Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Newly released "urban" Obama speech


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
47 replies to this topic

#37 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,096
  • Reputation: 2,400
HUDDLER

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:26 PM

yeah why can't we all be smart like the cultist robot :(


The Narrator in Chief is hard to beat, but give the cultist a chance

#38 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,894
  • Reputation: 20,229
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:13 PM

Or prove my single known truth....that 95% of the people out there are idiots....and I am giving another 3% of you the benefit of the doubt.


i've never understood this argument. it is literally saying you're an idiot if you process data and your outcome is different than mine, gleefully ignoring the fact that different people often process entirely different data sets.

sometimes it's very difficult for me to separate the lunacy of these types of arguments that are so prevalent in conservative bastions with the legitimate points that may otherwise underlie the philosophies they've adopted.

#39 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,422
  • Reputation: 5,933
HUDDLER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:29 PM

i've never understood this argument. it is literally saying you're an idiot if you process data and your outcome is different than mine, gleefully ignoring the fact that different people often process entirely different data sets.

sometimes it's very difficult for me to separate the lunacy of these types of arguments that are so prevalent in conservative bastions with the legitimate points that may otherwise underlie the philosophies they've adopted.


I was being fecicious ad over the top to make a point. Nothing more.


#40 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,894
  • Reputation: 20,229
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

I was being fecicious ad over the top to make a point. Nothing more.


fair enough. i'm inundated with enough people who express those exact sentiments and are 100% serious that it can be hard to separate the two. perhaps it would be wise to avoid that type of verbiage to begin with?

#41 Kognan

Kognan

    Barbarian Representative

  • Joined: 06-May 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 116
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:09 PM

Way to go twisting what Romney actually said.

He did NOT say that he did not care about 47% of the country. He said that 47% of the country would not vote for him no matter what he said or did (which is true).

Big difference in the two....unless you are a flaming liberal who takes liberties with what was ACTUALLY said.


Speaking of what he "actually" said.

The 47%

"I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

So this includes:
  • The Elderly (just over 10%)
  • The Poor (earning less than $20,000 each year.)
  • The working poor (families making $50,000)
He didn't distinguish between any of these groups and painted everyone in the 47% as parasites.

#42 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,422
  • Reputation: 5,933
HUDDLER

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:12 AM

Speaking of what he "actually" said.

The 47%

"I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

So this includes:

  • The Elderly (just over 10%)
  • The Poor (earning less than $20,000 each year.)
  • The working poor (families making $50,000)
He didn't distinguish between any of these groups and painted everyone in the 47% as parasites.


You are still missing the point of what he was saying.

EVERYONE needs to take accountability for their lives and decisions. You are making the assertion that jsut because someone makes decisions that lead to a $20k per year income, everyone else is responsible to support them for the rest of their lives. Romney (and myself) believe that it is each person's responsibility to make changes and decisions in their lives (education, training, budgeting, etc) that improves upon their current lot.

That is the big difference.....Democrats believe that you need to take no responsibility to improve your life (they will just have someone who is successful cut you a check every month). Whereas, Republicans believe that you take responsibility for your own actions.

Take away the continuous safety net and people will actually surprise you with how hard they are willing to work. Continue to dole out cash to them and you will be surprised at how lazy people will actually become.

What has been COMPLETELY lost by the Democrats is the reason that all of these programs (welfare, food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc) were created. They were created as a safety net to help hard working people who had fallen on rough times until they got back on their feet. They were NEVER intended to become what they have become....a source of continuous and generational support for millions and millions and millions of people.

I believe in helping those who are trying to help themselves, which is why I give a lot to charity each year. But, it pisses me off to see people use the government entitlement as a means of income for their entire lives.

#43 logic1977

logic1977

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 429
  • Reputation: 76
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:19 AM

I'm with you about the folks who do not work and do nothing but pick up a check each month. One thing I would like to know however, is what % of the goverment budget is actually represented by those programs?

I mean we focus so much attention on "welfare-queens" but even if it were corrected, would it even really help?

#44 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 04-December 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 200
  • Reputation: 47
HUDDLER

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:23 AM

I know that defense spending is somewhere under 4%, and even with discretionary spending it still comes in under 5%. Depending on which welfare programs you choose to include, that total comes in from 24-28% of our GDP. Clearly our problem lies with our defense budget.....

#45 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,096
  • Reputation: 2,400
HUDDLER

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

Go back to 2008 budgets as a starter.

Then start cutting. Defense could be cut by 10% I would think. Other areas could be cut out completely. Revamp many of the biggies like Medicaid, SS, etc.

#46 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,862
  • Reputation: 1,450
HUDDLER

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:54 AM

5 highest military expenditures

Posted Image

as a true fiscal conservative i think we can cut about 10% from military expenditures while gutting every social program that i do not directly benefit from

i mean jesus christ expenditures could be cut in half and still be higher than the next 4 countries combined but yeah we should really take a look at pbs and those goddamned obamaphones instead

#47 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • Joined: 20-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,765
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:40 AM

5 highest military expenditures

Posted Image

as a true fiscal conservative i think we can cut about 10% from military expenditures while gutting every social program that i do not directly benefit from

i mean jesus christ expenditures could be cut in half and still be higher than the next 4 countries combined but yeah we should really take a look at pbs and those goddamned obamaphones instead


Better yet, let's cut military spending by over 50% and completely gut social programs.

#48 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,096
  • Reputation: 2,400
HUDDLER

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:49 AM

I was not counting the wars. That money goes away as we wind them down. I am counting the military budget as a 10% reduction after the wars are over.