"People vote Obama because they want stuff"

EdsonNascimento

comebackgirl wrote:

I think this comes more into play when people's basic needs aren't even met...not just about having more of a chance because of wealth, but recognizing that people can't even focus on self-actualization if their basic needs on the hierarchy aren't met.




I have a student whose parents both died before he was 8...never grew up with any strong family support and has a chronic health condition from birth...but damn if he isn't the hardest worker I know. The kid has a 4.0 with a double science major, works as an RA and in another college office and he is a student leader for a few different clubs. He's going off to medical school in the fall, but wouldn't have been able to do any of that without medicaid and tuition grants. He's worked his ass off for it, but is in a different position than someone who comes from a family who could provide healthcare and assist with tuition, food, clothing etc.

And just to respond to the early discussion about people in their 20s being healthy, since September I have met with a 19 year old student who was born with HIV, another 19 year old with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a 24 year old with breast cancer and a 26 year old with ovarian cancer. It will be a relief for them to stay on their parents' insurance and not to be denied for pre-existing conditions.

It is definitely harder for some folks. That student sounds like an amazing person. Glad those things were there for him/her.

As for the latter point about Obamacare - the issue with the pre-ex coverage is that it either won't be sufficient coverage (which the law tries to address), or more likely won't be affordable and those folks will be back in the same situation they are today, only with the added expense of paying the tax. The law does nothing to force people to take coverage when it is against their perceived benefit and more importantly does nothing to make health care itself more affordable. All it does is make insurance available to these folks. It doesn't really make it affordable. Unless they qualified for the broadened Medicaid provisions (which in NY, for example, really doesn't add that many folks), they will more likely be better off paying the tax and falling back on indigent care or whatever it does to pay the bills today. The law is mislabled.

Prince Of Dorkness

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And to address the rest of this - you are right - Romney wanted folks to die of starvation. :roll:

He actually whined about how 47% of the country who won't vote for him wouldn't vote for him BECAUSE "they think they're entitled to food."

To which I said "and just for that, you plutocratic, stuck up, obnoxious, blue-blood pig, I will do whatever I can to keep you from being elected."

Because there were many reasons to not vote for him, none of which were "I think the government should give me food."

Look... you know what... you people have been on this for four years with your phony indignation and trying to blame President Obama for your own inept President Bush who ruined the country and destroyed our way of life for a generation.

You clearly didn't get the memo that Republicans just got their asses handed to them and that the word from the top down is "tea 'tards are hereby banished from the party," but they were. Because it's this same line that you're giving us now that turned the majority of the country against you.

So pop your head out, take a deep breath and realize that you're just making a fool of yourself.

Poorly.

EdsonNascimento

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And to address the rest of this - you are right - Romney wanted folks to die of starvation. :roll:

He actually whined about how 47% of the country who won't vote for him wouldn't vote for him BECAUSE "they think they're entitled to food."

And I'm the one on the talking points.

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

And it doesnt seem like you want people to have a chance to sink or swim. You want them to do what they want and get unlimited life jackets.

Actually... it's Republicans who want that.

They whine about how much money they pay in taxes and how the federal government is their enemy. They cry about how they should defund FEMA and throw fits about national health care.

And then hurricane Katrina takes out the bible belt (as a punishment for all the gay people there, according to Fox News) and they all stand around the cry about how FEMA didn't get there fast enough and how come there aren't more mobile hospitals for all the people.

They refuse to pay taxes because they're "taxed enough already" but when a road gets washed out, the power goes out or their house catches on fire... well BOY they sure get angry that nobody will get there FAST and fix it.

You're like Veruca Salt. Time to go away with the rest of the bad eggs.

grooveme

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Outlaw? Wow.

Why are you laughing? You think it's funny that Paul Ryan wanted to outlaw forms of birth control? Because he does.

Find a single person who votes based on Vice President anyway .

Outlawing FORMS of birth control and outlawing birth control are 2 different things. And neither are happening, so why waste time on that?

As for Palin - really? There were Obama voters in 2008 that voted AGAINST Palin?

Again - the difference - I'm not saying folks don't dislike or are repulsed by a VP candidate. But, George Bush won with Dan Quayle and Barack Obama won with Joe Biden. Nobody's voting for or against a VP. There's plenty of studies out there on both sides that draw this conclusion pretty clearly.

I can give you my personal view on this. I am a married woman, also a (very) hard-working professional in a well paying job. My taxes will likely go up under Obama. I don't like it, but it won't really hurt me. I will never vote Republican while the party panders to the right-wing religious conservatives, with prominent republicans like Akin, Mourdock, Joe Walsh etc. making outrageous misogynistic statements and considering the rights of a fertilized egg to be more important than those of a fully grown woman. Romney by putting Ryan (co-sponsor of personhood legislation) on the ticket gave his implicit approval of extreme anti-choice views. I think this hurt him greatly with women independents, and I sincerely hope that the Republicans get the message, since I do agree with some of their fiscal conservative views. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I can't support Romney so I voted for Gary Johson this year.

And, by the way, I am one off those who voted anti-Palin in 2008. That ditz being one heartbeat away from the presidency (very scary with Mccain's age) was too scary to contemplate.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

And it doesnt seem like you want people to have a chance to sink or swim. You want them to do what they want and get unlimited life jackets.

Actually... it's Republicans who want that.

They whine about how much money they pay in taxes and how the federal government is their enemy. They cry about how they should defund FEMA and throw fits about national health care.

And then hurricane Katrina takes out the bible belt (as a punishment for all the gay people there, according to Fox News) and they all stand around the cry about how FEMA didn't get there fast enough and how come there aren't more mobile hospitals for all the people.

They refuse to pay taxes because they're "taxed enough already" but when a road gets washed out, the power goes out or their house catches on fire... well BOY they sure get angry that nobody will get there FAST and fix it.

You're like Veruca Salt. Time to go away with the rest of the bad eggs.

You use to be witty, what happened?

You calling me a bad egg is pretty damn funny.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, in theory, you are saying, they were more worried about who would be President if the President died than the actual President if you voted?

That means one of 2 things:

1) They thought McCain was the better candidate than Obama, but fear of his health made them vote against this

2) They thought McCain and Obama were equal candidates and the tie breaker was who was more likely to die.

But, it definitely does not mean they thought Obama was the better candidate. Because, if they did, the VP is just icing for them. Not the REASON.

So, do your friends want to change their spoken reason to the real reason or just continue to sound like kooks?

Not sure why this is so shocking to you. Also not sure the relevance of whether or not Obama was the better candidate in their minds. Again, these aren't my votes. But I do have three friends who were undecideds in the final days before the election - two independents, one Republican. Each of them stated after the fact that the deciding factor was a fear of putting Palin that close to the Presidency. You think that makes someone a kook. I 100% disagree.

Here. For you and your friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYZ-Sv6 ... r_embedded

I understand that you are arguing to argue and that maybe that is your schtick, but people who consider both the top and bottom of a ticket aren't foolish, kookish, uninformed, or wasting their vote.

Here. Just for you.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am25.html

Byrnzie

pandora wrote:

I saw on the news last night the breakdown of who supported Obama...
minorities, of course. He's a perfect figurehead for minorities.

Sure, minorities have taken over the country. No white people voted for Obama, other than some self-satisfied mega-rich celebrities, right?

And there was I thinking that we'd maybe see less bullshit here on the AMT now that the election circus is over.

Oh well.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

The notion that people vote so that other people pay more and they don't? That's not a notion, it's a reality.

But it is only 1 of the items on the list.

What 'other people' are you referring to here? Are these 'other people' so hard-up that a slight increase in their taxes will hurt them? And is Obama even talking about increasing the taxes of these 'other people', or is he talking about ending tax breaks for these 'other people', such as those they receive for using and maintaining private jets, yachts, and golf-courses?

You need to drop the routine. You know exactly who I am talking about. Everyone does. And it;s a reality that it is very easy to vote for someone else to pay more.

You need to stop telling me what I should and shouldn't do. You can also drop all the snide comments. It got old a long time ago.
As for the fantasy you're pushing: that people voted for Obama so that they could sit on their asses and let the 1% take care of them...that's all it is; a fantasy. Nothing to do with reality.

Your guy lost the election. Maybe you should be looking at yourself and at your own candidate's failings, instead of deluding yourself about the whys and wherefore's of Obama's victory.

Byrnzie

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Have you heard the parable about the 8 guys that go to a bar to buy beers every week? I'll cut to the chase - the "rich" guy leaves and the other 7 guys stare at each other wondering how they are going to get their beer.

Have you heard the parable about the guy with his head in his ass who kept asking why the room was dark and smelled so bad?

I'll cut to the chase...



The election is over
The voting is done
Your party lost
My party won
O let us be friends
Let's do this with class
And I'll hug your elephant
If You'll kiss my Ass

:clap:

Byrnzie

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Reagan had a much worse situation and it took him less than 18 months.

...with a helping hand, in the form of the Third World debt crisis in mid-1982, which the Reagan administration pounced on like vultures, as it enabled them to squeeze the Third World dry and fill their coffers.

bootlegger10

I've heard of sore losers before, but the sore winners are tough to listen to. So many insults and hate speech.

Prince Of Dorkness

bootlegger10 wrote:

I've heard of sore losers before, but the sore winners are tough to listen to. So many insults and hate speech.

Oh I'm sorry.

Am I spiking the ball too loudly?




Well that's just rude, isn't it?

And after four years of having to listen to people shouting about "your socialist emperor" and "the messiah" and "1 and done" and about 4 threads even here congratulating Mitt Romney for winning... After countless people attacking liberals and saying we're lazy (I work a full time job and own a production company in my spare time) and saying we feel we're "entitled to food," I think we've earned a few dances in the end zone.



And... as a member of the gay community that - for the first time EVER - finally beat NOM at their hate campaign against us, I get to do one last little one...

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

above all, we want everyone to have the same chance. just a fucking chance, to make something out of ourselves. just a chance to sink or swim on our own and not be held back by anyone or anything. a chance to make something out of ourselves.

How are folks held back from making something of themselves? I'm interested to hear that one.

Sure, there are folks that start out ahead. So what? It's not a zero sum game. Just because one person does well because they started out ahead doesn't mean someone else can't make something of themselves.

This is what holds folks back. I did better than my father did. He did better than his father did. He did better than his father did. Then, I lose track of my ancestry. I didn't have Kim Kardashian's wealth or ass. But, somehow, I'm doing ok. Who cares what her wealth is?

If anything, Obama's agenda holds people back by making them dependent on the government.

Please explain how folks are held back because we don't take more money from the "rich?"

people are held back from making something of themselves by being born into generation after generation of poverty. you and the republicans want to cut help for those people. incidently, you all are against affirmative action and you want to cut financial aid and student loans and grant for college. those things help get people out of poverty. that education is necessary to give people a chance. you cut that stuff you are creating another generation of poor and creating desperate people in desperate circumstances and some do desperate things like turn to crime to get what they need. some even commit crime to go to jail to be taken care of by the system. do you not see how one of those things relates to all of the others? i thought you were intelligent enough to connect the dots. your point of view exemplifies the cold, selfish views of the republican party. as long as you have yours, fuck everybody else, right?

folks that start out ahead rarely go downward, while people that start out in the lower and poor class rarely go up. there are a lot more people moving up from middle to upper class than poor to middle, and the wealthy never ever go down. that is a generational thing. they all live off of the money made by those that came before them. just like mitt romney.

obama does not make people dependant on government. can you explain how he supposedly does that?

did you know that there is a lifetime time limit that one can be on welfare and food stamps?? thank bill clinton for that one. but he won't get credit for that one either i guess..... :roll:

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what stuff specifically do obama voters want???

probably the same things most of us want. this is just from the top of my head....

1 safety

2 health insurance and access to care

3 we never want to die of starvation

4 we want control over our bodies

5 we want all people, women, men, gay, straight, black, white, latino, asian, etc to have equal rights

6 we want government to work for us, not have a minority party stonewall and block every possible initiative

7 we want to have peace and not be bombing the shit out of other countries because we are scared, we don't want to be paranoid or scared

8 we want god out of government and god out of our public schools (as an aside, i want god bless america taken out of the 7th inning stretch of baseball games, 9/11 was 11 years ago, we can stop with that shit now)

9 we want quality education for all

10 we want to stop harming the planet and we want alternative fuels. we want everyone to acknowledge that the plant is warming and this is going to only lead to more devestating storms, more death and destruction.

And to address the rest of this - you are right - Romney wanted folks to die of starvation. :roll:

And, what's the big deal with God Bless America in the 7th inning? Better to have Sweet Caroline when your team sucks?

I'm not religious at all. I think it's stupid and causes more problems than it solves (though some people do use it for good, which shouldn't be ignored either). But, the sentiment of the song is not that we believe in god or that it protects us (well, I'm sure some people take the literal translation). I take it as we are happy for out country and proud to be Americans. Kind of funny that the left doesn't want folks telling them what to do, but they are worried over a song. If you don't like it, don't stand when you're at the game and flip the channel when you're watching it on tv. Not sure why you'd even bring this up in such a non-sequitor kind of way. If you want to let people do what they want, this is part of what you get. You can't have it both ways. Oh, right - you only want it YOUR way.

you addressed the rest of this???

you addressed one point, the dying of starvation, which is exactly what you are gonna get if people like ryan and romney get in there and start cutting food stamps and welfare.

the other thing you addressed was my own opinion that god bless america is worn out at baseball games. with american players being nearly a minority in major league baseball, seems kind of insulting to the rest of the non-american players.

what about numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, the main point of number 9 and not the aside, and number 10???

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what stuff specifically do obama voters want???

probably the same things most of us want. this is just from the top of my head....

1 safety

2 health insurance and access to care

3 we never want to die of starvation

4 we want control over our bodies

5 we want all people, women, men, gay, straight, black, white, latino, asian, etc to have equal rights

6 we want government to work for us, not have a minority party stonewall and block every possible initiative

7 we want to have peace and not be bombing the shit out of other countries because we are scared, we don't want to be paranoid or scared

8 we want god out of government and god out of our public schools (as an aside, i want god bless america taken out of the 7th inning stretch of baseball games, 9/11 was 11 years ago, we can stop with that shit now)

9 we want quality education for all

10 we want to stop harming the planet and we want alternative fuels. we want everyone to acknowledge that the plant is warming and this is going to only lead to more devestating storms, more death and destruction.

above all, we want everyone to have the same chance. just a fucking chance, to make something out of ourselves. just a chance to sink or swim on our own and not be held back by anyone or anything. a chance to make something out of ourselves.

i think that is just a start to what most obama voters want.

Pretty good miss America speech you have there though. Problem is, Obama is not going to help with some of those, but I guess you think he'd help more than Romney.

And it doesnt seem like you want people to have a chance to sink or swim. You want them to do what they want and get unlimited life jackets.

miss america list? whatever man. i am just saying that that list is representative of what many obama voters want.

and yes, obama would help with more of them than romney would have.

what is wrong with multiple life jackets? the vast majority of americans are not going to need more than one. and even if some need more than one, what is wrong with investing in people so that they can help themselves???

did you know that most states pay up to 60 percent of college costs? at least they did when i went. now missouri pays something like 38% and passes the rest onto the student. universities are pricing themselves out of many peoples' price ranges. thus taking opportunities away from the less fortunate.

gimmesometruth27

Byrnzie wrote:

pandora wrote:

I saw on the news last night the breakdown of who supported Obama...
minorities, of course. He's a perfect figurehead for minorities.

Sure, minorities have taken over the country. No white people voted for Obama, other than some self-satisfied mega-rich celebrities, right?

And there was I thinking that we'd maybe see less bullshit here on the AMT now that the election circus is over.

Oh well.

nope, 2 days after getting the shit beat out of them at the polls, they are back with the same plan that the american people rejected... :fp:

Cliffy6745

I just don't understand why democrats who want a level playing field where everyone has a chance through a quality education, safe neighborhoods and the same opportunities in life for everyone are considered people who want to just give people money for their whole lives and not have them work for it. It's so idiotic and I expect it from people like O'Reilly and Hannity, but come on.

Prince Of Dorkness

Byrnzie wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The election is over
The voting is done
Your party lost
My party won
O let us be friends
Let's do this with class
And I'll hug your elephant
If You'll kiss my Ass

:clap:

Yeah, thought you'd like that.

comebackgirl

EdsonNascimento wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I think this comes more into play when people's basic needs aren't even met...not just about having more of a chance because of wealth, but recognizing that people can't even focus on self-actualization if their basic needs on the hierarchy aren't met.




I have a student whose parents both died before he was 8...never grew up with any strong family support and has a chronic health condition from birth...but damn if he isn't the hardest worker I know. The kid has a 4.0 with a double science major, works as an RA and in another college office and he is a student leader for a few different clubs. He's going off to medical school in the fall, but wouldn't have been able to do any of that without medicaid and tuition grants. He's worked his ass off for it, but is in a different position than someone who comes from a family who could provide healthcare and assist with tuition, food, clothing etc.

And just to respond to the early discussion about people in their 20s being healthy, since September I have met with a 19 year old student who was born with HIV, another 19 year old with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a 24 year old with breast cancer and a 26 year old with ovarian cancer. It will be a relief for them to stay on their parents' insurance and not to be denied for pre-existing conditions.

It is definitely harder for some folks. That student sounds like an amazing person. Glad those things were there for him/her.

As for the latter point about Obamacare - the issue with the pre-ex coverage is that it either won't be sufficient coverage (which the law tries to address), or more likely won't be affordable and those folks will be back in the same situation they are today, only with the added expense of paying the tax. The law does nothing to force people to take coverage when it is against their perceived benefit and more importantly does nothing to make health care itself more affordable. All it does is make insurance available to these folks. It doesn't really make it affordable. Unless they qualified for the broadened Medicaid provisions (which in NY, for example, really doesn't add that many folks), they will more likely be better off paying the tax and falling back on indigent care or whatever it does to pay the bills today. The law is mislabled.

The student I mentioned really is an amazing person. I am so in awe of him. The cool thing is that I've seen many, many similar examples. My perception may be skewed because the people I've come in contact with are the ones who have come from backgrounds of extreme trauma and neglect, but who have also worked hard and sought an opportunity. I worked for a domestic violence agency for years and we ran a transitional housing program for families rendered homeless as a result of domestic violence. So many of the survivors in that program had experienced violence and neglect since birth and then entered into their own abusive relationships as adults. It took such a dramatic amount of strength to leave a lifetime of abuse...and the biggest barriers were affordable housing and childcare. So we provided that while they went back to school or got job training. And they worked their asses off. I guess we could say they got "governmental handouts," but really they just wanted an opportunity. And now in my current job I see the students that overcame similar kinds of barriers, but also needed assistance such as educational grants to make the most of their opportunity. It might just be that the settings where I've worked are more likely to bring me into contact with those who have the strongest work ethic, but I have seen the difference an opportunity (not a handout) can make.

Well fortunately the students I mentioned already have good health insurance through their parents, so for them the most important thing is to be able to stay on that insurance during their treatments and not being rejected for pre-existing condition. I know there are a lot of flaws with Obamacare, but it was a step.