PDA

View Full Version : Obumbler Did The 'Contraception' Thing On Purpose!



mike128
03-02-2012, 08:46 AM
I know I haven't said much about my disdain for Obumbler, since I have been so focused on getting a real conservative nominated to defeat him. But I really think that Obumbler created this whole contraception controversey BS on purpose, to divert attention from the fact that the economy sucks, and the Middle East is about to explode, thanks to Obumbler's apology tours and appeasement. The rest of the world must be laughing at America right now. We are no longer that 'shining city on the hill', but a laughingstock for dictatorship countries to take advantage of.

The point is, Obumbler knows he screwed up, so his strategists purposely told him to create this distraction, because he doesn't have anything else to run on.

I'm not trying to 'preach to the choir', because you all know that is NOT what I do. But I had to make this point this morning, because I don't want any of you to be deceived into thinking that this contraception thing came out of nowhere. It's purely strategic.

linda22003
03-02-2012, 10:38 AM
Then why hasn't the GOP resisted rising to the bait? :cool:

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 10:54 AM
Very clever of him. Perhaps you need to change your epithet from "Obumbler."

FlaGator
03-02-2012, 11:07 AM
There is a school of thought that the Obama administration is using issues like this in an attempt to refocus the elections more on social issues than on economic ones because he feels he has the high ground.

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 11:15 AM
There is a school of thought that the Obama administration is using issues like this in an attempt to refocus the elections more on social issues than on economic ones because he feels he has the high ground.

There is also a school of thought (a different school, obviously) that believes the Republicans have conceded the White House and are focusing on retaining the House and taking the Senate and advancing social issues, fighting the so-called Culture War, aids them by energizing the base of the party to go to the polls.

fettpett
03-02-2012, 11:17 AM
There is also a school of thought (a different school, obviously) that believes the Republicans have conceded the White House and are focusing on retaining the House and taking the Senate and advancing social issues, fighting the so-called Culture War, aids them by energizing the base of the party to go to the polls.

personally feel this (minus the social issue part) is the best way to move forward, as much as I can't stand Obama, at lest we could try again in 2016 with much better candidates...

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 11:22 AM
personally feel this (minus the social issue part) is the best way to move forward, as much as I can't stand Obama, at lest we could try again in 2016 with much better candidates...

The cues to look for is where the money is spent. It is early but if you see Senate and House races getting cash that could have helped Romney in the general election, it will be evidence that the Legislative Branch is the goal.

Even Norquist his ownself basically called the Executive superfluous.

Zeus
03-02-2012, 11:24 AM
personally feel this (minus the social issue part) is the best way to move forward, as much as I can't stand Obama, at lest we could try again in 2016 with much better candidates...

Why would any conservative cede the big prize at the prospect of future hopes. Play the hand you are dealt. As I posted in another thread Reagan wasn't given much hope even with the country in dis array but look what he did. a sleeper conservative is better than no conservative.

FlaGator
03-02-2012, 11:29 AM
There is also a school of thought (a different school, obviously) that believes the Republicans have conceded the White House and are focusing on retaining the House and taking the Senate and advancing social issues, fighting the so-called Culture War, aids them by energizing the base of the party to go to the polls.

Which in an of itself may not be an unwise move in the long term.

fettpett
03-02-2012, 11:31 AM
Why would any conservative cede the big prize at the prospect of future hopes. Play the hand you are dealt. As I posted in another thread Reagan wasn't given much hope even with the country in dis array but look what he did. a sleeper conservative is better than no conservative.

oh, I'm not saying conceed it, just that with this group of retreds and dunces (both GOP and Dem) that the Legislature is probably more important, particuarly to get enough to push past a veto, kinda a '94 type situation.

The biggest problem is leadership...or the lack there of, the GOP needs to get rid of guys like Bohner if they are going to successed.

FlaGator
03-02-2012, 11:35 AM
Why would any conservative cede the big prize at the prospect of future hopes. Play the hand you are dealt. As I posted in another thread Reagan wasn't given much hope even with the country in dis array but look what he did. a sleeper conservative is better than no conservative.

Surrender the battle to ultimately win the war (the city of Conventry, England in WWII).

Now I'm not saying that I am buying in to this, I just feel that it is a plausible strategy for long term control of the country. I would need to weight the pros and cons of this before I am able to decide if the risks are worth it.

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 11:40 AM
Surrender the battle to ultimately win the war (the city of Conventry, England in WWII).

Now I'm not saying that I am buying in to this, I just thing feel that it is a plausible strategy for long term control of the country. I would need to weight the pros and cons of this before I am able to decide if the risks are worth it.

The 2010 election cycle was big for Republicans not just because they took the House, not even primarily because they took the House, but because they were able to take control of so many state Legislative and Executive branches in a census year. Because of this, they can bake in advantage for a decade.

The base is more important in terms of turnout than appealing to Independents and Moderates when you want to control districts specifically drawn to ensure a Republican is elected.

FlaGator
03-02-2012, 12:37 PM
The 2010 election cycle was big for Republicans not just because they took the House, not even primarily because they took the House, but because they were able to take control of so many state Legislative and Executive branches in a census year. Because of this, they can bake in advantage for a decade.

The base is more important in terms of turnout than appealing to Independents and Moderates when you want to control districts specifically drawn to ensure a Republican is elected.

On this we agree.

AmPat
03-02-2012, 01:16 PM
There is also a school of thought (a different school, obviously) that believes the Republicans have conceded the White House and are focusing on retaining the House and taking the Senate and advancing social issues, fighting the so-called Culture War, aids them by energizing the base of the party to go to the polls.

Another theory is that it is both or at least the unintended consequences. O Blah Blah and his filthy party cannot run (on a straight face) on his record. He cannot run on the truth (He wouldn't know the truth anyway if it bit him on his scrawny butt).

He and his disgusting cohorts and obedient drones must propagate lies to the weak brained moderates that have an affinity to Koolaid, and simultaneously foster faux outrage and emotional drama over issues that should rightfully be relegated to the back seat in this election.

They will demonize the (current) front runner opponent with the help of their cheerleaders in the MSM as seen repeatedly already. They will willfully and dishonestly frame the words of GOP candidates into horrific tales of woe and evil. All the usual liberal tactics are on the table and have already been dusted off, polished, and employed to get this exceptionally inept Marxist usurper re-elected.

Arroyo_Doble
03-02-2012, 01:20 PM
Another theory is that it is both or at least the unintended consequences. O Blah Blah and his filthy party cannot run (on a straight face) on his record. He cannot run on the truth (He wouldn't know the truth anyway if it bit him on his scrawny butt).

He and his disgusting cohorts and obedient drones must propagate lies to the weak brained moderates that have an affinity to Koolaid, and simultaneously foster faux outrage and emotional drama over issues that should rightfully be relegated to the back seat in this election.

They will demonize the (current) front runner opponent with the help of their cheerleaders in the MSM as seen repeatedly already. They will willfully and dishonestly frame the words of GOP candidates into horrific tales of woe and evil. All the usual liberal tactics are on the table and have already been dusted off, polished, and employed to get this exceptionally inept Marxist usurper re-elected.

Was that English?

AmPat
03-02-2012, 02:20 PM
Was that English?
English without my glasses. Got a problem, specify and I'll help with the big words for you. Otherwise, piss off!

Zeus
03-02-2012, 10:39 PM
The 2010 election cycle was big for Republicans not just because they took the House, not even primarily because they took the House, but because they were able to take control of so many state Legislative and Executive branches in a census year. Because of this, they can bake in advantage for a decade.

The base is more important in terms of turnout than appealing to Independents and Moderates when you want to control districts specifically drawn to ensure a Republican is elected.


That I can agree with. This kowtowing to the so called Independents and moderates is the formula to a Democrat victory. To many of the right of center Reps out of some misguided show of protest stay home and basically give the dem candidate the election.

mike128
03-03-2012, 07:25 PM
That I can agree with. This kowtowing to the so called Independents and moderates is the formula to a Democrat victory. To many of the right of center Reps out of some misguided show of protest stay home and basically give the dem candidate the election.
This is exactly what I have been trying to point out all along! Running a Republican 'moderate' against a liberal DemocRAT almost always causes the Republican base to stay home. Thus, the DemocRAT wins.