Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[VinBucFan]

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. In fact, the original neoconservatives were actually former liberals who broke from mainstream liberalism because of the peace movement in the 60's. They were social liberals who took a more hawkish stance on foreign policy. Since then, neoconservatives have widely adopted neoliberal economic principles, with the one caveat being a hawkish foreign policy position.

So by using your bizarro logic , you are as close to a TRUE neoconservative as I am, if not even closer . To sum up what you are saying : Neocons have changed thier stance on economic issues overtime , but the one thing that has always intentified and distinguished them is thier hawkish foriegn policy. A policy which happens to be the opposite belief of mine ...yet somehow that makes me a neocon also...

Excellent points  , retard.

"black hole" frustration by CBW

[spartan]

Romney failed because he was too timid, and Obama promised a whole lot of free stuff to a whole bunch of people. You can criticize Romney for saying that, but it does not detract away from the fact that it is true. It actually adds credence to his 47% statement, as ill advised as it was to actually say the words. He was lambasted for saying it, but the stats after the election seemed to substantiate what he said.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

Romney failed because he was too timid, and Obama promised a whole lot of free stuff to a whole bunch of people. You can criticize Romney for saying that, but it does not detract away from the fact that it is true. It actually adds credence to his 47% statement, as ill advised as it was to actually say the words. He was lambasted for saying it, but the stats after the election seemed to substantiate what he said.

LMAO...Romney was anything but timid. For him to say some of the outlandish things he said when proof was staring each and everyone of us in the face. I am sorry but saying the  47% issue wasn't a sign of timidity it was a sign of stupidity...Sorry but like the old cliche if you can't say something without worrying about it getting out then don't say it...OBD

[CBWx2]

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. In fact, the original neoconservatives were actually former liberals who broke from mainstream liberalism because of the peace movement in the 60's. They were social liberals who took a more hawkish stance on foreign policy. Since then, neoconservatives have widely adopted neoliberal economic principles, with the one caveat being a hawkish foreign policy position.

So by using your bizarro logic , you are as close to a TRUE neoconservative as I am, if not even closer .

This comment suggests that you have trouble with logic. I am not close to a neoconservative at all. I disagree with them on everything that identifies them as such, namely their neoliberal position on economic issues and their interventionist views on foreign affairs. You on the otherhand, agree with them on one of those two things. So "bizarro" logic would suggest which one of us is closer to them?

To sum up what you are saying : Neocons have changed thier stance on economic issues overtime , but the one thing that has always intentified and distinguished them is thier hawkish foriegn policy. A policy which happens to be the opposite belief of mine ...yet somehow that makes me a neocon also...

Excellent points  , retard.

Your inability to comprehend simple words and phrases is astounding. Did I say you were a neocon, or did I say you were similar to a neocon, the one difference being your foreign policy stance? If you are going to call someone a retard, perhaps you should try a bit harder not to look like one yourself.

[VinBucFan]

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. In fact, the original neoconservatives were actually former liberals who broke from mainstream liberalism because of the peace movement in the 60's. They were social liberals who took a more hawkish stance on foreign policy. Since then, neoconservatives have widely adopted neoliberal economic principles, with the one caveat being a hawkish foreign policy position.

So by using your bizarro logic , you are as close to a TRUE neoconservative as I am, if not even closer .

This comment suggest that you have trouble with logic. I am not close to a neoconservative at all. I disagree with them on everything that identifies them as such, namely their neoliberal position on economic issues and their interventionist views on foreign affairs. You on the otherhand, agree with them on one of those two things. So "bizarro" logic would suggest which one of us is closer to them?

To sum up what you are saying : Neocons have changed thier stance on economic issues overtime , but the one thing that has always intentified and distinguished them is thier hawkish foriegn policy. A policy which happens to be the opposite belief of mine ...yet somehow that makes me a neocon also...

Excellent points  , retard.

You're inability to comprehend simple words and phrases is astounding. Did I say you were a neocon, or did I say you were similar to a neocon, the one difference being your foreign policy stance? If you are going to call someone a retard, perhaps you should try a bit harder not to look like one yourself.

spin spin spin black hole

[spartan]

Romney failed because he was too timid, and Obama promised a whole lot of free stuff to a whole bunch of people. You can criticize Romney for saying that, but it does not detract away from the fact that it is true. It actually adds credence to his 47% statement, as ill advised as it was to actually say the words. He was lambasted for saying it, but the stats after the election seemed to substantiate what he said.

LMAO...Romney was anything but timid. For him to say some of the outlandish things he said when proof was staring each and everyone of us in the face. I am sorry but saying the  47% issue wasn't a sign of timidity it was a sign of stupidity...Sorry but like the old cliche if you can't say something without worrying about it getting out then don't say it...OBD

When I say timid, I mean after the first debate he thought he had it in the bag and tried to cruise in. The last 2 weeks of his campaign (at least) he played it about as safe as he could and tried to stay away from anything that could be construed as controversial. He didn't always succeed thanks to the media, but he didn't exactly go for the jugular either.

[Dolorous Jason]

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. In fact, the original neoconservatives were actually former liberals who broke from mainstream liberalism because of the peace movement in the 60's. They were social liberals who took a more hawkish stance on foreign policy. Since then, neoconservatives have widely adopted neoliberal economic principles, with the one caveat being a hawkish foreign policy position.

So by using your bizarro logic , you are as close to a TRUE neoconservative as I am, if not even closer .

This comment suggest that you have trouble with logic. I am not close to a neoconservative at all. I disagree with them on everything that identifies them as such, namely their neoliberal position on economic issues and their interventionist views on foreign affairs. You on the otherhand, agree with them on one of those two things. So "bizarro" logic would suggest which one of us is closer to them?

To sum up what you are saying : Neocons have changed thier stance on economic issues overtime , but the one thing that has always intentified and distinguished them is thier hawkish foriegn policy. A policy which happens to be the opposite belief of mine ...yet somehow that makes me a neocon also...

Excellent points  , retard.

You're inability to comprehend simple words and phrases is astounding. Did I say you were a neocon, or did I say you were similar to a neocon, the one difference being your foreign policy stance? If you are going to call someone a retard, perhaps you should try a bit harder not to look like one yourself.

spin spin spin black hole

It's hillarious isn't it ??

[CBWx2]

[Dolorous Jason]

[VinBucFan]

classic CBW.

[JasonOfthetower]

I find this entire debate humorous considering the last time a Republican President presided over a balanced budget was in 1953 with Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Back to the point of this thread, Mitt Romney's defeat was inevitable because he used polling to make decisions, was completely out of touch and stood for nothing. Add to that his party's hatred for anything not white or rich or christian fanatic and he was doomed.

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections. Rather than double down on failed policies, you think it might be time to come to center where you can actually be more amicable to the rest of the population who don't believe Gays are evil sinners who don't deserve the civil liberties others enjoy, believe climate change isn't a theory but a fact and the future of American industry is in green energy, not fossil fuels.

I laughed at O'Reily on Faux News as he lamented the loss of America's white supremacy. Wally and the Beav aren't getting it done anymore. Say hello to Juan, Tyreese and Julia. Now you must cater to us..you don't want to - but we are America now.

But hey, maybe that whole doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result will work the next time. There's a word for that....

[ONEBIGDADDY]

I find this entire debate humorous considering the last time a Republican President presided over a balanced budget was in 1953 with Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Back to the point of this thread, Mitt Romney's defeat was inevitable because he used polling to make decisions, was completely out of touch and stood for nothing. Add to that his party's hatred for anything not white or rich or christian fanatic and he was doomed.

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections. Rather than double down on failed policies, you think it might be time to come to center where you can actually be more amicable to the rest of the population who don't believe Gays are evil sinners who don't deserve the civil liberties others enjoy, believe climate change isn't a theory but a fact and the future of American industry is in green energy, not fossil fuels.

I laughed at O'Reily on Faux News as he lamented the loss of America's white supremacy. Wally and the Beav aren't getting it done anymore. Say hello to Juan, Tyreese and Julia. Now you must cater to us..you don't want to - but we are America now.

But hey, maybe that whole doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result will work the next time. There's a word for that....

Jason I find that your point on with your statement and you show very good wisdom.  I take exception to the Gay remark. I find that any sensational issue (Gay, War, Terrorism, Abortion, Welfare, Social Security) that the Republicans throw out there is only to deflect from the real truth of making policies that benefit themselves more than the middle class or for the fact of the matter any other class but their own. I find that they are divisive and create confusion and deflect any issue with tangents that have no bearing but to send others on a wild goose chase to keep from having to address important matters at hand ( lol they don't want us to tip over the apple cart they are eating from). What is the important issue at hand you might ask? As you have mentioned its the Budget. The Budget that keeps all Americans out of poverty and working to keep their families benefiting from people who would rather have subservient communities donating to their sliver lined pockets. I find it distasteful that we have people in this country that take advantage of policies and try to make it good out of loopholes at the taxpayers expense. I don't like that we turn a blind eye to it because it may affect one particular class when it is already affecting a particular class of people already. I have relegated myself to understand that we have bad people in every walk of life and we just have to find those bad people as they abuse the system more that what it was designed for.

 I have one example...Social Security cap....We here in Tampa had the Social Security Director or Administrator say on Channel Eight news that the way to keep Social Security solvent was to raise the Ceiling cap on it that it has had for twenty years. Its the (don't quote me on the exact number) but I think it was around $153,000.00. If you make more than that you don't have to pay more in SS taxes.  It's not keeping up with the rate of the median income and thus that places a burden on the people below that cap who don't make the money but it allows people who benefit more by double dipping into that money while they pay no more and get better tax breaks because they do make more.  This is strictly my example and not to make others upset.

I have other example like the Insurance industry (in which I have a family member work for and dbucfan and myself talk about from time to time here) and the other industry is the banking industry. My other example is Self Serving Politicians. Due to the Internet and the vast amounts of research that it provides more and more people will sniff out all the facts and not Cherry pick or glean just one particular fact that tries to make people lean to their understand but that they will look to see what benefits as a whole.

 My precedent on any issue as it affects people and their "Sins" is this. If its not how I want to be then its not for me. If its a Sin then I will stay away from it if I know its not part of MY core beliefs. I am nobodies judge and I will leave with two scriptures.

Matthew 13:24-30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Now who are the Tares? Who is the Wheat?
 
Romans 3:23
King James Version (KJV)
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

And yes this is Just my opinion...OBD

[spartan]

I find this entire debate humorous considering the last time a Republican President presided over a balanced budget was in 1953 with Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Back to the point of this thread, Mitt Romney's defeat was inevitable because he used polling to make decisions, was completely out of touch and stood for nothing. Add to that his party's hatred for anything not white or rich or christian fanatic and he was doomed.

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections. Rather than double down on failed policies, you think it might be time to come to center where you can actually be more amicable to the rest of the population who don't believe Gays are evil sinners who don't deserve the civil liberties others enjoy, believe climate change isn't a theory but a fact and the future of American industry is in green energy, not fossil fuels.

I laughed at O'Reily on Faux News as he lamented the loss of America's white supremacy. Wally and the Beav aren't getting it done anymore. Say hello to Juan, Tyreese and Julia. Now you must cater to us..you don't want to - but we are America now.

But hey, maybe that whole doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result will work the next time. There's a word for that....

I don't usually throw direct barbs out at people but your post is ignorant and offensive to be frank. All it demonstrates is that you know nothing about what most so called Republicans represent and what they stand for. I say "so called' because most people like me consider themselves first and foremost conservative than Republican. It also demonstrates that for someone who is supposed to be an educated author you swallowed the Democrat talking points hook, line and sinker. You espouse inclusion and acceptance and then go on a petty hate filled rant about people you obviously despise.

[CBWx2]

So why have Republicans lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections?

[ONEBIGDADDY]

So why have Republicans lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections?

Your question can't be answered on a message blog board without a lengthy blog.

One big important thing to remember he lost due to Obama being an Incumbent President.
 
The second thing he lost on was his refusal to acknowledge any good that has been done by the Obama administration and that he could build upon it better than what Obama was doing. Those are the two most important things that I would say answer your question.

There is one more though that comes to mind. The stupid things that were said by some of the republican politicians running for other offices. The 47% video being shown also. That was a big mistake

LOL one other thing to was his picking of Ryan being part of the Tea Party which is the extemist part of the republicans.
 
All in all I do have hope that the Republicans will find a more balanced candidate next time so we can continue with the most important issues facing this Country as a Whole and not just a Rich Segment of the country...OBD