|
|
On September 05 2012 14:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 13:11 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote:On September 05 2012 12:01 xDaunt wrote:
There is a lot of "four more years" chanting, but the democrats haven't done very much to make a case for it yet. Yes, it's early in the convention, and really, Barack is going to have make the case for himself. Still, there's some 'splaining to do. The burden is really on Obama to make a case for why Americans should vote for him again because this election is a referendum on him. I agree with you to a certain extent but if you saw Julian Castro's speech you would know what Obama's policy accomplishments are and after Michelle's then you would know what makes Barack such an awesome fellow. Most non-Right Wing type people will be very persuaded so far IMHO. I am telling you guys Democrats as the main audience are through the roof with happiness this convention and if it keeps on this way will ensure that nearly everyone who voted for Obama would do it again. No, the speeches that were given tonight were not enough. They were good speeches with good, soaring rhetoric, but that is not enough for democrats in this election. Here is the reality: nothing said at his convention will capture the hearts and minds of voters like what happened in 2008. Everyone has seen this dog and pony show before. The voters who are up for grabs want real answers to questions that they have. Obama must present a plan for moving forward that voters will accept. He also has to provide a good explanation for why he has disappointed everyone so far. I personally think that he's facing a very uphill battle.
He needs to defend his policy decisions and reveal new ones if he's going to grab independents.
To be fair, I don't think Republicans did enough to appeal to independents either.
Today, all they did was fire up the base.
|
On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children?
In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body.
And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs.
All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence.
|
On September 05 2012 15:16 Velr wrote:
Wasn't Romneys rise in score after the Republican congress like the absolutely worst in history?
Nope.
If history tells anything, Romney will melt.
Unemployment over 8%, incumbents below 50%, there's plenty of history that says Obama is toast.
And it's quite likely almost every poll is using a flawed model.
|
On September 05 2012 15:31 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children? In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body. And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs. All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence.
Agree not to have children and I'd be fine with marriage between close relations. I think it's disgusting (just like I find homosexual relationships disgusting), but who am I to impose my views on another person? On the subject of polygamy, it's a necessary sacrifice. We'd have a alpha males with many wives and males raging the fuck out in society b/c they couldn't get one. What is an adult child? Lol.
It is? You have anything other than religion that points to that being true? I see you declaring a fetus a human when there is no scientific evidence to suggest it as anything more than a parasite on the body until a certain point (when I believe abortions should not be allowed. My personal opinion is that abortions shouldn't be allowed in cases where you remove a viable child from the womb and then must kill it once it is removed)
Why is banning said drugs necessary? Would get rid of a lot of stupid people.
You're continuing on about an economy I don't care about.
I said please stop using rhetoric and I see you suggesting marriage between two consenting adults would be the same as marriage between an adult and a child, or between a man and 1041 women (or vice versa, whatevs). Sigh...
|
Source for the bold, please? I believe you're right, but you enjoy making lots of claims and not sourcing them. Makes you hard to listen to.
|
On September 05 2012 15:31 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children? In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body. And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs.
All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence.
Blaming the governments focus on green power and healthcare for the situation in Spain is laughable.
It's like saying Greece is bankrupt because the government wanted to feed the homeless and be climate neutral. It's just not true.
|
On September 05 2012 15:48 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 15:31 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children? In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body. And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs.
All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence. Blaming the governments focus on green power and healthcare for the situation in Spain is laughable. It's like saying Greece is bankrupt because the government wanted to feed the homeless and be climate neutral. It's just not true.
That may be... but do you have a source backing up that claim?
We can all run around screaming about shit, or we can all source our arguments and not have to use rhetoric to get our points across.
|
Hm... The Newspaper i read that told me that Romneys "bump" was abismal (probablyt he worst since ww2 or something like that) sure as hell had other numbers/bounces... Ah they only talked about "Gallup" numbers.
According to this the conventions normally have way bigger effects:
Obama 2008 (plus 14)
John Kerry 2004 (plus 14)
Bush 2004 (plus 3)
Bush 2000 (plus 17)
Bob Dole 1996 (plus 15)
Clinton 1992 (plus 45)
Michael Dukakis 1988 (plus 35)
Walter Mondale 1984 (plus 16).
They also state that, according to Realclearpolitics.com, Romney is atm about equal on votes (but declining a little recently) but far off on electors ( 332 to 206 in favour of Obama).
|
On September 05 2012 14:58 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 14:43 Jumbled wrote:On September 05 2012 14:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 14:21 Risen wrote:
You're entitled to think the Democratic Party is the "big government" party. I disagree. Here's your bigger government. + Show Spoiler +But you're worried Republicans won't... let you get an abortion? Marry a dude? Democrats are in your life from before conception and long past death. Err, did you mean to post some different figures? The only significant thing those two show is that the Bush administration was horrifyingly bad for the US economy. Doesn't really do anything to back up your hyperbole. This is a good example of why I don't care about "respect" around here. Trillions in debt and government taking over GDP and all he can see is "Bush bad"... Whatever.
It's no surprise you're getting no respect if you can't back up your arguments. I simply described what you posted. Maybe you should find something relevant to your claims next time?
For others of a more rational bent, have any of you had a look at the Romney and Obama responses to the ScienceDebate questions? I posted the link a couple of pages back, but most of the focus has been on the Democrat convention so far.
|
On September 05 2012 15:48 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 15:31 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children? In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body. And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs.
All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence. Blaming the governments focus on green power and healthcare for the situation in Spain is laughable. It's like saying Greece is bankrupt because the government wanted to feed the homeless and be climate neutral. It's just not true.
Not that I agree with dvorakftw arguments but it's pretty common knowledge that Spain's economic problems partly is because bloated goverment spending and their failed green energy policies. Of course there's much more too it than that so it could be a bit factitious to suggest otherwise but they are most likely a part of the problem.
|
On September 05 2012 15:58 Velr wrote:
Michael Dukakis 1988 (plus 35)
lol
User was warned for this post
|
United States18840 Posts
On September 05 2012 16:25 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 15:48 karpo wrote:On September 05 2012 15:31 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children? In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body. And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs.
All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence. Blaming the governments focus on green power and healthcare for the situation in Spain is laughable. It's like saying Greece is bankrupt because the government wanted to feed the homeless and be climate neutral. It's just not true. Not that I agree with dvorakftw arguments but it's pretty common knowledge that Spain's economic problems partly is because bloated goverment spending and their failed green energy policies. Of course there's much more too it than that so it could be a bit factitious to suggest otherwise but they are most likely a part of the problem.
In Spain, the crisis was generated by long-term loans (commonly issued for 40 years), the building market crash, which included the bankruptcy of major companies, and a particularly severe increase in unemployment, which rose to 24.4% by March 2012.[1]
Spain continued the path of economic growth when the ruling party changed in 2004, keeping robust GDP growth during the first term of prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, even though some fundamental problems in the Spanish economy were already evident. Among these, according to the Financial Times, there was Spain's huge trade deficit (which reached a staggering 10% of the country's GDP by the summer of 2008),[2] the "loss of competitiveness against its main trading partners" and, also, as a part of the latter, an inflation rate which had been traditionally higher than those of its European partners, back then especially affected by house price increases of 150% from 1998 and a growing family indebtedness (115%) chiefly related to the Spanish Real Estate boom and rocketing oil prices.[3]
Source
|
On September 05 2012 16:09 Jumbled wrote:
It's no surprise you're getting no respect if you can't back up your arguments. I simply described what you posted. Maybe you should find something relevant to your claims next time?
I honestly hope you tell as many people as you can that "sure we are $16 trillion in debt and government spending is now almost 50% of our GDP but that's not big government and I'm voting Democrat."
![[image loading]](http://macromike.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/NationalDebtPerPerson1-e1303127969820.png)
source
|
Yeah, fuck Obama/Deomcrats for not snipping with their fingers and actually fighting the crisis with money instead of magic and voodoo economics like the Republicans would do!
|
On September 05 2012 16:09 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 14:58 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 14:43 Jumbled wrote:On September 05 2012 14:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 14:21 Risen wrote:
You're entitled to think the Democratic Party is the "big government" party. I disagree. Here's your bigger government. + Show Spoiler +But you're worried Republicans won't... let you get an abortion? Marry a dude? Democrats are in your life from before conception and long past death. Err, did you mean to post some different figures? The only significant thing those two show is that the Bush administration was horrifyingly bad for the US economy. Doesn't really do anything to back up your hyperbole. This is a good example of why I don't care about "respect" around here. Trillions in debt and government taking over GDP and all he can see is "Bush bad"... Whatever. It's no surprise you're getting no respect if you can't back up your arguments. I simply described what you posted. Maybe you should find something relevant to your claims next time? For others of a more rational bent, have any of you had a look at the Romney and Obama responses to the ScienceDebate questions? I posted the link a couple of pages back, but most of the focus has been on the Democrat convention so far.
Nice link, now if we could only get the media (who are apparently not enamored with this election) to actually cover some substance instead of all of the inane crap that both parties have turned this election into.
"War on Women", "In Chains", "You didn't build that", "Tax Evasion", "Bain Capital". etc.
Before I can fully comment on their answers I have a question for the Euros. Are there a large amount of lawsuits/recalls of perscription drugs in Europe? I've at least heard that the regulatory burden is not as high there (though I could be wrong) as with the FDA? Does that lead to more instances of unsafe drugs?
|
In other news not about the two douchebag parties,
The Green Party won a public-relations battle with Google on Tuesday, forcing the company’s television advertising division to book time for a commercial in which its presidential candidate uses a (partly bleeped) obscenity to describe the policies of the major-party candidates.
Google TV Ads, which fills advertising slots for television stations, initially rejected the commercial in an e-mail to the party’s ad agency on Monday, citing the use of “inappropriate language” by Jill Stein, the Green nominee. No doubt trying to avoid violating the Federal Communications Commission’s vague standards for what constitutes indecency on television, Google TV Ads instructs clients to “avoid bleeped-out expletives where curse words are still identifiable from the audio.”
In response to that initial rejection, the Green Party called on its supporters to “Tell Google TV Ads Not to Censor Our Ads!” The party argued, “Never mind that these ads already comply with F.C.C. regulations regarding appropriate content, what Google does not seem to understand is that federal law prohibits broadcasters from censoring ads submitted by candidates for public office.”
On Tuesday afternoon, Google TV Ads relented and agreed to pass the ad on to broadcasters in the 11 media markets where the Green Party hopes its message will have the most impact. In an e-mail shared with The Lede by Ben Manski, Ms. Stein’s campaign manager, a Google TV Ads employee also asked that the party “make immediate arrangements to remedy/retract the message” posted on its Web site.
Source
|
On September 05 2012 16:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In other news not about the two douchebag parties, + Show Spoiler +The Green Party won a public-relations battle with Google on Tuesday, forcing the company’s television advertising division to book time for a commercial in which its presidential candidate uses a (partly bleeped) obscenity to describe the policies of the major-party candidates.
Google TV Ads, which fills advertising slots for television stations, initially rejected the commercial in an e-mail to the party’s ad agency on Monday, citing the use of “inappropriate language” by Jill Stein, the Green nominee. No doubt trying to avoid violating the Federal Communications Commission’s vague standards for what constitutes indecency on television, Google TV Ads instructs clients to “avoid bleeped-out expletives where curse words are still identifiable from the audio.”
In response to that initial rejection, the Green Party called on its supporters to “Tell Google TV Ads Not to Censor Our Ads!” The party argued, “Never mind that these ads already comply with F.C.C. regulations regarding appropriate content, what Google does not seem to understand is that federal law prohibits broadcasters from censoring ads submitted by candidates for public office.”
On Tuesday afternoon, Google TV Ads relented and agreed to pass the ad on to broadcasters in the 11 media markets where the Green Party hopes its message will have the most impact. In an e-mail shared with The Lede by Ben Manski, Ms. Stein’s campaign manager, a Google TV Ads employee also asked that the party “make immediate arrangements to remedy/retract the message” posted on its Web site.
Good, while I'm not crazy about the Green Party more debate and speech is better than less.
|
On September 05 2012 16:36 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 16:09 Jumbled wrote:
It's no surprise you're getting no respect if you can't back up your arguments. I simply described what you posted. Maybe you should find something relevant to your claims next time?
I honestly hope you tell as many people as you can that "sure we are $16 trillion in debt and government spending is now almost 50% of our GDP but that's not big government and I'm voting Democrat." source
You do know that most of the increase in the deficit was caused by the Bush tax cuts, the 2 wars, and the GFC, right? The part that Obama had to do with increasing the deficit is very very minimal. Blame Bush,
And this...
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=abY)
|
On September 05 2012 15:31 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 15:00 Risen wrote:
I don't want to marry a man, but who is the government to tell me I can't?
I will never support an abortion, but who am I to stop someone else from doing to their body what they want?
I will never shoot up heroin, cocaine, etc, but what gives the government to interfere in the choices of those people?
Who is government to say you can't marry 1042 people including your cousins and brothers and adult children? In a very strict sense a fetus is someone else's body. And as nice as it sounds to let people do anything they want to themselves even places as tolerant to drug use as the Netherlands have found is necessary to make their laws stricter and still ban hard drugs. All of this ignores the affect government policies have on employment, wages, costs... The Spanish have wonderful promises of health care and green power and over 50% unemployment for young adults and it's not a coincidence.
Not a coincidence? Do you have evidence for this? What is your source?
|
On September 05 2012 14:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 13:11 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote:On September 05 2012 12:01 xDaunt wrote:
There is a lot of "four more years" chanting, but the democrats haven't done very much to make a case for it yet. Yes, it's early in the convention, and really, Barack is going to have make the case for himself. Still, there's some 'splaining to do. The burden is really on Obama to make a case for why Americans should vote for him again because this election is a referendum on him. I agree with you to a certain extent but if you saw Julian Castro's speech you would know what Obama's policy accomplishments are and after Michelle's then you would know what makes Barack such an awesome fellow. Most non-Right Wing type people will be very persuaded so far IMHO. I am telling you guys Democrats as the main audience are through the roof with happiness this convention and if it keeps on this way will ensure that nearly everyone who voted for Obama would do it again. No, the speeches that were given tonight were not enough. They were good speeches with good, soaring rhetoric, but that is not enough for democrats in this election. Here is the reality: nothing said at his convention will capture the hearts and minds of voters like what happened in 2008. Everyone has seen this dog and pony show before. The voters who are up for grabs want real answers to questions that they have. Obama must present a plan for moving forward that voters will accept. He also has to provide a good explanation for why he has disappointed everyone so far. I personally think that he's facing a very uphill battle.
Get real. No speech, from either side is going to win this election for them.
So where's Mitt Romney's plans? Has he announced the tax loopholes he's going to close to make his tax cuts (allegedly) deficit neutral?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/debt-percent-gdp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/United-States-national-debt.png)
