Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Lincoln won Illinois, as it was a northern state.

He lost Kentucky to Bell. Oddly enough the "Southern Democrat" lost Kentucky to Bell too, and he was actually from Kentucky; Bell was from Tennessee.
 
Last edited:

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
In the DoD, this program is called the Thrift Savings Plan. During the recession, many of my co-workers lost upwards of half or more of their retirement savings. I would suggest polling this group of people -- you know, the ones who actually have real world experience in the application of such a 401k-style system. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that you would get anywhere near 70% support from them. They know that greedy banks can make the bottom fall out of the market at the drop of a hat, and they have paid a hefty price to learn that lesson.

RDU, we all love ya man, but please let me make a suggestion. And, I'm not trying to be a smarta**. I'm seriously trying to give you some sound advice. ... You really should stop talking about politics -- not just on this thread but everywhere. In order to debate, you must first be willing to understand the other side's position so that you can effectively counter that position. You seem entirely unwilling to do that. Indeed, you are fairly cartoonish in your lack of understanding of the issues. You should not talk about politics because you are just not good at it.

And those not working in government would say "welcome to the real world." You see, your privledged class acts as if these benefits are God given rights while the majority of Americans deal with reality. You entirely miss the point that such a move would save the government money and put a lid on exploding liabilities. You are right, I should not try to engage in logical debate with liberals, it is a complete waste of time especially in any financial matter.

And where exactly have you illustrated the ability to understand someone elses position? I understand you want everything for everybody who is not rich, with rich defined as anyone with more money than you. Cartoonish enough for you?

BTW - I missed the Voldemort prayer. I can't believe Fox didn't cover that.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Privledged class? Working for the government? Really?

Its great that it would save the government money, but it would do it on the backs of middle class workers who work for the government (yes, middle and not privledged class) much like giving tax breaks to the rich would be done on the backs of the middle class. I've acknowledged several times on this thread that I believe the welfare state is broken, that tax breaks should be taken from everyone -- not just the rich. I've spent the past 30 years living with "trickle down" economics, so I think I come to that argument with a bit of experience when I say it won't work. That is a far cry from letting Fox do your thinking for you.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Privledged class? Working for the government? Really?

Its great that it would save the government money, but it would do it on the backs of middle class workers who work for the government (yes, middle and not privledged class) much like giving tax breaks to the rich would be done on the backs of the middle class. I've acknowledged several times on this thread that I believe the welfare state is broken, that tax breaks should be taken from everyone -- not just the rich. I've spent the past 30 years living with "trickle down" economics, so I think I come to that argument with a bit of experience when I say it won't work. That is a far cry from letting Fox do your thinking for you.

If you are worse off than you were 30 years ago then I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and realize you are looking at the only person you can count on to put your interests first.

For the record, I have never been accused of being the most compassionate person in the room, even when I am alone.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Adam Carolla Analyzes Clinton Eastwood, DNC | RealClearPolitics

Adam Carolla makes a good point at the 3:10 mark, amongst others.

I watched most of this segment, and it doesn't matter what he said at 3:10, the first 3:09 was an incredible waste of tape. Please note that everyone could feel safe talking about a war on women's reproductive systems because any woman that would object to this one dimensional attempt at humor, wouldn't be watching O'Riely, anyway.

See I will try to explain this to you. Democrats are saying they are not against hard work, or the American dream. They are not even against one dimensional nincompoops that want to marginalize everything someone says. They are for providing as many opportunities as reasonably possible with the wealth this country has available. GoIrish41 made a wonderful point above about you. You should have at least dedicated a minute to think about it. Instead you brought out a tape of two of the personalities on television (a vast wasteland) that have the least to offer anyone, and they showed the same characteristic as you. These guys went right to the attack. If this were not base entertainment, they would have at least analyzed the speakers (one) point and which would have included taking in their full thesis, attempted to understand it and then have issued a rebuttal in a debate format. Instead, you have a recognized misogynist, insulting a brand new contributor, who was obviously not happy with the lead in, about his drinking and partying habits, and then some meaningless babbling thereafter.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
If you are worse off than you were 30 years ago then I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and realize you are looking at the only person you can count on to put your interests first.

For the record, I have never been accused of being the most compassionate person in the room, even when I am alone.

I just hate to see someone absolutely reject core Christian values like this.

There are not enough editing marks through highlighting, but your whole first sentence is a massive conflation. The number of illogical jumps is almost beyond comprehension. But let me summarize, if you think you are master of your own destiny, and the true actor and controller of your destiny, you are shockingly naive. Every day thousands if not millions work to keep your world safe. If they didn't you would be eaten the minute you walked out the door. Believe it!
 
Last edited:

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Conflation has showed up in half a dozen posts today after having rarely heard it before in my life. Was that in Obama's talking point memo this morning?

"Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity — the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one which does produce errors or misunderstandings, as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall."

Your claims of conflation sound strangely like projecting to me.


As far as my soulless existence, I draw a clear distinction between what I do and how I treat others and what I expect of other people and my government. I expect other people to care more about themselves than their fellow man. It is part of why I find pushing personal responsibility toward family and community off on government as a slow erosion of our society's morality.

Grandma needs help? Screw that, Uncle Sam will put her in a home somewhere. I don't want to deal with that. Brother is out of work, fend for yourself, you get two years unemployment. I don't need to work the food pantry, they can all get food stamps. Can't we just elect people to solve these problems so I don't have to deal with it?

I am all for a safety net and hand up from government. The more it can be allocated to state and local levels the better. Some programs are best served from a national level. Many more programs are best served from the community level. Guess which one each of us can have the most impact on?
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Everybody conflates. Trick is to catch it. In fact there is a connection. As I am trying to improve my skills in an area, I am really becoming sensitive to how prevalent it is. For example, why do you not want to talk to people about their ex-spouses, because you don't want to get caught in the middle. Where does this middle come from with two otherwise honest individuals? By in large, conflation. It is confusion that is one major affector of thought processes under stress. That is why it creeps into passionate arguements. Maybe a better example:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zrzMhU_4m-g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Your claims of conflation sound strangely like projecting to me.

Satan, is that you?

(we have never met; have you reviewed enough of my posts to determine or diagnose?)

As far as the difference between how you act and what you expect of others, (I commend you for having high personal ideals), but leaving government and others off the hook, and not implying your same high standards, is the real "root of all evil." It is just the wiggle room sociopathological behavior needs to run rampant. In turn, this is why things like the Civil Rights Act need to be codified to protect rights. Some people are lazy, some are nice, some conflate, some are naive, some are hate filled, some people put a buck ahead of doing what is right, but regardless, the right thing doesn't get done unless eveyone says so. I have no objection to help being metered out locally, privately, or nationally, but it needs to be mandated, when it is the right thing. Or somebody will leave it to everybody else.
 
Last edited:

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
i've always found it ironic that the federal taxes collected from the "blue" states are redistributed back out to the "red" states
 

Redbar

Well-known member
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
806
i've always found it ironic that the federal taxes collected from the "blue" states are redistributed back out to the "red" states

It's called fairness, good government, civic duty or valor when you are the recipient of some benefit, and socialism when you have to do the giving. Reps.
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
i've always found it ironic that the federal taxes collected from the "blue" states are redistributed back out to the "red" states

And I've always found it ironic that "red" states are more charitable than "blue" states.

Oh that's right, in the 1950s poor people died on the street because they didn't have medicaid, or they couldn't eat because there wasn't food stamps...how did we ever survive without the government?!
 
Messages
11,214
Reaction score
377
Looks like Romney will need to explain some specifics of his plan if he wants to win. The right is not happy that he is going backwards in the polls.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
And I've always found it ironic that "red" states are more charitable than "blue" states.

Oh that's right, in the 1950s poor people died on the street because they didn't have medicaid, or they couldn't eat because there wasn't food stamps...how did we ever survive without the government?!

That's primarily because of religious tithing. Notice that Utah is the highest on the list.

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=765732

What did the LDS church do with all that money? Much good, I'm certain. They also used it to buy a massive amount of ads in California in support of Prop 8.

Take out religious giving and the trend reverses.

Study reveals church-goers give more to churches than people who don’t go to church give to those churches

Other interesting findings:
Among other notable findings of the study:

— People who earn $200,000 per year give a greater percentage to charity when they live in ZIP codes with fewer people who are as wealthy as they are.

— People who earn between $50,000 and $75,000 annually give a higher percentage of their discretionary income to charity (7.6 percent) than those who make $100,000 or more (4.2 percent).

Study: Less religious states give less to charity - Yahoo! Finance

Sorry to interrupt...you were mentioning that liberals are jerks...go on.
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
And I've always found it ironic that "red" states are more charitable than "blue" states.

Oh that's right, in the 1950s poor people died on the street because they didn't have medicaid, or they couldn't eat because there wasn't food stamps...how did we ever survive without the government?![/QUOTE]

Really, do you want to compare healthcare in the 1950's to how it is now? The government had to step in as healthcare changed. Ever heard of patient dumping? Yep it is real and still happens in this day and age. If we didn't have things like medicaid, medicare and a law requiring hospitals to treat people we would have people just dying from very preventable diseases. Nice try.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,509
Reaction score
9,284
I know one thing for sure that between the to parties they should ashmed at how negative the ads have become it.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464

One of Romney's top advisers said this today:

“It doesn’t surprise me that they’re raising foreign policy because it’s another distraction from the Administration’s terrible economic record,” O’Brien told BuzzFeed. “They’re going from one shiny object to the next.”

The longest war in US history is a distraction? It's shiny? This is on the heels of his failing to mention Afghanistan in his acceptance speech.

Of the omission, Romney stated, "When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military. And I didn’t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing." (emphasis mine)

Think about it...if a Democrat had failed to mention Afghanistan in his acceptance speech, what would the right wing do to him?
 
Last edited:

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Nope just shows what type of people we're dealing with.

I think it explains a lot that you would base your judgment on something so arbitrary. Did the President fail to acknowledge 9/11 today, or does only the first tweet of the day mean anything? I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence concerning the character of the two men in this election, and any comparison between the two dramatically favors the President.

You can favor Romney's policies over Obama's, but you cannot make an honest case that Mitt Romney is, in any respect, a better person that the President. If that were the only criteria in the election, the election would be over already.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
You can favor Romney's policies over Obama's, but you cannot make an honest case that Mitt Romney is, in any respect, a better person that the President. If that were the only criteria in the election, the election would be over already.

Are you ****ing kidding me?
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
You say...

I think it explains a lot that you would base your judgment on something so arbitrary.

Then you say...

You can favor Romney's policies over Obama's, but you cannot make an honest case that Mitt Romney is, in any respect, a better person that the President. If that were the only criteria in the election, the election would be over already.

Nothing arbitrary there ...


What might you be basing this "non arbitrary" assessment upon...oh liberal master PO


Mitt Romney isn't exactly the person either side makes him out to be...but even the stuff snopes (facts for libs) put out is at least reasonably worded ...

snopes.com: The Real Mitt Romney

In the end, my takeaway is both men walk the walk and talk the talk in their personal lives...I would not say either is clearly better on the "good guy" scale...by all means, parse away though...ya know how Romney's good deeds are lesser good deeds than Obama's good deeds, because thats about all thats left to do here.

As for Obama's willingness/ability to govern the way it needs to be done...Bob Woodward seems to describe him as a willing Rookie...maybe Obama should be in our two deep at corner.

I'm going on Woodward's conclusions put forth in interviews, as I've not yet read his book (Price of Politics), but what he says is not flattering to the president, nor Boehner...but Boehner isn't the topic here.

let me just save everyone some time on the rebuttals of Woodward's credibility...

that Bob Woodward guy...he's satan, he's senile...he's effing crazy...he talks to chairs, he's in it for money, he had a moment of clarity, relevance, and credibility for Watergate, well and also for his work after 9/11, and anything he said negative while chronicling multiple former presidents if they were R...but he's off his rocker when he basically called this president in over his head, but his criticisms of Boehner were right on the mark...that should do it...

I think Bob Woodward's take is pretty credible...
 

Quinntastic

IE's Microbiologist
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
111
I voted for Obama in 2008. And I'm not really sold on him again for 2012. However, I don't trust Mitt Romney as far as I can throw him (and I have no upper body strength so that would be NOT FAR). Let's take a look at this venn diagram, shall we?

SuperVenn.jpg


Mitt Romney will say anything to get himself into the current office he's going for. When it was governor of the Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, he was pro-choice, pro-assaults weapons bans, and pro-gay marriage. Then, when he wanted to run as a Republican for POTUS, suddenly he was anti all of those things. So where does he really stand? I can't take anything he says seriously. And that's why I will, most certainly, NOT be voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. And please, before you say, "That's just the liberal media twisting his words and mis-quoting him", spend a little time looking into those reference links.

Quinntastic OUT.
 
Top