|
|
On August 30 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 08:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world. You made me sad ... for Americans. The Canadian Revenue Agency confirmed that the Canadian Pension Plan is secure for the next 75 years, even accounting for factors such as longer life expectancy, earlier retirement or another financial shock. Aren't benefits lower for the CPP than SS? Not sure. I'll research it tonight and get back to you. Unless you're baiting me and already know the answer. If so, by all means, enlighten me.
Google told me that 'average payouts' for CPP is less than SS but you pay less into CPP as well. Plus the income bracket that applies to SS is different from the CPP. So, there's no easy answer... I'm sure someone has done a study on it though.
|
I thought Rand's speech was very run-of-the-mill. Is this "I built that" theme going to go on much longer? Your whole convention is basically centered around a snipped-up quote made by your political opponent. I really don't think Republicans understand that independent voters were sick of the "gotcha politics" in 2008, and that the smarmy attitude might work wonders with the GOP base, but it doesn't really change anyone's mind about policy. Stop talking about how much Obama's speeches offend you, and how he "doesn't understand America". I think he understands America just fine, seeing as how he already won the Presidency once.
Besides the typical manufactured outrage over nothing, the other half of his speech was about adhering to constitutional standards, and how Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet, this same party just announced in its platform the desire to amend the constitution, so as to place unnecessary and disruptive barriers on tax reform. They revere the constitution, but they want to fill it with specific modern-day policy standards to limit what future generations can do with their own government.
Oh, and he invoked James Madison, saying that if Madison were here, he would surely agree with him about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Because we all know Madison's exact feelings on health-insurance and mandating insurance. That stuff was very prevalent in the 18th century.
|
On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today?
You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that.
|
Canada11265 Posts
On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today?
"We Built That"
again?
I dunno, I just listened to Rand so far.
|
On August 30 2012 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today? You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that.
Who built that again? I'm sorry, I think I missed that.
|
On August 30 2012 08:55 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today? You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. You did build that. Who built that again? I'm sorry, I think I missed that.
I forget. They were trying to be so subtle that I missed their message.
|
On August 30 2012 06:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 06:15 dvorakftw wrote:On August 30 2012 05:44 Leporello wrote:
You're not going to answer point by point, just cherry-pick the one thing you think you can rebuke me on. How very xDaunt of you. So predictable. That was a speech. A speech from 2003 -- that is the most relevant thing you could find... That was me feeling lucky on Google and giving you 15 seconds more consideration than you're worth. How about you consider that there are other people reading this board, and provide them with something more relevant than a nine-year-old youtube clip and a rap video? You wanted to make a point that Obama was pushing for single-payer healthcare system as acting President. You have failed to make that point. It is no one else's fault but your own. I insulted you, and probably should've refrained from doing so, despite any insults I perceive coming from you. But the fact is, you make accusations, you don't back them up, and then you top it off with taunts.
yawn. I shouldn't have bothered but hear you go. You in bold. My previous in italics.
The fact is, his insurance-mandating was, but a few years ago, considered a Republican, conservative answer to our country's real healthcare problem.
First, the subject is ObamaCare and not just individual mandate. The fact that some misguided Republicans and conservatives were for it is a red herring. The issue is the government subjucating health care.
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/21/poor-sebelius-so-many-mandates-to-impose/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/23/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-15-unelected-unaccountable-bureaucr/ (I don't even care the joke of a site labels the claim mostly false. 'Ryan calls them unelected but that's not true because even though they aren't elected....')
The "real energy sector" you speak of has never been better.
http://pre.cloudfront.goodinc.com/posts/full_1304100442gas_prices_chart.jpg
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-18/obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline/52655762/1
http://cei.org/news-releases/obama-offshore-oil-moratorium-breaks-promise-hurts-economy-kills-jobs
http://www.lvrj.com/news/obama-budget-confirms-end-of-yucca-mountain-project-116165714.html
Obama has opened up more oil drilling than any president before him.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/01/23/are-president-obamas-policies-causing-a-rise-in-u-s-oil-production/
He has, however, increased safety regulations. I guess I just see that as a good thing.
If BP hadn't been forced that far out requiring them to drilling that far down it wouldn't have been such an unusual and difficult task to stop that spill. It's a bit like requiring motorcyclists to do wheelies everywhere they go and then after an accident saying the solution is to make them wear helmets and besides they shouldn't be riding motorcycles in the first place.
while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt
Bush ran up the debt more than anyone before him, and Obama's presidency has pretty much just been using Bush's tax plan.
But not the same spending plan! It's the spending and I say that already knowing the first response is going to be that goofy meme that Obama has actually reduced spending and that almost all of the debt from the last 4 years is because Bush invaded Iraq.
It's also employment for more Americans! Something Obama clearly has failed at.
It's also Obama campaigning against Bush deficits and promising he would cut them in half. But we all know that having those deficits actually double and triple, and quadruple is Bush's fault! Yeah the deficits were getting smaller and smaller until the Democrats got Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008 but it's Bush's fault.
It's all pretty much the same. Romney's answer is to cut taxes.
No. It is a fundamental change of tax policy to reduce rates, close loopholes, and give people good reasons to not avoid taxes.
http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/258876.html
didn't work for Bush,
http://www.euromoneycountryrisk.com/Documents/37726253-E805-4178-8A9A-2174276856BC/wiki/d159a24a-c63e-4356-8036-2c7a9e73dd92.JPG
You probably have some static analysis that says 'Hey if we had kept the rate as it was we would have made even more money' which is just as logical as saying 'Hey if we charge 30 dollars for our pizza instead of 15 dollars we could triple our profits!'
absolutely no reason to think it'll increase revenue this time around. No reason to think it'll create jobs either.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/10/03/Obamas-Stimulus-Jobs-Here-Today-Gone-Tomorrow.aspx#page1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/21/stimulus-funds-spent-obama-ads-olbermann-maddow/
http://dennyrehberg.com/news-and-events/news-detail/new-govt-report-tester-obama-stimulus-failed-to-create-promised-jobs/
And if you click just one link in this whole post:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/OBAMAUNEMPLOYMENTFAILCHART.jpg
It's just pure idealism at this point, not practical thinking. I'm not crazy about Obama's handling of the economy, but I'd be even less enthused by Romney's Republican-pandered ideas.
lololol, yes we all remember Obama's great slogan of 2008 "Practical thinking". And that iconic poster of Obama, looking smug, over the words "Practical thinking".
and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money
Do you think the President of the United States is in charge of the Fed? Or are you claiming Obama is running a criminal underground counterfeit operation? Or do you really, in fact, have no idea what you're talking about?
No. I meant Obama was literally printing the dollars, working the night shift at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. I know that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is a guy choosen at random that has absolutely no contact with the President and the policies made by the Fed are not only completely uninfluenced by what the President wants but are often done to be the exact opposite of what he wants even though that directly contradicts my claim of being completely uninfluenced.
and you think he's right-wing?
I didn't call Obama right-wing once, don't put words in my mouth. I called him a centrist,
You just a few hours ago: Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades
Please don't drag this into semantics about giant amoebas and little stars. Obama wants to drag the United States as far left as possible and he doesn't get credit because there weren't enough Republicans and non-suicidal Democrats to do what he would really like to do.
and anyone taking any sort of unbiased look at our country's policies over the past few decades, really couldn't dispute the fact that Obama is a centrist. He didn't raise income taxes, despite Democrat pressure. He didn't institute any sort of socialized medicine, just made it mandatory for people to buy over-priced health-insurance while making it more affordable for the poor.
He makes young and healthy people buy something they don't need to get enough money to pay for the services to the poor but it's not socialized. Gotcha! And no, the young and healthy don't need the insurance they are being forced to buy. It may turn out to be a good deal for 1 in 100,000 of them but the policies they are buying are a government regulated mess.
You want to improve health care? Increase supply and reduce demand. Let companies offer a variety of policies nationally the same way Geico and All-State and a dozen others do for cars and homes. Instead we have state by state fiefdoms and a tax code that has my employer paying for chiropractors and substance abuse counselors and gynecologists I'll never need.
That is how "crazy" and "extreme" left-wing he is. I hear people like you talk about Obama, and it's completely detached from reality. He's been a very centrist president, and the Republicans have thanked him for that by claiming that his policies -- policies that the Republican party once stood by -- are too left-wing. Hopefully Obama has learned from this and will institute some policies over the next four years to give people like you something worth complaining about for once.
So because I don't thank him for ObamaCare he should implement single-payer to teach me a lesson? Yeah, that sounds about right.
The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts.
Look at all those details. Hard to argue with complete made-up nonsense. Obama didn't propose any tax raises in 2009 and 2010. I wish he would have. He didn't fight for single-payer health-care. He never even suggested it. Some Democrats have fought for single-payer, but not him.
You seem to be having trouble with logic. I say that Obama couldn't get enough Democrats to do what Obama really wanted to do so he didn't do it. You then say he didn't do it so that proves he didn't want to do it.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamathetaxrais.html
Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing
March 27, 2008
For the rest
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/29/obamacare-raises-taxes-on-3-million-middle-class-americans/
http://www.lvtsg.com/imho/2012/08/obamacare-taxes-home-sales-clobbers-middle-class-americans/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes
You were mad that I got something of Obama loving single payer from 2003. Here you go. I spent an extra minute looking:
How ya like me now?
And do you really want to rehash the Gitmo fiasco? The Day 1 proof that Obama made a bunch of promises with no understanding of why things were the way they were? Remember when Gitmo was the #1 terrorist recruiting tool and drone strikes were just attacks from above that killed innocent civilians?
Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it!
Tea partiers are considered crazy basically for the same reasons I think you're crazy -- you spout talking-points at a mile-a-minute and think you're in the right because no one has the patience to sift through your garbage. You mix in a made-up fact or two in a mountain of pure rhetoric and vitriol.
Feelings mutual, buddy. The difference is that while you know the talking points, I know the talking points and the counter-points and the counter-counter-points. Give me something less deserving of mockery and contempt and perhaps I'll dignify the effort but look at what you wrote above and try, really try, to understand I'm merely talking to you in your own language.
And yes, we should raise the taxes on the upper-tax bracket. It's a pretty obvious decision to make at this point. Government needs revenue.
They always need revenue! No matter how much money they take, they come back for more. The entire mentality is built-in at the foundation where the goal of every bureaucrat is to spend every penny of their budget so they can say they need more money in next year's budget. It is the complete opposite of the free market that finds ways to deliver more and better service for less cost.
But I congraduate you on the perfect statement of Leftist philosophy. "Government needs revenue." Period. Full stop. No question of how much is too much or if they are the best ones for the task. If government wants to spend a trillion more dollars this year than they did last year, well we'll just have to take that money from the people because "Government needs revenue".
The upper-class has money to invest in creating American jobs if they wanted to -- but they aren't. They don't need lucrative, coddling tax breaks, they need to start paying more of their share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
|
John McCain didn't get the talking points either. Don't mention foreign policy!
(God forbid people remember Romney's foreign policy is the same as Bush's)
Oh and look, there's a battleship!
|
On August 30 2012 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 08:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world. You made me sad ... for Americans. The Canadian Revenue Agency confirmed that the Canadian Pension Plan is secure for the next 75 years, even accounting for factors such as longer life expectancy, earlier retirement or another financial shock. Aren't benefits lower for the CPP than SS? Not sure. I'll research it tonight and get back to you. Unless you're baiting me and already know the answer. If so, by all means, enlighten me. Google told me that 'average payouts' for CPP is less than SS but you pay less into CPP as well. Plus the income bracket that applies to SS is different from the CPP. So, there's no easy answer... I'm sure someone has done a study on it though.
And Canadians get guaranteed healthcare all our lives too, while Medicare only covers people after the age of 65 ... and I'm not sure how the cover compares. The hidden cost of healthcare should be considered when calculating into how much you receive or need from the government, post-retirement ...
I had a tongue biospy yesterday. Included light surgery and lab tests. I think Canada covered 50% (for dental) and my extended health coverage through work will reimburse me 45%.
Total out-of-pocket cost: $11. For a procedure that probably gets billed at $250 an hour. I can live with less CPP after retirement if it means savings like that my entire life.
|
On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today?
What did they do to pander? Promise to pay for women's contraceptives?
|
On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place).
How did you figured that?
It is pretty straight forvard system. You either save your retirement money and live of it after you retire, or you pay your retirement savings to the goverment, that later will be payed back in pensions and social security. It is a debt of the goverment.
If the goverment can not pay it`s debts properly, the next generation tend to be vary of being faked after they already complited their part of the bargain, and the entire Social Security system tends to get voted out very fast by the population uproar, not to mention the goverment that actually tries to do that.
|
On August 30 2012 09:07 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today? What did they do to pander? Promise to pay for women's contraceptives?
Hey ladies! Look, there's ladies in our party, too! We like ladies! Ladies are super strong and just maybe suffer a little more than men!
It was pretty funny.
|
have you guys seen the Obama "Ask Me Anything" reddit thread?
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/
Edit: Here's something he said:
Asker:
We know how Republicans feel about protecting Internet Freedom. Is Internet Freedom an issue you'd push to add to the Democratic Party's 2012 platform?
Obama:
Internet freedom is something I know you all care passionately about; I do too. We will fight hard to make sure that the internet remains the open forum for everybody - from those who are expressing an idea to those to want to start a business. And although there will be occasional disagreements on the details of various legislative proposals, I won't stray from that principle - and it will be reflected in the platform.
Didn't Obama support things like SOPA?
|
On August 30 2012 09:22 antifan wrote:have you guys seen the Obama "Ask Me Anything" reddit thread? http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/Edit: Here's something he said: Asker: We know how Republicans feel about protecting Internet Freedom. Is Internet Freedom an issue you'd push to add to the Democratic Party's 2012 platform? Obama: Internet freedom is something I know you all care passionately about; I do too. We will fight hard to make sure that the internet remains the open forum for everybody - from those who are expressing an idea to those to want to start a business. And although there will be occasional disagreements on the details of various legislative proposals, I won't stray from that principle - and it will be reflected in the platform. Didn't Obama support things like SOPA?
The devil is usually in the details. 
Frankly, I can't see how anyone believes anything the man says anymore, but voters will most surely suffer from short term memory issues when the hype train start up again.
|
On August 30 2012 09:08 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). How did you figured that? It is pretty straight forvard system. You either save your retirement money and live of it after you retire, or you pay your retirement savings to the goverment, that later will be payed back in pensions and social security. It is a debt of the goverment. If the goverment can not pay it`s debts properly, the next generation tend to be vary of being faked after they already complited their part of the bargain, and the entire Social Security system tends to get voted out very fast by the population uproar, not to mention the goverment that actually tries to do that.
Pensions and social security are fundamentally different from eachother. One is indeed a private investment with 'guaranteed' turnout, but the other is a mandatory tax to provide other people with social benefits.
|
On August 30 2012 09:22 antifan wrote:have you guys seen the Obama "Ask Me Anything" reddit thread? http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/Edit: Here's something he said: Asker: We know how Republicans feel about protecting Internet Freedom. Is Internet Freedom an issue you'd push to add to the Democratic Party's 2012 platform? Obama: Internet freedom is something I know you all care passionately about; I do too. We will fight hard to make sure that the internet remains the open forum for everybody - from those who are expressing an idea to those to want to start a business. And although there will be occasional disagreements on the details of various legislative proposals, I won't stray from that principle - and it will be reflected in the platform. Didn't Obama support things like SOPA?
Obama condemed SOPA, but he actually signed ACTA sololey(as executive order) and barred Congress from the equation, which is kinda questionable if at all constitutional.
Fortunately, Europeans made a huge uproar, and the Euro-parliamen rejected acta by ridiculous magin,478 MEPs voted against ACTA, 39 in favour, and 165 abstained, so ACTA is kinda dead.
So, good thing the Euro-parliament is there to protect US citisens from the president they elected.
|
On August 30 2012 09:30 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 09:08 naastyOne wrote:On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). How did you figured that? It is pretty straight forvard system. You either save your retirement money and live of it after you retire, or you pay your retirement savings to the goverment, that later will be payed back in pensions and social security. It is a debt of the goverment. If the goverment can not pay it`s debts properly, the next generation tend to be vary of being faked after they already complited their part of the bargain, and the entire Social Security system tends to get voted out very fast by the population uproar, not to mention the goverment that actually tries to do that. Pensions and social security are fundamentally different from eachother. One is indeed a private investment with 'guaranteed' turnout, but the other is a mandatory tax to provide other people with social benefits.
No. Pensions can be provided by goverment, and some goverments do that, notably former SU countries.
Agan, it is not nececery limited to US.
The basic idea is that you pay that tax as a payment for future services you will recive. If it goes out of this, people tend to get rid of politicans/parties/ex that think they can do so. At least in countries with >2 parties.
|
On August 30 2012 09:37 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 09:30 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 09:08 naastyOne wrote:On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). How did you figured that? It is pretty straight forvard system. You either save your retirement money and live of it after you retire, or you pay your retirement savings to the goverment, that later will be payed back in pensions and social security. It is a debt of the goverment. If the goverment can not pay it`s debts properly, the next generation tend to be vary of being faked after they already complited their part of the bargain, and the entire Social Security system tends to get voted out very fast by the population uproar, not to mention the goverment that actually tries to do that. Pensions and social security are fundamentally different from eachother. One is indeed a private investment with 'guaranteed' turnout, but the other is a mandatory tax to provide other people with social benefits. No. Pensions can be provided by goverment, and some goverments do that, notably former SU countries. Agan, it is not nececery limited to US. The basic idea is that you pay that tax as a payment for future services you will recive. If it goes out of this, people tend to get rid of politicans/parties/ex that think they can do so. At least in countries with >2 parties.
A pension is an investment into a fund where you receive the benefits as an individual (more or less). Pay more, get more, future payments are dependant on what you put in.
Social security is a mandatory tax you pay every year to pay for 'handouts' for the people that are over a certain age in that year. Future payments are not dependant on what you put in, but on what others are paying that year.
(this is not entirely true, but does cover the basic idea)
|
On August 30 2012 09:15 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 09:07 dvorakftw wrote:On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today? What did they do to pander? Promise to pay for women's contraceptives? Hey ladies! Look, there's ladies in our party, too! We like ladies! Ladies are super strong and just maybe suffer a little more than men! It was pretty funny.
yes and if we don't have women and "others" (as you put it) speak at our convention, we will be accused of all being old white men, white-washed, afraid to let women even talk, party of white men, etc.
can't win with ya'll, can we?
|
I thought US Social Security was paid for primarily through payroll taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
