Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

Last week you were saying that the GOP wasn't conservative enough and were saying that a guy like Ron Paul who has a hardline immigration policy could win a national election. Now you're saying that the GOP has to become more moderate to win and that people who last week weren't voting GOP because the GOP isn't conservative enough are now going to vote GOP en masse after they become even less conservative.

Sometimes your reading comprehension is appallingly bad. Surely you can differentiate between conservative and libertarian. The Libertarian stance on immigration is open borders which would be more liberal using current vernacular not more conservative. Our previous discussion was specific to spending/taxes/entitlements. On those issues I do believe a more libertarian GOP candidate would be beneficial on social issues the GOP isn't going to go full libertarian but needs to tone down the religious rhetoric and message them better. The GOP has not always been so draconian on immigration (Bush/Reagan examples already mentioned) and yes they need to change this. I believe this could change it w/o a full blown party revolt.

Ron Paul's immigration policy is to seal the border and not have any amnesty. And last week you were saying that Romney looked like he was going to lose because he wasn't conservative enough. Now you're saying that the next candidate can win more votes by being even more moderate than Romney was.

[VictorCharlie]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

Last week you were saying that the GOP wasn't conservative enough and were saying that a guy like Ron Paul who has a hardline immigration policy could win a national election. Now you're saying that the GOP has to become more moderate to win and that people who last week weren't voting GOP because the GOP isn't conservative enough are now going to vote GOP en masse after they become even less conservative.

Sometimes your reading comprehension is appallingly bad. Surely you can differentiate between conservative and libertarian. The Libertarian stance on immigration is open borders which would be more liberal using current vernacular not more conservative. Our previous discussion was specific to spending/taxes/entitlements. On those issues I do believe a more libertarian GOP candidate would be beneficial on social issues the GOP isn't going to go full libertarian but needs to tone down the religious rhetoric and message them better. The GOP has not always been so draconian on immigration (Bush/Reagan examples already mentioned) and yes they need to change this. I believe this could change it w/o a full blown party revolt.

Ron Paul's immigration policy is to seal the border and not have any amnesty. And last week you were saying that Romney looked like he was going to lose because he wasn't conservative enough. Now you're saying that the next candidate can win more votes by being even more moderate than Romney was.

Other than your first sentence none of this is what I was saying much less true and neither this nor your previous post really addressed anything I posted previously.

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

Last week you were saying that the GOP wasn't conservative enough and were saying that a guy like Ron Paul who has a hardline immigration policy could win a national election. Now you're saying that the GOP has to become more moderate to win and that people who last week weren't voting GOP because the GOP isn't conservative enough are now going to vote GOP en masse after they become even less conservative.

Sometimes your reading comprehension is appallingly bad. Surely you can differentiate between conservative and libertarian. The Libertarian stance on immigration is open borders which would be more liberal using current vernacular not more conservative. Our previous discussion was specific to spending/taxes/entitlements. On those issues I do believe a more libertarian GOP candidate would be beneficial on social issues the GOP isn't going to go full libertarian but needs to tone down the religious rhetoric and message them better. The GOP has not always been so draconian on immigration (Bush/Reagan examples already mentioned) and yes they need to change this. I believe this could change it w/o a full blown party revolt.

Ron Paul's immigration policy is to seal the border and not have any amnesty. And last week you were saying that Romney looked like he was going to lose because he wasn't conservative enough. Now you're saying that the next candidate can win more votes by being even more moderate than Romney was.

Other than your first sentence none of this is what I was saying much less true and neither this nor your previous post really addressed anything I posted previously.

OK, then.