out of touch republicans

rearviewross

JimmyV wrote:

I think the headline is a bit deceptive because you don't need to be a libertarian to boo a rightwing nutjob for calling libertarians pussies.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/ann_cou ... ertarians/

During a debate with Fox Business’ John Stossel, Ann Coulter got booed after reportedly calling libertarians “p*ssies” and saying that gay people can get married, “They have to marry a member of the opposite sex.”

Stossel was filming his show at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C., with around 1400 libertarian students in attendance, according to Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell. When Stossel brought up the drug war, Coulter scoffed, and reportedly (though it was bleeped out) said, “this is why people think libertarians are p*ssies.”

Coulter is a hack whos soul purpose is to draw as much attention to herself as possible by saying ridiculous things that even she doesn't believe because she knows there are morons out there who do believe it(see Sara Palin supporters). She is a book peddler, that is it. The fact that she insulted Libertarians in front of a room full of Libertarians should be a shock to nobody.

gimmesometruth27

:fp: :fp: :fp:

Why Obama is rising in the polls — and Republicans aren't

http://theweek.com/article/index/240417 ... cans-arent

A Bloomberg poll puts the president's approval numbers at a three-year high, while GOP leaders are at a three-year low


President Obama just got a boost as he heads into a showdown with Republicans over reducing the deficit to avoid $1.2 trillion in 10-year budget cuts due to begin hitting March 1. Bloomberg released a poll late Wednesday that gave Obama his highest job-approval rating in three years, with 55 percent of those surveyed giving him a thumbs up. At the same time, the poll put the popularity of Republicans at its lowest point since Bloomberg began measuring in September 2009, with just 35 percent saying they view the GOP favorably. The GOP's brand has slipped six percentage points in the last six months alone.

Predictably, the news triggered a wave of gloating from Obama's supporters. "Americans just aren't buying what Republicans are selling," says Steve Benen at MSNBC. And Bloomberg's poll results aren't even the worst new numbers showing just how bad the GOP's predicament is. "That prize goes to a new USA Today/Pew Research Center poll," Benen says, in which nearly half of Americans blame the GOP for the looming budget fiasco — known as the sequester — while only a hair more than 30 percent blame Democrats.

With a week to go before the sequestration deadline hits, GOP leaders are convinced they can win a public-relations fight with the White House because, conservatives believe, Americans will blame Obama for the dangerous sequester policy that Republicans championed.

This poll suggests the GOP isn't just wrong, its understanding of public attitudes is the exact opposite of reality. The public is prepared to hold Republicans responsible for this self-inflicted wound that will undermine the economy, the military, and public needs. The one thing the GOP is counting on — avoiding blame at all costs — is already failing miserably. [MSNBC]

Republicans can call this the "Obamaquester" all they want, suggests Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice, but the public sees through it. Yes, Obama originally backed the idea as a way to wriggle out of the debt-ceiling crisis in 2011, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) "was a cheerleader... for it two years ago," too. And today, "more Americans will blame it on the Republican Party than on Obama, no matter what Fox News, Sean Hannity or conservative bloggers say." Why? Obama says spending on infrastructure, education, and alternative energy will create more jobs than the GOP obsession with slashing taxes and spending — and the president's approach is closer to what most Americans want. "GOPers continue playing to their choir," Gandelman says, "while Obama is successfully addressing a larger pool of Americans and is (for now) changing some minds."

"President Obama has staked out positions that seem to be closer to the public's thinking than the positions Republicans have staked out," Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, tells USA Today. "The challenge for him is in building the public's sense of immediacy on some of these issues, particularly on climate change and guns." If he can't do that, he'll have trouble capitalizing on the upper hand he now enjoys over GOP leaders, and getting key elements of his agenda passed.

Of course, Obama still faces some headwinds. "Americans do narrowly disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy," says Kevin Robillard at Politico, "and have an overwhelmingly negative opinion about his handling of the federal deficit — only 35 percent approve, and 55 percent disapprove."

MG79478

Hmmm... no discussion on Joe Salazar and the Democrat's "war on women?" I don't know why he thinks they shouldn't be able to defend themeselves...

Salazar said that even if women feel like they're going to be raped, that's no justification for carrying a Glock in your purse or book bag.

"It's why we have call boxes; it's why we have safe zones; it's why we have the whistles," Salazar opined.

"Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody."

Disagreeing with Salazar's assessment is Amanda Collins, a woman who was raped in 2007 at the University of Nevada. She was raped at gunpoint, in a gun-free zone, less than 300 feet away from campus authorities. The assailant went on to assault two other women and kill a third.

"Had I been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved," Collins told NRA News host Cam Edwards Wednesday, defending students' right to carry weapons on campus.

"A call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn't have helped me one bit."

gimmesometruth27

MG79478 wrote:

Hmmm... no discussion on Joe Salazar and the Democrat's "war on women?" I don't know why he thinks they shouldn't be able to defend themeselves...

Salazar said that even if women feel like they're going to be raped, that's no justification for carrying a Glock in your purse or book bag.

"It's why we have call boxes; it's why we have safe zones; it's why we have the whistles," Salazar opined.

"Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody."

Disagreeing with Salazar's assessment is Amanda Collins, a woman who was raped in 2007 at the University of Nevada. She was raped at gunpoint, in a gun-free zone, less than 300 feet away from campus authorities. The assailant went on to assault two other women and kill a third.

"Had I been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved," Collins told NRA News host Cam Edwards Wednesday, defending students' right to carry weapons on campus.

"A call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn't have helped me one bit."

probably because democrats are fighting for women's rights and equal pay in the work place. republicans oppose these things. it is in the party platform posted in this thread.

please start your own out of touch democrats thread and stop derailing this one.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

please start your own out of touch democrats thread and stop derailing this one.

Hahahaha, yeah, they want to hate on only republicans here, get out and stay out!!!!

whgarrett

Hee hee hee....gimme some truth....but only that which i want to be true

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Hmmm... no discussion on Joe Salazar and the Democrat's "war on women?" I don't know why he thinks they shouldn't be able to defend themeselves...

Salazar said that even if women feel like they're going to be raped, that's no justification for carrying a Glock in your purse or book bag.

"It's why we have call boxes; it's why we have safe zones; it's why we have the whistles," Salazar opined.

"Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody."

Disagreeing with Salazar's assessment is Amanda Collins, a woman who was raped in 2007 at the University of Nevada. She was raped at gunpoint, in a gun-free zone, less than 300 feet away from campus authorities. The assailant went on to assault two other women and kill a third.

"Had I been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved," Collins told NRA News host Cam Edwards Wednesday, defending students' right to carry weapons on campus.

"A call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn't have helped me one bit."

probably because democrats are fighting for women's rights and equal pay in the work place. republicans oppose these things. it is in the party platform posted in this thread.

please start your own out of touch democrats thread and stop derailing this one.

legitimate question:

how do you enforce a law about equal pay?

gimmesometruth27

seriously, i just googled "democrat war on women" and there were only blogs claiming that the dems were waging a war on women. breitbart, newser.com, hotair.com (really, wtf is that one? looks like a legitimate news source?).
the only one from a close to reputable news source is an opinion piece on usnews.com.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

please start your own out of touch democrats thread and stop derailing this one.

Hahahaha, yeah, they want to hate on only republicans here, get out and stay out!!!!

go ahead and post the thread and i will post shit about the dems in there too.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

legitimate question:

how do you enforce a law about equal pay?

you hold business owners accountable. if it works to fine or tax business owners who hire illegal aliens, it can work to fine or tax companies that do not pay equal pay for equal work.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

legitimate question:

how do you enforce a law about equal pay?

you hold business owners accountable. if it works to fine or tax business owners who hire illegal aliens, it can work to fine or tax companies that do not pay equal pay for equal work.

How do you determine equal work? I just think that is hard to do.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

legitimate question:

how do you enforce a law about equal pay?

you hold business owners accountable. if it works to fine or tax business owners who hire illegal aliens, it can work to fine or tax companies that do not pay equal pay for equal work.

so we should force companies to pay two people the same amount if they are doing the same work...got it.

teachers who hold a Masters vs bachelors is a prime example. One can teach with a masters and one can teach with a bachelors...both can teach 8th grade math, should they make the same amount? Why does education, experience, or sex matter? If you both teach you both get paid the same. The fact is it is easy to say equal pay for equal work, but it is not easy to implement, and any ambiguity in a law is going to have massive unforeseen consequences.

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

legitimate question:

how do you enforce a law about equal pay?

you hold business owners accountable. if it works to fine or tax business owners who hire illegal aliens, it can work to fine or tax companies that do not pay equal pay for equal work.

so we should force companies to pay two people the same amount if they are doing the same work...got it.

teachers who hold a Masters vs bachelors is a prime example. One can teach with a masters and one can teach with a bachelors...both can teach 8th grade math, should they make the same amount? Why does education, experience, or sex matter? If you both teach you both get paid the same. The fact is it is easy to say equal pay for equal work, but it is not easy to implement, and any ambiguity in a law is going to have massive unforeseen consequences.

Well, we know with teachers it is "unfair" to base their pay on the results of their students, so I'm not sure how you determine who is a good teacher and a bad and hwo you ensure equal pay for the same level of performance.

MG79478

whgarrett wrote:

Hee hee hee....gimme some truth....but only that which i want to be true

In an open minded world, this thread would be titled "out of touch politicians". We would be encouraged to post threads that show how out of touch either side is. And anyone with half a brain would understand that you would still essentially have the same thread, because of how liberal this board is.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

seriously, i just googled "democrat war on women" and there were only blogs claiming that the dems were waging a war on women. breitbart, newser.com, hotair.com (really, wtf is that one? looks like a legitimate news source?).
the only one from a close to reputable news source is an opinion piece on usnews.com.

That's because the notion of a war on women is so ridiculous that only a liberal would believe it. I guess you are on to the Republicans; their strategy is to alienate everyone but rich white males, and get elected that way.

Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice that you want to avoid actually talking about the posted issue.

pandora

Being an employer, a small employer, with employees able to wear many different hats,
people become very individual with their own personalities and abilities.
We take into consideration seniority, dedication, experience, producing capabilities,
among many other variables.
I can't see being told who should make what salary in our business.
It would be unfair when it seems the goal is fairness. I can imagine that even larger
companies could feel so also. Just don't see how laws can take the place of the good judgement
of business owners who want above all else to keep the good employees satisfied
so they stay.

MG79478

Disarming American women

http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcom ... z2Lvy3GpwV

If radical gun-grabbers have their way, your daughters, mothers and grandmothers will have nothing but whistles, pens and bodily fluids to defend themselves against violent attackers and sexual predators. Women of all ages, races and political backgrounds should be up in arms over the coordinated attack on their right to bear arms.

In Colorado last week, male Democrat legislators assailed concealed-carry supporters and disparaged female students who refuse to depend on the government for protection. The Democrat-controlled House passed a statewide ban on concealed-carry weapons on college campuses, along with several other extreme gun-control measures that will undermine citizen safety and drive dozens of businesses out of the state.

Condescending Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar asserted that young women can't be trusted to assess threatening situations at their colleges or universities: “It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles,” Salazar said during floor debate. “Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at ... .”

State Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, another elitist Democrat, argued that instead of firing back at a crazed gunman, innocent victims would be better off using “ballpoint pens” to stab an assailant when he stops to reload.

And after personally lobbying Colorado Democrats to restrict self-defense options, Vice President Joe Biden blithely dismissed a woman's concerns about family security. He advised her, “You don't need an AR-15” — even though it is the choice of 3 million law-abiding citizens, half of whom are veterans, law-enforcement officers or both.

The presumptuous paternalism of gun-grabbing male Democrats is not confined to the political arena. On college campuses across the country, the literal disarming of women is standard operating procedure. At the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, officials advise women that “passive resistance may be your best defense.” The school's recommendation to girls: “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.”

If that fails, it's time to deploy other assault bodily fluids! No joke. UCCS seriously advises potential victims: “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.”

The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells girls to “(c)ry or create a scene of emotional or mental instability.” Instead of a Glock, the school prefers students to take a page from “Glee.” Yes, ladies, when you fear for your lives, it's time to engage in theatrics by faking a “faint” or “seizure.”

As I've noted before, colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

Where are the War on Women warriors of the left when you need them? Paging Ashley Judd, Eva Longoria, Sandra Fluke and every indignant feminist who (rightly) took Todd “legitimate rape” Akin to task — as I did — last fall. The sexist stance of gun-grabbers goes far beyond Akin-esque junk science about magical wombs that can prevent pregnancy. The idea that women can't be trusted to know when they are at risk takes direct aim at their very sovereignty and security.

It's anti-self-determination. It's anti-freedom. It's anti-choice.

pandora

MG79478 wrote:

Disarming American women

http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcom ... z2Lvy3GpwV

If radical gun-grabbers have their way, your daughters, mothers and grandmothers will have nothing but whistles, pens and bodily fluids to defend themselves against violent attackers and sexual predators. Women of all ages, races and political backgrounds should be up in arms over the coordinated attack on their right to bear arms.

In Colorado last week, male Democrat legislators assailed concealed-carry supporters and disparaged female students who refuse to depend on the government for protection. The Democrat-controlled House passed a statewide ban on concealed-carry weapons on college campuses, along with several other extreme gun-control measures that will undermine citizen safety and drive dozens of businesses out of the state.

Condescending Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar asserted that young women can't be trusted to assess threatening situations at their colleges or universities: “It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles,” Salazar said during floor debate. “Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at ... .”

State Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, another elitist Democrat, argued that instead of firing back at a crazed gunman, innocent victims would be better off using “ballpoint pens” to stab an assailant when he stops to reload.

And after personally lobbying Colorado Democrats to restrict self-defense options, Vice President Joe Biden blithely dismissed a woman's concerns about family security. He advised her, “You don't need an AR-15” — even though it is the choice of 3 million law-abiding citizens, half of whom are veterans, law-enforcement officers or both.

The presumptuous paternalism of gun-grabbing male Democrats is not confined to the political arena. On college campuses across the country, the literal disarming of women is standard operating procedure. At the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, officials advise women that “passive resistance may be your best defense.” The school's recommendation to girls: “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.”

If that fails, it's time to deploy other assault bodily fluids! No joke. UCCS seriously advises potential victims: “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.”

The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells girls to “(c)ry or create a scene of emotional or mental instability.” Instead of a Glock, the school prefers students to take a page from “Glee.” Yes, ladies, when you fear for your lives, it's time to engage in theatrics by faking a “faint” or “seizure.”

As I've noted before, colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

Where are the War on Women warriors of the left when you need them? Paging Ashley Judd, Eva Longoria, Sandra Fluke and every indignant feminist who (rightly) took Todd “legitimate rape” Akin to task — as I did — last fall. The sexist stance of gun-grabbers goes far beyond Akin-esque junk science about magical wombs that can prevent pregnancy. The idea that women can't be trusted to know when they are at risk takes direct aim at their very sovereignty and security.

It's anti-self-determination. It's anti-freedom. It's anti-choice.

Oh good lord I can't believe I read that :wtf: after the Betterman thread it is even more ironic.

gimmesometruth27

pew poll from today...


GOP Seen as Principled, But Out of Touch and Too Extreme

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/26/ ... o-extreme/

Overview

At a time when the Republican Party’s image is at a historic low, 62% of the public says the GOP is out of touch with the American people, 56% think it is not open to change and 52% say the party is too extreme.

Opinions about the Democratic Party are mixed, but the party is viewed more positively than the GOP in every dimension tested except one. Somewhat more say the Republican Party than the Democratic Party has strong principles (63% vs. 57%).

The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Feb. 13-18 among 1,504 adults, comes at a time when Republican leaders are debating the party’s future in the wake of Barack Obama’s reelection. The Republican Party’s image has been hit hard over the past decade. In January, just 33% said they viewed the party favorably, among the lowest marks of the last 20 years. The GOP’s favorable rating has not been above 50% since shortly after George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

An earlier release from the survey by the Pew Research Center and USA TODAY found that while both party’s congressional leaders receive negative job ratings, just 25% approve of the job performance of GOP leaders, compared with 37% approval for Democratic congressional leaders.

The new report finds that while the Democratic Party is viewed more positively on most traits tested, opinion is divided about whether the party is out of touch with the American people: 46% say it is, while 50% it is not. And only somewhat more say the Democratic Party is looking out for the country’s future than say that about the Republican Party (51% vs. 45%).



Republicans More Critical of Their Party

Republicans are more critical of their party than Democrats are of theirs on most issues. For example, 36% of Republicans say the GOP is out of touch with the American people. Just 23% of Democrats say their party is out of touch. And while 30% of Republicans say their party is not open to change, just 10% of Democrats make the same criticism of their party.

However, Republicans overwhelmingly credit their party for having strong principles; 85% say the GOP has strong principles while 13% say it does not. And 80% of Republicans say their party is looking out for the country’s long-term future.

The GOP also gets high marks from independents and Democrats for having strong principles. Fully 62% of independents say the Republican Party has strong principles, the most positive measure for any party trait tested. Even about half of Democrats (52%) say the Republican Party has strong principles.

Partisan views about whether the Republican Party is too extreme are mirror images: 78% of Republicans say the GOP is not too extreme, while 19% say it is; 78% of Democrats view the Republican Party as too extreme while 19% disagree.

Democrats express highly positive views of their party across-the-board, while Republicans’ opinions about the Democratic Party are uniformly negative. At least 80% of Democrats evaluate their party positively on every trait except one, being out of touch with the American people. Even there, 76% of Democrats say their party is not out of touch, while just 23% say it is.

Far more independents say the Democratic Party is open to change than say that about the Republican Party (54% vs. 39%). The gap is roughly the same in independents’ views about whether the parties are out of touch (65% Republican vs. 51% Democratic) and too extreme (51% vs. 40%).

However, independents are divided over whether the Democratic Party looks out for the country’s future: 45% say it does and 51% say it does not. Independents have similar views about whether the Republican Party looks out for the future (43% yes, 51% no).

About a quarter of independents (27%) say that neither party is looking out for the country’s future. An even higher percentage of independents (37%) say that both parties are out of touch with the American people.





Overall Views of Parties

The Republican Party’s overall image stands at one of the lowest points in nearly two decades. And, while impressions of the Democratic Party are much stronger, they are far below where they were four years ago.

In January, 33% of the public had a favorable view of the GOP, compared with 58% who held an unfavorable impression of the party. Among Republicans themselves, 69% had a favorable impression, down from a recent high of 89% reported after the GOP convention. Majorities of both Democrats and independents viewed the Republican Party unfavorably (83% and 58%, respectively).

Views of the Democratic Party were evenly divided in January: 47% favorable, 46% unfavorable. Among Democrats, 87% had a favorable impression of their party while roughly the same percentage of Republicans held an unfavorable view (84%). Independents, on balance, had more unfavorable impressions of the Democratic Party (52%) than favorable ones (37%).



About the Survey

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted February 13-18, 2013 among a national sample of 1,504 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (752 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 752 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 364 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and nativity and region to parameters from the 2011 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size among respondents with a landline phone. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:



Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

cincybearcat

Gimmie, it should be 100% for both being out of touch. People are kidding themselves.

aerial

If congress and Obama can not balance a budget and cut spending why do people feel they are intelligent enough to create laws?