that for four years and I am getting really tired of it. I certainly have a response for your argument I have made them probably dozens of times and it just gets boring. I feel O is a good man and a good president you feel he is not so we can go back and forth for weeks and nothing changes. I have presented dozens and dozens of arguments in defense of Obama. You and your team will use the same arguments that you guys use and I will counter ad nauseam.

If you are truly educated with a few degrees I should not need remind you about elementary procedures in debate. Or did you attend the University of Alabama. lol Sorry IP, I couldn't resist.

[CrazyCarl]

Well, at least you finally responded to part of my post, even though it was just the part about Maher (his largest criticism of Obama to me has seemed to be the foreign policy, and I don't really agree that his criticism was that Obama was not liberal enough -- but perhaps that's because I recognize that liberals are pro-war).

What a waste of time just to play a game with you. We could have filled 4 or 5 pages about the issues I brought up by now if we skipped the debate rules posts.

I only spent a couple years in highschool debate, and didn't care for it. Again, I don't really care to talk about my credentials, as I don't think they make any difference in the argument.

Have you attended the University of Alabama? If so, you can not imply that it is one of the worst!!!!!#$@!#$@!%#@%@%FFSDFDSFDEBATE

[dante1]

I was only teasing Itchy Pickle, he is a graduate and we had some words about it. A complete misunderstanding so I am joking with him. Good guy, my friend.

[CrazyCarl]

I assumed IP was Pickle, and that it was mostly a joke. The line wasn't meant to be taken too seriously if you didn't notice by the format.

[golfrulz]

The Republican Party will not vanish anytime soon. They will continue to fight with Democrats to win the hearts and minds of the American Public. As with the Dems, the Repubs will continue to have their loyal constituents and they will adapt to the changing landscape. I think Romney will win in November.