Rob's House Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this topic degenerated into a debate as to whether Obama is a socialist. Do you guys read your posts? Pretty embarrassing on both sides. Once posters use "townhall" or Mother Jones to back up extreme ideological views, it's a good indication that this isn't the forum for a rational conversation. So because Town Hall runs Walter Williams' column he is now discredited? Good one. BTW, the super-centrist routine doesn't make you look more reasonable than either side, it just makes you look naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 What I said was:"Those simpletons who vote on social positions weren't going to vote for Romney as it is"and then I also said:"Actually, I believe he will attract women to the campaign, he's young, smart and good looking, and believe it or not, there is a segment of the population of women voters where these things matter."There is no contradiction in there whatsoever. By saying "Believe it or not, there is a segment of the population of women voters where these things matter" I'm implying that this is also a shallow reason to vote for someone.I'm surprised you didn't catch that, it really wasn't that encrypted. People who prioritize social positions over the economy aren't any more a simpleton than people who prioritize economic positions over social. People need what they need and prioritize accordingly. And by the way- need can (and does) make hipocrites out of all of us. Just check out people's positions in various threads on this board, if you don't believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 People who prioritize social positions over the economy aren't any more a simpleton than people who prioritize economic positions over social. People need what they need and prioritize accordingly. And by the way- need can (and does) make hipocrites out of all of us. Just check out people's positions in various threads on this board, if you don't believe that. I disagree, from my perspective, if you value the social over fiscal issues when deciding who should be president, you are a simpleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 People who prioritize social positions over the economy aren't any more a simpleton than people who prioritize economic positions over social. People need what they need and prioritize accordingly. And by the way- need can (and does) make hipocrites out of all of us. Just check out people's positions in various threads on this board, if you don't believe that. I disagree. Money rules the world. You can have all the social policies on your side but if you can't afford to eat, you're not happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I disagree, from my perspective, if you value the social over fiscal issues when deciding who should be president, you are a simpleton. Economy, foreign policy, social issues--all part of the pot. This year, the economy takes precedence for me, but Ryan's asinine positions (voted for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? Jesus Paul, didn't realize you were such a complete idiot...) on social policies are fair game. And as I mentioned above, that's where Obama will drive the wedge for independents. As good as he is on the economy, Ryan looks stupid when cornered on those issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Economy, foreign policy, social issues--all part of the pot. This year, the economy takes precedence for me, but Ryan's asinine positions (voted for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? Jesus Paul, didn't realize you were such a complete idiot...) on social policies are fair game. And as I mentioned above, that's where Obama will drive the wedge for independents. As good as he is on the economy, Ryan looks stupid when cornered on those issues. That's fine, that's your opinion. Point remains, his positions (which are popular with 50% of the country), won't change the needle one iota. Those who were voting on these issues, weren't going to vote for Romney anyway, and he is not any sort of right-wing social crusader, who speaks scary that is going to cause more chicks to vote against the ticket. If anything, he will attract chicks. I am almost positive that he will be a net positive regarding attracting women to the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Economy, foreign policy, social issues--all part of the pot. This year, the economy takes precedence for me, but Ryan's asinine positions (voted for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? Jesus Paul, didn't realize you were such a complete idiot...) on social policies are fair game. And as I mentioned above, that's where Obama will drive the wedge for independents. As good as he is on the economy, Ryan looks stupid when cornered on those issues. Y'know, for a guy who spends a lot of time seeing topics things for how they translate strategically in this race (something I truly appreciate), you'd think you'd see gay marriage as the losing topic that it is right now. Yes, the next generation will be more than happy to accept gay marriage, but no matter how many times you call them stupid, the majority of American's DON'T agree with it...regardless of whether it actually IS stupid. If it was a winning topic, more states would have successfully passed their laws. But when you can't even get California to approve it, then it's a losing topic...strategically speaking. But the Dems have put this on their agenda for the convention, so that's a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Economy, foreign policy, social issues--all part of the pot. This year, the economy takes precedence for me, but Ryan's asinine positions (voted for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? Jesus Paul, didn't realize you were such a complete idiot...) on social policies are fair game. And as I mentioned above, that's where Obama will drive the wedge for independents. As good as he is on the economy, Ryan looks stupid when cornered on those issues. Again pointing out why it is always best to vote "present" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Y'know, for a guy who spends a lot of time seeing topics things for how they translate strategically in this race (something I truly appreciate), you'd think you'd see gay marriage as the losing topic that it is right now. Yes, the next generation will be more than happy to accept gay marriage, but no matter how many times you call them stupid, the majority of American's DON'T agree with it...regardless of whether it actually IS stupid. If it was a winning topic, more states would have successfully passed their laws. But when you can't even get California to approve it, then it's a losing topic...strategically speaking. But the Dems have put this on their agenda for the convention, so that's a plus. Magox is the pollster, not me. I'm not going to stop calling someone who thinks we need to amend the US Constitution to define marriage stupid. It's embarassing for him. And I'm going to vote for him--what does that tell you about the opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) I disagree. Money rules the world. You can have all the social policies on your side but if you can't afford to eat, you're not happy. What if that isn't a problem for you? Y'know, for a guy who spends a lot of time seeing topics things for how they translate strategically in this race (something I truly appreciate), you'd think you'd see gay marriage as the losing topic that it is right now. Yes, the next generation will be more than happy to accept gay marriage, but no matter how many times you call them stupid, the majority of American's DON'T agree with it...regardless of whether it actually IS stupid. If it was a winning topic, more states would have successfully passed their laws. But when you can't even get California to approve it, then it's a losing topic...strategically speaking. But the Dems have put this on their agenda for the convention, so that's a plus. Are we agreed that religion is the issue for the people who don't accept "gay marriage" at present? Edited August 13, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I disagree. Money rules the world. You can have all the social policies on your side but if you can't afford to eat, you're not happy. Or in the less extreme, you can have all the social programs you'd like, but how long will they last without a strong economy? If you cannot fund any of these program, how effective will they be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Are we agreed that religion is the issue for the people who don't accept "gay marriage" at present? I'd be wiling to bet 99% of the reason is religious faith, or as some people call it, stupid people who believe in fairy tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I'd be wiling to bet 99% of the reason is religious faith, or as some people call it, stupid people who believe in fairy tales. And what percentage of that 99% are terrified of sharia law? LOL, I believe in fairy tales, as many do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 And what percentage of that 99% are terrified of sharia law? I have no idea where you're going here. But let's say 3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I have no idea where you're going here. But let's say 3.5. Laws based on religion. We don't need them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Laws based on religion. We don't need them Kill, steal and covet? If I must... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Kill, steal and covet? If I must... No killing or stealing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Kill, steal and covet? If I must... You think the basis for not killing is religious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Laws based on religion. We don't need them Unless you seek to remove the franchise from those whose moral compass is directed by their religion or castrate the government and remove it's ability to peddle influence and impede liberty you're talking pipe dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Unless you seek to remove the franchise from those whose moral compass is directed by their religion or castrate the government and remove it's ability to peddle influence and impede liberty you're talking pipe dreams. All people of religion have it guide their moral compass- the problem is when their moral compass infringes on mine. Our government will continue to peddle influence until we keep them from doing that- I read a nice article about how that has given us the worst tax code in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts