|
|
On November 09 2012 09:03 GoShox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 08:25 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 08:03 Teggy03 wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else finds it strange to see sad children less than 10 years of age in some of the pictures going around that were taken when it was announced that Obama had won. Not strange at all. It's one of the strongest features of the fundamentalist group, they are able to indoctrinate their children and surround them with like-minded people so that they are unable to ever form their own opinions. During the 2008 election, I overheard my girlfriend-at-the-time's best friend's little brother, in response to an Obama ad piece running on the television, say "They call it the White House for a reason Obama." The boy couldn't have been older than 8 or 9. Children that age don't form those opinions on their own, they overhear them from their parents and siblings. Oh goodness, it goes both ways. Stop acting like it's just one group that does it, or it makes you look just as ignorant. I grew up in a very religious Christian family. I have two brothers: One of them is very liberal, one of them is very conservative, and I'm pretty much in the middle. Seems pretty fair to me. Meanwhile, I see other families who have parents that lean liberal that also force their views on their kids. Naturally, it must be fair to say that all liberal parents do so, right?
Whenever you have a large group of people there are going to be "extremists" within that group. It is sad how this vocal minority is many times taken as the summary of the entire group. It seems to be human nature to extrapolate an image of the whole from the parts that stand out the most to the observer.
|
On November 09 2012 09:13 xNSwarm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 09:03 GoShox wrote:On November 09 2012 08:25 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 08:03 Teggy03 wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else finds it strange to see sad children less than 10 years of age in some of the pictures going around that were taken when it was announced that Obama had won. Not strange at all. It's one of the strongest features of the fundamentalist group, they are able to indoctrinate their children and surround them with like-minded people so that they are unable to ever form their own opinions. During the 2008 election, I overheard my girlfriend-at-the-time's best friend's little brother, in response to an Obama ad piece running on the television, say "They call it the White House for a reason Obama." The boy couldn't have been older than 8 or 9. Children that age don't form those opinions on their own, they overhear them from their parents and siblings. Oh goodness, it goes both ways. Stop acting like it's just one group that does it, or it makes you look just as ignorant. I grew up in a very religious Christian family. I have two brothers: One of them is very liberal, one of them is very conservative, and I'm pretty much in the middle. Seems pretty fair to me. Meanwhile, I see other families who have parents that lean liberal that also force their views on their kids. Naturally, it must be fair to say that all liberal parents do so, right? Whenever you have a large group of people there are going to be "extremists" within that group. It is sad how this vocal minority is many times taken as the summary of the entire group. It seems to be human nature to extrapolate an image of the whole from the parts that stand out the most to the observer.
Like a big chested woman.
|
On November 09 2012 09:03 GoShox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 08:25 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 08:03 Teggy03 wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else finds it strange to see sad children less than 10 years of age in some of the pictures going around that were taken when it was announced that Obama had won. Not strange at all. It's one of the strongest features of the fundamentalist group, they are able to indoctrinate their children and surround them with like-minded people so that they are unable to ever form their own opinions. During the 2008 election, I overheard my girlfriend-at-the-time's best friend's little brother, in response to an Obama ad piece running on the television, say "They call it the White House for a reason Obama." The boy couldn't have been older than 8 or 9. Children that age don't form those opinions on their own, they overhear them from their parents and siblings. Oh goodness, it goes both ways. Stop acting like it's just one group that does it, or it makes you look just as ignorant. I grew up in a very religious Christian family. I have two brothers: One of them is very liberal, one of them is very conservative, and I'm pretty much in the middle. Seems pretty fair to me. Meanwhile, I see other families who have parents that lean liberal that also force their views on their kids. Naturally, it must be fair to say that all liberal parents do so, right?
Did I say they all do it? Don't put words in my mouth I even said that my story was anecdotal and I was speaking from that experience alone.
It's only natural that people who are very religious will try to ensure they instill those values in their children. People who are not religious do not feel the same urge to make sure their children are not religious. It may be tougher for them to become religious because they didn't grow up around it, but I feel like the atheists who try to push their non-religion onto other people are non-existent while the people pushing their religion onto other people are plentiful.
I'm actually in a similar position as you, except that I am an only child. My mother is very liberal, but my father is very conservative. They're divorced, but I'm somewhere in the middle, being socially liberal but fiscally conservative but unable to relate to the Republican Party at all because of fundamentalists. It doesn't change the fact that you won't catch a young child with a liberal upbringing making racist comments.
I know a lot of people around here that couldn't tell you how they know Obama is a Muslim bent on American destruction, he just is. You don't see that kind of off-the-reservation fearmongering from the Democratic party, not even when we were in a similar position under the Bush administration. These people will survive for another 4 years, just like the Democrats did in 2004.
|
The funniest thing to come out of the 2012 campaign is a Chinese Durex ad
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md59mu5VzA1qz6r6vo1_500.jpg)
The difference between Obama and Romney is...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when you go black...
maybe ann wants a try
|
On November 09 2012 09:55 oneofthem wrote:
when you go black...
maybe ann wants a try
FYI I know the (girls) that did this ad. One of them most definitely has a thing for black guys
|
|
|
In a bizarre twist, turns out both Mitt Romney AND Barack Obama were born in Kenya!
Kenyan mother names twins Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
A young Kenyan mother has named her newborn twin sons after the U.S. president-elect and his defeated Republican challenger.
Millicent Owuor, 20, gave birth to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on Wednesday at the Siaya District Hospital in southwest Kenya, according to the Standard.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kenyan-mother-names-twins-barack-obama-mitt-romney-132344622.html
|
Thats sad. Why would she condemn her children like that.
|
On November 09 2012 10:57 ShadeR wrote:
Thats sad. Why would she condemn one of her children like that.
fixed
|
On November 09 2012 09:52 Shady Sands wrote:The funniest thing to come out of the 2012 campaign is a Chinese Durex ad The difference between Obama and Romney is...
That's good.
Glad to see a high voter turn out, that can only be good for America.
|
On November 09 2012 11:07 Flakes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 10:57 ShadeR wrote:
Thats sad. Why would she condemn one of her children like that. fixed
If by one I hope you mean Obama once the puppet-masters blame him for the disasters and put a new puppet in his place in 4 years. Poor kid.
|
On November 09 2012 11:15 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 11:07 Flakes wrote:On November 09 2012 10:57 ShadeR wrote:
Thats sad. Why would she condemn one of her children like that. fixed If by one I hope you mean Obama once the puppet-masters blame him for the disasters and put a new puppet in his place in 4 years. Poor kid.
I don't think Kenya cares about the US' disasters as much.
|
On November 09 2012 09:55 oneofthem wrote:
when you go black...
maybe ann wants a try
Why do you think she's into horses?
|
How to solve the fiscal cliff: The Obamney Tax Plan
The Economist is suggesting that the fiscal cliff deadlock may be resolved by stealing, and watering down, a few ideas from Romney's tax plan (capping or limiting deductions but not lowering rates). Seems like a fair compromise - I'd like to see it.
I don't have a ready estimate of how much capping deductions for those earning more than $250,000 would raise. But you can ballpark it by looking the Tax Policy Center's estimates for capping itemized deductions at $50,000. It would raise $749 billion over 10 years, within the $800 billion that Mr Boehner has previously agreed to. That’s also more than the $429 billion yielded from returning the two top rates to their pre 2001 levels. The appeal for Republicans is that no one’s rates go up, and the preferential rate for capital gains and dividends is preserved. The appeal for Mr Obama is that it is highly progressive. According to the TPC, less than 1% of the bottom 60% of households would pay more tax while the top 1% would pay 79% of the additional revenue. The average tax rate for the bottom 60% wouldn’t change, while it would go up 2 percentage points for the top 1%. It's worth noting that Mr Obama’s budgets proposed capping the value of deductions for upper income households at 28%, which would have raised $584 billion over 10 years. Prior to 2001, the personal exemption and itemized deductions phased out for upper income taxpayers; those phaseouts were eliminated by the Bush tax cuts. Mr Obama's budget would reinstate them, raising $164 billion over a decade. (These provisions would raise considerably less revenue if the two top rates did not go up.)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's the bowles simpson plan. romney said a couple words, which could mean a lot of things. i would give credit to the proper people. that plan is quite decent. financial transaction tax can also be considered for highly leveraged instruments.
On November 09 2012 11:42 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 09:55 oneofthem wrote:
when you go black...
maybe ann wants a try Why do you think she's into horses?
nice smooth ride?
|
On November 09 2012 06:46 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 06:27 Toadesstern wrote:On November 09 2012 06:21 NIJ wrote:On November 09 2012 03:24 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 03:20 Hrrrrm wrote:On November 09 2012 03:16 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 09 2012 03:09 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2012 03:07 sevia wrote:On November 09 2012 02:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives. In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights. The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be. I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all. Romney from governor to electoral are two different people so it's hard to compare. When he was governor he was pretty much a liberal from cars/coal/women/religion/healthcare but when he came to contend office he threw away all that track record for shit ideologies supported by crazy Republican base. If Romney had of supported Women's rights/Healthcare and stood behind his fiscal policy over Obama's stimulus ideology he would have won with a landslide but it's pretty hard to get a winning vote then 50% are women and a solid portion are non-white. Especially when you annihilate 47% of the vote. I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president. The Romney you speak of would've never won the Republican Primary to even have a shot at the Presidency. Would've been Santorum if Romney even hinted at still being Pro-Choice. Republican base will take a lot of shit when candidates try to appeal to the center, the one thing they won't is Abortion. I'm talking nationally of course. But that's what people are saying...it's time for the Republican Party to distance itself from the people that would be outraged if a Republican candidate was pro-choice. The party needs to realign itself with fiscal conservatism and personal liberties, and distance itself from religious fundamentalism, if they want any shot at capturing some of the women and minority votes that at this point go to the Democrats by default. But republicans willingly took that baggage from the democrats and it served them well for past few decades. Where will the fundies go if even republicans kick them off to the curb lol. probably still going to vote reps wouldn't they? If you can't get what you want in voting people usually vote for what's closest to what you want and I don't see those people voting dems :p Yet another excellent reason to cut them loose. The worst case scenario is those people decide they are too fed up with our country to vote at all, but they definitely won't be voting for Democratic candidates. The more likely scenario is they will continue to vote Republican because it is the closest thing to what they want, but you don't have to address their funky religious issues. exactly what I thought, though I made it a question because people in this thread kept saying it was a willingly decision to support those guys to get their votes in the first place, which implies they didn't vote reps before that happened?
They voted democrats before the schism happened and the republicans swooped them up about half a century ago.
They will never vote for democrats because they have a party that panders to them. If that party stops, then there's no reason for them to stay loyal to that party.
|
That made me lol. She deleted her twitter account in shame, poor thing.
|
On November 09 2012 13:11 ControlMonkey wrote:That made me lol. She deleted her twitter account in shame, poor thing.
The spelling of Australia is about the only thing she got right...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
