Reddy Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 07:44 AM) No, you can't both respect human life and at the same time allow others to decide when abortion is acceptable. We don't allow that at any other stage of life. That's an inconsistent position. Now, people here are arguing that an unborn baby is not actually a human life, which I believe is proven wrong but at least does not make supporting abortion rights an inconsistent position. Believing that the unborn baby is a human life and also believing that abortion should be legal is a slippery slope into all kinds of awful stuff. How do you feel about the death penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) How do you feel about the death penalty? Are you trying to REALLY derail this thread. What's next, religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Are you trying to REALLY derail this thread. What's next, religion? lol no, but if you're going to use the "value human life" argument, you'd better be consistent! isn't consistency something Husker et al. were b****ing about?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Buzzfeed takes a look at what the electoral map would have looked like at different stages of enfranchisement in US history. 1870 (Traditional American vote) 1870-1920 (minority male vote, but no womens' vote) 1920 (only white men and women because of poll taxes, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 07:19 PM) Buzzfeed takes a look at what the electoral map would have looked like at different stages of enfranchisement in US history. 1870 (Traditional American vote) 1870-1920 (minority male vote, but no womens' vote) 1920 (only white men and women because of poll taxes, etc.) whats your point? you hate Amerikkka and all other countries have a righteous history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 no, just thought it was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Nate Silver breaks down how all of the polls did over the last 21 days of the election: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sidential-race/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Nate Silver breaks down how all of the polls did over the last 21 days of the election: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sidential-race/ Thank god Rasmussen unskewed the polls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Rasmussen has a bad model but they weren't the worst this time around. What matters is if he sees these results and corrects his models going forward. That'll show if he's a serious pollster or just producing propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Electoral map with states resized based on population. Nothing we didn't know, but still neat to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) Electoral map with states resized based on population. Nothing we didn't know, but still neat to look at. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/ more cartograms along the same lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 11:20 PM) Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me. This is just like the Dow falling 300 points on Wednesday (assuming you could tie it into the election result). Both of these things the opinion on those on Wall Street, and it wasn't exactly a secret they were for Romney. So why are things like this and the Dow falling 300 points treated like some new thing? Whether or not the Wall Streeters' fears are founded or not, the fact is that these only reflect that Obama isn't liked by investment bankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 09:20 PM) Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me. Talked to my friend who is a world renowned doctor who works on the sickest and most needy people out there and he's "ecstatic" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said healthcare is going to become accessible to most of us now and we are so lucky. Just passing on what he told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 11:20 PM) Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me. There are a lot of cry-baby ceo's and finance-types right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 11:20 PM) Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me. 1. As others have said, that crowd generally preferred Romney, mostly because it meant less regulation. So now they are leaving and taking their ball home... temporarily. They will come crawling back later. 2. Part of the markets falling was really not about Obama policies vs Romney policies - it is the uncertainty and the looming fiscal cliff. Having a Dem Prez, GOP House, and a Senate that is Dem-led but still within the bounds of the procedural filibuster... pretty much is the most conflicted setup possible, thus making it more likely they don't avoid the cliff, and can't make the broad fiscal changes necessary. 3. Ultimately, the President isn't going to have any gigantic effect on the recovery, beyond the fiscal cliff issue. And that is more Congress than the President. 4. Regulatory uncertainty is a major issue at play in the minds of the financial community - there are all kinds of new rules coming, but no one seems to know what they will look like. That is a real problem. 5. Finally, the deal is... if the flscal cliff is avoided, and some significant tax structure changes can be made without drastic increases across the board... the economy is going to continue recovering and probably accelerate. And that would be regardless of who won the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 12:14 AM) Talked to my friend who is a world renowned doctor who works on the sickest and most needy people out there and he's "ecstatic" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said healthcare is going to become accessible to most of us now and we are so lucky. Just passing on what he told me. My dad runs a small business (trucking company) and has lots of employees that are earning in the range that puts them generally just out of reach of things like Medicaid. There is a company insurance plan and he offers them the chance to be on it -- they could take a small pay increase if they had their own health insurance, basically as a thank you for saving him some money. They would almost without fail take the pay increase, not buy insurance, and respond simply that they could go to the emergency room for healthcare. I think those days are over now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) My dad runs a small business (trucking company) and has lots of employees that are earning in the range that puts them generally just out of reach of things like Medicaid. There is a company insurance plan and he offers them the chance to be on it -- they could take a small pay increase if they had their own health insurance, basically as a thank you for saving him some money. They would almost without fail take the pay increase, not buy insurance, and respond simply that they could go to the emergency room for healthcare. I think those days are over now. Except those people could go on the state insurance exchanges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Paul Ryan: I Didn’t Lose Because Of The Issues, I Lost Because Of The ‘Urban’ Vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) Except those people could go on the state insurance exchanges. I talked to my dad, apparently he is pretty sure those people are just going to pay the tax. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) 1. As others have said, that crowd generally preferred Romney, mostly because it meant less regulation. So now they are leaving and taking their ball home... temporarily. They will come crawling back later. Sure the super wealthy will be back spending, creating jobs, etc... at some point, but it will be on their terms. In the interim they are going to remain super wealthy and cut expenses which will hurt the rest of us. When you have that kind of money you hold the cards and don't have to crawl back. Edited November 14, 2012 by Marty34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 06:25 PM) Sure the super wealthy will be back spending, creating jobs, etc... at some point, but it will be on their terms. In the interim they are going to remain super wealthy and cut expenses which will hurt the rest of us. When you have that kind of money you hold the cards and don't have to crawl back. No. no. no. Hit these motherf***ers right in the nads, and hit 'em hard. They deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Anger isnt very becoming. Luke 12:48 and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. From a practical standpoint, if the US was to go completely bankrupt and money was worth nothing, who loses more, the guy on the street with nothing but debt, or the billionaire? Its actually in their best interest to help fix the US economy, they have more to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 06:25 PM) Sure the super wealthy will be back spending, creating jobs, etc... at some point, but it will be on their terms. In the interim they are going to remain super wealthy and cut expenses which will hurt the rest of us. When you have that kind of money you hold the cards and don't have to crawl back. I think you missed the point. They will invest their money - that won't change. Just will invest differently. I said nothing about creating jobs, nor did I even hint at it. We are talking about MARKET investing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 13, 2012 -> 09:00 PM) Anger isnt very becoming. Luke 12:48 and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. From a practical standpoint, if the US was to go completely bankrupt and money was worth nothing, who loses more, the guy on the street with nothing but debt, or the billionaire? Its actually in their best interest to help fix the US economy, they have more to lose. No no no, using the Bible as backing to support policy or moral beliefs only counts when it serves the God-loving Republicans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts