Posted on 01/14/2011 5:45:28 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Ann Coulter has something to say about Friday’s Republican National Committee Chairman election, and it isn’t favorable about the results.
“Big mistake not to re-elect Michael Steele” Coulter wrote via Twitter, “If he weren’t good, the left wouldn’t hysterically attack him.”
Steele lost the Chairman election to Wisconsin Republican Chair Reince Priebus. Steele came in second place in the first round of balloting, with 44 votes to Priebus’ 45 votes, but lost ground in further rounds of voting.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Um hum....
Me thinks the man doth protest too much.
Project often?
Bye Rodgers. You have a great time in lala land.
Lots of name-calling, but no facts.
You say women vote democrat because they don’t know any better...yet MEN do - and you say I’M anti-woman? You say you voted democrat because you were told to do so, and you just did what you were told...unlike the males, who thought for themselves - and I’M anti-woman?
The 30-40 point gap not only disappears when women marry, but swings the other way - so does that mean that the path to enlightenment is through marrying a man? Why do married women vote Republican, but single women vote overwhelmingly democrat? Because, according to you, women can’t think for themselves and just do what they are told, first by their teachers and later by their husbands?
WOW! YOU are the bigot!
LOL
Dude, you are an asshat for real. I told you MY experience which I was not of the opinion was at all unusual. Most young people tend to follow the advice of their respected elders. I dare say that in my High School History class, where that epic advise was given, I would not be surprised to find a 98% Democrat voter registration, both male and female. But then we ARE talking about Eugene Oregon....
Ok, heres one you should get right off the bat: “I am rubber and you are glue”.
If your bigoted misogynistic BS were correct, then 30-40% more single women would NOT be voting for democrats because your simplistic views would have led to successful strategies for reaching out to them.
OOPS! FAIL.
Why did it fail? Because you are coming from an incorrect paradigm.
Now, I have nothing against ANY group of people, male, female, black, white, football lovers, soccer lovers or anything else. You however have an archaic set of attitudes which pretty clearly demonstrate a dislike for women, and and an outdated if not myth like set of beliefs about us, and how the single members of my sex tend to vote and why. All statistics aside, those permutations have yet to come up with a solution which WORKS. Therefore you are barking up the wrong tree.
The theory FAILS. Otherwise that 30-40% number would have dropped through your epic logic. It hasn’t.
Furthermore, ANY woman who was single reading your posts would have been offended, and rightly so! Not a damn word of what you have said would have convinced a single woman to stop and rethink her position.
All you have done is to paint conservatives as misogynists, just like the LEFT likes to paint us. Bravo, way to keep the problem going.
So of the two of us, I am telling you and anyone who will read this, that if we want to address certain sections of society, we have to do it from the perspective of that group - walk a mile in their shoes sort of thing. You can’t relate to anyone you refuse to stop and try to understand. You think poll numbers and statements made by talking heads is the answer?
Umhum, no wonder so many single women see the GOP as a group of old men who think all women are stupid and need a man to take care of them and just want the toilet seat put down. You are utterly incapable of seeing the insanity of this. And YOU call ME a bigot?
Go switch out the mothballs in your closet Rogers. You hurt the conservative movement, particularly with single women.
Well, that is the definition of amnesty. That is exactly what we fought tooth and nail here to defeat - the McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty plan. If you support that fine. But don’t pretend it ain’t amnesty.
Amnesty is what Reagan did. Here ya go, have US Citizenship.
A path to citizenship isn’t perfect, but it IS practical.
Otherwise, please enlighten me as to how you would suggest removing 12 million people, and to which countries would you send them using what resources? Operation Wetback DID work, but was a PR nightmare which is why the operation was halted.
A path to citizenship is what McCain-Kennedy-Bush were pushing. It is the definition of amnesty. IOW, you don’t have to leave. We legalize you to stay and work, then give you citizenship after a period of time = Amnesty. Do you not remember 2007?
Oh I remember, and somehow I don’t see Palin’s name attached to it.
That doesn’t answer my question however. How do you propose to round up and remove 12 million people?
Its a logistics question at this point Pissant. I have my belief, make it impossible for businesses and employers to deduct wages of workers who cannot legitimately prove they are in the U.S. legally. No jobs and no money and they will go home. Those who want to go the legal route to becoming either legal aliens or some other legal path should be allowed to do so. Many of them are here because they want a better life than what they can find in Guatemala or Mexico. I don’t blame them for that, and if they want to make it right there should be a path to doing so. Otherwise, what is your suggesting for getting rid of them.
Treat it as a question of logistics and public relations.
If you remember, then you will remember it was called Comprehensive Immigration Reform. It was designed to allow anyone here longer than 5 years to stay. Pay back taxes, and get on the path to citizenship. It also had promises to “secure the border”, just as the Reagan era amnesty did.
McCain, Bush, Kennedy and ALL the liberals said this was not amnesty. Every single conservative under the sun called it EXACTLY THAT - AMNESTY. We flooded the Congressional phones regarding amnesty (the largest phone meltdown ever), we had counter rallies to the reconquista pro-amnesty rallies, and the other candidates pounded McCain in the primary over his amnesty. It was the main reason Tancredo ran, and Tanc and Hunter basically drove the other patsies like Mitt and Huck and Fred to come up with tough deportation plans and reject amnesty.
So why on God’s green earth will we accept another McCain clone on this subject? You might like it. That’s fine. But for those of us who fought and defeated the last GOP president on this, we do not want a repeat.
Like befriending Bill Maher at one time, supporting Mitt Romney in 2008, or telling us we shouldn't have a problem with GOProud and her headlining HomoCon 2010? That kind of sometimes?
You mistake me Pissant.
I asked you a question of logistics and you are ducking it with irrelevancies. The McCain-Kennedy BS had two things in it I really didn’t like and didn’t trust. McCain and Kennedy.
That bill isn’t on the table for good reason, it was a totally sucky proposal flawed in at least a dozen ways. It deserved to fail miserably. I don’t see Palin proposing the M-K bill. I see her saying that we have to find some practical solution which is logistically possible.
So, whats your solution? Kick em all out?
Ok, how do you find them? Do a Japanese internment sort of thing? That didn’t exactly work out so well. Do you (God forbid) profile people based on their looks? How do you deal with their kids who have citizenship here? Round everyone up on a few million school buses and drop em in Juarez? Container ships to Cabo San Lucas?
Come on Pissant, we have a problem which requires a practical solution which will work and do so humanely. What is your suggestion?
We can’t round them all up and put them on buses. So what do we do? Ignore the problem and fry anyone with the stones to bring it up? Is it all or nothing? There are few black and white situations in life my friend. Compromise is a fact of life. It is also how this Nation was designed, no one group is going to get everything they want and nothing that they don’t. Our government wasn’t designed to be dictatorial or one sided, compromise is a fact of life.
So how do we deal with it?
And saying "FU" to another FReeper isn't beyond the pale?
I haven't read your exchange with Mr Rogers to this point, but that comment caught my eye because it's not something usually seen on Free Republic.
What didn’t you like about the McCain-Kennedy-Bush plan? Did you know that at the same time that Palin gave the interview to Univision with her BS about how inhumane it would be to deport the illegals and that we must give them a “pathway to citizenship”, that the McCain-Palin campaign was running ads on spanish language radio blaming Obama for the failure of the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
Did you know that Palin in 2010 while campaigning for McCain, when asked by Greta what she would advise McCain to do about illegal immigration had they had won in 2008, said: “I agree with him (McCain) on immigration”
Did you know that to this very day, Mccain still wants to revive Comprehensive Immigration Reform (amnesty).
IT IS AMNESTY, my friend. Pure, unadulterated amnesty. The same BS we defeated in 2007.
But now I’m curious about your question: What to do with 12 million illegals, if we aren’t going to offer them amnesty? That’s the same question all the pro-amnesty folks asked a million times in 2007, while telling us how inhumane it would be to “round them up”.
Here’s the answer: Do you know that we deport anywhere between 300,000 to 400,000 people a year. Now imagine if we actually completed the Hunter border fence (which Hunter vowed to do in six months) and for all intents and purposes cut the southern illegal entry by 90%. And then imagine that we doubled illegal immigrant crackdowns and vigorously enforced the laws against employing them. We’d bump up the deportations to 600,000 to 800,000 a year. And imagine that we added a simple law that said, if you voluntarily leave, you can reapply for a green card at the back of the line. But if we have to come find you, you will be banned for 10 years from ever even visiting the our country. In this atmosphere, the illegals would start self deporting in droves, just as they self imported. Within 5 or 6 years, the problem would be 90% solved.
What I described above is a minor variation on what Huckabee and Romney and Fred eventually came up with. It is what Hunter and Tanc had been fighting for for years.
That is the answer. Robustly enforce existing law, a major crackdown on workplace enforcement, and the Hunter Fence. 3 simple steps. And if coupled with scratching this anchor baby BS and chain migration, it will completely solve the problem.
You STILL haven’t offered a single reason why single women vote overwhelmingly democrat, and single men do not. Nor have you explained why women vote 70:30 democrat when single, but 45:55 democrat when married. But then, facts aren’t something you are capable of dealing with - only name-calling.
Here are some FACTS:
In 2008, men voted for Obama - by ONE POINT. The last time more men voted for the democrat candidate for president was 1992 - 41:38, with 21% going to Perot. Those are the two instances in the last 30 years.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/GGPresVote.pdf
““In this time of extreme economic insecurity, Obama spoke directly to women’s concerns. He projected empathy for women’s financial struggles and understands how hard it can be to keep a job today while caring for families,” said Dr. Vicky Lovell, IWPR’s Acting Director of Research. “Our research shows that women feel more anxiety over financial burdens and their overall economic well-being than men—and, in fact, women are more economically vulnerable than men. Obama offered hope while acknowledging women’s struggles.”
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/08ElectionRelease.pdf
From the same site: ““Obama spoke directly to women’s issues like pay equity, paid leave, and early childhood development,” said Erica Williams, Study Director for the Institute. “Proposing concrete policy solutions to address more of the issues that women prioritize may have helped Obama increase women’s turnout and the gender gap. Had McCain pursued a similar issues-based strategy for attracting women voters he may have earned more support from women.”
Yes, it might have helped McCain with women, but he’d have needed to abandon conservatism even more than he already did.
“”Highly educated women are a new Democratic base, almost to the same extent as union voters and ethnic voters,” says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Meanwhile, Republicans have made gains among all blue-collar workers, especially men.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-17-gendergap-cover_x.htm
Single women vote for a government that will take care of them and provide security - a man who never leaves the toilet seat up. Daddy Government. I’d tell you to think about it, but emoting about it is all you seem capable of doing.
“So, whats your solution? Kick em all out?...We can’t round them all up and put them on buses.”
It HAS been done before, and worked. However, today you could make a sufficient dent by deporting the ones caught, and restricting employment and government benefits to citizens. That ISN’T hard.
Do what Arizona wants to do and Obama wants to stop: When cops stop a van with 20 guys in it, none with drivers licenses and none of whom speak English - check their immigration status. Illegal? Deport.
Easy.
Of course, if that seems BIGOTED to you, we COULD adopt the laws of Mexico...
LOL
And what does all that prove?
According to you, that single women are stupid and just looking for a man to put down the toilet seat. Has ANY of what you posted changed a thing? Has it dropped the numbers through your ‘superior’ number crunching? No. If its so omniscient and all knowing, why hasn’t your take on the matter affected any positive changes in the numbers?
Only the insane keep doing the same things and expecting to get different results. But then I am pretty sure you aren’t clear enough to get the concept behind that particular thought.
What did I dislike? The “Z” visa gave a visa card to everyone. The Y visa gave everyone citizenship after 8 years.
Thats what I didn’t like.
Your suggestions from Hunter are good ones, and I have liked his proposals regarding the entire problem from the get go. Whats wrong with asking Palin what she thinks of the Hunter proposal? Has anyone done that? Did she choose McCain over Hunter?
What a conservative cannot do is change the message to tickle the audience’s ears. The sad truth, as shown by extensive polling data, is that single women vote for the government to provide them security. When they marry, they start worrying about the taxes they pay and the social environment of their kids, and start voting republican.
We cannot win a bidding war with the democrats. We need to convince single women that, like everyone else, their long term interest is in smaller government. But it is a tough sale when the other side offers instant gratification and security.
YOU are the one who argues women vote democrat because someone tells them to, and that they don’t think for themselves. And you STILL haven’t offered an explanation why YOU think they vote democrat, or how to convert them.
The “it’s inhumane to deport” argument really chaps my arse. Is it more “humane” to have illegals using some American’s SS number or a fake SS number to illegally obtain work, often screwing people over who had their SS stolen? Is it more humane to have US taxpayers pay for foreigners walking into emergency rooms (which charge 3-4 times the rates of family practitioners). Is it more humane to let people who legally apply to immigrate to sit for years twisting in the wind while Pancho and Pedro and extended family get to come and go as they please? Is it more humane for the illegals to take millions of jobs from US Citizens? Less than 10% of illegals are in agriculture. The other 90% work in every other conceivable labor market, including lawn and garden services, hotel workers, construction, roofing, factory assembly, meat packing, janitorial services, automotive repair, etc, etc. Is it humane for illegals to undercut the wages of American workers?
Meanwhile, the US unemployment rate is near 10% with the people looking for manual labor jobs closer to 20%.
“single women vote for the government to provide them security” - I believe that this statement is FALSE. Why? Ever heard of push polling? Getting the answer you are looking for? Yeah.
You are like talking to a brick wall. Go re-read my posts, I was rather clear on what I believe and why.
You on the other hand are sticking by statistics which have failed in giving us the information we need, results which stem from failed understanding of the constituency you are belittling as being solely on the lookout for a walking wallet and a hand out from the government, oh and someone capable of putting down the seat on the toilet. You are full of BS Rogers. Not only that, but you are CONTINUING the problem with your misogynistic bigotry instead of attempting to understand the people you belittle.
With these attitudes of yours, it’s no wonder single women don’t vote conservative. You insist on maintaining the impression which drives them from conservatives in droves. Good job staying part of the problem Rogers.
Bigots don’t belong on FR.
The only thing which causes me concern is Hunters belief that we should also deport the Children of Illegals who are otherwise U.S. Citizens per the current laws. That means deporting minor U.S. citizens. That isn’t right either.
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.