GOP, 2012: Angry White Men and Their Women

[Mr. Kotter]

Honestly, that is what the Republican party has become. Think about it...

Think about most of the obnoxious conservatives in this forum: Angry White Men....it says it all. They've been drinking the Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck Kool-Aid for over 20 years now. Is it really surprising, then, that the party no longer appeals to anyone else--especially with their seething contempt and venomous attacks toward anyone who dares to disagree with them?

The Democrats went though a similar thing...between 1968 and 1988, when they lost 5 out of 6 Presidential elections, because they were out-of-touch with the country (too beholden to bleeding heart liberals and minorities.) Between 1992 and 2012, the Republicans have now lost the popular vote for President in 5 of the 6 elections, for the same reason (too beholden to the Tea Party and talk radio addicts.)

Until the GOP admits they have a a big problem, and are out-of-touch, and seek to moderate their policies and rhetoric....they will remain the party of Angry White Men and the Women Who Love Them. They must find ways to appeal to larger numbers of Blacks, Asians, women, and Hispanics--otherwise they are screwed. And they will continue to struggle to win national elections.

It's simple math. Demographic shifts have become political inertia, and the GOP has to recognize that reality--instead of pretending not to notice.

In 1992, Clinton brought the Democratic party back toward the mainstream. For the GOP to turn things around in 2016, they'll need to do the same thing. Whenever political parties are sucked into lunatic fringe politics, they alienate the voters who matter--in our republic, a majority. Republicans had better soon remember the role of majority rule in our country, or they may yet become this century's version of the Whigs.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by JohninGpt

This is a Kansas City Chiefs forum. Most of us are white men, and all of us are angry.

From the personal attacks....fraz and Iowanian seem foremost among them. Heh

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Maybe you should spend some of your Work-day planet time re-reading the constitution.

Possibly one of the special ed teachers can facilitate your understanding of the document by removing 2 of the 4 multiple choice answers from your test.


The constitution says nothing about hunting. None of the regulations you support imposing are mentioned. Not once.

Took my personal day, today. I plan ahead. Try again, sir.

[Iowanian]

You don't know What in the Hel'n are you talking about

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

You don't know What in the Hel'n are you talking about

Keep tellin' yourself that...and then you can keep wondering why your guys keep losing, if you do.

[kaplin42]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Maybe you should spend some of your Work-day planet time re-reading the constitution.

Possibly one of the special ed teachers can facilitate your understanding of the document by removing 2 of the 4 multiple choice answers from your test.


The constitution says nothing about hunting. None of the regulations you support imposing are mentioned. Not once.



Oh........the SCOTUS CAN impose gun regulations? You mean if Obama installs a couple of liberal gun haters in the court system, it COULD affect the rights of law abiding citizens?
Who would have thought that, Dirk.



Washington DC and Obama's "Home town" of Chicago have pretty damn strict gun control laws............What do their violent crime rates and gun related murder rates look like?

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if, in your opinion, we should forever live by guidelines set up over 200 years ago, or if maybe we should adjust for the day and age we currently live in?

I mean you are such an authority on the constitution, then you of all people should know that the constitution was by it's very nature, designed to be changed when needed.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by kaplin42

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if, in your opinion, we should forever live by guidelines set up over 200 years ago, or if maybe we should adjust for the day and age we currently live in?

I mean you are such an authority on the constitution, then you of all people should know that the constitution was by it's very nature, designed to be changed when needed.

You can adjust for the day and age we currently live in, as long as you are extending freedom and not inhibiting it.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Brock

You can adjust for the day and age we currently live in, as long as you are extending freedom and not inhibiting it.

Exactly.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Oh........the SCOTUS CAN impose gun regulations? You mean if Obama installs a couple of liberal gun haters in the court system, it COULD affect the rights of law abiding citizens?
Who would have thought that, Dirk.

Sure that is possible just like if Romney won he could have put in place a couple of men that hate women to overturn Roe v Wade and make women who want abortions to go back into the alley and use coat hangers.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Brock

You can adjust for the day and age we currently live in, as long as you are extending freedom and not inhibiting it.

The right to swing your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins. All rights and freedoms are relative to the rights and freedoms of others--your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

That ain't modern liberal activist Constitutional law; that's from the founding fathers, sir.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

All rights and freedoms are relative to the rights and freedoms of others--your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

That's correct. That means you cannot inhibit my rights because someone else is abusing theirs.

[WilliamInnerCircle]

Originally Posted by frazod

He's also the history teacher who, when shown photographs of Quantrill, Jesse James and Cole Younger, thought they were former U.S. presidents.

It's remembrances like this that make me value this board over any other. Holy shit that was funny.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by frazod

Anybody who compares these two things is a fool. Not at all surprised that you did it.

Let's see, what's more important to me:

1. Being able to defend myself, my family, my home and my stuff.

2. Butting into the lives of people I'll never meet and don't give a shit about and telling them they've gotta have that baby because apparently it's in the bible somewhere. And GOD SENDING THEM TO HELL FOREVER just isn't punishment enough, either.

****ing retards. EVERYWHERE. RETARDS. **** WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY.

"We have transformed ourselves into a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Brock

That's correct. That means you cannot inhibit my rights because someone else is abusing theirs.

In order to promote the general welfare and the common good, and to ensure domestic tranquility....well, yes, the S.C. has said we can. Numerous times.

[WilliamInnerCircle]

Originally Posted by frazod

Perhaps later I'll post a photo of Wyatt Earp and you can identify him as one of the Founding Fathers.

You're killing me here.

[Iowanian]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Yes Fraz, the end of the world is coming. The economy is going to shit itself and we're all going to get blasted back to the Bronze age.

This might be as good of a place to mention that it's noon on the first day after Obama's election and the markets "shit itself" down 300 points.