Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
    I just can't buy this hurricane explanation. Seriously. Do we really think that anyone who was going to vote for Romney actually switched because they saw Obama acting presidential? And I noticed the author called republicans "anti-immigration". Shouldn't that be anti "illegal" immigration? Has anyone on Romney's team said they were against people immigrating here legally? That's the kind of misrepresentation that the dems don't have to deal with. They don't even have an immigration plan. No one has asked them to present one. The only fault I find is Romney was totally inept and impotent in countering these claims. And I also think Boehner has done a horrible job. It's not enough to act as a firewall to the liberals, he needs to do a better job of explaining why some of their actions need to be stopped.
    While it staggers me, this apparently actually did swing some votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was an internal polling question that was discussed while I was in Ohio last weekend campaigning. Did that alone mean the election? I rather doubt it. But it certainly was a factor: the fawning media delightedly put Obama on display being "bipartisan" and "Presidential," magnanimously walking down streets with houses blown off their foundations. They did everything but photoshop in unicorns and rainbows trailing in Obama's wake.

    Nevermind that the FEMA "response" has been an unmitigated failure, because the MSM won't bother reporting that. People, ordinary everyday people, saw news that showed Obama acting concerned and things getting better. It was completely false, but that's what they showed. If you live in Columbus, how do you know that what you're seeing on NBC Nightly News is completely contrived BS? You don't. And the exit polls bear this out: something like 78% of all voters surveyed said that Obama (not FEMA, Obama) was handling the hurricane well. They had no idea that it was yet another completely botched FEMA debacle all over again.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #12  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Happy Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Guys, what it comes down to is this: Romney nailed the problem when he mentioned the 47% who pay no taxes. They expect government to take care of them, and that's it. That 47% is the new Democratic baseline, and we have to either wean them off of entitlements, or accept that the best possible electoral result that a Republican can hope for is 53% of the vote, if all the stars align and we manage to produce the second coming of Ronald Reagan. That might happen, but when it does, that Republican is going to have to fight tooth and nail to convince that very small majority to deal with an angry minority of voters who demand to be treated like children, and that's not exactly a formula for electoral success. Weaning people from government is going to be difficult if we do not educate them, and make them understand why they are better off without the federal teat. Actually, it's going to be difficult even if they do understand it, but it has to be done, or we can accept that America is finished and we are now going to embrace decline. If you guys want to take up the challenge and shape that future, I'm there. If not, well, I'm not happy about being a centurion for a collapsing Rome, but if that's the future that I'm stuck with, I'll find a way to make it work for myself and my family.

    Make the choice.

    You nailed it on the head ..

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts