If the pattern continues to larger and larger government with more and more on assistance, will we see the slogan in 4 years turned around on the D's? Instead of "Pay your fair share" to "Work your fair share"?

I think Obama's expensive, negative campaign is being overlooked a bit. No, it wasn't the only reason he won, but Obama made sure to constantly paint Romney as nothing but an uber-rich, corporate raiding, women rights hating right-winger. Negative ads work, always have. I saw what "change" was about.

Classic overreaction.

 

As for your last paragraph, I think we have been hearing that for the last 6 months, haven't we?

 

You are correct. That is a classic overreaction.

 

Yes, we have from those on the left who have no room to criticize those on the right that do the same.

Funny. You act like being a minority in this country is a bad thing. Keep plugging along, lil soldier. Maybe one day you'll get a President who kind of looks like you.

Because we all know that is what matters.......symbolism over substance.

I don't think it's lumping all of the voters together at all. However, to discount a large population of voters (I don't know if it's 47% or not), isn't honest either, but if the democratic party continues to expand government and government assistance, that demographic of voters will only increase. And possibly to a point where no other candidate from another party who would like to decrease the size of government has a chance in the white house. And if that holds true, call it what you like, it by default becomes socialism.

 

This may show my ignorance but how were the welfare programs increased without Congress' approval? Last I checked the GOP held the House. It may not take "an act of congress" but I thought it might.

 

I would also add that everyone votes for "what he or she can get" from each party or candidate. Do you not think that billions are spent for Romney because those people "want something from him?"

 

I do find it ironic in the post-election discussion that someone stated on air that the Republicans spent FAR more on this campaign than the Dems and yet it was the "get out the vote" grassroots that helped Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong but Reagan's GOP won overwhelmingly with a "grass roots" get out the vote push as well. Maybe the problem lies there.

PP, serious question. If 93% of the white population voted for Romney would there be cries of racism?

 

Only if that 93% typically voted for the opposite party. That's what kills me. Blacks have voted democrat since the 70's. Yes, a viable, true, non Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton acting black man running for president will bring out more blacks to vote than normal but blacks vote democrats anyways.

 

Serious question for you....suppose Colin Powell and Condi Rice ran on the same republican ticket and that 93% black vote switched parties and voted for them. Would you have a problem with it then?

 

The day the Republican Party chooses to appeal to more than just white men, then maybe, just maybe the demographics in those who vote republican just might change.

Because we all know that is what matters.......symbolism over substance.

 

Tell that to MC who is sad and having a hard time that his skin tone is becoming the new minority. Welcome to my world. You'll get used to it. You'll adapt.

I think Obama's expensive, negative campaign is being overlooked a bit. No, it wasn't the only reason he won, but Obama made sure to constantly paint Romney as nothing but an uber-rich, corporate raiding, women rights hating right-winger. Negative ads work, always have. I saw what "change" was about.

 

 

I had heard that the GOP Pacs and Romney campaign FAR outspent Obama and the Dem PACS.

The day the Republican Party chooses to appeal to more than just white men, then maybe, just maybe the demographics in those who vote republican just might change.

 

100% true.

This may show my ignorance but how were the welfare programs increased without Congress' approval? Last I checked the GOP held the House. It may not take "an act of congress" but I thought it might.

 

I would also add that everyone votes for "what he or she can get" from each party or candidate. Do you not think that billions are spent for Romney because those people "want something from him?"

 

I do find it ironic in the post-election discussion that someone stated on air that the Republicans spent FAR more on this campaign than the Dems and yet it was the "get out the vote" grassroots that helped Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong but Reagan's GOP won overwhelmingly with a "grass roots" get out the vote push as well. Maybe the problem lies there.

 

Where have you been, Hatz? Obama invented welfare, enacted it, made sure everyone gets it and is going to make sure even more get it all by himself. Complete with their new Obamaphone5 and food stamps with his face on it.

Speaking of Colin Powell, I have to wonder how much he was paid to endorse Obama? Surely someone with his military background alone can't think we are headed down the right path militarily speaking if nothing else.

Where have you been, Hatz? Obama invented welfare, enacted it, made sure everyone gets it and is going to make sure even more get it all by himself. Complete with their new Obamaphone5 and food stamps with his face on it.

 

 

 

How silly of me!

How silly of me!

 

:lol: :lol:

Where have you been, Hatz? Obama invented welfare, enacted it, made sure everyone gets it and is going to make sure even more get it all by himself. Complete with their new Obamaphone5 and food stamps with his face on it.

Come on PP.

Speaking of Colin Powell, I have to wonder how much he was paid to endorse Obama? Surely someone with his military background alone can't think we are headed down the right path militarily speaking if nothing else.

 

 

I think he probably felt we were heading down a pretty bad path under Bush as well.