an awesome response to all the crybabies...

[fetishfreak]

This election was a battle of voting for the guy who is the least evil. Since such a large portion of our population is in a position were they do not pay income taxes, they do not see fiscal liberty as that important of an issue to them. Yes, we can argue back in forth over the reality of that perception but it would be to no avail.

They do, however, see personal freedom as an important issue. The democrats have done a very good job in recent history of highlighting the republicans failures to allow for personal freedom by hiding there own.

I see democrats as great illusionists. They get you to focus on what the right hand is doing so you do not see what the left hand does using grandios performances and large props to convince large crowds. I see republicans as great magicians performing tricks using small scale performances and props that really can only convince those close to the situation.

Since it is small scale it is easier to see through a republicans bullshit if you look, it is harder to see through the bullshit of a democrat because of how grand the scale is.

[JD Barleycorn]

Though not obvious to some the Tea Party did not get too involved in presidential politics. They spent most of their time and money on state houses, governors, senators, and congress.

I think Limbaugh has a point and exit polling backs him up. People who are no loads voted for Santa Claus (free things) and people are hard working but found themselves on the dole voted to save their families by voting for Santa Claus again. The democratic party is Santa Claus and the republican party is your parents. Santa has magic elves making all sorts of things for free and everyone gets something even if it is kind of crappy. Your parents give to you what they can afford and more common this Christmas they may not have anythingn to give at all because everything costs something including free stuff.

As for the original post by Whatzup, I don't think you know what "awesome" means. Try not to use it anymore.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Though not obvious to some the Tea Party did not get too involved in presidential politics. They spent most of their time and money on state houses, governors, senators, and congress.

I think Limbaugh has a point and exit polling backs him up. People who are no loads voted for Santa Claus (free things) and people are hard working but found themselves on the dole voted to save their families by voting for Santa Claus again. The democratic party is Santa Claus and the republican party is your parents. Santa has magic elves making all sorts of things for free and everyone gets something even if it is kind of crappy. Your parents give to you what they can afford and more common this Christmas they may not have anythingn to give at all because everything costs something including free stuff.

As for the original post by Whatzup, I don't think you know what "awesome" means. Try not to use it anymore.

In a single word: HOGWASH!

[Yssup Rider]

Ahh, OK. Good game y'all!

Please feel free to piss and moan.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Ahh, OK. Good game y'all!

Please feel free to piss and moan.

It's great that you are so understanding. After all, "piss and moan" is in their DNA!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Though not obvious to some the Tea Party did not get too involved in presidential politics. They spent most of their time and money on state houses, governors, senators, and congress.

I think Limbaugh has a point and exit polling backs him up. People who are no loads voted for Santa Claus (free things) and people are hard working but found themselves on the dole voted to save their families by voting for Santa Claus again. The democratic party is Santa Claus and the republican party is your parents. Santa has magic elves making all sorts of things for free and everyone gets something even if it is kind of crappy. Your parents give to you what they can afford and more common this Christmas they may not have anythingn to give at all because everything costs something including free stuff.

As for the original post by Whatzup, I don't think you know what "awesome" means. Try not to use it anymore.

If he is Santa clause you must be the tooth fairy.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Randy, I think the "tilt to Obama" occurred primarilly because the electorate simply didn't buy what Romney was selling. Among other things, he promised to cut tax rates by 20% acroos-the-board, pledging to offset the revenue losses with unspecified loophole closings -- while at the same time reducing the budget deficits by means of unspecified spending cuts. Nobody bought that. It was the same old set of disingenuous bromides and platitudes.

But the problem Obama faces now is that he's going to have to grapple not only with the well-publicized "fiscal cliff", but with what might rightly be called a fiscal abyss.

And I don't think it's going to go very well. Sure, the Administration will probably manage by year end to work out a deal with Republicans that kicks the can down the road once again. But then there will be next year. And the year after that. Get the picture?

Here's a quick rundown of my views related to these concerns:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=587614

That thread shows why I suggested that perhaps partisan Republicans cheering for a Romney win might have done well to be careful what they wished for -- and that, likewise, partisan Democrats should refrain from having a warm and fuzzy feeling about President Obama's ability to strengthen his party's support over the next four years, given the enormousness of the fiscal challenges.

So we just sit back and watch this "MOTHER MELT DOWN". I'm in, like I have a choice....fuckers

[Yssup Rider]

You boys are the biggest bunch of bitter crybabies on record. Worse than the false gods you worship!

WOW!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Captain, what you say may be true but anyone who misreads the election as a huge endorsement of anyone's fiscal policies is way off base. While the election should have been about that, it wasn't because even the initial steps towards fixing this mess contains bad news for everyone. Those sort of things are best worked out and then presented to people, not because the people can't handle it but because they don't want to handle the process of coming up with a solution. If the pain is equally spread among those who have access to aspirin and things can be moved towards bringing some jobs back onshore, we may have a chance to actually start righting the ship.

Randy, I'm not claiming that this election was a "huge endorsement" of anyone's fiscal policies, but consider this:

One candidate promises to raise taxes on every taxpayer earning more than $250K, while maintaining tax cuts for those whose income is less than that. In fact, he already has substantially cut taxes for the non-affluent, including a two percentage point cut in the payroll tax in 2010.

The other candidate has proposed plans that are easily portrayable as a big giveaway to the wealthy. In fact, his opponent repeatedly charged that taxes on the middle class would have to be raised by an average $2,000 per year just to make up for the cuts offered to top-bracket taxpayers.

Which candidate is going to win that debate in the eyes of a majority of voters?

But it's time for a reality check. Raising rates to Clinton-era levels, but only on those earning more than $250K, lands well short of covering even a nickel of every deficit dollar. Yet that seems to be virtually the entirety of Obama's economic agenda.

He called for a deficit-reduction advisory commission in 2010, but completely ignored its findings. If he doesn't like Simpson-Bowles (or Rivlin-Domenici, or any of the other proposed plans), then he needs to tell us what his plan is.

If he refuses to do so, how in the world can you call him a leader?

[Yssup Rider]

did Whiny just call bullshit on JDBarleybrains?

Deep panic. they're eating themselves.

[JD Barleycorn]

That 2% was not a tax cut, it comes off the back end of the Social Security benefits. You got screwed and you're happy for the experience.

If it is too hard to understand; the GOP is the party of parents. They want to give great stuff to their children but they know that nothing is free. They can only give what they can afford. Santa is the democrats who think everything is made by elves. I wonder if those elves vote?

[icuminpeace]

I have a very fundamental question: In the last 32 years, we've had 20 years of Republican Presidents and 12 years of Democratic Presidents. Why didn't the GOP fix all the issues we face over those 20 years? President Bush had a majority in Congress for the first 6 years of his Presidency, Obama had 2 years. Why wasn't housing addressed? Why wasn't immigration addressed? Why wasn't the deficit addressed? By the time Bush finished his first term, with a majority in congress, he had already increased the debt by 30% over what he inherited from Clinton. I think 20 years is plenty of time to deal with what we consider the nation's biggest challenges. Now we're stuck with Obama for another 4. Perhaps if the GOP would have really addressed all those issues, McCain would have won re-election on Nov 6.

[CuteOldGuy]

ICIP, you're sounding like they WANT to resolve those issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they actually solved some problems, they would lose issues to demagogue when they run for re-election.

[icuminpeace]

That's my point COG. The only ones to blame for losing an election against an incumbent that has been compared to Carter is the GOP. They haven't delivered in the past and there are no guarantees they'll deliver in the future. Top it off with their isolation from key growing demographics and an election they were supposed to win is handed to Obama.

[CuteOldGuy]

Your point is well taken, and accurate.