Eric Cantor on how Republicans can win

Dec 8, 2013 Full story: The Washington Post 122

Virginia Republicans are in the midst of a three-day gathering to sort through what happened in their across-the-board losses at the ballot box in 2013.

Full Story
Billy Ringo

Darlington, MD

#66 Dec 10, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Hillary has the answers. I just told you her intellectual knowledge and grasp of the world situation. Hillary's equality is based on her living an opulent lifestyle on the backs of the peons with a growing amount eating gruel. If she joined the masses as she speaks, it would at least look like she was "one of us". She and many others up there in Washington are King Louie as the discontent is growing whether you admit or not. She may win. but it will be tougher for her then for Obama when her turn comes in 2016. Can't wait for the "she is black" speeches again. Fraud!
What - no Saul Alinsky?
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#67 Dec 10, 2013
Billy Ringo wrote:
<quoted text>
What - no Saul Alinsky?
It depends on your retorts. So don't get me started!
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#68 Dec 10, 2013
Billy Ringo wrote:
<quoted text>
What - no Saul Alinsky?
What's one more Saul-Alinsky, not-ready-for-primetime, train-wreck, failed-policies, etc. ad nauseam? I'm sure I've failed to recall some of the contrived clichés from the vast glossary of Faux Views' official playbook to belittle absolutely everything they oppose, especially anything having to do with President Obama. They are humbled, hence enraged, by his greatness. What could it possibly be about him that bothers them so much? Hmm.
1 post removed

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#70 Dec 10, 2013
Billy Ringo wrote:
<quoted text>
What - no Saul Alinsky?
We had to stop.....the low information voters were starting to ask who he was.
1 post removed
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#72 Dec 10, 2013
I suggest that the repubes could win if they each bought a Cruzzie coloring book and tried to color within the lines while sucking on the non-partisan, fact-driven propaganda within those pages.

Can't help but expect that SNL or The Daily Show are behind such a nonsensical book and will reveal that information on April Fools Day.

Very funny!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#73 Dec 10, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
The problem with buying votes with free shit, you can never give the malcontents enough. About all the Democrats could give them now is a car, and we can't afford the buy them cars. So when they don't get anything better then what the Democrats gave them in 2012 they will stay home.
C'mon magic 8 ball...

Don't fail them again!!!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#74 Dec 10, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> It depends on your retorts. So don't get me started!
I would personally contribute toward any effort to not get you started.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#75 Dec 10, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>We had to stop.....the low information voters were starting to ask who he was.
We "low information"voters are still trying to figure out what you are.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#76 Dec 10, 2013
kuda wrote:
Gingrich and Cruz are being beaten down by the goose-stepping horde for recognizing Mandela's contribution to freedom's cause. How dare they go off script? Heresy will not be tolerated. Now Cruz could never get nominated. Tea partiers are so predictable.
Now if only Cruzzie could find a photo op standing next to Mr. Mandela so the crazy folks could bash him a la Christie. LOLL

Still there should be other photo ops for Cruzzie when he attends the funeral.

“Hicksville Hootenanny”

Since: Sep 13

Kornfield Kounty

#77 Dec 10, 2013
Billy Ringo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rafael is da man !!!!!! I'm rooting for him - either him or the Paul kid.
Of course, Rafael is gonna hafta come up with a bc.
The greasy canadian is taking heat from fellow whacko birds, via his fakebook page:

"Yo Cruz, I grew up in Apartheid era South Africa and you are the embodiment if the hard headed fascism that was the National Party of that time."

....comparing Cruz to the National Party of South Africa that Mandela opposed.

"Honoring him is like honoring the Prince of Darkness" (Cheney)?

"...others expressed outrage that Cruz didn't call him out as a communist and terrorist"

The greasy canukian is awol in SA? LMAO.
CZars_R_US

Orlando, FL

#78 Dec 10, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
I knowwhutyoursayin, us backwoods hillbillies get more than we put in, that could be true, I'll trust you on that. Back when cotton was king, it was the other way around, we sent the brilliant Yankees bales and bales of cotton to produce clothes to make and sell at the various shirt factories, and all they sent us was carpetbaggers. Here's an idea, let us split off into our own control, and you can keep your free shit. Our leeches will follow the money, and you will get them almost instantly. aint that what yall want? meanwhile, we'll manage to get by. We could make a fortune just charging a living wage toll on the roads into Florida. There aint a yankee born that cannot live without getting to florda, and will pay any price. Like they say in Florida, it's easier to pick Yankees than it is oranges.
You know thats right. They seem to grow like weeds down here.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#79 Dec 10, 2013
Still perplexed, I wonder what it could possibly be. Hmm.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

#80 Dec 10, 2013
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid you caught me being sarcastic, my specialty, raising a rhetorical question about an atheist finding happiness in an extremist fundamental Christian organization. Of course, not, to be reasonable, but then that sort of thing sometimes happens when people identify with their aggressors.(Witness the Stockholm syndrome.)
I consider your party's reputation of favoring a "nanny state" a hyperbolic exaggeration of the occupied GOP, which for an extremist fundamental Christian organization oddly advocates doing away with government healthcare programs that provide services for their brothers and sisters in need and even disenfranchise them by calling them undeserving mooches (speaking about "contradictory"). They even seem to believe that Obamacare to be a government healthcare program. Speaking of socialized medical care, how would you advocate doing away with Medicare? Do you believe that we as a society should not offer medical services to those in need — that they are undeserving mooches? If so, as a unaffiliated progressive, I would disagree with you categorically. However, we share a disdain for politicians who as they pander to maintain support of their power elite.
I don't share your penchant for defining to the whole of the GOP by it's worst and most off the wall players. Broad brush definitions don't define either party.

Nor was I aware that the 'GOP' as a whole wants to do away with all government healthcare programs, or that they refer to those who need assistance as underserving moochers. Talk about hyperbolic exaggerations.

The nanny state I'm referring to was actually started by the Shrub, but the current administration took the ball and ran with it.

GM got a helluva sweet deal. Cash for clunkers upset the used car market, artificially increasing demand for older used cars, which are the vehicles that mostly the poor buy because that's all they can afford. It took nearly four years for that market to bounce back. Who'd that hurt?

The stimulus, a trillion dollar giveaway that did little or no good, where the government got to pick winners and losers, and too many of the losers won billions of taxpayer dollars for failing.

The government takeover of college loans, which is already resulting in more and more programs for borrowers not to pay back the money. De-facto free college.

The revamping of the healthcare insurance industry...and who's going to get nailed there? We all are. This bill puts the brunt of the burden on the middle class and assigns IPAB to oversee who gets what treatments. States, like my own, quickly found out that more than double the number of people they had projected ended up eligible for Medicaid. We were in a multi billion dollar hole before the law even takes affect. It's unsustainable as its written, and the outcome of that will be the same as it is in many countries that have government health care. Rationing and waiting, while the wealthiest among us by premium care. And thirty million people still won't have insurance.

Brilliant. That's the nanny state I'm referring to. Government should stay out of private business. All the do is mess it up, and they always have.

Nanny state. Anything the government gets their hands on, either party, turns to a money sucking boondoggle, rife with fraud.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#81 Dec 11, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't share your penchant for defining to the whole of the GOP by it's worst and most off the wall players. Broad brush definitions don't define either party.
Nor was I aware that the 'GOP' as a whole wants to do away with all government healthcare programs, or that they refer to those who need assistance as underserving moochers. Talk about hyperbolic exaggerations.
The nanny state I'm referring to was actually started by the Shrub, but the current administration took the ball and ran with it.
GM got a helluva sweet deal. Cash for clunkers upset the used car market, artificially increasing demand for older used cars, which are the vehicles that mostly the poor buy because that's all they can afford. It took nearly four years for that market to bounce back. Who'd that hurt?
The stimulus, a trillion dollar giveaway that did little or no good, where the government got to pick winners and losers, and too many of the losers won billions of taxpayer dollars for failing.
The government takeover of college loans, which is already resulting in more and more programs for borrowers not to pay back the money. De-facto free college.
The revamping of the healthcare insurance industry...and who's going to get nailed there? We all are. This bill puts the brunt of the burden on the middle class and assigns IPAB to oversee who gets what treatments. States, like my own, quickly found out that more than double the number of people they had projected ended up eligible for Medicaid. We were in a multi billion dollar hole before the law even takes affect. It's unsustainable as its written, and the outcome of that will be the same as it is in many countries that have government health care. Rationing and waiting, while the wealthiest among us by premium care. And thirty million people still won't have insurance.
Brilliant. That's the nanny state I'm referring to. Government should stay out of private business. All the do is mess it up, and they always have.
Nanny state. Anything the government gets their hands on, either party, turns to a money sucking boondoggle, rife with fraud.
Part 1:

Please let your record show that I did not cite the main contenders for the GOP’s “worst and most off the wall players” title. I must admit, however, to have mentioned both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann in previous posts — back in the day, when they were still outstandingly entertaining.

A more thorough review of my posts will clarify my opinion that the once proud and glorious GOP as a whole is currently occupied by a horde of goose-stepping parasites who want to do away with all government healthcare programs and that they refer to those who need assistance as underserving moochers. Far from hyperbolic, the are upfront and shameless about their position and views.

I do disagree with you about the legitimacy of government-based programs (e.g., social security and Medicare) to assist our fellow citizens in need, which you codify as a “nanny state.” In fact, I would prefer to replace Obamacare with a government-based single-payer universal healthcare program because it could provide better care and cost less than private insurance programs. Obamacare is a practical compromise designed to represent the interests of those favoring a government-based program and those favoring a private-based program by setting some limits and requirements for the private-sector companies to insure better coverage at overall lower cost.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#82 Dec 11, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't share your penchant for defining to the whole of the GOP by it's worst and most off the wall players. Broad brush definitions don't define either party.
Nor was I aware that the 'GOP' as a whole wants to do away with all government healthcare programs, or that they refer to those who need assistance as underserving moochers. Talk about hyperbolic exaggerations.
The nanny state I'm referring to was actually started by the Shrub, but the current administration took the ball and ran with it.
GM got a helluva sweet deal. Cash for clunkers upset the used car market, artificially increasing demand for older used cars, which are the vehicles that mostly the poor buy because that's all they can afford. It took nearly four years for that market to bounce back. Who'd that hurt?
The stimulus, a trillion dollar giveaway that did little or no good, where the government got to pick winners and losers, and too many of the losers won billions of taxpayer dollars for failing.
The government takeover of college loans, which is already resulting in more and more programs for borrowers not to pay back the money. De-facto free college.
The revamping of the healthcare insurance industry...and who's going to get nailed there? We all are. This bill puts the brunt of the burden on the middle class and assigns IPAB to oversee who gets what treatments. States, like my own, quickly found out that more than double the number of people they had projected ended up eligible for Medicaid. We were in a multi billion dollar hole before the law even takes affect. It's unsustainable as its written, and the outcome of that will be the same as it is in many countries that have government health care. Rationing and waiting, while the wealthiest among us by premium care. And thirty million people still won't have insurance.
Brilliant. That's the nanny state I'm referring to. Government should stay out of private business. All the do is mess it up, and they always have.
Nanny state. Anything the government gets their hands on, either party, turns to a money sucking boondoggle, rife with fraud.
Part 2:

While I don’t like the term “nanny state,” I both disagree with and respect your preference for pure capitalism and belief that the private sector somehow offers a better and more cost effective solution for challenging social support problems. I also believe that it is appropriate and often advisable for government to regulate private business.

Finally, I believe that your pessimistic view of government, that all it does is mess it up, is not supported by the evidence. Evidence of corruption, fraud and inefficiency are easy to find, but that’s also true for the private sector. Both, at their best, are vessels for great human achievement. Like the humans responsible for them, neither is all good nor all bad.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#83 Dec 11, 2013
ha ha wrote:
<quoted text>you had to stop..... because just like everything else, you faux information voters could not answer the question truthfully.

<< chuckle >>
Of course we can answer who Saul Alinsky is and that Barrack and Hillary are two of his brightest pupils.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#84 Dec 11, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we can answer who Saul Alinsky
Keep answering the question, but what was the question, jumbles? LOLL.
Billy Ringo

Danielson, CT

#85 Dec 11, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we can answer who Saul Alinsky is and that Barrack and Hillary are two of his brightest pupils.


That is very impressive - one has been a US Senator, and Secretary of State and the other a US Senator AND a 2-term President of the United States.

What else you got, boy?
Cat74

Barrington, IL

#86 Dec 11, 2013
And both are disaster in all the positions they have held, and hold today.
Billy Ringo

Danielson, CT

#87 Dec 11, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>We had to stop.....the low information voters were starting to ask who he was.
the low information voter ...... that would be those thought Etchy was gonna win 325 electoral votes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min John Galt 1,192,202
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 min KiMare 51,371
Defying GOP, President Obama vetoes Keystone XL... 6 min Le Duped 98
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 6 min xxxrayted 647
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min DanFromSmithville 149,790
Congress sends Homeland bill to Obama without c... 9 min Le Duped 1
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 9 min xxxrayted 227
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Injudgement 172,257
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 18 min Quirky 313,261
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 1 hr mjjcpa 1,905
Obama: 'Now is the moment' for police to make c... 2 hr Cat74 63
More from around the web