Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[Chocoholic]

don't we all do this with our taxes? I'm not seeing why this is a problem. You admit it's legal. These loopholes have been around for decades. And yet, they are still there. Why? because there's no way of getting rid of them with the current system and attempting to tax corporations more is not the answer. They will just pass it on to the consumer in higher prices and fees.. But beyond that, why exactly is this specifically not good for the economy? i admit, i am not a business person but I do not understand how paying less in taxes has anything to do with the economy. It affects the government's bottom line but that is not the economy, unless you live in a nation in which the government controls the economy - something conservatives/libertarians are desperately trying to avoid...




not really. The dealings you are describing are such a small percentage of our economy. And besides, Why is it that people automatically focus on the amount of money that someone has made rather than looking at how he got there. I am not talking Romney specifically because he was already well off before he headed Bane Capital but in general, the vast amount people who make a lot of money do so by putting up a lot of risk to their name (as in thousands/millions of dollars). If they are brave/stupid enough to do it, then they should reap the benefit of it. And they should be held responsible for their actions when they failure (a major pet peeve of this current housing crisis).



First, Romney has stated several times that he will release his tax documents when the time comes that he needs to - once he is officially the Republican nominee. And frankly I don't blame him, especially when the media and the current president are waging a class warfare campaign. Why would he purposely choose to release records in this environment. That's political suicide - not because he is doing something illegal but because any negative publicity (and rest assured, the media will be all over it) will mean certain death for his presidential run, which is exactly why the dems wanted the records released earlier.

LOL... love the boogieman analogy and I have to admit, sometimes even I get that thought when listening to some on the conservative side. I can only answer for myself. If I want to live in a more socialistic society, I will emigrate north to Canada or east to Great Britian. I like and believe in our system. It is far from perfect and it over the years it has become a lot more "socialist" than I would like but I have hope that it will return closer to the middle again in the future. I simply do not believe in a "share the wealth" mentality. Not because I'm greedy (I am not) but because I know it doesn't work. When you don't have any stake in the claim (or no perceived stake), you don't put out your best effort.

And money manipulation occurs on both ends of the spectrum and I would suggest that what happens at the lower end is far worse for the economy than what happens at the top. People manipulating their governmental funds with their income, in attempts to still receive funding but work as well. This creates a population that remains on public assistance instead of slowly climbing out and up. While the *tax burden* from this may not be as much (money spent on assistance), the potential for increased earnings and taxes is lost. And the potential for these families saving and sizable amount of money for college and retirement is very low, creating a lifetime of governmental assistance. I work with people everyday in these predicaments. It's not easy. Many of these families really struggle with the fact of what they are doing (not illegal, but they are using the system in ways it was not intended). But their fear of failure holds them back...

Paying less in taxes is bad for the economy because it encourages business behaviors that are bad for the economy. The country is better off when people create something (widgets, tanks, books, etc.) that can be sold and hire people not when they make a small fortune off legalized gambling. Of course, we can change this. It's just silly to say that we can't. We could reduce the tax break for capital gains and place limits on banking practices. If we had better safeguards in place, we would never have endured the mortgage crisis which was a direct result of people packaging together bad mortgages and reselling them, sort of like a pyramid scheme, until finally the **** hit the fan. And it may only impact a small percentage of people's finances but these people have a disproportionate hold on the economy.

My father-in-law started with nothing, he and my mother-in-law put him through college and med school, and he now is a doctor/entrepreneur who is worth quite a bit of dough. But he did this by building hospitals where none existed, hiring doctors, and investing in small businesses, not by moving money around the country. That's what our country is built on and that's what we need to encourage.

 

[gymgal]

This is the way it was back then, and while you'll try to minimize it with torn emotions, there is no way it was minimized for any individual tied to a whipping post. Your argument is general and vague to allow exuses to our founders, and corporate america of colonial times.

I was not trying to minimize it at all. It is a huge spot on our history. I only pointed out that we were no worse than other countries of the time. (revolutionary). Our country took way too long to abolish slavery, thinking that it would cause major upheaval between the north and the south.

Call justice Roberts what you will. A conservative appointed him, he's ruled in harmony with the right on nearly every issue brought to his court, so I'll call him a conservative. Kinda a funny little semantics game, isn't it....

Even dems agree that GW Bush (and senior, for that matter) was *not* a conservative. While many republicans are also conservatives, that certainly is not an absolute. Chief Justice is a moderate Republican, and certainly not a conservative. Had he been a conservative, he would have ruled on the case brought in front of him, which was whether the federal government can FORCE individual mandates on its citizens. Of course, this is unconstitutional. Instead, Roberts chose another path - he called the health care program plan what it was - a tax. And since the Judicial branch has no jurisdiction over taxes, he could not call it unconstitutional. That is very different than saying "Roberts voted it to be constitutional". People may call this semantics because the reality is that it allows the dems to go forward with their plan. But it sets the stage for the Republicans to backlash, using the "increased taxes on the middle class", which this will affect the most. It's all a political game - on both sides of the aisle.

Don't get me wrong....I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the bulk of US citizens. I think we are a great nation, but need leaders who will pave their own roads, build their own bridges, and create their wealth by creating value instead of playing "operator" with everyone elses money.

I totally agree we need better leaders

You must consider job creation as the act of hiring lobbiests, lawyers, and ad agencies to help steer the ship of commerce in the "right" direction.

certainly not... But I also don't take select corporations and assume that all corps are like this. Yes, all corps are in business to make money. There's no denying that. And I don't see anything wrong with it. There are execs out there with questionable practices (if not bordering on illegal at times) and I do not support them. But the vast number of corporations out there (and certainly most small business companies) do care about and take care of their employees.

 

[gymgal]

Paying less in taxes is bad for the economy because it encourages business behaviors that are bad for the economy.

huh? this makes no sense. How does paying less in taxes encourage bad business behaviors? I own a (very) small business. I use every tax break I can. It has not affected the way I do business. And I don't see how this would be different on a larger scale.

The country is better off when people create something (widgets, tanks, books, etc.) that can be sold and hire people not when they make a small fortune off legalized gambling. Of course, we can change this. It's just silly to say that we can't. We could reduce the tax break for capital gains [/quotes]

here we go again.... first, I said that we couldn't change it with the current tax system. You state all we have to do is essentially raise taxes on the corps and the capital gains (individuals). This will not work.... The corporations will pass this on to the consumers and the individuals with large capital gains will switch their money to other investments - off shore, tax deferred, tax exempt.

Here's a question for all to ponder.... What if you have a couple who has worked all their lives. did really well for themselves. Saved 15 million dollars. Never put any of their money in investments - no capital gains or dividends. They retire. Should these people pay taxes on their money each year? Remember, they no longer have any income. They are just living off their savings. I would be shocked if anyone said that this couple should pay taxes on their money. And yet, dems have no problem saying that this same couple must pay taxes on this money if they decide to invest it. Now, I know... the money being taxes is on the profit from the investment. But why is that OK? What sort of country do we live in that we penalize saving for the future? And lets take this one step further. The couple die together and the government imposes a death tax. How is this remotely OK? Same with the gift tax. Obviously, it's legal because our leaders made it law. But what I mean is how could anyone think this "fair"? Answer? they don't. But they need more taxes to keep up with their programs and it's a convenient way to increase revenues. So, then special estate planning trust are set up to prevent this from happening. And the Dems say it's not fair... huh?

and place limits on banking practices. If we had better safeguards in place, we would never have endured the mortgage crisis which was a direct result of people packaging together bad mortgages and reselling them, sort of like a pyramid scheme, until finally the **** hit the fan. And it may only impact a small percentage of people's finances but these people have a disproportionate hold on the economy.

the vast majority of the housing crisis is the direct result of the banks (encouraged by Fanny and Freddy/government through incentives) providing loans in the first place to less qualified individuals. Sub-prime mortgages. People who should have never been considered for housing loans. Very deceptive practices regarding not explaining the terms of the loans was a part of it as well and while the banks must take ownership of that, the individuals are just as to blame. You do not sign something as large as a home mortgage without understanding the terms. And even more, you don't apply for a mortgage until you are financially ready. that's just personal responsibility again. The bundling of bad mortgages worsened the situation.

My father-in-law started with nothing, he and my mother-in-law put him through college and med school, and he now is a doctor/entrepreneur who is worth quite a bit of dough. But he did this by building hospitals where none existed, hiring doctors, and investing in small businesses, not by moving money around the country. That's what our country is built on and that's what we need to encourage.

Very true.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Gonna dredge this up again, since Romney has picked a VP who will obviously play to the conservative base.

To reiterate an earlier point which I'd like to expand on:

Corporations having more money DOES NOT cause them to hire more people. Rather, corporations having more money and corporations hiring more people are mutual effects of the same underlying cause: greater consumer demands for what the company offers. When the company is given more work to do, the company has to hire more help; conveniently, however, the increase in work also means more income for the company, allowing the company to afford the aforementioned help. Giving the company more money without any increase in work does not cause them to hire more, simply because they are given no reason to -- rather, more money without an accompanying increase in workload just leads to more of that money being horded away.

So what can simultaneously increase a company's workload and increase their income? More customers, of course! Or customers with more/higher demands who have the money at their disposal to pay for those higher demands.

Thus the best way to create more jobs is NOT to give more to the corporations directly, but to encourage the customer base (the 99%, if you will), to consume more of whatever service the company provides. Consumers will consume more when they are less worried about their own financial security.

For example, imagine a hypothetical healthcare program which made sure that affordable insurance was available to everybody, such that a medical emergency wouldn't bankrupt them....


Since we've been focusing primarily on the economy, let's look at some other issues. I think there is one glaringly obvious issue that should be addressed -- in fact, I think it's utterly shameful that it hasn't already been addressed in our country: marriage equality.

There simply does not exist any valid reason for a country founded partially on freedom of (and from) religion not to allow gay marriage. It is the biggest outstanding civil rights issue of our time, and the fact that there's even debate over this issue is something that we as a country should find embarrassing.

 

[gymgal]

Corporations having more money DOES NOT cause them to hire more people. Rather, corporations having more money and corporations hiring more people are mutual effects of the same underlying cause: greater consumer demands for what the company offers. .....

Giving the company more money without any increase in work does not cause them to hire more, simply because they are given no reason to -- rather, more money without an accompanying increase in workload just leads to more of that money being horded away.

Thus the best way to create more jobs is NOT to give more to the corporations directly, .....

Since we've been focusing primarily on the economy, let's look at some other issues. I think there is one glaringly obvious issue that should be addressed -- in fact, I think it's utterly shameful that it hasn't already been addressed in our country: marriage equality.

There simply does not exist any valid reason for a country founded partially on freedom of (and from) religion not to allow gay marriage. It is the biggest outstanding civil rights issue of our time, and the fact that there's even debate over this issue is something that we as a country should find embarrassing.

There is no doubt that in order for the economy to turn around, there needs to be more confidence in the consumer base. And hiring is connected to consumer spending, though not necessarily a direct correlation. Perfect example is in the healthcare field, where there is a huge need for increased providers but employers do not want to hire because they don't have confidence in this current administration. They are unsure of what Obamacare will bring with all its regulations and taxes, and are weary of how it will affect insurance companies and reimbursement. I am in this boat with my own business. And that's just one industry.

One point you mentioned twice though has me twinging. You mention "giving money back" to the corporations, as if the government is doing them a favor and giving money to them. Aside from the bail-outs, which I disagreed with, the government doesn't "give" money to corporations. The government only agrees to "take less money" through taxes. There is a big difference here and too many people see it as the same - as if the government and the American people are entitled to that money.

As for Gay marriage - I am totally Libertarian on this issue - the government shouldn't be involved in any type of marriage licensing. Why does a couple need a license from the government to be married anyway? Marriage traditionally was a religious covenant. In that, it would be between a man and a woman. That's where the proponents of the Marriage act are coming from. And if they are talking purely in the sense of their own religion, then I'm fine with that. But they do/should not have the right to place their beliefs on others and in terms of government involvement, gay couples should have the right to marry. The simple way to deal with this is to change "marriage licenses" to "civil union licenses" and leave the label "marriage" to religion. However, like i said - I think the government needs to get out of the business of marriage all together. People will say that it's needed to handle things like insurance, child custody, taxes, etc, but there are other ways to handle these.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

As for Gay marriage - I am totally Libertarian on this issue - the government shouldn't be involved in any type of marriage licensing. Why does a couple need a license from the government to be married anyway?

Agreed.

Marriage traditionally was a religious covenant. In that, it would be between a man and a woman.

Or between a man and multiple women. Or between a man and the father of a woman (this usually involved the exchange of livestock for a woman). Or.... heck, I could go on in this vein for quite a long time.

The concept of marriage being specifically between one man and one woman with both partners sharing equal rights in the union is pretty new, actually.

That's where the proponents of the Marriage act are coming from. And if they are talking purely in the sense of their own religion, then I'm fine with that. But they do/should not have the right to place their beliefs on others and in terms of government involvement, gay couples should have the right to marry. The simple way to deal with this is to change "marriage licenses" to "civil union licenses" and leave the label "marriage" to religion. However, like i said - I think the government needs to get out of the business of marriage all together. People will say that it's needed to handle things like insurance, child custody, taxes, etc, but there are other ways to handle these.

Agreed completely with all of this.

 

[BlairBob]

marriage equality

Taucer, you totally want to juggle Nitroglycerin dontcha?

I'm glad you rebumped this thread. So out of the loop on what's been going on politically. Need to get back into it.

 

[Muddlethru]

I started reading this thread. It is tough. I have very strong opinions but I've found in my old age, people have already formed opinions and beliefs and are extemely hard, if not impossible to sway. I do not have a thick skin, so I will not disclose my political beliefs. But I did come across this and wanted to post it just to maybe add fire, kill the fire or get opinions.

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!


If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.


If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.


If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.


If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.


If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.


If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.


If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.


If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

Holy straw-man argument, batman! I have no idea where you're getting this idea.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

You're..... joking, right?

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

I think I'm starting to get a rough idea of which side of the fence you sit on....

You know, just a sneaking suspicion.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

Republicans are every bit as guilty of attempting to silence their opponents as democrats are. However, I notice that there is one party who tends to label everybody who disagrees with them as "unamerican," while the other party tends to at least respect the legitimacy of their opponent's opinions.

I don't think I've ever heard a Democrat accuse a Republican of being "unamerican" for disagreeing with them.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

And if a Republican IS a believer, he insists that his specific brand of his specific religion be taught as fact in public schools and shoved down the throats of every single person in the country.

See? I can make stupidly-exaggerated claims about my opponents as well.

I mean, I suppose I could also give my opponents enough respect to engage them in actual rational debate as well, but.... nah, that would be too much work.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican sees somebody starving, he'll say "they probably deserved it for being so lazy," and then head off to church where he'll listen to a preacher tell him how to be more like jesus. And he won't even appreciate the irony.

Yes, straw-man generalizations as a substitute for actual intelligent debate are loads of fun!

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

Good to hear you've put so much thought into your arguments. Glad you actually came into this thread in order to engage in intelligent debate rather than just mindlessly copypasting a series of straw-man arguments from a facebook meme.

 

[wandrewsjr]

[/B]If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.


If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.


If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.


If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.


If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.


If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.


If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.


If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
[/QUOTE]

Hmm... I have to say I do not recognize this Republican party you describe. In your parts, which party do those who want to pass a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, prohibit homosexuals from adopting children and believe America is a Christian nation belong to? Cuz around here we call them Republicans.

 

[gymgal]

That's pretty funny, 4theloveofsports... totally wrong, but funny all the same. It's totally unfair and useless to make such broad generalizations about either political party....


Oh, and just food for thought.... How many of the people who are rallying for marriage equality are also in favor of plural marriage. We all have our limitations in what we find acceptable...Proponents of gay marriage are just further along in the subject than those apposed to it... And frankly, the majority of the country is currently opposed to it, as shown by voting results in most states. And before any one lashes out at the messenger, read my post above. I am NOT against gay marriage...

 

[Muddlethru]

To Geoffrey Taucer and Wandresjr, I did not come up with those words. I am also not personally making any point or making an argument. I am not describing anyone either. I found it humorous. But make no mistake that just because I found it humorous, does not make me a republican or a democrat.

Lastly, Mr. Taucer, you broke your own rules of this thread by attacking me and I do not appreciate that.

"Good to hear you've put so much thought into your arguments. Glad you actually came into this thread in order to engage in intelligent debate rather than just mindlessly copypasting a series of straw-man arguments from a facebook meme."

Please refer to your first post.

-Keep it civil and courteous. You may attack another poster's opinion, but you may not attack the person holding the opinion. If you cannot differentiate between these two things, please do not participate in this thread.

 

[ALgymMom]

I started reading this thread. It is tough. I have very strong opinions but I've found in my old age, people have already formed opinions and beliefs and are extemely hard, if not impossible to sway. I do not have a thick skin, so I will not disclose my political beliefs. But I did come across this and wanted to post it just to maybe add fire, kill the fire or get opinions.

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!


If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.


If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.


If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.


If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.


If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.


If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.


If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.


If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

I thoroughly enjoyed that! Lol I'll be sharing on Facebook

I saw this quote on Facebook this morning & liked it too:
"Successful and Unsuccessful people do not vary greatly in their abilities. They vary in their desires to reach their potential." John C Maxwell

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

To Geoffrey Taucer and Wandresjr, I did not come up with those words. I am also not personally making any point or making an argument. I am not describing anyone either. I found it humorous. But make no mistake that just because I found it humorous, does not make me a republican or a democrat.

Lastly, Mr. Taucer, you broke your own rules of this thread by attacking me and I do not appreciate that.

"Good to hear you've put so much thought into your arguments. Glad you actually came into this thread in order to engage in intelligent debate rather than just mindlessly copypasting a series of straw-man arguments from a facebook meme."

Please refer to your first post.

-Keep it civil and courteous. You may attack another poster's opinion, but you may not attack the person holding the opinion. If you cannot differentiate between these two things, please do not participate in this thread.

That was intended to be an attack on your post, not on you, but reading back I can see how it may have blurred the line between the two.

I apologize.

 

[wandrewsjr]

To Geoffrey Taucer and Wandresjr, I did not come up with those words. I am also not personally making any point or making an argument. I am not describing anyone either. I found it humorous. But make no mistake that just because I found it humorous, does not make me a republican or a democrat.

Lastly, Mr. Taucer, you broke your own rules of this thread by attacking me and I do not appreciate that.

"Good to hear you've put so much thought into your arguments. Glad you actually came into this thread in order to engage in intelligent debate rather than just mindlessly copypasting a series of straw-man arguments from a facebook meme."

Please refer to your first post.

-Keep it civil and courteous. You may attack another poster's opinion, but you may not attack the person holding the opinion. If you cannot differentiate between these two things, please do not participate in this thread.

No, I didn't think that you wrote it. I actually purposefully left your name out of my post,only quoting the poem itself, not your whole post. I only meant to respond not to you directly, but to the tone and content of the "conservative poem" (or whatever one would call it, I am sure it was obtained from a conservative website, if not by you whoever forwarded it to you)

But, as you stated, you posted this to - "maybe add fire, kill the fire or get opinions" - and that is what you will get.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Response to the "which side of the fence" test. Ok, couldn't resist(can't claim ownership, found it on some left-leaning, commy-loving, liberal website):

"Yes, yes, and we all enjoyed a good laugh. But what struck me in particular about this one was not the tired old Dem stereotypes -- we've seen those all before -- but the sheer number of falsehoods this writer concocted about Republicans.
Well, I won't stand for subjecting our friends on the Right to such blatant lies and distortions. In the interest of fairness and bipartisanship, let's set the record straight.
* * * * * * *If a Republican doesn't like guns, he is not a Republican. He is a wuss.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he will never tell anyone for fear of having his Republican friends laugh at him, especially if he doesn't like guns either.
If a Republican is homosexual, he will remain in the closet, and loudly and piously condemn all other homosexuals to make absolutely sure no one suspects.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he will lay off employees until his balance sheet temporarily improves. Then when his business fails, he will write the loss off on his taxes.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he sends the host vicious, obscenity-laden, misspelled, hate-ridden e-mail messages. Anonymously.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he goes to church anyway, because people will talk.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he gets an insurance plan that provides all the Cialis he wants for free, while uninsured people go bankrupt trying to pay for their heart medication.
If a Republican reads this, he will share it with his friends, who will all enjoy a good laugh. Then they will try to find out who I am and get me fired."


Yes, yes, full of distortions, exagerations and half truths, but felt this would add a little balance to "fence" post. Did you laugh?

 

[Muddlethru]

Response to the "which side of the fence" test. Ok, couldn't resist(can't claim ownership, found it on some left-leaning, commy-loving, liberal website):

"Yes, yes, and we all enjoyed a good laugh. But what struck me in particular about this one was not the tired old Dem stereotypes -- we've seen those all before -- but the sheer number of falsehoods this writer concocted about Republicans.
Well, I won't stand for subjecting our friends on the Right to such blatant lies and distortions. In the interest of fairness and bipartisanship, let's set the record straight.
* * * * * * *If a Republican doesn't like guns, he is not a Republican. He is a wuss.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he will never tell anyone for fear of having his Republican friends laugh at him, especially if he doesn't like guns either.
If a Republican is homosexual, he will remain in the closet, and loudly and piously condemn all other homosexuals to make absolutely sure no one suspects.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he will lay off employees until his balance sheet temporarily improves. Then when his business fails, he will write the loss off on his taxes.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he sends the host vicious, obscenity-laden, misspelled, hate-ridden e-mail messages. Anonymously.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he goes to church anyway, because people will talk.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he gets an insurance plan that provides all the Cialis he wants for free, while uninsured people go bankrupt trying to pay for their heart medication.
If a Republican reads this, he will share it with his friends, who will all enjoy a good laugh. Then they will try to find out who I am and get me fired."


Yes, yes, full of distortions, exagerations and half truths, but felt this would add a little balance to "fence" post. Did you laugh?

Yes, I did laugh. Clearly, both essays are overly simplistic, broad, exaggerated, etc. And this is precisely why I find it entertaining. Because sadly a great majority of Americans base their opinions, beliefs on purely simplistic notions. Very few do their reasearch. How many (democrats or republicans) who support or oppose the Obamacare even read one page of the 955 page bill? Does anyone know how this bill is going to be funded? What are the repercussions of the bill? All the majority knows and cares to know is that it should provide affordable health care for everyone. Many support and/or criticize Paul Ryan's. proposed health care plan. But nobody knows any details except that it should help balance the budget because thevrepublicans believe health care is a large driving force in the country's increasing deficit. Very few do their reasearch. Many listen to political speeches, grab what they think makes sense and runs with it. Again, another simplistic notion that many believe worked so flawlessly in the O.J. Simpson trial, "if the glove fits, you must acquit.". It did not matter that there was overwhelming DNA evidence. It was easier to understand this simple rhyme. I am not referring to anyone in this thread. But it is surprising to me to find out on what basis people form their opinions and how they vote. Just my own personal observation.

 

[gymgal]

Yes, I did laugh. Clearly, both essays are overly simplistic, broad, exaggerated, etc. And this is precisely why I find it entertaining. Because sadly a great majority of Americans base their opinions, beliefs on purely simplistic notions. Very few do their reasearch. How many (democrats or republicans) who support or oppose the Obamacare even read one page of the 955 page bill? Does anyone know how this bill is going to be funded? What are the repercussions of the bill? All the majority knows and cares to know is that it should provide affordable health care for everyone. Many support and/or criticize Paul Ryan's. proposed health care plan. But nobody knows any details except that it should help balance the budget because thevrepublicans believe health care is a large driving force in the country's increasing deficit. Very few do their reasearch. Many listen to political speeches, grab what they think makes sense and runs with it. Again, another simplistic notion that many believe worked so flawlessly in the O.J. Simpson trial, "if the glove fits, you must acquit.". It did not matter that there was overwhelming DNA evidence. It was easier to understand this simple rhyme. I am not referring to anyone in this thread. But it is surprising to me to find out on what basis people form their opinions and how they vote. Just my own personal observation.

So true... In fact the vast majority of the people in congress readily admit that they did not read the Obamacare bill before they passed it (or voted against it). It is very sad...

And wasn't the quote - "If the glove *doesn't* fit, you must acquit?" It was so long ago but i seem to remember that the prosecution was trying to prove the gloves were his and since he "couldn't" slip them on, then he must not have worn them. That trial was a joke on both sides and unfortunately justice was not served the day that verdict was handed in. But back on topic.

I personally believe that a political science class should be a requirement for all graduating seniors (or those taking the GED) and that you cannot register to vote without prove of passing the class. I would love the class taught by at least two teachers, or a variety of guest speakers on all sides of the political spectrum to ensure balanced viewpoints. We require basic math, reading, science, and health ed but having a clue about our nation's politics is just as important for future voters. Perhaps then we could start making more informed decisions...

 

[ALgymMom]

I watched the movie ~The Campaign~ Friday night. I loved how they made fun of both parties and the war against TV commercials. They really get ridiculous during elections. Imagine what they could do with the millions they raise just to run for president.

 

[gymgal]

I watched the movie ~The Campaign~ Friday night. I loved how they made fun of both parties and the war against TV commercials. They really get ridiculous during elections. Imagine what they could do with the millions they raise just to run for president.

The money spent on these elections is ridiculous. And the negative campaigning is irritating. Unfortunately, it won't any time soon because it has been proven to work.

And you're right, all that money could be spent funding so much more worthy causes. then again, we could say that about the movie industry.... But that's the beauty of the US - we can choose where we put our money - well, with the exception of taxes....


I had another thought unrelated to the above - and it pertains to the Olympics. The USA is only one of 3 countries whose government does not provide funding for its Olympic athletes to train. And yet, we came out far above the other powerhouses in terms of medals. That's the power of private industry - when a person (company) has a personal stake (risk) in the outcome, he/she is more likely to put forth a best effort. When people/corporations receive money from the government, they are more likely to spend it very differently than if they earned that money on their own.. For us parents, we only need to look as far as our own children. Look how differently they make choices when they have to pay for items vs when the parents foot the bill.