Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

Well today is Election Day here in the U.S., our annual opportunity to practice democracy (insert joke here about continuing to practice until we get it right). Here's hoping all those who are registered get out and vote, and that the process proceeds smoothly.

Smooth Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Obama vs Romney Boxing Match
Legendary Thieves.
Links: 'Battlestar Galactica- Blood and Chrome' being released online Friday.
New! GameMaxx. Thanks HARDOCP.
Science: Experiencing math anxiety may be like the experience of physical pain.
Broken Heart Syndrome: Now doctors say you really CAN die from a sudden shock to the system.
New dinosaur named after Sauron from Lord of the Rings. Or Blue's forum poster. Thanks nin.
Media: The Brooklyn Hipster.
Adam Savage Builds Patton Oswalt's Halloween Costume.
How Videos Go Viral.

View
236 Replies. 12 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >

196. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 14:36 Beamer
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 14:28:
Outside the "Bush tax cuts", unless I missed something tax policy hasn't changed much since 1990. And the economy overall, seems to have done well since then.

It takes a while for effects to take hold. And the economy did well in the 90s due to the internet really pushing economic growth.

But we've had a squeeze on the middle class going on despite that. On another page I posted the share of wealth of the top 1% (again, I hate that sticking point.) It was about 35% in the 1910s, when there was no middle class, about 19.5% in the 1960s, when the middle class was exploding, and is back to about 35% now. There's a direct correlation there. And that also directly correlates with tax policy. Top marginal tax rate was extremely low in the 1910s, peaked at 94% in the 1950s, and was scaled back into the ~30% range in the 1980s. That's when the middle class share of the wealth shrunk. And that's when incentives started being created on the job creating class to, well, create fewer (or negative) jobs.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
195. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 14:28 Mr. Tact
 
Outside the "Bush tax cuts", unless I missed something tax policy hasn't changed much since 1990. And the economy overall, seems to have done well since then.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
194. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 14:10 Beamer
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 14:07:
Imagine the progress they (Congress) could make if they stopped wasting time arguing about those four things and just moved on.....

Well, 1 of those is pretty damn key. I'm again going to argue that the majority of our economic woes (2008 crash aside) come from the redistribution of wealth that occurred in the early 1980s.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
193. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 14:07 Mr. Tact
 
Imagine the progress they (Congress) could make if they stopped wasting time arguing about those four things and just moved on.....  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
192. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 13:07 Beamer
 
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
191. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 12:27 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 12:22:

I don't disagree something needs to be done about healthcare, but I just don't think Obamacare is it. I'm from Ma. I've seen what Mittenscare is costing first hand because I'm dealing with it personally. It isn't pretty

What problems have you seen with the MA program? I'm curious because I am not overly fond of Obamacare either, but think that it's still an improvement over what we've had up until now. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement though.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
190. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 12:22 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 11:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 10:09:
Dades wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 21:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

What proposed budget are you referring to? Obama's budget proposals, the whole 2 or so that he made, both got utterly destroyed and laughed out of voting. When your budget proposals get shot down 414-0 and you're own party won't buy in you have a problem.

The GOP's issue is they keep sticking their foot in their mouth with stupid comments about rape, and talking about blocking everything, at this point, the dictat..er President has another term, time to get some shit done because regardless, we're still going to be spending hand over foot with this guy in office, and his main focus is still going to be dividing the country with class warfare like he's done for 4 years already and growing the government with things like his Julia proposal.

But when it comes to spending changes need to be made. Militarily we need to be leaner and just plain smarter, 9/11 changed alot in rules as to who is accepted in, guys with criminal records and the like, that needs to change. Alot of units and battalions are still using equipment from the late 70's early 80's, expensive to maintain as well. All the personnel we still have overseas in places like Japan that have been there since the end of WW2, there's really no need for us to still be there, that would cut some spending there.

Medicare/caid/SS I don't have answers here but its 70% of our spending, but there has to be a better way, but to be honest I don't think they'll be a SS when I'm old enough to retire and I doubt I'll ever see any of that money I've paid into it already over the years.

Obamacare is a tax and an abuse of the commerce clause, why anyone is for it is beyond me, guess people like the government telling them what to do and putting bureaucratic bs between them and their doctors.

Pet projects We all know they exist cut the shit politicians.
NPR/PBS/like minded types of spending, yes they're small amounts, but government should not be funding these types of entities, and honestly PBS could get by on the donations they already get anyway.


End lobbying, this has less to do with spending but I'll toss that out for good measure.

End Politicians making a salary/benefits for life

Smarter better teachers rather than just more. There are so many just plan awful people teaching these days who's unions protect them.


Just a few things off the top of my head but at anyrate, regardless of where it is that cuts/changes are made, it has to happen.

Though I disagree with you on healthcare (SOMETHING needs to be done, HMOs are not the answer, and it's clearly not unconstitutional), and I think the teacher issue is a tricky one (in that "better" is not necessarily possible), I actually agree with you on every single one of these points, to some extent.

I don't disagree something needs to be done about healthcare, but I just don't think Obamacare is it. I'm from Ma. I've seen what Mittenscare is costing first hand because I'm dealing with it personally. It isn't pretty
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
189. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 11:15 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 10:09:
Dades wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 21:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

What proposed budget are you referring to? Obama's budget proposals, the whole 2 or so that he made, both got utterly destroyed and laughed out of voting. When your budget proposals get shot down 414-0 and you're own party won't buy in you have a problem.

The GOP's issue is they keep sticking their foot in their mouth with stupid comments about rape, and talking about blocking everything, at this point, the dictat..er President has another term, time to get some shit done because regardless, we're still going to be spending hand over foot with this guy in office, and his main focus is still going to be dividing the country with class warfare like he's done for 4 years already and growing the government with things like his Julia proposal.

But when it comes to spending changes need to be made. Militarily we need to be leaner and just plain smarter, 9/11 changed alot in rules as to who is accepted in, guys with criminal records and the like, that needs to change. Alot of units and battalions are still using equipment from the late 70's early 80's, expensive to maintain as well. All the personnel we still have overseas in places like Japan that have been there since the end of WW2, there's really no need for us to still be there, that would cut some spending there.

Medicare/caid/SS I don't have answers here but its 70% of our spending, but there has to be a better way, but to be honest I don't think they'll be a SS when I'm old enough to retire and I doubt I'll ever see any of that money I've paid into it already over the years.

Obamacare is a tax and an abuse of the commerce clause, why anyone is for it is beyond me, guess people like the government telling them what to do and putting bureaucratic bs between them and their doctors.

Pet projects We all know they exist cut the shit politicians.
NPR/PBS/like minded types of spending, yes they're small amounts, but government should not be funding these types of entities, and honestly PBS could get by on the donations they already get anyway.


End lobbying, this has less to do with spending but I'll toss that out for good measure.

End Politicians making a salary/benefits for life

Smarter better teachers rather than just more. There are so many just plan awful people teaching these days who's unions protect them.


Just a few things off the top of my head but at anyrate, regardless of where it is that cuts/changes are made, it has to happen.

Though I disagree with you on healthcare (SOMETHING needs to be done, HMOs are not the answer, and it's clearly not unconstitutional), and I think the teacher issue is a tricky one (in that "better" is not necessarily possible), I actually agree with you on every single one of these points, to some extent.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
188. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 10:09 RollinThundr
 
Dades wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 21:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

What proposed budget are you referring to? Obama's budget proposals, the whole 2 or so that he made, both got utterly destroyed and laughed out of voting. When your budget proposals get shot down 414-0 and you're own party won't buy in you have a problem.

The GOP's issue is they keep sticking their foot in their mouth with stupid comments about rape, and talking about blocking everything, at this point, the dictat..er President has another term, time to get some shit done because regardless, we're still going to be spending hand over foot with this guy in office, and his main focus is still going to be dividing the country with class warfare like he's done for 4 years already and growing the government with things like his Julia proposal.

But when it comes to spending changes need to be made. Militarily we need to be leaner and just plain smarter, 9/11 changed alot in rules as to who is accepted in, guys with criminal records and the like, that needs to change. Alot of units and battalions are still using equipment from the late 70's early 80's, expensive to maintain as well. All the personnel we still have overseas in places like Japan that have been there since the end of WW2, there's really no need for us to still be there, that would cut some spending there.

Medicare/caid/SS I don't have answers here but its 70% of our spending, but there has to be a better way, but to be honest I don't think they'll be a SS when I'm old enough to retire and I doubt I'll ever see any of that money I've paid into it already over the years.

Obamacare is a tax and an abuse of the commerce clause, why anyone is for it is beyond me, guess people like the government telling them what to do and putting bureaucratic bs between them and their doctors.

Pet projects We all know they exist cut the shit politicians.
NPR/PBS/like minded types of spending, yes they're small amounts, but government should not be funding these types of entities, and honestly PBS could get by on the donations they already get anyway.


End lobbying, this has less to do with spending but I'll toss that out for good measure.

End Politicians making a salary/benefits for life

Smarter better teachers rather than just more. There are so many just plan awful people teaching these days who's unions protect them.


Just a few things off the top of my head but at anyrate, regardless of where it is that cuts/changes are made, it has to happen.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
187. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 22:09 Prez
 
Dades wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 21:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

I answered my own question from earlier about budget proposals. What is surprising is that despite all of the partisan rhetoric it seems that both Harry Reid's and Boehner's budget proposals are actually quite similar. This link gives the overall rundown: http://crfb.org/blogs/comparing-reid-and-boehner-proposals

The one main difference I see is that Reid's proposal has no requirement for a balanced budget. Which I think is the better option given the uncertainty of our fiscal situation.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2012, 02:30.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
186. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 21:40 Dades
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money.

Which subsections of the proposed budget did you take issue with?
Obamacare is not an acceptable answer, its a news soundbite that is used on the uninformed and easily influenced. Sections, lines and numbers of the budget you are criticizing. You are so concerned with how government money is spent, I'm assuming you did some research into it instead of just getting vague talking points from the news to regurgitate. Which budget? Fiscal 2013? 2014? Did you compare historicals?

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
185. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 20:43 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
a few sex crazed idiots like Sandra Fluke don't want to cover it themselves.

Ho
Ly
Fuck


You do realize lots of women take the pill for reasons other than sex, right?
You've met a girl, haven't you? Probably wanted her to have sex with you?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
184. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:37 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:32:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.

What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money. And all I get back is "you're a racist/anti gay/anti women, socialism is excellent" simply because I believe the economy and the out of control spending that again BOTH parties partake should be made the focal point rather than gay marriage and insurance companies being made to be prophylactic vending machines just because of a few sex crazed idiots like Sandra Fluke don't want to cover it themselves.

Talk about strawman. Consistantly anytime you bring up reducing government spending liberals won't even discuss it, they simply refuse because for whatever reason reducing spending to them is like a cross to a vampire.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You keep making statements like that. "Liberals won't even discuss it". Yet the democrats were offering 3 or 4 to 1 cuts to revenues and the GOP slapped them away because they couldn't have 100% of what they wanted, which was 0 revenues.

But you'll probably just ignore that again and go on about something else now, or you'll twist what I'm saying and reply to your own made-up argument like you did earlier.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
183. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:34 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:25:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.

Essentially.
He also calls redistribution of wealth stealing. He fails to acknowledge that our taxation is a redistribution of wealth. I already posted a graph that showed that the top 1% (I hate that term, due to Occupy Wall Street lunacy) had under 20% of the wealth in the mid 70s and now has about 40%.

What is that if not a redistribution of the wealth? In order for the 1% to gain a higher percentage, other portions had to lose a percentage. And, given that the lower 40% or 50% had nothing to give, that all came from the middle class.

Redistribution of the wealth was fine to him when it went to the few, but when it goes to the many it's a bad thing. Simple fact: wealth has been redistributed in this country twice already. FDR gave it to the middle class, and we went from times like The Jungle to times like the 50s and 60s. Reagan gave it back to the wealthy. I'm not saying that we'll go back to the Jungle, or that it's class warfare, or any of those things.
I'm just saying our economy was strongest and growing quickest when the ultra rich weren't controlling all of the wealth, more people had money to spend, and there was less incentive to not pay your employees as well.

I agree with that. There seems to be a snowball effect as well. They will continually grow wealthier, not only because their current wealth works for them, but also because they have a much greater influence on government policy than middle class people do. You have to get millions of middle class folks on the same page to have any effect. But you've got guys like Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, or the Koch brothers, who can have a major effect for or against your campaign, all on their own. So it's in the interests of politicians to stay on their good side and keep things working in their favor.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
182. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:32 RollinThundr
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.

What arguments are those? I've consistantly said the same thing in nearly every post when it comes to politics. Stop spending so much money. And all I get back is "you're a racist/anti gay/anti women, socialism is excellent" simply because I believe the economy and the out of control spending that again BOTH parties partake should be made the focal point rather than gay marriage and insurance companies being made to be prophylactic vending machines just because of a few sex crazed idiots like Sandra Fluke don't want to cover it themselves.

Talk about strawman. Consistantly anytime you bring up reducing government spending liberals won't even discuss it, they simply refuse because for whatever reason reducing spending to them is like a cross to a vampire.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
181. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:25 Beamer
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.

Essentially.
He also calls redistribution of wealth stealing. He fails to acknowledge that our taxation is a redistribution of wealth. I already posted a graph that showed that the top 1% (I hate that term, due to Occupy Wall Street lunacy) had under 20% of the wealth in the mid 70s and now has about 40%.

What is that if not a redistribution of the wealth? In order for the 1% to gain a higher percentage, other portions had to lose a percentage. And, given that the lower 40% or 50% had nothing to give, that all came from the middle class.

Redistribution of the wealth was fine to him when it went to the few, but when it goes to the many it's a bad thing. Simple fact: wealth has been redistributed in this country twice already. FDR gave it to the middle class, and we went from times like The Jungle to times like the 50s and 60s. Reagan gave it back to the wealthy. I'm not saying that we'll go back to the Jungle, or that it's class warfare, or any of those things.
I'm just saying our economy was strongest and growing quickest when the ultra rich weren't controlling all of the wealth, more people had money to spend, and there was less incentive to not pay your employees as well.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
180. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:07 Bhruic
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:38:
Wish you guys were sensible enough to realize this whole "us vs them" shit propagated by hardline party politics isn't helping anyone. People are always drawing and defending borders between each other; it must be a relic of caveman culture.

Not really caveman, but yeah, humans are Tribal. If you're part of our tribe, we'll fight to protect you. If you aren't, we'll just fight you.

Sure, it's a crappy way of dealing with society today, but trying to overcome biology is really hard. Hopefully we'll get there some day.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
179. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:06 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
178. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 15:57 RollinThundr
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:48:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:06:
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.

Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

Keep beating that straw man. That's not remotely what I said.


RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.

Ahh yes, the old "Why can't you be tolerant of my intolerance!?" argument. It's hilarious when people trot this out as a defense of their bigotry.

I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
177. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 15:48 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:06:
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.

Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

Keep beating that straw man. That's not remotely what I said.


RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.

Ahh yes, the old "Why can't you be tolerant of my intolerance!?" argument. It's hilarious when people trot this out as a defense of their bigotry.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
236 Replies. 12 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo