2012 President?

[ih8music]

Jules, you're projecting.

[KevinG]

It's pretty clear.

 

Just because you say it is clear doesn't make it so. I am really interested in what policies or statements Obama has made that make you think he wants voters to believe CEO's do nothing.

 

Or at least let me know where you got this notion.

[Guest Jules]

Maybe, but I'm a great projector.

 

Just because you say it is clear doesn't make it so. I am really interested in what policies or statements Obama has made that make you think he wants voters to believe CEO's do nothing.

Now who's projecting? I didn't say he wants voters to believe CEO's or business owners do nothing. He wants them to think the government is the entity really responsible for their benefits, wages, etc. Or at least as much as their employer. This is very clear from his most recent comments.

[KevinG]

Maybe, but I'm a great projector.

 

 

Now who's projecting? I didn't say he wants voters to believe CEO's or business owners do nothing. He wants them to think the government is the entity really responsible for their benefits, wages, etc. Or at least as much as their employer. This is very clear from his most recent comments.

 

I really don't want to get into a pissing match over this but this is in no way what he said. He said this:

 

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

 

You, the government, your neighbors, the people you haven't even met yet all helped, and are partially responsible for American success. We can't do it without each other.

 

I am just interested in where in the recent comments (not just cherry picked out of context comments ala Mitt Romney's ad) where Obama wants voters to think the government is responsible success than individuals.

 

You make claims and I want proof. If it is just a feeling or whatever say so.

[lost highway]

But nowhere does he say they do nothing. As I suggested before, they do something most people can not because they have the resources.

 

What is this rich psychology? These fearful aristocrats? At the merest gesture towards the power of socioeconomic class in the shaping of our country and its stratification they grasp their wallets and say "How dare you call me lazy."

 

I think people feel defensive about having money, and I think Romney is trying to use that.

[Guest Jules]

You make claims and I want proof. If it is just a feeling or whatever say so.

 

OK it's a feeling, but to me a very transparent message from the President. I couldn't give a shit one way or another, but it comes off as misleading to me. I guess it goes both ways.

[bleedorange]

But nowhere does he say they do nothing. As I suggested before, they do something most people can not because they have the resources.

 

What is this rich psychology? These fearful aristocrats? At the merest gesture towards the power of socioeconomic class in the shaping of our country and its stratification they grasp their wallets and say "How dare you call me lazy."

 

I think people feel defensive about having money, and I think Romney is trying to use that.

 

I think people get defensive about it because they're constantly being placed in a bad light...that they don't do their "fair share," etc. One thing the Left has always been effective at is developing this dividing line between social classes and creating disdain and hatred among the poor and middle class.

[ih8music]

And the Right is never divisive at all. :

 

I suppose I can see how saying that the top 1-2% of Americans should pay a little more taxes might be viewed as divisive, but it doesn't really bother me one bit. It's the right thing to do.

[gogo]

Yeah, going back to the days of Reagan's "welfare queens", the right has tried to convince the middle (and working) class that they should see themselves as separate, better, just different from the poor. It's all about which party can grab the biggest portion of that large group of voters, the ones that every party claims to best represent. I think the right tends to be more effective at it, just because everyone wants to believe that they're just one lucky break or brilliant idea away from being rich. But I'm guessing far more Americans are one missed paycheck away from poverty, than one lucky break away from the corner office.

[IRememberDBoon]

Jules thinks that schools and roads magically appear out of the ethos. Thats the equivalent to Jules saying us democrats believe businesses cant do anything without government. Noone ever said that.

[IRememberDBoon]

I think people get defensive about it because they're constantly being placed in a bad light...that they don't do their "fair share," etc. One thing the Left has always been effective at is developing this dividing line between social classes and creating disdain and hatred among the poor and middle class.

 

PUHFUGGINGLEASE!!

 

Lets get back to the voter ID stuff we were talking about last week. What a pantload every single bit of it is. If you think that Republicans are passing Voter ID laws as fast as they can get them on the books so they can protect the integrity of the voting system then thats why youre a conservative.

[uncool2pillow]

Jules thinks that schools and roads magically appear out of the ethos. Thats the equivalent to Jules saying us democrats believe businesses cant do anything without government. Noone ever said that.

 

You excel at telling us what people you disagree with think. Yesterday, you told me why I am a conservative, today, you sum up Jules' beliefs.

[uncool2pillow]

The report of a commission headed by Jimmy Carter and James Baker to Build Confidence in U.S. elections:

 

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf

 

p. 18 (sect. 2.5) deals with their recommendation on photo IDs.

[KevinG]

The report of a commission headed by Jimmy Carter and James Baker to Build Confidence in U.S. elections:

 

http://www1.american...full_report.pdf

 

p. 18 (sect. 2.5) deals with their recommendation on photo IDs.

 

Interesting. Still does not sway me in anyway to requiring ID's.

 

What I think is amusing is that there was a commission to build Confidence in US elections. I really didn't think was a lack of confidence in elections. Other than the 2000 debacle the rest of the national elections seemed to go off without much problem.

[IRememberDBoon]

Interesting. Still does not sway me in anyway to requiring ID's.

 

What I think is amusing is that there was a commission to build Confidence in US elections. I really didn't think was a lack of confidence in elections. Other than the 2000 debacle the rest of the national elections seemed to go off without much problem.

 

exactly. i mean if you can say with a straight face that you think republicans are passing these laws as fast as they can write them is because they truly believe there is a crisis of confidence in US elections you truly are lost.

 

I hope when someone goes to vote and cant because of no photo ID they take a seat in the floor right there.

 

whats the republicans answer to all the folks that wont get to vote??? oh wait. thats right. theyre poor and black with no ID so who gives a flying

[bleedorange]

And the Right is never divisive at all. :

 

I never said that. Both sides have their methods of manipulating the minds of voters. In fact, the Right is far better at it. "Class warfare" just happens to be the well that the Left goes to the most.

[KevinG]

I never said that. Both sides have their methods of manipulating the minds of voters. In fact, the Right is far better at it. "Class warfare" just happens to be the well that the Left goes to the most.

 

I actually think "Class warfare" is really a tacit of the Right, more so then the Left. As mentioned previously it was the Welfare Queens sucking on the taxpayer teat. Recently the GOP has pitted the middle class (private sector) against the middle class (public sector). Blaming the public employees with the current economic situation, and needing to balance state budgets on their backs.

 

And really if the left is using class warfare now, pitting the middle and lower classes against the rich, they are throwing pretty pitiful bombs. All that the president is asking is that tax rates for money made over 250K go back to before the Bush era tax cuts. It is not like Obama is telling people to go out and kill the rich or anything. He is just trying to bring a level of equality to our tax code.

 

Now with the passage of the Senate's tax bill we will see what the GOP controlled house is going to do. My bet is the GOP leadership won't allow this to come to a vote and we will see a ton of ads this political season that GOP congress person X wants to raise taxes on the middle class, etc. We will have to wait until the election is over to get anything done, which is sad.

 

I hope that the election the house and the senate both swing to one party or another. This way, at least something will get done, cause I firmly believe this stagnation in congress is almost fully to blame for the situation we are in today.

[lost highway]

When I think of some of the loudest, connected voices in the leftist constituency I think of the New England blue blood types. They are kind of the old money of the left; they're rich folk.

 

I don't see hatred for the rich on the left. That is more of an anarchist's game. Instead it's a conversation of leftists suggesting we resume a tax rate we had under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Bank and oil tycoons wet the bed at this, so advocates for tax increases on the wealthy call it greed. Right wing politicians try to gather votes (and save their Cayman Island tax haven) by fighting against it. Where I lose the thread is where intelligent, middle-class, Republicans call this class warfare.

 

How many rich families advocating for tax increases do you need to see that this is an approach to solving fiscal problems: Clintons, Kennedys, Gores, Warren Buffet, or hell check out these guys: http://patrioticmillionaires.org

 

To me, it's staggering what has happened to the right in this country in the last fifty years. How many medicaid recipients vote for tax cuts and increased military spending? How many social security recipients? I see a lot of folks voting for policies that aren't helping them because some mogul like the Koch brothers fed them a narrative.

[uncool2pillow]

 

 

exactly. i mean if you can say with a straight face that you think republicans are passing these laws as fast as they can write them is because they truly believe there is a crisis of confidence in US elections you truly are lost.

 

I hope when someone goes to vote and cant because of no photo ID they take a seat in the floor right there.

 

whats the republicans answer to all the folks that wont get to vote??? oh wait. thats right. theyre poor and black with no ID so who gives a flying

 

I was just hoping to get an acknowledgement that there is some bipartisan support for this idea and it's not all about racist attempts to disenfranchise. I guess I'll have to rethink my opinion of Carter.

[KevinG]

I was just hoping to get an acknowledgement that there is some bipartisan support for this idea and it's not all about racist attempts to disenfranchise. I guess I'll have to rethink my opinion of Carter.

 

Sure there is bi-partisan support for this, as to say Jimmy Carter was on the committee that wrote this report. But you have to look at where and how voter ID laws are being implemented. It is in battleground states where the GOP has taken control.

 

I mentioned this before, but I want you to seriously ask yourself, that voter fraud has damaged the integrity of our elections in the past 50 years, that we need now to potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Americans? Are we doing right by The Constitution and the American People?

[uncool2pillow]

1) Texas doen't stike me as a battleground state.

2) An ounce of prevention and all that.

 

I don't even know why I keep coming back to this issue when it's not really important to me either way. I suppose it's not to persuade people that it's a good law, but that there are some decent people who support it and decent reasons to,support it so long as we make sure it's not such a burden to access a photo id.

 

[gogo]

But what if the ounce of prevention is a leech, sucking the life force out of our democracy?

 

(How's that for a bit of hyperbole?? )

 

I still feel that these bills are a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist on any real scale, and they're far more likely to result in disenfranchising legitimate voters. It's a tiny bug, and they're going after it with a really big stick. Show me a bill that makes IDs more accessible, and goes after voter fraud with some kind of precision, and I'll consider it.

[KevinG]

1) Texas doen't stike me as a battleground state.

2) An ounce of prevention and all that.

 

I don't even know why I keep coming back to this issue when it's not really important to me either way. I suppose it's not to persuade people that it's a good law, but that there are some decent people who support it and decent reasons to,support it so long as we make sure it's not such a burden to access a photo id.

 

New voter ID laws passed in 2011/2012: PA, FL, WI, OH, TX, yeah Texas not so much, but PA, FL, WI and OH all battleground states, with GOP control.

 

If voter fraud was such problem why are they trying to get these laws in acted prior to the 2012 election? The GOP is trying give Mitt Romney a leg up, by disenfranchising voters.

 

An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure? We are down to idioms now? How about throwing the baby out with the bath water? It makes about as much sense.

 

I agree with gogo,

Show me a bill that makes IDs more accessible, and goes after voter fraud with some kind of precision, and I'll consider it.

 

But I would also go a step further, I would like the bill show that there is a need for voter ID.

[gogo]

But I would also go a step further, I would like the bill show that there is a need for voter ID.

 

That's why I'm only going to consider it.

[Tweedling]

"He tried. You tried. It's OK to make a change."

This ad makes me chuckle. Never mentions Romney and is not near as nasty as campaign ads can get.