Skip to comments.The end of America: Why Romney lost
Posted on 01/02/2013 9:42:14 AM PST by Perseverando
click here to read article
The objective is to make the West another 3rd world nation just to make it fair.
It’s called global equilibrium — everybody wallowing in each other’s waste.
Notice that Russia and China are not playing those games.
It’s THE CULTURE. The Right won the Cold War and lost American culture to PC. The best piece I have read on this DEADLY DOUBLE STANDARD is at :
whatever you say tinkerbell.
It’s really hard to beat an incumbent whose signature legislation is the same as your signature legislation. The fact is Romneycare wasn’t going to beat Obamacare because there weren’t enough differences. Romney had nothing to stake his ground on, the most he had was being a better speaker than Obama.
Americans get their NEWS from propagandist whores working on behalf of the Socialist regime, not all that unlike PRAVDA. We here at FR know WHAT the problem is, but HOW to awaken Americans to the fact that our news outlets are working FOR KING 0BAMA is the million $$$ question.
My best answer to your question is WE NEED TO ABANDON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR A NEW PARTY WHOSE NUMBER ONE MISSION IS TO LIFT THE VEIL OFF THE MEDIA AND EXPOSE TO REGULAR AMERICANS THAT THE MAJOR MEDIA IS GOVERNMENT-OPERATED. The Republicans won't say SQUAT about the media so we must abandon them for a party that will.
Unfortunately, there were about 2-3% that stayed home, or voted third party as some kind of "protest" or stand for purity as well as a few who couldn't abide a Mormon as president. There are a fair amount of posters here that regularly trumpeted their views, even after FR came to its senses, they are a fair representation of those that didn't show up.
I have to say, there were a lot of reasons for the loss, but that one sticks in my craw. These people continue to crow about their "purity" on FR, while we watch the consequences of the dems destruction on all of us. They bitch and moan about our powerlessness to stop the slide, and the irony and horror of what they did (or didn't do) doesn't even dawn on them.
Yeah those damned voters!!! How dare they expect a candidate running for office in a representative government actually represent even some of the same values.
When your team doesn't win the championships, do you blame the people in the crowd too?
It's been awhile since I posed these questions (and out of all the times have had ZERO reasoned responses), but lets ask again.
Myth Romney supports platforms near the same as those supported by Hillary Clinton - anti-gun; socialized medicine; "rare, safe, and legal abortion;" pro-queer "marriage," arming
Al-Qa'ida rebels in Syria. So the questions I have posed:
If Hillary became an (R) and was running against 0 would you vote for her?
If so/not why/why not?
Please, by all means enlighten me. The primary argument in every election since GHWB has been the "lesser of two evils." Refute one point that I made in the policies and platforms Myth supports, which hmm seem to be a lot of the same Dem talking points as well.
You can make all the snarky comments you want, but that doesn't change the fact Myth supported abortion, queer "marriage," gun bans, championed RomneyCare in Mass (that 0Care was later based on), and giving Al-Qa'ida in Syria weapons. Nor does it change the fact that Hillary supported the same thing.
If we are going to play the lesser of two evils game, tell me where it ends. Because all I see is the Stupid Party (R) discussing more gun control, caving on the fiscal cliff talks, arguing for arming "rebels" in Syria, arguing for arming "rebels" in Libya (hey didn't one of our Ambassadors get killed in that fiasco?), and saying we need a "bigger tent" to "legalize undocumented immigrants" and welcome "married" homosexuals. None of that sounds like Conservative principle to me.
We don’t need to identify and label the liberal media. We already know who they are.
What we need to do is to battle them, with the facts.
But the facts won’t be spread by the left-wing media.
So, what is the answer?
Perhaps setting up alternate media, which we already have some of, but we need a lot more, and more comprehensive, and with the intent of “educating” and not just informing the readers. We need to get their attention, and to hold it.
Abandoning the republican party is also not the answer. That’s equivalent of pointing the finger at the wrong party. The news and information outlets should not be controlled by any political party. The control belongs with the people, with no particular agenda, other than to inform and educate. Political affiliations of those who manage the media should be fully disclosed. News and information and commentaries should be identified as being biased, if they are, and any when reporters and commentators are trying to advance an agenda, then that should also be disclosed.
I have an idea about how to accomplish that, and it would require a new web-based news and information service, which can collect and categorize and make available all the news and information from all sources, whether left-leaning or right-leaning or neutral, but all appearing together, via categories and subjects/topics, so that people can read about the same topics and news from all sides, with the intent of presenting all views. Even the reporters/columnists/commentators/opinion writers, would be categorized.
Such a service is quite possible and easy write and implement. We’d just need to make sure that, as many people become aware of it as quickly as possible. It could easily supplant Google and Yahoo and most other news and information services out there, with the proper implementation and marketing/advertising.
At least I ain’t no craven gutless yellow quitter.
Contact your local U.S. Representative and learn to communicate with him.
Contact your local U.S. Representative and learn to communicate with him.
Glenn Beck has been developing a web-based program and news organization.. gbtv.com or theblaze.com is his network. He talks about things in his daytime broadcast at 2pm PST / 5pm EST the mainstream media would dare not discuss for fear of upsetting their boss, Hussein 0bama. Beck is his own boss, so anything is game and it’s very refreshing. He’ll be talking about the Sandy Hook massacre tomorrow and discussing the REAL problem which are today’s children, not guns and I agree 100%. Will be watching!
The problem with Glen Beck’s properties is that, they are already viewed as biased with right-wing opinion, no matter how much fact-based the content might be. He is seen as a polarizing figure with an agenda that doesn’t fit what the left-wingers feel meets their views or needs.
What I have in mind, would not fit any single agenda or any set of views. I’s intended to be a collection of all views, so that people can finally see what other people are thinking, without having to jump through many other media sources. Neither I nor anyone else would have control of the content or the views. What becomes available on the site, would come from as many media sources, and it would be up to them to provide the content.
I would also provide a means to join discussions regarding an article or commentary that appears on the site. All forums and discussion sites would be welcome too.
As an example, he current issue of the “fiscal cliff” could have hundred of articles appearing on the site, with the source indicated, and a series of forums or discussion sites which might be participants in discussing the issue, and as an example, Free Republic and Huffington Post would have entries or links at the end of an article, which would take the reader to any of those discussions. Thus, the articles would be representative of a broad swath of reporting and commentaries, while the discussion sites would allow the readers to go and express their views/feelings on their preferred forums. The intent is to present the news and information, and to then take the reader to the “opinion” pages of the issues.
You sure do like to ramble. You raise so much dust going down the road that you miss the exit. Marinate that thought for a while.
It was right here, all over Free Republic. People swore that they would never vote for Romney, that they would let Obama get elected before they would vote for him.
Hey slippery, that isn’t what you claimed.
The bizarre claim of yours was that the Evangelicals who were the most republican voters of the 2012 election, were responsible for Romney’s loss, “”It is fundamentalist christians that won Obama a second term.””.
That is an obvious lie, it is the OPPOSITE of the truth, a complete reversal of the truth.
So why are you posting it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.