Again, you're missing the point. My point was - her view on abortion had nothing to do with her vote. Obviously, blanket statement and each individual is different.
You're sure about that? You really think that women would vote for someone saying "if you're raped, that's God's Will... besides... if your body doesn't abort... that means you really wanted it, slut. Now have that baby and yes, the rapist will be able to have visitation rights."
OK.
But, it's the ECONOMY. It's always the ECONOMY.
Yes. It is. And if you're having trouble remembering... 4 years ago we had the worst economy since the 1930s. Thanks to the policies of the Republican Party. Like I have said... if you're a Republican, you voted for George W Bush.
Twice.
So this economy is your fault, too.
How about you let us continue to clean up your mess while you go search for birth certificates and college records?
LOWEST LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE IN THE LAST 30 YEARS and he still couldn't budge unemployment much below 8%.
ALthough if the Republicans had allowed any jobs bills to even come up for a vote, that might have been different. He's the president... he's not Dumbledore.
And giving out cash is not the way to solve the long term problem.
I'm sorry... giving out cash?
Like the auto bailout that saved one of the most important employers in US history? Or the money that's been poured back into infrastructure programs to fix our roads and build bridges and improve communications that have, in fact, created long-lasting jobs? Like those?
I am NOT a "1 issue voter." And writing me off like that is not only insulting, it's just the kind of dismissive attitude that lead the Mitt Romney being handed his pampered ass.
I have posted about countless topics here, from health insurance, union busting, women's rights, the war, drugs, freedom of speech, freedom FROM religion, immigration, race relations and yes... the economy.
You do realize that as a man who not only works for a relatively small movie studio AND has his own small business that I do kinda of understand how business works, right? I joke about being "a pornographer" but in reality... I'm just a businessman who also happens to be an artist.. I make movies that you might not enjoy, but I still have an audience to please and if that audience has no money to buy my products... I'm out of work, too.
So I understand that lowering my tax burden or lowering the cost of my cars by shipping the factory to China isn't going to give my audience enough money to buy what I'm selling. Jobs are NOT created by lowering taxes and making it easier to turn a profit... they're created by consumer demand. They're created by a thriving middle class with disposable income AND they're supported by a strong infrastructure.
(I can't sell people downloads of my movies if the local governments aren't monitoring, repairing and regulating the use of the cables that carry the internet from me to them, can't I?)
(and saying that Reagan has a worse situation and it took 18 months to get out of shows you know pretty much nothing about the topic, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering)
I stand corrected. Where did I say we should lower taxes?
How do you create demand for products if so many folks are out of work? Don't give the fish. Teach how to fish.
Read up on David Dinkins (if you're not already familiar). He said folks couldn't get off welfare. Giuliani proved otherwise.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You're sure about that? You really think that women would vote for someone saying "if you're raped, that's God's Will... besides... if your body doesn't abort... that means you really wanted it, slut. Now have that baby and yes, the rapist will be able to have visitation rights."
OK.
Of course not. But, Romney didn't say that. Akin should have been beaten, and he was.
Please show me where Romney talked about the Rapist issue in the light you bring it up.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
25 year olds that are mostly healthy and cost they system nothing anyway.
Well then.. fuck them. Let's not screen men in their 20s for testicular cancer (which is the age that most men get it) and let's not worry about HPV screening for women... those sluts deserved it.
And hey... car accident? Well, they can declare bankruptcy. I mean.. that's not a drain to the health care system or the economy, right?
Agreed - pre-ex is a tough situation. This law will prove not to fix that problem. I won't write an essay.
The law DID fix that problem.
I'd like to cover everyone also. But I'd also like us to pay our credit card off at some point.
You're right. Best to let people die than ask Mitt Romney to pay taxes. I mean... you can't make an omelet without hitting someone over the head with the frying pan, can you?
25 year olds that are mostly healthy and cost they system nothing anyway.
Well then.. fuck them. Let's not screen men in their 20s for testicular cancer (which is the age that most men get it) and let's not worry about HPV screening for women... those sluts deserved it.
And hey... car accident? Well, they can declare bankruptcy. I mean.. that's not a drain to the health care system or the economy, right?
Agreed - pre-ex is a tough situation. This law will prove not to fix that problem. I won't write an essay.
The law DID fix that problem.
I'd like to cover everyone also. But I'd also like us to pay our credit card off at some point.
You're right. Best to let people die than ask Mitt Romney to pay taxes. I mean... you can't make an omelet without hitting someone over the head with the frying pan, can you?
It did not fix the pre-ex problem. When healthy folks choose the tax over coverage, you will see how much it will cost which will eventually lead to some of those folks to say - screw this - I'm paying the tax. And, BTW, like the banks with Clinton's insistence on lowering mortgage standards, health care insurance companies are more than happy to provide this coverage. Even with 85% MLR requirements. 15% of a MUCH bigger number is a MUCH bigger number.
Folks already had coverage (indigent care, etc.). Yes, there were horror stories that we'd all like to prevent. But, Canada has them, too.
I love the dying thing. Who's drilling for fear?
If you don't address the health care COST issue, you're not solving any of those issues. Limiting MLR's is liberals way of regulating profitability. That never works.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
How do you create demand for products if so many folks are out of work? Don't give the fish. Teach how to fish.
To be fair, I don't need to teach my audience how to masturbate. I'm pretty sure they've figured that part out on their own.
Although I did direct "Porn U." (I actually did direct that... it was my one and only "comedy" that I've done. Still very proud of that one.)
You're not really getting it... "so many folks are out of work" because we've out sourced the jobs to China, given big tax breaks to the Mitt Romneys of the world and not legislated a good living wage for people.
I also hear they were both pushing a rapist rights bill. :roll: Give me a break. Kevin Bacon wants his game back.
No, you didn't. But you're trying to change the subject to the absurd because you don't want to admit that Paul Ryan was half the ticket and his strong ties to Todd Aiken were a huge issue for women.
Did you not notice that every "rape isn't such a big deal, that slut wanted it anyway" comment came from a Republican... who was voted out?
How do you create demand for products if so many folks are out of work? Don't give the fish. Teach how to fish.
To be fair, I don't need to teach my audience how to masturbate. I'm pretty sure they've figured that part out on their own.
You're not really getting it... "so many folks are out of work" because we've out sourced the jobs to China, given big tax breaks to the Mitt Romneys of the world and not legislated a good living wage for people.
I agree - if getting a job was like masterbating, our country would be a much better place.
The old outsourcing thing. Okie dokie. What do you suppose happens when you raise minimum wage?
Until we all band together and agree to pay more for everything, something's got to give. Taxing folks that make $250K while half the population pays 0 isn't solving the problem. And as if $250K is the same value everywhere. Tax away. It's a drop in the bucket that will only lead to more spending. You act as if the taxes he's proposed is only on the Warren Buffets of the country.
Like with health care - if you don't stop the spending, everything else is window dressing. Stop the spending, then we can work on the revenues to balance everything out.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Had to address this separately - that would not be covered by health care. That's auto liability insurance.
Not if they hit a patch of ice and went off a bridge.
Or if they were hit by a hit-and-run motorist.
Or if they were hit by someone without liability insurance.
Huh?
So, we should make liability insurance mandatory. It is in NY, though I still see plenty of accidents without it. Hmmm. I wonder which people are neglecting to carry it.
But, you are right. You can find a miniscule loophole in every single thing. How large would you like the deficit to be?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I am NOT a "1 issue voter." And writing me off like that is not only insulting,
Well, while it might sound insulting I don;t think it necessarily is. If you believe 1 thing is so important that you wouldn't vote for a candidate that held all the other same beliefs as you except for that 1 issue...then I think that makes someone a 1 issue voter. Doesn't mean it's the only issue, just the most important and a deal breaker.
Would you vote for a candidate that matched your vision on everything except Gay Marriage? Maybe they thought everything you did but on the issue of gay marriage, they believed Civil Union was enough?
Would you vote for that person if:
1) All other candidates either had the same belief (Civil unions) or even more extreme as to no civil unions or marriage
2) The other candidate was a very pro-war, union hating, anti-abortion, wanted to abolish the social safety nets and privatize Social Security and Welfare....but he/she believed in the right for Gay Marriage and would make it happen day 1
You want to make that an "issue we've moved beyond."
Go ask the employees of Sensata what they think of that.
Taxing folks that make $250K while half the population pays 0 isn't solving the problem.
Well.. and if "half the population" paid zero, you would have a point.
Ok... We've debated your lie-based talking points enough.
The people have spoken. The president has been reelected.
I'm sick of talking to people who spout this bullshit.
I'm not saying we should move past the outsourcing. But,
A) it hasn't gotten better under Obama and the issue is more than just - let's keep jobs here.
So, we should absolutely be concerned about it.
I love how mine are talking points and yours are not.
Here's a question to go back to a part of our debate - How does Obamacare bend the cost curve (i.e. lower overall expenses for health care)? That was it's stated intent. How does it do that?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Can you please provide where you got that data from?
As far as I can tell, the last budget Bush submitted for 2009 was over a Trillion in deficit, and Obama has not been able to lower it below a trillion, but, it has come down each of the last three years ... which is at least going in the right direction.
It's still way the fudge out of control regardless if you lean Dem or Rep ... but, I think your selective annual choices skew the story just a bit.
Here's hoping getting out of one war and potentially a second war will help.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
If you believe 1 thing is so important that you wouldn't vote for a candidate that held all the other same beliefs as you except for that 1 issue...then I think that makes someone a 1 issue voter.
so then... how come I voted for Barak Obama in 2008 when he didn't support marriage equality?
How come I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger who at the time ALSO didn't?
I also voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice) and Michael Dukakis.
and when I voted for them... none of them supported Marriage Equality.
If you believe 1 thing is so important that you wouldn't vote for a candidate that held all the other same beliefs as you except for that 1 issue...then I think that makes someone a 1 issue voter.
so then... how come I voted for Barak Obama in 2008 when he didn't support marriage equality?
How come I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger who at the time ALSO didn't?
I also voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice) and Michael Dukakis.
and when I voted for them... none of them supported Marriage Equality.
ummmm,
logic would tell me that you are not a single issue voter...but that is based on not only reading your posts, but if you voted for someone who did not support your most important issue, there had to be other reasons to vote for them.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
If you believe 1 thing is so important that you wouldn't vote for a candidate that held all the other same beliefs as you except for that 1 issue...then I think that makes someone a 1 issue voter.
so then... how come I voted for Barak Obama in 2008 when he didn't support marriage equality?
How come I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger who at the time ALSO didn't?
I also voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice) and Michael Dukakis.
and when I voted for them... none of them supported Marriage Equality.
I didn;t say you were, I gave my interpretation of what a 1 issue voter was and that I don;t think it automatically is a bad thing. Then I asked you questions. It appears like for question #1 your answer is if both don;t support, I still vote for 1 of them based upon all the other issues.
I was just wondering about the completely hypothetical #2 situation. Where you disagree with someone so much but they support your #1 issue and the other candidate you agree with so much but doesn't support your #1 issue.
So please don't take offense, I'm just trying to learn. And of all #1 issues that would result in someone benig a single issue voter, civil right issues seem to make sense. Heck, no matter what you think about abortion, I could understand people on both sides making that a go-no go vote. I think it's silly because it's not going to change, but it I can see it.
I was just wondering about the completely hypothetical #2 situation. Where you disagree with someone so much but they support your #1 issue and the other candidate you agree with so much but doesn't support your #1 issue.
It's actually not completely hypothetical.
There are gay Republican candidates who support marriage equality but also support outlawing abortion, lowering taxes on business to "create jobs" and targeting Latinos with "papers please" laws and no... I do not support them.
I gave money to defeat the gay man running for mayor of San Diego, actually.
I was just wondering about the completely hypothetical #2 situation. Where you disagree with someone so much but they support your #1 issue and the other candidate you agree with so much but doesn't support your #1 issue.
It's actually not completely hypothetical.
There are gay Republican candidates who support marriage equality but also support outlawing abortion, lowering taxes on business to "create jobs" and targeting Latinos with "papers please" laws and no... I do not support them.
I gave money to defeat the gay man running for mayor of San Diego, actually.
Comments
You're sure about that? You really think that women would vote for someone saying "if you're raped, that's God's Will... besides... if your body doesn't abort... that means you really wanted it, slut. Now have that baby and yes, the rapist will be able to have visitation rights."
OK.
Yes. It is. And if you're having trouble remembering... 4 years ago we had the worst economy since the 1930s. Thanks to the policies of the Republican Party. Like I have said... if you're a Republican, you voted for George W Bush.
Twice.
So this economy is your fault, too.
How about you let us continue to clean up your mess while you go search for birth certificates and college records?
ALthough if the Republicans had allowed any jobs bills to even come up for a vote, that might have been different. He's the president... he's not Dumbledore.
I'm sorry... giving out cash?
Like the auto bailout that saved one of the most important employers in US history? Or the money that's been poured back into infrastructure programs to fix our roads and build bridges and improve communications that have, in fact, created long-lasting jobs? Like those?
I stand corrected. Where did I say we should lower taxes?
How do you create demand for products if so many folks are out of work? Don't give the fish. Teach how to fish.
Read up on David Dinkins (if you're not already familiar). He said folks couldn't get off welfare. Giuliani proved otherwise.
Of course not. But, Romney didn't say that. Akin should have been beaten, and he was.
Please show me where Romney talked about the Rapist issue in the light you bring it up.
Well then.. fuck them. Let's not screen men in their 20s for testicular cancer (which is the age that most men get it) and let's not worry about HPV screening for women... those sluts deserved it.
And hey... car accident? Well, they can declare bankruptcy. I mean.. that's not a drain to the health care system or the economy, right?
The law DID fix that problem.
You're right. Best to let people die than ask Mitt Romney to pay taxes. I mean... you can't make an omelet without hitting someone over the head with the frying pan, can you?
you do realize that the guy running for Vice President was the one who wrote the bill with Todd Aiken that invented the term "legitimate rape," right?
And that Paul Ryan also shrugged off rape as a "method of conception?"
You really think that isn't a rather shocking detail?
It did not fix the pre-ex problem. When healthy folks choose the tax over coverage, you will see how much it will cost which will eventually lead to some of those folks to say - screw this - I'm paying the tax. And, BTW, like the banks with Clinton's insistence on lowering mortgage standards, health care insurance companies are more than happy to provide this coverage. Even with 85% MLR requirements. 15% of a MUCH bigger number is a MUCH bigger number.
Folks already had coverage (indigent care, etc.). Yes, there were horror stories that we'd all like to prevent. But, Canada has them, too.
I love the dying thing. Who's drilling for fear?
If you don't address the health care COST issue, you're not solving any of those issues. Limiting MLR's is liberals way of regulating profitability. That never works.
I also hear they were both pushing a rapist rights bill. :roll: Give me a break. Kevin Bacon wants his game back.
To be fair, I don't need to teach my audience how to masturbate. I'm pretty sure they've figured that part out on their own.
Although I did direct "Porn U." (I actually did direct that... it was my one and only "comedy" that I've done. Still very proud of that one.)
You're not really getting it... "so many folks are out of work" because we've out sourced the jobs to China, given big tax breaks to the Mitt Romneys of the world and not legislated a good living wage for people.
Had to address this separately - that would not be covered by health care. That's auto liability insurance.
No, you didn't. But you're trying to change the subject to the absurd because you don't want to admit that Paul Ryan was half the ticket and his strong ties to Todd Aiken were a huge issue for women.
Did you not notice that every "rape isn't such a big deal, that slut wanted it anyway" comment came from a Republican... who was voted out?
Not if they hit a patch of ice and went off a bridge.
Or if they were hit by a hit-and-run motorist.
Or if they were hit by someone without liability insurance.
I agree - if getting a job was like masterbating, our country would be a much better place.
The old outsourcing thing. Okie dokie. What do you suppose happens when you raise minimum wage?
Until we all band together and agree to pay more for everything, something's got to give. Taxing folks that make $250K while half the population pays 0 isn't solving the problem. And as if $250K is the same value everywhere. Tax away. It's a drop in the bucket that will only lead to more spending. You act as if the taxes he's proposed is only on the Warren Buffets of the country.
Like with health care - if you don't stop the spending, everything else is window dressing. Stop the spending, then we can work on the revenues to balance everything out.
By the way... you did know that Paul Ryan and Todd Aiken co-wrote and sponsored a "personhood" bill that actually outlawed birth control and abortion, right?
You can't "give me a break" your way out of this.
Sorry.
Find a single mother who's going to vote for a party running a vice presidential candidate who wants to outlaws birth control pills.
Huh?
So, we should make liability insurance mandatory. It is in NY, though I still see plenty of accidents without it. Hmmm. I wonder which people are neglecting to carry it.
But, you are right. You can find a miniscule loophole in every single thing. How large would you like the deficit to be?
AH. it's "old" now, is it?
You want to make that an "issue we've moved beyond."
Go ask the employees of Sensata what they think of that.
Well.. and if "half the population" paid zero, you would have a point.
Ok... We've debated your lie-based talking points enough.
The people have spoken. The president has been reelected.
I'm sick of talking to people who spout this bullshit.
the deficit is about 2 billion dollars lower than it was 4 years ago.
Find a single person who votes based on Vice President anyway (not that it's relevant, but that's what you keep bringing up).
Well, while it might sound insulting I don;t think it necessarily is. If you believe 1 thing is so important that you wouldn't vote for a candidate that held all the other same beliefs as you except for that 1 issue...then I think that makes someone a 1 issue voter. Doesn't mean it's the only issue, just the most important and a deal breaker.
Would you vote for a candidate that matched your vision on everything except Gay Marriage? Maybe they thought everything you did but on the issue of gay marriage, they believed Civil Union was enough?
Would you vote for that person if:
1) All other candidates either had the same belief (Civil unions) or even more extreme as to no civil unions or marriage
2) The other candidate was a very pro-war, union hating, anti-abortion, wanted to abolish the social safety nets and privatize Social Security and Welfare....but he/she believed in the right for Gay Marriage and would make it happen day 1
I'm not saying we should move past the outsourcing. But,
A) it hasn't gotten better under Obama and
So, we should absolutely be concerned about it.
I love how mine are talking points and yours are not.
Here's a question to go back to a part of our debate - How does Obamacare bend the cost curve (i.e. lower overall expenses for health care)? That was it's stated intent. How does it do that?
First - funny how the talking points guy picked 1 piece of my comment to quote and address.
And, what are you looking at? 2013 projections that are based on the sequestration (sp?) that will never happen?
2008 Deficit - $469 Billion
2012 Deficit - $1.1 Trillion (with a TR)
Can you please provide where you got that data from?
As far as I can tell, the last budget Bush submitted for 2009 was over a Trillion in deficit, and Obama has not been able to lower it below a trillion, but, it has come down each of the last three years ... which is at least going in the right direction.
It's still way the fudge out of control regardless if you lean Dem or Rep ... but, I think your selective annual choices skew the story just a bit.
Here's hoping getting out of one war and potentially a second war will help.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
sarah palin!?
so then... how come I voted for Barak Obama in 2008 when he didn't support marriage equality?
How come I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger who at the time ALSO didn't?
I also voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice) and Michael Dukakis.
and when I voted for them... none of them supported Marriage Equality.
logic would tell me that you are not a single issue voter...but that is based on not only reading your posts, but if you voted for someone who did not support your most important issue, there had to be other reasons to vote for them.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Why are you laughing? You think it's funny that Paul Ryan wanted to outlaw forms of birth control? Because he does.
I didn;t say you were, I gave my interpretation of what a 1 issue voter was and that I don;t think it automatically is a bad thing. Then I asked you questions. It appears like for question #1 your answer is if both don;t support, I still vote for 1 of them based upon all the other issues.
I was just wondering about the completely hypothetical #2 situation. Where you disagree with someone so much but they support your #1 issue and the other candidate you agree with so much but doesn't support your #1 issue.
So please don't take offense, I'm just trying to learn. And of all #1 issues that would result in someone benig a single issue voter, civil right issues seem to make sense. Heck, no matter what you think about abortion, I could understand people on both sides making that a go-no go vote. I think it's silly because it's not going to change, but it I can see it.
Yeah. the nerve of some people.
It's actually not completely hypothetical.
There are gay Republican candidates who support marriage equality but also support outlawing abortion, lowering taxes on business to "create jobs" and targeting Latinos with "papers please" laws and no... I do not support them.
I gave money to defeat the gay man running for mayor of San Diego, actually.
Well there ya go. Thanks.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."