patrick.net

bob2356 says

So all the trailer trash low teeth to tattoo ratio rednecks are voting Obama?

Mr. Romney is doing very well among Republicans (86%-9%), voters over 65 (58%-35%), men (49%-43%), evangelicals (62%-28%), married voters (50%-40%), conservatives (77%-18%), and investors (56%-39%). He has opened up a lead among weekly Wal-Mart Shoppers (50%-39%).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251142986

lostand confused says

To think this country existed without income taxes until what 1920s?? prior to that there was a short period of income taxes to pay off debt from the civil war and then it was abolished again. Just imagine, no endless wars, no arresting millions of Americans to build the prison industrial complex and people feel the hunger in the belly and will start rioting against offshoring etc.

Boy oh boy, the 1920s, the good ol' days. Back when stocks only went up, house prices only went up, the leading causes of death included flu and TB, people were largely uneducated, many lived on farms, airplanes had propellers, the middle class cranked their cars or put on their gym shoes (ahem) to walk to work.

But hey, let's try that again; I'm sure it would be a blast.

sbh says

Bush/Cheny gave the oil companies far, far more in tax payer funded subsidies and credits and breaks

plus they spent over $2T to take over Iraq in the attempt to give US oil interests biz ops there.

Compared to that, Obama is a piker.

I joke, but that's EXACTLY what they did, and why.

See how it goes?
Mention Solyndra and they say that Bush "gave money to oil companies".
Well, the oil companies produce a product that we actually use, unlike Solyndra. But, I also think oil companies don't need any capital from Bush or Cheney, oil companies have their own capital (from shareholders like you, you do own mutual funds don't you?)
People who disagree with the government confiscating our money to give to pet projects or the underclass are now "walmart rednecks in trailer parks"?
The USA operated previously as the state of New Hampshire does today, it survived on taxes on alcohol and tobacco. New Hampshire has no state income tax and all booze is sold in state owned liquor stores.
How can New Hampshire do it? Well, unlike the USA, it has no military and can't wage war for one thing.
What is bizarre to me is that someone who wants to keep his own money is considered morally inferior to someone who wants to take it from him to give to someone else.
Wars cost a fortune, military pensions cost a fortune, social welfare programs only produce more demand for more programs, govt. likes to grow itself into ever more absurd departments (a Federal Dept. of Education? Why?).
Remember that the median salary in DC is double the USA median.
Now we've got a new govt. entitlement and it also has lots of taxes to go with it.

clambo says

People who disagree with the government confiscating our money to give to pet projects or the underclass are now "walmart rednecks in trailer parks"

Try to sharpen your reading comprehension. The point was of walmart rednecks collect money from the government also, while voting republican to cut taxes.

clambo says

Mention Solyndra and they say that Bush "gave money to oil companies".

Well, the oil companies produce a product that we actually use, unlike Solyndra.

So corporate welfare is ok as long as it's corporations you approve of?

Everyone wants someone else's government waste cut. We are all hypocrites, especially the alleged conservatives.

control point says

What you are both doing here is going with the assumption that all people who
are black are poor

Wow - talk about assumptions and putting words in someone's mouth. Nope, never said all poor people were black. I said that 90% of the people who lived in the last apartment complex (that I lived in) were black. Didn't say a THING about those people being poor. The VAST majority voted for Obama, strictly because he is black, not because they are poor or (necessarily) on some form of PA.

control point says

all people who are on government assistance don't want a job; and all people who
don't want a job vote democrat.

Again, never said either of those things. Just said a majority of the people living in the complex where black and (from listening) that many (note I did not say majority) were on some type of PA. However, how many of them knew someone who was on PA, if they themselves weren't on it. I don't know, but I can certainly surmise.

control point says

First of all, lazy government parasites don't vote.

Hmmm, now who's assuming? Actually, they DO know the tit that feeds them and they DO tend to vote. Many vote by mail, in some cases it's been shown in a court of law that they vote more than once. Oh yes, many, many of them vote.

control point says

And second of all, highly educated white people with jobs vote democrat too. In
higher numbers than republicans

Really? Then how do you explain this?
"Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the overall white vote"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/09/164791497/obamas-feat-not-just-winning-but-how-he-won
via NPR which isn't exactly a conservative source.

Sorry control point - you're wrong.

mmmarvel says

Really? Then how do you explain this?

"Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the overall white vote"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/09/164791497/obamas-feat-not-just-winning-but-how-he-won

via NPR which isn't exactly a conservative source.

Sorry control point - you're wrong.

http://kalenkimm.com/2012/11/2012-presidential-election-demographic-analysis/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

I said "Highly Educated" white. Obama won the top 16 states by educational attainment, and 18 of the top 20.

Romney won the top 7 states with highest black population by percentage, and 8 of the top 10.

Presidents are elected by electoral votes - allocated to the states (and DC). Of the states with the highest percentage of highly educated population, Obama won 18 of 20 and 20 of the top 25. Romney won 18 of the bottom 26 (51 total includes DC) states by educational attainment.

Of the 28 states Obama won, 71% of them are in the top half by education attainment and 29% of them were in the bottom half of educational attainment. Of the 23 States Romney won, 78% were in the bottom half by education attainment and 22% were in the top half.

Of the top half of states with highest percentage of black population, Romney won 14, Obama 11. Of the bottom half, Obama won 17, Romney 9.

Think about that above, how is that possible? In Mississippi, 37% of the population is black, of Which Obama got over 90% support. That means his percentage of the total vote from black alone in that state was close to .9*.37 = 33.3%. But Obama only got 43.8% of the vote in MS, so that means of the remaining non-black population in MS, he got .105/.63 = 16.7% support. So Romney carried 83.3% support among non-black voters in MS. Yeah, the deep south isn't racist anymore....

Aggregate popular vote does not elect the President.

Who is wrong????

mmmarvel says

Actually, they DO know the tit that feeds them and they DO tend to vote.

Wrong again.

http://www.demos.org/data-byte/voter-turnout-income-2008-us-presidential-election

control point says

I said "Highly Educated" white. Obama won the top 16 states by educational
attainment, and 18 of the top 20.

Sorry Sir - there is no data showing that the 'high educated' folks were white. Meanwhile the article I linked to did mention that "African-Americans, for instance, gave 88 percent of their vote to Kerry in 2004; Obama won 93 percent of their vote this year and 95 percent in 2008."
Nuff said.

control point says

Presidents are elected by electoral votes - allocated to the states (and DC).

Dang, really? Shoot, when did that happen? Come on man, I'm well aware of that.

control point says

Who is wrong????

You still are.

control point says

Wrong again.

http://www.demos.org/data-byte/voter-turnout-income-2008-us-presidential-election

Huh? The chart is beyond confusing. Let's see the total turnout is ... 59.7 what, million? Percent of voters or what? Then it does a breakdown of economic earnings but if it's percentages then it's more than 100%, if it's millions of voters then its more than what is claimed to be total votes. Bad chart dude. Look at my link, Obama did not win the majority of white votes - period.

It is now best for US banks to start investing outside of USA.

New theme song for the real estate market.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8g6bUe5MDRo

"Let's put an end to this stress & strife
I want to live the sporty life"

Come on,I know you can double your offer on this shack.

OK, I see you are too retarded to read charts. Noted. Now your responses make sense.

I'm done with you.

There should be traffic jams at every For Saler. Part time & unemployed victims are rushing to overpay for crap.

Vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney enjoy complaining about the 47% who depend on the government, but TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY for creating a good portion of those jobless people by their offshoring activities! Only 20% of the population is of an intelligence that can get high tech or high education jobs. The rest need lower level jobs, and manufacturing provided that. Until Mittens and his ilk sent all those jobs away. Now they have to provide for the welfare cases THEY created, but don't want to actually use their money. So they write tax code that takes from the workers (middle class) to give to the poor and also to their own corporations. And then they scheme to lower their own taxes from
15% to 11% like the Mittster.

mmmarvel says

Really? Then how do you explain this?

"Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the overall white vote"

Um... Because those White voters were smart enough to know Obama expected them to pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay.

Now that he's elected they have two options...

Either sit on their ass and stay at home... er I mean the shelter and collect assistance, or get a job with more pay.

Even if they get a better job, it's still NOT enough.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/irs-considers-taxing-work-perks-like-food-gym-memberships/?intcmp=latestnews

Those greedy bastards wants to tax their lunch and every thing else they get.

They should be called National heroes and treated with greater respect than this administration gives the ones who have to finance Obama's dream of a Socialist fascist utopia.

So Basically what you guy's common mantra about Obama is the same reoccurring theme.

"Obama's greatest accomplishments to date, is Romney's sound bytes."

OK I understand I got it. I hear you loud and clear.

Let me guess they polled uninsured Liberals, who opted to not pay, or single people who's full insurance premium costs are covered by their employer.

HEY YOU says

Part time & unemployed victims are rushing to overpay for crap.

Why not? They have the right to own like cash rich people. Actually they should prepare way ahead of time and get into the home, so that they are all set once they get the new job.

I read yesterday that premiums in Florida went up as much as 25 to 35% just from 2013 to 2014 premiums. They expect the same for next year.

Let's see how many inured voters are still insured let alone their job survives 7 more months until November.

My guess is, the Liberals will find religion before November, so they can claim the GOP is the Devil, so they can run on the.

Vote Democrat because they are "LESS" evil than Republicans.

Lose logic argument (Check)
Make petty attacks(check)

I like how Liberals mastered the chicken pecking gobbledygook that are Tweets and it is even perfectly acceptable reprint news, and admissible evidence.

BUT!!!!

Blister a Liberal's ass in forum debate, their coup de grâce, the Crème de la Crème, the only desperate shit they can think of, is to poke jabs at grammatical mistakes.

It must be conflicting tormenting affliction to be a Liberal.

sbh says

You gotta admit, not being that moron is all he really needed.

Hey Genius, Obama has already made every single fuck up, that Liberals claimed every single one of his Republican rivals going all the way back to the 2008 primaries, would make.

He's not only the Liberal's description of Romney, he's been Palin, McCain, Perry, Bush, you name it. There's not one Republican boogieman that Obama hasn't topped.

He makes a 90 something year old Jimmy Carter, sound like the Smartest American in the world, and makes Jimmy Carter's administration a smashing Liberal success.

You'll need to do better than that.

CaptainShuddup says

He's not only the Liberal's description of Romney, he's been Palin, McCain, Perry, Bush, you name it. There's not one Republican boogieman that Obama hasn't topped.

How does a person get to be THIS intellectually dishonest ?

I wouldn't think being an illiterate dimbulb, who gets a boner every time Sean Hannity blasts some dishonest nonsensical emotion out his pie hole would be enough to do it, but apparently I'm wrong.

THe Captain is living proof of the damage that's done to this country by the likes of Fox news and talk radio.

He will respond that its no worse than the marxist dogma spewed by PBS, CBS, and CNN.

And he thinks he's being honest and objective when he says that.

Oh here comes Marcus to keep the topic on track.

clambo says

Mention Solyndra and they say that Bush "gave money to oil companies".

Well, the oil companies produce a product that we actually use, unlike Solyndra. But, I also think oil companies don't need any capital from Bush or Cheney...

Don't compare apples to oranges. The Oil-man doesn't like solar panel man, because solar panel man cuts into the oil mans market share. I'm sure the man who made floppy's didn't like the man who made cd's just the same way.

And if you want to talk about costs, factor in all the wars over oil and the national debt it created. US military doesn't go bombing random places so we could setup solar panels there, we go bombing places so we could take their oil. Those wars, they are very expensive. Hell everyone could have had solar panels in America for what they spent in any of these wars, we wouldn't even need oil than.

CaptainShuddup says

Oh here comes Marcus to keep the topic on track.

What topic is that ?

How much you hate Obama ?

How much you love Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?

So now we have the claims that the reason Hillary, Biden, and Kerry voted to invade Iraq was the oil companies forced them to? That's interesting but baloney.

Solyndra and other solar and wind schemes are all welfare for political friends of Obama.

Obama bombed Libya and of course no one knows why.

I say cut off their money so they have no temptation to blow it on all kinds of adventures whether in the middle east, washington DC, or the Bronx projects. Give all govt. budgets a 5% "haircut", and cut taxes so those who earn money for their living can have more and either invest it or spend it.

We don't need foreign oil today, all of our needs can be found under our feet if we use natural gas more, which is inevitable anyway.

Sbh seems to have a seething anger for some "southern rednecks" who reside in Mississippi and elsewhere. So, because you think other people are ignorant, you believe the govt. must take more of our money to create departments to treat this "problem"?

So, what should the call the new department in DC to teach English to the ignorant foreigners who can't speak it? "Department of Literacy"?

clambo says

So now we have the claims that the reason Hillary, Biden, and Kerry voted to invade Iraq was the oil companies forced them to? That's interesting but baloney.

If they did it to prove that democrats aren't weak on national security, it doesn't mean that the real reasons for the war weren't mostly about oil.

There is some subtlety to this, because I'm sure you had high level "academics" on the right (mostly the neocons), arguing that having sufficient oil to meet our energy needs in coming decades is a national (economic) security issue.

Prioritizing sustainable alternative energy ? That's for those pansy "progressives."

clambo says

I say cut off their money so they have no temptation to blow it on all kinds of adventures whether in the middle east, washington DC, or the Bronx projects. Give all govt. budgets a 5% "haircut", and cut taxes so those who earn money for their living can have more and either invest it or spend it.

That ain't happening under Democrats or Republicans, so moot point clambo. You can run for office if you think you can do that. Otherwise, this is all wishful thinking.

You've seen Ryan's right wing plan, he practically reserved entire budget for military overseas blowing stuff up schemes.

This is what second amendment was meant to be. Who gives a damn about free speech if you can't enforce it! And nothing enforces your rights like a gun.

I believe this incident demonstrates very nicely the point that guns in the hands of citizens can check federal power and overreach. Dan's been arguing against the validity of this argument for years, but the fact of the matter is plain: if the government wants to get into a shooting war with its own citizens, it will lose even if it wins. Case in point.
Pwned by current events!

Quigley says

guns in the hands of citizens can check federal power and overreach

One thing about America, the Govt. has to think twice before firing on it's own citizens.

Ask the protesters in Kiev, Ukraine how they feel about Govt. snipers firing on them.

sbh says

FortWayne says

And nothing enforces your rights like a gun.

Damn right! Just ask any Pakistani.

I can just ask someone in Nevada and they will be right!

Jimbo in SF says

Quigley says

guns in the hands of citizens can check federal power and overreach

One thing about America, the Govt. has to think twice before firing on it's own citizens.

Ask the protesters in Kiev, Ukraine how they feel about Govt. snipers firing on them.

And a yahoo with a pistol and assault rifle is going to do what exactly against a trained sniper team?

Chances are the yahoo will be a headless pink cloud before he can disengage the safety.

There are only two ways that any government has managed to successfully govern a population:
1) with consent of the populace
2) with fear

Most governments use both strategies, but second strategy is limited in the USA by the Second Ammendment. Push too hard, commit obvious injustice and enforce it with jack booted thugs, and an armed populace pushes back.

However, if we were more like the workers' paradise of North Korea, the government would be able to use strategy #2 to invoke strategy #1!

My personal suspicion is that Obama has been sending his homie Dennis Rodman to North Korea on political research missions.

New Renter says

And a yahoo with a pistol and assault rifle is going to do what exactly against a trained sniper team?

Looked to me like there were way more "yahoo's" than Govt. agents in Nevada ... and the Govt. backed down.

I'm speaking of a situation with a mass protest like Kiev (or even Nevada) where the citizens are armed, not a 'crazed' individual against a sniper team.

New Renter says

Jimbo in SF says

Quigley says

guns in the hands of citizens can check federal power and overreach

One thing about America, the Govt. has to think twice before firing on it's own citizens.

Ask the protesters in Kiev, Ukraine how they feel about Govt. snipers firing on them.

And a yahoo with a pistol and assault rifle is going to do what exactly against a trained sniper team?

Chances are the yahoo will be a headless pink cloud before he can disengage the safety.

Way to entirely miss the point! It's not whether they win or lose that particular skirmish. It's that the government firing on its citizens would inspire armed revolution.
Obama backed down from that precipice because if he had ordered the Feds to start shooting, he'd be impeached as a start, and probably lynched later on. Do you possibly think the government can govern with any significant fraction of the population in armed revolt? It wouldn't be as nice a separation as North and South, either.

I haven't seen anything by Ryan I wasn't interested enough.

The U.S.A. has sufficient natural gas and oil probably for hundreds of years, so we could avoid buying anything from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. and keep that $500 billion/year in our own economy.

You guys would also benefit, since I bet you own mutual funds so those dividends from Chevron/Exxon will enrich you more than presently.

Much of the attention we have in the middle east is also doing the heavy lifting for Europe, a PERFECT example was us bombing Libya. We have zero economic nor energy interest in Libya but Europe does.

You solar and windmill guys obviously need to spend a few winters back East, nothing will help you in upstate NY or New England in the winter except burning something to warm your house, or nuclear to light it.

You could produce some natural gas with your waste and garbage, I doubt many people would but towns could if they wanted to spend money in this area. I also don't think it would be competitive of the stuff from under the ground, but it all adds up.

But the problem is that the assholes and idiots in Washington haven't the brains to allocate money correctly so I say cut them off their addiction to our money.

Like all blowhards, Bundy stoops to pathetic hypocrisy, claiming ancestral rights to the land. Of course, if Native Americans reclaimed the land Bundy says is his, I am sure he would have no problem with that.