Gay Patriot Header Image

The status quo election of 2012

Americans aren’t happy with the status quo in Washington and yet what we saw yesterday was America returning to the status quo.  President Obama has been reelected, albeit with fewer votes — and a lower percentage of the popular vote — than he won in 2008.  Democrats appeared to have strengthened their majority in the Senate.  Republicans hold the House.

He owes his more decisive electoral vote majority to his razor-thin victory in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia and (as appears likely at press time) Virginia.  The margin in Ohio is even narrower than it was in 2004 when George W. Bush won the state on his road to reelection.

The incumbent’s biggest legislative accomplishment, Obamacare, remains unpopular.  The debt has increased more in his first term than it had in his predecessor’s two terms.  He ran an aggressively negative campaign and didn’t really focus on any issues.  He does not have the same mandate he had four years ago.

I have to say I’m surprised.  Just watching the president and his opponent these past few days, one seemed energized and confident, the other angry and downbeat.  You would think the more confident man would win.  Mitt Romney drew larger crowds.  The base seemed more energized.

Perhaps, it was as Charles Krauthammer put it last night on FoxNews that Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate to articulate the conservative message.  Perhaps, it was that he did not do a good job of outreach to the Hispanic community.  Perhaps, those hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads really did do the trick.  Or maybe Hurricane Sandy caused wavering Obama supporters to return to their man.  Up until the storm hit, Mitt had the momentum.  And it stopped.

Or perhaps, the legacy media, in failing to cover Obama’s various failures and scandals, won the election for him.

He has been a most lucky man.  And this year, the Democrats have been a most lucky party.  They owe at least two Senate seats to Republican candidates who imploded.  But, now they have to govern.  Now that he has been reelected, Obama can no longer blame George W. Bush for his problems.

He must now come up with solutions.

That’s all I can offer for now.  As Bruce put it, there will be “Plenty of time for 20-20 hindsight.

UPDATE:  Jonathan S. Tobin offers best the best election post-mortem I have (yet) read.

Share

87 Comments

  1. Second terms usually play out about as well as Star Wars prequels. So, there’s that.

    Guess this is a positive, however that means the economy is going to hell in a handbasket and there isn’t much positive in that.

    Oh, and one thing that will be different in 2016 is that both candidates will be exposed during the primary season and neither is going to have a summer of free reign in battleground states to define and demonize their opponent.

    My only concern is that the DNC will identify the best and brightest of the GOP hopefuls and do everything they can to kill their viability as a candidate before they have a chance to declare. The DNC is good at this method of character assassination-the GOP not so much (although I do think Benghazi has and will effectively end any hopes of Hillary or Petraeus as candidates unless Hillary finds some way to salvage herself and tosses Obama under the bus in the process).

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 9:49 am - November 7, 2012

  2. It didn’t matter what the conservative message was, or who was running against Obama. Numbers are growing of those who believe our government is the answer to all our needs. Our nation is heading in the direction of the European entitlement states…to be followed by demonstrations and rioting, when the socialists run out of taxpayer dollars. When half the population has to work to support the other half, it’s not sustainable!

    Comment by Christine — November 7, 2012 @ 10:38 am - November 7, 2012

  3. “I have to say I’m surprised. Just watching … The base seemed more energized.”

    Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election ’08 gave him credibility … But Silver’s expertise was always a better bet than relying on… the anecdotal impressions of Noonan.

    It is easy to close oneself off inside a conservative echo chamber. And right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you’re a rank-and-file conservative, you’re probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn’t accurately inform you about Election 2012.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 7, 2012 @ 12:26 pm - November 7, 2012

  4. I said

    In my opinion, the GOP has got to officially abandon this idea that coming across the border illegally is the worst thing since murder. Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit.

    ILC, completely ignoring the point I was making, replied:

    Rather more than a bit, sf. It’s sad.

    No, what is sad is that you choose to give a snide reply instead of going into any depth on why the GOP only got 28 % of the Hispanic vote. Suddenly you want to flush the preferred GOP immigration policy down the memory hole. Do you really think the severely negative rhetoric concerning illegal immigrants and the actions that culminated with the schizophrenic gyrations of Arizona’s card check law didn’t hurt your chances winning over this demographic group?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 7, 2012 @ 12:26 pm - November 7, 2012

  5. ILC, completely ignoring the point I was making

    No, jackass. I didn’t ignore it. Rather, I thought it was wrong, to the point where it was really really sad that you would stoop to repeating such a false left-wing trope.

    And I still think that. Your snideness has not changed my mind.

    Get it? Your comment was incredibly lame, sf. I still think it. I’m still pointing it out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - November 7, 2012

  6. People’s jackass comments don’t deserve a longer response than that. But for the sake of other folks / posterity, I shall note that:

    – I’m not a Republican. Never been one in my life.
    – And yet even I understand that at no point has the GOP had an “idea that coming across the border illegally is the worst thing since murder”… not even “a bit”.
    – To suggest otherwise is only to make a rather cheap effort – a sad one – to tar people who have legitimate border security concerns, as racists. It’s a tactic of the Left.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - November 7, 2012

  7. Instead of being lulled into a belief of real change by the punditry of Dick Morris and Michael Barone, who predicted Romney by a landslide and Karl Rove´s little white board. I should have reread the March Edition of Horoscope Magazine. Astrologer Michael O´Reilly wrote several months prior to publication (about December 2011) that Romney´s chart indicated he could be the Republican nominee. but the election day chart showed an Obama win; ¨. . transiting Pluto trines Obama´s Pluto, the ruler of his midheaven, on Election Day. This closely parallels the Pluto factors that got George Bush (Senior) elected in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000.¨ Following several other aspects he concludes that ¨All these connections to U.S. Moon indicate good rapport with voters.¨ In other words, likeability. Several months back I commented on a thread that dispite all of the negativity he has the one thing he had that Romney didn´t have was likeability. While it fell and Romney´s rose it never really over took Obama´s And it came to the fore with his photo op in New Jersey after Sandy. Just as Romney was quick to issue a statement on Benghazi, only to be criticized, maybe instead of turning a campaign rally into a rally for victims he should have gone uninvited to New Jersey, Chris Chrisites comments not withstanding; ¨I don´t give a damn about the election.¨ Obama did. If Romney had gone to show support for the first governor to endorse his candidacy and tour with Obama and Christie he might have gotten some mileage out of embracing some victims too. Then he could have told Christie directly that his next couple of campaign days would be to raise funds and collect needed necessites to give relief to the victims of Sandy. That would have been news that could have raised his likeability and show his compassion.

    Comment by Roberto — November 7, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - November 7, 2012

  8. I agree with Christine. One half of America threw the other half of America under the bus. They want theirs and ours too and Obama is willing to do that.

    Also I have read that 85 percent of the media vote Democrat and Newsbusters.org had several stories that 85 percent of the stories done on Romney were negative. Coincidence?

    This was not a race about social issues. It was a campaign about turning our country into a socialist nation whether Obama voters knew that or not.

    We get the government we deserve….Don Henley

    Comment by Linda Strickland — November 7, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - November 7, 2012

  9. As to the (separate) topic of whether the GOP could do more Latin outreach: Maybe. One could make the argument. A counter-argument is that they already are… and the media suppress it. Think of how, during the GOP convention, the white racists at MSNBC carefully avoided showing Gov. Susanna Martinez in their coverage.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - November 7, 2012

  10. And another major effort the GOP needs to embrace: circumventing the mainstream media. Get together and begin a politics-only online news channel. Or several. Start a new network. Begin a TV/online/downloadable app for real-time streaming of live video clips similar to Twitter. Make it interactive, meaning the viewer can upload and post on the fly. Start an economics course for free download using free markets as its basis. There are so many things the GOP could spearhead in order to turn low-information voters into some-information voters.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 7, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - November 7, 2012

  11. I am not particularly convinced that the GOP can do anything to reach out to these groups and actually get their vote. The media once again does an awesome job of assisting them (and admittedly some of the candidates do themselves more harm than good, but do you guys really think Mia Love hates gays, blacks, brown people, and women?). I think these groups are democratic party robots until they choose to take the blinders off.

    Bingo.

    The Obama Party’s argument is free stuff based on skin color.

    That is not sustainable or intelligent, and Republicans need to be both.

    Republicans are the party of adults. The Obama Party is the party of dependent children.

    So there are simple things that Republicans need to do to start putting the dependent children in their place and give them a taste of the real world.

    1) Allow Obama’s tax increase to go through across the board. No matter what happens, force everyone’s taxes to go up.

    2) Allow the sequestration to take place. Obama wants to cripple the military so he can give more money to his drunk, stoned constituency; let him.

    3) Eat the collapse. It needed to happen anyway. There is no reason for conservatives to continue to protect things when the Obama children don’t see the need for it. They’re simply hostage-taking at this point, no differently than Palestinians putting missile launchers in schools and hospitals.

    The reasoning is very simple. Conservatives and capitalists are smarter than socialists. The history of every single totalitarian regime has borne that out; people find ways to make money even under the most repressive of regimes, and the continued flailing of the regime to suppress it just makes life worse for the true believers.

    Conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality. A good, stiff dose of reality is what it’s going to take to tamp down the liberal menace.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - November 7, 2012

  12. “the party of adults… simple things … to start putting the dependent children in their place and give them a taste of the real world

    “No matter what happens, force everyone’s taxes to go up.”
    “Allow the sequestration to take place.”
    “Eat the collapse. It needed to happen anyway. … simply hostage-taking

    Comment by Passing By — November 7, 2012 @ 2:57 pm - November 7, 2012

  13. Scared, Passing By?

    We figured as much. You’ve played that game that Republicans will not allow taxes to increase to take several other things hostage.

    But interestingly enough, what Republicans have finally figured out is this; it hurts you the non-working much more to have to pay taxes than it does us, the working.

    So yes, we will now hike taxes. We will be happy to eliminate the zero-level cutoff, and we will be happy to go ahead and assess taxes on welfare benefits, including food stamps.

    You want to pay the government so badly; now you can. Every single bit of anything you receive is now taxable. Away go the student-loan deductions, the mortgage deductions, everything of the sort.

    You can have your Obama paradise. But that was never your plan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - November 7, 2012

  14. Scared, Passing By?”

    ““No matter what happens, force everyone’s taxes to go up.”
    “Allow the sequestration to take place.”
    “Eat the collapse. It needed to happen anyway.

    ” it hurts you

    “You want to pay the government so badly; now you can.”

    “What really lured Republicans into a trap was the timing of the arrangement. The beginning of 2013, when the automatic spending cuts take effect, coincides with the expiration of every penny of the Bush tax cuts. And so, by postponing the fiscal reckoning, Republicans inadvertently scheduled it for the very moment when Obama (should he win reelection) will hold his maximum leverage. Last summer, Obama was pleading with Boehner to give him $800 billion in additional revenue. Come January, he’ll have $5 trillion in higher revenue without doing anything. Since Obama’s own budget proposes to raise only $1.5 trillion in new revenue and trim entitlement spending, he could then offer Republicans a deal that cuts taxes (by, say, a couple trillion dollars), increases military spending, and reduces entitlement spending. In other words, he could offer a right-wing bill—and the end result would be a mix of policies to the left of his own budget, and to the left of the Simpson-Bowles proposal.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 7, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - November 7, 2012

  15. LOL.

    Problem is, Passing By, Republicans are wise to that trick.

    Across the board tax increases. You wanted the Bush tax rate reductions gone; they will be.

    You wanted sequestration; you got it.

    Conservatives don’t like raising taxes, but we will gladly do so if there are simultaneous forced spending cuts. The only way tax increases will dig us out of the deficit hole is if they are across the board anyway.

    With the added benefit that Obama idiots such as yourself would actually start paying taxes on your entitlement benefits, and thus offset the massive drain that you represent to the economy annually.

    As conservative websites are putting it, it’s time to shoot the hostages. You wanted tax increases and massive defense spending cuts; you can have them. Conservatives are far better equipped to deal with the consequences of increased taxes than financially-incompetent and dependent liberals are because we are producers and can raise the price of our goods and services; Obama base members like yourself are consumers, and have to pay us whatever price we demand.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - November 7, 2012

  16. Once again, I said:

    In my opinion, the GOP has got to officially abandon this idea that coming across the border illegally is the worst thing since murder. Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit.

    To which you replied:

    No, jackass. I didn’t ignore it. Rather, I thought it was wrong, to the point where it was really really sad that you would stoop to repeating such a false left-wing trope.

    Jackass??? Really???? For a party that claims to not be motivated by emotions but rather by reason, you guys sure do get emotional a lot. Did you not see the bit where I wrote “Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit.“? And still, the question hangs out there like one of Al Gores hanging chads. What could you have done better to convince more Hispanics / Latinos to come over to your side?

    And for that matter, how do you possibly expect to win any national elections in the future if you keep insulting 50% of the public by calling them “takers” and “moochers”? That is what I heard all day driving around listening to Conservative talk radio. That kind of attitude is definitely NOT going to win over any hearts and minds of those who are not as partisan as you, especially if they have found the only way to survive is, as a last resort, to accept some form of government subsidy.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 7, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - November 7, 2012

  17. Once again, I said: [blah blah blah, jackass nonsense emphasizing “a bit” pompously as if ILC somehow hadn’t seen it]

    And, to what you said, I said this:

    [you have exaggerated] Rather more than *a bit*, sf. It’s sad.

    at no point has the GOP had an “idea that coming across the border illegally is the worst thing since murder”… not even “*a bit*”

    How long shall we do this *bit*? I do trust *a bit*that you can scan English words, but not that you necessarily comprehend *a bit* of what the other person is saying.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - November 7, 2012

  18. the question hangs out there

    Clean answers are for clean questions. As I’ve explained, yours wasn’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  19. […] After reading this (h/t Gay Patriot), I think I have decided why Romney lost this election.  It was simply because the Republicans, as […]

    Pingback by It’s Time for Some Fun (Data Analysis!) « Canadian Rattlesnake — November 7, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - November 7, 2012

  20. And still, the question hangs out there like one of Al Gores hanging chads. What could you have done better to convince more Hispanics / Latinos to come over to your side?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 7, 2012 @ 7:21 pm – November 7, 2012

    Nothing.

    Republicans offered opportunity, reduction of government regulation, and the chance to succeed.

    Obama offered racial preferences, government perks based on skin color, and unlimited rewards for lawbreaking.

    Hispanics and Latinos overwhelmingly chose racism, discrimination, and illegality.

    So who cares? I have no desire to make government more racist or to reward people for illegal behavior. You go right ahead and advocate that — preferably in the Obama Party.

    And for that matter, how do you possibly expect to win any national elections in the future if you keep insulting 50% of the public by calling them “takers” and “moochers”? That is what I heard all day driving around listening to Conservative talk radio. That kind of attitude is definitely NOT going to win over any hearts and minds of those who are not as partisan as you, especially if they have found the only way to survive is, as a last resort, to accept some form of government subsidy.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 7, 2012 @ 7:21 pm – November 7, 2012

    Because, Sonic, I don’t give a rat’s ass about hurting these peoples’ feelings.

    San Francisco has paid at least $150,000 for Kenny Walters in the past year. He isn’t employed, has an arrest record as long as his hair, and can often be found passed out in a doorway on Haight Street.

    Kenny Walters’ job is to get drunk.

    Or these peoples’:

    Stanley Thornton Jr., 30, is a self-described “adult baby,” who sleeps in a huge crib, drinks from a bottle, wears diapers, lives with a former nurse who acts as his “mom”… and subsists on Social Security disability benefits.

    Or the leaders of the Obama Party.

    Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)

    Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.

    The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartments in New York have the same requirement.

    Your solution for being a spineless coward towards these people abusing the hell out of the welfare system is to a) demand that my taxes be hiked to pay for them and b) call me a meanie for calling them moochers, looters, and takers.

    What I am figuring out, Sonic, is that people like you do not respect morals, values, or productivity — only power and brute force. You expect me to bear even more of the load because I am good, I am productive, and I believe in working and paying my way, while you let these people coast on my labor and on my back.

    To hell with you. For you to protect these people and demand that I shut up and take what is outright abuse of my labor, my values, and my productivity, all because you want to suck Barack Obama’s cock, is criminal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - November 7, 2012

  21. No more alienating talking points about “takers”

    Focus on the economy, spending, taxes and responsible governance.

    The latter necessarily entails the former.

    You’re getting hammered in the minority vote, youth vote, and women’s vote (you lost it 55-44), not because you’re party’s positions are offensive to those groups, but because you just haven’t performed enough “outreach.”

    No, because there are too many stupid people who believe what the Media et al. say about conservatives. And, yes, they are stupid. The entire American electorate is becoming very stupid (public schools probably have something to do with that). And in the case of minorities, there doesn’t seem to be enough independent thought to overcome the group think by a significant enough margin (and I assume independent thought occurs at the same rate among all races; it is just that there isn’t as much group think among Whites because they aren’t a minority).

    As for social issues, again, people who vote a certain way because they agree with those people on social issues even if they agree with the other side on economic issues are stupid. There is just too much stupidity.

    The Republicans have spent too much time playing politics and not enough time focusing on their own principles (by which I mean Tea Party principles, which are supposed to be the principles of the Republican Party). Regardless of how popular or unpopular their positions are, they should run on them and not what they perceive to be popular. No pandering to Hispanics, no yielding on taxes or immigration, just nothing but pure principles. At least, they should do that next time. I like what NDT is saying about going with the Democrats with their inevitably disastrous policies (for now, until the collapse comes. Maybe while repeating what they know is going to happen, so they are proven right, and maybe then people will learn something, although I’m not under the impression that that is very likely).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 7, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - November 7, 2012

  22. You wanted sequestration; you got it.”

    Most Republicans who are howling about the sequester did vote for it. In their push for a replacement, they beclowned themselves…

    They make no mention of the fact that they caused it and voted for it knowing that the sequester would take effect. “

    Comment by Passing By — November 7, 2012 @ 10:39 pm - November 7, 2012

  23. Your solution for being a spineless coward towards these people abusing the hell out of the welfare system is to a) demand that my taxes be hiked to pay for them and b) call me a meanie for calling them moochers, looters, and takers.

    The key point. sf does not advocate leftism (that I know of), and yet his comments so often seen to come down to “Why do you meanies not credit left-wing shibboleth X? Here, I’ll rub it in your face for you. Why do you crazy extremists not fall over yourselves to give in to the Left? It’s so much more fun when you do; then you can put down conservatives like Andrew Sullivan does, and feel confident of your leftie musician buddy not rejecting you.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 11:34 pm - November 7, 2012

  24. What I am figuring out, Sonic, is that people like you do not respect morals, values, or productivity — only power and brute force….

    Oh yawn. I’m not the one bitching because my party candidate lost the election… i voted for Gary Johnson BTW. You lost the Presidency by a good margin, and all you can do is call voters morons, moochers and takers. Hope you enjoy seeing your party become a minority, because your behavior is a sure fire way to guarantee that outcome.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 1:28 am - November 8, 2012

  25. Why do you meanies not credit left-wing shibboleth X?

    Huh?

    I’m simply pointing out that your committing a slow political suicide by insulting a good portion of the voting public instead of being retrospective, figuring out why you lost, and then making changes so that not as many people are repulsed by the notion of voting Republican. Of course there are some who would never consider doing that, even if there were a gun to their heads. But there are voters out there who would consider that choice, yet I doubt they will respond to being called takers and moochers. You guys should be able to do better than that I would think.

    Then again, judging from the long history of comments here at GP, maybe my faith in your abilities to stop being complete dicks is misplaced.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 1:38 am - November 8, 2012

  26. You lost the Presidency by a good margin, and all you can do is call voters morons, moochers and takers.

    Probably because that’s exactly what you should call these kinds of people.

    Hope you enjoy seeing your party become a minority, because your behavior is a sure fire way to guarantee that outcome.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 1:28 am – November 8, 2012

    Why would that be, Sonic?

    Do you think your belief that those people like I outlined above are entitled to collect welfare at everyone else’s expense is in the least mainstream?

    Or is it because you want to collect welfare, and don’t like being reminded of it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 2:49 am - November 8, 2012

  27. Do you think your belief that those people like I outlined above are entitled to collect welfare at everyone else’s expense is in the least mainstream?

    Oh look! A straw man. Playing the same old games I see. NTD, as usual, thank you for answering my question in the affirmative.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 10:07 am - November 8, 2012

  28. I’m simply pointing out that your committing a slow political suicide by insulting a good portion of the voting public

    Nope. You’re not “simply doing that.” That could well be worth discussing; but what you actually said was a different proposition altogether:

    In my opinion, the GOP has got to officially abandon this idea that coming across the border illegally is the wort thing since murder. Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit.

    More than “a bit”, sf. It’s sad.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 10:43 am - November 8, 2012

  29. Now run off and please your leftie friends, by telling them what they like to hear, that conservatives (or in my case, libertarian-conservative independents) are meanies. Go on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 10:47 am - November 8, 2012

  30. Oh look! A straw man. Playing the same old games I see

    LOL 🙂 sf, you should talk.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 11:04 am - November 8, 2012

  31. ILC… Are you still stuck on that? What part of “I’m exaggerating” don’t you understand?

    On comment 80… Yeah, because the rest of you are sheep who wouldn’t dare to call him on it. That only happens if the bogus technique is employed to counter your ideology.

    And yes… I seen the rational that supposedly he’s doing it to show how silly liberal arguments are. Sorry, that doesn’t wash. His actions define him, not your defense of his lame antics.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 11:46 am - November 8, 2012

  32. “I’ve seen”

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 11:53 am - November 8, 2012

  33. On comment 80… Yeah, because the rest of you are sheep who wouldn’t dare to call him on it.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 8, 2012 @ 11:46 am – November 8, 2012

    Yup, because there’s no possible way you could be wrong.

    Meanwhile, yes. You’re sitting there whining and bleating that it’s mean to call people who are using the welfare system to steal from the taxpayers looters, moochers, and takers.

    You don’t like it? Good. You’re not supposed to like it. You’re supposed to be repelled by people who steal from the taxpayers using the welfare system, both because a) they’re stealing and b) they’re taking resources that could be used for people who legitimately need help.

    But your primary concern is neither a) or b); if anything, your primary concern is making sure these people don’t have their feelings hurt.

    The only rational reason you would be upset by calling a thief a thief is if you yourself were one and didn’t like it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - November 8, 2012

  34. His actions define him, not your defense of his lame antics.”

    Comment by Passing By — November 8, 2012 @ 5:08 pm - November 8, 2012

  35. Meanwhile, yes. You’re sitting there whining and bleating that it’s mean to call people who are using the welfare system to steal from the taxpayers looters, moochers, and takers.

    Nope. It’s one thing to call out those who are actually abusing the system. I have absolutely no problem with that. But the over reaction, calling / classifying the majority of the 47 % of the population that are on some sort of assistance is both dumb and wrong. Once again, you and your followers just don’t get it. But that’s no sweat off my back. If you want to continue to lose winnable elections because of your stupid behavior…. Fine by me.

    But your primary concern is neither a) or b); if anything, your primary concern is making sure these people don’t have their feelings hurt.

    The people that are actually stealing for the system???? Who cares how they feel.

    The only rational reason you would be upset by calling a thief a thief is if you yourself were one and didn’t like it.

    Oh look… A new fallacy! Argument from motive!

    But, hey, at least you’re branching out.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 9, 2012 @ 2:59 am - November 9, 2012

  36. Actually, you DO have a problem with that, Sonic.

    I posted three examples of it, and your response was to sh*t yourself and complain how mean I was.

    Too bad. I no longer see the need to pretend that Obama supporters like yourself who scream and cry about “mean” conservatives are anything more than spoiled brats. I understand fully that you want to sit on the couch in a diaper all day and get paid for it, get yourself stone-cold drunk and pass out in a doorway in the Haight and get free medical care and housing for it, and cheat on your taxes while enjoying your rent-subsidized apartments., and that it upsets you that I call you a moocher, a looter, and a taker for doing it.

    But that is what you are.

    Liberals are all about lowering standards. More people on welfare, more people not working, more people taking from others, more people mocking and bashing work, business, and profit.

    Like ILC said, you want to suck up to liberals. Go ahead. But since that means you’re sucking up to and endorsing looters, moochers, and takers, that’s exactly what you’ve become.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - November 9, 2012

  37. I posted three examples of it, and your response was to sh*t yourself and complain how mean I was.

    Too bad. I no longer see the need to pretend that Obama supporters like yourself who scream and cry about “mean” conservatives are anything more than spoiled brats.

    My response in comment 85 nullifies the first claim, and my vote for Gary Johnson nullifies the second.

    ILC, V, and others have suggested that all you bluster and illogical arguments are an attempt to show how stupid the common liberals attempt at argument is. OK. We get it. You don’t need to do it any more, as you tend to make Conservatives look stupid.

    I think they are wrong. Your lack of debating skill is not an act, but is representative of who you really are. I would ask you to prove me wrong, but I don’t think you care either way.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — November 11, 2012 @ 6:48 pm - November 11, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.