This one is going to make someone's donkey hurt:
What they don't say is that patric saved several teens who were on spring break by drinking all of the Vodka and RedBull preventing at least a dozen of them from suffering alcohol poisoning. THATS SACRIFICE!
The cop he punched was probably going for his gun, or worse, his pepper spray to assault some group of innocent protesters.
(http://shark-tank.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/PatrickMurphy-mugshot.jpg)
Dude's a freekin hero!
Gweedo, where did you get your propensity for mean and violent? Mom and Dad ?
So in four years when Obama runs again, can he just reuse this add and dub over a few things?
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/billboard-mi-e1349557861137.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on October 06, 2012, 06:21:06 PM
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/billboard-mi-e1349557861137.jpg)
Yeah, yeah, yeah,...and I invested my private money in Walmart, Texaco, and Intel. Doesn't mean I know how to run the business' or had a hand in creating jobs any more than Mitt did. Same thing. Different scale. I didn't start out with Daddy's millions to play with. I started out with my own hundreds that I earned myself.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2012, 11:23:05 PM
I didn't start out with Daddy's millions to play with. I started out with my own hundreds that I earned myself.
So your parents were a couple of inconsiderate, cheap, slackers.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 06, 2012, 11:28:43 PM
So your parents were a couple of inconsiderate, cheap, slackers.
;D
47%ers.
At least until late in life. Finally, after more than 45 + years each of working like dogs, they got to retire - with real pensions!!! Something NONE of their kids will ever experience. But hey, the 1%ers will benefit, so that's what's really important anyway... always glad to do my part to support their idea of society.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2012, 11:41:13 PM
At least until late in life. Finally, after more than 45 + years each of working like dogs, they got to retire - with real pensions!!! Something NONE of their kids will ever experience.
Judging from your posts, you don't deserve it.
Seriously, when our parents' pensions were formulated, most people were expected to die within a few years. Dad cooperated somewhat by dieing at age 75. Mom is coming up fast on 86. What is it that American Airlines found? Something like an average of death within 6 months of retiring. The concept of a "real pension" is an economic thing of the past. Unfortunate but that's the way it is.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 12:12:54 AM
Seriously, when our parents' pensions were formulated, most people were expected to die within a few years.
You should take a look at life expectancy by income and race. The differences are larger than I expected.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 12:12:54 AM
Judging from your posts, you don't deserve it.
Seriously, when our parents' pensions were formulated, most people were expected to die within a few years. Dad cooperated somewhat by dieing at age 75. Mom is coming up fast on 86. What is it that American Airlines found? Something like an average of death within 6 months of retiring. The concept of a "real pension" is an economic thing of the past. Unfortunate but that's the way it is.
I know it has likely been a while since you were involved in a pension plan, but the funding was based on actuarial tables and based on exactly that - life expectancy. And since it was rising for most of the last century, that was well known, factored in and accounted for. They were not static, but moved around, somewhat related to the investments. If a company chose the right pension manager, they reduced their contributions. If not, then the expense went up. So it was in their best interest to have the best professional investment firms involved.
What was NOT accounted for was that Reagan's time in office would see companies be allowed to reach into the pensions and make them their own private play grounds - taking out the money that was there and putting in company stock as a substitute. Taking real financial investment professionals out of the equation. And then along came the 401k, which if it had been done properly, would truly have been a boon to the other 99%. But instead it was treated much like the school funding from lotteries has been done in this country. It was made to be a replacement instead of an enhancement. And every single person is now their own "investment professional".
And then the incentive was reversed from finding the best to "it doesn't matter - we're gonna put company stock in it no matter what". You can see the potential for abuse with this.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2012, 08:35:16 AM
I know it has likely been a while since you were involved in a pension plan, but the funding was based on actuarial tables and based on exactly that - life expectancy. And since it was rising for most of the last century, that was well known, factored in and accounted for. They were not static, but moved around, somewhat related to the investments. If a company chose the right pension manager, they reduced their contributions. If not, then the expense went up. So it was in their best interest to have the best professional investment firms involved.
As life expectancies rose, the cost of fully funding those pensions also rose. At least it had better have risen.
QuoteWhat was NOT accounted for was that Reagan's time in office would see companies be allowed to reach into the pensions and make them their own private play grounds - taking out the money that was there and putting in company stock as a substitute.
I agree, that was a bad move.
QuoteAnd then along came the 401k, which if it had been done properly, would truly have been a boon to the other 99%.
It was still better than losing any company contributions due to vesting. My father worked for the same company for 35 years. That was his generation. Our (and younger) generations have been more mobile, sometimes by choice, sometimes not. One of the biggest problems with the pensions you are so fond of is that they are/were not portable from one employer to another.
QuoteAnd then the incentive was reversed from finding the best to "it doesn't matter - we're gonna put company stock in it no matter what". You can see the potential for abuse with this.
My employer's contribution to my 401K is in company stock. I am able to transfer that "money" to another investment. I believe I can do that immediately but I haven't moved any lately. I'm hoping for the economy to recover so the value of the stock will go up a bit to its 2008 levels.
Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 12:47:54 AM
You should take a look at life expectancy by income and race. The differences are larger than I expected.
I expect you would fix the income part of that discrimination by giving money to the poor. How would you equalize life expectancy due to race alone?
(http://www.readingthescore.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/paul-ryan-poster.png)
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
How would you equalize life expectancy due to race alone?
I don't expect it to be equal, but I do expect that decisions as to what the retirement age should be shouldn't be made without considering its impact on those who haven't shared in the life expectancy gains that others have realized. If we all had equal access to health care, regardless of financial considerations, I suspect that the life expectancy inequality would largely evaporate. There would still be some inequality in that respect (black males are a lot more likely to be killed in violent crime than white people of either gender), but at least it wouldn't be due to differing access to care.
I know you often think of me as some kind of far left winger, but I don't have any interest in ensuring that we all make the same amount of money or whatever. I do, however, think that we should all have access to regular health care whether we've got money or not. The "put it all on the ER" that we're doing now and that Romney wants to continue clearly doesn't work.
Just to be clear, I think income inequality is so high at present that it is weakening our economy and indeed the social fabric of our nation. I would like inequality to be less, not eliminated. Obviously, in most cases, CEOs deserve more pay than line workers. They simply create more value for the organization. It seems unlikely that they actually provide a thousand times or more value, though. I also think work should be taxed the same as investment. I know the right wingers like to go on about savings having already been taxed, which is true, but the implication is a lie. If you put $50,000 in the bank this year and withdraw $50,000 plus interest next year, it's not as if you pay tax on the $50,000 again. Even if the "bank" is actually stock or bonds or futures or derivatives.
Red, two things. First, 401ks also often have a vesting schedule. My SO gets both a 401k and a defined benefit pension (I don't get smile since I work for myself), both have a 5 year vesting schedule for company contributions. Now that the 5 years have passed, all company contributions are hers to keep, and at retirement (65, for her plan) the pension will pay out about $165 a month if she left today. Before she hit her 5 years, the company contributions in the 401k would go back to the employer.
Second, you're getting screwed. It is patently ridiculous that they can use company stock as a 401k match. Do you get the company match each pay period, or is it just a lump sum once a year?
Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 04:29:17 PM
I know you often think of me as some kind of far left winger,
OK, maybe just a far left shoulder.
QuoteObviously, in most cases, CEOs deserve more pay than line workers. They simply create more value for the organization. It seems unlikely that they actually provide a thousand times or more value, though.
I agree that some CEO pay is absurd as earned income. I also think that if the company is struggling and the CEO is fired that there should be no parachute, platinum, gold, or tin. Maybe a lead balloon or concrete boots would be appropriate. I don't care about investment income quantities.
QuoteRed, two things. First, 401ks also often have a vesting schedule. My SO gets both a 401k and a defined benefit pension (I don't get smile since I work for myself), both have a 5 year vesting schedule for company contributions. Now that the 5 years have passed, all company contributions are hers to keep, and at retirement (65, for her plan) the pension will pay out about $165 a month if she left today. Before she hit her 5 years, the company contributions in the 401k would go back to the employer.
Could be. That's not the way I understand my present plan or the 3 previous places I worked.
QuoteSecond, you're getting screwed. It is patently ridiculous that they can use company stock as a 401k match. Do you get the company match each pay period, or is it just a lump sum once a year?
I'll have to check again. I know that company stock ends up in my 401K. It may be above and beyond the matching funds of up to 4%. I believe the matching funds, stock or otherwise, are entered every other pay check which is 4 weeks. As I said earlier, I believe it is also available for immediate transfer to another fund within the 401K.
Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 04:29:17 PM
I don't expect it to be equal, but I do expect that decisions as to what the retirement age should be shouldn't be made without considering its impact on those who haven't shared in the life expectancy gains that others have realized. If we all had equal access to health care, regardless of financial considerations, I suspect that the life expectancy inequality would largely evaporate. There would still be some inequality in that respect (black males are a lot more likely to be killed in violent crime than white people of either gender), but at least it wouldn't be due to differing access to care.
Then the racial aspect of life expectancy is probably more economic and social than racial. In this case, racial being genetic considerations, not the social and economic situations usually associated with race.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 06:08:55 PM
I agree that some CEO pay is absurd as earned income. I also think that if the company is struggling and the CEO is fired that there should be no parachute, platinum, gold, or tin. Maybe a lead balloon or concrete boots would be appropriate. I don't care about investment income quantities.
Abercrombie & Fitch - reported annual income - several hundred thousand dollars.
CEO W-2 pay - a few more hundred thousand.
CEO total compensation - $125 million.
Disparity?? Naw....not in this universe....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2012, 09:20:34 PM
Abercrombie & Fitch - reported annual income - several hundred thousand dollars.
CEO W-2 pay - a few more hundred thousand.
CEO total compensation - $125 million.
Disparity?? Naw....not in this universe....
First off - how does that dispute what I said? Stock options etc for on the job time are not what I consider investment income. It is still compensation for time on the job doing what the job description requires.
Second off - a statistical example of one. I know there are more but you better start listing them ALL.
I know how to hit the return line many times too!
Edit:
Remove a few returns. I cannot stand being a space waster and cannot follow Heiron's example.
How about we just go for the average. If you limit it to only CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, it looks much the same, just higher in general and higher peaks above that level.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png/500px-CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png)
The downward trend there at the end has almost certainly reversed with the stock market. The latest data in this graph is from 2010. TBH, I'm more in awe of their ballsy tax avoidance schemes than the level of pay itself.
Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 09:58:48 PM
How about we just go for the average. If you limit it to only CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, it looks much the same, just higher in general and higher peaks above that level.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png/500px-CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png)
The downward trend there at the end has almost certainly reversed with the stock market. The latest data in this graph is from 2010. TBH, I'm more in awe of their ballsy tax avoidance schemes than the level of pay itself.
I agree that CEOs are often paid more than I would think they are worth. Having said that though, do you have some more info like standard deviation and other statistical things I barely remember from college?
For example:
The average of 100 CEOs making $300,000/yr and 5 CEOs making $125,000,000/yr is $6,238,095/yr. WOW! the average of 105 CEOs is $6M/yr (M=Mega to you natural gas guys) but most of them are only about 10 to 20X a lot of workers because of less than 5% of the CEOs.
(http://media.economist.com/images/debate/34/kaplan_chart_1_large.gif)
This chart is in 2008 dollars and shows both the mean and the median.
Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 10:42:42 PM
(http://media.economist.com/images/debate/34/kaplan_chart_1_large.gif)
This chart is in 2008 dollars and shows both the mean and the median.
Still looking for a distribution.
Indeed, guido. Throw the Republicans out of Congress so we can get Obama's supposedly failed agenda actually passed into law. We've been cutting taxes and holding the line on spending for a few years now, and now have a nice spending cut coming up.
Quote from: guido911 on October 08, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
This SHOULD be an ad...
Quit with posting the emotionally disturbed...makes you seem insensitive.
Joe Conason and Jon Soltz Discuss Mitt Romney's Cop Impersonation and Vietnam Deferment
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 04:03:17 PM
Quit with posting the emotionally disturbed...makes you seem insensitive.
What does that say about your sensitivity from when you used to post pieces by Madcow and Olberdoosh? Talk about a couple of emotionally disturbed people...
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 09:32:35 PM
First off - how does that dispute what I said? Stock options etc for on the job time are not what I consider investment income. It is still compensation for time on the job doing what the job description requires.
Second off - a statistical example of one. I know there are more but you better start listing them ALL.
I know how to hit the return line many times too!
Edit:
Remove a few returns. I cannot stand being a space waster and cannot follow Heiron's example.
I wasn't saying you were disputing it, I was providing a classic example - one of the most extreme, granted...but it is the universal constant in corporate America. Kind of a more typical example; 800k W-2 income. 15 million on "other" income - exempt from regular income tax.
I see my 15 million was a little high. 10 million average. 8 million median. That's impressive. Would love to be there.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 09, 2012, 08:10:05 PM
I was providing a classic example - one of the most extreme, granted...
Which is a common thing for you to do. It's why I dismiss almost everything you post involving numbers.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 09, 2012, 08:14:38 PM
I see my 15 million was a little high. 10 million average. 8 million median. That's impressive.
What's impressive is that it only took you 4 min, 33 sec to drop your numbers by 33% or more. Why should I believe
any numbers you post?
Sesame Workshop has requested that President Obama remove his newest ad featuring Big Bird. The ad was created without permission.
"we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/09/big-bird-wants-out-of-campaign-ad/
Sesame Workshop brings in $133 million a year in revenue. According to their form 990, the government only contributes about 5% to their operation. I don't think Big Bird has much to worry about. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/132/655/2011-132655731-085636f7-9.pdf
Big Bird cleared $46.9 million in licensing revenue for toys and other merchandise in 2011. He's not going anywhere!
So why would Romney want to kill him?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 10, 2012, 08:21:47 AM
So why would Romney want to kill him?
Because, apparently, that budget cut would provide 6 minutes of operating time for the US military.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 10, 2012, 08:21:47 AM
So why would Romney want to kill him?
Because Romney has a really large family gathering on Thanksgiving?
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.347.347/p403x403/548071_10100309705829142_1082150628_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/62071_438055269575916_898592266_n.jpg)
This isn't a campaign ad, but it's political humor. I found it hilarious.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548427_395682270498282_1888706376_n.jpg)
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 09, 2012, 09:39:53 PM
Which is a common thing for you to do. It's why I dismiss almost everything you post involving numbers.
Too much reality for you?
Because extremisms are what the Murdochians are all about - if one doesn't speak their language there is no hope of them comprehending anything.
And for the real world, I followed up with a generic realistic conservative reference to the chart that nathan posted - the reality. 10 million per year, with over 90% of that income being re-defined by their "bought and paid for Congress" to be something other than income, so they get the BIG tax break.
And while we are here - the classic poster child of Murdochian style hypocrisy, deflection and quite probably fraud - who is laying the suffering all on his workers now. Class act....not.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-workers-youll-likely-fired-131640914.html
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 09, 2012, 09:39:53 PM
Which is a common thing for you to do. It's why I dismiss almost everything you post involving numbers.
And a 15 million guess from memory is actually quite close to the 10 million-ish range. Especially when you look at the charts and see that in your nit-picking style, recent history (last 10 years or so) the 15 was actually LOW, and the 10 is also actually LOW, since it is probably closer to a 12 or 13 or 14.
Still being obtuse. If you actually applied this methodology to your engineering, you would never get anything designed, produced and into the field...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 10, 2012, 08:21:47 AM
So why would Romney want to kill him?
You're not getting deep enough to get to the real reason. A well educated populace is a serious danger to the extremist right. It must be avoided at all costs. Goes to the fact that the less educated one is, the more conservative one tends to be - a discussion we have had here.
Quote from: Hoss on October 10, 2012, 12:26:05 PM
This isn't a campaign ad, but it's political humor. I found it hilarious.
Funny, but tragic, too. Because it is so close to the truth.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 10, 2012, 08:21:47 AM
So why would Romney want to kill him?
The money part is only a smoke screen, Michael. The real reason has to do with ideology. Sesame Street promotes concepts like sharing, and as well all know, that's the first step toward communism. Pre-school kids shouldn't be exposed to such insidious ideas. The Republicans would prefer that these children stick with those traditional, Randian values, and when another kid wants to borrow a crayon, they should shout, "MINE!"
Hmm? It's almost half a billion in grants to a television network that has shown it is capable of supporting itself through private donations and grants.
I love PBS, but with a $1.1 trillion dollar budget deficit that had more than doubled over the past 3 years, a whole bunch of things need to be cut.
Surgery is never fun, but it sure beats death!
If you're upset about PBS, boy howdy, you're really going to be mad with all of the other cuts. Get your signs ready to march in the streets and demand your entitlements, because unless we start to be responsible now, we're headed the way of Greece and Spain and all of the other countries that felt they could just keep spending, borrowing, and squeezing the producers to feed the hive.
You can moan and squeal all you want, but at the end of the day, there aren't enough rich folks to support the rate of spending growth, and even if there were, their level of motivation to support a wasteful government and growing entitlement class is getting thin.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 10, 2012, 04:42:38 PM
Hmm? It's almost half a billion in grants to a television network that has shown it is capable of supporting itself through private donations and grants.
I love PBS, but with a $1.1 trillion dollar budget deficit that had more than doubled over the past 3 years, a whole bunch of things need to be cut.
Might stop cutting things that educate and feed children. Maybe cut things that harm.
Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2012, 04:44:27 PM
Might stop cutting things that educate and feed children. Maybe cut things that harm.
Education, to right wingers, IS harming...didn't you know that?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 10, 2012, 04:42:38 PM
Hmm? It's almost half a billion in grants to a television network that has shown it is capable of supporting itself through private donations and grants. I love PBS, but with a $1.1 trillion dollar budget deficit that had more than doubled over the past 3 years, a whole bunch of things need to be cut.
You do realize that most of the funding for CPB pays for the
TV stations, not for programming, which is largely self supporting? Bye bye OETA.
Quote
we're headed the way of ... Spain and all of the other countries that felt they could just keep spending, borrowing, and squeezing the producers to feed the hive.
And you prove once again that your head is up your donkey. Before the financial crisis, Spain's financial position was far better than ours. It's too bad Romney shares your lack of knowledge regarding the rest of the world.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2012, 03:59:05 PM
Too much reality for you?
No. Are you familiar with the story about "the boy who cried wolf"? You are that person, a bit older perhaps.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
Still being obtuse. If you actually applied this methodology to your engineering, you would never get anything designed, produced and into the field...
If you are as careless in your engineering as you are on this forum, it's a wonder you can find a job as an engineer. Enough of the personal insults already.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 10, 2012, 04:42:38 PM
I love PBS, but with a $1.1 trillion dollar budget deficit that had more than doubled over the past 3 years, a whole bunch of things need to be cut.
You say you love it, may well even have watched some of these shows growing up. Just wonder how you missed the parts about not telling blatant lies? Especially when you know they are lies. If you will lie about this deficit stuff, just wonder what you will tell your customers?
And yes, you do know the deficits have been going down for the last 3 years.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
And yes, you do know the deficits have been going down for the last 3 years.
Everything is downhill when you are standing on the peak of Mt Everest.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 10, 2012, 06:35:37 PM
Everything is downhill when you are standing on the peak of Mt Everest.
True.
Bad place to be. Glad we have come back at least this far from it. Now only another trillion to go....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2012, 06:57:12 PM
Bad place to be. Glad we have come back at least this far from it. Now only another trillion to go....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
Go to the bottom of page 22 and top of page 23
I don't care what all they cut with one exception: I just want them to pay for Sandra Fluke's rubbers so she can't procreate.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 10, 2012, 08:52:04 PM
I don't care what all they cut with one exception: I just want them to pay for Sandra Fluke's rubbers so she can't procreate.
Thanks for THAT image!!!
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDo7pI10YQricMSehxlXxRzNl9sfqY_BSs7_xwOnhoxH9LBXrmruCf0W1RMQ)
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 10, 2012, 07:48:20 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
Go to the bottom of page 22 and top of page 23
You gotta be kidding me, right?? You somehow think that a budget equates to actual debt numbers??
Geez.... get into some reality. Here is some reality;
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
I realize you want to be contrarian, but there is a difference between that and being petulant.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 11, 2012, 08:34:16 AM
You gotta be kidding me, right?? You somehow think that a budget equates to actual debt numbers??
Geez.... get into some reality. Here is some reality;
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
I realize you want to be contrarian, but there is a difference between that and being petulant.
Uh, yeah it does. How do you think debt is created? It's when you over-spend your income and borrow money to make up the shortfall.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Uh, yeah it does. How do you think debt is created? It's when you over-spend your income and borrow money to make up the shortfall.
Actually, no, it doesn't. A budget is only a wish list. A budget - especially a Presidential office budget - can say/be anything anyone wants it to say/do. Means nothing until the spending bills are passed.
The spending and actual debt is only created/eliminated when Congress - specifically the House of Representatives - initiates a bill, both houses pass it, and the President signs it. THEN an indebtedness accrues.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 10, 2012, 08:52:04 PM
I don't care what all they cut with one exception: I just want them to pay for Sandra Fluke's rubbers so she can't procreate.
I listened to her in an interview. An intelligent woman with well thought out ideas and arguments.
It's too bad you can just write her off because Limbaugh decided to go loon again.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 11, 2012, 09:07:08 AM
Actually, no, it doesn't. A budget is only a wish list. A budget - especially a Presidential office budget - can say/be anything anyone wants it to say/do. Means nothing until the spending bills are passed.
The spending and actual debt is only created/eliminated when Congress - specifically the House of Representatives - initiates a bill, both houses pass it, and the President signs it. THEN an indebtedness accrues.
Parse all you like, watch out for the attendant dizziness which will result.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2012, 09:26:36 AM
Parse all you like, watch out for the attendant dizziness which will result.
Parse?
What...reality need not apply?? Actually, the slinging around of budgets, on and off budget costs, and all the other deflection and dissemination amounts to feeble attempts to justify the lie about the deficit (the amount of money spent that is above the income to spend) tripling in the last 3 years. When the reality is that it has come down by 30%...and lest Red get all excited that an exaggeration, it is actually very close to a 29.6021220159% reduction. Close enough to 30 for me, but hey, you know what a stickler he can be.
Interesting note is that the Obama administration's budget request contained $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays (expenditures) for 2012, for a deficit of $1.101 trillion. The April 2011 Republican plan contained $2.533 trillion in revenues and $3.529 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $0.996 trillion.
The enacted budget contained $2.469 trillion in receipts and $3.796 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $1.327 trillion.
What happened to all that fiscal restraint the House is supposed to have under Boner?? They had to initiate and pass the bills before anything else happened.
Quote from: Townsend on October 11, 2012, 09:08:42 AM
I listened to her in an interview. An intelligent woman with well thought out ideas and arguments.
It's too bad you can just write her off because Limbaugh decided to go loon again.
No, I can write her off because she told bald faced lies that birth control could cost a law student $1000 per year. I guess it could if you had an "oops" a year and needed to have an abortion.
Secondly: president of
Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice? What exactly is reproductive justice?
Third, I can also write her off as I don't believe paying for birth control is incumbent on all the rest of society to pay for it.
People have come to this bastardized idea that health insurance is supposed to pay for any and every medical need. Perhaps insurance companies were the ones who opened that veritable Pandora's box with HMO and PPO concepts. The idea was for "well care" to encourage preventative health care and to catch major diseases early. Instead it's resulted in people going to the GP's office for every hang-nail and sniffle since they only have to pay $10 or $20 for a visit.
Only in my working lifetime has this evolved. The first company insurance plan I had was an 80/20 major medical which suited me just fine. I paid $60 for the entire cost of my annual doctor's visit and if I had to go to the ER or needed some sort of medical procedure, I paid 20%, the insurer paid 80%. Now people want insurers to pay for office visits and all their meds, and fume that insurance premium costs keep going up.
There's this mistaken idea that now birth control becomes a freebie under the mandates of Obamacare. It doesn't become a freebie, it's paid for in insurance rates. Add in administrative costs, and it actually ends up costing more in the end. Just pay the $10 to $30 a month for your damn pills or rubbers.
We want more and more of our expenses covered by someone else, is it any wonder insurance rates are so friggin' high and why the US Government is swimming in debt?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 11, 2012, 09:52:10 AM
Parse?
What...reality need not apply?? Actually, the slinging around of budgets, on and off budget costs, and all the other deflection and dissemination amounts to feeble attempts to justify the lie about the deficit (the amount of money spent that is above the income to spend) tripling in the last 3 years. When the reality is that it has come down by 30%...and lest Red get all excited that an exaggeration, it is actually very close to a 29.6021220159% reduction. Close enough to 30 for me, but hey, you know what a stickler he can be.
Interesting note is that the Obama administration's budget request contained $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays (expenditures) for 2012, for a deficit of $1.101 trillion. The April 2011 Republican plan contained $2.533 trillion in revenues and $3.529 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $0.996 trillion.
The enacted budget contained $2.469 trillion in receipts and $3.796 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $1.327 trillion.
What happened to all that fiscal restraint the House is supposed to have under Boner?? They had to initiate and pass the bills before anything else happened.
The result of the proposed republican budget was a net decrease in deficit of $4.4 trillion over 10 years, and avoids what was then estimated as $1.5 trillion in tax increases as a result of Obamacare. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperityfy2012.pdf We now know that number is much higher. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We now see that the current path (virtually unchanged from the Bush era because no one could get a budget passed Harry) adds about a trillion a year. The president's plan would have added about the same. I would have liked to see a plan that cut far more spending and instituted some budgetary rules, but nothing, nothing, nothing was ever going to get passed Harry. Not the president's budget, not the Republican budget, and there sure as hell wasn't going to be anything touched by the Senate.
QuoteNo, I can write her off because she told bald faced lies that birth control could cost a law student $1000 per year. I guess it could if you had an "oops" a year and needed to have an abortion.
The pill - up to $600 a year plus office visits. An example. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/how-much-does-birth-control-cost (http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/how-much-does-birth-control-cost)
I'll pass on the abortion comment.
QuoteSecondly: president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice? What exactly is reproductive justice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice)
QuoteThird, I can also write her off as I don't believe paying for birth control is incumbent on all the rest of society to pay for it.
That wasn't her stance.
You and I have differing opinions on insurance and many other things.
I'll stop now because this will lead to too many snarky comments reducing it to nothing. I'll save those for others on here.
Quote from: Townsend on October 11, 2012, 10:31:44 AM
The pill - up to $600 a year plus office visits. An example. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/how-much-does-birth-control-cost (http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/how-much-does-birth-control-cost)
I'll pass on the abortion comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice)
That wasn't her stance.
You and I have differing opinions on insurance and many other things.
I'll stop now because this will lead to too many snarky comments reducing it to nothing. I'll save those for others on here.
There's no need to reduce it to snark, the facts and figures are very simple.
Even at the top end in the article you provided, It's $1800 over three years plus whatever the co-pay is for a "female" visit, I'm assuming $20, so $1860. That's a far cry from $3000 and $1860 would be an exception. I gave my daughter an extra $30 a month in her grocery money to "keep her hormones regulated" while in college. ::) I suppose that's the rub to me, why would someone expect people they don't know to help foot the cost of something as personal as birth control?
Fluke did believe that BC should have been included in the student health insurance plan which means she expected someone else to pay for birth control for these students. That much is very clear.
Insurance is a sliding scale. How much risk and expense are you willing to share? The more of it you are willing to pay, the less your premium needs to be. Health insurance used to be essentially a hedge against the worst possible scenario, not a way to pay for all of one's healthcare costs which is what it's morphed into. Perhaps you don't view it this way, but people get this mistaken notion that insurance companies are gratuitously ripping them off on premiums when the consumer keeps demanding health insurers pay a greater share of their medications and regular medical check-ups, as well as taking on greater risks by government mandate. (And actually, I'm glad people with pre-existing conditions will be covered and lifetime caps are now a thing of the past).
Consider what would happen to auto insurance costs if people started demanding that auto insurance also cover oil changes, filter changes, regular detailing and also pay a portion of the gasoline costs.
I still say give Obamacare time...all the doctors and pharmaceutical reps complaining lead me to believe we are on the right course. Now, means test Medicare and the out of control Medical Industrial Complex gets reined in.... Why do you think the government is the problem when it's the insurance mob?
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/a6475a60efff012ff1b6001dd8b71c47)
Single payer remains the only real solution....
Quote from: Gaspar on October 11, 2012, 10:14:37 AM
The result of the proposed republican budget was a net decrease in deficit of $4.4 trillion over 10 years, and avoids what was then estimated as $1.5 trillion in tax increases as a result of Obamacare. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperityfy2012.pdf We now know that number is much higher. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We now see that the current path (virtually unchanged from the Bush era because no one could get a budget passed Harry) adds about a trillion a year. The president's plan would have added about the same. I would have liked to see a plan that cut far more spending and instituted some budgetary rules, but nothing, nothing, nothing was ever going to get passed Harry. Not the president's budget, not the Republican budget, and there sure as hell wasn't going to be anything touched by the Senate.
What color is the sky in your world??
OBVIOUSLY, since we actually have spending going on for fiscal 2012, it got past Harry. And it was the amount approved by the House to get there - which just "happened" to be higher than what Obama proposed. Yeah...Harry made that happen. Since he is the one that controls the initiation of all spending bills in the US. Oh, wait...there's that pesky reality thing again....
In addition to being a higher spending amount than the Obama budget requested, it was a higher deficit amount than the Obama proposed, too. By MORE than a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Buy hey, in MurdochianFantasyWorld, that's the way they roll... don't matter how you try to "Bill OReilly" it (spin), the fact is Boner started the parade. No doubt the rest ending up getting on board, but it Boner hadn't had such a 'h***-**" to just do anything as long as it was different from what Obama proposed, we would have been spending LESS and the deficit and the national debt would have been smaller. No way you can squirm out from under that one.
Sounds a lot like what the extremist right accuses the left of all the time.
I just figured out what's wrong - it's not the color of the sky in their world, it's that their heads are on backwards. Like this;
http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/36320/bizarre-looking+sheep+with+an+upside-down+head+sparks+debate+video/
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 11, 2012, 09:07:08 AM
THEN an indebtedness accrues.
Maybe. Government agencies often do not spend all the money that has been appropriated. Like the DOE green energy loan program. ;)
Lindsay Lohan endorsed Romney.
Congratulations.
Quote from: Townsend on October 12, 2012, 03:19:21 PM
Lindsay Lohan endorsed Romney.
Congratulations.
Well, we know it wasn't because Rmoney was doing body shots with her.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 12, 2012, 03:21:40 PM
Well, we know it wasn't because Rmoney was doing body shots with her.
She almost talked him into doing coffee at a party once.
Quote from: Townsend on October 12, 2012, 03:19:21 PM
Lindsay Lohan endorsed Romney.
Congratulations.
That should just about seal everything up for ol' Mitt.
Because targeting the lowest common denominator is not the exclusive realm of the right.
Quote from: erfalf on October 16, 2012, 09:28:10 AM
Because targeting the lowest common denominator is not the exclusive realm of the right.
How is that the "lowest common denominator"?
Quote from: erfalf on October 16, 2012, 09:28:10 AM
Because targeting the lowest common denominator is not the exclusive realm of the right.
Last I checked, none of these people had multiple stints in jail. But I guess that only matters if they're democrats, right?
Quote from: Townsend on October 16, 2012, 09:29:51 AM
How is that the "lowest common denominator"?
"Lowest IQ"
Quote from: erfalf on October 16, 2012, 10:14:41 AM
"Lowest IQ"
I agree. That does tend to be the exclusive realm of the right.
Quote from: Townsend on October 12, 2012, 03:19:21 PM
Lindsay Lohan endorsed Romney.
Congratulations.
Honey Boo Boo endorsed Obama.
Congratulations.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/10/honey-boo-boo-backs-obama-138591.html
Quote from: Townsend on October 16, 2012, 10:17:35 AM
I agree. That does tend to be the exclusive realm of the right.
It sure does, and this guy knows something about IQ.
Uh-oh...just saw where Gaspar and Conan get their lies about the deficit doubling in the last 3 years...what Romney just said.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 16, 2012, 08:56:40 PM
Uh-oh...just saw where Gaspar and Conan get their lies about the deficit doubling in the last 3 years...what Romney just said.
You don't listen well, do you? I never said it doubled. I said Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half. He didn't. Either he failed or he lied.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 16, 2012, 09:25:20 PM
You don't listen well, do you? I never said it doubled. I said Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half. He didn't. Either he failed or he lied.
Depends on which estimates and guesstimates one wants to believe. One of which puts it at 30% lower. Other projections indicate that it is about 45%. Either one is a dramatic improvement and a HUGE swing from the direction it was heading. It is going very much the right direction.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 16, 2012, 09:38:13 PM
Depends on which estimates and guesstimates one wants to believe. One of which puts it at 30% lower. Other projections indicate that it is about 45%. Either one is a dramatic improvement and a HUGE swing from the direction it was heading. It is going very much the right direction.
Huh?
Obama knew he was inheriting more than a $1 trillion deficit when he was campaigning in 2008. In order for it to be 50% less, now the deficit would have to be about $500 billion. It's not. Either he failed or he lied.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 16, 2012, 10:16:47 PM
Huh?
Obama knew he was inheriting more than a $1 trillion deficit when he was campaigning in 2008. In order for it to be 50% less, now the deficit would have to be about $500 billion. It's not. Either he failed or he lied.
The last Bush deficit was $1.9 trillion. But you have been told that repeatedly. And shown it (if ever bothered to even look...)
And now, I keep hearing two main projections - either $ 1.3 or 1.1 trillion for fiscal 2012. Don't know and don't care where these come from - 6 months from now, the real number will be known. But in the meantime, BOTH are dramatic improvements over the last 3 years. Either 30% or 45% (approx).
One other thing these numbers show is that yes, cutting spending CAN help, but also shows without any doubt that cannot be the whole story....more revenue is mandatory. Which gets us back to the Bush fail tax cuts without raises two years later.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 16, 2012, 09:25:20 PM
You don't listen well, do you? I never said it doubled. I said Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half. He didn't. Either he failed or he lied.
Or Obama got stymied by a congress hell bent on destroying his chances for a second term and by refusing to work with the President disabled him from cutting the deficit in half. Unpatriotic and a party over country choice by the GOP/Teabaggers.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/283487_10151119492007911_1277471772_n.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 16, 2012, 11:00:59 PM
Or Obama got stymied by a congress hell bent on destroying his chances for a second term and by refusing to work with the President disabled him from cutting the deficit in half. Unpatriotic and a party over country choice by the GOP/Teabaggers.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/283487_10151119492007911_1277471772_n.jpg)
Blame Bush, blame Congress.
I've never seen a president and his enablers so bent on taking credit for other's success and blaming others for his shortcomings and failures.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 17, 2012, 10:10:06 AM
I've never seen a president and his enablers so bent on taking credit for other's success and blaming others for his shortcomings and failures.
"mission accomplished" wasn't a super thing.
Hell, the pretzel companies even tried to kill the previous guy.
Americans - a Public Service Film by Kid Rock & Sean Penn
We will all agree on this....
"I don't even really know that you are a troglodyte. Well, I've got a little empirical evidence..."
I don't care for either Kid Schlock or Sean Penn, but that was a pretty good shortie.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 17, 2012, 02:17:11 PM
I don't care for either Kid Schlock or Sean Penn, but that was a pretty good shortie.
Thought the same thing. Although I have grown a tad more fond of Kid since I saw him on Diners Drive-Ins and Dives. He certainly had good taste in food and is steadfast in his support for his hometown.
troglodyte...todays new word. Had to google that...still don't get it. :-\
Glad you enjoyed my post.
I've heard that Norma McCorvey of Roe v Wade fame has said that she more or less regrets her role in this whole thing, but this is the first time I have seen her on screen. I don't care what your opinion is on abortion, some of these images make me want to vomit.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-airs-anti-obama-ad-in-florida-video/
Because women only think with about this stuff. No wonder the "gender gap" is closing.
I'm not sure what your complaint is? Gender-specific advertising, maybe?
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 10:20:39 PM
I'm not sure what your complaint is? Gender-specific advertising, maybe?
This doesn't creep you out slightly? At the vary least the portrayal of women? Are women that helpless? Women that actually fought for women's right would be rolling over in their graves.
I know this is crude, but here goes my version of comedy:
This ad points out that voting for Obama is like getting screwed. The End ;D
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 10:51:15 PM
This doesn't creep you out slightly? At the vary least the portrayal of women? Are women that helpless?
Please explain how that ad portrays women as helpless.
My wife bristles at the idea that she should vote with her body parts in mind. The "War On Women" will come back to haunt them. At least from responsible ones.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 10:53:41 PM
Please explain how that ad portrays women as helpless.
It implies that women's place in the world hinges on a few knuckleheads in D.C.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 10:53:41 PM
Please explain how that ad portrays women as helpless.
People sometimes see only what they want to see.
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 08:42:32 AM
It implies that women's place in the world hinges on a few knuckleheads teabaggers in D.C.
FIFY.
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
FIFY.
QuoteIt implies that women's place in the world hinges on a few knuckleheads teabaggers in D.C and the knuckleheads they represent.
Re-FIFY
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 10:14:05 AM
Re-FIFY
Watch out, you might get labeled forum police...
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 10:38:25 AM
Watch out, you might get labeled forum police...
I've been labeled much worse.
Best quote regarding the latest add.
Quote"Voting is like sex," Romney's a "bull*****er," "Romnesia," "Big Bird." I thought you had to be older than 15 to be President.
https://twitter.com/TPCarney/status/261605469125214208
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 11:00:33 AM
Best quote regarding the latest add.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdtsj_XFh4wOm3nqR9RRtCFd7RbynHIHZyz3pmJZASYEYWzT7mC_DADMD7QA)
Gotta keep it simple or she won't be able to explain it to the audience.
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 11:07:13 AM
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdtsj_XFh4wOm3nqR9RRtCFd7RbynHIHZyz3pmJZASYEYWzT7mC_DADMD7QA)
Gotta keep it simple or she won't be able to explain it to the audience.
Doh!
Lena Dunham Ad Brings Out the Crazieshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/26/lena_s_dunham_s_your_first_time_video_sex_joke_sparks_conservative_hysteria.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/26/lena_s_dunham_s_your_first_time_video_sex_joke_sparks_conservative_hysteria.html)
QuoteLena Dunham has done a ad for the Obama campaign, aimed at young female voters, where she cheekily explains that your "first time" should be with Obama, because he actually supports your rights. She means first time voting, but of course the joke is that it sounds like she's talking about your first time having sex. Dunham's considerable charm drives the joke home.
But really, what makes this entire thing so funny is the unhinged, crazy reaction it's gotten from the right. It's as if the Obama team is the ultimate troll, expertly goosing conservative anxieties about the growing ranks of young single women with ambitions outside of getting married. Not that it's hard to figure out how to push their buttons: Throw up an accomplished single woman who doesn't blush at the mention of sex, and watch the frothing begin.
First up: Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review, whose reaction has a nice dose of "nuh-uh, my mom says that the real cool kids are the ones who don't do it" to it:
Beyond awkward. I'll borrow her "super uncool" and raise it. Of course, in its way it is totally appropriate for the administration that thinks all women care about is mandated birth control, abortion, and sterilization coverage and that those of us with moral objections are bitterly clinging to an outdated understanding of what's healthy, for democracy (religious liberty), in our lives.
Reading conservative responses to this ad, I realized how similar grown adults in this country can be to middle school Twilight fans as they picture losing one's virginity with the same combination of fear and cheesy romanticism. Take, for instance, Ben Shapiro of Big Government:
So she chose to do it for the first time with Barack Obama, since he "cares about and understands women." In fact, he understands them so well that he exploits them for insane commercials comparing losing your virginity with voting. Obama has young daughters. But that didn't stop him from releasing this commercial. Because this is what Obama thinks of your daughters. This is Obama's official campaign ad. Paid for with his campaign money. Distributed by his campaign. If this ad were any more demeaning to women—who apparently care only about having sex, if you listen to Lena "You Want To Do It" Dunham—it would be produced by Bill Maher and star Bill Clinton.
Are we talking about politics now, or is this yet another instance of a khaki pants-loving weenie announcing that women are broken because they pick the sexy guys over the "nice" guys that will respect you into a life with four kids and no orgasms?
My favorite reaction, however, came from this diarist at Red State, who characterizes Dunham as having been raised in an "over-sexualized household" and whose post neatly sums up why this sort of trolling-with-single-women works every time.
There seems to be no low to which President Obama will sink in his desperate attempt to win reelection. One has to wonder, is there any point at which the main stream media and the public get some self-respect and toss out this loser? First he asked for your wedding gifts, then your yard sales and now he has asked for your daughters.
Your daughters. What more is there to say? Sexy young white women are the rightful property of Republican men, and Obama is stealing them from you and filling their heads with this ridiculous notion that they own themselves. Of course, the cause and effect process is being reversed here. The truth is that women already have heads full of their own notions. The Obama campaign is simply following their lead and, as you do in politics, giving the voters what they want.
QuoteThe Obama campaign is simply following their lead and, as you do in politics, giving the voters what they want.
Free sex. So that's what the author thinks about Obama voters?
In a nutshell that is why libs have zero problem with that. I get it, it is looney time, but to pretend that this ad did not truely offend real people is just as ludicrous as those quoted in this article.
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 12:30:39 PM
Free sex. So that's what the author thinks about Obama voters?
In a nutshell that is why libs have zero problem with that. I get it, it is looney time, but to pretend that this ad did not truely offend real people is just as ludicrous as those quoted in this article.
Outraged huh?
Miss O'hara has the vapors.
You and yours see so much. It must be what someone wishes to see.
Lighthearted commentary is pornographic to some apparently.
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 12:37:25 PM
Outraged huh?
Miss O'hara has the vapors.
You and yours see so much. It must be what someone wishes to see.
Lighthearted commentary is pornographic to some apparently.
Not pornographic, just degrading to women. But only righties can hold women down, right?
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 12:40:46 PM
Not pornographic, just degrading to women. But only righties can hold women down, right?
Yeah, like 'legitimate rape'
How about this last moron Mourdock and his stupid screed?
Last I checked Santorum was a Republican. He also thinks contraception should be outlawed. Not just unavailable per healthcare provider, but outlawed.
I don't think I know of one Democrat who holds that belief. Not one willing to admit it anyway. If so, they're a closet Republican.
You guys are right, this kind of ad/thinking really is just nothing.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/mitt-romney-gaining-back-womens-vote-according-to-new-poll
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 12:48:00 PM
I don't think I know of one Democrat who holds that belief. Not one willing to admit it anyway. If so, they're a closet Republican.
You never cease to amaze me. ::)
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 12:50:35 PM
You never cease to amaze me. ::)
Feeling's mutual buddy. I'm not the only one on here with that sentiment about you, either.
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 12:49:33 PM
You guys are right, this kind of ad/thinking really is just nothing.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/mitt-romney-gaining-back-womens-vote-according-to-new-poll
Obscurity. You have found it. Congratulations.
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Obscurity. You have found it. Congratulations.
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/uncategorized/findings-from-our-latest-poll
Better?
Do you even read them or just assume you know better?
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 01:00:08 PM
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/uncategorized/findings-from-our-latest-poll
Better?
Do you even read them or just assume you know better?
Wow, someone must be looking in the mirror today.
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 01:00:08 PM
Do you even read them or just assume you know better?
Do you read them?
QuoteAs the election nears, Romney has been playing down social issues and trying to project a more moderate stance on matters such as abortion in an effort to court female voters. The AP-GfK poll, taken Friday through Tuesday, shows Romney pulling even with Obama among women at 47-47 after lagging by 16 points a month earlier.
But now his campaign is grappling with the fallout from a comment by a Romney-endorsed Senate candidate in Indiana, who said that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape "that's something God intended."
Romney quickly distanced himself from the remark by Republican Richard Mourdock. But Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the incident was "a reminder that a Republican Congress working with a Republican President Mitt Romney would feel that women should not be able to make choices about their own health care."
A renewed focus on social issues would be an unwelcome development for Romney: Among female likely voters, 55 percent say Obama would make the right decisions on women's issues, compared with 41 percent who think Romney would.
It means that women find your guy offensive and scary unless he hides his real intent. He has to be deceitful in order for women to vote for him.
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Do you read them?
It means that women find your guy offensive and scary unless he hides his real intent. He has to be deceitful in order for women to vote for him.
You know this because...
If it is the case, I would dare to say that some of Obama's abortion policies might seam downright offensive to most women. Heck, to any person.
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Wow, someone must be looking in the mirror today.
Link... ;)
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 01:29:35 PM
You know this because...
If it is the case, I would dare to say that some of Obama's abortion policies might seam downright offensive to most women. Heck, to any person.
Being mean is not my reason for posting on here so I'm just going to let you alone. I think you've proven any point I can make well enough.
You are an example of what I've come to fear in my political party.
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 01:42:36 PM
You are an example of what I've come to fear in my political party.
What's that? Lack of blind trust?
And why would you have to be mean?
Romney Campaign Exaggerates Size Of Nevada Event With Altered Image
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-appears-to-exaggerate-size-of-neva (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-appears-to-exaggerate-size-of-neva)
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/10/26/14/enhanced-buzz-25412-1351276461-0.jpg)
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/10/26/14/enhanced-buzz-20739-1351276397-3.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 02:10:27 PM
Romney Campaign Exaggerates Size Of Nevada Event With Altered Image
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-appears-to-exaggerate-size-of-neva (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-appears-to-exaggerate-size-of-neva)
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/10/26/14/enhanced-buzz-25412-1351276461-0.jpg)
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/10/26/14/enhanced-buzz-20739-1351276397-3.jpg)
Do people not have better things to do than nitpick photos of a campaign rally?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2012, 02:44:23 PM
Do people not have better things to do than nitpick photos of a campaign rally?
Oh you can't be serious. Of course they do. Will they? Hell no.
Starting to see a trend here with O. Can't do math past 7th grade, cheeky sexual innuendo's, dunce caps. He does realize children can't vote right?
http://30reasons.org/artists/oliver-munday
Rush Limbaugh having creepy fantasies:
Rush Limbaugh: Lena Dunham ad insults womenhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82950.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82950.html)
QuoteRush Limbaugh said Friday that actress Lena Dunham's ad for President Barack Obama — in which the HBO "Girls" star talks about her "first time" (it's actually voting for Obama, not like losing her virginity) — insults women as "monolithic sex machines."
"I don't know if it's going to work or backfire. It's insulting to women. It again looks at women as monolithic sex machines who want to make sure they've got unending birth control pills and then a free trip to Planned Parenthood the next day, all paid for by Obama," Limbaugh said on his radio show, according to audio posted by Daily Rushbo. "If I were a woman today, I would feel insulted each and everyday. The way they look at women: all thinking the same way, all wanting the same things."
Limbaugh joined other conservatives who have outraged about the 26-year-old actress' ad.
Limbaugh added: "Some people look at it and think it's cool and it's hip and it's representative of the current modern day pop culture. But I think it's an insult to women everywhere. I mean where the hell is Gloria Steinem? Gloria, is this what you all have been fighting for all your lives? An ad like this? An appeal to women as sex machines?"
He does seem to obsess over this sort of thing.
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 02:50:13 PM
Starting to see a trend here with O. Can't do math past 7th grade, cheeky sexual innuendo's, dunce caps. He does realize children can't vote right?
http://30reasons.org/artists/oliver-munday
I'm beginning to wonder if Erf hasn't eaten Gaspar's brain. ErfZombie!
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 03:24:16 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if Erf hasn't eaten Gaspar's brain. ErfZombie!
Great minds think alike ;)
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
It means that women find your guy offensive and scary unless he hides his real intent. He has to be deceitful in order for women to vote for him.
I think he believes that women are too stupid to read his party's platform.
Quote from: nathanm on October 26, 2012, 03:33:00 PM
I think he believes that women are too stupid to read his party's platform.
My goodness. He is an offensive bastard.
Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 03:31:15 PM
Great minds think alike ;)
I guess if you tell yourself that enough you'll start to believe it...unfortunately only the second part of your statement is true.
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 03:36:58 PM
I guess if you tell yourself that enough you'll start to believe it...unfortunately only the second part of your statement is true.
Well if they're of the same mind, it won't take too long.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 29, 2012, 09:40:42 AM
Best Campaign ad ever!
Come on Gassie....did someone steal your password? Or did you drink some electric kool aid? Is this some sort of sarcasm? I did not see the Obama claimer....
Blame game? Teach your children well.....
^^^^ This is a thread about campaign ads you stooge.
Quote from: guido911 on October 29, 2012, 12:54:11 PM
^^^^ This is a thread about campaign ads you stooge.
Oh...well, this will be a good one! I can see it coming!
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/297273_490384184329098_336222399_n.jpg)
Ok, here's a fun one. Remember the Lena Durram ad that came out a few weeks ago implying that a woman's political decisions are based on sex?
Well as it turns out, it was based on an ad used by Putin.
Perhaps President Obama and Putin will share a good slap on the back after the election when President Obama has more flexibility.
Next you'll be complaining about initialisms.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2012, 02:44:23 PM
Do people not have better things to do than nitpick photos of a campaign rally?
?? Really? With all the birther stuff going on for 5 years AFTER the fact of birth certificate release - this is very minor nit-pickin'. And college transcripts, and blah, blah, blah, blah....
Has this gem been posted yet?
Why are we seeing presidential ads in Oklahoma? Both sides.
Quote from: guido911 on November 04, 2012, 07:53:24 PM
Why are we seeing presidential ads in Oklahoma? Both sides.
Maybe they are trying to keep us from feeling left out. Good luck with that.
"Pro Life guy Randall Terry is now showing aborted babies in a ad airing here in Colorado telling voters not to for for President Obama
"he would abort his own grand babies"
it aired on Fox 31 Denver at 6pm as the lead into The Simpsons...."
Guido, please find it and post it for us. I would but I do not want right wing extremist cookies on my laptop. ;)
Great post on Vagina 2012....
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 04, 2012, 09:30:44 PM
"Pro Life guy Randall Terry is now showing aborted babies in a ad airing here in Colorado telling voters not to for for President Obama
"he would abort his own grand babies"
Guido, please find it and post it for us. I would but I do not want right wing extremist cookies on my laptop. ;)
Sure thing. PM me your pic.
Does anyone else find it strange that Ryan and his posse was pretty much saying the same thing about Mormons not too long ago?
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-says-obama-compromise-judeo-christian-western-045635969--abc-news-politics.html
guido, is Ryan actually what you, as a good Catholic, would find representative of a good Catholic?? (I don't really see much of what he represents in my Catholic friends and family.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 05, 2012, 05:27:59 AM
Does anyone else find it strange that Ryan and his posse was pretty much saying the same thing about Mormons not too long ago?
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-says-obama-compromise-judeo-christian-western-045635969--abc-news-politics.html
guido, is Ryan actually what you, as a good Catholic, would find representative of a good Catholic?? (I don't really see much of what he represents in my Catholic friends and family.)
A "good Catholic"? Not even sure what that means really. Hell, I'm a lousy one; however I can keep trying I suppose. All I can do is I hope I got it right on "life issues", which is what I care about anyway. As for Mormon, I know some Evangelicals that have issues, but I couldn't care less.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2012, 12:48:35 PM
As for Mormon, I know some Evangelicals that have issues, but I couldn't care less.
100% agree. Inspiration is everywhere.
I have friends and family in both camps...Catholic and Mormon...and Evangelical, too for that matter. None of them hypocritical and deceitful and flat out liars as Ryan shows himself to be. Actually, they are all really good people. Wonder what happened to Ryan to put him out in the weeds so far? Oh, yeah...I know...Fool-Aid.
Interesting side note - got to see Air Force 1 today while making my afternoon rounds. Always impressive plane to see...much more so than a standard 747.
In a storefront in Des Moines IA.
Bwahahaha!
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/CbAvdaWBbnZFtQyYhjbblQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/photo26.jpg)
Greatest roadside sign...likely photoshopped, but still awesome:
(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/5/xqVxEa8JnUalU2kCoF1oEQ2.jpg)