|
|
On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2012 07:02 sevencck wrote:
I'm Canadian, but I've always followed U.S. politics a little more closely than Canadian politics, and I've always despised Republicanism in the U.S.A. (the philosophy mainly, I don't really hate on people).
Bill Clinton's speech was top notch, magnificent, so full of substance and passion. It's easy to feel his deep understanding and commitment to improving the situation in the U.S.A. It actually makes me feel proud to identify with the Democrats, and I'm not even capable of voting in the U.S. election. In contrast, the Republican campaign has been a dispassionate and largely dishonest smear campaign, filled with many baseless claims, and an economic platform that doesn't even hold water numerically as determined by a third party group (that Romney now accuses of liberal bias, despite holding them up as third party a year ago). The past several months have also highlighted Romney as a flipflopper on important American sociopolitical issues. The trite response the Republicans gave Clinton's speech was nothing less than totally embarrassing.
I've always had a difficult time understanding why people vote Republican in the U.S.A., as an outside observer, it's not difficult to see that they're truly a terrible option for that country right now. Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:On September 07 2012 07:02 sevencck wrote:
I'm Canadian, but I've always followed U.S. politics a little more closely than Canadian politics, and I've always despised Republicanism in the U.S.A. (the philosophy mainly, I don't really hate on people).
Bill Clinton's speech was top notch, magnificent, so full of substance and passion. It's easy to feel his deep understanding and commitment to improving the situation in the U.S.A. It actually makes me feel proud to identify with the Democrats, and I'm not even capable of voting in the U.S. election. In contrast, the Republican campaign has been a dispassionate and largely dishonest smear campaign, filled with many baseless claims, and an economic platform that doesn't even hold water numerically as determined by a third party group (that Romney now accuses of liberal bias, despite holding them up as third party a year ago). The past several months have also highlighted Romney as a flipflopper on important American sociopolitical issues. The trite response the Republicans gave Clinton's speech was nothing less than totally embarrassing.
I've always had a difficult time understanding why people vote Republican in the U.S.A., as an outside observer, it's not difficult to see that they're truly a terrible option for that country right now. the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years."
Jonny, just out of curiosity I would like to know what you think were the largest contributors to the economic meltdown as I don't think I have heard your full opinion on the causes of the crisis and I am curious as to what your take on it was.
|
On September 05 2012 21:41 RCMDVA wrote:The most important politcal question for today is... Will "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" pull higher ratings than the DNC like it did for the RNC. Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton at the 10PM time slot. Fucking epic matchup. Bubba vs Boo Boo. Show nested quote +
10:00 PM – 11:00 PM (LOCAL)
Remarks
Jim Sinegal
Co-Founder and Former CEO of Costco
Elizabeth Warren
Candidate for US Senate, Massachusetts
Nomination Process Set-Up
Remarks
The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention Committee
Mayor of Los Angeles, California
President Bill Clinton
42nd President of the United States
IT WAS A TIE!!!
'Honey Boo Boo' and Bill Clinton's DNC Speech Tie in Ratings
After trumping individual cable and network coverage of the Republican National Convention in the key demographic, the TLC series takes its first hit and only ties the night's strongest news coverage (CNN) among adults 18-49.
|
On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido!
Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does.
The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters...
|
On September 07 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:01 Doraemon wrote:On September 07 2012 08:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:54 Doraemon wrote:On September 07 2012 08:52 Souma wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:
[quote]
the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". When they say "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" they mean as a percent of income. It was a quote taken from Warren Buffett himself. that's right. it's not massively exaggerated at all and very much realistic I can be ridiculous too. It's actually all Clinton's fault. He created the bubble economy of the 90's and passed it onto Bush as the commodity / housing bubble. i honestly don't think i'm being ridiculous. i gave you a real life example (myself), albeit i'm from australia, i'm just highlighting it does occur and the taxation mechanisms that exist can be VERY favourable to high income earners. in case you missed it, it is ultimately your choice to believe what i say On September 07 2012 08:51 Doraemon wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2012 07:02 sevencck wrote:
I'm Canadian, but I've always followed U.S. politics a little more closely than Canadian politics, and I've always despised Republicanism in the U.S.A. (the philosophy mainly, I don't really hate on people).
Bill Clinton's speech was top notch, magnificent, so full of substance and passion. It's easy to feel his deep understanding and commitment to improving the situation in the U.S.A. It actually makes me feel proud to identify with the Democrats, and I'm not even capable of voting in the U.S. election. In contrast, the Republican campaign has been a dispassionate and largely dishonest smear campaign, filled with many baseless claims, and an economic platform that doesn't even hold water numerically as determined by a third party group (that Romney now accuses of liberal bias, despite holding them up as third party a year ago). The past several months have also highlighted Romney as a flipflopper on important American sociopolitical issues. The trite response the Republicans gave Clinton's speech was nothing less than totally embarrassing.
I've always had a difficult time understanding why people vote Republican in the U.S.A., as an outside observer, it's not difficult to see that they're truly a terrible option for that country right now. Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:On September 07 2012 07:02 sevencck wrote:
I'm Canadian, but I've always followed U.S. politics a little more closely than Canadian politics, and I've always despised Republicanism in the U.S.A. (the philosophy mainly, I don't really hate on people).
Bill Clinton's speech was top notch, magnificent, so full of substance and passion. It's easy to feel his deep understanding and commitment to improving the situation in the U.S.A. It actually makes me feel proud to identify with the Democrats, and I'm not even capable of voting in the U.S. election. In contrast, the Republican campaign has been a dispassionate and largely dishonest smear campaign, filled with many baseless claims, and an economic platform that doesn't even hold water numerically as determined by a third party group (that Romney now accuses of liberal bias, despite holding them up as third party a year ago). The past several months have also highlighted Romney as a flipflopper on important American sociopolitical issues. The trite response the Republicans gave Clinton's speech was nothing less than totally embarrassing.
I've always had a difficult time understanding why people vote Republican in the U.S.A., as an outside observer, it's not difficult to see that they're truly a terrible option for that country right now. the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". to be honest the rich are able to pay less % tax. my father earned ~$400K last year, he payed 17% effective tax, i earned <$100K and i paid 22% tax. although this is in australia, i would have thought the american system was similar? maybe i am wrong, but my point is people earning higher salary can pay less tax. Why did he pay a lower effective tax rate? Are you ignoring double taxation? Are you ignoring foregone income (tax exempt muni bonds in US). Moreover, the Dems are arguing not that its *possible* but that its extremely common. The rich aren't paying their 'fair share' they say.
I think the portrayal is that it happens among the richest of taxpayers, and it's not a rare occurrence. These aren't people that found the "glitch" in the system. They are the people that are using the system to their advantage.
|
On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters...
Well, humorously, I did enjoy the statement from Eva saying "The Eva Longoria that worked in fast food services needed the tax cut. The Eva Longoria that now works making movies does not."
Struck home nice and well with my beliefs, thank you very much.
|
United States13896 Posts
Did anyone actually make it through Caroline Kennedy's speech? I had to walk away not because it was driving me nuts with her talking points or praises of Obama, but because she just drones on and on, such horrifyingly boring delivery. Going from Clinton last night to that today was just such a stark contrast, even though they were saying effectively the same things.
|
On September 07 2012 09:31 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:
[quote]
the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years." Jonny, just out of curiosity I would like to know what you think were the largest contributors to the economic meltdown as I don't think I have heard your full opinion on the causes of the crisis and I am curious as to what your take on it was.
I'd say overbuilding of houses, mortgage fraud and high commodity prices were the largest culprits of the recession.
|
On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2012 07:02 sevencck wrote:
I'm Canadian, but I've always followed U.S. politics a little more closely than Canadian politics, and I've always despised Republicanism in the U.S.A. (the philosophy mainly, I don't really hate on people).
Bill Clinton's speech was top notch, magnificent, so full of substance and passion. It's easy to feel his deep understanding and commitment to improving the situation in the U.S.A. It actually makes me feel proud to identify with the Democrats, and I'm not even capable of voting in the U.S. election. In contrast, the Republican campaign has been a dispassionate and largely dishonest smear campaign, filled with many baseless claims, and an economic platform that doesn't even hold water numerically as determined by a third party group (that Romney now accuses of liberal bias, despite holding them up as third party a year ago). The past several months have also highlighted Romney as a flipflopper on important American sociopolitical issues. The trite response the Republicans gave Clinton's speech was nothing less than totally embarrassing.
I've always had a difficult time understanding why people vote Republican in the U.S.A., as an outside observer, it's not difficult to see that they're truly a terrible option for that country right now. Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:On September 07 2012 07:02 sevencck wrote:
I'm Canadian, but I've always followed U.S. politics a little more closely than Canadian politics, and I've always despised Republicanism in the U.S.A. (the philosophy mainly, I don't really hate on people).
Bill Clinton's speech was top notch, magnificent, so full of substance and passion. It's easy to feel his deep understanding and commitment to improving the situation in the U.S.A. It actually makes me feel proud to identify with the Democrats, and I'm not even capable of voting in the U.S. election. In contrast, the Republican campaign has been a dispassionate and largely dishonest smear campaign, filled with many baseless claims, and an economic platform that doesn't even hold water numerically as determined by a third party group (that Romney now accuses of liberal bias, despite holding them up as third party a year ago). The past several months have also highlighted Romney as a flipflopper on important American sociopolitical issues. The trite response the Republicans gave Clinton's speech was nothing less than totally embarrassing.
I've always had a difficult time understanding why people vote Republican in the U.S.A., as an outside observer, it's not difficult to see that they're truly a terrible option for that country right now. the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years."
Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
|
On September 07 2012 09:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:
[quote]
the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years." Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
What "deregulation" do you suppose caused that?
|
Charlie Crist really playing up that ex-republican stance. It's pretty good, though, in my opinion.
|
On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters...
lol yep! Especially with all their efforts to block third party candidates off the ballot and blame them for their own shortcomings. "Go out there and vote... after we monopolize the ballot and demand entitlement to your votes".
|
On September 07 2012 09:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:35 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling.
[quote]
If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years." Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed. What "deregulation" do you suppose caused that?
Obviously he's talking about the Community Reinvestment Act "deregulation" right?
|
On September 07 2012 09:38 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters... lol yep! Especially with all their efforts to block third party candidates off the ballot and blame them for their own shortcomings. "Go out there and vote... after we monopolize the ballot and demand entitlement to your votes".
And the silly voter ID laws and terribly effective gerrymandering are what then?
|
On September 07 2012 09:34 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters... Well, humorously, I did enjoy the statement from Eva saying "The Eva Longoria that worked in fast food services needed the tax cut. The Eva Longoria that now works making movies does not." Struck home nice and well with my beliefs, thank you very much.
The point I'm making is that the statement hinges on "Eva Longoria". When the strength of an argument comes from the sex appeal of the speaker, that's a pretty good indicator it's not an argument rooted in logic and evidence.
There's plenty of good reasons to oppose the Republican tax platform, but "Eva Longoria says she doesn't need it" isn't one of them.
On September 07 2012 09:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:38 screamingpalm wrote:On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters... lol yep! Especially with all their efforts to block third party candidates off the ballot and blame them for their own shortcomings. "Go out there and vote... after we monopolize the ballot and demand entitlement to your votes". And the silly voter ID laws and terribly effective gerrymandering are what then?
That would be even worse than what the Dems are doing, but two wrongs don't make a right, etc.
|
On September 07 2012 09:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:
[quote]
the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years." Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
Well, yes and no. Jonny is right about what caused it directly. Deregulation certainly didn't help the situation, since the blanket regulations that were repealed would have limited capital flows and would have kept a check on credit default swaps. It would have isolated much of the damage caused by the meltdown as well.
|
On September 07 2012 09:05 Doraemon wrote:
i know he didn't have a $500b surplus. i'm trying to understanding why you choose ignore the net effect and choose to focus on only the "deficit" portion.
It's either that I am a terrible know-nothing troll or that I responded to someone claiming "the deficit increased under Bush far more than it ever did Obama."
I reply. You decide.
btw, you get an F in chart reading / Arithmetic!
|
On September 07 2012 09:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 08:31 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 07:13 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Simple, Brainwashing. The american news system is designed to indoctrinate both sides really. It stops them from being able to objectively view the situation and determine the better outcome. Agreed. There are probably a number of other factors involved, but this election will be much closer than it should be. It's totally baffling. On September 07 2012 07:12 Chocolate wrote:
[quote]
the Republican party tends to have values that coincide very closely with lots of Christians, and as you know, Christianity and Christianity and religion in general are much more important in everyday life here than in Canada, Europe, Aus, etc. Also, if you grow up watching Fox news your whole life, you don't really have any perspective: Republicanism is the only thing that makes sense to you, and liberals are those lesbian hippies who kill babies. If I'm going to be totally honest, there is far more ignorance and stupidity on the side of the republicans. In fact, there are even some subtle currents of anti intellectual pride associated with that party. I realize ignorance and stupidity will impact an election return, but it can't possibly be enough to account for a 50:50 result that really shouldn't be so close. Mitt Romney is practically made of wood, and in a nutshell Paul Ryan seems to want nothing more than to disassemble all social services. I don't see how this can compete with Obama to the extent that the return is close to 50%. There's lots of stupidity in the Democratic party as well. Case in point - some supporters of the Democratic party try to paint the other side as being a bunch of brainwashed morons. Can you believe it? I mean really, how stupid can people be? Perhaps. But then again, when people are parroting the things they've heard from the Republican candidates or Fox News -- things that are demonstrably either distorted or completely false -- without personally examining their validity, I don't know of many other words that fit the bill quite as well as brainwashed. Nevertheless, I will concede there is some definite goofiness on the left in the U.S. as well, I just feel like the right has so much more. Have you seen Chuck Norris's latest gem? 1000 years of darkness? Really? Right back at you with the Democrats. How many times have they repeated blatantly false, or massively exaggerated claims like "the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries" or blaming everything bad as "Bush's fault". Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years." Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed.
The dismantling of Glass-Steagall which Clinton signed. Those mostly responsible getting rewarded with positions in Obama's administration.
|
On September 07 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:34 JinDesu wrote:On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters... Well, humorously, I did enjoy the statement from Eva saying "The Eva Longoria that worked in fast food services needed the tax cut. The Eva Longoria that now works making movies does not." Struck home nice and well with my beliefs, thank you very much. The point I'm making is that the statement hinges on "Eva Longoria". When the strength of an argument comes from the sex appeal of the speaker, that's a pretty good indicator it's not an argument rooted in logic and evidence. There's plenty of good reasons to oppose the Republican tax platform, but "Eva Longoria says she doesn't need it" isn't one of them.
I don't think the strength of that argument came from the sex appeal of the speaker. Her argument struck home with me because I am a middle class American, and I would like tax cuts for myself. I would not want tax cuts for the richer while I continue to pay the same, or worse - more.
My comment on her sex appeal was tongue in cheek and for humor. That and my liking of her statement has no relation.
|
On September 07 2012 09:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 09:38 screamingpalm wrote:On September 07 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 09:24 JinDesu wrote:
First Scarlett Johansson, now Eva Longoria.
DNC, you have my vote. Good work, aiming for my libido! Using popular appeal is a cheap tactic which sidesteps actual policy discussion, and it's no better when the Dems do it than when the GOP does. The whole "doesn't matter who you vote for, just go out and vote" is also disingenous, because the people saying it know that the youth they're mobilizing are overwhelmingly liberal. This kind of populist appeal is what got us into our deficit troubles in the first place; more people voting sounds nice in theory but it just means that more uninformed/self-interested voters... lol yep! Especially with all their efforts to block third party candidates off the ballot and blame them for their own shortcomings. "Go out there and vote... after we monopolize the ballot and demand entitlement to your votes". And the silly voter ID laws and terribly effective gerrymandering are what then?
Agreed, but the dems aren't innocent when it comes to gerrymandering either.
|
Kumar interviewing 13 and the blonde from 40 Year Old Virgin. Talking about Todd Akin. lol. This is why I can manage to enjoy politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
