Herman Cain is a joke, his main problem with the Health Care Bill was that it was "too many pages".

If Romney doesn't win the Republican nomination, then god help us all.

 
gnicholas:
Herman Cain is a joke, his main problem with the Health Care Bill was that it was "too many pages".

If Romney doesn't win the Republican nomination, then god help us all.

People eat that shit up. After the first debate, I saw a room full of Republican voters who ate up his folksiness.

My Republican isn't even a Republican: Ron Paul. Its a shame his son his so prone to gaffes, they could be a dynasty. My second Republican would be Gary Johnson.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
Nobama88:
I would like to see Christie, but obviously he will not run.

For the people who have thrown their hat into the ring, I have to go with Romney.

I seriously hope people evaluate Romney outside his experience with Bain before tossing him your vote... the guy flip flops more than a gang bang of Romanian gymnast on a trampoline.

Not going to matter though... I bet Rick Perry will be the nominee.

 
Nobama88:
I would like to see Christie, but obviously he will not run.
My money is on him keeping his nose clean [tough in Jersey] and then running in 2016. Christie as pres = pure awesome. All talk of a GOP victory in 2012 is delusional, sorry.
Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
Nobama88:
I would like to see Christie, but obviously he will not run.
My money is on him keeping his nose clean [tough in Jersey] and then running in 2016. Christie as pres = pure awesome. All talk of a GOP victory in 2012 is delusional, sorry.

Umm, this is incorrect. Obama may very well win, but when Obama is losing 49-46 to Romney among registered voters (not even likely voters, which swings more Republican) and when unknowns like Pawlenty are getting 41% of the vote then you've got serious problems. Obama's biggest problem is the electoral college--many Bush Red states that flipped to Obama are certain to turn back--Florida, Virginia, and even Ohio. Then add in the Census reapportionment and Obama is already down something like 20 electoral votes.

If you think Obama's victory is a foregone conclusion then you really haven't been following the numbers.

Array
 
UFOinsider:
Nobama88:
I would like to see Christie, but obviously he will not run.
My money is on him keeping his nose clean [tough in Jersey] and then running in 2016. Christie as pres = pure awesome. All talk of a GOP victory in 2012 is delusional, sorry.

Unfortunately, Christie is likely too fat and too short to make it to the oval office. I wish this were not the case.

 

That would be awesome if Texas could get rid of Rick Perry, I'm not even sure he's competent enough to run Texas A&M., much less a state or country. If liberals thought Bush was dumb, just wait until Rick Perry rolls into Washington.

It's by far Romney's to lose, and he knows it too since he's basically ignoring all the upcoming straw polls. Herman Cain has good ideas, but I get the sense that he just doesn't want to put in the effort necessary to learn about topics of debate. He basically explains how his "Cain Plan" was great, but won't work anymore because of things Obama has done...OK great, no one gives a f*** what would have worked in the past.

 

I would love Bloomberg, unfortunately it will never happen.

Perhaps this vitriol towards Romney, who I like very much, comes from the fact that I am not a registered Republican by any means. I am a moderate and vote on who I feel the best on an individual basis. So Romney's "flip flopping" or departure from the standard Republican positions does not make me like him any less.

 

While Obama may be in many senses unpopular and increasingly so, there is just no Republican candidate that could ever match his brand. In this sense, I hope Palin (or someone similar) is nominated. Otherwise, a good candidate in a winnable race will be wasted.

 
ProvincialPeasant:
While Obama may be in many senses unpopular and increasingly so, there is just no Republican candidate that could ever match his brand. In this sense, I hope Palin (or someone similar) is nominated. Otherwise, a good candidate in a winnable race will be wasted.
^ yes. This is part of the genius / good luck of Christie's statement of how he 'can't leave Jersey now' because everything he's worked on will be undone. He gets to play both sides of the debate: pure win if he runs for pres in 2016.
Get busy living
 

As for Ron Paul, I think he is the most genuine politician America will have now or in the future. The problem is his age and unelectability. I certainly cannot imagine a libertarian revolution taking place, even if he were to win the Presidency. So many groups - America's own political elite and its defence community - have vested interests in the current status-quo. Not to mention other nations that rely on America militarily and diplomatically, or just for aid.

 

I haven't watch the Cain interview yet because I'm stuck in the office late, but I was certainly worried about O'Reilly giving it to him. Unfortunately, one of his greatest attributes (not being a politician) will likely be his downfall. He seems like he could be a good leader and seems to have a ton of potential but he just doesn't seem as up-to-speed as he needs to be about foreign affairs. Also the comment about having the right plan before Obama messed things up is far too accurate...you can't say I knew what to do a year ago but it won't work anymore...you have to have a new plan that will work. Obviously it is extremely early and he has time to learn about all these things but I have my reservations about him. I think he would do well serving the Republican party in politics but I am being to withdraw my support for his presidential nomination. I'm being to think he doesn't have what it takes.

As far as Republicans not being able to win this election...you people are out of your fucking minds. Look at all of the recent polls. Among voters Obama is polling horribly and my honest thought is the economy is not getting any better between now and the voting booth. His largest base, blacks, statistically don't come out and vote in mid term elections...so he will lose a ton of support right there. Factor in the students that are now well aware of what Obama didn't bring to the table and you have another large base of support gone.

This will be a nasty election. Obama has nothing of substance to run on so he will have to either revert back to the Bush blame game, personally attack his opponent or a combination of both.

The Republicans can win this election if they man up and have the balls to call Obama out on all of his failed policies (Obamacare, the budget, the debt, the economy as a whole), his failed promises (GITMO, transparency, among others) and his lack of vision (energy). There are obviously countless more. Bottom line is that Obama over promised and severely under delivered.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
I haven't watch the Cain interview yet because I'm stuck in the office late, but I was certainly worried about O'Reilly giving it to him. Unfortunately, one of his greatest attributes (not being a politician) will likely be his downfall. He seems like he could be a good leader and seems to have a ton of potential but he just doesn't seem as up-to-speed as he needs to be about foreign affairs. Also the comment about having the right plan before Obama messed things up is far too accurate...you can't say I knew what to do a year ago but it won't work anymore...you have to have a new plan that will work. Obviously it is extremely early and he has time to learn about all these things but I have my reservations about him. I think he would do well serving the Republican party in politics but I am being to withdraw my support for his presidential nomination. I'm being to think he doesn't have what it takes.

As far as Republicans not being able to win this election...you people are out of your fucking minds. Look at all of the recent polls. Among voters Obama is polling horribly and my honest thought is the economy is not getting any better between now and the voting booth. His largest base, blacks, statistically don't come out and vote in mid term elections...so he will lose a ton of support right there. Factor in the students that are now well aware of what Obama didn't bring to the table and you have another large base of support gone.

This will be a nasty election. Obama has nothing of substance to run on so he will have to either revert back to the Bush blame game, personally attack his opponent or a combination of both.

The Republicans can win this election if they man up and have the balls to call Obama out on all of his failed policies (Obamacare, the budget, the debt, the economy as a whole), his failed promises (GITMO, transparency, among others) and his lack of vision (energy). There are obviously countless more. Bottom line is that Obama over promised and severely under delivered.

Regards

What? Obama is not polling horribly at all, and lets face it the Repub have no candidate that comes close to him now except perhaps Romney who isn't all that bad. Every other potential candidate is either a fundamentalist christian who's specialty is being vehemently against abortion and gay marriage (Santorum), a joke (Newt), or completely crazy (Bachmann, Palin, etc).

And to say that black people are Obama' largest voting base is rediculous.

 
awm55:
What? Obama is not polling horribly at all, and lets face it the Repub have no candidate that comes close to him now except perhaps Romney who isn't all that bad. Every other potential candidate is either a fundamentalist christian who's specialty is being vehemently against abortion and gay marriage (Santorum), a joke (Newt), or completely crazy (Bachmann, Palin, etc).

Back to life...back to reality...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administr…

I'm not sure what you consider "not polling horribly" but it is plain to see that Obama is tanking in just about every poll listed. His approval rating is down, his disapproval rating is up. Nearly 70% of voting Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Oh yeah, sounds like B.O. has this one locked up, lol.

awm55:
And to say that black people are Obama' largest voting base is rediculous.

"Largest base" was probably poor phrasing on my part. My intention was to imply that large swaths of people who voted for him in 2008 won't be seen in 2012...this includes blacks, which he carried 96% of the vote and young white kids, which I assume implies in college or shortly out of college.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
awm55:
cphbravo96:
I haven't watch the Cain interview yet because I'm stuck in the office late, but I was certainly worried about O'Reilly giving it to him. Unfortunately, one of his greatest attributes (not being a politician) will likely be his downfall. He seems like he could be a good leader and seems to have a ton of potential but he just doesn't seem as up-to-speed as he needs to be about foreign affairs. Also the comment about having the right plan before Obama messed things up is far too accurate...you can't say I knew what to do a year ago but it won't work anymore...you have to have a new plan that will work. Obviously it is extremely early and he has time to learn about all these things but I have my reservations about him. I think he would do well serving the Republican party in politics but I am being to withdraw my support for his presidential nomination. I'm being to think he doesn't have what it takes.

As far as Republicans not being able to win this election...you people are out of your fucking minds. Look at all of the recent polls. Among voters Obama is polling horribly and my honest thought is the economy is not getting any better between now and the voting booth. His largest base, blacks, statistically don't come out and vote in mid term elections...so he will lose a ton of support right there. Factor in the students that are now well aware of what Obama didn't bring to the table and you have another large base of support gone.

This will be a nasty election. Obama has nothing of substance to run on so he will have to either revert back to the Bush blame game, personally attack his opponent or a combination of both.

The Republicans can win this election if they man up and have the balls to call Obama out on all of his failed policies (Obamacare, the budget, the debt, the economy as a whole), his failed promises (GITMO, transparency, among others) and his lack of vision (energy). There are obviously countless more. Bottom line is that Obama over promised and severely under delivered.

Regards

What? Obama is not polling horribly at all, and lets face it the Repub have no candidate that comes close to him now except perhaps Romney who isn't all that bad. Every other potential candidate is either a fundamentalist christian who's specialty is being vehemently against abortion and gay marriage (Santorum), a joke (Newt), or completely crazy (Bachmann, Palin, etc).

And to say that black people are Obama' largest voting base is rediculous.

I'm fairly certain Obama will lose the independents.

What's rediculous is it's ridiculous. haha, had to pull one of your liberal tricks

 

As far as Ron Paul is concerned...most people will think he is a nut job.

I actually agree with a ton of his points but some of them, like isolationism, just don't seem to be workable. We don't live in a day and age where you can spot thine enemy ships yonder. Me have enemies everywhere and we need to be proactive about keeping them at bay. Now, with that said, I do think we should address our international military deployments and strategically withdraw from places that don't fit with out agenda going forward...after all, just like out enemies aren't spilling out of wooden Sloops and Corvettes to come ashore, we have ICBMs and long range deployment capabilities that our current global occupation plan doesn't really take into account.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
eokpar02:
Ron Paul isn't an isolationist, he is just against foreign intervention.

You are right. I misspoke. He is far from the actually book/Wikipedia definition. My point was more that people view him as one...at least when it comes to military policy, not so much forgein trade and the like.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

It is definitely possible for Obama to go down in 2012. A new poll actually showed Mitt statistically tied with Obama (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/165043-poll-romney-lea…)

It all comes down to the unemployment number and the price of a gallon of gasoline. Obama will win in a landslide if these numbers fall and he declares victory on the economy.

If the economy is still in the shitter independents, who sided heavily with the Dems in 2008, will leave Obama. This is of course provided the GOP doesn't blow any chance they have by nominating Palin.

I also think that putting Rubio in the VP slot and using him at every stop on the campaign trail would do wonders for the GOP's standing amongst Latio voters who currently lean Dem.

 

Look, George H.W. Bush and Carter both lost re-election with better economies than what Obama will be running on (most likely). Why would anyone with any kind of political sense declare Obama the victor in 2012 without so much as even critically thinking through the process? Look at state polls right now--Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, etc. and tell me exactly how Obama plans on winning 270 electoral votes, especially after the 2010 Census.

Array
 

Cain will be a great VP choice. Folksy AND competent. Unlike Clueless Joe Biden.

No president has sought re-election with economic/un-employment numbers like BO.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
Cain will be a great VP choice. Folksy AND competent. Unlike Clueless Joe Biden.

No president has sought re-election with economic/un-employment numbers like BO.

Did you listen to Cain's interview with O'Reilly? The man sounded dumb as nails. His solution to Iran getting nukes was making American energy independent because he thinks Iran won't be able to get nukes this year if we become energy independent in 10 years. He also is fairly clueless about Afghanistan.

Is this man serious? Cain may be folksy, but definitely isn't anymore competent than a ham sandwich.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
eokpar02:
veritas14:
Cain will be a great VP choice. Folksy AND competent. Unlike Clueless Joe Biden.

No president has sought re-election with economic/un-employment numbers like BO.

Did you listen to Cain's interview with O'Reilly? The man sounded dumb as nails. His solution to Iran getting nukes was making American energy independent because he thinks Iran won't be able to get nukes this year if we become energy independent in 10 years. He also is fairly clueless about Afghanistan.

Is this man serious? Cain may be folksy, but definitely isn't anymore competent than a ham sandwich.

I have to agree that he comes across as folksy and uninformed but I find that refreshing. He is responsible enough to admit that he can't possibly have solutions for all the problems because he is not privileged to the real facts and intelligence. Honestly, I've always wondered how these candidates had answers to these questions that they can't possibly know about. People will give him a rough time and chalk him up as dumb but I don't think that is the truth.

With that said, there are potentially better candidates. Ideally I would like to get Christie or Jeb Bush in there and then Cain or West as VP.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

If people would stop beating off to Bain Capital and really take a look at Romney's political positions, they'd see that he lacks integrity. I generally hate the term "flip flop" because I think it's important to have nuanced positions and be willing to change your mind on positions when presented compelling evidence. But, the level of pandering Romney has done to attract "the base" is absurd.

--Romney used to be for a woman's right to choose, now he's against it

--Romney instituted what is essentially a state version of Obama's healthcare reform in Massachusetts, and is now against it

--Romney, a Mormon, at a debate in the 2008 race, claimed that he believes that the Bible is the word of God. When Mormon's don't even user the traditional Christian Bible.

--He has flip flopped on gun control

--He flip flopped on the war in Iraq.

This is a guy who was a Rockefeller Republican until it came time to run for President. How can you respect someone who doesn't stand by their principles and panders to such a degree? It's a joke, pure and simple.

"But...but...he did LBOs!"

Get this plastic fraud out of my Presidential race!

 
TheKing:
If people would stop beating off to Bain Capital and really take a look at Romney's political positions, they'd see that he lacks integrity. I generally hate the term "flip flop" because I think it's important to have nuanced positions and be willing to change your mind on positions when presented compelling evidence. But, the level of pandering Romney has done to attract "the base" is absurd.

--Romney used to be for a woman's right to choose, now he's against it

--Romney instituted what is essentially a state version of Obama's healthcare reform in Massachusetts, and is now against it

--Romney, a Mormon, at a debate in the 2008 race, claimed that he believes that the Bible is the word of God. When Mormon's don't even user the traditional Christian Bible.

--He has flip flopped on gun control

--He flip flopped on the war in Iraq.

This is a guy who was a Rockefeller Republican until it came time to run for President. How can you respect someone who doesn't stand by their principles and panders to such a degree? It's a joke, pure and simple.

"But...but...he did LBOs!"

Get this plastic fraud out of my Presidential race!

Well said, precisely why I dislike Romney. How any intelligent person could want Romney is beyond me. I'd rather have Obama, at least I know what I'm getting.

 

Rick Perry- Governor of the country's best economy: Texas.

Texas leads the jobs recovery, growing population, many corporate HQs relocating there. Cut property/biz taxes. Pushed through tort reform. Local control of infrastructure resources, especially roads. Strongest private property rights in the country.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
Rick Perry- Governor of the country's best economy: Texas.

Texas leads the jobs recovery, growing population, many corporate HQs relocating there. Cut property/biz taxes. Pushed through tort reform. Local control of infrastructure resources, especially roads. Strongest private property rights in the country.

Texas also ranks dead last or close to dead last in education, healthcare, obesity, etc etc.

 
awm55:
veritas14:
Rick Perry- Governor of the country's best economy: Texas.

Texas leads the jobs recovery, growing population, many corporate HQs relocating there. Cut property/biz taxes. Pushed through tort reform. Local control of infrastructure resources, especially roads. Strongest private property rights in the country.

Texas also ranks dead last or close to dead last in education, healthcare, obesity, etc etc.

Sounds like they are probably having a blast, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
awm55:
veritas14:
Rick Perry- Governor of the country's best economy: Texas.

Texas leads the jobs recovery, growing population, many corporate HQs relocating there. Cut property/biz taxes. Pushed through tort reform. Local control of infrastructure resources, especially roads. Strongest private property rights in the country.

Texas also ranks dead last or close to dead last in education, healthcare, obesity, etc etc.

Obesity is NOT a government matter.

Education: heavy Latino immigrant population does stress the primary schools. But the TX state university system is excellent.

Most of this is irrelevant. Public services matter less when you have the #2 cheapest cost of living and a booming economy. Texans can pay straight cash for a lot of things.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
awm55:
veritas14:
Rick Perry- Governor of the country's best economy: Texas.

Texas leads the jobs recovery, growing population, many corporate HQs relocating there. Cut property/biz taxes. Pushed through tort reform. Local control of infrastructure resources, especially roads. Strongest private property rights in the country.

Texas also ranks dead last or close to dead last in education, healthcare, obesity, etc etc.

You just keep on doing what "the man" tells you and be a good boy. We'll handle business down here.

 

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

I like Hernan but don't agree with him on keeping our forces in Afghanistan

From USA's perspective what is most important protectorate area in the world? Is it the North/South Korean border, the Afghan/Pakistan border, the Israel/Palatine border, the Iran/Iraqi border, the Japan/China border? and etc....etc...?

If we brought all our defense forces home and stretched them out along our southern border they would stand shoulder to shoulder for two thousand miles. This is the length of the Mexico/USA border. If we used one fifth of our defense forces to protect the Mexico/USA border, they would form a defense line every 20 feet for 200 hundred miles. That means that our most important protectorate area will be secure. We could then retire 4/5 th of our defense forces and use the moneys saved to eliminate the USA debt. Remember the cost of defense is our single most expensive expenditure. It is even greater than congressional graft and corruption.

 
txjustin][quote=awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

 
awm55][quote=txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning!! Let's be real, the left harps on "income disparity" because it wants to distract from the fact that the "poor" in this country have a higher standard of living than some middle class workers in other countries.

As far as your political allegiance...if you are willing to take money from one person and give it to another, you aren't as moderate you would like to think.

Also, lets try to be a little less disingenuous...we don't actually have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96][quote=awm55:
txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning!! Let's be real, the left harps on "income disparity" because it wants to distract from the fact that the "poor" in this country have a higher standard of living than some middle class workers in other countries.

As far as your political allegiance...if you are willing to take money from one person and give it to another, you aren't as moderate you would like to think.

Also, lets try to be a little less disingenuous...we don't actually have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.

Regards

You don't think its slightly worrying that middle class incomes have not moved in a generation while the wealth at the top 1% has exploded? And do you not see the ethical ramifications of bitching about the hyper rich paying more tax or republican presidential nominees giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously threatening to cut medicare? This is some seriously fucked up twisted shit that only someone completely devoid of morals would espouse. Oh, and please spend a night in north Philly or Camden, NJ before you tell me how great it is to be poor in the USA. The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

And you literally have to be crazy or living on another planet to think that wanting a minimal level of income redistribution makes you left wing. Society would collapse without it, it has nothing to do with left or right wing, its common sense.

Go back to reading atlas shrugged and your guide to libertarianism because you are not living in the real world.

 
awm55][quote=cphbravo96:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning!! Let's be real, the left harps on "income disparity" because it wants to distract from the fact that the "poor" in this country have a higher standard of living than some middle class workers in other countries.

As far as your political allegiance...if you are willing to take money from one person and give it to another, you aren't as moderate you would like to think.

Also, lets try to be a little less disingenuous...we don't actually have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.

Regards

You don't think its slightly worrying that middle class incomes have not moved in a generation while the wealth at the top 1% has exploded? And do you not see the ethical ramifications of bitching about the hyper rich paying more tax or republican presidential nominees giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously threatening to cut medicare? This is some seriously fucked up twisted shit that only someone completely devoid of morals would espouse. Oh, and please spend a night in north Philly or Camden, NJ before you tell me how great it is to be poor in the USA. The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

And you literally have to be crazy or living on another planet to think that wanting a minimal level of income redistribution makes you left wing. Society would collapse without it, it has nothing to do with left or right wing, its common sense.

Go back to reading atlas shrugged and your guide to libertarianism because you are not living in the real world.

Welcome to capitalism where those that work hard and smart are rewarded and those that choose not to are left behind. We've done an aweful lot as a society to try and mitigate the downside of capitalism and it has only created a greater dependency of the middle class and the wealthy.

The reality of this situation is that these programs are unsustainable and taking more money from the class of people who create jobs in this country is not the answer. Paul Ryan has made a stellar attempt at finding a real answer to some of the problems we face as a nation and the reaction from the left is to slander him and run ads showing a man dumping an old lady off a cliff. It is sick.

awm55:
The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

I know, that is what I was saying...glad you agree. And I never said being poor in America was "great" (another liberal tactic...misquoting what someone said) I merely said that they have it far better than some average people in other countries around the world. This article is a bit dated, but is still relevant...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-…

Ironically, you think not handing someone a free meal is devoid of morals but most of us crazy right-wing gun toting' maniacs would argue that contributing assistance to the point of dependency is the worst moral hazard of them all. How many animals from the zoo get released back out into the wild? Virtually none of them, because they lose the ability to hunt and fend for themselves because someone has fed and sheltered them to the point of incapability. I won't take part in that.

And society wouldn't "collapse" if we didn't redistribute wealth. If you confiscated all of the wealth from these "hyper rich" people you keep talking about, and applied it to the deficit I think it would decrease by about 10% and the number would still be mind numbing...then where would we be?!!? We have a spending problem in this country, which has lead to a debt problem, not the other way around...and I can't condone taking more money from Americans when it will just be spent in the recklessly inefficient manner we've all become accustomed to.

And stop with the name calling, we all know you're a liberal....no need to try and prove it.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96][quote=awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning!! Let's be real, the left harps on "income disparity" because it wants to distract from the fact that the "poor" in this country have a higher standard of living than some middle class workers in other countries.

As far as your political allegiance...if you are willing to take money from one person and give it to another, you aren't as moderate you would like to think.

Also, lets try to be a little less disingenuous...we don't actually have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.

Regards

You don't think its slightly worrying that middle class incomes have not moved in a generation while the wealth at the top 1% has exploded? And do you not see the ethical ramifications of bitching about the hyper rich paying more tax or republican presidential nominees giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously threatening to cut medicare? This is some seriously fucked up twisted shit that only someone completely devoid of morals would espouse. Oh, and please spend a night in north Philly or Camden, NJ before you tell me how great it is to be poor in the USA. The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

And you literally have to be crazy or living on another planet to think that wanting a minimal level of income redistribution makes you left wing. Society would collapse without it, it has nothing to do with left or right wing, its common sense.

Go back to reading atlas shrugged and your guide to libertarianism because you are not living in the real world.

Welcome to capitalism where those that work hard and smart are rewarded and those that choose not to are left behind. We've done an aweful lot as a society to try and mitigate the downside of capitalism and it has only created a greater dependency of the middle class and the wealthy.

The reality of this situation is that these programs are unsustainable and taking more money from the class of people who create jobs in this country is not the answer. Paul Ryan has made a stellar attempt at finding a real answer to some of the problems we face as a nation and the reaction from the left is to slander him and run ads showing a man dumping an old lady off a cliff. It is sick.

awm55:
The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

I know, that is what I was saying...glad you agree. And I never said being poor in America was "great" (another liberal tactic...misquoting what someone said) I merely said that they have it far better than some average people in other countries around the world. This article is a bit dated, but is still relevant...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-…

Ironically, you think not handing someone a free meal is devoid of morals but most of us crazy right-wing gun toting' maniacs would argue that contributing assistance to the point of dependency is the worst moral hazard of them all. How many animals from the zoo get released back out into the wild? Virtually none of them, because they lose the ability to hunt and fend for themselves because someone has fed and sheltered them to the point of incapability. I won't take part in that.

And society wouldn't "collapse" if we didn't redistribute wealth. If you confiscated all of the wealth from these "hyper rich" people you keep talking about, and applied it to the deficit I think it would decrease by about 10% and the number would still be mind numbing...then where would we be?!!? We have a spending problem in this country, which has lead to a debt problem, not the other way around...and I can't condone taking more money from Americans when it will just be spent in the recklessly inefficient manner we've all become accustomed to.

And stop with the name calling, we all know you're a liberal....no need to try and prove it.

Regards

Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

 
txjustin][quote=cphbravo96:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning!! Let's be real, the left harps on "income disparity" because it wants to distract from the fact that the "poor" in this country have a higher standard of living than some middle class workers in other countries.

As far as your political allegiance...if you are willing to take money from one person and give it to another, you aren't as moderate you would like to think.

Also, lets try to be a little less disingenuous...we don't actually have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.

Regards

You don't think its slightly worrying that middle class incomes have not moved in a generation while the wealth at the top 1% has exploded? And do you not see the ethical ramifications of bitching about the hyper rich paying more tax or republican presidential nominees giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously threatening to cut medicare? This is some seriously fucked up twisted shit that only someone completely devoid of morals would espouse. Oh, and please spend a night in north Philly or Camden, NJ before you tell me how great it is to be poor in the USA. The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

And you literally have to be crazy or living on another planet to think that wanting a minimal level of income redistribution makes you left wing. Society would collapse without it, it has nothing to do with left or right wing, its common sense.

Go back to reading atlas shrugged and your guide to libertarianism because you are not living in the real world.

Welcome to capitalism where those that work hard and smart are rewarded and those that choose not to are left behind. We've done an aweful lot as a society to try and mitigate the downside of capitalism and it has only created a greater dependency of the middle class and the wealthy.

The reality of this situation is that these programs are unsustainable and taking more money from the class of people who create jobs in this country is not the answer. Paul Ryan has made a stellar attempt at finding a real answer to some of the problems we face as a nation and the reaction from the left is to slander him and run ads showing a man dumping an old lady off a cliff. It is sick.

awm55:
The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

I know, that is what I was saying...glad you agree. And I never said being poor in America was "great" (another liberal tactic...misquoting what someone said) I merely said that they have it far better than some average people in other countries around the world. This article is a bit dated, but is still relevant...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-…

Ironically, you think not handing someone a free meal is devoid of morals but most of us crazy right-wing gun toting' maniacs would argue that contributing assistance to the point of dependency is the worst moral hazard of them all. How many animals from the zoo get released back out into the wild? Virtually none of them, because they lose the ability to hunt and fend for themselves because someone has fed and sheltered them to the point of incapability. I won't take part in that.

And society wouldn't "collapse" if we didn't redistribute wealth. If you confiscated all of the wealth from these "hyper rich" people you keep talking about, and applied it to the deficit I think it would decrease by about 10% and the number would still be mind numbing...then where would we be?!!? We have a spending problem in this country, which has lead to a debt problem, not the other way around...and I can't condone taking more money from Americans when it will just be spent in the recklessly inefficient manner we've all become accustomed to.

And stop with the name calling, we all know you're a liberal....no need to try and prove it.

Regards

Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I genuinely am confused, are you talking theoretically or do you actually think that a developed country could survive when the poor are not given the resources for basic survival? This is the only redistribution I am for, no more or no less. Sorry to break it to you but this issue is not left wing or right wing, its one of the primary reasons developed countries don't collapse.

 
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

All those studies indicate that it is solely due to religion.

 
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

All those studies indicate that it is solely due to religion.

I don't believe that to be true...although it wouldn't be surprising that religious people give more because they tend to be more compassionate. I'll let others judge for themselves.

http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/2008/03/27/conservatives_real…

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

All those studies indicate that it is solely due to religion.

I don't believe that to be true...although it wouldn't be surprising that religious people give more because they tend to be more compassionate. I'll let others judge for themselves.

http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/2008/03/27/conservatives_real…

Regards

Did you even read that? It clearly says religion is the primary deciding factor in how charitable a person is and the people who give the least are actually secular conservatives

 
cphbravo96:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

All those studies indicate that it is solely due to religion.

I don't believe that to be true...although it wouldn't be surprising that religious people give more because they tend to be more compassionate. I'll let others judge for themselves.

http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/2008/03/27/conservatives_real…

Regards

The last paragraph of the article sums it up:

"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."

 
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

All those studies indicate that it is solely due to religion.

I don't believe that to be true...although it wouldn't be surprising that religious people give more because they tend to be more compassionate. I'll let others judge for themselves.

http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/2008/03/27/conservatives_real…

Regards

The last paragraph of the article sums it up:

"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."

I think its more interesting when the article said that religion is by far the primary indicator of charitable giving, and that secular conservatives donate the least out of all groups. I think that is far more telling.

 
Best Response
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
Every time AWM talks about redistributing wealth I tell him to start with his paycheck and he never replies. Typical liberal tactic, all talk and no action. Do as I say, not as I do....

I'm not sure if you've ever seen any of the studies, but would you care to take a guess at which party gives the least as a whole?

Democrats of course and by a huge margin. They donate less to churches, non-profits, etc. and they volunteer far less than Republicans. I assume they don't' have time to volunteer, or donate money, because they are far too busy trying to figure out ways to help the less fortunate with someone else's money, lol.

Regards

All those studies indicate that it is solely due to religion.

I don't believe that to be true...although it wouldn't be surprising that religious people give more because they tend to be more compassionate. I'll let others judge for themselves.

http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/2008/03/27/conservatives_real…

Regards

The last paragraph of the article sums it up:

"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."

Sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me. He should be one of the biggest reg flag in the global warming debate. He is advocating something that is still unproven but has literally increased his net worth to somewhere in the $100mm range.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96][quote=awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning!! Let's be real, the left harps on "income disparity" because it wants to distract from the fact that the "poor" in this country have a higher standard of living than some middle class workers in other countries.

As far as your political allegiance...if you are willing to take money from one person and give it to another, you aren't as moderate you would like to think.

Also, lets try to be a little less disingenuous...we don't actually have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.

Regards

You don't think its slightly worrying that middle class incomes have not moved in a generation while the wealth at the top 1% has exploded? And do you not see the ethical ramifications of bitching about the hyper rich paying more tax or republican presidential nominees giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously threatening to cut medicare? This is some seriously fucked up twisted shit that only someone completely devoid of morals would espouse. Oh, and please spend a night in north Philly or Camden, NJ before you tell me how great it is to be poor in the USA. The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

And you literally have to be crazy or living on another planet to think that wanting a minimal level of income redistribution makes you left wing. Society would collapse without it, it has nothing to do with left or right wing, its common sense.

Go back to reading atlas shrugged and your guide to libertarianism because you are not living in the real world.

Welcome to capitalism where those that work hard and smart are rewarded and those that choose not to are left behind. We've done an aweful lot as a society to try and mitigate the downside of capitalism and it has only created a greater dependency of the middle class and the wealthy.

The reality of this situation is that these programs are unsustainable and taking more money from the class of people who create jobs in this country is not the answer. Paul Ryan has made a stellar attempt at finding a real answer to some of the problems we face as a nation and the reaction from the left is to slander him and run ads showing a man dumping an old lady off a cliff. It is sick.

awm55:
The level of poverty in the US is not seen in other developed countries you moron, that is hardly a secret.

I know, that is what I was saying...glad you agree. And I never said being poor in America was "great" (another liberal tactic...misquoting what someone said) I merely said that they have it far better than some average people in other countries around the world. This article is a bit dated, but is still relevant...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-…

Ironically, you think not handing someone a free meal is devoid of morals but most of us crazy right-wing gun toting' maniacs would argue that contributing assistance to the point of dependency is the worst moral hazard of them all. How many animals from the zoo get released back out into the wild? Virtually none of them, because they lose the ability to hunt and fend for themselves because someone has fed and sheltered them to the point of incapability. I won't take part in that.

And society wouldn't "collapse" if we didn't redistribute wealth. If you confiscated all of the wealth from these "hyper rich" people you keep talking about, and applied it to the deficit I think it would decrease by about 10% and the number would still be mind numbing...then where would we be?!!? We have a spending problem in this country, which has lead to a debt problem, not the other way around...and I can't condone taking more money from Americans when it will just be spent in the recklessly inefficient manner we've all become accustomed to.

And stop with the name calling, we all know you're a liberal....no need to try and prove it.

Regards

You are not living in the real world. A minimal level of redictribution is neccessary so the poor are not sick and dying on the streets, this is the fallacy that you continue to ignore. Even the most right wing people understand that their own quality of life would be suffering if the poor in society were not taken care of. The crime rates and level of disease and starvation would be astronomical and resemble that of a 3rd world country if there was no redistribution.

 
awm55][quote=txjustin:
awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

Would that perhaps be due to the fact that the US has the highest income disparity in the developed world and that middle class incomes have not budged in almost a generation?

Also, I am not sure you understand where my political allegiance falls. I am pretty moderate by most measures, but these forums are by and large rabidly right wing to the point where it is almost comical. I think me supporting a ticket resembling something like Bloomberg/Scarborough says more about my poltical allegiance than thinking its bat shit crazy to give more tax cuts to the wealthy when we are in the middle of a debt crisis.

I never said I was in favor of the tax cuts for the wealthy. But you are on the welfare expansion train, no doubt. How about you walk the talk and spread your wealth around?

 
txjustin][quote=awm55]<a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html[/quote rel=nofollow>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4…</a>:

How about some of your loyal voter base pay some taxes? You know...the bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes now.

One of the reasons why the tax base is so small are the Bush tax cuts. Had they expired, the tax base would nearly a third larger.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

O'Reilly is a fucking joke. When he turns off someone's microphone so he can speak I want to punch him in the face.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

Everyone talking about how Obama does not have a good chance of reelection come 2012 needs to brush up on their Poli Sci (Normally a completely useless discipline I agree). Incumbents always poll worse before the challenger's race actually gets going, this happens because the incumbent can just sit back as potential nominees for the other parties rip each other apart. So if Obama and Romney are tied at 47-47 right now, we can reasonably expect that number to start to sway in Obama's direction as Romney becomes more exposed to the public eye, makes lapses, answers questions distastefully in debates, etc. In addition to this, Obama need not spend any money on primaries, meaning his already huge war chest will continue to get bigger as the Republicans' ones get smaller. Also, Obama's biggest problem, unemployment, has a weak correlation to election results, as Nate Silver discovered. Finally, someone earlier stated that Obama would struggle because a large percentage of his base is black and blacks typically do not come out in as large numbers for midterms, well 2012 is not a midterm so that is irrelevant. Look, I am a big Mitt Romney fan (so long as he doesn't venture too far to the social right), and would love to see what he can do as President, but the odds are simply stacked too far against him.

Finally, to the person earlier who was questioning global warming, wtf man? Scientists are not in disagreement, form the Wikipedia page: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion (that humans contribute to global warming); the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.23 Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

 
txjustin:
If Romney gets the nod from the GOP, their ship is sunk until 2016. Bush, Romney, Obama, McCain, etc. wha'ts the difference besides the "D" or "R" next to their name?

This they are all the same. Nothing ever gets done in current politics it doesn't matter who is president. It's much to difficult to get anything done because the general population doesn't want real change. They just want to feel like they are getting change, (See: Half black president). Maybe one day so that our kids don't have to have ridiculous tax rates things will change. Until the general population not just us on this forum want change, nothing is going to change, Doesn't matter who is in office.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee WSO is not your personal search function.
 
blackfinancier:
txjustin:
If Romney gets the nod from the GOP, their ship is sunk until 2016. Bush, Romney, Obama, McCain, etc. wha'ts the difference besides the "D" or "R" next to their name?

This they are all the same. Nothing ever gets done in current politics it doesn't matter who is president. It's much to difficult to get anything done because the general population doesn't want real change. They just want to feel like they are getting change, (See: Half black president). Maybe one day so that our kids don't have to have ridiculous tax rates things will change. Until the general population not just us on this forum want change, nothing is going to change, Doesn't matter who is in office.

Finally, someone freaking gets it! Thanks.

 

What turned out to be Romneycare was a Republican proposition about 10 years ago. The issue with Obamacare is the massive bureaucracy and unfunded expansion of entitlements. Large portions of Romneycare were originally Republican ideas, but these ideas were supposed to remain within states. Romneycare was actually proposed as an experiment, an experiment that was supposed to remain at the state level. That's kind of the beauty of states--you can experiment in Virginia without ruining Tennessee.

Romney would have done himself a favor if he had just explained that the MA healthcare law was a state-level experiment that has seen some benefits and some failures rather than doubling down on saying that the program has been a success, which it hasn't been. Romney should have stated the obvious--it was an experiment that has some systemic flaws, flaws that are being repeated at the national level.

Array
 

Good thing I don't consider myself a Republicrat...I mean Republican. I wasn't trying to delve into Romney care versus Obamacare. Also, I do realize they were largely Republican ideas originally.

Romney could also do himself a favor and stop flip flopping on everything he does.

 
Nobama88:
I was able to watch only about 10 minutes of the debate. No substance in any of the answers I saw. Anyone stand out?
Bachman - she 'argued behind closed doors'? How is she possibly going to spin the 'outsider' image anymore?

Romney came away looking a LOT better than the rest of the field.

Get busy living
 

WTF is with these canadates ranting about not ever allowing Muslims to work for them at any level. Shit like this is why conservatives are seen as racist rednecks. Muslims are the largest religion and over 1/6th of the worlds population. They need to STFU about not wanting to have Muslims work for them. It only turns independants and moderates off to them.

Romney had the only good answer. Cain is still an idiot.

 
Nobama88:
WTF is with these canadates ranting about not ever allowing Muslims to work for them at any level. Shit like this is why conservatives are seen as racist rednecks. Muslims are the largest religion and over 1/6th of the worlds population. They need to STFU about not wanting to have Muslims work for them. It only turns independants and moderates off to them.

Romney had the only good answer. Cain is still an idiot.

Its called pandering to a very socially conservative and ignorant electorate.

 

I am aware of what they are donig. But there is something called tact. They are going to need a lot more then the socially conservative to beat Obama. Its one thing to say that you are for tax cuts and cutting spending and make a argument to persuade the moderates. Making a blatant statement as the next potential Presidnet of the US about the largest religion and body of people in the world, wont do anyone any favors with moderates or, if they became President, relations with the ME and other European Muslims. I bet Cain doesnt even realize that the US is home to one of the biggest white immigrant Muslims groups.

 

I wouldn't be comfortable having a true, practicing Muslim in my government either. Here's the thing--there are 2 types of Muslims: 1) a real Muslim and 2) a Muslim in name only.

One of my best buddies and business partners, Ali, is a "Muslim"--he'll defend Islam, be offended at anti-Islamic statements, etc., but at the end of the day his business is to make interest bearing loans, he curses, he doesn't go to Mosque, he doesn't pray, he doesn't read his Qu'ran, he watches NFL, NBA, MLB, he drinks, he parties, he sleeps with girls, etc. That's not to say that I approve of his sinful lifestyle (haha), but the truth is he's not a real, actual Muslim. He's quite peaceful and quite cool, to be honest.

Then there are the "real" Muslims. My buddy, Leo, is a Christian evangelist who specializes in spreading the Gospel to Muslims in his community. He especially likes hanging out at Starbucks and having conversations with Muslims. And if you think for one second that a robe wearing, beard wearing, Qu'ran reading, dyed-in-the-wool Muslim has any allegiance to the United States whatsoever then I'd respectfully submit that you don't know what you're talking about. A true, practicing Muslim will, more than likely, have significant dislike (even hatred) of Jews, they see America as tyrannical, they see Islam as their only allegiance, they don't have the same cultural mores as Americans, etc.

The idea that you would appoint to government a true, genuine practicing Muslim who ascribes to true, traditional Islam is absurd--you know it and I know it. It would be incredibly derilect and, frankly, un-American.

Array
 

Islam has never shown compatibility with democracy.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

@Veritas:

Isn't Turkey a Muslim Democracy?

Generally regarding the debate and media coverage of politics / elections:

The debate was a joke as is media coverage of politics in general. There is next to zero substance in any of the coverage, questions, or answers. The media is more interested in talking about strategy and the horse race aspects of the elections than they are of substantive policy and platform discussions (aka the shit that actually matters.)

Cain's "I wouldn't have a litmus test...but, I'd have a litmus test" was disgraceful. I think the irony of a black man in America saying that he'd have a litmus test for a minority was lost on him.

And this might come off poorly, but does anyone else fucking HATE when the candidates go over the top in praising the troops / parents of the troops? Good God, yes, we're thankful for our soldiers who fight for us, but the absurdity of how the candidates express their thanks just comes off as shameless pandering to me.

Is Rick Santorum serious? This guy fucking had a party and cuddled with his stillborn child, how is this person not called out for being a lunatic?

Why are we still talking about gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell? These are not relevant national issues. Marriage should either be left to the states or the churches.

And the whole "This or That" segment was such a load of horse shit. "Mitt, do you prefer mild or spicy wings?" What is this bullshit?

 
TheKing:
@Veritas:

Isn't Turkey a Muslim Democracy?

Generally regarding the debate and media coverage of politics / elections:

The debate was a joke as is media coverage of politics in general. There is next to zero substance in any of the coverage, questions, or answers. The media is more interested in talking about strategy and the horse race aspects of the elections than they are of substantive policy and platform discussions (aka the shit that actually matters.)

Cain's "I wouldn't have a litmus test...but, I'd have a litmus test" was disgraceful. I think the irony of a black man in America saying that he'd have a litmus test for a minority was lost on him.

And this might come off poorly, but does anyone else fucking HATE when the candidates go over the top in praising the troops / parents of the troops? Good God, yes, we're thankful for our soldiers who fight for us, but the absurdity of how the candidates express their thanks just comes off as shameless pandering to me.

Is Rick Santorum serious? This guy fucking had a party and cuddled with his stillborn child, how is this person not called out for being a lunatic?

Why are we still talking about gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell? These are not relevant national issues. Marriage should either be left to the states or the churches.

And the whole "This or That" segment was such a load of horse shit. "Mitt, do you prefer mild or spicy wings?" What is this bullshit?

Did Mitt answer: "I like spicy wings, wait, err, mild, wait, spicy, wait, mild."

hahahaha

 
TheKing:
@Veritas:

Isn't Turkey a Muslim Democracy?

Generally regarding the debate and media coverage of politics / elections:

The debate was a joke as is media coverage of politics in general. There is next to zero substance in any of the coverage, questions, or answers. The media is more interested in talking about strategy and the horse race aspects of the elections than they are of substantive policy and platform discussions (aka the shit that actually matters.)

Cain's "I wouldn't have a litmus test...but, I'd have a litmus test" was disgraceful. I think the irony of a black man in America saying that he'd have a litmus test for a minority was lost on him.

And this might come off poorly, but does anyone else fucking HATE when the candidates go over the top in praising the troops / parents of the troops? Good God, yes, we're thankful for our soldiers who fight for us, but the absurdity of how the candidates express their thanks just comes off as shameless pandering to me.

Is Rick Santorum serious? This guy fucking had a party and cuddled with his stillborn child, how is this person not called out for being a lunatic?

Why are we still talking about gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell? These are not relevant national issues. Marriage should either be left to the states or the churches.

And the whole "This or That" segment was such a load of horse shit. "Mitt, do you prefer mild or spicy wings?" What is this bullshit?

RE: Turkey & Democracy. Gluing a Rolls Royce ornament on your Geo Metro doesn't make it a luxury car...

Discussion on the military WAS pathetic. We NEED civilian control of the military, instead everyone races to shout "I luvs the troops! let them do what they want! harf harf harf"

Rick Santorum is a devoted father and husband. He has written well on the role of religious faith in public discourse. He was a decent legislator and is a terrible presidential candidate. You will think very differently of his actions when YOU have a child.

Marriage PRE-DATES the State. It is a foundational pillar of society and culture. It is tremendously important.

The moderator was a joke. Bring back Lincoln-Douglass style debates.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
TheKing:
@Veritas:

Isn't Turkey a Muslim Democracy?

Generally regarding the debate and media coverage of politics / elections:

The debate was a joke as is media coverage of politics in general. There is next to zero substance in any of the coverage, questions, or answers. The media is more interested in talking about strategy and the horse race aspects of the elections than they are of substantive policy and platform discussions (aka the shit that actually matters.)

Cain's "I wouldn't have a litmus test...but, I'd have a litmus test" was disgraceful. I think the irony of a black man in America saying that he'd have a litmus test for a minority was lost on him.

And this might come off poorly, but does anyone else fucking HATE when the candidates go over the top in praising the troops / parents of the troops? Good God, yes, we're thankful for our soldiers who fight for us, but the absurdity of how the candidates express their thanks just comes off as shameless pandering to me.

Is Rick Santorum serious? This guy fucking had a party and cuddled with his stillborn child, how is this person not called out for being a lunatic?

Why are we still talking about gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell? These are not relevant national issues. Marriage should either be left to the states or the churches.

And the whole "This or That" segment was such a load of horse shit. "Mitt, do you prefer mild or spicy wings?" What is this bullshit?

RE: Turkey & Democracy. Gluing a Rolls Royce ornament on your Geo Metro doesn't make it a luxury car...

Discussion on the military WAS pathetic. We NEED civilian control of the military, instead everyone races to shout "I luvs the troops! let them do what they want! harf harf harf"

Rick Santorum is a devoted father and husband. He has written well on the role of religious faith in public discourse. He was a decent legislator and is a terrible presidential candidate. You will think very differently of his actions when YOU have a child.

Marriage PRE-DATES the State. It is a foundational pillar of society and culture. It is tremendously important.

The moderator was a joke. Bring back Lincoln-Douglass style debates.

The only reason you would be against same sex marriage is personal prejudice, no one with a rational train of thought come to the conclusion that society would collapse or even change if two dudes decided to get married, lets be real here. And remember marriage a century ago was more a business transaction than a vow to love someone unconditionally.

The same goes for don't ask don't tell. When it was repealed a few months ago we were basically the only developed country that did not allow gay people to serve openly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_military_laws.png

Who would you rather be associated with, the red countries or the blue countries.

 

@Veritas:

Yes, marriage and family are important, but it doesn't mean the federal government should get involved.

Not sure anything will make me think differently about having a party and sleeping with a still born child.

Your "harf harf harf" comment was great, though. Hahaha. Watching Romney and Pawlenty go back and forth on trying to praise our troops more than the other was vomit-inducing. It's patronizing bullshit.

Finally. I agree, the moderator was an asshole. They really ought to just have pointed topics of discussion for everyone to present their cases on, as opposed to this jumble of crap and questions on "coke or pepsi."

 
TheKing:
@Veritas:

Yes, marriage and family are important, but it doesn't mean the federal government should get involved.

Not sure anything will make me think differently about having a party and sleeping with a still born child.

Your "harf harf harf" comment was great, though. Hahaha. Watching Romney and Pawlenty go back and forth on trying to praise our troops more than the other was vomit-inducing. It's patronizing bullshit.

Finally. I agree, the moderator was an asshole. They really ought to just have pointed topics of discussion for everyone to present their cases on, as opposed to this jumble of crap and questions on "coke or pepsi."

You are conceiving of the flow wrong. It's not Federal Gov't generating the Family. The Family generates the Government. Individuals/Families form the blocks that build the State.

When you hold your child for the first time, many things will suddenly seem possible... Santorum is clearly a one agenda candidate: he has written persuasively on the moral underpinnings of our Constitution. This makes him a great candidate for a think tank, cabinet post or university. He's not a president.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

What the hell is with moderators at fucking PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?????

Someone forgot to tell the press that their job was just to report the news, not to try and control the political dialogue. All parties are guilty of letting this happen - it's bullshit and bad for the country: who the FUCK cares what some reporter thinks.

Have the politicians speak and let the people decide, I don't want commentary.

Get busy living
 
Nobama88:
I had a chance to watch a good portion of the debate today.

One thing is for sure... the moderator needed to shut it. Yes, the canadates were going over the 30 second mark a bit, but I felt like he was way over doing the police state. He would start coughing within 5 seconds of someone answering a question.

Also, he seemd like he was trying to play a bunch of "Gotcha!" bullshit games. Stick to moderating, not throwing your political beliefs into the mix by trying to put words in the canadates mouths and stirring up shit.

Totally agree man. Someone needs to tell the press to SHUT THE FUCK UP when the potential future president is speaking. I'd like to know what they're actually all about without the interference of the media twats.
Get busy living
 
TheKing:
@Veritas:

I would like to hear a legitimate anti-gay marriage argument. Every one I've ever heard has been filled with ignorance. I'm not kidding around, seriously put one forth and I will listen.

If your motives are genuine, I redirect you to Robert George's work: "What is Marriage?"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

No need to spark a thought-discouraging flame war on here.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
TheKing:
@Veritas:

I would like to hear a legitimate anti-gay marriage argument. Every one I've ever heard has been filled with ignorance. I'm not kidding around, seriously put one forth and I will listen.

If your motives are genuine, I redirect you to Robert George's work: "What is Marriage?"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

No need to spark a thought-discouraging flame war on here.

"In the article, we argue that as a moral reality, marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together, and renewed by acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction."

This has been the definition of marriage as it has evolved over the past century, as I previously stated marriage was largely a financial contract before this, and 60 years ago a black woman could not marry a white man. Marriage does evolve and change as society progresses as much as you hate to admit it. In addition, based on that abstract a woman or man with reproductive issues would not be able to fulfill the criteria which they put forth, and thus would fall outside the traditional definition of marriage as they describe it.

The reality is there is no rational argument against same sex marriage that is not based on prejudice or religious teachings. You do realize that gay people are less than 10% of the population, do you honestly think that because a fraction of those people want to get married to their partner of the same sex that their will be far reaching societal consequences? Last time I check Massachusetts and Connecticut were doing just fine.

 

@Veritas:

I'm not sure you are giving a real defense to the idea of banning gay marriage.

"What is the nature of humanity?" This is a nebulous question with no single or objectively correct answer.

"What does it mean to be a man or woman?" Again, a nebulous question. Anatomically, it means you have a penis or a vagina. But, what more are you getting at?

"Can we create a new reality wholesale with every generation?" What is this even implying? A new reality? Treating people equally even if they're different? It isn't like gay people choose to be gay (just as I didn't choose to be straight). One cannot be influenced into being gay. It isn't like eating your vegetables, you don't learn to like dick (if you're a man) or pussy (if you're a girl) by trying it again and again and being around gay people.

I really don't get it. How is someone going to be harmed by two gay people getting married? If someone is married and feels that gay marriages will affect their marriage, then they have issues. If I'm wrong, please provide specifics as to why.

 
TheKing:
@Veritas:

I'm not sure you are giving a real defense to the idea of banning gay marriage.

"What is the nature of humanity?" This is a nebulous question with no single or objectively correct answer.

"What does it mean to be a man or woman?" Again, a nebulous question. Anatomically, it means you have a penis or a vagina. But, what more are you getting at?

"Can we create a new reality wholesale with every generation?" What is this even implying? A new reality? Treating people equally even if they're different? It isn't like gay people choose to be gay (just as I didn't choose to be straight). One cannot be influenced into being gay. It isn't like eating your vegetables, you don't learn to like dick (if you're a man) or pussy (if you're a girl) by trying it again and again and being around gay people.

I really don't get it. How is someone going to be harmed by two gay people getting married? If someone is married and feels that gay marriages will affect their marriage, then they have issues. If I'm wrong, please provide specifics as to why.

It is clear we come from different a priori assumptions. What I suggest to you is that opposition to gay marriage is about something much more than "ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & STEVE" bumper stickers.

I'm attempting to get you to consider that opponents of gay marriage are NOT simply bigots to be dismissed. Instead, we base our defense of marriage on a set of assumptions about the human person, sexuality, the family and society. These assumptions are philosophical in nature, which is why gay marriage supporters often cry "FOUL! RELIGIOUS NUTS!"

Gay marriage is opposed because these relationships do not and ontologically CANNOT qualify for marriage.

This is not about political gamesmanship. It is about the basic principles upon which society is based, upon which existence is understood.

If you want to understand the opposition, you are going to have to do more than just repeat yourself. You are going to have to do some serious reading and thinking. That is beyond the scope of WSO.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
TheKing:
@Veritas:

I'm not sure you are giving a real defense to the idea of banning gay marriage.

"What is the nature of humanity?" This is a nebulous question with no single or objectively correct answer.

"What does it mean to be a man or woman?" Again, a nebulous question. Anatomically, it means you have a penis or a vagina. But, what more are you getting at?

"Can we create a new reality wholesale with every generation?" What is this even implying? A new reality? Treating people equally even if they're different? It isn't like gay people choose to be gay (just as I didn't choose to be straight). One cannot be influenced into being gay. It isn't like eating your vegetables, you don't learn to like dick (if you're a man) or pussy (if you're a girl) by trying it again and again and being around gay people.

I really don't get it. How is someone going to be harmed by two gay people getting married? If someone is married and feels that gay marriages will affect their marriage, then they have issues. If I'm wrong, please provide specifics as to why.

Typically, I'm somewhat left leaning, but I want to add the following:

Marriage has historically been about the transfer and consolidation of power and resources, and the merging of families and assets and passing them on to the next generation. The pure 'love' marriage has been historically rare, especially at the top end of the power spectrum, and our civilization's emphasis on romantic love being the basis for a union is unique to history. While the extreme form of arranged marriage was never the norm either, it was the official template in many societies.

All fine and well.

Marriage as western society has seen it for the last few centuries is now the standard, but the other historical underpinnings can not be ignored....namely, procreation and inheritance. While not all marriages bore fruite [see: Henry VIII], going into a union with NO INTENTION of procreating is specifically illegal in many religions and cultures. Gay marriage WILL not bear children. There is no biological mechanism currently available to ensure a stastically and economically viable means of creating a biological family unit. This also necessitates a strictly legal lineage, ie: there is no blood line to pass assets to, and all heirs become strictly a function of the state. The logic can then be reversed in a court of law to translate to, "If a relationship is not authorized by the state, it is not legitimate". This is a serious ethical problem. The logical conclusion is that it reduces the family to a legal construct....which is too disconnected a view from most people's sensibility.

Therefore the union is not classified as a marriage by a very large segment of the population: creating a law declaring it so does not necessarily make it so. Example: A law declaring that gravity is illegal can be passed, but would not be enforceable.....

I am in favor of people who love each other getting full union rights, and therefore am a big fan of the 'civil union' arrangement having full legal rights, but simply NOT being called marriage.

Get busy living
 

Veritas:

I'm not calling you a religious nut, I am asking you to lay out the set of philosophical assumptions (at a high level, at least) with which you base your position on gay marriage. And then, I think the onus falls on you to explain why your assumptions are the right ones and why everyone else should come to the same conclusions you do based upon your assumptions.

I'm being sincere as I'd actually be interested in reading a well-reasoned philosophical argument against gay marriage. I have yet to hear one.

 
TheKing:
Veritas:

I'm not calling you a religious nut, I am asking you to lay out the set of philosophical assumptions (at a high level, at least) with which you base your position on gay marriage. And then, I think the onus falls on you to explain why your assumptions are the right ones and why everyone else should come to the same conclusions you do based upon your assumptions.

I'm being sincere as I'd actually be interested in reading a well-reasoned philosophical argument against gay marriage. I have yet to hear one.

I've seen the argument devolving enough on WSO... I'm done. It's not fair to EITHER side.

Finish this if you're serious: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

TheKing, the onus is equally on you to give a well reasoned, logical argument why gay marriage should be permitted, particularly in the face of, umm, hundreds of thousands of years of human history. Arguing "equality" is a logical fallacy because you assume that at birth people are separated and treated differently. The fact is, everyone has the equal opportunity to marry somone of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is probably not a choice (at least for men--I think there's solid societal evidence that women often have a choice), but having sex with a man IS a choice. At the end of the day who you choose to have sex with IS A CHOICE. What you're arguing for is not basic human equality. What you're arguing for is societal acceptance of what the majority of people would consider a repulsive practice--2 men having sex. Perhaps there's not a "logical" reason humans find gay anal sex to be repugnant--perhaps, however, the logic is found in the genetic wiring of the human race.

Let me state the obvious--societies based on heterosexual marriage have stood the test of millenia. If we are to change that today then you'd better give a goddamned good reason as to why. So far I've yet to hear it.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
TheKing, the onus is equally on you to give a well reasoned, logical argument why gay marriage should be permitted, particularly in the face of, umm, hundreds of thousands of years of human history. Arguing "equality" is a logical fallacy because you assume that at birth people are separated and treated differently. The fact is, everyone has the equal opportunity to marry somone of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is probably not a choice (at least for men--I think there's solid societal evidence that women often have a choice), but having sex with a man IS a choice. At the end of the day who you choose to have sex with IS A CHOICE. What you're arguing for is not basic human equality. What you're arguing for is societal acceptance of what the majority of people would consider a repulsive practice--2 men having sex. Perhaps there's not a "logical" reason humans find gay anal sex to be repugnant--perhaps, however, the logic is found in the genetic wiring of the human race.

Let me state the obvious--societies based on heterosexual marriage have stood the test of millenia. If we are to change that today then you'd better give a goddamned good reason as to why. So far I've yet to hear it.

That's easy - they love each other, they should be allowed to enjoy the same life that straight people do. Not doing so discriminates on the basis of something they are not able to control, namely, their sexual orientation.

Any argument beyond that is a question of gayness being legitimate, which legally and scientifically, it is at this point.

See above post for refuting argument.

Get busy living
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
TheKing, the onus is equally on you to give a well reasoned, logical argument why gay marriage should be permitted, particularly in the face of, umm, hundreds of thousands of years of human history. Arguing "equality" is a logical fallacy because you assume that at birth people are separated and treated differently. The fact is, everyone has the equal opportunity to marry somone of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is probably not a choice (at least for men--I think there's solid societal evidence that women often have a choice), but having sex with a man IS a choice. At the end of the day who you choose to have sex with IS A CHOICE. What you're arguing for is not basic human equality. What you're arguing for is societal acceptance of what the majority of people would consider a repulsive practice--2 men having sex. Perhaps there's not a "logical" reason humans find gay anal sex to be repugnant--perhaps, however, the logic is found in the genetic wiring of the human race.

Let me state the obvious--societies based on heterosexual marriage have stood the test of millenia. If we are to change that today then you'd better give a goddamned good reason as to why. So far I've yet to hear it.

"Who you choose to have sex with is a choice"

So you expect a man who is attracted to another man to surpress the urge to sleep and love them? This is the reason many gay men get married and then come out mid-way through life and destroy their family. And why should it matter if you think that gay sex is disgusting, I'm sure a gay man finds licking a pussy pretty nasty as well. Also, sex between two people of different ethnicities was not socially acceptable 60 years ago, and it was illegal for them to get married. This is based on nothing but prejudice.

And society has changed the definition of marriage several times so your argument doesn't make much sense.

 

UFOinsider:

So, we can't have gay marriage, but we can have gay civil unions with all of the same rights? So, if we just change the name and call it "civil union" instead of "marriage," it's fine? Then why not just call it marriage? It seems silly to me.

VA Tech 4ever:

Being gay is not a choice. Did you choose to be straight? Has anyone in history made a choice with regards to their sexuality? Come on now, be serious. You just threw out a bunch of crap based on your own opinions and you're telling me that the onus is on me. I can't argue with your opinions on gay people. Also, I believe at this point that gay marriage is supported by ~50%+ of America. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110520/sc_livescience/majorityinu…

I believe that two law abiding individuals who are competent should be able to enter into a contract together. I don't think they should be barred from doing so because they are gay. I think that someone who seeks to deny someone of a right to enter a contract needs to defend the position. The onus is on them.

If there are real philosophical arguments, I'd like to hear them. "Two guys fucking is repugnant" is not an argument.

 
TheKing:
UFOinsider:

So, we can't have gay marriage, but we can have gay civil unions with all of the same rights? So, if we just change the name and call it "civil union" instead of "marriage," it's fine? Then why not just call it marriage? It seems silly to me.

'Seems silly to me' doesn't exactly address the several paragraphs of historical, legal and cultural issues I presented.

NO SOUP FOR YOU

Get busy living
 
TheKing:
UFOinsider:

So, we can't have gay marriage, but we can have gay civil unions with all of the same rights? So, if we just change the name and call it "civil union" instead of "marriage," it's fine? Then why not just call it marriage? It seems silly to me.

VA Tech 4ever:

Being gay is not a choice. Did you choose to be straight? Has anyone in history made a choice with regards to their sexuality? Come on now, be serious. You just threw out a bunch of crap based on your own opinions and you're telling me that the onus is on me. I can't argue with your opinions on gay people. Also, I believe at this point that gay marriage is supported by ~50%+ of America. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110520/sc_livescience/majorityinu…

I believe that two law abiding individuals who are competent should be able to enter into a contract together. I don't think they should be barred from doing so because they are gay. I think that someone who seeks to deny someone of a right to enter a contract needs to defend the position. The onus is on them.

If there are real philosophical arguments, I'd like to hear them. "Two guys fucking is repugnant" is not an argument.

There are morons and then there's TheKing. I CLEARLY stated that homosexuality WASN'T a choice--I made that clear as day--and yet somehow you walked away from reading my post saying that I'm spouting a bunch of shit about it being a choice. Did you get a 400 on your SAT verbal? Did you misspell your own name on the form? Could you be anymore of a mouth breathing retard?

Array
 

I'll throw my hat into the ring on this whole marriage thing since I am waiting for a phone call and have nothing better to do.

Why should anyone give a shit? Its not like 2 dudes banging in the house next door isn't going to happen with or without a wedding ring. Just let them get married. I fail to see the negative effect that allowing two people of the same sex to marry would have on anyone. Maybe I am just not smart enough but what actual substantive negative effects can be had by allowing it? And the whole civil unions thing is silly to me too. The term marriage has its roots in religion so maybe we should start calling all of these arrangements civil unions? Just seems like there are billions of other things that are more important that we should be using our time on as a nation.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

I don't agree with gay marriage, but I believe it should be a state issue, not a federal issue. My belief in Constitutional rights takes precedence over everything (government related obviously). We need less of the government intruding into our lives, not more.

 
txjustin:
I don't agree with gay marriage, but I believe it should be a state issue, not a federal issue. My belief in Constitutional rights takes precedence over everything (government related obviously). We need less of the government intruding into our lives, not more.
^ dude, you know I'm a huge fan of yours, but I have to disagree.

With all due respect: saying it should be a federal issue because you agree with the federal government's current stance doesn't address the ethics driving the eventual, inevitable outcome.

The simplified reasoning is that because there's no biological viability, just like hybrids, there is an essential component of the agreement missing in a homosexual union. I too agree with letting two people do what they want (we're talking +/- 5% of the population) but making a law banning it and then creating a mechanism to enforce the ruling would be creating more government. It's not marriage, but if the gays want to move in, share benefits, play house, and be miserable just like the married people, all's fine and well as far as I'm concerned.

I cast my vote for 'civil union'

no homo

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
txjustin:
I don't agree with gay marriage, but I believe it should be a state issue, not a federal issue. My belief in Constitutional rights takes precedence over everything (government related obviously). We need less of the government intruding into our lives, not more.
^ dude, you know I'm a huge fan of yours, but I have to disagree.

With all due respect: saying it should be a federal issue because you agree with the federal government's current stance doesn't address the ethics driving the eventual, inevitable outcome.

The simplified reasoning is that because there's no biological viability, just like hybrids, there is an essential component of the agreement missing in a homosexual union. I too agree with letting two people do what they want (we're talking +/- 5% of the population) but making a law banning it and then creating a mechanism to enforce the ruling would be creating more government. It's not marriage, but if the gays want to move in, share benefits, play house, and be miserable just like the married people, all's fine and well as far as I'm concerned.

I cast my vote for 'civil union'

no homo

I think I worded my response improperly. I think the states should decide, not the federal government. I also don't give 2 shits what people do. I just want less government intrusion, period. I am fiscally conservative and socially don't give a shit.

Again, we just differ a little. I don't care if gay marriage is ok, you want it to be a civil union. Again, I don't care either way. I want it to be a state issue/choice.

 

awm, at least you, unlike TheKing, picked up on the nuance. Yes, I do expect people to suppress it. You know why? I've personally sat in--for weeks--on sessions with gay people who successfully do suppress their urge to have sex with a man's ass. It's not easy for them but it's certainly possible--it happens every single day. In fact, the leader of the group is married with kids. He struggles every single day but has made the choice to stay with his wife and children. I've known all sorts of straight men who have chosen not to even masturbate. I know many men who don't look at pornography. I've felt the unending urge to punch out a certain co-worker for the better part of 18 months, but I suppressed that urge. That's the difference between man and beast.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
awm, at least you, unlike TheKing, picked up on the nuance. Yes, I do expect people to suppress it. You know why? I've personally sat in--for weeks--on sessions with gay people who successfully do suppress their urge to have sex with a man's ass. It's not easy for them but it's certainly possible--it happens every single day. In fact, the leader of the group is married with kids. He struggles every single day but has made the choice to stay with his wife and children. I've known all sorts of straight men who have chosen not to even masturbate. I know many men who don't look at pornography. I've felt the unending urge to punch out a certain co-worker for the better part of 18 months, but I suppressed that urge. That's the difference between man and beast.

Ah I get it now, so you are one of these people. Would you be able to surpress your urge to sleep with and be intimate with woman for the rest of your life without behaving irrationally or becoming seriously depressed? You don't seem to realize gay men look at men the EXACT same you way you look at woman. I think its hard for you to understand that because you have not met any well adjusted gay people or have ever had any homosexual feelings.

Everything you say just stinks of religious dogma or prejudice.

 

I still don't understand how a civil union is any different from a marriage, other than the name. And if there is no real difference, just call it marriage.

I also don't understand how any religious crap can be taken serious in the debate about gay marriage. Are we really going to base decisions on marriage on an ancient book, written by man, based upon a god that may very well not even exist?

 
TheKing:
I still don't understand how a civil union is any different from a marriage, other than the name. And if there is no real difference, just call it marriage.

I also don't understand how any religious crap can be taken serious in the debate about gay marriage. Are we really going to base decisions on marriage on an ancient book, written by man, based upon a god that may very well not even exist?

TheKing,

You're better than that. You know religion can involve more than just opening the Bible or Koran. Surely, even if you disagree with them, you realize that religions come with a comprehensive philosophical and theological system. These philosophical systems formed a large portion of the principles behind our gov't. Our concept of "rights" is unique in human history and didn't magically fall from the sky.

Be careful. Excluding religious arguments means excluding all non-materialist systems of thought. This leads to some very odd conclusions about the nature of man. The Soviet Union tried to build paradise on earth under the materialist assumption of man. It started out with egalitarianism and ended in the Gulag.

Animals don't have philosophy. They also don't have prohibitions on killing each other...

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
The Soviet Union tried to build paradise on earth under the materialist assumption of man. It started out with egalitarianism and ended in the Gulag.
Animals don't have philosophy. They also don't have prohibitions on killing each other...
1. The U.S.S.R. was never anything more than a glorified dictatorship. It was also scripted and orchestrated by a small clique of people who at any given time were killing each other off.
TheKing:
I still don't understand how a civil union is any different from a marriage, other than the name. And if there is no real difference, just call it marriage.
See above argument - not bioligically viable. Not the same. Hence the different name.
Get busy living
 

Veritas,

I think I should start by stating that I am not an atheist or pure materialist. I sure as shit am not a philosopher, but I think there is enough scientific evidence to show that, at the quantum level, the materialist point of view gets blown up. But, my belief system is neither here nor there, I just want to make it clear that I'm not some militant atheist.

However, I have a major issue with people who are against things like gay marriage because of a theistic belief system. The idea that an all-powerful, almighty, all-knowing God exists and gives a shit about our lives is absurd. Our Earth is a tiny spec of nothingness in the midst of a giant galaxy which is itself a tiny spec of nothingness in the massive universe we exist in. To think that God created it all and simply cannot stand that two men want to fuck and get married is insane and based on nothing other than a book written by man which is filled with contradictions and arcane rules we do not follow today. Why this should have any relevance to any debate on marriage is a disgrace. If someone wants to believe in a theistic God at that level, good for them, but let's not use that belief system to push their views on the rest of the population.

There are logical reasons to believe in God / a non-material aspect to existence, and ones that I think can be taken from some aspects of science, but there is not a shred of legitimate proof that there is a God up there who truly cares about the shit that we do, be it letting gays get married or whatever else. This is why I don't take any religious arguments against gay marriage seriously and don't think anyone else should.

 
TheKing:
Veritas,

I think I should start by stating that I am not an atheist or pure materialist. I sure as shit am not a philosopher, but I think there is enough scientific evidence to show that, at the quantum level, the materialist point of view gets blown up. But, my belief system is neither here nor there, I just want to make it clear that I'm not some militant atheist.

However, I have a major issue with people who are against things like gay marriage because of a theistic belief system. The idea that an all-powerful, almighty, all-knowing God exists and gives a shit about our lives is absurd. Our Earth is a tiny spec of nothingness in the midst of a giant galaxy which is itself a tiny spec of nothingness in the massive universe we exist in. To think that God created it all and simply cannot stand that two men want to fuck and get married is insane and based on nothing other than a book written by man which is filled with contradictions and arcane rules we do not follow today. Why this should have any relevance to any debate on marriage is a disgrace. If someone wants to believe in a theistic God at that level, good for them, but let's not use that belief system to push their views on the rest of the population.

There are logical reasons to believe in God / a non-material aspect to existence, and ones that I think can be taken from some aspects of science, but there is not a shred of legitimate proof that there is a God up there who truly cares about the shit that we do, be it letting gays get married or whatever else. This is why I don't take any religious arguments against gay marriage seriously and don't think anyone else should.

Nihilism is an ugly thing...

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

Aliquam fuga officiis quia ullam odit aliquam. Vel ut quod officiis molestias quo exercitationem. Rerum saepe ipsum deserunt quod ex odit. Qui sunt quia iste temporibus. Inventore ut iusto iusto libero asperiores laudantium.

 

Et incidunt perferendis illum optio at aliquam. Mollitia voluptas sed et repudiandae id. Et tempore reprehenderit dolores ut unde in.

Dolorem nostrum voluptatem dolorem qui velit consequatur. Quia provident dignissimos dolores earum. Quod non et quasi suscipit numquam. Et non sunt et officiis facilis. Est voluptate expedita placeat repellat. Illo facere excepturi numquam.

Blanditiis et fuga repellat in aut. Aut tenetur doloremque voluptate incidunt. Pariatur cum odit suscipit explicabo molestiae et perspiciatis. Eos odio ad velit beatae.

Ut quia et necessitatibus doloremque amet voluptatem atque. Ut ab consequatur eligendi occaecati minus hic dolor. Minima iure id quidem dolorum ducimus molestiae dolor. Pariatur explicabo perspiciatis soluta quis non et. Saepe sed culpa excepturi velit. Voluptas dolorem quisquam voluptatem eligendi nesciunt fugit est. Doloribus dolor a rerum vitae ut.

Get busy living
 

Odio et rerum at minima unde quo ipsa. Sit commodi aut natus esse eveniet aspernatur velit. Quasi delectus eius dolores sunt qui. Culpa a voluptatum amet doloribus.

Quos non enim doloremque sint. Velit et fugit doloribus quidem accusantium voluptas accusantium. Magnam voluptatem consequatur sint delectus est. Rerum placeat nesciunt natus dignissimos blanditiis. Hic amet voluptatem rerum culpa velit optio. Quia nobis ut quo omnis consequatur.

Et aut corrupti ea. Repellat quae doloribus ducimus nemo est quae praesentium.

 

Aut qui aspernatur sint nulla assumenda ea eius ad. Repellendus reiciendis eum est illo maiores. Sapiente laboriosam maxime consectetur enim porro et. Facere voluptatem quisquam exercitationem enim at. Eaque est deserunt blanditiis animi qui error debitis. Quaerat et omnis alias est nostrum voluptatibus. Dolores dolorem est ea corrupti praesentium asperiores.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

Soluta quis omnis quo sequi dolor facere et. Voluptatem non ut similique. Libero praesentium laboriosam qui.

Asperiores amet natus fugit modi labore optio. Sequi omnis debitis veniam ea repellat explicabo. Sequi quis totam corporis quod perspiciatis ipsa. Id necessitatibus deleniti voluptatem vel saepe nobis. Explicabo excepturi assumenda laboriosam est. Magnam labore praesentium ab accusantium aperiam fugiat saepe rerum.

 

Quia dignissimos consequuntur aut possimus. Unde dolorem vel aliquam harum laudantium rerum dolores. Dolores voluptas corrupti expedita pariatur voluptatem et impedit. Eos numquam itaque labore doloribus reprehenderit et aspernatur. Sed veritatis est sequi.

Sint sit odio rerum laboriosam distinctio dolor iure. Sunt qui nihil est et velit. Impedit sed assumenda quasi autem sed magnam ut. Natus nihil repellat et nihil voluptates dolore dolorem. Vitae fuga deserunt facilis id tempora voluptatum suscipit.

 

Id voluptatem itaque maiores excepturi. Sit accusantium ipsa enim facilis tempora. Rerum aut accusantium saepe et quam voluptas placeat et. Sed ut et nihil exercitationem similique officia.

Aspernatur velit laborum fugit voluptas est iusto accusantium. Maiores qui voluptas velit earum quidem aut recusandae eum. Et unde in explicabo a commodi ut.

Quaerat tempora tempore laborum cumque consequatur nobis voluptas. Ea autem corrupti nam exercitationem quia. Reprehenderit occaecati facilis quibusdam in nihil nobis magni ut. Temporibus assumenda quia est est harum voluptatem sed. Autem provident occaecati ipsam quis dignissimos. Ex perferendis repellat molestias fuga.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”