The Goat Pen

"this has led to a lot of drinking, drug use, and a whole lot of divorces and ruined lives."

Drinking, drug use and divorce has also saved alot of lives...

It also sounds like any one of 100,000 country music songs.

hedge wrote:From an article about Warren Rudman:

"He is perhaps most well-known from his Senate years as co-sponsor of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget-cutting law. He left the Senate in 1993, frustrated that the law never reached its potential because Congress and presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush played politics instead of insisting on spending cuts."

You have identified the problem that even Rush Limbaugh had with President Reagan. Remeber the cardinal rule about Democratic Republics:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

We (as a society) haven't learned anything. If cutting spending was a winning platform to be elected, Romney would be President on Jan 20 2013.

If cutting spending was a winning platform to be elected, Romney would be President on Jan 20 2013.

Romney's loss had plenty other causes other than cutting spending. Real conservatives have a hard time doing that, much less Romney, who always spoke conservatism as a foreign language.

Romney also had zero charisma, as you correctly described.

Romney and his fellow R's drove the Hispanics into the Dem's arms with their harsh immigration rhetoric.

Romney's fellow R's (not Romney) drove a lot of women into the Dem's arms with lunatic talk about "legitimate rape" and rape pregnancies as being "a gift from God."

Romney and his fellow R's reinforced the common perception that they are deeply concerned with the plight of billionaires than they are about average people. When you insult 47% of the population as welfare queens, they don't tend to vote for you.

Professor Tiger wrote:

If cutting spending was a winning platform to be elected, Romney would be President on Jan 20 2013.

Romney's loss had plenty other causes other than cutting spending. Real conservatives have a hard time doing that, much less Romney, who always spoke conservatism as a foreign language.

Romney also had zero charisma, as you correctly described.

Romney and his fellow R's drove the Hispanics into the Dem's arms with their harsh immigration rhetoric.

(shrugs shoulders)

Well, then that's it. You can not have a welfare state PLUS loose immigration policy. You can't. We are getting the least educated and the most needy from Mexico and Cental America flooding our country and going on benefits. If there were no benefits, they wouldn't be here.

Italians, Poles, and Irish, didn't flood into this country to go on government subsidy. They came to work (and work legally.) And there wre factories and plants for which uneducated Italians, Poles, and Irish could find work. That does not exist today.

Professor Tiger wrote:Romney's fellow R's (not Romney) drove a lot of women into the Dem's arms with lunatic talk about "legitimate rape" and rape pregnancies as being "a gift from God."

That didn't affect Romney. Those women who hated the lunatic talk about legitimate rape and every pregnancy being a gift from God, those women were going to vote to re-elect the President no matter what was said (or not.) This is a gender specific issue where single women have proven that they are not responsible enough to have the vote.

End Women's Suffrage

Professor Tiger wrote:Romney and his fellow R's reinforced the common perception that they are deeply concerned with the plight of billionaires than they are about average people. When you insult 47% of the population as welfare queens, they don't tend to vote for you.

They weren't voting for him no matter what. Nothing was going to change that.

Romney was the most real Republican the Republicans had. He was the most "vetted" GOP candidate in the entire history of the Republican party. His problem was that he didn't inspire people to come to the polls. Even still, he was the best chance they had (best communicator.) Because he couldn't win, no one from the GOP could. NOW, we are fucked. And it is only going to get worse.

NOW, we are fucked. And it is only going to get worse.

We were fucked either way. Now we are just fast tracking.

efz

Its been two weeks now. You guys done crying yet?

Jungle Rat wrote:Its been two weeks now. You guys done crying yet?

I'm crying that you don't fully understand the damage that has been done.

Sorry. My crying was tears of joy. My bad. Carry on your next 4 year tantrum.

innocentbystander wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:Its been two weeks now. You guys done crying yet?

I'm crying that you don't fully understand the damage that has been done.

I understand the damage. See ya.

Moving on.....

Jungle Rat wrote:Moving on.....

What? My "crying" remains on-topic. This is the political discussion thread.

I'm still sore about LBJ.

You're still sore at your mom for sleeping with your boyfriend.

It's hypocrisy that makes it news (as someone pointed out before)

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2012/11/1 ... ex-charges

Anti-Equality Female Attorney Arrested on Underage Sex Charges

True, if someone from the left does this no one blinks an eye.

What I've been preaching all along.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes ... overnment/

sardis wrote:True, if someone from the left does this no one blinks an eye.

Because that wouldn't be hypocrisy. But let a person on the left be for gun control and then shoot an invader into the home. That would make national news.

sardis wrote:What I've been preaching all along.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes ... overnment/

So one-sided. It would also mean large increases in taxes for all since they were much higher for all than now (Republicans just cannot acknowledge that taxes have actually gone down under Obama in both the stimulus plan and with payroll taxes). It also would mean extremely large decreases in military spending.

One sided, but true. In fact, you have to cut more spending than Clinton because adapting Clinton taxes on just the rich does not generate near enough revenue as if you would also adapt Clinton's taxes on the poor and middle class.