Be honest, conservatives...

[Quantum Windbag]

I dont know why you would mock him. You are a moron.

Yet I am smarter than you, that must burn your britches.

in what reality? Certainly not this one.

The real one, not the one inside your head.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

His position is he is smarter than conservatives, I mock him as often as possible for it, this thread offered a unique opportunity.

I'm all for mockery of liberals, but it helps when you respond with an actual fact.

The math is pretty elementary. 61,304,426 / 58,230,919 = 1.053. Last time I checked that was about 5%. Where do you get the 2% from?

Gallup and Rasmussen both showed Obama leading by a significant margin at times, they ended up being the two least accurate polls. Since the only pools I personally criticized for being inaccurate are the ones I just mentioned, what actual facts am I not using?

Idiot.

That it was a 5% victory rather than a 2% victory. It's a pretty simple challenge. I asked you where you got the 2%, which you were unable to answer.

I love you, Quantum.

 

[percysunshine]

I dont know why you would mock him. You are a moron.

Yet I am smarter than you, that must burn your britches.

in what reality? Certainly not this one.

And now we take a commercial break to fnd out what is in Pee-Wee Hermans little playhouse...

 

[del]

His position is he is smarter than conservatives, I mock him as often as possible for it, this thread offered a unique opportunity.

i think his position was different from that, but go with what you know.

you may want to check the definition of unique, btw.

What do you think his position is, genius?

tenable

have a pleasant evening

 

[Plasmaball]

Yet I am smarter than you, that must burn your britches.

in what reality? Certainly not this one.

The real one, not the one inside your head.

you just used my own line...what a hack...

 

[Plasmaball]

Yet I am smarter than you, that must burn your britches.

in what reality? Certainly not this one.

And now we take a commercial break to fnd out what is in Pee-Wee Hermans little playhouse...

thank you 1992.....

 

[LoneLaugher]

...who among you really believed the polls were all skewed??

You know which ones of you said so, now help us out here,

did you really believe what you were saying, or were you just adding your own voices to the rightwing propaganda machine's bullshit,

while you knew it was bullshit.

In other words, were you lying, or are you genuinely that stupid??

I thought it would be closer. I was surprised to hear how many conservatives did not support Romney as most people who supported him were counting on, including me.

I did sense Obama had the edge because the educational level of people he was swaying to vote in mass numbers and to volunteer to get the vote out was more easily swayed to vote for him, but those same tactics won't work for Romney/conservative voters. As the number of voters who stayed home, and conservatives who voted for McCain but not Romney, it would take a lot more to get those voters excited about the more complex steps it actually WILL take to turn the economy around. That can't be spelled out in campaign promos while the liberal symbolic message of change without explaining how can be pushed very simply.

Overall, if the Republican/conservative message is for individual citizens and businesses to do the work ourselves to rebuild the country and economy, then relying on an election is not consistent with that message anyway. The work still needs to be done outside the system.

So if Obama won, as when Bill Clinton won who didn't represent half the country either, I took it as a sign that we are supposed to do the work ourselves to fix this, not rely on govt.
If we were meant to use govt to check itself, then Romney would have won. But if not, then we need to check it on principle, not relying on elected govt officials to change bad policy.

People who sell the message to DEPEND on Govt, Obama or the Democrat party to push for the middle class and defend interests from "rich corporations as the bad guy" are going to get more people out. I have been trying to work within the Democrat party and membership to shift toward fulfilling the goals by doing the work directly through community
empowerment, but that doesn't get people elected. The people who run the party and draw the people to get them elected know how to play this game so they keep doing it.

This is the first I heard of Republicans getting divided over whether to play the same games and pander to the public to get more moderate voters out, or if that is seen as not working, and they should just stick to their traditional conservative base and not compromise that.

I truly believe they should stick to Constitutional principles and independence, and try to check govt from that stance; and if they get elected to do it, fine, but if they don't, then keep enforcing Constitutional standards anyway and don't rely on elections to do it!!!

This one thinks nutters are too intelligent and respond only to high level campaigning.

 

[ABikerSailor]

However..............I can tell you all this much, next election, the only poll I'm going to pay any kind of attention to is Nate Silver's.

He got 49 out of 50 states right. That's a 98 percent accuracy rate. And...........this isn't the first time he's done that.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think the intellectual dishonesty from conservatives and others as to liberals defending their principles is that the impositions are equivalent. Far from it. Family planning is a HUGE economic issue for women and rich white men and especially unmarried priests have no business messing with family size. Smaller families are not their business and they have no stake in claiming any imposition. The morality argument was fine- in 1650. Much beyond that it fell apart and especially priests have no moral grounds. None.

I will admit liberal koolaid tastes mighty good and as a rule we do not sell out our own. Most conservatives moan and complain about taxing incomes above 250K but aren't
anywhere near that. No direct imposition but they endlessly impede anyway - as
hypocritical wannabes.

As for gay marriage: a Log Cabin Republican was asked if he opposed the GOP anti-gay
marriage plank. He replied, "Screw gay marriage, I just want to become filthy rich!"

So much for equal impositions and intellectual honesty. The shocking thing about the imposition of evil is how banal it is.

Regards from Rosie

Hi Rosie:
1. For the family planning/prochoice/prolife issues, the issue of honesty I have brought up with people is why not focus on laws that don't criminalize the women more, but hold the men equally responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. Totally changes the argument. I've had more women on both sides respond, while men (on both sides) bailed out in fear. I don't think this is an issue of just liberal vs. conservative, but deep rooted biases we all have.

Whatever biases or denial is going on in any group or party collectively, boils down to the personal biases of the members of that group. And that is where I find people are equal.
The main difference I find, is that liberals tend to be more open to changing and aligning if things are explained using their personal experiences where they can analyze and compare. And conservatives tend to be open to correction based on either Constitutional or Christian arguments depending on their background. When I try such corrections with liberals who don't think in terms of Constitutional or Christian values, it can be like talking to a wall.

As long as people are okay correcting themselves by self-checking against their own self-proclaimed values, like the example of supporting the health care bill for political reasons while opposing prolife legislation because of "not wanting federal govt imposing on individual choice," then we can be honest. But I have not had much luck with that, frankly.

2. As for the example of choosing financial freedom over state interference with marriage, how is that person NOT being honest? He stated exactly what he believed. I don't see a contradiction there. If he doesn't want govt overregulating or punishing wealthy people just for earning more, that is consistent with not depending on govt to sanction marriage either.
You can claim the freedom to marry privately in church without messing with the state.
And you can use the capitalistic system to invest and produce wealth without fear of being penalized just because of how much you earn legally. I happen to agree that company's should be regulated based on whether they cost people money, such as damaging the environment, violating civil rights, denying resources to workers so they have to depend on welfare; etc. and rewarded if they do invest in benefits for the workers and/or community.

Yes, you should pay for your fair share of services and privileges; but not penalized or targeted just because you make more money than someone else. I think this whole issue could be better framed by rewards or giving tax breaks/incentives if companies provide benefits that help workers to be independent of welfare etc. Similar to the health care bill, if it is set up to mandate something and then punish you for not doing that, it's backwards.

There must be better ways to set this up. I believe in general, and where I agree with conservatives, that by streamlining govt where more of the work is done locally, then it would cost less in taxes to begin with. I think we could pay for govt with just the sales taxes we have now, and some taxes on businesses and citizens who benefit from the system; but certainly not this business of not watching what we spend and then go increase taxes. We need to fix the leaks in govt, and also charge back the costs to wrongdoers responsible.

So if we did that, we could pay for more effective govt, and reward people for solving problems and cutting costs, not rewarding bureaucracy with govt jobs with no competition.
I do believe conservatives are sincere in wanting to protect these freedoms from bad govt!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm all for mockery of liberals, but it helps when you respond with an actual fact.

The math is pretty elementary. 61,304,426 / 58,230,919 = 1.053. Last time I checked that was about 5%. Where do you get the 2% from?

Gallup and Rasmussen both showed Obama leading by a significant margin at times, they ended up being the two least accurate polls. Since the only pools I personally criticized for being inaccurate are the ones I just mentioned, what actual facts am I not using?

Idiot.

That it was a 5% victory rather than a 2% victory. It's a pretty simple challenge. I asked you where you got the 2%, which you were unable to answer.

I love you, Quantum.

Seriously? Did you fail math in first grade? Do you really want me to embarrass you by demonstrating, in public, how bad you are at math, or will you simply concede that every single news site on the planet gives Obama just over 50% of the total vote?

 

[L.K.Eder]

However..............I can tell you all this much, next election, the only poll I'm going to pay any kind of attention to is Nate Silver's.

He got 49 out of 50 states right. That's a 98 percent accuracy rate. And...........this isn't the first time he's done that.

50 of 50.

in 2008 he missed one, i think it was indiana.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

However..............I can tell you all this much, next election, the only poll I'm going to pay any kind of attention to is Nate Silver's.

He got 49 out of 50 states right. That's a 98 percent accuracy rate. And...........this isn't the first time he's done that.

Two points.

1. He didn't poll anything, he analyzed the data od other people's polling.
2. He says he got two states wrong.

I am sure he appreciates your efforts to pad his reputation, but he didn't do any real work, and lots of people out there did just as good as he did.

 

[ABikerSailor]

However..............I can tell you all this much, next election, the only poll I'm going to pay any kind of attention to is Nate Silver's.

He got 49 out of 50 states right. That's a 98 percent accuracy rate. And...........this isn't the first time he's done that.

50 of 50.

in 2008 he missed one, i think it was indiana.

Actually, according to his own admission, North Dakota was the one he got wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

This one thinks nutters are too intelligent and respond only to high level campaigning.

It's both problems combined.
Either Romney should have run a gut-level negative campaign and smeared Obama emotionally to get people worked up about voting.
Or have better relations and agreements with supporters on what the programs and solutions are, so they vote on actual content, but takes forever to build that kind of base.

What I'm saying is the content approach DOESN'T work so well to do emotionally based campaigns to get the vote out in a short timeline. So that is why it's so hard.

So I agree with you people can't deal with the detailed approach it would have taken to overcome the negative perceptions put out by the liberal opposition.
That doesn't fly in the media, so of course you are left with nothing to push.
You have no time to explain in detail, and people only respond to simple media campaigns.

This is why people were saying to just stick to the traditional conservative message
that you can push emotionally and quite trying to address the diverse issues.
Romney WOULD have had to push a low level campaign in order to pull this off.
But that is not what he is about, and what his strengths, so he couldn't push that.

 

[L.K.Eder]

However..............I can tell you all this much, next election, the only poll I'm going to pay any kind of attention to is Nate Silver's.

He got 49 out of 50 states right. That's a 98 percent accuracy rate. And...........this isn't the first time he's done that.

50 of 50.

in 2008 he missed one, i think it was indiana.

Actually, according to his own admission, North Dakota was the one he got wrong.

??

maybe in the senator race.

but i thought he called the montana race for the r too.

for the presidential race he called every single state right.

come on, why would he miscall north dakota?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Gallup and Rasmussen both showed Obama leading by a significant margin at times, they ended up being the two least accurate polls. Since the only pools I personally criticized for being inaccurate are the ones I just mentioned, what actual facts am I not using?

Idiot.

That it was a 5% victory rather than a 2% victory. It's a pretty simple challenge. I asked you where you got the 2%, which you were unable to answer.

I love you, Quantum.

Seriously? Did you fail math in first grade? Do you really want me to embarrass you by demonstrating, in public, how bad you are at math, or will you simply concede that every single news site on the planet gives Obama just over 50% of the total vote?

Okay. I'll say it again. 61,304,426 / 58,230,919 = 1.053.

61,304,426 represents the popular vote received by Obama. 58,230,919 represents the popular vote received by Romney. The percentage different between the two numbers is 5.3%. No, I did not fail math.

Now. I couldn't really care less what polls you relied on to accurately predict a winner, or if you relied on any at all. I simply challenged you on your claim that Obama defeated Romney by 2%, when clearly it was 5%. His 50.5% that you are referring to pertains to his percentage of the overall vote against all candidates. Are you really going to come back and say that you were talking about the entire field? You know damn well we're talking about Obama versus Romney, not Obama versus everybody. But yes, you can feel free to embarrass me in front of everybody at your earliest convenience.

 

[ABikerSailor]

50 of 50.

in 2008 he missed one, i think it was indiana.

Actually, according to his own admission, North Dakota was the one he got wrong.

??

maybe in the senator race.

but i thought he called the montana race for the r too.

for the presidential race he called every single state right.

come on, why would he miscall north dakota?

I think he said he thought it would be the Republican, but it ended up going to the Dem.

However..............like I said.................if I'm going to listen to ANY poll next election, it's gonna be his.

 

[Plasmaball]

Gallup and Rasmussen both showed Obama leading by a significant margin at times, they ended up being the two least accurate polls. Since the only pools I personally criticized for being inaccurate are the ones I just mentioned, what actual facts am I not using?

Idiot.

That it was a 5% victory rather than a 2% victory. It's a pretty simple challenge. I asked you where you got the 2%, which you were unable to answer.

I love you, Quantum.

Seriously? Did you fail math in first grade? Do you really want me to embarrass you by demonstrating, in public, how bad you are at math, or will you simply concede that every single news site on the planet gives Obama just over 50% of the total vote?

why not just prove him wrong and not act like a baby?

 

[Trajan]

...who among you really believed the polls were all skewed??

You know which ones of you said so, now help us out here,

did you really believe what you were saying, or were you just adding your own voices to the rightwing propaganda machine's bullshit,

while you knew it was bullshit.

In other words, were you lying, or are you genuinely that stupid??

answered before you asked, but please, hack on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me see if I get your position. The fact that Obama won reelection by 2% proves that the polls that said he was up by 8% were accurate.

Do you understand math at all?

The last poll to have him up by 8 points was in September. Now fuck off.