a question for the atheists

[Openmind]

So. . .you really think that there were no "dumb votes" in favor of Mitt Romney?...Not One..

So. . .you really think that there were no "dumb votes" in favor of Mitt Romney?..At least they clean up after..

I should not have used the word dumb...I should have said slow to understand....When we figure out how to do the right thing and still get the hispanic vote...Dems wont have a chance..

Yes dear. . . good luck!

And. . .if you do learn to do the right thing, and if your party does gain some sensitivity toward those who are not "Older, White, Christian, Male, upper middle class or wealthy," this will just mean that your party is moving toward the center, and even I might vote for a Republican of that kind!

But. . .with the tea party to wag the party's dog. . .I don't see it happening in the near future!

 

[TheJPRD]

It sure sounds like you said the Alinsky tactics work on both the Republican right and Democratic left. That is a contradiction. I had hoped that you were coming to a more objective stance, but I guess now you think the blame goes one way.

Allow me to further clarify: I said that Alinsky tactics work on (meaning "when used against") the left as well as the right. It was not my intent to imply that the tactics were used by Republicans, for they're typically not. I can see how my comment could be misunderstood, however, and I'll choose my words more carefully next time.

No. I simply said both sides flung their own version of poo. I never said Romney deserved it. This is the sort of jumping to conclusions that makes communication on this board so laborious and futile.

If you'd define the term "poo" as you mean to use it, and provide some examples of Romney flinging it, perhaps I might agree with you. At this point, however, I can't recall any personally-directed attacks on Obama's character by Romney.

No. Jumping to conclusions again. I didn't mean that. We all know Romney couldn't do that without losing lots of votes. Romney choose different poo to fling.

I suggest that the only criticisms initiated by Romney were directed at Obama's poilcies and his ignorance of economic issues, not against Obama's character. You're correct in saying that Romney would have lost votes had he accused Obama of bigotry and racism. Nevertheless, I believe that such claims against Obama are justified based on the facts. The sad thing is that Obama GAINED votes by joining with his surrogates to ridicule Romney and attack his character and his motives; effectively "demonizing" him just as Alinsky's rules state is the right tactic.

Having said all that, I admit that I may have misunderstood the intent of your comments here. Assuming that I did, I'll withold judgment from now on until I've gotten clarification from you. Sound fair?

You have totally missed most of my points. Find my post that led you to believe I condone Obama's tactics.

Miscommunication between us is a definite possibility. Communication is difficult enough when those trying to communicate hold similar political views. It's even more difficult when the two parties view issues from different perspectives. I'm willing to concede that I may be mis-reading some of your intended meaning. Will you concede the same? If so, I promise to assume the "best" from you from now on..... until I'm convinced it's really the "worst". Deal?

 

[cashmcall]

What did Mitt do to bother. . .a majority of people?

Well, I can only answer for me, obviously.
But for one thing, he has non integrity, as he has changed his stand on just about EVERY issue, including immigration, health care, abortion, even gay rights.
Another thing is that he has absolutely NO understanding of what the middle class and the poor's life really consist off. He is totally insensitive to the special concerns and needs of the middle class, and he only knows the "world" through the glass stained windows of his ivory tower.
He was also selected by the "power that be" in the GOP to act as a puppet while they pulled the strings.
And. . .he is just too fake, a parrot really, with not an ounce of courage for his opinions. . .although this may be unfair, because it is very possible that he may not EVEN have a real opinion on anything!

Integrity...Obama say's "In these tmes it would be wrong to raise taxes on any one "He left his church of 20 years, because people found fault with his pastor..20 years..He said it was wrong for the gay's to go against the will of the people in California...and as a senator no vote , no vote, no vote, no vote and so on, and on the subject of fannie and freddie, he voted against ,guess who's bill

Do you honestly believe Obama is helping the poor and the middle class..Romey may not be able to relate but he does now how to create..and he has proven it.
Obama won with the Black and Hispanic vote... far fewer votes from everyone else in 2012..

 

[Openmind]

Integrity...Obama say's "In these tmes it would be wrong to raise taxes on any one "He left his church of 20 years, because people found fault with his pastor..20 years..He said it was wrong for the gay's to go against the will of the people in California...and as a senator no vote , no vote, no vote, no vote and so on, and on the subject of fannie and freddie, he voted against ,guess who's bill

Do you honestly believe Obama is helping the poor and the middle class..Romey may not be able to relate but he does now how to create..and he has proven it.
Obama won with the Black and Hispanic vote... far fewer votes from everyone else in 2012..

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Yes, I believe President Obama is helping the middle class. Without him in power, we would already have given that tax break to the top .5% and cut the NECESSARY safety net for the poor, the elderly, and the most disenfranchised.

Yes, President Obama has integrity. And he has had to cope with the ridiculous, evil "pledge" made by the Republican leaders to "MAKE OBAMA FAIL" as their first priority, and the ridiculous, evil "pledge" made by the Republican congressmen to Norquist.

And still he overcame. You can try to belittle his victory. . .but the fact is that he won both the electoral vote AND the popular vote with a greater advantage than Bush did in 2000 and 2004.

By the way, you forgot that President Obama also got the Asian vote and the Jewish vote, the Catholic vote. . .and the WOMEN vote. . .including mine!

So. . . basically, the old White, males and the fundamental Christians went for Romney! What a surprise!

 

[Lagboltz]

Miscommunication between us is a definite possibility. Communication is difficult enough when those trying to communicate hold similar political views. It's even more difficult when the two parties view issues from different perspectives. I'm willing to concede that I may be mis-reading some of your intended meaning. Will you concede the same? If so, I promise to assume the "best" from you from now on..... until I'm convinced it's really the "worst". Deal?

Sure. Deal.
This is also one thing where I don't know if I am or am not misreading your posts. Note the bold faced words.

I don't recall Romney implying that his opponent was a racist, a sexist, that he hated the poor, that he wanted to throw grandmothers from cliffs, or that he hated Hispanics????? Obama and his surrogates did make such implied accusations against Romney. I don't recall Romney criticizing his opponent for any reason other than that his policies were wrong. Romney said thousands of times that nobody 55 or older would be subject to SS changes, but Obama and his surrogates accused Romney of lying about that intention.

Apparently this is a tit-for-tat display of events. When you refer to the Republican side, you say Romney. When you refer to the Democratic side you say Obama and his surrogates.

If you would change your wording to substitute Romney and his surrogates, for the word Romney, then I would strongly disagree with your post. By surrogates, I assume you mean PAC produced ads, or statements from pols, or pundits. On the other hand if you would change your wording to use simply Obama without including his surrogates, then I would strongly disagree with your post for other reasons.

So comparing Romney with Obama and his surrogates to me is clear manipulation and obfuscation of the realities of the campaign. Romney and Obama were much more civil toward each other than their surrogates. For you to use that trick of wording means either you are being dishonest about the very type of tactics that you despise, or you were not thinking broadly about the full political spectrum. To give you the benefit of doubt, I will assume you weren't thinking clearly. But it is this sort of thing that I find so laborious in this political discourse. It drags down the communication and forces me to have to use many key strokes to try to see what you really are or are not thinking.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The republican party is now largely the preserve of angry old White religious fundamentalists

They will die soon and the republican party is finished as more and more young people grow up as more compassionate human beings

 

[TheJPRD]

Sure. Deal. This is also one thing where I don't know if I am or am not misreading your posts. Note the bold faced words.

Apparently this is a tit-for-tat display of events. When you refer to the Republican side, you say Romney. When you refer to the Democratic side you say Obama and his surrogates.

If you would change your wording to substitute Romney and his surrogates, for the word Romney, then I would strongly disagree with your post. By surrogates, I assume you mean PAC produced ads, or statements from pols, or pundits. On the other hand if you would change your wording to use simply Obama without including his surrogates, then I would strongly disagree with your post for other reasons.

You may certainly add "and his surrogates" after Romney's name in my earlier post. My contention that Obama and his surrogates ridiculed and attacked Romney personally on a regular basis remains valid! The definition of "surrogate" is: "A substitute, especially a person deputized by another to speak for him or her." That definition does not include PACs, as they're not part of each campaign. When I spoke of Obama's surrogates, I was speaking of folks like his Campaign Manager Jim Messina, his Senior Campaign Strategist/Consultant David Axelrod, his Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter, his Senior Advisor Robert Gibbs, and the Democrat Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. These folks are Obama "surrogates", and they each ridiculed Romney and attacked his chatacter and intentions throughout the campaign. If you care to research Romney's "surrogates" to see if you find that they did the same, I'll be thrilled to see the examples.

So comparing Romney with Obama and his surrogates to me is clear manipulation and obfuscation of the realities of the campaign. Romney and Obama were much more civil toward each other than their surrogates. For you to use that trick of wording means either you are being dishonest about the very type of tactics that you despise, or you were not thinking broadly about the full political spectrum. To give you the benefit of doubt, I will assume you weren't thinking clearly. But it is this sort of thing that I find so laborious in this political discourse. It drags down the communication and forces me to have to use many key strokes to try to see what you really are or are not thinking.

You're doing what we promised we'd not do to one another before clarifiying our intended meanings. You concluded that I intended to include PACs for Obama and not for Romney. That was an incorrect assumption, since I didn't consider PACs as "surrogates" for either campaign.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Rpmney is mentally ill

He had his dead atheist father posthumously converted to mormonism

Hard to know where tp start with the amount of lunacy conveyed by that statement

And he was the sanest of the republican candidates

Says all you need to know about this idiots

 

[Lagboltz]

You're doing what we promised we'd not do to one another before clarifiying our intended meanings. You concluded that I intended to include PACs for Obama and not for Romney. That was an incorrect assumption, since I didn't consider PACs as "surrogates" for either campaign.

I clearly told you my assumptions before I went on with my reply and that is seldom done. I think conservatives and liberals think totally differently and communication is almost impossible in printed forums. I have a lot easier time talking live with conservatives. I gained a respectful rapport with at least three very strong conservatives, but that is too difficult online.

My objection to your use of Romney vs Obama and his surrogates still stands. The fact that Romney's surrogate Neil Newhouse had to admit, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," should be enough illustrate that the Republican's acknowledged that they were also ignoring facts.

 

[GenSeneca]

Tyrants like the UK Government

I would rather lose the freedom to bear arms than get shot

Which of your rights need to be banned for you to not be stabbed to death?
Which of your rights need to be banned to keep you from being beaten to death?
Once you're "safe", do you have any rights left?

 

[Openmind]

Which of your rights need to be banned for you to not be stabbed to death?
Which of your rights need to be banned to keep you from being beaten to death?
Once you're "safe", do you have any rights left?

GenSeneca, most people, if they had a choice, would take their chances at being attacked with a KNIFE, rather than shot at with a gun.

And, as you probably already know, a very striking example of the difference was (unfortunately) provided a few weeks ago, when the day prior to the Sandy Hook shooting that led to the DEATH of 20 children and 8 adults (including the gunman), a very similar incident happened in a school in China, where an old, mentally ill man stabbed a woman outside a school and 22 children inside the school. ALL people who were injured survived, and only 2 of the children suffered fairly significant injuries (cut ears, I believe?) and had to remain in the hospital. EVERYONE ELSE was either never even taken to the hospital, or were taken to the hospital and release the same day with very minor injuries.

So. . .yes, if we could avoid all (or even 1/2) of the deaths by firearms that this country suffers every year, if we could eliminate just that part of homicides from our nation, I would take my chance with "other" types of homicides, including knives.

It is obvious to me at least that, unless you cannot count on your children being safe in their school, in your safety being assured in a theater, a college, a shopping mall, or just going home from a trip to a convenience store to buy tea and skittle. . .every other kind of "liberties" pale in comparison!

Do you believe that the gun owners among the parents of Sandy Hooks children feel that. . .as long as they keep the right to own as many firearms and as many large capacities ammunitions they want in their home, as long as they can carry a concealed weapon. . .the death of the children is just a "wrinkle" in the system, and that their "right" have not been infringed on?

I do not think so.

 

[Lagboltz]

"I wish the Constitution which is offered, had been made more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained AT THIS TIME. And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable."
George Washington, letter to Patrick Henry, September 24, 1787

I like your sig line. Many conservatives here hold the Constitution about as sacred as the Bible, but even George Washington (and obviously you) weren't convinced.

 

[Openmind]

I like your sig line. Many conservatives here hold the Constitution about as sacred as the Bible, but even George Washington (and obviously you) weren't convinced.

Yes. . .but even the Bible had to be "interpreted" in many ways over the centuries. . .and not just because it was written in dead languages!
I have a lot of respect for the Constitution and the thought and work of the founders. However, the MAIN value of the Constitution is precisely that it was intended (in my opinion, and apparently in George Washington's opinion) as a LIVING document, that evolves (through amendments that allow for changes in knowledge and culture among the people of the United States) to continue to be significant, essential even to the UNION of the people that it governs and inspires.

Those who prefer to believe that the Constitution is PERFECT in every way and should never be altered would be responsible for this document they love so much to become obsolete in tomorrow's world.

 

[GenSeneca]

So. . .yes, if we could avoid all (or even 1/2) of the deaths by firearms that this country suffers every year, if we could eliminate just that part of homicides from our nation, I would take my chance with "other" types of homicides, including knives.

I perfectly well understand your position but you don't seem to understand mine. I have never used my firearms to violate the rights of anyone and never will. If we can agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of people who would use them to violate the rights of others, then we should do so in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of innocent law biding citizens - like myself.

Are there any rights you would not allow government to violate? If the tables were turned and someone were arguing that you should lose some or all of the freedoms you actually cherish because of criminal actions perpetrated by someone other than yourself, I think you'd see where I'm coming from.

 

[cashmcall]

I like your sig line. Many conservatives here hold the Constitution about as sacred as the Bible, but even George Washington (and obviously you) weren't convinced.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington