Romney lost because...

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by shortylickens

Its not just religion, its the most hateful element of religion. The one that screams constantly for a return to fundamentalism.
There are currently no successful countries in the entire world with that mindset. We would be sharing company with places like the middle-east (the bad part) and some gimpy african nations if we did that.

What "hateful" elements of religion is the right trying to legislate. No same-sex marriage (actually the left is the one that wants to legislate here) and making abortion illegal.

Funny how when both of these were illegal things were much more equitable in the United States. In fact if you look at when individual income growth stopped trending up with GDP it would seem to be much more connected to the legalization of abortion and no-fault divorce than with Reagan.

[RightIsWrong]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

What "hateful" elements of religion is the right trying to legislate. No same-sex marriage (actually the left is the one that wants to legislate here) and making abortion illegal.

Funny how when both of these were illegal things were much more equitable in the United States. In fact if you look at when individual income growth stopped trending up with GDP it would seem to be much more connected to the legalization of abortion and no-fault divorce than with Reagan.

I think that, if you truly believe this crap, no amount of common sense, logic and empirical evidence I'd going to sway you and you aren't worth the effort to even try.

[sigurros81]

Originally Posted by [B

Incorruptible;[/B]34212471]romney lost because he is the same as obama, both serve special interests. Too many idiots voted for obama and deserve to suffer the consequences of the economy, I would have no problem with welfare leeches having it taken away since there is no money.

The main reason he lost was because there was no fiscal Conservatism and the religious nutbars who scared away voters

Originally Posted by sigurros81

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...mp-growth.html

That is the new excuse consevatards are using now as an excuse for losing? Romney lost because he was too much like Obama? Haha. The stupid is strong with this one. What do you have to say scrub?

I'm still waiting for your reply.

[airdata]

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by RightIsWrong

I think that, if you truly believe this crap, no amount of common sense, logic and empirical evidence I'd going to sway you and you aren't worth the effort to even try.

I would say that making same-sex marriage legal/illegal is irrelevant to the success of a country.

[dawheat]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Women are allowed to vote selfishly. Calling them on their selfishness is not a "war on women" though.

The reason it should impact their rights. Is that their interests are based on them not be able to, or not wanting to, take responsibility for themselves.

If someone is unable to, or unwilling to, take care of themselves why should they be given freedom?

"War on women" can be overused (but does apply to a fringe group of the R party) - but hyperbole is an everyday thing now (e.g. Obama is a socialist, etc). When a party attacks one of their interests (and has a fringe group that wants to be even more aggressive), it's an effective plan to call it a war to communicate their message to their constituents.

When a governor moves to limits union power, the union calls it a 'war on unions'.

However again where we will have to disagree is whether it should impact their rights. Unless you feel EVERY GROUP THAT ACCEPTS subsidies (which would pretty much be everyone) should be considered inferior and have their rights reduced, we will be on opposing ends of this view.

The problem is you seem to be pretending men do not have their own unique needs as well. For example last time I check women do not have testicles or a prostate. Men by virtue of being bigger to protect women from sabertooth tigers also require more food, but you do not see any special programs to help me with their increased food needs.

Come on, comparing male reproductive complexity and needs to women is bordering on ignorant. Outside of cancer, our stuff is basically self service. If men want to band together to vote in leaders who will subsidize food for men b/c of their greater nutritional requirements, then go ahead. Just b/c there's no general interest for that idea doesn't make women's special interest any less valid (again like ANY other special interest out there).

[HomerJS]

Saw an interesting analogy why Romney lost.

Romney and Republicans are "Mad Men" and "Father Knows Best"

Obama and the Democrats are "Modern Family"

Guess where the majority of the public falls

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by dawheat

Come on, comparing male reproductive complexity and needs to women is bordering on ignorant. Outside of cancer, our stuff is basically self service. If men want to band together to vote in leaders who will subsidize food for men b/c of their greater nutritional requirements, then go ahead. Just b/c there's no general interest for that idea doesn't make women's special interest any less valid (again like ANY other special interest out there).

Women wanted to be independent from men. And now they are throwing a fit because they found out that being independent from men might mean they actually *gasp* have to be independent from men.

Society had evolved a mechanism, marriage, to ensure women had men to take care of them. Now they are trying to get the benefits of marriage without the obligations.

[nextJin]

This is why he lost; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&hd=1

No character or principles

[techs]

Actually Romney lost because of, wait for it, Bush and the right wing wacko's that took over the Republican party. They fundamentally altered the mindset of young people, minorities, secular humanists and the complacent portions of America who were fine with government as long as it wasn't too radical.

Basically they scared the piss out of people and now the anti-Republicans have been turned into a powerful voting block that seems to have accepted the fact they can't go back to sitting out elections.

Motivation, motivation, motivation. The Dems have it and they got it from the radical Republicans.

[hardhat]

Originally Posted by techs

Actually Romney lost because of, wait for it, Bush and the right wing wacko's that took over the Republican party. They fundamentally altered the mindset of young people, minorities, secular humanists and the complacent portions of America who were fine with government as long as it wasn't too radical.

Basically they scared the piss out of people and now the anti-Republicans have been turned into a powerful voting block that seems to have accepted the fact they can't go back to sitting out elections.

Motivation, motivation, motivation. The Dems have it and they got it from the radical Republicans.

This

This is exactly why the idea that more obstructionism and political stonewalling won't get the GOP anywhere. The republicans will only lose more seats until they start to work for the people instead of for their party's extremists.

[blankslate]

....because he wasn't able to appeal to very many people outside of this demographic







Oh and his supporters watch too much of this brain rotting tripe....





And as a result they figuratively slaughtered moderate (and thus electable) Republican Senators up for reelection with primaries so the could replace them with insane people who could be shackled around Mitt Romney's neck before the Governor was figuratively thrown into a deep dark sea.

All for the sake of ideological purity.