Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT
 

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Can be sure but my personal experience with conspiracy theories primarily involve convincing idiots and/or Ron Paul fans on youtube that the 9/11 conspiracy theories simply dont work and that there is not a plot to make the USA, Canada, and Mexico one country (something which Ron Paul failed to answer even when I asked him myself on national television in 2004...much obliged CNN). So yeah maybe I am a bit jaded towards conspiracy theories and talk of the government silencing opposition or big businesses sitting a top a tower glaring down at the poor people thinking up ways to make things worse for them inbetween diving into room fulls of money like they are Scrooge McDuck. Trouble is I have never seen anything to make me feel I should alter my negative view towards conspiracy theories.

Thats rather sad that your default is not to take people at their word but alright. I am going to assume you read both of my links so here we go.

First a summary in spoiler tags:

As you can see there are a lot of provisions made for certain environmental regulations that are often not popular for Republicans. This sort of bill is a type of political trap where you attach something the other side claims to want to a bill full of stuff they don't like and then dare them to vote against it. When they do you can go "aha see they don't really mean what they say". Its petty politics and both parties do it.

I provided you with all the research you will need (if you dont want to do your own).

As for the amendment itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00935:

Given that most of those who voted against it are Republicans (the amendment actually which is H.AMDT.935) and Republicans don't demonize oil companies its little surprise that oil companies donated money to Republicans. Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?

Also if you read the amendment it makes provisions for the government basically telling a private company what it must do which is an idea Republicans are going to find absurd. The only reason the company here even needs Federal Approval is because it crosses a national border. Putting more requirements on them is silly and may have been a ploy to further hold up the pipeline and appeal to environmentalists. I don't know the way Washington is nowadays it wouldnt surprise me if the parties were that petty.

Honestly I don't know why I used "dollars to donuts". Its not just a Texas thing (may be a Baptist thing given my religion's passion for the aforementioned pastry) but I don't know. Its actually somewhat archaic.

Im a cynic, have been since I was young. I learned at an early age that some people will try to take advantage of you in any way possible. I also learned that wearing a suit and tie with a four hundred dollar haircut doesn't make you infallible.

As for the provisions you cited as examples, they are both intact in the final version of the bill that passed so they can't have been THAT unpalatable.

Are we reading the same amendment? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00933:
Its only about a paragraph long, and it doesnt say anywhere that the gov't can "tell these companies what to do", it merely states that all oil gained from keystone xl would have to be kept here in the u.s., and that the president can waive it if he can prove that exporting wont increase our dependence. The end.

The point is, if republicans truly wanted to keep the oil here, they would have tried to negotiate to get the amendment passed, not the other way around.

"Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?"

Thats exactly what I'm saying. The big lobbies will spread the money around one way or another to hedge their bets, but once they know who will play ball and who won't, thats when the real money starts pouring in. Political power of the representative in question also factors heavily into this. Newt Gingrich's sugar daddy Adelson for example is the sole reason Gingrich was even relevant so far into the race. Well that and also the fact that your partie's candidate swatch wasnt exactly impressive either. I mean Herman Cain was leading... fucking come on. Michelle Bachmann too HA.

Lets talk about the idea that the GOP is in favor of small government. Its just absurd to suggest this, republicans on the whole want to 1)Control who you can marry, 2)Control which substances you put into your body, and 3)Force you to respect America as a Christian Nation.
The only time they hate big gov't is when we actually try to enforce some social responsibility upon their benefactors.

I tend to be a cynic too but there are many kinds of cynics so yeah. Im cynical towards government but on a personal level if someone says something and I have no clear reason to doubt them I will take them at their word and continue to do so until they give me a reason not to.

Here is the part of the amendment that involves the government telling companies what to do:

"An amendment numbered 2 printed in Part A of House Report 112-398 to ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans. The amendment allows the President to waive this requirement if it can be shown that an export of the oil or fuels won't increase our dependence on oil or fuels we buy from hostile nations, that prices for refiners and consumers won't go up if the export occurs, or if an export is needed to comply with any international treaties or other agreements we have to export oil or fuels. "

As you noticed, its the whole amendment. Yeah it sounds good but we dont have nationalized oil companies. We can't tell a company (which is based in Canada by the way) that it must build a pipeline for this purpose. Also there is no way that the company in charge of the Pipeline could possibly guarantee all of those things. It just builds and operates the pipeline. The government doesnt own the pipeline.

My view on corruption is that corruption is where you would normally do one thing but then someone or some group gives you money or some other gift or favor and as a result to act in a way you would not otherwise act. For this to be corruption you would need to argue that the Republicans would have otherwise voted the opposite way.

Since the GOP is mostly Conservative (like a plurality of the country btw) then yes the GOP normally espouses limited government Conservative principles. The only times exceptions are made tend to be on social issues like Same-sex marriage or abortion (both issues that by all right should be voted on at the state level which Same-sex marriage is being voted on, I personally oppose a federal law or amendment defining marriage either way and that includes DOMA which should be done away with).

You don't have to respect America as a Christian nation any more than you have to respect that America is located in North America.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Can be sure but my personal experience with conspiracy theories primarily involve convincing idiots and/or Ron Paul fans on youtube that the 9/11 conspiracy theories simply dont work and that there is not a plot to make the USA, Canada, and Mexico one country (something which Ron Paul failed to answer even when I asked him myself on national television in 2004...much obliged CNN). So yeah maybe I am a bit jaded towards conspiracy theories and talk of the government silencing opposition or big businesses sitting a top a tower glaring down at the poor people thinking up ways to make things worse for them inbetween diving into room fulls of money like they are Scrooge McDuck. Trouble is I have never seen anything to make me feel I should alter my negative view towards conspiracy theories.

Thats rather sad that your default is not to take people at their word but alright. I am going to assume you read both of my links so here we go.

First a summary in spoiler tags:

As you can see there are a lot of provisions made for certain environmental regulations that are often not popular for Republicans. This sort of bill is a type of political trap where you attach something the other side claims to want to a bill full of stuff they don't like and then dare them to vote against it. When they do you can go "aha see they don't really mean what they say". Its petty politics and both parties do it.

I provided you with all the research you will need (if you dont want to do your own).

As for the amendment itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00935:

Given that most of those who voted against it are Republicans (the amendment actually which is H.AMDT.935) and Republicans don't demonize oil companies its little surprise that oil companies donated money to Republicans. Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?

Also if you read the amendment it makes provisions for the government basically telling a private company what it must do which is an idea Republicans are going to find absurd. The only reason the company here even needs Federal Approval is because it crosses a national border. Putting more requirements on them is silly and may have been a ploy to further hold up the pipeline and appeal to environmentalists. I don't know the way Washington is nowadays it wouldnt surprise me if the parties were that petty.

Honestly I don't know why I used "dollars to donuts". Its not just a Texas thing (may be a Baptist thing given my religion's passion for the aforementioned pastry) but I don't know. Its actually somewhat archaic.

Im a cynic, have been since I was young. I learned at an early age that some people will try to take advantage of you in any way possible. I also learned that wearing a suit and tie with a four hundred dollar haircut doesn't make you infallible.

As for the provisions you cited as examples, they are both intact in the final version of the bill that passed so they can't have been THAT unpalatable.

Are we reading the same amendment? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00933:
Its only about a paragraph long, and it doesnt say anywhere that the gov't can "tell these companies what to do", it merely states that all oil gained from keystone xl would have to be kept here in the u.s., and that the president can waive it if he can prove that exporting wont increase our dependence. The end.

The point is, if republicans truly wanted to keep the oil here, they would have tried to negotiate to get the amendment passed, not the other way around.

"Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?"

Thats exactly what I'm saying. The big lobbies will spread the money around one way or another to hedge their bets, but once they know who will play ball and who won't, thats when the real money starts pouring in. Political power of the representative in question also factors heavily into this. Newt Gingrich's sugar daddy Adelson for example is the sole reason Gingrich was even relevant so far into the race. Well that and also the fact that your partie's candidate swatch wasnt exactly impressive either. I mean Herman Cain was leading... fucking come on. Michelle Bachmann too HA.

Lets talk about the idea that the GOP is in favor of small government. Its just absurd to suggest this, republicans on the whole want to 1)Control who you can marry, 2)Control which substances you put into your body, and 3)Force you to respect America as a Christian Nation.
The only time they hate big gov't is when we actually try to enforce some social responsibility upon their benefactors.

I tend to be a cynic too but there are many kinds of cynics so yeah. Im cynical towards government but on a personal level if someone says something and I have no clear reason to doubt them I will take them at their word and continue to do so until they give me a reason not to.

Here is the part of the amendment that involves the government telling companies what to do:

"An amendment numbered 2 printed in Part A of House Report 112-398 to ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans. The amendment allows the President to waive this requirement if it can be shown that an export of the oil or fuels won't increase our dependence on oil or fuels we buy from hostile nations, that prices for refiners and consumers won't go up if the export occurs, or if an export is needed to comply with any international treaties or other agreements we have to export oil or fuels. "

As you noticed, its the whole amendment. Yeah it sounds good but we dont have nationalized oil companies. We can't tell a company (which is based in Canada by the way) that it must build a pipeline for this purpose. Also there is no way that the company in charge of the Pipeline could possibly guarantee all of those things. It just builds and operates the pipeline. The government doesnt own the pipeline.

My view on corruption is that corruption is where you would normally do one thing but then someone or some group gives you money or some other gift or favor and as a result to act in a way you would not otherwise act. For this to be corruption you would need to argue that the Republicans would have otherwise voted the opposite way.

Since the GOP is mostly Conservative (like a plurality of the country btw) then yes the GOP normally espouses limited government Conservative principles. The only times exceptions are made tend to be on social issues like Same-sex marriage or abortion (both issues that by all right should be voted on at the state level which Same-sex marriage is being voted on, I personally oppose a federal law or amendment defining marriage either way and that includes DOMA which should be done away with).

You don't have to respect America as a Christian nation any more than you have to respect that America is located in North America.

See heres the problem with your argument. You say that since the gov't doesnt own the oil companies, it cant tell it to do certain things. This is inherently wrong, the job of government is to maximize the public interest, and if that means requiring certain safety standards (among other things) from airlines, beef processing plants, etc etc etc, then the gov't has the power to do so.

You seem to have wandered into a bit of a circular argument. You say that republicans dont want to tell corporations what to do, however they are the ones who insisted that america should be energy independent by producing more oil locally in the first place. The only way the keystone pipeline would affect our independence is if we keep the oil here, ergo, the republicans should logically be in favor of telling the corporation to do this. Do you see the hypocrisy here?

Personally, Im actually in favor of the pipeline. Its a nearby resource that Canada is going to mine anyway, so might as well take the temporary jobs it will provide. It will wreck havoc on the environment no doubt, something republicans seem to be too shortsighted to care about, but its going to happen regardless so might as well get in on the action.

As for America being a christian nation, I totally and utterly reject that. The amendment, first one, says that congress shall pass no law respecting any religion. therefore America is not a religious nation. You can say that christianity has had the biggest influence on america and you wouldnt be wrong, but this is another comment entirely.

SurfinTaxt:
See heres the problem with your argument. You say that since the gov't doesnt own the oil companies, it cant tell it to do certain things. This is inherently wrong, the job of government is to maximize the public interest, and if that means requiring certain safety standards (among other things) from airlines, beef processing plants, etc etc etc, then the gov't has the power to do so.

You seem to have wandered into a bit of a circular argument. You say that republicans dont want to tell corporations what to do, however they are the ones who insisted that america should be energy independent by producing more oil locally in the first place. The only way the keystone pipeline would affect our independence is if we keep the oil here, ergo, the republicans should logically be in favor of telling the corporation to do this. Do you see the hypocrisy here?

Personally, Im actually in favor of the pipeline. Its a nearby resource that Canada is going to mine anyway, so might as well take the temporary jobs it will provide. It will wreck havoc on the environment no doubt, something republicans seem to be too shortsighted to care about, but its going to happen regardless so might as well get in on the action.

As for America being a christian nation, I totally and utterly reject that. The amendment, first one, says that congress shall pass no law respecting any religion. therefore America is not a religious nation. You can say that christianity has had the biggest influence on america and you wouldnt be wrong, but this is another comment entirely.

The government can make sure that companies follow certain regulations and such sure. The amendment in questions though essentially demands that the company that would BUILD AND OPERATE the pipeline guarantee that all the oil in in have certain strings attached to it. The Government can't essentially tell a private company what it must do with its product.

No hypocrisy, Conservatives oppose the government telling companies what to do with their products so Republicans (who are much more representative of Conservatives than Democrats are which is rather sad) are going to oppose the government telling companies what to do with their products. Why hypocrisy is there in that?

The pipeline would not wreck havoc with the environment. I remember a while back on this forum we had a big discussion about that and found that even in a worst case disaster the risk to the environment was low to moderate AT WORST. Besides there are already oil pipelines operating right now in the same area that Keystone XL would go through and that isnt devastating the environment.

Oh no America is and should be a nation with a secular government. A theocracy is just a bad idea all around. We don't need politics corrupting religion (we have the Catholic Church for that zing). America is however a defacto Christian nation based on culture and demographics. Legally its not and shouldn't be and all faiths should be respected. However as I said, you don't have to respect that America is a Christian nation anymore than you have to respect that America is in North America...doesnt change the fact of the matter. No Christianity probably doesnt have the biggest influence on America but it certainly has more influence here than in Europe.

On a related note, I have no problem if a politician lets their faith inform their views but they should not base their policy entirely on religious views and ignore everything else.

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

Use a better source Seekster. That one is woefully outdated.

Small example (I'll explain all the technical words in parentheses for you)

2011- Their estimate at current dollars (accounting for inflation) has receipts (Amount taken in by all taxes) totaling $2.137Tr with outlays(total spending at federal level) of $3.818Tn
The actual numbers for FY 2011 were receipts of $2.303Tn with outlays of $3.603Tn

Its a little less than 1 year old. Thats not woefully outdated.

If you have a problem with my source find a better one.

In the financial world it definitely is woefully outdated.
here

There's the up to date one. Take the estimates with grains of salt though as those are also going to be wrong with higher than expected growth in the last quarter of the last calender year pushing up receipts from their estimated levels (Q1FY2012) and also currently assume that the Bush cuts end this year.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Use a better source Seekster. That one is woefully outdated.

Small example (I'll explain all the technical words in parentheses for you)

2011- Their estimate at current dollars (accounting for inflation) has receipts (Amount taken in by all taxes) totaling $2.137Tr with outlays(total spending at federal level) of $3.818Tn
The actual numbers for FY 2011 were receipts of $2.303Tn with outlays of $3.603Tn

Its a little less than 1 year old. Thats not woefully outdated.

If you have a problem with my source find a better one.

In the financial world it definitely is woefully outdated.
here

There's the up to date one. Take the estimates with grains of salt though as those are also going to be wrong with higher than expected growth in the last quarter of the last calender year pushing up receipts from their estimated levels (Q1FY2012) and also currently assume that the Bush cuts end this year.

Ill check it out when I get home. Im at work right now and my company's security system freaks out when I try and download a file from a non-trusted site (which includes the Escapist).

I did however notice that this estimate comes from the White House which raises my suspicions that its not exactly the most impartial estimate but Ill look at it when I can anyway.

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

Its a little less than 1 year old. Thats not woefully outdated.

If you have a problem with my source find a better one.

In the financial world it definitely is woefully outdated.
here

There's the up to date one. Take the estimates with grains of salt though as those are also going to be wrong with higher than expected growth in the last quarter of the last calender year pushing up receipts from their estimated levels (Q1FY2012) and also currently assume that the Bush cuts end this year.

Ill check it out when I get home. Im at work right now and my company's security system freaks out when I try and download a file from a non-trusted site (which includes the Escapist).

I did however notice that this estimate comes from the White House which raises my suspicions that its not exactly the most impartial estimate but Ill look at it when I can anyway.

It's actually the same source your website used (check their sources at the bottom of their image) just actually up to date so as to not obfuscate the numbers. Don't play the I don't trust it because it's from the govt card though, that's just disingenuous and silly on the powder level, these numbers are the ones financial houses use (just a lot more in depth, this is just totals for public consumption) so they are good.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

In the financial world it definitely is woefully outdated.
here

There's the up to date one. Take the estimates with grains of salt though as those are also going to be wrong with higher than expected growth in the last quarter of the last calender year pushing up receipts from their estimated levels (Q1FY2012) and also currently assume that the Bush cuts end this year.

Ill check it out when I get home. Im at work right now and my company's security system freaks out when I try and download a file from a non-trusted site (which includes the Escapist).

I did however notice that this estimate comes from the White House which raises my suspicions that its not exactly the most impartial estimate but Ill look at it when I can anyway.

It's actually the same source your website used (check their sources at the bottom of their image) just actually up to date so as to not obfuscate the numbers. Don't play the I don't trust it because it's from the govt card though, that's just disingenuous and silly on the powder level, these numbers are the ones financial houses use (just a lot more in depth, this is just totals for public consumption) so they are good.

I said I was suspicious of it, didnt say I didnt trust it off hand. There is nothing wrong with being cautious about information is there?

I am still at work so havnt looked at the numbers myself but if they are essentially the same source just with more recent numbers what do you take issue with? Is it just you want more accurate numbers used in the calculations? Sure thats good then but I don't see a somewhat different result (assuming the numbers in what you posted are not drastically different) to change the discussion much.

Seekster:
I tend to be a cynic too but there are many kinds of cynics so yeah. Im cynical towards government but on a personal level if someone says something and I have no clear reason to doubt them I will take them at their word and continue to do so until they give me a reason not to.

REALLY?

God wants you to send me all your money.

Seekster:

No Christianity probably doesnt have the biggest influence on America but it certainly has more influence here than in Europe.

On a related note, I have no problem if a politician lets their faith inform their views but they should not base their policy entirely on religious views and ignore everything else.

Dood, are you KIDDING me? This country STILL has serious debates every so often about whether teaching evolutionary biology should be banned because it makes the Book of Genesis look like a Brone-Age myth instead of a science textbook. Right on this forum, we've got a massive thread about how women need to have their uteruses nationalized because Jesus.

Christianity has a MASSIVE influence of government in this country, running neck-and-neck with Mammonism.

SurfinTaxt:

Lets talk about the idea that the GOP is in favor of small government. Its just absurd to suggest this, republicans on the whole want to 1)Control who you can marry, 2)Control which substances you put into your body, and 3)Force you to respect America as a Christian Nation.
The only time they hate big gov't is when we actually try to enforce some social responsibility upon their benefactors.

Don't forget all of their massive police-state paranoia ever since 9/11.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Bymidew:
snip

People that legitimately think the middle class is waging class warfare on the elites astound me. I just dont get it: theres this huge chunk of the population that bins the obvious truth in favor of the preprocessed pink chicken nugget slime of a platform that the establishment offers. Calling these people stupid isn't nice, but neither is calling John Candy's ass fat.

The whole class warfare thing is a ploy. Come to think of it, the class warfare thing is sort of like what Argentina does with the UK and Iran does with Israel and America; create an enemy for the people focus on so that they overlook problems at home. Blame the rich for everything because they have more money than you do, how dare they!

No, it is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of that.

It is pretty barkingly obvious to everyone except Free-Market Fundamentalists like you that a lot of the REAL problems this country has right now are due to the fact that we've had a generation of our economy being hollowed out to enrich a tiny, mostly non-productive aristocracy.

Now, Iraq, THAT was a fine example of your 'ploy'. Probably Iran next, because North Korea's too crazy to mess with.

Stagnant:
Yes, dismantling a company you just bought for scraps, then declaring it bankrupt can, in the short term, be a good business decision. It still turns you into "the guy we want to see lynched in the streets ASAP" for all the guys who used to work in that company, and it should not reflect positively on you as a person. Just because it's legal and profitable doesn't make it ethical.

I never said it was moral or ethical either. However, it is not anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be and Bain Capital is one of the better venture companies. The only reason people are up in arms over it is because the "Corperations/Rich people are evil" bandwagon is alarmingly big right now (which is sad considering most corperations are actually pretty good.)

Pretty sure he also wanted to get rid of Obamacare. Plus, republican "reform" of Greatest Generation projects tend to be "Get rid of it". I may be wrong on his positions here, but it's certainly the position of the party as a whole.

He wants to get rid of Obamacare? I dont exactly see the problem there. There are some good parts (pre-existing conditions gone, children can stay on parents plan) but over all it is too costly and too over-bearing, and here is hoping the SCOTUS rules it unconstitional. As for Mitts, and I guess the republicans, place on it is that the social safety net needs reform, but not to get rid of it (outside of libertaians). Now, dont pay attention to the contreversy of what he says, just pay attention to what he says around the 6 second mark:

"...We have a safety net there, if it needs repair I'll fix it..."

In no way is a high marginal tax rate "taxing the rich to death". And we don't want to do it because they have more money than us, we want to do it because we really fucking need the cash.

Again, the whole problem can be solved by just closing the loopholes. The Rich SHOULD be paying around 33% in taxes right now (Bush tax cuts including). Now, I am in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone (because as you said, we NEED the money), which would bring it 39%. But from what it sounds like, Obama and the Left want it to go even higher, which is what we DONT need. There is a reason more corperations headquarters are here rather than Europe. We charge a lower tax, meaning they can charge a lower price (at least, thats how it should work).

However, there's no denying that something is wrong. Income inequality is ridiculously high in America; higher than most other civilized countries.

It has also been higher. The latest numbers I have seen say that income disparity, the difference between the highest and lowest paid worker, is around 190%. In the Gilded age and the 1920's, it was around 350%. Personally, I believe we should strive for between 100% and 130%.

The more people look at the situation, the more it seems like the banks, big businesses, and others have basically figured out a way to game the system to their advantage. They see entire branches of banks in place, made to screw over the poor. They see how almost nobody is hiring unskilled labor, and even less are promoting people. They see how 1% of the people have 40% of the income, and 50% of the people have about 2%. You see, an interesting thing about warfare is that it's not called warfare if it's over. It looks a lot like it is happening right now.

Your average citizen also doesnt understand basic economics. While yes, I may not be an expert, this is why I decieded to take economics and 3 different business classes...so I could cut through what was going on and be better informed. And while yes, there is somewhat of a problem, it is not the fault of ALL the rich people and ALL of the corperations, like some people like to make it out to be. It is a very small percentage giving the majority a bad name. Also, to me the whole "1%,99%" thing is very misleading. No matter what happens, there will always be the top 1%, there will be a bottome 10% (which, if/when taxes are raised, that is the ONLY group that shouldnt be raised). It is just hiding the fact that no matter what you do, someone will always be rich, someone will always be poor, and not system (outside of utopian communism) can change that.

BOOM headshot65:

"...We have a safety net there, if it needs repair I'll fix it..."

"What, ONLY 3% of the population are starving in the streets? Eh, they just need to get JOBS. Now, about these new tax cuts..."

BOOM headshot65:

Your average citizen also doesnt understand basic economics. While yes, I may not be an expert, this is why I decieded to take economics and 3 different business classes...so I could cut through what was going on and be better informed. And while yes, there is somewhat of a problem, it is not the fault of ALL the rich people and ALL of the corperations, like some people like to make it out to be. It is a very small percentage giving the majority a bad name. Also, to me the whole "1%,99%" thing is very misleading. No matter what happens, there will always be the top 1%, there will be a bottome 10% (which, if/when taxes are raised, that is the ONLY group that shouldnt be raised). It is just hiding the fact that no matter what you do, someone will always be rich, someone will always be poor, and not system (outside of utopian communism) can change that.

At any point in your classes, did you hear the term "Gini coefficient"?

Bymidew:
At any point in your classes, did you hear the term "Gini coefficient"?

No, we havent. But looking at that *looks at page*....HAHAAHA, 43%! We are only at 43% income disparity! Disregarded, meaningless. I will be worried if we hit 55%, but we are a long ways off from that.

Bymidew:

"What, ONLY 3% of the population are starving in the streets? Eh, they just need to get JOBS. Now, about these new tax cuts..."

I get it, You dont like the man because 1)He has over $500 million and 2) He is a "Republican", which must be the worst thing on Earth to you.

You know what. Seeks right, you really arent worth the debate.

EDIT: I saw this in another thread:

"If I was xpowderx, he'd mention the Illuminati a lot more in his rants."

Oh please God, tell me that you are not saying you believe the Illuminati conspiracy, because if you do, it will make alot of sense of your corperate bashing, but it would prove you have no legs to stand on in my eyes.

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

"What, ONLY 3% of the population are starving in the streets? Eh, they just need to get JOBS. Now, about these new tax cuts..."

I get it, You dont like the man because 1)He has over $500 million and 2) He is a "Republican", which must be the worst thing on Earth to you.

Don't be silly. If he was a NAZI, he'd be the worst thing on Earth. But the Republican Party has upheld a wide variety of staunch opinions on various matters, most of which strike me as running along a spectrum from self-evident, through delusional, all the way to morally abhorrent, and they flaunt these opinions with all the pride of a toddler who just took a dump on the living-room rug.

And I'll just point out that while it might be possible to make that kind of phat lewt without eating at least one baby, I've never heard of it being done.

BOOM headshot65:

Oh please God, tell me that you are not saying you believe the Illuminati conspiracy, because if you do, it will make alot of sense of your corperate bashing, but it would prove you have no legs to stand on in my eyes.

Don't be silly. If there's no Illuminati, why is their All-Seeing Eye on the back of each of the little green gods in your wallet?

Just look at the similarity between the structure of a corporation and the long-gone feudal societies that They obviously long to re-establish. WAKE UP, SLEEPLE!

I'd say that the Bush years kind of ruined conspiracy theories for me. That was when it became completely obvious that yes, our country is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a small oligarchy of old rich ugly white men... but proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're GODDAMNED MORONS.

Bymidew:
Don't be silly. If he was a NAZI, he'd be the worst thing on Earth. But the Republican Party has upheld a wide variety of staunch opinions on various matters, most of which strike me as running along a spectrum from self-evident, through delusional, all the way to morally abhorrent, and they flaunt these opinions with all the pride of a toddler who just took a dump on the living-room rug.

And I'll just point out that while it might be possible to make that kind of phat lewt without eating at least one baby, I've never heard of it being done.

You know, I am not really a supporter of the Republicans either. Yes, I am in the a member of the Republican Party of Kansas so I can vote in the primaries, but I am a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I dont like EITHER party, and if it wasnt for the fact that Kansas Has closed primaries, I would be an independant. But given the choice between the two (democrats/republicans) I am more in line with Republicans. Most of what I have seen from them is stuff that I dont see as a problem. Really, the only thing I REALLY have problems with from them is thier opposition to same-sex marriage and tax cuts. But thats alot less than with the Democrats.

I'd say that the Bush years kind of ruined conspiracy theories for me. That was when it became completely obvious that yes, our country is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a small oligarchy of old rich ugly white men... but proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're GODDAMNED MORONS.

*sigh* I am not going to say anything. I could rant about how Bush wasnt exactly the second coming of Reagen republicans wanted him to be, but he certainly isnt the monster people make him out to be now. I could rant about how we can mock his actions in hindsight, but that we cant change what happened and they seemed like good ideas at the time. And I could rant about how Bushes supposed "helping corpetations only" is only partisan talk and that he doesnt hold a candle to the presidents who created Robber Barons (Harding and Hoover)...but I wont. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the people who dislike Bush will always dislike him and wont hear anything to the contrary.

BOOM headshot65:

*sigh* I am not going to say anything. I could rant about how Bush wasnt exactly the second coming of Reagen republicans wanted him to be, but he certainly isnt the monster people make him out to be now.

Bush: All the stupidity of Reagan, twice the conservativism! (Reagan actually JAILED people for waterboarding, and raised taxes several times. It says a LOT about BushCo that they managed to make Reagan look like a flaming liberal by comparison.)

Romney one Washington, Paul got second place.

By the way Boom the ignore feature on the forums has its uses for people who just dont have anything to post worth reading.

Seekster:
Romney one Washington, Paul got second place.

I am not really suprised Romney took Washington. However, it suprises me that Paul got SECOND there. Thats....thats actually pretty remarkable, all things considered.

By the way Boom the ignore feature on the forums has its uses for people who just dont have anything to post worth reading.

Noted and acted upon.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:
Romney one Washington, Paul got second place.

I am not really suprised Romney took Washington. However, it suprises me that Paul got SECOND there. Thats....thats actually pretty remarkable, all things considered.

By the way Boom the ignore feature on the forums has its uses for people who just dont have anything to post worth reading.

Noted and acted upon.

Not really, Washington State has always been a little weird...sorry, progressive. Paul was actually expected to do well in Washington, heck at one point there was talk he might actually win the state.

If Romney has a good night on Super Tuesday...nah I wont say it.

Seekster:

Not really, Washington State has always been a little weird...sorry, progressive. Paul was actually expected to do well in Washington, heck at one point there was talk he might actually win the state.

Well, if that is the case, I think that should be a sign of how good romney is in drawing people from various walks of life to support him, which is something that could come in handy in November.

BOOM headshot65:

By the way Boom the ignore feature on the forums has its uses for people who just dont have anything to post worth reading.

Noted and acted upon.

Good idea. The last thing you want is memetic contamination from outside The Bubble.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:

Not really, Washington State has always been a little weird...sorry, progressive. Paul was actually expected to do well in Washington, heck at one point there was talk he might actually win the state.

Well, if that is the case, I think that should be a sign of how good romney is in drawing people from various walks of life to support him, which is something that could come in handy in November.

Oh sure, look at the map. Santorum's base is in the Midwest and he will probably do well in some of the southern states too with Gingrich out of the way (for all intents and purposes). The only state outside the Midewest that Santorum has won is Colorado and that was when he was at his peak. Romney has won states all over the place, Washington, Florida, New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, and yes Michigan. Its clear which candidate of the two has the broadest appeal.

Seekster:

Oh sure, look at the map. Santorum's base is in the Midwest and he will probably do well in some of the southern states too with Gingrich out of the way (for all intents and purposes). The only state outside the Midewest that Santorum has won is Colorado and that was when he was at his peak. Romney has won states all over the place, Washington, Florida, New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, and yes Michigan. Its clear which candidate of the two has the broadest appeal.

Oh, trust me, I can see that going to the nearby town. There are signs for Santorum all over the place (which is slightly more frightning to me because it is a left-leaning town due to the university there), and I have only seen about 1 or 2 bumper stickers for Romney, and they were from other counties (off topic: I still like that one Huntsman had for a while when he was running: "Sane people for Huntsman" XD)

Seekster:
Romney one Washington, Paul got second place.

Top post has been edited to reflect. Waiting for 100% before listing vote totals.

BOOM headshot65:
We charge a lower tax, meaning they can charge a lower price (at least, thats how it should work).

This sums up Republicans pretty well. You have zero fucking idea what you are talking about in terms of what happens globally.

The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world at 35% + local taxes. It is lower for lesser earnings, but for major corporations it is much higher in the US than in major Euro countries.

Netherlands, Denmark and the UK are at 25%, France and Germany are the highest at 33%.

In the US it is 35% + local taxes, which in most states puts the tax rate well over 40%. Only a handful of states have no tax, on average you are looking at around an extra 8%.

pyrate:

This sums up Republicans pretty well. You have zero fucking idea what you are talking about in terms of what happens globally.

The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world at 35% + local taxes.

Too bad a lot of companies find ways not to pay ANY of it.

I'm glad Washington went to Romney. If Santorum had won, the gay marriage referendum would have passed, and my parents would have to cancel their wedding.

FOR THE THIRD TIME BECAUSE OF STUPID BIGOTS.

Ok going to treat this like March Madness, here are my Super Tuesday picks in no particular order with whether I am sure or unsure of the pick:

Alaska - Paul (sure, he is the only candidate to even campaign in Alaska I think)

Georgia - Gingrich (sure, polls show him with a clear lead and Gingrich has campaigned feverishly to keep his home state in his camp though at times this had been a challenge)

Ohio - Romney (unsure, Santorum is slipping and Romney is gaining in the state little by little, for all intents and purposes though Ohio may be a tie in terms of delegates).

Tennessee - Romney (unsure, same deal with Ohio really though Santorum may actually pull away with a win though either way the delegates will be split).

Virginia - Romney (sure, only Romney and Paul are on the ballot since Gingrich and Santorum didnt make a deadline or something and Paul sure as heck isnt going to best Romney in Virginia).

North Dakota - Romney (unsure, havnt actually seen any polls here and honestly the only person who I can say for sure wont win North Dakota is Gingrich. This one is almost a guess on my part really).

Idaho - Romney (unsure, but it has a high Mormon population and Romney has done well out west recently, winning both Wyoming and Washington).

Massachusetts - Romney (sure, this is Romney's REAL home state and he will win it handily).

Vermont - Romney (sure, I can't imagine anyone besides Romney winning in Vermont, it wont be as big a win as Massachusetts but he will win by a decent margin at least).

Oklahoma - Santorum (unsure, I havnt seen many polls out of Oklahoma and its a pretty Conservative state. Honestly I am picking Santorum here almost on a limb).

So what are your picks?

Honestly, I have a feeling that after tomorrow, the primaries are basically gonna be over. Most of the states contested tomorrow could easily go to Romney and after that there isn't much else. I'd say that soon enough it might as well be a Romney vs Obama race. Gonna be an interesting fall...

Seekster:
[snip]

I'm going to just steal your format and replace the words with my own.

Alaska - Romney with a close win over Paul. Practically a repeat of Maine. Expect the final returns sometime on Saturday.

Georgia - Santorum with a close win over Gingrich. To quote at least one analyst, for every vote Gingrich gains in Georgia he looses 1.5. More interesting will be how Romney plays in the south. If he can't have decent support in those contests, he may struggle in the general election to even win some of those.

Ohio - Santorum by a close race. Michigan and Ohio have a lot in common and Romney barely won the state he grew up at despite factors in his favor including a popular governor for a father. He has no such advantages in Ohio.

Tennessee - Santorum. Practically the mid-point between Ohio and the rest of the south. I can't see Romney or Gingrich getting nearly as much support here than Santorum.

Virginia - Romney. Practically no contest here due to only Romney and Paul getting on the ballot. Expect a very low turnout.

North Dakota - Romney with a significant showing by Santorum. He's likely learned from Colorado to make sure he competes in the west states and not take them for granted.

Idaho - Romney. Large Mormon population and a general unease to the fire-breathing social issues that Santorum has made a name for himself with likely places this safely within Romney's camp.

Massachusetts - Romney. Ex-governor, 'nuff said. Probably won't win it in November, but the GOP race should be a piece of cake here.

Vermont - Romney. Culturally similar to Massachusetts and has a much more moderate GOP.

Oklahoma - Santorum. Not entirely familiar with the state minus the incident in the 1990s. But, given its geographic position and the states around it, Santorum's a likely win there. Expect this to be another bellwether for Romney's support in the south.

Winner of the night: Barack Obama. Analysis of the primaries tomorrow show that, partially due to the proportional delegate distribution system, no one will win with a substantial lead in delegates and the race will drag on easily into April where big states with winner-take-all rules could result in an effective tie between Romney and Santorum, especially if Gingrich drops and backs Santorum with the few delegates he's racked up. All this on top of rumors that some GOP establishment members are suggesting letting this election go the way of Goldwater and letting the crazies get crushed in November to save the party rather than letting them do another purge if Romney loses and creating a permanent minority party.

Things are looking good if you're sitting in the Oval Office.

And now, the news:

Voters Slowly Realizing Santorum Believes Every Deranged Word That Comes Out Of His Mouth

The Onion, telling it like it is:
"I get that Romney's just mouthing words he doesn't mean and Gingrich is a really astounding hypocrite," said Seattle voter Kara Gallardo, a lifelong Republican who nevertheless admitted she felt a creeping sense of dread as she began to grasp that the words uttered by Santorum could not be more heartfelt. "But when Santorum says that contraception is dangerous because sex is supposed to be procreative, he is not messing around. If he becomes president, you know he sincerely plans to do something about it."

"I mean, with the other guys, you can dig into their past and find at least some shred of rational thinking, even if they're cynically downplaying it now," Gallardo continued. "But I get the sense Santorum is speaking nothing but his completely unfiltered thoughts. I know it's weird to say this about a politician, but I sort of wish he were lying to my face at least a little."

Romneymania Sweeps America

I gotta say, the most fun thing about this Republican primary season thus far is how utterly awful every single one of their candidates is. Obama's going to win in a walk.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
[snip]

I'm going to just steal your format and replace the words with my own.

Alaska - Romney with a close win over Paul. Practically a repeat of Maine. Expect the final returns sometime on Saturday.

Georgia - Santorum with a close win over Gingrich. To quote at least one analyst, for every vote Gingrich gains in Georgia he looses 1.5. More interesting will be how Romney plays in the south. If he can't have decent support in those contests, he may struggle in the general election to even win some of those.

Ohio - Santorum by a close race. Michigan and Ohio have a lot in common and Romney barely won the state he grew up at despite factors in his favor including a popular governor for a father. He has no such advantages in Ohio.

Tennessee - Santorum. Practically the mid-point between Ohio and the rest of the south. I can't see Romney or Gingrich getting nearly as much support here than Santorum.

Virginia - Romney. Practically no contest here due to only Romney and Paul getting on the ballot. Expect a very low turnout.

North Dakota - Romney with a significant showing by Santorum. He's likely learned from Colorado to make sure he competes in the west states and not take them for granted.

Idaho - Romney. Large Mormon population and a general unease to the fire-breathing social issues that Santorum has made a name for himself with likely places this safely within Romney's camp.

Massachusetts - Romney. Ex-governor, 'nuff said. Probably won't win it in November, but the GOP race should be a piece of cake here.

Vermont - Romney. Culturally similar to Massachusetts and has a much more moderate GOP.

Oklahoma - Santorum. Not entirely familiar with the state minus the incident in the 1990s. But, given its geographic position and the states around it, Santorum's a likely win there. Expect this to be another bellwether for Romney's support in the south.

Winner of the night: Barack Obama. Analysis of the primaries tomorrow show that, partially due to the proportional delegate distribution system, no one will win with a substantial lead in delegates and the race will drag on easily into April where big states with winner-take-all rules could result in an effective tie between Romney and Santorum, especially if Gingrich drops and backs Santorum with the few delegates he's racked up. All this on top of rumors that some GOP establishment members are suggesting letting this election go the way of Goldwater and letting the crazies get crushed in November to save the party rather than letting them do another purge if Romney loses and creating a permanent minority party.

Things are looking good if you're sitting in the Oval Office.

Really you are giving Georgia to Santorum? Check RCP, there are multiple polls in the past couple of days showing Gingrich with a double digit lead and I think Romney was actually second.

Romney most definitely wont win Massachusetts in November. Of all the New England states its probably the most blue.

Given that Obama is running unopposed, yes I imagine he will win more delegates than anyone else tomorrow. If the general election were held tomorrow Obama would win big, trouble is its not tomorrow.

Seekster:

Really you are giving Georgia to Santorum? Check RCP, there are multiple polls in the past couple of days showing Gingrich with a double digit lead and I think Romney was actually second.

Yeah, that's my bad. I opted to go with the gut rather than taking the five minutes to look up the relevant polls. I really shouldn't do predicting rushed.

Seekster:
Romney most definitely wont win Massachusetts in November. Of all the New England states its probably the most blue.

In the two 49-1 races that the GOP won, Massachusetts was the one holdout. The day it goes Republican will be the day the GOP turns communist.

Seekster:
Given that Obama is running unopposed, yes I imagine he will win more delegates than anyone else tomorrow. If the general election were held tomorrow Obama would win big, trouble is its not tomorrow.

I was referring to the fact that the contest will almost assuredly go into April and possibly May, and that every primary contest that passes moves you closer to a brokered convention. It's likely that Romney would loose at the convention as the delegates for the other candidates (except the few Huntsman had) would coalesce around the "anybody-but-Romney" ticket during the first rounds of voting. Eventually, they would get an actual candidate (possibly one that hasn't declared yet even) and Romney would likely be the VP.

Well, I'll be watching the turnout tomorrow night.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked