Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[QUOTE=Math2]What were Obama's millionaire donors expecting from him?[/QUOTE]

They were expecting hope and change :confusedshrug: They were expecting something in return as do all constituents..

Romney is talking like his donors werent expecting a 5 trillion tax cut, more subsidies from the government they hate, and less regulations if he got into office


if healthcare and the dream act are gifts? then so are tax cuts and policy changes to the benefit of the 1%

Mitt, don't go away mad
Mitt, just go away

[QUOTE=bladefd] what you're complaining about is a reredistribution to make sure nobody is unfairly treated. But here's the kicker: the rich continue to garner more and more wealth. Can you explain how if they are taxed more than half of their income?[/QUOTE]

Not all rich are taxed at 50%, but some are. If you own a business, or earn your money through income, that's where the truly high tax rates are. I'll explain how. The corporate tax can vary from 15-35%, so for some they are paying 35% off the bat. Throw in medicare/medicaid, another 3-4%. And then if you live in say California, they have a 14% state income tax. Many states have 7-8% income tax. So you're up to about 45%, maybe more in some states. Throw in sales tax on everything you buy, or dividend taxes on your investments.. and you're in that 50% ballpark. Likely more for some people.

Other rich people who make all of their money through stocks are only taxed at about 12%. That's what Warren Buffet was referring to with his whole "I pay lower taxes than my secretary" bit. But in fact that's very misleading. Warren Buffet may only pay 12% on his dividends, but the corporation that pays his dividends was already taxed once, shrinking the amount of money he is able to earn from them. If they are taxed at 35%, you can really just consider that a 35% tax on Warren Buffet's dividends. Warren Buffet isn't being directly taxed, but the corporations pass those taxes on down to stockholders.
[QUOTE]
You can complain about how we have a socialistic government or how the rich's wealth is unfairly being redistributed to the poor. The redistribution was already done and it was to the rich through policies the last 30+ years;[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't disagree with you. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor/middle class to the rich. But this isn't happening through free market capitalism, it's happening through government channels. When the federal reserve prints money, it lowers the value of the dollar. This affects the poor the most, since they're less likely to be holding non-dollar assets. The rich guy owns a business, he owns real estate, he owns stocks, precious metals. The poor person just has dollars, and if those are devalued, he has nothing else to fall back on. Corporations use the government to give them special powers, and pass laws that put their competitors out of business, etc, another blow to poor/middle class. The poor have been systematically attacked in this country, but the answer to that isn't to give the government more power, to pass more laws, more regulation agencies, etc. The answer is to introduce more freedom into the economy, get the government out of the way, and allow society to build itself up through market exchange. That's what I think is the best thing for the poor.

[QUOTE=joe]
I honestly don't disagree with you. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor/middle class to the rich. But this isn't happening through free market capitalism, it's happening through government channels. When the federal reserve prints money, it lowers the value of the dollar. This affects the poor the most, since they're less likely to be holding non-dollar assets. The rich guy owns a business, he owns real estate, he owns stocks, precious metals. The poor person just has dollars, and if those are devalued, he has nothing else to fall back on. Corporations use the government to give them special powers, and pass laws that put their competitors out of business, etc, another blow to poor/middle class. [B]The poor have been systematically attacked in this country, but the answer to that isn't to give the government more power, to pass more laws, more regulation agencies, etc. The answer is to introduce more freedom into the economy, get the government out of the way, and allow society to build itself up through market exchange.[/B] That's what I think is the best thing for the poor.[/QUOTE]

That is what we already had through the 80s and 90s. Look at the corruption wallstreet has had, and they were getting away with it since there was no real watchdog. The private sector was booming sure, but at what cost? CEOs and other top administrators were getting multi-million bonuses on top of the millions they were already making.

I don't know about you but I come from the train of thought that the private and public sector are DIRECTLY connected. You can't be completely hands-off and let the private sector do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want, the way they see fit within their own law guidelines. Somebody has to ensure that they follow the law like the rest of us. For decades now, they were getting away with murder. I'm not saying to go back to the FDR days during the whole black depression days when the government basically took complete control to shimmer down the depression and get things to normalcy. I am simply saying you just need a watchdog to ensure they follow the law like the rest of us.

Who else would you be willing to be the watchdog? We have been letting the inmates run the asylum for some time now, and we have seen that rampant corruption. While it was rolling and profits were rolling in, there were little or no complaints. When things started to fell apart in mid-2000s, they come to the public sector and federal/state governments begging to be let off the hook. You tell me. Who watches over them? Let them watch over themselves again or does somebody else? If somebody else does, how do you want them to? How do they get appointed?

anyways, gotta get going. more discussion tomorrow

[QUOTE=Rose][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A758sqzCcAEAPLh.jpg:large[/img][/QUOTE]

After you win your 2nd term election and can't get reelected anymore, you get to take pictures like that.......:lol

[QUOTE=joe]But this isn't happening through free market capitalism, it's happening through government channels.[/QUOTE]
lol how incredible ridiculous and dumb.
This is you:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdQUseNQM0c[/url]


[IMG]http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/04/apple_taxes_profits.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227878/Apple-paid-1-9-tax-earnings-outside-U-S--66-times-LESS-general-corp-tax-rates.html[/url]

lol

[QUOTE]
Other rich people who make all of their money through stocks are only taxed at about 12%. That's what Warren Buffet was referring to with his whole "I pay lower taxes than my secretary" bit. But in fact that's very misleading. Warren Buffet may only pay 12% on his dividends, but the corporation that pays his dividends was already taxed once, shrinking the amount of money he is able to earn from them. If they are taxed at 35%, you can really just consider that a 35% tax on Warren Buffet's dividends. Warren Buffet isn't being directly taxed, but the corporations pass those taxes on down to stockholders.
[/QUOTE]
So by your incredibly dumb example, if i work for that corporation, i'm really being taxed 25%+35%, still more than Warren Buffet, because i would had a high salary if my employer wouldn't had already being taxed!

You do realize that Warren Buffet and the corporation he is getting dividends are two separate entities, and there's no rational explanation, other than stupidity, to lump them together?

Warren Buffet is dumb, you're smart. I wonder why it's you that are posting on Ish and not him.

[QUOTE]
Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint.
[/QUOTE]
Reading this i can only wonder how did humanity survived before the "rich people" started to gobbling up all the money? I really don't understand... are you telling me that instead of working for the minimal wage, people had their own businesses? Nuts!

Investment? What investment? Money is going all to to off-shore accounts, investments have been hitting all time lows in every developed country.


You're so out of touch of reality it isn't funny, and the fact that you keep coming we your backwards rhetoric after being present already with so many facts and data, is a testament to your intelligence.

The only thing you get right is that lower taxes are better, but that even a kindergarten kid could be able to figure it out.


[url]http://ansonalex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Apple-Tax-Evasion-Statistics-Infographic.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]For one, it would have been nice to have a president who focused more on the economy instead of health care reform. It's clear that he hasn't done enough, and been focused enough on the economy. Based on what he puts out there, it seems like he's still not living in reality when it comes to the economy. I don't know what other presidents would have done, you never know, but I know this president has not done a good job the last 4 years. I don't think the problem was just Obama's failure to communicate the severity of the economy, but even with some of the unknowns, I think he himself underestimated by more than what I'd call a reasonable margin for error.



Y[/QUOTE]
You do know healthcare and the economy are tied together? As in a large number of Americans, myself included, dont have private insurance and cant afford it. Medical bills are expensive and they hurt peoples checkbooks. People gonna be less likley to buy things if they have bills they are struggling to pay...

Anyways, I dont think the GOP are gonna have a President for a long time coming unless they change their stance on women and gays and people who arent white. Im still amazed that he beat white men twice and there is still widespread racism in the US. It shows we are still moving forward. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.

[QUOTE=LA Lakers]You do know healthcare and the economy are tied together? As in a large number of Americans, myself included, dont have private insurance and cant afford it. Medical bills are expensive and they hurt peoples checkbooks. People gonna be less likley to buy things if they have bills they are struggling to pay...[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are tied together in that when you have government run health care and mandates, health care costs go up for all, and hurts the economy, resulting in more unemployment

[QUOTE=LA Lakers]Anyways, I dont think the GOP are gonna have a President for a long time coming unless they change their stance on women and gays and people who arent white. Im still amazed that he beat white men twice and there is still widespread racism in the US. It shows we are still moving forward. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:

What exactly is their stance on "people who aren't white"?

[QUOTE=LA Lakers]Anyways, I dont think the GOP are gonna have a President for a long time coming unless they change their stance on women and gays and people who arent white. Im still amazed that he beat white men twice and there is still widespread racism in the US. It shows we are still moving forward. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.[/QUOTE]

This shit is pretty bogus. You fell for the fear tactics that democrats/Obama used to campaign against Romney.

Like always joe the plummer is nowhere to be seen...


Thank god for free market capitalism, otherwise this guy come have made money and been successful of his hard work and intellect,

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/MadeInAmerica/wrench-inventor-claims-sears-stole-idea-china/story?id=17720122#.UKRRpofm7mh[/url]

Hey Dan Brow just shut up! and go work for Sears for the minimal wage, kay? Stop badmouthing rich people, listen to Joe, they give you jobs!!

[QUOTE=Math2]:oldlol:

What exactly is their stance on "people who aren't white"?[/QUOTE]


Concentration camps.

Blacks are worst off in the country from a socioeconomic perspective and thus receive the most welfare. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more welfare or less welfare ideas......which do you think that voter base would vote for? It's an extremely tough sell for Republicans right now to convince this voter block that they have a better path forward by reducing the size of government, welfare, getting off the government's tit and becoming self reliant and accountable for your path and prosperty in life. Those are conservative ideas. They can apply to people regardless of race or gender.

Are blacks any better off today from an economic perspective than they were 4 years ago? No. Actually worse off. Blacks as a socioeconomic group continue the trend towards full reliance from the federal government for meeting daily needs. This is not good. But the trend of voting for continued dependecy continues.

Hispanics are the largest growing voter base by race due to immigration (legal or illegal) and the economic opportunity immigration to the US offers. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more "concessions" as an immigrant group or less "concessions" as an immigrant group......which do you think that voter base would vote for? The latinos that have immigrated here did it for a simple reason....a better life than where they came from. Thus, it's an extremely tough sell for Republicans to convince the hispanics as a whole that we must "shut down" the border asap and reduce our "concessions" to immigrants for the good of our nation and in the process prevent others in their racial group from also being able to execute the fastest path to a better life for them and their family...........illegal immigration to US. And once they are here they can continue to receive these "concessions" that the US Fed Govt offers (free healthcare, free education, more welfare, free citizenship for their children born here, and ultimately amnesty). Liberalism is destroying the black and Hispanic communities.


I'm much more upset with women :facepalm :facepalm . They were lassoed into a pool of mindless cattle that were force fed the idea that the most important thing in their life was free contraceptions and abortions. Idiot Repubs failed to
point out that under Obama 41% of women are now living in poverty. Also failed to point out that they accounted for the highest percentage of job loss. The message should have been "let Obama give you abortions, we need to give you a job".

:roll:

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]
I'm much more upset with women :facepalm :facepalm . They were lassoed into a pool of mindless cattle that were force fed the idea that the most important thing in their life was free contraceptions and abortions. Idiot Repubs failed to
point out that under Obama 41% of women are now living in poverty. [B]Also failed to point out that they accounted for the highest percentage of job loss.[/B] The message should have been "let Obama give you abortions, we need to give you a job".[/QUOTE]
Um, that's because the "Repubs" forced a ton of spending cuts to education across the board, and women make up a majority of the teachers that were let go.

But keep on ****ing that chicken.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Concentration camps.[/QUOTE]
:lol

[QUOTE=Droid101]Um, that's because the "Repubs" forced a ton of spending cuts to education across the board, and women make up a majority of the teachers that were let go.

But keep on ****ing that chicken.[/QUOTE]

And that means they're sexist against women, right?

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]Actually white people receive the most welfare



Gee, someone is offering you more money, which would you take? It's no different than a rich guy voting for Romney because he wants to get over on his taxes.



Yes it's a tough sell to tell a suffering person that you're going to say "F[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck them" and they have to miraculously make their own way. The world doesn't work like that anymore. We live in a set up system that you have to navigate through. You need connections. Why do you think there are a bunch of people who have college degrees and can't find work? You've never lived in the shoes of a dirt poor n!gga with nothing around him. You really have no idea what that life is like so you can't sit here and tell me it's very easy to get to what you consider success in life. It's silly when people act like there is unlimited opportunity laying around and poor people just choose to be poor. The phrase "out of touch" really does apply here.



Again, more bullshit. There are more white people on "government assistance" than black people. You think all black people just sit around and get welfare? Do you even know how much a single person gets from welfare or food stamps? It's not even that much. Everyone on welfare who's unemployed is still poor. It's not like they're buying brand new cars and shit with an EBT card.[/QUOTE]


Actually, relative to population size, blacks receive more.

But you act as if only rich people vote for republicans, when most of them are people who actually think they should work for their money. Of course people want free stuff, but what makes everyone else want to pay for it?

It's irrelevant if they want to be poor or not, if they are poor, then why is it the fault and/or the responsibility of others to make sure they can have a job?

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.

[QUOTE=Math2]But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.[/QUOTE]
I know, right? Poor people have it so damn easy. You've convinced me, I'm quitting my job and going on food stamps. It's not living very hard like you say, man!!

[IMG]http://sperraul.mnsi.net/images/comics/lucky_ducky.png[/IMG]

[quote]Actually, relative to population size, blacks receive more.

But you act as if only rich people vote for republicans, when most of them are people who actually think they should work for their money. Of course people want free stuff, but what makes everyone else want to pay for it?

It's irrelevant if they want to be poor or not, if they are poor, then why is it the fault and/or the responsibility of others to make sure they can have a job?

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.[/quote]


keep up the "work for their money" bs...

thats the talk that lost you clowns the election :cheers:

People of all races and ethnic groups 'work' for their money...

but you keep believing that FOX news nonsense

as long republicans believe that bullsh*t, they'll be out of the white house

thank god

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]That's really a moot point.



But here's the thing: Not every poor person is poor because they're some lazy slob who refuses to do anything. I'm not taking about giving a person thousands of dollars for nothing. I'm talking about people who just want to eat and have a bed or floor to sleep on...the basic necessities of human life. Did you ever learn about the 5 basic needs of human life while in elementary?



It's not irrelevant because the attitude from lots of conservatives is that it's every poor person's fault for being poor as if they control the job market and wages. Wealth can't trickle down if a rich guy doesn't want it to.



If you believe this then you really have no idea how the so called handouts you oppose really work. You can't buy whatever you want with foodstamps, and like I've said, it's not that much anyway. The most 1 person can get if they have zero income is $200 a month. And when you factor in rising food costs, and the fact that if they don't have any income they can't pay for anything else then you realize how little it really is.

So tell me, which would you rather have: $200 a month to spend on food only, or save $100,000 from getting a tax break from some loophole?[/QUOTE]


It's not though. It's like saying that the Rolling Stones have sold more albums than someone like Cream. Sure, the Rolling Stones have sold more albums, but you'd expect that as they released more albums.

The attitude of conservatives (at least me) is that why should I, as someone who earned my money, pay for someone who can't. If I can earn my money, why is it my responsibility to make sure you can earn money.

I realize you can't buy anything on food stamps, hence the almost before it. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's food?

Obviously the 100,000 dollars. It isn't fair per say that they should get tax breaks, that's fine if they are eliminated.

[QUOTE=Math2]
The attitude of conservatives (at least me) is that why should I, as someone who earned my money, pay for someone who can't. If I can earn my money, why is it my responsibility to make sure you can earn money.

I realize you can't buy anything on food stamps, hence the almost before it. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's food?
[/quote]


Sad how some people have NO concept of community or human decency. I know America is based on an individualistic mindset, but republicans are flat out greedy people who only consider themselves..


America was built by people working [SIZE="5"]TOGETHER[/SIZE], and helping their fellow countrymen when needed.

the programs that republicans deride as 'gifts' are mostly the same programs that helped build America in during the 40's and 50's (baby boom generation)

Nowadays since new people are trying to use those same programs that helped Americans in the past, to help themselves today? Now republicans have bought into this huge lie that people make it on their own


They demonize the poor, minorities, women, and whoever else they feel they can get away with

but the good news is that GOP got slapped in the face by the American public this time

The good news is that GOP now has a price to pay for being soo disrespectful to soo many people.

They used be able to race bait and demonize without it hurting them in elections.. Well those days are over and Oreilly and all the FOX sad faced clowns are crying the blues because "traditional" America is dead

thank god

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]It's just silly for people to act like they've magically made their own way. This isn't 1812 where a lot of the world has yet to be discovered. Things are already set in stone. Nowadays, you need connections. You need someone who's already gotten in to give you a helping hand to get you started. Unless you are really good at music or sports there's no such thing as starting from nothing and getting to the top (whatever you consider it to be) all by yourself.[/QUOTE]


old saying goes: Nobody ever did anything all by themselves..

Gov't policies are put into place for a reason. For these policies to be retracted, there has to be evidence that not only will said retractions not be a detriment to a large portion of society, but actually benefit the people who may have benefited from the previous policies. Until someone such as Math2 can provide empirical evidence that altering certain policies will be much more beneficial to more Americans, then it's really a lost cause. They like to talk theories, but remember, a lot of these theories were put into practice long ago and yet they didn't have staying power for a reason....while other theories have never been more than that. I'd love empirical evidence that all this talk is backed by some form of hard facts that can be applied to the largest of scales, which America is.

Then again, If Math2 doesn't even care to provide such evidence because he's not concerned about the welfare of others and is truly only concerned about himself, then I'm sorry to say his only hope to live the life he wants doesn't include him living in America. lol

Many people have this myth playing in their heads of what America used to be.....it never existed. What many people are looking for may exist somewhere else in this world. I'm sure many others would be glad if those "traditionalists" went searching for it.

[QUOTE=Dolphin]Gov't policies are put into place for a reason. For these policies to be retracted, there has to be evidence that not only will said retractions not be a detriment to a large portion of society, but actually benefit the people who may have benefited from the previous policies. [B][COLOR="Red"]Until someone such as Math2 can provide empirical evidence that altering certain policies will be much more beneficial to more Americans, then it's really a lost cause. They like to talk theories, but remember, a lot of these theories were put into practice long ago and yet they didn't have staying power for a reason....while other theories have never been more than that. I'd love empirical evidence that all this talk is backed by some form of hard facts that can be applied to the largest of scales, which America is.[/COLOR][/B]

Then again, If Math2 doesn't even care to provide such evidence because he's not concerned about the welfare of others and is truly only concerned about himself, then I'm sorry to say his only hope to live the life he wants doesn't include him living in America. lol[/QUOTE]

AMEN :applause:

I don't know how much time I wasted in this thread trying to get any sort of empirical data or anything tangible that backs up any of the bullshit being spewed by certain people here. Only got theories that either have no basis in reality or have been debunked thoroughly already. But some still cling to these nonsensical, unproven, misguided regurgitated ramblings that are pushed by faux news glorified talk show hosts.

[QUOTE]Many people have this myth playing in their heads of what America used to be.....it never existed. What many people are looking for may exist somewhere else in this world. I'm sure many others would be glad if those "traditionalists" went searching for it.[/QUOTE]

The 'traditional America' that some of these guys envision only existed on tv shows like Leave it to Beaver. What does that even mean, really, 'traditional America'? Where do you stop the timeline on that- before or after slavery, segregation, the suffragette movement, Indigenous genocide, etc? I know a lot of these neo-secessionists' idea of the ideal 'traditional America' includes them owning Black people and their home maker, baby factory wives not having the right to vote :lol

Then where is your evidence that welfare programs work, and don't just redistribute the wealth? It's not that I don't approve of helping people in need, I've given to charity before, but I shouldn't have to pay taxes that go to the poor in the form of welfare. That's what charity is for, the government isn't a charity organization.

[QUOTE=Math2]Then where is your evidence that welfare programs work, and don't just redistribute the wealth? It's not that I don't approve of helping people in need, I've given to charity before, but I shouldn't have to pay taxes that go to the poor in the form of welfare. That's what charity is for, the government isn't a charity organization.[/QUOTE]

Ummm, what you want is closer to what the industrialized world saw before so-called welfare states became the norm. How did that turn out...that whole charity thing from the private sector? lol

I can absolutely agree that what we have now is not good enough for a lot of people, but you want certain things to be reversed and there is tons of empirical evidence that that would reduce the quality of life for many.

But again, what I am saying will fall on deaf ears when directed at people such as yourself....because you're not REALLY arguing that your "charity idea" is better for the nation, you're arguing it's better for yourself....and that really isn't something I can argue with nor would I want to argue national-scale policies with someone who is only focused on how it benefits themselves. A genuine, fact based debate can't happen.

[QUOTE=Dolphin]Ummm, what you want is closer to what the industrialized world saw before so-called welfare states became the norm. How did that turn out...that whole charity thing from the private sector? lol

I can absolutely agree that what we have now is not good enough for a lot of people, but you want certain things to be reversed and there is tons of empirical evidence that that would reduce the quality of life for many.

But again, what I am saying will fall on deaf ears when directed at people such as yourself....because you're not REALLY arguing that your "charity idea" is better for the nation, you're arguing it's better for yourself....and that really isn't something I can argue with nor would I want to argue national-scale policies with someone who is only focused on how it benefits themselves. A genuine, fact based debate can't happen.[/QUOTE]

Obviously it would benefit myself. I should be able to choose what I can do with my money. I would choose to give any money I would donate to the poor rather than the elderly.

[QUOTE=Math2]Obviously it would benefit myself. I should be able to choose what I can do with my money. I would choose to give any money I would donate to the poor rather than the elderly.[/QUOTE]

I bet that would reassure sooooo many Americans that you'd be soooooo kind. :oldlol:

[IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248947_494339837255388_282079461_n.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Sarcastic][IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/248947_494339837255388_282079461_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

The child labor laws today are really dumb though....

[QUOTE=Myth]And if Romney won, it would have been by showering rich people with gifts.[/QUOTE]

You have a problem with a rich man showing other white men with gifts? Don't you know that white men are the only ones that matter? WTF is wrong with you???

[QUOTE=General]Remember when Obama promised he would fix the economy? :roll: I can't believe these people fell for his bullshit again. He is a divider, yet people bought his bipartisanship myth again because of a pretty speech. We just have to admit that a large portion of the population really wants free stuff. Like O'reilly said, a lot of people feel like the system is stacked against them. It isn't, it's just an excuse for the weak and lazy to not try harder to succeed.

We now live in a country where people think that punishing success is a good thing. They think this is Robin Hood in real life. When they look at a rich person they think that person has too much! Take some away and give it to the rest of us! Instead of aspiring to be like them and working their asses off to make that happen.[/QUOTE]

And the republicans aren't dividers?

They've made it white men vs. everyone else.

Ok... Romney got the married woman vote also apparently.

Truth is, he made a great speech after he lost the election. What did he do after that?

He acted like a bitch and basically blamed everyone other than white men for his failures. He showed that leadership would still have been very questionable under him. Can we expect that this poor loser would have been a great leader? Hard to see it from my point of view.

[QUOTE=General]Not true. The reason Obama won is because he promised a lot more things than Romney did just like he stated. Romney's pitch was I'll bring back the America where if you work hard and follow the rules you will be a success story. You won't need government from craddle to grave to be a success. Obama was out there preaching how it's so unfair that the rich don't pay more, we need their money for you to be a success. Free college for everyone, free healthcare, free contraception..

Americans chose free stuff over hard work. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]

Take your bullshit cliche republican talking points and shove them up your good for nothing dirty ass.

[QUOTE=Godzuki]you listen to Rush Limbaugh don't you? i swear almost everything you said is straight out of a right wing talking point spinners mouth :rolleyes:

even tho its beating a dead horse you do know where our economy was at when Obama took office? on the verge of a depression, thats where...you know where our economy has been headed recently? Obama graduated from Harvard, spent years in the Senate, what exactly doesn't qualify him to be President? especially when he ran a campaign better than his opponents as well as carried himself much better than Bush or really any Republican running for Prez in recent memory ever has...and i thought Hillary was the Republican target for Bengzhai? she's stepping down you know....

its just laughable to me how so many of you morons keep trying to call the rest of us sheep or idiots :facepalm[/QUOTE]

Rush Limbaugh didn't even think Romney was worth the nomination a year ago....

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rush-on-romneys-global-warming-comments-bye-bye-nomination/[/url]

[IMG]http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rick-perry-gop-debate-video-oops1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Math2]Actually, relative to population size, blacks receive more.

But you act as if only rich people vote for republicans, when most of them are people who actually think they should work for their money. Of course people want free stuff, but what makes everyone else want to pay for it?

It's irrelevant if they want to be poor or not, if they are poor, then why is it the fault and/or the responsibility of others to make sure they can have a job?

But they can buy almost whatever you want with food stamps, it's not like it's living very hard.[/QUOTE]


There are 4 or 5 people I know that backed Romney... People that have or do currently do use entitlements. My niece is on food stamps and she voted for Romney hoping he will crack down on those that aren't responsible and are on welfare... Of course what she really means is that she dislikes the fact that black people can get welfare.

[QUOTE=Rasheed1]Sad how some people have NO concept of community or human decency. I know America is based on an individualistic mindset, but republicans are flat out greedy people who only consider themselves..


America was built by people working [SIZE="5"]TOGETHER[/SIZE], and helping their fellow countrymen when needed.

the programs that republicans deride as 'gifts' are mostly the same programs that helped build America in during the 40's and 50's (baby boom generation)

Nowadays since new people are trying to use those same programs that helped Americans in the past, to help themselves today? Now republicans have bought into this huge lie that people make it on their own


They demonize the poor, minorities, women, and whoever else they feel they can get away with

but the good news is that GOP got slapped in the face by the American public this time

The good news is that GOP now has a price to pay for being soo disrespectful to soo many people.

They used be able to race bait and demonize without it hurting them in elections.. Well those days are over and Oreilly and all the FOX sad faced clowns are crying the blues because "traditional" America is dead

thank god[/QUOTE]

Carlin nailed it years ago:


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9iY8Std8nQ[/url]


Saying anything negative about anybody that is rich is now dirty talk according to republicans and some libertarians.

You see, I'm a Gary Johnson type of guy in a lot of ways. Libertarians have some nice ideals... Everybody should make on their own, we don't need no stinkin' government etc.... If we cut out welfare then the "takers" will all become hard workers and we will have a nice little Leave to the Beaver society.

Not reality.

Now... I do believe we need entitlement reform. But chances are food stamps does keep food in the mouths of some children in this country that are stuck with lazy parents who do take advantage of the system. Fact is, there are parents in this world that would put that 12 pack of beer above their childrens needs. At the end of the day, welfare puts food in peoples stomach, while wars take lives. So yeah, I'm more upset with our warmongering right now than I am cutting back on welfare.

[QUOTE=Hotlantadude81]And the republicans aren't dividers?

They've made it white men vs. everyone else.

Ok... Romney got the married woman vote also apparently.

Truth is, he made a great speech after he lost the election. What did he do after that?

He acted like a bitch and basically blamed everyone other than white men for his failures. He showed that leadership would still have been very questionable under him. Can we expect that this poor loser would have been a great leader? Hard to see it from my point of view.[/QUOTE]

No, the Democrats are the dividers. They don't divide white people so that they are above everyone else, they make them below. The Democrats made it whites vs. all else just because they thought it was fair.

[QUOTE=Math2]No, the Democrats are the dividers. They don't divide white people so that they are above everyone else, they make them below. The Democrats made it whites vs. all else just because they thought it was fair.[/QUOTE]
Ah, all those lib racists.

[IMG]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/814647/original.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://clutchmag.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/dont-re-nig-bumper-sticker-thumb-400xauto-32334.jpeg[/IMG]