Army of GOD wrote:THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS
Don't you have football to watch?
Moderator: Community Team
Army of GOD wrote:THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS
InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.
AndyDufresne wrote:Can you ever return to the past really? I don't think ever think so. Too many variables. But here's to hoping the future is bright.
--Andy
InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.
Army of GOD wrote:InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.
0*x=0
thegreekdog wrote:I read an editorial (I think from Fox) on how the mainstream media cost Romney the election. While I think this is mostly about putting their heads in the sand, it is interesting to read the thoughts.
For example, there were two weeks of regular news commentary on the 47% comment. And I think that's valid. But, as a counterpoint, there was virtually no mention at all of the Benghazi fiasco, which I think is reportable news that shows poorly on the president.
As another example (and something I've brought up a number of times on this form), there was a lot of focus on the lack of detail (or "lies") of Romney/Ryan regarding their fiscal and tax plans. There was no focus on the Obama fiscal and tax plans, which were similarly lacking in detail.
I tended to watch more mainstream media than not, and I didn't see a lot of reporting on any of the negative Obama items. I suspect a study will be done in the near future that shows that the mainstream media was more in bed with Obama, similar to what was done in 2008.
thegreekdog wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:I think David Brooks (Of the NY Times, of PBS Newshour) spoke pretty clearly since the start of the election season, and even in the years before, about his thoughts regarding the direction and possibilities of the Republican Party.
In one of his most recent editorials he came back to a line he wrote a while ago, I think due to the changing demographic and social views of America:Writing from South Carolina last January about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed:
āRepublican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. Weāve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.
āI agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.ā
--Andy
I wonder if white people who voted Democrat ever get offended by things like this.
stahrgazer wrote:Sorry, Greekdog, but that's just not so, Obama has stated his plan over and over again, it's just that "Republicans" wanted him to fail so much they wouldn't address it, at all, and now it comes up for another fight.
tzor wrote:First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.
Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.
The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done.
Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.
Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.
Timminz wrote:You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.
tzor wrote:Timminz wrote:You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.
Those are your words, not mine.
tzor wrote:First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.
Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.
The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done. (Stupid. Spiteful.)
Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% (Greedy. Lazy.)of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says (brainwashed) and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.
Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. (Slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome) Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.
thegreekdog wrote:And Romney stated his plan over and over again.
oVo wrote:thegreekdog wrote:And Romney stated his plan over and over again.
Not exactly true. Rmoney stated his 5 Point Plan repeatedly and in it he said what
he intended to do, but he never said how he would do it. This left many doubts.
Lootifer wrote:-a- Tinfoil hat answer is some conspiracy to ensure Obama got re-elected
-b- The media failed by not levelling the same question on the Obama campaign because quite frankly mainstream american media tends to be pretty rubbish and a mistake like this wouldnt surprise me.
I choose b. But I dont really know, and care even less.
Phatscotty wrote:the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....
rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Lootifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....
But there was plenty of question asked of Obama, and there's plenty of pro-republican bias media (give or take there seems to be roughly equal amounts of media bias on both sides); so really circumstantial evidence points towards there being little chance of a conspiracy occuring (since you would need to "pay off" all the right wing media, and why, then, only do it over this one issue?).
I am really inclined that the pro-repub media just failed in this one area; seems far more likely.
However, TGD, to you think Obama won the election because of this one issue? That is it was the one issue that tipped the balance? As that would answer my other question above adequately
Oh and maybe i lied when i said I didnt care I just dont care as much as I care about say, other stuff.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users