TigermothII comments

Interviews with more than a dozen Republicans at all levels of the party indicated that post-election soul-searching must quickly turn into a period of action.

'To hear some Republicans...' ooh - all twelve of them interviewed. Well, that sure illustrates what the masses feel; 12 a-holes interviewed to prove a liberal talking point. There are many things about 'these times' that many of us don't want to 'get with'. Don't talk to a small handful of people and make assumptions of the masses. That's a typical leftist shortcoming.

Religious displays in public parks, at government buildings or any other tax-payer supported area are a violation of the separation of church and state.

I know there is supposed to be that separation, but amusing the mention of tax-payers. For those in the States reach into your wallet; any bill you have - to pay taxes with - states 'In God We Trust'.

Religious views aside, I also find it amusing that we will fight to the death to let the KKK have their rally in some public venue because 'it's their right as Americans to do so' - but if someone puts up a religious symbol we freak out. Where's the ACLU? They'll fight for the most moronic of things - as long as it fits their left-leaning agenda of course. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the view that most of religion is hocus pocus nonsense. People forget that for thousands of years human-kind believed in Zeus and multiple gods, spirits, nature worship. It's all part and parcel. But the hypocrisy to fight for one and say 'meh' to the other is amusingly typical.

And I thought the idea was to go after the 'evil 1-2%' of the wealthy. Now that cutoff is $250.000. Somehow I think that's going to affect more than just 2% of the population. And how long before it's decided that $200k is a better number. How about $150K? That's how it works as we slowly slide from an American Capitalist model to a more European Socialism lite. Never mind of course that most of these European nations are in the crapper right now, take no notice. You get free health care man (well, which isn't free at all - but isn't a tax...er...is a tax....I'm confused because no one ever actually read the legislation). Good thing they're slowly legalizing pot. I would recommend copious amounts of that and a good scotch to get through this period of 'hope and change'.

The only way that your claim is possible is if 60% of Americans never spend any money. You should at least accept that sales tax is paid by everyone, and is often highest in poorer areas.

Are they? I'm not sure (and I mean that honestly). I live in NY. Last week at the local gas station/convenience store, the woman in front of me was using her EBT card for a few items. She paid cash for her smokes - never mind that as a working man fully paying into the system I quite literally couldn't afford to smoke if I wanted to, but that's another issue. The cashier expressed that the amount originally rang up on the register as one total, but then re-totaled for a lesser amount. The other woman explained that with an EBT payment, taxes are removed. I'm not sure this is true, but that's what the lady said, and she should know more than I.

I read that reservation towns in Arizona have the highest sales taxes in the U.S. at around 13%. So bass4funk, will you head out there and start lecturing people about paying taxes?

Again you should check your facts. Native Americans (I wonder if they hate this term as they never knew it as 'America') pay the same taxes as everyone else, and some working within a reservation are exempt (small number). Off topic, but that's one thing that always amazed me. While this might sound racist, 'African-Americans (a term I loathe, we're all Americans here) have found it difficult to get passed the idea that the bad old white man held them in slavery - very thankfully long ago abolished (never mind that Africans were the ones selling them to begin with, or that Northerners originally brought them in through northern ports, and highly benefited in slave labor to feed northern textile mills through southern cotton plantations - but then condemned the south for the institution). Much time and national angst is dedicated to this. But few seem to give two hoots that we originally came in, murdered and enslaved a native population and then forced them onto parcels of land we didn't feel we needed at the time.

Don't worry Bass - there are still a huge number out there that applaud your success and aren't too stupid to realize that wealth creates success and wealth. Never be ashamed to be living the American dream - it's what this country was founded upon. Entitlement and re-distribution of wealth are tools of the liberal handed out with a well-meaning smile. The idea is that we'll all be equals and sit around basking in a brave new Star Trek-like world, singing Cumbaya around the fire, smoking legal weed and getting abortions because we're still too stupid and irresponsible to utilize birth control (which shouldn't be an excuse now, as I'm sure it will remain free). And let's leave that there - yes I'm aware of the whole rape/medical need to abortion - but if you look at the statistics, something like 98% of abortions have nothing to do with either. The so-called Robber Barons of the industrial age were vilified in their day, but economists later agreed that they built this country (railroads, banking, steel) and gave us the standard of living we now enjoy. According to the average liberal, the nasty old Republicans are just awful because they are for the 'greedy, rich white man' and against penalizing them to redistribute wealth to the masses. The fact that you might pay more in taxes than I make in a year is lost upon them. The idea that I understand and appreciate how your wealth helps the economy and rather than hate you for your wealth highly admire you and celebrate your success is lost upon them.

Let's just hope you're right. I have my doubts, but that's my issue I suppose. It's good to have decent and intelligent discourse - thanks Yabits. And in truth, I think we all hate violence and war as the ultimate disgrace of humanity. We just sometimes disagree as to when it becomes a necessity.

Guys - just promise me one thing. If we're all around still arguing on this forum for the next four year - stop blaming Bush. I know, we all get it. But with eight years to play with, the President should be able to come up with something of his own to counter the Bush years and have us moving in the positive. I know you think it's justified, but it's getting old. If in 2014 the economy is still in the stinker and getting worse - and I hope that it won't be! - saying it's Bush's fault just doesn't hold anymore. I think that's reasonable. Wait for it.....

JTDanMan - it's refreshing to see your grace and humility in celebrating your party's victory; precisely why we're such a united nation. I sincerely hope that four years down the road you are taunting the right on how great the President has done, and what a remarkable recovery the economy has made, and that your taunts are true. Or who knows, someday we might meet up in a bread line or a gulag. Time will tell.

Myself I thought Romney lost when those Republicans said "If a women gets pregnant after being raped she should consider it a present from God".

No, one Republican really said that and the leftist media went to town as always. While the abortion issue gets great press and gets the looneys riled up, I think there are a good many Republicans who like myself are not religious nut, nor are they necessarily staunch anti-abortionists. Both sides seem to be well and truly mis-represented on this issue by the extremes - with the left thinking all on the right are bible banging anti-abortionists, and the right thinking that the left wants to make abortions as easy as getting one's teeth cleaned. I don't think either is the case. I should think that hopefully most would agree that it shouldn't be used simply as a form of birth control for the irresponsible.

It was interesting, if not quite sad, to see the leftist media grab onto the buzz phrases to vilify Romney; Big Bird (which funnily enough came back to bite them in the arse), 'binders full of women', etc. Only the truly gullible fell for these - but then the problem is that much of the American public is truly gullible.

A sense of duty? Responsibility? Patriotism? Concern for one's fellow man?

That could be representative of a lot of things - such as serving one's country in the military (at which liberals typically cringe). The idea put forward by liberals is that conservatives do not feel any empathy towards their fellow man, which simply is not true. They just don't feel that taxing the crap out of and regulating the hard-working and positive economy producing side of our society is the correct path of concern. While you see it as crass Conservative nonsense - wouldn't it be a 'sense of duty, responsibility and concern for one's fellow man' to actually take responsibility for your own well-being and that of your children? Liberals amusingly act as if every person on public assistance or social security or whatever is a well and true case of need that 'evil Republicans' don't care about. That we should open our borders to all-comers, because they need work here in the good ole USA. That somehow those working two jobs to live and send their kids to school shouldn't mind that some jackass who fathered three kids but won't take care of them, or some jerk getting SS for a 'disability' which 'keeps them from working (often untrue)' gets a part of their paycheck. Where's there sense of duty and responsibility? Why is their self-preservation and your desires for their well-being out-trump mine? Where does one draw the line? Responsibility is a two way street. The left has now let unwillingness become inability.

Bitter, any? Morally, America fell already under George W. She's a better, fairer, more caring nation under Obama.

Admittedly yes. I love my country, and while I do not deny that those on the left love it any less, I think we have radically different ideals about the stewardship of its ideals. While I might even admit that America stumbled under W (we might disagree strongly on the real reasons why to some degree) I would counter that under Obama she is being kicked into submission. It comes down to being a practical realist. Every great nation state in history had its wealthy class, and it's poor and the strata in between. The truth is that wealth creates wealth while the world of the doomed is paved with good intentions. While the idea should be lessen class disparity and create opportunity for all, the idea should never be to cripple the wealthy to provide for the poor. It's a simple matter of not shooting one's self in the foot. Yes, Republicans have always had a bit of an issue in alleviating that class dichotomy, but only a fool would truly believe that by stripping one class to provide for another you can create a stable and healthy economy. Liberals, and the current President are approaching this with a Samaria sword rather than pruning shears. There have historically been experiments in the 'group ownership' mentality which have ended poorly. We are a democracy based upon individual right (not entitlement) and commerce - these experiments were not. While it sounds hokey and corny, moving in these directions is truly 'un-American' and yes, that makes me a tad bitter.

Why would anyone need 'poll watchers'? I proudly voted for Mitt. If this country is sentenced to four more years of stupidity, I won't be responsible. Unfortunately my children will pay the bill - as will all of yours. But I'm sure they'll thank you some day for crappy health care.

Yes. There are many. Here is one:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170623/romneys-seven-biggest-debate-lies

I hate when people do this - quoting a liberal media source does not make it so. It's like me quoting Fox News to prove a conservative point. Depending upon your leanings you can find data to support just about anything, but that doesn't make it true.

Finally, I believe that the seriously disproportional distribution of wealth in the USA is our most serious social and structural problem.

Yes, but no matter how you want to dice this up, or what clever words you put around it, a re-distribution of wealth is plain and clear socialism. It isn't what MY country was founded upon. And I'm not one of the rich saying that to protect my own; I hardly make ends meet. But it's not the fault of the guy in the Brook's Brothers suit, it's my own because rather than join all the clubs and get stellar grades at university, I chose to drink myself silly, get high and change my major to journalism so that I could write, which I enjoyed. There is no great evil in wealth that the left would like to paint. Rather there is evil in all facets of society. But there are three types of folks: those that do, those that won't, and those that can't. But in the end, blaming those that do because you either will not or cannot is rather pointless. Those that do create the opportunities that made our country a great democracy rather than some socialist hovel or some communist junk-hole like the Soviet Union. We enjoy the greatest standard of living in the world because of those 'evil rich men' that built this country.

Winston Churchill loved FDR because he supported Britain and her war effort when no one else could (lend-lease) and provided the might of the American economy which in the end won the war and saved Britain. I would argue such things that the vaunted 'Few' who fought the Battle of Britain, those in the resistance, etc played just as huge a part. But the point being that Churchill was a staunch anti-communist and anti-socialist. His admiration for FDR was because of the man's courage, character, integrity and support - not his socialist policies.

I would bet you used the same thinking in 2000 to choose George W. Bush over Al Gore, because you felt the competence, peace and prosperity of the Clinton years caused too much "damage" to the nation.

I don't think that's fundamentally true. I don't think there are even that many on the left that still think Al 'Jabbah the Hut' Gore would have really been a great president. Too one-dimensional and single-minded. Oh, I'm sure you would all conclude much better than Bush, but still I don't think he's seen as a great option anymore. Just as I don't think a great many conservatives think Bill Clinton was necessarily that horrible. I didn't mind Bill. Sure he should have kept it in his pants while on duty, but that's a liberal failing typified by your gods - the Kennedy's. And it's argued that the beginnings of the housing crisis began under his reign. I would also add that his dismantling of the intelligence services brought about a failure to fully recognize the impending danger that was 911 - although again I believe a good many liberals think the whole attack was a conservative conspiracy, so I doubt you would agree there either.

Taro67 - brilliant post, and nothing else need be said.

JTDan:

Romney seems to know little about foreign affairs.

I'm just curious what, before being elected, a junior senator from Illinois really knew about foreign policy. Name some examples that gave him the vast foreign policy experience he obviously possessed given your remarks.

Given his naivete and inexperience, he would likely be led around by his Advisors

Again, fill me in on how much experience President Obama - the community organizer and briefly attorney had in being President. I ask this not really in a smart-alec sort of way, but to make such arguments your candidate would need to have had vastly more experience prior to coming to office. I would contend he did not. By your argument logic then Mr. Obama should not have won the last election due to inexperience.

It is never too soon to start learning the lessons that disasters like Sandy have to teach us. Repeat: It is never too soon to start learning the lessons.

Okay, I did read more. Is your implication that Obama somehow 'handled' this better and therefore has FEMA in better shape to handle emergencies. Take it from someone living in NY - it's our police officers, firemen and emergency teams handling things on the ground right now, not fed assistance. Oh, they'll be here to be sure, and great to have them. But to act like this administration 'really had it together' is a bit of a stretch at this point. Maybe this can be ascertained down the road, but not now. I do realize that days before the election you guys want to take credit wherever you can, but come on.

Since we're throwing around cute little terms I just heard a good one - if the President is re-elected for a second term then we shall all be committing Obamicide. Maybe it's an old one, but I had not heard it. Thought it played well with 'Romnysia'.

What was he thinking? (assuming he actually can)

He can apparently think well enough to have a Master's from Harvard, a successful business giving him a net worth of about $200 million or so, and a governorship in the process. I don't know, that probably takes a bit of 'smarts' I should think. Better than you, I and most of the other 'brilliant' folks arguing on here have done. And exactly what foreign policy experience did the President have before gaining office? Or was it all relying on 'crazy-eye' old smokin Joe to get her done?

namely criticism of Obama's alleged inability to produce an economic miracle from the rubble left by his predecessor

Alleged?? Oh yeah, then blame Bush. I don't feel like working today - think I'll blame my old co-worker who retired three years ago. Get a new tilt, that one is getting so very tiresome and sad.

With the President's use of drones, you're still doing both. I don't disagree with offing people with drones however.

And you didn't because you can't. The election is now down to liberals - and the President - desperately trying to paint Romney in a negative light. Republicans are knuckle dragging racists/tea baggers/sexist/blah blah - blame Bush -blah-blah. In fact the naked truth is that the economy blows, and that's all most people care about. Do they want four more years of the caustic, Bush blaming, ineffective administration that has no differing plan other than crap policy that hasn't worked? Or do they want a President who rather than being angry and aloof will actually do something positive for this country (despite the liberal outcry that the world will end - all Bush's fault of course. Or perhaps according to JTDan's madness it will be GW and Rush Limbaugh on black horses with red eyes - and Al Gore riding behind on a donkey (poor donkey) screaming about global warming. That might be a cool cartoon actually.

Good for you Global - by all means do stand up for what you believe in; I am doing no less. It's a shame that political and ideological difference bring such vitriol with it - but no surprise I suppose. But in truth I don't dislike anyone based upon their political beliefs, religion, color or creed - it's when they act like an a-hole that I have a problem.

As for the JFK quote, well that's a liberal misconception - and hence the annoying air of superiority - that conservatives are by definition in diametric opposition to those ideals. And perhaps this is why liberals interpret (or misinterpret) Romney as so 'wishy-washy'. If you're died in the wool one way or the other, I would counter that your a fool. I don't mean that in the Independent - middle of the road sense, but rather one's brain has to override at times. For instance I believe in the welfare of the people - I just don't believe that we should have most of our people on welfare. I don't think you can honestly conclude that conservatives don't want people to have affordable housing, good schools or great jobs. It's just a matter of how you get to that point, and how much the individual is responsible for getting to it, rather than big government creating a needy, unmotivated welfare state. Suspicions abroad? Well, they'll always be there no matter who's in the WH. People of the world love to hate Americans because of who we are and the freedoms we represent.

I would suggest that if you have/had a political mentor, that's fine - but at some point you have to think for yourself and make situational determinations. But what do I know?

As for Romney's opinions, beliefs and plans - they are only not apparent to you liberal observers because you're so busy parroting the feigned anger of the President and desperately trying to find issue with all that he says that you cannot make yourselves shut up and listen. It's become quite clear that the liberal way is to avoid, ignore, twist or disbelieve anything that counters their world.

And typically, other than address the JC thing and add the usual Bush blame comment, you have also failed to tell me how your candidate has been more trustworthy given the forcing through of unpopular legislation, the Libya lie, fast & furious, etc. And while you state Romney has not enlightened you to his plan, you cannot really seem to relate to me what your candidate might do in the next four years that differs from the previous that proved ineffective in moving the economy forward.

Oh, and this coming from a person who admittedly from an earlier posting can't understand what Mitt Romney stands for or proposes to do. Brilliant. Although if it's any consolation I have no idea what Obama will do to right the wrongs of our nation - except more of what he has ineffectively already done.

JTD - no, I mean unbiased and accurate - why do liberals insist on putting words in others mouths? And how very pretentious of you to think that I know nothing of history. Of course you, all liberals are just so bloody brilliant, eh? I stand by my beliefs. I didn't live through the administrations of Filmore and Pierce - I did through Carter and witnessed first-hand what he wrought.

Typical of what I was talking about - Laguna you got that crap from Think Progress - which is a liberal stink-hole of information. The problem is that everyone wants to quote 'news sources' when very few of them are unbiased and accurate.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, but that has to be a joke, right? Mr. ,Transparent Government' who did everything the citizens didn't want behind their back to force through legislation? What a bloody joke.

Interesting you say that because I read an article about his term as governor of MA. Romney constantly touts the fact that he "reached across the aisle" to democrats, but from what I read, he did very little of that.

And I read just the opposite. In case you haven't figured it out yet you can read whatever you want on the Internet and it all depends upon the source. If your a liberal, you read the liberal press and they'll tell you how evil Mitt is. If you read the conservative press they'll tell you the opposite. I can read Mein kampf but that doesn't make what contained within true.

Romney LOOKs untrustworthy! His manner gives me the shivers. Those forced fake smiles evoke a vaguely serial killer ambiance. I wouldn't trust this cheesy creature with a ten foot pole. He reminded me of the car salesman in"Fargo".

Really? I'm afraid to ask what you look like then. Mitt looks pretty distinguished and poised. I prefer that and think it more presidential than looking angry, cynical and worried. Or do you prefer the look of the wild-eyed old Crazy Joe Biden? Although I suppose judging by the looks of the average liberal I shouldn't wonder.

I’m usually one of the anti-Muslim screamers on here myself, but I’ve allowed myself to really think about it before offering a reply. What we have to keep in mind is that with comments that we in the modern, rational (well sometimes rational) world make about Islam being caught in another time with barbaric and archaic rules and belief systems – that’s fundamentally true. And I don’t really mean that as a knock against regional Muslims per say. And as much as I hate to state this kind of thing – because too often it’s used as an excuse and a knock against the west in general – it is sort of the fault of the moderns western world. Hear me out before you react.

Western policy towards many of the regions that harbor belief in Islam has traditionally been one of being a parasite with one-sided benefit. We take resources from these nations (mainly oil, but other things as well) and at various times made them colonies to serve our needs. A whole discussion could be made about blame – and a good part of it has to be put on the backs of those in country who benefited from this relationship – the sheiks, warlords and those who made great profit. But in the main, we took what we needed and in return gave back very little. As a result of this system these nations have remained in another age; a backwards thinking age as we so frequently point out.

Remember that not so long ago from an historical standpoint we (the Western, modern, ‘civilized’ nations) were in the same place. The witch trials have been mentioned and are a good example, as well as the Inquisition and various other things that accused and murdered, all in the name of Christianity. Women haven’t had the vote for so very long, and there are still those in this country – the bastion of modern thought - that think ‘a woman’s place is in the home’.

There are two points to my ramblings. One is that while we get enraged by the sheer lunacy of these Muslim extremists, they are but a scary reflection of our own social and cultural development (just at a much earlier and more violent phase). The second point, or rather conclusion, would be that rather than a solution of endless wars and trying to ‘rub them off the face of the earth’ (which will very likely rub a great many of us off the face of the earth as well, particularly if real nuclear weapons get into the hands of the insane) I would counter that the solution lies in a more peaceful tact of greatly assisting these nations to reach the modern age and highly raise the standard of living of their citizenry. Eventually the Taliban and all the religious nut jobs will lose the terror hold and go away. And I think that could happen in a remarkably short time if development were really begun. There must be a way that smart bods could develop and open up their economies so that both sides would benefit; western industry from the new markets and resources, and the people of these poor and backwards nations in entering the modern world and freeing themselves from old terrors.

I know – it’s both one of those ‘no duh’ sort of summations, and one that is a damned hard road to tow with many that have thought similarly and tried. But it does seem the obvious path.

And while I don’t want to offer up any anti-religious rhetoric to spoil the sentiment (personally I agree with Napoleon that ‘religion was invented by the rich to keep the poor from killing them’) – it is interesting that I read a report that here in the states religion is sort of fading to a degree. I think it will be a good thing when we can start thinking about the real rather than the fantasy. One can believe in spiritual living and growth, and even a great power without being a nutjob about it, and it being the driving force behind every action.

But he has binders full of women . . .

Romney has not let his wife work even one day. Good Mormon wife needs to be stay at home type it seems.

Pointless comment (per usual) and should be deleted as such. About as relevant as me saying that slick Willie Clinton had a binder full of women too - under his desk (both binder and women). But again, pointless except to make stupid jabs.

Again I will say much ado about nothing - which proves that liberals are just desperate to have some sort of attack talking point. Yes, your guy came out swinging in the debate, and polls show he moderately won. But he won on the stupidity of American voters clamping on to stupid things like 'binders full of women' rather than the substance which matters most. Obama smartly played the angry cop (reference to 'good cop/bad cop' if that doesn't make sense) and got in some jabs of indignant rage to take away from his shortcoming. But the shortcomings are still there, so now we have endless debate here on a comment about 'binders full of women'. Big Bird backfired last time, so this is as good as you can do this time? I think that says, well binders full.