Who will you be voting for?

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
LOL. "Big government"... Polly wants a cracker??

People are so fuckin' brainwashed with this "big government" bullshit Republicans like to throw around. That's to get "idiot America" looking the other way and finger pointing imaginary culprits.

In cause you don't realize it yet, the Walker election was a perfect example of big government. From the wealthy, influential, out of state Republican interests who literally bought this election to the Supreme Court whose ruling on campaign finances makes it all possible, all big government.

Hey, anytime you have mostly out of state interests spend more on Walker than candidates for president have, then you have fucking BIG "something" and if that doesn't stink like all hell, then America deserves to get fucked. Can't blame the Republicans much. You gotta blame the morons who buy into their bullshit.

For example all this attention to entitlements. Oddly, the middle class don't seem to mind paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than that wealthy 1% does, nor mind supporting the reduction of middle class worker's pensions and salaries while corporate CEO's make million dollar salaries and lifetime pensions; while the wealthy 1% of America gets huge tax write offs and we pay more to take up those fuckers' slack.

No, they have their loyal morons convinced that the villains are some small percentage of people who don't pay taxes and have voters siding with the filthy rich while cutting the pensions and salaries of state and public employees, the very fabric of our nation's infrastructure.

Then they turn around and elect the very people who's protecting the interests of the wealthy while cutting money, jobs, retirement income, benefits, whatever they can find, from everyone else. MORONS.

Americans deserves to get fucked over by these con-artists. The voting public is so befuddled by Republican propaganda it'd be laughable...if it weren't so FUCKIN' pathetic.
 
Last edited:

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In cause you don't realize it yet, the Walker election was a perfect example of big government. From the wealthy, influential, out of state Republican interests who literally bought this election to the Supreme Court whose ruling on campaign finances makes it all possible, all big government.
You apparently don't understand the definition of big government. Big government is federal and state agencies that over-reach their usefulness, cost ridiculous amounts of money to run/maintain, and punish ingenuity while rewarding conformity. The money spent in this campaign on the republican side was private money, which has nothing to do with the size of government. Union money however, is a lot like big government, because they tax all of their members and demand conformity in order to stay alive and support union bosses.

For example all this attention to entitlements. Oddly, the middle class don't seem to mind paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than that wealthy 1% does, nor mind supporting the reduction of middle class worker's pensions and salaries while corporate CEO's make million dollar salaries and lifetime pensions; while the wealthy 1% of America gets huge tax write offs and we pay more to take up those fuckers' slack.
Oh, so you support a flat tax, I'm glad we agree on something.

No, they have their loyal morons convinced that the villains are some small percentage of people who don't pay taxes and have voters siding with the filthy rich while cutting the pensions and salaries of state and public employees, the very fabric of our nation's infrastructure.
That infrastructure would exist with or without the unions. The fact that our services are still functioning despite the decline in union membership is proof positive.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Walker won the recall by almost exactly the margin he originally won the govenorship. Let's stop the name calling and look at that fact. The people of Wisconsin have spoken.
And just to be clear, as any decent, clear-minded, and honest analyst can tell you, the message was simply that we wanted to let Scott Walker finish his term. The ballot only had names, so we picked a governor. There was no question on the ballot about whether we approved of any particular law or initiative. To say that the vote indicates anything beyond a simple choice of governor is mere conjecture until more evidence is presented.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
You apparently don't understand the definition of big government. Big government is federal and state agencies that over-reach their usefulness, cost ridiculous amounts of money to run/maintain, and punish ingenuity while rewarding conformity. The money spent in this campaign on the republican side was private money, which has nothing to do with the size of government. Union money however, is a lot like big government, because they tax all of their members and demand conformity in order to stay alive and support union bosses.

When "private" money is used to support a political position, influence the outcome of an election, get a person of their interest elected, and bolster a particular ideology, it's one and the same, whether you care to admit it or not. Funny how you can dismiss the analogy but then turn around and say Unions are like big government. They TAX all their members? Someone's been reading too much right winged disinformation. Last time I looked, union DUES were something one CHOSE to pay.


That infrastructure would exist with or without the unions. The fact that our services are still functioning despite the decline in union membership is proof positive.

Hey, it's YOUR state. You think your services will be the same, fine.

And just to be clear, as any decent, clear-minded, and honest analyst can tell you, the message was simply that we wanted to let Scott Walker finish his term. The ballot only had names, so we picked a governor. There was no question on the ballot about whether we approved of any particular law or initiative. To say that the vote indicates anything beyond a simple choice of governor is mere conjecture until more evidence is presented.

What??? So you're saying you wanted Walker to finish his term even though you (voters who supported him) might not necessarily approve of his laws or initiatives - laws that have a direct impact on the lives of your citizenry - state and public workers and those who they serve?

This wasn't about the laws or initiatives. This was about letting Walker finish his term....

Isn't that...special.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Last time I looked, union DUES were something one CHOSE to pay.
I am not familiar with any state laws other than those of Wisconsin, but until Act 10 was passed, union membership and the associated dues were a mandated part of certain government positions. This is an absolute fact.

What??? So you're saying you wanted Walker to finish his term even though you (voters who supported him) might not necessarily approve of his laws or initiatives - laws that have a direct impact on the lives of your citizenry - state and public workers and those who they serve?

This wasn't about the laws or initiatives. This was about letting Walker finish his term....

Isn't that...special.
You are obviously missing a very big issue, and if your state does not allow recall of governors or legislators then I can understand. One of the issues at the heart of this election was whether the recall should have happened at all. Walker has done nothing illegal during his term in office. The whole John Doe investigation is about things which happened before he took office. If one disagrees with policies put forth by a particular politician, the reasonable thing to do is vote them out when they come up for re-election. Because Act 10 did not cause irreparable harm and was not unconstitutional (note, no agency or government body is fighting it in front of any court, unlike PPACA), there was really no reason to cut his term short, just to put someone in with a different ideology.

Already liberals complain about too much money spent in politics. Well thanks to a union-backed liberal agenda, we had a whole additional gubernatorial election, rife with antagonism, campaign ads galore, and (ugh...) campaign calls. Apparently, normal terms in office and less frequent fundraising are only good as long as Democrats like who is in the seat at the time, otherwise look out.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
LOL. "Big government"... Polly wants a cracker??

People are so fuckin' brainwashed with this "big government" bullshit Republicans like to throw around. That's to get "idiot America" looking the other way and finger pointing imaginary culprits.

In cause you don't realize it yet, the Walker election was a perfect example of big government. From the wealthy, influential, out of state Republican interests who literally bought this election to the Supreme Court whose ruling on campaign finances makes it all possible, all big government.

Hey, anytime you have mostly out of state interests spend more on Walker than candidates for president have, then you have fucking BIG "something" and if that doesn't stink like all hell, then America deserves to get fucked. Can't blame the Republicans much. You gotta blame the morons who buy into their bullshit.

For example all this attention to entitlements. Oddly, the middle class don't seem to mind paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than that wealthy 1% does, nor mind supporting the reduction of middle class worker's pensions and salaries while corporate CEO's make million dollar salaries and lifetime pensions; while the wealthy 1% of America gets huge tax write offs and we pay more to take up those fuckers' slack.

No, they have their loyal morons convinced that the villains are some small percentage of people who don't pay taxes and have voters siding with the filthy rich while cutting the pensions and salaries of state and public employees, the very fabric of our nation's infrastructure.

Then they turn around and elect the very people who's protecting the interests of the wealthy while cutting money, jobs, retirement income, benefits, whatever they can find, from everyone else. MORONS.

Americans deserves to get fucked over by these con-artists. The voting public is so befuddled by Republican propaganda it'd be laughable...if it weren't so FUCKIN' pathetic.

All points exactly right. Americans deserve the 30 year stagnation of wages even as they ra ra ra the demise of unions and ignore the huge disparity of wealth that has totally corrupted government. The ability to use education as a leg up is quickly vanishing under the weight of withering cuts in education so the rich can have their tax cuts.

THE PUBLIC SUCKS FUCK HOPE
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I am not familiar with any state laws other than those of Wisconsin, but until Act 10 was passed, union membership and the associated dues were a mandated part of certain government positions. This is an absolute fact.


You are obviously missing a very big issue, and if your state does not allow recall of governors or legislators then I can understand. One of the issues at the heart of this election was whether the recall should have happened at all. Walker has done nothing illegal during his term in office. The whole John Doe investigation is about things which happened before he took office. If one disagrees with policies put forth by a particular politician, the reasonable thing to do is vote them out when they come up for re-election. Because Act 10 did not cause irreparable harm and was not unconstitutional (note, no agency or government body is fighting it in front of any court, unlike PPACA), there was really no reason to cut his term short, just to put someone in with a different ideology.

Already liberals complain about too much money spent in politics. Well thanks to a union-backed liberal agenda, we had a whole additional gubernatorial election, rife with antagonism, campaign ads galore, and (ugh...) campaign calls. Apparently, normal terms in office and less frequent fundraising are only good as long as Democrats like who is in the seat at the time, otherwise look out.

You're entitled to your opinion as I mine.

The ability to petition for recall exists for a reason. If a million people sign the petition, seems plenty of reason enough.

As for the unions they have a responsibility (if not a vested interest) in protecting the rights of their members. That's their JOB.

Walker won by almost the same margin that he won before, and after his backers shelled out 60 million plus from mostly out of state conservative interests. If you don't feel "bought" congrats to you.

All considered, that 53% is a win, but hardly what I'd call a mandate.
 
Last edited:

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You're entitled to your opinion as I mine.

The ability to petition for recall exists for a reason. If a million people sign the petition, seems plenty of reason enough.
Well, if that's the case we should add the recall to US government. I'm sure that we have enough voters who would be willing to sign a petition to recall Obama.

As for the unions they have a responsibility (if not a vested interest) in protecting the rights of their members. That's their JOB.
What rights do they protect? Unions do not equal collective bargaining. Unions are a big machine, both politically and financially. Collective bargaining can still happen even without a formal union. As for public worker unions, they wielded considerably more power than their private sector counter parts because they often provide essential services to people, and so governments often had to kowtow to their demands or lose the functioning of state services. While Im sure this seems all right and fair to you, it is not fair to the taxpayer because our bill to support such agencies and the unions that staff them was growing larger and larger, out of pace with inflation and out of control.

Walker won by almost the same margin that he won before, and after his backers shelled out 60 million plus from mostly out of state conservative interests. If you don't feel "bought" congrats to you.

All considered, that 53% is a win, but hardly what I'd call a mandate.
No one is saying that the win was a mandate. But I find it interesting that every time someone talks about the out of state money given to Scott Walker's campaign, the number grows. Considering that the democrats had uncounted millions poured into the recall effort from the time of the first capitol protest rally, Walker's money seems only fair. Besides, money alone does not buy an election. I very highly doubt any Walker votes were bribed. In order for a campaign to be effective, it has to be convincing, and that comes depending on the candidate's record, image, and style, more or less regardless of the money spent on his campaign.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
What rights do they protect? Unions do not equal collective bargaining. Unions are a big machine, both politically and financially. Collective bargaining can still happen even without a formal union. As for public worker unions, they wielded considerably more power than their private sector counter parts because they often provide essential services to people, and so governments often had to kowtow to their demands or lose the functioning of state services. While Im sure this seems all right and fair to you, it is not fair to the taxpayer because our bill to support such agencies and the unions that staff them was growing larger and larger, out of pace with inflation and out of control.

I see you're still spewing Republican disinformation straight from their manifesto. Read this:

Public Employee Unions Don't Get One Penny from Taxpayers and Can't Require Membership, But the Big Lie That They Do Is Everywhere | Economy | AlterNet

Furthermore, if you don't know what functions unions serve those whom they represent then that's your problem. Regarding collective bargaining, here is the Republican plan for unions and collective bargaining:

Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions - Forbes

Well, if that's the case we should add the recall to US government. I'm sure that we have enough voters who would be willing to sign a petition to recall Obama.

Well you'll have your chance to recall him this November. Speaking of which,

It always makes me laugh when some 100% gay Republican apologist wishes for the demise of the party that most readily supports issues that should be of importance to him, given the quite clear position of those conservatives he so readily defends...I say should be... maybe they aren't...

So maybe I'm the fuckin' asshole here because, hey bud, if these issues aren't important to you....

...y'know? :cool:
 
Last edited:

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
608
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm still kind of hung up on why Walker didn't include all the state employee in Act 10, I'm now thinking the workers he protected, law enforcement and firefighters, provide very essential services for the insurance companies, and the banks, and therefore they should not to view themselves as "temps".
It's a natural fact the insurance companies need reliable firefighters since they don't put out fires, and the bankers need a sheriff when they sell a house at a sheriff sale. It is all starting to make sense!
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This from that very article:
In states that haven't passed so-called Right-To-Work laws, the union can charge all workers in a “negotiating unit” for the direct cost of representing them, but cannot, bylaw, force them to pay for the union's political activities. “They can only be required to pay for their share of bargaining costs and representation costs – not politics, not legislative stuff, not anything else.

Who defines how much a union can charge for "direct cost of representing them." As for the argument that the money cannot be used politically, how do you take salt out of a recipe after it has already been added. There is no way to tell exactly what the money goes for. As for the articles earlier argument that once the money is given to the worker it is no longer a taxpayer dollar is a totally bogus argument. Its like saying that a private worker's paycheck doesn't come from a business's customers. The money absolutely has to come from somewhere. Not even democrats have perfected magic money making out of thin air. Since resident of a state are like the customers of the government, paying for the services they receive, it is ultimately taxpayers that pay for the salaries of all government employees, unionized or not.

Furthermore, if you don't know what functions unions serve those whom they represent then that's your problem. Regarding collective bargaining, here is the Republican plan for unions and collective bargaining:

Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions - Forbes
Public worker unions have wielded incredibly sway over government, not just politically, but financially, regardless of who is in office. That power comes at a gross cost to taxpayers, who end up paying for the government that pays for the unions. The reason they wield so much power, and why they shouldn't, is that in a private company, if the workers strike, there is almost always an alternative in the market that the consumer can choose instead. On a governmental level, residents don't have anyone else to turn to, the taxpayers and their government are captive audiences, and the unions have abused this fact. As a Wisconsinite, I cant get state services from Iowa, Minnesota, or Illinois.

As for what rights that unions are protecting, I challenge you to name one reasonable right that a union protects that is lost when collective bargaining is diminished?

It always makes me laugh when some 100% gay Republican apologist wishes for the demise of the party that most readily supports issues that should be of importance to him, given the quite clear position of those conservatives he so readily defends...I say should be... maybe they aren't...
Let me break it down for you. 100% gay means that I like sexual companionship of men, and dont at all care for the sexual companionship of women. As for my interest in getting married, that has nothing to do with my sexuality. A lot of Republicans either believe that homosexuality is a choice or that it is morally wrong, but it is not a view shared by all republicans, nor have they been able to enact any legislation to limit my sexual liberties as an individual. Many other republicans are gay themselves, or have many gay friends. Even Sarah Palin has gay friends. More importantly, however, is the fact that there are major issues facing our country and its people. I have my opinion about what might work and what might not work, and I tend to agree with Republicans these days on a lot of issues, usually the ones I find more important. I dont want to be married to a man if I have to pay outrageous taxes, do a job the government commands me to do, get healthcare from a provider the government tells me to go to, or not have a job at all. Excuse me for having more people's interests at heart than my own.

Identity politics certainly makes political decisions easy, but where is the choice in that? I mean why vote at all, lets just tally up the number of gay people, hispanic people, black people, women, men, Christans, and others. Well just decide our elections based on population demographics, but wait, blacks are mostly opposed to gay marriage, as are hispanics, frequently. They are democratic voters right? Why do they vote for a party that wants to enable something morally offensive to them?

So maybe I'm the fuckin' asshole here because, hey bud, if these issues aren't important to you....

...y'know? :cool:
Nope, you've lost me. I dont think there is any good excuse to be an asshole.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
This from that very article:
In states that haven't passed so-called Right-To-Work laws, the union can charge all workers in a “negotiating unit” for the direct cost of representing them, but cannot, bylaw, force them to pay for the union's political activities. “They can only be required to pay for their share of bargaining costs and representation costs – not politics, not legislative stuff, not anything else.

Who defines how much a union can charge for "direct cost of representing them." As for the argument that the money cannot be used politically, how do you take salt out of a recipe after it has already been added. There is no way to tell exactly what the money goes for. As for the articles earlier argument that once the money is given to the worker it is no longer a taxpayer dollar is a totally bogus argument. Its like saying that a private worker's paycheck doesn't come from a business's customers. The money absolutely has to come from somewhere. Not even democrats have perfected magic money making out of thin air. Since resident of a state are like the customers of the government, paying for the services they receive, it is ultimately taxpayers that pay for the salaries of all government employees, unionized or not.

It's apparently a waste of time refuting much of the bullshit you hold to be true so this will be my last reply.

My cited references I think clearly refute much of your lies and distortions, and you seem determined to quibble over the rest.

The fact that you fail to see that the money paid to workers for their hard work and services is no longer that of the taxpayers but that of those individuals to use as they see fit, including paying union dues, speaks volumes of your twisted logic. I guess the money you pay for a product is still yours too. LMFAO.

As for what rights that unions are protecting, I challenge you to name one reasonable right that a union protects that is lost when collective bargaining is diminished?

Maybe I know of what rights they've protected as a union member. Perhaps I speak from personal experiences that you cannot comprehend nor are anyone's fuckin' business, pal.

Let me break it down for you. 100% gay means that I like sexual companionship of men, and dont at all care for the sexual companionship of women. As for my interest in getting married, that has nothing to do with my sexuality. A lot of Republicans either believe that homosexuality is a choice or that it is morally wrong, but it is not a view shared by all republicans, nor have they been able to enact any legislation to limit my sexual liberties as an individual. Many other republicans are gay themselves, or have many gay friends. Even Sarah Palin has gay friends. More importantly, however, is the fact that there are major issues facing our country and its people. I have my opinion about what might work and what might not work, and I tend to agree with Republicans these days on a lot of issues, usually the ones I find more important. I dont want to be married to a man if I have to pay outrageous taxes, do a job the government commands me to do, get healthcare from a provider the government tells me to go to, or not have a job at all. Excuse me for having more people's interests at heart than my own.

As I said, you are misinformed:

1. unless you're among the wealthiest among us, Republicans would have you paying more in taxes while protecting that upper 1%

2. the healthcare initiative doesn't tell anyone which provider they have to get coverage from

3. I know of no jobs the government "commands" you to do, and

4. it's the Republicans who plan to cut jobs, limit salaries, reduce or eliminate pensions and social security benefits. Why the fuck do you think they want to eliminate all collective bargaining and unions in the first place?

And if you think putting Romney in office is going change everything for the better, think again. They haven't even offered a do-able plan (short of stiffing the middle class). Just four years of criticism and obstructionist government.


Identity politics certainly makes political decisions easy, but where is the choice in that? I mean why vote at all, lets just tally up the number of gay people, hispanic people, black people, women, men, Christans, and others. Well just decide our elections based on population demographics, but wait, blacks are mostly opposed to gay marriage, as are hispanics, frequently. They are democratic voters right? Why do they vote for a party that wants to enable something morally offensive to them?

Maybe contrary to personal opinions on the subject, we support gay rights as a moral imperative, because we see that it's an issue of civil rights, the rights of individuals, as opposed to Republican ideology that essentially would be discriminatory to all of their "gay friends".

Besides, isn't legislation "from the pulpit" another form of big government? (Oh, I forgot. Obama is big government because in supporting hate crime legislation he's imposing his will over that of the church, ??? I think it went??)


Nope, you've lost me. I dont think there is any good excuse to be an asshole.

Then why do you try so hard? WAKE THE FUCK UP!

(Oh, and spare me the response, will you? I tire of this.)

 
Last edited:
5

516778

Guest
Not to start an argument or to get into one I am voting for the democrat. I know what the republicans are doing and will do if they have control of the whole show. Im not saying I'm happy with what obama is doing or is trying to do but I believe he's better capable of running the country. I will say democrats need to grow a pair....and stop leaning so far to the middle just to appease people or republicans.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's apparently a waste of time refuting much of the bullshit you hold to be true so this will be my last reply.

My cited references I think clearly refute much of your lies and distortions, and you seem determined to quibble over the rest.
Your evidence disproved your own point and supports my claim that unions can and do have mandatory dues.

The fact that you fail to see that the money paid to workers for their hard work and services is no longer that of the taxpayers but that of those individuals to use as they see fit, including paying union dues, speaks volumes of your twisted logic. I guess the money you pay for a product is still yours too. LMFAO.
Well, now that Act 10 is in place, people can choose to write a check to the unions of their own free will. Funny though, most of them aren't following though and union membership has declined significantly in the last year.

Maybe I know of what rights they've protected as a union member. Perhaps I speak from personal experiences that you cannot comprehend nor are anyone's fuckin' business, pal.
Well if your experiences are no one's business, don't try to use them to support an argument. Saying that you know something, only demonstrates that you can make such a claim. It in no way validates the claim or invalidates a counter claim.

As I said, you are misinformed:

1. unless you're among the wealthiest among us, Republicans would have you paying more in taxes while protecting that upper 1%

2. the healthcare initiative doesn't tell anyone which provider they have to get coverage from

3. I know of no jobs the government "commands" you to do, and

4. it's the Republicans who plan to cut jobs, limit salaries, reduce or eliminate pensions and social security benefits. Why the fuck do you think they want to eliminate all collective bargaining and unions in the first place?
Actually most loopholes are a product of republicans tryign to protect those who are over-taxed from an unreasonable burden. If someone else has figured out a way to play that game, then blame democrats for pushing such a progressive tax system. A flat tax is the most fair system as long as it allows for people to support themselves. The healthcare initiatives natural logical conclusion is eventual rationing of healthcare through government approved entities for the majority of the population who cant afford private healthcare. The government does not currently command most people to do any job, but a socialist agenda leads to more and more government control until the system doesn't work unless the government runs everything. Republican have no plans to cut jobs, limit salaries, reduce or eliminate pensions. Working on public worker unions and collective bargaining is a tool to save states from financial ruin at the hands of greedy unions, who are no better than greedy corporations or wall street bankers.

And if you think putting Romney in office is going change everything for the better, think again. They haven't even offered a do-able plan (short of stiffing the middle class). Just four years of criticism and obstructionist government.
Im honestly not convinced that Romney will make things better than they are now, but I am thoroughly convinced that he will make things better than Obama would.

Maybe contrary to personal opinions on the subject, we support gay rights as a moral imperative, because we see that it's an issue of civil rights, the rights of individuals, as opposed to Republican ideology that essentially would be discriminatory to all of their "gay friends".
I support gay rights, and for the most part gay people do have the same rights as any other citizen. And in case you havent noticed, gay people can in fact get married to each other in any state, as long as chruch is willing to perform the ceremony. As to whether the state wil recognize it is another topic. Marriage is an institution in the eyes of God. So why are liberals and some gays so adamant that the state recognize gay marriage. That sounds like a real breach of the separation of chruch and state. Personally I believe that the state should not recognize any marriage in the way it currently does.

Besides, isn't legislation "from the pulpit" another form of big government? (Oh, I forgot. Obama is big government because in supporting hate crime legislation he's imposing his will over that of the church, ??? I think it went??)
Not sure what you are talking about here...

Then why do you try so hard? WAKE THE FUCK UP!

(Oh, and spare me the response, will you? I tire of this.)
I wouldn't dare let such easy points to counter slip by without pointing out your arguments' fallacies.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

Bear in mind that, in other countries, left and right do not always have the same meaning as they do in America.

From one of the "bibliography" articles linked on that site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ight-wing-That-depends-define-left-right.html

So case closed? Not really. The problem here is how we define ‘left’ and ‘right’ thinking, what this means socially and politically. A moment’s thought shows that the faultlines are not only blurred but they are legion, cris-crossing across traditional political strata and have changed through time.

As Steven Pinker points out in The Better Angels of our Nature, his marvellous book about the history of violence, social liberalism does not equate necessarily with economic socialism. He points to a study by the economist Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University in Virginia, who found that smart people tend to think like economists, being in favour of free trade, globalisation and free markets and against protectionism and state intervention in industry. This matches other findings that show that IQ correlates not with left-wing thinking as such, but with classic Enlightenment liberalism.

So a smart person (all else being equal) will probably be in favour of capitalism generally, and free-trade in particular. He or she will distrust state intervention in the markets, probably be suspicious of welfarism and deeply dislike protectionism, union closed-shops and tariffs. The smart person will believe that the have-nots should be encouraged to become haves by dint of their own labours and by the levelling of economic playing fields, NOT by taking money off the haves and giving it to them. In other words, Thatcherism. Hardly something we equate with the left.
Hmmm...exceedingly little additional reading seems to have turned your point completely upside down, and shows the American left-wing to be the dim-witted ideologues that they would seem to be. The horror!

To help you save face, let me remind you of this cliche:
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Hmmm...exceedingly little additional reading seems to have turned your point completely upside down, and shows the American left-wing to be the dim-witted ideologues that they would seem to be. The horror!

You said it yourself: exceedingly little reading.
 

kayman

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Posts
1,344
Media
26
Likes
1,184
Points
358
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Not to start an argument or to get into one I am voting for the democrat. I know what the republicans are doing and will do if they have control of the whole show. Im not saying I'm happy with what obama is doing or is trying to do but I believe he's better capable of running the country. I will say democrats need to grow a pair....and stop leaning so far to the middle just to appease people or republicans.

I agree that the DNC and President Obama needs to stop appeasing the myopia that has possessed "middle America", i.e., white Americans whom lack concern for a worldly perspective and the non-white assimilation poseurs. However, it should boil down to moderate to pragmatic approach to decision-making. Something the current brigade of Republicans and social conservatives needs to heed rather than being obstructionist towards the current jobs bill being held up in the US House.