Hey Fatso! Don't suck up to Obama and Springsteen if you Republicans to respect you

Always interesting to see the RWNJ's throw their own under the bus the second they do not yap along with the rest of the rabid dog pack. No wonder the GOP is on it's last legs as a major American Political Party, it has been taken over by radicals and nutjobs that are so out of touch with reality many probably belong in a mental institution.

 

From where I stand, Christie may be one of the only really smart politician in the Republican party!

Not only has he done a good job with Sandy relief, he has also turn a lot of the Democrats opinion of him to the positive. . .and let's face it, the fact that Romney failed miserably has nothing to do with Christie, and everything to do with Romney and the Republicans being out of touch (thanks to Fox News and Limbaugh who successfully kept the Right into a delusional bubble about just about EVERYTHING related to President Obama and the elections) with the majority of how Americans feel. . .maybe because they insist in looking at "patriots" as being those mostly White, mostly Male, Mostly older, mostly red necks, mostly fundamental Christian, and refuse to consider that Blacks, Women, Hispanics, and anyone with a forward vision for America doesn't qualify as a "REAL American."

Christie may have been the first of the Republicans to see the defeat coming, and to understand the reason. Today, he is FAR from being the only one among Republicans, and I predict that, as Rove and Norquist's influence fades, there will be more REASONABLE Republicans (including Jendhal) who will move to ingratiate themselves to a broader basis, instead of letting the tea party tail wag the Republican dog!

And. . .let's face it, the fact that Romney lost and is now totally rejected by ALL Republicans (and for good reasons, after his disgraceful "gifts" comments and his sore loser attitude) may be a BIG advantage for Christie.

After all, IF Romney had succeeded in getting elected in spite of his constant flip flops and the fact that he was demonstrating ZERO integrity, he might have been in for 8 years!

Now, President Obama will be in the White House for another 4 years. . .that's it!
And this leaves a better shot for a Republican (especially a Republican who would move to the center and be palatable to Democrats and Independents, especially a Republican who would demonstrate some common sense by showing that he doesn't consider women and minorities as second class citizens) to be elected in 4 years. . .instead of 8!

 

Christie didn't put politics aside.

He just camped with the enemy that day.

 

That's one way of looking at it.

But your comment is coming from an Obama Stormtrooper who marches in goose-step behind your Dear Leader.

Conservatives are not as in love with our politicians as you are with yours.

 

Thanks Sadie.

I'll take your heartfelt advice and suggestions under advisement.

But the fact that its coming from a diehard Obama liberal makes it problematic at best.

We want to win as Republicans not as imitation Democrats.

 

On SNL I neither condone nor condemn it, on those issues I am a bit nihilistic or just apathetic, that's his business. I can't hold it against him nor will I praise him for being on SNL.

On the people still without power, yeah, he could lease/lend out some more generators where feasible. But even if he did, not sure SNL would have any affect. I.e., I have some car parts at a dealership for my sports car, they have been closed since the storm, and even the local police station is getting calls on people wanting their cars back. So yes there are some loose ends that need addressing, but I don't feel the SNL show is indicitive of his performance on the recovery.

 

at least conservatives will call out one of their own when they feel he or she is in the wrong. liberals on the other hand will defend every mistake their politicians make, make up stupid excuses and blame everyone but that politician for the wrong doing, and in between all they they are lovingly cleaning their (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s in praise.

god forbid Fast and Furious and Benghazi happened under a republican term, liberals would be rioting in straight anger.

 

REALLY?!?! He just said "Hey Obama - I'm having tea and biscuits - you want to come and kick it with me?" Is that what happened in your mind (won't even get into "your mind" - I'd get banned)...

 

I just find it bad for someone to be on TV laughing it up, having a good ole time while his citizens are suffering and have gotten no answers from the state. We are supposed to elect leaders, not celebrities.

 

It is OK to do it as republicans but not by hunkering down and ignoring reality.

Balancing the budget is necessary. Manipulating tax revenue is part of it, and every republican president has realistically faced that fact prior to the last Bush. Mandates and stonewalling on this issue are NEW republican strategies and defy all logic. Sorry.

If we want or need to cut entitlements thats fine, but for those cuts to make any real impact republicans need to face the fact that it will hurt not only the poor but also the elderly and many members of their own party. When the majority of the country is surviving on less than $80,000 per year per family these cuts are going to hurt, and blathering about trickle down theory to justify protecting people making more than twice the average pay isn't going to make this any easier for us.

The other thing you need to face is that voters are not mostly white rich and male. We as a country are diverse in the truest meaning of the word. New immigration and a newly invigorated minority are changing the electorate. Strangely enough these new voters are greedy, self concerned and distrustful of old school GOP politicians. Pandering is great and it might work, but if you want to stay true as conservatives maybe you should include them in your view of the future instead of casting them as the villains.

So start working or start dying. Your choice.

 

It is OK to do it as republicans but not by hunkering down and ignoring reality.

Balancing the budget is necessary. Manipulating tax revenue is part of it, and every republican president has realistically faced that fact prior to the last Bush. Mandates and stonewalling on this issue are NEW republican strategies and defy all logic. Sorry.

If we want or need to cut entitlements thats fine, but for those cuts to make any real impact republicans need to face the fact that it will hurt not only the poor but also the elderly and many members of their own party. When the majority of the country is surviving on less than $80,000 per year per family these cuts are going to hurt, and blathering about trickle down theory to justify protecting people making more than twice the average pay isn't going to make this any easier for us.

The other thing you need to face is that voters are not mostly white rich and male. We as a country are diverse in the truest meaning of the word. New immigration and a newly invigorated minority are changing the electorate. Strangely enough these new voters are greedy, self concerned and distrustful of old school GOP politicians. Pandering is great and it might work, but if you want to stay true as conservatives maybe you should include them in your view of the future instead of casting them as the villains.

So start working or start dying. Your choice.

 

Please, go ahead and try. . .

I personally would be very happy to observe the continued shrinkage of the Republican party!

 

Under Obama the federal budget is about a trillion dollars a year larger than under Bush.

I don't think we need more revenue we need less spending.

A lot less spending.

I agree with you that far too many voters are new to this country and leaning to the Democrats because of all the handouts they are being offered.

But it would be a mistake to try and outbid the libs because it can't be done.

Better that conservatives work within the Republican Party and stick to our principles.

We may not win every election but we will not disappear either because liberalism is an ideology that is doomed to failure.

If we cave now the public will have nowhere to turn in its hour of need.

 

I'm sure you would.

That's why your advice is worthless.

 

The US is an idea whose time has come and gone. The American era of world history is over. That will result in a decline in living standards in America. I think that's something American leftists have to face. A poorer America will be a less generous America.

 

Something that American leftists have to face?

They embrace it.

They celebrate it.

They welcome American decline with open arms.

Lefties have more to do with our decline than anyone else.

Now all those oppressed minorities who didn't manage to immigrate here can finally get their revenge on us.

 

And we are GETTING a lot less spending:

Your figures are WRONG if you insist in applying it all to President Obama. Here is a link to factchecks.org:

 

You are not getting any less spending.

Obama is the biggest spender in history.

Nobody beats him.

Under Obama the budget deficit has been over $1 trillion a year every year he's been in office.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

 

You do know that they ignore facts they don't agree with, don't ya?

The fact is on one point I do agree with him, we need to spend less.
Where I disagree with him is that we do not need more revenue, we need both.
Oh, and the crazy talk that lefties hate America and want to destroy it, but that is th same old same I have heard for decades from the far right. Sad thing is as an Independent I have voted for members of Both Parties, but today it is really hard to find Repubs that are worthy of support, far too much pandering on their part to the far right, a segment of the GOP I simply cannot stand and believe to be delusional at best and mentally ill at worst.

 

Yeah, conservatives are allowed to think for themselves, so long as their thoughts tow the party line. If they have any kind of thought of praise for the opposite party, then, well, they better keep it to themselves.

 

You are WRONG! Even based on your biased source, if you look at the increase in deficits in the last 4 years (from a deficit of about $1.484 billion in 2009 to $1.121 in 2012) it has DECREASE from 2009 through 2012, and 2009, the highest year of deficit spending was under BUSH BUDGET.

At least I go see the sources you provide. . .although they are biased. You apparently do not bother to go look at UNBIASED sources. . .because you are closing your eyes to reality. . .again!

 

Bush and Obama are both responsible. They both supported TARP which now serves as the baseline for the federal budget.

 

I totally agree that we need to spend less also, but that we do need to attack the deficit from ALL sides, INCLUDING revenue increase.

And I do not believe I EVER heard President Obama suggest that the deficit could be handled with INCREASES IN REVENUE ALONE. . .ON THE CONTRARY!

This is why I trust President's Obama approach to be more fair and balanced AND more effective at the end.

 

What would you eliminate or reduce from federal spending?

 

I know.... remember when they dropped Hillary Clinton when Obama came on the scene. She even attacked him on stuff she now supports. LOL Amazing what you will say in order to gain power and the Democrats know how to play this game don't they?