The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2013, 11:56 AM   #26
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 12:20 PM   #27
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
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.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 12:34 PM   #28
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 01:38 PM   #29
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,151

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Nyuk still confused about the # of votes Obama bled?

I addressed this a month ago:


Quote:
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!
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 11:43 AM   #30
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 12:14 PM   #31
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 12:37 PM   #32
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,088
Default

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.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 06:00 PM   #33
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 11:52 AM   #34
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,306
Default

Quote:
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/commentisf...gration-reform
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 08:58 AM   #35
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

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...
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:21 AM   #36
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,306
Default

Check out the contradiction (hypocrisy?) in GOP thinking on display here:

Quote:
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/...liners/274523/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:24 AM   #37
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,156

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
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.

Last edited by peacepipe; 04-05-2013 at 09:26 AM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:34 AM   #38
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,156

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:00 AM   #39
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:06 AM   #40
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:15 AM   #41
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,156

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:34 AM   #42
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,156

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
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.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 11:19 AM   #43
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 12:03 PM   #44
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,156

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
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.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:39 PM   #45
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,306
Default

Quote:
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/opinio...016/index.html
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:54 PM   #46
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,306
Default

The study linked below estimates that...

Quote:
...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/~s...Davidowitz.pdf

If true, this suggests that a white Dem candidate could potentially win in a andslide in 2016.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 08:20 AM   #47
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,306
Default

Quote:
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/1...nty-gop-change
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 06:13 PM   #48
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Teapublicans are done put a fork in em
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 09:14 AM   #49
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
The study linked below estimates that...

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~s...Davidowitz.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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 09:16 AM   #50
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Denver Broncos