PDA

View Full Version : Democrats: Help me find common ground.


Saul Good
11-07-2012, 09:33 AM
The people have spoken. Obama gets four more years. Congress remains split. It's compromise or gridlock, but is compromise possible? Everyone talks about bipartisanship, but they usually mean unconditional surrender by the other side.

It's pretty well known around here that I am a conservative. Liberals out there, let's pretend we're in congress. Pick an issue that you would like to address, and let's see if we can really agree to meet somewhere in the middle.

Tax rates, abortion, drug legalization...whatcha got?

Brock
11-07-2012, 09:35 AM
Probably ought to start by fixing the tax legislation that's going to run up our tax bills by 3700 dollars in January.

jiveturkey
11-07-2012, 09:35 AM
The fiscal cliff the big one and I believe that a lot of us over the last couple of years have called for tax increases, major spending cuts, defense cuts and entitlement reform.

The tax increases are the deal breaker for Reps though.

Everything should be on the table.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 09:37 AM
The fiscal cliff the big one and I believe that a lot of us over the last couple of years have called for tax increases, major spending cuts, defense cuts and entitlement reform.

The tax increases are the deal breaker for Reps though.

Everything should be on the table.

I'm listening...

Dave Lane
11-07-2012, 09:39 AM
The fiscal cliff the big one and I believe that a lot of us over the last couple of years have called for tax increases, major spending cuts, defense cuts and entitlement reform.

The tax increases are the deal breaker for Reps though.

Everything should be on the table.

Agree but all these things should be in moderation till the recover gets moving. DURING a recover is the time to cut spending but it never seems to get doen as the priority is lost.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 09:40 AM
Use the Clinton template. Raise the taxes at the top of income. This can be by removing tax shelters or just raising rate. We would really like your input. Stop Afghan war and hold military spending absolutely steady. Tell us what you would prioritize to keep US military strong. We prefer investment in people.

We still need to see growth industry. We suggest Natural Gas, Solar/wind, Greening of buildings and growth of electrical intrastructure for distribution and transportation.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 09:40 AM
The people have spoken. Obama gets four more years. Congress remains split. It's compromise or gridlock, but is compromise possible? Everyone talks about bipartisanship, but they usually mean unconditional surrender by the other side.

It's pretty well known around here that I am a conservative. Liberals out there, let's pretend we're in congress. Pick an issue that you would like to address, and let's see if we can really agree to meet somewhere in the middle.

Tax rates, abortion, drug legalization...whatcha got?

Debt ceiling. It is about paying bills already accrued (much of it under the last administration)--its as simple as that. It was never a contentious issue before Obama and now it is an issue for the right to hold the country hostage. It's inexcusable.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 09:43 AM
Debt ceiling. It is about paying bills already accrued (much of it under the last administration)--its as simple as that. It was never a contentious issue before Obama and now it is an issue for the right to hold the country hostage. It's inexcusable.

The idea that most of it was under the last administration is patently and blatantly partisan.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 09:43 AM
Hopefully the split in control in DC means a reasonable compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff, one that includes both reasonable tax increases and substantially more spending cuts. Let's pray that happens. The Grand Bargain or whatever NEEDS to happen this time.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:44 AM
We still need to see growth industry. We suggest Natural Gas, Solar/wind, Greening of buildings and growth of electrical intrastructure for distribution and transportation.

You mean central planning of the economy? Yeah, that'll work.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 09:46 AM
The idea that most of it was under the last administration is patently and blatantly partisan.

What numbers would you have us use and when do they apply?

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 09:46 AM
Solar/wind

No thanks. We have thousands of them and they've done nothing to offset raising energy rates.

Furthermore, we build them here and they are god awful places to work. Closer to 19th century sweat shops than 21st century nirvana.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 09:46 AM
The idea that most of it was under the last administration is patently and blatantly partisan.

Partisan or not true? Anyway, I said "MUCH," but "MOST" may be true.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 09:47 AM
Hopefully the split in control in DC means a reasonable compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff, one that includes both reasonable tax increases and substantially more spending cuts. Let's pray that happens. The Grand Bargain or whatever NEEDS to happen this time.

Why, because that's what happened before?

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 09:48 AM
What numbers would you have us use and when do they apply?

How about we stop blaming Bush (in a VICTORY no less) and talk about the future?

The petty barbs make one look small and ineffectual.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 09:48 AM
You mean central planning of the economy? Yeah, that'll work.

Good people more likely good results. I don't care what system is used.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 09:49 AM
Partisan or not true? Anyway, I said "MUCH," but "MOST" may be true.

Whether or not I believe it to be true is irrelevant.

It was ridiculously partisan and completely unnecessary in a thread in which you were sincerely asked to help find a middle ground.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 09:49 AM
No thanks. We have thousands of them and they've done nothing to offset raising energy rates.

Furthermore, we build them here and they are god awful places to work. Closer to 19th century sweat shops than 21st century nirvana.

Try a coal miners job?

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 09:53 AM
Use the Clinton template. Raise the taxes at the top of income. This can be by removing tax shelters or just raising rate. We would really like your input. Stop Afghan war and hold military spending absolutely steady. Tell us what you would prioritize to keep US military strong. We prefer investment in people.

We still need to see growth industry. We suggest Natural Gas, Solar/wind, Greening of buildings and growth of electrical intrastructure for distribution and transportation.

I would be willing to consider increases to the top marginal rates, but I would prefer to address loopholes. What loopholes did you have in mind?

dirk digler
11-07-2012, 09:56 AM
How about comprehensive immigration reform? This should be doable.

You can't deport or self deport 12 million illegals.

Also if House Republicans want to extend the hand they need to pass the DREAM act tomorrow.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 09:58 AM
Try a coal miners job?

Again, ad hominem attacks and snarky 1-ups aren't the purpose.

Coal mines being mind-numbing shitholes doesn't change the fact that the companies building windmills are awful, awful places to work. I won't even get into the irony surrounding what they've done to the labor unions in this area, with the governments help.

You'll notice that I didn't include natural gas - I find natural gas to be an acceptable alternative.

I also support ardently an increase in bio-fuels, but only if we reduce our dependence on corn and soybeans. The use of industrial hemp for fuel should be a top priority for anybody truly interested in both reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and improving our economy.

jiveturkey
11-07-2012, 09:59 AM
I would be willing to consider increases to the top marginal rates, but I would prefer to address loopholes. What loopholes did you have in mind?
Loop holes are trick because I don't really know which one's are out there and the costs/abuse associated with them.

They're probably a good place to start though.

On entitlements I'd be open to small increases in the eligibility age along with the means testing that Romney was pushing.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 10:00 AM
I would be willing to consider increases to the top marginal rates, but I would prefer to address loopholes. What loopholes did you have in mind?

Capital Gains outside of retirement loopholes for middle class. But I would offset this by tax benefits related to job creation. In some sense very good rich business people will be buying smart employees and gaining income from their effort and tax benefit (and ultimately their votes as they succeed) vs tax relief over passive investments.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 10:00 AM
Loop holes are trick because I don't really know which one's are out there and the costs/abuse associated with them.

They're probably a good place to start though.

On entitlements I'd be open to small increases in the eligibility age along with the means testing that Romney was pushing.

Yeah it's kind of hard to identify loopholes when none of us are wealthy enough to use them so we don't know they exist. ;)

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 10:01 AM
Capital Gains outside of retirement loopholes for middle class. But I would offset this by tax benefits related to job creation. In some sense very good rich business people will be buying smart employees and gaining income from their effort and tax benefit (and ultimately their votes as they succeed) vs tax relief over passive investments.

I like that idea.

MagicHef
11-07-2012, 10:04 AM
Again, ad hominem attacks and snarky 1-ups aren't the purpose.

Coal mines being mind-numbing shitholes doesn't change the fact that the companies building windmills are awful, awful places to work. I won't even get into the irony surrounding what they've done to the labor unions in this area, with the governments help.

You'll notice that I didn't include natural gas - I find natural gas to be an acceptable alternative.

I also support ardently an increase in bio-fuels, but only if we reduce our dependence on corn and soybeans. The use of industrial hemp for fuel should be a top priority for anybody truly interested in both reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and improving our economy.

I hadn't heard anything like that about turbine producers. You mean like Vestas and GE?

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:07 AM
How about comprehensive immigration reform? This should be doable.

You can't deport or self deport 12 million illegals.

Also if House Republicans want to extend the hand they need to pass the DREAM act tomorrow.

I agree with you regarding deportation to an extent. I would propose amnesty to anyone currently here if they have a clean record. For those who have been working here using fraudulent ID, I would assess them a nominal fine (mostly symbolic).

I would also like to implement a national ID card for all workers.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:09 AM
Capital Gains outside of retirement loopholes for middle class. But I would offset this by tax benefits related to job creation. In some sense very good rich business people will be buying smart employees and gaining income from their effort and tax benefit (and ultimately their votes as they succeed) vs tax relief over passive investments.

I'd like to hear you (or anyone) expand upon this. I like the idea on it's face.

Detoxing
11-07-2012, 10:09 AM
I have no faith no faith in politics of politicians. Like you what was said the OP, it's not about working together, it's about one side winning over the other now.

Vail mentions it all the time: If Obama is president, then large business owners will continue to not invest and spend their money.

That says all i need to know about Republicans, and All i need to know about Politics in general.

It's not about making the country better. It's about getting what THEY want and making more money.

dirk digler
11-07-2012, 10:10 AM
I agree with you regarding deportation to an extent. I would propose amnesty to anyone currently here if they have a clean record. For those who have been working here using fraudulent ID, I would assess them a nominal fine (mostly symbolic).

I would also like to implement a national ID card for all workers.

I would go for that.

We also need to beef up border security, I don't know if a fence is the best idea maybe something more advanced like smart borders.

I have been a firm supporter of using the military but that will never happen with Obama.

Pawnmower
11-07-2012, 10:13 AM
There is going to have to be a middle ground...

ANd I take hope becuase some of the best things in the world have come from a middle ground between two philosophies, like the Constitution was the greatest example of this.

Not saying this congress is going to do anything remotely awesome, but yah...I'm down to hope for compromise.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:14 AM
I would go for that.

We also need to beef up border security, I don't know if a fence is the best idea maybe something more advanced like smart borders.

I have been a firm supporter of using the military but that will never happen with Obama.

Bam...compromise reached

If we require national ID cards for employment, border security becomes a separate issue. I don't want to entangle two issues that can, and should, be addressed individually.

Detoxing
11-07-2012, 10:14 AM
I agree with you regarding deportation to an extent. I would propose amnesty to anyone currently here if they have a clean record. For those who have been working here using fraudulent ID, I would assess them a nominal fine (mostly symbolic).

I would also like to implement a national ID card for all workers.

While I dont agree with Amnesty, i do agree that this needs to be addressed. What baffles me is how the Republicans completely ignored it and overwhelmingly lost the latino vote.

Latinos don't care about Obama. They don't care that he's black (like black people do), they're going to vote for the guy who actually takes the time to acknowledge them and put forth the effort to fix this problem.

If Romney would've came out and said Immigration reform was a priority, and gave an outline on how he could make a pathway to citizenship for these people, he would've won the Latino vote.

Instead, he ignored them. Naturally, they vote Obama for the small pin hole sized light of hope that he gives them, opposed to Romney who did nothing.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:15 AM
While I dont agree with Amnesty, i do agree that this needs to be addressed. What baffles me is how the Republicans completely ignored it and overwhelmingly lost the latino vote.

Latinos don't care about Obama. They don't care that he's black (like black people do), they're going to vote for the guy who actually takes the time to acknowledge them and put forth the effort to fix this problem.

If Romney would've came out and said Immigration reform was a priority, and gave an outline on how he could make a pathway to citizenship for these people, he would've won the Latino vote.

Instead, he ignored them. Naturally, they vote Obama for the small pin hole sized light of hope that he gives them, opposed to Romney who did nothing.

Agreed. That's what this thread is about.

dirk digler
11-07-2012, 10:16 AM
Bam...compromise reached

If we require national ID cards for employment, border security becomes a separate issue. I don't want to entangle two issues that can, and should, be addressed individually.

woohoo

I always been a fan of national ID as well. That won't happen either though because the left won't like it as well as libertarians.

Trivers
11-07-2012, 10:19 AM
Just because Romney narrowly lost the population vote means the Reps don't have to abandon their core beliefs......government needs to live within its means.

Either all tax cuts expire at 12/31 or all don't; no more class warfare.

A ratio of 5 or 10 to 1 cuts to revenue increase through a flatter income tax; means testing for SS and Medicare entitlements; work towards fair flat tax for everyone.

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Try a coal miners job?

Try finding something more efficient than photovoltaics and wind mills before trying to say solar and wind will make any difference.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:23 AM
woohoo

I always been a fan of national ID as well. That won't happen either though because the left won't like it as well as libertarians.

If the hard left and the hard right don't like it, maybe that's a good thing.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 10:23 AM
I'm concerned about specific items.

I'm concerned about the escalation of the national debt for entitlement programs and political glad handing projects for votes.

The fiscal cliff.......the national budget...........national debt. Address those.

I'm concerned, probably my biggest concern about the SCOTUS nominees that will be appointed during this term. This is the area where I think the POTUS can do the most harm as I see it.

I'm concerned about tax policies, not because I'm wealthy and anticipate a hit, but because I want this economy to rebound and I am in complete disagreement with the Obama strategy.

I'm concerned about the ever increasing burden on the producers in this country by those who choose NOT to pull their weight, as evident in the large expansion of welfare recipients. If you can afford an Iphone...I don't need to feed and house you.

I'm concerned about our position and reputation in the world. Weakness is not what I'd prefer our nation show in negotiations with harder nosed countries. Bending to Vladmir Putin on missile defense and China trade policy being among the biggest concerns.

Obama has confirmed his views on the 2nd amendment and gun control. This is an area where his decisions and appointments to the SCOTUS are the most concerning to me.

The farm bill should now be addressed, since the election is over and now politicians can let their balls back out of their cavity. This bill affects so many issues, and there needs to be serious reform in welfare and subside payments where they aren't needed.

Now that he's not campaigning, it would be nice to see Obama pay attention and demonstrate some of that Transparency he's talked about but not followed through on........start with Fast and Furious and Libya.


Convince me these are issues I should not be concerned about, and I'll start being a little less angry and disappointed in last nights' outcome. Gridlock is the best thing that can happen.

scott free
11-07-2012, 10:27 AM
Can we all atleast agree, that Andrea Tantaros on Fox news needs some sweet, sweet lovin?

Bowser
11-07-2012, 10:28 AM
I agree with you regarding deportation to an extent. I would propose amnesty to anyone currently here if they have a clean record. For those who have been working here using fraudulent ID, I would assess them a nominal fine (mostly symbolic).

I would also like to implement a national ID card for all workers.

I'd be all for this.

And I'm not sure where you stand personally as a R on the social issues. The entire party has to re-asses and reset the way they think there. Your cousin Saulbadguy said it best in the other thread how Republicans are completely out of touch with the populace with their thinking. Their stances (mostly) would have been nails 30+ years ago. Not so much today.

Bowser
11-07-2012, 10:29 AM
Can we all atleast agree, that Andrea Tantaros on Fox news needs some sweet, sweet lovin?

Yes.

Compromise. Country moving forward.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:31 AM
I'd be all for this.

And I'm not sure where you stand personally as a R on the social issues. The entire party has to re-asses and reset the way they think there. Your cousin Saulbadguy said it best in the other thread how Republicans are completely out of touch with the populace with their thinking. Their stances (mostly) would have been nails 30+ years ago. Not so much today.

Make me an offer. No reasonable suggestions are refused. I'm wheeling and dealing right here on the Senate floor.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 10:33 AM
If you want to compromise with me and make me agree that raising taxes we can find common ground.

I'll accept some tax increases, for myself and for the wealthy in exchange for at least a 2-1 budget cut for every dollar increased and reduced welfare benefits and requirements that people who can work, do.



The fiscal cliff the big one and I believe that a lot of us over the last couple of years have called for tax increases, major spending cuts, defense cuts and entitlement reform.

The tax increases are the deal breaker for Reps though.

Everything should be on the table.

Bewbies
11-07-2012, 10:33 AM
woohoo

I always been a fan of national ID as well. That won't happen either though because the left won't like it as well as libertarians.

We have national ID cards now, they're called passports.

headsnap
11-07-2012, 10:35 AM
We have national ID cards now, they're called passports.

wouldn't those be international ID cards? :shrug:

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 10:35 AM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJZJapAuYZMm2B4uXFd1TgnHRRq85PJiWCShIgSwijECjMnpZYcQ

Show me your papahs!

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 10:43 AM
I think Republicans have to stop making abortion and contraception political issues. I'm not saying they have to change their moral positions, but that issue is just going to continue to dog them as long as they keep trying to force it as one. Democrats did this with gun control (although I'm not so sure that's the best course), but it made the issue a non-issue.

Sure, there are still radicals onthe right claiming, "He's gonna take your guns!", but there's nothing to back that up and for most of the electorate it became a non-issue. Rebs can't continue to fall 11 points behind in the women's vote and expect to win or gain allies.

Bowser
11-07-2012, 10:43 AM
Make me an offer. No reasonable suggestions are refused. I'm wheeling and dealing right here on the Senate floor.

You've got to give up the hardline stance on gay marriage. Sorry, there just isn't a middle ground to be had there. It's an either/or type of deal.

Stop fighting the abortion wars. It's not getting repealed; it's not going away. I'd be open to hearing compromises on this front form you.

We've covered imigration, and are in agreement.


Those three moves alone would bring the Repubs much closer to the pulse of the population in 2012, imo.

Bewbies
11-07-2012, 10:44 AM
I think Republicans have to stop making abortion and contraception political issues. I'm not saying they have to change their moral positions, but that issue is just going to continue to dog them as long as they keep trying to force it as one. Democrats did this with gun control (although I'm not so sure that's the best course), but it made the issue a non-issue.

Sure, there are still radicals onthe right claiming, "He's gonna take your guns!", but there's nothing to back that up and for most of the electorate it became a non-issue. Rebs can't continue to fall 11 points behind in the women's vote and expect to win or gain allies.

It wasn't the Republicans that brought it up this time. Nobody said a word of this until George Stephhoweveryouspellhisname asked Romney about it in a debate. Then all the sudden the left was in full war on women mode.

Bewbies
11-07-2012, 10:45 AM
wouldn't those be international ID cards? :shrug:

It's an ID that states you're a US citizen. Why on earth would you need another one?

Brock
11-07-2012, 10:47 AM
It wasn't the Republicans that brought it up this time. Nobody said a word of this until George Stephhoweveryouspellhisname asked Romney about it in a debate. Then all the sudden the left was in full war on women mode.

Todd Akin says hello.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 10:47 AM
I think Republicans have to stop making abortion and contraception political issues. I'm not saying they have to change their moral positions, but that issue is just going to continue to dog them as long as they keep trying to force it as one. Democrats did this with gun control (although I'm not so sure that's the best course), but it made the issue a non-issue.

Sure, there are still radicals onthe right claiming, "He's gonna take your guns!", but there's nothing to back that up and for most of the electorate it became a non-issue. Rebs can't continue to fall 11 points behind in the women's vote and expect to win or gain allies.

I think Democrats need to stop making contraception a federal subsidy.

Oh, and if Obama could get his way he would take our guns away. Those checks and balances are what protect us.

Bewbies
11-07-2012, 10:48 AM
Todd Akin says hello.

That happened after the question from left field to Romney that started it all.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 10:49 AM
It wasn't the Republicans that brought it up this time. Nobody said a word of this until George Stephhoweveryouspellhisname asked Romney about it in a debate. Then all the sudden the left was in full war on women mode.

Oh come on, it was in the Reb primaries, it was in the GOP platform, its a right wing Christian sacred cow. You have to start being honest with yourselves first, otherwise all the advice in the world isn't going to help.

Bowser
11-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Oh, and if Obama could get his way he would take our guns away. Those checks and balances are what protect us.

Ok, be clear - does he want to take away ALL guns, or just the fully automatic/easily-converted-to-automatic weapons?

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 10:51 AM
I think Democrats need to stop making contraception a federal subsidy.

Oh, and if Obama could get his way he would take our guns away. Those checks and balances are what protect us.

The point is, he didn't make it an issue. His own personal feelings might be different, but he made it a political non issue. We'll disagree about basic healthcare.

Bewbies
11-07-2012, 10:53 AM
Oh come on, it was in the Reb primaries, it was in the GOP platform, its a right wing Christian sacred cow. You have to start being honest with yourselves first, otherwise all the advice in the world isn't going to help.

Abortion is big for the right. But it's bigger on the left. This all started there. A couple idiot Senate candidates sure didn't help.

Vote with your lady parts? Dressing up like vaginas to protest? Inventing the narrative the other side has declared a war on women? Did you watch the DNC convention?

LMAO

For conservatives this election was about the economy, and about removing O from office. We failed. It is what it is...

mnchiefsguy
11-07-2012, 10:54 AM
How about comprehensive immigration reform? This should be doable.

You can't deport or self deport 12 million illegals.

Also if House Republicans want to extend the hand they need to pass the DREAM act tomorrow.


i can go along with this...if increased border security is included in the package. Also, no more sanctuary cities and local law enforcement with their hands tied because the feds refuse to deport illegal aliens.

If you pass the Dream Act without tightening border security, it sends a green light that our borders are wide open, and the Dream Act would get abused.

FishingRod
11-07-2012, 10:58 AM
It will be interesting to see if the Left and Right would rather have the raised Taxes and the opportunity to try and blame one another for the economic hardship it will cause to the middleclass or actually work something out to avoid the pending mess Scheduled for January 1st.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 10:58 AM
Abortion is big for the right. But it's bigger on the left. This all started there. A couple idiot Senate candidates sure didn't help.

Vote with your lady parts? Dressing up like vaginas to protest? Inventing the narrative the other side has declared a war on women? Did you watch the DNC convention?

LMAO

For conservatives this election was about the economy, and about removing O from office. We failed. It is what it is...

Its only big on the left because you have an agenda to repeal it. If there wasn't an agenda to repeal it, it would be a political non-issue. Notice, I'm not saying you need to become "pro-choice", I'm just saying stop posturing as though you're out to change the law. Use all the cultural influence you want to change minds to your position, just quit trying to change the laws. When Dems stopped threatening to alter the 2nd Amendment, it worked well for them.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 11:02 AM
You've got to give up the hardline stance on gay marriage. Sorry, there just isn't a middle ground to be had there. It's an either/or type of deal.

Stop fighting the abortion wars. It's not getting repealed; it's not going away. I'd be open to hearing compromises on this front form you.

We've covered imigration, and are in agreement.


Those three moves alone would bring the Repubs much closer to the pulse of the population in 2012, imo.

I would do away with marriage altogether. Civil unions for consenting adults. Charges can symbolically recognize whatever marriages they want.

Abortion wasn't part of the major Republican narrative. I will concede rape, incest, and life/serious health of the mother. That's as far as I will go.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 11:34 AM
I think Republicans have to stop making abortion and contraception political issues. I'm not saying they have to change their moral positions, but that issue is just going to continue to dog them as long as they keep trying to force it as one. Democrats did this with gun control (although I'm not so sure that's the best course), but it made the issue a non-issue.

Sure, there are still radicals onthe right claiming, "He's gonna take your guns!", but there's nothing to back that up and for most of the electorate it became a non-issue. Rebs can't continue to fall 11 points behind in the women's vote and expect to win or gain allies.

That's the opposite of what this thread is supposed to be about.

The people have spoken. Obama gets four more years. Congress remains split. It's compromise or gridlock, but is compromise possible? Everyone talks about bipartisanship, but they usually mean unconditional surrender by the other side.

It's pretty well known around here that I am a conservative. Liberals out there, let's pretend we're in congress. Pick an issue that you would like to address, and let's see if we can really agree to meet somewhere in the middle.

Tax rates, abortion, drug legalization...whatcha got?

See.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 11:37 AM
You've got to give up the hardline stance on gay marriage. Sorry, there just isn't a middle ground to be had there. It's an either/or type of deal.

Stop fighting the abortion wars. It's not getting repealed; it's not going away. I'd be open to hearing compromises on this front form you.

We've covered imigration, and are in agreement.


Those three moves alone would bring the Repubs much closer to the pulse of the population in 2012, imo.

There are compromise positions available, but most on the left won't settle for anything but total victory.

Gay marriage - Civil unions with some or all of the legal trappings of marriage is a compromise.

Abortion - Limiting abortion to early term abortions or allowing for restrictions like parental notification are compromises. Reversing Roe v Wade and rolling abortion law back to the states is also a compromise.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 11:40 AM
"we'll work with you, as long as you bend completely to our way of thinking and open mindedness because your side are completely wrong...always" /left

mnchiefsguy
11-07-2012, 11:42 AM
"we'll work with you, as long as you bend completely to our way of thinking and open mindedness because your side are completely wrong...always" /left

Sounds like Obama's stand on most issues.

Bowser
11-07-2012, 11:43 AM
For conservatives this election was about the economy, and about removing O from office. We failed. It is what it is...

Conservatives fucked this up big time by sitting ontheir fat asses believing the election was already swen up months prior. "Our Guy Isn't Your Guy, So Vote for Our Guy"

The Republicans should have won running away. Romney was a horrible candidate.

Detoxing
11-07-2012, 11:44 AM
"we'll work with you, as long as you bend completely to our way of thinking and open mindedness because your side are completely wrong...always" /left

And the same can be said for the right.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 11:48 AM
Detox

That's just because you are always wrong.................

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 11:48 AM
"we'll work with you, as long as you bend completely to our way of thinking and open mindedness because your side are completely wrong...always" /left

Sounds like Obama's stand on most issues.


I'm sure you guys realize that this is exactly how the left sees the right.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 11:49 AM
You're wrong too. Always.

King_Chief_Fan
11-07-2012, 11:50 AM
There are compromise positions available, but most on the left won't settle for anything but total victory.

Gay marriage - Civil unions with some or all of the legal trappings of marriage is a compromise.

Abortion - Limiting abortion to early term abortions or allowing for restrictions like parental notification are compromises. Reversing Roe v Wade and rolling abortion law back to the states is also a compromise.

there is no compromise on abortion...murder is murder plain and simple

Brock
11-07-2012, 11:53 AM
there is no compromise on abortion...murder is murder plain and simple

Get ready for a lot more lost elections, then.

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 11:56 AM
Its only big on the left because you have an agenda to repeal it. If there wasn't an agenda to repeal it, it would be a political non-issue. Notice, I'm not saying you need to become "pro-choice", I'm just saying stop posturing as though you're out to change the law. Use all the cultural influence you want to change minds to your position, just quit trying to change the laws. When Dems stopped threatening to alter the 2nd Amendment, it worked well for them.

Exactly who on the right has introduced legislation to repeal Roe vs. Wade?

Bowser
11-07-2012, 11:57 AM
there is no compromise on abortion...murder is murder plain and simple

Not according to the law of the land, it isn't.

Thought processes like this are what hold back the republican party. It's the 50 Years Ago Approach.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 11:58 AM
I hadn't heard anything like that about turbine producers. You mean like Vestas and GE?

These two particular companies produce blades and structural towers, not turbines.

Half the line workers have fiberglass "poisoning" that looks like leprosy and they fight tooth and nail to make sure those workers stay on PTE status so they don't have to cover their medical costs.

Cannibal
11-07-2012, 12:00 PM
Eliminate the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit and raise rates on the upper 2%.

Repubs favor the former, Dems favor the latter.

I'd approve of that compromise.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 12:02 PM
there is no compromise on abortion...murder is murder plain and simple

Sure there is. I understand that for people who see it as murder, no compromise is acceptable, but the vast majority of people are willing to compromise even if it's just for cases of rape or incest. I respect those who hold the pure no-abortion position and I don't really see why the pro-abortion left is so dedicated to their extreme positions, but there are compromises available that could build a majority coalition in the center, I think (even though that position is morally nonsensical).

ChiefsCountry
11-07-2012, 12:04 PM
Sure there is. I understand that for people who see it as murder, no compromise is acceptable, but the vast majority of people are willing to compromise even if it's just for cases of rape or incest. I respect those who hold the pure no-abortion position and I don't really see why the pro-abortion left is so dedicated to their extreme positions, but there are compromises available that could build a majority coalition in the center, I think (even thought that position is morally nonsensical).

I agree with this.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 12:08 PM
Can we all atleast agree, that Andrea Tantaros on Fox news needs some sweet, sweet lovin?

ROFL

Indeed!

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 12:12 PM
Eliminate the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit and raise rates on the upper 2%.

Repubs favor the former, Dems favor the latter.

I'd approve of that compromise.

Tell you what, throw in the revocation of the $6k "Tax refunds" to people who don't pay into the system and I'll tell my attorney to work with yours to draw that contract up.

MagicHef
11-07-2012, 12:14 PM
These two particular companies produce blades and structural towers, not turbines.

Half the line workers have fiberglass "poisoning" that looks like leprosy and they fight tooth and nail to make sure those workers stay on PTE status so they don't have to cover their medical costs.

Do you have any links? I've just never heard of this before.

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 12:18 PM
Tell you what, throw in the revocation of the $6k "Tax refunds" to people who don't pay into the system and I'll tell my attorney to work with yours to draw that contract up.

Thatís the Earned Income Tax Credit.
You have to have children and make below a certain (combined if married) annual income.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:20 PM
Coal mines being mind-numbing shitholes doesn't change the fact that the companies building windmills are awful, awful places to work. I won't even get into the irony surrounding what they've done to the labor unions in this area, with the governments help.

I know absolutely nothing about coal mining, so bear with me:

1. Why does it have to be mined?
2. Can't they drill out for coal or dig for it?
3. How does Clean Coal work?
4. Is Clean Coal a sustainable resource or limited?
5. Why aren't we investing in more nuclear power plants?

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 12:23 PM
Do you have any links? I've just never heard of this before.

I don't know if the local paper keeps digital archives nor do I really have the time or ambition to go microfiche diving but it has been a steady stream of lawsuits since the day they opened their doors.

Chocolate Hog
11-07-2012, 12:24 PM
I believe some of us Republicans will come together with some Democrats regarding Iran. This is the part of Obama's 2nd term that scares me because I believe he's no longer beholden to the progressives.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:24 PM
I agree with you regarding deportation to an extent. I would propose amnesty to anyone currently here if they have a clean record. For those who have been working here using fraudulent ID, I would assess them a nominal fine (mostly symbolic).

I would also like to implement a national ID card for all workers.

Obama recently implemented that initiative and the Right went nuts calling it Amnesty, when it was nothing of the sort. People brought here against their will as children or born in the US to illegal immigrants were allowed to apply for a green card as long as they had a clean record, graduated high school, college, etc.

Living in California, I believe that amnesty is the only option. It would be impossible to deport millions of Californians, millions of whom work and have their children in public schools. It was ludicrous to displace millions of families.

Also, the immigration laws need to be relaxed, big time, or we'll have this issue again in the not so far future.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 12:25 PM
I know absolutely nothing about coal mining, so bear with me:

1. Why does it have to be mined?
2. Can't they drill out for coal or dig for it?
3. How does Clean Coal work?
4. Is Clean Coal a sustainable resource or limited?
5. Why aren't we investing in more nuclear power plants?

I honestly don't know much about coal mining either.

I can say this - these "green" jobs here are the worst manufacturing jobs I have ever seen and I used to work minimum wage making parts for GM and Detroit Diesel.

On #5, I have the same question. Why aren't we? Because we should be.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 12:25 PM
Tell you what, throw in the revocation of the $6k "Tax refunds" to people who don't pay into the system and I'll tell my attorney to work with yours to draw that contract up.

Cannibal? I'm in if you are.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:27 PM
I'd be all for this.

And I'm not sure where you stand personally as a R on the social issues. The entire party has to re-asses and reset the way they think there. Your cousin Saulbadguy said it best in the other thread how Republicans are completely out of touch with the populace with their thinking. Their stances (mostly) would have been nails 30+ years ago. Not so much today.

Exactly.

The Republican will never win another national election where the party line includes no abortion for victims of rape, incest or the mother's life or the outlawing of In Vitro Fertilization.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:29 PM
For conservatives this election was about the economy, and about removing O from office. We failed. It is what it is...

Which is exactly why the Right lost.

There is far more to life these days than just the economy. Social issues prevail, especially in the population centers, which Obama happened to win.

MagicHef
11-07-2012, 12:30 PM
I don't know if the local paper keeps digital archives nor do I really have the time or ambition to go microfiche diving but it has been a steady stream of lawsuits since the day they opened their doors.

Which local paper? Which company? I've tried searching on Google and can't find anything.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 12:30 PM
I know absolutely nothing about coal mining, so bear with me:

1. Why does it have to be mined?
2. Can't they drill out for coal or dig for it?
3. How does Clean Coal work?
4. Is Clean Coal a sustainable resource or limited?
5. Why aren't we investing in more nuclear power plants?


1. It has to be mined because it's a sub-surface solid deposit.
2.Coal runs in "veins" not vertical wells, so there are 2 main ways to get it....strip mining which is heavily frowned upon by environmentalists. It destroys a lot of area and is very expensive to "fix" when they're done. The 2nd way is mining, and I think you're being a little obtuse on purpose.

3. Clean coal has more to do with the technologies to combust it and turn it into usable power. The emissions are significantly less than traditional coal burning facilities.

4. clean coal isn't a thing that is mined. There are significant untapped coal resources in the continental United States, technology has evolved the cleans the way it is burned and significantly reduces carbon emissions, but even that isn't good enough for environmentalists.

5. Nuclear is the most efficient, but it is fought at every turn due to concerns about accidents, misinformation about the process and environmental whackos.


I work in some of the green energy areas. There is a lot of good, but the expense and efficiency of wind and solar in particular leave a lot to be desired at this time.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:35 PM
1. It has to be mined because it's a sub-surface solid deposit.
2.Coal runs in "veins" not vertical wells, so there are 2 main ways to get it....strip mining which is heavily frowned upon by environmentalists. It destroys a lot of area and is very expensive to "fix" when they're done. The 2nd way is mining, and I think you're being a little obtuse on purpose.

3. Clean coal has more to do with the technologies to combust it and turn it into usable power. The emissions are significantly less than traditional coal burning facilities.

4. clean coal isn't a thing that is mined. There are significant untapped coal resources in the continental United States, technology has evolved the cleans the way it is burned and significantly reduces carbon emissions, but even that isn't good enough for environmentalists.

5. Nuclear is the most efficient, but it is fought at every turn due to concerns about accidents, misinformation about the process and environmental whackos.


I work in some of the green energy areas. There is a lot of good, but the expense and efficiency of wind and solar in particular leave a lot to be desired at this time.

Thanks, Dude. With utmost sincerity, I had absolutely no idea how coal was mined and why. It makes sense that there are "veins" of coal but does it cause too much environmental damage to just dig up the entire area instead of mining it?

I've seen a few news broadcasts in my life about coal mining accidents and I have no idea how guys can mine coal. I'd be so freaking claustrophobic I probably wouldn't be able walk more than five feet in.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 12:35 PM
I would do away with marriage altogether. Civil unions for consenting adults. Charges can symbolically recognize whatever marriages they want.

Abortion wasn't part of the major Republican narrative. I will concede rape, incest, and life/serious health of the mother. That's as far as I will go.

Lefties? What do you say? Do we have a deal?

KILLER_CLOWN
11-07-2012, 12:35 PM
While I dont agree with Amnesty, i do agree that this needs to be addressed. What baffles me is how the Republicans completely ignored it and overwhelmingly lost the latino vote.

Latinos don't care about Obama. They don't care that he's black (like black people do), they're going to vote for the guy who actually takes the time to acknowledge them and put forth the effort to fix this problem.

If Romney would've came out and said Immigration reform was a priority, and gave an outline on how he could make a pathway to citizenship for these people, he would've won the Latino vote.

Instead, he ignored them. Naturally, they vote Obama for the small pin hole sized light of hope that he gives them, opposed to Romney who did nothing.

The Latinas that work for me don't care, they have it engrained to always vote democrat. I've argued with them until I was blue in the face and they won't change. It would take some pretty monumental concessions to get them to switch their vote.

Iowanian
11-07-2012, 12:38 PM
I am taking off to go hunting, but I'd be happy to talk about energy, mining and other related topics in depth in another thread later. there are also some other informed individuals on these topics who are members here. You could get at least 3 perspectives on wind energy and I'm sure that many on coal mining in general.

There are several key reasons for mining accidents, some structural or geology related reasons, some caused by human error....explosions to to improper venting of combustible or noxious gases that collect in mines.

When I have more time, I'll try to explain some of it better.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:38 PM
Abortion wasn't part of the major Republican narrative. I will concede rape, incest, and life/serious health of the mother. That's as far as I will go.

It was in the 2012 Republican National Platform pdf which can be found online.

There were talks of a Constitutional Admendment outlawing abortion of any kind AND in vitro fertilization.

As someone who is close with several couples who have children via in vitro, I find it appalling that the Republican party wanted to have federal law against it.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:41 PM
I am taking off to go hunting, but I'd be happy to talk about energy, mining and other related topics in depth in another thread later. there are also some other informed individuals on these topics who are members here. You could get at least 3 perspectives on wind energy and I'm sure that many on coal mining in general.

There are several key reasons for mining accidents, some structural or geology related reasons, some caused by human error....explosions to to improper venting of combustible or noxious gases that collect in mines.

When I have more time, I'll try to explain some of it better.

Thanks, Man! I have a close friend from junior high and high school that I keep in touch with that's currently in his last semester of university for a degree in Green Engineering. He's a huge proponent. He was an engineer on a nuclear submarine a decade or so and has always been a proponent of that as well.

I plan to see him during the Christmas holiday and I'm anxious to pick his brain. I find Green Energy to be a very interesting topic.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-07-2012, 12:42 PM
I am taking off to go hunting, but I'd be happy to talk about energy, mining and other related topics in depth in another thread later. there are also some other informed individuals on these topics who are members here. You could get at least 3 perspectives on wind energy and I'm sure that many on coal mining in general.

There are several key reasons for mining accidents, some structural or geology related reasons, some caused by human error....explosions to to improper venting of combustible or noxious gases that collect in mines.

When I have more time, I'll try to explain some of it better.

Turkey?

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 12:45 PM
Thanks, Dude. With utmost sincerity, I had absolutely no idea how coal was mined and why. It makes sense that there are "veins" of coal but does it cause too much environmental damage to just dig up the entire area instead of mining it?

Thatís strip mining. Yes, it creates a big ole mess, monstrous pit in the ground. Google strip mines, thereís pictures all over the net. Strip mining is the cheap way to go after it but the expensive way to clean it back up afterwards.

I've seen a few news broadcasts in my life about coal mining accidents and I have no idea how guys can mine coal. I'd be so freaking claustrophobic I probably wouldn't be able walk more than five feet in.

Same here. Fantastic Caverns is about as close as I can come to cave crawling.

MagicHef
11-07-2012, 12:48 PM
IMO:

The main problem with wind energy is that people tend not to live in extremely windy places.

The main problem with solar energy is that it's very inefficient and expensive to set up.

The main problem with nuclear energy is that it sounds scary.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 12:48 PM
Thatís strip mining. Yes, it creates a big ole mess, monstrous pit in the ground. Google strip mines, thereís pictures all over the net. Strip mining is the cheap way to go after it but the expensive way to clean it back up afterwards.



Same here. Fantastic Caverns is about as close as I can come to cave crawling.

Thanks, Dude!

patteeu
11-07-2012, 12:50 PM
Exactly.

The Republican will never win another national election where the party line includes no abortion for victims of rape, incest or the mother's life or the outlawing of In Vitro Fertilization.

Why do you keep bringing up in vitro fertilization as if banning it is some kind of mainstream GOP/conservative position? I understand that it's opposed by the Catholic Church, but from what I can tell it's more like contraception than abortion in the sense that it's effectively a dead letter with the rank and file. I certainly don't remember any big pushes by the GOP to ban it in the last decade or two (in contrast to the abortion issue).

mlyonsd
11-07-2012, 12:52 PM
Green energy its fine as long as you don't mind paying more for your electricity and want to be even more uncompetitive in the global economy than we already are.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 12:58 PM
Green energy its fine as long as you don't mind paying more for your electricity and want to be even more uncompetitive in the global economy than we already are.

Yeah, meanwhile we can continue to enjoy whatever effects CO2 has on our climate courtesy of the countries that are eating our economic lunch.

DementedLogic
11-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Gridlock is a good thing in congress. It is the only that keeps government from growing.

King_Chief_Fan
11-07-2012, 01:06 PM
Not according to the law of the land, it isn't.

Thought processes like this are what hold back the republican party. It's the 50 Years Ago Approach.

the definition of murder changed in the last 50 years...hmmm.

to me taking a life from a defenseless unborn child in every way I think about it....is murder.

There is no way to convince one another our view and get agreement.

King_Chief_Fan
11-07-2012, 01:08 PM
Get ready for a lot more lost elections, then.



I know some of you object but others might find this interesting about what the Church and more importantly what God says about abortion.

http://media.fbch.com/fbch/notes/20121014.pdf

and if you are interested in the sermon that goes with it you can listen here..http://www.fbch.com/media/player/?type=video&class=services&id=212

Shaid
11-07-2012, 01:14 PM
2 for 1 split like Obama offered before. Small increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans and for every dollar of revenue increase we have 2 dollars in cuts. It was set up to be bi-partisan before and it still is if people are willing to come together and compromise.

KCFaninSEA
11-07-2012, 01:14 PM
I see where some compromise can be had if people are willing to go there. The first is that everybody must pay their fair share of taxes, % wise. If that happens I would be very willing to limit military spending and cut the amounts of $$ going over seas. I would also want to impose fees associated with an employer closing a company that is in the US and wanting to ship that work/business overseas just so they can make more profits and escape our tax laws. Couple that with additional caps on welfare for those who could work but are choosing not to. These types of benefits are to help those capable of working ( single mothers who keep pumping out kids like an M16 on full auto)get back on their feet (not unlike unemployment IMO), not to be used as a charity. You take care of that welfare issue and people will be forced to get off their asses. I would also like people to look at finding a way to reward Americans who BUY AMERICAN MADE products! Think of the impact in tax revenue and job creation if we were buying American made products. Earlier this year I went to buy a new TV. Stopped by the store to ask some questions and asked the guy to point me to the American made TV. He said, "there aren't any". It was quite alarming that I couldn't buy American in America.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:16 PM
IMO:

The main problem with wind energy is that people tend not to live in extremely windy places.

The main problem with solar energy is that it's very inefficient and expensive to set up.

The main problem with nuclear energy is that it sounds scary.

FYI on wind energy. There's a field of nearly 200 a few miles north of my house. The power generated there is sold to consumers in a state 600 miles away.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:18 PM
2 for 1 split like Obama offered before. Small increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans and for every dollar of revenue increase we have 2 dollars in cuts. It was set up to be bi-partisan before and it still is if people are willing to come together and compromise.

Who are the wealthiest Americans? Making a 6-digit salary doesn't make me rich...

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:18 PM
Exactly who on the right has introduced legislation to repeal Roe vs. Wade?

You're right, I guess nobody has actually inroduced legislation. I guess its really the non issue you seem to imply and this isn't just a lame attempt at political fencing. My bad. Mitt never said anything close to "If that legislation is put in front of me, I will sign it", did he?

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:22 PM
"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine."

-Mitt Romney, June 2011, National Review

King_Chief_Fan
11-07-2012, 01:23 PM
Who are the wealthiest Americans? Making a 6-digit salary doesn't make me rich...

$999,999.....six figure, rich

$100,000.... six figure, no so much

Shaid
11-07-2012, 01:23 PM
I know some of you object but others might find this interesting about what the Church and more importantly what God says about abortion.

http://media.fbch.com/fbch/notes/20121014.pdf

and if you are interested in the sermon that goes with it you can listen here..http://www.fbch.com/media/player/?type=video&class=services&id=212

I know it's not what you want to hear but the abortion issue is not going to change. The country will continue becoming more liberal. The way to combat it is through education, not law. I'm against it as well but I don't believe law is the way we'll solve it. People will still get abortions if it's outlawed but it'll be the back-alley abortions or in someone's garage, etc. and we'll have a lot of problems because of it.

The truth is that from Reagan through Bush 2 there were 20 years of Republican control of the Presidency and 8 years of Democratic control. I don't believe it's in the Republican party's best interest to have abortion overturned. They can keep trumpeting it as a reason to overturn it as a way to get elected. If they somehow got it overturned, Democrats would probably have landslide victory's until it was overturned again.

Just the way I see it from a purely political sense.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:23 PM
You're right, I guess nobody has actually inroduced legislation. I guess its really the non issue you seem to imply and this isn't just a lame attempt at political fencing. My bad. Mitt never said anything close to "If that legislation is put in front of me, I will sign it", did he?

That's a ridiculous statement by a man that knew it had absolutely no substantive meaning.

It's like saying "if I ever land on the moon, I'll plant a skull and crossbones flag there". I love the freaking skull and crossbones but I ain't ever landing on the moon.

In truth, it's all the more reason the Republicans should remove it from their platform. In pandering to a religious community that they will never serve, they're providing political fodder to their opponent.

Roe v. Wade will NEVER be repealed. NEVER.

Shaid
11-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Who are the wealthiest Americans? Making a 6-digit salary doesn't make me rich...

If you are over $250k, you can probably afford to pay more. If you're up to a million, you could definitely pay more. $100-$150k isn't rich, it's comfortable.

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 01:25 PM
You're right, I guess nobody has actually inroduced legislation.

Thank you.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:25 PM
That's a ridiculous statement by a man that knew it had absolutely no substantive meaning.

It's like saying "if I ever land on the moon, I'll plant a skull and crossbones flag there". I love the freaking skull and crossbones but I ain't ever landing on the moon.

In truth, it's all the more reason the Republicans should remove it from their platform. In pandering to a religious community that they will never serve, they're providing political fodder to their opponent.

Roe v. Wade will NEVER be repealed. NEVER.

Then why make it a political issue? Why put it in the party platform? If it is such an impossibility, why use it as red meat?

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 01:26 PM
Why do you keep bringing up in vitro fertilization as if banning it is some kind of mainstream GOP/conservative position? I understand that it's opposed by the Catholic Church, but from what I can tell it's more like contraception than abortion in the sense that it's effectively a dead letter with the rank and file. I certainly don't remember any big pushes by the GOP to ban it in the last decade or two (in contrast to the abortion issue).

Because it's in the 2012 Republican Platform PDF.

More proof that the Republican Party is anti-science.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:27 PM
Thank you.

In a televised debate, Romney was asked "If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?"

"I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period," Romney said. "That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

The moderator pressed Romney and asked if he would sign such a bill.

"Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill," Romney said. "But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific."

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:29 PM
If you are over $250k, you can probably afford to pay more. If you're up to a million, you could definitely pay more. $100-$150k isn't rich, it's comfortable.

I went from $25K to $125K in a span of about 15 years.

My tax burden went up in almost direct proportion as I went from $25K to $80K and then bam, a spike.

There's definitely an invisible barrier around $100K.

You can sim it for yourself - somebody posted a site around here the other day.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:30 PM
Then why make it a political issue? Why put it in the party platform? If it is such an impossibility, why use it as red meat?

Pandering for evangelical votes. It's one of the few blocks of voters they have left.

You and I both know it's dumb but I can't think of any other reason. (edit: short of some tinfoil hat conspiracy in which the Republicans are losing elections on purpose)

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:31 PM
In a televised debate, Romney was asked "If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?"

"I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period," Romney said. "That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

The moderator pressed Romney and asked if he would sign such a bill.

"Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill," Romney said. "But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific."

Again, 100% hollow.

He can't sign a bill that has less than zero chance of every arriving on the President's desk.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:31 PM
Thank you.

Happy fencing!

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:32 PM
Again, 100% hollow.

He can't sign a bill that has less than zero chance of every arriving on the President's desk.

"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine."

-Mitt Romney, June 2011, National Review

MagicHef
11-07-2012, 01:32 PM
FYI on wind energy. There's a field of nearly 200 a few miles north of my house. The power generated there is sold to consumers in a state 600 miles away.

Yep. 600 miles really isn't very far. The best wind resource in the US (and possibly the world) is the I-80 corridor through the Rockies in Wyoming. How many people live within 600 miles of there?

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 01:33 PM
In a televised debate, Romney was asked "If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?"

"I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period," Romney said. "That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

The moderator pressed Romney and asked if he would sign such a bill.

"Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill," Romney said. "But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific."

Is your point that Romney didnít bring it up, that the moderator at a debate did?

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 01:33 PM
In truth, it's all the more reason the Republicans should remove it from their platform. In pandering to a religious community that they will never serve, they're providing political fodder to their opponent.

Roe v. Wade will NEVER be repealed. NEVER.

The only problem with that is it's a core belief of their party and constituents.

If the Republicans were to stop pandering to the Religious Right, who would make up their core? The party would likely cease to exist because the millions upon millions who believe in those issues would likely find another party.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 01:34 PM
Because it's in the 2012 Republican Platform PDF.

More proof that the Republican Party is anti-science.

And Puerto Rico becoming a state is of "overwhelming importance" according to the Democrat platform. So what?

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:35 PM
You keep saying "sign a bill". That's not what the electorate hears. They hear rhetoric that scares them to believe if Republicans can find someway to get such a bill to such a President, he will sign it. You can talk about the reality of that scenario all you want, but the masses don't sit down an discuss why it won't happen, they get upset when someone initmates they would like to see it happen, would welcome it, would sign it if it comes to them. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

King_Chief_Fan
11-07-2012, 01:35 PM
I know it's not what you want to hear but the abortion issue is not going to change. The country will continue becoming more liberal. The way to combat it is through education, not law. I'm against it as well but I don't believe law is the way we'll solve it. People will still get abortions if it's outlawed but it'll be the back-alley abortions or in someone's garage, etc. and we'll have a lot of problems because of it.

The truth is that from Reagan through Bush 2 there were 20 years of Republican control of the Presidency and 8 years of Democratic control. I don't believe it's in the Republican party's best interest to have abortion overturned. They can keep trumpeting it as a reason to overturn it as a way to get elected. If they somehow got it overturned, Democrats would probably have landslide victory's until it was overturned again.

Just the way I see it from a purely political sense.

you made a good response. It is sad that abortion will continue to be viewed the way it is. Politics and religin can go together. It matters to me what God says about it and if more understood that and could see it that way....Roe v. Wade could be reversed. But, the trend doesn't show that happening.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 01:36 PM
Again, 100% hollow.

He can't sign a bill that has less than zero chance of every arriving on the President's desk.

No but the Republican party wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion for any reason.

IF Romney would have won, he likely would have nominated at least one, if not three, Supreme Court justices and in doing so, would have made it easier to strike down Roe V. Wade.

If the Republican party could stay out of the bedroom and out of people's spiritual beliefs and come up to speed on 2012's social issues, they would have a better chance on a national level.

Until they do, they will not win the White House.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 01:37 PM
And Puerto Rico becoming a state is of "overwhelming importance" according to the Democrat platform. So what?

That's not a social issue, nor does it affect the lives of millions of women and families.

Government should not be allowed to tell women what they can and can't have done to their bodies.

Bewbies
11-07-2012, 01:38 PM
Which is exactly why the Right lost.

There is far more to life these days than just the economy. Social issues prevail, especially in the population centers, which Obama happened to win.

I don't disagree with this at all. A campaign of Not Obama isn't good enough.

I'm interested to see if it was message, messenger or what the exact ins and outs were on this. But that will have to wait I'm going to take a few weeks off from all news/media. Focus on more portably shit, like watching the Chiefs suck. :)

Radar Chief
11-07-2012, 01:38 PM
You keep saying "sign a bill". That's not what the electorate hears. They hear rhetoric that scares them to believe if Republicans can find someway to get such a bill to such a President, he will sign it. You can talk about the reality of that scenario all you want, but the masses don't sit down an discuss why it won't happen, they get upset when someone initmates they would like to see it happen, would welcome it, would sign it if it comes to them. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

So youíre talking about perception not necessarily any real action. I donít disagree.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:38 PM
Is your point that Romney didnít bring it up, that the moderator at a debate did?

No, my point is that the Republicans should attempt to drop this as a political position. I don't care how real or imagined the threat is, women believe conservatives will support conservative Presidents to pick conservative justices and elect legislators to make their abortion ban dreams come true.

If you want to close the women voting gap so that their focus IS on economic issues, they need to distance themselves from these social issues in a political sense, make it a non-issue.

Graystoke
11-07-2012, 01:39 PM
The only problem with that is it's a core belief of their party and constituents.

If the Republicans were to stop pandering to the Religious Right, who would make up their core? The party would likely cease to exist because the millions upon millions who believe in those issues would likely find another party.

The Religious Right is a dying breed, evident by this election alone. USA Citizens have faith, no doubt, but it is apparent that the GOP can't continue to go to the Religious well anymore. What worked for Ronnie and GW Bush does not fly in todays politics.

The GOP better get their shit together.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 01:40 PM
No, my point is that the Republicans should attempt to drop this as a political position. I don't care how real or imagined the threat is, women believe conservatives will support conservative Presidents to pick conservative justices and elect legislators to make their abortion ban dreams come true.

If you want to close the women voting gap so that their focus IS on economic issues, they need to distance themselves from these social issues in a political sense, make it a non-issue.

So we're back to demanding absolute surrender?

Shaid
11-07-2012, 01:40 PM
I went from $25K to $125K in a span of about 15 years.

My tax burden went up in almost direct proportion as I went from $25K to $80K and then bam, a spike.

There's definitely an invisible barrier around $100K.

You can sim it for yourself - somebody posted a site around here the other day.

I used the sim, it's on politify.com. The difference was between Romney and Obama's tax plan. Romney was stating a uniform reduction of taxes but limiting deductions that working class families usually use. Romney's plan hurts families making $100k or less more. It appears to be better for you once you get above the $100k mark ($120k in my case with my kids, etc.) and is extremely good for you the more you make. A millionaire gets like a $100k tax deduction under Romney and people only making $50k (median household income) are far better off under Obama.

The way I see it, if working class Americans have more money in their pocket, they are more likely to buy a new car, etc. and continue growing the economy. If they have less money, and the richest have more, where's the growth? The rich can afford to hire more people but there's no point to because the demand doesn't exist.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 01:43 PM
So we're back to demanding absolute surrender?

I'm not telling you to do anything, you can fight it til the elections returns come home and keep pretending you just don't understand why women don't like you all you want.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:50 PM
I used the sim, it's on politify.com. The difference was between Romney and Obama's tax plan. Romney was stating a uniform reduction of taxes but limiting deductions that working class families usually use. Romney's plan hurts families making $100k or less more. It appears to be better for you once you get above the $100k mark ($120k in my case with my kids, etc.) and is extremely good for you the more you make. A millionaire gets like a $100k tax deduction under Romney and people only making $50k (median household income) are far better off under Obama.

The way I see it, if working class Americans have more money in their pocket, they are more likely to buy a new car, etc. and continue growing the economy. If they have less money, and the richest have more, where's the growth? The rich can afford to hire more people but there's no point to because the demand doesn't exist.

That's why I prefer combining consumption-based revenue (ie. sales tax) with payday-type taxes over a straight income tax.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:51 PM
The only problem with that is it's a core belief of their party and constituents.

If the Republicans were to stop pandering to the Religious Right, who would make up their core? The party would likely cease to exist because the millions upon millions who believe in those issues would likely find another party.

They're going to cease to exist anyway.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 01:52 PM
I see where some compromise can be had if people are willing to go there. The first is that everybody must pay their fair share of taxes, % wise. If that happens I would be very willing to limit military spending and cut the amounts of $$ going over seas. I would also want to impose fees associated with an employer closing a company that is in the US and wanting to ship that work/business overseas just so they can make more profits and escape our tax laws. Couple that with additional caps on welfare for those who could work but are choosing not to. These types of benefits are to help those capable of working ( single mothers who keep pumping out kids like an M16 on full auto)get back on their feet (not unlike unemployment IMO), not to be used as a charity. You take care of that welfare issue and people will be forced to get off their asses. I would also like people to look at finding a way to reward Americans who BUY AMERICAN MADE products! Think of the impact in tax revenue and job creation if we were buying American made products. Earlier this year I went to buy a new TV. Stopped by the store to ask some questions and asked the guy to point me to the American made TV. He said, "there aren't any". It was quite alarming that I couldn't buy American in America.

I think you're a couple of decades late if you're looking for an American-made TV. You might be able to find one in an antique shop.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 01:59 PM
Because it's in the 2012 Republican Platform PDF.

More proof that the Republican Party is anti-science.

There's nothing anti-science about that position. That's like saying that opposition to German eugenics experiments is anti-science. That said, you place entirely too much emphasis on a party platform. In vitrio fertilization is not and was not in any jeopardy, although there would probably be push back against government funding (as well there should be).

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 02:02 PM
There's nothing anti-science about that position. That's like saying that opposition to German eugenics experiments is anti-science. That said, you place entirely too much emphasis on a party platform. In vitrio fertilization is not and was not in any jeopardy, although there would probably be push back against government funding (as well there should be).

No, I do not place too much emphasis on party platform.

Paul Ryan's beliefs were clear, as were several others in the Republican party. Until those beliefs are erased from their platform, they'll never get my vote.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 02:04 PM
They're going to cease to exist anyway.

On a national scale, I agree.

But on the Congressional level, especially those in the Midwest and less populated, the Republicans will remain entrenched.

Hence, gridlock.

ChiefsCountry
11-07-2012, 02:07 PM
On a national scale, I agree.

But on the Congressional level, especially those in the Midwest and less populated, the Republicans will remain entrenched.

Hence, gridlock.

Guess we are all dumb fucking hicks in the Midwest compared to fucking California.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 02:10 PM
There's nothing anti-science about that position. That's like saying that opposition to German eugenics experiments is anti-science.

Umm, no, its not. Eugenics was a social philosophy. In vitro is a scientific process.

That's like comparing dog breeding to sheep cloning.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 02:20 PM
No, I do not place too much emphasis on party platform.

Paul Ryan's beliefs were clear, as were several others in the Republican party. Until those beliefs are erased from their platform, they'll never get my vote.

Has Paul Ryan ever submitted or sponsored a bill to ban IVF or are you just intolerant of people who hold personal views that don't match yours?

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 02:24 PM
Has Paul Ryan ever submitted or sponsored a bill to ban IVF or are you just intolerant of people who hold personal views that don't match yours?

Intolerant? How could you possibly glean "intolerant"?

How about "Do Not Agree".

patteeu
11-07-2012, 02:24 PM
Umm, no, its not. Eugenics was a social philosophy. In vitro is a scientific process.

That's like comparing dog breeding to sheep cloning.

A eugenics experiment is science not philosophy. My critique was well founded and my example was apt. For that matter selective breeding experimentation is science too.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 02:27 PM
Intolerant? How about "Do Not Agree".

You're absolutely refusing to vote for anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject even when they aren't interested in translating that belief into public policy. Yeah, I'd call that intolerance.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 02:28 PM
You're absolutely refusing to vote for anyone who doesn't agree with you on this subject even when they aren't interested in translating that belief into public policy. Yeah, I'd call that intolerance.

Figures.

LMAO

Nothing changes with you, does it, Pato? Fucking retard.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 02:32 PM
A eugenics experiment is science not philosophy. My critique was well founded and my example was apt. For that matter selective breeding experimentation is science too.

Not when you applied "German" to it, assuming you are referring to the Nazis when you say "German". That has a specific connotation to it. In any event, eugenics is still more of a scientific gamble. You have a decent idea what you are shooting for, but there are not many controls.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 03:04 PM
1 green or clean coal does not at this point decrease CO 2 emissions. It does reduce sulfate emissions associated with acid rain. We don't hear about acid rains much anymore because of emission standards about Nitrates and Sulfates.
But coal is just carbon. The energy from burning it comes all from Carbon burning to CO2.
Natural Gas by comparison has a bunch of hydrogen as well as carbon. The hydrogen is burned and changes to water HOH. So for equal energy production it does not lead to as much CO 2 being released. Oil is somewhere inbetween depending on what well field source and the finished refined product.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 03:05 PM
So we're back to demanding absolute surrender?

You not only have to absolutely surrender on the policy level, but you also need to admit that you no longer believe in those things as private personal views.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 03:06 PM
And why are those my religious views then.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 03:06 PM
You not only have to absolutely surrender on the policy level, but you also need to admit that you no longer believe in those things as private personal views.

Damn the obstructionists!

patteeu
11-07-2012, 03:07 PM
Not when you applied "German" to it, assuming you are referring to the Nazis when you say "German". That has a specific connotation to it. In any event, eugenics is still more of a scientific gamble. You have a decent idea what you are shooting for, but there are not many controls.

No, even when I say "German".

tiptap
11-07-2012, 03:11 PM
The success of a species is its depth of genetic expressions. Eugenics is a reduction of genetics diversity. It is not part of present understanding of most optimum expression of a species.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 03:41 PM
No, even when I say "German".

OK, then what are you suggesting in your comparison that is relatable?

If "eugenics" is science, but "German Eugenics" is something one should be morally opposed to, then what is its correspondent reference IVF? In other words:

eugenics and IVF are science

German eugenics and "?" are pseudo-science that should be morally objected to.

That's the problem with your analogy. You try to cut it both ways (IVF is both science and pseudo-science) and hope one doesn't notice the false comparison. In short, what are you suggesting "German IVF" is?

Taco John
11-07-2012, 04:08 PM
Here's some common ground. It seems that Democrats AND Republicans can agree that it was cool that Obama killed this American kid:

http://davidkretzmann.com/images/333505_263775356997284_261697073871779_702988_982840651_o.jpg

greg63
11-07-2012, 04:08 PM
The Republicans in the House will cower in the corner like dogs with their tails between their legs in order to protect what's left of their genitals.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 04:17 PM
OK, then what are you suggesting in your comparison that is relatable?

If "eugenics" is science, but "German Eugenics" is something one should be morally opposed to, then what is its correspondent reference IVF? In other words:

eugenics and IVF are science

German eugenics and "?" are pseudo-science that should be morally objected to.

That's the problem with your analogy. You try to cut it both ways (IVF is both science and pseudo-science) and hope one doesn't notice the false comparison. In short, what are you suggesting "German IVF" is?

You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether it's German (or non-German) eugenics or Bolivian milk pasteurization or Chinese open heart surgery. Opposing IVF or any of the above is not an anti-science position if the reason you oppose it is based on something other than an opposition to science. Strict Catholics who oppose IVF oppose it for moral grounds because it interferes with the natural reproductive process between a man and a woman. That's not anti-science.

Nothing about my analogy suggests that IVF is pseudo-science and opposition to IVF (where it exists at all) isn't based on the thinking that it's a pseudoscience. It's amazing that you people believe these things.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 04:19 PM
Sorry Saul, I don't seem to be helping your cause of finding common ground.

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 04:26 PM
Sorry Saul, I don't seem to be helping your cause of finding common ground.

This is no surprise

patteeu
11-07-2012, 04:35 PM
This is no surprise

Yeah, I guess I bring out the intolerant, non-compromising, bigot in you. It's certainly not me that has a problem compromising on these issues.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 04:39 PM
You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether it's German (or non-German) eugenics or Bolivian milk pasteurization or Chinese open heart surgery. Opposing IVF or any of the above is not an anti-science position if the reason you oppose it is based on something other than an opposition to science. Strict Catholics who oppose IVF oppose it for moral grounds because it interferes with the natural reproductive process between a man and a woman. That's not anti-science.

Nothing about my analogy suggests that IVF is pseudo-science and opposition to IVF (where it exists at all) isn't based on the thinking that it's a pseudoscience. It's amazing that you people believe these things.

I apologize I did miss your point.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 04:50 PM
I apologize I did miss your point.

:toast:

LiveSteam
11-07-2012, 05:16 PM
Democrats: Help me find common ground.
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order

RNR
11-07-2012, 05:33 PM
Democrats: Help me find common ground.
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order

LMAO no shit~

Cannibal
11-07-2012, 05:43 PM
Tell you what, throw in the revocation of the $6k "Tax refunds" to people who don't pay into the system and I'll tell my attorney to work with yours to draw that contract up.

That is the Earned Income Tax credit, and like you, I want it eliminated.

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 05:43 PM
Probably ought to start by fixing the tax legislation that's going to run up our tax bills by 3700 dollars in January.You mean, "The Bush tax cuts"?

Naw, we need to let those go up on those rich people.

Cannibal
11-07-2012, 05:44 PM
Cannibal? I'm in if you are.

Yes, let get this done!

Calcountry
11-07-2012, 05:44 PM
Democrats: Help me find common ground.
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order
Executive order
Executive orderHow are you going to fund those if the House grows a sack of balls and doesn't appropriate the money?

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 05:50 PM
The people have spoken. Obama gets four more years. Congress remains split. It's compromise or gridlock, but is compromise possible? Everyone talks about bipartisanship, but they usually mean unconditional surrender by the other side.

It's pretty well known around here that I am a conservative. Liberals out there, let's pretend we're in congress. Pick an issue that you would like to address, and let's see if we can really agree to meet somewhere in the middle.

Tax rates, abortion, drug legalization...whatcha got?

I posted this back in 2010. Tell me what you think now.

http://74.86.127.27/BB/showthread.php?t=235893&page=8

According to fivethirtyeight.com, Republicans are taking the House and Democrats will have a one- or two-seat majority in the Senate.

If that is the case, and as we continue for the next couple years with Obama, obviously we're in for a lot of gridlock. No brainer.

But what actual areas of sweeping agenda items are positively, genuinely possible, in your opinion?

I still think there's tons still possible, even with a Republican House.

You just have to look for topics that (a.) Republicans genuinely want done, and want to campaign on, (b.) Democrats genuinely want it done, and (c.) there's considerable overlap between the two.

Here's some of the topics I think can (and should) be sweeping priorities by the 112nd Congress:

1. Homeland Security. This is an absolute bureaucratic boondoggle. This is the purest example of excessive government. Democrats hate the bureaucratic nightmare, Republicans hate the pricetag. Republicans created this department anyway, so in a sense this can be considered their baby.

2. Immigration reform. It baffles me that this can't be done, seeing how the overlap between the two parties on this front is considerable. Republicans get to put in place some tougher enforcement standards that they continue to strive for, and Democrats can place stricter punishment on employers and might even put in place an arduous path to citizenship.

3. Fannie & Freddie & Tort Reform. These are two items which were largely left out of the sweeping reforms Democrats enacted that Republicans largely wanted included.

4. Education. We're probably not going to get the sweeping reform Obama wanted, so instead he might consider incrementalism this term and save some better items for the next term. I think it's clear that neither party has been thrilled with NCLB, so a partial repeal of NCLB might be in the cards here.

5. General deficit reduction. There are plenty of places in defense, social security, and medicare, that can get moderately pared back. Both parties agree this must be done -- but neither wants to be blamed for it.

6. Lending. Democrats wanted to pass a law in 2010 increasing lending to small businesses. Republicans didn't oppose it, but filibustered it anyway. This is the primary engine for getting the economy going again, and can be passed so long as Republicans may believe they can get more credit for it this time around.

So of course, my list isn't perfect. What are some you might be able to think of?

DaneMcCloud
11-07-2012, 06:04 PM
Yeah, I guess I bring out the intolerant, non-compromising, bigot in you. It's certainly not me that has a problem compromising on these issues.

Pato, go fuck yourself.

You're a moron AND once again, on the LOSING side.

Which of course, isn't surprising.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 06:06 PM
I know some of you object but others might find this interesting about what the Church and more importantly what God says about abortion.

http://media.fbch.com/fbch/notes/20121014.pdf

and if you are interested in the sermon that goes with it you can listen here..http://www.fbch.com/media/player/?type=video&class=services&id=212

I read those and none of them say anything about abortion.

LiveSteam
11-07-2012, 06:08 PM
Pato, go fuck yourself.

You're a moron AND once again, on the LOSING side.

Which of course, isn't surprising.

Is there really a winning side?
DJs Left Nut had some great comments about gridlock & winning.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 06:09 PM
Exactly who on the right has introduced legislation to repeal Roe vs. Wade?

:facepalm:

You can't overturn an SC ruling by passing a law overturning it. I mean, :facepalm:

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 06:12 PM
You're right, I guess nobody has actually inroduced legislation. I guess its really the non issue you seem to imply and this isn't just a lame attempt at political fencing. My bad. Mitt never said anything close to "If that legislation is put in front of me, I will sign it", did he?

There are two ways to "overturn" a SC ruling. One--the SC itself "overturns" it by ruling the opposite way on the same issue.
Two--amending the Constitution.

LiveSteam
11-07-2012, 06:16 PM
:facepalm:

You can't overturn an SC ruling by passing a law overturning it. I mean, :facepalm:

Fuck! you are still alive.
I had assumed,that by midnight you had drowned in your own sperm

Ohio :whackit: Mich :whackit: Wisconsin :whackit: Iowa :whackit:
Colorado :whackit: NH :whackit:

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 06:44 PM
That is the Earned Income Tax credit, and like you, I want it eliminated.

and it will never happen

It would be political death to whomever pushed it

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 07:04 PM
Yes, let get this done!

Score. Why is this so fucking hard?

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 07:37 PM
****! you are still alive.
I had assumed,that by midnight you had drowned in your own sperm

Ohio :whackit: Mich :whackit: Wisconsin :whackit: Iowa :whackit:
Colorado :whackit: NH :whackit:

That's actually kind of funny. I have a response for what happened to my sperm, but I saw that you said family was over the line, so I'll honor that.

LiveSteam
11-07-2012, 07:42 PM
That's actually kind of funny. I have a response for what happened to my sperm, but I saw that you said family was over the line, so I'll honor that.

:evil:

Cannibal
11-07-2012, 09:36 PM
and it will never happen

It would be political death to whomever pushed it

My hope is the Dems work with Republicans to increase rates substantially on the top 2%, and as a concession, agree to phase out these outrageous tax credits under the guise of tax reform.

Cannibal
11-07-2012, 09:37 PM
But you're right though, i don't think much will change one way or the other.

Brock
11-07-2012, 09:41 PM
You mean, "The Bush tax cuts"?

Naw, we need to let those go up on those rich people.

No, I mean the alternative minimum tax patch.

Shogun
11-07-2012, 09:43 PM
Just gonna leave this here because it made me laugh.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8363/deliciousx.gif

BigRedChief
11-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Just gonna leave this here because it made me laugh.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8363/deliciousx.gifthat is so hilarious.ROFL

aturnis
11-07-2012, 10:06 PM
No thanks. We have thousands of them and they've done nothing to offset raising energy rates.

Furthermore, we build them here and they are god awful places to work. Closer to 19th century sweat shops than 21st century nirvana.

Wow. You're an idiot...

BigRedChief
11-07-2012, 10:13 PM
You mean, "The Bush tax cuts"?

Naw, we need to let those go up on those rich people.Those are gone. Nada a fucking chance in the world that they stay. Everyone gets a tax cut up to $250K. You make more than that, cool. I'm happy for you.

aturnis
11-07-2012, 10:19 PM
You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether it's German (or non-German) eugenics or Bolivian milk pasteurization or Chinese open heart surgery. Opposing IVF or any of the above is not an anti-science position if the reason you oppose it is based on something other than an opposition to science. Strict Catholics who oppose IVF oppose it for moral grounds because it interferes with the natural reproductive process between a man and a woman. That's not anti-science.

Nothing about my analogy suggests that IVF is pseudo-science and opposition to IVF (where it exists at all) isn't based on the thinking that it's a pseudoscience. It's amazing that you people believe these things.

So in short. God can choose to have a women impregnated through rape, but he can't choose to give mankind the wisdom and tools to impregnated women with science. Got it. Thanks Mourdock.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:26 PM
So in short. God can choose to have a women impregnated through rape, but he can't choose to give mankind the wisdom and tools to impregnated women with science. Got it. Thanks Mourdock.

Do you live in Colorado? You seem high.

aturnis
11-07-2012, 10:38 PM
Do you live in Colorado? You seem high.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

scott free
11-07-2012, 11:49 PM
I really have to say, my expectations for MASS chaos in the DC forum were met with many even hands, good grace and a desire to move ahead.

It gives me a mild fuzzy.

SNR
11-07-2012, 11:56 PM
Fuck the DREAM act until they come up with a less gay name for it.

Ugly Duck
11-08-2012, 03:12 AM
How about we stop blaming Bush and talk about the future?

"Blaming Bush" makes a great bumper-sticker, but we still need to address the factors that contribute to the deficit... no matter where they originated. We can't just ignore something simply because it sprang up during the Bush admin. Lets look at the deficit constituents (without "blaming") & see where we need to make adjustments:

http://www.blogforarizona.com/.a/6a00d8341bf80c53ef0168eb86e783970c-500wi

King_Chief_Fan
11-08-2012, 07:16 AM
So in short. God can choose to have a women impregnated through rape, but he can't choose to give mankind the wisdom and tools to impregnated women with science. Got it. Thanks Mourdock.

reality is that God gives life and yes, he can choose to use science based method to bless a couple with a child.

King_Chief_Fan
11-08-2012, 07:28 AM
I read those and none of them say anything about abortion.

then you should listen to audio as the references are compelling, at least to me.

htismaqe
11-08-2012, 07:32 AM
I really have to say, my expectations for MASS chaos in the DC forum were met with many even hands, good grace and a desire to move ahead.

It gives me a mild fuzzy.

It only lasted about 36 hours.

It's back to being what it was.

I'm about done participating again.

htismaqe
11-08-2012, 07:33 AM
So in short. God can choose to have a women impregnated through rape, but he can't choose to give mankind the wisdom and tools to impregnated women with science. Got it. Thanks Mourdock.

God also gave man (in the Old Testment) the judgment to go out and fucking stone the guy that raped her. :hmmm:

:D

htismaqe
11-08-2012, 07:34 AM
Wow. You're an idiot...

You ever been in their factory? You friend with a dozen people that work there?

You're a first class asshole and you don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about, so just shut the fuck up.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:43 AM
"Blaming Bush" makes a great bumper-sticker, but we still need to address the factors that contribute to the deficit... no matter where they originated. We can't just ignore something simply because it sprang up during the Bush admin. Lets look at the deficit constituents (without "blaming") & see where we need to make adjustments:


That all sounds well and good, but it's when the specifics get addressed matters breakdown because neither side is willing to cut some of their pet projects. For you guys on the left, you can't have a sprawling and expanding welfare state and expect this to be handled with your favorite meansótaxes. No matter who you tax. There's just not enough wealthy people to take from to handle it. If there is an imbalance of state involvement in too many areas that just hurts the private sector economy. You can't have it both ways. Neither party can. Everything, has to be on the table. That includes Obamacare funding which is a huge drain.

Saul Good
11-08-2012, 08:33 AM
"Blaming Bush" makes a great bumper-sticker, but we still need to address the factors that contribute to the deficit... no matter where they originated. We can't just ignore something simply because it sprang up during the Bush admin. Lets look at the deficit constituents (without "blaming") & see where we need to make adjustments:

http://www.blogforarizona.com/.a/6a00d8341bf80c53ef0168eb86e783970c-500wi

Putting tax cuts on a chart as if they are a line item on a budget is nonsensical, as is listing "economic downturn". It's akin to making a household budget and blaming credit card debt on the fact that I don't make twice as much money as I do.

KCFaninSEA
11-08-2012, 05:38 PM
I think you're a couple of decades late if you're looking for an American-made TV. You might be able to find one in an antique shop.

I agree but that is the point. We in America spend more money everyday on items made in China or wherever than we do on American made products. Huge problem, IMO. I drive a Chevy truck. I routinely pull up to a red light and look around to see who is driving what. More than not, I am surrounded by Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Mercedes and any other foreign car you can think of. Ya they might be assembled in America but the assembly jobs are mostly low paying, not family wage jobs. They are not family wage jobs like those of our American made manufacturers.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 05:41 PM
"Blaming Bush" makes a great bumper-sticker, but we still need to address the factors that contribute to the deficit...

That would be nice, but you might want to consult the exit polls...a vast majority still blame bush for today's economy. How that's possible, I scratch my head. Instead of spending the last 4 years trying to fix it, not one single budget has been passed by congress and Obama's budget didnt get a single vote. But yeah, the voters are right, it's Bush's fault and apparently that does fit on a bumper sticker.

Brock
11-08-2012, 06:24 PM
I agree but that is the point. We in America spend more money everyday on items made in China or wherever than we do on American made products. Huge problem, IMO. I drive a Chevy truck. I routinely pull up to a red light and look around to see who is driving what. More than not, I am surrounded by Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Mercedes and any other foreign car you can think of. Ya they might be assembled in America but the assembly jobs are mostly low paying, not family wage jobs. They are not family wage jobs like those of our American made manufacturers.

Honda pays 25 dollars an hour for line positions. How much do you think they should pay? UAW scale?

I'm generally in favor of union representation, but come on. Those are not low paying jobs.