Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[JimBowie1958]

Check your christian morality bullshit at the door and LEARN to pick your fights. Gays are a minute voting block but they DO have the support of many others.
Losing elections over trivial bullshit that only affects a few people while the debt and everything else spirals out of control makes no sense.

Lets focus on the things that matter to everyone and stop picking fights that alienate us over small things.

Sin is sin for believers so stop bitching about what Sally does with her tongue when Johnny is no better off when he envies the Harley in his neighbors garage.
If they want to partake in the hell aka marriage give it to them. It's a piece of ******* paper ultimately.

Notice how all the libtards thanked yo for starting this thread?

It isn't because they think its a winner for conservatives, Einstein.

Social conservatives are ready to leave the GOP in the dust, and I hope that they do.

If you want to seal that deal then yeah hop on the gay pride parade bandwagon.

 

[JimBowie1958]

any of those guys would beat hilly, the wife of billy.

you libs enjoy it while you can, your time in DC is coming to an abrupt end next year. The american people are fed up with this dem/lib bullshit that is destroying our economy and our culture.

This sounds like...."Romney is going to kick Obama's Ass" Part II.

Some said that, not me. I never thought that Romney was going to win. /QUOTE]

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.

Romney contributors.
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500


Obamas contributors in 2008: banksters and Universities recycling tax payer money
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This is what the banks have gotten so far on their investments:
Daily Kos: The total cost of the Bank Bailout

"#2: How big was the bailout?

" Many are still under the impression that TARP = The Bailout.
" In fact, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

" The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars — (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— are responsible for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
" $29 Trillion is around twice the size of America's GDP.
" The Federal Reserve claims they only lent $1.7 Trillion to the big banks. Why the huge difference in totals? Because the Fed only counts the most outstanding at any one time.
Here's a quick list of the Fed borrowers:"

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

So to sum up, the banksters are donating hundreds of millions but gaining trillions in payback 'special deals'.

 

[idb]

[

We can marry in 13 states and we've always been able to marry in church. You've "lost" already.

Only fake churches.

As Opposed to what? A "Real" Church?

I mean, we need to get on this, determining which ones are actually talking for a Magic Pixie in the Sky!!!!

Okay, simple test. Drop the leaders of churches off the top of the Sears Tower.

Any of them that God Catches are running a "real" church.

That sounds like the old test to determine if someone is a witch.
Throw them in a pond/fire/off a tall building.
If they survive they must be a witch and should be killed.
If they die they must have been innnocent.

 

[idb]

evidently the gay shit is piled higher than Grampa thought...

This is one of the few times he has been right. The worst enemy for the GOP on this is not the middle aged liberals or middle aged Christian Conservatives. The demographics of marriage skew inevitably toward younger people. As a voting block, they tend to be much more liberal. The GOP is telling these people that they don't approve or is telling their friends or people they know they don't approve. The GOP can count on losing a significant portion of the next generation if this keeps up. And the tragic thing is that it isn't based on anything but hate.

You're full shit. That is the bull shit LIE you libtards have been trying to pass off. MODERATES LOSE CONSERVATIVES ELECTIONS, and we KNOW THIS. The ONLY time conservatives WIN elections is when they STICK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES. So your line of CRAP here is nothing but GARBAGE.

Go ******* pass that gas somewhere else asshole. No true conservative here is buying that load of shit.

As I recall, Romney was dead in the water until he took a step towards the left in the first debate.
Sucking up to the wingnuts got him campaign money but moving left got him votes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is one of the few times he has been right. The worst enemy for the GOP on this is not the middle aged liberals or middle aged Christian Conservatives. The demographics of marriage skew inevitably toward younger people. As a voting block, they tend to be much more liberal. The GOP is telling these people that they don't approve or is telling their friends or people they know they don't approve. The GOP can count on losing a significant portion of the next generation if this keeps up. And the tragic thing is that it isn't based on anything but hate.

You're full shit. That is the bull shit LIE you libtards have been trying to pass off. MODERATES LOSE CONSERVATIVES ELECTIONS, and we KNOW THIS. The ONLY time conservatives WIN elections is when they STICK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES. So your line of CRAP here is nothing but GARBAGE.

Go ******* pass that gas somewhere else asshole. No true conservative here is buying that load of shit.

As I recall, Romney was dead in the water until he took a step towards the left in the first debate.
Sucking up to the wingnuts got him campaign money but moving left got him votes.

You are delusional.

 

[idb]

You're full shit. That is the bull shit LIE you libtards have been trying to pass off. MODERATES LOSE CONSERVATIVES ELECTIONS, and we KNOW THIS. The ONLY time conservatives WIN elections is when they STICK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES. So your line of CRAP here is nothing but GARBAGE.

Go ******* pass that gas somewhere else asshole. No true conservative here is buying that load of shit.

As I recall, Romney was dead in the water until he took a step towards the left in the first debate.
Sucking up to the wingnuts got him campaign money but moving left got him votes.

You are delusional.

Well maybe, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As I recall, Romney was dead in the water until he took a step towards the left in the first debate.
Sucking up to the wingnuts got him campaign money but moving left got him votes.

You are delusional.

Well maybe, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Romney did the Nixonian strategy of running to the right to get the nomination then to the middle for the election, but he had the problem of a long track record that spoke more persuasively than his advertising could whitewash.

Romney's rhetoric was hard-core rightwing until he got the nomination wrapped up and then he started his run to the middle and more left.

 

[idb]

You are delusional.

Well maybe, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Romney did the Nixonian strategy of running to the right to get the nomination then to the middle for the election, but he had the problem of a long track record that spoke more persuasively than his advertising could whitewash.

Romney's rhetoric was hard-core rightwing until he got the nomination wrapped up and then he started his run to the middle and more left.

I wonder why he felt that he had to do that?

Could it be because he realised that putting out the real Conservative message was a losing strategy?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well maybe, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Romney did the Nixonian strategy of running to the right to get the nomination then to the middle for the election, but he had the problem of a long track record that spoke more persuasively than his advertising could whitewash.

Romney's rhetoric was hard-core rightwing until he got the nomination wrapped up and then he started his run to the middle and more left.

I wonder why he felt that he had to do that?

Could it be because he realised that putting out the real Conservative message was a losing strategy?

Well, he obviously thought that, or at lest the ones holding his leash did.

The truth is that GOP candidates for POTUS cannot win like Nixon did any more. They have to win like Reagan did and run as a conservative.

But, again, Romney was meant to lose anyway.

 

[idb]

Romney did the Nixonian strategy of running to the right to get the nomination then to the middle for the election, but he had the problem of a long track record that spoke more persuasively than his advertising could whitewash.

Romney's rhetoric was hard-core rightwing until he got the nomination wrapped up and then he started his run to the middle and more left.

I wonder why he felt that he had to do that?

Could it be because he realised that putting out the real Conservative message was a losing strategy?

Well, he obviously thought that, or at lest the ones holding his leash did.

The truth is that GOP candidates for POTUS cannot win like Nixon did any more. They have to win like Reagan did and run as a conservative.

But, again, Romney was meant to lose anyway.

So why did his polling numbers go up when he turned left?

 

[candycorn]

This sounds like...."Romney is going to kick Obama's Ass" Part II.

Some said that, not me. I never thought that Romney was going to win.

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.

Romney contributors.
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500


Obamas contributors in 2008: banksters and Universities recycling tax payer money
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This is what the banks have gotten so far on their investments:
Daily Kos: The total cost of the Bank Bailout

"#2: How big was the bailout?

" Many are still under the impression that TARP = The Bailout.
" In fact, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

" The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars — (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— are responsible for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
" $29 Trillion is around twice the size of America's GDP.
" The Federal Reserve claims they only lent $1.7 Trillion to the big banks. Why the huge difference in totals? Because the Fed only counts the most outstanding at any one time.
Here's a quick list of the Fed borrowers:"

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

So to sum up, the banksters are donating hundreds of millions but gaining trillions in payback 'special deals'.

I know it's off topic but that the University of California which is, presumably, a tax payer supported enterprise, can be a campaign contributor on any scale should be enough to indicate to the most apathetic of observers that the campaign finance system is a joke.

 

[Seawytch]

I know it's off topic but that the University of California which is, presumably, a tax payer supported enterprise, can be a campaign contributor on any scale should be enough to indicate to the most apathetic of observers that the campaign finance system is a joke.

First, there’s an important distinction to make with the issue of UC political fundraising. The campaign donations were not made by the University of California itself, rather, by individuals and groups associated with the UC. That means professors, administrators or anybody else employed by the UC spent a collective $230,000 of their own money while identified as employees of the UC. This is not exactly a new phenomenon either. In 2008, UC employees donated over $1.3 million to the Obama campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. Nevertheless, these donations identify UC with a political candidate, and might falsely reflect the institution’s partisan support.

UC System: Third Largest Contributor

 

[MarcATL]

You must now be claiming that you are of the "live and let live" branch of the Republican party. You must be a RINO then.

And I thought you hated RINO's?

Believing in LIBERTY is being a RINO now?? LMFAO Grasping for straws trying to cover your wildazz accusation that I demanded you believe as I do only makes you look as ******* STOOPID as you appear to be. Go slink back to your pond and scum the waters there.

And you call yourself a fuking Christian? LMAO. Show me a single poster anywhere on this board, rethug or demorat, that renounced LIBERTY.

Problem you have is you only want YOUR version of Liberty.

And don't you need to go to church to pray for forgiveness for your intolerant views and foul mouth.

Or are you one of those "Christians" in name only?

She's like another version of CaliforniaGirl. Both have very foul mouths, swearing and using God in the same sentence.

I've never seen or heard more in my life.

Prime examples of why Christians and Christianity have such a bad name today.

 

[candycorn]

I know it's off topic but that the University of California which is, presumably, a tax payer supported enterprise, can be a campaign contributor on any scale should be enough to indicate to the most apathetic of observers that the campaign finance system is a joke.

First, there’s an important distinction to make with the issue of UC political fundraising. The campaign donations were not made by the University of California itself, rather, by individuals and groups associated with the UC. That means professors, administrators or anybody else employed by the UC spent a collective $230,000 of their own money while identified as employees of the UC. This is not exactly a new phenomenon either. In 2008, UC employees donated over $1.3 million to the Obama campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. Nevertheless, these donations identify UC with a political candidate, and might falsely reflect the institution’s partisan support.

UC System: Third Largest Contributor

Makes sense....thanks.

 

[Redfish]

I know it's off topic but that the University of California which is, presumably, a tax payer supported enterprise, can be a campaign contributor on any scale should be enough to indicate to the most apathetic of observers that the campaign finance system is a joke.

First, there’s an important distinction to make with the issue of UC political fundraising. The campaign donations were not made by the University of California itself, rather, by individuals and groups associated with the UC. That means professors, administrators or anybody else employed by the UC spent a collective $230,000 of their own money while identified as employees of the UC. This is not exactly a new phenomenon either. In 2008, UC employees donated over $1.3 million to the Obama campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. Nevertheless, these donations identify UC with a political candidate, and might falsely reflect the institution’s partisan support.

UC System: Third Largest Contributor

its no different than the thousands of corporate and union PACs. They should all be banned. Its legalized bribery.

 

[Seawytch]

I know it's off topic but that the University of California which is, presumably, a tax payer supported enterprise, can be a campaign contributor on any scale should be enough to indicate to the most apathetic of observers that the campaign finance system is a joke.

First, there’s an important distinction to make with the issue of UC political fundraising. The campaign donations were not made by the University of California itself, rather, by individuals and groups associated with the UC. That means professors, administrators or anybody else employed by the UC spent a collective $230,000 of their own money while identified as employees of the UC. This is not exactly a new phenomenon either. In 2008, UC employees donated over $1.3 million to the Obama campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. Nevertheless, these donations identify UC with a political candidate, and might falsely reflect the institution’s partisan support.

UC System: Third Largest Contributor

its no different than the thousands of corporate and union PACs. They should all be banned. Its legalized bribery.

Look fishy..something you and I agree on!

 

[Redfish]

First, there’s an important distinction to make with the issue of UC political fundraising. The campaign donations were not made by the University of California itself, rather, by individuals and groups associated with the UC. That means professors, administrators or anybody else employed by the UC spent a collective $230,000 of their own money while identified as employees of the UC. This is not exactly a new phenomenon either. In 2008, UC employees donated over $1.3 million to the Obama campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. Nevertheless, these donations identify UC with a political candidate, and might falsely reflect the institution’s partisan support.

UC System: Third Largest Contributor

its no different than the thousands of corporate and union PACs. They should all be banned. Its legalized bribery.

Look fishy..something you and I agree on!

well how bout dat !!!!

 

[candycorn]

It would make more sense to change the mechanics that demand these candidates raise such bloated warchests in the first place, in my view.

 

[Seawytch]

It would make more sense to change the mechanics that demand these candidates raise such bloated warchests in the first place, in my view.

Yeah, that would help too.

Funny, like so many other things it seems the majority of people want, we still can't get it done. Why? Because big money pays legislators to ignore the will of the VOTERS.

 

[candycorn]

It would make more sense to change the mechanics that demand these candidates raise such bloated warchests in the first place, in my view.

Yeah, that would help too.

Funny, like so many other things it seems the majority of people want, we still can't get it done. Why? Because big money pays legislators to ignore the will of the VOTERS.

That's not it either; not in my view anyway.

When 4 out of 10 of us don't vote during the most compelling of elections, "big money" needn't lift a finger. It still does, of course but we could right the ship in 20 years if we would get involved in politics outside of complaining about it. In the past, I have split my ticket locally. I never quite understood the guys who split their ticket nationally--why vote for Obama then tie his hands with a Congress that disagrees? Why vote for Bush then elect Pelosi's bunch?

For what you said; the "will of the voters" is pretty much being carried out. We have 51-49% elections so we're voting for gridlock whenever we're not gerrymandered into districts.... Democrats occuply 58% of the Senate or something like that?
But its important to remember that 51-49% is only 60% of the population at best. We need to get the other 40% invovled, active, and engaged.