Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haven't liberals blown a historic chance to win over conservatives who didn't care for the fiscal irresponsibility and growth of big government that grew under the Bush administration? I did not care for Bush's hardliner stance, at times. The election of 2008 was a rare chance at converting some conservatives, perhaps permanently. Some of the very conservatives who may have been hit hard by the same economic factors the Democracts pretend to care about. This conservative was perfectly willing to give Obama a chance, even for about the first two years, as what he inherited wasn't his fault. However, instead of correcting these errors, the spending continued (some of that being "necessary" by the "dire" accounts that were given circa 2008). Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided to pull the party to the radical left, pushing pure socialism with Obamacare, instead of other reforms, and further pushing social causes at a time when America needed to focus on more important items. Economically speaking, some regulations put on bad business practices would have been just fine. But demonizing the producers in society and the radical move to the left on social causes is when the chance for "conservative conversion" was lost. Liberals decided to go the divisive route, inflaming racial, senior, women, and other groups' tensions. I assume this was done to demonize the older voting conservative base of the GOP. On race, this is a huge mistake long-term, however, as things were getting better; the younger generations aren't that bothered by color differences, and it has set back race relations when it was completely unnecessary, just to win an election.
IMO, there are a lot of structural, permanent changes in the economy that neither party is to blame for, nor can they fix. Both parties are the same: big government, big spending, encroaching into citizens' private lives...they just have different approaches on how to do it. If both parties are essentially the same, then this election comes down to social issues, even if it shouldn't. The question: "What kind of people do we want to be?" That is the election question. For all intents and purposes, it's a vote for the future of the country, not just "four more years." Furthermore, if the Democrats are adopting hardliner stances on several issues, it will be almost impossible to ever vote for one again.
I'm going to be splitting my sides watching the economic wackazoids try to wrestle wth this one.
What happens when the bill comes due is anybody's guess, but it's not the libertarians and moderates who will have to justify anything.
By definition, the Democratic Party has opened its tent only to those who have issues, and neither the means, nor the resolve and morality to address them. They will end up expending their hatreds and foiled dreams on each other while the nation continues to deteriorate.
The rest of us have better things to do; and we will be better prepared than this collection of losers.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-04-2012 at 01:07 AM..
I dont think those filthy liberals missed out on anything, they just better not push their luck with guns.
If theres ANYTHING that were missed, its those over the hill angry white males sitting in the corner of the republican party recovering from a very very bad hangover, they just need to be shot. They have successfully hacked the conservative movement with their right wing extremism in every meaning of the word.
When push comes to shove, it will be conservatives on conservatives, just look at how polarised and divided it was durring the primarise. willard not even a real conservative and yet he's the nominee?? LOL..
I wouldda voted for santorum if he was the nominee, he had balls and stood for something.
Anyone that thinks Obama tried to shift the nation to the "radical left" is out of their damn mind. Obama's biggest problem is he's been a center/right republican, keeping most of the epically failed W policies in tact, and trying to reach the olive branch out to the right wingers, instead of telling them to go to hell to do what's right, which was a huge failure.
Today's GOP are nothing but out of control, hard right lunatics hell bent on destroying the nation at all costs.
Anyone that thinks Obama tried to shift the nation to the "radical left" is out of their damn mind. Obama's biggest problem is he's been a center/right republican, keeping most of the epically failed W policies in tact, and trying to reach the olive branch out to the right wingers, instead of telling them to go to hell to do what's right, which was a huge failure.
Today's GOP are nothing but out of control, hard right lunatics hell bent on destroying the nation at all costs.
What you described in your post would define the first part of Obama's presidency. Obama, much like Bush, doesn't do anything to reign in the radical components of his party and their message. What I highlighted in bold is much in line with my OP: both parties are the same on large issues like foreign and economic policy, with a few differences here and there. So, the election then comes down to social issues. What I highlighted in blue: again, to my point, if many fiscal conservatives did not like Bush's economic policies, like the Bush tax cuts, they were, in fact, extended by Obama. I'm not sure why people continue to think conservatives have remained in power. If anything, over the past 50 years America has become increasingly liberal, even with a good many of those years defined by Republican presidents.
Quote:
...and trying to reach the olive branch out to the right wingers, instead of telling them to go to hell to do what's right
Obama Takes A Shot at Supreme Court Over Healthcare
Quote:
Article: A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, took issue with Obama's preemptive strike and his use of the word "unprecedented."
"What was ‘unprecedented' was the partisan process President Obama used to shove this unconstitutional bill through despite the overwhelming objections from Americans across the country," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul
Maybe we should have voted for a liberal in 2008 rather than a centrist, is that what you're saying?
Because Obama is scarcely liberal; many of his policies wouldn't be out of place in the Nixon administration, and some of them continue Bush administration policies.
. If both parties are essentially the same, then this election comes down to social issues, even if it shouldn't. The question: "What kind of people do we want to be?" That is the election question. For all intents and purposes, it's a vote for the future of the country, not just "four more years." Furthermore, if the Democrats are adopting hardliner stances on several issues, it will be almost impossible to ever vote for one again.
I want to be a suburbanite. Obama is not going to let that happen.
Maybe we should have voted for a liberal in 2008 rather than a centrist, is that what you're saying?
Because Obama is scarcely liberal; many of his policies wouldn't be out of place in the Nixon administration, and some of them continue Bush administration policies.
Exactly. Which is why on those issues stated it won't matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat. Therefore, it comes down to social issues. There was no reason to inflame racial tensions by somehow demonizing all conservatives as racists, simply based on the make-up of the older demographic of conservatives who largely will not be around in 20 years. It is a slap in the face to younger voters and to all those who don't label conservatives as racists. Even if Democrats win the battle (the 2012 election), they've done damage to long-term trends in race relations.
Really, when it comes down to it, it is a hardline stance
From the aticle, Obama said it himself:
[quote]Article:"This election is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two fundamentally different paths for our country and our families," the Democrats said. [LEFT]
Read more: Dems reveal platform backing gay marriage, abortion rights | Fox News[/quote
[/LEFT]
What I'm saying is, the Democrats could have easily won over independent conservatives, but, pardon the pun, they instead made their agenda about black-and-white issues, which, much like Bush, leave people with a feeling of: "You are for [cause] or against [cause]."
Article:In all likelihood, these planning commissions will issue “recommendations” which Obama would quickly turn into requirements for further federal aid. In fact, his administration has already used these tactics to impose federal education requirements on reluctant states.
When do the official government tents go on sale for this Obamaville? (They used to use the term Hooverville).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
