GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2012, 11:13   #101
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,820
Where should I have my bills sent so Obama can pay them for me?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 11:29   #102
tslex
Senior Member
 
tslex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by QNman View Post
Say what now? Romney lost because he couldn't excite his base, yet he was the tea party candidate? Ease up on the morphine while posting. You'll understand your own rants better. Or at least the rest of us will.

If the GOP moves any further left, they'll be democrats.
It is NOT about "moving left." It's about taking the conservative message to ALL kinds of people -- black, Hispanic, female as well as white men.

The Ds had a plan to reach out to and mobilize people of color and women, while the Rs marginalized the former, ignored the latter and somehow imagined that arithmetic doesn't actually work and they could win an election by securing the votes of only white men.

If you think black folks, Latinos and women inherently cannot appreciate real values of conservationism because they are black, Latino or female then you're either racist and misogynist or you don't really believe that those values are worthwhile. [I'm not saying Rs are racists, I'm saying they ceded whole swathes of the population. Not saying conservatives are racist; saying it should be quite the opposite.]

Running to white men only means losing and losing and losing. But REAL conservative values -- as opposed to the pro-big-business, intrusionist, statist BS that the GOP has become -- are good for all people. If Rs want to be and win as conservatives -- not sure they do - then they have to change THAT. And that is not a move to the left.

Last edited by tslex; 11-10-2012 at 11:32..
tslex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 11:35   #103
unclebob
Senior Member
 
unclebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mary Esther FL
Posts: 6,642
And this one on how well the Liberals are informed and where they get there news. When the news media is in the pocket of Obama what would you expect
__________________
Team Carver Custom
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Life Member
GSSF Life Member
___________________________________________
unclebob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 19:19   #104
QNman
Silver Membership
resU deretsigeR
 
QNman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by tslex View Post
It is NOT about "moving left." It's about taking the conservative message to ALL kinds of people -- black, Hispanic, female as well as white men.

The Ds had a plan to reach out to and mobilize people of color and women, while the Rs marginalized the former, ignored the latter and somehow imagined that arithmetic doesn't actually work and they could win an election by securing the votes of only white men.

If you think black folks, Latinos and women inherently cannot appreciate real values of conservationism because they are black, Latino or female then you're either racist and misogynist or you don't really believe that those values are worthwhile. [I'm not saying Rs are racists, I'm saying they ceded whole swathes of the population. Not saying conservatives are racist; saying it should be quite the opposite.]

Running to white men only means losing and losing and losing. But REAL conservative values -- as opposed to the pro-big-business, intrusionist, statist BS that the GOP has become -- are good for all people. If Rs want to be and win as conservatives -- not sure they do - then they have to change THAT. And that is not a move to the left.
That's all well and good, but I must have missed the ads that were targeted to white males. I assure you - I am far from a racist. (My record here stands for itself). There was without question a complete lack of use of modern resources for reaching out to voters, but I don't get where you're coming from about race or gender. I have no idea why they stacked the way they did, nor do I have a solution of how to market better to a specific race or gender.
__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!
QNman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 01:59   #105
MartinRiggs1987
Senior Member
 
MartinRiggs1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubudd View Post
What in the world does obama have to do with RP on foreign policy. Obama and romney might as well be identical on foreign policy compared to RP. Either you don't know what RP's position is, or you don't know obama's, or more likely, both.
Dear Sir,

I do know of what I speak. And slamming my character is not an argument.

Paul's FP is very much in line with a liberal panacea. Remove all American presence abroad, and everything will be peachy. There's more to it, but that comparison is fair. I'm discussing the implication and motivation for such policies not labels. Thanks.

Last edited by MartinRiggs1987; 11-11-2012 at 01:59..
MartinRiggs1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 02:06   #106
MartinRiggs1987
Senior Member
 
MartinRiggs1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
Well said, OP.

The failure to defeat liberals is mostly about the corruption of true conservatism.

Moralists and Statists have co-opted the Republican party, and created devisive social issues on which to base their platitudes.

The other major factor is that too many of the people of this country believe that the have's should indeed support the have-nots, and that somehow it's OK to abandon the notion that intelligence and hard work are required to reach the pinnacle of that which our culture deems 'success.'

We are becoming lazy, both physically and intellectually,and the the vultures are coming to feed.

We have the answer right in front of us - libertarianism. But we don't want to make the sacrifices as a nation to return to a time when individual rights were sacred, America came first, and the government worked for the People.
"the corruption of true conservatism"? If anything its the libertarian slam machine, found via this site, that has corrupted the true meaning of the word.

The founding fathers would not embrace many of the policies and fallacies pushed across this forum as "true conservatism." Like Foghorn Leghorn would say, "Yap-yap-yap, keep that mouth flappin' and do no listenin'."
MartinRiggs1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 02:13   #107
Stubudd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kennesaw GA
Posts: 4,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinRiggs1987 View Post
Dear Sir,

I do know of what I speak. And slamming my character is not an argument.

Paul's FP is very much in line with a liberal panacea. Remove all American presence abroad, and everything will be peachy. There's more to it, but that comparison is fair. I'm discussing the implication and motivation for such policies not labels. Thanks.
But that's not obama's policy. He's been blowing up people in pakistan and yemen and and afghanistan and god knows where else pretty much nonstop, and hasn't removed any presence that i know of outside of ending the however many years in iraq. I do know of a few bases he's added in various places all around the world, like chile (???).

Paul wanted to bring americans home and use the military to defend this country. Obama isn't interested in anything like that, or if he is, he's doing the opposite anyway. I'm certainly not trying to slam your character, i'm just saying your statement wasn't true. Romney and obama are at one end of the line, paul is at the other. Sorry you took it that way.
Stubudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 02:24   #108
MartinRiggs1987
Senior Member
 
MartinRiggs1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubudd View Post
But that's not obama's policy. He's been blowing up people in pakistan and yemen and and afghanistan and god knows where else pretty much nonstop, and hasn't removed any presence that i know of outside of ending the however many years in iraq. I do know of a few bases he's added in various places all around the world, like chile (???).

Paul wanted to bring americans home and use the military to defend this country. Obama isn't interested in anything like that, or if he is, he's doing the opposite anyway. I'm certainly not trying to slam your character, i'm just saying your statement wasn't true. Romney and obama are at one end of the line, paul is at the other. Sorry you took it that way.
Dear Sir,

What's the first cardinal rule about the President? He tries to be all things to all people. IF he didn't do drones, would he have been re-elected? Possibly, but he wouldn't appear "middle of the road". He doesn't to you or me, but to those that pay less attention he does.

The end goal of Obama's policy is a weaker and less "imperial" American presence abroad. And what is the consequence and mindset behind Paul's FP musings and debate performances? The same. Focus on the end goals of both, and how they both lament and demonize American FP and apologize or justify for terrorist action abroad through their comments and public appearances on American "militarism".

I understand the "niceties" of Paul's plan. I know where it digresses from the President's slow slide to the same place. Paul would do it all in one fell swoop. Obama understands the vagaries of politics and will eek out the same end but even more destructively.

I don't like either option, and believe America has responsibilities to be a beacon of light to the world. Not a bully or brat, as both Paul and Obama seem to believe, but an example of dignity abroad. Of course you, Paul, and Obama would disagree with this premise vehemently. So what's the point of going further.

Last edited by MartinRiggs1987; 11-11-2012 at 02:27..
MartinRiggs1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 02:24   #109
Stubudd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kennesaw GA
Posts: 4,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinRiggs1987 View Post
"the corruption of true conservatism"? If anything its the libertarian slam machine, found via this site, that has corrupted the true meaning of the word.

The founding fathers would not embrace many of the policies and fallacies pushed across this forum as "true conservatism." Like Foghorn Leghorn would say, "Yap-yap-yap, keep that mouth flappin' and do no listenin'."
No, the GoP is what corrupted the meaning of the word conservativism- here's an example.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PqBi84SYmB...2Bcongress.jpg

You may be conservative, but the GoP isn't. They just finished nominating a guy for VP that voted for all almost all the spending he possibly could when Bush was in office, including bailing out bankster crooks with your money.
Stubudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 02:30   #110
MartinRiggs1987
Senior Member
 
MartinRiggs1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubudd View Post
No, the GoP is what corrupted the meaning of the word conservativism- here's an example.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PqBi84SYmB...2Bcongress.jpg

You may be conservative, but the GoP isn't. They just finished nominating a guy for VP that voted for all almost all the spending he possibly could when Bush was in office, including bailing out bankster crooks with your money.
I never said GOP. I said conservative. In addition, the GOP is a possible platform for conservatism. But I've never deluded myself to believe one is the other.
MartinRiggs1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 14:59   #111
tslex
Senior Member
 
tslex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by QNman View Post
That's all well and good, but I must have missed the ads that were targeted to white males. I assure you - I am far from a racist. (My record here stands for itself). There was without question a complete lack of use of modern resources for reaching out to voters, but I don't get where you're coming from about race or gender. I have no idea why they stacked the way they did, nor do I have a solution of how to market better to a specific race or gender.

So we're clear QNman, I am categorically NOT suggesting you're a racist. Last thing I meant to say. [At base, I simply don't ascribe that philosophy to anyone who hasn't made it clear they hold to it.] More than that, I'm not suggesting that's the case for Romney or the GOP or any such thing. I AM saying that if the GOP cannot find a way to get brown folks and women to vote for its candidates, it loses from here on out. I AM saying that real conservative values are good for every sort of people, and that the GOP has clearly failed -- either to embrace those values (my view) or, if they are embraced by the GOP, to transmit them meaningfully to voters across the demographic spectrum.

[To be clear on another front -- i think the problem might well be part of, or at least go hand-in-hand with, the fundamental inadequacies of the two-party system as presently constituted, where both parties are sold out to K Street.]
tslex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 16:08   #112
QNman
Silver Membership
resU deretsigeR
 
QNman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by tslex View Post
So we're clear QNman, I am categorically NOT suggesting you're a racist. Last thing I meant to say. [At base, I simply don't ascribe that philosophy to anyone who hasn't made it clear they hold to it.] More than that, I'm not suggesting that's the case for Romney or the GOP or any such thing. I AM saying that if the GOP cannot find a way to get brown folks and women to vote for its candidates, it loses from here on out. I AM saying that real conservative values are good for every sort of people, and that the GOP has clearly failed -- either to embrace those values (my view) or, if they are embraced by the GOP, to transmit them meaningfully to voters across the demographic spectrum.

[To be clear on another front -- i think the problem might well be part of, or at least go hand-in-hand with, the fundamental inadequacies of the two-party system as presently constituted, where both parties are sold out to K Street.]
Excellent point, sir. I hope someone smarter than me can figure out how to do that - because it clearly needs doing.

__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!
QNman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 20:22   #113
SDDL-UP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,036
Thanks Ruble Noon for equating morality with Fred Phelps - you are doing much to dumb down America.

milglock707,

I never said republicans were moral, only that the democrats are the party with no morals... or at least secular morals. I'm glad you think you are a good and moral person, I really am, but secular moralism isn't a real high standard.

"I would vote republican if...."

I'm sure you mean "if they were democrats."

LOL!!!
__________________
"Arm yourself, arm a friend!"
SDDL-UP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,184
360 Members
824 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42