|
On April 15 2012 08:28 tdt wrote:
Everyone of the people we are allowed to vote for are privileged. All Harvard/Yale, private schools growing up etc. Even Mr. Obama. So making that argument they are out of touch as well and they don't ID with hardly anyone. I go to UNLV, I'd like to see a public school president let alone a tier 3 one. Will never happen. But anyway it's all crap. Doesnt matter where ppl come from what matters is whats in thier heart and policies thats why this was a cheap shot.
LBJ went to Southwest Texas State Teachers College, and was fond of reminding his Ivy League advisors of that fact.
Also, Obama is currently wealthy (not Romney-wealthy, but still doing pretty well) and went to an elite university, but he had humble beginnings. Not that it really matters, but it's something to consider.
On April 15 2012 22:36 Adila wrote:Oh Mitt... Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits "Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF." I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it?
This is probably the first and only useful post on this whole stay at home mom vs working women fake controversy. Ignore the rhetoric (especially since this all started from someone who isn't even associated with any campaign) and look at where the candidates stand on the issues.
|
On April 15 2012 22:36 Adila wrote:Oh Mitt... Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits "Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF." I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it?
Wow, this COMPLETELY undermines the hypocritical "outrage" of the Romneys regarding what Rosen said.
|
On April 16 2012 00:26 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 22:36 Adila wrote:Oh Mitt... Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits "Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF." I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it? Wow, this could - if spinned correctly - COMPLETELY undermine the hypocritical "outrage" of the Romneys regarding what Rosen said.
Fixed that for you. I don´t think Dems are even remotely as good at getting a "message" out as Reps.
|
I read only OP and I don't live in US so my knowledge about subject is lacking, but
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement” - Senator Michele Bachmann.
if person saying this kind of shit and/or believing in god, especially in a way that he/she doesn't approve works of science such as evolution theory and so on, can be serious candidate, that's one sad country. Get out of the Middle Ages...
e: Not saying it's not problem in Finland, but in a much lesser way.
|
On April 16 2012 00:36 Ogww wrote:
I read only OP and I don't live in US so my knowledge about subject is lacking, but
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement” - Senator Michele Bachmann.
if person saying this kind of shit and/or believing in god, especially in a way that he/she doesn't approve works of science such as evolution theory and so on, can be serious candidate, that's one sad country. Get out of the Middle Ages...
e: Not saying it's not problem in Finland, but in a much lesser way.
None of the candidates are very serious this year because Obama is the incumbent. Since Obama isn't extremely terrible, he'll have a high chance of winning regardless. Also, a lot of crazy people always run but drop out quickly, like Bachmann did.
|
On April 16 2012 00:36 Ogww wrote:
I read only OP and I don't live in US so my knowledge about subject is lacking, but
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement” - Senator Michele Bachmann.
if person saying this kind of shit and/or believing in god, especially in a way that he/she doesn't approve works of science such as evolution theory and so on, can be serious candidate, that's one sad country. Get out of the Middle Ages...
e: Not saying it's not problem in Finland, but in a much lesser way.
Slow it down. Bachmen is out, and has been out. Her cloned brother Santorum is out as well.
It's Romney vs Paul on the Republican side, with Obama and whatever fringe Democrat that wants to buck the party. I doubt you will see a serious challenger to Obama from the left. The question has become can Romney wrap it up before convention. Looking less and less likely, despite the PR attempts to sell the lie that he "has the nomination", and that it's Romney vs Obama period.
We are having quite a bit of questionable behavior in the voting process as well. The GOP has been caught quite a few times behaving erratically. Maine, N. Dakota, Mo and about 4 other states.
|
On March 28 2012 08:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 07:27 Signet wrote:On March 28 2012 05:09 BluePanther wrote:
Also, just some insight... I work part-time in the campaign headquarters of a rather prominent Republican. The new generation of Republican candidates (such as myself, eventually) are far more socially liberal that the current generation. It will be interesting to see how this power struggle plays itself out when that tipping point comes (and it will). I'd bet that's an interesting experience. My bet is we'll have 2-3 elections (2 year cycles) where Democrats crush Republicans on the basis of social issues, giving them the ability to implement a few really progressive economic programs as well. After that the GOP will gladly pass the torch on to people who can win. Although I've also observed that young Democrsts are more open to market-based economic policies than their party elders, particularly with regard to Social Security. The country is becoming more libertarian (read: Classically Liberal), thus going back to our founding roots of individual liberty & Non-Proviso Lockean Homesteading / Natural Law. It's not a surprise since a great majority of Independents are highly libertarian (As you can see in nearly every poll that Ron beats Obama and the rest (GOP candidates) with Independents by double digit+ margins), couple the fact that the young generation is split between libertarian and progressive spells a change a' brewin. Honestly though, the country won't stay together too much longer. When the debt implodes and the real issues come to the forefront it'll expose the deep, wide, and cavernous divide that exists in this country. Simply put, the political bonds will need to be broken, ala the Declaration of Independence. Let California become their own country, NY the same, Alabama, and NH their own. I still find it excruciatingly stupid to have such disparate peoples being forcibly associated which just brews hatred, conflict, resentment, animosity, avarice, and all sorts of negative consequences such as having peoples ruled by people they despise (either culturally, or what not). As a Floridian and soon to be New Hampsherite, it is stupid to have folks in NY or California who share nearly none of my beliefs and culture to force their views and culture upon me. Rant about geographical and population size incongruius with liberty & republicanism. (See: Anti-Federalist Papers) You think Greece is bad...just wait until the decades of deficits and entitlements / MIC spending catches up with reality.
Not sure how much I agree with this. First off you can find many good articles and books about how the mass population of America is, in fact, not as polarized as we all seem to believe. Of course you can find plenty out there saying that we are polarized as well but I think this is due in large part to the fact that a polarized America is more interesting (ratings wise) than a non-polarized one (I know, media "conspiracies" right? Just throwing it out there).
Also, I hear a lot of people talk about the whole debt situation blowing up we are all going to go down in flames (I know thats not exactly what you said, I'm exaggerating). I think the real problem we will see in our generation is the baby boomer generation (which has already begun to retire) will all retire, flooding the market for social security and medicare while our parents (for those of us around 25 or so), and us as well, have had less children. Essentially more people will exit the work force than enter it, and we will not be able to support our retirees anymore. However, this is a problem that every nation is facing, none more so than China due to their population laws. So when that's all said and done, who is best equipped to handle the situation? I have heard arguments for the U.S. but I guess we will see.
|
On April 15 2012 22:36 Adila wrote:Oh Mitt... Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits "Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF." I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it?
LOLZ
Republicans can't even keep thier stories stright from one day to the next. You have to wonder if they really belive any of it.
|
On April 15 2012 22:47 Omnipresent wrote:
Also, Obama is currently wealthy (not Romney-wealthy, but still doing pretty well) and went to an elite university, but he had humble beginnings. Not that it really matters, but it's something to consider.
.
LBJ was a long time ago... and he got shot into office, literally. Money rules poltics today. Anyway, Obama went to an elite private school in HI. went to elite private colleges. He is no LBJ.
Humble parents can't afford to send thier child to the Punahou School where tuition is $18,450 a year let alone live in HI.
I'm not one saying your beginings are indicative of your poltics, after all some of the greatest champions for the poor where/are richest Americans like FDR, Kennedys or today Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, but don't act like anyone today came from humble beginings.
My personal opion is democrats are not liberal enough due to money in politics. They give enough so ppl don't riot but not means of production to any appreciable degree. In many way United States was more liberal in the 1800s when you could get absolutly free land up to 180 acres. True universal heath care almost passed back then too not this bailout to insurance companies and middle men Obama has done.
|
On April 16 2012 00:26 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 22:36 Adila wrote:Oh Mitt... Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits "Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF." I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it? Wow, this COMPLETELY undermines the hypocritical "outrage" of the Romneys regarding what Rosen said.
As much of a Democrat I'd be if I could vote, I really dislike the whole personality politics thing. Who's to say Romney's plan won't actually benefit society and ultimately help the economy? Perhaps implementing his plan where mothers on the benefit should work will result in less poverty? What's Obama's alternative solution to resolving welfare issues? Regardless of the personal circumstances of Romney's wife. I hate it when people don't discuss the merits or disadvantages of policies, and think they've won some sort of political gain just by going: "Aha! I've found something that's inconsistent with your life!"
|
I agree with you, stick to the facts poltics is best. Facts are his plan is terrible unemployment is very high like ~9% and it's way underreported, many ppl think more like 20%. People who want jobs can't find them so cutting off mothers would really be torture for these mother and chilren.
I also disagree with your conservative premise. Who says welfare needs to be resolved? It's a useful stop gap when ppl are down on thier luck. All civilized countries have it. I am more interested in creating a climate where ppl arnt down on thier luck.
|
How is Obama not completely terrible? He has been executing American citizens without due process. How much more tyrannical can you get?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 16 2012 08:16 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
How is Obama not completely terrible? He has been executing American citizens without due process. How much more tyrannical can you get?
It's too obvious you're flamebaiting. Come back when you actually have an argument.
|
On April 16 2012 08:16 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
How is Obama not completely terrible? He has been executing American citizens without due process. How much more tyrannical can you get?
Like Republican wound not do same? Who started Gauntanimo and these wars? Obama didnt. With that said the answer is he is least bad.
|
On April 16 2012 06:58 tdt wrote:
I agree with you, stick to the facts poltics is best. Facts are his plan is terrible unemployment is very high like ~9% and it's way underreported, many ppl think more like 20%. People who want jobs can't find them so cutting off mothers would really be torture for these mother and chilren.
I also disagree with your conservative premise. Who says welfare needs to be resolved? It's a useful stop gap when ppl are down on thier luck. All civilized countries have it. I am more interested in creating a climate where ppl arnt down on thier luck.
Clinton obviously did back in 96. By introducing a work for welfare system, he managed to get many parents off welfare and into work. Studies have shown that children raised in beneficiary families have a higher likelihood to drop out of school, be unemployed, etc.
|
On April 16 2012 08:27 Jay Chou wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 06:58 tdt wrote:
I agree with you, stick to the facts poltics is best. Facts are his plan is terrible unemployment is very high like ~9% and it's way underreported, many ppl think more like 20%. People who want jobs can't find them so cutting off mothers would really be torture for these mother and chilren.
I also disagree with your conservative premise. Who says welfare needs to be resolved? It's a useful stop gap when ppl are down on thier luck. All civilized countries have it. I am more interested in creating a climate where ppl arnt down on thier luck. Clinton obviously did back in 96. By introducing a work for welfare system, he managed to get many parents off welfare and into work. Studies have shown that children raised in beneficiary families have a higher likelihood to drop out of school, be unemployed, etc.
Doesnt surpize me. Poor ppl tend to stay poor rich ppl stay rich but pulling rug out entirely is not a solution with high unemployment. It's just going to get worse. What are we going to do with people when robots do everything for those that can afford them?
|
http://youthrevolutionarycouncil.org/?p=1264
Apparently the Romney campaign made some mistakes in Wisconsin. It seems kind of silly, subs for votes, but I can see why the law is in place. It's kind of a technicality and I doubt it'll blow up into anything big, but we'll see.
|
On April 16 2012 08:24 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 08:16 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
How is Obama not completely terrible? He has been executing American citizens without due process. How much more tyrannical can you get? It's too obvious you're flamebaiting. Come back when you actually have an argument.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing
"''Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.' Holder said. 'The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.'"
The Attorney General of the United States rejects the notion that due process of law (a fundamental feature of law that has been codified since at least the Magna Carta) is the same thing as judicial process. In other words, if a president (or, presumably, governor, FBI chief, or other individual who commands police powers) convenes a secretive Star Chamber and decides that a U.S. citizen needs to be killed, that citizen may be killed. Legally. Given that this power will be happily siezed upon by future presidents, some of whom won't show the "restraint" of Obama and his confederates, I'd say that alone makes Obama worthy of being called terrible.
The frightening thing is that we don't know that Obama even had a cabal that made the collective determination of which American citizens could be assassinated. Because the entire process was secretive, for all we know Obama decided to kill al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son because the voices in his head told him to--there's been absolutely no insight into the process that led the American government to kill its own citizens sans trial other than a collection of lies that wouldn't fool a 1L.
|
On April 16 2012 10:35 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 08:24 seiferoth10 wrote:On April 16 2012 08:16 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
How is Obama not completely terrible? He has been executing American citizens without due process. How much more tyrannical can you get? It's too obvious you're flamebaiting. Come back when you actually have an argument. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing"''Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.' Holder said. 'The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.'" The Attorney General of the United States rejects the notion that due process of law (a fundamental feature of law that has been codified since at least the Magna Carta) is the same thing as judicial process. In other words, if a president (or, presumably, governor, FBI chief, or other individual who commands police powers) convenes a secretive Star Chamber and decides that a U.S. citizen needs to be killed, that citizen may be killed. Legally. Given that this power will be happily siezed upon by future presidents, some of whom won't show the "restraint" of Obama and his confederates, I'd say that alone makes Obama worthy of being called terrible. The frightening thing is that we don't know that Obama even had a cabal that made the collective determination of which American citizens could be assassinated. Because the entire process was secretive, for all we know Obama decided to kill al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son because the voices in his head told him to--there's been absolutely no insight into the process that led the American government to kill its own citizens sans trial other than a collection of lies that wouldn't fool a 1L.
Entirely true, but any American president would have done the same thing. Let's not forget the amount of Americans Bush got killed by invading Iraq on a lie. I honestly believe that if personal freedom is your concern, you're better off with the democratic party than with the republicans and I think that holds true for most of the era after WWII.
(This 'due process' thing is scary nonetheless.)
|
On April 17 2012 01:44 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 10:35 Voros wrote:On April 16 2012 08:24 seiferoth10 wrote:On April 16 2012 08:16 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
How is Obama not completely terrible? He has been executing American citizens without due process. How much more tyrannical can you get? It's too obvious you're flamebaiting. Come back when you actually have an argument. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing"''Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.' Holder said. 'The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.'" The Attorney General of the United States rejects the notion that due process of law (a fundamental feature of law that has been codified since at least the Magna Carta) is the same thing as judicial process. In other words, if a president (or, presumably, governor, FBI chief, or other individual who commands police powers) convenes a secretive Star Chamber and decides that a U.S. citizen needs to be killed, that citizen may be killed. Legally. Given that this power will be happily siezed upon by future presidents, some of whom won't show the "restraint" of Obama and his confederates, I'd say that alone makes Obama worthy of being called terrible. The frightening thing is that we don't know that Obama even had a cabal that made the collective determination of which American citizens could be assassinated. Because the entire process was secretive, for all we know Obama decided to kill al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son because the voices in his head told him to--there's been absolutely no insight into the process that led the American government to kill its own citizens sans trial other than a collection of lies that wouldn't fool a 1L. Entirely true, but any American president would have done the same thing. Let's not forget the amount of Americans Bush got killed by invading Iraq on a lie. I honestly believe that if personal freedom is your concern, you're better off with the democratic party than with the republicans and I think that holds true for most of the era after WWII. (This 'due process' thing is scary nonetheless.)
Or the liberterians 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
