Elections 2012

[YankyDoodle]

This country is going down the tubes. Time to look for a second citizenship.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/us-election-bluster/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like I beat the rush 

[sky121]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/us-election-bluster/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like I beat the rush 

Lucky you. I'd be happy with some Canadian citizenship as a plan b.

[yossi4k]

I've been saying this for years

[Chaikel]

I'd be surprised if most people did NOT think assassinating a SC Justice / President was off limits.

Having trouble following the double negative.

[AJK]

Having trouble following the double negative.

Except there is no double negative.

Also, lucky for you, it's in a written medium and in context. Feel free to review as long as necessary.

OK fine... for you:

I'd be surprised if most people thought talk of assassinating a SC Justice / President was a topic worthy of even a joking discussion.

(Essentially the same meaning, but not exactly, which is why I worded the way I did initially.)

[Achas Veachas]

For the record; here is what the map would have looked like if only white men voted:

[Ergel]

A very important and true perspective on the elections
 http://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/who-won-election-raffi-bilek/#.UKEAMu5Z7lg

[Dan]

Very well written and a great perspective.

[bubbles]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-sc-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/KL6qrls8

[Dan]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[jj1000]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Based on the link name I thought it was an article about forum people being upset about the election results...

[Ergel]

Interesting article. You think he's right?

[AJK]

Whatever you think of the Obama record, it's worth keeping in mind that by any measure, free enterprise has been winning the game for a long, long time to this point.

Compare the United States of 2012 to the United States of 1962. Leave aside the obvious points about segregation and discrimination, and look only at the economy.

In 1962, the government regulated the price and route of every airplane, every freight train, every truck and every merchant ship in the United States. The government regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated the interest on every checking account and the commission on every purchase or sale of stock. Owning a gold bar was a serious crime that could be prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The top rate of income tax was 91%.

It was illegal to own a telephone. Phones had to be rented from the giant government-regulated monopoly that controlled all telecommunications in the United States. All young men were subject to the military draft and could escape only if they entered a government-approved graduate course of study. The great concern of students of American society -- of liberals such as David Riesman, of conservatives such as Russell Kirk, and of radicals such as Dwight Macdonald -- was the country's stultifying, crushing conformity.

Blah blah blah... Obama was responsible for none of this. In fact he's increased the amount of regulation in this country. He's back pedaled when viewed through this prism of progression.

The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism.

Wow, what an insightful comment. The article is littered with them.

[Dan]

True, but his point is we take 2 steps forward and 3 steps back on occasion.
In the long-run hopefully we'll still get to the right place IF the republicans can figure that they simply can't afford to alienate huge swaths of voters.

[AJK]

I'm not quite sure he's advocating from the position that obama is three steps backward...

[HelpMe]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again."

[Dan]

I'm not quite sure he's advocating from the position that obama is three steps backward...

I think he is, my read is that he's saying that Obama isn't going to be 100 steps back as some are saying.  He may succeed in taking us a few steps back, but long-term even that may be a good thing as people reject those policies and propel the country the other way,

[AJK]

I think he is, my read is that he's saying that Obama isn't going to be 100 steps back as some are saying.  He may succeed in taking us a few steps back, but long-term even that may be a good thing as people reject those policies and propel the country the other way,

You may be right; I might've read it too quickly. It just seemed he was trying to defend Obama saying "oh, it's not so bad... look where our country is headed anyway."

[Dan]

I read it very quickly as well, feel free to argue with my interpretation.

[Ergel]

I read it very quickly as well, feel free to argue with my interpretation.

I will.