We Come In Peace

Yeah but those health insurance companies stand to make a ton more money. And really, aren't they the ones we should be protecting? They're job-creators!

I don't think the Eric vote was all too surprising. That dude isn't even trying to play the strategic game, he's happily blissful in his ignorance which is infuriating. Malcom's move at tribal was brilliant and more importantly FUN. Philip played his best game, I have to give him credit. But getting rid of him makes it a whole new game.

You're forgetting he also tripled the black budget for DOD, giving control of our country completely to the military industrial complex.

But both you and OC are dodging the question. Well not you, I wasn't asking you that specific question but can if you'd answer it. That's fine if that's not what he said, that wasn't the question. I asked a direct question in response to his rambling so he could clarify it for me. That's all.

And yet, on the social issues which that demo cares most about, the GOP embraces the rights of the state -- not the individuals. Or at least that's how they're perceived. So that's a hard pony to sell.

You are a sad, sad, and very tiny man.

My apologies then, I did not mean it as an exclusive statement in that context because I do believe you're right that the GOP can and most likely will hold the house after the midterms with or without any massive shift. I'm just speculating in the second post because I'd like to see the GOP be more inclusive towards that particular demo because it will only help the entire political discourse in the nation -- and I don't mean that to sound in any way like a slight.

Pffft. Mars. Big deal. I know peeps that have been all the way to Serpo.

But you're forgetting that not all Democrats and certainly not all the 30 and under voters are liberals. Let's play out your scenario and know from the outset I am in no way attempting to defend Obama or disagree with your first paragraph. I'm merely playing out a scenario regarding the 30 and under demo, not the entire voting base. If the GOP holds the house in '14, and I tend to think they will right now, that won't encourage any sort of internal debate within the party on the issues that matter most to that one demographic. I frankly think that's a dangerous game to play if you're trying to grow the party. You can't grow the party by throwing out half assed sweetners to the folks you're trying to convince to switch sides. You have to be bold and take control of the issues that matter to them. And honestly, there are a host of social issues that are ripe for the plucking by the right. The biggest one is legalizing marijuana. I can't believe the right hasn't grabbed onto that one yet to be honest as it can be polished into a metaphor for some of the cornerstones of conservatism and libertarianism. But they gotta do it before the midterms for it to have a real impact on '16. The chances of a Democrat winning in 16 is slim to begin with (just by the nature of our country's political ebb and flow) so the GOP might win by default without any real change or rebranding as you suggest. That's entirely possible. But then what happens in 20? By then the 30 and under crowd will move into the meat of the voting base in terms of numbers and influence and by then it'll be too late for the GOP to do an about face on some of these issues.

Nope. Never said that or implied that. I said if they were married there would be no STORY. Even someone with as stunted an intellect as yours can discern the difference between your incorrect inference and what I actually said. Thank you for showing everyone you are indeed a moron. The rest of your post is moot since it's all revolving around this incorrect starting point. Do you see why? No, what you did was make a false inference (and I'm being kind calling it that) and extrapolate a bunch of nonsense in response to a position you imagined me having in your head. In reality, as we learned above, you were completely wrong from the outset. No amount of emoticons or blathering will change that. Oh, I certainly see it. Sadly, you don't. Which is hilarious considering how incredibly pompous you are despite being consistently wrong in an overwhelming majority of things you say. Tell us again how wrong Nate Silver was about the '12 election please. Or about how you're chasing a super hot piece of ass at the gym. Better yet, wait on that one. Tell us about the restraining order when she files it instead. Apparently, idiocy is all you have time for. It's your first language. First, I'd like to point out for a guy who says he doesn't have time for idiocy, you continue to excel in perpetrating it. Second, in multiple posts I not only volunteered all of those possibilities could be true but I also said the entire story could have been invented by the left or pro-gay marriage advocates. This is why reading is important if you want to have an cogent conversation with someone. But you don't care about having an honest conversation with anyone. You just want to transcribe the drivel pouring out of whichever of the multiple personalities inside your head are in command of your typing fingers at the moment. You've got at least three in there, maybe four. Nope. Never said that either. You're not very good at this. And again, since you were proven to be 100% wrong (again) with everything you've said so far in this thread regarding my posts and your interpretation of them. Perhaps what you should be saying here is, "Oops, I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. I'm an enormous asshat." Oh, wait, I'll put it in a language you'll understand: <-----------OC

Do you honestly believe the Democratic party, or a majority within that party -- however you wish to define it -- wants to repeal the second amendment?

It won't go back without a massive shift in branding of the GOP. Right now to the 30 and under crowd the GOP offers nothing of interest to that demographic.

I believe the proper term isn't lies, it's "alternative facts".

Show me where I ever said anyone has to accept gay people. I'll wait. You did not expose my words or thinking to logic, you invented your own interpretation of them and then stated them as facts. They are not. Please show me where I ever said you have to accept gays. I'll wait. And yet, you've yet to show me "my" words. You've only used your own -- which are poorly constructed, poorly thought out and hilariously inept. You're right it does. But only in the sense that it shows how truly ignorant you are. Not that there was any doubt of that earlier.

Right. No answer.

Not a jab.

AH! That's a great call.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/this-flow-chart-of-time-travel-in-the-movies-is-impressively Hilariously geeky and awesome.

... 17 year olds?

You are a sad, sad, little man.

Fair enough.