The Continued Fracturing of the GOP

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

True, but it was not the only requiremnet Artie set forth to illustrate proof of gullibility. His assertion that a person is gullible due to his belief in a supernatural deity is still very much on the table, and I'd like to hear his response to that aspect of my question.

Artie60438 wrote:

After all,a crowd that doesn't believe in science,but instead believes in supernatural deities aren't exactly the hardest people to fool.

I stand by my statement. People who believe in supernatural deities are more inclined to believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old,that humans & dinosaurs co-existed together,An Ark was built and helped every single living specie survive a flood,talking snakes,etc,then those who rely on scientific principles.

Our Village Idiot wrote:

Right.
Like Barack and Michelle Obama, then?

No,dumbass troll. They believe in science and thus know that those fables cannot possibly be true.

Moronic Troll wrote:

I recall you saying that the crowd that "believes in supernatural deities" .... "aren't exactly the hardest people to fool."
Barack and Michelle Obama believe in some supernatural deity, do they not?
They are churchgoers, are they not?

What are you on? An endless rinse and repeat cycle? Heretic already addressed that stupid argument....

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If you are not including them in that crowd, then why not?

The rejection of science was also a requirement:

Quote :

...[b]a crowd that doesn't believe in science,but instead believes in supernatural deities aren't exactly the hardest people to fool.

Thus separating the Obamas, as well as Christian scientists like Ken Miller, from the ridiculous creationists uselessly infecting the GOP.

Now really

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If you are not including them in that crowd, then why not?

The rejection of science was also a requirement:

Quote :

...a crowd that doesn't believe in science, but instead believes in supernatural deities aren't exactly the hardest people to fool.

Thus separating the Obamas, as well as Christian scientists like Ken Miller, from the ridiculous creationists uselessly infecting the GOP.

Heretic wrote:

The rejection of science was also a requirement:

True, but it was not the only requiremnet Artie set forth to illustrate proof of gullibility. His assertion that a person is gullible due to his belief in a supernatural deity is still very much on the table, and I'd like to hear his response to that aspect of my question.

I really don't care, but no, that's not correct. Here is the quote again...

Quote :

...a crowd that doesn't believe in science, but instead believes in supernatural deities aren't exactly the hardest people to fool.

As written, his assertion that a "person is gullible" is dependent on a disbelief in science," not as one of two "requirements." If he had said this...

Quote :

...a crowd that doesn't believe in science and believes in supernatural deities aren't exactly the hardest people to fool.

you might have a point, but that's not the case.

Some of us are better at dealing with petty trolls than others.

Via Ed Brayton:

GOP plots to prevent more Todd Akins

Quote :

Read their lips: no more Todd Akins.

In the wake of the GOP’s Election Day beatdown, influential Republican senators say enough’s enough: Party leaders need to put the kibosh on the kind of savage primaries that yielded candidates like Akin — and crippled Republican prospects of taking the Senate in two straight election cycles.

It’s time, they say, for Washington bosses to be more assertive about recruiting and then defending promising candidates. They argue that it’s critical to start enlisting local conservative activists as allies and to ease the tea party versus Washington dynamic that’s wreaked havoc on the party.

All easier said than done, of course. Tea party types have relished showing the chosen candidates of the Washington establishment a thing or two — and it’s hard to see them laying down arms overnight. But after a sure-bet election in 2012 turned into an electoral disaster, Republicans say resolving their primary problem is, well, their primary problem.

Ed continues, explaining how damaging such stupidity was:

Quote :

The Republicans might well have won control of the Senate in 2010 if they hadn’t run such whacko candidates in key races. Harry Reid was likely to lose in Nevada to a sane Republican candidate. Even after winning the Republican primary, Sharron Angle had an 11-point lead over him. But she turned out to be downright bugnutty, suggesting, for example, that the town of Frankford, Texas had been taken over by Sharia law. The problem? There was no such town, it had been annexed by Dallas in the 70s. And Dallas sure as hell isn’t ruled by Sharia law.

In Delaware, the Republicans were a huge favorite to win a Senate seat from that state, with Rep. Mike Gravel, a moderate, widely expected to win the seat. But Christine O’Donnell won and turned out to be so loopy that even other Republicans distanced themselves from her.

The same thing happened in Colorado, where Republican Ken Buck lost a close election to Michael Bennet after a campaign in which he came out against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. It was also revealed that he refused to prosecute a rape case in which the transcripts showed the suspect admitting to having raped the victim. And he famously said that the people of Colorado should vote for him because, unlike his female opponent, he didn’t wear high heels.

The same thing happened this year, with Akin and Richard Mourdock losing seats that a saner Republican candidate would almost certainly have won in Missouri and Indiana respectively. This is part of the ongoing battle within the Republican party as they try to wiggle their way out of the dilemma of trying to hold on to the far right Tea Party types without losing everyone but them.

...and as you can imagine, that's not going over well:

Social conservatives say they deserve seat at table in retooled GOP

Quote :

Republicans' soul searching following the 2012 election could shortchange social conservatives, who say they're hardly to blame for the party's difficulties at the polls.

The snapshot analysis as for why Republican nominee Mitt Romney and a slew of downballot GOP candidates fell short on Nov. 6 has centered on changing demographics — an increasingly diverse electorate, but also softening views toward hot-button social issues.

Republicans have always likened their party to a three-legged stool, one leg representing economic conservatives, one representing national security conservatives, and one representing social conservatives — all acting in concert to support the party. And social conservatives are arguing that opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights, among other issues, are as intrinsic to the Republican Party’s identity as ever.

In their reading of the election, Mitt Romney’s strict focus on economic issues and a refusal to engage President Barack Obama on social issues helped fuel his loss to the Democratic incumbent.
“If you have a party that says not to talk about social issues, it’s going to be awfully hard to convince an electorate of why we should celebrate life,” said Bob Vander Plaats, the evangelical leader in Iowa who played an influential role in that state’s caucuses earlier this year.

Republicans really need to just completely divorce themselves from such nonsense; start holding themselves to a higher standard rather than being one tin foil hat away from 9/11 Twoofers like they are now. The only reason these ideologues hocking such absolutely untenable positions thrive is because they're continually coddled by Fox News and the conservative media. If the journalists and writers there started doing their fucking jobs and exposing these people as the hacks that they are, and exposing their ideas as the complete nonsense it is, that demographic would atrophy and die out, freeing them from catering to their lowest common denominator every few years.

happy jack wrote:

[b]Anyhoo, I get a kick out of the way you guys jump in when Artie can’t answer a question.

I did answer the question but as usual you resorted to your usual childish behavior.

Scorpion wrote:

To me. it just seems that Jack is more interested in arguing meaningless semantic points with Artie than actually engaging in a detailed discussion of the issues.

happy jack wrote:

It’s kind of admirable, in a way.

Thanks,we like to take turns knocking down your ridiculous arguments. After all,you are the official board Pinata

Heretic wrote:

Some of us are better at dealing with petty trolls than others.

Your hilarious smackdowns are the ones I always look forward to.

Any comment on the actual topic or are you still only here to obsess over Artie?

Yeah. Well since Barack and Michelle are Christians, I guess the answer to your "question" is self evident, don't you think? After all, God is a "supernatural deity."

I hope that this is the answer that you're searching for...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well since Barack and Michelle are Christians, I guess the answer to your "question" is self evident, don't you think? After all, God is a "supernatural deity."

I hope that this is the answer that you're searching for...

[b].... and once again, the cavalry rides in to save the damsel, who can't seem to answer for herself the questions that are posed.

Heretic wrote:

Any comment on the actual topic or are you still only here to obsess over Artie?

As always,the following words of wisdom ring true

Scorpion wrote:

To me. it just seems that Jack is more interested in arguing meaningless semantic points with Artie than actually engaging in a detailed discussion of the issues.

Yeah. Well I still haven't seen your answer to this "simple and specific" question that I asked you 3 weeks ago...


https://nofree.forumotion.com/t18528p120-libyan-embassy-attack

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Of course I read his response. However, edge set some new ground rules a while back on the Gun Control thread, and you, Scorpion, and Heretic, by your silence, have apparently subscribed to those new rules.

You see, the new rules (as implicitly validated by all of you) state that a poster may post anything he chooses. Should someone ask that poster for verification, then that poster may say, “Go look it up yourself and prove me wrong. It’s not up to me to back up my claims – it’s up to you to refute them.

I don't think so, jack. Let's see what I actually said, shall we?

Scorpion wrote:

No, I haven't been following the exchange. I've been pretty focused on the election.

And IMHO, if someone cites a source in an argument, the source has to at least be credible. To me, an Op-ed piece, for example, is not acceptable as evidence by itself.

Looks to me like I explicitly stated my position. And it's no different from my position in the past, which is if a poster is going to post an opinion piece, then he should be prepared to defend it.

Missed that.
Apologies.

No problem. So are you saying that you posted the Steyn piece just to be "provocative?" Or do you actually believe it?

happy jack wrote:

Just to be provocative; I certainly don't know the truth behind what happened in that attack.
And, just as certainly, neither do you.

The same could be said about 9/11, the beginnings of the universe, the moon landing, every criminal case presented to jury, and any conspiracy theory in the History of Ever. But shouldn't we wait until such "alternative theories" are at least supported by evidence first rather than childish speculation before we offer them any sort of legitimacy? Or are all theories valid simply because some asshat said it on the intarweb and none of us were there to witness its falsehood firsthand?

Seriously, there are few things as intellectually dishonest and boring as the creationist "How do you know? You weren't there!" argument. Creationism has clearly infected the Republican party, but it's distressing to such its deficiencies in critical thought and analysis bleeding through to other areas of the political sphere so easily...

happy jack wrote:

So you do know exactly what occurred during the Libya attack and its aftermath.

Seriously? That's what you got from that post? That's spectacular! Apparently your reading comprehension is failing as well.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

So you do know exactly what occurred during the Libya attack and its aftermath.

Seriously? That's what you got from that post? That's spectacular! Apparently your reading comprehension is failing as well.

That's assuming that he even bothered to read your comment. Perhaps he's still a bit touchy after being promised by the right-wing nutcases he follows that Libya was going to lead to a Watergate style cover-up and end with a Romney presidency.

The Millennial Generation: Our Liberal Future

Quote :

How doomed are conservatives? Pretty doomed, if you look carefully at the Pew Research Survey’s close analysis of the youth vote in the 2012 elections. The Republicans’ long-term dilemma has generally been framed in racial terms, but it’s mainly a generational one. The youngest generation of voters contains a much smaller proportion of white voters than previous generations, and those whites in that generation vote Republican by a much smaller margin than their elders. What’s more, younger voters supported President Obama during the last two election cycles for reasons that seem to go beyond the usual reasons — social issues like gay marriage and feminism, immigration policy, or Obama’s personal appeal — and suggest a deeper attachment to liberalism. The proclivities of younger voters may actually portend a full-scale sea change in American politics.

They're not enslaved to Fox News and the conservative media, and therefore don't hate taxes, minorities, gays, abortion, and science anywhere near as much as Republicans would like...

Extremism Vindicated Once Again?

Quote :

The remarkable ability of conservatives to drag American politics to the Right by taking extremist positions and then offering to “compromise” by accepting policies deemed conservative the week before last is hardly a new thing; it was the subject of a fine book by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson six years ago. But the MSM keeps taking the bait, which is why we now have Lindsay Graham and Saxbe Chambliss being lionized for making fake concessions to stop America from plunging over a fake “fiscal cliff,” asking only the small concession that the Bush tax cuts, the principal cause of current long-term public debt, be extended forever, and oh, by the way, could we also cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits? I mean, you have to hand it to them: who else but American conservatives would have the audacity after losing an election to ask for bipartisan cover for their two most important long-term fiscal objectives?

If they have any sense at all, the “extremists” who are being “repudiated” by these brave Republican moderates ought to be cackling with glee.

So maybe acting crazy is just a tactic...