Search forums

Forums

Export thread

If Romney wins the GOP, I forsee bad things for....

Jan 13, 2012#1

Shegokigo

ALOT of Americans:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/12/news/economy/romney_envy/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

"I believe in a merit nation, an opportunity nation where people by virtue of their education, their hard work and risk taking and their dreams -- may be a little luck -- could achieve great things,"

Is he really that out of touch with reality or is that just a one time flub of idiocy?

Jan 13, 2012#2

@Li3n

He'll just fire a bunch of citizens until the country is profitable again... if it works for persons (aka corporations), it should work for countries too...

Jan 13, 2012#3

Dave

You also have to realize that these guys are basically having to out-conservative each other to get the nomination and bring the tea party and religious right behind them. It happens all the time. Then they get into office and act completely different or more centrist.

The real problem is when they do this during the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Jan 13, 2012#4

@Li3n

Yeah, Romney is actually better then the rest because he's proven himself to be a total political whore plenty of times already... while actually passing "socialist" healthcare in his state that one time...

Also, seeing Newt and Sanctorum complain about Romney having more money and using it against them being unfair is such sweet nectar to my ears...

Jan 13, 2012#5

strawman

Shegokigo said:
Is he really that out of touch with reality or is that just a one time flub of idiocy?

Please enlighten me - how does this statement indicate that he's out of touch with reality and/or an idiot?

Jan 13, 2012#6

Shegokigo

Dave said:
You also have to realize that these guys are basically having to out-conservative each other to get the nomination and bring the tea party and religious right behind them. It happens all the time. Then they get into office and act completely different or more centrist.

The real problem is when they do this during the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Aiming to please the smaller part of the population seems like a good way to win the GOP and lose the Presidential race.

stienman said:
Please enlighten me - how does this statement indicate that he's out of touch with reality and/or an idiot?

It's a thinly veiled statement that only those who have the best footing in life should ever have anything. What happens to that child born with a disfiguring disability? He can't earn his "merits" he doesn't deserve his health care? What about the family that lost their main source of income in a jobless part of the Country? He doesn't deserve help to get back on his feet and feed his family because he's not earing his "merits" anymore.

Of course the rich and born rich will never have to worry about this, they come into life with more than enough "merits" or steal merits off the backs of the workers who they purposelly pay so little that they can never earn enough "merits" on their own.

He's trying to say that all the poor who feel their "entitled" to the "Rich's Money" without having to work for it shouldn't have any help. Yet does he address all the born rich who are even worse about feeling what they're "entitled" to based on what their older generations built for them?

Jan 13, 2012#7

strawman

Wow. You got, "screw the poor and infirm" from that statement?

Jan 13, 2012#8

@Li3n

stienman said:
Please enlighten me - how does this statement indicate that he's out of touch with reality and/or an idiot?

Let me shoot you in the face and then you can tell me how it was totally fair for that to happen to you, because obviously we live in a fair world where everyone gets what they deserve, so it's your own fault for not working hard enough at avoiding bullets...

Jan 13, 2012#9

Shegokigo

No, I got it from the entire article. That quote was just the tip of the iceberg.

Jan 13, 2012#10

@Li3n

stienman said:
Wow. You got, "screw the poor and infirm" from that statement?

Yeah, i'm sure she wasn't taking it in the context of all the other things he said that are in the article she linked...

Jan 13, 2012#11

Shegokigo

According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

Yep, that's all it is. Poorer people want help getting to a better life because they're envious about the rich. Has nothing to do with their children not living in poverty or access to better educations. Yep, 100% Envy.

Jan 13, 2012#12

@Li3n

Shegokigo said:
No, I got it from the entire article. That quote was just the tip of the iceberg.

Hey, stop being so fast dammit...
Added at: 15:53
And there she goes again...
Added at: 15:53
Yes, got one in...

Jan 13, 2012#13

Shegokigo

I already edited it so you looked fast. Shhhh.

Jan 13, 2012#14

@Li3n

You know, that kind of talk always reminds me of this B5 quote:

Marcus Cole: I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

For an atheist JMS sure is way more spiritual then a lot of self confessed religious folks.

Jan 13, 2012#15

Necronic

Honestly there's nothing shocking about what he's saying. It's like the cornerstone of the Republican viewpoint.

This viewpoint is currently a weak point for the republicans though, as it's hard to argue a merit based society when you have massive unemployment which was caused by people that are still working. The republicans are going to have a hard time on this point in the coming election. Making no response to it wouldn't help much. Their current strategy of rebranding criticisms of free market economics into a sign of jealousy and weakness isn't bad, but it's pretty thin. Not sure they have many better options though.

Whoever goes against Obama will have to be fighting this point cleverly. I think that it's better to attack entitlement philosophy than to defend free marts right now, as free markets have been publicly humiliated in the last 3 years. But, on the other hand, so have entitlement/socialist governments. If they oversimplify things and say "Look Obama would tell you that free markets are terrible and they led us into the place we are now, but he doesn't want you looking over at Europe, where you see socialist governments that rely on entitlement spending struggling so much harder" they can turn the argument into a simple Obama presidency = Greece 2.0.

Jan 13, 2012#16

strawman

Ah, I see, you've purchased the political-polarization package. You believe that if he says, "If you work hard then you should be rewarded" then he is simultaneously saying, "If you don't work hard you should die already."

I could enlighten you to the logical fallacy of your argument, but it's more fun watching you rant and rave, especially now since I can dismiss the complaint as baseless.

Jan 13, 2012#17

GasBandit

So, what you're saying is that people who take advantage of the educational opportunities available to everyone, study hard, work hard, take risks and become successful.... should then be forced to support those who chose not to do so? I'm not talking about the handicapped or mentally challenged, I'm talking about the Biff Tannens of the world who spent high school getting drunk, stoned, and laid and then wonder why their adult life sucks. There are a LOT of those people.

If there's one thing the OWS movement showed, it's that "the 99%" are a bunch of shits.

Jan 13, 2012#18

Shegokigo

stienman said:
Ah, I see, you've purchased the political-polarization package. You believe that if he says, "If you work hard then you should be rewarded" then he is simultaneously saying, "If you don't work hard you should die already."

I could enlighten you to the logical fallacy of your argument, but it's more fun watching you rant and rave, especially now since I can dismiss the complaint as baseless.

No problem, I'm glad you can admit to being wrong by being sarcastic.

GasBandit said:
If there's one thing the OWS movement showed, it's that "the 99%" are a bunch of shits.

Thank you for that, I'm glad to know the entire movement was pointless and baseless. The large population of those people feeling wronged I'm sure will vote for Romney. /sarcasm

Again, the minority that he's pandering to will get him the GoP, but there's no way he's going to sway the majority of the country with these views that only the upper classes deserve anything from their government.

Jan 13, 2012#19

@Li3n

It's ok to be rich and pay less taxes then the masses, as long as you don't speak french: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16549624

You have to love republicans.

GasBandit said:
So, what you're saying is that people who take advantage of the educational opportunities available to everyone, study hard, work hard, take risks and become successful.... should then be forced to support those who chose not to do so?

So tell me Gas, why have you chosen to be so lazy that you're not rich enough that spending time on an internet forum is beneath you???

stienman said:
You believe that if he says, "If you work hard then you should be rewarded" then he is simultaneously saying, "If you don't work hard you should die already."

Yeah, because "You're not rich, you must be lazy"and "Poor people are just envious of the rich" are the same thing as "If you work hard then you should be rewarded"...

Jan 13, 2012#20

Dei

The Republicans are so divided, I think that it really doesn't matter. I really don't see anyone ousting Obama at this point.

Jan 13, 2012#21

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
Again, the minority that he's pandering to will get him the GoP, but there's no way he's going to sway the majority of the country with these views that only the upper classes deserve anything from their government.

Not that that's in any way what he said, but putting it aside, then what are you worrying about? If his views are SOOooo anathema to "the majority of the country" then you've got nothing to fear. Right?

But really, even if he gets elected, you still don't have anything to worry about. Romney's a liar and as inconsistent as a weathervane - his track record speaks for itself. He's not the conservative everybody now seems so afraid he is - that's why the media was so determined to pick him as the nominee. They wanted a Diet Democrat on the ticket, same as always.

@Li3n said:
So tell me Gas, why have you chosen to be so lazy that you're not rich enough that spending time on an internet forum is beneath you???

What, are only poor people allowed to post on forums? How lazy I choose to be is none of your concern, so long as I'm not demanding you subsidize my life.

Yeah, because "You're not rich, you must be lazy"and "Poor people are just envious of the rich" are the same thing as "If you work hard then you should be rewarded"...

The poor people ARE envious of the rich. And that's understandable, it's human. We've seen envy on parade for the last year. And, as a matter of fact, before 2008, abarring tragic acts of nature or a vengeful god, you pretty much DID have to be lazy (or consciously make REALLY BAD CHOICES like the ones I outlined) to be in poverty. There was under 5% unemployment and the workforce took up a much higher percentage of the populace. Student loans and grants were slung about like money was no object, the only excuse for not bettering yourself was mental or physical handicap. But we went on orgiastic binges of caligulan proportions and graduated with french poetry degrees and no concept of (or desire to learn how) to balance a household budget. Before the recession, we had the highest level of income mobility ever seen in any nation, ever.

And let's not forget that being "poor" in America is actually richer than being middle class just about anywhere else.
Added at: 13:01

Dei said:
The Republicans are so divided, I think that it really doesn't matter. I really don't see anyone ousting Obama at this point.

I'm not saying he's a shoo-in, but you're fooling yourself if you think republicans won't hold their nose and vote for whoever is on the ballot with an R next to his name this time around. I don't think they have the stomach to stay home anymore, like they did in 08. The race should actually be very close, and I anticipate it will be decided by whatever happens in october. Everything up till then is largely forgettable.

Jan 13, 2012#22

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
What, are only poor people allowed to post on forums?

No, it's just that i'm pretty sure that, statistically speaking, the top 1% aren't... and certainly not on what started as a webcomic forum.

GasBandit said:
How lazy I choose to be is none of your concern, so long as I'm not demanding you subsidize my life.

Yeah, thought so...

GasBandit said:
The poor people ARE envious of the rich. And that's understandable, it's human. We've seen envy on parade for the last year. And, as a matter of fact, before 2008, abarring tragic acts of nature or a vengeful god, you pretty much DID have to be lazy (or consciously make REALLY BAD CHOICES like the ones I outlined) to be in poverty. There was under 5% unemployment and the workforce took up a much higher percentage of the populace. Student loans and grants were slung about like money was no object, the only excuse for not bettering yourself was mental or physical handicap. But we went on orgiastic binges of caligulan proportions and graduated with french poetry degrees and no concept of (or desire to learn how) to balance a household budget. Before the recession, we had the highest level of income mobility ever seen in any nation, ever.

Yeah, because having a job and being poor are mutually exclusive...

I'll just leave this totally unrelated video here:

GasBandit said:
And let's not forget that being "poor" in America is actually richer than being middle class just about anywhere else.

Yeah, next time i break into someone's house, tied them down and pee* on them i'll just remind them they're entitled bastard to complain about it when they're not starving africans...

GasBandit said:
or consciously make REALLY BAD CHOICES like the ones I outlined

Oh yeah, because obviously those guys are the only ones on welfare...

Don't get me wrong, when ODB can go get his foodstamps in a limo (which was funny as fuck) without anyone noticing he might not need them there's obviously something wrong with the system, but methinks paying attention to his actual financial situation would be the more efficient way to solve that then cutting off foodstamps for everyone...

*obviously the person would not be the type to enjoy such a thing

Jan 13, 2012#23

Krisken

GasBandit said:
So, what you're saying is that people who take advantage of the educational opportunities available to everyone, study hard, work hard, take risks and become successful.... should then be forced to support those who chose not to do so? I'm not talking about the handicapped or mentally challenged, I'm talking about the Biff Tannens of the world who spent high school getting drunk, stoned, and laid and then wonder why their adult life sucks. There are a LOT of those people.

If there's one thing the OWS movement showed, it's that "the 99%" are a bunch of shits.

I can't take a party seriously who says they want to get everyone off welfare and at the same time wants to get rid of the minimum wage. If anything, you want to convince people to work (if they can find it, remember that unemployment problem?) by raising the minimum wage.

Jan 13, 2012#24

Ravenpoe

It would appear that the main division here falls along two categories. People who think that everyone who works hard and studies will be successful (and thus everyone can be rich and successful so long as they have enough bootstrap and gumption), and people who don't.

Jan 13, 2012#25

@Li3n

Ravenpoe said:
It would appear that the main division here falls along two categories. People who think that everyone who works hard and studies will be successful (and thus everyone can be rich and successful so long as they have enough bootstrap and gumption), and people who ~~don't~~ ACKNOWLEDGE REALITY.

There, all better now...

As long as there are limited resources there will always be losers, no matter how hard they work. And if we ever get unlimited resources then well it doesn't really matter any more.

Jan 13, 2012#26

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I can't take a party seriously who says they want to get everyone off welfare and at the same time wants to get rid of the minimum wage. If anything, you want to convince people to work (if they can find it, remember that unemployment problem?) by raising the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage means employers can afford to hire less people. I mean, hell, by your reasoning we could just set the minimum wage to 20 dollars/hour and every poverty problem is solved.

@Li3n said:
As long as there are ~~limited resources~~ HUMAN BEINGS there will always be losers, no matter how hard OTHER PEOPLE CLAIM they work.

There, all better now.

Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. But that's better than any other system, in which there are only losers. Excluding the political elites, of course, which are always winners in all systems.

Jan 13, 2012#27

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Raising the minimum wage means employers can afford to hire less people. I mean, hell, by your reasoning we could just set the minimum wage to 20 dollars/hour and every poverty problem is solved.

That's not what I said. Thanks for dismissing my comment with hyperbole and a ridiculous notion.

Jan 13, 2012#28

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
But that's better than any other system, in which there are only losers. Excluding the political elites, of course, which are always winners in all systems.

Need i even say anything?

...

Also, i like how you didn't even bother to understand that my comment there was completely hypothetical, and i wasn't claiming for a second that everyone works hard, just simply making a point that even if they did it wouldn't change anything...

And neither would getting rid of humans, because nature operates under scarcity too...

Jan 13, 2012#29

strawman

@Li3n said:
There, all better now...

As long as there are limited resources there will always be losers, no matter how hard they work. And if we ever get unlimited resources then well it doesn't really matter any more.

Life is not a zero sum game. The fact that I can feed my family of 8 doesn't mean that there are 8 people who can't eat, and that if I stopped feeding my family they would magically be fed.

Society right now operates somewhere between zero-sum and unlimited resources.

But it's certainly not a strict zero sum game.

Jan 13, 2012#30

Shegokigo

Since you're as out of touch with reality as Romney, I'll go ahead and try and explain things to you (of course it's going to be like trying to convince a Christian that there isn't any scientific proof that God exists and there's pleny to disprove the Bible)

GasBandit said:
The poor people ARE envious of the rich. And that's understandable, it's human. We've seen envy on parade for the last year.

You're confusing Envy with wanting equality. I'm not sure how you'd make such an easy mistake.

GasBandit said:
And, as a matter of fact, before 2008, abarring tragic acts of nature or a vengeful god, you pretty much DID have to be lazy (or consciously make REALLY BAD CHOICES like the ones I outlined) to be in poverty.

I'm going to completely oblierate this idiocy once and for all, I'll start with you.

There's a man, born into an impovirish family, his entire life is Rice and Beans, purchased at less than $.50 a can. He tries to go to school at the woefully funded public school. He studies as hard as he can and gets good grades. However, during Middle School, due to violence in his poor neighborhood his father and only money maker in the family is killed.

Suddenly this middle schooler has to join his 16yr old brother helping at the local auto shop just to get enough money to put food on the table. He can no longer go to school because he's waking up and going to sleep practically at the auto shop.

He continues doing this into his teens and eventually becomes a young man. Desperate to better his life and that of his family he applies for government assistance to attend a Tech School. He does nothing but go to work and go to school but he eventually get his tech degree.

Then the unemployment crash happens and the auto-shop closes. He wasn't making the best money but it was enough to get by. Now he has nothing. He has to apply for unemployment and food stamps to get by till he finds work. He tries everyday but the huge influx of new unemployed make finding a job next to impossible, regardless of his skills and experience.

He finally gets lucky and gets a job with a large chain auto shop and gets paid a decent wage. Unfortunately however, there's no real room for growth and he'll never earn more than enough to keep his family alive and sheltered. So again he turns to government assistance. He gets a loan to open his own small business and opens his own auto shop.

Now he's marginally successful and is doing well enough that his family has a real future. (Fyi, this is a real story of someone I personally know)

Now if Romney would have his way? He'd be dead. His family would have starved when he was young and if any of them got sick, they'd have died sooner off. Why? Because he wasn't "educated enough" to have earned his "merits" that would "entitle" him to those "benefits". Why? Because he didn't do it off his "own sweat", he had to "piggyback the government and the rich" to get it done.

GasBandit said:
And let's not forget that being "poor" in America is actually richer than being middle class just about anywhere else.

Oh and bullshit here again. I've seen poor people living in aluminum roofed housing, falling apart, with next to nothing to eat and no hope for a future without massive government aid. But according to you, it's because they're lazy. My bad.

Jan 13, 2012#31

GasBandit

Krisken said:
That's not what I said. Thanks for dismissing my comment with hyperbole and a ridiculous notion.

What you said (the assertion that raising the minimum wage makes people want to work) is directly contributory toward higher unemployment. My "ridiculous hyperbole" was the extension of the thought process behind minimum wage to its logical conclusion.

@Li3n said:
i wasn't claiming for a second that everyone works hard, just simply making a point that even if they did it wouldn't change anything...

Sounds like loser talk to me.

Jan 13, 2012#32

@Li3n

stienman said:
Life is not a zero sum game. The fact that I can feed my family of 8 doesn't mean that there are 8 people who can't eat, and that if I stopped feeding my family they would magically be fed.

Society right now operates somewhere between zero-sum and unlimited resources.

But it's certainly not a strict zero sum game.

And that's how you can tell it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point... nothing is really a strict zero sum game irl.

I stopped feeding my family they would magically be fed.

Well of course not, because they'll either sell it to someone else or throw it away, because giving it to poor people would undermine it's value... see throwing away milk during the great depression...

But hey, if you're gonna go with such a simplistic idea as people getting what they deserve it's what's going on i feel entitled to counter it with something equally as simplistic...
Added at: 22:17

GasBandit said:
Sounds like loser talk to me.

Yeah, anti-intellectualism does seem to go hand in hand with your kind of philosophy in the US, which is kinda weird to me, as you'd think being smart would be something that would help with "education, hard work and risk taking", and thus would be a good thing...

Jan 13, 2012#33

Krisken

GasBandit said:
What you said (the assertion that raising the minimum wage makes people want to work) is directly contributory toward higher unemployment. My "ridiculous hyperbole" was the extension of the thought process behind minimum wage to its logical conclusion.

This is why we can't have nice things. You say " by your reasoning we could just set the minimum wage to 20 dollars/hour and every poverty problem is solved.", and I find that a ridiculous notion that I never posited. It's a failure in discussion, and it is your burden to carry.

Jan 13, 2012#34

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
Since you're as out of touch with reality as Romney, I'll go ahead and try and explain things to you (of course it's going to be like trying to convince a Christian that there isn't any scientific proof that God exists and there's pleny to disprove the Bible)

I find it humorous that your opening statement starts with a huge logical fallacy - implying that if you disprove the bible then you have disproved the existence of a god. But let's continue.

You're confusing Envy with wanting equality. I'm not sure how you'd make such an easy mistake.

Equality of the kind desired by the less successful - IE, one in which everyone is comfortably well off regardless of skill, talent or effort- is a myth. It has never existed and never will. It is actually a fairly novel concept that the lowest classes of society can actually move into higher brackets at all, and the US has shown the best opportunities for this to happen. Does it always work out for everyone? Of course not. But it's the best that has yet been made.

I'm going to completely oblierate this idiocy once and for all, I'll start with ~~you.~~ an entirely hypothetical and subjective story that only supports my point because I can tailor fiction to be exactly what I want it to be.

FTFY.

(Fyi, this is a real story of someone I personally know)

Uh huh.

Now if Romney would have his way? He'd be dead. His family would have starved when he was young and if any of them got sick, they'd have died sooner off. Why? Because he wasn't "educated enough" to have earned his "merits" that would "entitle" him to those "benefits". Why? Because he didn't do it off his "own sweat", he had to "piggyback the government and the rich" to get it done.

Absolutely none of that is what Romney said. You're tilting at windmills, and for that matter, Romney wouldn't know a windmill if it fell on him.

Oh and bullshit here again. I've seen poor people living in aluminum roofed housing, falling apart, with next to nothing to eat and no hope for a future without massive government aid. But according to you, it's because they're lazy. My bad.

I don't know the individual stories of all these "people" you've "seen." I've seen poor people too, they exist and they will always exist no matter how much money you throw down this rathole. We've spent around 8 trillion dollars in the "war on poverty" with no appreciable results. You'd think 8 trillion dollars would get us somewhere, wouldn't it? Maybe your exemplary "poor people" suffered the exceptional tragedies I spoke of earlier. Maybe not. It doesn't matter, actually. The truth of the matter is you cannot eliminate poverty through government spending no matter how much you want it to.

It's all moot though, because you are operating under a misunderstanding of a position made by a man who doesn't even truly support the point he was really making in the first place. Remember, Romney's a Massachusetts RINO. Even if he does end up getting elected, I highly doubt he'll be cutting any social programs. I don't even think he'll attempt to repeal ObamaCare, which is something he has explicitly promised to do... because he basically invented the prototype (Massachusetts's health care system) and continues to stand "proudly" by it.

Jan 13, 2012#35

strawman

@Li3n said:
But hey, if you're gonna go with such a simplistic idea as people getting what they deserve

When did I say that?

I'm saying that people should not be limited by the government as to what they can earn and do with their lives.

I'm a big fan of the welfare system.

What have I, or Romney, for that matter, said that is anything like, "Get rid of welfare and dump everyone on the street."???

Tenuous interpretation combined with hyperbole isn't useful, and I don't know why you, shego, and others keep resorting to it.

Jan 13, 2012#36

Shegokigo

My point to prove Gas, was that there are hundreds of thousands of similar stories to that one. It actually had less to do with Romney and more to do with your "People are only poor because they're lazy."

Also, you're right, Romney probably doesn't even believe most of the scripts he's reading. Thankfully, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I'm sure they'll televise it as a "close loss" but it's going to be Obama for another 4yrs easily.

I was never concerned that Romney had a chance at winning, I just found it hilarious that someone so out of touch with the way the real world is, due his having no idea how it really works, would continue to read those ridiculous scripts.

Oh and if your argument is really that I made up the story, I can gladly give you his name, phone number and physical address. Give him up a call and ask him about how he got to where he is.

Hell I can give you 5 people that can tell similar stories. If you still are so ignorant to believe that it's not true and they'd just lie to you over the phone, you can easily verify the information based on job histories, school records and income sheets that would be easy to obtain.

Jan 13, 2012#37

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yeah, anti-intellectualism does seem to go hand in hand with your kind of philosophy in the US, which is kinda weird to me, as you'd think being smart would be something that would help with "education, hard work and risk taking", and thus would be a good thing...

Anti-intellectualism is an antibody with unfortunate side effects that comes up because of an even more rampant problem - pseudo-intellectualism. It's so omnipresent you can't go a single day without seeing it. It's especially bad on the left, who wears it as armor while they wield appeals to emotion like a weapon... see above in this thread.

Jan 13, 2012#38

Krisken

Jan 13, 2012#39

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
My point to prove Gas, was that there are hundreds of thousands of similar stories to that one. It actually had less to do with Romney and more to do with your "People are only poor because they're lazy."

You oversimplified my position. There were several qualifiers on my statement having to do with tragedy (like, for example, the DEATH OF ONE'S FATHER WHILE STILL IN SCHOOL?), defect, etc.

Also, you're right, Romney probably doesn't even believe most of the scripts he's reading. Thankfully, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I'm sure they'll televise it as a "close loss" but it's going to be Obama for another 4yrs easily.

A lot of people disagree with you. I'm not calling it one way or the other at this point... 10 months is a long, long time in politics.

I was never concerned that Romney had a chance at winning, I just found it hilarious that someone so out of touch with the way the real world is, due his having no idea how it really works, would continue to read those ridiculous scripts.

So, by your argument, the real world works by the complete abandonment of capitalism and the embrace of socialism?

Oh and if your argument is really that I made up the story, I can gladly give you his name, phone number and physical address. Give him up a call and ask him about how he got to where he is.

Hell I can give you 5 people that can tell similar stories. If you still are so ignorant to believe that it's not true and they'd just lie to you over the phone, you can easily verify the information based on job histories, school records and income sheets that would be easy to obtain.

Even were I to do so, or let's go back even another step... even if I believe you and accept your story as true, it's still anecdotal and subjective. It doesn't prove your point any more than if I were to present the story of another person who started off a farmer's son whose family was so poor they lost siblings to influenza and ended up putting 5 kids through college on an air force salary... and say it proved mine (that's a real person's story too, btw).

Individual stories don't back up an argument about a system, or "who is out of touch with reality." Income mobility is huge. 60% of the lowest economic quintile moves up within 30 years, and the number of millionaires increases by about 8-9% every year. Do you think people will still strive for the top if they believe the fruits of their labors will be confiscated? Who will feed the hungry when they say "screw it?"

Jan 13, 2012#40

Shegokigo

This is honestly why I don't usually get involved into political discussions, everytime a point is proven, one way or the other, the other side will deflect and change direction of the topic. I can't gather enough "give a shit" to continue it.

The only reason I posted this, was because I've seen hard working people, barely live through the system there is now (so I'm not by any means saying the one we have now is good) just to hear politicians that are almost always born with a silver spoon in their mouth, talk about how the poor are only poor because they're lazy. If they tried harder they'd have a better life. Then they have the audacity to say "Like I did!" or "You failed because you didn't try hard enough" or "You're just envious, disparity in incomes isn't a real problem in this country".

How to fix it, why it's broken, or what's really wrong aren't questions I can answer or retort responses to. Guess I'm just too lazy to learn.

Jan 13, 2012#41

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
This is honestly why I don't usually get involved into political discussions, everytime a point is proven, one way or the other, the other side will deflect and change direction of the topic. I can't gather enough "give a shit" to continue it.

The only reason I posted this, was because I've seen hard working people, barely live through the system there is now (so I'm not by any means saying the one we have now is good) just to hear politicians that are almost always born with a silver spoon in their mouth, talk about how the poor are only poor because they're lazy. If they tried harder they'd have a better life. Then they have the audacity to say "Like I did!" or "You failed because you didn't try hard enough" or "You're just envious, disparity in incomes isn't a real problem in this country".

How to fix it, why it's broken, or what's really wrong aren't questions I can answer or retort responses to. Guess I'm just too lazy to learn.

It will never be "fixed," not completely. There will always be tragedy, there will always be poor. There will always be wealthy and powerful, and some of both sides will always be undeservedly so. How we can best apply our efforts to reducing it is a decades old debate. But what we have observed is that redistributionist social programs create as many poor as they eliminate, while simultaneously causing a drain on the economy. For every of your friend who clawed his way up, there's at least another who would rather collect welfare and accept that standard of living rather than work. The same largely applies even to unemployment benefits - If you get laid off from a 50k/year job, you may decide to continue to collect unemployment benefits for 99 weeks that is the equivalent to 22k/year after taxes then take a 25k/year job that you consider beneath you (or, "not in your field" as the parlance goes)... an extra 9 hours of free time a day can do wonders for one's stress level and quality of life.

But now I AM getting off on a tangent...

Jan 13, 2012#42

jwhouk

I seem to remember someone saying something about "You will always have the poor among you, and you can help them whenever you want to."

Jan 13, 2012#43

Dei

Personally, I think it's going to come down to the Independents, and it won't matter piss all what the Republicans think. God knows my husband would rather hold his nose and vote for Obama rather than let any of the current candidates win. Of course, I might just think that way because I live in a swing state.

Jan 14, 2012#44

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Anti-intellectualism is an antibody with unfortunate side effects that comes up because of an even more rampant problem - pseudo-intellectualism. It's so omnipresent you can't go a single day without seeing it. It's especially bad on the left, who wears it as armor while they wield appeals to emotion like a weapon... see above in this thread.

Anti-intellectualism as a response to pseudo-intellectualism....

And you don't actually see that as worse...

That's like hating oranges because you one bit into a plastic orange...

And you're talking abut appeals to emotion after bringing out the " Biff Tannens of the world who spent high school getting drunk, stoned, and laid"...

stienman said:
When did I say that?

I'm saying that people should not be limited by the government as to what they can earn and do with their lives.

I'm a big fan of the welfare system.

You said that when you supported Romney's statement that Shego quoted... and added no caveats or clarifications...

stienman said:
What have I, or Romney, for that matter, said that is anything like, "Get rid of welfare and dump everyone on the street."???

Tenuous interpretation combined with hyperbole isn't useful, and I don't know why you, shego, and others keep resorting to it.

When he made the argument that they're envious and undeserving...

Shegokigo said:
I was never concerned that Romney had a chance at winning, I just found it hilarious that someone so out of touch with the way the real world is, due his having no idea how it really works, would continue to read those ridiculous scripts.

Oh, seee, that's your problem, he's not reading it for the world, he's reading it for the republican base... we'll have to wait until he's the nominee to see the scripts that are meant for the world...

Jan 14, 2012#45

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
an extra 9 hours of free time a day can do wonders for one's stress level and quality of life.

I think that's a matter of the individual. My wife's been out of work a couple months now and she's starting to crack.

Jan 14, 2012#46

Dei

My mom and grandma are the same way, my mom goes stir crazy if she's not working.

Jan 15, 2012#47

PatrThom

The trouble is not that there are so many poor people, the trouble is that those entities with the majority of wealth are rather attached to their position and are doing what they can to make sure they never have to give it up, whether by propaganda, legislation, or subterfuge. This makes it very hard to justify the "Just looking out for Humanity/It's only natural/Everyone gets what they deserve" rhetoric when they are seen actively jacking up their end of the playing field when they think nobody is looking.

--Patrick

Jan 15, 2012#48

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
The trouble is not that there are so many poor people, the trouble is that those entities with the majority of wealth are rather attached to their position and are doing what they can to make sure they never have to give it up, whether by propaganda, legislation, or subterfuge. This makes it very hard to justify the "Just looking out for Humanity/It's only natural/Everyone gets what they deserve" rhetoric when they are seen actively jacking up their end of the playing field when they think nobody is looking.

--Patrick

For example Corporate personhood.

Jan 16, 2012#49

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
This makes it very hard to justify the "Just looking out for Humanity/It's only natural/Everyone gets what they deserve" rhetoric when they are seen actively jacking up their end of the playing field when they think nobody is looking.

Well obviously that's just part of what make them more deserving... screwing people by your own power (aka money) = good, having a 3rd party make sure everyone plays by the same rules = evil....

Jan 16, 2012#50

ElJuski

Well, let me tell you guys something. These rich people and these corporations, just because they've used our roads, infrastructure and constitutionally sound American securities to make billions upon billions of dollars, it would just be outright un-American for them to even consider giving something back to support the nation that fostered them into wealth, and it would be downright vile if these millionaires thought of forking over some extra cash to help out those dumb, lazy bastards that decided to not become business monguls.

But then again, I know jack shit, because I'm a glorified babysitter for a living, and we live fat off the glut of the American system.

Jan 16, 2012#51

@Li3n

ElJuski said:
our roads, infrastructure and constitutionally sound American securities.

Whose roads, you pinko-nazi-communist?

Jan 16, 2012#52

GasBandit

I'll have to admit, I often have a rather un-libertarian thought in pertains to how to start to fix the income gap... and that thought is usually, specify by law that the highest paid person's total compensation of any company can only make up to 30 times what the lowest paid person's total compensation is. IE, if the CEO is to be paid $1,000,000, then even the part timer in the mail room has to be paid 16.66/hour - and still get benefits.

I know, shocking, right?

Jan 16, 2012#53

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
I'll have to admit, I often have a rather un-libertarian thought in pertains to how to start to fix the income gap... and that thought is usually, specify by law that the highest paid person's total compensation of any company can only make up to 30 times what the lowest paid person's total compensation is. IE, if the CEO is to be paid $1,000,000, then even the part timer in the mail room has to be paid 16.66/hour - and still get benefits.

Now the effect of something like that on the labour market is something i'd pay to see...

Jan 16, 2012#54

Overflight

GasBandit said:
I'll have to admit, I often have a rather un-libertarian thought in pertains to how to start to fix the income gap... and that thought is usually, specify by law that the highest paid person's total compensation of any company can only make up to 30 times what the lowest paid person's total compensation is. IE, if the CEO is to be paid $1,000,000, then even the part timer in the mail room has to be paid 16.66/hour - and still get benefits.

I know, shocking, right?

...yes...shocking. Uh... do you mind handing us a blood sample so I can wave this flamethrower heated wire over it for absolutely no reason?

Jan 16, 2012#55

strawman

GasBandit said:
I'll have to admit, I often have a rather un-libertarian thought in pertains to how to start to fix the income gap... and that thought is usually, specify by law that the highest paid person's total compensation of any company can only make up to 30 times what the lowest paid person's total compensation is. IE, if the CEO is to be paid $1,000,000, then even the part timer in the mail room has to be paid 16.66/hour - and still get benefits.

I know, shocking, right?

Oh great. So now I need to form a management company with all my highly paid employees, who are purchased as a service by my other companies for all the lowly grunts.

If you're going to force me to use a loophole, at least make it challenging.

Jan 16, 2012#56

GasBandit

stienman said:
Oh great. So now I need to form a management company with all my highly paid employees, who are purchased as a service by my other companies for all the lowly grunts.

If you're going to force me to use a loophole, at least make it challenging.

That's a pretty easily closed loophole.

Jan 16, 2012#57

strawman

GasBandit said:
That's a pretty easily closed loophole.

I don't see how. There are millions of ways to structure shell corporations and investments that would result in the "president" receiving all the gains while distancing the workers enough to avoid having to pay them according to your schedule. That doesn't even count having the management corporation exist in another country's jurisdiction.

But it's all academic and not worth arguing over.

However I have yet to meet someone who said, "I can close that loophole" (in reference to business law and taxes) who actually could after extended discussion, so you're welcome to try.

Jan 16, 2012#58

GasBandit

stienman said:
I don't see how. There are millions of ways to structure shell corporations and investments that would result in the "president" receiving all the gains while distancing the workers enough to avoid having to pay them according to your schedule. That doesn't even count having the management corporation exist in another country's jurisdiction.

But it's all academic and not worth arguing over.

However I have yet to meet someone who said, "I can close that loophole" (in reference to business law and taxes) who actually could after extended discussion, so you're welcome to try.

Observe - The statute stipulates that those who are part of a staffing/human resources company or any company providing a service that bills any single client over $30,000 in one year have to have their individual incomes and clients reported so that they can be taken into account for enforcement of the statute. Suddenly even your landscaping service's minimum wage drones count. Sorry, CEO, you "only" get to make $435,000 this year! Ha-ha! (/nelson)

Jan 16, 2012#59

strawman

So I merely need to have thousands of "contractors" which individually make under $30k/yr each. No problem.

Jan 16, 2012#60

Necronic

ElJuski said:
Well, let me tell you guys something. These rich people and these corporations, just because they've used our roads, infrastructure and constitutionally sound American securities to make billions upon billions of dollars, it would just be outright un-American for them to even consider giving something back to support the nation that fostered them into wealth, and it would be downright vile if these millionaires thought of forking over some extra cash to help out those dumb, lazy bastards that decided to not become business monguls.

I believe what you are talking about are called taxes. And they do pay them.

One thing i've found interesting is that the left will point out "the top 1% hold more 50% of the nations wealth!" and the right will point out "the top 1% pay 50% of the nations tax burden!". Now, if you do a little thing I like call 'synthergizing' you can figure out that both points effectively cancel each other out.

Also (can't remember who said it) please don't say that the scale is Capitalism <-> Socialism, the scale is Capitalism <-> Communism. There's a pretty important difference there. Socialism is the thing that exists at some qualitative point between capitalism and communism.

Jan 16, 2012#61

Krisken

Necronic said:
I believe what you are talking about are called taxes. And they do pay them.

One thing i've found interesting is that the left will point out "the top 1% hold more 50% of the nations wealth!" and the right will point out "the top 1% pay 50% of the nations tax burden!". Now, if you do a little thing I like call 'synthergizing' you can figure out that both points effectively cancel each other out.

And then you include the income disparity and the rate of cost of living vs. income increases over the last 80 years and they no longer cancel each other out.

Jan 16, 2012#62

ElJuski

Yeah, but in my opinion, not enough taxes.

Jan 16, 2012#63

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
Yeah, but in my opinion, not enough taxes.

You could tax them at 100% and still not make enough to cover spending.

stienman said:
So I merely need to have thousands of "contractors" which individually make under $30k/yr each. No problem.

No differentiation between employees and "contractors." They do work for you, they count. They report their income for tax purposes, that income comes from your company and is reported as such, subsequently it figures into your limits.

Jan 16, 2012#64

Krisken

GasBandit said:
No differentiation between employees and "contractors." They do work for you, they count. They report their income for tax purposes, that income comes from your company and is reported as such, subsequently it figures into your limits.

As an independent contractor, I can tell you that this is false. They are not interchangeable, and follow different rules where the law is concerned.

Jan 16, 2012#65

GasBandit

Krisken said:
As an independent contractor, I can tell you that this is false. They are not interchangeable, and follow different rules where the law is concerned.

I meant, for the purposes of this hypothetical legislation.

Jan 16, 2012#66

Krisken

GasBandit said:
I meant, for the purposes of this hypothetical legislation.

And how would you prevent a clause in the contract that would contradict the law? Contracts are funny things.

Jan 16, 2012#67

GasBandit

Krisken said:
And how would you prevent a clause in the contract that would contradict the law? Contracts are funny things.

Everyone already has to report income for tax purposes. The source(s) of that income is already enumerated. Thus, enforcement of the law is as easy (for the government) as catching a tax cheat.

Jan 16, 2012#68

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Everyone already has to report income for tax purposes. The source(s) of that income is already enumerated. Thus, enforcement of the law is as easy (for the government) as catching a tax cheat.

My point is, it's not cheating if it is explicitly written in the contract to allow for it.

Jan 16, 2012#69

GasBandit

Krisken said:
My point is, it's not cheating if it is explicitly written in the contract to allow for it.

Contracts that are in violation of law are, by definition, not lawful contracts.

Jan 16, 2012#70

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Contracts that are in violation of law are, by definition, not lawful contracts.

Gas, I am an independent contractor. I get paid per paper delivered depending on the size of the paper. I'm telling you flat-out this law you propose is IMPOSSIBLE to make apply to all contractors/employees.

Jan 16, 2012#71

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Gas, I am an independent contractor. I get paid per paper delivered depending on the size of the paper. I'm telling you flat-out this law you propose is IMPOSSIBLE to make apply to all contractors/employees.

So how do you fill out your 1040?

Jan 16, 2012#72

Krisken

GasBandit said:
So how do you fill out your 1040?

You seem bound and determined not to see the problems with your proposal (or a way to fix the proposal), so I'm going to let you just keep going with it. Have fun!

Jan 16, 2012#73

GasBandit

Krisken said:
You seem bound and determined not to see the problems with your proposal (or a way to fix the proposal), so I'm going to let you just keep going with it. Have fun!

Do you, or do you not, keep records of accounts receivable? Do you, or do you not, file a federal income tax return? Are you, or are you not bailing with a cop out because it's what you always do?

Well, you get an 18 hour reprieve now anyway. Going home now.

Jan 16, 2012#74

Krisken

I'm just not interested in arguing with you anymore. You wore me out. Congrats. You want to spend the rest of your night arguing with people, be my guest.

Jan 17, 2012#75

Covar

Gas your imaginary bill kills B2B companies.

Jan 17, 2012#76

GasBandit

Covar said:
Gas your imaginary bill kills B2B companies.

It only applies to services, not to transactions for material goods.

Jan 17, 2012#77

strawman

Ah. So as long as my suppliers sell me very, very expensive BIC pens, then I'm good.

Jan 17, 2012#78

@Li3n

Guys, it's a hypothetical, so obviously we assume everything goes right for the bill and they actually put in effort to close loopholes etc...you know, like it would never happen IRL.

But even so i'm pretty sure it would create a situation where there's no such thing as a normal starting wage for your profession and all sorts of other weird situations around salary...

Jan 17, 2012#79

Covar

@Li3n said:
Guys, it's a hypothetical, so obviously we assume everything goes right for the bill and they actually put in effort to close loopholes etc...you know, like it would never happen IRL.

But see that's my issue. The "loopholes" are in fact how many people already make a living. Companies providing business services to other business is a HUGE aspect of Enterprise businesses. It beneficial to both parties involved.

Honestly I'm not quite convinced Gas isn't just trolling.

Jan 17, 2012#80

@Li3n

Covar said:
But see that's my issue. The "loopholes" are in fact how many people already make a living. Companies providing business services to other business is a HUGE aspect of Enterprise businesses. It beneficial to both parties involved.

Wouldn't this one require them to be shell companies to actually be a loophole to his original idea, and not just 2 different companies...

Jan 17, 2012#81

GasBandit

stienman said:
Ah. So as long as my suppliers sell me very, very expensive BIC pens, then I'm good.

That seems more like fraud. And you think such things would not be caught and prosecuted?

Covar said:
But see that's my issue. The "loopholes" are in fact how many people already make a living. Companies providing business services to other business is a HUGE aspect of Enterprise businesses. It beneficial to both parties involved.

Honestly I'm not quite convinced Gas isn't just trolling.

It would involve a paradigm shift back toward in-house employment to be sure rather than hiring outside contractors - provided those outside contractors underpay their staff.

Jan 17, 2012#82

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
That seems more like fraud. And you think such things would not be caught and prosecuted?

He knows they're not because he's using how things work now as the example...

See, that's the problem with discussing this stuff, if you assume corruption nothing ever works... so really, the 1st step would be to minimise corruption... then you start doing stuff like your idea...

Jan 17, 2012#83

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
See, that's the problem with discussing this stuff, if you assume corruption nothing ever works... so really, the 1st step would be to minimise corruption... then you start doing stuff like your idea...

If you assume corruption, then the only system that works is direct, violence-driven despotism.

Jan 17, 2012#84

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
If you assume corruption, then the only system that works is direct, violence-driven despotism.

Nah, that implies killing off teh corrupt... so no more corruption then either...

Jan 18, 2012#85

Necronic

Krisken said:
And then you include the income disparity and the rate of cost of living vs. income increases over the last 80 years and they no longer cancel each other out.

I don't follow.

Jan 18, 2012#86

Krisken

Necronic said:
I don't follow.

The increase in income by percentage over the last 80 years by income class when compared to the rate of inflation.

Jan 19, 2012#87

AshburnerX

Krisekn's trying to say that the wages of the working class haven't risen steadily with inflation, thus giving the workers less purchasing power despite having more money. This is as opposed to the higher class, whose wages have exponentially outstripped inflation, thus giving them wealth not since seen since the Gilded Age.

Jan 19, 2012#88

Krisken

Thank you, Ash. You put it much more succinctly than I ever could.

Jan 19, 2012#89

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
This is as opposed to the higher class, whose wages have exponentially outstripped inflation, thus giving them wealth not since seen since the Gilded Age.

Uhhhhh.... foreshadowing.

Or is it hindsight? Nah, too optimistic...

Jan 22, 2012#90

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Uhhhhh.... foreshadowing.

More like spoilers.

Jan 23, 2012#91

GasBandit

It says a lot about the republican party that their most fervently backed would-be nominee is the guy who lost to McCain last time. McCain lost. Bad. And if anything McCain's campaign clearly showed that making a Democrat-friendly maverick your nominee doesn't win independents, it just loses the base.

But really, I'm of the opinion that the only thing in the republican primary this go-around that was anything approaching credible was Herman Cain. Can you believe Rick "Suck it up and raise the rape-baby god blessed you with" Santorum is still in the race?

Yeah, feel a little dirty for posting a video with a thinkprogress logo on it, but you get it where it comes from.

Jan 23, 2012#92

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
It says a lot about the republican party that their most fervently backed would-be nominee is the guy who lost to McCain last time. McCain lost. Bad. And if anything McCain's campaign clearly showed that making a Democrat-friendly maverick your nominee doesn't win independents, it just loses the base.

But really, I'm of the opinion that the only thing in the republican primary this go-around that was anything approaching credible was Herman Cain. Can you believe Rick "Suck it up and raise the rape-baby god blessed you with" Santorum is still in the race?

Yeah, feel a little dirty for posting a video with a thinkprogress logo on it, but you get it where it comes from.

He goes from "horribly created by rape" to "gift of human life"...

You know what, I've had a rough day and I just don't feel like dealing with the Republican Party right now.

Jan 23, 2012#93

Shakey

GasBandit said:
And if anything McCain's campaign clearly showed that making a Democrat-friendly maverick your nominee doesn't win independents, it just loses the base.

He lost the independents trying to suck up to the base, who didn't buy it, so he lost both. I know a lot of independents that would have voted for him had he just been himself, and picked a competent VP.

Jan 23, 2012#94

AshburnerX

Shakey said:
He lost the independents trying to suck up to the base, who didn't buy it, so he lost both. I know a lot of independents that would have voted for him had he just been himself, and picked a competent VP.

Basically this. He sold-out to the party and abandoned his principles for the nomination, then picked an incredibly awful person for his VP in a shallow attempt to steal the female vote. Everything about his campaign was about selling out his values to the Republican establishment, when his record AGAINST the establishment was the only interesting thing about him.

Jan 23, 2012#95

Hailey Knight

Shakey said:
He lost the independents trying to suck up to the base, who didn't buy it, so he lost both. I know a lot of independents that would have voted for him had he just been himself, and picked a competent VP.

That's what many people said to me. I honestly think Palin was the real death knell for his campaign.

Jan 23, 2012#96

ElJuski

Still have my theory that the GOP willingly threw away the nomination in 2008 to saddle the Democrat black dude with all this bullshit and come back in after 2012...until the Tea Party went out of their control and started pushing the whole damn party running and screaming over the cliff.

Jan 23, 2012#97

jwhouk

No, they wanted to keep the WH in '08. It's just that no one - not the GOP, not the Dem's - saw the financial collapse of September 2008.

Jan 23, 2012#98

Shakey

Quotemander Prime said:
That's what many people said to me. I honestly think Palin was the real death knell for his campaign.

It really was. Most independents would have put up with his party crazy as long as his potential replacement was at least somewhat competent. God knows I would have.

Jan 25, 2012#99

GasBandit

Welp, Newt Gingrich has officially promised the moon.

On Florida’s Space Coast today, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made perhaps the most grandiose promise of any candidate since JFK: A permanent American moon base by the end of his second term.

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich told a rapt audience, which responded with a standing ovation.

“We clearly have the capacity that Chinese and the Russians will never come anywhere close to us,” Gingrich said, adding that he also plans to push for the development of propulsion technology capable of getting a man to Mars.

The initiatives would be a joint public-private endeavor, he noted.

Gingrich immediately followed up his grandiose promises by saying that he believes Americans “are instinctively grandiose.” This, too, got a standing ovation.

Jan 25, 2012#100

Shegokigo

It's hilarious how much Obama is going to win by.

Jan 25, 2012#101

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
It's hilarious how much Obama is going to win by.

One of these days, Shego. Bang! Zoom! To the moon!

Jan 25, 2012#102

Shegokigo

To the base that ~~Al Gore~~ Newt built!

Jan 25, 2012#103

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
Welp, Newt Gingrich has officially promised the moon.

On Florida’s Space Coast today, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made perhaps the most grandiose promise of any candidate since JFK: A permanent American moon base by the end of his second term.

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich told a rapt audience, which responded with a standing ovation.

“We clearly have the capacity that Chinese and the Russians will never come anywhere close to us,” Gingrich said, adding that he also plans to push for the development of propulsion technology capable of getting a man to Mars.

Newt thinks it's 1982.

Jan 25, 2012#104

GasBandit

He's gonna have to wrangle up a whoooole bunch of whalers and fungineers.

Jan 25, 2012#105

Gared

Shegokigo said:
It's hilarious how much Obama is going to win by.

I can easily see this race going much the way of the '04 race, where the entire democratic campaign appeared to be "we're not Bush," with little or no substantive topics discussed by them.

Jan 25, 2012#106

GasBandit

Gared said:
I can easily see this race going much the way of the '04 race, where the entire democratic campaign appeared to be "we're not Bush," with little or no substantive topics discussed by them.

That's what the 08 race was, even though Bush wasn't running.

Jan 25, 2012#107

Krisken

GasBandit said:
That's what the 08 race was, even though Bush wasn't running.

No, it really wasn't. That was icing on the cake though.

Jan 25, 2012#108

GasBandit

Krisken said:
No, it really wasn't. That was icing on the cake though.

The only part of it that wasn't was the part that was trying to paint McCain, up till then a huge RINO and the liberal press's favorite maverick, as being a 1 to 1 equivalency of a third Bush term. Then it all just went back to campaigning against Bush.

Jan 25, 2012#109

Krisken

Your history is a fascinating thing, Gas.

Jan 25, 2012#110

GasBandit

Last thing before I go home...

OBAMA SMASH

Jan 25, 2012#111

Hailey Knight

Actually, I do remember things being that way, at least in the news around DC. Not that Obama wasn't a charismatic candidate and really roused up support, but there was another side to that, and it very much equated McCain to third Bush term, and that Bush needed to be defeated.

McCain certainly did his part to help that image considering his choices during the campaign.

Jan 25, 2012#112

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
McCain certainly did his part to help that image considering his choices during the campaign.

And that's why I can't stand the "People were voting against a 3rd term of Bush" crap. If McCain had been his old self and been a somewhat centrist (though centrist isn't really all that centrist) instead of running toward the crazy part of his base, he would have probably beaten Obama. Instead he ran with Palin, embraced Bush's policies, and sang bomb bomb Iran.

Jan 25, 2012#113

Tress

Krisken said:
And that's why I can't stand the "People were voting against a 3rd term of Bush" crap. If McCain had been his old self and been a somewhat centrist (though centrist isn't really all that centrist) instead of running toward the crazy part of his base, he would have probably beaten Obama. Instead he ran with Palin, embraced Bush's policies, and sang bomb bomb Iran.

Ah, but if McCain had been his old centrist self, would Republicans have voted for him? Or would they have called him soft, whined about flip-flopping, and stayed home?

Jan 25, 2012#114

Krisken

Not my fault Republicans are too dumb to understand compromise for the good of the country.

Jan 25, 2012#115

strawman

Krisken said:
Not my fault Democrats are too dumb to understand compromise for the good of the country.

Jan 25, 2012#116

Tress

You're both wrong.

Not my fault people are too dumb to understand compromise for the good of the country.

There we go.

Jan 25, 2012#117

Shegokigo

@ Steinman - That'd be funny if it was the democrats from stopping so many of the helpful bills from being passed purely on their bias of personal problems.

Jan 25, 2012#118

Krisken

stienman said:
My quote all screwed up and wrong.

You must be watching a different last 3 years than I did.

Jan 25, 2012#119

Shegokigo

I must be.

Jan 25, 2012#120

strawman

Shegokigo said:
@ Steinman - That'd be funny if it was the democrats from stopping so many of the helpful bill from being passed purely on their bias of personal problems.

Ah, so when the republicans had a majority and the democrats were stopping bills, the difference is that the bills weren't helpful?

How short is your memory exactly?

I made fun of his statement because it was an ad-hominem attack of the republicans with no substance or value. The same could be said of the democrats or any other political party if one simply assumed a different perspective.

Your statement, at least, has something that can be tested and discussed - whether democrats or republicans are more prone to stopping useful bills from passing or not through the last few decades.

Jan 25, 2012#121

Krisken

Shegokigo said:
I must be.

No, the quote thingie, lack of quote tunnels made that turn out wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Added at: 22:20

stienman said:
Ah, so when the republicans had a majority and the democrats were stopping bills, the difference is that the bills weren't helpful?

How short is your memory exactly?

I made fun of his statement because it was an ad-hominem attack of the republicans with no substance or value. The same could be said of the democrats or any other political party if one simply assumed a different perspective.

Your statement, at least, has something that can be tested and discussed - whether democrats or republicans are more prone to stopping useful bills from passing or not through the last few decades.

The key word here was COMPROMISE. I like how ya did that though

It was a series of statements that led to it, and in the end I stand by how this Republican senate has dealt with their base. Even if that base is mostly imaginary and whipped into a fervor by a crazy media machine.

Jan 25, 2012#122

strawman

Krisken said:
You must be watching a different last 3 years than I did.

You must be watching a different last few decades than I did. Are you seriously saying that the republicans are the only ones bad at compromise, and that it's due to low intelligence? I suppose this is something you'll have to learn with more experience watching them wrestle over the next few decades, but I can assure you that the blame rests with both parties, even when it seems as though only one party is stopping up the works.

Jan 25, 2012#123

Krisken

No, that's not what I'm saying, Stienman. I'm saying, AGAIN, that the last 3 years have been pretty ridiculous. Even when you give the Republican minority what they want, they are pissed off you even tried. Fuck all that.

Both parties are retarded. Only one group is pissing on itself, though.

Jan 26, 2012#124

GasBandit

LOUD NOISES

Jan 26, 2012#125

Necronic

Tress said:
You're both wrong.

Not my fault people are too dumb to understand compromise for the good of the country.
There we go.

How dare you compromise their statements!

Jan 27, 2012#126

@Li3n

Nice: http://romneyandme.com/

Jan 27, 2012#127

Krisken

Nothing like a rich person calculator to make me feel dirt poor.

Jan 27, 2012#128

Shakey

Suggested amount you should bet Rick Perry in a televised GOP debate: $12

Nice touch.

Jan 27, 2012#129

Necronic

Too bad that tax rate is completely wrong. The number it gave is almost my entire tax bill.

Jan 27, 2012#130

fade

The more I learn about politics, the less I know. I'm more and more loathe to make sweeping statements, but I do firmly believe that fiscal conservatism and libertarianism are not the best answer. Mostly because of historical evidence. I see the world as having been libertarian for centuries, and it self-organized into haves and have-nots time and time again, to the point where it was usually difficult to tell government from wealthy elite. These days we have strongly regulated central governments, and instead of revolting, the country is calling for reform from the 2 1/2 centuries of libertarianism this country already enjoyed. I see it as a point of pride in the US that we're not resorting to the usual war to take back the resources. Really, I almost see two governments anyway. The "real" one, and the "private" oligarchy already taxing us everyday for things we do and use. That's the tax rate that many of us see as too high. That's the one that has to be cut. Not because I want what mr. ceo has. Because I want to stop sending such a large percentage of what I DO earn to him. By analogy, if I yell at you to stop punching me, it's not because I want to be punching people, too. It's because I really don't like being punched in the face.

Jan 27, 2012#131

GasBandit

I don't agree that "the country is calling for reform from the 2 1/2 centuries of libertarianism this country has already enjoyed." This country has not had anything approaching libertarianism since at least FDR, probably even farther back than the Civil War. How Libertarian was Andrew Jackson? It's the same as how people kept saying that "capitalism/the free market has failed" in the big economic crash when the truth of the matter is we haven't even given capitalism/the market a chance - it's all mired down in 400 layers of central planning.

Rather, I think the nation has only sustained itself as far as it has because of its libertarian roots. The concept of freedom and liberty (with the requisite accompaniment of personal responsibility) is what made a country that everybody from everywhere else wanted to live, and got us started down the path to broad swaths of prosperity for all, driven by the profit motive of the individual.

Libertarianism didn't give us oligarchy, every system of government ever attempted wound up a de facto oligarchy - the elite powerful rule, and if they weren't already wealthy, they became so very quickly - no matter if the attempt was monarchy, commuism, socialism, despotism or republic. Wealth is humanity's metric expression of power, so naturally, human nature ends up with the powerful being wealthy and vice versa.

Jan 27, 2012#132

fade

That's kind of the same thing I said, except I see it that the wealthy end up powerful, not the powerful end up wealthy.
Added at: 20:59
What you see as 400 layers of central control, I see as growing from free market, not growing against it. We haven't given free market a chance, because every time we do, the wealthy form self-protecting "400 layers of central control". I guess I don't see the government and the market as distinct beings.
Added at: 21:04
I should refine that to a timeline.
1. Free market and small/no gov't forms oligarchy
2. Oligarchy forms self-protecting big gov't
3. Big gov't co-opted to serve proletariat.
4. Guillotines.

I'm not saying this is how it has to be or what's happening now. It just looks like this to me historically.

Jan 27, 2012#133

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Rather, I think the nation has only sustained itself as far as it has because of its libertarian roots. The concept of freedom and liberty (with the requisite accompaniment of personal responsibility) is what made a country that everybody from everywhere else wanted to live, and got us started down the path to broad swaths of prosperity for all, driven by the profit motive of the individual.

Yes, i mean what other country has lasted for less then 300 years...

GasBandit said:
everybody from everywhere else wanted to live

Especially all those sub-saharan africans...

Jan 27, 2012#134

GasBandit

fade said:
That's kind of the same thing I said, except I see it that the wealthy end up powerful, not the powerful end up wealthy.

Yes, you're correct, that's what you said.. I said the vice versa also applies.

What you see as 400 layers of central control, I see as growing from free market, not growing against it. We haven't given free market a chance, because every time we do, the wealthy form self-protecting "400 layers of central control". I guess I don't see the government and the market as distinct beings.

And therein lies our disagreement. Or rather, we agree they are currently not, we disagree on whether they should be. It's funny though how when things are going great, government gets the credit, but when things are going rough, the "free market has failed us."

I should refine that to a timeline.
1. Free market and small/no gov't forms oligarchy
2. Oligarchy forms self-protecting big gov't
3. Big gov't co-opted to serve proletariat.
4. Guillotines.

I'm not saying this is how it has to be or what's happening now. It just looks like this to me historically.

No, you would not be incorrect to say this is how it has to be and how it is happening now. It's just a question of whether it ever actually gets to 4. You can bet the upper eschelons in china and back in the soviet union were not of the same wealth status as their comrades in equality.

I guess what I'm saying is, we as a species currently have no way to eradicate fiscal inequality or decouple wealth and power. It's just a question of what flavor you want your inequality.

Jan 27, 2012#135

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
It's funny though how when things are going great, government gets the credit, but when things are going rough, the "free market has failed us."

Well it is the governments role to regulate the free market... so actually both have failed...

But the free market is supposed to fail all the time, that's how it gets rid of the stuff that's not working... it's like nature that way... once in a while it has to kill off a bunch of dinosaurs... if you don't believe me just google Tulip bubble (mania if that doesn't work).

Added at: 21:57

GasBandit said:
I guess what I'm saying is, we as a species currently have no way to eradicate fiscal inequality or decouple wealth and power. It's just a question of what flavor you want your inequality.

I'll go with this one if you don't mind: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/26-3

Jan 27, 2012#136

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yes, i mean what other country has lasted for less then 300 years...

you're going to have to expound on that for me.

Especially all those sub-saharan africans...

That's a dumb thing to say. Do you think if we offered them the trip back to sub saharan africa, they'd go? "No because now it's ruined" No, it was ruined then too. It's always been ruined. It's sub saharan freakin africa.

Additionally, around 500,000 slaves were brought to america before international slave trade was banned in 1807. After that, they were all "home grown" so to speak. Interesting to note, too, that slavery actually persists within africa to this day in places like sierra leone (blood diamonds don't dig themselves after all).
Added at: 16:05

@Li3n said:
I'll go with this one if you don't mind: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/26-3

Yeah, that's been going on for less than 100 years. Let's see where you are in another 200, if you make it that far. It might be pretty easy actually... nobody expects scandinavia to be hegemon/global police.

Jan 27, 2012#137

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
you're going to have to expound on that for me.

I thought it was pretty obvious it was a jab at it not being all that much time... and plenty of other countries where powerful for longer while being pretty awful, hell, Rome's Empire days lasted more...

GasBandit said:
That's a dumb thing to say. Do you think if we offered them the trip back to sub saharan africa, they'd go? "No because now it's ruined" No, it was ruined then too. It's always been ruined. It's sub saharan freakin africa.

Well they went back to Liberia once...

And sure, it's always been the place where they used slave labour to mine diamonds, because we all know how much diamonds meant to pre-feudal societies...

GasBandit said:
Additionally, around 500,000 slaves were brought to america before international slave trade was banned in 1807. After that, they were all "home grown" so to speak. Interesting to note, too, that slavery actually persists within africa to this day in places like sierra leone (blood diamonds don't dig themselves after all).

And that totally makes it ok...

Jan 27, 2012#138

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
I thought it was pretty obvious it was a jab at it not being all that much time... and plenty of other countries where powerful for longer while being pretty awful, hell, Rome's Empire days lasted more...

You who trumpets the scandinavian socialist miracle of the 20th century is lecturing ME that OUR system hasn't lasted long?

And sure, it's always been the place where they used slave labour to mine diamonds, because we all know how much diamonds meant to pre-feudal societies...

You're getting your sentences crossed.

And that totally makes it ok...

Does it make it ok? No. Does it reveal the irrelevancy in your fallacious insinuation? Yes.

Jan 27, 2012#139

fade

I may not agree with you GasBandit, but I've always liked your debate skills. It's fun to actually debate with someone who doesn't resort to personal insults or image macros (unless the discussion has already devolved).

Jan 27, 2012#140

GasBandit

fade said:
I may not agree with you GasBandit, but I've always liked your debate skills. It's fun to actually debate with someone who doesn't resort to personal insults or image macros (unless the discussion has already devolved).

STOP SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT ME YOU ASSHOLE

Jan 27, 2012#141

Necronic

My problem with a truly "free market" is that it's based on so called "strong efficient market hypothesis", which is the view that the free market represents true value in pricing. If this were the case then it would behoove companies to create real wealth as the value of their company would only increase in creating true wealth.

The problem with the strong-EMH is that it's completely false. The recent crash of the stock markets proved that. All of the tools set up by a highly free market to create a highly efficient market (like the ratings agencies) turned out to be completely unreliable, and it turned out that there was no real incentive for a company to use a reputable ratings agency.

The whole debacle showed that markets can become so complex as to hide actual value from consumers, and when the underlying value of a product is unknown a free market fails to perform.

Beyond that there are other serious issues with a free market. The biggest one imho is that the collateral damage that a company can cause goes well beyond the value of the company itself. If a company can potentially destroy more wealth than it is worth then you can have situations where a corporate entitiy is willing to take excessive risks to generate high profits, but with the risk of causing damages to other companies.

A perfect analogy to this is the workplace. Do companies let employees do whatever they want and only punish them if they do something bad? No, companies have internal policies and regulations to limit the collateral damage a bad employee can do. Do you let guys show up to the plant drunk and only fire them if they cause an accident?

Now you could argue that if people knew that a company took dangerous risks then they would avoid doing business with them right? Free market solution right? This again goes back to the lack of efficiency in the market. If people don't have a full understanding of a company, something they can't have, they can't tell how dangerous it is.

Then of course you have the environmental problems with a free market. Certain assets exist that have value to individuals, but can not be contained or parcelled up in any way. One example would be air quality, another would be biodiversity. Due to the nature of these assets they can only truly be understood as existing in a mutual trust.

However in a truly free market there is no system to stop people from over-exploiting these shared trusts for their own personal benefits. Part of this is due to the short lives of humans. The long term affects of diminished bio-diversity will not be felt in an individuals lifetime.

Now, you might counter that in a free market people will see that the company is doing this damage to the environment and say "hey, I'm not going to buy this product anymore" and voila a free market solution right? This, yet again, relies on the existence of an efficient market. With no requirements to release any environmental or safety data why would a company do so? Why not just put a good PR spin out there for 1/10th the price?

These issues are the exact kinds of problems you see in developing countries. Companies will do massive environmental damage and cover it up as best they can or they will use dangerous business practices that damage the economy as a whole. The Free Market is unable to solve these problems because the market is not truly efficient, and until some serious 3rd party comes in to manage these things (ie government regulations) the companies keep on keeping on doing their baddie stuff (see Russia, China, India, too many countries to list).

At the end of the day Free Markest seem like a solution for everything, but they rely so heavy on a mistaken belief in a strongly efficient market, something that doesn't exist.

Jan 27, 2012#142

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
You who trumpets the scandinavian socialist miracle of the 20th century is lecturing ME that OUR system hasn't lasted long?

Unlike you i haven't actually made any grand statements about their social miracle causing "broad swaths of prosperity for all" (there's still poor people everywhere btw)...

What i implied was that when it comes to choosing my flavour of inequality i'll take the scandinavian one...

GasBandit said:
You're getting your sentences crossed.

Nah, you're just not getting what i was implying...

GasBandit said:
Does it make it ok? No. Does it reveal the irrelevancy in your fallacious insinuation? Yes.

Yeah, me pointing out that "everybody from everywhere" is a gross exaggeration is totally a fallacy...

GasBandit said:
Yeah, that's been going on for less than 100 years. Let's see where you are in another 200, if you make it that far. It might be pretty easy actually... nobody expects scandinavia to be hegemon/global police.

You've only been a hegemon/global police since after WW2, and your actual "libertarian roots" included something called isolationism... so really, let's not get into the whole timeline thing...because originally i was simply making fun of your implication that your country lasted long, not making any statement about it's system not being able to last (if i were to make a statement about the system it would have more to do with it not being as much pure libertarianism as you claim).

Edit: added bolded part

Jan 27, 2012#143

Necronic

I was still surprised how good a hegemon Peter turned out to be. Who would have thought?

Jan 27, 2012#144

@Li3n

Necronic said:
My problem with a truly "free market" is that it's based on so called "strong efficient market hypothesis", which is the view that the free market represents true value in pricing. If this were the case then it would behoove companies to create real wealth as the value of their company would only increase in creating true wealth.

The problem with the strong-EMH is that it's completely false. The recent crash of the stock markets proved that. All of the tools set up by a highly free market to create a highly efficient market (like the ratings agencies) turned out to be completely unreliable, and it turned out that there was no real incentive for a company to use a reputable ratings agency.

No, no, no, no... those are just stuff free market advocates (that actually understand it) say to sell it to the masses... the truth is that the free market works even with those because it eventually self corrects under all circumstances...the same way that nature does when there's overpopulation...

The most honest idea i've heard is that under an actual free market the economy would have imploded way before 2008 and the implosion would be less severe then it is now... not that it would just go on and on doing fine...

Jan 27, 2012#145

Necronic

In a truly free market the dudes that caused this would have been able to double dip on the disaster and profited from both the boom and the bust without any reppurcussions. And then it would have happened again in 2 years because there would be no reason for financial firms to NOT cause such a disaster and then profit off of them, aside from feelings of warm fuzzies, and I don't believe any company worth a damn operates based on those. That's not a condemnation of corporate america by the way, that's actually a compliment to it. Economic darwinism creates some of the most brutal companies in teh world.

But you have to use a government to control their growth otherwise they will be eat themselves to death.

Jan 27, 2012#146

GasBandit

Necronic said:
At the end of the day Free Markets seem like a solution for everything, but they rely so heavy on a mistaken belief in a strongly efficient market, something that doesn't exist.

Well, there's free market and then there's absolute anarchy, which is what you're describing. Obviously, for society to function, there has to be regulation on some level... just right now there is a whole lot more than we need (or is healthy).

@Li3n said:
What i implied was that when it comes to choosing my flavour of inequality i'll take the scandinavian one...

Fair enough then. May your progeny continue to reap the benefits. I hope such is the case, but I'm not optimistic.

Nah, you're just not getting what i was implying...

Then stop implying and come right out and say it.

Yeah, me pointing out that "everybody from everywhere" is a gross exaggeration is totally a fallacy...

there have been a million voluntary immigrants from Africa. Our shores have always been clogged with immigrants from every corner of the earth. Even in the throes of the worst economic period in near 100 years, we still have problems with immigrants coming illegally. "Everybody from everywhere" is obviously hyperbole... but not by very much.

You've only been a hegemon/global police since after WW2, and your actual "libertarian roots" included something called isolationism... so really, let's not get into the whole timeline thing...because i was simply making fun of your implication that your country lasted long, not making any statement about it's system not being able to last (if i were to make a statement about the system it would have more to do with it not being as much pure libertarianism as you claim).

Of course it was never pure, but it was a hell of a lot less the central bureaucracy it has been for beyond living memory. I also never made the assertion that the US was old, I said it has "only lasted as long as it has." As in, we no longer operate in the manner which bests ensures our ability to continue operating. It wasn't a statement about longevity, it was a statement about impending failure.

Jan 27, 2012#147

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Then stop implying and come right out and say it.

Now where's the fun in that?

GasBandit said:
there have been a million voluntary immigrants from Africa. Our shores have always been clogged with immigrants from every corner of the earth. Even in the throes of the worst economic period in near 100 years, we still have problems with immigrants coming illegally. "Everybody from everywhere" is obviously hyperbole... but not by very much.

Yeah, because the majority of your immigrants, especially at the start where all about just coming to America and not about escaping religious persecution, potato famines or gold rushes... yeah, i'll stick with hyperbole by plenty...

GasBandit said:
Of course it was never pure, but it was a hell of a lot less the central bureaucracy it has been for beyond living memory. I also never made the assertion that the US was old, I said it has "only lasted as long as it has." As in, we no longer operate in the manner which bests ensures our ability to continue operating. It wasn't a statement about longevity, it was a statement about impending failure.

Oh, so you're just wrong about the future... sure, you might lose your world power, but that's how it's always been, no one stays on top forever... but look at it this way, at least you'll never have to be reminded of it all the time because your monarch is the nominal head of most of the former countries you used to rule...

But as a country it's unlikely that you'll turn into Russia...
Added at: 23:15

GasBandit said:
Well, there's free market and then there's absolute anarchy, which is what you're describing. Obviously, for society to function, there has to be regulation on some level... just right now there is a whole lot more than we need (or is healthy).

I don't think it's a question of quantity of rules as much as it's one of quality... just ask Romney how much the laws are actually stopping him from having swiss and cayman islands accounts so he can pay only 13.9% in taxes...

Jan 27, 2012#148

GasBandit

Yeah, because the majority of your immigrants, especially at the start where all about just coming to America and not about escaping religious persecution, potato famines or gold rushes... yeah, i'll stick with hyperbole by plenty...

That... wow. That's just some broken-ass stuff right there. That's like saying "you don't want to go to the grocery store, you just want to buy eggs, milk, bread and cheese."

Oh, so you're just wrong about the future... sure, you might lose your world power, but that's how it's always been, no one stays on top forever... but look at it this way, at least you'll never have to be reminded of it all the time because your monarch is the nominal head of most of the former countries you used to rule...

But as a country it's unlikely that you'll turn into Russia...

More likely than you might think, at least as far as "rampant corruption" and "breaking off smaller nations" goes.

I don't think it's a question of quantity of rules as much as it's one of quality... just ask Romney how much the laws are actually stopping him from having swiss and cayman islands accounts so he can pay only 13.9% in taxes...

What people tend to forget about capital gains tax is that you have to risk money to get capital gains at all, and the money you risk was already taxed (at the maximum rate in cases such as this) when it came in the form of income. Romney spent 42% of the money he made in 2011 in taxes and charity. He paid 3 million dollars in taxes. There's plenty to dislike Romney about, but no valid reasons on his tax return. That's just wealth envy.

Jan 27, 2012#149

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
That... wow. That's just some broken-ass stuff right there. That's like saying "you don't want to go to the grocery store, you just want to buy eggs, milk, bread and cheese."

More like you claiming that your store is better because everyone who wasn't welcomed in the other store comes to buy from you...

GasBandit said:
More likely than you might think, at least as far as "rampant corruption" and "breaking off smaller nations" goes.

Rampant corruption is everywhere, doing it Russia style actually take effort and a cultural background based on the secret service running everything since Ivan the Terrible...

An i'll believe Texas' talk when they actually do it... because it's not really in their advantage to break off the US... hell, you guys don't even have the ethnic differences...

GasBandit said:
What people tend to forget about capital gains tax is that you have to risk money to get capital gains at all, and the money you risk was already taxed (at the maximum rate in cases such as this) when it came in the form of income. Romney spent 42% of the money he made in 2011 in taxes and charity. He paid 3 million dollars in taxes. There's plenty to dislike Romney about, but no valid reasons on his tax return. That's just wealth envy.

And the money you get from working isn't already taxed?

And the charity is nice, but that doesn't actually makes exploiting the system fine...

But sure, i'm totally envious that he makes more money then me and pays less taxes, and that's wrong, because we all know people that get less need to contribute more...

GasBandit said:
He paid 3 million dollars in taxes.

Yeah... that doesn't really matter when it's less % then people who actually need the money more...

As for risks... that's what the rewards are for, and there are plenty of those without the giant tax reduction (not that there should be none, but from 35% to under 15%, wow )...

Jan 27, 2012#150

Krisken

I'm a big fan of the people who actually do the work getting a lower tax rate than those who don't. If that's considered envy then our country is in a sadder state than I anticipated.

Jan 27, 2012#151

@Li3n

Krisken said:
I'm a big fan of the people who actually do the work getting a lower tax rate than those who don't. If that's considered envy then our country is in a sadder state than I anticipated.

Which reminds me: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/jason-jonez-prezentz-mtv-s-tax-avoidance-strategies-for-high-net-worth-individualz

TL;DR version: Working to reduce your taxes requires you already have a lot of them... but hey, fairness = people that get less need to contribute more...

Jan 27, 2012#152

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
More like you claiming that your store is better because everyone who wasn't welcomed in the other store comes to buy from you...

No, this is an incorrect assertion couched in a flawed metaphor. The US was not their only possible destination.

Rampant corruption is everywhere, doing it Russia style actually take effort and a cultural background based on the secret service running everything since Ivan the Terrible...

You ever been to Chicago?

An i'll believe Texas' talk when they actually do it... because it's not really in their advantage to break off the US... hell, you guys don't even have the ethnic differences...

Texas won't have to. There won't be a U.S.A. left, and smaller countries will just grow out of the wreckage, so to speak, out of necessity. And WE HAVE NO ETHNIC DIFFERENCES? Oh god, let me wipe a tear out of my eye. That's a good one. Hey everybody - this guy says there are no ethnic differences in the US!

And the money you get from working isn't already taxed?

It wasn't my money the last time it was taxed. However, if I earn money, invest it, and then pass it on to my child at death, it's taxed 3 times before becoming someone else's.

And the charity is nice, but that doesn't actually makes exploiting the system fine...

Exploit what system?

But sure, i'm totally envious that he makes more money then me and pays less taxes,

Did you pay 3 million and one dollars in taxes? No? THEN YOU DIDN'T PAY LESS TAXES.

Yeah... that doesn't really matter when it's less % then people who actually need the money more...

I didn't realize I was arguing with the resurrected zombie of Karl Marx. The concept that wealth should be confiscated because a third party decides a second party needs it more is repugnant. Furthermore, to pay higher than the 15% tax bracket, one has to make more than $32,000 per year. While not fabulously wealthy, these people are not starving... and more to the point, they are paying 0.0016% taxes to what Mitt Romney does.

As for risks... that's what the rewards are for, and there are plenty of those without the giant tax reduction (not that there should be none, but from 35% to under 15%, wow )...

The 35% tax bracket starts at $379,000. Woe to those guys, huh? And that just means the money OVER 379k is taxed at that rate... everything lower is taxed lower. So it's a little hypocritical for you to be lamenting the tax burden of the 35% tax bracket.
Added at: 18:03

Krisken said:
I'm a big fan of the people who actually do the work getting a lower tax rate than those who don't. If that's considered envy then our country is in a sadder state than I anticipated.

"Actually do the work?" Putting aside the fact that you are, like so many others, confusing income tax with capital gains tax, How much work do you think would get done if confiscatory taxation chased all the wealth out of investing and back into sitting in a savings account compounding interest?

Mitt paid 3 million dollars in taxes. He paid more taxes than 136 people making 100k a year did. The system is already "progressive." It is just wealth envy, couched in false compassion.

If you really believed in what you just said, you'd support the Fair Tax.

Jan 27, 2012#153

Krisken

I like how the 'percentages' don't accurately represent actual payment. Their tax rate may be 39%, but with credits, incentives, and tax havens there is no way they pay nearly that much.

It is, however, a great way to distort the amount those poor exceedingly wealthy people pay in taxes and portray them as the victims in a country of increasing poverty.

Jan 27, 2012#154

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I like how the 'percentages' don't accurately represent actual payment. Their tax rate may be 39%, but with credits, incentives, and tax havens there is no way they pay nearly that much.

35%, actually. And again, that's only for money made above $379k. And it's only that low because of how many loopholes of which you speak were removed.

It is, however, a great way to distort the amount those poor exceedingly wealthy people pay in taxes and portray them as the victims in a country of increasing poverty.

The only thing Romney is a victim of is wealth envy and class warfare. Man, I hate having to stick up for him, but all this is bullshit.

Jan 27, 2012#155

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
No, this is an incorrect assertion couched in a flawed metaphor. The US was not their only possible destination.

And that's why Australia and South America are empty, because the US was just the best destination...

GasBandit said:
You ever been to Chicago?

Well i guess that's a start...

GasBandit said:
Texas won't have to. There won't be a U.S.A. left, and smaller countries will just grow out of the wreckage, so to speak, out of necessity.

GasBandit said:
And WE HAVE NO ETHNIC DIFFERENCES? Oh god, let me wipe a tear out of my eye. That's a good one. Hey everybody - this guy says there are no ethnic differences in the US!

2 blonde, blue eyes people meet in america... same ethnicity or not?

GasBandit said:
It wasn't my money the last time it was taxed. However, if I earn money, invest it, and then pass it on to my child at death, it's taxed 3 times before becoming someone else's.

Of course, not having money to pass on to your kid = being treated better.

GasBandit said:
Exploit what system?

Did you pay 3 million and one dollars in taxes? No? THEN YOU DIDN'T PAY LESS TAXES.

I didn't realize I was arguing with the resurrected zombie of Karl Marx. The concept that wealth should be confiscated because a third party decides a second party needs it more is repugnant. Furthermore, to pay higher than the 15% tax bracket, one has to make more than $32,000 per year. While not fabulously wealthy, these people are not starving... and more to the point, they are paying 0.0016% taxes to what Mitt Romney does.

So it;s fine for the not very rich to pay as because they won't starve, but not the rich, even though they will feel the lack of money even less.... good to know.

Did you pay 3 million and one dollars in taxes? No? THEN YOU DIDN'T PAY LESS TAXES.

Did you pay 1000 dollars for caviar? Then you didn't buy more food then Mitt...

GasBandit said:
The 35% tax bracket starts at $379,000. Woe to those guys, huh? And that just means the money OVER 379k is taxed at that rate... everything lower is taxed lower. So it's a little hypocritical for you to be lamenting the tax burden of the 35% tax bracket.
Added at: 18:03

So wait, 35% is just for ver well of people... and yet americans complain that they pay too much in taxes... you people are crazy.
Added at: 00:20

GasBandit said:
35%, actually. And again, that's only for money made above $379k. And it's only that low because of how many loopholes of which you speak were removed.

The only thing Romney is a victim of is wealth envy and class warfare. Man, I hate having to stick up for him, but all this is bullshit.

Nah, he's a victim of his own parties hypocrisy...

And it's only class warfare when the poor talk about it... when the rich find ways of paying workers less is being competitive.

Jan 27, 2012#156

Krisken

You're right that it's 35%, but wrong that it's only that low due to removal of tax incentives.

Jan 30, 2012#157

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
However, if I earn money, invest it, and then pass it on to my child at death, it's taxed 3 times before becoming someone else's.

Wait, wouldn't your "the best people" philosophy actually be against people inheriting money they didn't work for at all?

Jan 30, 2012#158

strawman

Are you saying you aren't allowed to work to secure your children's future? The governement should be in the business of forcing kids out of the nest their parents built?

Jan 30, 2012#159

MindDetective

stienman said:
Are you saying you aren't allowed to work to secure your children's future? The governement should be in the business of forcing kids out of the nest their parents built?

At first I was thinking, "yeah!" and then I realized that your wording is biasing the reader towards thinking about the poor kids. But inheritance doesn't usually go to minors, does it?

Like a 45 year old kid needs to be pushed out of his 70 year old parent's nest...

Jan 30, 2012#160

strawman

My children are my children, whether they are a child or an adult. Why should there be a difference between me wanting them to live comfortably as a child or an adult?

Just because they should be able to support themselves as adults doesn't mean that I should be disallowed from providing even more support - support which will ultimately benefit my grandchildren, and perhaps even great grandchildren.

I just don't see the point of the inheritance tax, unless the gov't thinks that money I've made should be taxed more than once before it's spent, and I'm not in favor of double and triple taxing the same money.

Jan 30, 2012#161

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
2 blonde, blue eyes people meet in america... same ethnicity or not?

Because America is entirely populated by Aryans?

So it;s fine for the not very rich to pay as because they won't starve, but not the rich, even though they will feel the lack of money even less.... good to know.

It has absolutely nothing to do with who feels what lack of money, but you're, again, missing the fact that the money has been taxed twice AND the difference between income and capital gains. So it's more like Romney paid close to 50% taxes, it's just he paid the first 35 when he made the money as income, and then a further 15% on capital gains from it. Furthermore, if you overtax capital gains the rich just go back to savings accounts with interest instead of investing. You show absolutely no thought for economic repercussions, all you care about is soaking the rich.

Did you pay 1000 dollars for caviar? Then you didn't buy more food then Mitt...

Completely invalid comparison. Mitt doesn't get more services from government than those who pay less (or no) taxes.. in fact, because he's rich, he gets less. No Pell grant for HIS kids' tuition!

@Li3n said:
Wait, wouldn't your "the best people" philosophy actually be against people inheriting money they didn't work for at all?

Actually, my philosophy is that government should stay the hell out of the individual's way as much as possible while still ensuring the rule of law. Keep them out of your womb, your bedroom, and your wallet.

Jan 30, 2012#162

MindDetective

stienman said:
My children are my children, whether they are a child or an adult. Why should there be a difference between me wanting them to live comfortably as a child or an adult?

Just because they should be able to support themselves as adults doesn't mean that I should be disallowed from providing even more support - support which will ultimately benefit my grandchildren, and perhaps even great grandchildren.

I just don't see the point of the inheritance tax, unless the gov't thinks that money I've made should be taxed more than once before it's spent, and I'm not in favor of double and triple taxing the same money.

But that is a different sentiment than the one you gave originally. There is no question that it is at odds with the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" sentiment, though, that is popular amongst conservatives.

Jan 30, 2012#163

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
But that is a different sentiment than the one you gave originally. There is no question that it is at odds with the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" sentiment, though, that is popular amongst conservatives.

"bootstraps" is about overcoming adversity, not confiscating wealth.

Jan 30, 2012#164

PatrThom

stienman said:
I just don't see the point of the inheritance tax, unless the gov't thinks that money I've made should be taxed more than once before it's spent, and I'm not in favor of double and triple taxing the same money.

The g'vt has explained time and again that they are not in the business of taxing wealth. They are in the business of taxing the transfer of wealth. They're like eBay/Amazon, always getting their cut. You know those RPGs where the shop buys something for 600 but then turns right around and says they'll sell it to you for 12000? It's like that. By this logic, the more wealth you keep to yourself, the less taxes you pay.

--Patrick

Jan 30, 2012#165

strawman

MindDetective said:
There is no question that it is at odds with the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" sentiment

Actually I see the two as very compatible, and can only assume you have a very odd definition for one or the other if you view them as opposite each other.

Jan 30, 2012#166

Krisken

But keeping dynastic families is very much in the Republican mind set.

Jan 30, 2012#167

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
"bootstraps" is about overcoming adversity, not confiscating wealth.

right, but this isn't even a conversation about bootstraps, really. And to the extent that it is, i certainly did not define it that way.

stienman said:
Actually I see the two as very compatible, and can only assume you have a very odd definition for one or the other if you view them as opposite each other.

no, pretty straightforward. work hard on your own or have the benefits of hard work given to you. certainly a person CAN have both but being given wealth without effort is said to discourage hard work...according to many a conservative, at least.

Jan 30, 2012#168

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
no, pretty straightforward. work hard on your own or have the benefits of hard work given to you. certainly a person CAN have both but being given wealth without effort is said to discourage hard work...according to many a conservative, at least.

The world presents enough challenges on its own without giving government the authority to decide who isn't challenged enough. Sure, everybody's all on board when we're talking about making Paris Hilton suffer, but we all know what kind of abuses of power our government seems all too eager to embrace of late - you must always consider the potential for misuse first and foremost when giving power to the government. Especially the power to take something away from somebody.

Jan 30, 2012#169

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
The world presents enough challenges on its own without giving government the authority to decide who isn't challenged enough. Sure, everybody's all on board when we're talking about making Paris Hilton suffer, but we all know what kind of abuses of power our government seems all too eager to embrace of late - you must always consider the potential for misuse first and foremost when giving power to the government. Especially the power to take something away from somebody.

It could be argued that once a person dies, there is nobody to take from.

Jan 30, 2012#170

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
It could be argued that once a person dies, there is nobody to take from.

I don't have any citations on this, but I'm fairly sure the concept of inheritance predates organized government.

Jan 30, 2012#171

Krisken

Jan 30, 2012#172

GasBandit

And that was Krisken with today's Insightful Commentary Unlimited. Tune in next time when he tells me I win because he can't be bothered.

Jan 30, 2012#173

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I don't have any citations on this, but I'm fairly sure the concept of inheritance predates organized government.

Not a terribly compelling argument, really. Government predates money, so should people only be allowed to inherit goats and chickens?

Jan 30, 2012#174

ElJuski

What boggles me mind with gas sometimes is the sense that capitalism should constantly outweigh humanity, which is, at its core, the reason why we fucking have governments in the first place.

Jan 30, 2012#175

Krisken

GasBandit said:
And that was Krisken with today's Insightful Commentary Unlimited. Tune in next time when he tells me I win because he can't be bothered.

If you supported your arguments with logic instead of Gas, I might be more inclined to waste time arguing with you.

Jan 30, 2012#176

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
Not a terribly compelling argument, really. Government predates money, so should people only be allowed to inherit goats and chickens?

Where I was going with that, was that the practice of passing down one's wealth to one's progeny was established, so for a governmental entity to juxtapose itself and confiscate the inheritance is, in fact, taking something away from somebody. If I throw a ball to someone, and you catch it in midair, you can't argue that you didn't take the ball from anybody.

Taxes are not an end unto themselves. They are an unfortunate reality that we countenance in order to fund the workings of a government. We actually were able to fund government without an income tax before 1913. If we're looking for people who need to be "challenged" to do more with less, a pretty good place to start is government. Even if we took 100% of all income made above $1 million, it would only pay off half the 2009 deficit (and then of course you'd have to deal with not having anybody left to tax the next year).

Until we get serious about cutting spending, all the tax-raising in the world is just polishing doorknobs on the titanic.
Added at: 17:38

ElJuski said:
What boggles me mind with gas sometimes is the sense that capitalism should constantly outweigh humanity, which is, at its core, the reason why we fucking have governments in the first place.

There's "humanity" and then there's powergrabs under the auspices of humanity. A nation of self-reliant independent individuals is a whole lot harder to oppress than a nation of de facto welfare recipients. Which was the whole point behind the thought process of the founding of the country.
Added at: 17:39

Krisken said:
If you supported your arguments with logic instead of Gas, I might be more inclined to waste time arguing with you.

I don't think anything could get you to "waste the time" any more, you like chuckling at the sidelines too much. Put up or shut up.

Jan 30, 2012#177

Krisken

No.

Jan 30, 2012#178

GasBandit

Krisken said:
No.

Jan 30, 2012#179

ElJuski

Yeah, gas, but if you had it your way, these individuals would be building this nation one Apple microchip at a time 7 days a week.

Jan 30, 2012#180

Krisken

I've been Van Der Beek'ed. That has to be a new low.

And you're quite wrong, Gas. If I felt there was anything worth responding to seriously, I would be happy to. Unfortunately I've been driven to the point of not taking any of it seriously.

You made me.

Jan 30, 2012#181

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
Yeah, gas, but if you had it your way, these individuals would be building this nation one Apple microchip at a time 7 days a week.

That's as much a mischaracterization as if I said if you had your way we'd all be soviets. All I want is a balanced budget. I'll settle for that. And you can't get there from here by taxation alone. There's gonna have to be a whooooooole lot of spending cut from entitlements, bureaucracy, and yes, the military. Along with everything else.

Jan 30, 2012#182

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Where I was going with that, was that the practice of passing down one's wealth to one's progeny was established, so for a governmental entity to juxtapose itself and confiscate the inheritance is, in fact, taking something away from somebody. If I throw a ball to someone, and you catch it in midair, you can't argue that you didn't take the ball from anybody.

Taxes are not an end unto themselves. They are an unfortunate reality that we countenance in order to fund the workings of a government. We actually were able to fund government without an income tax before 1913. If we're looking for people who need to be "challenged" to do more with less, a pretty good place to start is government. Even if we took 100% of all income made above $1 million, it would only pay off half the 2009 deficit (and then of course you'd have to deal with not having anybody left to tax the next year).

Until we get serious about cutting spending, all the tax-raising in the world is just polishing doorknobs on the titanic.

I am absolutely on board with slimming government. And I would like to pay less taxes as much as the next guy. After studying the way people think for...wow, more than 16 years...I think the government should have a role in regulating things that an individual, while engaged in behavior that primarily serves his or her own interest, cannot understand the societal ramifications of. I've mentioned the tragedy of the commons before but I think this applies to the estate tax as well (and other things, like punitive damages in court cases). It is regulatory, not simply a tax. Wealth accumulation could conceivably reach a mathematical limit that effectively breaks the economy. Prior to that, it can place undue power in the hands of minority of people that have done little to earn it. Should the government have it? That's certainly debatable. Perhaps it could be regulated in a way that it goes to a pre-selected charity (or set of charities) above a certain amount and to the government if it has not been specified. Should the government be involved? Yes, because we're entering the territory of big waves from an accumulation of small splashes, which is exactly when the government should be involved.

Jan 30, 2012#183

Krisken

Not a bad idea, that. Put me on for the charity requirement thing MD suggests.

Jan 30, 2012#184

fade

Like I said before, I think there are quite a few small-government dems out there, who are concerned for the same reasons that most libertarians are...they just don't think that if you have a bad driver you should scrap the car.

Jan 30, 2012#185

GasBandit

It'd be an interesting thing to try. Of course it raises the question of which charities are approved, who oversees them, and how recipients of those charities are selected, but everything has potential for corruption these days. Just to be clear though, we're still just talking about estate taxes here, right? Not Income/Capital Gains/etc?

Jan 30, 2012#186

strawman

Vote the MindDetective and Krisken party - We take the money you spent your life earning ... for the good of humanity!

Think of the ~~children~~ humanity!

Jan 30, 2012#187

Krisken

You can't take it with you when you die. Bummer.

Jan 30, 2012#188

GasBandit

So just to get this thread somewhere approaching the original topic again... would you guys consider the mormon church a valid charity for this idea?

Because Romney gave them a whole smegton of money.

Jan 30, 2012#189

Krisken

What charitable work does the Mormon church perform? Do they do things for the community? I guess that's what I would base it on.

Jan 30, 2012#190

GasBandit

Near as I can tell a great deal of their donations go to BYU and building more churches, but there's also stuff about things like 3rd world clean water, food production, wheelchairs/orthotics and that sort of thing... but it seems if you don't live in Africa, you pretty much have to be in the LDS to benefit from their 'philanthropies' as they call them.

Jan 30, 2012#191

strawman

GasBandit said:
So just to get this thread somewhere approaching the original topic again... would you guys consider the mormon church a valid charity for this idea?

Because Romney gave them a whole smegton of money.

The LDS church has two primary types of offerings.

* Tithing - which is 10% of one's income - is used for the church to support facilities, activities, etc.
* Fast offerings - which is at the member's discretion - is used for supporting the needy, and for humanitarian and disaster relief efforts

So the fast offerings would be the "valid charity" for this idea - the gov't has no business giving other people's money into the tithing funds, which go primarily to the support of the church and spreading of its teachings.

There are other charity funds the church runs - educational loans in countries without student financial aid, for instance.

But personally I wouldn't suggest that the gov't give any personal taxes to any religion. That would simply be a Bad Thing (TM).

Jan 30, 2012#192

ElJuski

stienman said:
Vote the MindDetective and Krisken party - We take the money you spent your life earning ... for the good of humanity!

Think of the ~~children~~ humanity!

Look. This country has done plenty alongside my family and the community around me to give me all the chances I need to make my own way in life. If I can help out other people, be it through government-funded programs like schools, roads, police, and social programs, by giving a portion of my paycheck to the US, I'm so there.

Jan 30, 2012#193

Krisken

That's a shame, really. Perhaps anything donated in this way must be used for accepted charitable actions. Food or clothing for the poor, disaster aid, etc. Advancing a church doctrine doesn't really count as 'charity' in my eyes.

Jan 30, 2012#194

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
It'd be an interesting thing to try. Of course it raises the question of which charities are approved, who oversees them, and how recipients of those charities are selected, but everything has potential for corruption these days. Just to be clear though, we're still just talking about estate taxes here, right? Not Income/Capital Gains/etc?

Yup. Although I think a "charitable cause" option on your tax returns to choose the way (some of) your money is spent is worth thinking about. Like you said, there is some oversight issues involved with things like this.

stienman said:
Vote the MindDetective and Krisken party - We take the money you spent your life earning ... for the good of humanity!

Think of the ~~children~~ humanity!

Only when you are done using it. Even then, not all of it.

Jan 30, 2012#195

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
Look. This country has done plenty alongside my family and the community around me to give me all the chances I need to make my own way in life. If I can help out other people, be it through government-funded programs like schools, roads, police, and social programs, by giving a portion of my paycheck to the US, I'm so there.

Ironically, practically none of that is covered by federal taxes. Schools, infrastructure, and police are pretty much state funded, not federal. So, your state's income tax (if you have one), sales tax, and your local municipality's property taxes are what goes to there.

Federal Taxes? Medicare, Medicaid, social security, welfare, the military, and the interest on the national debt. That accounts for more than 3 quarters of it.

Jan 30, 2012#196

strawman

ElJuski said:
Look. This country has done plenty alongside my family and the community around me to give me all the chances I need to make my own way in life. If I can help out other people, be it through government-funded programs like schools, roads, police, and social programs, by giving a portion of my paycheck to the US, I'm so there.

I don't mind reasonable taxation - it's necessary for the way I want to live. But once you go beyond reasonable to unreasonable, and say that I no longer have a choice in which humanitarian efforts I can put my money to, then I believe a fundamental freedom is being taken away - the freedom to choose how your effort is spent. Money is simply an easy way to transfer my skills - programming and electronic design - to someone else who has something I need.

If I spend 500 hours on a difficult problem, I don't mind the gov't saying, "150 hours is needed to pay for roads, schools, the needy, and other necessary public infrastructure" but I do care when they start a new porkbarrel project in order to create wasteful gov't jobs in some far-flung election district of a greedy senator who needs more votes. I do care when they say, "You can spend your 350 hours anyway you like, but if it's for X, Y, and Z then we'll charge you again because we can." I'm really not interested in double and triple taxation - how many times is the government going to divide the same dollar that I worked for?

Reasonable taxes that are simple to understand, easy to pay, where you are taxed only once for each dollar you make, and where the gov't spending of the taxes is transparent.

Jan 31, 2012#197

Necronic

An i'll believe Texas' talk when they actually do it... because it's not really in their advantage to break off the US... hell, you guys don't even have the ethnic differences...

Wow this is so phenomenally misinformed. (Urban) Texas is ridiculously diverse. We have a ton of mexicans, plus a *massive* german ancestry, one of the largest vietnamese popultaions in the country, a fast-growing persian population. And I've gotten the impression that Alien is from Europe. Talking about diversity when you are from one of the least diverse places in the world is pretty lol.

Houston is a prime example of this. It's only 50% white (and only like 25% non-hispanic white). University of Houston is ranked the second most diverse university in the nation. There is a vietnamese radio station. And the coolest thing is that it's not done like it is in Cali or New York, where you have ethnic neighborhoods. People are just all over, it's pretty awesome. In my last three apartments my neighbors have been german, columbian, chinese, and an iranian family. Only 2 of them were US born.

Second Edit: Texas has the 4th lowest % of non-hispanic whites ("Whitey") behind California, Hawaii (doesn't count) and district of columbia (doesn't count).

Third Edit: The US takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. Yeah, we're really not that diverse.

THIS IS MY HOUSE. And everyone's welcome it will be a potluck.

---------------------

On that note did anyone hear the latest This American Life? It was talking about Alabama's new immigration policy, something that Romney is now backing and talking about for his campaign. This is the policy that requires that anyone that doesn't look like a red-blooded american is required to produce extensive paperwork to prove their right to be there? This is the policy that led to the arrrest and embarrasment of a German Mercedes exec and another Honda exec.

Yeah this is a stupid policy. When you have police officers, economists, and the republican majority whip who helped start the proposal say that it's a really bad idea that should tell you something.

Jan 31, 2012#198

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Wow this is so phenomenally misinformed. (Urban) Texas is ridiculously diverse. We have a ton of mexicans, plus a *massive* german ancestry, one of the largest vietnamese popultaions in the country, a fast-growing persian population. And I've gotten the impression that Alien is from Europe. Talking about diversity when you are from one of the least diverse places in the world is pretty lol.

Houston is a prime example of this. It's only 50% white (and only like 25% non-hispanic white). University of Houston is ranked the second most diverse university in the nation. There is a vietnamese radio station. And the coolest thing is that it's not done like it is in Cali or New York, where you have ethnic neighborhoods. People are just all over, it's pretty awesome. In my last three apartments my neighbors have been german, columbian, chinese, and an iranian family. Only 2 of them were US born.

Second Edit: Texas has the 4th lowest % of non-hispanic whites ("Whitey") behind California, Hawaii (doesn't count) and district of columbia (doesn't count).

While everything you said is true, I think what he was implying was that there was not enough of an ethnic difference between Texas and the rest of the US for there to be a breakup. This is also incorrect, but for different reasons - while Texas is highly diverse in ethnicity and thus not really "ethnically" different from the rest of the nation, it is VERY different culturally. In fact, most general areas of the US have cultural distinctions from other parts. Hell, I could spend all day on the differences between the culture of Texas and its neighbor Louisiana, alone!

Some people seem to forget that the United States is of a size roughly comperable to the entire EU. We have many states larger than many of their countries. And yet some people still thing we're homogenized from sea to shining sea.

Jan 31, 2012#199

Krisken

I'm ok with Texas breaking off.

Jan 31, 2012#200

Necronic

Ahh ok, you know me, mention one bad thing about Texas and I will start going crazy town. Unless its about the weather because it is 75 and insanely humid right now and has only been below 50 like 10 times this winter. Anyways, Texas is a bit unique in that it's a blend of the south and midwest, with some major east coast business and some serious west coast culture. And come on man the Louisianna example is totally unfair, that's probably the most unique state in the continental US.

Honestly I would never want to see Texas leave the Union though, it's just a terrible business idea. A lot of the wealth in this state is dependant on us being part of the nation (military contracting, oil stuff, and healthcare.) Now, we could probably kick the following states out without too many reppurcussions:

Alabama
Arkansas
South Carolina
Mississippi
Georgia
Kansas
All those midwest states that no one can remember where they are exactly.
And the rest of the deep south, except Florida because we need a place to store the elderly.

Jan 31, 2012#201

GasBandit

He also misunderstood what I was saying - I wasn't saying texas would revolt, I was saying the states would be left to fend for themselves when the federal government goes under.

Jan 31, 2012#202

Krisken

The federal government isn't going under. The rest of the world wouldn't allow it, especially China, which is completely dependent on the U.S. consumer society.

Jan 31, 2012#203

GasBandit

Krisken said:
The federal government isn't going under. The rest of the world wouldn't allow it, especially China, which is completely dependent on the U.S. consumer society.

There is a breaking point. And I don't see any willingness to change behavior in the government or in the people. Yes, China is largely dependent on the US buying its goods.. but how far will it extend us credit to do so? 10 trillion? 100 trillion? A quadrillion?

In the time it took me to write this reply, the federal government spent $500,000.

Jan 31, 2012#204

Krisken

So everyone panic because there is national debt.

For reals, though, it's not going to happen. The entire world went into a panic when they thought the largest banks would go under. The United States is too big to fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't trim a lot of fat from the budget (like wars without raising taxes, so dumb), mind you. Some things are being done to reduce spending. It's just not as dire as you seem to think.

Jan 31, 2012#205

GasBandit

Krisken said:
So everyone panic because there is national debt.

For reals, though, it's not going to happen. The entire world went into a panic when they thought the largest banks would go under. The United States is too big to fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't trim a lot of fat from the budget (like wars without raising taxes, so dumb), mind you. Some things are being done to reduce spending. It's just not as dire as you seem to think.

And the graph is out of date. It only goes up to 9 trillion. Our current debt is up to 15 trillion. Pardon me if I feel a sense of urgency.
Added at: 17:49
"some things are being done to reduce spending" you say? Like what, the supercommitte? That wracked its brains for so very long to finally come up with 21 billion dollars in cuts this year, and kicked the can down the road?

Jan 31, 2012#206

MindDetective

how about factoring in population size, GDP, and numerous other factors. debt per person is more telling than total debt. adjusted debt per person is even better.

Jan 31, 2012#207

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
how about factoring in population size, GDP, and numerous other factors. debt per person is more telling than total debt. adjusted debt per person is even better.

That number currently sits at 50.9k, according to usdebtclock.org.

Jan 31, 2012#208

Krisken

Which is still manageable. Horrible and depressing? Yes. But it's not the end of the federal government.

Jan 31, 2012#209

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Which is still manageable. Horrible and depressing? Yes. But it's not the end of the federal government.

And 2006 wasn't when the housing bubble burst.

For MD: found a graph that adjusts for inflation instead of CPI:

Added at: 18:12
Let me put it another way - our debt just recently passed our GDP. We're now officially halfway to where Greece is (debt double gdp).

Jan 31, 2012#210

strawman

Krisken said:
The United States is too big to fail.

Jan 31, 2012#211

MindDetective

not good but certainly less dramatic than the first graph. it isn't a good tren, no question.

Jan 31, 2012#212

Krisken

Ok, I'll bite. What did your comment on the housing market bubble have to do with what you quoted I said?
Added at: 18:16

stienman said:

Wait, was the entire world economy dependent on those things? No? Then I don't see the equivalency. As I have said elsewhere, until the world market is able to remove itself from the American economy, what I said is true. That can (and probably will change).

Jan 31, 2012#213

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Ok, I'll bite. What did your comment on the housing market bubble have to do with what you quoted I said?

That everything was emphatically insisted to be going fine, over and over, right up until the very day the whole thing came crashing down... and anyone who dared suggest fixing the problem ahead of that were lambasted as wanting to see the poor (and usually the minority) suffer.

Jan 31, 2012#214

Krisken

Yeah, I didn't say that either. Not even sure how that could be implied. It's implications like that which are the reason I generally find discussions here to be, well, bad.

Jan 31, 2012#215

strawman

Krisken said:
Ok, I'll bite. What did your comment on the housing market bubble have to do with what you quoted I said?

You said, "The United States is too big to fail."

You know what else was too big to fail? The titanic. The WTC. The roman empire. Countless examples throughout history amply demonstrate that when someone says "X is too big to fail/fall" they are only fooling themselves.

It made me laugh, that's all.

You did seem to make some attempt to backfill it with the idea that our economy is so important to other countries that they would make sure it didn't fail. I completely disagree. The countries who depend on our economy can't possibly help us when it falters. The countries who profit from our current economy would be more than happy to take out place as the world's economic superpower should the opportunity arise. Those inbetween will commiserate, but indicate they aren't in a position to help.

I'm not saying that we're failing right now, or that we're in any sort of imminent danger.

I'm saying that statement is made of 100% pure grade A stupid.

Jan 31, 2012#216

Krisken

Well, don't beat around the bush, be as insulting as you can.

China pumps money into our economy to keep it from failing already. It will keep doing so for the foreseeable future because if it didn't, they'd be in as much trouble as our own economy.

You don't have to agree with what I said, but don't be a dick about it. Either I can engage in the conversation and we'll all play nice, or I'm just going to go back to posting mocking posts and image macros. It's really your guys' choice.

Jan 31, 2012#217

strawman

Krisken said:
don't be a dick about it.

Feb 1, 2012#218

Necronic

It's a lot easier to roll your eyes than to make an argument.

Feb 1, 2012#219

MindDetective

Necronic said:
It's a lot easier to roll your eyes than to make an argument.

(the obvious response)

Feb 1, 2012#220

Covar

of course it is

Feb 1, 2012#221

Necronic

I actually never figured out how to roll my eyes. They just go up and then down, it doesn't have the same affect.

Feb 1, 2012#222

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I actually never figured out how to roll my eyes. They just go up and then down, it doesn't have the same affect.

Try to look at your brain.

Feb 1, 2012#223

Necronic

But that's not really rolling them is it? I mean, that just points them upwards.

Feb 1, 2012#224

sixpackshaker

First look at your right ear, then look at your hair-line, then your left ear, then look down your nose at the offensive idiot. I think I learned that by time I was 3...

Feb 3, 2012#225

sixpackshaker

I can't believe that no one here is making hay with, "I am not concerned for the poor..."

Feb 3, 2012#226

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
I can't believe that no one here is making hay with, "I am not concerned for the poor..."

Low hanging fruit.

Feb 3, 2012#227

Krisken

If that was all he said, sure. But the full text of what he said was less radically nuts than that. People keep playing that and making a big deal about it without following it up with all the things he has said recently he supports that would actually hurt all those safety nets that help the very poor. Now THAT would be news.

Just that little clip, though? No, that's kinda lame.

Feb 3, 2012#228

GasBandit

The thing about Romney (and Gingrich) is he just says whatever he thinks people want to hear at that moment. Where his actual actions will land is something you can just never guess from what he says, because he genuinely harbors no connective association between what he says and what he does.

After he gets the nomination, watch closely to see how much he changes.

It's amusing that Obama's managed to irritate enough people that a field of republican has-beens and also-rans now seem to have a shot. It's too bad those are the only choices as far as most people are concerned.

Feb 3, 2012#229

sixpackshaker

As unpopular as Obama was this time last year, whoever got the GOP Nom would have easily been the front runner in the general election. But now it is starting to look more like a Democrat Party (why the hell do the Republicans say that crap?) Cake walk.

Feb 3, 2012#230

Shakey

GasBandit said:
It's amusing that Obama's managed to irritate enough people that a field of republican has-beens and also-rans now seem to have a shot. It's too bad those are the only choices as far as most people are concerned.

It's also amusing that the best the Republicans can come up with is a bunch of has-beens and crazies. It'll be interesting to see where the next few years takes that party.

Feb 3, 2012#231

MindDetective

Shakey said:
It's also amusing that the best the Republicans can come up with is a bunch of has-beens and crazies. It'll be interesting to see where the next few years takes that party.

I'm sure there are a few quality Republicans that are keeping out of this race. They all have access to polling data and they know how difficult it can be running against a sitting president. Wait four years and the Republicans will have a very different looking field, I bet.

Feb 3, 2012#232

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
I'm sure there are a few quality Republicans that are keeping out of this race. They all have access to polling data and they know how difficult it can be running against a sitting president. Wait four years and the Republicans will have a very different looking field, I bet.

Indeed. If Obama retains the presidency, it wouldn't surprise me to see Marco Rubio and Chris Christie in the next primary. Probably John Huntsman too. And Donald Trump. For a couple weeks. /thbump-tish

It's too bad Hermain Cain dropped out. Might have been fun to see him and Obama in the debates.

Feb 3, 2012#233

Krisken

I like Huntsman, for the most part. Trump, Christie, and Rubio you can keep.

Feb 3, 2012#234

Hailey Knight

MindDetective said:
I'm sure there are a few quality Republicans that are keeping out of this race. They all have access to polling data and they know how difficult it can be running against a sitting president. Wait four years and the Republicans will have a very different looking field, I bet.

That's what I was thinking earlier this week. Why waste your chance to be president when you'll likely lose?

Feb 3, 2012#235

Shakey

I don't know. When they started running Obama's approval rating was pretty low wasn't it? You'd figure the thought of being able to oust a president like Obama would be a huge draw for the ego maniacs that actually want that job. It seems more like the Republican party is just too split on what they want right now.

Feb 3, 2012#236

MindDetective

Shakey said:
I don't know. When they started running Obama's approval rating was pretty low wasn't it? You'd figure the thought of being able to oust a president like Obama would be a huge draw for the ego maniacs that actually want that job. It seems more like the Republican party is just too split on what they want right now.

I doubt they are looking at just approval rating. They are probably looking at which states they can win in the electoral college. Winning the presidency is a surprisingly targeted campaign. Even then, Obama HAS an approval rating whereas almost anyone else that runs against him has to make a name for himself (or herself...) There is a whole branding operation required to catch up to Obama in that regard. Unseating an incumbent president is not easy.

Feb 3, 2012#237

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
I doubt they are looking at just approval rating. They are probably looking at which states they can win in the electoral college. Winning the presidency is a surprisingly targeted campaign. Even then, Obama HAS an approval rating whereas almost anyone else that runs against him has to make a name for himself (or herself...) There is a whole branding operation required to catch up to Obama in that regard. Unseating an incumbent president is not easy.

From what I have heard, it's never happened when the incumbent has had over a 40% approval rating.
Added at: 18:05

Krisken said:
I like Huntsman, for the most part. Trump, Christie, and Rubio you can keep.

Trump was a joke, and Huntsman just because he was first out this time. If they decide to run, Christie and Rubio will probably be the top contenders.

Feb 3, 2012#238

Shakey

I just don't buy that they would give in so easily. I don't think that a moderate republican that is needed to beat obama would ever get the nomination with the current state of the republican party.
I think its more that the republicans are unable to get a nominee on the ballot that could really pull in independants. So they're giving in to the base on this one.

Feb 3, 2012#239

jwhouk

Unseating an incumbent is difficult, no matter what position it is.

Feb 3, 2012#240

Shakey

That doesn't mean you let a bunch of crazies and loose cannons represent your party. They'll lose the independends for good if they keep it up.

Feb 3, 2012#241

strawman

Shakey said:
That doesn't mean you let a bunch of crazies and loose cannons represent your party.

I haven't read the stuff before this, but my experience is that the only people interested in representing their party are crazies and loose cannons.

Feb 3, 2012#242

Dei

The people who aren't crazies and loose cannons don't get votes. See: Jon Huntsman

Feb 3, 2012#243

Hailey Knight

This page really wants me to know that Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 comes out on the 11th.

Feb 3, 2012#244

Shakey

stienman said:
I haven't read the stuff before this, but my experience is that the only people interested in representing their party are crazies and loose cannons.

I don't know about that. I wouldn't call either of the Bushes, Clinton, or Obama much more than a moderate. Maybe its just the increased coverage of these primaries.

Feb 3, 2012#245

Hailey Knight

Bush Jr. was a moderate?

Feb 3, 2012#246

Dei

Republicans found him to be a moderate, or at least, more center than they liked. Just because someone believes in God doesn't automatically make them a righty crazy.

Feb 3, 2012#247

Shakey

Compared to what's out there now, yes.

Feb 4, 2012#248

sixpackshaker

GWB was a moderate when he ran... with a side of "The Moral Majority" to pander to the base.

Feb 4, 2012#249

Bowielee

Dei said:
The people who aren't crazies and loose cannons don't get votes. See: Jon Huntsman

I can't help it, but every time I hear that guy's name, all I can picture is this:

Feb 6, 2012#250

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
Bush Jr. was a moderate?

He was when he ran. And technically, he was during his term as well. The largest increase in medicare spending in living memory happened not only during his watch, but at his behest.

That's something a lot of people forget, because they're so eager to hate the war on terror - GWB was not actually a conservative.

Feb 6, 2012#251

Krisken

GasBandit said:
He was when he ran. And technically, he was during his term as well. The largest increase in medicare spending in living memory happened not only during his watch, but at his behest.

That's something a lot of people forget, because they're so eager to hate the war on terror - GWB was not actually a conservative.

Neither was Reagan. Doesn't stop the party from idolizing him.

Feb 6, 2012#252

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Neither was Reagan. Doesn't stop the party from idolizing him.

The party is not conservative either. This is where most of their problems stem from. They haven't had a conservative major candidate since Goldwater.

Feb 6, 2012#253

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
The party is not conservative either. This is where most of their problems stem from. They haven't had a conservative major candidate since Goldwater.

But, today he'd be a RINO because of his stance on social issues.

Feb 6, 2012#254

ElJuski

Lincoln was a Republican too, guysssss

Feb 6, 2012#255

sixpackshaker

ElJuski said:
Lincoln was a Republican too, guysssss

So was Teddy. But they had a fundimental change to a conservative party in the 1910's to the 1950's.

Feb 6, 2012#256

ElJuski

say whhaaaaaaat

Feb 6, 2012#257

jwhouk

sixpackshaker said:
So was Teddy. But they had a fundimental change to a conservative party in the 1910's to the 1950's.

Which is why the Progressives ran our state for so many years, from the teens through the post-war era.

Feb 6, 2012#258

Tress

sixpackshaker said:
So was Teddy. But they had a fundimental change to a conservative party in the 1910's to the 1950's.

Thanks. I was getting tired of being the one to point that out around here.

Feb 6, 2012#259

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
So was Teddy. But they had a fundimental change to a conservative party in the 1910's to the 1950's.

Teddy stopped being a Republican. He was Bull-Moose during his final term.

Feb 6, 2012#260

Tress

AshburnerX said:
Teddy stopped being a Republican. He was Bull-Mouse during his final term.

No, he was a Republican for his final term. He was Bull-Moose when he tried to run against Taft, and that's only because he didn't get the Republican nomination.

Feb 6, 2012#261

AshburnerX

Ahh... gotcha.

Feb 6, 2012#262

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
But, today he'd be a RINO because of his stance on social issues.

Yes, he would. But he'd fit right in with the Libertarians, as opposed to the democrats, which is what the label usually means. Republicans don't seem to understand that their social agenda is logically at complete odds with their professed platform of less intrusive government. And the only thing that seems to motivate republicans these days is their faux-conservative social agenda. Really, all they are is "the other big government party, with Jesus instead of Marx."

Real conservatives support gay marriage and abortion rights. Because it's not the government's place to be in your wallet or in your bedroom/womb.

Feb 6, 2012#263

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Yes, he would. But he'd fit right in with the Libertarians, as opposed to the democrats, which is what the label usually means. Republicans don't seem to understand that their social agenda is logically at complete odds with their professed platform of less intrusive government. And the only thing that seems to motivate republicans these days is their faux-conservative social agenda. Really, all they are is "the other big government party, with Jesus instead of Marx."

Real conservatives support gay marriage and abortion rights. Because it's not the government's place to be in your wallet or in your bedroom/womb.

Yuuuup

Feb 7, 2012#264

AshburnerX

Looks like Santorum won Missouri and Mississippi... somehow. This has got to be a wake-up call to the big wigs in the Republican Party.

Feb 8, 2012#265

Shakey

And Minnesota. The hell.

Feb 8, 2012#266

sixpackshaker

Santorum seems to be the only "True Conservative" in the race. I guess the right collectively dropped Gingrich.

Feb 8, 2012#267

Shakey

I don't know. The only ads I saw in Mn were from Ron Paul and Santorum. I'm guessing that had a lot to do with it. Seems like Newt and Romney stayed out to focus their money on bigger wins.

Feb 8, 2012#268

AshburnerX

It's still three states... how does the RNC decide who gets the nod? Majority vote? Or do they have an electoral college of their own?

Feb 8, 2012#269

sixpackshaker

It is a jumbled mess, pretty much an electoral college (the convention,) some states are winner take all. Where you can get 30% of the vote and get 100% of the delegates. Then other states you get the votes that represent the percentage that you earned of the delegates. Even then, if the nomination is really locked up behind one candidate the state's delegates can swing their votes to the leading delegate to show party solidarity.

Feb 8, 2012#270

GasBandit

I think it's just Santorum's "turn" in the "not romney, anybody but romney, who's standing next to him this week?" carousel. As for his being a "true conservative," don't make me retch. That guy's closer to being a unicorn than a "true conservative." He's exactly the kind of republican I was talking about in my previous post - the big government moral authoritarian.

Feb 11, 2012#271

Hailey Knight

Whatever he is, he's one scary fucker.

Feb 13, 2012#272

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
Whatever he is, he's one scary fucker.

My father calls him and his ilk the "American Taliban."

Feb 16, 2012#273

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Because America is entirely populated by Aryans?

No, i was trying to make a point about how in Europe those "aryan" guys could be 2 different ethnicities that might hate each other (hello winter war)... while i doubt that's the case in the US...

GasBandit said:
It has absolutely nothing to do with who feels what lack of money, but you're, again, missing the fact that the money has been taxed twice AND the difference between income and capital gains. So it's more like Romney paid close to 50% taxes, it's just he paid the first 35 when he made the money as income, and then a further 15% on capital gains from it. Furthermore, if you overtax capital gains the rich just go back to savings accounts with interest instead of investing. You show absolutely no thought for economic repercussions, all you care about is soaking the rich.

Right, he was taxed twice on extra money he makes... good thing poor people only have one source of income, so they only get taxed once...

Really dude, the 15% is on profits, not on the money you invest...

And considering he said the last few years his tax rate was 15% the first time he made the money must have been years ago...

GasBandit said:
Actually, my philosophy is that government should stay the hell out of the individual's way as much as possible while still ensuring the rule of law. Keep them out of your womb, your bedroom, and your wallet.

Let's not pretend you also haven't made claims about the "worthy" people...

Feb 16, 2012#274

@Li3n

Necronic said:
And I've gotten the impression that Alien is from Europe. Talking about diversity when you are from one of the least diverse places in the world is pretty lol.

Hell, I could spend all day on the differences between the culture of Texas and its neighbor Louisiana, alone!

Actually this is what i was talking about... you guys see Europe = all white people = no ethnic differences... while we murdered each other over the petties of differences for hundreds of years... you guys still need skin colour to discriminate against a group for more then a century (the irish seem fine now).

As for cultural differences... my neighbours to the south shake their heads the opposite way to say Yes or No... i really doubt Texas and Louisiana are any more different then 2 historical regions from my country (and we don't even have any dialects [that developed within out borders], just regional accents).
Added at: 07:50

GasBandit said:
My father calls him and his ilk the "American Taliban."

Hey, at least the Taliban wouldn't allow their wives to consider an abortion while denying it to every other woman.

Feb 16, 2012#275

Necronic

@Li3n said:
Actually this is what i was talking about... you guys see Europe = all white people = no ethnic differences... while we murdered each other over the petties of differences for hundreds of years... you guys still need skin colour to discriminate against a group for more then a century (the irish seem fine now).

I'm not sure what this has to do with Louisianna. The massive cultural differences between Louisianna and Texas are not about race, more about the fact that Louisianna is arguably the most unique state in the continental union. They have one of the oldest historic districts in the US. They have their own language. They have their own unique hillbillies (swamp people). They are clearly decended from French culture. None of this has to do with race.

As for cultural differences... my neighbours to the south shake their heads the opposite way to say Yes or No... i really doubt Texas and Louisiana are any more different then 2 historical regions from my country (and we don't even have any dialects [that developed within out borders], just regional accents).

This is why I liked your post, because you're right in some senses. Europe has a lot of cultural differences. And to be honest I would bet that Texas and Louisianna are more similar than two neighboring European countries.

But that's also kind of the point. Its about the difference between a "melting pot" and a "mosaic". Across borders or regions there are large cultural differences, but because Europe has such incredibly restrictive immigration policies there is little oppurtunity to incorporate them into your own culture. This is different from the US where you have such open immigration laws that foreign culture's just dive right in and set up shop. I'm not going to argue that Europeans are jingoist nationalists that are in a completely stagnant state of cultural development, but the simple state of the immigration laws in Europe limit diversity.

There's also the fact that Europe is so much older than the US, which means that the US is more a blank slate where you can allow more diversity because there wasn't much there to begin with.

Feb 16, 2012#276

GasBandit

Yeah, Texas and Louisiana are tight. But there's a lot of distrust between various geographical areas of the US. You've got New England, The South, The Southwest, The Midwest, The Rockies, The Pacific Northwest and... well, Southern California. A lot of these areas have their own common cultural identities and are very distrustful of many of the others. Hell, can you count how many times on this board alone people have disparaged southern states and especially Texas.

Feb 16, 2012#277

@Li3n

Necronic said:
I'm not sure what this has to do with Louisianna.

Yeah, i should have placed it in between my text, that was a quoting error.

Necronic said:
The massive cultural differences between Louisianna and Texas are not about race, more about the fact that Louisianna is arguably the most unique state in the continental union. They have one of the oldest historic districts in the US. They have their own language. They have their own unique hillbillies (swamp people). They are clearly descended from French culture. None of this has to do with race.

Yeah, sounds like Louisiana is the one that has more chances to make it's own country...

Necronic said:
This is why I liked your post, because you're right in some senses. Europe has a lot of cultural differences. And to be honest I would bet that Texas and Louisianna are more similar than two neighboring European countries.

But that's also kind of the point. Its about the difference between a "melting pot" and a "mosaic". Across borders or regions there are large cultural differences, but because Europe has such incredibly restrictive immigration policies there is little oppurtunity to incorporate them into your own culture. This is different from the US where you have such open immigration laws that foreign culture's just dive right in and set up shop. I'm not going to argue that Europeans are jingoist nationalists that are in a completely stagnant state of cultural development, but the simple state of the immigration laws in Europe limit diversity.

There's also the fact that Europe is so much older than the US, which means that the US is more a blank slate where you can allow more diversity because there wasn't much there to begin with.

It's not even immigration policy really, we just kinda dislike each other for historical reasons....

And actually i see plenty of things that are obviously influenced by each others culture, but we usually give them our own little spin and pretend they're totally unique (i still chuckle whne i remember my literature teacher arguing that the obviously incubus related myth here was original to us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zburator - ignore the part about the flag/zmeu, that's not really mythological, it has more to do with what the word means).
Added at: 17:14

GasBandit said:
Hell, can you count how many times on this board alone people have disparaged southern states and especially Texas.

Call me when they say something worse then what we say about our own countrymen here...

Feb 16, 2012#278

Charlie Don't Surf

Go, Santorum, go!

Feb 16, 2012#279

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Go, Santorum, go!

Just hypothetically, how deep would your horror and misery be if he were actually to win the presidency?

Feb 16, 2012#280

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Just hypothetically, how deep would your horror and misery be if he were actually to win the presidency?

It would be pretty bad, but barring world-changing events this summer, I'm pretty sure Obama would win in a historic landslide.

Feb 16, 2012#281

Gared

Anybody else feel like the Republican party officials know they have no hope of winning this election and they're just trolling us all?

Feb 16, 2012#282

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It would be pretty bad, but barring world-changing events this summer, I'm pretty sure Obama would win in a historic landslide.

We'll see. If santorum gets the nomination, I'd be more prone to agree. But a landslide victory for Kerry was also prognosticated in early 2008. Of course, this time, the democrat is the incumbent, and those are really hard to get rid of, no matter how awful a job they're doing.

But if Romney were to get elected, he'll probably just end up enacting most of Obama's agenda anyway - they're practically mirror images.

Feb 16, 2012#283

sixpackshaker

I think it is time to split the two parties in half each. Four parties so we can limit the wing-nuts at each end of the political spectrum.

Liberal Democratic -> Moderate Democratic -> Moderate Republican -> American Jihadist Party.

Feb 16, 2012#284

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
I think it is time to split the two parties in half each. Four parties so we can limit the wing-nuts at each end of the political spectrum.

Liberal Democratic -> Moderate Democratic -> Moderate Republican -> American Jihadist Party.

I don't think that's actually an accurate representative of the current milieu of political thought. It's not a 1 dimensional spectrum anymore, anyway. A better plan would be to change the election process to use instant runoff balloting, and do away with primaries altogether. Of course, neither of our ideas will ever stand a chance of seeing implementation - the 2 party system entrenches power with false differences. It's like the coke-pepsi wars. Really, they're all just the same basic carbonated beverage. You never had the opportunity to support milk, tea, or juice.

Feb 16, 2012#285

Covar

That is just ignorant and wrong.

Coke (vastly superior taste) and Pepsi are vastly different colas.

Feb 16, 2012#286

strawman

GasBandit said:
It's like the coke-pepsi wars. Really, they're all just the same basic carbonated beverage. You never had the opportunity to support milk, tea, or juice.

Dude, I can't believe you left out root beer. The blatant bias really demonstrates how out of touch you are with reality and the state of our nation. I daresay people like you shouldn't be allowed to purchase beverages.

Feb 16, 2012#287

GasBandit

stienman said:
Dude, I can't believe you left out root beer. The blatant bias really demonstrates how out of touch you are with reality and the state of our nation. I daresay people like you shouldn't be allowed to purchase beverages.

Root beer is an archaic anachronism with no place in modern supermarkets. The Burkha of beverages, so to speak.
Added at: 15:06

Covar said:
That is just ignorant and wrong.

Coke (vastly superior taste) and Pepsi are vastly different colas.

No they're not.

They're both colas. If someone asks you what you want to drink with dinner: Coke, or Pepsi, and you jubilantly shout "Coke of course!" then congratulations, you just accepted that your only choice was cola. And only two kinds of cola, at that.

Feb 16, 2012#288

Covar

Feb 16, 2012#289

ElJuski

Listening to a lot of people inside the system, albeit working under the current administration, there are several swing states that are very key. But, as a whole, it looks like people are pretty much done with the current GOP and Obama could potentially have a fairly easy time come fall.

Feb 16, 2012#290

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
Listening to a lot of people inside the system, albeit working under the current administration, there are several swing states that are very key. But, as a whole, it looks like people are pretty much done with the current GOP and Obama could potentially have a fairly easy time come fall.

I said it before and I'll say it again: October is the only month that will matter in this election. But if the GOP's choices are Romney or Santorum, things don't look good for them. Santorum will chase away the middle, Romney will make the base stay home just like McCain. Obama's got incumbency, but will he manage to keep his approval rating over 49%? Last fall he was down around 40 (which is where Bush Sr. was when he lost re-election), but he's back barely over 50 again right now..

Feb 16, 2012#291

ElJuski

I think as many undecided people will vote "oh shit fuck no Obama the other guy no matter what" as much as "oh shit fuck gotta vote well Obama's been okay". But that's just me.

Feb 16, 2012#292

Krisken

I've been talking to some independents and they are, as individuals, pretty unimpressed with the GOP field.

Feb 16, 2012#293

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I've been talking to some independents and they are, as individuals, pretty unimpressed with the GOP field.

The rub is, "unimpressed" doesn't necessarily translate in the voting booth. The whole "hold your nose and vote" thing often happens. The most reliable indicator I've found has been the incumbent's approval level. 49 or higher, incumbent wins. 48 or lower, incumbent loses. Abarring october surprises.

Feb 16, 2012#294

Necronic

The only thing I am confident about is that this will be one of the lowest voters turnouts for a presidential election in history.

Feb 16, 2012#295

Krisken

GasBandit said:
The rub is, "unimpressed" doesn't necessarily translate in the voting booth. The whole "hold your nose and vote" thing often happens. The most reliable indicator I've found has been the incumbent's approval level. 49 or higher, incumbent wins. 48 or lower, incumbent loses. Abarring october surprises.

Yeah, because things could never change and there are never outliers. The stat you put down there with approval ratings only goes to 1957 (yes, I looked it up).

Feb 16, 2012#296

Gared

Yeesh... most likely, yes.

Feb 16, 2012#297

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yeah, because things could never change and there are never outliers. The stat you put down there with approval ratings only goes to 1957 (yes, I looked it up).

"Only" back to 1957 is a pretty impressive trend as most things go if you ask me. It's probably more accurate than silly things like deliberately worded-with-bias opinion polls or subjective personal interviewing. It even beats exit polling. In fact, interviewing is notoriously inaccurate. What people say ahead of time and what they do in the voting booth are disparate as often as not. You can't trust what most people tell you they're going to do once they're staring at their ballot, especially not if they are "moderates" who pride themselves on their propensity for changing their minds.

Feb 16, 2012#298

Krisken

I just think that as soon as the general public actually gets to know these candidates (because, really, the only people watching the current debates are hardcore Republicans and pundits) things will change drastically.

People tend toward the safe choice. As soon as they hear Santorum say he's against contraceptives of any kind or that he'd sign a law which would make personhood start at conception, the general populous will be instantly against him (98% of all women 15-44 who have had intercourse have used contraception in one form or another).

Edit: Fixed some glaring errors I unintentionally included.

Feb 16, 2012#299

Dei

And yet I'm pretty sure far too many women are voting for this guy, which still makes me throw up in my mouth. (And by far too many I mean any).

My favorite was his stance on women in combat, in which he managed to insult not just women, but men too.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-in-combat-rick-santorum-insults-military-men

Feb 16, 2012#300

strawman

GasBandit said:
"Only" back to 1957 is a pretty impressive trend

You're talking about what, 12, 13 elections? And you call that a good sample?

Feb 16, 2012#301

Krisken

stienman said:
You're talking about what, 12, 13 elections? And you call that a good sample?

Ok, now how many re-elections is it? That changes things, doesn't it?

Feb 16, 2012#302

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Ok, now how many re-elections is it?

This many:

An important caveat to it however, is it is the approval rating in november. The year before the election, GHW Bush's approval rating was 58%.

Feb 16, 2012#303

Krisken

And what was the state of the other party's primary during that time? Was the race tied up yet or was there a nominee already decided? Will Citizen's United hurt or help the Republican primary and what effect will it have on the general election?

I think there are a lot of things different about this campaign cycle than ever has been before. It feels like we're comparing two very different sets of beasts here.

Feb 16, 2012#304

ElJuski

either way it's an interesting perspective, at least.

Feb 16, 2012#305

Hailey Knight

Poor Republican party.

Feb 17, 2012#306

ElJuski

Quotemander Prime said:
Poor Republican party.

sends a shiver down my spine seeing "poor" and "republican" so close together.

Feb 17, 2012#307

Necronic

That's an interesting indicator, what's it's hit/miss ratio?

Also, as to it's veracity I'm going to give Krisken a hand here because he has a point (although not with the first comment). Even if every previous election had been decided by that indicator it's tricky to infer if it will for this one, because the historical elections were unique events that are distinctly separate from this event. They aren't part of the same population. So, technically it's innapropriate to use historical data to predict the future. Or at least, it's not sacresaint.

Because you CAN use historical data to predict the future, even though all variables are not controlled. It's just....you can get a real whammy every now and then.

Feb 17, 2012#308

GasBandit

I think it's an indication of what everybody's known about the (re)election process all along... the first thing anybody thinks of when they go in to vote and there's an incumbent is, "does this guy deserve to keep his job?" It's viewed not as him running for office again, but rather more like voting on whether or not to fire him. That consideration generally comes before one even starts to weigh other options.

Feb 17, 2012#309

Krisken

We'll see. If we see a Santorum presidency, I think we have a lot more to worry about than whether your statistic holds up.

Feb 17, 2012#310

GasBandit

Krisken said:
We'll see. If we see a Santorum presidency, I think we have a lot more to worry about than whether your statistic holds up.

Well, it may be a chicken-egg moment. If Santorum wins the nomination, maybe people on the fence will start to think Obama isn't doing such a bad job, in an effort to convince themselves to hold their nose vote for him. Thus, his approval rating goes up, and the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.

Feb 17, 2012#311

Krisken

Or maybe people will suddenly remember through actual campaigning what this administration has done that is better than the stupid stuff that everyone remembers? You'd have to admit this administration has been kinda piss-poor at touting their successes (to the point of allowing the Republicans to frame the death of Bin Laden as not being a victory for this campaign).

Feb 17, 2012#312

strawman

Krisken said:
Bin Laden as not being a victory for this campaign.

Are you asserting that it was specifically President Obama's leadership that led to his death, and that it would not have occurred had any other president been in office?

My understanding is that the president essentially let the military perform the intelligence gathering that ultimately led to his capture, and that the success rightfully belongs to the military leaders who have been working on the case long before Obama even campaigned for presidency.

Not that it matters, when the economy goes well the president (regardless of who is in office) takes credit, and when it goes poorly they blame it on the previous administration or external events. The reality is that the president has such little effect on the economy as a whole, and what effect they do have is delayed by years.

So I wouldn't blame him for taking credit, but I'm surprised to see you thinking that he was key to this particular mission in a way any other president would not be.

Feb 17, 2012#313

Krisken

Well, he didn't say "I don't find one man to be a threat" now did he.

Feb 17, 2012#314

Espy

Man, my wife is so excited for a Santorum presidency.

And by excited I mean horrified.

Feb 17, 2012#315

Adammon

stienman said:
Are you asserting that it was specifically President Obama's leadership that led to his death, and that it would not have occurred had any other president been in office?

My understanding is that the president essentially let the military perform the intelligence gathering that ultimately led to his capture, and that the success rightfully belongs to the military leaders who have been working on the case long before Obama even campaigned for presidency.

Not that it matters, when the economy goes well the president (regardless of who is in office) takes credit, and when it goes poorly they blame it on the previous administration or external events. The reality is that the president has such little effect on the economy as a whole, and what effect they do have is delayed by years.

So I wouldn't blame him for taking credit, but I'm surprised to see you thinking that he was key to this particular mission in a way any other president would not be.

He would still have had to have final authorization on the raid to capture, considering the political consequences of a raid on a sovereign nations territory. As well as making the (correct) decision not to notify Pakistan ahead of time. Just as if the whole thing had gone tits up, he would have been held responsible for it, he gets his credit for carrying it out.

That kind of straight talk had results. And Obama is not a straight talker under any circumstance.

Versus

Feb 17, 2012#316

Necronic

Here's my view on Santorum, and I think I represent a not uncommon viewpoint of independants:

If Romney wins the nomination I will do some serious soul searching to figure out who I vote for, and may end up throwing up my hands and flipping a coin (or stay home)

If Santorum wins the nomination I will campaign for Obama.

Feb 17, 2012#317

Dei

The best part is, there are already bigger idiots than Santorum in Congress... right now.

http://www.granitestateprogress.org...ims-birth-control-causes-prostate-cancer.html

Feb 17, 2012#318

Hailey Knight

Apparently there's a war on women going on right now, being waged by the conservative religious right... So, were women the ones waging the war on religion all these years?

Feb 17, 2012#319

Dei

The way a lot of religions treat women are the reason I am, well, no longer religious.

Feb 17, 2012#320

GasBandit

God says shaddap and make me a sammitch.

Feb 24, 2012#321

GasBandit

So, Polling update: Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by 4 percentage points in Gallup’s latest national head-to-head polling.

But it's still February, folks. Shit dinna git REAL til' October, mark my words.

Feb 24, 2012#322

Necronic

Dei said:
The best part is, there are already bigger idiots than Santorum in Congress... right now.

http://www.granitestateprogress.org...ims-birth-control-causes-prostate-cancer.html

So women's birth control causes men to get prostate cancer.

I always knew women were the cause of men's health problems.

Edit: Oh wait a second. She's a state rep. For NH. A state with less population and GDP than my city. So basically she is less significant than a member of my city council.

Feb 24, 2012#323

AshburnerX

Has ANYONE broached a tentative VP choice? I don't think I've heard anyone mention one yet.

Feb 24, 2012#324

Adammon

Necronic said:
So women's birth control causes men to get prostate cancer.

I always knew women were the cause of men's health problems.

Edit: Oh wait a second. She's a state rep. For NH. A state with less population and GDP than my city. So basically she is less significant than a member of my city council.

Far from me to be the anti-snark on what appears to be a pretty blatant case of politico-stupidity, the study did show that the excreted hormones from women on birth control do end up in our water supply and seem to have some correlation to prostate cancer incident rates.

Feb 24, 2012#325

Charlie Don't Surf

Marco Rubio is the hot name for Veep

Feb 24, 2012#326

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Marco Rubio is the hot name for Veep

Yeah, but the scuttlebutt is he won't step up.

Feb 27, 2012#327

Necronic

Adammon said:
Far from me to be the anti-snark on what appears to be a pretty blatant case of politico-stupidity, the study did show that the excreted hormones from women on birth control do end up in our water supply and seem to have some correlation to prostate cancer incident rates.

Huh, that IS interesting. Luckily I avoid drinking water that hasn't gone through a reverse osmosis purification system. This keeps out the flourine that the government is using to control our brains.

Feb 27, 2012#328

sixpackshaker

I could see the GOP choice taking some one that is mildly popular, and is toward the end of their public service career. I could see Rick Perry getting tapped to run if Romney gets the nomination. Mostly because Perry would placate much of the Conservative Protestant base.

Feb 27, 2012#329

Necronic

That's basically the McCain election all over again, and it didn't work well that time.

Feb 27, 2012#330

strawman

Just yesterday we received at least 9 robocalls, over half of them being "polls" about the republican nomination. This is in addition to the 2-3 calls we've been getting daily since last week, and the one or two pieces of mail per day.

I'm guessing there's something going on tomorrow, and a bunch of people are spending a bunch of money to get the outcome they want.

Feb 27, 2012#331

Espy

Oh man I would LOVE a Perry VP. Can you imagine the entertainment?

Feb 27, 2012#332

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
That's basically the McCain election all over again, and it didn't work well that time.

Perry might be a bumpkin like Palin, but he is well known and thoroughly vetted. He actually has experience, and does not really have anything to lose by being a VP candidate.

Feb 27, 2012#333

Adammon

Espy said:
Oh man I would LOVE a Perry VP. Can you imagine the entertainment?

You mean like a Biden VP?

Feb 27, 2012#334

Espy

Biden is funny, sure, but Perry... that mans a comedian.

Feb 27, 2012#335

Dei

The biggest issue McCain had with his VP choice (outside of it being a terrible choice) is that the man is old, people could imagine him dying and Palin taking over. I don't think anyone will have that on the forefront of their minds with the GOP candidate this year.

Feb 27, 2012#336

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
Perry might be a bumpkin like Palin, but he is well known and thoroughly vetted. He actually has experience, and does not really have anything to lose by being a VP candidate.

Experience is a plus when it shows competence.

Feb 27, 2012#337

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Experience is a plus when it shows competence.

Which political system have YOU been watching?

Feb 27, 2012#338

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
Experience is a plus when it shows competence.

He is not my favorite person by a long-shot, he's as dumb as a box of hammers, but he has been fairly competent as a governor.

Feb 27, 2012#339

GasBandit

From the daily what:

President of the Day: A brand new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released today predicts that if the elections were held today, Rick Santorum — the presidential candidate who believes that pregnant rape victims should make the best of it, that free prenatal testing leads to more abortions, and that, contrary to the Constitution, the separation of church and state should not be absolute — would defeat President Obama by three percentage points.
Against Mitt Romney, Obama comes out even at 47% all.

Interestingly, both Obama and Romney are apparently being dragged down by the same thing: Universal health care.
“If they used Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care program as a guideline for the Obamacare thing, what’s the difference?” asks 37-year-old Sanford, NC resident Robert Hargrove.

Lynn West, a retired New Hampshire state education official who says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been “fabulous” for her family, has a suggestion for Obama’s campaign on how to strengthen the president’s flagging numbers.

“If I had to fault President Obama or the people that help him put out his message, I think they need to be simpler,” says West. “A lot of times it’s the catch phrases that catch fire, like when he said, ‘Yes we can’ in the 2008 campaign. That’s why the term ‘Obamacare’ has worked — a simple phrase, and they’ve been able to put a negative connotation to it. In fact, they ought to be saying, ‘Obamacare! Let’s rejoice!’”

A silver lining, perhaps: According to the latest poll of battleground states conducted by Politico and George Washington University, Obama’s approval rating has increased by 5 percentage points to 53. Mitt Romney’s approval rating stands at 43, while Rick Santorum is in third place with 42.

[usatoday / politico / dailybeast.]
Added at: 13:39

sixpackshaker said:
He is not my favorite person by a long-shot, he's as dumb as a box of hammers, but he has been fairly competent as a governor.

Nnnnnnot so much.

Feb 27, 2012#340

MindDetective

Gas, what's the margin of error? If it is 2 points, then it is essentially even. Also, is that likely voters or registered voters? I don't know how USA Today can draw conclusions like that without some pertinent information. Actually, the more I look over that article, the madder I get. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Feb 27, 2012#341

Adammon

Gallup had Kerry +12 in February against Bush...

Feb 27, 2012#342

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
He is not my favorite person by a long-shot, he's as dumb as a box of hammers, but he has been fairly competent as a governor.

This was a trap I fell into as a Texan, because I think Texas has done pretty well. The problem is that in Texas the governer isn't responsible for as much of the success as a lot of other states. It's the tricky thing about conservatives, it's their inaction that helps the state. However, here are some of the things he really was responsible for:

Tripling the state debt to pay for a road system that no one ever wanted and was never built

Putting Texas dead last in percentage of insured citizens by cutting medicaid/medicare (which by the way was way cheaper than his roads, and also ended up increasing the insurance rates for the rest of Texas due to hospitals still serving them. Irony?)

He removed a ban on executing mentally retarded people.

He executed a number of foreign nationals and almost caused an international incident.

When confronted with a committee that found that he had executed an innocent man he replaced members of the committee to ensure its dissolution before the final report could be filed.

Feb 27, 2012#343

Krisken

WHAT Universal Healthcare? How can you be dragged down by something that doesn't even exist?

Feb 27, 2012#344

GasBandit

Krisken said:
WHAT Universal Healthcare? How can you be dragged down by something that doesn't even exist?

Mandatesayswhat?

Feb 27, 2012#345

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Mandatesayswhat?

Mandateisntuniversalhealthcarefail?

Feb 27, 2012#346

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Mandateisntuniversalhealthcarefail?

Excepteveryoneisrequiredtohaveithenceuniversal?

Feb 27, 2012#347

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Excepteveryoneisrequiredtohaveithenceuniversal?

Stillnotthesamethingandstillfail?

Feb 27, 2012#348

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Stillnotthesamethingandstillfail?

Likearguingit'snotacartoonit'sANIMEandthereisSOadifferenceDAD

Feb 27, 2012#349

Krisken

Ok, I'm bored. The two things aren't even remotely the same, but hey, no one is going to convince you of that so why bother?

Feb 27, 2012#350

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Ok, I'm bored. The two things aren't even remotely the same, but hey, no one is going to convince you of that so why bother?

I didn't REALLY expect that you want me to go through the whole "you know very damn well what it means" schtick. What with the mandate, and obamacare in general, being a stepping stone to what you narrowly define as "universal health care." The only difference being that obamacare forces you to buy health care insurance for yourself, whereas "single payer" forces other people to buy it for you. The net effect of obamacare will be to further exacerbate the problems the system is experiencing, thus paving the way for democrats to say "welp, we tried it the private market way and it didn't work, so now there's nothing left to do but enact single payer."

Feb 27, 2012#351

Krisken

I was going to read all that, but really it's muckity muck. You're still my favorite nut, though.

Feb 28, 2012#352

strawman

Crossover voting - republicans voting in democratic primaries and vice versa - has always been possible in some states with open primaries, so this isn't new, but it's interesting nonetheless:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...t-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-?via=blog_1

That's not the only democrat supporter asking democrats to support santorum: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ssover-voting-romney-santorum-/1#.T00vosz5Zi4

Michigan's vote is today, so I guess I have to figure out who the candidates are and what they're saying. Sigh.

Feb 28, 2012#353

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
This many:

An important caveat to it however, is it is the approval rating in november. The year before the election, GHW Bush's approval rating was 58%.

I was driving home last night thinking about this post and wondering if a statistical analysis could be performed on this data to determine if there was a non-random trend. It occurred to me it didn't need to be too complicated. A simple Chi-squared goodness of fit test would do the trick. A quick little analysis revealed that the trend here is not significantly different from random. Any conclusions extrapolated from this data would be considered premature.

Feb 28, 2012#354

Necronic

Yeah too bad statistics is made up and clearly biased. You might even call it a liberal art.

Edit: Oh snap I just thought of an interesting test. Approval margin as a function of year.

Edit2: ok nevermind its not interesting.

Feb 28, 2012#355

sixpackshaker

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-twisted-jfk-religion-203209385.html

I listened to Santorum load of frothy crap Sunday morning. He falsely quoted JFK as saying that religion had NO place in government. And realized that he either has 0% reading comprehension or is one of the most bald faced liars that I ever heard.

Feb 28, 2012#356

Necronic

Santorum is a Papist Evangelical.

Feb 28, 2012#357

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
Santorum is a Papist Evangelical.

I was really shocked to hear that he was Catholic. Because he acts just like a Pat Robertson Clone.

Feb 28, 2012#358

Necronic

Wait he's catholic? I assumed he was an evangelical.

Whoops.

And yeah that actually does sincerely bother me for a Catholic running for President to openly admit and engourage Papism in politics.

Feb 28, 2012#359

MindDetective

Necronic said:
Yeah too bad statistics is made up and clearly biased. You might even call it a liberal art.

Feb 28, 2012#360

Krisken

stienman said:
Crossover voting - republicans voting in democratic primaries and vice versa - has always been possible in some states with open primaries, so this isn't new, but it's interesting nonetheless:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...t-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-?via=blog_1

That's not the only democrat supporter asking democrats to support santorum: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ssover-voting-romney-santorum-/1#.T00vosz5Zi4

I find this just as disgusting and stupid as when Limbaugh suggested it the last time around. Just deplorable making a mockery of the process. Let the candidates do that!

Feb 28, 2012#361

Covar

Why should they have all the fun?

Feb 28, 2012#362

Necronic

I think the process does a pretty good job of making a mockery of itself.

Feb 28, 2012#363

GasBandit

Instant runoff ballots. No primaries needed. Problem fixed.

Feb 28, 2012#364

Necronic

MindDetective said:

Why don't you derive a point estimator about it.

Feb 28, 2012#365

MindDetective

That's what that was!

Feb 28, 2012#366

GasBandit

Feb 28, 2012#367

Necronic

I thought that was an interval...

Point estimators get me super confused. I remember we had to derive one for something in my stats final and it was some of the nastiest calculus I have ever whipped out of nowhere.

Edit: oh wow that headline.

Mar 4, 2012#368

Charlie Don't Surf

I guess this is the catch-all Republican Primary Thread

Santorum, who once practiced law, hasn't said how he would draft a constitutional amendment - or how he could get one passed even while opinion polls suggest increasing public acceptance of same-sex marriage.

"Just because public opinion says something doesn't mean it's right," he said in the NBC interview. "I'm sure there were times in areas of this country when people said blacks were less than human."

...

...............

..........................................

Mar 4, 2012#369

Krisken

Heh, even as late as a Ron Paul newsletter.

Mar 5, 2012#370

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I guess this is the catch-all Republican Primary Thread

...

...............

..........................................

..............

FUCK, MY BRAIN!

Mar 5, 2012#371

GasBandit

So now Santorum has said that he not only intends to nationally ban same sex marriage, but intends to retroactively nullify all previously granted ones. /facepalm

This is what I always say... Republicans say they want a small government, but that's just because they want it to fit in your bedroom.

/paste standard "you're not conservative unless you're libertarian" rant.

Mar 5, 2012#372

Shegokigo

Well he just sealed his chances. It was nearly always a Mitt vs Newt race anyway.

Mar 5, 2012#373

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
Well he just sealed his chances. It was nearly always a Mitt vs Newt race anyway.

If you ask me, this race was over when Cain got out.

Mar 5, 2012#374

Shegokigo

Oh I just meant race for Republican Candidate, it was never a question over Obama being re-elected.

Mar 5, 2012#375

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
Oh I just meant race for Republican Candidate, it was never a question over Obama being re-elected.

Well, I was referring to the primary too, but we'll just have to see come november for the general. I'm still pretty sure it could go either way, and whoever manufactures the best "october surprise" will probably take home all the marbles.

Mar 5, 2012#376

jwhouk

Possibilities for an October Surprise:

Attack on Iran, oil prices plunge;
Arab Spring in Iran;
Economy tanks a la 2008;
European economy tanks;
North Korean coup or other leadership change;
Earthquake/hurricane/other natural disaster hitting US;
Chicago Cubs win the World Series (aka ARMAGEDDON!).

Mar 6, 2012#377

AshburnerX

We already know what the surprise is going to be: The Republicans refuse to raise the dept ceiling again, then try to shift the blame on the Democrats like last time. It'll last until Election day, in an attempt to make Obama look weak.

Mar 6, 2012#378

Necronic

You're probably right, but that's going to backfire on them. Plenty of people are fed up with them playing chicken with that. Yes, the national debt is a problem. But constantly threatening to default is just going to get our credit rating downgraded, which will actually exacerbate the problem.

Oh I just meant race for Republican Candidate, it was never a question over Obama being re-elected.

I'm not sure what you're implying here (I'm honestly confused if you mean he's a shoe-in or a no-chance.) Either way I think that the election is FAR from decided.

Mar 6, 2012#379

sixpackshaker

I just had a realization... since the race is so close that the decision might come down to the convention... I am sad that nobody smokes indoors anymore. So there will be no talk of a deal being brokered in a smoke-filled, back room at the convention center.

Mar 6, 2012#380

Necronic

Bah, there will be a smoke filled room. It may violate smoking bans but anyone that cares will be lambasted for being in support of big government and falling prey to "liberal science".

Mar 7, 2012#381

GasBandit

So super tuesday is past. Romney won by all accounts, but there's more to the story than that. The big story is Ohio, where over a million turned out to vote in the primary, and it was a nailbiter all the way to the end. He eked out a victory over (but had to split delegates with) Santorum by less than a mere single percentage point, despite outspending the others by a 6 to 1 margin in advertising there. Many are asking if this shows weakness on his part, but to me, it makes me wonder about the 446,000 Ohioans (~37% of the turnout) who apparently want to nullify all existing same sex marriages and force every pregnancy to term.

Mar 7, 2012#382

sixpackshaker

Like Colbert said. The GOP wants smaller government so it can fit in your bedroom.

Mar 7, 2012#383

Adammon

Ohio is a semi-open primary, so I don't if Democrats were allowed to vote in it. If they were, the instructions were to vote for Santorum because he's a pathetical weak candidate.

Mar 7, 2012#384

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Many are asking if this shows weakness on his part, but to me, it makes me wonder about the 446,000 Ohioans (~37% of the turnout) who apparently want to nullify all existing same sex marriages and force every pregnancy to term.

Don't look at me. I voted Independent, so all I had to deal with was a single bond issue.

Adammon said:
Ohio is a semi-open primary, so I don't if Democrats were allowed to vote in it. If they were, the instructions were to vote for Santorum because he's a pathetical weak candidate.

Yes, you can. I'm registered as Independent and could have voted for the Republican candidate.

Mar 7, 2012#385

GasBandit

Adammon said:
Ohio is a semi-open primary, so I don't if Democrats were allowed to vote in it. If they were, the instructions were to vote for Santorum because he's a pathetical weak candidate.

Hrm, I don't know if it was that effective... they vocally tried to orchestrate that in Michigan and it didn't work very well.

Mar 8, 2012#386

Necronic

These primaries are definitely making Obama's chances for a re-election look much better.

Mar 8, 2012#387

AshburnerX

They need to tie this up and fast. The longer they draw this out, the less and less rational they seem.

Mar 8, 2012#388

DarkAudit

With all the raw meat getting thrown to the "base" right now, how can any of them possibly reconcile that message with one that resonates with the Great Middle they'll need to carry the day in November?

Mar 8, 2012#389

GasBandit

You'd be surprised how short the average voter's memory/attention span is. Super tuesday, according to google, more people were concerned with finding out about Snooki's babydaddy than they were about super tuesday, Obama's speech, iran, israel or anything else that happened that day.

Wave something shiny (or more often, scary) in front of voters of any stripe, and they forget all about what happened last month as they shit themselves. We have truly dug ourselves our very own, custom fitted hole.

Mar 8, 2012#390

Gared

You know, sometimes I like Gabriel Iglacias' idea on how to run a presidential election. Hold an hour long contest on TV called "Who's going to run this bitch," give each candidate 30 minutes to talk, flash an 800 number on the screen with option 1 for the first candidate and option 2 for the second; then have a two hour long award show the following week. Bam! Instant voter participation increase. Of course, we'd wind up with Snooki running the damn country, but at least it might be a fun last two weeks on earth.

Mar 8, 2012#391

strawman

There are still times I don't like a post, but I agree with it, and thus, rarely, the little voting widget is inadequate.

Voters have such a short memory. Last major election all the candidates had the drastically change their message in the last two months, and people were left scrambling.

While it would be nice to tie things up now and start the Obama bashing and demonstrate party unity, it will only take a month after the convention to do that, and then people won't even care that this dragged on as long as it always does.

Mar 8, 2012#392

Shakey

The thing that will hurt Romney the most with this dragging on is the money he's having to spend. Every dollar he spends to fight off Newt and Santorum is a dollar he can't spend against Obama. And he's spent a lot of those dollars.

Mar 8, 2012#393

GasBandit

Yep. Remember how brutal the hillary-vs-obama crap got in the 2008 primary? Remember how it instantly evaporated after the convention? Remember how she's now secretary of state?

Mar 8, 2012#394

strawman

Shakey said:
The thing that will hurt Romney the most with this dragging on is the money he's having to spend. Every dollar he spends to fight off Newt and Santorum is a dollar he can't spend against Obama. And he's spent a lot of those dollars.

Yep, but he's also been able to pull in a lot of money, and that will only increase once the convention has settled.

It's still going to be an uphill battle for him, money or no.

Mar 8, 2012#395

Necronic

The thing is that normally the voters that supported one candidate will move to the other after the primary. I just don't see the religious right voting for Romney. I have nothing against Mormons myself, they are really nice people, but for an evangelical Nazzerine Christian that looks to the bible when he votes it would be like voting for Richard Dawkins.

Mar 8, 2012#396

GasBandit

Necronic said:
The thing is that normally the voters that supported one candidate will move to the other after the primary. I just don't see the religious right voting for Romney. I have nothing against Mormons myself, they are really nice people, but for an evangelical Nazzerine Christian that looks to the bible when he votes it would be like voting for Richard Dawkins.

Depends on how much the "look, it's me or Obama at this point" message sinks in.

Mar 8, 2012#397

Necronic

Like you said earlier, that wasn't enough for Kerry and he didn't have a religion issue pushing against him.

Mar 8, 2012#398

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Like you said earlier, that wasn't enough for Kerry and he didn't have a religion issue pushing against him.

Which is why I said, "depends." We won't know 'til it happens, or doesn't.

Mar 8, 2012#399

Shakey

I doubt him being a Mormon will really be an issue. It seems the media makes it into an issue more than anything.

Romney does suffer from the same problem as Kerry did though. They're boring as hell. That will be more of a hurdle for him than his religion. Especially compared to a camera friendly charismatic Obama. In the end it's all a popularity contest.

Mar 8, 2012#400

strawman

I think that race was completely different, and Kerry lost due to poor campaigning. Kerry didn't have the equivalent of rove on his staff making sure things went his direction. There are a lot of other things, but I don't think you can easily compare the two. Bushes approval rating was low, but I think people believed that he was necessary, and that as bad as bush was, Kerry simply wouldn't have been better.

The Obama campaign blew everyone away four years ago. Now that people have had a taste, is he so bad that they're willing to try someone different, or do they stick with the evil they know?

Further, there'd are a few hot button issues the evangelicals will side with Romney over Obama for, such as abortion, same sex marriage, etc. They may not fully agree with him on the particulars, but they can see that Obama is clearly headed in the direction they'd like to avoid, given that he's changed the military's position, and ordered the ag to stop arguing in behalf of doma and similar laws.

Lastly, we've only got half the story. Once the convention is done, the running mate can make up for a lot of the candidate's inadequacies.

Besides, it's still anyone's race. We're quite early in the primary, and we've still got a lot of time left to shake things up. Any significant shift in the economy, the culture, or world will cause everyone to tumble around a bit. I think the supreme court is due to weigh in on prop 8 this summer, and regardless of who makes it out of the convention or what the ruling turns out to be, that could be a significant polarizing act for both parties, and totally change the tone of their messages. Thats just one thing out of dozens of likely events that will shake things up.

Mar 8, 2012#401

GasBandit

TLDR version: October decides the election.

Mar 8, 2012#402

Krisken

Lets also consider the campaigns that the GOP candidates have run so far. Not exactly stellar (from what I have seen anyways). Will this improve after one of them is decided as the GOP candidate?

Mar 8, 2012#403

strawman

What campaigns? It appears to me that they aren't running for president, they are running for GOP nomination, and that is a very different form of a campaigning than what one might expect during a presidential election.

Besides, it's like running a race. If you start sprinting too early, you run out of steam at the last minute. Start too late and the others pass you up, and you can't win back the time you lost. To some degree that can be made up with money, but not completely.

I think the democrats only have to worry about complacency right now. So many of them are convinced Obama won't lose that they might not provide enough support and funding until they suddenly notice that things aren't going so well. The democrat's challenge is energizing their base while still presenting the message that the republicans can't possibly win. The republicans are content to gather speed so by the time the democratic base notices it'll be a really hard push to get up to speed before Obama gets passed.

Mar 8, 2012#404

strawman

We also can't discount that last time Obama ran a brilliant online and young adult campaign which many believe made a significant impact on the election. Can he repeat that, or does he now believe he won't need it? Has he retained the people he converted the first time around, or are they dissatisfied with his results, given the occupy protests from that same base?

It is fortunate that they occupy protests were wrapped up well in advance of the election season, but will they resume after winter, and will they so easily be hushed up?

One month can make all the difference.

Mar 8, 2012#405

Krisken

stienman said:
What campaigns? It appears to me that they aren't running for president, they are running for GOP nomination, and that is a very different form of a campaigning than what one might expect during a presidential election.

See, this doesn't address what I said in the least. I'm not addressing how far right everyone in the GOP is leaning to attract the base. As far as what they have been doing so far, the campaigns themselves have been shit-tacular. Not getting enough signatures to get on ballots, speaking engagements in arenas that aren't filled, and the effort not just on the national level but in the individual states disenfranchising conservative women voters has been hard to ignore. They may not vote Obama, but don't be surprised if they aren't thrilled who the nominee ends up being for the GOP either. There is no guarantee they will hold their nose and vote either.

Mar 8, 2012#406

Necronic

Shakey said:
I doubt him being a Mormon will really be an issue. It seems the media makes it into an issue more than anything.

I think you seriously underestimate how many underlying problems there are between mormons and evangelicals, specifically the Southern Babtists out there who have had numerous high-ranking pastors explicitly state that their congregation should not vote for Romney because Mormonism is a cult.

The problem with statements like this is that you can't ever put them back in the bag. You can't come back 3 months later after Santorum looses and say "well it's ok now because it's more important to replace Obama", you don't get to switch to a secular tone. They are going to loose a LOT of voters because of that.

Mar 8, 2012#407

Espy

I think you underestimate how many of those evangelicals are just as republican as they are evangelical. Much like my ultra-right-wing-evangelical father-in-law really. He wanted Bachmann. He WILL vote for whomever the candidate is. Except for Ron Paul. Who is "a pot loving liberal".

Ponder that.

Mar 8, 2012#408

Necronic

It's true that there are many in the religious right that will ultimately side with their secular interests, and anyone has a good history of voting is probably still going to vote republican. But the question is about whether Romney can energize those on the religious right that aren't a sure thing to show up to vote. I think a significant number of those that don't normally vote will stay home.

Mar 8, 2012#409

Espy

Romney energizing the right is really the bigger and more realistic issue than the smaller group of far right evangelicals who don't like Romney due to his religion. I would totally agree that unless something major happens (Palin veep again? Yikes) it is going to be way more about how pissed off Repubs are at Obama. If they are sufficiently angry they will vote against him. If they are only mildly annoyed then, well, welcome to the second term of Obama.

Mar 19, 2012#410

@Li3n

Ok, so is Romney trolling us or what...

Because damn son, that's some freudian slip: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...50102744196083.306718.598386082&type=1&ref=nf

:rofl:

Mar 19, 2012#411

drifter

Photoshop, dude.

Mar 19, 2012#412

GasBandit

R-Money is his gangsta handle.

Mar 22, 2012#413

Yoshimickster

If Romnney wins, we get a religious republican nut-job who hates Obama-care. If Santorum wins, we get a religious nut-job who hates Obama-care....with the charisma of a dead newt.

Seriously, how did Santorum make it this far? Every time I hear him talk I fall to sleep. At least with Romney's constant flip-flopping he's interesting.

Mar 22, 2012#414

Krisken

Yoshimickster said:
If Romnney wins, we get a religious republican nut-job who hates Obama-care. If Santorum wins, we get a religious nut-job who hates Obama-care....with the charisma of a dead newt.

Seriously, how did Santorum make it this far? Every time I hear him talk I fall to sleep. At least with Romney's constant flip-flopping he's interesting.

In his speeches I always imagine him auditioning to be Batman, trying to lower his voice or make it more gravelly to seem in charge.

Mar 22, 2012#415

Yoshimickster

Krisken said:
In his speeches I always imagine him auditioning to be Batman, trying to lower his voice or make it more gravelly to seem in charge.

Maybe he's not the president we need, but the president we deserve. Cue credits.

Mar 22, 2012#416

Charlie Don't Surf

Santorum has a much bigger cult of personality amid the hyper-religious woman-hating right than Romney ever will.

Mar 22, 2012#417

Krisken

Romney isn't really as right as he appears. Center-right would better describe him. He's the right version of Obama, really.

Mar 22, 2012#418

Charlie Don't Surf

"right version of Obama" = Obama post-election lol

Mar 22, 2012#419

Krisken

Charlie Don't Surf said:
"right version of Obama" = Obama post-election lol

I know you are joking, but I really doubt it. I think, depending on what happens in the Senate and House elections, Obama will be more progressive with his policies in a second term than he would be in the first. Remember, Clinton was more conservative in his first term than in his second after his attempt to overhaul health care.

Mar 22, 2012#420

sixpackshaker

Krisken said:
Clinton was more conservative in his first term than in his second after his attempt to overhaul health care.

Strike that and reverse it.

Mar 22, 2012#421

Charlie Don't Surf

I hope(lol) you're right

Mar 23, 2012#422

Shegokigo

Can't.... stop.... laughing..... :rofl:

Mar 24, 2012#423

Bowielee

OMG, this is the banner ad that popped up:

A few things. Not only did the adbot make a terrible call here, but Jesus Christ, what has Obama done that would even remotely lead to impeachment?

Being black while president?

Mar 24, 2012#424

Krisken

Bowielee said:
OMG, this is the banner ad that popped up:

View attachment 5072

A few things. Not only did the adbot make a terrible call here, but Jesus Christ, what has Obama done that would even remotely lead to impeachment?

Being black while president?

If you only knew the stupid shit I hear, you would be amazed.

Mar 24, 2012#425

Bowielee

I love that this comes from the same folks that backed a president who led us into one of the biggest political cluster-fucks since Vietnam, and also practiced illegal torture and spying on the American public, yet served 2 full terms in office.

Admitedly, there are MANY decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he hasn't done anything impeachable.

Mar 24, 2012#426

Tress

Let's start with the root of the problem: do you think most people could explain what an impeachment actually is, or what the criteria for impeachment would be? I'm willing to bet most of the mouth-breathing troglodytes who would respond to that ad couldn't explain it, they just know it's bad and want it to happen to Obama.

Mar 25, 2012#427

jwhouk

Just like a lot of my fellow Cheeseheads don't actually understand what "recall" means.

Mar 26, 2012#428

GasBandit

My father sent this to me via e-mail. I have to admit I chuckled.

Mar 27, 2012#429

Charlie Don't Surf

it would kind of rule if Obama was impeached for executing US citizens without a trial

Mar 31, 2012#430

Necronic

Charlie Don't Surf said:
it would kind of rule if Obama was impeached for executing US citizens without a trial

In fairness if Bush had done this it would be on par if not a more seriously impeachable offense than the rendition stuff.

Apr 4, 2012#431

Yoshimickster

I'm not gonna lie, I'm not really worried. Ain't no way is Romney gettin' elected. As disapointed people are in Barrack, he's still at least better than Romney. Not by a lot but still.

Forums