|
|
On November 12 2012 22:35 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Uh, isn't there a religion that rejects medical treatment of any kind? I don't remember what it was, but I swear there's a rather well known one....or I could just be completely wrong here.
If it's true though, wouldn't that company have the right to not cover any of its employee's medical costs?
I believe you're thinking of Christian Science.
|
On November 13 2012 03:50 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 22:35 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Uh, isn't there a religion that rejects medical treatment of any kind? I don't remember what it was, but I swear there's a rather well known one....or I could just be completely wrong here.
If it's true though, wouldn't that company have the right to not cover any of its employee's medical costs? I believe you're thinking of Christian "Science ".
It's an insult to science if you don't include that.
|
Oh wow. Just did a quick read through it. Didn't know that the Christian Science Monitor had something to do with it....seems obvious in retrospect. Man I'm dumb. xD
|
Theres a lot of naturalist movement things going on. Steve jobs went months without actually treating his cancer after he found out he had it because he wanted to try "natural" remedy's. by the time that he went in for surgery on it it had already spread.
Its not really a christian thing. the medical benefits of prayer have been explored from a psychological standpoint and show some benefits but trying to argue the benefits of psychological things can get pretty werid and I don't do that.
And the democrats are going to win the debt debate. taxes are going up on the rich one way or the other. Info came out recently that said that if a deal isn't reached obama is going to go on the campaign trail again in republican districts to get them to convince their representatives to not raise taxes on them. Its literally going to be the easiest slam dunk sense "legitimate rape".
|
On November 13 2012 04:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a lot of naturalist movement things going on. Steve jobs went months without actually treating his cancer after he found out he had it because he wanted to try "natural" remedy's. by the time that he went in for surgery on it it had already spread.
Its not really a christian thing. the medical benefits of prayer have been explored from a psychological standpoint and show some benefits but trying to argue the benefits of psychological things can get pretty werid and I don't do that.
And the democrats are going to win the debt debate. taxes are going up on the rich one way or the other. Info came out recently that said that if a deal isn't reached obama is going to go on the campaign trail again in republican districts to get them to convince their representatives to not raise taxes on them. Its literally going to be the easiest slam dunk sense "legitimate rape".
Steve Jobs' biography also includes that he considered not going in for earlier cancer treatment the biggest mistake in his life and self-destructive stubbornness, if I remember correctly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let's not ruin a good word. what he did is superstition, it's not natural or naturalism.
|
On November 13 2012 03:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... You can only nay-say Krugman as a source so many times before your lack of credible, opposing source material makes it look like it is only you with the political lens on. When you say stuff like "He's playing politics because he wants winner take all economics talks.", you are presuming a lack of economic utility in holding Republican feet to the fire in order to get an economic mandate across, when this is clearly not the case, at least not entirely. In this case specifically, the recommendation of economic brinkmanship is Krugman saying that making concessions is economically a poor choice, in addition to being politically malfeasant. If you think otherwise, prove it, instead of simply saying that it is so.
Some think that Reps are right and that increasing taxes will hurt the economy:
Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013 Link
Overall, this study finds that the higher tax rates would reduce output in the long-run by 1.3% when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending. Employment would fall by 0.5%. In today‟s economy these changes would translate into a decline in GDP of $200 billion and employment by roughly 710,000 jobs. Investment, the capital stock (net worth) and real after-tax wages would also fall...
These results may suggest to policy makers that allowing the top tax rates to increase comes with economic consequences. Long-run output can be expected to fall, and, depending on the use of the revenues, living standards, as reflected by workers‟ real after-tax wages, may also be lower.
But I guess we should dismiss the other side and refuse to compromise because that would be the "intellectual" thing to do?
|
On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want.
He's using strange and contradictory logic.
Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own.
Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands.
Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry.
To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good:
More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country.
Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country?
|
On November 13 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 03:05 farvacola wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... You can only nay-say Krugman as a source so many times before your lack of credible, opposing source material makes it look like it is only you with the political lens on. When you say stuff like "He's playing politics because he wants winner take all economics talks.", you are presuming a lack of economic utility in holding Republican feet to the fire in order to get an economic mandate across, when this is clearly not the case, at least not entirely. In this case specifically, the recommendation of economic brinkmanship is Krugman saying that making concessions is economically a poor choice, in addition to being politically malfeasant. If you think otherwise, prove it, instead of simply saying that it is so. Some think that Reps are right and that increasing taxes will hurt the economy: Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013 LinkShow nested quote +Overall, this study finds that the higher tax rates would reduce output in the long-run by 1.3% when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending. Employment would fall by 0.5%. In today‟s economy these changes would translate into a decline in GDP of $200 billion and employment by roughly 710,000 jobs. Investment, the capital stock (net worth) and real after-tax wages would also fall...
These results may suggest to policy makers that allowing the top tax rates to increase comes with economic consequences. Long-run output can be expected to fall, and, depending on the use of the revenues, living standards, as reflected by workers‟ real after-tax wages, may also be lower. But I guess we should dismiss the other side and refuse to compromise because that would be the "intellectual" thing to do?
Well that, and the fact that it qualifies the statement by saying "when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending." Nobody's suggesting using the tax raise for additional government spending; simply to pay for current (or even less) government spending. So it's not clear that the statement even applies to this circumstance.
Most important of all, yes, it might hurt the economy in the "long run". But considering that the "fiscal cliff" is widely considered "not a good thing," and the Republican plan doesn't really do as much to balance the budget, I'm willing to take the economy growing a bit slower.
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own.
Yes. It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction".
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands.
Um, yes. It's called "winning an election." Obama has popular support on his side. Despite the economy being fairly crap, despite the billions spent against him by wealthy businessmen, despite all that... he still won. Strongly. He could have lost Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and still won.
The people have weighed in, both in the Presidential race and in Congress. They like the Democrats plans better than the Republicans.
Why should the Democrats have to yield so much to the Republicans? They didn't earn the public's trust. They didn't earn the public's support. They didn't earn the public's vote.
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry.
To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good:
Brinksmanship only hurts if neither side backs down. If one of them gives in, then it works.
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country?
He's saying that, because the stalemate would hurt them, any attempt at brinksmanship on their part would be a bluff. So simply force them to go all in. They aren't willing to, so they will fold.
|
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: Show nested quote +More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country?
Hardly, the two go hand in hand. Believe it or not, many Democrats are convinced that an economic policy hardline and the good of the country are not mutually exclusive. And given the results of the election, this viewpoint has a possibly ephemeral justification; that Democrats are seizing the opportunity is a sign that they've learned from their mistakes of the past few years.
|
...Has anyone seen the petitions popping up from nearly 40 different states about actually seceding from the US? I'm pretty sure this is linked...
|
On November 13 2012 05:14 tMomiji wrote:
...Has anyone seen the petitions popping up from nearly 40 different states about actually seceding from the US? I'm pretty sure this is linked...
Yes. They're the typical right-wing nonsense that will go precisely nowhere.
|
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: Show nested quote +More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country?
Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy.
|
On November 13 2012 05:18 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:14 tMomiji wrote:
...Has anyone seen the petitions popping up from nearly 40 different states about actually seceding from the US? I'm pretty sure this is linked... Yes. They're the typical right-wing nonsense that will go precisely nowhere.
It's still crazy that it's popping up in so many states. Making my head spin. New York of all places has one going.
|
On November 13 2012 05:14 tMomiji wrote:
...Has anyone seen the petitions popping up from nearly 40 different states about actually seceding from the US? I'm pretty sure this is linked...
Only 24 states went for Romney, the others would obviously be against secession. And even of those 24, only the most die-hard might actually go through with it, particularly after most of them are shown how much money they get from the federal government versus how much they pay. A year ago there was a pretty serious movement from some counties in CA that wanted to leave and form their own state... that got stopped dead in its tracks when they looked at how much money they were getting from the state government.
|
|
|
Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one.
Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi.
|
On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi.
If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America.
|
On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America.
My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want.
|
On November 13 2012 05:34 tMomiji wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want.
Which state is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
