Iamon lyme: it's about hypocrisy, not racist bud, look it up, everywhere you look it will dismiss it as being racist

(V): [ pot calling kettle black ]

Are you aware of the origins of that expression? Most people are aware of what it means, but not the racist overtones it once meant to convey. I'll give you a hint, it's like saying "A person of color calling another person of color a person of color."

Artful Dodger: Saying Obama was crap in helping his state.

"V doesn't know that it's not actually tasteless to say "drink the koolaid." Koolaid comes in many flavors and it's anything but tasteless."

Didn't say it was tasteless... but it's not sold in the UK except maybe in 'USA' goods stores. We've got our own weird ones, n' some of the varieties that we get from the Nepalese shops is...

Iamon lyme: Leader.. ideology.. religious persuasion, there is no difference... pot calling kettle black. Every major group plays on some 'herd' instinct.. No moral high ground for you there.

"appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings."

... again a pot n' kettle case.

"and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious."

Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn

First off, I just want to thank all of you for your gracious comments. I'm so used to knee-jerk insults on other web sites when I try to discuss politics.

A very clear message was sent to the Republicans in this election if they are smart enough to take their hands off their ears. "Get the crazies out of your party"

This message didn't come from the liberal establishment in the Northeast. It came right out of the heartland. Todd Akin was soundly defeated in Missouri and Richard Mourdock was plainly rejected by the good folks in Indiana. These are very conservative states if you've ever visited them. For them to choose Democrats over Republicans is a big deal. Though Democrats in those states tend to be far less liberal, but that's besides the point.

Republicans mistakenly thought in 2008 that they didn't cater enough to the far right. They thought Palin's popularity meant people wanted more radical ignoramuses. Wrong. Palin was only popular in a 'reality show' sense. People enjoy watching trainwrecks. It doesn't mean they want to vote for them. Palin scared people as a VP and that really hurt McCain.

Romney never had the guts to throw Akin and Mourdock under the bus during the campaign. If he had, he would have won the votes of many people in those swing states that might have tipped the 50/48 in his favor.

Just like Obama was smart enough to never associate himself with the lunatics of OWS, so should the Republicans turn their backs on their own lunatics.

Artful Dodger: btw, I have only heard women say "bite me" is that your liberal side?

Artful Dodger: For 70 % you are: Liberal!
44.0917 % of 1701 Quiz participants had this profile!

The Col: Oddly enough, Walter says your name a lot in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I226Sfgs0s

The Col: I said bite me

Artful Dodger: I asked for the test you supposedly took, not your spin

You Are 65% Conservative, 35% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Many of the "tests" have limited answers for their questions.

The Col: Political leanings doesn't make me far right. I'm a fiscal conservative. So are those on the far right. So are the moderates. I'm libertarian on some social issues. On matters of immigration policy I actually favor Regan's amnesty plan. However, liberals never have been serious about curbing the actual flow of illegals. Still, I don't hold to the radical idea of sending illegals back to Mexico etc. Especially if they have families here in the US. And I'm not alone. Many conservatives recognize that we have to do something to stop illegals from crossing our borders unchecked while still dealing with the illegals that we allowed (through our lax policies) to work and live in the US. That's hardly a far right position.

I am totally against abortion except for the life of the mother. That is a far right position but I have better arguments for my position than anyone on the left. Moderates who make exceptions for rape and incest are hypocrites. I do not make those exceptions.

I believe in small government. This is a far right position as it is a moderate view as well. Libertarians also want smaller government.

I want to see a decrease in spending across the board. I want unnecessary government departments closed for good. The EPA is a good place to start. I'd let each state take care of their own environmental concerns. I'd repeal healthcare because it's too costly and none of the Federal Govt business.

Even moderates want to see spending cuts. For that matter, so do some center leaning liberals. Most Americans agree with me that the healthcare bill needs to go. It was shoved down our throats with ZERO Republican support.

When you look at all my views, only an uninformed idiot could conclude I fit into the far right camp.

ps....bite me.

Artful Dodger: can i see the test? I don't think anyone who reads this board could possibly miss your "political leanings" so it should be pretty easy to fill in the boxes

Iamon lyme: I'll have to try that. Maybe I'll change my view about the lemon if they add the lime. I knew that you could put the lime in the coconut and drink them both up. Once I put the lime in the coconut, and called my doctor, woke him up and askd, " 'Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take,
I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?
I say, Doctor, doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take,
I say, Doctor, dooooctor, to relieve this belly ache?'
Put the lime in the coconut, drink them both together,
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better,
Put the lime in the coconut, drink them both up,"

He told me to, "Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning"

Under Obamacare he'd tell me to call him in a month.

Artful Dodger: All right, so maybe the lemon flavored stuff isn't so great... have you tried the lemon lime?

They say once you've had the lemon lime there is no going back... and by "they" I mean me.

Iamon lyme: Hmmmm, V doesn't know that it's not actually tasteless to say "drink the koolaid." Koolaid comes in many flavors and it's anything but tasteless. Unless it's the lemon koolaid. That stuff is crap.

(V): Nah, name some policies I favor that Christie wouldn't like.

Iamon lyme: The Gov called me and said he likes my views. He said that he views my views as easily viewable. At least that was the view he shared of his view of my views.

BTW, - my dogs just ate their poop. They are liberals. They always want a handout. And even if it's crap, but free, they want it.

The Col: actually you're wrong. You're just so far left that I look far right. When I take the tests to determine my overall political leanings, I end up moderate conservative to libertarian.

Übergeek 바둑이: Very interesting stats. I am in the 50-64 year old group, but I actually belonged to that group when I was in the 30-39 year range.

So here's an interesting question... In light of those stats (I believe they are accurate) how popular do you believe Reagan would be today compared to how popular he was with voters during his tenure? It seems to me he would have been no more popular among voters today than Romney was.

(V): [ "More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works."

....??? a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre?? ]


That response of yours was such a good example of what we "right wing extremists" have been trying to tell people, that I've been waiting for the right time to respond to it.

It's only "...a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre" if you learn nothing from it. The trend in US politics from the liberal side has been to promote a "cult (or culture) of personality"... taking the focus off policies and placing it squarely on the personality of a leader. In the Jones town example, the reason so many people followed a cult leader and were willing to do anything he said is precisely because he was able to influence them through manipulating their emotions... and by discouraging any rational or independent thinking of their own.

Obama has successfully tapped into our national obsession with personality. As a nation we have gradually lost the ability to resist the cult like loyalty and devotion to persons (or political parties) rather than to an ideology. And by "ideology" I mean core beliefs that enable people to resist what cults do best, appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings.

I've made huge mistakes believing people who don't really say anything substantive, and falling for their pitches. But that was a long time ago, and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious. This has worked very well for me... the last time I got conned it only cost me a dollar or two, but I can live with that. But even when you become "cult proofed" or "con proofed" it doesn't stop them from trying... I'm always amused when someone works hard to talk me into something, but doesn't realize he is actually talking me out of it.

JerNYC:

> When the Republicans finally wise up and run a candidate that has crossover appeal and who outright rejects the far right-wing, they will have a chance again.

I think that this election will force many Republicans to do some soul searching and to see why it was that President Obama won in spite of problems with the economy, unpopular domestic policies and unpopular foreign policies. I agree that Mitt Romney did very well, in fact, better than I expected him to do. His political career (at least as presidential candiadte) is over. However, the loss is due to Romney's inability to clearly define his political stance. He won the nomination by portraying himself as somebody who could defend conservative values. Yet as the campaign wore on he became more "liberal" and that disenchanted many voters. The true picture is given more clearly by some statistics that were released by CNN. O stands for Obama's share of the vote. R stand for Romney.

Voting by Age

18-24: 60% O, 36% R
25-29: 60% O, 36% R
30-39: 55% O, 42% R
40-49: 48% O, 50% R
50-64: 47% O, 51% R
> 65: 44% O, 55% R

This clearly shows that the Democrats are much more popular among young people (under 40). This demographic should really worry Republicans because these young people will age and as they grow older support for the Democrats among the older age groups will increase. If Republicans are to win (and indeed survive) then they must find a way to appeal to young voters and then retain that support as those young voters age.

Vote by Gender and Race:

White men: 36% O, 61% R
White women: 43% O, 55% R
Black men: 88% O, 11% R
Black women: 96% O, 3% R
Latino men: 63% O, 35% R
Latino women: 75% O, 24% R
All others: 67% O, 31% R

Minorities (Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, etc) made up 28% of the electorate.

Looking at that distribution we see that the Democrats really attracted women voters. Undoubtedly some of the positions of Republican candidates hurt Romney's chances to attract women voters. Romney tried to distance himself from some of the controversial candidates in his party but women voters in the end did not ignore those elementary mistakes.

The issue of minorities is a serious one too. At 28% of the voting population (and growing) minorities can now swing an election. The Republicans were hurt by some of their policies on immigration, civil rights, women's rights, etc.

From these demographics it seems that the Republicans are becoming a party for "older white males". Such a perception has to change if the Republicans are to continue into the future. Republicans have to find a candidate that appeals to women and minorities. The current Tea Party stance is likely to fail unless it can be modified to address the issues that affect that 28% of the population that can now swing an election.

Taking into account these observations, did any of the candidates that ran for the Republican nomination (Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, etc.) possess the qualities that would swing the minority and female vote? The answer is no. They all represented an old, established elite within the Republican Party. The Tea Party might be offering some new faces, but with values that will never be acceptable to that 28% of the vote. It will be interesting to see how Republicans adapt to these challenges.

Iamon lyme: Like in Texas?

"The idea that Christie must not read what AD says (at this board?) was hilarious."

If Christie goes by you or AD politics wise.. The GOP won't ever get elected. That is what was said.. don't you get it? Former Republican congressmen get it, Jon Stewart gets it and so does an increasing number of your fellow countrymen.

"There are laws in existence now that people 40 years ago would have scoffed at you for even suggesting could be become law."

Of course there are. Some for good reason.. but just saying there are laws is kinda another sound bite that means nothing unless I give it gravity.

.. I see no gravitational effect. Words need weight from example, rather than bogey men.

This has more weight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY

The Col: [ shouldda been a comma after "reject" ]

Doh!! Of course... that was it! It was missing a comma. How could I have missed that?

(V): I was thinking of asking you to translate if for me, seeing as how you both speak the same "language", but that would be like hauling coals to Newcatstle. I was also thinking maybe I could get it translated from English into... English? But it was actually the message itself (not the garbled language) I found amusing. The idea that Christie must not read what AD says (at this board?) was hilarious. But who knows, in the near future there could actually be laws to regulated what people may or may not read. There are laws in existence now that people 40 years ago would have scoffed at you for even suggesting could be become law.

Iamon lyme: shouldda been a comma after "reject"

Iamon lyme: ... Likewise he might read something he wants you don't approve of... which seems to be a lot.

JerNYC: I hope so, from the little I've seen he looks like a guy who'll work more readily with the other side rather than against it all the time.

The Col: The Conservatives here blamed Labour for the expenses scandal, Labour blamed the Conservatives. The Conservative started the system allowing MP's to abuse what they can claim as expenses... but Labour, in power for over a decade did sod all to reverse such abuse until it hit the papers.

No party can really stand on a pedestal. I'm sure some democrats probably have cheated, just as some republicans have.

.. there all human

The Col: What about my views? Is it okay for Christie to log onto brainking and read my views?

By the way, have you informed Christie whose views he may view and whose views he may not view? If he doesn't hear from you soon he might just go ahead and read any 'ol darn thing he wants to, whether you approve of it or not.

So anywho, how's the view up there on your high horsey thingy there... can you see all of us from up there okay, eh?

[]_ [[]] []_

The Col: Christie must reject from reading AD's views?

Artful Dodger: um, it was well said, and Christie is a Republican moderate, but you are the " far right-wing" he must reject from reading your views

rod03801: I'm totally with you on that!

JerNYC: I agree about Christie. My first thought with how he handled everything after Sandy was that it was with the intention of setting up 2016. I kind of like him. There's a few that sort of interest me for 4 years from now. Rubio is one. I still also like Ryan.

JerNYC: Well said!

It's funny how he's getting no credit for what he achieved last night in defeat. Not even from his own party. Everyone is focusing on the simple win/loss but they are overlooking the state by state results. The man won over 200 electoral votes! Let me put this in perspective: He got more electoral votes as a Republican loser than John McCain, Bob Dole and George Bush, Sr (who was an incumbent). This is from a man who was neither likeable nor relatable and he was a Mormon!

He reinforced their electoral base (heartland and the south) and caused Obama to drop percentage wise in states that he also won in 2008. Almost every swing state was close to 50/50 or a few percentage points off. Imagine if they actually had a candidate that could connect with real people.

When the Republicans finally wise up and run a candidate that has crossover appeal and who outright rejects the far right-wing, they will have a chance again. If Christie gets a second term in Jersey, I expect him to be a frontrunner in '16. Christie is the kind of guy that can sit in a diner with auto workers in Ohio and Michigan and look like he was the auto worker, not the politician. The man is also downright Machiavellian. The way he embraced Obama after the storm and left Romney out to dry was no mistake. Remember his name.

(V): Again this is an issue Republicans like to point the finger at Democrats for perpetuating , but as usual they seem to be the ones committing the crime.Standing on that pedestal can be daunting

The Col: .. if proven, that's different. Community service and a fine time.

(V): This time she got caught, she has been in a position to commit this fraud since 2000 apparently

The Col: I hope the silly woman just gets a slap on the wrist. She's more stupid than malicious.

An election worker in Oregon is facing a criminal investigation for allegedly altering multiple ballots to benefit Republican candidates.

In a press release on Monday, Clackamas County spokesperson Tim Heider said that 55-year-old Deanna Swenson had been "relieved of duty immediately after the alleged ballot tampering was discovered."

Swenson, who was registered as a Republican, was accused of filling in a Republican straight ticket on ballots where voters did not specify a choice.

Contacted by Willamette Week, Swenson tearfully insisted that it was "only the two" ballots that had been altered.

The Oregon Department of Justice began an investigation last week after an elections official reportedly observed ballots being altered.

"At this point, it is unclear how many ballots the employee at issue had access to, or what will be done with those ballots," the sheriff's office said on Monday.

At a Monday emergency meeting, officials in Clackamas County announced that the altered ballots would not be counted. Since ballots were anonymous, disenfranchised voters would not be given a chance to re-cast their votes.

Swenson has worked in elections since at least 2000, according to the Clackamas County spokesperson.

Blue Oregon's Kari Chisholm reported that the Oregon City woman's Facebook page indicated she "liked" various conservative personalities, candidates and organizations including the Republican National Committee, The Tea Party, Paul Ryan VP, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Ann Romney and Fox News.

If convicted of a Class C felony for ballot tampering, Swenson could face five years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000

Interesting to be watching Fox news online and why they thought Romney lost. Doug Schoen and his mate in the studio talking to a former republican congressman. Romney went too far right in his stance to win, even Ryan was a mistake. The branding that the republican party has adopted is dirt.. even Murdoch has damaged the GOP name.

... and they've being saying so for 18 months.

Well.. Fox news agrees with me... strange!!

If Mitt had been as he was as a governor of a state where he introduced universal care.. ... ...

... he might of won.

Artful Dodger: Are they going to finally be the ones to save the federal and state governments spending valuable time and resources on busting pot heads? The stuff people are trying instead of to be 'lawful' is really bad manure from the news reports... ie K2.

It'd save on valuable prison space for real criminals!!

Iamon lyme: Like what? An example that gives weight to your argument would be nice. Otherwise it's just a lonnnnggg sound bite.

eg advertisers on torrent sites designed to illegally share copyrighted material. The companies advertising are 100% legit, yet they are supporting pirating. I'm not talking about sharing a little music... but movies, software and games. Which many companies are looking to have blocked and downloaders, etc in court.

Another could be the illegality of marijuana here in the UK. It is illegal to possess or grow or sell it.. yet 100% legit UK companies are allowed to sell the seeds as 'souvenirs' or 'ornaments'... even in shops on the high street.

.. being a prostitute on the streets is not illegal, johns get arrested but not the women... Yet it's illegal to run a boudoir.

It can be confusing how the law works. Sometimes they do get it wrong, or as I've shown above contradict itself in it's application.

See, examples can be found.

A powerful argument against abortion EVEN in the case of a rape.

One solution for those who are unhappy with the election results, move to Colorado.

snowleopard:

The stock market reacted by tanking. Here comes a rise in the debt ceiling, more borrowing, another stimulus, more government jobs, more printing of money, rising energy prices, more regulations, and for many who opposed Obama, big time paybacks. For those that supported him, rewards.

4 more years of unrestrained borrowing. The US economy will be in ruins by the end of it. Get your money offshore whist you still can.