View Full Version : This is why you lost
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/report-romney-blames-obamas-big-gifts-to-minorities-youth-women-for-election-loss.php?ref=fpa
Romney Blames Loss On Obama’s ‘Big Gifts’ To Minorities, Women
...Mitt Romney has a simple explanation for donors as to why his presidential campaign came up short: President Obama gave out too much stuff.
According to reports in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, the former Republican nominee said during a call with donors on Wednesday that Obama had been “very generous” in doling out “big gifts” to “the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people” as well as to women throughout his first term. Benefits such as access to “free health care,” guaranteed contraceptive coverage, more affordable student loans, and “amnesty for children of illegals,” all combined to give the president a decisive edge in popularity.
“The President’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things,” Romney said. “Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”
I think Tom wrote Romney's remarks. :)
Greyfox
11-14-2012, 06:36 PM
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/report-romney-blames-obamas-big-gifts-to-minorities-youth-women-for-election-loss.php?ref=fpa
Romney Blames Loss On Obama’s ‘Big Gifts’ To Minorities, Women
...Mitt Romney has a simple explanation for donors as to why his presidential campaign came up short: President Obama gave out too much stuff.
According to reports in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, the former Republican nominee said during a call with donors on Wednesday that Obama had been “very generous” in doling out “big gifts” to “the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people” as well as to women throughout his first term. Benefits such as access to “free health care,” guaranteed contraceptive coverage, more affordable student loans, and “amnesty for children of illegals,” all combined to give the president a decisive edge in popularity.
“The President’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things,” Romney said. “Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”
I think Tom wrote Romney's remarks. :)
It's hard to vote against Santa Claus.
Especially when his opponent is Ebeneezer Scrooge
BTW, most political candidates have gifts for their supporters.
But the middle class objected to Ebeneezer paying off other Ebeneezers
Just more whining. This time by the biggest loser, not the losers on the sidelines. Sour grapes that will go on another 4 years.
Boxcar might have called it.
Herman Cain was a better candidate, and that is not saying much
I found myself liking Romney on a personal level.
A good man with bad policies and even worse campaign staff and political cronies and pundits
lamboguy
11-14-2012, 07:00 PM
the world is full of excuses. how about the horse wasn't fast enough in this past election?
the world is full of excuses. how about the horse wasn't fast enough in this past election?
Absolutely but this is particularly lame. Seem to be making the rounds in conservative circles. A number of guys here said the same.
Steve R
11-14-2012, 07:09 PM
So the Republican turnout was low because Obama gave "free stuff" to minorities, young people and women but not to older white Republicans. I guess they were in such a snit about it they decided not to vote. Does that mean they actually wanted "free stuff", too? Makes sense...if you're an imbecile like Romney. :rolleyes:
sammy the sage
11-14-2012, 07:16 PM
This thread is redundant and already covered...
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99117
Actor
11-14-2012, 07:29 PM
I think Tom wrote Romney's remarks. :)I think Tom is Romney. :lol:
sammy the sage
11-14-2012, 07:36 PM
I think Tom is Romney. :lol:
Nope...Romney is a bone-fida flip flopper...Tom certainly ain't that...he thinks his s%$t don't stink...but at least he's consistant...
Marshall Bennett
11-14-2012, 07:48 PM
He lost because minorities and the poor showed up in groves to support Obama. The cycle will likely continue. He'll continue to cripple the economy which in turn produces more poor to turn out and vote for the next Democratic candidate. They'll continue to promise them free gifts which they'll receive, though they'll still be poor and turn out to vote for the next.
Of course the cycle won't last. We'll be a broke nation and sure as I'm sitting here they'll still be blaming Bush.
ElKabong
11-14-2012, 07:57 PM
He lost because minorities and the poor showed up in groves to support Obama. The cycle will likely continue. He'll continue to cripple the economy which in turn produces more poor to turn out and vote for the next Democratic candidate. They'll continue to promise them free gifts which they'll receive, though they'll still be poor and turn out to vote for the next.
Of course the cycle won't last. We'll be a broke nation and sure as I'm sitting here they'll still be blaming Bush.
Hcap couldn't site a Democrat success story in the thread looking for cities that showed marked improvement under recent Dem rule.....so he scours the net for someone else's talking points. An Obamabot, for sure
sammy the sage
11-14-2012, 07:59 PM
He lost because minorities and the poor showed up in groves to support Obama. The cycle will likely continue. He'll continue to cripple the economy which in turn produces more poor to turn out and vote for the next Democratic candidate. They'll continue to promise them free gifts which they'll receive, though they'll still be poor and turn out to vote for the next.
Of course the cycle won't last. We'll be a broke nation and sure as I'm sitting here they'll still be blaming Bush.
Actually incorrect...there were MILLIONS of women who voted SOLELY on ONE issue...see OTHER thread...
And MANY of these women are NOT poor...nor ARE they minorities...
by the way...I voted AGAINST the incumbent...just telling ya...get yore blinder's OFF
sammy the sage
11-14-2012, 08:05 PM
Hcap couldn't site a Democrat success story in the thread looking for cities that showed marked improvement under recent Dem rule.....so he scours the net for someone else's talking points. An Obamabot, for sure
What does THAT have to do do w/this topic...NOTHING...
It's all smoke & mirrors...
The problem is...the pugs ARE painted FOR super rich ONLY..and DID nothing to change it...PERIOD...
Whilst not exactly true...it's ALL a matter of perception...
Hcap couldn't site a Democrat success story in the thread looking for cities that showed marked improvement under recent Dem rule.....so he scours the net for someone else's talking points. An Obamabot, for surehcap was much more amused finding out Romney's speech writer could easily BE Tom. Or at least a half dozen others here on the 24/7 Off Topic reactionary conservative horse racing network :lol:
Romnety would have been much better off showing some dignity. Was not at all necessary. Lame and will only make people dislike him even more.
At least GW knows better than to open his mouth.
He is a much better ex pres
JustRalph
11-14-2012, 08:12 PM
Especially when his opponent is Ebeneezer Scrooge
BTW, most political candidates have gifts for their supporters.
But the middle class objected to Ebeneezer paying off other Ebeneezers
Just more whining. This time by the biggest loser, not the losers on the sidelines. Sour grapes that will go on another 4 years.
Boxcar might have called it.
Herman Cain was a better candidate, and that is not saying much
I found myself liking Romney on a personal level.
A good man with bad policies and even worse campaign staff and political cronies and pundits
So you admit the entitlement culture voted to continue on the same path?
Pretty simple argument really. Aparently accurate as well. From all I have seen in the last week or so, you are right.
If you want to predict elections, just consider the electorate a toddler who is going to vote for the candidate who's handing out the most candy.
The only time this changes is after extreme circumstances. 9-11 would be one of those extreme circumstances.
Mike at A+
11-14-2012, 08:33 PM
Actually it is America that "lost". 675 Dow points (or about 5%) since racist blacks and stupid whites re-elected a scumbag whose goal is back door reparations. Money for votes. It is THAT simple. And now the real fun starts. 8% unemployment is going to look very good a few months from now. This fiscal cliff thing, I hope everyone's taxes go up on January 1 and it will be fun to watch 0bama and his media machine try to blame it on Republicans. Warren Buffet will be laughing all the way to the bank along with all the other millionaires who are untouchable by 0bama because they are too smart for this affirmative action low life community organizer. He will have 4 more years of golf, his wife will have 4 more years of exclusive vacations and lobster tails, his kids will have 4 more years of private school and even his squatter mother in law will have 4 more years of free housing. Those evil corporations will cut more jobs and China will be the big winner. Oh, and with all these guns flying off the shelves we're likely to see some looters swallowing lead. Enjoy the show.
So you admit the entitlement culture voted to continue on the same path?
Your words, '"entitlement culture"' Not mine and I admit no such thing. That is your blind makers and takers crap
I believe that most Obama supporters are a bit more SOCIALLY aware than most Romney supporters. Looking out for the other guy and we are all in it together", surely motivates most libs a hell of a lot more than repugs, who think the poor and unfortunate are ALL moochers and takers. That extremely stupid philosophy is rampant here, on Faux and Rushbo. Hell, it has become your mantra. So although I am cynical, and recognize politicians usually promise "a chicken in every pot", I am a lot more cynical of repugs denying they are not promising. They have but their recipients are the the Pacs and rich donors that greased the repug Romney campaign and CEOs that support the party. Please, give me a break.
But I am not quite that cynical to believe tha's ALL Obama is doing.
Root problem is he beat your guy and is a fine politician as well as someone who puts democratic ideals as a priority. The middle class and the less fortunate are promised more than the repugs ever did, and unless the move into the 21st century, ever will. And they will continue to ,lose
Mike at A+
11-14-2012, 08:47 PM
The middle class and the less fortunate are promised more than the repugs ever did, and unless the move into the 21st century, ever will. And they will continue to ,lose
The middle class has gotten the biggest screwing from 0bama. Or haven't you noticed? The middle class is disliked by those below them (the low class who envy them and believe in "misery wants company") and by those above them (the upper class who wants their exclusive "club" to remain exclusive). Throwing money at a problem never fixes the problem. And the problem is that many of 0bama's supporters have been screw ups in the game of life. They screwed up in school, they screwed up with the legal system, they screwed up with work ethic and along comes their black Robin Hood telling them that in spite of their many screw ups, they can still get things they haven't earned. It's a game as old as the human race. Come get your free stuff and remember to vote for me if you want to continue to be screw ups and get more free stuff. Everyone believes in a safety net for those who are truly disabled. But as for the screw ups, they have to begin at square one. That is their "fair share" until they decide to make a change for the better.
sammy the sage
11-14-2012, 09:04 PM
The middle class has gotten the biggest screwing from 0bama. Or haven't you noticed? The middle class is disliked by those below them (the low class who envy them and believe in "misery wants company") and by those above them (the upper class who wants their exclusive "club" to remain exclusive). Throwing money at a problem never fixes the problem. And the problem is that many of 0bama's supporters have been screw ups in the game of life. They screwed up in school, they screwed up with the legal system, they screwed up with work ethic and along comes their black Robin Hood telling them that in spite of their many screw ups, they can still get things they haven't earned. It's a game as old as the human race. Come get your free stuff and remember to vote for me if you want to continue to be screw ups and get more free stuff. Everyone believes in a safety net for those who are truly disabled. But as for the screw ups, they have to begin at square one. That is their "fair share" until they decide to make a change for the better.
When are you GOING TO realize that both of the CURRENT party's consider "THE" middle class a cow to be slaughtered.
Mike at A+
11-14-2012, 09:28 PM
When are you GOING TO realize that both of the CURRENT party's consider "THE" middle class a cow to be slaughtered.
I DO realize that the middle class should be the backbone of the economy and the more people who are able to achieve middle class status, the better it will be for those IN that class. But this administration has moved more people FROM that middle class TO the unemployment line, TO welfare, TO food stamps, TO foreclosures and TO the class below them. 0bama and the Democrats talk a good game but their friends in the NBA, the NFL, MLB and in the entertainment industry aren't paying their fair share. And they aren't even the job creators per se. They are bouncing a ball, playing a guitar and not having to answer to anyone. They are snorting the coke and drinking the good stuff with no responsibility at all. And those in the lower class are getting more free stuff that allows them to buy those tickets to sporting events and buy those CD's and concert tickets without having to earn a thing. That check is in their mailbox courtesy of the working slobs in the middle class and they can sleep till noon when the mailman comes and the banks are open for another few hours so they can get some cash to buy their beer and wine for the night and sit on the couch while you and I have to work in an office or on a delivery truck or washing dishes in a restaurant. Yes you are right in that the middle class is the cash cow for government. And the more of us in that class, the easier it will be on everyone. As that class diminishes, the lower class is still spoiled and wants their free stuff. And the rich hide their stash because that's how they got rich. And there is NOTHING any government can do to take it from them. They have options the rest of us don't have.
ElKabong
11-14-2012, 09:31 PM
Romnety would have been much better off showing some dignity. Was not at all necessary. Lame and will only make people dislike him even more.
At least GW knows better than to open his mouth.
He is a much better ex pres
You and sammy seem like 2 old bitter white men. What's eating at you? The prospect of another 4 poor years? The BenghaziGate scandal looming over your head? I thought people were in good moods after winning.
If the next 4 years are as shitty for America as the last 4, I don't blame for the impending doom you have inside
Nope...Romney is a bone-fida flip flopper...Tom certainly ain't that...he thinks his s%$t don't stink...but at least he's consistant...
I am and it don't!
NJ Stinks
11-14-2012, 09:57 PM
You and sammy seem like 2 old bitter white men. What's eating at you? The prospect of another 4 poor years? The BenghaziGate scandal looming over your head? I thought people were in good moods after winning.
You're right. We all can't be as happy go lucky as Mike At A+.
sammy the sage
11-15-2012, 07:29 AM
You and sammy seem like 2 old bitter white men. What's eating at you? The prospect of another 4 poor years? The BenghaziGate scandal looming over your head? I thought people were in good moods after winning.
If the next 4 years are as shitty for America as the last 4, I don't blame for the impending doom you have inside
Too bad your reading comprehension skills are pathetic :p
I voted against the incumbent...go smoke another one :faint:
Mike at A+
11-15-2012, 11:45 AM
You're right. We all can't be as happy go lucky as Mike At A+.
I just report the news. I don't "candy coat" it. That's MSNBC's job. :lol:
Marshall Bennett
11-15-2012, 12:07 PM
And MANY of these women are NOT poor...nor ARE they minorities...
Yeah well, you just keep believing that. The majority were single, many with children, many if not most on government assistance, and wanting more free "gifts".
Also, many ARE minorities. It all adds up. Obama was able to squeeze this element of the voting public out of the woodwork, coupled with those I mentioned in my earlier post, and win.
I've never said Obama was dumb or stupid. He knows how to win an election, he simply cannot run a nation.
delayjf
11-15-2012, 02:10 PM
0bama and the Democrats talk a good game but their friends in the NBA, the NFL, MLB and in the entertainment industry aren't paying their fair share.
No saying I disagree with your post, but in your mind, what are is the above mentioned fair share compared to other millionaires?
Mike at A+
11-15-2012, 04:17 PM
No saying I disagree with your post, but in your mind, what are is the above mentioned fair share compared to other millionaires?
My point is that they aren't even job creators. If you remove a few sports and entertainment millionaires, the games and shows will go on. If you demonize an entire industry like 0bama did to both the insurance and investment banking industries (those "fat cats"), real jobs are lost. MANY real jobs. You just can't tell an insurance company who and what they have to cover, how much they can charge and how much they have to pay out. There is an entire science called Actuarial Math that uses probability and statistics to set rates to ensure they can stay in business, make a profit, provide jobs and cover people for the inevitable. If you squeeze them on one end, the other end must expand accordingly. If you squeeze them on all fronts, they go out of business. And it seems that's exactly what 0bama wants. The guy is a wet blanket on the private sector job market. But we knew that for a long time, didn't we?
porchy44
11-15-2012, 04:38 PM
[QUOTE=Mike at A+]My point is that they aren't even job creators. QUOTE]
HUH?
You and sammy seem like 2 old bitter white men. What's eating at you? The prospect of another 4 poor years? The BenghaziGate scandal looming over your head? I thought people were in good moods after winning.The depths of idiocy expressed here by sore losers like you.
"BenghaziGate" is a "gate" only in fevered fearful little minds. PA off topic has not missed a beat since just before the election. Funny you use "bitter old men" so glibly.
Marshall Bennett
11-15-2012, 07:41 PM
Your man's excessive spending is gonna make us all losers, hcap. Just watch. :cool:
Steve R
11-15-2012, 07:45 PM
I DO realize that the middle class should be the backbone of the economy and the more people who are able to achieve middle class status, the better it will be for those IN that class. But this administration has moved more people FROM that middle class TO the unemployment line, TO welfare, TO food stamps, TO foreclosures and TO the class below them....[snip]
Every year the Census Bureau publishes income distribution tables for families which you can find at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/index.html.
In one table they divide family income into 44 separate groups from under $2.5K to $250K and above and include the number of families in each category. So as an experiment I just took the middle 22 categories (leaving 11 above and 11 below) and added up the number of families in those 22 and arbitrarily called them "middle class". Then I calculated the percentage of families in those 22 middle class income categories. I did it for 2001, 2008, 2009 and 2011 (the latest data). These are the results, which you can check on your own if you like. The results show the percentage of American families in the middle class.
2001: 50.1%
2008: 45.3%
2009: 45.5%
2011: 44.7%
The biggest changes were during the Bush administration, although the middle class continues to shrink.
So I think your contention that the Obama administration has moved more people out of the middle class is true but overstated when compared to the changes between 2001 and 2008.
Your man's excessive spending is gonna make us all losers, hcap. Just watch. :cool:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html
Bush-Era Tax Cuts Projected As Largest Contributor To Public Debt
If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
These tax breaks, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP's analysis shows. Even the cost of the economic downturn, combined with the cost of the legislation passed to stem the damage, won't be as burdensome as the weight of the Bush-era tax cuts, the chart below suggests. See if you can find the debt associated with the Trouble Asset Relief Program and the rescue of Fannie and Freddie:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg
Here is another republican witha tin ear and only adds to the ovweewhelming case that Romney and cohorts don;t know sh*t from shinola and again why you lost.
http://www.pressherald.com/politics/Maine-Republican-chairman-questions-black-voters-.html
Updated: Today at 2:09 PM
Maine Republican chairman questions black voters
Charlie Webster's claim that hundreds of unknown black people voted in rural Maine towns causes a stir, and leads one GOP strategist to call for his immediate resignation.
By Eric Russell erussell@pressherald.com
Staff Writer
Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster is once again alleging possible voting irregularities, this time claiming that groups of unknown black people showed up in some rural towns to vote on Election Day.
Webster made the claim in a wide-ranging, post-election interview this week with Don Carrigan of WCSH-TV.
"In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day," he said. "Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in (these) towns knows anyone who's black. How did that happen? I don't know. We're going to find out."
When Carrigan pressed Webster on where it happened, Webster provided no specifics or proof of his claims, but said the party would investigate further.
When asked about the issue in an interview Wednesday with the Portland Press Herald, Webster again refused to provide specifics.
He said his point is not that the new voters were black, but that they were not recognized by town officials.
.................................................. ...................
I guerss they wanted their free largesse from Obama and lined up to collect
elysiantraveller
11-15-2012, 08:40 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html
Bush-Era Tax Cuts Projected As Largest Contributor To Public Debt
If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
These tax breaks, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP's analysis shows. Even the cost of the economic downturn, combined with the cost of the legislation passed to stem the damage, won't be as burdensome as the weight of the Bush-era tax cuts, the chart below suggests. See if you can find the debt associated with the Trouble Asset Relief Program and the rescue of Fannie and Freddie:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg
How exactly are they still Bush era tax cuts when Obama has extended them... and wants to make them permanent?
During the first stages of the recovery, changing the Bush tax cuts would have been detrimental. In fact Obama instituted further cuts.
Now her will try to extend them for those below a certain income level
Politics has a way of limiting what can be done. Hopefully his mandate will be recognized by the repugs and that and other changes will be made.
Elections do have consequences. At least we have an idea of what the majority of the population prefers.
ElKabong
11-15-2012, 09:04 PM
Elections do have consequences. At least we have an idea of what the majority of the population prefers.
And the majority of The People's House will ensure your continued bitterness.
It's a bright sunny day where I am. :)
ElKabong
11-15-2012, 09:06 PM
"BenghaziGate" is a "gate" only in fevered fearful little minds..
Ah, so that's what an old bitter white liberal calls an event that led to 4 Americans deaths, as the admin threw out multiple accounts of who or what was responsible. Thank you for clearing this up.
Elections do have consequences. At least we have an idea of what the majority of the population prefers.
Bullshit. Yo cannot infer what the hell anyone want from the election.
We voted to keep the House in power, a hosue 100% devoted to NO tax increases. Can't have it both ways, Komrade.
The fact is, you know nothing of what you spew your BS about. Nothing.
lsbets
11-15-2012, 10:18 PM
"BenghaziGate" is a "gate" only in fevered fearful little minds..
Would you say that to the dead SEAL's father?
Of course not,
You were all up in arms about the non Plame scandal, ranted on and on and on about it. Now that people are dead and we've been lied to in what appears to have been an attempt to minimize Al Queda's reach after the repeated spiking of the football at the Dem convention you could care less.
elysiantraveller
11-15-2012, 11:10 PM
During the first stages of the recovery, changing the Bush tax cuts would have been detrimental. In fact Obama instituted further cuts.
I see... but now with economic growth EVEN SLOWER and SLOWING down it makes perfect sense?... :rolleyes:
Now her will try to extend them for those below a certain income level
Politics has a way of limiting what can be done. Hopefully his mandate will be recognized by the repugs and that and other changes will be made.
Elections do have consequences. At least we have an idea of what the majority of the population prefers.
See here is what kills me about you... you post graph after graph of the Bush tax cuts but its Obama that has extended and even improved upon them...
Furthermore that limiting at a certain level, $250,000, is estimated to bring a additional $80-$100 billion which still won't bring us below that $1 trillion mark a year despite those wars being over or ending...
So your guy, in fact, just as guilty of manipulating the tax code towards deficit as Bush... is he not?... :rolleyes:
Keep in mind we are only talking about taxes here not additional stimulus he wants to add.
You are too smart not to see through the smoke.
dav4463
11-16-2012, 12:41 AM
All I know is a lot of people voted for obama because they were afraid they couldn't get welfare anymore.
A couple of women I know at work voted for obama because they said he would forgive their interest on college loans while other women voted for obama solely based on women's rights (media told them Romney was against women)...they think Romney would take away their contraceptives.
So, I would say Romney is right. obama voters voted that way because of the free stuff.
ElKabong
11-16-2012, 01:08 AM
All I know is a lot of people voted for obama because they were afraid they couldn't get welfare anymore.
A couple of women I know at work voted for obama because they said he would forgive their interest on college loans while other women voted for obama solely based on women's rights (media told them Romney was against women)...they think Romney would take away their contraceptives.
So, I would say Romney is right. obama voters voted that way because of the free stuff.
Funny you posted this, a lot of people on local radio (mostly libs) are hinting their "hope" is that student loans will be forgiven or drastically downsized in the next 4 years. Romney or Cons wouldn't dream of doing this, has something to do with taking responsibility for one's actions I suppose.... so they lost some votes on this.
I know one person at work whose up to his ass in student loan debt. One of the few Obama-Biden bumper stickers in the lot.
Greyfox
11-16-2012, 01:35 AM
Elections do have consequences. At least we have an idea of what the majority of the population prefers.
I reminded of what the great Winston Churchill once said:
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
JustRalph
11-16-2012, 02:06 AM
Obama got 61 million votes
47 million people are on food stamps
I
Furthermore that limiting at a certain level, $250,000, is estimated to bring a additional $80-$100 billion which still won't bring us below that $1 trillion mark a year despite those wars being over or ending...
So your guy, in fact, just as guilty of manipulating the tax code towards deficit as Bush... is he not?... :rolleyes:
Keep in mind we are only talking about taxes here not additional stimulus he wants to add.
You are too smart not to see through the smoke.I follow Krugman and Siglitz who totally disagree with your right wing spin
"The solution to current economic problems is clear - as Nobel Prize winners Krugman and Stiglitz have pointed out. Fiscal stimulus (spending on creating jobs) is the only way out of this mess in any sort of reasonable time frame, without creating more economic damage and instability.
There is no need to increase government debt to create a stimulus. Taxes on the ultra-wealthy can simply be put back at the rates that prevailed from 1935 to 1981, when America's economy was strong. This will provide much more revenue than needed to do reasonable stimulus (such as by rehiring the teachers, firefighters, janitors and police that that States and cities have laid off, and building roads, rail and bridges that will create future economic growth)".
I see no problem raising the rate on the very wealty back to Clinton era levels. According to previous studies, and more recently one by the ...
"Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress-- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth." raising rates on the wealthy does not cut economic growth or jobs,. In fact historically the rates on the very wealthy are now very low
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c5b08ccd1d50779000000-590/lets-begin-with-a-look-at-the-top-income-tax-bracket-since-the-federal-income-tax-was-started-in-1913-as-you-can-see-relative-to-history-its-currently-very-low.jpg
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5?op=1
"Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.
This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:
Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must eventually be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
.................................................. ........................................
Read the rest. Lots of illustrative and PRETTY graphs :lol: :lol: :lol:
Obama got 61 million votes
47 million people are on food stampsThen he overwhelmingly WON the white vote
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Race.jpg
Would you say that to the dead SEAL's father?
Of course not,
You were all up in arms about the non Plame scandal, ranted on and on and on about it. Now that people are dead and we've been lied to in what appears to have been an attempt to minimize Al Queda's reach after the repeated spiking of the football at the Dem convention you could care less.Sorry, I don't buy any of this as you and others have presented. I may be wrong. Let's see what the investigation(s) reveal if anything.
The Plame affair was instrumental involving us in an unjustified war. Level of magnitudes much more serious. At the moment I fail too see the "gate" after Benghazzi.
JustRalph
11-16-2012, 06:20 AM
Then he overwhelmingly WON the white vote
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Race.jpg
If that's what you take from that statement, some kind of racial inference, then you are putting words in my mouth. Btw, you know that I know the stats from your graph quite well. I have quoted them many times.
Blacks didn't need to be on food stamps to vote for Obama. They are required to by the status quo. In spite of the total sellout of many of their fundamental beliefs.
They get the government they deserve. We all do. They can continue to inch toward 20% unemployment over the next 4 years. But never fear, they can always point at Obama as that shining savior that is their source of pride.
Your food stamps = Obamabot was a glib but wrong observation. It is an insult to dems and misrepresents what we believe, regardless of what you believe. (Although I am not sure YOU realty are that simplistic. You seem much brighter)
Anyway whites are the leading faction collecting food stamps.
QED your glibness is betrayed by the facts.
TrifectaMike
11-16-2012, 07:39 AM
Then he overwhelmingly WON the white vote
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Race.jpg
Statistically meaningless and misleading chart. As a horseplayer you would would disregard this chart, if it were data pertaining to a horse racing attribute.
Mike (Dr Beav)
badcompany
11-16-2012, 09:35 AM
Statistically meaningless and misleading chart. As a horseplayer you would would disregard this chart, if it were data pertaining to a horse racing attribute.
Mike (Dr Beav)
You're not saying the HCAP would present those stats, while deliberately omitting the fact that 78% of the American population is white, while only 13% is Black, and 16.7% is Hispanic?:lol:
elysiantraveller
11-16-2012, 10:12 AM
I follow Krugman and Siglitz who totally disagree with your right wing spin
"The solution to current economic problems is clear - as Nobel Prize winners Krugman and Stiglitz have pointed out. Fiscal stimulus (spending on creating jobs) is the only way out of this mess in any sort of reasonable time frame, without creating more economic damage and instability.
There is no need to increase government debt to create a stimulus. Taxes on the ultra-wealthy can simply be put back at the rates that prevailed from 1935 to 1981, when America's economy was strong. This will provide much more revenue than needed to do reasonable stimulus (such as by rehiring the teachers, firefighters, janitors and police that that States and cities have laid off, and building roads, rail and bridges that will create future economic growth)".
I see no problem raising the rate on the very wealty back to Clinton era levels.
Quite the moving target you present...
I want to talk the raw numbers Obama's plan involves... you, because the numbers don't add up, want to talk Krugman. I respect Krugman but his objectivity on the matter is completely shot. He should go back to being a economist instead of a political talking head. Hell, today he is saying we should just go over the cliff instead of compromise... Objective? I think not. The fact is the CBO has scored the Obama plan it does absolutely nothing to slow our deficit problem running $1 Trillion dollars every year.
1 in every 5 posts you put on here wants to blame Bush... That's fine. However, your Presidents own plan DOES NOTHING to offset our spending spree. It want to raise a additional $80-100 billion in revenue while still running $1 trillion dollar deficits and hoping to do more stimulus.
At some point you are going to have to start owning your presidents contribution to the problem.
Statistically meaningless and misleading chart. As a horseplayer you would would disregard this chart, if it were data pertaining to a horse racing attribute.
Mike (Dr Beav)Much more meaningful and truthful than Obama won because he was dressed in a Santa Claus Suit.
As a rational human, you should object to that idiocy and Mittens using that as an excuse for losing, rather than taking pot shots at someone pointing that out
Valuist
11-16-2012, 04:19 PM
I follow Krugman and Siglitz
Therein lies your problem.
You also stated that the economy was strong from 1935-1981. The economy was in terrible shape when Reagan took office. In no way could any rational account say the economy was strong during the Carter years.
You also stated that the low tax rates contributed to the bubbles. I would say it was the low interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve that was the main cause of the dot.com, housing and commodities bubbles we've seen in the 21st century.
boxcar
11-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Especially when his opponent is Ebeneezer Scrooge
BTW, most political candidates have gifts for their supporters.
But the middle class objected to Ebeneezer paying off other Ebeneezers
What we've witnessed is largesse in action on a grand scale. It's so easy to play Santa with other people's money, isn't it 'cap?
Just more whining. This time by the biggest loser, not the losers on the sidelines. Sour grapes that will go on another 4 years.
It will go on for a lot longer than that. By the end of BO's second term, we'll be a second rate economy (if that) forever. We'll never be able to dig out because this was BO's plan from the git go.
Boxcar might have called it.
Herman Cain was a better candidate, and that is not saying much
I think Herman would have garnered more votes than Mr. Electable did.
I found myself liking Romney on a personal level.
A good man with bad policies and even worse campaign staff and political cronies and pundits
I'm so glad Mr. Transparency is crony and pundit-free. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
What we've witnessed is largesse in action on a grand scale. It's so easy to play Santa with other people's money, isn't it 'cap?
This is total nonsense spawned by Rushbo for his original bots-the ditto heads, taken and expanded on by the right wing echo chamber and now the top guy himself.
All I can say is tough it out over the next four years. Squirming and whining is a learned set of skills, and you guys get a chance to perfect those skills once again. :jump: :jump: :jump:
JustRalph
11-16-2012, 09:15 PM
This is total nonsense spawned by Rushbo for his original bots-the ditto heads, taken and expanded on by the right wing echo chamber and now the top guy himself.
All I can say is tough it out over the next four years. Squirming and whining is a learned set of skills, and you guys get a chance to perfect those skills once again. :jump: :jump: :jump:
Toughing it out will be easy compared to what your poor brethren are going to be doing.
If Obama's war on energy is not stopped I see 10 percent unemployment and fuel oil and gas prices through the roof. The huddled masses will be just that all over New York and the rust belt. Electric prices won't even be mentionable. Except in the one state that produces all of it's own electricity. Somehow I am sure Texas will get some type of rate increase though.
That inspires a thread.....
Actor
11-17-2012, 01:26 AM
How exactly are they still Bush era tax cuts when Obama has extended them...Under pressure from the GOP and he said he would only do it once.
... and wants to make them permanent?Where do you get that? Have you been watching the news lately? Any news? Fox? CNN? CBS? Whatever?
Ok guys we will have a chance to compare notes at the end of Obama's second term. Doom and gloom? Or a successful President making a difference.
We will see
elysiantraveller
11-17-2012, 07:06 AM
Under pressure from the GOP and he said he would only do it once.
Where do you get that? Have you been watching the news lately? Any news? Fox? CNN? CBS? Whatever?
The GOP had NO authority when he extended them all in December of 2010. He could have let them all expire but what he did, intelligent by the way, is state you shouldn't raise taxes in a weak economy.
This time around he wants to make permanent the Bush era tax cuts except to those making over $250,000. That move will bring in approximately 80-100 billion more in revenue. Our deficit is projected to be 11-15x that amount each year. What news are you watching? His plan is to make permanent, and even lower, the Bush era tax cuts to all those making less than $250,000 a year.
I'll ask you then since HCap is MIA. When does the debt crises become partially his fault?
Mike at A+
11-17-2012, 12:08 PM
The GOP had NO authority when he extended them all in December of 2010. He could have let them all expire but what he did, intelligent by the way, is state you shouldn't raise taxes in a weak economy.
This time around he wants to make permanent the Bush era tax cuts except to those making over $250,000. That move will bring in approximately 80-100 billion more in revenue. Our deficit is projected to be 11-15x that amount each year. What news are you watching? His plan is to make permanent, and even lower, the Bush era tax cuts to all those making less than $250,000 a year.
I'll ask you then since HCap is MIA. When does the debt crises become partially his fault?
Not only does he want to do what you are saying, but he wants REPUBLICANS to take the blame if it fails - uh, I mean WHEN IT FAILS. I'll say it again for those who still don't get it. THIS IS REPARATIONS. He won't call it that but MAKE NO MISTAKE (I borrowed that from 0bama), this is nothing more than taking from whites and giving to blacks. Stealing from the makers and giving to the takers. Giving everyone their "fair share" - everyone who doesn't have the skills and/or work ethic to do it themselves.
thaskalos
11-17-2012, 01:01 PM
Obama got 61 million votes
47 million people are on food stamps.
47 million...or 47%? :)
IMO...Romney lost because he is an idiot...and, being an idiot, he committed the biggest mistake that a politician seeking office could possibly make; he allowed the voting public to find out how stupid he was, BEFORE he got elected. Most politicians have the good sense to keep their stupidity a secret, until AFTER they get elected.
Yeah, what a moron. Compare his lifetime body of accomplishments next to Obama's. :lol:
23 million out of work
47 million on food stamps
16 trillion in debt and plans to go over 20
A desire for gas prices to be at Euro-levels
thask, what do you do you suppose that moron would have done WORSE than the buffoon we have now? :lol:
Marshall Bennett
11-17-2012, 03:20 PM
47 million...or 47%? :)
IMO...Romney lost because he is an idiot
Even an idiot would know an idiot would never be nominated for president of the United States.
Your post is self-incriminating to your degree of intelligence.
thaskalos
11-17-2012, 04:11 PM
Even an idiot would know an idiot would never be nominated for president of the United States.
Your post is self-incriminating to your degree of intelligence.
This is nothing new...
As I recall, my intelligence was also questioned when I declared that Obama was a sure thing to win this election...even as most of the "experts" here were caught up in the great Romney "momentum shift". :rolleyes:
Not an expert, but it was really hard to fathom that reaonably intelligent people could actually buy into the obvious BS that was out there.
How anyone could look at Obama's record and actually vote for him still amazes me.
Just what miracles do people expect him to do?
He has no plan.
And people bought it.:lol:
FantasticDan
11-17-2012, 04:27 PM
Traditional America is gone....?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-15-2012/it-was-the-best-of-times--it-was-the-best-of-times
:D :ThmbUp:
That's all you got?
A two-bit comedian?
Wow.
Things are even bleaker on the Obama side than I imagined.
You guys got nuthin' to brag about! :lol:
johnhannibalsmith
11-17-2012, 04:41 PM
I actually think Stewart is pretty good and even though I still have no idea how to punch his show up on the television, I like watching those little political clips. They are usually pretty entertaining and not bad political commentary - better perspective than most news channels, all things considered. That was pretty good and in a lot of ways, I agree with Stewart's message about the demographics and the "great experiment", even if I'm pretty willing to believe that he pulled the context apart at the seams to make it funnier and to continue his "feud" with O'Reilly.
Valuist
11-17-2012, 04:50 PM
When the day of reckoning hits, and we are in the midst of a major currency crisis, Obama will never look at his QE programs and stimulus as the problem. Even the dimmest of Dems knows that blaming Bush will have been worn out years before; Obama will not take blame. He will blame capitalism.
ElKabong
11-17-2012, 05:30 PM
When the day of reckoning hits, and we are in the midst of a major currency crisis, Obama will never look at his QE programs and stimulus as the problem. Even the dimmest of Dems knows that blaming Bush will have been worn out years before; Obama will not take blame. He will blame capitalism.
Good post. When that day comes (and it will) the above post s/b a thread starter for "This is why you suck". QE was a horrible decision regardless of the administration it was done under.
This President = no clue, and can't learn from other's mistakes. He doubles down on them.
And all the usual suspect here will make excuses for the inevitable failures. hcap will even post a graph showing how they never happened! :lol:
Steve R
11-17-2012, 06:26 PM
Not an expert, but it was really hard to fathom that reaonably intelligent people could actually buy into the obvious BS that was out there.
How anyone could look at Obama's record and actually vote for him still amazes me.
Just what miracles do people expect him to do?
He has no plan.
And people bought it.:lol:
I'm guessing not many actually voted for Obama on his record. I think enough voted against the Romney/Ryan platform to carry the day. And Afro-Americans voted for him primarily because he is black. I'm sure many whites also voted for Romney because Obama is black.
johnhannibalsmith
11-17-2012, 06:43 PM
I'm guessing not many actually voted for Obama on his record. I think enough voted against the Romney/Ryan platform to carry the day. And Afro-Americans voted for him primarily because he is black. I'm sure many whites also voted for Romney because Obama is black.
I made a comment elsewhere that we should just let the big talkers keep spending us into oblivion - literally, no other insinuations other than a criticism of political posturing that spending isn't a problem in this country - and was called a "hateful bigot" for that sentiment - no actual reflection on the idea of deficits and debts as a result of spending... that kind of made it clear to me what kind of chance a couple of guys that talk like Romney/Ryan probably had with a hefty part of the population... :lol:
Actor
11-18-2012, 01:45 AM
I found myself liking Romney on a personal level.Not me. The longer the campaign went on the more I despised him.
Take his 47% speech. It's not just what he said, it's the way he said it. When he said the word "entitled" I could hear the contempt in his voice.
Now he's replaying the same speech, crying because he did not get what he thinks he's "entitled" to, the presidency.
I don't see him as "A good man with bad policies." He's simply evil. Adolph Hitler loved dogs and little children.
He garnered almost 49% of the popular vote. That's how narrowly this country came to being under the thumb of this demagogue. We don't need someone who thinks they're royalty (or God) occupying the White House.
I said that before Mittens' statement about Obama buying off the vote.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt the first time. Thought it was clumsy, but just politics towards those who donated.
Not the second time. Looks like he really is an ass on a personal level.
Too bad BigMack had too leave. I'd love to hear his take :cool:
Red State Socialism.........
1-Republican voters are more than happy to accept stuff for themselves, but find it unacceptable when the stuff magnet is a minority?
2-Red Staters and their allies in Congress and at Fox News are often aggressively, and racist-ly, ignorant about just who in America are the givers and who are the takers:
3-Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute [from the federal government], 27 states (84%) are Republican.Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are Democratic.
4-Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6 percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth
Leonard Pitts says it much better than I ever could.
"You are a moocher, a zombie, soulless, mouth-breathing, ignorant, greedy, self-indulgent, envious, shallow and lazy.
The foregoing is a summation of “analysis” from conservative pundits and media figures — Cal Thomas, Ted Nugent, Bill O’Reilly and etcetera — seeking to explain Mitt Romney’s emphatic defeat....
Sometimes, they act — the Hannitys, the O’Reillys, the Trumps, the Limbaughs, the whole conservative political infotainment complex — as if this were all a game, as if their nonstop litany of half truths, untruths and fear mongering, their echo chamber of studied outrage, practiced panic, intellectual incoherence and unadulterated equine feculence, had no human consequences. Sometimes, they behave as if it were morally permissible — indeed, morally required — to say whatever asinine, indefensible, coarse or outrageous thing comes to mind in the name of defeating or diminishing the dreaded left."
He garnered almost 49% of the popular vote. That's how narrowly this country came to being freed from being under the thumb of this democrat. We don't need someone who thinks they're royalty (or God) occupying the White House.
FTFY
johnhannibalsmith
11-18-2012, 10:14 AM
...He's simply evil. Adolph Hitler loved dogs and little children....
Notwithstanding the gratuitous Hitler reference, what weird standard do you use to define "evil"?
The man is practically seventy years old and been in the public eye just about his whole life and even ran a heavily populated state, probably in the top three in the country for reputation as a liberal mecca. And now, after this whole life, service in the private and public sector, you've decided that he ranks right up there with the worst of the "evil" in history - because of some pandering speech at a fundraiser?
Even for a guy that can't stand Romney's public persona, it's REALLY hard to take that rant very seriously.
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 10:30 AM
Red State Socialism.........
4-Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6 percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth
You keep using examples that prove you're clueless on what you're posting.
King County- There are 280 people in that county....TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY PEOPLE. .....That's it. It's losing 20% of its population every decade. People are "moving to the jobs" cuz there ain't none out dare. Reread that paragraph, do yourself a favor.
As for the election in King County, Romney rec'd 130 votes....yet this is supposed to be "news". :lol:
So, your data source is uninformed. Don't wet the floor b/c there are 30 more people in a small rural Texas county using food stamps.....Look to the metropolitan areas where food stamp abuse is rampant.
Have another clueless day up there
FantasticDan
11-18-2012, 10:59 AM
Notwithstanding the gratuitous Hitler reference, what weird standard do you use to define "evil"?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N9R-YuPsi1U/T6_PY3VCpXI/AAAAAAAAA6w/CKBV-Z1C5M4/s1600/Harriet.jpg
You keep using examples that prove you're clueless on what you're posting.
So, your data source is uninformed. Don't wet the floor b/c there are 30 more people in a small rural Texas county using food stamps.....Look to the metropolitan areas where food stamp abuse is rampant.
Have another clueless day up thereThere is nothing wrong with the data. Don't you get it? Many southern red states are in hock to the Feds and bitch that the Feds are "redistributing wealth"
Is Bloomberg wrong too?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...od-stamp-growth
AND ALL THE OTHER LINKS i POSTED PREVIOUSLY?
JustRalph
11-18-2012, 02:41 PM
You keep using examples that prove you're clueless on what you're posting.
King County- There are 280 people in that county....TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY PEOPLE. .....That's it. It's losing 20% of its population every decade. People are "moving to the jobs" cuz there ain't none out dare. Reread that paragraph, do yourself a favor.
As for the election in King County, Romney rec'd 130 votes....yet this is supposed to be "news". :lol:
So, your data source is uninformed. Don't wet the floor b/c there are 30 more people in a small rural Texas county using food stamps.....Look to the metropolitan areas where food stamp abuse is rampant.
Have another clueless day up there
Nice catch :ThmbUp:
Nice catch :ThmbUp:
Only "catch" is you are both wrong
All of this was a topic before and neither of you will admit the data as valid
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99034&page=4&pp=15
Sweet Victory! (For Lefties Only) #47
Go to the Tax Foundation and double check.
Meanwhile more from the Slate article.....
Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to the federal government in taxes than they get in return. From 1 to 10, they are:
New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.
Anything strange about that list? Yes, they are all blue states (or the deepest of purple).
Adding to this fallacy are the assumptions surrounding Mitt Romney’s now infamous comments about the indolent “47 percent” of Americans who regard themselves as victims and therefore pay no taxes. As the American Conservative magazine (no less) pointed out recently, nine of those 10 states are in the red-as-ruby Old Confederacy.*
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg
JustRalph
11-18-2012, 03:25 PM
I was talking about the use of a 280 person county.
If you took the time to read, you would know that I have recently discussed here that Red States ale more money than they put into the Federal system.
It's a disgrace, but there are many reasons why.
Texas, is an exception. You know, that State that has been run by those two doofus governors, Bush and Perry, for the last 15 years.
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 03:26 PM
Only "catch" is you are both wrong
All of this was a topic before and neither of you will admit the data as valid
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99034&page=4&pp=15
Sweet Victory! (For Lefties Only) #47
I already explained this once. I need to instruct you again?? The website itself explains the data
Listen up, this is the last time I help you on this. People in the gulf states earn less than other states. People of lower incomes that have tax credits in addition to tax deductions will have limited tax liability. That will lower a tax liability to near zero, if not zero, for lower income families.
This is the same tax code your boy Baraq is pimping btw. It's the same tax code Romney was wanting to change.....are you now touting Romney's policies? Awesome :D
Read the website you linked in the earlier post. It states even middle income families now have ZERO tax liability in some cases......and this is what your boy Baraq is pimping.
YOU EXPLAINED BUPKIS.***
Simple enough for even you kabong.
The data is from multiple sources and
verified and documented
1-Red states are dependent on blue states
2-Red states are the "moochers and Takers"
Bottom line, the right that uses this hypocrisy is
woefully mislead and misleads.
***From Yiddish באָבקעס (bobkes, “(large) beans”), from קאָזעבאָפּקעס (kozebopkes, “goat droppings”), from Proto-Slavic *koza (“goat”), and diminutive of Slavic root боб (bob, “bean”).
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 04:16 PM
Must be frustrating. Your "points" proven incorrect, multiple times in a couple of hours. No wonder you're bitter.
Moniker
11-18-2012, 04:20 PM
"I'm guessing not many actually voted for Obama on his record. I think enough voted against the Romney/Ryan platform to carry the day. And Afro-Americans voted for him primarily because he is black. I'm sure many whites also voted for Romney because Obama is black."
- Originally posted by Steve R
The majority of democratic candidates for the past few decades have received upwards of 75% of the african american vote.
Must be frustrating. Your "points" proven incorrect, multiple times in a couple of hours. No wonder you're bitter.I guess
this is too tough for you then?
phttp://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg
These states have the highest percentage of MOOCHERS
Returns with No Income Tax Liability
Non payers
Rank is the last number on each line..........................
MISSISSIPPI 1283495 712035 571460 44.5% 1
GEORGIA 4589611 2639561 1950050 42.5% 2
ALABAMA 2102251 1254979 847272 40.3% 3
FLORIDA 9631252 5879430 3751822 39.0% 4
ARKANSAS 1224333 748945 475388 38.8% 5
SOUTH CAROLINA 2051823 1255957 795866 38.8% 6
NEW MEXICO 913001 560068 352933 38.7% 7
IDAHO 663291 407579 255712 38.6% 8
TEXAS 10995576 6760829 4234747 38.5% 9
UTAH 1134626 699598 435028 38.3% 10
LOUISIANA 1990904 1232305 758599 38.1% 11
NORTH CAROLINA 4202766 2610119 1592647 37.9% 12
TENNESSEE 2846579 1770556 1076023 37.8% 13
ARIZONA 2718609 1691300 1027309 37.8% 14
CALIFORNIA 16683781 10583346 6100435 36.6% 15
KENTUCKY 1856466 1190122 666344 35.9% 16
OKLAHOMA 1590384 1020175 570209 35.9% 17
MICHIGAN 4606814 2963489 1643325 35.7% 18
INDIANA 2981543 1926407 1055136 35.4% 19
MONTANA 474851 308461 166390 35.0% 20
NEVADA 1263928 822805 441123 34.9% 21
MISSOURI 2688872 1772097 916775 34.1% 22
ILLINOIS 6043865 3991576 2052289 34.0% 23
OREGON 1743270 1154144 589126 33.8% 24
WEST VIRGINIA 783239 520893 262346 33.5% 25
KANSAS 1307115 870854 436261 33.4% 26
NEW YORK 9272053 6225759 3046294 32.9% 27
SOUTH DAKOTA 393777 267479 126298 32.1% 28
OHIO 5437370 3703563 1733807 31.9% 29
NEBRASKA 854072 584737 269335 31.5% 30
HAWAII 653371 447802 205569 31.5% 31
WISCONSIN 2741669 1886426 855243 31.2% 32
COLORADO 2369949 1632686 737263 31.1% 33
PENNSYLVANIA 6129987 4223883 1906104 31.1% 34
MAINE 625057 433997 191060 30.6% 35
VERMONT 317921 221234 96687 30.4% 36
DELAWARE 427754 300038 127716 29.9% 37
IOWA 1399927 985391 414536 29.6% 38
RHODE ISLAND 509091 358492 150599 29.6% 39
VIRGINIA 3729464 2638954 1090510 29.2% 40
NEW JERSEY 4285543 3033159 1252384 29.2% 41
MINNESOTA 2561055 1814484 746571 29.2% 42
WASHINGTON 3169103 2249711 919392 29.0% 43
WYOMING 276444 197294 79150 28.6% 44
MARYLAND 2787356 2000578 786778 28.2% 45
CONNECTICUT 1727550 1267810 459740 26.6% 46
MASSACHUSETTS 3203128 2359352 843776 26.3% 47
NEW HAMPSHIRE 663922 489531 174391 26.3% 48
NORTH DAKOTA 330462 243688 86774 26.3% 49
ALASKA 373765 291628 82137 22.0% 50
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 322864 235687 87177 27.0%
Source: IRS
Hey kabong, I could fly down to Texas and do a presntation complete with multi-media. You know slides, music a few IRS agents to testify and I will make sue I bring an accountant to hold your hand and explain it step by step
V_E_R_Y S_L_O_W_L_Y
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 04:40 PM
I explained why the gulf states would show a higher rate. You chose not to read the website's commentary on why that is, or my post... Not my problem. Yours.
People with your mindset are a dime a dozen at the track. "look, the 4 horse has a higher Beyer, I'll bet it"
Your 4 horse earned the fig going 2 turns, he's running a sprint today....Hcap predictably loses his ass. Blames it on the previous trainer :eek:
Think beyond the raw #'s. If someone in Miss earns 30% less than the same person in NY (doing the same job, with the same effective lifestyle) the Miss person will have a lower liability. If they have tax credits it makes the delta even greater
(addition....in 2008 I was offered a position @ Honeywell in Melville, NY for 35-40% more than I make now...I turned it down, real estate back then on LI was triple what it is here....made NO sense to accept the job and move....Cost of living was too high to justify the move....end result, I give less to Uncle Sam, which feeds that stupid graph you put up :) )
I explained why the gulf states would show a higher rate. You chose not to read the website's commentary on why that is, or my post... Not my problem. Yours.
People with your mindset are a dime a dozen at the track. "look, the 4 horse has a higher Beyer, I'll bet it"
Your 4 horse earned the fig going 2 turns, he's running a sprint today....Hcap predictably loses his ass. Blames it on the previous trainer :eek:
Think beyond the raw #'s. If someone in Miss earns 30% less than the same person in NY (doing the same job) the Miss person will have a lower liability. If they have tax credits it makes the delta even greaterSort of like the poor and working poor and unemployed and seniors and disabled who are also not liable? Remember the 47%??
Gee where did you collect that anti-Social Darwinian claptrap?
Do me a favor and Tell tom he is also supporting poor southern lazy folks as well as inner city lazy ingrates.
Both groups seem to want a handout.
Let 'em fall by the wayside.
AS TOM WOULD SAY "CULL THE HERD"
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 04:58 PM
Sort of like the poor and working poor and unemployed and seniors and disabled who are also not liable? Remember the 47%??
Gee where did you collect that anti-Social Darwinian claptrap?
Do me a favor and Tell tom he is also supporting poor southern lazy folks as well as inner city lazy ingrates.
Both groups seem to want a handout.
Let 'em fall by the wayside.
AS TOM WOULD SAY "CULL THE HEARD"
You still haven't read the website's commentary. You posted the website, why not? It states many middle income families now qualify as zero tax liability households.
So where do you get the southern lazy folk angle? The website you put up yourself contradicts that labeling.
Like I said, I turned down a job in a blue state b/c of cost of living reasons. If I had taken it, I'd have been paying Unca Sammie thru my ass. Why would I take an offer that raises my cost of living, raises my tax liability?
Hcap > so wrong. So bitter
Originally Posted by hcap
Sort of like the poor and working poor and unemployed and seniors and disabled who are also not liable? Remember the 47%??
We have covered the part about people who genuinely need help over and over. Remember, how the leeches are taking money away from them?
Yet here you are, still posting lies and half truths to make your points. God, you have no morals, dude. You are nothing but a parrot.
You are super dense and just won't admit the major plank in your Ayn Rand world is crap. Those folks who live in southern states are just as much moochers as those in blue who have no tax liability. Prove me wrong that welfare cheats don't habituate the south and red states as much as in the blue cities
How soon you guys forget Mittens 47% rant
The whole point of bringing up the "red vs blue" augment was simply to put the shoe on the other foot. Particularly in light of anchors away Tom who bitched about supporting lazy ingrates.
People fall under tax liability and become eligible for various social programs not necessarily because they are waiting for a handout or don't want to work.
All them folks in the bottom of the barrel red southern states are no less or more worthy than those in blue states inner cities
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 06:20 PM
Hcap's gone from "I have a point", to "ooh look, a squirrel". :D
delayjf
11-18-2012, 06:44 PM
These states have the highest percentage of MOOCHERS
Who do you suppose the majority of those MOOCHERS voted for.
PaceAdvantage
11-18-2012, 07:07 PM
I don't see him as "A good man with bad policies." He's simply evil. Adolph Hitler loved dogs and little children.
He garnered almost 49% of the popular vote. That's how narrowly this country came to being under the thumb of this demagogue. We don't need someone who thinks they're royalty (or God) occupying the White House.I am now convinced you actually believe the stuff you type. I didn't think it was actually possible, but since the election, I'm now totally convinced.
And again, another who obvious lacks critical thinking skills brings up the comparison to Hitler and Nazis. I suggest you seek counseling for your affliction.
I was at work the other day, and a woman asked me who I voted for. When I told her Romney, the first thing out of her mouth was "Why didn't you vote for Obama? Was it because he's black?"
I nearly fell out of my chair. But this is the disease that has infected the left-wing of America, and those who buy into their widely peddled brand of bullshit and propaganda.
As if there were no other reasons to vote against Obama, other than the color of his skin, or the 50% of his DNA that happens to be black.
When I pointed out a number of black politicians that I would happily have voted for had they been running for President, this went completely ignored by this rabid woman of leftist political origin...a woman who clearly watches way too much MSNBC. She berated me with questions such as "Are you rich? You must have a lot of money if you voted for Romney. Don't you want Social Security? Do you want to see Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security disappear?"
So, after that experience, I am now fully convinced that all the crap I see here posted by the left, such as the above, is fully bought into by those doing the posting.
What an incredibly sad statement of fact. The USA may well in fact be doomed...not by immigrants (legal or otherwise)...not by terrorists...but by people like the woman at my office, who have been turned into non-critical thinkers - Obamabots...rabid idiots of the highest order, regurgitating EXACTLY what they've been hearing spewed forth by the mainstream media in this country.
Damn sad.
Moniker
11-18-2012, 07:24 PM
It most certainly is... I myself was behind Obama in this election, but there's no way to respect someone who is so utterly uninformed as to think that the only thing to hold against him as president is the color of his skin... That describes an unfortunately high number of Americans I'm afraid. The only reason I could find to support Obama was simply to oppose Romney, which was the case with many on either side in this election. That stemmed mostly from trepidation because Romney was the large unknown, (and much of what I did know about him I didn't like) as well as my optimistic nature haha. No matter how lost things seem now I like to believe that given another 4 years there's a chance to turn it around before swapping out the CIC.
Ocala Mike
11-18-2012, 07:35 PM
...rabid idiots of the highest order, regurgitating EXACTLY what they've been hearing spewed forth by the mainstream media in this country.
So, this disease only affects the left? I am puked on almost daily where I work by Faux News devotees and dittoheads. You're right, it's sad.
PaceAdvantage
11-18-2012, 07:38 PM
So, this disease only affects the left? I am puked on almost daily where I work by Faux News devotees and dittoheads. You're right, it's sad.I don't doubt that you are. I'm just describing my experience based on my political outlook.
And as I said to this woman and those in earshot who were unfortunately exposed to her rant at me...I'm happy you voted for Obama and I would in no way come at you in the way you have come at me for doing so...
Ocala Mike
11-18-2012, 07:40 PM
Who do you suppose the majority of those MOOCHERS voted for.
I believe all but Florida of the top ten were won by Romney. Maybe the MOOCHERS voted against their interests, or maybe there was something else going on.
Ocala Mike
11-18-2012, 07:44 PM
I like that line, PA, and I plan on using it should the situation come up in the future, though I must say that, since the election, there has been a noticeable lack of enthusiasm by the Romneyites.
Hcap's gone from "I have a point", to "ooh look, a squirrel". :D
Actually by proving a number of salient points, also skinned a few loud whining cons. :cool:
Who do you suppose the majority of those MOOCHERS voted for.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg
Pretty obvious isn't it?
johnhannibalsmith
11-18-2012, 08:35 PM
... a noticeable lack of enthusiasm by the Romneyites.
Well, the captain of the cheerleading squad was exiled to redemption island, so... :D
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 08:58 PM
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg
Pretty obvious isn't it?
Yes, they're located in metropolitan areas. Unlike your map, which is created from imbalanced data, dems in cities voted in droves.
Another reason YOU guys lost. ....
"I think that there was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory and I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say Romney would win in a landslide."
-- Dick Morris
http://www.bartcop.com/keep-talking-next.jpg
PaceAdvantage
11-18-2012, 09:32 PM
hcap,
The most important thing is not whether you won or lost. The most important thing is that this country gets going in a productive and economically healthy direction again.
Both sides of the aisle were in agreement that the country has not been doing as well as it could be these past four years. In fact, most were in agreement about how bad things truly are. The slowest recovery ever...etc.
So I truly hope that President Obama will work very, very hard...in fact, I hope he puts in as much work as humanly possible to see to it that everything is put into place to help the economy and the country flourish once more.
That way, everyone will win.
Based on his past four years, I have absolutely no faith that he will or can do this. You and those who voted for him, apparently do. Based on what, I don't know. It certainly can't be the track record of his last four years.
But I put country first, not party, and for the sake of the country, I hope you and all those who voted for him see something I and those who voted for Romney do not see.
For the sake of the country, I couldn't possibly be hoping any more that I was indeed wrong. I can't wait to be proven wrong the next four years. In fact, I welcome it...for the sake of my country.
Stillriledup
11-18-2012, 09:52 PM
hcap,
The most important thing is not whether you won or lost. The most important thing is that this country gets going in a productive and economically healthy direction again.
Both sides of the aisle were in agreement that the country has not been doing as well as it could be these past four years. In fact, most were in agreement about how bad things truly are. The slowest recovery ever...etc.
So I truly hope that President Obama will work very, very hard...in fact, I hope he puts in as much work as humanly possible to see to it that everything is put into place to help the economy and the country flourish once more.
That way, everyone will win.
Based on his past four years, I have absolutely no faith that he will or can do this. You and those who voted for him, apparently do. Based on what, I don't know. It certainly can't be the track record of his last four years.
But I put country first, not party, and for the sake of the country, I hope you and all those who voted for him see something I and those who voted for Romney do not see.
For the sake of the country, I couldn't possibly be hoping any more that I was indeed wrong. I can't wait to be proven wrong the next four years. In fact, I welcome it...for the sake of my country.
Republicans seemed to block quite a bit of stuff, Obama might have 'done better' if everyone was 'working together'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021220851
I welcome it too, hopefully this term will be different as the Repubs realize that Obama is gone in 4 years so they have no real reason to make him look bad. Of course, there is still the idea that if they make Obama look good, people will be more inclined to vote Dem in 2016.....but, they wouldnt be that petty, would they?
johnhannibalsmith
11-18-2012, 10:07 PM
Republicans seemed to block quite a bit of stuff, Obama might have 'done better' if everyone was 'working together'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021220851
I welcome it too, hopefully this term will be different as the Repubs realize that Obama is gone in 4 years so they have no real reason to make him look bad. Of course, there is still the idea that if they make Obama look good, people will be more inclined to vote Dem in 2016.....but, they wouldnt be that petty, would they?
Come on. Even you know the old Republican obstructionism storyline is a sad excuse for explaining a pretty anemic term. He couldn't even get his own party to support his budget. Republican "obstructionism" was great cover for him to avoid having to do anything worthwhile.
PaceAdvantage
11-18-2012, 10:30 PM
Republicans seemed to block quite a bit of stuff, Obama might have 'done better' if everyone was 'working together'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021220851
I welcome it too, hopefully this term will be different as the Repubs realize that Obama is gone in 4 years so they have no real reason to make him look bad. Of course, there is still the idea that if they make Obama look good, people will be more inclined to vote Dem in 2016.....but, they wouldnt be that petty, would they?Obama had a Democratic Senate and House for two full years. That's half his first term.
Don't feed me nonsense and expect it to sustain me...
JustRalph
11-18-2012, 10:41 PM
Any Repub who goes along with Obama on anything will face destruction from the Tea Party. End of story
ElKabong
11-18-2012, 10:51 PM
hopefully this term will be different as the Repubs realize that Obama is gone in 4 years so they have no real reason to make him look bad. Of course, there is still the idea that if they make Obama look good, people will be more inclined to vote Dem in 2016.....but, they wouldnt be that petty, would they?
Change the year to 2007, and the party affiliation, and that's what you had back then. No matter what, it won't be as divisive as then unless once again Obama chooses to describe Pubs as terrorists. Or pushes thru a major bill behind closed doors in the middle of the night & leave the Pubs out of discussions with industry leaders.
No one on the Red side of the aisle trusts Obama. He's given them no reason to, really. He's made the bed, the next 4 years are on him to step forward and deliver. First he has to mend some fences or learn how to negotiate. If not, he's screwed as is the nation
hcap,
The most important thing is not whether you won or lost. The most important thing is that this country gets going in a productive and economically healthy direction again.
That has never been the goal of the lefties.
Why have real progress when you lie about it and keep rewarding your cronies?
That is all the left is concerned with. Personal gains for political hacks.
Look at Obama's record - oh, wait he has none. Nothing past crony rewards.
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
Republicans seemed to block quite a bit of stuff, Obama might have 'done better' if everyone was 'working together'
You mean like the dem senate, who refused to vote on over 40 economic bills? that kind of work together.
Why is does work together always mean do it Obama's way?
Name me one time when dems gave in on anything?
but there's no way to respect someone who is so utterly uninformed as to think that the only reason to support him as president is the color of his skin... That describes an unfortunately high number of Americans
FTFY.
Works both ways.
Moniker
11-19-2012, 11:55 AM
FTFY.
Works both ways.
If you're referring to the fact that he received such a high percentage of the black vote, only a small portion of that can be attributed to the color of his skin. I believe I said earlier in this thread, or maybe another, that near every democratic candidate for decades has received an overwhelming majority of the black vote. Is that a result of democratic entitlement policies? In part, at least. Could it be because of the republican party's "rich white man" image? Also likely. But it certainly isn't a result of every democratic candidate having the same skin color as these black voters. (since they don't)
So you say his color was not the only factor for many Blacks?
Moniker
11-19-2012, 12:17 PM
For many, I would say no. But presumably for some. The figure was something like 94% no? Well as I'm aware democratic candidates previous to Obama usually received anywhere between 75%-90% of the black vote. So while the amount he received was exceptionally high I'd say the majority was a result of party affiliation, not race. Again, a majority, not all of it. So yes, he did receive black votes based on his skin, but not as many as he did by being a democrat.
Steve R
11-19-2012, 01:12 PM
"I'm guessing not many actually voted for Obama on his record. I think enough voted against the Romney/Ryan platform to carry the day. And Afro-Americans voted for him primarily because he is black. I'm sure many whites also voted for Romney because Obama is black."
- Originally posted by Steve R
The majority of democratic candidates for the past few decades have received upwards of 75% of the african american vote.
96% is not 75% or anywhere close to it. I think if Obama was white Romney might have won.
Moniker
11-19-2012, 01:20 PM
75% is just a rough lower end. Many of these dems are well into the 80s. I apologize for being so vague, I don't have the liberty to google the actual numbers, but the votes Obama received weren't exponentially higher than the average.
dartman51
11-19-2012, 01:29 PM
75% is just a rough lower end. Many of these dems are well into the 80s. I apologize for being so vague, I don't have the liberty to google the actual numbers, but the votes Obama received weren't exponentially higher than the average.
What you are not taking into account, is the number of black voters that registered and voted for the first time in 2008, because Obama was black. Many, if not most, of those voters, voted again in 2012. These are voters that have never gotten excited about a white Democrat. I'm not saying that they are racist, just that a white Democrat never got them enthusiastic about politics, enough to vote. jmho. :ThmbUp:
Moniker
11-19-2012, 01:49 PM
What you are not taking into account, is the number of black voters that registered and voted for the first time in 2008, because Obama was black. Many, if not most, of those voters, voted again in 2012. These are voters that have never gotten excited about a white Democrat. I'm not saying that they are racist, just that a white Democrat never got them enthusiastic about politics, enough to vote. jmho. :ThmbUp:
Sounds like speculation, but you very well may be right about that. When speaking solely on percentage an extra 10%-15% seems like small potatoes, but in reality the number that percentage is being taken from may be much higher. You make a very good argument, can you fact check it to see if the number of registered black voters did indeed increase?
Ocala Mike
11-19-2012, 02:46 PM
Any Repub who goes along with Obama on anything will face destruction from the Tea Party. End of story
And there is a school of thought that predicts the destruction of the entire Republican Party if they continue to gravitate to the Tea Party. Most on the left are cheerleading the prospect of the GOP's fear of the TP'ers.
Capper Al
11-19-2012, 04:18 PM
I suffered from attention deficit on Saturday. I was messing with a superfect ticket in the last race while the odds on winner that I wanted went up. Had I kept my eye on the tote-board, I would have won about $50.00 for the day instead of losing $6.00. I think the same thing happend to Romney.
JustRalph
11-19-2012, 05:32 PM
And there is a school of thought that predicts the destruction of the entire Republican Party if they continue to gravitate to the Tea Party. Most on the left are cheerleading the prospect of the GOP's fear of the TP'ers.
It's possible that the Tea Party may take over the Repub party. should be interesting.
lsbets
11-19-2012, 07:07 PM
It's possible that the Tea Party may take over the Repub party. should be interesting.
The tea party was taken over by the social conservatives a long time ago. It was once a small government movement, now its the social conservatives rebranded.
elysiantraveller
11-19-2012, 09:12 PM
The tea party was taken over by the social conservatives a long time ago. It was once a small government movement, now its the social conservatives rebranded.
Agreed...
Today, Marco Rubio, everyone's top choice for the Republican nomination, is wondering why we can't just teach evolution and creationism side by side. That the earth could be just a few thousand years old or 4.5 billion... he isn't sure... :bang: :bang: :bang:
Oh brother...
PaceAdvantage
11-19-2012, 09:14 PM
Agreed...
Today, Marco Rubio, everyone's top choice for the Republican nomination, is wondering why we can't just teach evolution and creationism side by side. That the earth could be just a few thousand years old or 4.5 billion... he isn't sure... :bang: :bang: :bang:
Oh brother...Why does this even have to be an issue? Why is he talking about this? It's nothing but a distraction. A distraction that doesn't have a thing to do with running this country on a day to day basis.
TJDave
11-19-2012, 09:18 PM
I think if Obama was white Romney might have won.
If Romney were also Christian, then, maybe. ;)
TJDave
11-19-2012, 09:22 PM
Agreed...
Today, Marco Rubio, everyone's top choice for the Republican nomination, is wondering why we can't just teach evolution and creationism side by side. That the earth could be just a few thousand years old or 4.5 billion... he isn't sure... :bang: :bang: :bang:
Oh brother...
Does Rubio meet the constitutional requirements necessary to run?
elysiantraveller
11-19-2012, 09:25 PM
Does Rubio meet the constitutional requirements necessary to run?
:confused:
Are you trying to be clever? I'm not a "birther."
PaceAdvantage
11-19-2012, 09:25 PM
Does Rubio meet the constitutional requirements necessary to run?Yes. We should check his birth certificate though to make sure he was indeed born in Florida as is claimed.
And none of these Internet image copies either...I wanna see the real thing...original copy...I'm sure he'll happily comply.
Then I want to see his college records.
Obama's the only one who gets the free pass from here on out...especially since Rubio doesn't have that magical (D) next to his name.
How about we forget BOTH and teach kids to read, write, and do math, then let THEM decide what they believe in?
Reading, writing, and math have so far been out of reach of far too many kids to even consider teach ANYTHING else.
thaskalos
11-19-2012, 09:33 PM
Why does this even have to be an issue? Why is he talking about this? It's nothing but a distraction. A distraction that doesn't have a thing to do with running this country on a day to day basis.
Why is he talking about this? Because he thinks that this stance will satisfy both the Christians AND the scientific-minded.
He wants to kiss up to both...but will end up pissing off everybody.
As I've said before...the Republicans are geniuses.
PaceAdvantage
11-19-2012, 09:38 PM
Why is he talking about this? Because he thinks that this stance will satisfy both the Christians AND the scientific-minded.
He wants to kiss up to both...but will end up pissing everybody off.
As I've said before...the Republicans are geniuses.Isn't it clear by the vote that almost half the country doesn't agree with Democrats?
I still fail to see how those gloating about the Obama win and the "downfall of Republicans" can think such things in the face of the popular vote.
You guys act as if Romney only garnered 36% of the vote... :lol:
And I only say this to you because of your "Republicans are geniuses" snide remark. Democrats are what? Perhaps 3% smarter? Congrats... :lol:
Dems failed to take back the House.
How is that possible in light of this huge mandate?
After all the crap back and forth, billions of dollars spent....nothing changed. But the dems think they have been validated. :lol::lol::lol:
Talk about yer Eintsteins!
thaskalos
11-19-2012, 09:50 PM
Isn't it clear by the vote that almost half the country doesn't agree with Democrats?
I still fail to see how those gloating about the Obama win and the "downfall of Republicans" can think such things in the face of the popular vote.
You guys act as if Romney only garnered 36% of the vote... :lol:
And I only say this to you because of your "Republicans are geniuses" snide remark. Democrats are what? Perhaps 3% smarter? Congrats... :lol:
This election was very winnable for the Republicans...and they lost it because of Romney's stupidity. And he gave further proof of that stupidity with that ridiculous comment of his about the "gifts" that supposedly lost him the election.
The Asian-Americans didn't support him either; are we to believe that they are looking for gifts too?
PaceAdvantage
11-19-2012, 09:54 PM
Bottom line is, the popular vote doesn't support this theory of the imminent demise of the Republican party. It simply doesn't.
If Michele Bachmann can win reelection, then this theory is entirely off base.
ElKabong
11-19-2012, 09:58 PM
The Asian-Americans didn't support him either; are we to believe that they are looking for gifts too?
Actually we're to believe facts and historical voting patterns. This was the 3rd consecutive Prez election Asian Amer's voted Blue.
thaskalos
11-19-2012, 10:03 PM
Bottom line is, the popular vote doesn't support this theory of the imminent demise of the Republican party. It simply doesn't.
If Michele Bachmann can win reelection, then this theory is entirely off base.
That's YOUR bottom line.
IMO...the bottom line is that I was right about the election, and you were wrong. :cool:
thaskalos
11-19-2012, 10:14 PM
Actually we're to believe facts and historical voting patterns. This was the 3rd consecutive Prez election Asian Amer's voted Blue.
I think my friend Traynor would agree with me that a trend of such short duration would be rendered totally insignificant...statistic-wise. :)
Two things - yes, you were right about the election.
but we are not talking about that - we are talking about the demise of the republicans.
And statistical trend do not apply here.
This is the real world.
lsbets
11-19-2012, 10:42 PM
Agreed...
Today, Marco Rubio, everyone's top choice for the Republican nomination, is wondering why we can't just teach evolution and creationism side by side. That the earth could be just a few thousand years old or 4.5 billion... he isn't sure... :bang: :bang: :bang:
Oh brother...
I read the Q&A, and I have no problem with it. He didn't allow the interviewer to drag him into some gotcha games. He's Catholic, and he alluded to 7 eras, so it seemed to me that he doesn't think the earth is 6000 years old, but he doesn't want to turn off the parts of his base who do. He's a politician, what do you expect? He said he's not a scientist so he can't give an exact age. But I thought his answer was fine. As far as evolution and creationism, he said parents should be able to teach "what their faith says and what science says". I agree with him.
Reading the interview, I can't see why anyone would be bothered by it.
PaceAdvantage
11-19-2012, 11:21 PM
That's YOUR bottom line.
IMO...the bottom line is that I was right about the election, and you were wrong. :cool:That's only going to count if the country as a whole improves...if it doesn't, I doubt you're going to be OWNING this win as haughtily as you are at the moment.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 01:05 AM
He said he's not a scientist so he can't give an exact age.
Not the kind of remark I would expect from one seeking the highest office in the world.
Automatic fail.
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 01:20 AM
Not the kind of remark I would expect from one seeking the highest office in the world.
Automatic fail.Hate to break it to you, but the USA is still a highly religious country.
And all those "minorities" that the Democrats are bragging that they "won over" to their side are some of the deepest believers of said religion that you relish in mocking.
They wouldn't see Rubio's comments or beliefs as a negative.
I don't know whether you are Dem or Rep or neither, and I don't really care. But I find it amusing that the party that declares itself a "modern party" for the "modern people" and one that "embraces minorities" is the very same party that takes great enjoyment in MOCKING and DERIDING the core beliefs of the VAST MAJORITY of those minorities it claims to embrace.
THAT should be an EPIC FAIL...
TJDave
11-20-2012, 01:46 AM
I find it amusing that the party that declares itself a "modern party" for the "modern people" and one that "embraces minorities" is the very same party that takes great enjoyment in MOCKING and DERIDING the core beliefs of the VAST MAJORITY of those minorities it claims to embrace.
People of faith do not abandon core beliefs, period. They vote their conscience regardless of consequence. This country is nowhere near being as religious as you think.
lsbets
11-20-2012, 02:30 AM
Not the kind of remark I would expect from one seeking the highest office in the world.
Automatic fail.
Why? Do you know the exact age? We know its not 6000, 4.5 billion is the best guess, but that's not exact. So since he admits to not knowing what no human being knows its an automatic fail?
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 02:37 AM
People of faith do not abandon core beliefs, period. They vote their conscience regardless of consequence. This country is nowhere near being as religious as you think.Actually, they vote their pocket book over religion every time.
But please. Feel free to tell me that minorities are not among the most religious groups in America, and that they are voting in line with the least supportive of political parties when it comes to religion. Hell, Democrats actually had to vote whether to include God in their national platform.. :lol:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-include-god/story?id=17164108#.UKsyhoc0V8E
This country is NOWHERE NEAR being as non-religious as you think. And when specifically talking highly coveted minorities, it's even more so.
Actor
11-20-2012, 02:50 AM
Isn't it clear by the vote that almost half the country doesn't agree with Democrats?
I still fail to see how those gloating about the Obama win and the "downfall of Republicans" can think such things in the face of the popular vote.
You guys act as if Romney only garnered 36% of the vote... :lol:
And I only say this to you because of your "Republicans are geniuses" snide remark. Democrats are what? Perhaps 3% smarter? Congrats... :lol:You're right. I'd like you to be wrong, but you're right. :bang:
Actor
11-20-2012, 03:04 AM
Hate to break it to you, but the USA is still a highly religious country.I'm not so sure.
It's hard to compile statistics on this question because you don't win any brownie points by declaring yourself an atheist or agnostic. It's not economically or politically advisable to go against what appears to be the religious grain. However, my gut feeling is that about half the population is not highly religious.
R rated movies full of profanity, the "F" word, violence and nudity are box office hits. Premarital sex is socially acceptable and being born out of wedlock no longer carries the stigma it carried fifty years ago. Actions speak louder than words.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 03:23 AM
Actually, they vote their pocket book over religion every time.
No, they don't. You are confusing churchgoers with the religious.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 03:32 AM
my gut feeling is that about half the population is not highly religious.
Less or more religious is like being slightly pregnant, although most won't admit to it. You either is or ain't. Less than 2 of 10 are serious about it.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 03:44 AM
Why? Do you know the exact age? We know its not 6000, 4.5 billion is the best guess, but that's not exact. So since he admits to not knowing what no human being knows its an automatic fail?
Because he didn't admit to knowing the world is absolutely, positively, NOT 6000 years old, that's why.
JustRalph
11-20-2012, 07:25 AM
Dave's right. Religion in politics is a joke. Obama received over 50 percent of the Catholic vote. Catholics are all talk, like most religions. When it comes down to it voters put religion last. That is plainly obvious in this last election.
Catholics and Jews voted for Obama. If they truly held any values that coincide with their religious tenets, no way that he gets one single vote from these religions. Religion in America is a multi act play performed every weekend for whatever the gate collection can pull in. Not unlike a million weekend shows at bars across America. Rock bands, dance bands, country bands, The best act gets to keep the most money.
By Sunday night everybody forgets the name of the band and dives back into their regular life. The only advantage Churches have is that often times the music is better at church
Not the kind of remark I would expect from one seeking the highest office in the world.
Automatic fail.
What would be a PASS?
Hint: this whole question has nothing to do with the government to begin with, nor the school systems. But other than that........what?
Ocala Mike
11-20-2012, 10:42 AM
Dems failed to take back the House.
How is that possible in light of this huge mandate?
Simple; GERRYMANDERING OF DISTRICTS! Florida and Texas lead the league in this.
But still, looking at the overwhelming mandate Obama got, what did he win by again, 90 - 10?
And shouldn't there be enough dems in the other areas?
And what about the other 48 states?
JustRalph
11-20-2012, 12:41 PM
Marion Barry giving away free Turkeys again today. Pictures posted on twitter of a line 3 blocks long.
He does this every year. 3 other DC council persons do it in their wards too
Giveaways........giveaways..............
lamboguy
11-20-2012, 01:20 PM
i have thought about this thread now since it began. i woke up at 4 this morning and turned on Fox News and saw a very mad O'Reilly crying out loud that the democrats bought this election. he had 2 people on that disagreed with him and all he did was yell at him. first of all i really think its tough for a republican to win because of people like O'Reilly and other Fox News personality's pumping their party all day long. that station is scaring real republicans away from voting for a republican candidate. more important, the republican's are not playing the geography game correctly by nominating the least likely candidates to do well due to geography.
looking ahead at the top 4 republican candidates for 2016, the one that has the very best chance to win an election against any democrat would be Paul Ryan. i have no idea if the republican party would even dare to chance it on him. there are other guys that would stand a shot that are not in the top 5 that could do very well. the country is going to need a good candidate from the republican partly like oxygen next time around.
johnhannibalsmith
11-20-2012, 02:27 PM
...best chance to win an election against any democrat would be Paul Ryan. ...
How do you figure? You might as well run Romney again. He's already guilty by association and represents pushing old people off a cliff, not caring about hispanohablantes and telling women what to do with their coochie. After reading the first 90% of your post, I'm amazed that this was the conclusion.
lamboguy
11-20-2012, 02:35 PM
How do you figure? You might as well run Romney again. He's already guilty by association and represents pushing old people off a cliff, not caring about hispanohablantes and telling women what to do with their coochie. After reading the first 90% of your post, I'm amazed that this was the conclusion.if you look back at my post you will see that i stressed the word geography. PauL Ryan comes from the center of the country. if you look back at the last 6 elections, the winner has come from a state somewhere in the middle of the country.
the only reason i mentioned Paul Ryan was that he is one of the leaders of the pack right now. Rob Portman is not that far behind, he would make a great candidate as well.
johnhannibalsmith
11-20-2012, 02:40 PM
if you look back at my post you will see that i stressed the word geography. PauL Ryan comes from the center of the country. if you look back at the last 6 elections, the winner has come from a state somewhere in the middle of the country.
...
But Ryan didn't even carry his own state. Either way, if I had to guess - it will be a woman, an hispanic, or a black. That's the direction the GOP pundits seem to think they need to head towards - worry secondarily about policy and platform and do whatever it takes to neuter the "angry white guy" stereotype that the Dems want to contort every issue into.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 02:41 PM
Hint: this whole question has nothing to do with the government to begin with, nor the school systems. But other than that........what?
Everything to do with government. The republican party is being held hostage by less than 20% of the electorate who believe in fairy tales. Someone needs to stand up to these idiots. Given his recent statements it's obvious Rubio ain't that guy.
JustRalph
11-20-2012, 02:42 PM
Everything to do with government. The republican party is being held hostage by less than 20% of the electorate who believe in fairy tales. Someone needs to stand up to these idiots. Given his recent statements it's obvious Rubio ain't that guy.
You're growing on me.........
lamboguy
11-20-2012, 02:49 PM
But Ryan didn't even carry his own state. Either way, if I had to guess - it will be a woman, an hispanic, or a black. That's the direction the GOP pundits seem to think they need to head towards - worry secondarily about policy and platform and do whatever it takes to neuter the "angry white guy" stereotype that the Dems want to contort every issue into.
Paul Ryan was at the bottom of the ticket. if he is on the top end i would love to lay 5-1 on him right now to carry Wisconsin.
elysiantraveller
11-20-2012, 02:55 PM
Everything to do with government. The republican party is being held hostage by less than 20% of the electorate who believe in fairy tales. Someone needs to stand up to these idiots. Given his recent statements it's obvious Rubio ain't that guy.
I'm not a big fan of him but Rand Paul is going to be that guy.
lsbets
11-20-2012, 03:07 PM
I'm not a big fan of him but Rand Paul is going to be that guy.
I like rand a hell of a lot more than his dad. He seems to understand the dynamics of playing nice with others. I think after he loses the nomination he will actually support the nominee and not have a tantrum that he is not the featured guy at the convention. He's basically a more grown up version of his father.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 03:21 PM
I'm not a big fan of him but Rand Paul is going to be that guy.
No. He's a whore for the Christian right just like all the rest. Calls himself a pro-life Christian. Welcomes endorsements from groups like "Concerned Women for America."
JustRalph
11-20-2012, 03:28 PM
Like some of RPauls positions, it's the delivery that sucks. And the haircut is right out of a Porky's movie
Ocala Mike
11-20-2012, 03:33 PM
So, no chance for the Republicans to come in out of the cold and put up this guy?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/10/19/jon-huntsman-says-the-gop-cant-be-the-anti-science-party
rastajenk
11-20-2012, 03:36 PM
His brand of Republicanism won't scour.
Everything to do with government. The republican party is being held hostage by less than 20% of the electorate who believe in fairy tales. Someone needs to stand up to these idiots. Given his recent statements it's obvious Rubio ain't that guy.
No, they need to ignore this stupid stuff and focus on the economy and national security.
Anything else is not important enough to be talked about at the federal level.
The ones who need to stood up to and told where to get off are the alleged press when then ask theses knucklehead questions.
TJDave
11-20-2012, 03:55 PM
No, they need to ignore this stupid stuff and focus on the economy and national security.
Ignoring stupid does not make it go away.
It assures that those we elect are stupids.
elysiantraveller
11-20-2012, 03:56 PM
So, no chance for the Republicans to come in out of the cold and put up this guy?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/10/19/jon-huntsman-says-the-gop-cant-be-the-anti-science-party
Don't get me started...
He was vilified around these parts. Made too much sense I guess.
Ocala Mike
11-20-2012, 04:03 PM
And shouldn't there be enough dems in the other areas?
And what about the other 48 states?
Here's a good article on the phenomenon:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 04:53 PM
looking ahead at the top 4 republican candidates for 2016, the one that has the very best chance to win an election against any democrat would be Paul Ryan.I was a huge fan of Ryan's up until this election.
He disappointed me greatly in the debate. He is way too mellow and intellectual for your average voter. They're gonna have to inject a personality into him if they expect him to do any damage in 2016.
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 04:58 PM
You're growing on me.........Held hostage by less than 20% of the electorate? What are you guys smoking?
WAY MORE than 20% of the electorate would label themselves as religious. Period, end of story.
Hell, minorities (black and Hispanic) comprise what? 25-30% of the electorate at this point? What percentage of this group would call themselves religious?
Then you have near 70% of America that is white. If even 50% of those people consider themselves religious (and I suspect the percentage is MUCH higher), then you're talking WAY MORE than 20% of the electorate.
A sizable number of repugs are anti-science. Big problem that must be dealt with
Unfortunately much of the base tends to go in that direction
/ZBy3MbP4WDo?
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/10/the-anti-scientists-on-the-house-science-committee.html
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 05:43 PM
A sizable number of repugs are anti-science.If you want me to take you seriously, you should probably revise your use of "anti-science."
Or else you'll have me picturing Republicans as something akin to Ted Kaczynski.
Or that might be your goal...who knows?
Robert Goren
11-20-2012, 06:02 PM
When you believe in creationism, you are going to be labeled anti-science. The far right religious zealots are hurting the GOP right now even though they only make a small part of the it.
Every time a big storm hits, the anti-global warming crowd takes a hit even if the storm could be not connected to it. The anti-global warming crowd can't win for losing.
The stem cell research issue also a losing one for the GOP. It probably causes most of the anti-science label being attached the GOP.
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 06:31 PM
If anybody has lost ground, it's been the "man causes global warming" crowd. That's a fact.
The "far-right zealots" are only hurting the GOP in the eyes of the "far-left loons."
Nobody else really gives a rat's ass. Although I guess in the realm of mainstream media bias, it is used effectively against the GOP, even though, as you say, it makes up a very tiny part of it...about as tiny as those on the left who believe George Bush/Dick Cheney were behind 9/11.
Funny...stuff like that never gets portrayed in the media...probably because the Dems who truly believe it are smart enough to keep their mouths shut.
If you want me to take you seriously, you should probably revise your use of "anti-science."
Or else you'll have me picturing Republicans as something akin to Ted Kaczynski.
Or that might be your goal...who knows?Huh? anti science is anti-science. Check out the video and seriously tell me that man (repug) is rational. Take me seriously when I say superstition ruins both science and religion, and most of everything else except fairy tales.
To wit our off topic house preacher
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 06:45 PM
Check out the video and seriously tell me that man (repug) is rational.I hope you have the balls to go to all the minorities the Democratic Party proudly declares are on "their side," and tell them their Bible, which they indeed do cling to (and I am not passing judgement on that like Obama has), is false.
Go ahead. You and the Democratic party should have the BALLS to be straight up with such a large swath of your support base.
Will you?
Or are you cowards?
TJDave
11-20-2012, 06:49 PM
I hope you have the balls to go to all the minorities the Democratic Party proudly declares are on "their side," and tell them their Bible, which they indeed do cling to (and I am not passing judgement on that like Obama has), is false.
Go ahead. You and the Democratic party should have the BALLS to be straight up with such a large swath of your support base.
Will you?
Or are you cowards?
I'll do it. You gotta pay me, though. ;)
IO guess you did not read my link.........
The anti-scientists on the House Science Committee
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012...-committee.html
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 06:56 PM
Link no worky.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/10/the-anti-scientists-on-the-house-science-committee.html
Try it again
Originally Posted by hcap
A sizable number of repugs are anti-science.
No, we just use REAL science.
btw, yo never did reply to my post a couple of years ago, where a huge number of GW temperature collection post failed to meet the proper protocol for measurement. Science 101 - if your measurement system is flawed, NO conclusions can be made from the flawed data.
Or as you guys call it,an inconvenient truth! :lol:
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 07:50 PM
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/10/the-anti-scientists-on-the-house-science-committee.html
Try it againI love how you and the author of the article you link to label these congressmen as "anti-science" or "anti-scientists."
This man, Broun, is a medical doctor. Are you telling me also that his particular brand of medicine that he practices is akin to a witchdoctor? Does he also not adhere to standards and practices set by the medical community in the United States? Is he at odds with the AMA?
No, he has stated differences with one or two scientific theories, but is immediately labeled ANTI-SCIENCE!!
You guys are a real trip. You expect me to take you seriously with these false monikers?
Like I said. Make anti-religion an official part of the Democratic platform, and then you can come at me like this without me coming right back at you and calling you a disingenuous hypocrite of the highest order.
But you would never advocate making anti-religion an official part of the Democratic platform, for fear of alienating your highly coveted and now highly-touted minority constituency.
Greyfox
11-20-2012, 07:51 PM
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/10/the-anti-scientists-on-the-house-science-committee.html
Try it again
Wouldn't believing everything Science has to say be the same pitfall that believing everything Religion is selling?
TJDave
11-20-2012, 07:58 PM
Wouldn't believing everything Science has to say be the same pitfall that believing everything Religion is selling?
Wouldn't believing everything Science has to say be the same pitfall that believing anything Religion is selling?
Greyfox
11-20-2012, 08:07 PM
Wouldn't believing everything Science has to say be the same pitfall that believing anything Religion is selling?
No....not for me at least. Without going in depth in this thread re: Religion, I'd have to say that I've had some very fortunate incidences in my life beyond coincidence.
And if you don't believe that, you might want to find a copy of Arthur Koestler's The Roots of Coincidence.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Roots-Coincidence-Arthur-Koestler/dp/0394719344
TJDave
11-20-2012, 08:32 PM
I've had some very fortunate incidences in my life beyond coincidence.
Without examining every possibility how would you know?
Beyond coincidence lies truth...eventually.
No, we just use REAL science.
btw, yo never did reply to my post a couple of years ago, where a huge number of GW temperature collection post failed to meet the proper protocol for measurement. Science 101 - if your measurement system is flawed, NO conclusions can be made from the flawed data.
Or as you guys call it,an inconvenient truth! :lol:
I did and now the Berkely group answered that once and for all.
And since satellite and oceanic temperature measurements back up the earth based measurements, it was moot then, and non-existent now
Btw, the fallacious augment about urban sensors was originated by a TV weatherman. Graduate of Faux Nooz University.
Graduated....... Summa cum a Tose :)
Wouldn't believing everything Science has to say be the same pitfall that believing everything Religion is selling?
Poor comparison. Besides you need it answered from on high.
You know who
I love how you and the author of the article you link to label these congressmen as "anti-science" or "anti-scientists."
This man, Broun, is a medical doctor. Are you telling me also that his particular brand of medicine that he practices is akin to a witchdoctor? Does he also not adhere to standards and practices set by the medical community in the United States? Is he at odds with the AMA?
No, he has stated differences with one or two scientific theories, but is immediately labeled ANTI-SCIENCE!!
You guys are a real trip. You expect me to take you seriously with these false monikers?
Like I said. Make anti-religion an official part of the Democratic platform, and then you can come at me like this without me coming right back at you and calling you a disingenuous hypocrite of the highest order.
But you would never advocate making anti-religion an official part of the Democratic platform, for fear of alienating your highly coveted and now highly-touted minority constituency.Man your denial has lasted THIS long after the election?
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 08:56 PM
Man your denial has lasted THIS long after the election?What kind of answer is that? I deny nothing. You won. Obama won. Great. Let's hope the country wins.
Now let's get back to the topic. Which is, your (and Dems) continued derision of religion and the men who believe in it...which of course includes a huge percentage of your coveted minority voting bloc.
When are you going to tell them they're all nuts and anti-science?
Now let's get back to the topic. Which is, your (and Dems) continued derision of religion and the men who believe in it...which of course includes a huge percentage of your coveted minority voting bloc.
Derision of religion? Bull. And you are just reaching for a get even point for defense and rebuttal. Those repug congress men are denying basic science.
Mañana
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 09:10 PM
Derision of religion? Bull. And you are just reaching for a get even point for defense and rebuttal. Those repug congress men are denying basic science.Bull? Reaching? I am slaying you at the moment in terms of exposing your cowardly hypocrisy.
They aren't denying basic science. They are expressing their religious beliefs, and last I looked, it was ok to have religious beliefs in the United States of America. In fact, some would rightly argue this country was founded on religion. One nation under God. Unalienable rights by our CREATOR. And all that jazz...
So, when are the "enlightened" Democrats going to COME CLEAN with their minority voting bloc and tell them they're all idiots for believing in such malarkey?
When are you going to tell them to stop clinging to their false Bible?
Buchan
11-20-2012, 09:37 PM
boy, how lucky am i to live in a country whose prime minister is a female, unmarried atheist, living in sin.
and the leader of the opposition is a devout catholic.
and religion is basically irrelevant as far as our politics go, as it should be.
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 10:37 PM
and religion is basically irrelevant as far as our politics go, as it should be.I agree. And I can't for the life of me wonder why so many people tend to fixate on it...I guess it's better than having to address the failures of their own preferred leaders...
Robert Goren
11-20-2012, 10:47 PM
I agree. And I can't for the life of me wonder why so many people tend to fixate on it...I guess it's better than having to address the failures of their own preferred leaders...Actually many people vote their religion beliefs. That why the pro life and pro choice endorsements are worth so much depending on where you living which one.
thaskalos
11-20-2012, 10:47 PM
I agree. And I can't for the life of me wonder why so many people tend to fixate on it...I guess it's better than having to address the failures of their own preferred leaders...
...or the stupidity of the also-rans... :)
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 10:51 PM
...or the stupidity of the also-rans... :)This makes no sense in the context of the current discussion...you realize that, right? :p
We have to assume they ARE addressing the stupidity of the also-rans precisely because they are fixating on religion... :bang:
thaskalos
11-20-2012, 10:56 PM
This makes no sense in the context of the current discussion...you realize that, right? :p
We have to assume they ARE addressing the stupidity of the also-rans precisely because they are fixating on religion... :bang:
Sorry...I don't know what I was thinking.
I'll try to keep to the topic at hand... :)
PaceAdvantage
11-20-2012, 10:57 PM
Sorry...I don't know what I was thinking.
I'll try to keep to the topic at hand... :)Just trying to keep you honest in the debate. :p
Greyfox
11-20-2012, 11:03 PM
Without examining every possibility how would you know?
Beyond coincidence lies truth...eventually.
Good question. :ThmbUp:
Beyond coincidence lies truth....eventually? On that we agree.
What is....IS.
In regards to your question, as to how would I know?
I have come to know, that I will never know.
TJDave
11-21-2012, 04:29 AM
I have come to know, that I will never know.
IMO, the most self-fulfilling, defeatist statement ever. Thankfully, men of science think otherwise.
Greyfox
11-21-2012, 07:29 AM
IMO, the most self-fulfilling, defeatist statement ever. Thankfully, men of science think otherwise.
You are obviously not a man of science.
Actually many people vote their religion beliefs. That why the pro life and pro choice endorsements are worth so much depending on where you living which one.
So you are saying the pro-abortion crowd has captured the heathen vote?
TJDave
11-21-2012, 02:40 PM
You are obviously not a man of science.
What are you suggesting?
No scientist worth his salt believes knowledge is finite.
Nothing is unknowable.
Greyfox
11-21-2012, 02:49 PM
What are you suggesting?
No scientist worth his salt believes knowledge is finite.
Nothing is unknowable.
Look. This is getting boring, off topic and I never suggested that.
Of course knowledge isn't finite.
In our lifetimes, yours and mine, some things will never be known. I know that.
You don't seem to understand that answers from "men of science" are tentative.
They are subject to change when more refined observations are made or competing empirically supported data appears.
When a scientist says that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old, he doesn't "know that." But off the best evidence available today, he has a degree of certainty that it is likely that old.
No scientist worth his salt would say dogmatically : "I know the earth is 4.54 billion years old."
He also has a degree of certainty that the earth is more than 9,000 years old. But he's not going to argue that he "knows that."
TJDave
11-21-2012, 03:27 PM
He also has a degree of certainty that the earth is more than 9,000 years old. But he's not going to argue that he "knows that."
Not with you, certainly. :faint:
You had me going until the very last. You and 'double six' are from the same pod. You shine up better, though.
Robert Goren
11-21-2012, 06:59 PM
So you are saying the pro-abortion crowd has captured the heathen vote?No
cosmo96
11-21-2012, 07:22 PM
Never underestmate the power of an incumbant president. This was Obama's biggest asset.
Robert Goren
11-21-2012, 07:31 PM
After giving considerable thought, I decide that Romney "bounced" off his win the primary. He did had a very high Beyer against a week field.:rolleyes:
Actor
11-22-2012, 03:21 AM
I said that before Mittens' statement about Obama buying off the vote.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt the first time. Thought it was clumsy, but just politics towards those who donated.
Not the second time. Looks like he really is an ass on a personal level.
Too bad BigMack had too leave. I'd love to hear his take :cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLo0Jwj03JU
Q.E.D.
Ocala Mike
11-22-2012, 08:35 AM
After giving considerable thought, I decide that Romney "bounced" off his win the primary. He did had a very high Beyer against a week field.:rolleyes:
Yep. He couldn't handle the rise in class. His running line would probably be "prominent early; eased, vanned off."
The election is over,
the talking is done.
My party lost,
your party won.
So let us be friends,
let arguments pass.
I'll hug my elephant,
you kiss your ass.
PaceAdvantage
11-22-2012, 10:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLo0Jwj03JU
Q.E.D.It's amazing that Massachusetts survived, isn't it? :rolleyes:
The election is over,
the talking is done.
My party lost,
your party won.
So let us be friends,
let arguments pass.
I'll hug my elephant,
you kiss your ass.
http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/312562/kos-89-teaser.jpg
BTW, as more votes are still being counted, The Dynamic Duo's share of the popular vote is now at 47.5%. As Romney/Ryan continue to drop in share, they are ironically approaching the magical 47% of those voters that Romney claimed considered themselves "victims" and expected governments "handouts"
God works in mysterious ways :cool:
Don't worry guys. BEING TOTALLY WRONG on the election and Obama is nothing to be ashamed about. Even the most preeminent seer who speaks with God on a regular basis, can be off a tad...........
"In January, televangelist Pat Robertson told 700 Club viewers that in his annual New Year’s “conversation” with God, the Almighty had revealed to him who the next president would be. Up through Election Day, Robertson harshly criticized President Obama and the Democratic Party while praising Mitt Romney. Then, Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network predicted a GOP sweep, leaving Robertson utterly confounded by Obama’s victory.
Today, responding to a question from a viewer who wondered why her business is struggling since she thought God told her it would be successful, Robertson admitted that he sometimes misses God’s message. “So many of us miss God, I won’t get into great detail about elections but I sure did miss it, I thought I heard from God, I thought I had heard clearly from God, what happened?” Robertson replied, “You ask God, how did I miss it? Well, we all do and I have a lot of practice.”
Capper Al
11-23-2012, 08:43 AM
The Republicans lost because for a moment Democracy worked. The angry white men's aspirations are not the aspirations of the country's majority.
Actor
11-23-2012, 09:51 AM
The Republicans lost because for a moment Democracy worked. The angry white men's aspirations are not the aspirations of the country's majority.True story.
A mathematician filled a jar with jelly beans. He then asked 160 people to estimate how many jelly beans were in the jar. Answers ranged from 400 to 50,000. He then computed the average guess, which turned out to be 4,514 and change. The actual number was 4,510. The crowd was off by less than 5 jelly beans.
So democracy works, at least as far a counting jelly beans goes.
The Republicans lost because for a moment Democracy worked. The angry white men's aspirations are not the aspirations of the country's majority.
Talk about yer BS!
Angry white men - you are very small person, AL, very small.
And you argument defines your gross ignorance.
Don't bother replying - you have now met my criteria for IGNORE - too stupid to bother with.
thaskalos
11-23-2012, 10:18 AM
True story.
A mathematician filled a jar with jelly beans. He then asked 160 people to estimate how many jelly beans were in the jar. Answers ranged from 400 to 50,000. He then computed the average guess, which turned out to be 4,514 and change. The actual number was 4,510. The crowd was off by less than 5 jelly beans.
So democracy works, at least as far a counting jelly beans goes.
It doesn't just work with jelly beans; it works remarkably well at the race track too.
Although at first glance the majority of the horseplayers appear misguided and misinformed...when they pool their handicapping talents, they are able to accomplish something that no handicapper alive can accomplish individually.
Collectively, not only does their top choice win a remarkable percentage of the time...but their second choice wins more than their third choice...who, in turn, wins more than their fourth choice...who wins more than their fifth choice...all the way down the line. And this is while handicapping every single race on the card.
A truly remarkable achievement!
Collectively, not only does their top choice win a remarkable percentage of the time...but their second choice wins more than their third choice...who, in turn, wins more than their fourth choice...who wins more than their fifth choice...all the way down the line. And this is while handicapping every single race on the card.
How many of them phone in their bets on their Obama-Phones? :lol:
thaskalos
11-23-2012, 10:38 AM
How many of them phone in their bets on their Obama-Phones? :lol:
Hey...don't laugh.
At least they predicted the winner of the election...which was something out of the reach of most of the "enlightened" members around here...:)
Yes, and ow they will all get a real-world taste of the "take."
HUSKER55
11-23-2012, 11:12 AM
TOM, we have already experienced "the take"
that was the first 4 years.
This is good money chasing bad
TOM, we have already experienced "the take"
that was the first 4 years.
This is good money chasing bad
OMG! You are correct.
What we face now is the "break!"
thaskalos
11-23-2012, 11:14 AM
If GW Bush deserved 8 years...so does Obama.
JustRalph
11-23-2012, 11:17 AM
True story.
A mathematician filled a jar with jelly beans. He then asked 160 people to estimate how many jelly beans were in the jar. Answers ranged from 400 to 50,000. He then computed the average guess, which turned out to be 4,514 and change. The actual number was 4,510. The crowd was off by less than 5 jelly beans.
So democracy works, at least as far a counting jelly beans goes.
What race were the people and were there any black Jelly Beans, would probably be a better corollary
Greyfox
11-23-2012, 11:50 AM
It doesn't just work with jelly beans; it works remarkably well at the race track too.
Although at first glance the majority of the horseplayers appear misguided and misinformed...when they pool their handicapping talents, they are able to accomplish something that no handicapper alive can accomplish individually.
Collectively, not only does their top choice win a remarkable percentage of the time...but their second choice wins more than their third choice...who, in turn, wins more than their fourth choice...who wins more than their fifth choice...all the way down the line. And this is while handicapping every single race on the card.
A truly remarkable achievement!
It is indeed remarkable and over time quite consistent.
The most likely horse in any race to beat your pick is the favorite.
Having said that, it is NOT THE MAJORITY OF HORSEPLAYERS who are pooling their talents.
IT IS THE MONEY THAT THE HORSEPLAYERS ARE BETTING.
If horse players were not allowed to see the odds lines, tote board, or hype about horses, I think that you would find a large number are misguided and misinformed.
Capper Al
11-23-2012, 12:04 PM
Talk about yer BS!
Angry white men - you are very small person, AL, very small.
And you argument defines your gross ignorance.
Don't bother replying - you have now met my criteria for IGNORE - too stupid to bother with.
You sound angry.
badcompany
11-23-2012, 12:25 PM
Hey...don't laugh.
At least they predicted the winner of the election...which was something out of the reach of most of the "enlightened" members around here...:)
I guess it's true that the winners get to write history:
Here's what Ralph and I said over a year ago:
I work with the public every day. I am convinced Obama is 9/5 to win again.
Sadly, I have to agree with your first point, but for a different reason. A rotten jobs market favors the Dems, not because they have a clue on how to get the economy back on track, but because they're more likely to favor Government handouts like extended unemployment bennys.
Regarding the Republican candidates, while they all are certainly an improvement over Obama, I'm not confident that the likely nominee Romney will get it done. IMO, the person who had the best shot of beating Obama, Sarah Palin, isn't in the race.
Bottom line, I think Ralph's Morning Line is on the money.
fast4522
11-23-2012, 03:16 PM
If GW Bush deserved 8 years...so does Obama.
I agree with you only because he won. He started class warfare as a platform in his first term, as we start his second term we should engage this class warfare to the point that all self respecting socialists want to leave and go to Europe by the end of his second term. Be very careful for what you wish, hate will grow with those 20 trillion dollars.
thaskalos
11-23-2012, 03:41 PM
I guess it's true that the winners get to write history:
Here's what Ralph and I said over a year ago:
Please note that I didn't say "ALL of the enlightened members"...
I said "most"...:)
Greyfox
11-23-2012, 04:22 PM
Please note that I didn't say "ALL of the enlightened members"...
I said "most"...:)
It's interesting how our perceptions on who would win differ.
There definitely were a large number of contributors here who had no use for Obama and his policies.
Most of them did not say Romney would win, they hoped he would.
bigmack and a few others predicted Obama would go down. Let me emphasize "a few."
"Most" were just hoping and knew that it would be an upset if Romney could pull it off.
badcompany
11-23-2012, 04:25 PM
Please note that I didn't say "ALL of the enlightened members"...
I said "most"...:)
I did note that. From what I saw, there was one guy, Big Mack, who was supremely confident in Romney, a few wishful thinkers, but the majority was realistic about the race.
That's why this thread is so silly. HCAP acts as though we were shocked and confused by the outcome, when, in fact, we predicted it all along.
I did note that. From what I saw, there was one guy, Big Mack, who was supremely confident in Romney, a few wishful thinkers, but the majority was realistic about the race.
That's why this thread is so silly. HCAP acts as though we were shocked and confused by the outcome, when, in fact, we predicted it all along.
Please don't insult us by saying it was only a few, and "we only hoped". Only one guy may have been bonkers all out, but quite a few were pretty confident.
A large portion of the righties here and out there in Faux Nooz TP'ers wacko land, and more importantly many apparently rational repugs bought it.
In any case I am no longer pounding you guys about the fiasco. Just a minor occaisional twisting of the knife is sufficient
thaskalos
11-23-2012, 04:52 PM
It is indeed remarkable and over time quite consistent.
The most likely horse in any race to beat your pick is the favorite.
Having said that, it is NOT THE MAJORITY OF HORSEPLAYERS who are pooling their talents.
IT IS THE MONEY THAT THE HORSEPLAYERS ARE BETTING.
If horse players were not allowed to see the odds lines, tote board, or hype about horses, I think that you would find a large number are misguided and misinformed.
It is true, of course, that the tote board represents dollars rather than people...but it is still remarkable that it takes both "smart" money AND "dumb" money to get the handicapping results that the "public" has been able to register, for many years now.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.