Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 241 to 260 of 260

Thread: The US Presidential Election 2: Revenge of the US Presidential Election

  1. #241
    Bronze Party-Goer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 86 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    The people voted to elected an extreme left wing politician, twice.
    On what political spectrum? I don't see how Obama could possibly be extremely left-wing considering that the conservative parties in other countries are sometimes more liberal than Obama is (think about European countries, Canada, Australia).

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Gemini9857 For This Useful Post:

    shipperx (13-12-12)

  3. #242
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini9857 View Post
    On what political spectrum? I don't see how Obama could possibly be extremely left-wing considering that the conservative parties in other countries are sometimes more liberal than Obama is (think about European countries, Canada, Australia).
    On the only spectrum that actually matters in The U.S.? What other countries consider conservative and liberal is up to them and has no bearing on this country.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  4. #243
    Renegade Angel Cinderela's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Mystic
    Posts
    641
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 26 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    The people voted to elected an extreme left wing politician, twice.

    You misunderstand what I mean by deserve. It is a neutral statement that can indicate either good or bad results coming from either good or bad actions. I believe the majority of our electorate is uninformed.And honestly if 53% of this country still believe Bush is to blame for whats happening now, thats a pretty clear indicator. I didn't make those numbers up, they are from the exit polls. 4 years into his presidency and people still want to give Obama a pass. We will see in a few years just how much of those uninformed voted to re-elect Obama.

    If Republicans become involved in whats going on right now and things don't improve, they will share some of the blame. If they steer clear then it's all on the other party. It's smart politics, the same way that smearing Romney/Ryan during the campaign was. It's like playing a game of tug of war. The other side winds up with more players and they are slowing moving your side toward the line, so what do you do? You let go of the rope and let their momentum land them flat on their butts of course.
    IMHO, that only shows more people voted NOT!Romney than voted NOT!Obama. I have no love of Obama, as I've stated over and over. However, there is no way I could vote for Romney. Perhaps I am one of the uninformed that remembers more than 4 years of history. What you view a "smearing" of Romney I view as FACTS. He did flip flop on every issue you can name. He DID put Americans out of work by closing *profitable* plants and sending the jobs to China, in the name of larger profit margins. He DIDN'T release his tax returns, when every other Presidential candidate did and has for decades. And so on and so on.

    Now, as for the last 4 years - no presidency exists in a vacuum. For good or for bad, any President must deal with the actions of former Presidents. I've been saying for years that ALL taxes would have to increase, because the military action in the Middle East has to be paid for somehow. And *public* obstructionist action by the Republicans did NOTHING to improve our economic situation. Since it was money spent by former President Bush and the Republicans decided that party loyalty was more important than the economic recovery of the entire country, I don't think it's delusional to "give Obama a pass", as you call it. I view it as taking more than 4 years to ATTEMPT TO START FIXING what took 8 or more years to break.

    There is plenty of blame to go around to both parties. But pointing fingers and blame only take energy and time away from working *together* to overcome the obstacles we face now. But it seems solving our problems is not the goal, it seems getting/keeping POWER is the goal. Frankly, I'm sick of the entire bunch of them. That's one reason people don't vote - they don't feel voters have any influence on the eventual outcome.
    Last edited by Cinderela; 10-11-12 at 10:48 PM. Reason: clarity

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cinderela For This Useful Post:

    BuffySpike (10-11-12),shipperx (13-12-12),vampmogs (10-11-12)

  6. #244
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    I could tell you the real reason for the economic collapse, but no one wants to hear that it was actually put in motion during the Clinton administration.

    You are criticizing Romney for doing knowing how to make money, which is exactly the kind of expertise we need right now? Obama has of seedy thing about him and yet no one seemed to care about that. If you are looking for the perfect candidate you're going to be looking forever, because there is no such thing. Romney however was the lesser of two evils, and that's what politics is usually about anymore.

    Like I said, you get the government you deserve, so we'll see in a few years if voting for Obama was the choice that deserves a positive outcome.
    Last edited by PointMan; 10-11-12 at 10:29 PM.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  7. #245
    Bronze Party-Goer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 86 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    On the only spectrum that actually matters in The U.S.? What other countries consider conservative and liberal is up to them and has no bearing on this country.
    We're not isolationists and we haven't been for a while, we have to interact with the rest of the world (we belong to NATO & the UN) and economically we live in a global economy. We can't just cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, we should pay attention to what other countries are doing and what's they've tried to see what has worked and what hasn't. I don't think we should be falling behind the rest of the Western world.

    The political spectrum hasn't really changed - Communism has been the the extreme left for a while now (and the extreme right is Fascism). Obama is pretty close to the center, just a little bit to the left.
    Last edited by Gemini9857; 11-11-12 at 12:33 AM.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gemini9857 For This Useful Post:

    BlasterBoy (12-11-12),shipperx (13-12-12)

  9. #246
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini9857 View Post
    The political spectrum hasn't really changed - Communism has been the the extreme left for a while now (and the extreme right is Fascism). Obama is pretty close to the center, just a little bit to the left.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/us...ewanted=2&_r=1

    It's funny how I check several different sites for this story and they all happen to have articles praising Obama and attacking Republicans. According to the article I linked, he hasn't simply kicked his campaign staff to the curb.

    Here's another one, a story the press won't report on.

    This morning on radio Glenn gave a preview of what you can expect to see on Friday’s program. He shared a story of a V.A. hospital in Boston that Mitt Romney stopped at while on the campaign trail running against Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy had made a thirty minute top at the same location a couple of weeks prior.

    After touring the V.A. hospital, Mitt asked to look at their books. After he spent forty minutes going through their books, he told them, “You run a very good place, very tight. Very good.” Romney asked to go on another tour of the hospital, and after spending an hour and forty minutes there, the last question he asked was, “So what… what do you ‑‑ what are you lacking? What do you need help with?”

    The response? “Milk.”

    Since the press was around, snapping photos and asking questions, Glenn explained that Romney did a really awkward joke where he said, “maybe we should teach everyone here how to milk a cow.”
    Advertisement

    Of course, that’s all the press cared to hear and ran with a story that claims “Mitt Romney says veterans should have to milks cows.”

    “This is where it gets good,” Glenn started. “Romney calls him up the next morning.”

    Romney first apologizes to the man who runs the hospital for any problems the attention from the press jumping on his words brought to the hospital. He next offers to help with the milks situation.

    “Friday comes, and the milkman comes,” Glenn continues. “This is what the vets needed – they needed 7,000 pints of milk a week. Milkman shows up, 7,000 pints. The head of the V.A. hospital asks, “Where did all this come from?” He [the milkman] said “an anonymous donor.” Now, the guy didn’t put it together.”

    Glenn explains that when the next week rolled around, the milkman shows up again, and continued to show up every week for two years. After two years of delivering 7,000 pints of milk a week to the hospital, as the milkman is retiring, the man finally gets him to reveal the anonymous donor.

    It’s Mitt Romney.

    “Mitt Romney was writing a personal check and didn’t want anybody to know for two years and provided the vets with all of their milk in Boston,” Glenn explained to listeners this morning.

    When Romney became governor, he sent a bill through to help the V.A. hospital – it was down to the dollar. This man told Glenn, “if you want a mechanic on the economy? It’s this guy. He [Mitt Romney] went and he looked at the books first. He wanted to see what we were doing and how effective we were. He said then, beyond that, the milk. He did that and he didn’t want anything ‑‑ he didn’t want anyone to know.”


    Yeah, the guy is a real cheap skate.
    Last edited by PointMan; 11-11-12 at 12:52 AM.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  10. #247
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,532
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,611 Times in 1,698 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    I agree it's unfortunate that the history can't just be forgotten now. But unfortunately the world doesn't work that way. The Republicans need to build up trust, and they shouldn't complain if that takes a while. Indeed, it'll only slow down the process if they *do* complain. Fair or not, humility is the best way to go here. Don't defend against the charge. Just move forward and do the right thing.
    Hard not to defend against a charge so manifestly and provably false, so slanderous. What actually happens is that the essential ideological difference between left and right in this country -- the former's disdain and the latter's reverence for individualism, self-reliance, and the sticky chaos of true economic liberty -- is simply defined down as racism, because calling something racist is almost always a choice to intellectually disengage from serious response.

    So, when the Great Society abjectly destroyed the nuclear African American family in barely more than a generation, and the political right said "maybe this was a bad idea", they are branded racist because they are going to take away some goodies that minorities are disproportionately relying on. That the goodies in question are poisonous, toxic things is irrelevant; if you want to take them away, you're racist. That's how Republicans became the party of "racism" despite all objective evidence related to what the word actually means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cinderela View Post
    And I applaud anyone for wanting to spread the influence of their faith around. But the vehicle of that influence is your church, not the legislature. The Tea Party has tarred all Republicans with the same ugly brush.
    The Tea Party has only ever been tarred, dishonestly, with the ugly brush. Outright lies like spitting on a Congressman, all this reported violence, when in real life, Tea Party rallies end with people politely policing up their own trash, and not with, as for instance, people defecating in the street and vandalizing stores and vehicles, which has been the daily norm at Occupy sites like Oakland and Manhattan.

    The reason I posted the Santelli rant was to remind what the Tea Party itself actually was -- a revolt against meddling in the economy to the extent where the role of government seemed to be to immunize people from their own bad investments and decisions, both personally and at the corporate level. What is racist about that? It applies to everyone.

    Of course it’s different! The difference is Catholic affiliated *institutions* offering *institutional* health insurance that covers ALL prescription drugs equally VS forcing any ONE INDIVIDUAL to practice against their faith.
    Institutions are the people that make them up, the person who has to cut the check.

    Which is all I am asking: adoption or marriage be legally recognized in all 50 states equally. That I have to travel to another state to be married is one thing. (I don’t like it, but it is what it is.) The state I reside in must be required to recognize it as a legal union.



    But if I am married in OH, I must be married in Alabama, or everything falls apart. I don’t see how DOMA is not going to be struck down by SCOTUS.
    First of all, marriage is different in all 50 states. What constitutes a valid union, required witnesses, required age, what the rules are governing divorce, etc. 50 states, 50 answers. So, again, let's pretend DOMA isn't there. The Full, Faith and Credit requirement in the Constitution does not say that if a couple get married in New York under New York rules, and Florida has to recognize it, that Florida has to also adopt New York's rules. It means that a marriage valid in New York has to be treated as valid in Florida. Same with a driver's license.

    Now, let's put DOMA back in and think of it as only what it is in constitutional law terms -- it's a Congressionally determined exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause. Now, there are exceptions all around. For instance, a medical license in New York, or a law license, does not license you to practice these things in another state unless those states have independently agreed to let their respective licensing agencies (like the state bar associations) recognize reciprocity. So, with DOMA, you basically have marriage carved out as an exception where by it's in a state's discretion.

    I'm not really inclined to defend DOMA, since ultimately I think DOMA conflicts with my new vision for how conservatives/libertarians need to approach governance by reclaiming federalism, but I wanted to explain what it actually is/does.

    What is policy for except to govern individuals? What else drives policy? That sounds like “Let’s leave “people” out of making rules that govern and control “people”. That just makes everything messy.” Real people are what drives policy and policy changes. Otherwise, what’s the point?
    The point is, a personal, individual tragedy (i.e. "but my dog will die if we pass the new food standards for dog food bill") is not a reasonable argument to direct policy that will apply to millions of people, indefinitely. I got into this with a friend over education, he tried to bring his mother's job (a teacher) into it, and I pointed out to him "y'know, I could try to make an issue of how Obamacare affects my parents and basically make it out so if you disagree with me you're being mean to my parents, but it wouldn't be a real argument in favor of my side". Yes, my best friend is a true blue bleeding heart, and our answer is to just rarely talk about stuff like that.

    This budget crisis wasn’t created overnight and we won’t solve it and climb out of the hole overnight, either. And the so called “fiscal cliff”, IMHO is being over exaggerated. TEMPORARY tax cuts will expire. The resulting taxes won’t be as high as they were when the Republican Idol Reagan was in office. Also, the CBO has already determined letting tax cuts expire on the “1%”would have little effect on the economy.
    The top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%, the top marginal rate on Jan 1 will go back up to 39.6%.

    Actually, the "little effect" goes both ways, which makes one wonder what there is behind it other than a compulsion to punish the rich. Raising the top marginal rate on those making over $250,000 a year would raise $56 billion in 2013... against a budget deficit that will be around $1.5 trillion. It's beans, it accomplishes nothing.

    I’ve heard enough of “dependent on government” during this election season to last me the rest of my life. So my elderly parents that bought into the system, worked all their lives and are now living on a Ford pension + social security are somehow the reason for this financial crisis? (Another reason I didn’t vote Romney – yes, the auto industry went bankrupt. But there *was* no private money to “bail out” the auto industry. It was the government or nothing. Romney wanted to strip all the assets, including pension funds & “privitaze” it. His words – NYT op-ed.) That’s a load of crap. Government subsidies to Fortune 500 corporations take far more money out of the equation than all the social security & Medicaid enrollees combined.
    And the alternative is what? Let people that have lost their homes along with everything else they have be homeless & hungry? I’m sorry if I can’t agree with that. Or with *ME* having to find some kind of healthcare with a “voucher” when I retire? Again, I realize a *personal* argument isn’t what you were looking for, but this policy is personal to *me*. It’s not an ideal or a philosophy. It’s the reality of my life we are discussing here.
    Your parents, and mine, were scammed just as much as a Madoff investor was scammed, because Social Security is exactly the same sort of con; it depends on additional investors to pay existing ones. Which is great, if there are enough of them to cover the bill, but there aren't.

    As for dependence on the government... look, in his second term, George Bush proposed taking 2% of people's income, out of the 14% of it that is their social security tax, and letting them have it to invest and control themselves. Higher risk, higher reward, but their money, not money that they had to hope there would be enough saps around later to take it from. Just a meager pittance of what they were still paying into SS for use in the regular way.

    And given the choice between taking ownership for their own retirement and their own money, even to such a modest degree, and leaving it up to the government, America chose the latter. That is nothing if not dependence on government, on wanting someone else to relieve the burden of making serious plans and choices for themselves. That is when I think I saw the writing on the wall for individual self-reliance, unfortunately.

    And the theory is that NOT helping or offering any ideas relieves Republicans of any responsibility or credit for the outcome. That’s hardly the level of maturity I expect from our Senate or House.
    Philosophically, any and all conservative ideas are going to tend toward reducing the role of government, the growth of government. And all those ideas have been rejected out of hand. What is the point of offering them again for continued rejection?

    I don't expect maturity from Congress anymore. The Senate is three years without the self-respect to even pass a budget, even one of their own to take to conference with the House. If that's not immaturity, nothing is.

    Yes, he will. Because he has a mandate from WE THE PEOPLE to “go of the cliff” if he has to. The Republicans tried to suppress the CBO study. The gazillionaires that tried to “buy” this election via Republican candidates won’t let them back down on this. If *I* were one of that gazillionaire group, I wouldn’t either, again because it’s *personal* to them.
    Well, if his reelection was a mandate for him, weren't the House Republicans also given a mandate?

    Also, the “obstructionism” is NOT a moot point. It was an agreement to make Obama a one term president -- an agreement that was public, in complete ignorance of how it would appear to voters. It was passing 55 bills regarding women’s healthcare and NOT ONE JOBS bill. Of course the Senate wasn’t going to pass them. The VETERANS JOB ACT was particularly appalling to me. Again, because that was *PERSONAL*. My husband and son are veterans.
    I honestly want to pull my hair out when people go on and on about how mean or (of course) racist it is that the GOP wanted Obama to be a one-term President. I mean, I would really love to know when all these other times where when the party without control of the White House was indifferent to or ambivalent about whether the other party kept control of it. In what alternate reality did the Bush or Clinton or Reagan or any of the 39 Presidents before him have an opposition party that was pretty comfortable with the idea of them having a second term? It's comical to suggest there was anything new about the GOP not wanting Obama reelected. The only President who even might have had that kind of comfort zone was George Washington.

    I wouldn’t expect the Republicans to give up power entirely. God only knows we don’t need a *one* party system. Although, I do need to give some thought to a NO party system. Why should voters be limited to only two viable candidates? I’m sure history will have something to say about that theory, but I have to do some studying…………..it’s interesting.
    I've wanted for a long time for candidates not to be identified by party affiliation on ballots.

    For the record, in Florida, there were 12 Presidential tickets on the ballot.

    Banner by LRae12

  11. #248
    Bronze Party-Goer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 86 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    For the record, in Florida, there were 12 Presidential tickets on the ballot.
    Here Jill Stein & Gary Johnson made the ballot. But they get such small percentages of the vote. I know Maine & Vermont are the only two states that voted someone who wasn't a Democrat or Republican into office, it would be nice if other states were also willing to do that.

    So many people are not willing to vote for a third-party though and they tell others that if the do vote that way that they are wasting their vote. Mitt Romney got 58,562,476 votes, Gary Johnson only got 1,190,496 (.97% of the vote) and Jill Stein had even fewer at 420,064 (.34% of the vote). The third-party candidates are also excluded from the debates and I think just don't really have much support overall.

    Going forward one thing I think the Republican Party is going to need to get away from is the horrendous comments that were made by Republicans in office regarding rape. I doubt that all Republicans would agree with some of the comments that were made, but I was certainly put-off by them and I bet a lot of other people were as well.

    I was thrilled to see that Richard Murdock & Todd Akin were not re-elected. Murdock recently stated, "The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God – that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Akin's comments were even worse and just factually incorrect, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

  12. #249
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini9857 View Post
    "The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God – that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Akin's comments were even worse and just factually incorrect, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
    Akin's remarks were definitely out of line. What you posted from Murdock however, well Christians believe that good things can come from tragedies. Life is full of such examples. It isn't a feel good statement though, which is what alot of people seem to want anymore. He certainly isn't condoning rape.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  13. #250
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,532
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,611 Times in 1,698 Posts

    Default

    Yeah, Akin was a fruit loop, and I was amazed that I never even heard him clarify whether his mistake was saying that bit about women's bodies shutting down reproduction or if his mistake was actually believing it, because to actually believe something so asinine would be humiliating. I will admit, though, the criticism over the "legitimate rape" part was a bit unfair; it's clear in context he's talking about forcible rape as opposed to, for instance, statutory rape, which, being defined solely by statute and not by subjective consent or violence, is not something the human body could tell apart from just normal sex. He just chose a remarkably tactless and insensitive adjective to make that distinction.

    But the Mourdock remarks... I balk at condemning anyone for operating under an opening premise as legitimate as "life is a gift from God" or "all life is precious". It's not to say, ever, that rape is a good thing, but rather to recoil from the inverse implication that a child of such is born somehow outside the sight of God, or in secular terms, as morally inferior, unloved, unloveable, or defective qua herself. I don't believe that at all, it sounds... cruel. I mean, for demonstration, I try to imagine someone having a conversation in which they express outrage at Mourdock's remarks to an actual child of a rape -- "can you believe the nerve of that Mourdock, thinking that someone like you were a gift from God?" I mean, nobody would actually say that, would they?

    I'm personally uncomfortable, for that reason, with the premise of rape/incest exceptions. I've never really had a problem with "life of the mother" because, to me, at that point it's not "A is a life, B is not", it's "A is the patient than can be saved, B is not". But again, my new sensability is that this all falls under 50 states, 50 answers -- just like every state can have different statutes over permissible and impermissible circumstances in which human life can be ended, different privileges and exceptions. The federal constitution is totally silent on human reproduction, as it is on marriage, and that should be taken as a message that the federal government takes no position.

    Banner by LRae12

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to KingofCretins For This Useful Post:

    PointMan (11-11-12)

  15. #251
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The federal constitution is totally silent on human reproduction, as it is on marriage, and that should be taken as a message that the federal government takes no position.
    My friend Dave, who is a liberal btw, actually had a very good answer to this problem. He said we should have the government stay out of marriage period. Let everything be a civil union, and let the churches fight it out over what is and isn't a marriage. I think he's right that that is the way to go.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  16. #252
    Bronze Party-Goer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 86 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    My friend Dave, who is a liberal btw, actually had a very good answer to this problem. He said we should have the government stay out of marriage period. Let everything be a civil union, and let the churches fight it out over what is and isn't a marriage. I think he's right that that is the way to go.
    I think anything not being in the Constitution makes it a state issue, not a religious one. All the states have their own marriage laws and always have, some allow gay marriage now and others don't. Some states have common law marriage, but a lot don't. I don't think the Federal Government should be involved at all in marriage. The reason some states have gay marriage now is that the people who live in that state voted for it. I think eventually it'll be passed in all the states, but it may be a while.

    I do think the Federal Government sometimes gets into issues that are not designated to them in the Constitution and without a Constitutional Amendment those issues should be left up to the states.

  17. #253
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini9857 View Post
    I think anything not being in the Constitution makes it a state issue, not a religious one. All the states have their own marriage laws and always have, some allow gay marriage now and others don't. Some states have common law marriage, but a lot don't. I don't think the Federal Government should be involved at all in marriage. The reason some states have gay marriage now is that the people who live in that state voted for it. I think eventually it'll be passed in all the states, but it may be a while.

    I do think the Federal Government sometimes gets into issues that are not designated to them in the Constitution and without a Constitutional Amendment those issues should be left up to the states.
    I'm not talking about the law. Make everything a civil union. But marriage has always been a religious institution and so it makes sense to settle it there. It should make everyone happy, since it keeps religion out of the government and keeps it in the churches. It's a compromise, and unless both sides are willing to compromise its going to be a back and forth tug of war forever.

    I doubt it will be passed in all the states. Texas is likely to never pass gay marriage and their are multiple other, more conservative states where the values haven't really changed nearly as much as they have in the rest of the country.
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  18. #254
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,152
    Thanks
    1,563
    Thanked 7,108 Times in 2,171 Posts

    Default

    Marriage hasn't always been a religious institution. It actually predates religion and was once nothing more than a business contract. In Ancient Rome and Greece religion played no part in marriage at all and it wasn't until the early Christian era that people started using Bishops and incorporating religion into the ceremony. Even then, it has changed a remarkable amount over the years and this graph here shows the evolution of marriage just throughout the Bible.

    Plenty of people get married now and don't include religion whatsoever. That's why it's always been quite illogical when people say that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because "the church is against it" because not only does marriage predate religion, but straight people are perfectly free to get married outside of the church.

    Christianity certainly does not have a monopoly on marriage and it can claim no ownership of the word. I don't think the solution is to scrap "marriage" all together and just have civil unions for all people. There should be no reason why the term can't remain and that the same rights straight people have to get married outside of the church simply can't be extended to same-sex couples too.
    Last edited by vampmogs; 11-11-12 at 09:46 AM.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to vampmogs For This Useful Post:

    Andrew (11-11-12)

  20. #255
    Graveyard Patrol BuffySpike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    392
    Thanks
    383
    Thanked 185 Times in 127 Posts

    Default

    KingofCretins, may I ask if you are religious?

    Also PointMan are you religious?
    Bonehead, carrot top, shirty & dope
    the nonsensical vocabulary of Buffy and Spike

  21. #256
    Renegade Angel Cinderela's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Mystic
    Posts
    641
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 26 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    I could tell you the real reason for the economic collapse, but no one wants to hear that it was actually put in motion during the Clinton administration.
    Actions and reactions are the cause of everything, since the beginning of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    You are criticizing Romney for doing knowing how to make money, which is exactly the kind of expertise we need right now? Obama has of seedy thing about him and yet no one seemed to care about that. If you are looking for the perfect candidate you're going to be looking forever, because there is no such thing. Romney however was the lesser of two evils, and that's what politics is usually about anymore.
    GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PROFIT MAKING ENDEAVOR. Clearly Romney knows how to make profits for his investors. It’s just as clear he does not care who is hurt in the process. Hardly a personality trait I would vote for in a Presidential candidate. Of course there is no perfect candidate, as I’ve said over and over. That I have to vote for the lesser of two evils is insane to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    Here's another one, a story the press won't report on.
    What “press” would you be referring to? Clearly you found the story. Personally, I find Glenn Beck to be an extreme nut case and would never read anything published by him. I’ve never said Romney doesn’t care about *anyone*. I’ve said that there is too big a group of Americans he views with distain and beneath his time or effort. That’s by his actions and words, not by any “media bias”.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Hard not to defend against a charge so manifestly and provably false, so slanderous. What actually happens is that the essential ideological difference between left and right in this country -- the former's disdain and the latter's reverence for individualism, self-reliance, and the sticky chaos of true economic liberty -- is simply defined down as racism, because calling something racist is almost always a choice to intellectually disengage from serious response.
    I’ve never accused the Republican Party of being racist. I don’t believe they are. However, I don’t see them denouncing the extremists within the party, either. I personally heard a long time friend of my family, a long time Mississippi resident, say “We’ve got to get that (insert bad “n” word here) out of the White House". Both parties need to be harshly against the wack job elements at work in their organizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The Tea Party has only ever been tarred, dishonestly, with the ugly brush. Outright lies like spitting on a Congressman, all this reported violence, when in real life, Tea Party rallies end with people politely policing up their own trash, and not with, as for instance, people defecating in the street and vandalizing stores and vehicles, which has been the daily norm at Occupy sites like Oakland and Manhattan.
    I’ve never heard any of the examples you listed. What I meant was their “my way or else” philosophies. As has been referenced by more people than me in this thread, I view them to be anti woman in the extreme. I will work tirelessly to stop their social policies from being legislated. I would always be willing to work towards compromise on fiscal issues – I will NEVER be willing to compromise on my personal freedom. I don’t see why they can’t see the hypocrisy of “less is more, smaller government is the goal”, yet continue to try to pass legislation eroding my personal freedoms. Government small enough to fit in my uterus is what I see the Tea Party advocating.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Institutions are the people that make them up, the person who has to cut the check.
    People have civil rights, not institutions. Under this philosophy, since I don’t like my money paying to continued military action, I shouldn’t be made to pay for it, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The Full, Faith and Credit requirement in the Constitution does not say that if a couple get married in New York under New York rules, and Florida has to recognize it, that Florida has to also adopt New York's rules. It means that a marriage valid in New York has to be treated as valid in Florida. Same with a driver's license.
    I’m fine with that. But a legal union from one state must be recognized as a legal union in another state. Exactly like a drivers license.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The point is, a personal, individual tragedy (i.e. "but my dog will die if we pass the new food standards for dog food bill") is not a reasonable argument to direct policy that will apply to millions of people, indefinitely.
    Again, I ask why “people” aren’t relevant to forming a policy to govern “people.”

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Actually, the "little effect" goes both ways, which makes one wonder what there is behind it other than a compulsion to punish the rich. Raising the top marginal rate on those making over $250,000 a year would raise $56 billion in 2013... against a budget deficit that will be around $1.5 trillion. It's beans, it accomplishes nothing.
    Paying taxes is a punishment? I totally agree. And just like my own personal budget, you have to start somewhere. Revenue & expense cutting.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Your parents, and mine, were scammed just as much as a Madoff investor was scammed, because Social Security is exactly the same sort of con; it depends on additional investors to pay existing ones. Which is great, if there are enough of them to cover the bill, but there aren't.
    Well, the baby boomers (me!) are the largest generation in history. So, why isn’t there enough money? And what do you propose to replace Social Security? Nothing, I suppose. It’s not government’s role, so what? Cut the moochers off? Let them starve? There are entire generations involved here – not yours, I understand, but our parents and *me*. So, now that it’s inconvenient to continue the programs we have paid into all our lives, we just have to suck it up that the government took our money under false pretenses and feels no responsibility for the resulting situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    And given the choice between taking ownership for their own retirement and their own money, even to such a modest degree, and leaving it up to the government, America chose the latter. That is nothing if not dependence on government, on wanting someone else to relieve the burden of making serious plans and choices for themselves. That is when I think I saw the writing on the wall for individual self-reliance, unfortunately.
    Considering my own IRA lost 30% of its value in the last 7 years, I doubt that would have been of any help. And, at that point, our parents generation already close to retirement. A little too late to do any serious investing for their “future”. Baby boomers were in their 40’s. Ditto for us.


    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Philosophically, any and all conservative ideas are going to tend toward reducing the role of government, the growth of government. And all those ideas have been rejected out of hand. What is the point of offering them again for continued rejection?
    Perhaps the definition of the word COMPROMISE should be painted on every wall in DC.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I don't expect maturity from Congress anymore. The Senate is three years without the self-respect to even pass a budget, even one of their own to take to conference with the House. If that's not immaturity, nothing is.
    Well, we should expect maturity. DEMAND it, even. Using your own rationality, why would the Senate bother, when it was a guarantee the House would never approve it, no matter what it contained?

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Well, if his reelection was a mandate for him, weren't the House Republicans also given a mandate?
    Nope, because not all House representatives were up for re-election. Some, like that (insert nasty word here) Speaker Boehner (I’m deeply ashamed he’s from Ohio) were not up for election this cycle. If the Republicans keep going down the road they are on now, the 2014 elections will find even more of them out of a job.


    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I honestly want to pull my hair out when people go on and on about how mean or (of course) racist it is that the GOP wanted Obama to be a one-term President. I mean, I would really love to know when all these other times where when the party without control of the White House was indifferent to or ambivalent about whether the other party kept control of it. In what alternate reality did the Bush or Clinton or Reagan or any of the 39 Presidents before him have an opposition party that was pretty comfortable with the idea of them having a second term? It's comical to suggest there was anything new about the GOP not wanting Obama reelected. The only President who even might have had that kind of comfort zone was George Washington.
    I agree. It was just the Republicans were either ignorant or arrogant enough to make the entire thing PUBLIC. They said *publicly* they were going filibuster and block the recovery of the entire country because of “party loyalty”. IMHO, they would not be where they are today if they wouldn’t have been so cheerful about obstructing our recovery.


    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I've wanted for a long time for candidates not to be identified by party affiliation on ballots.
    I, for one, would love that. I have never cared about any party affiliation, I care about the policies and positions of the candidates themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    Akin's remarks were definitely out of line. What you posted from Murdock however, well Christians believe that good things can come from tragedies. Life is full of such examples. It isn't a feel good statement though, which is what alot of people seem to want anymore. He certainly isn't condoning rape.
    Yes, we Christians do believe that good things come from tragedies. But if you continue the logic of his statement, then God must have arranged the rape in the first place. It can be easily assumed that he was condoning rape. He’s a nut case that has no business forming legislation regarding women’s health or freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Yeah, Akin was a fruit loop, and I was amazed that I never even heard him clarify whether his mistake was saying that bit about women's bodies shutting down reproduction or if his mistake was actually believing it, because to actually believe something so asinine would be humiliating. I will admit, though, the criticism over the "legitimate rape" part was a bit unfair; it's clear in context he's talking about forcible rape as opposed to, for instance, statutory rape, which, being defined solely by statute and not by subjective consent or violence, is not something the human body could tell apart from just normal sex. He just chose a remarkably tactless and insensitive adjective to make that distinction.
    I watched that entire interview repeatedly. I did not draw the same conclusion. I read the Republican Party Platform. His error was saying OUT LOUD what was already the Party view – in their own words.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    But the Mourdock remarks... I balk at condemning anyone for operating under an opening premise as legitimate as "life is a gift from God" or "all life is precious". It's not to say, ever, that rape is a good thing, but rather to recoil from the inverse implication that a child of such is born somehow outside the sight of God, or in secular terms, as morally inferior, unloved, unloveable, or defective qua herself. I don't believe that at all, it sounds... cruel. I mean, for demonstration, I try to imagine someone having a conversation in which they express outrage at Mourdock's remarks to an actual child of a rape -- "can you believe the nerve of that Mourdock, thinking that someone like you were a gift from God?" I mean, nobody would actually say that, would they? .
    No, of course nobody would actually say that. And I respect that point of view – “live is a gift from God”. I have a problem with *legislating* that point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointMan View Post
    My friend Dave, who is a liberal btw, actually had a very good answer to this problem. He said we should have the government stay out of marriage period. Let everything be a civil union, and let the churches fight it out over what is and isn't a marriage. I think he's right that that is the way to go.
    Yes. Marriage is a religious concept. However, the Vatican wants to make it a political one. It can’t be both ways – it’s either a religious organization with tax exemption or a political organization that is subject to all tax laws of other political organizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini9857 View Post
    I think anything not being in the Constitution makes it a state issue, not a religious one. All the states have their own marriage laws and always have, some allow gay marriage now and others don't. Some states have common law marriage, but a lot don't. I don't think the Federal Government should be involved at all in marriage. The reason some states have gay marriage now is that the people who live in that state voted for it. I think eventually it'll be passed in all the states, but it may be a while.

    I do think the Federal Government sometimes gets into issues that are not designated to them in the Constitution and without a Constitutional Amendment those issues should be left up to the states.
    Unfortunately, States make laws contradictory to the Constitution. The States do not have absolute freedom to legislate whatever they wish. That's why SCOTUS exists in the first place.

  22. #257
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,532
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,611 Times in 1,698 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cinderela View Post
    GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PROFIT MAKING ENDEAVOR.
    One of its biggest flaws, in my opinion. Government should, at the least, have to operate under the fiduciary standards required of not-for-profit corporations, and it should have to follow the accounting rules required as well (which is to say, any private enterprise that did its books the way the federal government does would be committing a crime).

    ...I view them to be anti woman in the extreme.
    How do you view the women therein?

    People have civil rights, not institutions. Under this philosophy, since I don’t like my money paying to continued military action, I shouldn’t be made to pay for it, right?
    The "corporations are people" thing has been hard and fast law for almost the entire history of the country, and applies in multiple contexts. And the reason is ultimately that... they are manifestations of the people within them. If the CEO (a person) tells the CFO (a person) to have one of his clerks (a person) write a check to pay an increased premium to pay for a service against the beliefs that they either hold or at least agree to apply to their professional conduct in order to comply with a law, than those people have all been forced to do it.

    I’m fine with that. But a legal union from one state must be recognized as a legal union in another state. Exactly like a drivers license.
    And that would pretty quickly become the 50 states/50 answers norm. Florida would, in our ongoing examples, recognize a legal union between two men from New York, but would not be obligated to issue such a license to two women from Florida. But they could go get it in New York. This is something that is actually familiar to American culture -- the song "Jackson", for instance, or the reference to going to Reno in "The Shawshank Redemption", are both references to having to travel to a different place to obtain a legal divorce. Likewise, the Vegas wedding tourism industry is built around the convenience of their licensing.

    Again, I ask why “people” aren’t relevant to forming a policy to govern “people.”
    "Well, if you don't support public sector unions, you want my mother to lose her retirement and therefore hate my mother" is just... not a legitimate argument to me. I don't even really think I can articulate why, you'll either intuitively agree or intuitively disagree. It's an argument from pure emotionalism, it's anecdotal, it summarily deems all longitudinal arguments as invalid... I just can't do it, sorry.

    Paying taxes is a punishment? I totally agree. And just like my own personal budget, you have to start somewhere. Revenue & expense cutting.
    It is manifestly impossible to close the US budget deficit by raising taxes. Again, the top tax rate going up raises $56 billion in 2013; the projected deficit will be around $1.5 trillion. Or, as demonstrated from the Walter Williams column I was mentioning, if you a) take every cent earned over $250k in taxable income, all of it, and b) confiscate every cent of profit earned by the Fortune 500 in the US, and c)completely clean out and liquidate the wealth of all 400 billionaires in the US, you would have enough money to run the federal government for less than eight months... and you could only do it once.

    But that's not the half of it -- the fact is, taxes, like all other costs, affect economic behavior. Whatever you tax, you get less of it. So if you tax upward mobility in general, higher incomes, higher investment returns, etc... you get less of these. When the price of milk goes up enough, people eat dry cereal more often. When the price of gas goes up, people drive less (an explicit goal of liberal energy and environmental policy, as it happens). So when you raise taxes enough, people turtle up and spend less, do the things that cost them money, less. Fewer trips out to dinner; fewer tips for the waitstaff. Fewer tips for the waitstaff; fewer nights out at the bar or fewer classes taken at the learning annex, so less money made by the bartender and by the professor. And so on.

    Well, the baby boomers (me!) are the largest generation in history. So, why isn’t there enough money? And what do you propose to replace Social Security? Nothing, I suppose. It’s not government’s role, so what? Cut the moochers off? Let them starve? There are entire generations involved here – not yours, I understand, but our parents and *me*. So, now that it’s inconvenient to continue the programs we have paid into all our lives, we just have to suck it up that the government took our money under false pretenses and feels no responsibility for the resulting situation?
    Like privatizing that one narrow slice of social security, any attempts to actually solve these problems is met by total antipathy for the idea that people will have to take more responsibility for planning their own retirement and healthcare in the future, because there just aren't enough money trees for the government to pluck it off of. I mean, there was a plan on the table that let everyone 55 and up -- those in line of sight of social security/medicare -- keep the program they were promised, but begins creating other options and other plans for those younger than that, like me, who sit here knowing with total certainty that it won't be there for us even though we are paying in. Because it takes all we pay just to pay those getting it now, none of it is banking up for us; that's how a Ponzi works. And as Americans are barely reproducing at the replacement rate, we're not going to have enough people to bilk for our bill coming behind us.

    There is no answer beyond drawing some sort of demographic line in age and saying "sorry guys, everyone behind this line is going to have to start making other plans", but that's just a bit too honest and unseemly for American politics today.

    Perhaps the definition of the word COMPROMISE should be painted on every wall in DC.
    Compromise is not an implicit virtue. I am no fan of Ayn Rand in general, but a couple of her idioms are pretty hard to argue with. One is "what is the compromise between food and poison?" If all compromises ultimately require dismissing any hope of containing spending, reducing it, reducing borrowing, reducing the scale and scope of government, that's not actually compromise anymore, it's just polite capitulation.

    Well, we should expect maturity. DEMAND it, even. Using your own rationality, why would the Senate bother, when it was a guarantee the House would never approve it, no matter what it contained?
    They have a constitutional duty to pass a budget, even if it doesn't end up on the President's desk. The way this is supposed to work is that the two houses can pass wildly different bills and then they get together for the messy work of getting them together. The Senate not only won't give any House budget a vote, they won't even craft their own, and when they give the President's own budget a vote, it gets zero votes, including Democrats.

    Nope, because not all House representatives were up for re-election. Some, like that (insert nasty word here) Speaker Boehner (I’m deeply ashamed he’s from Ohio) were not up for election this cycle. If the Republicans keep going down the road they are on now, the 2014 elections will find even more of them out of a job.
    Actually, all members of the House of Representatives are elected to two year terms and are up for election every two years, all 438 members. So, again, the prior question stands -- how, if Obama has a mandate and Harry Reid's Senate majority has a mandate, does Boehner's House majority not have their own mandate?

    I, for one, would love that. I have never cared about any party affiliation, I care about the policies and positions of the candidates themselves.
    Almost all opposition for that sort of idea comes from your side of the political spectrum. That's the sort of idea that always gets branded as racist, because of some gobbledy-gook about white people getting to watch the news more and so they'll know what parties people are, bibble babble BS. Nevermind the legitimate question of "well, shouldn't anybody that has no idea without a single letter next to a name who to vote for just... stay home anyway, since they obviously have no idea what's going on?"

    Yes, we Christians do believe that good things come from tragedies. But if you continue the logic of his statement, then God must have arranged the rape in the first place. It can be easily assumed that he was condoning rape. He’s a nut case that has no business forming legislation regarding women’s health or freedom.
    I think it's ludicrous to propose he was actually condoning rape. We are at an absolutely intractable impasse on that, unfortunately.

    No, of course nobody would actually say that. And I respect that point of view – “live is a gift from God”. I have a problem with *legislating* that point of view.
    Well, no they wouldn't say it... they'd just think it. It seems a mandatory implication to denouncing Mourdoch's position; if one is disagreeing with him saying "all life is a gift from God", then one is necessarily saying "clearly, some life isn't". And if the context is rape, it seems one is also necessarily saying that that is the "some" that isn't.

    Unfortunately, States make laws contradictory to the Constitution. The States do not have absolute freedom to legislate whatever they wish. That's why SCOTUS exists in the first place.
    Well, the point is that if the Constitution doesn't actually take a position, it can't be contrary to the States, because the 10th Amendment says in pretty explicit terms that that which isn't dealt with in the Constitution belongs to the states. But taking that amendment seriously would have left the Supreme Court with a lot less to do, so they took it on themselves to... more or less ignore it.

    Banner by LRae12

  23. #258
    Evil Twin PointMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 259 Times in 189 Posts

    Default

    Regarding Murdoch and Akin's comments; why is it that anytime a Republican messes up and says something bad its all over the news, and yet when Obama says something like the deaths of 4 U.S. citizens in Libya is "not optimal" he gets a free pass? I'd be willing to bet that most Americans wouldn't have even known he'd said it if it hadn't been on the Daily show where it happened. He also didn't get called on his complaint about how people in the south "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

  24. #259
    Konoha Green Beast!
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoria, Az
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 38 Times in 32 Posts

    Default

    I'm just going to leave this right here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B...2&feature=plcp

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ChaddyMan1 For This Useful Post:

    Andrew (13-11-12),BuffySpike (13-11-12)

  26. #260
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,346
    Thanks
    3,141
    Thanked 431 Times in 268 Posts

    Default

    Well, I’ll just respond to posters replying to things I said. Essentially, I’m just interested in supporting and defending what I said.


    For the functioning Government thing: There are already Republicans saying that they will go against Grover Norquist and raise taxes. And the Senate Democrats should support filibuster reform. We know that whenever the Republicans get back in the majority that they will immediately support filibuster reform. So, the Democrats need to stop being such pushovers and dumbasses and return the Senate back to a 51-majority rule instead of a 60-majority rule. Reconciliation would have had the public option be part of the health care law and would have made the law more popular than it is.




    PointMan

    You can call yourself whatever you want, but nothing you have said reflects Libertarian ideals. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and I doubt he wants anything to do with any of the ideas you have espoused.
    I said that I’m a small l libertarian and/or Moderate. Ron Paul wants to rid of the Federal Reserve. Doing that would put either Europe or China in charge of the world economy. Or maybe the United Kingdom given The City’s role in the global economy. Plus, ridding of the Federal Reserve would make it extremely difficult to keep the Dollar Standard. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education. Employers have been complaining that even MBAs can’t write properly. We need better education in this country, not less.



    KingofCretins

    "Trickle up" economics don't even exist;
    Have you ever even taken a basic economics class? Do you know anything about Supply and Demand? Trickle up is a simple fact – people being able to buy stuff supports jobs and wealth, increases stock prices, and increases tax revenues.

    "trickle down" is a demagogic term for the simple economic reality that money a) exists, and b) travels by getting spent. Nothing more "voodoo" than that immutable fact. People that have money, spend money, and where they spend it opportunity for people to gain it appears, and then those people have money, and they spend it. It's more just trickle around, really, but it starts with people having the right to profit from their labor, without that, there is only depression, mediocrity, and despair.
    Um, it really seems that you don’t even know what “trickle up” and “trickle down” even means.

    “Trickle down” is basically the idea that taxing the rich less means that everyone benefits and tax revenues actually increase. And it’s been disproven. Reagan dramatically increased the national debt as did George W. Bush. All taxing capital gains and dividends less results in is an increase in wealth inequality and less Government revenues. Lowering the estate tax would simply result in an American aristocracy. Imagine the country if the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and Carnegies didn’t have income or estate taxes and didn’t donate most of their money to charity.

    “Trickle down” doesn’t work because as income and wealth rises, less of a percentage of it is spent and goods and services. Also, money that goes into hedge funds and private equities or overseas accounts or on overseas investments doesn’t help the economy like money going into buying food and stuff.

    And the whole ‘small business’ argument is just stupid. How many people do you know use their profits for the sole purpose of hiring people? And a small business is simply a business with 100 employees or less. That includes law firms, private equity companies, hedge funds, real estate investment trusts, agencies, etc.

    I’ve already explained “trickle up”.

    Not an accident that anti-capitalism has yielded nothing but failure everywhere it been implemented.
    When was the last President who didn’t support capitalism? The only two I can possibly think of are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

    Honestly, the reason cap-and-trade didn't happen is because there just weren't enough votes on hand even with the Democrats holding absolute majorities to completely destroy the American domestic energy industry, which is what cap and trade would do.
    A few coal-state Senators didn’t support it. It’s an example of what is wrong with the Senate makeup. And rises fuel-standards hasn’t hurt the auto industry. Cap-and-trade would simply force renewables and cleaner energy.

    I still find all the abortion and contraception hype a bitter pill. The simple fact is that it's only through genuine unawareness of the legal status of both of these subjects that anybody could ever be genuinely concerned that a Romney presidency could have endangered either,
    This is untrue. The President picks federal judges and picks Supreme Court Justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is like in her 80s and has health problems. A Romney-Ryan Administration would have overturned Roe vs. Wade and most likely would have restricted contraception more than an Obama-Biden Administration.

    and they were only injected into this race to draw attention away from the economy.
    The Republicans in the House and Senate wanted to have the economy be the worst possible in order to try to stop President Obama from being re-elected. The economy would have been better had the Republicans supported Obama’s jobs bills or another stimulus. They tried to block even the Veterans Jobs Bill and had to be publicly shamed about that before they supported it.

    I’ll slip in the deficit thing here. The Republicans were against letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250K a year. If they let those go in 2010, the deficit would be better.

    The big lesson of this election, as they say, is demographics.
    All elections are won by appealing to more people than one’s opponent and/or by restricting the vote. The Republicans restricted the vote (and tried to restrict it far more than they succeeded in doing).

    I wish that it were not such a cynical world, where the new normal for winning a national office is to sort the country by color, pick your favorites, and go.
    First off, this is offensive. Demographics include race and ethnicity and so they are constituencies. I don’t know how your statement could be spun to appear inoffensive. Secondly, obviously a percentage of the country didn’t vote for Pres. Obama because Obama is Black and they are racist. Thirdly, neither Party appealed to Asians and Asians supported Obama over Romney at around the same percentage that Hispanics/Latinos supported Obama over Romney. Fourthly, Obama appealed to gays and women more than Romney did and so he won those constituencies by far margins. And Romney appealed to the Military and tried to appeal to Jews more than Obama did. Romney pretty much only won among men because of the support among men in the military and those who work in some way for the military (including manufacturers). And Romney appealed to those making a lot of money who don’t want to pay taxes and so won a majority of those making over 100K a year. It wasn’t just about the Dream Act or whatever you’re trying to suggest.

    Individualism and free enterprise and upward mobility have a built in universalism,
    Conservatives don’t support upward mobility. The Democrats are the ones who support upward mobility. Obama’s the one who increased Pell Grants and reformed the student loan thing. Individualism? The Republicans were against gay marriage, against contraceptives, against all abortion. Free enterprise? Under Obama, the stock market has skyrocketed and it’s a fact that the stock market does better under Democratic administrations.

    The non-socialist/progressive wing of American politics -- because merely "conservative" is no longer going to cut it -- has to get together and change their approach or figure out a better way to communicate.
    The Republicans can stop taking their orders and direction from Grover Norquist, the Tea Party (aka the Koch Brothers and such), talk radio, and Fox News. The Romney from 2008 may have been able to win this election. But instead, he had to win the Republican primaries and he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate. John McCain became too ‘conservative’ in the 2008 Presidential election. Romney became even more ‘conservative’ in 2012. And now some Republicans are delusional enough to think that someone like Paul Ryan (or Marco Rubio) could actually win in 2016. Jeb Bush couldn’t win simply because of his association to Pres. George W. Bush. Chris Christie possibly could have won in this election, but it’s less likely he’d win in 2016 if Hilary Clinton is going to run. The Republicans simply don’t have anyone who could beat Hilary. Obama won big in this election and if Hilary were the candidate instead, she’d have won a lot bigger. And if somehow Bill Clinton could run again… Pretty much, if Bill Clinton could have gotten a third term, he’d still be the President.

    I find it impossible and contrary to all I know of particularly Latin culture and history, that such a traditionally family oriented, faith-driven, and hard working community is immune to the superiority of individualism and free enterprise.
    Simply put, Republicans delude themselves into thinking that they can get the Hispanic/Latino vote just because the Catholic Church is against abortion and contraception. They think that Hispanics/Latinos are cultural and social conservatives. But that is only true of those that actually fully follow the Catholic Church. After two generations of being in the United States, Hispanics/Latinos in California are Moderate. I went to Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles instead of doing a senior year of high school. This is the premier Jesuit University pretty much west of Georgetown University. Almost no one was a virgin, very few were actually religious. There were more atheists and agnostics than were in the junior high and high schools I went to. Pretty much everyone taking science or business classes weren’t that religious and were socially and culturally liberal. The school was more Republican than Democrat simply because most of the students there were from upper middle class families. But this was the Republican Party of 2002. This was before the Tea Party. Something like only 20% or whatever of the country supports the Tea Party. And take away the racists and the businesses that don’t want to pay for Obamacare – which by 2016 will be concrete law – and the Republican Party will have to moderate their positions in order to have any chance of getting the Presidency.

    On the political board I moderate we threw in our predictions, and I made some that I will add here, that at the scheduled end of Obama's Presidency, we will have --
    • a national debt between $20-$25 trillion dollars
    • annual budge deficits around $2 trillion
    • U3 unemployment between 7-9%
    • average gas prices between $5-$6 per gallon
    • Iran will have nuclear weapons and a de facto nuclear umbrella that covers the Middle East and much of Europe
    No one can predict such things 4 years out.

    The deficit will decrease as we get out of the ‘Recession’. And if tax rates go up (which will happen), it will decrease even more. Entitlement reform of some kind will eventually happen. Republicans already support lowering payments to upper income people (which is a Democratic idea).

    Gas prices are based off of Supply and Demand and the strength of the Dollar. Gas prices will only go down if Demand (meaning worldwide demand) decreases and/or the Dollar gets stronger. Obama has raised fuel efficiency standards and supports clean and renewable energy. Gas prices would be higher under Republicans.

    Unemployment will eventually go down.

    The problem with Iran is its leadership is anti-American and is a theocracy. The people of Iran are like the most moderate in the Middle East barring Israel. And Ahmadinejad is liked because he gives oil revenues to the people.

    Iran is no threat to Europe and Israel could obliterate Iran if Iran actually tried to nuke Israel.

    I don't even want to speculate about inflation or some other issues.
    That’s the Federal Reserve’s job. Inflation would only be a problem if the economy roars back quickly.

    But I think the President would leave office only regretting that eight years hadn't been enough time to undo the damage done by his predecessor and never having spent a day in his Presidency having taken ownership of anything that happened under his watch, let alone because of his watch.
    That bolded part is simply laughable to put it gently. Obama will take credit for killing Obama bin Laden, for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for repairing relationships with other countries, for trying to contain China, for increasing the percentage of the population covered by health insurance, for improving education, for putting the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, for stopping a Depression from happening, for being the first African American President of the United States, for creating millions of jobs, etc. Plus, he got a Nobel Peace Prize (which may or may not be deserved, but he still has one).

    I expect that we will see the full effect of the "fiscal cliff" here, because I don't think letting some of the tax rates continue past January was ever more than a campaign tactic for the DNC, I think their plan from day one has been to let all marginal rates go up.
    We’re still in a ‘recession’, but when the economy is better, all tax rates should go up. We need to pay down the debt.

    I'm actually hoping to see Boehner lose his job in January, I'd like to see Ryan run for Speaker.
    Eric Cantor is pretty much the Speaker. Boehner was going to do a Simpson-Bowles type long-term deficit reduction deal with Obama but the Republicans Study Committee and the Tea Party people – which includes Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan – were against it. John Boehner will be the House Speaker. Paul Ryan wasn’t even helpful on the Romney ticket, there’s about zero chance that he’d become Speaker. And Eric Cantor is next in line anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •