No Excuses Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 They haven't excluded minorities. Minorities have excluded the GOP. I just don't know what you expect the GOP to do. Not calling the Democratic supporters 'moochers' and 'takers' and freeloaders would be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The Democratic party has successfully implemented class warfare and racial division. Yeah. It's those awful Democrats who practice class warfare. And the GOP has done absolutely nothing to make poor people think that the GOP is out to get them. World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Should they have gone out to inner cities and handed out free Romney phones? Do yourself another favor. Stop repeating GOP and Fox News lies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Jesus. I have never been a democrat, by registration or self-label, but I am increasingly comfortable to be called one these last few years. There is (as I often note) a fair amount of what was once considered typical "conservative" ideology that I value, as well as some typically associated with "liberal" that I don't. But so many of the "right" demographic that I meet/read/hear/ seem to live in such a perceptually distorted world (before we even get to rigid biases on positions) that it's both fascinating and distressing. I mean the left has it's share of the delusional, and Chris Mathews is one of the fine figureheads for them, but it seems epidemic on the right. And it's also a bit like watching amateurs on the left, going against seasoned pros on the right. I blame the Great Satan, Jon Stewart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The GOP left sanity. /Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I just don't know what you expect the GOP to do. Should they have gone out to inner cities and handed out free Romney phones? Should the GOP remove our borders? C'mon, WP, I know you know better than that. I'm sure the minorities that live here don't want the country to end up like Greece. Actually, /I'm sure minorities don't want that. You sound a little wobbly on that point. The Democratic party has successfully implemented class warfare and racial division. You just wrote these things above and then claim the Democrats are the class warfare guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I'm sure the GOP would love to have minorities come to the party. They haven't excluded minorities. Minorities have excluded the GOP. I just don't know what you expect the GOP to do. Should they have gone out to inner cities and handed out free Romney phones? Should the GOP remove our borders? I'm sure the minorities that live here don't want the country to end up like Greece. The Democratic party has successfully implemented class warfare and racial division. Your post is just loaded with the kind of myopic thinking that currently burdens the GOP. "Free Obama Phones" (a program started by George Bush). "Remove our Borders." "Democrats use Class Warfare and racial division." I'm surprised you left out "welfare queens" and "real Americans" and "food stamp president" and "black panthers." All of these memes ring very strongly to the GOP base - the white male working class voter. And that is why the GOP will continue to blow the dogwhistles that appeal to those voters, even though the dogwhistles can be heard by minority voters just as easily, and piss them off so badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The Democratic party has successfully implemented class warfare and racial division. Yeah... Right. Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220 Here's a thought... Maybe... Just maybe... the reason the economy is so stagnant is because 99% of the population has less money to spend on goods and services... Because the rich already have it. So how in the name of whatever you call holy, are less taxes for the rich going to create new jobs? Think about it. If you handed Donald Trump an extra billion dollars and said "go build some businesses and create new jobs" what new business could he create that will make people with no money buy products or services? People... This isn't the Reagan era. THERE IS NO LACK OF MONEY FOR THE RICH TO CREATE NEW JOBS. What there is, is a lack of money the rest of us can spend to support new businesses and jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Personally I do not read "flatten the code" as "eliminate deductions". I read it as "reduce the progressiveness of the rates". Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. They do want to reduce the progressiveness of the rates. When google pays 3-4% effective rates but domestic manufacturers pay something like 30%, you have a huge tax code problem. I think Obama might even agree to some changes here, just not on the scale that R's want. That's fine because it's a start. I've heard once again real pessimism that Obama will budge on his own ideas much at all. This time it's second hand, but from one substantial leader in business and one nationally known analyst. Both are saying that it's more likely than not that we go over the fiscal cliff. Neither believe that either Rs or Ds in Congress would vote in big enough numbers for a grand bargain even if Obama wants them to. The theory is that both parties have agreed to so many poison pill pledges that they won't act until the crap is already being sprayed out of the fan. The two areas where they said we might have some chance are taxes and immigration. One note of interest to me was that one guy from business is predicting that 25% of businesses drop health insurance when the ACA is implement. Official administration estimate is 10%. Delays and problems might make both predictions moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Amazingly, Sean Hannity Can Evolve http://news.yahoo.com/amazingly-sean-hannity-evolve-055109928.html Evolution by external forces, this reads very much like he's saying, "Holy crap, the brown tidal wave is going to crush us so we'd better start being nicer to them!" Which is far less inspiring than those who said, "Hey, these are people too" from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brixtion_skin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The business he has will be exempt, or they can get a tax credit for offering insurance.http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=711&articleid=20120704_16_A1_Tevsao209702 "Individuals are not exempt. They will either have to find insurance or pay the fine (as he stated). Although small employers are exempt from the tax penalties for not providing health insurance, some of them are eligible for tax benefits if they do provide health insurance. Companies with up to 25 workers and average annual wages below $50,000 qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent if they give their workers qualified health insurance benefits. In 2014, the tax credit goes up to 50 percent. Small employers are exempt from the insurance mandate, but their employees are not. Starting in 2014, Americans will have to report on their tax returns if they have qualified health insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund. If they don't, they have to pay $95 or 1 percent of their taxable income, whichever is higher. In 2015, the tax rises to $325 or 2 percent of taxable income. In 2016, the tax rises again, to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income. The maximum penalty is $2,085 per family, and there are several exceptions to the tax." This makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Please elaborate. I am really wondering how you think the Dem's have done this. Just out of curiosity, has it occurred to you that what you consider class warfare and racial division by the democratic party is them actually being proactive in attempting to help these people that fall into lower economic classes and minorities that the R's have basically ignored? Rhetoric such as the war on women, old white man's party, "put y'all back in chains", rich vs poor rhetoric, "throw granny off the cliff".....the list goes on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/09/news/companies/coal-layoffs-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Coal company announces layoffs in response to Obama winA coal company headed by a prominent Mitt Romney donor has laid off more than 160 workers in response to President Obama's election victory. Murray Energy said Friday that it had been "forced" to make the layoffs in response to the bleak prospects for the coal industry during Obama's second term. In a prayer circulated by the company, CEO Robert Murray said Americans had voted "in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom." "The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals [sic] of our Founders," Murray said in the prayer, which was delivered in a meeting with staff members earlier this week. "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corporation for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build." O...k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Jesus. I have never been a democrat, by registration or self-label, but I am increasingly comfortable to be called one these last few years. There is (as I often note) a fair amount of what was once considered typical "conservative" ideology that I value, as well as some typically associated with "liberal" that I don't. But so many of the "right" demographic that I meet/read/hear/ seem to live in such a perceptually distorted world (before we even get to rigid biases on positions) that it's both fascinating and distressing. I mean the left has it's share of the delusional, and Chris Mathews is one of the fine figureheads for them, but it seems epidemic on the right. And it's also a bit like watching amateurs on the left, going against seasoned pros on the right. I blame the Great Satan, Jon Stewart. This relates well to what you are saying... though it comes from a pretty slanted source itself I think it was well written. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/how_fox_news_failed_the_republican_party_in_the_2012_election.html?wpisrc=most_viral ---------- Post added November-10th-2012 at 05:47 AM ---------- Rhetoric such as the war on women, old white man's party, "put y'all back in chains", rich vs poor rhetoric, "throw granny off the cliff".....the list goes on and on. Thing is, the Dems weren't the ones passing bills in state chambers all over the place trying to restrict women's rights the year before the election. The "war on women" was a self-inflicted wound. Now, many might agree with the proposals or laws,but that doesn't change the fact that many, many women obviously felt attacked by a real attempt to change their rights in numerous states. It wasn't just rhetoric they were responding to, but actual legal action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/09/news/companies/coal-layoffs-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_c1O...k. So, he's laying off his employees to make a point? Are you kidding me?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 So, he's laying off his employees to make a point? Are you kidding me?! Nothing people do anymore surprises me, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 This relates well to what you are saying... though it comes from a pretty slanted source itself I think it was well written.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/how_fox_news_failed_the_republican_party_in_the_2012_election.html?wpisrc=most_viral ---------- Post added November-10th-2012 at 05:47 AM ---------- Thing is, the Dems weren't the ones passing bills in state chambers all over the place trying to restrict women's rights the year before the election. The "war on women" was a self-inflicted wound. Now, many might agree with the proposals or laws,but that doesn't change the fact that many, many women obviously felt attacked by a real attempt to change their rights in numerous states. It wasn't just rhetoric they were responding to, but actual legal action. Can you please elaborate on what these restrictions against women's rights were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 New Mexico, Virginia, and multiple other states passed laws restricting a woman's right to choose. The ultrasound law was only one example. There were many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 New Mexico, Virginia, and multiple other states passed laws restricting a woman's right to choose. The ultrasound law was only one example. There were many. Well, that is where I disagree with you. Being pro-life and not wanting to kill babies is not waging war on women. Perhaps people need to take responsibility for their actions. If someone is unwed and knows they don't have the financial means to raise kids, they should take precautionary measures before having sex. Condoms are affordable. Walmart sells a month supply of birth control for $9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 I've been reflecting upon the election and the campaign which preceeded it and I'm really let down that both sides devoted so little time and focus upon our debt and entitlements. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Well, that is where I disagree with you. Being pro-life and not wanting to kill babies is not waging war on women. Perhaps people need to take responsibility for their actions. If someone is unwed and knows they don't have the financial means to raise kids, they should take precautionary measures before having sex. Condoms are affordable. Walmart sells a month supply of birth control for $9. Whether you agree with me or not... And actually, whether you are right or not is irrelevant. Women, by and large, perceived this as an attack. How they voted is the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Walmart sells a month supply of birth control for $9. How many states passed (Or at least "tried to pass". I remember reading about such laws. I don't remember if they passed, or just got proposed.) "religious freedom" laws, declaring that when anyone attempts to buy such birth control, every employee in the store has the right to veto that sale, and cannot be punished if they do? You remember which people it was who pitched a fit, about laws saying that health insurance has to cover birth control? You want to try to play the "I think it's just peachy to outlaw abortion, because they should use birth control", maybe the GOP should stop trying to restrict birth control, at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 How many states passed (Or at least "tried to pass". I remember reading about such laws. I don't remember if they passed, or just got proposed.) "religious freedom" laws, declaring that when anyone attempts to buy such birth control, every employee in the store has the right to veto that sale, and cannot be punished if they do? You remember which people it was who pitched a fit, about laws saying that health insurance has to cover birth control? You want to try to play the "I think it's just peachy to outlaw abortion, because they should use birth control", maybe the GOP should stop trying to restrict birth control, at the same time. I never heard about the veto story. If that's true, I don't agree with that at all. In regards to health insurance, health insurance should be viewed as a private product that has the choice to decide if it wants to cover specific things like birth control. Then the customer decides if they want to purchase that product or not. If not, they can shop around and find a product that does provide for things that are important to them. The government shouldn't be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 I never heard about the veto story. If that's true, I don't agree with that at all. In regards to health insurance, health insurance should be viewed as a private product that has the choice to decide if it wants to cover specific things like birth control. Then the customer decides if they want to purchase that product or not. If not, they can shop around and find a product that does provide for things that are important to them. The government shouldn't be involved. Ah, got it. The Republican Party didn't object to mandating coverage of birth control, because it was birth control. They objected because they object to all laws applying to corporations. That's why they claimed that their objection was based on religion. It's because laws are against their religion. (But only certain laws.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Whether you agree with me or not... And actually, whether you are right or not is irrelevant. Women, by and large, perceived this as an attack. How they voted is the proof. How many states passed (Or at least "tried to pass". I remember reading about such laws. I don't remember if they passed, or just got proposed.) "religious freedom" laws, declaring that when anyone attempts to buy such birth control, every employee in the store has the right to veto that sale, and cannot be punished if they do? You remember which people it was who pitched a fit, about laws saying that health insurance has to cover birth control? You want to try to play the "I think it's just peachy to outlaw abortion, because they should use birth control", maybe the GOP should stop trying to restrict birth control, at the same time. I love you guys more every day. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.