|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
February 21st, 2013, 01:59 PM | #61 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,238
Thanks: 162,399
Thanked 278,496 Times in 26,183 Posts
|
Quote:
But I would point out that, for all his faults, candidate Romney played a rotten hand skilfully and did give the Obama camp a serious fright. Mr Romney was fatally undermined by his party; it was his party which was rejected by the electorate. Todd Akin delivered a timely reminder of how offensively misogynist and extreme mainstream Republican positions on abortion truly are. For such people to exercise legislative power over women was a very disturbing prospect to a lot of male Republican supporters. In particular it drew attention to Paul Ryan and his voting record in support of really hardline anti-abortion bills in Congress, designed to pander to the most mean-spirited religious bigots in the Republican hinterland. I was struck by the dignity and self-discipline of many young Republican supporters when absorbing the scale of their defeat. I was also struck by the way in which so many of them identified social conservatism, religious bias and abortion as issues which had cost them a lot of support. Mr Ryan was not an asset to Mr Romney in the search for independent and centre ground support. Like Sarah Palin before him, he was there as a sop to the reactionary right wing; but like Ms Palin he sent a bad message to the rest of the voters about what a Romney presidency might be like. This is the problem the Republicans have got. They select candidates who preach to their choir rather than candidates who might win support outside the door of their increasingly narrow church. Those young college and graduate aged Republicans who were gently discussing what went wrong in 2012 may go on to ask themselves if this party represents them anymore anyway. They might reconsider their allegiance.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2013, 02:22 PM | #62 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 597
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,570 Times in 591 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2013, 02:46 PM | #63 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,238
Thanks: 162,399
Thanked 278,496 Times in 26,183 Posts
|
Quote:
The existing Republican party has detached itself from its natural constituency and is in hock to the religious right, a group too small to get a Republican president elected and too divisive to reach out effectively to the conservative mainstream.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2013, 04:01 PM | #64 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,282
Thanks: 11,393
Thanked 48,577 Times in 2,258 Posts
|
Quote:
For the conservative parties here ... many of the actual (Republican) candidates would have been sorted out as "unelectable" right from the start. No doubt, we are having such figures here too, if I think of "Le Pen" of France. In most other countries like mine they are falling at the "below 5 % clause" (= votes are lost). Obama would be a center candidate (liberal) with a mainly conservative touch. But carefully, he is no real liberal, he is a neo (-new) liberal like he is in his financial policy.
__________________
Don't forget to say To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your posters, don't just leech, be a member. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Puhbear69 For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2013, 09:37 PM | #65 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 869
Thanks: 30,809
Thanked 10,733 Times in 850 Posts
|
But sadly at State level they are still capable of introducing the most appalling retrogressive, fact and evidence deficient, right-wing, millionaire pleasing, fox 'news' pleasing, god-botherer legislation. Recently states have introduced bills that would make miscarriages illegal, give 'personhood' status to hour old zygotes, make the use of some contraceptives illegal, close abortion access, abolish collective bargaining, so called 'anti-voter fraud' measures, boundary gerrymandering, close down Medi-care and other provisions, which many of their elderly supporters depend upon, and even an attempt to remove direct elections to Congress.
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Mad Koala Bear For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2013, 11:40 PM | #66 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,238
Thanks: 162,399
Thanked 278,496 Times in 26,183 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
February 22nd, 2013, 03:05 AM | #67 |
Lean Mean Screencap Machine
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Better you don't know.
Posts: 23,807
Thanks: 10,480
Thanked 207,343 Times in 23,716 Posts
|
People keep talking about how much people get living on Welfare. Here's something I want to know, where the *bleep* is all this money? Seriously, I live in the US in one of the most liberal states and about two years ago I was the perfect candidate for Welfare, desperately applying for any and all financial help programs I could to keep eating and hopefully keep a roof over my head. The best I could I get was $300 a month that would stop after six months. So where the f*ck are all these flowing rivers of Welfare money?!?!?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I rage and weep for my country. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I can reup screencaps, other material might have been lost. |
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to DTravel For This Useful Post: |
February 22nd, 2013, 09:17 AM | #68 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,282
Thanks: 11,393
Thanked 48,577 Times in 2,258 Posts
|
Quote:
Look, every state is engaged to keep those numbers of jobless low. That's everywhere the same - here too. For example here some programs are started were the jobless are pressed in. Some companies are getting payed (from the administrative bodies) to pay the jobless - for a lesser income as before, for a lesser income as the normal/usual rate (by the trade unions) - for any kind of "useless" jobs (it's to extensive, going into details). Not to mention, that the amount of payment the companies are getting is not equal with the sum they pay out to the "now workers" (social costs included of course). "And there you have it..." - they aren't jobless any more; now they aren't in the statistic any more. A indeed lucrative busyness for the companies. Not to mention, when that program is finished - maybe 3 months later, they get fired. And the side effect for is - than the money they are getting now as a jobless - is reduced to their last income. Got it ?
__________________
Don't forget to say To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your posters, don't just leech, be a member. |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Puhbear69 For This Useful Post: |
February 24th, 2013, 08:24 PM | #69 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,238
Thanks: 162,399
Thanked 278,496 Times in 26,183 Posts
|
Republicans are people too, you know.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
February 25th, 2013, 06:32 AM | #70 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,282
Thanks: 11,393
Thanked 48,577 Times in 2,258 Posts
|
Quote:
War is big business for only a few (which aren't involved in action) !! Not for the national economy. Contrariwise , it ruins the national economy! The tax payers money is running into the bags of the military industrial complex of a few companies and a few service conductors. Soldiers are send into dead and can't participating at the national product any more. Just an add.
__________________
Don't forget to say To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your posters, don't just leech, be a member. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Puhbear69 For This Useful Post: |
|
|