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?
No. You're kidding yourself.
100% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, including your boy Paul Ryan, have voted to extend the insanity of Bush's tax cuts. If memory serves, they want them to continue forever. That's what Romney wants, too.
The Republican side doesn't have members who oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, unless you count the rare fringe exception like Ron Paul.
You seem to think that the Democrats could have attracted more Republicans if we acted more like Republicans. Unfortunately, that's been tried, but even adopting both the economic and the social ideology of the Republican Party would not get most Republicans to abandon the Republicans and come over to the Democrats.
I agree that this is an election for what our country will become. A civilized place with the same civil rights for everyone or a bigoted nightmare dominated by monopoly corporations and ruled by the proper people for themselves with the rest of us abandoned or in jail for believing our privacy included our bodies as well as our souls. This election will determine whether we are going to remain a Secular Republic of a Theocratic Tyranny. I choose Republic and the Republicans choose Tyranny. What do you choose?
An op-ed piece from Forbes, a conservative publication.
I'm shocked, I tell you.
Who is stopping you from living in your suburb?
Not to mention the fact that the suburbs exist precisely because they were subsidized into existence by the government in the form of highway construction, the mortgage interest deduction, the G.I. Bill, and (at a local level) by zoning requirements for single-family housing.
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
Both stances are hardline.
[quote]
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]."
Well, they do need something to distinguish them. Even their health care plans once implemented were more or less the same. I do think the extremist path the GOP has chosen makes me not sanguine about a Romney presidency, though.
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.
Nonsense. You are full of it. Obama is so far to the right as to be an Eisenhower Republican. Your party wouldn't recognize a socialist if one walked over and bit you.
Quote:
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.
Producers don't ship job overseas, open Swiss bank accounts and import low skilled illegals to take American jobs. When a hedge fund manager who has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it, he has no right to demand that he pays less in taxes on his money than the rest of us. When he does that he deserves to be demonized.
Quote:
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.
We are not the ones declaring that women are liars about rape. We're all not the ones trying to take away medicare.
Quote:
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.
Then don't vote Dem. You're just pretending you won't vote for Romney anyway. The Rep's stance on issues is insane. They believe women are vessels for fetuses, health care is best served by greed, cheap jerks who lay off people should be entitled to special privileges in the tax code and Christianity should be shoved down everyone's throats.
You're not a moderate looking for a party. You're a conservative whining that the Dems aren't conservatives.
100% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, including your boy Paul Ryan, have voted to extend the insanity of Bush's tax cuts. If memory serves, they want them to continue forever. That's what Romney wants, too.
The Republican side doesn't have members who oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, unless you count the rare fringe exception like Ron Paul.
You seem to think that the Democrats could have attracted more Republicans if we acted more like Republicans. Unfortunately, that's been tried, but even adopting both the economic and the social ideology of the Republican Party would not get most Republicans to abandon the Republicans and come over to the Democrats.
Why can't you get it through your liberal shield that the day that Obama asked Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts they became his also. The Bush - Obama tax cuts, for real. The Bush tax cuts in liberal think only.
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.
In all fairness, Nixon would be an unelectable RINO in today's Republican party.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided to pull the party to the radical left, pushing pure socialism with Obamacare...
Aaaand there we have it. The Heritage Foundation - who were the original cheerleaders for the individual mandate - is now "radical left" and thought up "pure socialism".
Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided to pull the party to the radical left, pushing pure socialism with Obamacare,
When I read these kinds of statements I have to wonder if people were living under a rock, in a coma or brain dead during the 2008 presidential campaign because of all the things Obama campaigned on healthcare reform - and one far more "radical" than what was eventually introduced - was his #1 legislative priority!
Quote:
instead of other reforms,
Like what, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173?
What else did you have in mind?
Quote:
further pushing social causes
Outside of allowing gays and lesbians the right to serve openly in the military, what pray tell social causes did Obama pursue???
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.
