On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
On November 14 2012 09:30 oneofthem wrote: let's get some reasonable rightwingers here lest people believe every conservative is a guy blaming welfare mothers for everything.
We were talking about the context behind Paul Ryan's comments; in what context is that "blaming welfare mothers for everything?"
Let's get some reasonable people here who can carry on a conversation without strawman arguments and ad-hominem.
On November 14 2012 09:30 oneofthem wrote: let's get some reasonable rightwingers here lest people believe every conservative is a guy blaming welfare mothers for everything.
We have sc2superfan, xDaunt, and Johnny. This new guy seems more trollish than usual. Will probably end up banned in the next 30 pages.
On November 14 2012 09:30 oneofthem wrote: let's get some reasonable rightwingers here lest people believe every conservative is a guy blaming welfare mothers for everything.
We have sc2superfan, xDaunt, and Sunny. This new guy seems more trollish than usual. Will probably end up banned in the next 30 pages.
Wasn't xDaunt temp banned because he said something along the lines of inmates voting in flordia referring to Democrats? Sorry it was a lot of pages ago.
Anyway only a few people claiming to be Republican so far in this thread have come up with valid points, mainly on the fiscal side but never on the social side sadly. Only if we could... combine... the two... :D lol
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false.
People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy.
As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms.
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false.
People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy.
As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms.
Weren't you just lecturing people about what a stram man argument is?
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false.
People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy.
As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms.
You think the Democrats secretly want to fuck up the country out of a strange sense of party loyalty where it doesn't matter what happens to the country as long as the Republicans lose elections in the wreckage? I'm reasonably sure the party playing obstructionism chicken with the economy was the Republicans.
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false.
People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy.
As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms.
The point isn't that Republican states are poor, the point is Republican states are the ones who receive the most federal funding, which makes the rhetoric of their state representatives often hypocritical to a high degree.
As to what "incentive" Democrats have to fix the economy -- the incentive is plain.
It's the same thing with government provisions. What incentive do people have to work if the government will give them food stamps and public housing?
The incentive is they're human beings. People want to work and do something with their lives. People who want a better and more caring society will sometimes work in government.
On November 14 2012 09:46 KwarK wrote: You think the Democrats secretly want to fuck up the country out of a strange sense of party loyalty where it doesn't matter what happens to the country as long as the Republicans lose elections in the wreckage? I'm reasonably sure the party playing obstructionism chicken with the economy was the Republicans.
It's all about power in Washington. Consider how much time the President devoted to getting re-elected when he could have been spending efforts to overcome this perceived obstructionism. The same can be said of nearly every Congressman (we can leave off people in gerrymandered districts who don't even have to try).
You are dodging my question. What incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy if this will cause them to lose their positions, particularly considering that the American People have now shown that they do not vote based on job performance? I don't know about you, but to me, this is a perfectly valid concern / potential flaw with our republic that needs to be addressed.
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false.
People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy.
As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms.
The point isn't that Republican states are poor, the point is Republican states are the ones who receive the most federal funding, which makes the rhetoric of their state representatives often hypocritical to a high degree.
As to what "incentive" Democrats have to fix the economy -- the incentive is plain.
It's the same thing with government provisions. What incentive do people have to work if the government will give them food stamps and public housing?
The incentive is they're human beings. People want to work and do something with their lives. People who want a better and more caring society will sometimes work in government.
Crazy theory, I know.
I respect your optimism, and hope for all of our sakes that you are correct. Unfortunately, you actually proving that theory is tantamount to the religious proving that their God exists.
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets.
I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need.
On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote: Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%?
If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man.
Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here.
I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions.
You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan.
You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney.
That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction.
Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false.
People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy.
As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms.
Weren't you just lecturing people about what a stram man argument is?
Yes I was. Be a man and say what you mean. Your implication is that I am downplaying his argument in order to better be able to knock it down, yet this is absolutely not the case.
I'm not sure how I did not come across this video during the election, so if its a repost, I apologize. I just can't believe this man had a legitimate shot at becoming president.
the grand narrative seems to be that, it is inevitable that in a democracy people will use the vote to confiscate stuff from job creators (and the foremen) for their own benefit, and america has fallen into this cycle of doom.
Edit:btw i post em because people don't read or click on links pictures is what gets the most looks from people. You should also spoiler the pictures it's pretty obnoxious quoting pictures.
^to be fair that's mostly showing the south is pretty undeveloped economically. i'd say their incorrect view of government (being a rural society in temperament) and lack of care for underserved communities causing vicious cycles may contribute to that lack of economic development.
On November 14 2012 09:54 Maxyim wrote: It's all about power in Washington. Consider how much time the President devoted to getting re-elected. The same can be said of nearly every Congressman (we can leave off people in gerrymandered districts who don't even have to try).
You are dodging my question. What incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy if this will cause them to lose their positions, particularly considering that the American People have now shown that they do not vote based on job performance?
These is utterly wrong; for someone to presume an unequivocal interpretation of the election results in such a manner is tantamount to admitting flat out that their partisanry blinds them in total. the only people who think like this are being slowly excommunicated from the Republican Party as we speak. Thank god for them.
On November 14 2012 09:54 farvacola wrote: I'm not sure how I did not come across this video during the election, so if its a repost, I apologize. I just can't believe this man had a legitimate shot at becoming president.
Between that and the other candidates for the GOP I still would have chosen Romney. Imagine Michelle B. The image... Of her being the commander and chief ... My lawd, and believe me it's not becasue she's a woman but because she (along with Palin) remain the most inexcusable Republican investments ever made.
On November 14 2012 09:54 Maxyim wrote: It's all about power in Washington. Consider how much time the President devoted to getting re-elected. The same can be said of nearly every Congressman (we can leave off people in gerrymandered districts who don't even have to try).
You are dodging my question. What incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy if this will cause them to lose their positions, particularly considering that the American People have now shown that they do not vote based on job performance?
These is utterly wrong; for someone to presume an unequivocal interpretation of the election results in such a manner is tantamount to admitting flat out that their partisanry blinds them in total. the only people who think like this are being slowly excommunicated from the Republican Party as we speak. Thank god for them.
How is this utterly wrong? Obama won by a landslide in a historic reelection, historic because it is the first time since the Great Depression that an incumbent POTUS, not to mention most of Congress, kept their jobs with the economy being where it is. Incidentally, the biggest gaps in the vote in favor of Obama came from groups that benefit the most from welfare and wealth redistribution.
Newsflash for you - calling my post "utterly wrong" and then passive-aggressively implying that I am clueless / out of touch is NOT an argument that furthers your point in any way, shape or form.
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
EPT
Only if we could... combine... the two... :D lol
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2nhyA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G3PUv.gif)
