A national disgrace

Quote from Tsing Tao:

You're not shooting down more of "my team's" arguments. You're shooting down every single one of them. No matter how stupid your argument is. Obama could rape a college student and you'd be like "She shouldn't wear such short skirts". You're a sham, and even you admitted to doing it several times, because you said you don't see any positive stuff about Obama.
Nonsense.
 
Quote from Ricter:

My focus here is not trolling (your stuff looks like trolling to me, by the way), but shooting down spurious arguments. Don't confuse that with defending the administration. If it seems I'm shooting down more of your team's arguments that's because your team's arguments are the spurious ones. :D

Has the dnc cut your shooting down spurious arguments work back to 29 hours so they can get out of paying you health care benefits?
 
Quote from fhl:

Has the dnc cut your shooting down spurious arguments work back to 29 hours so they can get out of paying you health care benefits?
I've been working overtime lately. Thanks, tea party!
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...
You and the mainstream media you are echoing miss a crucial point. Republican congressmen only have to appeal to their local constituencies. National polls mean nothing, even if they weren't slanted.

You have a good point, and Tao made a similar point, I believe.. Because there are so many safe House districts due to gerrymandering, I think it would be easy to overestimate the damage a shutdown could do to the Republicans in the House. That may explain some of the difference between Senate and House Republicans -- Senators have to answer to a wider electorate.

I do think that if the shutdown really stats to hurt, some of those House districts may not be quite so safe. Should there not be a timely extension of the debt limit and a delay on Social Security Checks, all bets are off. I'd be scared to death of that were I a Republican House member.
 
Quote from piezoe:

You have a good point, and Tao made a similar point, I believe.. Because there are so many safe House districts due to gerrymandering, I think it would be easy to overestimate the damage a shutdown could do to the Republicans in the House. That may explain some of the difference between Senate and House Republicans -- Senators have to answer to a wider electorate.

I do think that if the shutdown really stats to hurt, some of those House districts may not be quite so safe. Should there not be a timely extension of the debt limit and a delay on Social Security Checks, all bets are off. I'd be scared to death of that were I a Republican House member.
You might be interested in reading this:
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/08/the-risk-to-the-gop-house-majority/
 
here is a comment about gerrymandering...

from...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gerrymandering-cause-the-government-shutdown/


gerrymandering is a humorous topic for liberals to bring up given the utterly massive gerrymandering put in place precisely to ensure minority representation in congress. It is literally one of the liberals biggest civil rights 'accomplishments'. take away gerrymandering, and entire 'safe' minority districts will be wiped out. liberals must believe gerrymandering for their own political purpose is morally right but nobody else's is right

the entire premise that the republican party has moved to the right is a massive fraud. 50 years ago, 70% of government spending was defense, 20% was entitlements. today, it is the opposite. despite what liberals would have you believe, the tax code is far, far more progressive now than 50 years ago. republicans have overseen and in fact agreed with many of the components of these changes. on social issues, republicans have massively moderated their views over time. the percentage of republicans against gay marriage and legaliziation of abortion has dropped dramatically

on the other hand, during the kennedy era, liberals supported low taxes and a far less robust social system. today, they support stil higher taxes and european style entitlements. in fact, liberals have moved dramatically to the left. obama's defeat of clinton was a clear example of this

so both republicans and democrats have moved way to the left over the last 50 years.
 
br+-1.jpg
 
Quote from jem:

here is a comment about gerrymandering...

from...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gerrymandering-cause-the-government-shutdown/


gerrymandering is a humorous topic for liberals to bring up given the utterly massive gerrymandering put in place precisely to ensure minority representation in congress. It is literally one of the liberals biggest civil rights 'accomplishments'. take away gerrymandering, and entire 'safe' minority districts will be wiped out. liberals must believe gerrymandering for their own political purpose is morally right but nobody else's is right

the entire premise that the republican party has moved to the right is a massive fraud. 50 years ago, 70% of government spending was defense, 20% was entitlements. today, it is the opposite. despite what liberals would have you believe, the tax code is far, far more progressive now than 50 years ago. republicans have overseen and in fact agreed with many of the components of these changes. on social issues, republicans have massively moderated their views over time. the percentage of republicans against gay marriage and legaliziation of abortion has dropped dramatically

on the other hand, during the kennedy era, liberals supported low taxes and a far less robust social system. today, they support stil higher taxes and european style entitlements. in fact, liberals have moved dramatically to the left. obama's defeat of clinton was a clear example of this

so both republicans and democrats have moved way to the left over the last 50 years.

Anyone with an cursory grasp of history knows this, but liberals and the media know that is a very small percentage. Low information voters can be told that the republicans have moved far to the right and they will buy it.
 
Back
Top