If Republicans soften the immigration message, is it over for Democrats?

[longhornfan1234]

Latinos: ideology

54% conservative

39% liberal

I saw this on MSNBC today.

If Republicans soften the immigration message, I think Democrats are done.

Thoughts?

[Legend of Josh]

No. The entire party needs a serious "make over" before they will be able to contend for the throne in future elections.

[Is He Ill]

You have to love how they're willing to suddenly switch their stance solely to win an election, not because they feel it's the right stance. F*cking politics.

[Legend of Josh]

You have to love how they're willing to suddenly switch their stance solely to win an election, not because they feel it's the right stance. F*cking politics.

Politics are so fu*ked on both sides. I hate both the crips and bloods, and both sides are fighting for the Latino Kings support.

[TheMan]

Latinos: ideology

54% conservative

39% liberal

I saw this on MSNBC today.

If Republicans soften the immigration message, I think Democrats are done.

Thoughts?
Well, if the GOP has a makeover and the stops being the nationalist, racist, homophobic, anti-science, xenophobic, anti-women party, it will be a good thing. The problem with the GOP is that they are catering to the extreme right, the religious nuts, softening their ant-immigration stance won't be enough. They need to support policies that benefit the working class, not just the rich. Latinos have a big blue collar base, they vote for their economic interests, not just because of immigration...

The GOP WILL change, they have to or they risk being out of the White House for a loooong time. They'll still prolly get their asses handed to them in 2016 by the Clintons because I don't think they've all have gotten the messege...eventually they will, though.

[B-Low]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're the life of every party you go to. Your range in conversation topics rivals even the great L. Kizzle.

[longhornfan1234]

Well, if the GOP has a makeover and the stops being the nationalist, racist, homophobic, anti-science, xenophobic, anti-women party, it will be a good thing. The problem with the GOP is that they are catering to the extreme right, the religious nuts, softening their ant-immigration stance won't be enough. They need to support policies that benefit the working class, not just the rich. Latinos have a big blue collar base, they vote for their economic interests, not just because of immigration...

The GOP WILL change, they have to or they risk being out of the White House for a loooong time. They'll still prolly get their asses handed to them in 2016 by the Clintons because I don't think they've all have gotten the messege...eventually they will, though.

Your first paragraph is bunch of bs, but I agree with your second paragraph.

[longhornfan1234]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're the life of every party you go to. Your range in conversation topics rivals even the great L. Kizzle.
You know me so well. :bowdown: :bowdown:

[rezznor]

Latinos: ideology

54% conservative

39% liberal

I saw this on MSNBC today.

If Republicans soften the immigration message, I think Democrats are done.

Thoughts?


you guys just got your asses handed to you. do you really think you are gonna turn it around so easily, much less proclaim the Dems "done"?

[DeuceWallaces]

Your first paragraph is bunch of bs

And there lies the GOP's problem. You don't believe the first paragraph.

[longhornfan1234]

you guys just got your asses handed to you. do you really think you are gonna turn it around so easily, much less proclaim the Dems "done"?
If we soften immigration message, yes. And close the women gap. We need to soften our message about abortion.

[Math2]

And there lies the GOP's problem. You don't believe the first paragraph.

The Democrats are communistic, socialistic, racist, anti-white, anti-male and anti-rich. You can argue the same exact thing for Democrats.

In regards to immigration, I only believe that they should soften the line on legal immigration, maybe let more people in legally, maybe. But not with illegal immigrants. I think they should absolutely be deported.

[Droid101]

The Democrats are communistic, socialistic, racist, anti-white, anti-male and anti-rich. You can argue the same exact thing for Democrats.

No you can't. Name a prominent politician having any of those views.

I don't need to remind you about Santorum's "Government NIG*" or all those Rape comments.

Both sides are NOT the same.

[KevinNYC]

The bigger and much harder part is they are going to have to not just change a policy stance, but actually show Hispanics some respect and they are very bad at doing that across the party. For every Republican who could authentically represent a more sensible immigration policy, you have politicians like Jan Brewer in Arizona who get elected because of the hostility to Hispanics Nationalism is element in the Republican coalition and the Republicans will probably have to deal with a Pat Buchanan type threat on the right on immigration for a little bit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc)

Mike Huckabee talked about how he was able to do so well with blacks when he was Governor and he said, you can't just show up during the campaign, you have put in the work and have a dialogue all the time if you want their votes. He won't 48% of the black vote one election. When's the last time that happened for a Republican?

[KevinNYC]

The Democrats are communistic, socialistic, racist, anti-white, anti-male and anti-rich. You can argue the same exact thing for Democrats.

In regards to immigration, I only believe that they should soften the line on legal immigration, maybe let more people in legally, maybe. But not with illegal immigrants. I think they should absolutely be deported.

I don't believe the first paragraph.

[Droid101]

Latinos: ideology

54% conservative

39% liberal

I saw this on MSNBC today.

If Republicans soften the immigration message, I think Democrats are done.

Thoughts?
Nope. It's going to get ugly, fast. I saw this on another site, and sums it up quite nicely:


The modern GOP was a hideous chimera, a coalition forged 30 years ago as an unholy alliance between three separate factions:

1. The Religious Right. Those Christian fundamentalists who want an Evangelical Christian theocracy in the USA. They want Islam banned, and Christianity as the state religion of the USA. Banning abortion is priority #1 for these people as an ideological litmus test and a first step in their plan. Remember the book the Handmaid's Tale? Yeah, that's what these folks really want.

2. The Pseudo-Libertarians/Pseudo-Objectivists: Two somewhat overlapping factions I'm listing as one because they're so similar. They want the Federal government virtually dismantled. They want everything privatized, and Federal taxes virtually eliminated. Some do it out of pure ideological worship of Ayn Rand, others do it out of this idea that "Big Government" is somehow inherently evil. They want lower taxes, fewer/no regulations, and much smaller government, either so their own companies can make big profits or so they can live their lives without having anybody tell them what to do.

3. Warhawks. More like chickenhawks. They are built on the idea that aggressive foreign policy, zealous patriotism and blind loyalty to the stars and stripes is the way to go. Wave the flag and play some Lee Greenwood music and they'll do whatever you say as long as it involves blowing up brown people. Most of them have never served, even if many of them had the chance. They'll go along with anything if they think it involves blowing up Muslims, distrusting Mexicans and talking about how great America is. They are deathly afraid of "communism" and "socialism" since they grew up in the Cold War and were indoctrinated to think of those ideas as the enemy, to be destroyed at all costs.

The GOP is these three factions fused together, and they've been welded together since the early 80's.

The strain started showing a few years ago, but this election seems to have finally reached a critical point.

Yeah, the Republican Civil War has begun. The Religious Right is accusing everyone else of not being ideologically pure enough and saying that if they'd stuck to their dogma they would have won. The Pseudo-Libertarians are furious at the very idea of anybody raising taxes to compromise. The Warhawks are in a froth that the Muslim Usurper got re-elected and thinking it's all but a Red Dawn scenario where they assume that the US is about to become a communist state.

Each faction is blaming the other two for failure. None have enough people to win. The election showed that even together they don't have enough anymore. They'll fight amongst each other. Groups will get marginalized, groups will get discredited. I'm seeing a possible splintering of the party into two parties, or a substantial third party emerging and becoming marginalized. It will NOT be quick, or pretty.

[andgar923]

Latinos are no different than many blacks and whites. We're conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It's just that the GOP proposes shit that's crazy and at times racist. They rarely want a middle of the road approach and instead let their far right base influence their proposals.

Latinos don't simply vote Democratic due to their immigration stance, they vote Deemocratic because they're the most sane of the two.

They also appear to be a TRUE party of inclusion and not a bunch of fake peddling politicians.

[andgar923]

Nope. It's going to get ugly, fast. I saw this on another site, and sums it up quite nicely:


The modern GOP was a hideous chimera, a coalition forged 30 years ago as an unholy alliance between three separate factions:

1. The Religious Right. Those Christian fundamentalists who want an Evangelical Christian theocracy in the USA. They want Islam banned, and Christianity as the state religion of the USA. Banning abortion is priority #1 for these people as an ideological litmus test and a first step in their plan. Remember the book the Handmaid's Tale? Yeah, that's what these folks really want.

2. The Pseudo-Libertarians/Pseudo-Objectivists: Two somewhat overlapping factions I'm listing as one because they're so similar. They want the Federal government virtually dismantled. They want everything privatized, and Federal taxes virtually eliminated. Some do it out of pure ideological worship of Ayn Rand, others do it out of this idea that "Big Government" is somehow inherently evil. They want lower taxes, fewer/no regulations, and much smaller government, either so their own companies can make big profits or so they can live their lives without having anybody tell them what to do.

3. Warhawks. More like chickenhawks. They are built on the idea that aggressive foreign policy, zealous patriotism and blind loyalty to the stars and stripes is the way to go. Wave the flag and play some Lee Greenwood music and they'll do whatever you say as long as it involves blowing up brown people. Most of them have never served, even if many of them had the chance. They'll go along with anything if they think it involves blowing up Muslims, distrusting Mexicans and talking about how great America is. They are deathly afraid of "communism" and "socialism" since they grew up in the Cold War and were indoctrinated to think of those ideas as the enemy, to be destroyed at all costs.

The GOP is these three factions fused together, and they've been welded together since the early 80's.

The strain started showing a few years ago, but this election seems to have finally reached a critical point.

Yeah, the Republican Civil War has begun. The Religious Right is accusing everyone else of not being ideologically pure enough and saying that if they'd stuck to their dogma they would have won. The Pseudo-Libertarians are furious at the very idea of anybody raising taxes to compromise. The Warhawks are in a froth that the Muslim Usurper got re-elected and thinking it's all but a Red Dawn scenario where they assume that the US is about to become a communist state.

Each faction is blaming the other two for failure. None have enough people to win. The election showed that even together they don't have enough anymore. They'll fight amongst each other. Groups will get marginalized, groups will get discredited. I'm seeing a possible splintering of the party into two parties, or a substantial third party emerging and becoming marginalized. It will NOT be quick, or pretty.
Speaking of communists.


An old couple came in to my store and the old man had an anti china hat on. He was asking if the items were made in china and refused to purchase anything that was.

Doesn't he know that it's on our best interest to support our Chinese overlords?

[Math2]

No you can't. Name a prominent politician having any of those views.

I don't need to remind you about Santorum's "Government NIG*" or all those Rape comments.

Both sides are NOT the same.

Obama is anti-Rich. Obama is anti-White, to a sense. Obama is anti-Male, to a sense. Obama is a leaning Socialist.

[Math2]

I don't believe the first paragraph.

And there lies the Democrats problem.

[Droid101]

Obama is anti-Rich. Obama is anti-White, to a sense. Obama is anti-Male, to a sense. Obama is a leaning Socialist.
:roll: :roll:

I see you rolled up all of Rush's talking points into one neat little paragraph. Nice.

To address your points...


Obama is anti-Rich.How so? He wants to return the higher bracket tax rates to Clinton levels? How is that anti-rich?

Obama is anti-White, to a sense.:oldlol: What does that even mean?

Obama is anti-Male, to a sense.:roll: :roll: :roll:

Obama is a leaning Socialist.Nope, he's center-right, just like Romney.

http://i.imgur.com/NcyhV.png

Any other talking points on the menu today?

[andgar923]

Wanna know the scariest part about Latinos?

At times you can't tell them apart from whites.

I'm sure we even have some here that will attest to that. White people feeling comfortable around them, even making racist comments without them knowing they're making it to a beaner.

[Math2]

:roll: :roll:

I see you rolled up all of Rush's talking points into one neat little paragraph. Nice.

To address your points...

How so? He wants to return the higher bracket tax rates to Clinton levels? How is that anti-rich?
:oldlol: What does that even mean?
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Nope, he's center-right, just like Romney.

http://i.imgur.com/NcyhV.png

Any other talking points on the menu today?


I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It's anti Rich because he wants to raise taxes on them unfairly, just because they've been more successful.

I don't know, what does anti-White mean? What does anti-Black mean?

You refuse to address my points with your emoticons.

I'm sure that that chart shows exactly where he is. Bullshit. Someone filled in a program answers that they made. There is no real data in that. Redistribution of the wealth is a leftist policy.

[Math2]

Wanna know the scariest part about Latinos?

At times you can't tell them apart from whites.

I'm sure we even have some here that will attest to that. White people feeling comfortable around them, even making racist comments without them knowing they're making it to a beaner.

Why does it matter what race they are? Why does it matter if they are indistinguishable. Well they are at least to the liberal media who framed George Zimmerman as a white racist....

[Droid101]

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It's anti Rich because he wants to raise taxes on them unfairly, just because they've been more successful.No, he wants to raise taxes on higher brackets because those people can handle the increase without any issues whatsoever.


I don't know, what does anti-White mean? What does anti-Black mean?Show me something he did or said that was anti-white. Protip: nothing exists.


You refuse to address my points with your emoticons.How is he "anti-man"? That statement doesn't make any sense, especially considering he IS A MAN. Please, enlighten us on what anti-man means.


I'm sure that that chart shows exactly where he is. Bullshit. Someone filled in a program answers that they made. There is no real data in that. Redistribution of the wealth is a leftist policy.It does. His policies are center-right. He's a fiscal conservative who has grown government spending the LEAST out of any of like... the last five presidents. He isn't calling for redistribution of wealth. He's calling for increased government income to cover expenses and debts. You know what actually is a socialist program? The military. 100% socialism.

[TheMan]

And there lies the Democrats problem.
lol, what problem? Democrats have beaten the GOP in the national vote count 5 of the last 6 general elections:lol

And to the OP, believing that all the GOP has to do to win the WH is getting the Hispanic vote is way too simplistic. You have a problem with black voters, gay voters, young voters, educated voters, single women voters etc.

Those old white southerners (Dixiecrats) that helped you win elections before are dying out, you guys need to expand your base by being more than the party of old white dudes.

The country is changing and you guys ain't...

[Math2]

No, he wants to raise taxes on higher brackets because those people can handle the increase without any issues whatsoever.

Show me something he did or said that was anti-white. Protip: nothing exists.

How is he "anti-man"? That statement doesn't make any sense, especially considering he IS A MAN. Please, enlighten us on what anti-man means.

It does. His policies are center-right. He's a fiscal conservative who has grown government spending the LEAST out of any of like... the last five presidents. He isn't calling for redistribution of wealth. He's calling for increased government income to cover expenses and debts. You know what actually is a socialist program? The military. 100% socialism.

It doesn't matter whether or not they can handle it or not. What matters is the fact that he discourages prosperity. You should get what you earn, and not have it taken away.

Anti-white in the sense that he favors minorities. Anti-man in the sense that he favors women.

Redistribution of the wealth is what he is calling for. What is taking from one group but not another? He has spent less because of the winding down of the wars. And Obamacare is not going to decrease spending...

[Droid101]

It doesn't matter whether or not they can handle it or not. What matters is the fact that he discourages prosperity. You should get what you earn, and not have it taken away. If you earn over $250,000, your taxes increase a tiny bit. That's it. You realize that taxes are what fund the government, right? And taxes are right now, at their lowest historical rate in American history (more or less). They NEED to be raised.

It doesn't discourage prosperity. Anyone who says "Well, I think I'll quit my $255,000 job because I'm going to pay another $100 in taxes this year" is a liar and a fool. If anything, it encourages you to make even more, to make up for that sad, lonely lost $100.


Anti-white in the sense that he favors minorities.Where? When?

Anti-man in the sense that he favors women. I think I see where World Nut Daily is sending you on this one. Because he is pushing for contraception and abortion coverage for insurance? That makes him anti-Man? Explain that.


Redistribution of the wealth is what he is calling for. What is taking from one group but not another? He has spent less because of the winding down of the wars. And Obamacare is not going to decrease spending...He's not "taking from one group but not another." He wants taxes raised on the highest bracket. Everyone pays the same rate on anything they earn up to $250,000 dollars. Everyone. Everyone is equal. Income beyond that will have the rate increased slightly (but still lower than the rates under SAINT REAGAN).

[KevinNYC]

And there lies the Democrats problem.
It's mainly because I know what those words means.

[TheMan]

Another point...I have never understood the Obama is a socialist garbage, he isn't even a liberal, (liberals are against drone attacks, keeping Gitmo open etc) much less a socialist. You guys have no idea what a Socialist is, please, educate yourselves. Obama is center right since that's how he has governed. He looks like a socialist to you guys only because you are on the faaaar right.

[Droid101]

Another point...I have never understood the Obama is a socialist garbage, he isn't even a liberal, (liberals are against drone attacks, keeping Gitmo open etc) much less a socialist. You guys have no idea what a Socialist is, please, educate yourselves. Obama is center right since that's how he has governed. He looks like a socialist to you guys only because you are on the faaaar right.
Prior to the vice presidential debate, a woman in totally awesome sunglasses interrupted a Chris Matthews interview with an Obama supporter by yelling, "Communist!"

Matthews finished his first interview and approached the woman. As you might suspect, hilarity ensued: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/12/1143767/--Study-it-Out-Woman-Calls-Barack-Obama-a-Communist-Looks-like-a-Fool-on-National-TV)

Matthews: What did you mean by that?

Romney Supporter: All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out and you'll see. You haven't done your homework, buddy.

Matthews: What do I need to study?

Romney Supporter: He's a communist. And those of us who are not voting for him know it.

Matthews: And what do you mean by communist?

Romney Supporter: You don't know?

Matthews: Just tell me. Help me out here. I want to know what you mean.

Romney Supporter: Oh I know what I mean.

Matthews: Well help us out. You're on national television.

Romney Supporter: I know I'm on national television.

Matthews: Well tell me what you mean when you just accused the guy of being a communist.

Romney Supporter: You just study it out.

Matthews: Is he an American?

Romney Supporter: No.

Matthews: What is he? What country's he from?

Romney Supporter: Just because he was born here doesn't mean he thinks like us. He's a communist, buddy.

Matthews: Ok, thank you.

----------

GAME OVER LIBTARDOS Study it out.

[kentatm]

Obama is anti-Rich. Obama is anti-White, to a sense. Obama is anti-Male, to a sense. Obama is a leaning Socialist.


so thinking women should get equal pay is anti male?

anti white how again?

wanting to go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton is anti rich?

come on now.



Another point...I have never understood the Obama is a socialist garbage, he isn't even a liberal, (liberals are against drone attacks, keeping Gitmo open etc) much less a socialist. You guys have no idea what a Socialist is, please, educate yourselves. Obama is center right since that's how he has governed. He looks like a socialist to you guys only because you are on the faaaar right.


THIS

every time I hear him get called a socialist or commie I have to wonder if these people ever even studied what the **** that means in school.

[TheMan]

Prior to the vice presidential debate, a woman in totally awesome sunglasses interrupted a Chris Matthews interview with an Obama supporter by yelling, "Communist!"

Matthews finished his first interview and approached the woman. As you might suspect, hilarity ensued: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/12/1143767/--Study-it-Out-Woman-Calls-Barack-Obama-a-Communist-Looks-like-a-Fool-on-National-TV)

Matthews: What did you mean by that?

Romney Supporter: All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out and you'll see. You haven't done your homework, buddy.

Matthews: What do I need to study?

Romney Supporter: He's a communist. And those of us who are not voting for him know it.

Matthews: And what do you mean by communist?

Romney Supporter: You don't know?

Matthews: Just tell me. Help me out here. I want to know what you mean.

Romney Supporter: Oh I know what I mean.

Matthews: Well help us out. You're on national television.

Romney Supporter: I know I'm on national television.

Matthews: Well tell me what you mean when you just accused the guy of being a communist.

Romney Supporter: You just study it out.

Matthews: Is he an American?

Romney Supporter: No.

Matthews: What is he? What country's he from?

Romney Supporter: Just because he was born here doesn't mean he thinks like us. He's a communist, buddy.

Matthews: Ok, thank you.



----------

GAME OVER LIBTARDOS Study it out.

I saw that, I wonder if she ever found out how much of a clueless idiot she came off as on tv:oldlol:

[DeuceWallaces]

The Democrats are communistic, socialistic, racist, anti-white, anti-male and anti-rich. You can argue the same exact thing for Democrats.

In regards to immigration, I only believe that they should soften the line on legal immigration, maybe let more people in legally, maybe. But not with illegal immigrants. I think they should absolutely be deported.

Except for the part where none of that is true. Being for a woman's right to choose doesn't mean you're anti-male. Being in favor of same sex marriage doesn't make you against heterosexual marriage. Racist makes no sense and likely a function of your own idiocy and ignorance. Lastly, if you knew a thing about communism or socialism you'd know that despite the most left leaning politicians, the US and the Democrats in general are nowhere near true communists or socialists.

You're just another idiot kid with no career, no education, and a bunch of GOP and libertarian talking points. Probably another kid so dead set against any gov't assistance but likely can't live on their own without handouts from their mommy and daddy.

This site has a bunch of them; you're a dime a dozen.

[bdreason]

Repubs gonna come back with an attractive, conservative, catholic, latino female to run for president in 2016. Watch out Dems!

[Patrick Chewing]

No you can't. Name a prominent politician having any of those views.



No Republican politician has blatantly said anything racist either. It's all propaganda and I have to hand it to the Democrats on that one. They'll sell you a bridge and tell you they'll give you a discount too if it meant garnishing a vote.

You won't find radical Democratic politicians out in public mouthing off. That job is left to the Radical and Progressive media. There is no denying that the media swings Far Left and everything Math said in his post applies to the media.

[embersyc]

Yeah obviously that huge latino population in Ohio and Virginia will turn things around for the GOP... :rolleyes:

[Real Men Wear Green]

No Republican politician has blatantly said anything racist either. It's all propaganda and I have to hand it to the Democrats on that one. They'll sell you a bridge and tell you they'll give you a discount too if it meant garnishing a vote.George Allen said some pretty live shit. And people like Arpaio leading the charge on racial profiling didn't win your party any non-white friends.


You won't find radical Democratic politicians out in public mouthing off. That job is left to the Radical and Progressive media. There is no denying that the media swings Far Left and everything Math said in his post applies to the media.
Fox News is "media," Drudge is media, Breitbart, etc. IT's funny that you complain about liberal bias after all the right-wing media outlets that spout that crap just showed that they're completely off-base when discounting pollsters, Nate Silver, and the "liberal" media that promote them. You'd think you'd learn something from how completely wrong your alleged "fair and balanced" news sources were.

[Godzuki]

No Republican politician has blatantly said anything racist either. It's all propaganda and I have to hand it to the Democrats on that one. They'll sell you a bridge and tell you they'll give you a discount too if it meant garnishing a vote.

You won't find radical Democratic politicians out in public mouthing off. That job is left to the Radical and Progressive media. There is no denying that the media swings Far Left and everything Math said in his post applies to the media.


i honestly don't understand how some of you on the right don't even realize by now what your party stands for. it boggles my mind how you all keep pretending both sides are the same when they're anything but the same. its like saying black and white colors are the same, thats how different they are. if you seriously think the left has just as many racists as the right you don't have a working brain. if you think the left has nearly as many scary extremists as the right does you just aren't following the simple reality of party makeups, or the type of people that make up supporting the different issues each party stands for.

its not the media, there is no way they could even fabricate whats obvious. i mean its simple common sense and i don't understand how some of you who follow this stuff even a little bit don't even realize some of the most obvious characteristics of each party by now :biggums:

[LJJ]

http://i.imgur.com/NcyhV.png

Any other talking points on the menu today?

Wow, that graph is ludicrous.

[Droid101]

Wow, that graph is ludicrous.
This helps explain it a bit:

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/bothaxes.gif

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/axeswithnames.gif

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

Pretty neat. You can take it here to see where you land:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

In fact, I'll start a new thread! Go post: http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=283512

[Nick Young]

Republicans and democrats are basically the exact same party.

Only fools fall for the propaganda that they represent two different things.

[Math2]

so thinking women should get equal pay is anti male?

anti white how again?

wanting to go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton is anti rich?

come on now.





THIS

every time I hear him get called a socialist or commie I have to wonder if these people ever even studied what the **** that means in school.

It's crazy to think that women are unfairly treated. I believe that yes, he is anti-male in that he fights for women's equal pay. Yes, because there is no need to fight for it. You can show me any figures that show me that women pay less, but it doesn't matter. Maybe they get paid less because they don't do as good work. You can say the same think for every group of people. Everyone doesn't need to get uniform pay.

[TheMan]

It's crazy to think that women are unfairly treated. I believe that yes, he is anti-male in that he fights for women's equal pay. Yes, because there is no need to fight for it. You can show me any figures that show me that women pay less, but it doesn't matter. Maybe they get paid less because they don't do as good work. You can say the same think for every group of people. Everyone doesn't need to get uniform pay.
:facepalm

[LJJ]

This helps explain it a bit:

I know what a political compass is. But anyone who says Hu Jintao, Angela Merkel and Mitt Romney are all comparably right wing in their political views is completely out of his mind.

[L8kersfan222]

It's crazy to think that women are unfairly treated. I believe that yes, he is anti-male in that he fights for women's equal pay. Yes, because there is no need to fight for it. You can show me any figures that show me that women pay less, but it doesn't matter. Maybe they get paid less because they don't do as good work. You can say the same think for every group of people. Everyone doesn't need to get uniform pay.


Lurker coming out to say, holy sh1t this was awful.

[Hotlantadude81]

Latinos: ideology

54% conservative

39% liberal

I saw this on MSNBC today.

If Republicans soften the immigration message, I think Democrats are done.

Thoughts?

I think most people have some conservative leanings.

[G-Funk]

Not after using them as scapegoats and villainizing them as a thread to the country.

[Math2]

Except for the part where none of that is true. Being for a woman's right to choose doesn't mean you're anti-male. Being in favor of same sex marriage doesn't make you against heterosexual marriage. Racist makes no sense and likely a function of your own idiocy and ignorance. Lastly, if you knew a thing about communism or socialism you'd know that despite the most left leaning politicians, the US and the Democrats in general are nowhere near true communists or socialists.

You're just another idiot kid with no career, no education, and a bunch of GOP and libertarian talking points. Probably another kid so dead set against any gov't assistance but likely can't live on their own without handouts from their mommy and daddy.

This site has a bunch of them; you're a dime a dozen.

If someone lives on their parents money, you are essentially taking from your own bank account, though not directly. It is MY FAMILY'S money, I'm not taking from some random tax payer just because I'm inept and can't pay my bills. Your parents put you in a position where you can be helped by then. If one can't say that, then they shouldn't be getting assistence. YOU put yourself in a favorable position, thus you should be able to take advantage of any money you may have.

[Hotlantadude81]

The republican party is a dinosaur party.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It is MY FAMILY'S money, I'm not taking from some random tax payer just because I'm inept and can't pay my bills.
No, you're taking from your parents because you're inept and can't pay your bills.

[Droid101]

If someone lives on their parents money, you are essentially taking from your own bank account, though not directly. It is MY FAMILY'S money, I'm not taking from some random tax payer just because I'm inept and can't pay my bills.
So you're just a taker who contributes nothing to society and doesn't pay taxes. You are the 47% Romney was talking about.

[DeuceWallaces]

If someone lives on their parents money, you are essentially taking from your own bank account, though not directly. It is MY FAMILY'S money, I'm not taking from some random tax payer just because I'm inept and can't pay my bills. Your parents put you in a position where you can be helped by then. If one can't say that, then they shouldn't be getting assistence. YOU put yourself in a favorable position, thus you should be able to take advantage of any money you may have.

So it's true? Just like the rest of our crying, whining, libertarians/repubs on this site, you can't support yourself but you bitch about everyone else who "want" handouts. Although it's justified because you're the inept loser who happened to be born into a family that could cover your sorry ass while they weren't?

Do you currently have a job? Do you live at home with your parents? How old are you?

[LJJ]

So it's true? Just like the rest of our crying, whining, libertarians/repubs on this site, you can't support yourself but you bitch about everyone else who "want" handouts. Although it's justified because you're the inept loser who happened to be born into a family that could cover your sorry ass while they weren't?

Do you currently have a job? Do you live at home with your parents? How old are you?

I like how he comes to the conclusion that because his parents have the money to support him, he himself put himself in a favorable position.

What?

[longhornfan1234]

Only entitle losers accept hand outs.

[TheMan]

If someone lives on their parents money, you are essentially taking from your own bank account, though not directly. It is MY FAMILY'S money, I'm not taking from some random tax payer just because I'm inept and can't pay my bills. Your parents put you in a position where you can be helped by then. If one can't say that, then they shouldn't be getting assistence. YOU put yourself in a favorable position, thus you should be able to take advantage of any money you may have.
Sounds like this nicca still sucking from the parent's teet...:lol move out, ya lazy bum:oldlol:

And that's not your money, it's your parents you fvcking leech

[Droid101]

I live off my parents money and don't work. I guess that makes me a bad person.
Not necessarily.

If you were complaining about "takers" and "leeches" and "lazy bums who live off the government and pay no taxes" all the time, then you'd be a huge hypocrite. But I don't recall you doing any of that.

[Is He Ill]

No, I'm all for handouts.

But I don't pay taxes and don't contribute to society.

At least you're not a hypocrite.

[Math2]

No, you're taking from your parents because you're inept and can't pay your bills.

But even if I did it wouldn't matter because my parents would have put themselves in a position where, if needed and if they wanted, they could help. It's not the government's responsibility to pay for me, it's mine, or my family, if they choose to do so.

[rezznor]

It's crazy to think that women are unfairly treated. I believe that yes, he is anti-male in that he fights for women's equal pay. Yes, because there is no need to fight for it. You can show me any figures that show me that women pay less, but it doesn't matter. Maybe they get paid less because they don't do as good work. You can say the same think for every group of people. Everyone doesn't need to get uniform pay.
:facepalm

[Droid101]

But even if I did it wouldn't matter because my parents would have put themselves in a position where, if needed and if they wanted, they could help. It's not the government's responsibility to pay for me, it's mine, or my family, if they choose to do so.
Why don't you consider your fellow American citizens as a sort of extended family? Wouldn't we all be better off if we did? If we all wanted to take care of each other and make sure everyone in our country is happy?

[DeuceWallaces]

But even if I did it wouldn't matter because my parents would have put themselves in a position where, if needed and if they wanted, they could help. It's not the government's responsibility to pay for me, it's mine, or my family, if they choose to do so.

You are pathetic. How old are you?

[Real Men Wear Green]

But even if I did it wouldn't matter because my parents would have put themselves in a position where, if needed and if they wanted, they could help. It's not the government's responsibility to pay for me, it's mine, or my family, if they choose to do so.
Good for them and good for you but it means you do not have the moral high ground over welfare recipients. Just an easier application process.

[Math2]

Why don't you consider your fellow American citizens as a sort of extended family? Wouldn't we all be better off if we did? If we all wanted to take care of each other and make sure everyone in our country is happy?

No. Communism or whatever it is that you are proposing hasn't worked, and it won't work. If you decide to rely on your parents, then that's what you and your parents decided, it's not necessarily good for you as someone to sustain themselves, but that between you are your family. Forcing someone to give you money who has no vested interest in you is stupid.

[Math2]

Good for them and good for you but it means you do not have the moral high ground over welfare recipients. Just an easier application process.

That's not what I'm arguing though. I'm saying that since your parents put themselves in a position to help you, they should be able to if they want to. It's NOT a responsible thing, though it is more responsible than relying on strangers to pay your bills.

[Math2]

You are pathetic. How old are you?

I'm in high school, so I obviously do live off my parents for the time being.

[Droid101]

No. Communism or whatever it is that you are proposing hasn't worked, and it won't work. Having an adequate safety net for those who fall on hard times is not Communism. It's common ****ing sense.



Forcing someone to give you money who has no vested interest in you is stupid.
Trust me, we all have a vested interest in everyone. If we take away the only way a poor person has to feed his kids, he might just kill you in order to do it.

[Math2]

Having an adequate safety net for those who fall on hard times is not Communism. It's common ****ing sense.



Trust me, we all have a vested interest in everyone. If we take away the only way a poor person has to feed his kids, he might just kill you in order to do it.

So we should have to pay for strangers food? Why?

If they kill someone, then they just go to jail. So what? Murders happen all the time.

[Rasheed1]

:roll: I am loving this...

The guy doing the most ranting and raving is a little boy in high school living off mommy and daddy

:roll:

This muthaf*cker is talking about takers and makers when he has yet to even be an adult... are you old enough even vote???

:bowdown: this is for deuce.... He blind called it

[Droid101]

So we should have to pay for strangers food? Why?What if (not being a dick) your parents and your entire family and friends died and you had no money and no home. What would you do in this hypothetical situation? With no skills or training, you're looking at a close to minimum wage job, which isn't enough to support you in anything other than a studio apartment (if even that).

How do you even get that job? You don't have a phone. How do they call you back to schedule an interview? Wouldn't a little... assistance help get you on your feet?


If they kill someone, then they just go to jail. So what? Murders happen all the time.
http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html

The more people in poverty, the more crime there is. Money is better spend preventing poverty (by helping people through it via welfare, food stamps, WIC, "Obamaphones," etc.) than it is spent on police officers and prisons after the fact.

You want to save money and be more fiscally responsible as a country, right?

[Is He Ill]

What if (not being a dick) your parents and your entire family and friends died and you had no money and no home. What would you do in this hypothetical situation? With no skills or training, you're looking at a close to minimum wage job, which isn't enough to support you in anything other than a studio apartment (if even that).

How do you even get that job? You don't have a phone. How do they call you back to schedule an interview? Wouldn't a little... assistance help get you on your feet?


That's one issue I have with many conservatives. They seem to think if you are outside of their circle of family and friends then you can essentially go f*** yourself. To me it seems as if they fail to realize that we would be better off if we were in this together since we can all benefit down the line. It's like they operate on a very small, tribal mindset.

[Math2]

What if (not being a dick) your parents and your entire family and friends died and you had no money and no home. What would you do in this hypothetical situation? With no skills or training, you're looking at a close to minimum wage job, which isn't enough to support you in anything other than a studio apartment (if even that).

How do you even get that job? You don't have a phone. How do they call you back to schedule an interview? Wouldn't a little... assistance help get you on your feet?


http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html

The more people in poverty, the more crime there is. Money is better spend preventing poverty (by helping people through it via welfare, food stamps, WIC, "Obamaphones," etc.) than it is spent on police officers and prisons after the fact.

You want to save money and be more fiscally responsible as a country, right?

First off, that's not a likely hypothetical situation. Secondly, that's not everyone else's fault. They shouldn't have to pay for me.

[Droid101]

First off, that's not a likely hypothetical situation. Secondly, that's not everyone else's fault. They shouldn't have to pay for me.
So, instead of answering, you say this. I'll ask again.

What would you do?

[Math2]

So, instead of answering, you say this. I'll ask again.

What would you do?

Not apply for it, or accept it from the government. I shouldn't take other peoples money that they don't want to go to me. If they want to give to the poor, they should donate to charity. I would accept from charity because the money that goes there wasn't stolen from them.

[Droid101]

Not apply for it, or accept it from the government. I shouldn't take other peoples money that they don't want to go to me. If they want to give to the poor, they should donate to charity. I would accept from charity because the money that goes there wasn't stolen from them.
I see.

Ever drive on roads? Better not! Those roads were built using money that was STOLEN from MY POCKETS against MY WILL!

Attend public school? You better stop! Those school grounds and teachers were paid for with money STOLEN FROM ME!

[Real Men Wear Green]

Not apply for it, or accept it from the government. I shouldn't take other peoples money that they don't want to go to me. If they want to give to the poor, they should donate to charity. I would accept from charity because the money that goes there wasn't stolen from them.
Are the armed forces full of thieves? Are public school teachers stealing? Should cops arrest themselves? Because there are taxpayers that don't want their money going to all of these groups.

[Balla_Status]

I see.

Ever drive on roads? Better not! Those roads were built using money that was STOLEN from MY POCKETS against MY WILL!

Attend public school? You better stop! Those school grounds and teachers were paid for with money STOLEN FROM ME!

Those two things are 5% of the budget. If those were the only two things we paid for as taxpayers, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Moot point really. As most of yours are.

Trust funds take up a much larger chunk.

[Nanners]

Those two things are 5% of the budget. If those were the only two things we paid for as taxpayers, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Moot point really. As most of yours are.

Trust funds take up a much larger chunk.

eliminating oil and nat gas subsidies would save us taxpayers $120 billion over the next 10 years.

i am tired of the us govt forcibly taking my money so that the most profitable companies in the world can inflate their profits even more.

[Math2]

eliminating oil and nat gas subsidies would save us taxpayers $120 billion over the next 10 years.

i am tired of the us govt forcibly taking my money so that the most profitable companies in the world can inflate their profits even more.

This is more along the lines of what it means to forcibly take someone's money. It's called redistribution.

What's different about roads and to a lesser extent, schools, is that they benefit society as a whole, rather than one economic class of people.

[Droid101]

:oldlol: You guys arguing with a 15 year old. You're not gonna convince a 15 year old not to think retarded things.
True, but if someone out on the internet is searching and sees this thread, maybe it'll help enlighten them.

Maybe.

[Balla_Status]

eliminating oil and nat gas subsidies would save us taxpayers $120 billion over the next 10 years.

i am tired of the us govt forcibly taking my money so that the most profitable companies in the world can inflate their profits even more.

Oil and gas companies don't receive subsidies.

And since you're so against government assistance to corporations, we should end tax breaks for wind energy as well. Don't want to be a hypocrite do we?

[Nanners]

Oil and gas companies don't receive subsidies.

bullshit they dont. here is a full list of the hundreds of tax breaks and subsidies available to oil and gas companies

http://www.oecd.org/site/tadffss/USA.pdf



And since you're so against government assistance to corporations, we should end tax breaks for wind energy as well. Don't want to be a hypocrite do we?

thats fine by me, wind and solar are both becoming more and more viable by the day. at this very moment, germany currently generates 25% of their power from renewables, and can reach 50% or more on sunny days.

50% of new generation built in the USA last year was renewable (http://grist.org/news/nearly-50-percent-of-new-electricity-generation-added-in-2012-was-renewable/). the future is coming hawker

[falc39]

Why don't you consider your fellow American citizens as a sort of extended family? Wouldn't we all be better off if we did? If we all wanted to take care of each other and make sure everyone in our country is happy?

WOW lol... really? Made a huge leap there... maybe because he doesn't want to? Maybe because it's not his responsibility to make sure everyone in our country is happy? Maybe because he has a much stronger emotional bond with people he has been living with for his whole lifetime? The gap between a family member and a random citizen that could be living 3000 miles away is large. Huge. Not even in the same ballpark.

I am amazed how people are relating that being supported by family is the same as getting a government handout. Those two are not the same at all. Not even close. Having a supportive family and being against handouts does not make one a hypocrite lol.



That's one issue I have with many conservatives. They seem to think if you are outside of their circle of family and friends then you can essentially go f*** yourself. To me it seems as if they fail to realize that we would be better off if we were in this together since we can all benefit down the line. It's like they operate on a very small, tribal mindset.

I'm a kind person, but that doesn't mean I have to give change to every bum that approaches me or support large inefficient welfare programs.

[Nanners]

I'm a kind person, but that doesnt mean I should have to give money to the govt to pay for ginormous tax breaks for rich people and corporations.

Or pay for a trillion dollar per year perpetual war industry, for that matter.

[falc39]

I'm a kind person, but that doesnt mean I should have to give money to the govt to pay for ginormous tax breaks for rich people and corporations.

Or pay for a trillion dollar per year perpetual war industry, for that matter.

What's your point? I was addressing a post that claimed conservatives outside of their friends and family have a go **** yourself attitude, which is false.

But I'm all for ending the perpetual war industry and ending subsidies to corporations too. That's why I didn't vote for Romney or Obama

[Nanners]

What's your point? I was addressing a post that claimed conservatives outside of their friends and family have a go **** yourself attitude, which is false.

But I'm all for ending the perpetual war industry and ending subsidies to corporations too. That's why I didn't vote for Romney or Obama


it annoys me when people (conservatives) complain about welfare for poor people while the govt is spending waaaay more providing welfare for rich and the corporate elite.

if the govt is going to redistribute wealth, i would much rather that it get redistributed to poor people instead of rich.

[MMM]

If Republicans want to rebuild they need to be the party that is out of your pockets and out of your bedroom, especially out of the bedroom. For a party that doesn't believe in regulations it is interesting that they believe they can regulate America's culture.

As for taxation I don't see how that is stealing when people get back what they put in through; hard and soft infrastructure among other positive societal outcomes. I believe the government needs reforms in how they allocate funds going forward but the anti government sentiment and comparisons to communism/socialism is delusional.

Seriously if Obama is a socialist then what does it make the leaders of America's allies like Canada, UK, etc.????

[Nanners]

If Republicans want to rebuild they need to be the party that is out of your pockets and out of your bedroom, especially out of the bedroom. For a party that doesn't believe in regulations it is interesting that they believe they can regulate America's culture.

As for taxation I don't see how that is stealing when people get back what they put in through; hard and soft infrastructure among other positive societal outcomes. I believe the government needs reforms in how they allocate funds going forward but the anti government sentiment and comparisons to communism/socialism is delusional.

Seriously if Obama is a socialist then what does it make the leaders of America's allies like Canada, UK, etc.????

cant agree more. the modern fox news "conservative" is not remotely conservative by the definition of the word.

[Scoooter]

Fantastic article (http://chronicle.com/article/The-Conservative-Turn-Against/135488/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en) on why modern Republicans are so adamantly and shamelessly anti-science and anti-intellectualism.


Climate scientists came under attack not just because their research threatened the oil industry (although it certainly did that), but also because they had exposed significant market failures.

Pollution is a market failure because, in general, polluters do not pay a price for environmental damage (and this includes not just polluting industries, like electrical utilities, but also anyone who uses a product—like gasoline—that takes up a portion of the planetary sink without paying for it). Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, has declared climate change "the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen."

[Hotlantadude81]

:roll: I am loving this...

The guy doing the most ranting and raving is a little boy in high school living off mommy and daddy

:roll:

This muthaf*cker is talking about takers and makers when he has yet to even be an adult... are you old enough even vote???



Just another person taking on the establishments language.

takers vs. the makers. blah blah blah

[Hotlantadude81]

If Republicans want to rebuild they need to be the party that is out of your pockets and out of your bedroom, especially out of the bedroom. For a party that doesn't believe in regulations it is interesting that they believe they can regulate America's culture.

As for taxation I don't see how that is stealing when people get back what they put in through; hard and soft infrastructure among other positive societal outcomes. I believe the government needs reforms in how they allocate funds going forward but the anti government sentiment and comparisons to communism/socialism is delusional.

Seriously if Obama is a socialist then what does it make the leaders of America's allies like Canada, UK, etc.????

I'll never call myself a republican or a democrat again. Too much baggage.

[Math2]

If Republicans want to rebuild they need to be the party that is out of your pockets and out of your bedroom, especially out of the bedroom. For a party that doesn't believe in regulations it is interesting that they believe they can regulate America's culture.

As for taxation I don't see how that is stealing when people get back what they put in through; hard and soft infrastructure among other positive societal outcomes. I believe the government needs reforms in how they allocate funds going forward but the anti government sentiment and comparisons to communism/socialism is delusional.

Seriously if Obama is a socialist then what does it make the leaders of America's allies like Canada, UK, etc.????

That's one faction in the Republican party I wholeheartedly disagree with. The religious fanatics in the Republican party are really kind of absurd.

[MMM]

I'll never call myself a republican or a democrat again. Too much baggage.

Agreed, I call my self a regressive reformer

[Balla_Status]

bullshit they dont. here is a full list of the hundreds of tax breaks and subsidies available to oil and gas companies

http://www.oecd.org/site/tadffss/USA.pdf



thats fine by me, wind and solar are both becoming more and more viable by the day. at this very moment, germany currently generates 25% of their power from renewables, and can reach 50% or more on sunny days.

50% of new generation built in the USA last year was renewable (http://grist.org/news/nearly-50-percent-of-new-electricity-generation-added-in-2012-was-renewable/). the future is coming hawker

You clearly don't know the difference between tax breaks and subsidies. They receive tax breaks just like ALL industries do. There's even a manufacturing tax break I believe that people count as O&G and Apple and Microsoft use it as well. Are we really counting the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Bill as an O&G tax break? Really?

And wind energy can only compete because of enormous tax breaks. Without them, they wouldn't exist.

And the future is coming? Yeah, no shit. It's funny how you think I'm some blood for oil/gas dude totally against new technologies. Again in 2050, all energy will still be majority O&G. I work in O&G because whether you like it or not, people need it. And I like it.

[Scoooter]

Republican obstructionism approaches all-time nadir of ridiculousness: Senator Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill. (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121207/NEWS01/312070087/Sen-Mitch-McConnell-filibusters-own-bill-debt-ceiling-when-Democrats-agree-vote?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1)

They really are out of control.

[Hotlantadude81]

If Republicans want to rebuild they need to be the party that is out of your pockets and out of your bedroom, especially out of the bedroom. For a party that doesn't believe in regulations it is interesting that they believe they can regulate America's culture.

As for taxation I don't see how that is stealing when people get back what they put in through; hard and soft infrastructure among other positive societal outcomes. I believe the government needs reforms in how they allocate funds going forward but the anti government sentiment and comparisons to communism/socialism is delusional.

Seriously if Obama is a socialist then what does it make the leaders of America's allies like Canada, UK, etc.????

I think the conservatives only care about Israel.

[chips93]

Republican obstructionism approaches all-time nadir of ridiculousness: Senator Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill. (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121207/NEWS01/312070087/Sen-Mitch-McConnell-filibusters-own-bill-debt-ceiling-when-Democrats-agree-vote?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1)

They really are out of control.

woould somebody be able to explain to me what exactly this means? what is filibustering?

and the 'debt ceiling', is that just how much of a debt the government is allowed to go up to?