CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'll echo this sentiment. It's wonderful to want fanciful things, full of wonder and mystery. It's entirely another thing to enact economic policy making the wonderful both viable and sustainable. I am, at my core, a humanist. I hate seeing suffering, and spend real resources, both monetary and personal, to combat it; to speak nothing of my tax burden. Although, admittedly, I have become disgusted with those who presume to take rather than ask, and it has swayed me of late. What I have come to realize is that Malthus was right. You cannot allow the poor to rest easy in their plight if what you truely desire for them is their own betterment and a sense of pride. Some few cannot, and never will be saved, and it is far beret to allow them to chose their own fate rather than to impose a soft slavery of perpetual institutional dependence on the many. So I'll bite... who has taken stuff from you without asking as of late? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So I'll bite... who has taken stuff from you without asking as of late? Theft is theft. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether that theft is being perpetrated by one against the many, the 51 against the 49, the 95 against the 5, or the 99 against the 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Theft is theft. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether that theft is being perpetrated by one against the many, the 51 against the 49, the 95 against the 5, or the 99 against the 1. But it's not theft if you accept that society has as much right to your property as you do. Those who do not accept this fact and refuse to submit to the will of the state are branded as extremists, racists, intolerant, radicals, etc. Forward! Edited November 27, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That’s a good point, but your example of context seems incomplete. It’s like if you were having an argument with a woman. You say that you want to have sex with her 25 times. She says she wants to get a court order forcing you to move to a different county. She might be willing to compromise by saying that you get to maintain your residence in the same county, but you are not allowed within 300 feet of her residence. You might initially complain that it’s not a compromise because you have given up your position entirely. However, if more context is given which reveals that you have been pestering this poor woman and stalking her for years, then it seems reasonable and it becomes clear that both sides have made some concessions which are appropriate. Another example of additional context might be a recent election in which the majority of voters have chosen one particular fiscal vision over another. This particular contextual element is called leverage. Actually, you are wrong. The voters agree with the status quo. They voted to keep things as they were on 5 November. GOP HOR, Democrat controlled Senate & Executive. No change. No mandate except stalemate. I'm all for it. It seems the do nothing government is working out just fine and the economy might just be heading in the right direction (although it might just be the holiday hiring and spending... We will have to wait until January or Ebruary to know for sure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Ya know, I cant help but think this clown knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he said "renig." Becuase if it was an honest mistake and he just spelled the word wrong, he would have corrected the sign when it was pointed out to him. Of course, the PC !@#$s would STILL be after him saying the word "renege" (proper spelling) is racist just like "apartment" and "Chicago" are, but thats another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Actually, you are wrong. The voters agree with the status quo. They voted to keep things as they were on 5 November. GOP HOR, Democrat controlled Senate & Executive. No change. No mandate except stalemate. I'm all for it. It seems the do nothing government is working out just fine and the economy might just be heading in the right direction (although it might just be the holiday hiring and spending... We will have to wait until January or Ebruary to know for sure). Actually, I'm right. Dem President re-elected by a comfortable margin. Dems plus 2 in the Senate and plus 5 in the House. The voice of the majority is there and carries some weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Actually, I'm right. Dem President re-elected by a comfortable margin. Dems plus 2 in the Senate and plus 5 in the House. The voice of the majority is there and carries some weight. Nope. You are wrong. The gain in the senate came fom self destructing GOP candidates and the return of a Dem seat to the Dems in a solidly blue state. The house is still overwhelmingly GOP, and the executive won with fewer votes and. Slimmer margin than 2008, a first for a winning incumbent. Edited November 27, 2012 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 President Obama received 50.6% of the popular vote in the election. More important to note: The estimated population of the United States at the time of the Persidential Election was 314,826,000; 62,611,250 of which cast a ballot for President Obama. To state it another way, only 19.8% of the country supported his re-election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Nope. You are wrong. The gain in the senate came fom self destructing GOP candidates and the return of a Dem seat to the Dems in a solidly blue state. The house is still overwhelmingly GOP, and the executive won with fewer votes and. Slimmer margin than 2008, a first for a winning incumbent. That's kind of like saying the Bills are 4 and 7 but that's just because of a couple dropped balls and some bad play calling. Really they should be 6 and 5 and in the playoff hunt. The fact is they're 4 and 7 and they're just about cooked as far as the playoffs go. And the reason is that they didn't do well enough. More facts: The Democratic President won re-election and it wasn't close. Democrats are up 2 in the Senate and 5 in the House. You think the Republican leadership is pointing fingers and saying "what did we do wrong, what do we have to do to turn this around?" because they think they did well? I'll let you have the last word. You can tell me I'm wrong again. But you can't change the facts. Edited November 27, 2012 by gringo starr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That's kind of like saying the Bills are 4 and 7 but that's just because of a couple dropped balls and some bad play calling. Really they should be 6 and 5 and in the playoff hunt. The fact is they're 4 and 7 and they're just about cooked as far as the playoffs go. And the reason is that they didn't do well enough. More facts: The Democratic President won re-election and it wasn't close. Democrats are up 2 in the Senate and 5 in the House. You think the Republican leadership is pointing fingers and saying "what did we do wrong, what do we have to do to turn this around?" because they think they did well? I'll let you have the last word. You can tell me I'm wrong again. But you can't change the facts. 50.6% of the popular vote, reflecting the support of a mere 19.8% of the population is hardly a mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) President Obama received 50.6% of the popular vote in the election. More important to note: The estimated population of the United States at the time of the Persidential Election was 314,826,000; 62,611,250 of which cast a ballot for President Obama. To state it another way, only 19.8% of the country supported his re-election. Lets try to keep the percentages within the confines of eligible voters. No one cares what illegal 4 year olds want. Edited November 27, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 50.6% of the popular vote, reflecting the support of a mere 19.8% of the population is hardly a mandate. I said already, in this thread, that it’s not a mandate. Still, it is a significant piece of barganing power. I really don’t understand why you guys are denying this. It’s not a controversial point. Besides, turnout was pretty good historically speaking. Something like 57 percent. Certainly higher than for Bush’s two victories—one of which was without the popular majority. Do you think a higher turnout would have favored the Republicans? I don’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Lets try to keep the percentages within the confines of eligible voters. No one cares what illegal 4 year olds want. I have no reliable data pertaining to the number of actual adult citizens. If you have those numbers, I'd like to see them. I said already, in this thread, that it’s not a mandate. Still, it is a significant piece of barganing power. I really don’t understand why you guys are denying this. It’s not a controversial point. Besides, turnout was pretty good historically speaking. Something like 57 percent. Certainly higher than for Bush’s two victories—one of which was without the popular majority. Do you think a higher turnout would have favored the Republicans? I don’t. A higher turn out would likely have favored a new political system of some variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) That's kind of like saying the Bills are 4 and 7 but that's just because of a couple dropped balls and some bad play calling. Really they should be 6 and 5 and in the playoff hunt. The fact is they're 4 and 7 and they're just about cooked as far as the playoffs go. And the reason is that they didn't do well enough. More facts: The Democratic President won re-election and it wasn't close. Democrats are up 2 in the Senate and 5 in the House. You think the Republican leadership is pointing fingers and saying "what did we do wrong, what do we have to do to turn this around?" because they think they did well? I'll let you have the last word. You can tell me I'm wrong again. But you can't change the facts. Nothing has changed. Facts: Today, the GOP controls the house be a large margin. The Dems control the senate without a filibuster proof majority. The President is a democrat. Come January, none of those facts change. Edited November 27, 2012 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I have no reliable data pertaining to the number of actual adult citizens. If you have those numbers, I'd like to see them. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html ~25% of eligible voters selected Obama. Now thats a mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I said already, in this thread, that it’s not a mandate. Still, it is a significant piece of barganing power. I really don’t understand why you guys are denying this. It’s not a controversial point. Besides, turnout was pretty good historically speaking. Something like 57 percent. Certainly higher than for Bush’s two victories—one of which was without the popular majority. Do you think a higher turnout would have favored the Republicans? I don’t. I guess my point is that I don't accept your right or the government's right to impose your will on me. The fact that 51% of the participating electorate voted to elect a particular candidate doesn't change that. No offense, but personally I think you're all idealistic children (when it comes to politics) who are either unwilling or incapable of recognizing either the seriousness or nature of what we're facing. I expect the semi-literate welfare crowd to think government issued checks will solve problems because they're stupid & uneducated. What bothers me is when people of reasonable capacity are so irresponsible that they're willing to ignore the maxim that if it looks too good to be true it probably is. Think about it in real simple terms. Your political heroes are saying that not only can they provide all reasonable privileges, luxury, & opportunity to everyone by printing money they don't have & distributing it, but doing so will also fix all our economic problems. And you're buying it. Sucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Theft is theft. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether that theft is being perpetrated by one against the many, the 51 against the 49, the 95 against the 5, or the 99 against the 1. Don't dodge the question. Who specifically has "taken stuff" without asking from you personally recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Don't dodge the question. Who specifically has "taken stuff" without asking from you personally recently? It's not a dodge. Anyone who "voted" for any candidate who promised to raise my taxes(ie. take by force, against my will). Again, theft is theft. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether that theft is being perpetrated by one against the many, the 51 against the 49, the 95 against the 5, or the 99 against the 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 It's not a dodge. Anyone who "voted" for any candidate who promised to raise my taxes(ie. take by force, against my will). Again, theft is theft. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether that theft is being perpetrated by one against the many, the 51 against the 49, the 95 against the 5, or the 99 against the 1. So you've moved from dodging to being intellectually dishonest. And I thought you were capable of a reasonable discussion. My bad. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So you've moved from dodging to being intellectually dishonest. And I thought you were capable of a reasonable discussion. My bad. Carry on. That's a very hefty charge. Support it or GTFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts