2012 Election Thread

[quote name='Soodmeg']Again, stop looking at it in a vacuum. If you were from a poor family of 4 people, all of which didnt have state IDs it would cost upwards of 120 fucking dollars to get state id cards for your family her in Michigan.

Are you serious here? Not everyone is you dude stop being so self centered and think about how many different situations there are for people. Not every family is living the exact same life has you and your friends.[/QUOTE]
But again, the state has been offering those who cannot afford the ID's them for FREE. So therefore, for some they are just being lazy.
 
Look up the following case: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board from 2008

The Supreme Court said a 2005 Indiana law to require State Identification for Voting was okay since it wasn't a poll tax. 6-3 ruling

Assuming the Pennsylvania law is written the same way (and probably is), it's Constitutional and should stand up before any Court.
 
The laws vary from state to state in at least what forms of ID are acceptable. So in at least one case, gun licenses are acceptable but student IDs are not (Gee, I wonder which party that might favor)

The Supreme Court is exactly why this election is so critical. Its very nearly the only reason I'm for Obama being reelected. They said the people being affected is very small and so that additional burden was ok in the interest of reducing fraud. However, since there is no fraud, you are merely reducing the pool of voters ever so slightly, for no good reason.
 
I wish these assholes would just be open and honest about it. Just get it out and say it, you don't want those $$$$ers voting. Now granted if they voted republican it would be different, but for some strange reason they don't...:roll:
 
[quote name='Clak']I wish these assholes would just be open and honest about it. Just get it out and say it, you don't want those $$$$ers voting. Now granted if they voted republican it would be different, but for some strange reason they don't...:roll:[/QUOTE]

After shit like poll taxes, literacy tests, ballot box stuffing, The White Primary (which was a blatant attempt to spit of the face of the 14th and 15th Amendments), or even outright threats of physical violence, this is just the latest in their disenfranchisement bag of tricks.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Here's a question. Does anyone know how badly the RNC is going to affect Tampa downtown? Because for the DNC in Charlotte it's not good.[/QUOTE]

Expect your local backpage.com listings to go crazy for a couple days...
 
I find the voter ID debate really,well crazy. If a state is only asking for a Drivers license or a state issued ID to vote I really don't see what the issue is. As long as the state non driver ID is reasonably priced and there are perhaps waivers for the cost to those in need what is the issue? Don't say hassle because life is a hassle because there are any number of things required of everybody in order for this society we live in to run as such. Could those in power focus on something more pressing? Sure doesn't mean they are wrong on this issue. Also comparing this to the differnt polls taxes and literacy test to vote in the past is ridiculous and disingenuous. Look I'm no fool one party is fighting this because those people that perhaps would be forced to take a half day to get an ID vote Democrat rather than Republican. This is so minor, if there is an equal path to get an ID that doesn't present an undue burden then this is a non issue. The debate should be how to make it fair to get an ID in to the hands of all citizens.
 
Voting is a right.

A right.

The word "right" is a legal term with a specific meaning.

People who don't see an issue come in one of two flavors:
1) they don't understand what a "right" is from a legal perspective (which is understandable), so they don't quite grasp that you can't restrict things that are rights.

2) they see how such practices benefits the kind of politicians they favor, and are therefore compelled to not see an issue. seeing an issue would be an admission of unfairness that would inhibit the likelihood of getting outcomes they desire to see happen. Such individuals are lacking in ethics, dignity, and character.
 
Have any of the states which have enacted voter ID laws been sued? I'd think it was a given that they would be. They're basically trampling on the rights of citizens to vote, ID or not.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Voting is a right.

A right.

The word "right" is a legal term with a specific meaning.

People who don't see an issue come in one of two flavors:
1) they don't understand what a "right" is from a legal perspective (which is understandable), so they don't quite grasp that you can't restrict things that are rights.

2) they see how such practices benefits the kind of politicians they favor, and are therefore compelled to not see an issue. seeing an issue would be an admission of unfairness that would inhibit the likelihood of getting outcomes they desire to see happen. Such individuals are lacking in ethics, dignity, and character.[/QUOTE]

Ok fine I have no horse in this race I have no issue voting. I understand what all your terms mean too. I also know that voting is the right of citizens of the United States of America. Explain to me how we ensure the integrity of the elections then? That's all I'm asking instead of saying "it's a right". I get that. Then if a Governor see's an issue with Fraud at the poll however small does he/she do nothing at the state level. Will the federal government help? If the solution is already in place then why is there debate? Most people hardly believe making everyone simply identify themselves the same way do when they give their credit card at wal mart is hardly the mark of a oppressive society. What would strengthen our system?
 
If a Governor sees voter fraud in their state in something other than 1 or 2 per year, that Governor is full of shit. What should be done is to prosecute those one or two persons, unless they are Mitt Romney fraudulently voting for Scott Brown while registered as living in his son's unfinished basement. Again, its a solution looking for a problem.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If a Governor sees voter fraud in their state in something other than 1 or 2 per year, that Governor is full of shit. What should be done is to prosecute those one or two persons, unless they are Mitt Romney fraudulently voting for Scott Brown while registered as living in his son's unfinished basement. Again, its a solution looking for a problem.[/QUOTE]

Again I understand this probably isn't as big an issue as certain folks are making it. But so are so many other things. Because we don't have the issue now do we not try to improve the system. Do we not make any changes? Do we wait to it's and absolute disaster before we act? That seems to be the "solution" that is being fought for. I just looked at all the unconstitutional things you need to have in Delaware to register to vote. They actually make people do something to prove they are in fact alive. Crazy I know. If the current system is working , which I believe it is for the most part, What is the issue of tweaking it for better security. What if everyone was entitled to a free state identification to vote? Would that still be a barrier to the right to vote?
 
One suppressed voter is too many.

There are already checks and balances that ensure the integrity of votes. Since data shows that in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, we don't need to answer the question of "how do we protect the integrity..." because it is something that already happens under existing circumstances.

Hands up, how many of you ever had a fake ID or used a friends' ID to get beer, into a club, or go to a concert, etc?

Hands up, how many of you, keeping in mind your answer to the prior question, think that voter ID policies are going to help anything?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']One suppressed voter is too many.

There are already checks and balances that ensure the integrity of votes. Since data shows that in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, we don't need to answer the question of "how do we protect the integrity..." because it is something that already happens under existing circumstances.

Hands up, how many of you ever had a fake ID or used a friends' ID to get beer, into a club, or go to a concert, etc?

Hands up, how many of you, keeping in mind your answer to the prior question, think that voter ID policies are going to help anything?[/QUOTE]

Your example doesn't make sense to me. But I get one suppressed voter is one too many stuff. Though by my count the state of Delaware is already trampling my rights concerning voting lets say that the ID was free? What is the barrier? The excuse you use is that the system is perfect in essence. I disagree.I have no issue with making the system better if the rights of the people are in the forefront. Like I said the state of Delawre at least all ready put's conditions on my right so that bridge has been crossed. Perhaps they are making people do something far more insidious than show an ID than I know about.
 
Why don't you check on the rate of voter fraud in Delaware and get back to us on why you think it's necessary. The way some people act you'd think this was Russia with regard to voter fraud. As the old saying goes, if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']The excuse you use is that the system is perfect in essence. I disagree.[/QUOTE]

No, it is not an excuse. It is a justification for not imposing additional restrictions on voting - the ID requirement is fraudulent because it is aimed to stop something (in-person voter fraud) that (a) demonstrably does not exist based on repeated empirical observation and analysis and (b) the actual policy won't truly stop (i.e., people who want to vote fraudulently now need only acquire a fake ID, something relatively routine and simple to accomplish).

You have said again and again that you "don't see an issue." I don't see the point (the point they state openly about fraud prevention).

How about you:
1) explain that point - how will ID laws stop fraudulent in-person voting (assuming it happens)?
2) demonstrate that in-person voter fraud occurs in significant numbers. You're not countering my opinion on anything, but you will be attempting to counter empirical analysis of attempts to commit in-person voter fraud.
 
[quote name='Clak']Why don't you check on the rate of voter fraud in Delaware and get back to us on why you think it's necessary. The way some people act you'd think this was Russia with regard to voter fraud. As the old saying goes, if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? I actually don't believe it is the huge issue. Of course maybe nobody thought there was a need to look at our process in general before 2000 either. Looking and making better is not a crime against Democracy. One case of fraud is too many and threatens our very Democracy! See I can do it too. Haven't solved anything. Fact is some people think it's an issue and if there are cases of fraud in elections in some areas won by 100's of votes it's worth a look. And to answer everyone's question I would rather make an error on the side of everyone having equal access to voting than making a mistake to restricting anyone who is eligible to vote. That being said if we had a system where the state would issue an ID to all eligible voters i.e citizens, for no fee would that satisfy everyone? State budgets are tight I know but would it be something say a tax on 20 inch rims (just making something crazy up) to pay for it would be worth a go at?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']So in at least one case, gun licenses are acceptable but student IDs are not (Gee, I wonder which party that might favor)[/QUOTE]

FOID cards are government issued, while student IDs are not. The laws say government issued IDs, not gun licenses. It doesn't favor anybody.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']One case of fraud is too many and threatens our very Democracy! See I can do it too[/QUOTE]

Oh, but I thought that...

[quote name='Commander0Zero']I understand what all your terms mean too.[/QUOTE]

Well, it seems you don't understand what a "right" is, then, after all.
 
And I just thought about this because it just happened to me. So, what about the people who do indeed fit into the mold, there are 311591917 people in America, how many of those people do you think will loose their wallets on the day of the election? So, if lets 100 people lost their wallets that day they shouldnt be allowed to vote anymore...because leaving your wallet at a kinkos clearly makes you not American enough to cast a vote right? Most people vote on their lunch breaks...and dont have time to come back...so if you left your wallet at your desk you just disappointing a generation that fought and died for that right because no true American would forget their wallet right?
Click to expand...
That sounds like the system would be working perfectly.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Again, people just confuse the hell out of me. You must have a completely narrow minded world view in order to not understand this issue. I dont understand why the hell cant you people get it in your head the simply fact that YOUR SITUATION ISNT EVERYONES SITUATION. The audacity of anyone to say a statement like, "well if person x can do it then everyone can," how selfish are you?

"as long as they are reasonably priced." That statement in itself screams you dont understand. How does one define reasonably price? To who? Is it cost 200 dollars reasonably priced because I earn 40k a year? What about someone who earns 10k a year? Or what about a 18 year old who only has a part time job who only earn 4k a year living of mac and cheese every day? If it only cost 10 bucks but a person who doesnt make any money and has a strict budget not be allowed to vote because they dont have 10 bucks?


Then it was said, "well SoS is open on the weekends" Durr? Really...because no in America works 7 days week? It cant possible be that someone might have 2 or even 3 jobs and taking a half day off of work to get to Sos would kill their budget? Well screw you...your not American enough to vote if you cant take time to go to SoS.


Again it boils down to this simply statement. "I am more American than you," which means I have more of a right to vote than person X. Then you want to quantity it with the worst medium....money. It shouldnt matter if it goes a dollar dude....because you are basically saying...well if you dont have a dollar then you dont deserve the ability to vote.

Every American has the right to vote...you are born with it. It does not say you have to right to vote as long as you can produce various form of government documents. Your lack of empathy and compassion for fellow Americans is showing.

What about socially awkward shut ins? According to some of you...fuck em...if they cant get over their fear of the outside word and talking to people then they are not American enough to vote. Hey wheelchair Willy whos wife died and has no friends or family and cant afford a computer phone or car. You better roll your ass down to the nearest SoS that may be 10 miles away......cant make it? Piss off then you dont have the right the vote.

You have a right to vote period...not...only is certain situations but PERIOD. Anything that you put in front of that is discrimination. I mean seriously...for fuckS SAKE it was only like 90 years ago (thats barely even 1 generation) that women didnt even have the right to vote.....there are many people still walking around that old. So you are telling me that a person who can remember when it was illegal for them to even think about voting.....you are going to deny them again because they dont have a piece of paper?[/QUOTE]

I usually don't do this but this rant makes no sense. You basically are saying there should be no regulation or law or process but show up and vote. Heck the way you talk if the polling place isn't in you living room this is a afront to Democracy itself. I know for one I have stated at least twice what if the identification was free to all? At worst I stated a small fee (which would be paid once I should have added) but those that couldn't afford it could have it issued on the house. And to questions anybodies lack of empathy or compassion on this topic because they disagree with you is absurd. I understand hard times, I understand the value of the dollar but you are creating scenarios that would prevent people from voting now. It's not the governments responsibility to get you to the polls or that you can't stand humans long enough to actually vote. The government has to give equal access to that right (which should be an ongoing process). This has nothing to do with who is more American this has to do with an important process and to sit around and not try to make our union run as smooth and as perfect as we can get is irresponsible. Again if letting all citizens have free identification was on the table what is the barrier?
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']Are you kidding me? I actually don't believe it is the huge issue. [/QUOTE]
Then why do you seem to care so much about a non-issue?
 
[quote name='Clak']Then why do you seem to care so much about a non-issue?[/QUOTE]

Because I've heard this mentioned before. I saw it being discussed and I had an opinion on it. Also as voting citizen it interests me. Do I think it's the burning issue of our time? No. I'm not a one trick pony. And because I don't mull over it everyday doesn't mean it has no value to me to think about it or to hear other views when confronted with it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, but I thought that...



Well, it seems you don't understand what a "right" is, then, after all.[/QUOTE]



Well not to hijack this thread. I understand what a right is. I also understand we have laws processes and procedures in place to protect those rights. Me saying " One case of fraud is too many" blah blah blah is saying making those unequivocal statements add nothing to the discourse. Neither does picking certain lines as if it was my complete thought. I realize I'm on the unpopular side of this but again if there is no cost barrier (meaning it is free) what is the issue with an ID?
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']Because I've heard this mentioned before. I saw it being discussed and I had an opinion on it. Also as voting citizen it interests me. Do I think it's the burning issue of our time? No. I'm not a one trick pony. And because I don't mull over it everyday doesn't mean it has no value to me to think about it or to hear other views when confronted with it.[/QUOTE]
Do you often tell people your opinions on issues that don't exist?
 
Look dude. The reason why it's not making any sense to you is because the government shouldn't be making it harder to vote, but easier...in whatever form it make take...whether it be shuttles from assisted living facilities to the polls or to send representatives into the communities and get as many people as possible set up with id's if states are going to require it...AND DO IT FOR FREE. Anything more is a poll tax.

It's common enough knowledge that Republicans, and conservatives for that matter, are all about voter suppression because more votes translates into more Democratic votes. It's been demonstrated in some counties that enacted voter id laws that areas that trend Democrat have their id services cut while Republican areas actually have services increased.

Voter fraud is not even remotely a problem and voter id laws creates larger problems than it is meant to prevent. There's a false equivalence when comparing 1 suppressed vote to 1 false vote when they need to be examined in aggregate. Statistically speaking, voter fraud is a non-issue and voter id laws creates far more problems than it solves by any measure.
 
[quote name='Clak']Do you often tell people your opinions on issues that don't exist?[/QUOTE]

Welp you guys have at it then. I saw a topic being discussed in a thread on politics and I jumped in. I was confused that is was an actual issue or topic of conversation because you and other are talking about it. Also confusing are all these people writing articles about an issue that doesn't exist. I realize my mistake. I also realize now it isn't an issue because you deem it not to be one. Stepping away.
 
We're talking about it in the context that it's a non-issue that conservatives have made up, that's it. Continue to discuss it if you want, but there's no discussion to be had when it's proved that it's a fabricated issue.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']Welp you guys have at it then. I saw a topic being discussed in a thread on politics and I jumped in. I was confused that is was an actual issue or topic of conversation because you and other are talking about it. Also confusing are all these people writing articles about an issue that doesn't exist. I realize my mistake. I also realize now it isn't an issue because you deem it not to be one. Stepping away.[/QUOTE]

You were asked on multiple occasions to produce evidence of in-person voter fraud. Time and time again you deflected, rather than provided an answer.

Your argument is not on equal footing, you are not on equal footing, until you can provide that.

Failing to do that, you have no place to act upset at us for not treating you with any deference, intellect, or respect. You're acting like a prat because you can't participate at this level of discourse.

Good riddance; not because you disagree, but because you disagree, can't produce any evidence or logic, yet still stand behind a policy as if it makes sense and lambast *us* as the bad guys? You're the only fraud in this thread.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You were asked on multiple occasions to produce evidence of in-person voter fraud. Time and time again you deflected, rather than provided an answer.

Your argument is not on equal footing, you are not on equal footing, until you can provide that.

Failing to do that, you have no place to act upset at us for not treating you with any deference, intellect, or respect. You're acting like a prat because you can't participate at this level of discourse.

Good riddance; not because you disagree, but because you disagree, can't produce any evidence or logic, yet still stand behind a policy as if it makes sense and lambast *us* as the bad guys? You're the only fraud in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Dude have you read my posts? I didn't say this was some outrageous issue in fact I said the opposite.I already admitted I didn't think the issue was large so why am I looking for facts to say it's a large issue. Some people do believe it is an issue is all I was saying. I asked what was the issue with an ID if free? I actually didn't really think I was attacked until the last couple posts. I understand some see no reason to discuss this and it's open and shut. I disagree with that notion. I treat everybody with respect and your internet respect means little to me. I have lived long enough to know others have different opinions than mine, great I have no issue with that. Many of you agree there is no discussion to be had here fine. And I called no one the bad guy and if I did I apologize as I do not see the views here opposite of mine as being "bad" or being the "bad guy".
 
How about this? If you're worried about your vote being taken, show your ID when you go to vote.

Problem solved!
 
[quote name='Clak']I really, really hate passive aggressives.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure who that was directed at but I agree. Though I would probably direct it to the individual I have an issue with so there isn't any confusion. I'm glad my post history shows (in this thread and others) me being respectful to others and generally being upbeat. I harbor no malice at the folks in this thread. They are passionate about their view I have no issue with that even if they are at odds with mine. I knew what I was stepping into here so I have no issue.
 
tone, malice, whatevah. respect and a dollar gets you a shitty double cheeseburger.

bring some evidence, then we'll talk.

Let's change the topic!

Should the federal government fund, at no cost to taxpayers, aluminum helmets to protect our brains from the looming threat of mind control from the extraterrestrial threat of the Blergs?

I mean, I'm not on one side or the other on the issue. I just feel like if it's not really an issue. If you want to have your mind controlled, just don't get a helmet.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']I'm not sure who that was directed at but I agree. Though I would probably direct it to the individual I have an issue with so there isn't any confusion. I'm glad my post history shows (in this thread and others) me being respectful to others and generally being upbeat. I harbor no malice at the folks in this thread. They are passionate about their view I have no issue with that even if they are at odds with mine. I knew what I was stepping into here so I have no issue.[/QUOTE]
Oh, they know who it's directed at.
 
Not to mention that there have got to be oblivious people who might show up to vote and seriously not know about the voter id law. It's not like people go around talking about it. If a group of introverted people who don't care about the news much don't find out until it's too late or don't want to deal with the hassle that didn't exist before – that's lost votes. I'm thinking older or poor citizens. Sure, there will be some tiny Republican voter collateral damage, but they'll make sure that it affects mostly voters that would vote against them. Keeping opposing voters at home is the same as getting another vote for your own team.

Maybe we should start requiring retina scans, too.

Edit: Also, this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
 
[quote name='Clak']Have any of the states which have enacted voter ID laws been sued? I'd think it was a given that they would be. They're basically trampling on the rights of citizens to vote, ID or not.[/QUOTE]
The rights of citizens to vote? You mean the ones who vote for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck(guilty as charged there myself at times) or the people who vote for their friends and family members in every frickin' election just to be a buncha assholes?

Albeit that's how our current judge of elections got elected to his post and I gotta say that that was an improvement over the stinky cat piss/BO/cig smoke smelling judge before him who took more smoke breaks than she worked the polls.:roll:

But the idiots mentioned above make working the polls a chore, since you know once you see those people come in they've just extended your stay in the democracy prison of poll working by at least 10-20 minutes because of their frivilous/wasted votes.

So if the ID law eliminates some of the write in writers I'd be more than happy to see them go 'rights' be damned.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Not to mention that there have got to be oblivious people who might show up to vote and seriously not know about the voter id law. It's not like people go around talking about it. If a group of introverted people who don't care about the news much don't find out until it's too late or don't want to deal with the hassle that didn't exist before – that's lost votes. I'm thinking older or poor citizens. Sure, there will be some tiny Republican voter collateral damage, but they'll make sure that it affects mostly voters that would vote against them. Keeping opposing voters at home is the same as getting another vote for your own team.

Maybe we should start requiring retina scans, too.

Edit: Also, this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8[/QUOTE]Now there is the unabashed honesty I like to see. No bullshitting there, the voter ID law, according to him, will allow Romney to win.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']tone, malice, whatevah. respect and a dollar gets you a shitty double cheeseburger.

bring some evidence, then we'll talk.

Let's change the topic!

Should the federal government fund, at no cost to taxpayers, aluminum helmets to protect our brains from the looming threat of mind control from the extraterrestrial threat of the Blergs?

I mean, I'm not on one side or the other on the issue. I just feel like if it's not really an issue. If you want to have your mind controlled, just don't get a helmet.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean at no cost to the taxpayers? I'm pretty sure they don't generate any revenue outside of taxes which would mean everything they do is because of the taxpayer. It's either payroll taxes, corporate taxes, income tax, or excise taxes.

That's why it's so funny with Obama's you didn't build that comment. Even if he was just refering to the roads and bridges that we physically didn't build, the revenue for those projects still came from the taxpayers. Yes they provided a service, no it was not free to us or a gift for being special. Same for the police and firefighters and education, as well as social security and medicaid. We all paid for it. The government may have implimented the programs and facilitated the construction but they did it with everyone's money, not on goods or services they produced and profitted from.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']What do you mean at no cost to the taxpayers? I'm pretty sure they don't generate any revenue outside of taxes which would mean everything they do is because of the taxpayer. It's either payroll taxes, corporate taxes, income tax, or excise taxes.[/quote]
That's the point. Those things are funded and built through our collective tax dollars; not any one individual.

That's why it's so funny with Obama's you didn't build that comment. Even if he was just refering to the roads and bridges that we physically didn't build, the revenue for those projects still came from the taxpayers. Yes they provided a service, no it was not free to us or a gift for being special. Same for the police and firefighters and education, as well as social security and medicaid. We all paid for it. The government may have implimented the programs and facilitated the construction but they did it with everyone's money, not on goods or services they produced and profitted from.
Click to expand...
No. What's funny is that you're making the assertion that your ability to cherry pick the hell out of his statement while arguing for the strength individual tax contributions in one section, necessity for collective taxes in the next, and then making some strange comment about how the government doesn't operate on a profit-like basis for building things.

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Public projects cost money, were funded by our collective taxes, and the government doesn't operate like a for-profit business? No shit! It doesn't matter what Obama "meant" in regards to physically building or funding through individual taxes when they're operationally the same thing. The fact that you're implying that Obama meant building one's own business is so asinine and deluded, that it's steeped in conservative dogmatic ideology.
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's the point. Those things are funded and built through our collective tax dollars; not any one individual.


No. What's funny is that you're making the assertion that your ability to cherry pick the hell out of his statement while arguing for the strength individual tax contributions in one section, necessity for collective taxes in the next, and then making some strange comment about how the government doesn't operate on a profit-like basis for building things.

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Public projects cost money, were funded by our collective taxes, and the government doesn't operate like a for-profit business? No shit! It doesn't matter what Obama "meant" in regards to physically building or funding through individual taxes when they're operationally the same thing. The fact that you're implying that Obama meant building one's own business is so asinine and deluded, that it's steeped in conservative dogmatic ideology.[/QUOTE]

You need to read better. I was originally responding to mykev comment about "federal government fund, at no cost to taxpayers" being an oxymoron and then going on to explain how those who favor big goverment fail to realize where they get the revenue to do all the great things they do. And of course liberals never cherry pick anything, I mean it's not like there's a whole classy thread on CAG of cherrypicking things Republicans say while completely ignoring your side of politics and never pointing out your own sides stupidity. The government does not provide a service that we did not in some way pay for to begin with. Unemployment, SS, Medicaid, education, police, military etc. The only exception of course is the people who benefit that don't pay taxes.

And then you say "The fact that you're implying that Obama meant building one's own business is so asinine and deluded, that it's steeped in conservative dogmatic ideology. " could not be more wrong of what I was saying. Please tell me what group of words implied that in my post? I clearly stated that he at best seemed to imply that his statement meant that your business benefitted from services that gov. provided like roads, police and education. I said exactly that in my original post and then you just make up what your liberal dogmatic ideology tells you to say. You are very wily to try to respond with a strawman argument, it's actually so slimy, underhanded, and classicaly liberal that I actually have to be slightly impressed with it. Try to stick to what I write in my posts and avoid redefining my meaning.

People created their business, that American ingenuity, Obama was implying that the services that helped your business were the things we didn't build like roads. That's what I stated in my first post and for his sake I hope that is what he meant and his lack of a teleprompter caused a gaffe. But those on the left get a hard on about bigger government and don't stop to realize that even the things government does do require the business man and taxpayer to help fund.
 
We're talking about taking a comment out of context from me (yes, derp, taxpayers "pay for it," but if you don't see my satirical analogy to the argument that governments providing IDs at "no cost to taxpayers," then there's not a bloody thing I can do to help you)...

...and that context that is missing is aluminum helmets to protect us from mind-controlling aliens.

I'm just throwing that out there so you can think about *exactly* what it is you're trying to pick apart.

Take care now; come back when you want to discuss something of substance, and not lurk and prey on low-hanging fruit, all the while pretending you're capable of hanging with us.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']You need to read better. I was originally responding to mykev comment about "federal government fund, at no cost to taxpayers" being an oxymoron and then going on to explain how those who favor big goverment fail to realize where they get the revenue to do all the great things they do. And of course liberals never cherry pick anything, I mean it's not like there's a whole classy thread on CAG of cherrypicking things Republicans say while completely ignoring your side of politics and never pointing out your own sides stupidity. The government does not provide a service that we did not in some way pay for to begin with. Unemployment, SS, Medicaid, education, police, military etc. The only exception of course is the people who benefit that don't pay taxes.[/quote]
I read just fine thankyouverymuch. You're the one with the reading problem if you didn't understand the satirical nature of mykevermin's post. That's why you replied to a joke post the way you did as well as the way you replied to me. He and I know full well how public projects and services are funded, so you explaining it is not as revelatory as you may think it is.

If you want to talk about "classy" Democrats, feel free to start a thread on it. And while we're on the subject of being classy, at least I don't have anything in my sig regarding slapping someone because of their political stances.

Btw, even those that don't "pay" taxes still contribute to the functioning of the country, but let's not delude ourselves with coded language here: you're not talking about everyone that doesn't pay taxes, but those that have the least ability to as opposed to those that have the greater ability to. And yes, there's a difference.

And then you say "The fact that you're implying that Obama meant building one's own business is so asinine and deluded, that it's steeped in conservative dogmatic ideology. " could not be more wrong of what I was saying. Please tell me what group of words implied that in my post? I clearly stated that he at best seemed to imply that his statement meant that your business benefitted from services that gov. provided like roads, police and education. I said exactly that in my original post and then you just make up what your liberal dogmatic ideology tells you to say. You are very wily to try to respond with a strawman argument, it's actually so slimy, underhanded, and classicaly liberal that I actually have to be slightly impressed with it. Try to stick to what I write in my posts and avoid redefining my meaning.
Click to expand...
Strawman you say? That's hilarious when you pretty much re-worded the "argument" I said you were making in the very next part of your post. You went from the non-ambiguous nature of Obama's statement to a teleprompter criticism. And yes, they're related because its a conservative meme to talk about teleprompters as if Obama was the only one that ever used one and you characterizing it as a gaffe only works to support my point about you. The only reason it might seem like a strawman is because you weren't addressing anything with substance to begin with.

People created their business, that American ingenuity, Obama was implying that the services that helped your business were the things we didn't build like roads. That's what I stated in my first post and for his sake I hope that is what he meant and his lack of a teleprompter caused a gaffe. But those on the left get a hard on about bigger government and don't stop to realize that even the things government does do require the business man and taxpayer to help fund.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making my point. Like I said, there's no ambiguity in his statement and lefty CAGs are fully aware of how taxes work and who pays them. We want those that have more to pay more and we don't think money is conjured out of rainbows with hammers and sickles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top