(05-06-2013 10:19 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It seems to me that you are the one who's trying to sound intelligent while saying nothing meaningful at all.

Yeah? Well if we add $3 to "what seems to you" you can buy 2 Egg McMuffins. Congrats.

If you don't like being pointed out as stupid, then stop being stupid.

(05-06-2013 08:28 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 07:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The Republican Party has consciously courted Evangelical Chrisitians by pretending to support policies that were important to this group, such as being pro-life and anti-gay marriage, etc

Just a minor point of clarification.

Quote: The issues in question are highly controversial, and by associating themselves closely with the issues, the GOP has alienated huge portions of the electorate,

Not so much. The studies don't show that.

On point 1 - definitely agree. Thanks for the correction!

On point 2 - your point is well taken, but it is a question worthy of further discussion. There are clearly large numbers of traditional Republicans comfortable with the Evangelical agenda, even if it is not core to them. Others are discouraged by the party's emphasis on these issues, but are willing to hold their nose. And then there are those who abandon the party over it. How many are in the second group, and which way are they going to swing over time?

(05-06-2013 11:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  On point 2 - your point is well taken, but it is a question worthy of further discussion. There are clearly large numbers of traditional Republicans comfortable with the Evangelical agenda, even if it is not core to them. Others are discouraged by the party's emphasis on these issues, but are willing to hold their nose. And then there are those who abandon the party over it. How many are in the second group, and which way are they going to swing over time?

All valid questions.

Part of the problem has been a poor strategy by those w/ the Evangelical agenda. They've conceded the popular media, and more importantly the schools, and now they're losing the entire war of perception.

What I should have been clear on is that for about 2 decades, the GOP association w/ the Evangelical Agenda did it no harm (probably was a benefit). But after giving up those strategic areas, that's no longer a given, and lookes headed to reversing itself.

(05-06-2013 10:24 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 07:16 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Fact is that Christians comprise of the largest voting group of the democrat party. The democrat party is also the party of the Atheist religion. They have to walk a fine line, which is why Obama has to pretend to be a Christian while practicing as an Atheist.

Do you have proof that Obama isn't Christian?

(05-06-2013 10:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:19 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It seems to me that you are the one who's trying to sound intelligent while saying nothing meaningful at all.

Yeah? Well if we add $3 to "what seems to you" you can buy 2 Egg McMuffins. Congrats.

If you don't like being pointed out as stupid, then stop being stupid.

Aaaand you're still trolling. I don't remember if you even tried to respond to my question with a normal comment.

I'll ask again; why the hell would the democratic party wage a war against their own voters?

(05-06-2013 12:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:19 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It seems to me that you are the one who's trying to sound intelligent while saying nothing meaningful at all.

Yeah? Well if we add $3 to "what seems to you" you can buy 2 Egg McMuffins. Congrats.

If you don't like being pointed out as stupid, then stop being stupid.

Aaaand you're still trolling.

If I was then it's funny you keep biting.

Let's see, that would make you...stupid.

Quote:I don't remember if you even tried to respond to my question with a normal comment.

I responded to your original question. Your follow ups weren't worthwhile, as you tried to answer your own question. I see people who answer their own questions (like you and mlb) as disingenuous. Just petty rabbits who must have their voice heard to feel important.

Quote:I'll ask again; why the hell would the democratic party wage a war against their own voters?

There are several possible answers to that. But, first and foremost, you seem to be hinting that it couldn't happen b/c it's irrational. If you intend to that demnostrably wrong assumption, there's no point in going further, as you simply deny reality too much.

(05-06-2013 12:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 12:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:19 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It seems to me that you are the one who's trying to sound intelligent while saying nothing meaningful at all.

Yeah? Well if we add $3 to "what seems to you" you can buy 2 Egg McMuffins. Congrats.

If you don't like being pointed out as stupid, then stop being stupid.

Aaaand you're still trolling.

If I was then it's funny you keep biting.

Let's see, that would make you...stupid.

Quote:I don't remember if you even tried to respond to my question with a normal comment.

I responded to your original question. Your follow ups weren't worthwhile, as you tried to answer your own question. I see people who answer their own questions (like you and mlb) as disingenuous. Just petty rabbits who must have their voice heard to feel important.

Quote:I'll ask again; why the hell would the democratic party wage a war against their own voters?

There are several possible answers to that. But, first and foremost, you seem to be hinting that it couldn't happen b/c it's irrational. If you intend to that demnostrably wrong assumption, there's no point in going further, as you simply deny reality too much.

Start listing reasons. I'm hinting at it being irrational because politicians cater to their voters; they play nice so that you vote for them. You say demonstrably wrong a long, but you have done little in the way of demonstrating anything. Calling someone wrong and stupid is not a valid argument.

(05-06-2013 09:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Start listing reasons. I'm hinting at it being irrational because politicians cater to their voters; they play nice so that you vote for them. You say demonstrably wrong a long, but you have done little in the way of demonstrating anything. Calling someone wrong and stupid is not a valid argument.

1) Because they can get away with it, and in doing so they can engender support among secular humanist.

2) History is so riddled with useful idiots that ignoring #1 is not wise

(05-06-2013 10:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 09:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Start listing reasons. I'm hinting at it being irrational because politicians cater to their voters; they play nice so that you vote for them. You say demonstrably wrong a long, but you have done little in the way of demonstrating anything. Calling someone wrong and stupid is not a valid argument.

1) Because they can get away with it, and in doing so they can engender support among secular humanist.

2) History is so riddled with useful idiots that ignoring #1 is not wise

1.) How many voters are humanist?

2.) What is your problem with humanists?

(05-06-2013 10:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 09:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Start listing reasons. I'm hinting at it being irrational because politicians cater to their voters; they play nice so that you vote for them. You say demonstrably wrong a long, but you have done little in the way of demonstrating anything. Calling someone wrong and stupid is not a valid argument.

1) Because they can get away with it, and in doing so they can engender support among secular humanist.

2) History is so riddled with useful idiots that ignoring #1 is not wise

1.) How many voters are humanist?

2.) What is your problem with humanists?

1.) Alot, especially on college campuses and we all know how they helped tip the scales in 08.

2.) That's not really relevant to this discussion..

(05-06-2013 10:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 09:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Start listing reasons. I'm hinting at it being irrational because politicians cater to their voters; they play nice so that you vote for them. You say demonstrably wrong a long, but you have done little in the way of demonstrating anything. Calling someone wrong and stupid is not a valid argument.

1) Because they can get away with it, and in doing so they can engender support among secular humanist.

2) History is so riddled with useful idiots that ignoring #1 is not wise

1.) How many voters are humanist?

2.) What is your problem with humanists?

1.) Alot, especially on college campuses and we all know how they helped tip the scales in 08.

2.) That's not really relevant to this discussion..

Do you think a wise politician would alienate more than half of their voters to appease a relatively small group of people?

(05-06-2013 10:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 09:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Start listing reasons. I'm hinting at it being irrational because politicians cater to their voters; they play nice so that you vote for them. You say demonstrably wrong a long, but you have done little in the way of demonstrating anything. Calling someone wrong and stupid is not a valid argument.

1) Because they can get away with it, and in doing so they can engender support among secular humanist.

2) History is so riddled with useful idiots that ignoring #1 is not wise

1.) How many voters are humanist?

2.) What is your problem with humanists?

1.) Alot, especially on college campuses and we all know how they helped tip the scales in 08.

2.) That's not really relevant to this discussion..

Do you think a wise politician would alienate more than half of their voters to appease a relatively small group of people?

Please look up useful idiot..

(05-06-2013 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  1) Because they can get away with it, and in doing so they can engender support among secular humanist.

2) History is so riddled with useful idiots that ignoring #1 is not wise

1.) How many voters are humanist?

2.) What is your problem with humanists?

1.) Alot, especially on college campuses and we all know how they helped tip the scales in 08.

2.) That's not really relevant to this discussion..

Do you think a wise politician would alienate more than half of their voters to appease a relatively small group of people?

Please look up useful idiot..

And how does that term apply?

Actually it does seem as if several politicians espoused their positions without
taking into any consideration of what the popular view was during the last election.

(05-07-2013 01:37 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  1.) How many voters are humanist?

2.) What is your problem with humanists?

1.) Alot, especially on college campuses and we all know how they helped tip the scales in 08.

2.) That's not really relevant to this discussion..

Do you think a wise politician would alienate more than half of their voters to appease a relatively small group of people?

Please look up useful idiot..

And how does that term apply?

Why don't you try reading books or something, instead of trolling on a message board for a dissertation on US politics, then criticizing people b/c they don't give thorough enough answers for you?

And if you want a spectacular view of a leader making repeated mistakes, even to the point of comedy, then try this

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...he-country

Leaders have made mistakes frequently (LBJ-Viet Nam) or been accused of making mistakes (Coolidge- economic depression), so for you to respond as if there is some political version of economics' rational behavior is based solely in ignorance.

Politicians that say what's right, not what is intended to just get them elected are few and are made of a higher stuff.

I don't despise Tim Tebow. I just think he's an H-back playing (or trying to) QB.

(05-07-2013 07:28 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 01:37 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 11:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 10:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  1.) Alot, especially on college campuses and we all know how they helped tip the scales in 08.

2.) That's not really relevant to this discussion..

Do you think a wise politician would alienate more than half of their voters to appease a relatively small group of people?

Please look up useful idiot..

And how does that term apply?

Why don't you try reading books or something, instead of trolling on a message board for a dissertation on US politics, then criticizing people b/c they don't give thorough enough answers for you?

And if you want a spectacular view of a leader making repeated mistakes, even to the point of comedy, then try this

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...he-country

Leaders have made mistakes frequently (LBJ-Viet Nam) or been accused of making mistakes (Coolidge- economic depression), so for you to respond as if there is some political version of economics' rational behavior is based solely in ignorance.

So are you guys saying Obama is a Useful Idiot? Also shut it with the insults. If that's what you have to resort to in what is supposed to be a calm debate, I'm going to block you. You're saying I'm wrong/ignorant because these other leaders make mistakes or have been 'useful idiots'. Yes, I know what a useful idiot is, and you gave me examples of other leaders who were useful idiots. These people have NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. They don't serve as evidence for Obama being a useful idiot. If you want to support that argument, try and give me examples of why Obama is a useful idiot (instead of arguing like a child).