|
|
On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
that's selling me a bit short, man. but I'll admit that's my fault more than anyone's, I'm terrible at communicating:
I'm willing to move more to the center on immigration and welfare. let's pursue amnesty as a legitimate option and let's keep a lot of the programs that people need and want. no, I do not think it would serve us well to drop our core philosophies. our base is very socially and fiscally conservative, and we definitely can't win by pissing off the base. what we need to do is start communicating better. Romney's 47% remark betrayed an inner feeling that most conservatives (myself included) have, and I agree that we (conservatives) need to be better at fighting those feelings, because they are often inaccurate and they often turn people away from us.
You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them.
that's because he uses the naturalization of primitive accumulation as ideological justification to destroy the symmetry of the two parties' respective populisms. One is taking, the other is merely giving back what always-already belonged
edit: haha, see?
|
On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
that's selling me a bit short, man. but I'll admit that's my fault more than anyone's, I'm terrible at communicating:
I'm willing to move more to the center on immigration and welfare. let's pursue amnesty as a legitimate option and let's keep a lot of the programs that people need and want. no, I do not think it would serve us well to drop our core philosophies. our base is very socially and fiscally conservative, and we definitely can't win by pissing off the base. what we need to do is start communicating better. Romney's 47% remark betrayed an inner feeling that most conservatives (myself included) have, and I agree that we (conservatives) need to be better at fighting those feelings, because they are often inaccurate and they often turn people away from us.
You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them.
and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent.
of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money.
|
On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:15 antelope591 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:22 revel8 wrote:So is Karl Rove still disputing Ohio?  damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean). I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together. Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit. Republican's whole campaign was based on hate so for you to come in after the fact and cry about too much hate is hilarious to say the least have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't. "Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate. edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side. I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning?
Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights.
|
On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money.
With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument?
|
On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money.
Romney: Increase military funding.
That's taking money away everyone else and giving it to people in and supporting the military.
By your own out of context definition of buying, Romney tried to buy votes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument?
that goes without saying
|
On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument?
of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract".
taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation.
however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be.
|
I don't see YOUR face on any of my bills...
|
On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:15 antelope591 wrote:On November 08 2012 23:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean).
I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together.
Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit. Republican's whole campaign was based on hate so for you to come in after the fact and cry about too much hate is hilarious to say the least have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't. "Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate. edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side. I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights.
instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics.
|
On November 11 2012 07:47 sam!zdat wrote:
so then why do conservatives oppose sex education and birth control?
edit: answer, you WANT lots of poor babies to drive down your labor costs
Wrong, poor babies = welfare/disability drains.
We need PRODUCTIVE workers, not leeches.
poor babies are a threat to our national security- hence why I support a removal of tax benifits for having kids.
I also support free condoms (the cheapest birthcontrol [unless your a girl having alot of sex, in which case the pill may become more effecient]) for anyone above 15.
|
On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer.
By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be.
Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote.
|
On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:15 antelope591 wrote:
[quote]
Republican's whole campaign was based on hate so for you to come in after the fact and cry about too much hate is hilarious to say the least have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't. "Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate. edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side. I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics.
those old white men just might be protecting a truly innocent and pure child. A child had no sin, everyone else does.
I'd support the life of the innocent child who commit no crime. Yet, he gets no trial, no voice. Humans have a desire to live, very few can commit suicide even if they do attempt to. We yearn for life, and I support those poor innocent children.
|
Yeah, liberal is a very derogatory word in the US. I feel like if I described myself as liberal I'd be thought of as a pariah by my classmates and family. I just say "center-left" when people ask me what I am
|
On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is.
Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote.
since when is letting people keep their own money buying something?
also, your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.
|
On November 11 2012 08:37 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:47 sam!zdat wrote:
so then why do conservatives oppose sex education and birth control?
edit: answer, you WANT lots of poor babies to drive down your labor costs Wrong, poor babies = welfare/disability drains.
no, that's why you want poor babies without welfare... You need the reserve army to drive down labor costs, but, as you say, if you give them welfare that defeats the point.
|
On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't.
"Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate.
edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side. I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. A child had no sin, everyone else does.
you are a heretic...
edit: seriously. That is a highly heterodox idea. What denomination are you?
|
On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't.
"Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate.
edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side. I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. those old white men just might be protecting a truly innocent and pure child. A child had no sin, everyone does. I'd support the life of the innocent child who commit no crime. Yet, he gets no trial, no voice. Humans have a desire to live, very few can commit suicide even if they do attempt to. We yearn for life, and I support those poor innocent children.
Jesus Christ, now you are talking in tongues! Better get that fever down before you burn up completely!
|
On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
Same thing..
R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !!
People: yeee i like money
D: We need government services. Live a better life!
People: yee I like food and healthcare
it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something?
Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5
Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5
Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0
Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5
Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine).
Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner.
P.S. noticed you haven't responded to the military comment. Nothing to say?
|
On November 11 2012 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote:
[quote]
I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really
white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. A child had no sin, everyone else does. you are a heretic... edit: seriously. That is a highly heterodox idea. What denomination are you?
I'm a defender of the meek. I have no denomination.
|
On November 11 2012 08:44 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:On November 10 2012 04:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
white women voted for Romney over Obama....
so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney. When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. A child had no sin, everyone else does. you are a heretic... edit: seriously. That is a highly heterodox idea. What denomination are you? I'm a defender of the meek. I have no denomination.
But you can't defend yourself.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
