WHY REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER WIN AGAIN

They just don’t GET IT!

There are many people like myself who would vote for a Republican candidate if the party had itself together.

i dont care how GREAT and prosperous they consider their policies in terms of “helping America” if their supporters, candidates and constituates continue with the immature attacks and tactics to get into the White house, people will continue voting for the Demo’s or Independent’s.

You have people like myself who for the most part share more of the Republican values. But I will de damned if I lend my vote to a group where I feel their supporters act immature and make assnine comments against the opposing party, instead of creating civil & REAL discussion on the matters at hand to present their arguments against the Dems. Instead they result to immaturity and name calling and finger pointing and I will never with good conscious vote for a party where the people think and act this way.

 

Nt to mention they REFUSE to look at reality and if they can’t see reality why would I vote for them? They completely IGNORE the quickly changing demographics in this country and still have not come up with a plan to become more attractive to certain minorities (like myself who would actually vote for them).

 

Instead they keep relying on the conservative White vote and as someone mentioned even with 50% of WHite votes they still cannot win b/c of all the other groups in this country.

 

Personally Repubs today are simply not savvy enough to figure out how to approach a win why do i think they’d be any better running the country if they seem only laser focused on ONE small segment of the population?

Advertisements

73 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Neecy
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 08:30:37

    Can we please have a civil discussion about this. SERIOUSLY!

    Like

    Reply

  2. omerta327
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 08:55:15

    I thought we were moving on here. Ha!

    The #1 thing for me it this – it’s all about the Constitution. Republicans, by and large, adhere to the Constitution as it was written. Democrats, by and large, think the Constitution need to be “interpreted” to fit their agenda. BO even said in an interview once that he had a problem w/ the Constitution because it was too much about what the gov’t CAN’T do to you and not enough about what it CAN do to you. Scary thought.

    Now, not all R’s and D’s fit this mold – that’s why party lines have become so blurry these last few decades. That’s why, whichever way you lean, you’ve got to take a close look at candidates.

    Now, to say R’s will never win again – c’mon, that’s a little outlandish, dontcha think? Politics is cyclical, the R’s will come around again. Why didn’t they win this time? I think the main reason is that the mainstream media looooovvves Obama. “Cult of Personality” ain’t just a Living Colour song. And that’s what BO’s got going for him.

    As for the R’s ignoring reality and refusing to recognise changing demographics, that’s not true at all. There are quite a few black and hispanic conservatives holding various offices all over the country. Hell, I wanted Herman Cain to get the R nomination (he’s black in case you don’t know who he is). It’s not at all about the “white male” vote – it’s about people who actually respect the Constitution, regardless of race, religion or gender.

    Alright, I gotta go batten down the hatches. We’re getting another storm today, except this one’s got SNOW. 😯

    Like

    Reply

    • omerta327
      Nov 07, 2012 @ 09:06:21

      One more thought – the biggest problem witht the R party is that there are too many R’s holding office who are advocates for big gov’t, instead of reducing the size of gov’t the way the founding fathers laid out in 1787. These are R’s who’ve been swept up in the whole DC political machine. They need to be flushed out in favor of small gov’t, Constitutional conservative R’s. That’s the biggest thing holding the R’s back.

      Like

      Reply

      • chicnoir
        Nov 07, 2012 @ 15:37:15

        Omerta so are you more of a social conservative or a fiscal conservative.

        Like

        Reply

        • omerta327
          Nov 08, 2012 @ 07:54:38

          Fiscal. Socially I actually lean more liberal. I think marijuana should be legal, and although I’ve never partaken in it, I think prostitution should be legal. As George Carlin once said, why is it illegal to sell something that’s perfectly legal to give away for free?

          I also have no problem w/gay marriage – I actually have 2 lesbian cousins who a re both in same-sex marriages – and although I don’t like the idea of abortion, I think a girl should be able to choose if she wants one.

          Like

          Reply

      • Neecy
        Nov 07, 2012 @ 18:39:28

        I agree this also could be an issue with Republicans because the bigger the party the bigger the divide can be – as we have seen with this whole Tea Party nonsense. The smaller more focused the Republican party can be, the better it will be if they want to keep like minded people in the party who are on the same page. Right now you have some crazy assed Republicans making assnine comments about women and rape and they *really* expect women to run to the polls and vote against their own best interests based on what vocal and visible members of the GOP have openly stated with no shame?

        Like i said the GOP has some serious soul searching and they are going to have to find people who are not scared to start cleaning house with the current mass of republicans making the party look really bad and perform really bad in the polls.

        Like

        Reply

    • Neecy
      Nov 07, 2012 @ 18:32:36

      Omerta,

      LOL After al that “i’m not discussing politics with anyone!!!!” i started a whole post on it. LOL

      Anyway, I felt that there needs to be a truly real discussion about the shift in this country when it comes to Politics. I don’t mind discussing politics as long as people can be reasonable.

      I do want the Republican party to get their isht together b/c i am more on the line with their value system than Liberal.

      The thing is that candidates for anything always have to have some kind of charm and ability to speak to a and appeal to larger audiences. Obama fits that mold. Whether you like or dislike his policies, he does come off as a class act and someone who actually *CARES* about people.

      The GOP does have a few Hispanics and AA’s in their party who may be visible but they are obviously not visible enough. And that is because Conservatives of today feel that too many minority representations in the party will turn off the old school hard core WHite male conservatives who are basically the face of today’s Republican Party.

      The Republicans come off as cold staunch outdated extremists that still believe this country is demographically the same that it was 100 years ago. Its not. The demographics in this country has changed DRASTICALLY within the last 2-3 decades thanks to no real immigration reform (which both Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of).

      So many would argue that the only reason Obama won was b/c of his charm and ability o resonate with people on various levels. While I think that plays a big part (because I do find myself more in love with him as a person than maybe even his policies. i feel at heart he is a genuine and good person and we have rarely had such figures in public office).

      But the bulk of why Repub’s will continue on a downward spiral is because they are too stuck in old ways and habits. To stuck on pointing the finger and doing smear campaigns and talking about things that OBVIOUSLY the people don’t care about (Obama’s birth certificate and other mindless garbage).

      Repubs are not really talking about what it is they want to do with this country other than complain about how Obama hasn’t done this, isn’t doing that and using that as their platform to try and win the White House.

      If repubs want to hold onto to their party they simply have to change their ways of thinking and doing. You don’t have to change your values as a party. but you really need to move these nut jobs out of the party who are the face of republicans today who come off as outdated, cold White eccentrists only concerned about a small subset of the population.

      Also, if Republicans don’t get it together in the next 4 years, when Hillary Clinton runs for President in the next term, she will wipe the floor with the Republicans if they don’t have a more savvy approach to reaching the minorities, women, gays and such who do share the more Conservative values, but who also refuse to put themselves in jeopardy and take the risk with staunch right extremists who are stuck in the 1950’s.

      Like

      Reply

      • omerta327
        Nov 08, 2012 @ 08:08:39

        “The Republicans come off as cold staunch outdated extremists that still believe this country is demographically the same that it was 100 years ago. Its not. The demographics in this country has changed DRASTICALLY within the last 2-3 decades thanks to no real immigration reform”

        Once again, that is absolutely not true at all – a huge myth. And why should immigration be reformed anyway? If someone wants to immigrate to the US, there’s a legal process for doing so that’s always worked just fine. What needs to be reformed?

        “But the bulk of why Repub’s will continue on a downward spiral is because they are too stuck in old ways and habits. To stuck on pointing the finger and doing smear campaigns…”

        Ugh. Not true at all. There has definitely been a good youth movement in the R party in the last 25 years. And as for smear campaigns, you mean to say the Dems never do that? Well, they actually don’t have to most of the time – the mainstream media is more than willing to do that for them.

        “Repubs are not really talking about what it is they want to do with this country other than complain about how Obama hasn’t done this, isn’t doing that and using that as their platform to try and win the White House.”

        Actually, the R’s were very clear in what they wanted to do. Streamline and reduce the size of the federal gov’t, lower corporate taxes and ease up on regulations in order to make it easier to set up shop and do business in the US again and spur the economy, and balance the budget by *gasp* not spending more than we take in. Is this country better off than it was 4 years ago? That’s the question everyone need to ask themselves.

        Like

        Reply

        • Neecy
          Nov 08, 2012 @ 20:50:35

          Once again, that is absolutely not true at all – a huge myth. And why should immigration be reformed anyway? If someone wants to immigrate to the US, there’s a legal process for doing so that’s always worked just fine. What needs to be reformed?

          Immigration needs to be reformed b/c obviously people are not going the legal route to become citizens in this country. Those who don’t and end up having children in the USA (even though they were illegal aliens) thier children are US citizens. i don’t think this is right. YES Immigration needs to be reformed.

          There is no other country or place on earth where people from other places (non citizens) can just hop over a fence and take all of the benefits for the actual citizens of that nation and nothing be done about it.

          Also, the fact that greedy wealthy White conservative males fund and subsidize jobs for these illegals that ultimatley hurt the American economy (but not their pockets) and the American working class.

          Is this country better off than it was 4 years ago? That’s the question everyone need to ask themselves.

          Was it in any better condition the way George Bush left it after 8 years? Obama INHERITED a shitty situation with this country coming off the back of a Republican President for who was in office for 8 years and left this country in shambles. Then yall expect him to clean up 8 years of garbage in less than 4? Really? especially when Bush had not improve the condition of the country (instead drove it down o where Obama has to try and fix all his foul ups)?

          Like

          Reply

          • omerta327
            Nov 09, 2012 @ 07:03:59

            “Immigration needs to be reformed b/c obviously people are not going the legal route to become citizens in this country. Those who don’t and end up having children in the USA (even though they were illegal aliens) thier children are US citizens.”

            But that doesn’t mean it needs to be reformed. It means we need to enforce the laws already on the books. And I’m not sure about that last part. I thought by US law that regardless of where a child is born, that child is a citizen of the country where the parents are citizens.

            “Was it in any better condition the way George Bush left it after 8 years? Obama INHERITED a shitty situation with this country coming off the back of a Republican President for who was in office for 8 years and left this country in shambles. Then yall expect him to clean up 8 years of garbage in less than 4? Really? especially when Bush had not improve the condition of the country (instead drove it down o where Obama has to try and fix all his foul ups)?”

            Did we expect him to clean up “8 years of garbage” in less than 4? Well, Obama SAID he would himself in ’08. Really. Bush left this country in shambles? Well, as I’ve mentioned before, when Bush left office and Obama took over (and I was never a fan of Bush, for the record), unemployment was lower, gas and utilities prices were lower, we had 17 million fewer people on food stamps, and China didn’t own our asses by buying out our debt.

            And speaking of debt, here’s something to consider. When BO was campaigning in 08, he chastised GWB for increasing our national debt by $4 trillion in 8 years – called him “unamerican” for doing so. So what did BO do? In his first 3 1/2 years in office, he increased our national debt by another $6 trillion. Now this country is borrowing from China just to stay open for business, so to speak. So if BO called Bush unamerican for his spending habits, what does that make BO?

            And one more point – For his first 2 years in office, BO had a Dem majority in both the House and Senate. He could have basically done ANYTHING he wanted in those 2 years. If fixing Bush’s “mess” was his top priority, he could have made huge strides in doing so. Instead he focused on spending billions of taxpayer $$$ on the stimulus package (which failed), the GM bailouts (which just delayed their inevitable bankruptcy), and Solyndra (34 green energy companies, of which 19 have gone belly up and the other 15 are struggling). That’s $$$ that came out of our pockets that we’ll never see again. All the while cutting back on oil drilling and, here’s one that never gets any attention, over-regulating the coal industry, putting it on the verge of collapse. I don’t know about CA, but up here in the northeast, most of our electricity comes from coal, and our electric bills have risen accordingly. The natural gas industry has been affected as well.

            These are all things you can look up yourself if you don’t believe me.

            Like

            Reply

          • omerta327
            Nov 09, 2012 @ 07:49:44

            One last thing – I want to expand on the whole GM bailout.

            GM was on the verge of bankruptcy cuz they were building cars no one wanted to buy. Normally when a company makes a product people don’t want, it goes out of business. But Obama couldn’t let GM just go out of business. Why? Because the United Auto Workers Union donates millions of $$$ to the Dems. They’ve got BO in their hip pocket. So he throws hundreds of billions of taxpayer $$$ at GM to keep them afloat, and they’re still in the same mess. Why? Because they’re STILL building cars most people don’t want.

            Like

            Reply

  3. foosrock!
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 12:43:40

    I don’t agree with omerta327 assessment of why the republicans will never win again. I too believe that what Neecy pointed out, their lost of touch with minorities, in this case the hispanics who make up, what, 23% of Americans have harmed them now and will later as well, if eg, Hillary Dame Clinton were to run in 2016. Ignoring this powerful minority as well as other minorities, native Indians, Asians and blacks have been their downfall. Correct me if I’m wrong as well, but young whites(those up to generation X) have voted above favourably for Obama.
    Like Neecy, I too want a republican candidate that I can relate to, as I too believe in small government, ie, maker of my own destiny, fiscal independence(NOT to the detriment of company or country though). What I don’t agree on is lack of choice, civil rights for my fellow humanbeings. Totally dislike religion(hypocrites) in any form.

    I too don’t see the republicans making a comeback unless they find more humane candidates. I’ve always thought conservative meant, long term thinking, ie, for country, citizens, not gunho leaders whose main aim was to line their pockets and make their country the most hated in this world.

    I’m living in Switzerland, working in finance. The Swiss would/should have been happy with a Romney win, because it would mean for us, less banking regulation, but instead over 80% of Swiss people poled wanted Obama to win so as to avoid another “Ego America”. The politics, the “we are the world police going it alone” attitude is not favoured here in Europe. See, cause we bare the brunt of said disrespect. Europe has lived relatively peacefully with, eg, their muslims citizens, till Bush. People here feel a moderate(which equals European) like Mr Obama is good for the American image, less incendiary, more prone to compromise. All European traits.

    By the way, my absentee vote went to neither candidate. I’m a total green girl.

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Nov 07, 2012 @ 18:46:33

      Foosrock i completely agree with your assessment. GOP needs more humane candidates that can speak to the masses at heart. This is one of the greatest strengths of Obama. He truly comes off as genuine and caring for the country and its people.

      The GOP comes off as hardcore and completely rigid. They have also used some of the most immature tactics to try to knock out Obama and its just not resonating with people in general.

      They need to spend more time criticizing members in their own party for how they have made the GOP look over the last few elections rather than constantly point out what Obama is *NOT* doing. They are even losing thier own reasonable Republican supporters who are either going the liberal ticket, not voting, or voting Independent. That’s pretty bad.

      Not only that. Instead of GOP doing the footwork it will take to try to reach minorities, women and others who may actually hold the same values and be willing to join the Republican party in getting in office, they simply EXPECT that a small subset of WHite males are going to push them into office. As we have seen last night, its not working despite the efforts to slander and maim Obama. people just don’t care to hear it anymore.

      GOP needs to start showing and getting some real candidates who are charming yet compassionate and that can speak to the masses in this country. They will find a lot of people in the middle who want to vote Republican will swiftly move o the right. But people are not going to do that with candidates that come off as cold or out of touch with them or this countries obviously changing demographics.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Robynne
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 14:27:43

    Same here Neecy. I also believe in many of the core Republican values (the emphasis on intact families, personal responsibility and responsible fiscal spending resonate very strongly with me) but I also in good conscience cannot cast a ballot for folks who constantly appeal to baser, ignorant instincts. They need to realize that the Southern Strategy mode of campaigning is not going to score them any points – and actually turns away voters who would otherwise cast a ballot in their favour. Additionally, as Foos pointed out, the image of the US generally suffers under Republican presidents, because of the more aggressive, boorish stances adopted in world affairs. Other countries are more willing to fall in line and back the US against its enemies when it wields its power in more understated ways…just saying.

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Nov 07, 2012 @ 18:51:19

      Absolutey Robynne!

      The fact is the current GOP doesn’t want to appeal to others outside of their little box because they truly do not see them as equals in this country. That is fine. but they also cannot complain about not winning office when they run campaigns this way.

      They also want to hold onto the same idea that all minorities and women think alike. Then they have this self-fulfilling prophecy that its true when the elections happen and women and minorities are running to the polls supporting the Liberal ticket. Well what do you expect.

      The fact is some of the reason they don’t campaign to women and minorities is because they truly believe some of us don’t hold those same conservative values that have been traditionally WHite male oriented. this frame of thinking is why they are losing.I think just us three here have proven that to be wrong as we have already stated that we share most conservative values, but that their approach has been such a turn off that it causes women like us to otherwise vote in the opposite direction even if we may not be fully on board with the policies.

      Like

      Reply

      • omerta327
        Nov 08, 2012 @ 08:14:06

        “The fact is the current GOP doesn’t want to appeal to others outside of their little box because they truly do not see them as equals in this country.”

        Alright, this thread is starting to make my head hurt. That is NOT a fact AT ALL. C’mon Neece, really? Yep, that’s why there are Republicans all over the country who are black, hispanic, Indian, female, etc.. Because we don’t see them as equals. Gotcha.

        Like

        Reply

        • Neecy
          Nov 08, 2012 @ 20:43:51

          I did not deny that there were no minorities, women in the Republican party. What I said was that despite the fact there are, Republicans have not used these groups to their advantage and have opted for the most part to keep them under wraps instead of utilizing them to help get more minority and women votes. that is because they truly want to keep the face of republican party mostly WHITE, because they know most RED states (which are in the South and who are more than likely going to come out in strong numbers for the GOP) are filled with traditional Southern WHite Americans who will always vote en masse for GOP.

          Like

          Reply

          • omerta327
            Nov 09, 2012 @ 07:26:38

            “Republicans have not used these groups to their advantage and have opted for the most part to keep them under wraps instead of utilizing them to help get more minority and women votes.”

            So you’re saying the R party should start pandering to minority groups? They shouldn’t have to. If the R’s can stick to their core principles of freedom, liberty, and a small federal gov’t that lets you pursue happiness and stays the hell out of your way, they don’t need to pander to anyone. Like-minded people, regardless of race, religion or gender, will find their way over.

            “that is because they truly want to keep the face of republican party mostly WHITE, because they know most RED states (which are in the South and who are more than likely going to come out in strong numbers for the GOP) are filled with traditional Southern WHite Americans who will always vote en masse for GOP.”

            *sigh* But they vote GOP because of like-minded political beliefs, not because of the color of anyone’s skin.

            Alright, Neece, I’m really growing weary of this whole debate. I’ve answered this question numerous times already, and I feel like what I’m saying just isn’t getting through. So the rest of you chat amongst yourselves, I’m going for a run. I’ll be back when a new post comes up.

            Peace.

            Like

            Reply

        • Ray
          Jan 19, 2013 @ 04:40:26

          Oh, please! First of all you get all of your misinformation from FAUX news and right wing radio! If the GOP has so many minorities that comprise it, why do we always see the same 1 or 2 at your conventions? Minorities the media can find there are either ushers or idiots!
          Secondly, Obama did NOT run up the trillions of debt you credit him with! When GW Bush was in office he started 2 wars (1 illegally) and a massive bailout of the banks, all of which he never put on the books! HE NEVER PAID FOR THEM! Add to that the irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy and he put us in one hell of a financial mess! When Obama got into office, for clarity sake, he added them to the debt! Let’s put it this way, it’s similar to if you went to a restaurant with a trillion people and when you got back from the restroom, they had all left you with the tab!

          Obama didn’t win because the media “loved” him! You guys lost because Romney is an arrogant elitist lying jerk who shipped jobs overseas and whose sole focus was trying to exploit the workers while cutting the taxes of his elitist snob buddies! You lost in the senate because you won’t cut loose those racist misogynistic teabagger crazies! At one time, republicans were a party that was able to work across the aisle and civilly come up with compromises to benefit the country! That era ended after Nixon, you’ve let the lunatics run the asylum! It’s been downhill ever since Reagan took office! His fiscal policy was a total disaster and one of the primary reasons this country is in the financial mess it’s in right now! Well, to be honest, W deserves a lot of credit, too!

          Like

          Reply

  5. chicnoir
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 15:34:38

    Gurrrllllll

    Omerta is going to be hotter than a tub of fish grease at the laketrout carry out when he reads this post.

    Like

    Reply

  6. Neecy
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 19:06:01

    Another thing the the conservative party does which has been to the detriment of themselves is they use immigration to get the masses of poor and working class White citizens riled up. When in reality the real reason not much has not be done to curb immigration is because it benefits the wealthy White males in this country that run corporations and businesses where they hire and pay very low wages and support cheap labor at the expense of the middle working class Americans.

    YET these poor and middle class WHites (especially in the South) continue to blindly support a party that is against their own best interests and the interests of this country. All in the name of traditional WHite vote loyalty – even when it works against them.

    These wealthy White males in gov’t only are about the masses of WHite people when it comes to their own best interests and voting them in office.

    Not only are they subsidizing the cheap labor of immigrants in this country but they also subsidize it going out of this country to. Yet WHite middle class working Whites and poor whites still refuse to acknowledge this and continue to support them.

    The UNIONS that were huge in this country and that protected the skilled White and Black workers in the country is going by the wayside and one all of the older members of unions retire there will hardly be a place for unions anymore b/c of the ability of wealthy business owners and corporations to pay unskilled immigrant workers lower wages and no medical insurance. These workers will not fight for their rights b/c they are already mostly illegal and are happy with the scraps they get working for these businesses.

    And these immigrants are infiltrating all areas of the working sector where many working class Americans have made a living for themselves and their families here in America.

    There is enough blame to pass around. It just seems the Democratic Party is taking a better approach and are securing votes because of this.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Neecy
    Nov 07, 2012 @ 19:07:38

    I truly y do not want to see the Republican party die out, b/c it would be great to have a strong and great GOP that addressed the demographics in this country that would side and work with them like myself.

    The older I get the more conservative I have become and I don’t believe int he liberal agenda. But as stated, what else is there. its almost like voting for the lesser of evils here.

    Like

    Reply

    • LaFayette LeVan Porter IV
      Nov 07, 2012 @ 19:56:47

      Neecy you are absolutely correct. I just want a Republican victory finally. Until our party starts to change things a bit…I don’t see us winning the 2016 presidential election, it will be disastrous just like the 2008 and 2012 elections. Obama trampled us… -_-

      Like

      Reply

      • Neecy
        Nov 08, 2012 @ 20:16:36

        2016 is going to be even more difficult for Republicans if they don’t start making dents in the current demographics in this country, b/c I do believe that Hillary Clinton will run for Dem Presidency and that she will get all of Obama’s votes and even more b/c she would be the first female to run for President. She will get a huge outpouring of support from White women and women in general.

        Like

        Reply

    • Joshey
      Nov 08, 2012 @ 00:27:40

      Neecy – you have some good discussion amd great points. I’m one of those ‘white guys’, 31, had a good start in life and qualify to be in Obama’s “rich” category. I got into a discussion w/ a few liberal friends. I asked them why they were liberal. They said the “masses” aren’t capable of helping themselves so we basically need to help them. I told them that for all the charges or racism and bigotry towards GOP, I found it funny b/c I think their stance is actually demeaning and/or racist to think they’re so much better that they needed to help these masses (aka minorities) out of pity. They asked why I’m GOP. Simply I stated that I think all men and women are equal and capable of pursuing (maybe not always achieving) their dreams, and it’s insulting to “the masses” to think we have to redistribute income otherwise they can’t survive. I’ll be fine and won’t go hungry under Obama; I really won’t be affected in a noticeable way. I may actually see the differentil between my income and lower invome folks increase. But, I think Obama/Dems is/are oppressing many minorities just to keep votes coming in (like Santa handing out free presents). If rather see everyone know that hard work and determination pays off, and rely on themselves and quit being fooled by these “freebie” gifts they’re receiving at someone else’s expense. I hope GOP also finds people who can speak to issues affecting minorities and do a better job explaining why the alternative is not in their interest. I think there are some racists GOP, but most (like me) actually think Dems hurt minorities and aren’t racist. You are right that GOP needs to make some adjustments. Randomly stumbled upon your blog. Godspeed and keep making people think; you sound like a very smart lady who is making her way in life.

      Like

      Reply

      • Neecy
        Nov 08, 2012 @ 20:33:53

        Hi JOSHEY!!

        Thank you for chiming in. You are right I do believe there are a lot of liberals who believe that minorities need to be saved. I also don’t find liberals to be any less racist than so called “conservatives” and often times they can be a lot more racist because they are usually in closer proximity to minorities.

        Then we have to recognize those “champagne liberals” who only use the label of liberalism to come off as progressive but they really aren’t once you look deeper.

        The thing that has turned me off with liberalism is the fact that I feel they do create a lot of enabling for groups who would actually do a lot better if they didn’t always have a “crutch” they know they could fall back on. There are excuses for questionable behavior that often leads to racist conclusions like “that’s just how they are they cannot help themselves”. I also believe too much liberalism in society creates a breakdown in family values and the family structure.

        I am very extreme in the sense of tough love and I believe that when people don’t have too much rope, they actually end up being more prosperous and force themselves to seek the best opportunities for themselves. The older i get I do feel Liberalism does cause alot of the breakdown with traditional values.

        Like

        Reply

      • Ray
        Jan 19, 2013 @ 10:15:22

        To naively think that everyone has the same opportunity for success is to foolishly believe racism doesn’t exist! It shouldn’t be used as a crutch but to deny it is insane. Take off the rose colored glasses, it’s a nice fantasy but the truth is hard work does not guarantee success. Opportunity creates success, if daddy is rich you have access to all the tools you need to succeed, educational opportunities, startup money, and a safety net if you fail. If you come from a middle-class or poor family you had better get accustomed to the phrase “Would you like fries with that?” So let’s not peddle that everybody has the same chance crap! Spread it over your front lawn and watch the grass grow! Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps only works if you have boots to begin with!

        Like

        Reply

  8. jillodelight
    Nov 08, 2012 @ 00:56:52

    Hi, Neecy 🙂
    This debunks the Michelle Obama flag comment urban legend lol I’m really surprised people actually took that seriously since Bad Lip Reading is actually something done for fun.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/forflag.asp
    I COMMAND you to watch my favorite Bad Lip Reading video lol

    To put it shortly (for once lol) Republicans didn’t win b/c they let extreme conspiracy believing FAR right wingers highjack their image. Romney seemed moderate, so it wasn’t personal, but the idea of having him catering to a mentally unstable party was eerie. No thanks.

    Like

    Reply

    • onthewaydown
      Nov 08, 2012 @ 17:04:00

      “To put it shortly (for once lol) Republicans didn’t win b/c they let extreme conspiracy believing FAR right wingers highjack their image. Romney seemed moderate, so it wasn’t personal, but the idea of having him catering to a mentally unstable party was eerie. No thanks.”

      Yep, that was my concern. In 2008 and before then, I received the impression that Romney was more moderate and would not have minded him winning. But this election…wow, I started getting scared based on some of the things that were going on.

      Like

      Reply

      • Neecy
        Nov 08, 2012 @ 20:40:41

        I thought Romney was decent enough. Pretty good looking too. LOL but he wasn’t the problem in the bigger picture although I am sure he will take the blame.

        Like

        Reply

    • Neecy
      Nov 08, 2012 @ 20:39:45

      HAHA!! Yep definitely debunks it for sure! Plus I cannot imagine Michelle Obama being STUPID enough to even word something like that. Give me a freakin break! lol

      You’re right. Romney seemed very moderate, but it wasn’t *HE* who cost the Republican party the votes, it is the party itself. Not to mention how they have been unwilling to meet Obama halfway on many issues just to be difficult.

      I can see them blaming Romney and his campaign and never really looking inward at who and what the real problem is with Republicans today as a whole.

      The Tea Party nonsense doesn’t help either.

      Well if they want to have another chance in the White House they better make drastic changes BEFORE 2016 b/c I can almost bet Hillary Clinton will run for Presidency and she will sweep the floor with Republicans if they don’t change their strategies at reaching like minded minorities, women and even gays who can help them get back into power.

      Like

      Reply

      • jillodelight
        Nov 09, 2012 @ 11:36:23

        I agree, loud obnoxious Tea Party folks secured Obama’s second term. It seems like online and offline, they can’t help insulting minorities. Apparently, being told constantly that we want “free stuff” was supposed to make us vote for Romney. It seemed like any time they promoted a Black Republican, they had to CONSTANTLY lecture us on the importance of hard work lol Since ALL Blacks are lazy, freeloaders collecting welfare, didn’t you know? *smh* I doubt they’ll actually “get it” though. Even while trying figure out why minorities didn’t vote for them (and why we should) they STILL manage to insult us lol It’s been entertaining at least.

        Like

        Reply

  9. Mike
    Nov 09, 2012 @ 07:41:22

    Hi Neecy,

    Thanks for going outside your usual bailiwick and posting about politics for at least this post. I realize that relationships are enough to keep any blogger busy for a life time, but we did just have an important election!

    But politics are my bailiwick. First, to put my comments in context, I’m a Republican (please don’t throw tomatoes!) but I think your criticism of the behavior of some Republicans at the results of the election are justified. I participate in a political web forum in which some of the commenter’s threaten to take their red states and secede, or leave the country. That sort of behavior is really embarrassing personally to me because I admit I got a great deal of entertainment value out of the Democratic reaction to the 2004 election, when Democrats threatened to secede from “Jesusland,” move to Canada, or needed to seek psychological help to deal with election despondency.

    So my Schadenfreude has been turned around on me.

    As for the reasons why, I think Republicans, just like the Democrats in 2004, really thought they were going to win this election. I didn’t. I had figured out by August that the President was going to win this one, so although I was disappointed in the election results, I wasn’t caught by surprise. However conservative media totally blew smoke up the collective asses of Republicans for the past month. Two of the biggest conservative radio talkers, Hannity and Rush, opined that the polls were wrong, and they were way oversampling Democratic voters. Every major guest on those shows and Fox news gave basically the same story. Bill Clinton’s former pollster Dick Morris promised not just a Romney win, but a Romney blow out. Michael Barone, who is actually a respected political analyst, not just a shill for the right, also predicted a big Romney win. So Republicans were caught by surprise not only an Obama win, but by how quickly and handily it was done. Karl Rove was still disputing the results after Fox News had already called the race for Obama.

    So that’s why they’ve been such asses.

    Then, as you’ve mentioned, there are the demographics. The Republican small government message is appealing to a smaller and smaller slice of the demographic pie. And although I would argue that the Republicans have tried to make outreach to minorities, none of it has paid off. During the Bush administration, the RNC spent millions on outreach and get the message out campaigns trying to get the votes of Blacks and Hispanics, all the while getting a smaller and smaller slice of the those groups with each successive election.

    Between the changing demographics and the triumph of identity politics, there is less and less fertile ground for Republicans.

    I do think it’s possible for Republicans to win elections again; particularly in the off year elections like 2014, but unless something big changes, the Republicans are pretty much doomed to capture a smaller and smaller slice of the electorate for each major election cycle. Except for the occasional Republican President, the Democrats dominated US politics from the Great Depression until the Republicans winning the House in 1994. During that time, I think the Republicans only one control of the House once for one two year period. So even though there were occasional Republicans coming to power, the agenda was mostly a Democratic one that Republicans were responding to. The exception was Reagan, who started the domino’s falling that eventually led to the 94 Republican House take over. So the 20th century was mostly a Democratic century, and it looks like the 21st is shaping up to be the same.
    But on the bright side, you’ve mentioned yourself that there are parts of the Republican message that you find attractive? So I’m curious. What exactly are they? What do you like about Republican policies and what do you dislike?

    Also, I’ve seen in the comments that you have distaste for the Tea Party. Why is that exactly? I’m curious if your distaste stems from the Tea Party as presented by the media or the issues the Tea Party actually favored?

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Nov 14, 2012 @ 17:00:29

      Mike,

      The things I like about the conservative mission is more related to social issues – like traditionalism with family, upward mobility financially and economically, and not feeding into the idea that people need “handouts” to make it. In fact, I believe that when people do not have handouts they strive to do better in their lives. This is not to say I do not believe that there are people who do fall on hard times and really need help to get back on their feet. That is completely different than what the liberal agenda has been at consistently supporting people who have no real drive to do anything for themselves b/c they are getting freebies which enables laziness IMO. I believe conservatives are more tough love than liberals and I am a tough love person b/c I believe people succeeed when they are not constantly given excuses for why they cannot succeed.

      Don’t eeeeven get me started in why i don’t like the Tea Party. They are IMO a bunch of extremists with outdated messages and ideas. They really turned off a lot of people towards the republican party

      Like

      Reply

      • Mike
        Nov 17, 2012 @ 15:07:26

        Well there you go! That is what interests me most: Why you don’t like the Tea Party. I’d really like to know what outdated messages and ideas that they supported that you found such a turn-off.

        Like

        Reply

        • Neecy
          Nov 20, 2012 @ 16:09:43

          Anything with Sarah Palin attached as the key spokesperson signals something is wrong. and that other female I believe her name was Christy something to that effect saying all kinds of ignorant and inane things when the tea party first really went public. It seems the GOP picks the most idiotic women to represent their party.

          Like

          Reply

          • jillodelight
            Nov 21, 2012 @ 00:21:27

            Christine O’Donnell? LOL!!! (didn’t she lead an anti-masturbation movement in the 90’s?) Republicans denounced her as a con artist but the damage was already done. Don’t forget Michelle Bachmann (who was considered smarter than Sarah Palin lol). When people like these women, Glenn Beck (doomsday cult leader now), Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultergeist etc. become the face of your party FOR FOUR YEARS, you can’t blame it all on the mainstream media when people ignore whatever message the party originally tried to promote.

            Like

            Reply

        • Ray
          Jan 19, 2013 @ 05:01:59

          Mike, I can tell you what I don’t like about the teaparty! Whatever good intentions they had were obliterated when they merged with the republican party! If you bothered to take off your rose colored glasses, you’d notice a lot of racist signs and rhetoric at their rallies. It’s okay to disagree with the president without comparing him (or his wife) to a monkey! The only thing missing is the white sheets and cross burnings!

          It’s not okay to scream about out of control spending and support spending money on unjustified wars and an overbloated military budget! That is hypocrisy! It’s not okay either to denigrate those people living on their earned social security and taking advantage of Medicare. BOTH of which they are entitled to! If I buy a candy bar I am entitled to eat it! Both of these programs work fine if politicians would keep their grubby mitts off them! These along with disabled veterans comprise the majority of people that constitute Romney’s despised 47%.

          Like

          Reply

  10. Trackback: Interesting Post Election Reads | Mike Street Station
  11. jillodelight
    Nov 17, 2012 @ 12:54:13

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Nov 20, 2012 @ 16:07:39

      WOW! Just as I said. People are OBSESSED with demeaning this woman and everything she says and does. No further proof needed. I am glad someone actually took the time to PROVE the obvious. SAD.

      Like

      Reply

  12. jillodelight
    Nov 21, 2012 @ 01:10:44

    Yep, which is why watching the post election meltdowns of these repeat offenders has been ooohhh so satisfying lol They’re in complete denial about why they lost
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/#

    Like

    Reply

  13. Jer Littrell
    Dec 11, 2012 @ 17:47:34

    I’m a libertarian who’s currently trying to change the Republican Party from within. I supported Ron Paul’s candidacy for the GOP ticket in 2008 and 2012. The “libertarian faction” within the GOP is growing.. It’s made up mostly of people under the age of 35.. Including myself, I’m 29 years old. We will be taking control of the Republican Party within 5-10 years.

    Once libertarians take over the GOP, America will see a GOP that is is more socially tolerant toward the gay community. America will see a GOP with a more sensible immigration policy that says “We will secure the border, but we LOVE immigrants.. You’re a blessing to our country! We will streamline the bureaucracy to allow you to come in as fast and as legally as possible. But you have to be here legally. ” Republicans like Marco Rubio will most likely be the man champion this perception. America will see more US Senators like Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul from KY, bringing our bloated military budget under a magnifying glass and questioning why we need hundred of US bases around the world. Rand Paul will question why we are giving foreign aid to dictators who undermine our nation. Rand Paul will question why our country constantly goes to war without a formal declaration of war from the US Congress and why our government sticks its nose in other nation’s affairs, then wonders why other nations hate us.

    Inner city communities will see a more libertarian GOP working with Democrats to reform the “War on Drugs”. Libertarians will decriminalize drugs and implement drug policies similar to Amsterdam, Switzerland, or Portugal. America will not be able to save all people from being drug addicts, but they will see the drug dealers off it’s street corners; the same way gangsters were unemployed after alcohol prohibition was abolished because the profit margins were too low after legalization. We will see kids finding it hard to get drugs when drugs are decriminalized; just like it’s harder for them to get alcohol. Currently, it’s easier for a child to get illegal drugs than it is to get alcohol, that’s a proven fact. That’s because alcohol is legal and controlled. Nobody is going to risk their financially lucrative business by selling alcohol to a minor and loosing their liquor license. The same will happen when drugs are decriminalized. Drugs will be taxed and regulated, and the tax proceeds will be used to pay for drug treatment for drug addicts. Drugs will be treated as a public health issue, and not a criminal issue. Our overflowing prison systems will be released of drug offenders, as long as those offenders didn’t sell drugs to minors or kill anyone. Our country will save a lot of money when we finally decide to empty our prison system of non-violent drug offenders.

    Inner city communities will see an improved education system when a more aggressive libertarian GOP pushes harder for school choice and school vouchers. Parents in inner cities will not have to be forced to send their kids to a specific school in their zip code. They will be able to take their hard earned tax dollars and move their child to another school (charter school, private school, cyber school, etc.) Education outcomes will improve dramatically when parents have the power of CHOICE..

    There is a CIVIL WAR within the GOP right now! Mitt Romney lost because he didn’t have the entire GOP standing behind him. The libertarian learning Republicans “spoiled” the election for Mitt Romney by either supporting Gary Johnson in the Libertarian Party or simply staying home. This is proven mathematically! The number of votes that Ron Paul got in each state in the GOP Presidential Primary in 2012 was GREATER than the margin Obama beat Romney by in each state. Therefore, if the GOP had Ron Paul as it’s presidential nominee, then there’s a good chance he would have beat Obama.

    Libertarians like myself were well aware that we would tip the election to Obama if we didn’t support Romney. WE DIDN’T CARE! Even though libertarians have strong philosophical disagreement with Obama and Democrats about the role of government, we had no problem tipping the election in their direction. That is because we are more pissed off with Republicans not standing up for real conservative values of small government, individual liberty, and free markets. We will bleed the GOP out and let it rot as people leave the party. Then we will take over and change it from within. Then we will change America!

    This has been the strategy that’s been talked about by libertarians within the GOP. Even though we disagree with Obama, we were willing to “endure” another 4 years of his presidency because we felt that reforming the GOP was a higher goal to achieve over the long term. I’m very optimistic about the future of the GOP 🙂

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Dec 17, 2012 @ 18:37:29

      JER I am your NUMERO UNO supporter!!! I would love to see a GOP party as you described. And when and if I do, I will be lending my VOTE and doing my part to encourage more Black American women to see the other side and not blindly vote Democrat simply b/c that is what Blacks have been doing since the civil rights era.

      Like

      Reply

      • Ray
        Jan 19, 2013 @ 05:13:16

        Neecy, I’d like to see donkeys fly but that’s just wishfull thinking too! Jer paints a rosy picture of libertarianism, most of which is a bunch of bull excrement! Libertarians are nothing but republicans that want to legalize pot! Libertarians want to end social programs and end any oversight to crooked corporations that place profit over human lives (which is the majority of them)! We need a strong government to stand up for the rights of its citizens not its wealthy elite or corporate thieves! If anybody here thinks BP would have cleaned up their mess in the gulf without govt intervention better stay away from bridge salesmen!

        Like

        Reply

        • Jer Littrell
          Jan 19, 2013 @ 11:02:14

          “Libertarians are nothing but republicans that want to legalize pot!”

          That’s a bit of an oversimplification… They want to get the Federal Government out of the Drug War and let state governments determine their own drug policy. Of course, if we had libertarians at the state-level of government, then they would decriminalize drugs. However, this blog is focused on politics at the Federal-level, so I’ll focus my response at the Federal-level.

          “Libertarians want to end social programs and end any oversight to crooked corporations that place profit over human lives (which is the majority of them)! “

          This is a typical left-wing scare tactic about right-wing libertarians. Libertarianism has an ideologically complex history. It actually evolved out of European socialism before making its way to the US over the centuries. When it came to the US, it became a capitalist ideology. There is a such thing called “libertarian socialism”, but I’ll focus this response on “right-libertarianism” that is most visible in the US within the GOP and outside it in the Libertarian Party.

          Anyway, I will start out by pointing out the Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul was the first to bring the corruption of the US Federal Reserve to the eyes of mainstream America. Prior to Ron Paul’s presidential run in 2008, NOBODY was talking about the Federal Reserve’s corruption. Left-wingers like to cry and complain about “crooked cooperations” and Wall Street, but they fail to realize that they are dealing with SYMPTOMS more than they are dealing with the CORE PROBLEM. The core problem with out economic system is that we have central banking that prints money literally out of THIN AIR.. It creates CREDIT out of NOTHING! Our whole economic system is based on CREDIT! Nothing happens without CREDIT! The increase of greed in our society is directly tied to the expansion of CREDIT from nothing.

          Nobody in the GOP Establishment has talked about the corruption of the Federal Reserve before Ron Paul. There has been an increase of libertarian Republicans after Ron Paul talking about that issue since.

          Libertarians generally support a non-interventionist foreign policy. That’s a foreign policy VERY DIFFERENT than both the GOP Establishment and the Democratic Party. So again, saying that “Libertarians are nothing but republicans that want to legalize pot!” is nothing more than an uneducated scare-tactic and oversimplification.

          If you don’t understand the vast implications of out corrupt centalized banking system that’s based on fiat currency printed out of thin air, then I have no choice but the end any political conversation about economics with you.. No offense, but you would have to go to a Money and Banking class at your local college if you don’t understand the vast implications of what libertarians like Ron Paul are talking about when attacking the corrupt Federal Reserve.

          I’ve shared a YouTube link above or below this post about the Federal Reserve.. You can start there!

          “If anybody here thinks BP would have cleaned up their mess in the gulf without govt intervention better stay away from bridge salesmen!”

          The most polluted land is PUBLIC land, not private land. That’s important to note!

          Government is not any better at making us safer than any other entity. Here’s a quick excerpt about the situation of the BP Oil Spill:

          “How did government socialism and state monopoly corporate capitalism together bring about this catastrophe before it occurred? Let me count the ways. It interfered with oil drilling in safer areas, for example, the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. An unholy alliance of dirigisme environmentalists, politicians and government bureaucrats have been attacking the Oil Sands in Alberta for lo these many years. This same cabal made it difficult to bring to market oil from shallow offshore in the Gulf of Mexico where it is safer, and pushed companies like BP out into deeper water, where harvesting is more difficult to control. Then, too, there were numerous restraints/prohibitions on exploration and delivery off of our east and west coasts.”

          “The employees of the so-called government watchdog, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) were watching pornography on their computer screens instead of offering oversight. Their 582-page “Regional Oil Spill Response Plan — Gulf of Mexico” doesn’t even mention a deep-water oil spill; yet, this was imposed on BP by those porn fans. While the number of deep-water oil installations rose by 900% in the last 20 years, the number of MMS inspectors stayed the same. I do not suggest that we should have increased the size of government, only that even on its own grounds MMS has been a calamity. As well left-wing, environmental groups, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency have long regulated this industry in a myriad of nanny state ways.”

          “What was the reaction of the Obama administration after the fact, apart from whining, holding meetings, and casting blame at business for greed and profit seeking? First, our president for a long time refused to abandon the nefarious Jones act, which mandates that coastal shipping and all goods transported by water be carried in U.S.-flag ships constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. Since that industry is heavily under the control of organized labor, this constituted a pay off to Obama’s union-boss buddies. But the reality is that the expertise in dealing with oil spills can be found mainly in Europe, not the U.S., and, particularly, with the Dutch, Belgians, and Norwegians. They offered to help, but the present administration dragged its heels in accepting it. Then there was the “15 parts per million” issue. Our unholy alliance of socialists and anti-market environmentalists managed to get a law passed forbidding the dumping of water in the Gulf which is dirtier than that level. The Dutch ships have the ability to scoop up sea waterheavily infused with oil (thousands of parts per million) at the site of the Deepwater Horizon, treat it on board, and dump out far cleaner water with only some 200 parts per million (a quick and vastimprovement). Would Obama allow this? For a long time he would not, relying on far less efficient U.S. unionized boats which had to travel great distances to get the dirty water treated onshore. Then, infamously, President Obama installed a moratorium on drilling; but all industrial initiatives are dangerous, and sometimes boomerang. Accidents occur in mines and factories, but we don’t close them down. Happily, though, courageous and heroic New Orleans Federal Judge Martin Feldman soon after lifted this ban.”
          “What is Obama’s solution? It would appear to be yet more bashing of what is left of our once great and glorious free enterprise system, a call for more stringent government regulation, and a change in name from MMS to Bureau of Ocean Energy. Thus, more of the same of what got us into the mess in the first place, plus a band aid name change.”

          “What suggestion emanates from market fundamentalists such as me? Why, to privatize the entire Gulf of Mexico, of course. Why? Because with private ownership, external costs would be internalized. Any owner of the Gulf would have been much more careful than the MMS, because he would have lost, wait for it, profits! Had the Mississippi river been in private hands, the corporate owner would have gone broke, and this property turned over to more capable hands in the advent of the Katrina tragedy. Instead, those responsible for killing some 1500 of our neighbors, FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, are still in existence. This is in sharp contrast to BP, which of course, is (partially) responsible for this disaster. But, happily, based on free enterprise principles, that firm will suffer losses and even risk bankruptcy, unlike these statist institutions.”

          “Ideally, users of the Gulf, its homesteaders, would become its owners. As a second best policy all those living within say, five miles of its coast, plus intensive users of its waters, would become stockholders in a new Gulf of Mexico Corporation. Take that, pinkos. If we learn anything from the study of economics, it is that private property rights systems, while far from perfect, function markedly better than their alternative, nonownership or government ownership.”
          (Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block164.html)

          Like

          Reply

          • Ray
            Jan 19, 2013 @ 12:46:26

            Jer, you are wrong on so many counts! I see you’ve read (and copied) all the Ron Paul and libertarian propaganda pamphlets!

            While I can support a few minor Libertarian policies! You are too naive and too radical for most Americans! I can agree with legalizing pot, but keeping the same restrictions we have on alcohol. As far as the other drugs, nope! You’ll have a hard time finding more than a tiny percentage that would be happy with crystal meth users behind the wheel of a car. Yes, we still need the DEA!

            The government exists to protect it’s citizenry from destructive entities whether they be external or internal, foriegn despots or corporate despots. The government was created to serve the people’s best interests not to be pawns for big business! Every single time the government deregulates things (Savings and loans in the 80’s under Reagan or Goldman Sachs under GW Bush) corruption follows! You right wingers are naive fools to believe they can be trusted! Greed will always be the main factor in their corruption. That’s the reason capitalism left to its own devices is a complete disaster. This country became great because of a combination of capitalism AND socialism!
            Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac helped build a strong middle class by giving the average working joe a chance to own a home and as long as a crook isn’t in charge of them, they both work fine

            Most of us (with the exception of the crooks) do not want a small weak government. We don’t like wastefull spending but we also want it strong enough to speak for the average citizen and take on the greedy and corrupt!

            Lastly because I don’t want to bore the readers to death (I leave that to you and you’ve done admirably), I will finish with… Who cares how many votes Ron Paul got in the last election? Ralph Nader had more votes than Ron Paul and he threw the election to Bush!

            Like

            Reply

            • Jer Littrell
              Jan 19, 2013 @ 13:50:12

              I apologize for “boring readers to death”… perhaps that was due to some talk about the Federal Reserve… Of course, nobody wants to get into the weeds of banking and finance to talk about “corporate greed”… It’s easier for someone like you to use personal attacks like “bridge salesman” to debunk what I’m saying. At least your personal attacks are helping to make this blog more “interesting”… Because that’s what the average American is entertained by in politics.. personal attacks!

              It’s easier to label my source as a “propaganda piece” rather than trying to prove it as factually untrue. It seems that in your mind, “propaganda” is any argument that you don’t personally agree with.

              Also, I didn’t copy “Ron Paul Propaganda”.. What I did is called CITING.. .Notice the “source” at the bottom of my last post.. Of course, that is an op-ed, not a research paper. Unless you can find something to disprove any facts that op-ed said, then you’re claim that it’s “propaganda” falls flat..

              But you’re right, my desperate need to base my arguments on facts, reason, and logic is “boring”. I may have to take a lesson from you and learn to be more attacking and offensive in order to get people to be more interested in what I have to say.

              Like

              Reply

              • Jer Littrell
                Jan 19, 2013 @ 14:59:47

                “While I can support a few minor Libertarian policies! You are too naive and too radical for most Americans! I can agree with legalizing pot, but keeping the same restrictions we have on alcohol. As far as the other drugs, nope! You’ll have a hard time finding more than a tiny percentage that would be happy with crystal meth users behind the wheel of a car. Yes, we still need the DEA!”

                I concede that saying that an individual has complete ownership over their own body and can do with their body as they please is a radical idea in year 2013. Libertarians, along with many social liberals among the political left, support decriminalizing marijuana. That was a “radical idea” in the 80s! It gained traction in the 90s, and continued to grow in agreement after the millennium. Now our country is hitting CRITICAL MASS in public opinion in supporting marijuana reform..

                Libertarians TODAY are more focused on just marijuana decriminalization and simply “harm reduction” measures for harder drugs. It will take another 30-40 years before any real shift in public opinion is achieved for heroin or meth. However, decriminalizing cocaine could achieve a majority of support among Americans within 15-20 years.

                As far as people being high behind the wheel of a car.. That can be mitigated the same way as alcohol. However, there are some civil liberties challenges regarding a police officer pulling someone over to the side of the road, detaining them, taking them to the station for a blood sample, then charging them because they are high on heroin or meth. Libertarians and liberals of all stripes are still working through a public policy solution for that..

                But the general idea that people shouldn’t have ownership of their own bodies as long they aren’t hurting others is tyrannical nonsense. The failure to realize that the underground economy will always be there to satisfy some individual’s desire to get high has disastrous consequences as violent crime rises due to the inflated drug profits that prohibition creates, children looking up to drug dealers who make a lot of money from those inflated profits that prohibition enables, and innocent people being killed in violent wars between drug dealers attempting to control land and territory in order to gain greater market share.

                The main goal of drug policy should be harm reduction of drug addicts who want to clean themselves up, keeping profit margins down by increasing supply in order to wipe street dealers out of the market, keeping drugs away from kids through regulation of licensed establishments that sell drugs legally, and keeping kids away from drugs by keeping drug dealers off the streets by creating a legal drug environment that makes them unable to compete in a FREE MARKET. Street dealers are only able to exist in an underground economy. You don’t see street dealers selling alcohol to kids in large numbers do you? You don’t see kids selling alcohol in large numbers do you?

                Why? Because alcohol is legal and regulated! The PROFIT MARGINS are TOO LOW to justify the legal risk of selling alcohol to minors. The profit margins are low because the SUPPLY of alcohol is greater than the DEMAND. The supply is greater than the demand because legal and regulated businesses can produce it at economies of scale that the “little guy” can’t compete with. A street dealer simply cannot compete with Budweiser.

                You don’t hear about illegal immigrants smuggling tequila from south of the border to sell to minors do you? Why? Because the profit margins are too damn low to justify the legal risks they are taking. That’s because tequila is LEGAL in the US. If we were still living under alcohol prohibition, then you could bet YOUR ASS they would have inventive to do that. Because the profit margins would be much HIGHER under prohibition. A bottle of tequila would be worth over 200 bucks.

                The root of the problem behind our failed Drug War is based on a failed understanding of ECONOMICS.. Plain and simple!

                Like

                Reply

              • Ray
                Jan 20, 2013 @ 05:00:15

                It’s going to take more than a bunch of nutcase conspiracy theorists in YouTube to prove your dealing with “facts” ! You can find flying crossdressing albino monkeys on YouTube but that doesn’t mean it gives them any credibility!

                Look, I think everybody is entitled to his opinion and everybody is entitled to contradict that opinion if they so desire! To be honest, there are some things I like about libertarianism such as their stance on social issues! The majority of Americans agree that we don’t want big brother snooping in our bedrooms or deciding which gender or race we are allowed to marry!

                My problems with your posts is that you not only try to make Ron Paul out to be the second coming of the messiah (he is not) but also that the libertarians are on a crusade that will make the country and into some kind of Utopia! Libertarians as a group are no less diverse than Democrats or Republicans. I’m willing to bet if you sat down with your fearless leader Ron Paul for a lengthy interview you would not agree with him totally either.
                Your posts come across as obnoxious, know it all, diatribes! Come on! You post that if we the unwashed masses need more information, we can always wait till some pithy words of wisdom flow from your keyboard? You’re entitled to your beliefs as we are to ours, but talk about pretentious!

                Like

                Reply

                • Jer Littrell
                  Jan 20, 2013 @ 10:01:50

                  “It’s going to take more than a bunch of nutcase conspiracy theorists in YouTube to prove your dealing with “facts” ! You can find flying crossdressing albino monkeys on YouTube but that doesn’t mean it gives them any credibility!”

                  YOU are the one making the accusation that myself, or anything that I’ve said, is conspiracy theorist. Since YOU are making the accusation, then YOU have the BURDEN OF PROOF to show that. So far, YOU haven’t done that.

                  Your posts and responses to my posts, and some other people’s above, are nothing more than baseless insults against other people. If that isn’t enough, then you turn around and call me “pretentious” and “obnoxious”. Talk about “the pot calling the kettle black”….

                  Throughout life, I find it interesting how people always say “everybody is entitled to their opinion..” only AFTER they find themselves backed into a corner in an argument and they have little else to say. Except in THIS case, you had very little meaningful things to say since the BEGINNING of the argument. The only thing that makes your posts worth reading are your anger-fueled insults and name calling..

                  You are the epitome of all things “ad hominem.” I seriously don’t believe you know what “ad hominem” means. So my “pretentious” and “know it all” self will define it for you:

                  “1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.”
                  “2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”
                  (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem)

                  Like

                  Reply

                  • Ray
                    Jan 20, 2013 @ 11:28:07

                    Before you fly off the handle again. I never accused you of being a conspiracy theorist! I said that the YouTube videos that you are trying to use to prove the validity of your long winded diatribe were made by conspiracy driven theorists! I am not going to waste an afternoon hunting down proof these guys are whack jobs! We can both find websites that corroborate our line of thinking! You’ll deny the validity of mine while I deny the validity of yours! What proof have you shown me? We could go back and forth like this for days, but I have a life and let’s face it neither of us is going to change the others mind so you can continue to spout your propaganda and maybe you can find someone here to believe your tripe! After all even after 4 years there are still idiots in the tea party that think Obama wasn’t born in this country!

                    Like

                    Reply

  14. Jer Littrell
    Dec 12, 2012 @ 17:59:25

    The GOP establishment, as it currently exists, will not win another election. Romney lost to Obama because he didn’t have enough support within his own Republican Party. There is a civil war within the GOP currently. It’s the GOP establishment vs. The Tea Party. Many people know this, but many people don’t know that it’s a little more complex than just that. There’s a civil war within the Tea Party as well, social conservatives vs. libertarians.

    I’m a libertarian Republican. The first modern day “tea party” started with libertarian Republican, Ron Paul, and his presidential campaign in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary. He didn’t win the GOP nomination, John McCain won of course. But Ron Paul energized a lot of young supporters under the age of 35. Ron Paul brought a lot of libertarian ideas into the GOP and made them mainstream. The current GOP establishment is running scared.

    Libertarians are more liberal on social issues than most Republicans in the GOP currently. They are also at war with social conservatives within the Tea Party. Libertarians support abolishing the War on Drugs and decriminalizing marijuana, and even harder drugs like cocaine and heroin. Libertarians see the War on Drugs crippling America’s inner cities. Libertarians like myself see our prison systems overcrowded and overflowing with NON-VIOLENT drug offenders. America has 5% of the world’s population, but 20% of the world’s prison population. This problem is further exacerbated with prisons that are run by for-profit corporations. These for-profit corporations receive contracts from state governments to run their prison system; the government pays these corporations with OUR tax dollars. The for-profit corporations then take the profits of OUR tax dollars to lobby the state governments for MORE contracts to build MORE prisons. The government not only gives them MORE of OUR tax dollars to build MORE prisons, but the government fills these new prisons by implementing tougher penalties for NON-VIOLENT drug offenders. Many progressive liberals talk about this problem, but no Republican has stepped forward and brought this issue mainstream, besides RON PAUL.

    Libertarian Republicans are more aggressive in pushing a school choice agenda in education reform. School choice allows parents to have an education voucher where they can use their hard earned tax dollars to send their child to any public school or charter school they want to (even some private schools). If a parent in an inner city has a child going to a school that is systematically mismanaged from the top-down, then why should they have to wait years for it to get it’s act together? The parent should be able to say, “I’m pulling my kid out of this school, taking my hard earned tax dollars with me, and sending him/her to a better school in the area.”

    Two of the biggest policies that will transform inner city problems will be education reform and drug policy reform that I described above.

    Ron Paul and many libertarians like myself have also brought the insidious evil of the Federal Reserve to public eye. Our fractional reserve banking system is a hoax. It’s too complicated to explain in a short paragraph. But basically, it’s absurdity stems from creating money literally out of THIN AIR. Our money isn’t backed by anything. Our money is literally printed out thin air like it’s Monopoly money. This creates monetary inflation and rises the cost of living. The rising cost of living through monetary inflation doesn’t hurt the wealthy, in fact, it makes them wealthier. The poor, on the other hand, get POORER because they cannot keep up with the rising cost of living that monetary inflation causes. It WIPES OUT the value of their savings.

    This is the biggest problem behind the “rich getting richer, and the poorer getting poorer”. Here’s a good documentary that explains what I’m talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

    Libertarians are far more tolerant about gay marriage. They vary somewhat in their approach, but it ranges anywhere from “Let the states decide on the issue and keep the Federal Government out of it”… to… “Let’s get the state and federal government out of marriage all together. Why do people need to get a marriage license? Why do people need to request PERMISSION from the government to get married?” Before the 20th Century, marriage licensing didn’t exist in America!

    Libertarian Republicans SUPPORT cutting wasteful spending in the US military; something no other type of Republican supports. They also want to close US Bases overseas that aren’t needed; and many of them aren’t believed to be needed. They aren’t believed to have any real benefit to our countries national security. Libertarian Republicans are speaking out about the US Government taking our hard earned tax dollars and giving it to foreign dictators in the form of “foreign aid” and “humanitarian support”. These dictators squander all the money, don’t help the people in their country, and they add insult to injury by undermining our country.

    In the 2012 presidential election, the number of votes Ron Paul got in each state in the GOP Presidential Primary was GREATER than the margin Obama beat Romney by in each state. When Ron Paul lost the GOP primary, his supporters either supported Gary Johnson with the Libertarian Party or STAYED HOME. The research from surveys and exit polls have shown this. They HATED Mitt Romney. And the libertarian faction of the GOP ended up playing a big role in tipping the election to Obama. Even they disagree with Obama philosophically about virtually everything he does, they were willing to “bite the bullet” and give him a second term. Why? Because changing the GOP from within is a higher goal. Libertarians are sending a clear message to the GOP, “Elect real conservatives who want real change, or we will ‘spoil’ the election and a Democrat will win.”

    Younger Republicans are more libertarian.. This is not our grandfathers GOP! These younger Republicans will be running the GOP in the next 10-20 years!

    If anybody reading this wants more factual support, then feel free to ask.. I can answer anybody’s questions about this.

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Dec 17, 2012 @ 18:40:42

      Jer it seems to me that the Libertarian Republicans are the last great hope for the GOP, if they want to be effective i winning future elections for the WHite house. As it stands now, many Republicans are seen as outdated thinkers with old school ideals that simply don’t address the changing demographics in America.

      I would definitley support a GOP party such as you described and I believe many other fence straddling people who voted Democratic simply b/c they could not support the current party of republicans would also go back t the GOP voting in future elections if this change you suggest takes place.

      Like

      Reply

    • Ray
      Jan 19, 2013 @ 12:51:05

      I will say you’ve mentioned the one other thing I can agree with Libertarians on and that is social libertarianism! The government should have no place in our bedrooms or a womans uterus.

      Like

      Reply

  15. neurochick
    Dec 31, 2012 @ 11:58:57

    I don’t like most Republicans. To me, they want to get rid of Social Security, they want everybody to work until they die, they want to go back to the 50’s, the 1850’s.

    I love how people scream about how they hate big government, until some natural disaster hits. I saw what Hurricane Sandy did and I’m grateful for big government. If not for them NYC might have lost THREE large hospitals.

    What really bugs me about a lot of conservatives is that they want to deny people the very entitlements that they had. I’m 53 and I remember a lot of folks I went to college with getting Pell grants in order to go to college. I also remember how cheap college was and that a person could work a minimum wage job and still be able to support themselves.

    In my last year of college, my tuition was $8,000 per year, and that was at a private college in NYC. When I started working a year later, at an entry level job in a university, my salary was about $9,000. Today the college I graduated from is now $47,000 but the entry level job only pays $34,000. Something’s wrong there and I saw this change after Reagan became president. I’d love to ask these Republicans how much their college tuition cost and how much were their student loans. If they went to college in the city of New York the 70’s, the cost of their college was a big fat, ZERO.

    Like

    Reply

    • Jer Littrell
      Dec 31, 2012 @ 16:14:19

      @Nuerochick: I was going to go on a long rant to respond to your post about the increasing cost of a college education. Instead, I’ll just state the bottom-line and link a 1 hour YouTube documentary that elaborates and explains the source of the problem.

      Cheap credit created by the US Government and the Federal Reserve to finance student loans and grants are the CAUSE of the college tuition increases that you described. Stafford Loans began with Lyndon Johnson’s Higher Education Act of 1965; it was one a part of the “Great Society” programs.

      The documentary linked below was created by the National Inflation Association (NIA). The documentary’s description sums up the problem with government student loans:

      “NIA tracks price inflation in all U.S. industries and there is no industry that has seen more consistent price inflation this decade than college education. After the burst of the Real Estate bubble, student loans are now the easiest loan to receive in the U.S., and total student loan debts now exceed credit card debts. The government gives out easy student loans to anybody, regardless of grades, credit history, what they are majoring in, and what their job prospects are. NIA believes it is illegal for the U.S. government to be in the student loan business because the U.S. constitution doesn’t authorize it. Just like how the U.S. government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make housing affordable, but instead drove housing prices through the roof; the U.S. government, by trying to make college more affordable, is accomplishing the exact opposite and driving tuition prices to astronomical levels that provide a negative return on investment.”

      “The U.S. has been experiencing 5.15% annual college tuition inflation this decade. Despite this, 70.1% of high school graduates are now enrolling into college, a new all time record. 2/3 of college students are now graduating with an average of $24,000 in debt. There is nothing special about getting a college degree if everyone else has one, and it is certainly not worth getting $24,000 into debt to camouflage yourself into the crowd. NIA’s President is friends with hundreds of CEOs of mid-sized corporations who tell him that someone who skipped college is a lot more likely to stand out amongst the hundreds of applicants who apply for each job available.”

      Documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A75KERKwEQM

      Like

      Reply

      • Ray
        Jan 19, 2013 @ 13:00:31

        I agree that not everyone was meant for college but if his grades and ambition warrant it, the lack of finances should not be a deterrent! Where would this country be if only dumb rich kids (such as W) went to college? If a smart poor kid can get the education he needs to find the cure for cancer that’s a much better bang for your buck than some moron wasting his daddies money swilling beer at frat parties and chasing coeds!

        Like

        Reply

        • Jer Littrell
          Jan 20, 2013 @ 12:53:55

          Ray,

          As a registered voter, who can at times decide to be practical and pragmatic, instead of being a full-fledged free-market capitalist ideologue, I’m completely open to taking a “moderate” point of view on Federal aid for college education. Instead of taking a liberal-progressive stance that says, “Give EVERY citizen an x amount of dollars to go to college”, or a conservative/right-libertarian argument that says “Education isn’t a ‘right’ under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Federal aid for education artificially inflates demand for college education and drives up tuition costs. America would be better off if we abolished Federal aid for education.”; I can seriously accept a moderate argument.

          I think it would make more sense for the Federal Government to grant education aid based on these conditions:

          1. Does this person have the intellectual ability to finish college? (This is determined by high school GPA and/or letters of recommendation from high school teachers)

          2. Is this person pursuing a degree that enables them to enter a job that is in high demand in the US Economy. (The Federal Government already keeps good statistics and data on occupations and shows the average median income for that occupation and projected job growth. This is done at the Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov)

          3. Based on the findings of the #2 condition, is this person likely to get a job, and earn enough money from that job, to repay the college loan?

          4. Is this person, or their parents, under a certain income bracket that qualifies them as someone who’s in “financial need”? (For example, if their parent’s make over, say, $150,000 then they are ineligible for a government loan. They can either pay out of pocket, or get a private loan from Sallie Mae or some other source. Somebody with less than 40K per year salary would be more eligible)

          The CURRENT system only takes into account “financial need” when approving someone for a Stafford Loan. There is little or nothing in place to determine the first condition of intellectual ability to finish college. The US Government figures that the college accepting them has already done that for them by admitting them into their college. But since the US Government, on behalf of the American Taxpayer, is financing that person’s education, then they MUST make their OWN determination if that person can finish college since their ability to repay the loan is highly dependent on that. This is important considering that a high number of college students dropout during their freshman or sophomore year. They have about 20K in student debt without a degree, and they are a waiter at Applebees making less than 20K a year, and they are deferring their student loan payments because they can’t make the minimum monthly payment. This screws over the US Taxpayer, future people applying for student loans because the education funding system isn’t being replenished with loan repayments, and sets up the person in debt for failure because they are in a high level of debt relative to their income and they can’t even write-off their student debt in bankruptcy court.

          The #2 and #3 condition is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and it’s not taken into consideration ANYWHERE in the current Stafford Loan system. For example, Anthropology, Fine Arts, Film and Photography, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Graphic Design, Studio Arts, Liberal Arts, Drama and Theater Arts, Sociology, and English are statistically PROVEN to have very low “return on investment” in terms of how much money someone has to borrow to earn a degree in any of those subjects relative to their probability of getting a job and how much that job will pay. The US Government and the American Taxpayer is not doing “Poor 18-year old Sally”, who comes from a household making less than 30K a year, a favor by loaning her money to study any of those subjects. If she has a passion for any of those subjects, then that’s great; but she would be better off either scrapping together some of her own hard earned cash by going straight into the workforce after high school, or choosing a different major. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/worst-college-majors-for-your-career.html?page=all)

          On the flip side, health care, finance, computer science, engineering, and mathematics are in high demand with high salaries. Anyone pursing a degree in those areas have a high chance of getting a job and more likely to earn enough money to pay back their student loan in a reasonable period of time.

          And of course condition #4 should go without saying. Prioritize education funding for people at the lowest income brackets to lower poverty. Pulling talented people out of poverty also costs the government less money in the long run because they won’t require government assistance. However, loaning money to someone below the poverty line who either can’t finish college, or is pursuing a degree with low employment and low pay relative to their student loan debt isn’t doing them, or anyone else in society, a favor.

          Like

          Reply

    • Ray
      Jan 20, 2013 @ 05:14:19

      You are right on the money, neurochick! The first 2 paragraphs decribed the GOP perfectly! The GOP wants to make it financially impossible for anyone but the rich to send their kids to college! Higher education should NOT be restricted to only people that can afford it! If your child is gifted and has the ambition, his or her educational opportunities should not be hindered by financial difficulties! There are enough dumb rich frat boys and sorority bimbos wasting seats in college classes!

      Like

      Reply

  16. neurochick
    Jan 02, 2013 @ 07:38:33

    I forgot to say that the only thing destroying this country and what always destroys countries, is greed. It’s fine to be wealthy but when you want to have EVERYTHING and take everybody’s money, that’s when there’s a problem.

    As for college, so your solution is that nobody go to college? I’m sorry but in 1981 when I was looking for a job, if you didn’t go to college, you couldn’t even get an interview, and if you were a black person, don’t even bother, was the attitude. Someone once told me that what a college degree told them was that you knew how to read and write. Maybe it’s not the same way today, hopefully it’s not. But I will tell you that when we interview someone, if they didn’t go to college, they’re a no no. Fair, not really because I don’t believe college is for everyone, but that’s just what I have seen.

    But you are right about student loans, some people really shouldn’t get them.

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Jan 02, 2013 @ 18:06:56

      I forgot to say that the only thing destroying this country and what always destroys countries, is greed. It’s fine to be wealthy but when you want to have EVERYTHING and take everybody’s money, that’s when there’s a problem.

      BINGO! Greed will always destroy a good thing. The greed in this country has reached an all time high. I get it. people work hard and they want to keep what is theirs. But a lot of the wealthy get rich most of the time off the very low income and middle class people they feel they shouldn’t have to help. That is not right. When people of all classes work together, things have a way of working itself out for the benefit of EVERYONE. When people start getting greeedy and only care about their pockets (when they get rich off of people in a lower tax bracket) then there is a problem.

      Like

      Reply

  17. Neecy
    Jan 20, 2013 @ 19:10:00

    OH GOD LOL What happened here!? OK I PRRRRROMISE I a making a new pst either tonight or tomorrow.

    Like

    Reply

    • Jer Littrell
      Jan 20, 2013 @ 19:16:25

      Yea… Me and Ray had a cat fight… lmfao…. Even though I’m a serious politico who eats, breathes, and sleeps politics… I think it would be better if your next post was about something non-political 😉

      Like

      Reply

      • Neecy
        Jan 20, 2013 @ 19:53:33

        I feel bad I have been missing. LOL I gotta get back in action. And rest assured my next post won’t be political – at least not in the literal political sense 😉

        Like

        Reply

        • Ray
          Jan 21, 2013 @ 04:53:05

          I agree, Jer and I both are passionate about politics and I agree with some of his points but that’s what makes the world go round. To be honest, this was kind of civil compared to those morons I argue with on yahoo every day!. I kind of wish you’d make this a politics free zone! Discussions can get very nasty and take over before you know it!
          Since this site is dedicated to respecting and loving black women I’d rather focus on you lovely ladies and promoting IR dating and relationships! For the life of me, I do not understand how a few people have to inject politics into everything! I’m willing to bet that some on here have never responded to any other topic on this blog! This is no indictment on anybody personally (jer) it’s my general opinion of the trolls that have to ruin positive well meaning websites and blogs!

          Like

          Reply

  18. Neecy
    Jan 22, 2013 @ 09:48:02

    OK YALL I AM EDITING MY POST AND IT WILL BE UP BY TONIGHT!!!!

    Like

    Reply

  19. Jer Littrell
    Feb 10, 2013 @ 01:05:12

    I know this blog post has been beaten to death with over 70 comments. I talked about libertarianism quite a bit on here. The original post Neecy made mentioned the need for political candidates to reach out to non-white voters if they want to win elections due to shifting voter demographics in the US.

    I’ve been doing some YouTubing the past couple days and dug up a few non-white supporters of libertarianism. Within this list, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are both important academics within “right-wing” politics. Especially Thomas Sowell who’s a National Humanities Winner and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.

    Big Boi from Outcast:

    Thomas Sowell:

    Walter Williams:

    Jabriel Ballentine:

    George Ayittey (Ghana, Africa):

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali (feminist, Founder of AHA Foundation to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture ):

    Andrew M. Mwenda (One Foreign Policy Magazine’s “most influential foreign policy thinkers”):

    Like

    Reply

    • Neecy
      Feb 10, 2013 @ 09:15:40

      Interesting. I would definitley fall into this category. However, as stated these kinds of right wingers are too quiet to really make an impact obviously. because they are being drowned out by old school right wingers who are still of the “good ole boys” mentality.

      Like

      Reply

  20. Evil Girl
    Feb 18, 2013 @ 15:34:05

    I guarantee you the Republicans will win in 2016.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: