Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (85) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 439187  
Subject: Oh, my Date: 10/8/2012 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey
http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-...
In the first national poll to be conducted entirely after the opening presidential debate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney now leads President Barack Obama by 4 points.

The poll, conducted by Pew Research Center from Thursday through Sunday and released on Monday, shows Romney leading Obama among likely voters nationwide, 49 percent to 45 percent. That's a stark contrast from Pew's mid-September poll after both parties' conventions, which showed Obama up 8 points among likely voters.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jgc123 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410564 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/8/2012 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
db2: "Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey
http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-......
In the first national poll to be conducted entirely after the opening presidential debate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney now leads President Barack Obama by 4 points.


And if Romney guts Social Security with a voucher system and gives millionaires tax cuts which are paid for by the peole who voted for him, it will not be my fault.

It may well be yours. You must be proud. Did you also vote for George Bush?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410565 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/8/2012 6:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Obama by 100 electoral voes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410572 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/8/2012 7:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And if Romney guts Social Security with a voucher system and gives millionaires tax cuts which are paid for by the peole who voted for him, it will not be my fault.

Which reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw in Berkeley during the Watergate hearings:
"Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410588 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Romney surges past Obama in second poll
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26091...
Mitt Romney has overtaken President Obama in a Public Policy Polling survey released on Tuesday. Romney won 49 percent support from likely voters in the poll, compared to 47 percent for Obama.

It’s the first time all year Romney has led in the poll, which was conducted on behalf of the liberal Daily Kos website and the Service Employees International Union. Obama led 49-45 percent in the group’s previous poll, conducted before last week’s debate.

Romney was boosted in the poll by gains among female voters. Obama still leads 51 to 45 over Romney among women, but he had a 15-percentage-point lead in the previous poll.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410589 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 12:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Obama for the win...over 62%.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=74347...

Down from 72%, but still clearly in the lead.

While I almost certainly won't watch the "debates", I would be surprised if Obama is so passive next time. Expect Romney to get eaten alive (intellectually he's no match for O).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410592 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Obama for the win...over 62%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=74347......
Down from 72%, but still clearly in the lead.


True, and the important polls to watch are those in the swing states rather than the national ones.

I would be surprised if Obama is so passive next time.

I suspect they'll pump him full of Jolt and put a bayonet between his teeth. :-)
(Although it should be noted his speech at Charlotte was also a bit flat.)

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410614 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 4:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Apparently the 'war on women' theme hasn't been getting through:

Dem pollster delivers wake-up call to Obama
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dem-pollster-del...
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is not known for flinching from delivering bad news to Democratic politicians, and his new diagnosis of Obama’s slippage in the polls is no exception.

Greenberg told me in an interview that his new research persuaded him that Mitt Romney beat Obama in the debate for a simple reason. Unmarried women — a critical piece of Obama’s coalition — did not hear Obama telling him how they would make their lives better. By contrast, they did hear Romney telling them he’d improve their lives....

“They heard nothing there that was relevant to them,” Greenberg says. “They were not hearing about issues or problems or things that Obama would do that affect their lives.”

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410615 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 4:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm amazed the debate didn't back-fire on Romney. At first blush he sounded great (apparently). But the fact-checking is pretty much done, and it was found that Romney lied at every turn about everything. How does this translate into a "surge"? It should negate everything he said.

BTW, at lunch they were flashing up poll and poll (on CNN), and Obama still held the majority of women every time they flashed up a women's-only slide.

I have a feeling O will come out much stronger next week. He should be ready to rip him on his business history (loan from daddy, drove business into the ground and needed a government hand-out, then raped and destroyed companies costing thousands of jobs), on his ever-changing positions, on "etch-a-sketch", on lying in the previous debate, on increased defense spending, on tax cuts for the rich, etc. I could debate Romney and mop the floor with him. he is such a detestable human being, it's really trivial.

I doubt very much O will lose the women vote. A woman voting for any modern Republican is comparable to a black person voting for George Wallace in the early 60s. It's so blatantly contrary to their interests as to be stupid.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410618 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 5:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
1pg: I doubt very much O will lose the women vote. A woman voting for any modern Republican is comparable to a black person voting for George Wallace in the early 60s. It's so blatantly contrary to their interests as to be stupid.

You can say the same thing for any person/family member belonging to a household making less than $200,000/yr.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410619 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's so blatantly contrary to their interests as to be stupid.

Some women vote on more than just gender identification. They might be more concerned about the economy and jobs, jobs for themselves, their spouses and, especially, for their children. Then they might come to the conclusion that Romney would be a better choice for economic growth. They might not, but women have brains and jobs and more than just uteri.

Stan Greenberg was referring to single women in particular.
Unmarried women — a critical piece of Obama’s coalition — did not hear Obama telling him how they would make their lives better. By contrast, they did hear Romney telling them he’d improve their lives....

Actually, the strong support among the young for Obama goes against the interest of their generation. They are the ones who will have to pay off the massive debts.

Sixteen trillion, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt...

DB2
With a hat tip to Tennessee Ernie Ford

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410625 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 6:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm amazed the debate didn't back-fire on Romney. At first blush he sounded great (apparently). But the fact-checking is pretty much done, and it was found that Romney lied at every turn about everything.



old saying: the Headline is on Page One, 37 point type. the correction on page 37, 9 point type.


dunno since i didn't watch, but from what i've read, some of his 'lies' are changes from far-right positions to more moderate ones. That would cause a surge.
"... hey Velma, he's not nearly the ogre people been saying he is."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410626 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's so blatantly contrary to their interests as to be stupid.
---
You can say the same thing for any person/family member belonging to a household making less than $200,000/yr.


By that reasoning why would anyone making over $200K, such as multi-millionare Nancy Pelosi, vote for the Dems?

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410627 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 6:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
They might not, but women have brains and jobs and more than just uteri.

Absolutely. Romney's running mate voted against the Lily Ledbetter act. That was about women and jobs. That act already made their lives better. They both are against women's health (which is the primary focus of Planned Parenthood, which they both hate).

Though, to be fair, Mitty did come out against that Akin moron. That's something, I suppose.

Actually, the strong support among the young for Obama goes against the interest of their generation. They are the ones who will have to pay off the massive debts.

That will be a reality no matter who wins. Neither party has done anything about this, and neither has the fortitude to do so now. The only difference is that the debt goes up MORE (as a percentage) during R regimes than during D regimes. So voting 'D' would still be in their best interests. (Though voting 'G' might be even better, but no one is ready to do that yet.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410629 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 6:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Because not everyone earning over $200K a year is a sociopath? Just a guess.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410630 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 6:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"... hey Velma, he's not nearly the ogre people been saying he is."

Not to be underestimated, especially when combined with a weak Obama.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410631 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 6:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Though voting 'G' might be even better, but no one is ready to do that yet.

What is 'G'?

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410632 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 7:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Sixteen trillion, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt...

DB2



How much of that sixteen trillion is the cost of two unpaid-for wars started, unnecessarily, by Republicans?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410636 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jill Stein.

If this were a blow-out I'd vote for her just to help the numbers/credibility. I'm disgusted with the 2-party system we have.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410639 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 8:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sixteen trillion, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt...
---
How much of that sixteen trillion is the cost of two unpaid-for wars started, unnecessarily, by Republicans?


I don't know; there are widely varying estimates. And how do you estimate what part of the war costs have been paid for and how much are in the debt?

However, those are moot points. Whichever way we got there we have 16 of them and we are on track to add another one this year. Here is a graph prepared by the White House Office of Management & Budget that shows publicly held debt going to 'infinity and beyond':

http://www.aei-ideas.org//wp-content/uploads/2012/02/021612g...

IIRC, the Congressional Budget Office version has a much steeper climb.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410642 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/9/2012 11:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 41
DB2: However, those are moot points. Whichever way we got there we have 16 of them and we are on track to add another one this year. Here is a graph prepared by the White House Office of Management & Budget that shows publicly held debt going to 'infinity and beyond':

So it doesn't trouble you at all that several of those trillions were wasted to no good purpose, giving those with very high incomes huge tax cuts, killing or causing the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of mostly non-US people, and now that we need to spend money to save tens of thousands of US people mostly substantially impoverished by the financial crash, you think we need to take a serious look at our priorities and cut back on the spending?

That after the usual meaningless cliche about 'leaving it to ones descendants to pay it all back'.

Hmmmm. Can't you find a board like RedState or RECF where your wisdom is an asset?

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410645 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 6:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So it doesn't trouble you at all that several of those trillions were wasted to no good purpose...

No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate. I also wrote I didn't know how much of the debt was from the wars.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410652 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 10:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
DB2: No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate.

That is the historical meaning of moot, but not the contemporary meaning, where it is generally used to mean 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'.

I also wrote I didn't know how much of the debt was from the wars.

It seems to be in the ballpark of $2.5T: http://civilizedconversation.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/cbp... seems to be a popular graphic.

That's probably a low estimate, as it ignores the cost of future VA/medical services.

The point remains unaddressed.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410655 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 10:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate. I also wrote I didn't know how much of the debt was from the wars.

DB2

------------


Dear Dr. Thick,

It OUGHT to p|ss you off that ANY of it is from two completely UNNECESSARY wars started by Republicans. That money could have been used to HELP PEOPLE not kill them. You know... your fellow citizens right here in the USA who need HELP. Who need HEALTHCARE. Who need EDUCATION. Who need JOBS.

You seem unable to perform any kind of logical thinking - which is, for the most part, required in order to keep up on this board.

And by the way... it not a MOOT point that is open for debate. That any of that money (the money earned by people living on your street who pay taxes - assuming that anyone on your street actually does pay taxes (they certainly do on mine) - was used for two unnecessary wars is criminal. The only problem is that the criminals that instigated them will never go to prison for it. But the American people will pay and pay and pay for that lunacy while they and their families want for basics - and while the Republican fat-cats sit on their rich arses scheming ways to send them further into ruin by gutting programs designed to help them.

I find myself thinking more and more that the person who suggested you remove yourself to RECJ where your particular brand of Republicanism will be more appreciated is absolutely right.

AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410657 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I doubt very much O will lose the women vote. A woman voting for any modern Republican is comparable to a black person voting for George Wallace in the early 60s. It's so blatantly contrary to their interests as to be stupid.

A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410659 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 10:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 23

A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.



Because we actually CARE about our sisters who can.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410661 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 10:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Because we actually CARE about our sisters who can.

Riiiiight, and they're going to ignore things like Social Security, Medicare and issues that directly effect their personal lives right NOW.

Sorry, but historial election results show that just isn't the case.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410663 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 11:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
MetroChick: Riiiiight, and they're going to ignore things like Social Security, Medicare and issues that directly effect their personal lives right NOW.

Sorry, but historial election results show that just isn't the case.


That *should* make the contest even more one-sided, given that one side simply wishes to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more. Granted, they talk out of both sides of their mouths about this, but it should be clear that their idea of 'reform' is at best on all fours with a gift of a famous wooden horse.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410664 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Because we actually CARE about our sisters who can.

Riiiiight, and they're going to ignore things like Social Security, Medicare and issues that directly effect their personal lives right NOW.

Sorry, but historial election results show that just isn't the case.

---------------



You act like women are one-trick ponies.
We CAN think about more than one thing at a time, you know.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jgc123 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410666 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 57
metro: "A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

That should make perfect sense to many conservatives who didn't develop normal human empathy and compassion during childhood.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410667 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

DH is snipped. My prior DH was snipped. I haven't been on any birth control in probably a decade. And yet I fight very hard to keep both birth control and abortion available to anyone who wants them. Not because they are likely to be of concern to me in the future, but because they were in the past. I actually think those who have been through something are *more* likely to understand the importance.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChiliChild Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410669 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 11:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

LOL. Why am I not surprised by that response?

My answer:

Because they have memories, compassion, thoughts of the greater good, horror at the lies and deception by the GOP candidates and the party overall.

It's not difficult to see why any thinking woman would be sickened at the thought of voting for those really horrible people.

Chili

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410670 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

Maybe because they have daughters, grand daughters, nieces, friends, co-workers, and neighbors who they care about.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410671 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 12:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
rmhj:

DB2: {{{No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate.}}}

"That is the historical meaning of moot, but not the contemporary meaning, where it is generally used to mean 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'."

Confirming:

US: "not worth talking about : no longer important or worth discussing"

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/moot[1]

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jeanwa Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410673 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

==================================

Because they can see more than their little circle.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410675 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate.
---
That is the historical meaning of moot, but not the contemporary meaning, where it is generally used to mean 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'.


Thanks for telling me what I meant.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410678 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
DB2: No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate.

rmhj: That is the historical meaning of moot, but not the contemporary meaning, where it is generally used to mean 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'.

DB2: Thanks for telling me what I meant.

Since you were using it in the modern construction, I made the apparently unwarranted assumption that you were intending the vernacular rather than the obsolete meaning.

If you don't know what you're saying, how are we supposed to?

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410679 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
DrBob2: {{{No, I said they were moot points. Moot is an adjective meaning open to discussion or debate.}}}
---

<<<That is the historical meaning of moot, but not the contemporary meaning, where it is generally used to mean 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'.>>>

"Thanks for telling me what I meant."

Nobody told you what you meant, but communication is a two-street; the OP told you what he/she understood. So, as Strother Martin said, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

When that failure is pointed out, then you get all persnickety.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410682 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That *should* make the contest even more one-sided, given that one side simply wishes to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more.

But it doesn't for those 55+ NOW - and that's what many voters in that age group care about - what happens to them - if they use up all the resources for the next generation, "tough sh*t" seems to be their answer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410684 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
But it doesn't for those 55+ NOW - and that's what many voters in that age group care about - what happens to them - if they use up all the resources for the next generation, "tough sh*t" seems to be their answer.

They should still be against Romney and his voucher-care running mate. O is the best for women AND old folks. And minorities. And pretty much everyone else except the 1%-ers.

If people thought about their votes...really thought about them...this November would be a monumental landslide for O. R&R will throw just about everyone under the bus, and walk away with their rich-guy tax cuts.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410685 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You act like women are one-trick ponies.
We CAN think about more than one thing at a time, you know.


No I don't - I'm being realistic of what happens based on election results. Hormonal birth control has been available since 1960 - 52 years. If reproductive rights were a major issue to the majority of female voters 55+, we should certainly have seen them overwhelmingly voting for Democratic candidates in the past election - but that's not what happens. And since younger voters aren't overwhelming voting for Republican candidates, this shows many voters change which party they vote for as they age and different issues become priorities for them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410686 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you don't know what you're saying, how are we supposed to?

It was 40 years ago that I learned the meaning of the word moot and that most people use it incorrectly. At any rate, discussions of the wars of the last 20 years would indeed be interminable (as witness the ink spilled at the Quagmire for years). I had no desire to enter into such a discussion and was not the person who brought the topic up.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410688 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If people thought about their votes...really thought about them...this November would be a monumental landslide for O.

But you know that's not what's going to happen - so what are you saying, that women voters aren't thinking about their vote?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410690 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's not difficult to see why any thinking woman would be sickened at the thought of voting for those really horrible people.

So now we know your stance - you don't think many female voters are "thinking women".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410691 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

If people thought about their votes...really thought about them...this November would be a monumental landslide for O. R&R will throw just about everyone under the bus, and walk away with their rich-guy tax cuts.



Ummm 1poorguy....
They will not walk away with their rich-guy tax cuts alone.
They will walk away with everything the 99% has left to us and we will all become beggars. Even 99% of the people who vote for them - even though they don't seem to realize what they are doing.

If they think times are tough now, they haven't seen anything until the R&Rs(Rich and Ridiculous) get into power. Sorry doesn't begin to describe what they will feel when the pinch begins and continues without relief.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NailThatJello Big gold star, 5000 posts Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410692 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
you don't think many female voters are "thinking women".

There are just as many stupid women voters, as stupid men voters.

That's why Romney, incredible as it may seem, still has a shot at this.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Windchasers Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410693 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
So now we know your stance - you don't think many female voters are "thinking women".

Heck, I don't think most people really do much independent thinking. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Just look at how many Americans believe in creationism, for instance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410694 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
so what are you saying, that women voters aren't thinking about their vote?

Any woman (not part of the ultra-wealthy elite) who votes for Romney clearly is NOT thinking about her vote.

To return to my earlier comparison, if you brought forth a black person who voted for George Wallace in the early 60s I would also assert that person had not really thought about his vote.

Thinking about your vote is more than just looking for the "R" or "D" next to a name.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410695 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
At any rate, back to the OP about the Pew poll released on Monday. In it we find this on page 7:

"While shifts are evident across many demographic groups, there has been a notable change among women voters: In September, just 42% viewed Romney favorably, while 60% had positive impressions of Obama. Today, about half view each of the candidates favorably (51% Obama, 48% Romney)."
www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-8-12%20Political%20...

And for the 18-29 year-old cohort there was a similar 17 point swing. No reasons why were given.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410696 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
AM: Ummm 1poorguy....
They will not walk away with their rich-guy tax cuts alone.
They will walk away with everything the 99% has left to us and we will all become beggars. Even 99% of the people who vote for them - even though they don't seem to realize what they are doing.


Here's an interesting take on the aggregation of wealth:

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/10/09/file-under-fascinatin...

What’s fascinating is that the model assumes that all households are identical with respect to patience (consumption decisions) and skill (earnings ability). Household outcomes differ solely because they have idiosyncratic investment opportunities—that is, they can’t invest in the market, only in things like privately-held businesses or unique pieces of real estate. Yet when you simulate the model, you see an increasing share of wealth finding its way into fewer and fewer hands:

[graphic]

As the authors emphasize, “it is luck alone – in the form of high realised random investment returns – that generates this extreme divergence.” In the absence of redistribution, either explicit or implicit, this is the kind of society you end up with.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410697 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are just as many stupid women voters, as stupid men voters.

That's why Romney, incredible as it may seem, still has a shot at this.


You don't win people over by calling them "stupid". And if the candidate you support doesn't win, it's a cop-out to just say it's because voters are "stupid".

If your candidate should "overwhelmingly" win but doesn't - then the campaign failed - at getting the message across, or understanding what was the deciding factor to the voter.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410698 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Any woman (not part of the ultra-wealthy elite) who votes for Romney clearly is NOT thinking about her vote.

I disagree - I believe many are thinking about their vote - you (and the Obama campaign) just don't understand what their deciding factor is or don't want to accept it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410699 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

"While shifts are evident across many demographic groups, there has been a notable change among women voters: In September, just 42% viewed Romney favorably, while 60% had positive impressions of Obama. Today, about half view each of the candidates favorably (51% Obama, 48% Romney)."
www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-8-12%20Political%20......

And for the 18-29 year-old cohort there was a similar 17 point swing. No reasons why were given.


Many on this board must think these women had lobotomies since September or accidents involving brain damage - since their cop-out excuse is these women now aren't "thinking" --- but they would say they had been back in September when they were going to vote for Obama.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410700 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Please, do tell...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410701 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
No lobotomies. They just aren't thinking. They are feeding at the propaganda trough rather than looking to matters for themselves. Some of those switching sides may have just thought Rmoney looked so strong and "presidential" at the debate, never mind that almost everything he said has been vetted by fact-checkers and determined to be false.

Not thinking. Simple as that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChiliChild Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410703 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
So now we know your stance - you don't think many female voters are "thinking women".

There you go showing your pitiful lack of reading comprehension. No surprise, really.

ANY woman who votes for Romney is NOT a rational, thinking human being.

Chili

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410704 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not thinking. Simple as that.

Cop-out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410705 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ANY woman who votes for Romney is NOT a rational, thinking human being.

Wow, at least now we know who really hates other women. Thy name is Chili.


ANY woman who votes for Romney is NOT a rational, thinking human being.

Good thing you're not running the Obama campaign - hate to see THAT on a campaign bumper sticker - with supporters like you he barely has a chance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410706 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MC: But it doesn't for those 55+ NOW - and that's what many voters in that age group care about - what happens to them - if they use up all the resources for the next generation, "tough sh*t" seems to be their answer.

Sadly, this comment is often true. Women (or anyone) over 55 grew up in an era when women were SAHM's, and often deferred to their husbands on such matters. They may also be damaged by their often inferior education. The result is someone who gave more thought to who would be the Homecoming Queen than to politics, or what dress to wear to the prom, or isn't it awful that nasty girl got knocked up and went to stay with her aunt Polly for six months.

I deal with these women in our drapery business, and they are often 99.47% self-centered.*

Count Upp
*Does not apply to AM, SLL, or others on this board. 8^)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410707 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I notice you failed to provide other reasons. Sounds like someone making an excuse for the way she's gonna vote. I call you on it. Give me good reasons why a woman would vote for Romney if she's not part of the ultra-wealthy class.

It's not a cop-out. Voting for Romney because you've always voted "R" is the cop-out.

(And, no, of course you don't run a campaign on that...you point out how hostile R&R are to women. I'm not running a campaign, nor trying to sway anyone. I'm stating an obvious conclusion. Nothing more. Females voting for Romney are idiots. He does not have their interests or well-being at heart.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410709 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
It was 40 years ago that I learned the meaning of the word moot and that most people use it incorrectly. At any rate, discussions of the wars of the last 20 years would indeed be interminable (as witness the ink spilled at the Quagmire for years). I had no desire to enter into such a discussion and was not the person who brought the topic up.

DB2


I think I may be older than you, and the definition of moot that I knew has always been "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."

regards,
Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410710 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sadly, this comment is often true. Women (or anyone) over 55 grew up in an era when women were SAHM's, and often deferred to their husbands on such matters. They may also be damaged by their often inferior education.

I don't know about the 55+ women you know, but the 55+ women I know (family, friends of the family, ex-bosses) all worked, many have advanced degrees - including one who is a nuclear engineer. That doesn't change that they vote on issues that directly effect them right now. Some I've even had discussions with and said "well I changed my vote when Paul Ryan was picked as the VP candidate because he wants to end traditional Medicare for my age group and younger" - and some say "isn't that awful" - but they're still voting for that candidate (and not all have always voted Republican, so I don't define them as "conservatives").

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410711 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are just as many stupid women voters, as stupid men voters.

That's why Romney, incredible as it may seem, still has a shot at this.


Hmmm - maybe this explains why the polls are often near 50/50. 50% of the voters are stupid?

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410712 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Only 49%. There is that 1% that will benefit greatly from a R&R administration.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410714 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I notice you failed to provide other reasons.

Their reasons are varied - you'd have to ask them what are their deciding factors they're basing their decision on. But I don't believe everyone who votes Republican at 55 didn't vote at all when they were 35 - so the fact that those older tend to sway higher towards Republican candidates - and that hasn't changed greatly in the last 40 years even with things like birth control and more women in the workforce and high education - says something changes how people vote - and IMO it's most likely their priorities.

Sounds like someone making an excuse for the way she's gonna vote.

Hardly, since I'm voting for Obama this year. But I think it's sad when people who clearly support one-party-line think calling true swing-voters things like "stupid" is going to help their party.

It's not a cop-out. Voting for Romney because you've always voted "R" is the cop-out.

It IS a cop-out because the true issue isn't about voters who vote a party-line all life-long. Those aren't the ones who determine the election. So it's a cop out to call swing voters "stupid" in years when a Republican is possibly going to win - but somehow those voters weren't stupid 4 years ago when they voted for the party you support.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410715 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
That *should* make the contest even more one-sided, given that one side simply wishes to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more.

But it doesn't for those 55+ NOW - and that's what many voters in that age group care about - what happens to them - if they use up all the resources for the next generation, "tough sh*t" seems to be their answer.


But you cannot use up a infinite resource?

After all it is not as if we are suddenly going yo run out of money...we can tax the wealthy, rob the poor, or even just print more.

And Medicare and Medicaid (two different program with two different goals? are also infinite and are not "running out" of resources.

All are run by political willpower (an infinite resource), money (a infinite human fiction/construct), and as many tricks and techniques as we can imagine (I can imagine a lot too).

And the canard (a nice descriptive word) of "running out of money" and the tearful wail <tearful, crocodillian ones> of loading our chillins with debt is quite nonsensical since a healthy population is not a "waste". Now the military is truly a negative wasteful investment and why we continue to fund the military/security machine to the tune of $1 Trillion dollars is beyond me.

But I am just one of those 54 year old workers who a lazy and are dependent on the "Obama Socializm".

md (Like we a running out of numbers and words, indeed)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410716 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That should make perfect sense to many conservatives who didn't develop normal human empathy and compassion during childhood.



interesting (to me) sociological question:

did they not develop normal human empathy during childhood;
of did they root it out and expunge NHE sometime during adulthood.



(=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410717 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
t was 40 years ago that I learned the meaning of the word moot and that most people use it incorrectly.

Yep, just as I am sure you know the meaning of the words Theory, bi-annual, and compassionate conservative.

What we say is often not what we mean or what others understand.

md

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410718 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not because they are likely to be of concern to me in the future, but because they were in the past. I actually think those who have been through something are *more* likely to understand the importance.



as someone recently said, <if you take the opportunity to go through a door, you dont' HAVE to slam it shut behind you.>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410719 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But you cannot use up a infinite resource?

After all it is not as if we are suddenly going yo run out of money...we can tax the wealthy, rob the poor, or even just print more.


There's only so much you can tax people, and even debt is a "finite" resource, since taking on too much eventually diminishes your ability to get credit.


Today, the United States spends roughly 76 cents of every federal tax dollar on just four things: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the $14 trillion debt. That leaves 24 cents of revenue to pay for everything else the federal government does.

Barring serious efforts to curb the growth in the country's debt, by 2020 Washington could be spending 92 cents of every tax dollar on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest alone. That would leave just 8 cents to pay for everything else.


http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/21/news/economy/spending_taxes_...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410721 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, if you'd like to see some humor, click over to google, and try googling images for 'completely wrong'. Butterfingers Romney gunned himself down...

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410724 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
As I said, I'm not trying to sway anyone. I don't work on a campaign. If I did, I would be much more...reserved...in my commentary.

So it's a cop out to call swing voters "stupid" in years when a Republican is possibly going to win - but somehow those voters weren't stupid 4 years ago when they voted for the party you support.

It's not a Republican. It's Romney/Ryan. I have voted for Republicans in the past. I might even in the future if they ever return to some semblance of sanity. That this particular choice is so obviously cut and dried is about THIS choice.

R&R support policies that are detrimental to women, and also to older people. So your contention that 55+ age women are somehow different makes no sense, as they are in the cross-hairs by virtue of being "older people" (menopause not withstanding). You even gave an example in another post of one such older woman (who clearly is paying some attention) concerned about R&R on Medicare and Social Security.

Looked at from pure selfishness, it's stupid (yes, STUPID) to vote for R&R if you have functioning ovaries or are older/approaching retirement. Looked at from the more compassionate/empathetic standpoint mentioned by several others, the choice is still obvious (because they are concerned about the well-being of those with functioning ovaries and/or approaching retirement).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410726 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 4:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
There's only so much you can tax people, and even debt is a "finite" resource, since taking on too much eventually diminishes your ability to get credit.

Ahh, good faith......well the Republicans have been working on destroying that with the poorly thought out idea of holding the debt ceiling hostage.
Not that it impacted people scooping up government debt even after we were laughingly down rated by the same agencies that said tranched AAA mortgage CDO's etc were such a good deal.

No money is infinite, it is only a reflection of a promise made.
As far as national debt, well as a example Japan is running 300% of their GNP and I hear nobody screaming they are going to go "broke".

And our national debt is owned mostly by....well by we the people (45%)...and second by large institutions like investment houses.

Our ability to get credit means nothing to the U.S. Government; the government in the end is the largest credit supplier in the form of overnight loans, notes, bills, and money for the banks. And again We The People own the government in the end game and can, wisely one hopes, decide the direction of our national credit.

Money is a fiction, a useful one, and yes as you correctly stated is all about "Faith and Full credit" backing it.....and Republicans have been very poor stewards of that.

We do not have a "money" or "debt problem"....we have a cash flow, tax base, and wasteful spending problem...and to paraphrase a famous bank robber; "Why tax the wealthy and mega corporations....because that is where the money is".

And still Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Money are not "resources", they are constructs, fictions of our minds, they we have created to solve specific problems and as such have no limits per se.

Oh, and lowering tax rates yet again will solve nothing except to line the pockets of the wealthy, bond holders, and stateless uncaring corporations. We have been trying that model on and off since the days the "horse and sparrow theory".... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

md (tax the rich, instead of eating the poor)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sissylue Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410731 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 5:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I think I may be older than you, and the definition of moot that I knew has always been "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

Hmmm. Well I came to understand "moot" to mean debatable, or susceptible to argument from more than one side, in law school - as in "moot court". But I noticed, that with the exception of law school, it is almost universally used to mean the exact opposite - no point in talking about it. I always figured it was just one of those words that meant one thing to lawyers and another thing to normal people; much the same way that certain words mean one thing to scientists and something entirely different to non-scientists.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410732 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 5:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
sissylue: Hmmm. Well I came to understand "moot" to mean debatable, or susceptible to argument from more than one side, in law school - as in "moot court". But I noticed, that with the exception of law school, it is almost universally used to mean the exact opposite - no point in talking about it. I always figured it was just one of those words that meant one thing to lawyers and another thing to normal people; much the same way that certain words mean one thing to scientists and something entirely different to non-scientists.

It's particularly confusing when reading decisions, because it's often used both ways there, and it's not always apparent from context or construction which is meant.

But the original meaning of 'moot' refers to a council to decide justice: (From Merriam-Webster)

moot: n.
1 : a deliberative assembly primarily for the administration of justice; especially : one held by the freemen of an Anglo-Saxon community
2
obsolete : argument, discussion


At a guess they liked to talk a lot, and often wandered off into irrelevancies... which would certainly describe an awful lot of meetings I've sat through.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jgc123 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410735 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 7:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I mostly used the term in the modern sense and then, in law school, ran into the use of the verb 'mooted'. Here is the best description of the evolution of the word that I can find on the internet:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mooted

DB2's usage was prevalent 140 years ago - not so sure about 40 years ago.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410737 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 7:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
DrBob2 wrote: Some women vote on more than just gender identification. They might be more concerned about the economy and jobs, jobs for themselves, their spouses and, especially, for their children.

Yup. That's the ONLY THING that matters to me this election. I'm voting for Romney because I doubt he will put us another $5 trillion in debt as Obama has.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410738 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
MDGluon wrote: md (tax the rich, instead of eating the poor)

How about eat the rich?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410745 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 8:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That doesn't change that they vote on issues that directly effect them right now.


You mean AFFECT - not effect.
Please try to get it right.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410746 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/10/2012 8:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
They are feeding at the propaganda trough rather than looking to matters for themselves.
No matter who says this and or which side of the political spectrum it comes from, it always means, "they don't think the way I want them to, so I am going to dismiss them"

People can - and do - have independent views that differ from your own.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: discurro Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410775 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/11/2012 10:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
metro: "A lot of women voters are past menapause. Just like birth control typically isn't a #1 issue for men because they can't get pregnant, why wouldn't many women be the same once they can no longer get pregnant.

In other words, follow the normal conservative standard....
I got mine so FU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410791 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/11/2012 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
People can - and do - have independent views that differ from your own.

Of course. Sometimes those views are even informed. Are you trying to argue that there is a segment of women voters who WANT to be subjugated? Who don't want protections offered by such things as the Lily Ledbetter Act? Who don't want affordable breast and cervical cancer screenings?

That would seem highly unlikely to me, and certainly not roughly half of all women. So I must assume they simply are uninformed about the misogynistic policies of R&R (or, worse, that they are Fox viewers...in which case they are misinformed according to at least two studies of which I am aware).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: n8larson Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410859 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/12/2012 12:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Are you trying to argue that there is a segment of women voters who WANT to be subjugated? Who don't want protections offered by such things as the Lily Ledbetter Act? Who don't want affordable breast and cervical cancer screenings?

I know of at least one, though I don't think she'd phrase it quite like that.

-n8

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410870 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/12/2012 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I know of at least one, though I don't think she'd phrase it quite like that.

What would she say?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eaglehaslanded Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 411163 of 439187
Subject: Re: Oh, my Date: 10/18/2012 1:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I guess he's sorta right. If a point is moot, its open to debate (but nothing else, such as a meaningful decision). Such debate is pointless because the issue is already resolved.

So he wanted to have a pointless, academic debate. Can't have that in an online forum!

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (85) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement