PDA

View Full Version : GOP Dead


Rigs11
03-18-2013, 05:39 PM
Heres the autopsy report breakdown:rofl:


The Republican National Committee has issued a big report on why the party lost their second straight election to the Kenyan Marxist -- and the popular vote in the fifth of the past six presidentials.

The good news?

These people are clearly convinced that all their problems can be solved through better marketing, messaging, tactics, tweaking the primary schedule -- plus tossing a few bones to the Mexicans and the gays.

Here's some of the most frequently used terms in the report:

Message/Messaging: 77
Technology: 42
Conservative: 23
Marketing: 15
Tone: 13
Regulations: 8

Getting the picture? And here is the occurrence of some key policy/issues in the report, including those that were debated in the 2012 election.

Taxes: 2
Tea Party: 1
Debt (National): 1
Health care: 0
Wall Street: 0
Inequality: 0
Medicare: 0
Social Security: 0
Abortion: 0
Gay Marriage: 0
Climate Change: 0
Iraq: 0
Contraception: 0
Terrorism: 0
Transvaginal Ultrasounds: 0

http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan/gops-autopsy-report-numbers

Rohirrim
03-18-2013, 07:25 PM
In other words, "We're just not piling the bull**** deep enough." Ha!

TonyR
03-19-2013, 08:30 AM
[O]nly 26 percent of Republicans support same-sex marriage rights as compared with 54 percent of independents and 66 percent of Democrats. Attitudes among Republican voters may shift on the issue by 2016, particularly if more respected conservatives like Mr. Portman announce their support for same-sex marriage, but it is less than clear that his position will reflect a broadly acceptable viewpoint among Republican primary and caucus voters by that time. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/among-g-o-p-voters-little-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

slick7
03-19-2013, 08:33 AM
You think Portman does that if his son were straight?

DenverBrit
03-19-2013, 09:15 AM
They claim to need to change and update their message, yet the usual suspects....Palin, Santorum, Perry etc are the keynote speakers and Christie is excluded.

This isn't the GOP, it's a club of like minded, right wing religious fundamentalists who's priority is to shape social policies in the US.

They have become the party of the 18th century.

peacepipe
03-19-2013, 09:23 AM
Instead of accepting the fact that their policies are the problem,they think they need a better pitchman.

TonyR
03-19-2013, 09:28 AM
You think Portman does that if his son were straight?

Nope. And that underscores the larger problem.

Rohirrim
03-19-2013, 09:34 AM
The fruit blossoms on the tree Lee Atwater planted. ;D

houghtam
03-19-2013, 09:56 AM
Nope. And that underscores the larger problem.

Gotta love governance based on how things affect you and only you.

Pretty much flies right in the face of what we call "representative democracy".

houghtam
03-19-2013, 10:01 AM
They claim to need to change and update their message, yet the usual suspects....Palin, Santorum, Perry etc are the keynote speakers and Christie is excluded.

This isn't the GOP, it's a club of like minded, right wing religious fundamentalists who's priority is to shape social policies in the US.

They have become the party of the 18th century.

Sarah Palin's depths of stupidity and bimboism never cease to amaze me. The speech she gave wasn't a speech so much as it was a collection of one liners much like what would be delivered by a cheerleader at a pep rally. No substance, no cognitive quality whatsoever, all shouted out to get a reaction from the crowd. She's no longer a politician (not that she ever was), she's worse than Ann Coulter...offering nothing to the conversation but division.

The GOP will never be able to move past the last 2 losses if they continue to pay that pig lipstick service. You can't sell the message of outreach and empathy for minorities in one breath and then pay a 40-something year old harpy to undermine that with comments about, once again, Barack Obama's birth certificate.

cutthemdown
03-19-2013, 12:50 PM
Thank god enough conservatives left in the Senate so that the Assault Weapons Ban won't even be part of the legislation the are trying to pass on gun control. So we ain't dead yet we still change legislation to suit us.

Pick Six
03-20-2013, 08:18 AM
The GOP needs to find more Newt Gingrichs (without the baggage). People are too involved in political correctness, which the left owns. Romney spent much of the campaign agreeing with the principles of Obama. He just wanted to do it a little bit differently. The one time that I felt that he honestly told what he was thinking, he had to publically apologize for it. There is no way that Obama should have been reelected, given our current economic state. Once Republicans actually start shouting Republican ideals, they might find out that people actually agree with them...

Rohirrim
03-20-2013, 08:27 AM
The GOP needs to find more Newt Gingrichs (without the baggage). People are too involved in political correctness, which the left owns. Romney spent much of the campaign agreeing with the principles of Obama. He just wanted to do it a little bit differently. The one time that I felt that he honestly told what he was thinking, he had to publically apologize for it. There is no way that Obama should have been reelected, given our current economic state. Once Republicans actually start shouting Republican ideals, they might find out that people actually agree with them...

"Republican ideals" is what destroyed America.

peacepipe
03-20-2013, 08:30 AM
The GOP needs to find more Newt Gingrichs (without the baggage). People are too involved in political correctness, which the left owns. Romney spent much of the campaign agreeing with the principles of Obama. He just wanted to do it a little bit differently. The one time that I felt that he honestly told what he was thinking, he had to publically apologize for it. There is no way that Obama should have been reelected, given our current economic state. Once Republicans actually start shouting Republican ideals, they might find out that people actually agree with them...

Here we go with the bogus not a conservative enough candidate argument again.
The problem isn't that Republican ideals weren't pushed cause they were from ending abortion to more tax cuts etc. etc. The problem was Republican ideals were soundly rejected. Obviously,with your post you still don't get it.

TonyR
03-20-2013, 10:00 AM
A HuffPost/YouGov poll asked: “All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?” The response:

Only 24 percent of respondents to the new poll said they thought the war had been worth fighting, while 54 percent said it had not been. Another 22 percent said they were not sure. Three-quarters of Democrats and 55 percent of independents said the Iraq War was not worth fighting. But Republicans were more likely to say that it was worth the cost than it was not — by a 47 to 30 percent margin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-support_n_2902761.html

This Gallup poll... http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx
...found that 53% of Americans think the war was a mistake and 42% percent do not. Kevin Drum's reaction:
How is it, ten years after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight, that 42 percent of the country still believes that invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake? What would it take to convince these people?http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/chart-day-still-plenty-love-iraq-war

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/19/the-iraq-war-still-has-its-supporters/

Rohirrim
03-20-2013, 10:07 AM
A HuffPost/YouGov poll asked: “All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?” The response:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-support_n_2902761.html

This Gallup poll... http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx
...found that 53% of Americans think the war was a mistake and 42% percent do not. Kevin Drum's reaction:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/chart-day-still-plenty-love-iraq-war

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/19/the-iraq-war-still-has-its-supporters/

The adherents of ideology do not require the application of facts to validate their beliefs. In fact, they despise facts. This is the disconnect I keep seeing with the Right. They still believe in supply side economics, tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. Even Huntsman says we should peg capital gains tax rates at zero. It's insane.

Pick Six
03-20-2013, 01:59 PM
Here we go with the bogus not a conservative enough candidate argument again.
The problem isn't that Republican ideals weren't pushed cause they were from ending abortion to more tax cuts etc. etc. The problem was Republican ideals were soundly rejected. Obviously,with your post you still don't get it.

What Republican ideals were rejected? My theory is that Obama won because the Republicans weren't clear about their ideals. Newt Gingrich was never going to be the nominee because of his personal baggage. However, he came the closest to laying out the conservative philosophy...

Irish Stout
03-20-2013, 02:08 PM
What Republican ideals were rejected? My theory is that Obama won because the Republicans weren't clear about their ideals. Newt Gingrich was never going to be the nominee because of his personal baggage. However, he came the closest to laying out the conservative philosophy...

Taxes, free market wage structures, increased military spending, overturning Roe v. Wade, to name a few.

cutthemdown
03-21-2013, 04:52 AM
Republicans need to decide what issues are the most important to them. The tug of the religious side, to the frugal spending side, but also the spend a ton on the military side. Sort of a 3 pronged attack that isn't working. If they were smart they would say we can never and will never give up on being pro-life. I think that issue can't ever change on the platform. But the gay marraige one isn't that big of a deal and they should let it go. On immigration it looks like they want to try and make some sort of change to at least grab a few million latinos more. Then hammer home they are the business friendly party that will lead to more jobs and lower taxes for all.

DenverBrit
03-21-2013, 07:23 AM
What Republican ideals were rejected? My theory is that Obama won because the Republicans weren't clear about their ideals. Newt Gingrich was never going to be the nominee because of his personal baggage. However, he came the closest to laying out the conservative philosophy...

Obama won because the GOP WERE clear about their 'ideals.'

They are 'Nosey Party' that prioritizes social agendas.

As long as they keep wheeling out the Santorums, Bachmanns and Palins to represent their views, they will remain a joke.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PrgY5I4znX8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TonyR
03-21-2013, 11:10 AM
The GOP’s Looming Gay Crisis

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/21/the-gops-looming-gay-crisis/

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 11:32 AM
I thought public masturbation was illegal, but here in the city of Denver you never know.

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 11:33 AM
The GOP’s Looming Gay Crisis

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/21/the-gops-looming-gay-crisis/

I always take moral cues from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Douche. Shocking he'd say something like this.

If the GOP has a gay crisis, then the DNC has a religion crisis. Are there more gays or religious people in the US?

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 11:35 AM
Instead of accepting the fact that their policies are the problem,they think they need a better pitchman.

So how do you explain that Obama bled over 6 million votes from 2008?

houghtam
03-21-2013, 11:52 AM
So how do you explain that Obama bled over 6 million votes from 2008?

3.5 million.

How do you explain the GOP losing 5 of the last 6 popular votes?

Do you really believe this country is becoming MORE conservative?

LOL

Hey how was your "job at a hospital?"

:yayaya:

Bacchus
03-21-2013, 11:56 AM
Sarah Palin's depths of stupidity and bimboism never cease to amaze me. The speech she gave wasn't a speech so much as it was a collection of one liners much like what would be delivered by a cheerleader at a pep rally. No substance, no cognitive quality whatsoever, all shouted out to get a reaction from the crowd. She's no longer a politician (not that she ever was), she's worse than Ann Coulter...offering nothing to the conversation but division.



I can't take her at all and not just because she is stupid. Her voice is so damn annoying it makes my brain hurt.

TonyR
03-21-2013, 12:20 PM
I always take moral cues from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Douche. Shocking he'd say something like this.

If the GOP has a gay crisis, then the DNC has a religion crisis. Are there more gays or religious people in the US?

Proudly ignorant would be descriptive of you. Did you even read the link? Polling suggests that 81% of those under 30 favor marriage equality. Let's see if you're smart enough to figure out the significance of this.

houghtam
03-21-2013, 12:34 PM
Proudly ignorant would be descriptive of you. Did you even read the link? Polling suggests that 81% of those under 30 favor marriage equality. Let's see if you're smart enough to figure out the significance of this.

Just wait til he sees the polling from religious people, that will really make his brain hurt. I mean it should be 0% if the religious leaders were doing their jobs, right?

Oh wait, polling is bad and doesn't mean anything.

Requiem
03-21-2013, 01:38 PM
Nyuk still confused about the # of votes Obama bled?

I addressed this a month ago:

There was roughly ~ 3% (2.7) less voter turn out in 2012 compared to 2008.
Obama had ~ 69.5 million votes in 2008 and ~ 66 million (figures rounded) in 2012.

That's 3.5 million votes less. If turnout was the same, his numbers this year (total votes) would have risen and the numbers wouldn't have been anywhere near a six million vote disparity you are discussing.

Romney's vote total was ~ 1.5% better than McCain, roughly a million votes.
So in reality, in a year with much less turnout, Obama still performed well. Either way, your goofy math doesn't add up. Try again.

MATH IS HARD!

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 11:43 AM
Proudly ignorant would be descriptive of you. Did you even read the link? Polling suggests that 81% of those under 30 favor marriage equality. Let's see if you're smart enough to figure out the significance of this.

Consider the source and look beyond your confirmation bias.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 12:14 PM
Nyuk still confused about the # of votes Obama bled?

I addressed this a month ago:



MATH IS HARD!

Apparently it is.

With lower turnout we get two things: 1) Romney had more votes in 2012 than McCain got in 2008, and 2) Obama had several million fewer.

Yes - Obama bled votes.

I understand you're a partisan liberal who thinks reality is aligned with the partisan liberal agenda, however let's just admit what happened: Obama isn't as popular anymore and people didn't show up for him in the same numbers.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 12:37 PM
nyuk is still pissed that even with the weakest chance to be re-elected of any recent President, Obama still beat Romney quite handily. Just goes to show that the GOP is ****ed. If they had picked a more reasonable candidate, Obama would have been toast.

The GOP's commitment to ideology is a suicide pact - and for that, we as a nation thank them.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 06:00 PM
nyuk is still pissed that even with the weakest chance to be re-elected of any recent President, Obama still beat Romney quite handily. Just goes to show that the GOP is ****ed. If they had picked a more reasonable candidate, Obama would have been toast.

The GOP's commitment to ideology is a suicide pact - and for that, we as a nation thank them.

Why did Obama have the weakest chance if he was so popular and GOP has a foot in the grave?

Do you read your own posts?

And I do agree - Romney's idiot Mormonism didn't help, and I wasn't big on the Randian, either.

TonyR
04-04-2013, 11:52 AM
The real problem for the Republican party is that its brand is currently in the can. With favorable numbers in the low 30s, the GOP is seen as out-of-step with Americans on many issues.

That’s why you’re seeing Democrats jumping out to a large lead on the House ballot for 2014. The latest Quinnipiac poll puts Democrats up by 8pt, more than enough for them to take back the House. Voters are, at this point, not willing to vote for the party that opposes what they believe in. What Republicans don’t need, then, is another issue – that is, immigration – that contributes to notion that they’re out-of-touch with the way most Americans feel.

Opposing immigration reform would be yet another instance of GOP “obstructionism”, which is what most people see as the Republicans’ biggest fault. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/04/republicans-americans-immigration-reform

B-Large
04-05-2013, 08:58 AM
GOP Dead? Not dead, but certainly going to be on life support if it does not reconcile some of the platform isses that keep fiscal conservatives/live and let live Social issuers like myself that makes select anybody but a R or D on the ballot.

The GOP needs to find a way to convice the American people that the experiment in small, limited government we call America is still in the their best interests.. I think the problem is that the GOP has become a Net Government Expander much like Democrats, but they still think they are Small Government Champions. I think this is most manifested in their Social Policy Agenda... they can't win on that agenda, it doesn't mean personally they have to dilute their values, the American People are just not that interested in limiting the rights of gays, women, or keeping some drugs illegal.

I have been saying for a decade the GOP would be better suited to challnge democrats with a Lbertarians platform... live and let live, small government, domestic defense rather than offense, etc...

TonyR
04-05-2013, 09:21 AM
Check out the contradiction (hypocrisy?) in GOP thinking on display here:

Consider Marco Rubio. The senator just threatened to filibuster any gun-control legislation because the Second Amendment “speaks to history’s lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history’s warning about the oppression of a government that tries.” The specter of government despotism looms so large our only salvation lies with a nation of armed watchmen.

But curiously, Rubio also strongly supports beefing up government power by creating a vast military establishment. In 2012, he described defense cuts as “catastrophic” because “history has proven that the stronger the U.S. military is, the more peaceful the world becomes.” According to Politico, in a recent speech at the University of Louisville, “Rubio made the case for American military might around the world.”

Wait a sec, won’t American military might mean a government that’s in more places at more times? Isn’t this precisely the terrifying prospect we must arm ourselves against? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/great-gun-gobbledygook-the-paradox-of-second-amendment-hardliners/274523/

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 09:24 AM
GOP Dead? Not dead, but certainly going to be on life support if it does not reconcile some of the platform isses that keep fiscal conservatives/live and let live Social issuers like myself that makes select anybody but a R or D on the ballot.

The GOP needs to find a way to convice the American people that the experiment in small, limited government we call America is still in the their best interests.. I think the problem is that the GOP has become a Net Government Expander much like Democrats, but they still think they are Small Government Champions. I think this is most manifested in their Social Policy Agenda... they can't win on that agenda, it doesn't mean personally they have to dilute their values, the American People are just not that interested in limiting the rights of gays, women, or keeping some drugs illegal.

I have been saying for a decade the GOP would be better suited to challnge democrats with a Lbertarians platform... live and let live, small government, domestic defense rather than offense, etc...
So you think the GOP should move further right? The difference between Republicans & libertarians is that libertarians are more conservative. The problem reps have is that they are adopting libertarian policies,and it's being rejected.

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 09:34 AM
Reps & libertarians both believe in the privatization of SS,Medicare, & Medicaid. All of which carry large majority support amongst Americans. Even lg majorities of the so called tea party don't want changes to those programs. The list goes on & on,reps have to change their policies,or at the least have to compromise on a log chunk of them. A better sales pitch isn't going to save them.

B-Large
04-05-2013, 10:00 AM
So you think the GOP should move further right? The difference between Republicans & libertarians is that libertarians are more conservative. The problem reps have is that they are adopting libertarian policies,and it's being rejected.

I wouldn't characterize Libertarians as more socially conservative, rather fiscally conservative. We have a spending issue in the country, there is just no doubt about it, reducing the scope of Federal Government shoudl be the goal, and pushing more reposnsiblity back on people to be sound in the personal financial management and accountabilty shodl also be part of the push.

I don't know of one Libertarian that suggests we eviserate a true social safety net in this country, but rather suggest we reform these programs to becoming true safety nets, were the yare means tested to help people who truly need them.

The Federal Government does so little well, its not their fault, they do things with good intention and I blieve that, but most items are best left to the States, Cities and personal citizen.

B-Large
04-05-2013, 10:06 AM
Reps & libertarians both believe in the privatization of SS,Medicare, & Medicaid. All of which carry large majority support amongst Americans. Even lg majorities of the so called tea party don't want changes to those programs. The list goes on & on,reps have to change their policies,or at the least have to compromise on a log chunk of them. A better sales pitch isn't going to save them.

Conservatives want to see these programs continue for people who really need them. I don't think there is anything worng with expecting someone who has vast resources to forgo SS and Medicare if they don't truly need them and can pay for healthcare on their own, or get catastrphic insurace for the really big items- if we have less people antipated to be on the programs, theorectically the program will shrink and serve the trule neediest of citzens only.

as far as Medicaid, no one had advocated Medicaid be privatized... it has been suggested it be block granted... it is designed to let the States use that money in a way that works for them and their medicaid rolls, and if they want to fund more, great.

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 10:15 AM
Conservatives want to see these programs continue for people who really need them. I don't think there is anything worng with expecting someone who has vast resources to forgo SS and Medicare if they don't truly need them and can pay for healthcare on their own, or get catastrphic insurace for the really big items- if we have less people antipated to be on the programs, theorectically the program will shrink and serve the trule neediest of citzens only.

as far as Medicaid, no one had advocated Medicaid be privatized... it has been suggested it be block granted... it is designed to let the States use that money in a way that works for them and their medicaid rolls, and if they want to fund more, great.

If someone with the means chooses not to get SS or medicare ,fine. They still should pay into it.
Rick Scott gov. of fl didn't accept obamacare for the longest time because he was trying to privatize Medicaid. It wasn't until it became apparent that he wouldn't succeed that he gave in to obamacare. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
Secondly there is no basis that if 2 people out of a hundred don't go on these programs that it will shrink to just those who need it. What would happen is that it would shrink to the point where it helps nobody.

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 10:34 AM
I wouldn't characterize Libertarians as more socially conservative, rather fiscally conservative. We have a spending issue in the country, there is just no doubt about it, reducing the scope of Federal Government shoudl be the goal, and pushing more reposnsiblity back on people to be sound in the personal financial management and accountabilty shodl also be part of the push.

I don't know of one Libertarian that suggests we eviserate a true social safety net in this country, but rather suggest we reform these programs to becoming true safety nets, were the yare means tested to help people who truly need them.

The Federal Government does so little well, its not their fault, they do things with good intention and I blieve that, but most items are best left to the States, Cities and personal citizen.
Fiscally or socially,they're both being rejected. SS and Medicare are 2 of the best things us as citizens pay into. I have yet to meet a " libertarian" that supports SS & Medicare being gov. Programs.
We have a jobs issue,spending can be adjusted and fixed without totally eviscerating our economy with drastic spending cuts.
A majority in this country view jobs as a bigger problem.
Also eliminating the caps that there are currently in place & raising revenue via taxes,eliminating loopholes & subsidies to oil for example.
This notion that there is only one way to fix things be it jobs or deficit is absurd.
I'm for some spending cuts too,but spending cuts alone are not the answer,never was.

B-Large
04-05-2013, 11:19 AM
If someone with the means chooses not to get SS or medicare ,fine. They still should pay into it.
Rick Scott gov. of fl didn't accept obamacare for the longest time because he was trying to privatize Medicaid. It wasn't until it became apparent that he wouldn't succeed that he gave in to obamacare. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
Secondly there is no basis that if 2 people out of a hundred don't go on these programs that it will shrink to just those who need it. What would happen is that it would shrink to the point where it helps nobody.

that's exactly the point. SS is not a safety net program, its a national pension program adminstered by a government that is headin toward default. It is no different than any private pensions that went awry, too many people receiving, not enough paying in anymore..

All citizens should support our safety net programs, but not everybody should be on them.

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 12:03 PM
that's exactly the point. SS is not a safety net program, its a national pension program adminstered by a government that is headin toward default. It is no different than any private pensions that went awry, too many people receiving, not enough paying in anymore..

All citizens should support our safety net programs, but not everybody should be on them.
Hogwash, we're not headed for default. SS is solvent & is not in any real trouble,if at all,til 2035. At which point,a simple adjustment in taxes and benefits would fix.
Maybe,the rich 250,000 and above shouldn't be on it,but should pay,or continue to pay into it as long as they work.

TonyR
04-09-2013, 12:39 PM
As the saying goes, the first step toward recovery is to acknowledge the problem.

The problem in 2012 — as in 2008, as in the near-death experience of 2004, as in the popular vote loss of 2000, as in the loss of 1996, as in the loss of 1992 — was the GOP’s failure to offer an economic program relevant to the problems of middle-class Americans. The party’s present three front-runners would not only repeat that failure, but double down on that failure.

The Republican Party desperately needs renewal, its early presidential front-runners are characterized by their rejection of change. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/frum-republicans-2016/index.html

TonyR
04-09-2013, 12:54 PM
The study linked below estimates that...

...racial animus in the United States appears to have cost Obama roughly four percentage points of the national popular vote in both 2008 and 2012.http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~sstephen/papers/RacialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf

If true, this suggests that a white Dem candidate could potentially win in a andslide in 2016.

TonyR
04-12-2013, 08:20 AM
It was frequently observed that a Romney victory would have required a historic performance among white voters, provided that Obama could match his ’08 performance among non-white voters. Bush’s 2004 performance among white voters wouldn’t get it done anymore. In 2016, the math gets even more challenging. If the white share of the electorate declines further, Republicans won’t just need to match their best performance of the last 24 years among white voters, they’ll also need to match their best performance of the last 24 years among non-white voters. If they can’t make the requisite 16-point gain among non-white voters—a tall order, to say the least—then the next Republican candidate will enter truly uncharted territory, potentially needing to win up to 64 percent of the white vote just to break 50 percent of the popular vote. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112870/emerging-democratic-majority-isnt-certainty-gop-change

Spider
04-12-2013, 06:13 PM
Teapublicans are done put a fork in em ;)

nyuk nyuk
04-13-2013, 09:14 AM
The study linked below estimates that...

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~sstephen/papers/RacialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf

If true, this suggests that a white Dem candidate could potentially win in a andslide in 2016.

How many votes did Obama gain by racial animus? Did that poll weigh that idea at all?

nyuk nyuk
04-13-2013, 09:16 AM
So you think the GOP should move further right? The difference between Republicans & libertarians is that libertarians are more conservative. The problem reps have is that they are adopting libertarian policies,and it's being rejected.

If you go by the platform of the Libertarian Party, they're open border prostitutes. I wouldn't call that conservative.

peacepipe
04-13-2013, 09:30 AM
If you go by the platform of the Libertarian Party, they're open border prostitutes. I wouldn't call that conservative.

Libertarian,fascist,reactionary,nationalist,Republ ican, neo-con,all are right-wing ideologies.

TonyR
04-19-2013, 06:56 AM
“I want to apologize. I think that should have been handled better.” – Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld, after the Fox control room pulled the plug on the president’s angry Rose Garden speech about gun control after a few seconds, in order to talk about liberal media bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/business/media/fox-news-msnbc-and-the-gun-debate.html

LOL

nyuk nyuk
04-19-2013, 07:40 AM
Libertarian,fascist,reactionary,nationalist,Republ ican, neo-con,all are right-wing ideologies.

Wow that's daft. There are no left-wing nationalists? What is reactionary other than a Marxist slur against their enemies?

Get this: Add all those "right wing ideologies" together and compare them to Marxism. Which has the bigger body count?

Ouch!

nyuk nyuk
04-19-2013, 07:41 AM
Teapublicans are done put a fork in em ;)

Who needs "Teapublicans" when you have good Democrats to kill bad bills?

THANKS GUYS!

:kiss:^5

Requiem
04-20-2013, 09:08 AM
America will be a minority-majority nation within the next fifty years. The old, angry, white conservatives who cling to guns and god and fear anything they don't know are a dying breed. The GOP is going to be an afterthought if they cannot change their archaic ways and belief systems. That is pretty self-evident.

peacepipe
04-20-2013, 10:07 AM
Wow that's daft. There are no left-wing nationalists? What is reactionary other than a Marxist slur against their enemies?

Get this: Add all those "right wing ideologies" together and compare them to Marxism. Which has the bigger body count?

Ouch!
Didn't realize right-wing white supremacy groups were liberal.

peacepipe
04-20-2013, 10:28 AM
Wow that's daft. There are no left-wing nationalists? What is reactionary other than a Marxist slur against their enemies?

Get this: Add all those "right wing ideologies" together and compare them to Marxism. Which has the bigger body count?

Ouch!

Right-wing has the bigger count,adolf hitler,a right-winger, may alone have a bigger body count.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism


Nazism (in full, National Socialism; German: Nationalsozialismus) is the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany and related movements elsewhere. [1][2][3][4][5] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism. [6] Nazism developed from the influence of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. [7] The party and its affiliates in Germanic states supported pan-Germanicism. [8] It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. [9] Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior, who were said to be a threat to national survival.

TonyR
04-23-2013, 09:08 AM
At best, George W. Bush was a well-meaning man who gave the occasional nice speech and was thoroughly overmatched by events. At worst, he was the most disastrous foreign policy president of the post-1945 era. Am I missing anything? http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/22/meet_the_revisionist_george_w_bush_pretty_much_the _same_as_the_old_george_w_bush

B-Large
04-23-2013, 09:36 AM
Libertarian,fascist,reactionary,nationalist,Republ ican, neo-con,all are right-wing ideologies.

http://www.lp.org/platform

I don't see how Libertarian ideals are ultra right wing and more conservative that the GOP stands today.

Giving citizens morefreedom from the power and coercive nature of the Federal Government is a bad thing? Reducing the scope of Federal Government and demanding the reamain fiscally sane is a bad thing?

Libertarians are gaining traction because people are tired of Federal Waste of our income tax dollars, tired of the favoritismn of the Federal Tax Code, tired of decades of wars with little to nothing to show in the end, and more wars to come.... people are tired of the corruption of the Democratic and Repuiblcian parties, and their like goal of more power over your life.

peacepipe
04-23-2013, 11:19 AM
http://www.lp.org/platform

I don't see how Libertarian ideals are ultra right wing and more conservative that the GOP stands today.

Giving citizens morefreedom from the power and coercive nature of the Federal Government is a bad thing? Reducing the scope of Federal Government and demanding the reamain fiscally sane is a bad thing?

Libertarians are gaining traction because people are tired of Federal Waste of our income tax dollars, tired of the favoritismn of the Federal Tax Code, tired of decades of wars with little to nothing to show in the end, and more wars to come.... people are tired of the corruption of the Democratic and Repuiblcian parties, and their like goal of more power over your life.
That's a nice PR site on behalf of libertarians. It's load of ****,but nice PR nonetheless.

Libertarians aren't gaining ****,all that's happening is the base of the republican party is becoming more libertarian.

B-Large
04-23-2013, 12:30 PM
That's a nice PR site on behalf of libertarians. It's load of ****,but nice PR nonetheless.

Libertarians aren't gaining ****,all that's happening is the base of the republican party is becoming more libertarian.

Ist that what most independents, former R's want? A GOP that is leaving the social issues to the individuals, staying out of other's countries business, and roping in a growing government?

peacepipe
04-23-2013, 01:38 PM
Ist that what most independents, former R's want? A GOP that is leaving the social issues to the individuals, staying out of other's countries business, and roping in a growing government?

Former Rs' want it that way cause they don't believe the Rs' are conservative enough. Libertarianism sounds nice until you start reading the fine print.

TonyR
05-02-2013, 11:19 AM
The GOP's demographic time bomb:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/how-immigration-reform-and-demographics-could-change-presidential-math/

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 08:56 AM
America will be a minority-majority nation within the next fifty years. The old, angry, white conservatives who cling to guns and god and fear anything they don't know are a dying breed. The GOP is going to be an afterthought if they cannot change their archaic ways and belief systems. That is pretty self-evident.

Basically what you're doing is rote-parroting DNC propaganda mill slurs and appealing to novelty.

Is this what a college education buys nowadays?

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 08:57 AM
The GOP's demographic time bomb:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/how-immigration-reform-and-demographics-could-change-presidential-math/

Now we know why the Democrats want the border open like a whore's legs, and what it does to the wages of Americans isn't even a blip on the radar.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 08:58 AM
http://www.lp.org/platform

Hilarious, pathetic people. I'm never sure whether I should laugh uncontrollably or projectile vomit every time I look at the LP platform.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 09:01 AM
Didn't realize right-wing white supremacy groups were liberal.

I've yet to figure out what a "white supremacy group" is. Perhaps you can help us.

We have plenty of left-wing nationalist groups and parties, you're just ignoring them. North Korea is a national-level version of it. So is China and countless others. We also have the National Bolsheviks.

B-Large
05-03-2013, 09:01 AM
Hilarious, pathetic people. I'm never sure whether I should laugh uncontrollably or projectile vomit every time I look at the LP platform.

What do you find humorus, or vomit worthy exactly?

B-Large
05-03-2013, 09:03 AM
The GOP's demographic time bomb:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/how-immigration-reform-and-demographics-could-change-presidential-math/

Conservartives hate Nate Silver because he is typically spot on. I find that ironic since they attest to being the party of metrics, facts and outcomes.

I guess when the news isn't good, Nate is just another liberally biased hack?

B-Large
05-03-2013, 09:07 AM
That's a nice PR site on behalf of libertarians. It's load of ****,but nice PR nonetheless.

Libertarians aren't gaining ****,all that's happening is the base of the republican party is becoming more libertarian.

So more people are beginning to identify as Libertarian, but they are not gaining anything?

That doesn't make any sense.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 09:15 AM
What do you find humorus, or vomit worthy exactly?

The idea of open borders actually being beneficial. Haven't we already seen enough to show this is just the opposite? Garbage like that will/is undermining domestic wages and destroy(ing) the country

You have to wonder if they're living with their head in the clouds or they're just that loaded up on crack.

Then you have the isolationist horse ****. Then you have the political correctness and excessive "non-discriminatory" garbage - excessive because it goes to the point of suicidal.

It's amusing they're now lifting their immigration philosophy from the CATO Institute (http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration). That alone is a huge red flag. CATO is flipping nuts.

The "personal relationships" section would mean that marriage involving incest, children, and harems would now be legal.

nyuk nyuk
05-03-2013, 09:17 AM
Right-wing has the bigger count,adolf hitler,a right-winger, may alone have a bigger body count.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Hitler didn't even try to kill as many people as the USSR alone did. You're out of your mind, lefty.

peacepipe
05-03-2013, 09:21 AM
So more people are beginning to identify as Libertarian, but they are not gaining anything?

That doesn't make any sense.
A party in the minority moving to the right,is still a minority party. Nothing changes.

B-Large
05-03-2013, 09:32 AM
The idea of open borders actually being beneficial. Haven't we already seen enough to show this is just the opposite? Garbage like that will/is undermining domestic wages and destroy(ing) the country

You have to wonder if they're living with their head in the clouds or they're just that loaded up on crack.

Then you have the isolationist horse ****. Then you have the political correctness and excessive "non-discriminatory" garbage - excessive because it goes to the point of suicidal.

It's amusing they're now lifting their immigration philosophy from the CATO Institute (http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration). That alone is a huge red flag. CATO is flipping nuts.

The "personal relationships" section would mean that marriage involving incest, children, and harems would now be legal.


How is it undermining wages, American want cheap, in turn you need cheap, cheap labor- who is going to do that other than people who really have no other choice, or people who see working migrant fields in California much more lucrative than have no job in Mexico? I am not into open borders, I am into a border/ immigration strategy that allows people who want to work, and where there is demand for their work, to be able to do so.

The Constitution doesn't lay out that we are the world police, does it? It doesn't say were Nation Builders, does it? It is really that obscure a thought that instead of spending 10 years and trillions in the Desert, that maybe we should revamp domestic security to identify attacks here against our people, and defend the domestic mainland? The Middle East is a Sewer, it always will be, we can protect our interests and support out allies wihtout being involved in enfless and ongoing nation and regime building operations.

Incest is still against the law, having sex with a child is still against the law. The platform is that legal aged conscenting adults should not have their relationships defined and restricted by Government- 13 States have already shown this is the wave of the future, expanding right rather than limiting under the scope of Xtian values.. this is a land of free peoples who can do what they wish as long as consenting and legal... Libertarians are on board, as is most of the Nation.

Requiem
05-04-2013, 02:14 PM
Basically what you're doing is rote-parroting DNC propaganda mill slurs and appealing to novelty.

Is this what a college education buys nowadays?

No. The Census Bureau projects (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/u-majority-minority-population-2043-census-predicts-164735561.html) that in the 2040s America will be a minority majority nation.

Considering that, plus how unpopular the GOP is with minorities. . . they will fight a lot of tough battles in areas that are traditionally strongholds of theirs that have very rapidly rising immigrant/ethnic populations. States like Arizona, Texas, etc. will come in play. Texas would be a huge loss for the R's because it has been a stronghold for them for ages. However, with the rising Hispanic demographic there (and what it accounts for in voting % -- which will only increase as population increases) they are going to have trouble.

It really is just common sense. They will do their best (probably this next election) to put a guy like Rubio or Jindal on the ticket to try and shake away the old, angry white man stigma -- but the stigma will continue to exist, and it won't help them because their reasons for doing it will be self-evident. It is hard (and going to be almost impossible) to wipe away decades of social/domestic policy and rhetoric which demonized different people.

Just my thoughts.

houghtam
05-04-2013, 02:49 PM
No. The Census Bureau projects (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/u-majority-minority-population-2043-census-predicts-164735561.html) that in the 2040s America will be a minority majority nation.

Considering that, plus how unpopular the GOP is with minorities. . . they will fight a lot of tough battles in areas that are traditionally strongholds of theirs that have very rapidly rising immigrant/ethnic populations. States like Arizona, Texas, etc. will come in play. Texas would be a huge loss for the R's because it has been a stronghold for them for ages. However, with the rising Hispanic demographic there (and what it accounts for in voting % -- which will only increase as population increases) they are going to have trouble.

It really is just common sense. They will do their best (probably this next election) to put a guy like Rubio or Jindal on the ticket to try and shake away the old, angry white man stigma -- but the stigma will continue to exist, and it won't help them because their reasons for doing it will be self-evident. It is hard (and going to be almost impossible) to wipe away decades of social/domestic policy and rhetoric which demonized different people.

Just my thoughts.

No, you're absolutely right. The only way the Republican Party can remain legitimate long-term is to espouse some of the social ideas of the libertarians and oust the extremists from the platform. This will mean getting rid of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, and religiously radical views in their party.

You're already starting to see it with the comments made by guys like Jindal, Christie and even Priebus. But then you have guys like Ted Cruz who are nothing more than saber rattlers supported by the tea party radicals. The Republicans are at about the 1855 stage of their Civil War. Everyone knows its coming:; all it will take is the wrong person earning the nomination to set off the fireworks.

peacepipe
05-04-2013, 04:05 PM
No, you're absolutely right. The only way the Republican Party can remain legitimate long-term is to espouse some of the social ideas of the libertarians and oust the extremists from the platform. This will mean getting rid of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, and religiously radical views in their party.

You're already starting to see it with the comments made by guys like Jindal, Christie and even Priebus. But then you have guys like Ted Cruz who are nothing more than saber rattlers supported by the tea party radicals. The Republicans are at about the 1855 stage of their Civil War. Everyone knows its coming:; all it will take is the wrong person earning the nomination to set off the fireworks.
What are the social ideas of libertarians? I rarely hear anything coming out of the mouth of a libertarian that a Republican/conservative doesn't say a thousand times.

houghtam
05-04-2013, 04:50 PM
What are the social ideas of libertarians? I rarely hear anything coming out of the mouth of a libertarian that a Republican/conservative doesn't say a thousand times.

That's because most people who claim to be libertarians are not. They're just mad their party lost and are looking for answers. Don't forget that Republicanism used to stand for small government in all areas until they got to a point where they realize they couldn't win elections without partnering with the religous right. A proverbial deal with the devil which couldn't be more ironic.

B-Large(?) posted a link to their social idea in another thread. Basically they want to take the idea of small government and apply it to everything, including social issues. That means the government stays out of your personal life. You can smoke what you want, **** who you want, marry who you want (within reason, obviously. They're not for incest like nyuk seemed to think).

The problem with libertarianism IMO is its a rigid philosophy based in an ideological vacuum. Nothing I have seen from libertarianism in the way of economic policy has even a modicum of a chance of working, let alone being implemented. Small government is a great idea, but you can't get a government of 300 million people to be as small a libertarians want it to be. It's just not feasible.

W*GS
05-04-2013, 05:13 PM
Most libertarians are very doctrinaire, which puts them into silly territory in terms of politics and economics, and makes them struggle to win elections for 3rd Assistant Dogcatcher. Not a bad thing.

cutthemdown
05-04-2013, 06:33 PM
If liberals do kep power for a long time it can't last. Eventually everyone will be taxed so high there will be a backlash back to conservatism. Conservatives not worried because we know the liberals theory of high taxes, high govt spending and low morals will eventually lead to their demise. All we have to do is wait a bit more. Hell what was this months economic growth? i haven't had a chance to see if it was released yet. But i bet it comes in just enough to avoid telling us we are in a recession. What maybe 1-2% at most if it kept up for the whole yr. They will be like growth was .5 % we are on our way, don't worry things are great. Hell wait until Obamacare totally blows up. The dirty secret is the cost of healthcare on the exchanges going to be atronomical and crush the lower middle class, or the fed govt as they try and subsisize it. Its amusing how liberals on the board really think its going to work somehow. Heads buried firmly up asses!

B-Large
05-06-2013, 06:30 AM
No, you're absolutely right. The only way the Republican Party can remain legitimate long-term is to espouse some of the social ideas of the libertarians and oust the extremists from the platform. This will mean getting rid of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, and religiously radical views in their party.

You're already starting to see it with the comments made by guys like Jindal, Christie and even Priebus. But then you have guys like Ted Cruz who are nothing more than saber rattlers supported by the tea party radicals. The Republicans are at about the 1855 stage of their Civil War. Everyone knows its coming:; all it will take is the wrong person earning the nomination to set off the fireworks.

Finally somebody who sees the obviousness of the situation.... good post, IMHO. My frustration with the GOP is their accurate diagnosis of the issues that face the party, but they always prescribe the same old remedy- more of the same. I am often dumbfounded when I find fellow conservatives re-entreching and still work under the assumption that the message is fine they just have to do a better job of communicating it.. problem is, they are communicating to a changing audience.


***I don't think GOP need to abandon their abortion stance per se, I don't believe there is anything wrong with a respect for human life, at any stage of the process, in fact I support their position while at the same time respect the rights of protections under law... tradtionally the issue from most conservatives is the inability to face the outward reality that kids have sex no matter how much you tell them not to, and that teaching kids about safe sex and brith control mitigate that issue- preach abstinance, work in the reality of birth control.

TonyR
05-06-2013, 06:43 AM
Conservatives not worried because we know the liberals theory of high taxes, high govt spending and low morals will eventually lead to their demise. All we have to do is wait a bit more.

LOL cutthemdown has the "liberals theory" all figured out. Einstein was too busy with his theory of relativity to come up with this one, apparently. Hilarious!

Blart
05-06-2013, 07:49 AM
The GOP fever was going to break when Obama beat the pants off McCain.

Then it was going to break because of how dire the nation's situation was.

Then it was going to break once they lost on health care.

Then it was going to break when they became responsible for running things post 2010.

Then it was going to break after the debt ceiling fiasco

Then it was going to break when Obama won again

And instead it is just getting more and more crazy, furious, and organized. Don't underestimate any of these guys. As 2012 showed all you need is one big backer for the money and you can go the distance.

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 07:57 AM
That's because most people who claim to be libertarians are not. They're just mad their party lost and are looking for answers. Don't forget that Republicanism used to stand for small government in all areas until they got to a point where they realize they couldn't win elections without partnering with the religous right. A proverbial deal with the devil which couldn't be more ironic.

B-Large(?) posted a link to their social idea in another thread. Basically they want to take the idea of small government and apply it to everything, including social issues. That means the government stays out of your personal life. You can smoke what you want, **** who you want, marry who you want (within reason, obviously. They're not for incest like nyuk seemed to think).

The problem with libertarianism IMO is its a rigid philosophy based in an ideological vacuum. Nothing I have seen from libertarianism in the way of economic policy has even a modicum of a chance of working, let alone being implemented. Small government is a great idea, but you can't get a government of 300 million people to be as small a libertarians want it to be. It's just not feasible. what about abortion? Should gov. Stay out of the way on this?

TonyR
05-06-2013, 08:20 AM
I’ve also seen what happens to Republicans who dare to even contemplate cooperation with the White House. When Congressman Scott Rigell of Virginia accepted the president’s invitation to join him at an event highlighting the shipyard jobs that sequestration would destroy in his district, the two men had a warm and constructive conversation aboard Air Force One. The president talked about his willingness to pursue entitlement reform. Rigell said he was open to closing tax loopholes for the wealthy. In return, he was threatened with a primary challenge by his local Tea Party, attacked by Grover Norquist as a “cheap date,” and flooded with nasty calls and emails from conservative activists.

If you’re a Republican in Congress, what’s more likely to sway your vote—a trip on Air Force One and a personal plea from Barack Obama, or the threat of a Tea Party challenge that’s taken down so many of your colleagues in recent elections? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/03/leading-from-below.html

TonyR
05-06-2013, 08:49 AM
Evidence of GOP desperation:

Ohio Republicans now want to punish state universities that encourage students to cast a ballot. Under a budget amendment filed by Republicans in the Ohio House, state universities that provide documents enabling students to register to vote in their college town, rather than in the state where their parents reside, will be forbidden from charging those students out-of-state tuition. Thus, the amendment would effectively reduce the funding of state schools that assist their students in registering to vote.

This is the second GOP attempt to restrict college students from voting in just the past month. About a month ago, a North Carolina Republican lawmaker filed a bill that would raise taxes on families with college students if the student registers to vote at school rather than in their parents’ hometown. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/01/1947891/ohio-republicans-want-to-punish-colleges-that-encourage-students-to-vote/

houghtam
05-06-2013, 09:06 AM
what about abortion? Should gov. Stay out of the way on this?

Well, like B-Large said, you can have a pro-life stance and still not be a crazy person. Hell, you can be a liberal and still have an end game that includes the banning of abortion in all but the most extreme of cases. But as I said in the other thread (and if you'd like details, my post was here http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3832128&postcount=499), if you want to ban abortion, you had better be prepared to address all of the surrounding issues which contribute to the reason why people have them in the first place.

If we address sex education, welfare and the rest of the stuff, the number of abortions will go down naturally, because most people don't have abortions just to have them. At that point you can say, "okay, now that we've made it so that you can adequately care for your child, it's no longer legal to have an abortion except in these rare cases." Right now, I'm for a mother's right to choose, but if we can improve the plight of the people actually getting abortions, I'd vote for a constitutional ban on abortion in a heartbeat.

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 09:19 AM
Well, like B-Large said, you can have a pro-life stance and still not be a crazy person. Hell, you can be a liberal and still have an end game that includes the banning of abortion in all but the most extreme of cases. But as I said in the other thread (and if you'd like details, my post was here http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3832128&postcount=499), if you want to ban abortion, you had better be prepared to address all of the surrounding issues which contribute to the reason why people have them in the first place.

If we address sex education, welfare and the rest of the stuff, the number of abortions will go down naturally, because most people don't have abortions just to have them. At that point you can say, "okay, now that we've made it so that you can adequately care for your child, it's no longer legal to have an abortion except in these rare cases." Right now, I'm for a mother's right to choose, but if we can improve the plight of the people actually getting abortions, I'd vote for a constitutional ban on abortion in a heartbeat.
I guess we'll have to differ on that,I believe abortion should available in any circumstance. Gov. Shouldn't dictate when you can or can't have a legal medical procedure.

Arkie
05-06-2013, 11:11 AM
^This issue was never about whether you can do something that's legal. It's always been about whether something should be legal or illegal. We all believe that it should be illegal to kill a human individual. We just have different interpretations. Some people (including some scientists) interpret that the unique human individual is created at conception. When should they get rights to their life's potential that already exists in their DNA.

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 11:48 AM
^This issue was never about whether you can do something that's legal. It's always been about whether something should be legal or illegal. We all believe that it should be illegal to kill a human individual. We just have different interpretations. Some people (including some scientists) interpret that the unique human individual is created at conception. When should they get rights to their life's potential that already exists in their DNA.
BS. Gov getting involved in what a women does with her body or what's within her body doesn't count. Thanks for the hypocrisy. DNA,my ass. Constitution doesn't base rights on DNA.

Pick Six
05-06-2013, 01:16 PM
BS. Gov getting involved in what a women does with her body or what's within her body doesn't count. Thanks for the hypocrisy. DNA,my ass. Constitution doesn't base rights on DNA.

So, in your opinion, when does life begin? Does it magically become a baby when the tyke breathes the same air that we breathe?

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 01:33 PM
So, in your opinion, when does life begin? Does it magically become a baby when the tyke breathes the same air that we breathe?

The question is,when is it no longer a part of the woman's body? Or should I say the constitution only applies once you're born.

Fedaykin
05-06-2013, 02:02 PM
So, in your opinion, when does life begin? Does it magically become a baby when the tyke breathes the same air that we breathe?

Life began about 4 billion years ago, and is a continuous process.

Pick Six
05-06-2013, 02:27 PM
The question is,when is it no longer a part of the woman's body? Or should I say the constitution only applies once you're born.

All of these states (38 of them) have laws in place to punish people who kill the mother, effectively killing the unborn child. At that point, it becomes two counts of murder. It's either a living person, or it's not a living person. Logic tells us that it can't work both ways...

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Arkie
05-06-2013, 03:49 PM
BS. Gov getting involved in what a women does with her body or what's within her body doesn't count. Thanks for the hypocrisy. DNA,my ass. Constitution doesn't base rights on DNA.

The Constitution bases rights on individuals. It doesn't define when an individual human becomes an individual person. The human embryo is a "totally unique being" (or individual) with a DNA combination from both offspring. Scientifically, it's human. Legally, it's not a person yet. It's illegal to kill people, but it's not illegal to kill human beings before they become people.

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 03:59 PM
The Constitution bases rights on individuals. It doesn't define when an individual human becomes an individual person. The human embryo is a "totally unique being" (or individual) with a DNA combination from both offspring. Scientifically, it's human. Legally, it's not a person yet. It's illegal to kill people, but it's not illegal to kill human beings before they become people.
The constitution as scotus ruled gives a women a right for this legal medical procedure. You may disagree with it but it is what it is. The constitution only applies once you are born.

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 04:06 PM
All of these states (38 of them) have laws in place to punish people who kill the mother, effectively killing the unborn child. At that point, it becomes two counts of murder. It's either a living person, or it's not a living person. Logic tells us that it can't work both ways...

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

What can I say either they are trying have it both ways or these states are trying to undo roe v wade by trying to establish a fetus as a person via dbl homicide.

errand
05-06-2013, 06:03 PM
The question is,when is it no longer a part of the woman's body? Or should I say the constitution only applies once you're born.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAU4JI3yxl4hCMcUeFmsO5TAidASZcF eI1hxWIUipu35cJcGjOaw

errand
05-06-2013, 06:08 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rpzGOo_EPjE/TyhKEZ9unqI/AAAAAAAABYU/czoGwtnVrnY/s1600/id.bmp

errand
05-06-2013, 06:11 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSusnb5S2NSJ1CEnMgyM5xf9koKNZytN 6S47Zx7rDzilI3EhxTnEg

peacepipe
05-06-2013, 06:29 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAU4JI3yxl4hCMcUeFmsO5TAidASZcF eI1hxWIUipu35cJcGjOaw

WRONG! It's in her body,& unfortunately for you your opinion don't count. Scotus on the other hand...

Requiem
05-06-2013, 06:56 PM
I think abortion is morally wrong, but support the right to choose in case of rape, incest or if mother's life is in danger. Other than that, no.

errand
05-06-2013, 08:13 PM
WRONG! It's in her body,& unfortunately for you your opinion don't count. Scotus on the other hand...

Really? Dred Scott says hello! :wave:

you keep acting like the Supreme Court makes the right decision every ****ing time......LOL

errand
05-06-2013, 08:17 PM
I think abortion is morally wrong, but support the right to choose in case of rape, incest or if mother's life is in danger. Other than that, no.


I think most Americans are with you on this too.....what's sad is these arguments that the "pro choice" people give for abortion when proposed as the only way an abortion can be performed, will never say that makes the most sense and is the best compromise to a very sensitive issue.

If you proposed that the only way a woman could receive an abortion was if she had been raped by a stranger or relative, or in order to save the life of the mother, they still would reject it....because it's not about the health of the mother, and it damn sure isn't about the health of the child...it's about their sacred cow.

errand
05-06-2013, 08:18 PM
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/9/4/7/4/8/1/peanuts-104153956598.jpeg

peacepipe
05-07-2013, 02:37 AM
I think most Americans are with you on this too.....what's sad is these arguments that the "pro choice" people give for abortion when proposed as the only way an abortion can be performed, will never say that makes the most sense and is the best compromise to a very sensitive issue.

If you proposed that the only way a woman could receive an abortion was if she had been raped by a stranger or relative, or in order to save the life of the mother, they still would reject it....because it's not about the health of the mother, and it damn sure isn't about the health of the child...it's about their sacred cow.
a woman has a right to choose regardless of what you may feel about. A women's right isn't based on what may or may not offend you.

peacepipe
05-07-2013, 02:55 AM
Really? Dred Scott says hello! :wave:

you keep acting like the Supreme Court makes the right decision every ****ing time......LOL

They made the right decision with roe v wade. Either way they have the final say.

houghtam
05-07-2013, 07:01 AM
I think most Americans are with you on this too.....what's sad is these arguments that the "pro choice" people give for abortion when proposed as the only way an abortion can be performed, will never say that makes the most sense and is the best compromise to a very sensitive issue.

If you proposed that the only way a woman could receive an abortion was if she had been raped by a stranger or relative, or in order to save the life of the mother, they still would reject it....because it's not about the health of the mother, and it damn sure isn't about the health of the child...it's about their sacred cow.

You apparently didn't read my post on the subject, and I'm sure you don't actually have civil conversations with liberals. I would say about 80-90% of liberals (including my wife, who is about 12 shades more liberal than I am) would support a ban on abortions in most cases if we were actually doing much to solve the problems that drive people to get an abortion.

Instead of addressing poverty with some common sense solutions that will actually help people get on their feet and be able to support a child, we suffer through attacks from the right calling people lazy, immoral, freeloading....even if those adjectives were true, calling names does nothing to solve poverty, nor will it reduce the number of abortions.

Like I said, if you're truly interested in reducing the number of abortions, you had better be ready to address all the problems that contribute to people getting them in the first place. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air.

peacepipe
05-07-2013, 01:39 PM
I've never met a liberal that supported limitations on women's rights.

houghtam
05-07-2013, 02:00 PM
I've never met a liberal that supported limitations on women's rights.

You must not get out much. We're all over.

Pony Boy
05-07-2013, 03:28 PM
a woman has a right to choose regardless of what you may feel about. A women's right isn't based on what may or may not offend you.

I knew a married woman that screwed around on her husband and got pregnant and she had an abortion without telling her husband or the baby daddy. So she killed an innocent baby to save her marriage but it didn't work the marriage broke up a few years later anyway. But you're right, she had a right to kill that baby it's her choice not the baby daddy or the baby.

peacepipe
05-07-2013, 04:39 PM
I knew a married woman that screwed around on her husband and got pregnant and she had an abortion without telling her husband or the baby daddy. So she killed an innocent baby to save her marriage but it didn't work the marriage broke up a few years later anyway. But you're right, she had a right to kill that baby it's her choice not the baby daddy or the baby.

She's not the daddy's or the husband property so she doesn't owe them ****. She had a legal procedure,which by law isn't murder. Don't like it,tough ****.

peacepipe
05-07-2013, 04:55 PM
You must not get out much. We're all over.

You guys being all over,may be true,but don't claim to be "liberal". I know liberals who personally don't agree with abortion,and yet every one them will tell you they still support the right for a women to choose to have one & not be limited to when they can have an abortion.
I can respect someone being against abortion,but I can't respect the notion that because you're against abortion every women should lose that right. Don't believe in abortion fine & dandy,don't have one.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 05:07 PM
I think most Americans are with you on this too.....what's sad is these arguments that the "pro choice" people give for abortion when proposed as the only way an abortion can be performed, will never say that makes the most sense and is the best compromise to a very sensitive issue.

If you proposed that the only way a woman could receive an abortion was if she had been raped by a stranger or relative, or in order to save the life of the mother, they still would reject it....because it's not about the health of the mother, and it damn sure isn't about the health of the child...it's about their sacred cow.

HA! Liberals would never go along with that. The notion liberals give wiggle room on baby killing is a joke. They are for it even if the woman is on her 5th onw. In fact liberal groups would not even support a ban on abortions if its your 10th one.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 05:09 PM
It is a choice. You can either support the killing of babies or not.

houghtam
05-07-2013, 05:15 PM
You guys being all over,may be true,but don't claim to be "liberal". I know liberals who personally don't agree with abortion,and yet every one them will tell you they still support the right for a women to choose to have one & not be limited to when they can have an abortion.
I can respect someone being against abortion,but I can't respect the notion that because you're against abortion every women should lose that right. Don't believe in abortion fine & dandy,don't have one.

No True Scotsman much?

houghtam
05-07-2013, 05:16 PM
HA! Liberals would never go along with that. The notion liberals give wiggle room on baby killing is a joke. They are for it even if the woman is on her 5th onw. In fact liberal groups would not even support a ban on abortions if its your 10th one.

Another reading deprived person.

Oh, it's cut. I already knew that.

Requiem
05-07-2013, 05:23 PM
I've never met a liberal that supported limitations on women's rights.

I just don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control or something that should be done outside of the situations I mentioned. I think most people can agree that a woman who is raped, a victim of incest or when her life is in danger should have the option to get rid of the fetus.

However, I don't see the point in Little Annette getting to have an abortion because she was 18, fooled around at a frat party and got pregnant. Just like I don't think the government should be in the business of giving people tax credit for having children. Make the responsible ****ing choice.

This country is overrun by people who shouldn't be parents. (Though I don't think abortion should be used to rid people of that burden.) I see it every day I go out in public. They not only are hurting themselves and children, but the rest of society too. I'm for social programs for people who need it, but when I see 20 year old women with three kids who don't work (and their boyfriends/husbands have piss jobs) and they get more in benefits than most hard working people take in a month. . . I have a problem with that. And it is happening a lot. I live in a town of ~ 13,000 and the preponderance of people who are crapfaces taking the government for all it's worth is unfathomable.

houghtam
05-07-2013, 06:07 PM
I just don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control or something that should be done outside of the situations I mentioned. I think most people can agree that a woman who is raped, a victim of incest or when her life is in danger should have the option to get rid of the fetus.

However, I don't see the point in Little Annette getting to have an abortion because she was 18, fooled around at a frat party and got pregnant. Just like I don't think the government should be in the business of giving people tax credit for having children. Make the responsible ****ing choice.

This country is overrun by people who shouldn't be parents. (Though I don't think abortion should be used to rid people of that burden.) I see it every day I go out in public. They not only are hurting themselves and children, but the rest of society too. I'm for social programs for people who need it, but when I see 20 year old women with three kids who don't work (and their boyfriends/husbands have piss jobs) and they get more in benefits than most hard working people take in a month. . . I have a problem with that. And it is happening a lot. I live in a town of ~ 13,000 and the preponderance of people who are crapfaces taking the government for all it's worth is unfathomable.

You do realize, though, that while you may think they're "rakin' in the cash", most times it's still not enough to get by, right?

Let's also not downplay the effect of poor sex education, poor education in general, and social mores. As I said in the other thread, unwanted pregnancy isn't just an inner-city problem. Go to Appalachia sometime. And much of that is good God-fearin' white folks.

People like to pretend that most people get abortions because they can. It's a far, far more complex situation than that.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 06:37 PM
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/9/4/7/4/8/1/peanuts-104153956598.jpeg

That is so true!

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 06:40 PM
Not to mention abortion doctors are hacks. No seld respecting doctor would ever go into abortions to make money. What a sick business. Seriously is there any job more disgusting then abortionist? LOL is that a word. It should be!

So how was your day? Oh it was great traffic was non existent and I made it to the office in like 10 minutes. Used my new fetalvacume5000 to suck out a few babies and then called it a day. See you on the golf course at 1pm!

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 06:43 PM
Another reading deprived person.

Oh, it's cut. I already knew that.


How many liberals does it take to kill a baby?

houghtam
05-07-2013, 06:56 PM
How many liberals does it take to kill a baby?

How many conservatives does it take to open a science textbook?

Requiem
05-07-2013, 07:13 PM
You do realize, though, that while you may think they're "rakin' in the cash", most times it's still not enough to get by, right?

Let's also not downplay the effect of poor sex education, poor education in general, and social mores. As I said in the other thread, unwanted pregnancy isn't just an inner-city problem. Go to Appalachia sometime. And much of that is good God-fearin' white folks.

People like to pretend that most people get abortions because they can. It's a far, far more complex situation than that.

I know unwanted pregnancy isn't an inner-city problem. I am from a small place and it is rampant here. And I know the situation is complex. I was just giving my simple thoughts in regards to what peacepipe said.

And for the people I speak of, they are doing more than getting buy. Hundreds of dollars for groceries for free, subsidized housing, cash assistance. All that adds up. Most of it by virtue of making terrible personal decisions and doing nothing to better themselves.

They have smart phones, solid cars, material ****. It's ridiculous. I'm not blowing it out of proportion either. I work at the state federal office and Social Security and Social Services is on the floor beneath me. I literally see people celebrating every day (after they walk out of the building of course) on how they are glad they work just enough hours to get a check, under employment benefits and everything else.

I also have two people close to me who did tax preparation this past year. For example: Why should a person who makes 20,000 a year and has 3 or 4 kids (that they can't afford) end up getting 5 times as much back in taxes from the government than they ever paid in? Sorry. That's ****ed up. And the tax system needs to be completely reformed.

It's crazy.

There are definitely people who need the help and sometimes it isn't enough, but I have friends who purposely work 28-30 hours at jobs so they can also get other benefits and still come out with more than had they been honest and worked 40. I have seen people abuse the system for years, and I've been involved with working at all three levels of government.

houghtam
05-07-2013, 07:43 PM
I know unwanted pregnancy isn't an inner-city problem. I am from a small place and it is rampant here. And I know the situation is complex. I was just giving my simple thoughts in regards to what peacepipe said.

And for the people I speak of, they are doing more than getting buy. Hundreds of dollars for groceries for free, subsidized housing, cash assistance. All that adds up. Most of it by virtue of making terrible personal decisions and doing nothing to better themselves.

They have smart phones, solid cars, material ****. It's ridiculous. I'm not blowing it out of proportion either. I work at the state federal office and Social Security and Social Services is on the floor beneath me. I literally see people celebrating every day (after they walk out of the building of course) on how they are glad they work just enough hours to get a check, under employment benefits and everything else.

I also have two people close to me who did tax preparation this past year. For example: Why should a person who makes 20,000 a year and has 3 or 4 kids (that they can't afford) end up getting 5 times as much back in taxes from the government than they ever paid in? Sorry. That's ****ed up. And the tax system needs to be completely reformed.

It's crazy.

There are definitely people who need the help and sometimes it isn't enough, but I have friends who purposely work 28-30 hours at jobs so they can also get other benefits and still come out with more than had they been honest and worked 40. I have seen people abuse the system for years, and I've been involved with working at all three levels of government.

Just playing devil's advocate here...

How is that any different than cutting someone's hours to <30 a week to make sure you don't fall under the requirements of ACA?

Requiem
05-07-2013, 07:56 PM
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.

From the people I was speaking of (on a personal basis), they would prioritize what comes with being underemployed as to being employed solidly and having a job that gets benefits. As dumb as they are, unfortunately they know how to work the system and have no shame in doing so.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 11:35 PM
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.

From the people I was speaking of (on a personal basis), they would prioritize what comes with being underemployed as to being employed solidly and having a job that gets benefits. As dumb as they are, unfortunately they know how to work the system and have no shame in doing so.

Now we have state govt cutting part timers back to 29. Even some with govs who supported Obamacare. Its not just the private sector.

Of course if you say 30 hours a week for benefits companies will trim down. You aren't going to spend all the money it takes over a few hours. You will say we can hire two part timers for 20 hours a week and that will be less then 1 part timer at 30 hours a week. You get 40 man hours for less money. Its a no brainer and you can't hold it against any company. If you owned a company you would do it also.

The problem is Obamacare. Its can't work because its only an idea and the law itself is whack and unworkable. The exchanges will be flooded, the subsidies won't be enough, the pre exisiting conditions coverage will cause prices to soar and middle class workers will be paying thousands more a yr in coverage. Single people will be getting blasted, families will get blasted, but hey some poor people with pre existing conditions will probably be good.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 11:36 PM
How many conservatives does it take to open a science textbook?

I don't know but chapter one is probably how to kill a baby and have it not be murder if it was written by you.

houghtam
05-08-2013, 04:01 AM
Now we have state govt cutting part timers back to 29. Even some with govs who supported Obamacare. Its not just the private sector.

Of course if you say 30 hours a week for benefits companies will trim down. You aren't going to spend all the money it takes over a few hours. You will say we can hire two part timers for 20 hours a week and that will be less then 1 part timer at 30 hours a week. You get 40 man hours for less money. Its a no brainer and you can't hold it against any company. If you owned a company you would do it also.

The problem is Obamacare. Its can't work because its only an idea and the law itself is whack and unworkable. The exchanges will be flooded, the subsidies won't be enough, the pre exisiting conditions coverage will cause prices to soar and middle class workers will be paying thousands more a yr in coverage. Single people will be getting blasted, families will get blasted, but hey some poor people with pre existing conditions will probably be good.

They are both using the law to "game the system". The correct anser is "they are no different."

I don't know but chapter one is probably how to kill a baby and have it not be murder if it was written by you.

Wooooooooooooow! That's a good one! Did you do it aaaall by yourseeeeelf! We're so proooooud! Is there an accompanying crayon drawing we can put on the refrigerator?

Hey cut, how many gun crazed gentle idiots does it take to think police would want armed citizens "helping" them in a multiple active shooter situation?

Answer: Just one.

HIYOOOOOOOOO! :welcome:

Requiem
05-08-2013, 08:54 AM
I didn't know the ACA mandated insurance coverage by employers for 30 hours. I thought that full-time was over 32 hours a week. That is interesting.

B-Large
05-08-2013, 09:13 AM
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.

From the people I was speaking of (on a personal basis), they would prioritize what comes with being underemployed as to being employed solidly and having a job that gets benefits. As dumb as they are, unfortunately they know how to work the system and have no shame in doing so.

its a barrier to enterprising people with families- I am glad to see it changing.

houghtam
05-08-2013, 09:20 AM
I didn't know the ACA mandated insurance coverage by employers for 30 hours. I thought that full-time was over 32 hours a week. That is interesting.

We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably". LOL

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.

Requiem
05-08-2013, 09:52 AM
We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably". LOL

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.

Agreed. I just was under the impression you had to work at least 32 hours a week to be considered a full-time person. :)

And from my experience in the fields I've done, having one solid full time worker is better than a couple of part-timers. When I worked in the legal realm as a project manager, HR hired a guy who was a part-timer -- and because he was snuffed out of a full-time gig, barely put forth any effort. They also hired another part-time person to place on my shift along side of him (a woman) because they thought having two people who were there half the time could get just as much work done as one person who would have been there 40-50 hours a week.

After about two months of him fumbling away on his shifts, staring into outer space and missing deadlines -- I had to let them know they made a big mistake. The one dude got fired and a few weeks down the road, the girl they hired decided she couldn't cut the mustard. The legal jargon and business was too much for her. May have not been my place, but since it related to people who worked under me and I had to manage, I told them it'd be in the best interest for the team to hire someone full-time. I am not big on referring friends / nepotism, but had a good friend who was just finishing up his degree and was looking for work. I told him to throw in a resume.

They hired him. He struggled a bit at first (big learning curve with programs, legal terminology and knowing what clients want), but he has been a solid employee for them for almost two years now. He has also been promoted from where he started and is on route to be in the position I was in right after school. It was the right call to make. His production was double both of them combined because he was thankful to have a good wage, great benefits and the comfort of working with someone he had in other avenues (was in student government and other programs with him). . . and he wasn't a functional retard. :D

houghtam
05-08-2013, 10:48 AM
Agreed. I just was under the impression you had to work at least 32 hours a week to be considered a full-time person. :)

And from my experience in the fields I've done, having one solid full time worker is better than a couple of part-timers. When I worked in the legal realm as a project manager, HR hired a guy who was a part-timer -- and because he was snuffed out of a full-time gig, barely put forth any effort. They also hired another part-time person to place on my shift along side of him (a woman) because they thought having two people who were there half the time could get just as much work done as one person who would have been there 40-50 hours a week.

After about two months of him fumbling away on his shifts, staring into outer space and missing deadlines -- I had to let them know they made a big mistake. The one dude got fired and a few weeks down the road, the girl they hired decided she couldn't cut the mustard. The legal jargon and business was too much for her. May have not been my place, but since it related to people who worked under me and I had to manage, I told them it'd be in the best interest for the team to hire someone full-time. I am not big on referring friends / nepotism, but had a good friend who was just finishing up his degree and was looking for work. I told him to throw in a resume.

They hired him. He struggled a bit at first (big learning curve with programs, legal terminology and knowing what clients want), but he has been a solid employee for them for almost two years now. He has also been promoted from where he started and is on route to be in the position I was in right after school. It was the right call to make. His production was double both of them combined because he was thankful to have a good wage, great benefits and the comfort of working with someone he had in other avenues (was in student government and other programs with him). . . and he wasn't a functional retard. :D

Nice.

Yep, no matter what field you're in or where you go, there will always be people that want to do it cheap as opposed to right. In my experience, cheap is almost never right. People will still try, though, because there's always a market for cheap.

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 01:55 PM
We have paralegals at the office who are smarter then recent law school grads. All part timers! Just how it is. You won't see any jobs of 35 hours or 30 hours a week anymore. Companies will either do like Req said and hire a full time person, or they will do what i said and hire 2 part time people. What you won't see are tweaners anymore. No reason to pay someone bennies for 30 hours a week.

Fedaykin
05-08-2013, 05:14 PM
As someone who actually manages people, deadlines and projects, the concept of 'two people getting 2x as much done as 1x' or rather two people working 20 hours getting as much done as one person doing 40 is hilariously stupid.

Anyone with even half a clue about managing people knows that.

For more, the seminal work in my field (which applies to any situation involving skilled labor though) is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

errand
05-08-2013, 06:59 PM
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.



Why should they provide healthcare for employees when the government is giving them "free" healthcare

BTW, we told you liberals this would happen......we told you that once Obamacare was passed businesses would start dropping their healthcare coverage for their employees....most have started to drop spouses, and others are cutting back on hours so they don't have to provide it for them....paying the penalty tax or fee is cheaper, because that's what the socialists in government wanted all along....a single payer system.

Like the old joke goes -

the president promises the people free healthcare, they all cheer.....

he promises them free housing, they all cheer....

he promises them free cell phones and food stamps, they all cheer...

he then promises jobs for everyone and the people look at him like he's crazy.....

then someone from the crowd asks "what do we need jobs for?"

errand
05-08-2013, 07:08 PM
I didn't know the ACA mandated insurance coverage by employers for 30 hours. I thought that full-time was over 32 hours a week. That is interesting.

don't feel bad....congress passed it and Obama signed it into law and they didn't know **** about it either.

Requiem
05-08-2013, 08:12 PM
As someone who actually manages people, deadlines and projects, the concept of 'two people getting 2x as much done as 1x' or rather two people working 20 hours getting as much done as one person doing 40 is hilariously stupid.

Anyone with even half a clue about managing people knows that.

For more, the seminal work in my field (which applies to any situation involving skilled labor though) is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

Good link. And yeah, it blew my mind. I was hired as a Project Manager but for my first two months was trained underneath one to see how it could go. After a while, I came to notice certain days had heavier workloads than others and inconveniently enough those two hardly ever worked together on those shifts. It made things really tough with those ****ty workers. After discussing things with my immediate higher up, we had to make the decision to get a full-timer on there or else we would be ****ed.

One of the reasons I left that company (even though I was offered a promotion after 8 months of working there) was because HR and the top dogs were woefully aloof to what was actually going on with projects and what went on during production hours. About all of them **** the bed in my exit interview when I let them know that having performance reviews once every six months didn't give them near the insight necessary to be able to understand the dynamics of that environment.

I told them I thought it would be best if the Project and Team Managers (along with at least two higher ups) could meet with individuals on a bi-weekly basis and at the end of each month, assess our performance and goals. Sixth months is far too long. Getting a monthly report on performance handed to you by a supervisor (me or my boss) was not good enough. It just shows what you did wrong, doesn't even begin to address how to fix those things.

They really weren't interested and actually got quite offended. I didn't care. I just proceeded to tell them that their lack of compassion for their employees and failure to help them out when needed is why they don't keep any good workers around for a long time. I think the average time there for someone who would have been my assistant on my team (regardless of specialty) was 4 or 5 months. After about a year, I got fed up with the **** and moved on.

A good CEO or President, Manager, etc. of any company should be willing to take good feedback from their employees. They didn't. Then again, those people never dealt with anything like that, so obviously they wouldn't know how to address it.

After I had moved to Colorado, I had gotten a phone call from HR asking me if I would be willing to move back and work for them. I guess pandemonium ensued after I left my legal team and the person who I had been training turned out to be a fart licker and was completely lost without me. I laughed at them, fired off a few choice words and blocked the number from my phone.

Would have been nice to be making big bucks only a few years out of school, but oh well. That **** was not worth it.

Requiem
05-08-2013, 08:27 PM
Why should they provide healthcare for employees when the government is giving them "free" healthcare

BTW, we told you liberals this would happen......we told you that once Obamacare was passed businesses would start dropping their healthcare coverage for their employees....most have started to drop spouses, and others are cutting back on hours so they don't have to provide it for them....paying the penalty tax or fee is cheaper, because that's what the socialists in government wanted all along....a single payer system.

It isn't "free" and never was advertised as that.

Most businesses can afford to keep healthcare for their employees and not cut their hours. The ones that are primarily doing it are the greedy, selfish bastards who are using it as a ploy to debate the policy. They'd rather do whatever it takes to keep more money in their pockets than actually help provide for the people who make their businesses go round.

houghtam
05-08-2013, 08:43 PM
It isn't "free" and never was advertised as that.

Most businesses can afford to keep healthcare for their employees and not cut their hours. The ones that are primarily doing it are the greedy, selfish bastards who are using it as a ploy to debate the policy. They'd rather do whatever it takes to keep more money in their pockets than actually help provide for the people who make their businesses go round.

Not just that, but they do things against their own business interests just to prove a point. Look at Papa Johns. Look at that Denny's franchise. Not only did they announce they were doing something that is already common business practice in **** jobs like Papa Johns, but they managed to alienate themselves, their employees AND their customers in one fell swoop.

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 08:48 PM
We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably". LOL

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.

Only lower class jobs will really be hit hard by this. Unfortunatley those will hit college students, people without degrees the most. You know the same people Obama is supposedly all for.

The facts are starting to come out that the federal govt is way way way behind implementing Obamacare. The exchanges are going to be flooded and they know it. They are trying to figure out how to stall it until Obama is out of office.

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 08:52 PM
The govt will probably just end up collecting a whole lot of fines from people who could not afford healthcare.

peacepipe
05-09-2013, 06:43 AM
Only lower class jobs will really be hit hard by this. Unfortunatley those will hit college students, people without degrees the most. You know the same people Obama is supposedly all for.

The facts are starting to come out that the federal govt is way way way behind implementing Obamacare. The exchanges are going to be flooded and they know it. They are trying to figure out how to stall it until Obama is out of office.

College kids will be on there parents insurance,so college kids for the most part have nothing to worry about.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 07:38 AM
College kids will be on there parents insurance,so college kids for the most part have nothing to worry about.

They'll also be paying .75% interest rate on their loans...the same as the big banks...if Elizabeth Warren gets this bill through.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 07:54 AM
They'll also be paying .75% interest rate on their loans...the same as the big banks...if Elizabeth Warren gets this bill through.

Which would be awesome, too bad it is only for one year. That would help out a lot, but I don't know if this will have anything to do with people who have Stafford Loans that are already out and being paid on. The Department of Education serviced my loan to someone else, and although I have my payment automatically debited out of my checking each month, I lost the discounted rate I had prior because of doing that. It's really B.S.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:11 AM
It isn't "free" and never was advertised as that.

Most businesses can afford to keep healthcare for their employees and not cut their hours. The ones that are primarily doing it are the greedy, selfish bastards who are using it as a ploy to debate the policy. They'd rather do whatever it takes to keep more money in their pockets than actually help provide for the people who make their businesses go round.

If this is the case, I couldn't imagine why colleges are enacting employee hour cuts over Obamacare (http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=4d244b10-c6c5-4ac5-8813-6af97bde54ff). Colleges aren't exactly bastions of greedy capitalist pig bastards.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 11:00 AM
Ain't that hard to figure out.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 11:25 AM
Ain't that hard to figure out.

Then it should be even easier to explain yourself.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 11:55 AM
No explanation is necessary. The monks told me not to waste my energy on bad people.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:08 PM
No explanation is necessary. The monks told me not to waste my energy on bad people.

So you have no explanation and your boyish anger problem is again resurfacing.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 12:13 PM
So you have no explanation and your boyish anger problem is again resurfacing.

Like I said, I don't feel like wasting energy on people who clearly aren't worth it. That doesn't mean I couldn't explain myself, nor does it indicate an anger issue. I just find you to be a reprehensible human being without any redeeming quality worth mentioning. Sorry. Wait, not sorry.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:41 PM
Like I said, I don't feel like wasting energy on people who clearly aren't worth it. That doesn't mean I couldn't explain myself, nor does it indicate an anger issue. I just find you to be a reprehensible human being without any redeeming quality worth mentioning. Sorry. Wait, not sorry.

If you have no wish to explain yourself, why get on a thread and make the assertion to begin with? Are you here to discuss topics or take lame cheap shots at people?

You're making **** up and hiding that you couldn't back up your silly point (which was clearly and solely a cloaked cheap-shot because you're an eternal sore ass) by sitting on your high chair and looking down your snout.

I was born at night, but not last night. You had no point to make to begin with. You were just bitchy.

If your ass is that sore for that long, consider Ben Gay.

Why on earth would a grown adult be a sore ass over people giving him back a taste of his own medicine, anyway? Get over it and move on.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 01:27 PM
More Blacks Voted Than Whites In 2012 (And Other Voting Demographic Info) (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/?hpt=hp_t2)

Backing up what I had already said earlier.

cutthemdown
05-09-2013, 01:32 PM
College kids will be on there parents insurance,so college kids for the most part have nothing to worry about.

no because parents that are low wage will be sent to the exchanges also. You are kidding yourself. Obviously rich kids are set.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 01:36 PM
If you have no wish to explain yourself, why get on a thread and make the assertion to begin with? Are you here to discuss topics or take lame cheap shots at people?

You're making **** up and hiding that you couldn't back up your silly point (which was clearly and solely a cloaked cheap-shot because you're an eternal sore ass) by sitting on your high chair and looking down your snout.

I was born at night, but not last night. You had no point to make to begin with. You were just b****y.

If your ass is that sore for that long, consider Ben Gay.

Why on earth would a grown adult be a sore ass over people giving him back a taste of his own medicine, anyway? Get over it and move on.

I'm not sore about anything. I am just telling you like it is. You happen to not like it. You are the one getting all flustered. I'm sitting here laughing.

If you can't do your own research (like you asked Houghtam to do in another thread) on why colleges would be cutting people's hours in order to not have to pay them benefits, that is your own fault. It is a pretty self-evident answer for anyone with a brain in there head. In fact, there was chatter a page back or so on why businesses are doing such. Universities and colleges this day in age are all about profit. Put two and two together.

As far as your article goes, it was referencing a small community college. It may not generate enough revenue to be able to afford providing those benefits for workers, though I'm almost certain that full-time workers there already get those benefits. It was referencing part-timers who don't get those benefits now, but would have to under the ACA.

I am not sure what their enrollment is, I am not sure what their budget is and I have no idea what kind of monetary intake they have going in. What they do with their resources is unknown to me. I'd have to see all the figures to be able to see where they feel they would come up short because of it.

At the end of the day, the line of thought you took (trying to say that University systems are absent from greedy people) in attempt go against what I said was myopically stupid.

Arkie
05-09-2013, 03:56 PM
More Blacks Voted Than Whites In 2012 (And Other Voting Demographic Info) (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/?hpt=hp_t2)

Backing up what I had already said earlier.

That's a surprise. I thought the first time would have been 2008.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 04:40 PM
I'm not sore about anything. I am just telling you like it is. You happen to not like it. You are the one getting all flustered. I'm sitting here laughing.

Every time someone says something you don't like about your sophomoric behavior, you insist you are sitting there laughing when your behavior (thread stalking) indicates anger. Every time you're obviously ticked off, you deny it. Everyone who knows you knows you do this.

As I stated, why make a claim and bail from a thread without discussing it? It's retarded, and you're trying to shift the burden away from the person making the claim onto others. Garbage.

Seriously. Get something for your sore ass.

If I were "flustered," suffice it to say I'd be acting like you and going about thread stalking with childish cheap shots. That's beneath me, and you're beneath me.

Requiem
05-10-2013, 08:58 AM
If I were "flustered," suffice it to say I'd be acting like you and going about thread stalking with childish cheap shots. That's beneath me, and you're beneath me.

But you are flustered. You are the one who continuously gripes, wallows in delusion and tries to play Internet Psychologist and Junior Detective. Yes, all of us here are laughing at you because nobody here takes you seriously and nobody ever will. Why you continue to waste your time on a forum community that really isn't interested in what you have to say is beyond me. Same here as elsewhere, I'd assume.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 11:12 AM
But you are flustered. You are the one who continuously gripes, wallows in delusion and tries to play Internet Psychologist and Junior Detective. Yes, all of us here are laughing at you because nobody here takes you seriously and nobody ever will. Why you continue to waste your time on a forum community that really isn't interested in what you have to say is beyond me. Same here as elsewhere, I'd assume.

Right, right. I'm not the one with 19,000 posts at multiple Broncos forums. Some of us actually have a life and don't live in mommy's basement. Bottom line yet again: You're ticked off at me solely because I gave you back what you dished out and you're sucking your thumb. You go so far in your enraged acts of vengeance that you search the forums for personal tidbits to use as weapons. People return fire? You cry foul.

You should be happy, you get away with a lot of crap here. Negative reputations bombing, thread stalking, wishing others dead, etc.

I've encountered many tantrum throwing immature internet males in my life. If you think you're hot and original, you're seriously deluded. You're standard issue.

Requiem
05-10-2013, 12:24 PM
<table id="post3845655" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr title="Post 3845655"><td class="thead" style="font-weight:normal">http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/statusicon/post_new.gif 05-10-2013, 01:12 PM </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2"> Remove user from ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=27530)
nyuk nyuk (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/member.php?u=27530) </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1"> This message is hidden because nyuk nyuk is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
</td></tr></tbody></table>

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 02:14 PM
LMFAO! SCREENSHOT.

It's okay guys - Req is "laughing." Let us all laugh with him.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 02:17 PM
More Blacks Voted Than Whites In 2012 (And Other Voting Demographic Info) (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/?hpt=hp_t2)

Backing up what I had already said earlier.

All that means is that whites still hold voting power in this country and white apathy gives elections to Democrats. This of course goes to show how this "Latino power" was pure DNC masturbatory propaganda mill fluff.

Requiem
05-10-2013, 04:56 PM
Still didn't read.

TonyR
05-10-2013, 08:05 PM
...the GOP Obama faces is arguably the most partisan, factional and deranged that it has been since I started observing it in the mid-1980s. Zero votes for a modest stimulus in the worst recession since the 1930s right after a new president’s astounding electoral victory? Total, hysterical and futile opposition to healthcare reform – rather than working to make it better? Mitch McConnell’s entire strategy of simply denying Obama a second term, regardless of what he did or did not do (and failing)?

If you want to be obstructionist douches in the American system, oppose everything and anything Obama wants in the House, and demand a 60 vote super-majority to pass anything in the Senate, then that is your prerogative. But the GOP is offering nothing constructive on healthcare, nothing that can seriously be accomplished in a two-party system on the debt and entitlements, nothing but Captain Hindsight on Syria, and nothing on climate change, or gay rights. Nothing. The few of them who have championed immigration reform are going to face a storm of hostility from their base – and will endure a media hazing from the “conservative” media industrial complex.http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/09/the-benghazi-party/

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 10:03 AM
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/09/the-benghazi-party/

Thanks for the Daily Douche. We always cared what that deranged nut bag has to say. Det be good sheeeet, mang!

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 10:04 AM
Still didn't read.

You've got me on ignore, buddy!

TonyR
05-11-2013, 10:35 AM
Thanks for the Daily Douche. We always cared what that deranged nut bag has to say. Det be good sheeeet, mang!

LOL Speaking of "deranged nut bags"...

And excellent use of ad hominem, one of the most useful tools of the ignorant. Which practically makes you an ad hominem professional! When not ducking questions and obfuscating you're either attacking the messenger or straw men!

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 10:37 AM
LOL Speaking of "deranged nut bags"...

And excellent use of ad hominem, one of the most useful tools of the ignorant. Which practically makes you an ad hominem professional! When not ducking questions and obfuscating you're either attacking the messenger or straw men!

Except when you use it, of course. Sullivan is a liberal douche, period. Just like you call Limbaugh a conservative douche. Of course when you say it, it's a valid observation.

As usual, your intellect shines for us all...

TonyR
05-11-2013, 10:40 AM
Except when you use it, of course. Sullivan is a liberal douche, period. Just like you call Limbaugh a conservative douche. Of course when you say it, it's a valid observation.


Once again a profound failure to address the message but instead attack the messenger. Oh, that and the fact that Sullivan isn't a "liberal", but then you don't really have even a basic understanding of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean so this isn't terribly surprising.

Instead of spinning and dodging, why don't you man up and tell us what you disagree with in the comments from Sullivan I posted?

houghtam
05-11-2013, 11:38 AM
Once again a profound failure to address the message but instead attack the messenger. Oh, that and the fact that Sullivan isn't a "liberal", but then you don't really have even a basic understanding of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean so this isn't terribly surprising.

Instead of spinning and dodging, why don't you man up and tell us what you disagree with in the comments from Sullivan I posted?

"Marxist! I know because I used to be one! And a male, too! Marxism! Stalinism!"

- Draaaaamallaaaaama

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 12:12 PM
"Marxist! I know because I used to be one! And a male, too! Marxism! Stalinism!"

- Draaaaamallaaaaama

I love conspiracy theorists. Are you the schizophrenic up in Portland that got arrested for stalking Aurora families? He thinks the dead moviegoers are on a moon base.

:thumbsup:

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 12:13 PM
Once again a profound failure to address the message but instead attack the messenger. Oh, that and the fact that Sullivan isn't a "liberal", but then you don't really have even a basic understanding of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean so this isn't terribly surprising.

Instead of spinning and dodging, why don't you man up and tell us what you disagree with in the comments from Sullivan I posted?

I'm not in the habit of reading liberal crap.

Do you read NRA press releases, etc.? Listen to Rush Limbaugh? No?

TonyR
05-11-2013, 12:18 PM
I'm not in the habit of reading liberal crap.

LOL You are, however, in the habit of ad hominems, dodging questions, deflection and obfuscation. I'm not sure why you challenge things you don't have the ability to formulate a coherent argument against.

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 01:10 PM
LOL You are, however, in the habit of ad hominems, dodging questions, deflection and obfuscation. I'm not sure why you challenge things you don't have the ability to formulate a coherent argument against.

I've always enjoyed the prowess at which the common party-line liberal wields his fully automatic label gun.

Odd, it's the only gun you guys don't want to ban...

RAT TAT TAT TAT!!!

TonyR
05-20-2013, 11:24 AM
“[Homosexuality] attempts to poison our children, divide them from their parents and the teaching of the church and basically turn them into pawns for that movement so that they can sexualize them at the earliest possible age. It really is insidious and I agree with you, it is a super sin.”
– E.W. Jackson, a black minister that the Virginia GOP just nominated to run for lieutenant governor. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jackson-gays-lesbians-very-sick-people-psychologically-mentally-emotionally



Last week I reported that 40 percent of Virginia Republicans – and 56 percent of independents – now support gay marriage. But on Saturday the Virginia GOP nominated three statewide candidates whose views on homosexuality and marriage equality range from unwavering opposition to bigoted to insane. http://www.cato.org/blog/virginia-republican-candidates-not-joining-21st-century


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/20/christianist-watch-13/

TonyR
06-07-2013, 12:32 PM
The Republican Party is broken, and fixing it is the only way to bring long-term sanity to our politics. Unfortunately, there’s no sign of change. Last week, writers on the left and the right engaged in a debate over the conservative “reform” movement, and who counted as a “reformer.” It was a fascinating conversation with one major takeaway: Regardless of who “counts” as a reform, the obvious fact is that they have little influence over the current direction of the GOP. They lack the power necessary to challenge Republican leadership, break the party’s “fever,” and begin to reestablish it as a mainstream institution.http://prospect.org/article/republican-party-clearly-absolutely-broken

Rigs11
06-24-2013, 12:52 PM
Boehner’s House implodes over flawed farm bill

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 23E-mail the writer
The roof fell in on John Boehner’s House of Representatives last week. The Republican leadership’s humiliating defeat on a deeply flawed and inhumane farm bill was as clear a lesson as we’ll get about the real causes of dysfunction in the nation’s capital.

Our ability to govern ourselves is being brought low by a witches’ brew of right-wing ideology, a shockingly cruel attitude toward the poor on the part of the Republican majority, and the speaker’s incoherence when it comes to his need for Democratic votes to pass bills.

Boehner is unwilling to put together broad bipartisan coalitions to pass middle-ground legislation except when he is pressed to the wall. Yet he and his lieutenants tried to blame last Thursday’s farm legislation fiasco — the product of a massive repudiation by GOP conservatives of their high command — on the Democrats’ failure to hand over enough votes.

He seemed to think he could freely pander to the desire of right-wing members of his caucus to throw millions of low-income Americans off the food stamp program . When that didn’t produce enough votes, he then expected Democrats to support a measure that most of them rightly regarded as immoral. In the end, the bill went down 234to 195, with 62 Republicans voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes — more help, by the way, than Nancy Pelosi usually got from Republicans when she was speaker.

Boehner can’t have it both ways, and he should be called out if he lets his party’s disarray throw the nation into an entirely unnecessary debt-ceiling crisis this fall. The country shouldn’t be held hostage because of Republican chaos.

Start with the food stamp cuts, and let’s remember that this program is a monument to bipartisanship. The current form of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is, in large part, the product of an unlikely alliance between former Sens. Bob Dole and George McGovern in the 1970s. They were far apart ideologically, but both were horrified that too many Americans were going without nourishment. Food stamps have been an enormous success in curbing hunger in our rich nation, while also serving as a powerful stimulus to economic recovery during hard times.

The bill the House voted down would have cut food stamps by $20.5 billion, eliminating food assistance to nearly 2 million low-income people, most of them senior citizens or working families with children.

This alone should have been bad enough to sink the bill. But then Republicans pushed through an amendment by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) to toughen work requirements in the program. Work requirements sound reasonable until you look at what Southerland’s amendment was actually designed to do.

As Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explained, Southerland’s proposal violated “the most basic standards of human decency” because it made no effort, as other work requirements have in the past, to create employment openings for those who “want to work and would accept any job or work slot they could get, but cannot find jobs in a weak economy.”

In fact, noted Greenstein, a longtime advocate of nutrition assistance, the amendment barred states “from spending more on SNAP employment and training than they do now.” And it created incentives for states to throw people off food stamps by letting their governments keep half the SNAP savings to use for anything they wished (including, for example, tax cuts for the wealthy).

In a more rational political world, progressives and small-government conservatives might join forces to slash subsidies for agribusiness and wealthy farmers while containing market distortions bred by price supports. But when Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) proposed an amendment to restore some of the food stamp funding by reducing spending on crop insurance, it was defeated.

And Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) exposed hypocrisy on the matter of government handouts by excoriating Republican House members who had benefited from farm subsidies but voted to cut food stamps.

The collapse of the farm bill will generally be played as a political story about Boehner’s failure to rally his own right wing. That’s true as far as it goes and should remind everyone of the current House leadership’s inability to govern. But this is above all a story about morality: There is something profoundly wrong when a legislative majority is so eager to risk leaving so many Americans hungry. That’s what the bill would have done, and why defeating it was a moral imperative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-boehners-house-implodes-over-flawed-farm-bill/2013/06/23/b6807272-dc41-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html